Transcription
[Music] Most of you are aware of Robin's work. He's done some remarkable books. He's collaborated with John Michelle on The Measure of Albion. He's made major breakthroughs in the understanding of the geometry, metrology, and the mysteries of Stonehenge, publishing many books on the subject, including one of the classic Wooden Books that's published by John Martino.
And more recently, his, uh, we interviewed Robin for, uh, our Megalithomania YouTube channel. There's a link in the chat where you can actually kind of get access to that. We did an hour-long interview in response to the Stonehenge Lost Circle Revealed documentary because, you know, Robin's been living there for a very long time. He's been researching the landscape. He, he approached, he sees many things that, you know, the archaeological world and the academic world don't so much take on board. Although we did hear from Mike Parker Pearson last night, actually mentioning the fact that one of their, one of their guys actually uses the measurements provided by John Michelle, which, uh, which really surprised me. So, um, I think that this kind of thing is starting to be revealed.
But today, we've got Robin sharing his latest research. Well, we'll get the lecture started, Robin. Um, I just want to welcome you and thank you for joining us. So we'll start the lecture and be prepared at the end and, uh, to take a few questions. So, uh, we'll see you on the other side.
Roland, you. Hello, I'm Robin Heath, and this lecture is for Megalithomania 2021. What I wanted to do most of all with this lecture was to break free from the COVID restrictions and go up in the Preseli's. And this opportunity was made very, very clear to me when I watched the documentary about the Wern-y-Gaer site on BBC One in February, February the 12th. So off we went, my wife and I, armed to the teeth with theodolites and various bits of measuring kit, and also with a keen eye for observing what was going on on the ground there. This lecture is what we found, and I hope you find it interesting because this shows what happens when you come above ground, uh, you leave the archaeological domain and you look at the relationship between the sky and the land, which is the above and the below.
So this landscape that we're talking about in the Preseli's is particularly heartening to me because it's still looks megalithic. It's hard to believe that we're in the 21st century. Of course, the modern world encroaches on it, but this will, it's a wilderness area, uh, with a wide variety of megalithic monuments. Many of them are some of the oldest megalithic monuments we have. If you want to understand the megalithic landscape, I believe you must focus on the liminal space. That's the boundary between sky and landscape. That's where all the megaliths are. They're not under the ground, they're on the ground. And I want to really stress that the above and the below meet at the point where Neolithic folk would have sighted their temples and other monuments. As they didn't have balloons or aircraft or submarines, they couldn't have sighted them anywhere else, could they? So the techniques required here are quite different from those presently employed by archaeologists.
The Wern-y-Gaer stone is quite the weightiest stone of the Wern-y-Gaer collection, incidentally. For those who don't speak Welsh, it's Wern-y-Gaer, but they tend to pronounce it Wern-y-Gaer quite a lot, and you hear it pronounced lots of other ways. Welsh vowels are an acquired taste. The stone is located along the gated farm track to Gurnos Farm on the right, and it's a little over a thousand feet from the remains of the stone circle. And the stone circle on this slide is to the left of this big stone that looks like a dragon's head coming out of the ground, and it's to the left of the stone, and, uh, it's about a thousand feet away, 1100 feet away. In Welsh, the stone is known as, uh, it's also been known as the Dragon's Head, which is Pen-y-Gaer, or the Monk or Druid of Wern-y-Gaer, Pen-y-Gaer. That's just for those of you who want to get it right or understand the meaning.
Part of the site, and almost inconsequential part, it would appear, are these two leaning stones, which are on the left-hand side of the track and about 400 meters from the gate. And they are leaning in parallel. They are coordinated, flying in formation stones, and they don't seem to have much to do except lean forward, but at the same angle and the same shape. They look, if you like, like bent or knocked over, partly knocked over tombstones out of a graveyard, but there they are. And they won't be there much longer. The ground underneath is being eroded because sheep shelter there in the winter months, which is most of the year these days, and these stones are visibly leaning more than they were when I first visited this site in 1990.
Well, now we come to the crunch of the documentary, which was the discovery of, uh, or the investigation into what could be gleaned from these four stones, the sole remaining stones from the claimed bluestone circle. And the arc that they represent from this slide makes it obvious. It's worth investigating to see if one could fit a circular perimeter, circumference, around from these stones. So my work began with a fundamental measurement, which is doesn't involve complicated technology at all. It involves a long rope that doesn't stretch. And you, I find the central position from the position of the four stones as they are now. We'll be talking about them in a moment, but primarily, that long rope has to fit through the middle of all of them, and we'll see how that progresses.
Now, how can that size of the circle be determined? Probably without bias, can only be done with a rope that isn't a tape measure. And by trial and error, you find the best match to fit all these four stones together. An idea about the scale of the stones at the stone circle. The big Wern-y-Gaer stone, the one we've just covered, Pen-y-Gaer, is about a human being plus a half. I'm using the standard measure of a wife here. And the one next to it on the right-hand slide is showing the, uh, only upright stone of the Wern-y-Gaer collection. And you can see that it's very nearly the height of a British standard wife. And that's a pretty good guide for you for anyone who wants to know the sizes.
The hill in the background is Foel Drygarn, which is the figurehead of a ship, really. It's, uh, in Welsh, that's what it means, and it's the sort of mountain that introduces you to the Preseli ridge as you come in from the, um, the west, from the east towards the west. So the survey task is to identify that we've got to find out if those four stones are indeed located such that they lie on the circumference of a circle. The second task we've got to do is to, I then identify the center, radius, diameter, and circumference of that circle. And we have some possible problems we must consider, and I presume they were considered by the archaeology team. All four stones have to be placed along a narrow arc for it to be a reasonable assumption that it made a circle. Two of the stones now lie recumbent, basically they've fallen over. Which end was buried and which end was rose aloft is a very pertinent question, and I'll do my best to let you know how I think they should have been once, when they were standing high and proud.
The third problem is perhaps a little bit more serious, and it does need consideration, as over a third of all stone circles are not actually circles at all. They're different geometric shapes. How might anyone know if this example was once circular or not? Well, the answer is very difficult, because quite a few circles are flattened circles where the radius changes as we go around the rim of the circle, the rim of the ring. As it becomes, quite a few of them are ellipses, which means that they need two focuses, there are two centers, and we won't go into the geometry of that now. But the point is that again, the radius is changing. And the third example are the, um, type 1, type 2 egg-shaped, uh, designs. They're standard geometries. They're a family of that are found from Brittany right up to the Shetlands. These particular non-circular rings are found. But if this is one of them, then what we're about to describe might not work. And I have, because I'm not an archaeologist, I have no idea what the archaeologists discovered underground here. And the universe finding it, trying to find extra stones, and they don't say it wasn't a circle. They're very clear that it was a 360-foot diameter circle, 110 meters. They, they also quote, but it is a fundamental problem with all the research that follows.
