Simple solutions for Neolithic construction part 2 The use of scaling: macro and micro

Cathryn Iliffe iliffe.indi@gmail.com

Keywords
Scaling construction; shared dimensions; circle arc geometry; acoustic resonance; square power law;
self-scaling; peg and line; Neolithic perception;

Copyright notice
The content can be used for educational purposes but must be fully referenced. No excerpts are to be
taken out of context or any meaning changed. All normal rights reserved, no financial or commercial
gain is permitted. © 2019

Abstract
An investigation into the structures of Neolithic sites and artefacts found a common scaling system,
found in the earliest sites and through to the Bronze Age. Early rectangular timber buildings and long
barrows constructed from circle segments often display simple width: length ratios, and at West Kennet
the ratio is 5: 3 which possibly originated at the standing stones at Maes Howe in a 5x3m rectangle. This
5: 3 ratio is also seen in the small Bush lozenge, that fits in the same geometrically scaled system as the
gold lozenges found in early Bronze Age burials. A simple x2x5 scaling device may link small artefacts
of 31cm to large circular sites of 31m. At this point doubling and tripling may come to play to produce
the dimensions seen at large scale eg: 30-90-180-270m. Multiple ring complexes such as Mount
Pleasant exhibit mathematical scaling, with rings of set multiples of the inner ring diameter. This agrees
with a model of peg and rope, circle and line geometry that uses simple scaling. The appearance of
similar building styles and artefacts at distant locations suggests that there were effective
communications between these communities and a desire for conformity, or a shared construction
system that originated with immigration in the earlier Neolithic or before.

Aims and context

This paper notes the shared scale of sites across Britain and the scaling seen at individual Neolithic sites,
and sets out to examine a possible underlying system. This study assumes use of peg and line
construction based on circle arcs, a method which uses scale and ratio rather than measurement, and by
rope folding, lends itself to doubling and halving. Any scaling system could be integral with a geometric
scaling number system investigated in Iliffe 2019a. That paper looked at the geometric progression in
post numbers in timber rings and the mathematical scaling of small artefacts. It found a scaling system
based on simple ratios of lozenge geometries, simple multiples of diameter, and subsequent square area
law for circles and rectangles, and doubling areas of circles. Use of specific ratios with shared
dimensions suggested use of basic whole number geometry.

Context
This paper builds on previous work on peg and line construction (Iliffe 2017), and extends the
investigation to look at other sites, some of which have been proposed to be built using a set measure, or
complex modern geometry. It aims to see if there is any real evidence for such proposals or if there are
simpler explanations that more closely match observations. Worked examples should distinguish
between measure and scale.

The remarkable similarity in size of different Neolithic sites has led to many people proposing a
‘megalithic measure’, but the question often attracts people who by nature are measurers: engineers and
metrologists, who are seeking a measure so the ‘evidence’ is pre-biased. One major problem of so-called
‘megalithic’ measurement units is that proposed measures are out of scale by a factor of 100 or more,
and errors would multiply if a small unit was used for a large site. This doesn’t match the evidence of
shared dimensions at very large scale eg Ure valley henges of 270m. Also units are too precise, often
proposed to a scale of 0.1 mm. Using such precise numbers does not match the realities of estimating
diameters of ploughed out henge banks. If there were length standards they are more likely to be on a
scale of 90m for henges, and 5-10m for smaller sites. If there is a strong pattern to the dimensions of
constructions then it might seem that it could be due to a unit of measure, but that could be an artificial
bi-product of a scaling system.

Introduction The scale of the Neolithic

Britain is marked by building on a grand geometric scale, both linearly in the form of very long
cursuses, long barrows and avenues, and in the form of expanding concentric circles. Linear expansion
in one direction is seen in cursuses, but there are no large-scale rectangular or square expansions. Small-
scale rectangular and parallelogram expansions are found in artefacts such as the Folkton barrels and the
Clandon and Bush barrow gold lozenges of the Bronze Age.

