Civilization One: The World is Not as You Thought it Was Read Online Free Page A

second, because the distribution curve would be an entirely different shape. This ‘solution’ to the data is simply wrong.
    The difference in approach between Thom and the general archaeological community is fundamental. In simple terms, archaeologists are experts in the recovery and cataloguing of manufactured artefacts that allows them to understand rates of development and influences between groups. They dig up the remains of human settlements and piece together some idea of the community involved from written records and from lost or discarded items. This process works well in places such as Egypt where there is an almost boundless supply of artefacts and documents to give us an insight into the lives of its people. However, the procedure is less than satisfactory when considering the structures of Megalithic Europe because there are few artefacts to be retrieved and no written records at all.
    Dr Aubrey Burl, the highly respected archaeologist whom Thom quoted extensively, confirmed to us that he did not believe in the reality of the Megalithic Yard, stating that he had excavated many Megalithic sites but had never found the measurement. This statement reveals a collision of techniques since it is difficult to itemize one specific Megalithic Yard at any ancient site. This is because the unit in the sense Thom often found it only reveals itself from the careful gathering of huge amounts of data extracted from every site.
    Although individual standing stones have been shown by Thom to have moved very little over the centuries, an entire site must be meticulously catalogued before the Megalithic Yard really makes its presence felt.
    Douglas Heggie of Edinburgh University gives the arguments against the validity of the results claimed by Thom in their most complete form in a book, where he questions the validity of the statistical approach. 10 Heggie suggested that having ‘found’ what he thought was the Megalithic Yard, Professor Thom, particularly in his later work, might have had his findings coloured by the expectation of certain results. He also questioned how Thom had decided on the point on any given stone in any structure from which to take his measurements. From his own approach to assessing Thom’s work Heggie came to the conclusion that if the Megalithic Yard existed at all it probably only did so in Scotland, and even then to a much less accurate degree of tolerance than Professor Thom had claimed.
    Douglas Heggie is a highly respected professor of mathematics and Alexander Thom was a highly respected professor of engineering – so who is right? Most archaeologists prefer to side with Heggie, almost certainly because the whole idea of a prehistoric unit of measurement is at odds with their view of Neolithic achievements. But archaeologists who have carefully reviewed Thom’s work in the field have a different view. For example, Tony Crerar, a researcher and engineer in Wales and Euan Mackie, an honorary Research Fellow at the Hunterian Institute in Scotland are strong supporters of the concept of the Megalithic Yard. Dr Mackie has recently said of Thom:
    ‘By exact surveying and statistical analysis he (Thom) demonstrated that most stone circles could have been set out much more accurately than previously supposed. Most are truly circular with diameters set out in units of a ‘megalithic yard’ of 0.829 metres or 2.72 feet. Other circles had more complex shapes like ellipses and flattened circles, whose dimensions appear to be based on pythagorean triangles, also measured in megalithic yards. By similar means he showed that many standing stone sites pointed at notches and mountain peaks on the horizon where the Sun or Moon rose or set at significant times. Not only does a sophisticated solar calendar seem to have been in use, but the Moon’s movements may have been studied carefully, even up to the level of eclipse prediction.’ 11
    There were question marks over the Megalithic Yard but the challenge