So if we get right down to business here, the sort of equipment that we need to investigate this circle is placed, well, most of it's placed on the stone there, the recumbent stone of Stone One. It's a GPS device, it's very useful, not essential, but very useful. A sound recorder, so that you don't have to write down while you're walking, and you can just basically speak into it. 200 foot of high-quality rope, two, a 100-foot tape measure or two, a notebook, a stave, which you can see me holding there, an Ordnance Survey map, one to 25,000 Pathfinder or similar, and then one Megalithomania one, an example of which is seen standing behind the stone there.
Now, big question, which way did this stone, stone fall? It looks from the angle of the photograph as though this stone should stand with its right-hand end in the earth. It looks like a pointed, slender stone, but this is rather deceptive because, as we'll see, we'll try lifting it on that end. It, which will be very interesting for some people, because that wasn't shown on the TV program. We're a bit ahead of the game there. There we are. So was this stone originally this way up, which is a very elegant stone, looks fine to me, that could be the situation, or that way up? And suddenly, a woman who's knee-deep, up to her knees in the bog there, in the peat bog, is seems to be doing something with a laptop or a pad, iPad. This way up, the stone looks just as happy. And we'll find out what will happen as we go on as to which, which one of those we choose.
Stone Two is the only original standing stone. It is prime data, and it also, luckily, has a very small footprint compared to, well, compared to a bigger stone. And it, because it's upright, it does have that, that's where we think it was there originally. It was the original position, and it, it's part of something else, and we'll find out what that something else was later in the lecture.
Now, here's Stone Three, which we are lucky enough to see evidence of a stone hole on the right-hand side, on the left-hand side of it, on the side where the shadow is of the photographer, probably me, and the stave to give you some example of the size of it. So we think that that was raised on the left-hand side. I haven't got a fancy graphical mock picture of it like that, because I think we know where that stone fell. This is a rough rectilinear stump, that's technically the term for it, really, presumed to be in its original position. If you give it a thump with a mallet or a soft mallet, a wooden mallet, it bows, it down, bounces very well. You can hear the dull thud of a stone that's much bigger. It's not just a slate or a flat piece of stone that's been laid there. So I think that that is, that this is the stump of a stone that's gone. Um, and therefore its cross-sectional area is very similar to Stone Two. Now, I'm not going to talk about the geology of any of these stones. That's something that I'm not qualified to do. So we'll carry on and we'll have a look now at, uh, how this work can continue in order to find the center for the first circle.
This is the model that assumes that Stone One, that's the left-hand stone here on the slide, was lifted, um, towards the center of the circle from its far extremity. The first model that we investigated, the first arc we tried to match was with that stone being in that position. So if we assume that Stone One was originally raised on its present southern end, then we got this size. The center was found, and then we could move on to the next model, which was assuming that that stone was flipped onto its northern end, the which is furthest away from the one shown on the screen. Now, let's have a look at that. Now we've got the second circle that was, uh, we think out of all of the ones we tried, that was the best fit. The two of them were that we settled on with a, with that stone. This one is the best for fitting all four stones, um, and we used to do that. We used a rope of unmarked length and a technique of basically successive approximation, walking backwards and forwards. And one of the problems on a bog like this one is that it's covered in ghosts, and it's the most nasty thing to try and get a rope around, across, through, and so you keep getting snagged up. It's a bit like fishing in a very, very weedy canal. You lose a lot, a lot of patience very quickly. But we don't want to predetermine the length. So we've done two examples that fit the best fit, that are the best fit to all four stones. The first example gave an answer of 126 feet, and the second one gave an answer of 141.8 feet.
So we find ourselves with this rope stretched from a guest center, one that we've estimated to be more or less right. We've done some quick sweeps, and that seems to be, we're in the right area, but we don't know. But we then get this thin rope, which paid dividends for us because it didn't, wasn't as heavy as a normal rope, and it didn't snag up in the course as much as a, and we could flip it over patches of gorse quite easily. But anyway, it was, it has to be said, it was arduous. To find the center was a hard job. And so it was a technique of successive approximation, trial and error, and eventually we determine the circle center. I drew a chalk line then onto the stone with a final pass over the stone to show where in the cross-sectional area of the stone's base it would have passed over the stone. I haven't access to the two recumbent stones, I can't put my fist through the stone, so I've basically written the chalk line over the top of where they would have been. That would have been no measurements have yet been taken, and the best fit center has to be established without any bias and no a priori knowledge of how big it is going to be. And then when you get the center, make sure it's marked really well so you can, a, find it again, and b, you can attach a rope to it such that it won't shift the center, so it won't pull whatever you hammer into the ground out again. And from then on, it's just plain mathematics to find the circumference and the diameter. Once you've got the radius, diameter is twice that, the circumference is the diameter times pi.
The first slide here on the left is tensioning the rope. This is the procedure. Rope running, and you fasten it firmly to the ground. Walk to the stones and find the best fit. And then secondly, the slide to the right. Not labeling the point, I hope. You measure it with a tape measure. I use 100-foot tape measures because they're more portable. And I have survey chains, which are very heavy, and you wouldn't bring them up here normally. But this rope, this tape measures 100 foot. The center lies more than 100 foot away, and luckily I've got two tape measures and I've chained them together so that they consecutively run consecutively.
The next slide shows that process of hammering a chisel in the ground, and the tape has been drawn from, in this case, Stone Two, and the position on Stone Two, and we get a length of 100 foot plus 42, 41 feet, 9.6 or 7 inches. And that's the length, the radius of 141.8 feet. And here, if you follow the starry trail of doom here, you can see where the rope and past coming back from the center, walking around the arc of s stones. This is the Stone One, that the one that we stick up. That the bit you're seeing now, that looks like a snake's head, replete with an eye socket, um, would have been stuck into the ground such that the arc of the circle would have passed through the point marked by the stars. Stone Two passes right near the end of this, this stone, and you can see that sheer vertical edge, which is almost like dressed stone. It's almost been polished dead smooth. That's quite a noticeable feature of this stone. Um, and this, this particular Stone Two, with the method two, we use the center. We guessed as two wood of was more or less where the red stars are. With the first stone circle, the stars would have fallen just outside on the right-hand side of this line, and that's why I think that this, the method two, the stone circle we found last, was the better of the two, better fit. Stone Three, we know it was placed in the ground at the left, and then there, and that's the position of the stone circle, or the perimeter of it. The die, the perimeter of any stone circle would have passed through more or less where the stars are. And Stone Four, much the same. It passes through the middle of the stone, and everybody's happy, and we're sleeping in our beds again.