Long linear earthworks characterise the early Neolithic: cursuses range from 60m for the segmented
Scottish timber enclosures to 2km at Scorton Yorkshire, and 10km for the Dorset cursus. Size and shape
standardisation comes in more with long barrows, which show a discontinuous size distribution,
suggesting discrete scaling, and of which there are over 70 in Gloucestershire alone (Darvill 2011). At
the range of shorter cursuses are: Wayland’s Smithy 63m, Belas Knap 70m, West Kennett 104m. The
complex at Heslerton on the Yorkshire Wolds included a long barrow of at least 125m with a cove of
massive posts, and a triple set of henges 65m, 50m and 28m in diameter (Vatcher and Vatcher 1965).
These are all now mostly ploughed out so are no longer landmarks.

Circular structures at the top end of the scale are causewayed enclosures: 200-300m diameter at
Windmill hill, 330m at Freston, 550-600m at Crofton in Pewseyvale. The larger henges were irregularly
shaped: the 460x350m henge at Marden, Avebury henge 400m and Mount Pleasant. At Durrington we
see a massive bank of 500m possibly built over a timber ring, and 500km to the north, the 300m outer
timber ring at Droughduil in Galloway with its Neolithic mound. More circular sites tend to be a bit
smaller: the eight massive Ure henges are all almost the same 270m diameter (Harding 2013). Newton
Kyme henge demonstrates the type of scaling of the time: its ditches are at 90, 180 and 210m diameters,
giving 30 and 90m berms and banks. These sites all suggest a scaling based on doubling: 90-180m or
tripling: 30-90-270m. The four Priddy henges, like the Thornborough triples, are in an area of sinkholes
and gypsum and are from 185 to194m in diameter. True circles are found at the 100m Stonehenge
enclosure and Brodgar’s 104m stone circle. From about 3000 BC stone circles started to mark the
landscape, and many are about 30m diameter: Sten Ness 32m, Birkrigg outer 26m, Glassonby 27m,
Castle-rigg, Stanton north and Stone-henge sarsens 30m, and Rollright 33m, as are timber circles:
Cairnpapple, Durrington north 30m. Some notable timber sites are between 30 and 40m: Milfield 36m,
Durrington south 39m, Sanctuary 40m and Woodhenge rings 44m, and Mount Pleasant 38m within a
henge of 45m.

The wrapping described by Colin Richards (2013) is often mathematical in nature eg at Mount Pleasant
the rings are 1.5x 2x 2.5 and 3x the inner ring diameter. This type of layering is a scaling mechanism
rather than a result of measurement. The square chamber at Maes Howe was within an early mound 30-
40m diameter within a 90-100m enclosure. Nearby Bookan chamber is wrapped in a 7m diameter
mound and another doubled outer rim of 15.5x17m, sitting within an area of 42x41m inside a wide ditch
totalling 70m in diameter. A later burial mound similar in size was at Duggleby Yorkshire: a 37m
mound in a 370m enclosure (Gibson and Bayliss 2009). Construction was vertical as well: towards the
early Bronze Age many constructions went upwards rather than outwards, with several large stepped
mounds at Droughduil (50x60m diameter, 10m high, Thomas, Sanderson, Kerr 2015), Marden (73m
wide 15m high), Marlborough (100m wide 19m high) and Silbury (167m wide and 32m high) (Leary
2010, Leary et al 2013). These mounds all have a 1:5 height to diameter ratio.

Dimension-sharing is seen at many circular sites of different type, eg. Knowth, Dowth and Newgrange
passage chambers, Stanton timber circles, Stonehenge Aubreys, Long Meg and Stanton Harcourt, are all
about 85-95m diameter. A few ‘henges’ are just bigger than this range: Stonehenge 110m, Mayburgh
2
117m, the outer bank at Maes Howe, and the ditch at Brodgar 123m. We see a conformity to a local
length standard for at Priddy henges (180m) and the Ure valley henges (270m), and possibly the Boyne
valley mounds (85-95m) and these are all close multiples of 90m. A useful baseline benchmark is one
that is in the middle of the scale, and can be scaled up and down. By this criterion a useful ‘megalithic’
standard would be 90 metres, easily scaled up 3x to a 270m henge and down 3x to 30m.