Now we can move to the model proposed by the archaeological team, led by Mike Parker Pearson. It's a 100-foot stone diameter that was emphasized in all the press coverage I saw, 110 meters. And if this is a reality, if the stone circle that they've found is, is to be taken as, as a reality, then Pembrokeshire hosts the largest stone circle in Britain, except that one of the non-circular stone circles, Long Meg, near Penrith, in up in the north of, just near Carlisle, has a diameter of 359 feet, and such are the stones that define that average diameter. It goes easily above 360. But as I say, not all of it is that diameter. It's a flattened stone circle.
Now let's look at how this fits, uh, uh, from using Google Earth. A hot 180-foot circle center, we can see that it passes very nicely through Stone Two, it's just inboard of Stone Three, which implies a flattening of the arc, and then it misses Stone One altogether. Now, before any of you conspiracy theorists in the audience want to start griping about that, and it's obvious, and archaeologists don't tell the truth, and all of that, which doesn't belong with us anymore, I'm afraid, that's at its day, really. We need to be starting to look at the fact that the archaeologists had an advantage over megalithic scientists or lunatic fringe people like me, because they could dig the earth, and they qualified to know what they're digging. They found stone holes, which might well have meant a compromise had to be made between the stone holes that they found and the existing arc of the stones that I've been working with. Now, I, I don't know anything about that. All I know is that 360-foot diameter stone circle, it's got a real whopper. But it's also the ditch, the bottom of the ditch at Stonehenge's diameter. And I suspect that that was the reason they chose 360 foot, or might, maybe that influenced the decision. But I don't know. And therefore, they must pursue that their methodology, just as I've pursued mine.
If we compare the two circles, you can see clearly the difference. The flattened arc of the white circle, that's the archaeological one, and then the blue, um, circumference is the line that I consider to be the best fit. And you can see the two centers there in the middle of the arrangement, and you can see how, uh, close they are. They're not far off this. There's a 40-foot difference. Um, okay.
So let's, let's summarize. The four stones, as far as I was concerned, were the only visible above-ground evidence, and I didn't have evidence from below ground. The best fit from the evidence was either the 125.5-foot radius or the 141.8 radius dips. And this, we assuming they're their circles. And this depended on which end of Stone One was originally raised. The larger 141.8-foot circle has strong links to Stonehenge. We'll find that kicking in in the second half of the lecture. These putative circles were found using an unmarked rope to ascertain the radius, walking back and forth many times to and from the stones, prior to using a tape measure to measure the radius. And all of this is geometrical evidence placed on the table for anyone to pick through.
Now, metrological and astronomical evidence can now follow on from this summary, and that will lead us to interesting places and strange things. We have one other question to consider, and that's how many stones does a circle make? So stone spacing and number of stones is quite an important feature of a stone circle, and to do that, you need to measure the distance between stones. And I've only got four stones and possibly six, five spaces therefore to evaluate. Um, the distance between the first stone, Stone One and Stone Two, is quite large, and we must assume that two are missing in between. There's two gaps, um, there, and so two more stones, and three gaps, um, between them. And the total is five gaps. So you add up the total space between S1 and S4, Stone One and Stone Four, and you get 166.72 feet. Divide by five, which is the number of stones that you can see, and you get 33.34 feet of spacing.
The next thing is to find how many stones there were in the circle, and to do that, you need to know the circumference and divide it by the spacing. So the archaeological circle, 180-foot, has a 1131-foot circumference. And divide that by 33.34 feet, the spacing, the average spacing, and you get 33.92 stones, which we could say would be, as it's very hard to put 0.92 of a stone in a stone circle, you'd have to say 34 stones. For the stone circle that I evaluated with my wife, the which is 891 feet, the answer is very close to 27 stones. It's 891 divided by 33.34, and it gives us 26.72 or 27 stones. That's quite a big difference between the number of stones, but of course, we make the assumption that the spacing was even and regular. They didn't pack in more stones around parts of the circle than others. And so we move on now to having a look at a different aspect. We all together can now rest with the circles and which is the best and which isn't, and go back to what's on the ground.
The big Wern-y-Gaer stone, the one that, um, was not really mentioned on the documentary, is well connected. And it's not only connected to, um, other stones on the site, but also forms a com, a key component part of a much larger geometric pattern, that of course wasn't mentioned on the program. This brings it into contact with Pentre Ifan, which is unarguably the logo of what, of Pembrokeshire National Park and the region generally. It features on most of the brochures, and it's one of the must-see chambered tombs, or 'siambra glâs' in Welsh. That looks very much like some of the Irish tombs, but it has some quirks about it, which we'll investigate later. So this big stone there is standing there really on its own in the middle of the moor, and going nowhere, doing nothing, until you start to look at what it actually is doing, and which other sites it's talking to, because it is doing a geometrical conversation with other sites in the region. And in 19, 2007, and then up to about 2009, I surveyed and found out what that was all about.
In the meantime, let's look at a site that we just looked at earlier, these two twin stones, or the two gravestones that are leaning, and their relationship to the Wern-y-Gaer stone. Put yourself behind these two stones and look at the middle of the gap. It's pointing straight at Wern-y-Gaer, big stone. That's quite an interesting arrangement, and I've made it into a triangle, even though there's nothing there, it's just to show what, where you're positioned. And, um, we have similar things in Cornwall. The two Pipers, that the Hurlers point to the Cheese Ring in much the same manner, the gap that points to the Cheese Ring. But here we've got Wern-y-Gaer. If you get down on your knees and become recumbent, so to speak, you can then see just the top of the stone above the head, top of the, the horizon there, where the arrow ends, marking the stone. There's an insect showing the stone, and it's, you can see there that they're very popular with hawks and buzzards. So often the stone is, it has a whitewash on the top from the dung of the, of the animal. So there, that's just the connecting Wern-y-Gaer to some of the big stone to some of the other side stones of the whole complex there.
But this is what Wern-y-Gaer represents when you do a survey of the other sites. It touches, it defines the corners of two equilateral triangles. That's triangles with 60-degree angles on all the side, all the corners. And in standard surveying, that's used for chaining a distance across the landscape. You can measure just one side and replicate it to make this arrangement and move it just very easily across the landscape to define a survey. It was used for map making for, and still probably is. Two of the sites here are natural features that include megalithic sites. Carn Ingli and Castell Henllys could be considered as natural features that include megalithic sites. The site at Castell Henllys is the moot. It's called the very special works by archaeologist Cathcart King some years back. He called it the very special work. It's the only Welsh castle with two moots, two sort of, um, two big, big mounds based within the cartilage of the, of the castle site. Well, Wern-y-Gaer is directly south of Henllys Castle, and Pentre Ifan, um, or a burial chamber near the summit of Carn Ingli, is exactly, uh, east of Carn Ingli. So we can, we can actually see all of this arrangement in the diagram at Vac only, which marks the center of this curve. Right near a spring there's a four-foot high blue stone megalith at the central point. And I want to make the point for matters that might have nothing to do with archaeology, but have a lot to do perhaps with anthropology or with the local history of this area. And it is an important point that the central site was the principal birthplace of the 1970s self-sufficiency movement and the New Age movement in Wales generally. Like, there's a list of names that you will have heard of that have lived within 50 or 100 meters of that spot. Satish Kumar, whose job was education and leading of the movement, was setting up a self-sufficient school here and then moving it to Devon. There's John Seymour, who wrote the big book on self-sufficient practical self-sufficiency. Um, there was Robin Williamson of the Electric String Band, and, uh, more recently, at nearby Bristol Mao Community, Emma Orbach has been providing program material for, um, Ben Fogle on the television. You may have seen some or all of these programs. So right in the center of this shape, and we don't know why, the whole self-sufficiency movement in Wales and then in Britain started to happen in the 60s and became a big deal and remains important.
Let's have a look at another diagram now. The tricky stuff. This is the stuff that makes it uncomfortable to say this is a load of rubbish because it isn't, because basically this cross is aligned to the four cardinal points of the compass. That's the first tricky bit. And to do that, there has to be a knowledge of astronomy. You can't put an east-west line or a northwest line down without knowing how to do that with astronomy. Secondly, the cardinal points are telling you something. I mean, there's still the north, south, east, west that we have today. They're telling you something that about some intelligence involved in the sighting of these monuments, which is never considered. We could say, why are you measuring in feet? And I would have to answer, I'm measuring feet because basically I'm able to do so. People aged a bit younger than me don't know really know an inch from a foot from a yard from a furlong. The old measures have disappeared, and the meter is a very modern. It can't possibly be anything like the measurements being used in megalithic times. One thinks there is a foot often found in a type of foot called the Russian foot, which is 7.6 of an English foot. Um, I'll come back to that. But we, we notice here that the circumference of this circle, of the inner circle, the one marked on the on the slide there with the white sort of fuzzy shading to fill it in, is exactly 7.00 miles in length. Now, that's a, that's a ripe old one, because that implies that not only feet, but miles might have been used by whoever built this structure or planned this structure. Can that be true? And, and what 7.0 miles is suspicious. But then if we use the Russian feet and dismantle totally the whole business of the English foot and replace it with one seven six as big, the circumference in Russian miles, as we might call them, becomes 14, um, becomes six, sorry, can become six point naught naught miles. And that would fit far more the hexagonal structure of of this nature of our equilateral triangle, because six of them make a hexagon. It's nice, and it's nice geometry. And then we've got Plato's recommended choice for the damage of a circular temple, which on this basis here, the circular diameter is 10,080 Russian feet, which is nice. And we've got there a Neolithic temple, pre-3500 BC. Pentre Ifan wasn't conceived until that time, and we don't know about Wern-y-Gaer, nor Henllys Castle. And we knew now there was a Neolithic burial chamber near the top of Carn Ingli. So I can't propose anything else, and you're looking at a Neolithic temple site. It's very big. And then if you make the, you actually complete the Vesica with the two circles that hold the triangle in place and create the almond shape of the Vesica, then we find a two by one rectangle being created from the tops and bottoms of the circle, equal to the width of the crossbar on the middle of the two triangles. Now, the Vesica is a very ancient geometrical symbol of generation and of the creation of new life for fairly, fairly obvious anatomical reasons. In Italy, it's called the Mandula, and, um, we could just refer to the circle as being a very important geometric construction. And for those who are interested in the math and the geometry, it leads to the production from a single length, a unit length, of, um, all the irrational root, square root numbers, that root three, root two, root five, and, and so on. And this has been something that has cropped up with several researchers. I've had, um, conversations with and visits with, um, particularly in Brittany. The double square, the triple square, and the multiple squares is very, shall we say, um, rampant, um, certainly found quite commonly. And you can find the double square in the Lake District commonly, and you can find it in, in Scotland quite a bit. I can't qualify, I'm not qualified to talk about anywhere else, but the double square definitely features in the megalithic mindset and is found at quite a few sites, not on a big scale necessarily, but sometimes on an enormous scale.
So here's, I just want to show this final slide, which shows a double square, and it shows how if you construct it here and make the first unit the Remen, which is an edge, we commonly thought was an Egyptian measure. It's six-fifths of the Greek or the geographical feet. The length in English feet are very awkward, 1.216512 English feet. But from that Remen stems other units which are commonly found in megalithic and ancient monuments. The Royal Cubit is the diagonal of the one of the squares. The Megalithic Yard of 2.72 feet is the double diagonal, diagonal across the double square. And if you rotate the Royal Cubit, the end of the Royal Cubit length with the dotted line where it meets the Megalithic Yard, it cuts the Megalithic Yard into a Royal Cubit and a foot, which makes a very interesting equation, which is that the Royal, the Megalithic Yard is minus the Royal Cubit equals the foot. That's something to, to think about. All these lengths here are commensurate with the polar circumference of the Earth. Discuss.
So I want to change the subject now. I don't want this lecture to be too mathematical or too geometrical or too meteorological. What we want to do is to have a positive role or a purpose in where we're going. And this next slide shows that purpose. We have a site just down the road from Wern-y-Gaer, about two miles away, in the middle of a very boggy place where people die and horses die with their riders. So you do need to watch where you, what you're going into, and you certainly don't go there in wet weather. And the site is shown on the left-hand side of the slide here, and it looks more like a rib cage. Of a Welsh name for Bedd-y-Vanc. Bedd is the grave of the monster, or beaver in some Welsh dictionaries. So if it's a beaver, then Welsh people were very much smaller in those days, I would imagine. But it looks like the rib cage of some prehistoric monster, and it's not in very good condition, one would guess. If it was a grave, a passage grave, then you'd have to be very small indeed and crawl on your stomach to get in there. Um, we don't know what was on the top of it, but the point is, we do know where it is, and we do know its position. From there, if you look in the, on the horizon, you can see the sun rising in a natural dip caused by Foel Drygarn and a plateau in between it and then Voel Dragon, the conical hill on the right. And that's where the sun rises at the equinox. And the right-hand slide shows a point some distance from Bedd-y-Vanc where there is a set of aligned stones pointing at the present, the equinox position of the sun, which rises about one solar diameter just to the left of what I've shown there.
Now, I've introduced that because equinox sunrise is something that hasn't changed since megalithic times. The angle that hasn't changed. We get two equinoxes a year, dividing the year into roughly into two. And we can say quite categorically that whilst alignments to for sunrises and sunsets have changed since 3500 BC, the extreme solstice positions and the major and minor moon rises and sets have all changed by nearly a degree because of the Earth's tilt changing very slowly, or the obliquity of the ecliptic, as it's known to posh people. Now, the obliquity of the ecliptic is, is now the, the angle that we have for our Earth's tilt of 23.47 degrees. But in 3500 BC, that angle had gone up to for over 24 degrees. So it's more than half a degree, and that reflects in an angular inaccuracy or fuzziness around these old alignments. They don't work as well as they should. And therefore, you have to re-have the math, which is formidable for many people. You have to have the math to be able to convert what you've seen at the solstice and measured into how it would have looked in ancient times. We don't need to get bogged down in that, but it is a problem. But at the equinox, the Earth is always in the same position with respect to the ecliptic, and the sun always rises dead in the east on the level horizon and sets dead in the west on a level horizon. That's nice. So these sites are valuable because you know that you're watching what would have been seen if it was indeed an alignment. It's in the right position.
So up the hill here at Wern-y-Gaer, two miles up the road, there's a more advanced equinox detector, and it has extra features. And these are really exciting, and this is where archaeoastronomy comes into its own. But only when you add the geometry and the metrology does it really give you a picture of what was going on in the heads of the people that built this monument. That's that thing on the top of the stone there is a theodolite pointing in the opposite direction. It'll become clear, clear. I don't look through that direction to make the mountain look further away. I would actually, we've been using it both ways, and I'll explain that later. So we look at the azimuth angle and the elevation angle. The theodolite gives us that straight with a sun shoot, and a few you can find the position, absolute to a couple of minutes of degree on that theodolite. So that's what you're going to see around the time of the spring equinox, which was lucky because we were doing the work around that time. So every morning the sun rises further to the north, and the north is over to the left here, and south is to the right. So you can see as we get near this equinox on the 21st, the sun is more or less skimming over the top of Foel Drygarn, and it's rising more or less where it says the word horizon, because the refraction makes it rise much on a much flatter angle, and it comes around the corner. Um, and so we've set that up to to show you, and I've done the best I can with the photographs I've got. But you can see there that the stone two is where you would watch that.
This allows you to do a number of interesting things. Once you have got a solar observatory, you can count the number of days in the year. You can tally them, and there are examples in the Preseli's of stones covered in tally marks, really deep ones, and that may be what they were used for. You can record the number of elapsed years, and if you do that, you will discover eventually a 33-year repeat solar cycle. There is one year where the sun rises further to the right or further to the left, depending on which equinox we're talking about, than any of the other years. And if you can do that, you can get the calendar more accurate than the one we use now. But in the case of this particular example, showing it now, you could quite easily come here and in four or five years, you could get the calendar accuracy that we presently have with our calendar, which is 365 and a quarter days in a year, which is 1461. You would tally in four years when the quarter days accrues to be one whole day, or very nearly. If you've not seen that technique before, you might need to just give it a bit of thought. But let's move on.
If we turn that theodolite over on its face now, and we point it in the other direction, and I come around the other side of the stone, then the last flash of the autumn equinox, and we did get it on the autumn equinox, the weather just gave us a sunset. We see the sun setting over the stone there. And at that point, and only at that point, can we say that that's the position of the last flash. We're on this raised horizon, and the interesting thing is that you can just see what's sticking out on the right-hand side of the top of the stone, a much darker lump, tiny lump, which is the end of Stone One. It's just discernible on the right-hand side of the level top of Stone Two. So my, I think this confirms that it was stood up on that point that it originally, because then the last flash of the sun would crash into the stone, and that would be your equinox timer. That's the, that's your precision instrument from which you could time and tally the length of the year. I think that perhaps Stone One should be re-erected to resume the function. What do you think? Is that destruction of a site, or is that just restoring it to its original condition? If it was a vintage car, we'd have no doubt what we would, anyone would think, we'd say restore it, wouldn't we? But no, we leave all this stuff often, you know, in a bad way, and we shouldn't do that, really. I think we should change our attitude and get these things working. This is a wonder of the world, and it's there on site, and it's not being properly looked after.
And now for something completely different. Rather than a rant from me, Pentre Ifan, that's our monument, and it, not as modern visitors get to see it. No, not many people take a photograph of Pentre Ifan looking like that. And I want to make some comments about it before we move on. First of all, it's directly east of Carn Ingli on this site, the Vesica side. And the other point is that it's on a very, very steep slope for a dolmen, or a dolmen-type capstone. If you look at it, it's nowhere near level. The capstone is pointing downhill at quite a hell of an angle, and it's going to, it's as though it was, it would shoot off like a supercar and hit the valley bottom directly below. And that is a very interesting feature, and I don't know of another dolmen that's built on such an angle. And when you look at the number of square millimeters that that, that great big stone at the top, which may be 20 tons, is sitting on, it's, it amounts to little more than a few square inches of cover. And surprisingly, it hasn't slid off. One day it might, and then I wouldn't want to live down in the valley below. Tobogganing, anybody? Right. Secret back garden. Having been moaning about it being on a slope and how unusual it is, listen to this now. Directly above it, in fields that are on private land, is a totally flat area. It's very large. It has a wonderful view. You can see Carn Ingli there, which is directly west of Pentre Ifan. We've got the British standard wife as a unit of measurement to compare. It's much better than having a stave, I think. And I want you to point your view of that big stone, that really big stone, that is a slab. It may even be an outcrop. I can't imagine anyone ever moving that. It's vast. And the rest of them are littered about the field, and they don't look like they're doing anything. Um, but they are doing a lot, and we need to see what that is.
Here's the big stone, the slab, looking like a tortoise, his head coming out of the ground. And it's got its little earth-fast dolmen alongside it. It's a sort of executive dolmen, sort of place, a posh Neolithic person would have to park the donkey or whatever, or the orac. And here we have underneath there, the triangular pattern in the field, which you can see on the inset photograph. Number one's the one to watch. We'll be coming back to him in a minute. But there's the big slab, is number two, and number three is a stone well over, over to my right as a photographer. Right. So we get, we look at this from above, and we start to find some very interesting things out. The first thing we find out is that the leaning stone there is on a line back to Wern-y-Gaer from Pentre Ifan. It's not totally exact, but it's exactly enough to be exciting. And this is the line from Wern-y-Gaer to a, a pointed stone here. And the square stone is embedded in the field, and only the top of it shows. But it is absolutely a right angle. We'll see all this in a minute. This stone here has a flat edge, and then it allows passage to a pointed stone here. And we've no other, no other proof of it being a double square. But you'll see in a minute that things are not necessarily disappointing because of that. The field has probably been cleared of smaller stones. I've drawn in yellow the, uh, how a double square would look once it was laid out. There's the pointed stone there, and these, these are all the same length, and they go, the, the top one there goes to the stone with the right angle in it, and the middle one goes to the center line.
Of the double square, and then coming towards me, we've got another square, or not. But there's the flat-edged, flat-edge cornerstone and the square-profile cornerstone. And you can see quite clearly that they are set up. Um, and then, interestingly, the angle of this, well, we'll come to that, but the angle of this square is of interest to us. So, at that point, we can draw the 45-degree diagonal, and it, and we can see it on the other side of the slab there. And then, finally, if we carry on working with this, we can get excited about the fact that the length 66 foot is the, seems to be the length of the side lengths. And we can see looking over to where there's nothing, there's no stone there. There's a stone in the hedge there, and there's a couple of big stones here, but we don't know why they've been piled into the set edge. And then there's a sheep there, which isn't a stone. Uh, and they could have, these stones could have come from there. I just, we just will never know. But there's no doubt that that stone is a right-angle stone, and there's no doubt that the one on the other side is. And the lengths are the same length.
And then we have this sloping stone, the leaning stone of Pentrivan, that no one knows about. For those of you who are interested in animals and like David Attenborough, there's Genghis the sheep that's about to ravage that woman in the blue cardigan. It claims lots of victims, area, and she's not looking. She's more interested in the monument. But what I would really think we should be interested in is the angle of that stone. The angle of slope of that megalith is just a tad over 26 degrees from the vertical. And what does that, what does that mean? Well, only geometers know about this sort of thing, but it's the angle of a double square. It's one of the angles of the triangle of a double square. We put it together with a line from Wine Mound to the slab. Well, we've found it parallel, haven't we? And I wasn't, uh, I was a bit amazed at that. We've got the length of the line from Google Earth. I didn't go with my tape measure for four weeks without food and drink to, you know, to establish it. I'm happy with the accuracy of that length. And there's the angle of tilt of the stone, and they are parallel.
But I wanted to check that this was the angle. So I built a, a jig, a piece of equipment that allowed me to ensure that that was what the angle was. So I made it a triangle, a double square triangle, one half of a double square with that angle gets made automatically. The stone, as you can see here, and you can see that it closely follows that angle. And I made sure there was a spirit level to mark the level at the top, and a plumb bob, which you can see with the, the wire, which is parallel to the vertical piece of wood. I'm holding it there against the side of the rock. And sure enough, that is the angle of a double square, no messing. Um, and the, the plumb bob and the spirit level are an affirmation that this is not some sort of fantasy. And, um, this sort of kit is useful to build. It's, uh, it doesn't take long, and I already had all the equipment to do it.
Penn Trevor, you can see there in the, as the woman's been ravaged by now, she's had it, she's, she's dead meat. The sheep's had her, and so there's no chance of survivors. So there we have the, what's going on at Pantry Van. But we also know that this line here and the line to the sunrise are realities of what's been going on at Wine Mound, and they are the same geometry as half a double square. The triangle is half the double square. We can complete that. We've got the center of the circle down here on the insert of the photograph on the left, down at the bottom there. We've got a stone just to the left of the slab there. We've got the Wine Mound stone there. But that, that's not what this is about. We're looking at Boiled Regard here. And then we can flip that together, and we see the angles of a double square. That should excite anybody because it's hard to imagine how this could be other than a consecutive set of clues that lead to a conclusion. And the conclusion is that this was intentional. The angles all fit. We've got the dimensions of the one side marked on it, this slide. And we can go on forward now and have a look at a bit more about this, because now it's going to get silly. For those of you who don't like megalithic science or think it's all buncombe, you might like to go and have a break now, or have a cup of tea. Turn away now if you don't want to know the final score.
Okay, we're now looking at these lengths, and we can suddenly find something rather remarkable. That the length of the Wine Mound to penetrate, um, line is 10,786 feet, all but. And that equals the product of the solar year, the actual astronomical year, and the lunar month, the lunation cycle of the moon's phases. Multiply those two numbers at the bottom of the screen together, and you're going to get that number. And that number in feet happens to be that dimension between Wine Man and the slab. That in itself should give you enough to either make you joyful and sing your way home, or make you gnash your teeth with grief that I can be so deluded. Let's have another look. Strange sums from a vanished epoch. We're combining lengths, physical lengths, and attaching to them a meaning of days in this case. So we're saying that feet, one foot equals one day. And that's quite a thing. A foot equals a day. And then when we look at the side going off to Royal Dragon, we find 10,867. It's times root five of this number. The 10,786 times root five, which is 2.23 roughly, you get 24,118 feet, which is the year times the month times root five. Which means if you separate it out, that the lunar month times root five is 66 days, all but. Now, I didn't know that, and I don't think anyone else did. But the lunar month times root five is 66 days. And that's two solar repeat cycles of 33 years each. If we take it as being, um, uh, day, a day for a year. And that might seem obtuse, but we keep finding 66 as feet in that double, double square set on the level playing fields of Pentrivan's back garden. And we also find 33 years as the solar repeat cycle. And we know history is full of solar heroes, and they're all connected to the number 33. And in our own e-pockets, the crucifixion and the resurrection of Christ took place when he was 33 years old. But there's scores of Irish heroes, folk heroes, that all had something to do with the year 33. And it's there. And of course, the solar hero is not these people necessarily, goes back much further, and it goes back to the fact that the real solar heroes were the very guys who were building these stone circles. And it's a sort of folk memory.
Here is an interesting track we can take. We now look at the gravestones, the leaning stones of Wine Mound, the two stones that are little stones that I pointed out in an earlier slide. And we find that the distance from them to the Wine Mound stone, the big one that seemed to be doing nothing and just being an isolated stone on a lump of moorland, have some connection. And the connection is one we've already seen. The distance from between these twin stones, the center line of the twin stones to Wine Mound, is 891 feet. The Wine Mound stone is 891 feet away. Now, the circumference of the Wine Mound circle is identical. Furthermore, the mean circumference of the Aubrey circle at Stonehenge is identical. And this isn't where it all finishes, because we've seen that the Wineman stone, the big one, is connected to double square activity in forming the, what I call the Vesica Piscis, up to, uh, Nevin Castle, Carl Ingley, and Pentrivan. But this, the plot thickens, because 891 feet, it's 327.6 megalithic yards. And 327 and a little bit more, 8.86, is 12 sidereal lunar months. And therefore, we can say that this dimension of 891 feet, to within 99.9 percent, equals or represents 12 sidereal lunar months. And this is very much what the Aubrey circle Stonehenge has been suggested was for. It was a, it had 56 holes in it, uh, but each time that the, it does a, you do a revolution around it, it represents the lunar sidereal month, um, as the moon moves around the zodiac during each sidereal month of 27.327.32166 days. And the number of stones in the Wine Mound circle, we suggested, was 27 stones. So there is starting to be a numerical resonance going on here between three things: this linear line up from these twin stones to the Wine Mine stone, 891 feet; the circumference of the Wine Mound circle is 891 feet; the mean circumference of the Aubrey circle is 891 feet. It's a mantra. And of course, it's connected to the sidereal lunar month in some quite positive way. And it connects the foot to the megalithic yard, just as we found in that diagram of the, um, double square and the measurements that were generated by within the, the double square. Here we have the foot and the megalithic yard juxtaposed, out-positioned it in that double square. So this is an exciting slide to put up on the board.
If we look at Wine Mound and the connections between them, we can show this in another way. We can show that the Aubrey circle and the Wine Man circle, in terms of their dimensions, are identical. And this was found not through measurement, but it was found because, uh, that was the best arc that could be drawn through the circle, four stones, the arc of four stones, when the stone one was lifted at its northern end. So we've got three examples of 891 feet. And we've seen that the sarsen stone outer diameter has a circumference of 327.57 feet. This means that the dimension of the sarsen circle is a scale model of the Aubrey circle at a ratio one foot equals one megalithic yard. And that being the case, the ratio between these two, uh, circles is seven over nineteen, very closely. Seven over nineteen. But as a fraction, it's 0.368. And here we see the sun and the moon cycles integrated, because the lunation, the monthly full moon, there are 12.368 of those in a year, which is neither 12 or 13, it's this number 12.368. And so we get an integration between the sarsen circle and the Aubrey circle. This is really interesting because, if nothing else, Stonehenge appears to be a representation of the sun and the moon.
In this slide, I want to look at, change the subject a little bit, and look to the nature of the 33-year cycle. If we want to understand the length of the solar year, one way to do that, in fact, the only way to do it in a Stone Age culture, is to observe and tally the sun's motion and setting points and find a tally before they repeat against the horizon. Now, the site that I'm looking at now is, are two mountains. They're spaced apart in a, as we move further outward, the right-hand map peak is much nearer to, to us than they did the left-hand one. But this is a set of sunsets that I, uh, photographed in the early part of the millennium that we're in now, photographing the sun as it set. And most years, during that period, that decade, February the 18th was kind to us, and we got a last flash sunset. But you'll notice that every year, uh, from the first two slides here, the, the little section of fact four, that the sun every year moves a little bit to the left. The last flash moves up the hill of the right-hand, um, peak. It sets in the egg cup, um, later on in, in 2004, and then it moves back. By 2006, we couldn't get 2005 because the weather's bad, because we live in Wales, and that time of year is not particularly brilliant for weather, and often the horizon is obscured. But if we look at this, after four years, the sun repeats its pattern. And therefore, we can say that from that, if you count the number of days and tally the number of days, you get three years of 365 days, and then suddenly there's an extra day in the count, 366. If you add all those up, three lots of 365 and one lot of 366, it gives you 1461 days. The tally is 1461. And of course, if you divide that by four, you get the average length of the year, which is then 365.25 days. So far from being primitive, this tally method gives you as accurate a calendar or a length of the solar year as our present calendar, which was invented by Romans and a chap called Sausage Jeans, or Sausages, around AD 45. So the site makes it possible to record the super annual cycle of the sun. After 33 years, when you get an extreme last flash position. Now, I've never known whether this is measurable or not, but if it were measurable, we would attach a very great importance to that as a time period. And 33 years, and the number 33, is allocated to solar heroes, the Irish ones, the year, the age of, uh, Jesus when he was crucified, and then the resurrection occurred. After 33 years, and the number 33 is connected with solar heroes. And so, one thing you might like to consider is that the whole concept of the solar hero is based not perhaps on these fairly more recent heroes, but on the people who built the stone circles and were doing the sun and moon monitoring. They were the solar heroes and the lunar heroes of their period because they sorted out the calendar and they understood the repetitive or cyclical nature of cycles of the sun and moon on planet Earth.
So now I want to consider, before we finish, that where are we going with this? For years now, the archaeological profession has issued the sort of stuff that I'm presenting here, uh, and it's, and it's even been rather deprecating, shall we say, about the nature of the people that undertake this sort of work. It has not been happy to accept into its fold astronomy in the form of archaeoastronomy, and it's not been happy to accept metrology, because metrology has been rejected by the Western world for a long time now. Ancient metrology has not been acceptable, or has been seen as a poor relation of the other sciences. And yet, what we've been looking at here during my lecture is the history of the science of measurement, and the history of the science of astronomy, and to some extent, you're seeing the basis of geometry. And those three subjects, astronomy, geometry, and metrology, are the very nature of megalithic science. Now, I think that the archaeological evidence that is being produced now, using various new techniques for accurate dating and the age of rocks, and how long a stone's been in the earth, and these sorts of techniques, and analyzing teeth for isotopic and element composition identity of where the teeth were brought up, where the person who had those teeth did those teeth in ancient times come from Switzerland, as the Archer at Stonehenge, and the Archer Stonehenge, and all of that, those, those, those that sort of work is absolutely vital to improving our understanding of prehistory. But what we can't do, it would appear, is to shunt this stuff together and work together such that progress can be made. And progress desperately needs to be made in understanding prehistory. It needs to be made in order that we can answer John Michell's big gripe in his book, where he says, the problem with conventional archaeology is, is that despite centuries of diligent work, they have been not able, archaeologists have not been able to put together an answer to the simple question that everyone wants answering: what were the stone circles for, and the megaliths for, and why were they built? The two questions are linked. But until we can be more definite about answering those, then we have failed in our duty to explain prehistory. And so, I'd like to say thank you for listening to me, your virtual company, and I hope that you've enjoyed my lecture and it's given you food for thought. And I'll say to for now, bye-bye. Thank you. Thank you, Robin. Thanks so much. Uh, really appreciate that wonderful lecture. So Robin's going to just join us, uh, to answer a couple of questions, um, before we have a break, um, and a few announcements in the break as well, and then we're going to head into the, uh, speakers panel. Okay, thank you. Okay, so the first question, um, we've got from, uh, uh, Deacon Male. I'm not sure what the person's name is. Wonderful work, Robin. Have you ever read Uriel's Machine by Knight and Lomas? Very much in line with your material. Uh, the answer has to be yes, and it's a big story, but briefly, I shared an office for two years with Bob Lomas when I worked for Ferranti designing microlifts. So in one career, I've gone from microlifts to megaliths. I call that career progression. I don't know what Bob's doing now, but I think he's retired. But it's an interesting book, and the stuff on Enoch was very relevant to my own works. Oh, yeah, I agree. I think it's a very, very useful book. That, um, uh, yeah, we've got a question from Andy from Megalithic Portal. Andy Burnham. Hello, Robin. Brian John has highlighted the other likely megalithic sites in the vicinity of Winemon, or Wine Mound, you're going to pronounce it probably, and the general stone scatter in the area as well. His point is that Wine More may not be as unique and special as it is made out to be. What do you make of this? Well, I'll get him along to lecture to you next year and put his case forward. I mean, it's a free world, but I know Brian quite well. Um, he's perfectly capable of putting an argument forward, and he has a science degree, so he should be able to do it. Um, I'm getting some questions coming on individual questions coming separately, which, uh, I, I got confused there. But yeah, come on, Brian. Let's hear what you've got to say. Yeah, I'll read, I'll read them all out, so don't worry. That's fine. Uh, and we've got, um, Ali Cooper. Do you think people in the Neolithic and Bronze Age realized the moon goes around the sun, and the Earth around the sun, etc.? Um, I can't answer that because I would have to have some evidence of it. But if you live near the sea, it's fairly obvious from watching a ship go over the horizon that there is a curve, and from that, you end up with looking down a well at Syene and calculating the diameter of the Earth, years after the Bronze, the megalithic Neolithic period. Um, it's, and again, it's another question that cannot be answered. But the numbers suggest that the lengths of the year, the solar, and the lunar month were well known, as was the 18.6-year cycle of the moon's oscillation up and down in the sky, and its extreme, major and minor points. Um, I think that's the best answer I can give. Okay. Okay. Let's go. And I've got another one here from Matthew Smith. This is Robin. It's quite a long one. I live in Sweden. I visit lots of stone ships around Scandinavia. They have a basic Vesica Piscis design, and you had one on your diagram as well. It made him think about the shape, the almond. I'm suddenly interested to check out their alignments and positioning. And there's a 30-foot tumulus called Anon's Hog. The main ship there is two of the almond shapes on top of each other with a central altar. Have you seen any of these, uh, cases where one is on top of the other? No. Okay. Uh, that's a, there's, there's a long question, short answer, that's, uh, one way of doing it. Um, okay. So the next question we've got here from Abi Su. We have megalithic builders to thank for our calendar and concept of time. I would be interested to hear how the Romans developed their calendar. Have you got a take on that, Robin? Um, well, they, they got this guy, I think he was a Roma, a Greek guy, to design the, redesign the calendar because the problem was that there were so many calendars operating in Europe that messengers were getting, uh, were getting to sites, um, with where the date was before they were sent out. And so there was a massive problem with dating because there were several types of calendar running. The main ones were the eight-year, the later Jewish calendar, um, which was based on the eight-year cycle, 99 lunations, um, and then there's evidence for a three-year calendar, um, which we can find evidence. There's some evidence at Aubrey for that, but where in three years there are 37 new nations, but it's not very accurate. There's one at five years, which is the Kalends calendar in Gaul, which is again, not too accurate. And then you get this thumping great accurate one after 19 years, um, which is the Metonic cycle, which is the one that was used by this Greek chap. So there's 235 lunar months in 19 years. It's a very, very, very accurate one, that one. And, um, I think that once the Romans had that, then they could standardize the calendar throughout their, their world domination empire. We've got a question from, uh, Ross Brostock, one of our speakers here. Wonderful work, Robin. Can you say a little bit more about the tally marks, please? Yeah, the, the, there are several examples in the Preseli. I've not much experience of anywhere else, um, not for lack of looking, but in the Preseli, there's a site called Carn Enoch. Um, the main road from Dennis Cross to Bessie's Pub in, um, near Pont Vane, um, it's on the right-hand side as you go out of Dina's Cross up to the top of the Preseli. And it's a lump, a lump of a big massive outcrop of a volcanic outcrop. And in that, there's a, first two things about that. If you take a compass up to the top of it and climb it, there's a one-foot or two-foot difference in the compass's movement. It will go from reading north to reading south to reading north to reading south, which is good fun. Now, Carn Enoch, knock, Kyrie Knock, Carn Enoch is also, as you come down it on the, um, eastern side flank of it, there's a massive stone covered with up to two inches deep notches, spaced evenly on. And there's all sorts of other things going on there, um, which probably I can't go into in any detail. But the answer is that's the site to go to to look at. And if, if you email me, the British, if you email me, Ross, I can send you a photograph of that stone. Okay. Okay. Brilliant, brilliant. I think, I think we're kind of, I think questions. Yeah, I think that's all the questions. Um, I've got a question, please. Um, what, when's your next book coming out? Well, it was coming out quite soon, but I had a 27-inch Mac computer that blew up irreparably. Luckily, I've got the chapters and all that needs setting out in InDesign and all that, but I need a publisher. I'm too old to be doing all this. I'm doing the research, I'm fed up with doing everything, and so I've decided that that's it, then. But I've said that before, as you remind me every time we meet. And, uh, and, uh, the, I mean, the book is, I mean, because you're going to be coming to Megalithomania next year, we've already talked about that physically, hopefully we can, we'll do it live in Glastonbury. And I think that's going to be on your birthday as well, to be honest with you. So it doesn't matter as you get older, you find that actually fewer and fewer people are interested in your birthday. We've got a couple more questions actually, just popped up. 23. I am. Excellent. Me too. Me, sir. [Laughter] Well, A. Williams asks, is the practical question, is the field above Pantry if and open to the public? No, it's not. And the farmer, I've had you sit down with a Welsh farmer, and eventually you get to the point where you have your second cup of tea or something, and that discussion has yet to be had. But he is very keen on knowing what goes on in his land. And there's some big megaliths further back along the line which are, I can't get to at the moment because the lambs are in, you know, they're all there, and you don't want to go in and spoil them. So I would, I'm, I'm working on a really nice farmer. And I said to him, well, why is this field not available? Why didn't someone make that part of the Pentrivan thing? And he said, well, he came here in the '90s. He said, and I won't mention the organization, but they came here in the '90s and basically they took most of the stones on the site near Countryman away as clutter. And so what you're going to see now is, is actually the top's gone. And here's a, here's something for everybody. You stand on the top of the capstone at Pentrivan, which you mustn't do, but if you were to, and you mustn't, of course, then you can see Voilder Gone. Because that flat land, you saw the capstone pointing downhill, it's quite a bit lower Pentrivan than the field. So if you go up to the field and you stand on any of the big rocks there, you can see Pentrivan, which is the point, the, the final point of, of the, half double square that we, we looked at. So I will work on the farmer. The answer to your question is, as soon as I have some news, I will tell you, and it will be on my website. I've got, I think we've got the best question of the entire weekend just turned up here from Kate Masters. When using the wife measurement, are we talking about the British short wife or the long wife? No, we're not. We're talking about the Royal Geographical Wife. Okay, that's good. I'm glad. We're pleased. That's for John Neil. Um, what you do from the British wife, you multiply by eight by three over two by eight over seven, and you get that measurement. And she's here, look. She doesn't want to appear. Come on, come on. This is the British standard way. [Laughter] And the final question from Gwen. Wonderful lecture. Why aren't we tapping into this intelligence and using these sites to improve future constructions and inventions? Some of those are, ah, there you go. Okay. All right. Brilliant. Okay, I think, I think we're good. Thanks so much, Robin. [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] You.