A scaling Neolithic number system

A companion study of timber multiple ring systems found a doubling number system that
fitted with a geometrically scaling construction method (Iliffe 2019a). This system extended to three
dimensions in carved stone balls and Folkton chalk barrels. Overall the picture was of shared dimensions
and scaled proportions, closely linked to the fundamental mathematical qualities of circles, lozenges and
right angled triangles. The lozenge and its square is itself a doubling system where the squared lozenge
has twice the area, and is fractal in nature, like the repeating motifs seen in carvings.

Acoustics
An accidental and then possibly deliberate side-effect of building to scaling rules could be that the
chambers had acoustic resonance. Scaled construction in three dimensions would automatically produce
an acoustic space that would facilitate the development of standing waves. Experiments at Maes Howe
found that the smooth walls were conducive to production of standing waves (Watson and Keating
1999) but it is not clear if any attempts were made to match acoustic frequency to the size of the
chamber. Research at various sites pointed to a resonance in the 95-120Hz range, mostly 110-112Hz
(Jahn, Devereux, Ibison,1996). Using a scaling building system produces structures that match the
intrinsic tendency of the brain to be attracted to structures with simple ratios like 3/2. This is not
restricted to sight: it is also an acoustic preference, so humans prefer whole number ratio harmonics of
sound frequencies too, eg 5ths, 3rds.

Functionality is not always about obvious survival strategies. The sound of a nugget of flint is the key to
its quality: if when struck, it rings with a bell-like tone, it is free of faults, and will knap well to make a
good weapon. An ear for tone thus becomes a crucial survival skill. The visual recognition system is
linked to our audio perception of tone and rhythm, so as people formalised spatial constructions, they
may have formalised music in a similar way. Between the Palaeolithic and the Bronze Age, people made
a transition from making hunting whistles and bows to harmonic music, and a key to this is a perception
of simple scaling fractions and ratio that were laid down many millennia before as people developed
symmetrical stone tools and artefacts. There is not a direct relationship between symmetry and tool
efficiency however, as it can be argued that less symmetrical tools prioritise function, whereas very
symmetrical knappings prioritise aesthetics.

Construction materials
The scaling of stone monuments such as passage chambers is to a certain extent determined by the size
of the stone available as natural cleaved units and from quarries, and the size of glacial erratics.
Limestones and sandstones are more amenable to being worked than granite, but with a few exceptions,
most sites were constructed with almost raw stone. Many early sites are exercises in earth moving,
consisting of geometric or linear arrangements of pits, and it has not been proved that all the pits
contained posts or stones. Examples are the Mesolithic pit line at Warren field (Gaffney et al. 2013), the
Aubrey ring at Stonehenge, and the ring complex at Stanton, where the 1m diameter pits form a matrix.
Cursuses are earth banks and ditches set 50-100m apart and as they can run for kilometres, and may
have been the endeavour of several communities. The Scottish equivalent is often delineated by timber
posts eg Inchbare, extending at least 250m (Millican 2016).

The post pits in many timber rings contain charcoal, which apart from giving a date, may indicate a
‘burn and cut’ tree felling method still used by North American natives (Stewart 1984). Charcoal is also
an excellent preservative and anti-fungal agent, an attribute which would have been discovered by
experience. They were experts in the use of physical resources such as resin glues, so may well have
3
performed deliberate addition of charcoal to post pits to impede rotting. This has to be discerned from
burning at the end of the monument. Timber structures mostly used round poles, with some split poles,
going by evidence of below ground level pits. Pole diameter goes up to about 1m eg at Sarn y Bryn
(Gibson 1994).

That the lintels at Stonehenge had carpentry type joints indicates that the builders were unaware that
heavy masonry did not need these, and were accustomed to working with timber (Gibson 1994). Timber
posts may have been intricately carved with similar motifs as rocks, so Stonehenge may have been seen
as a strange aberration that was neither a ‘normal’ circle of undressed stones, nor a carved timber one.
Evidently, it was not a type that was repeated elsewhere, but it may not be as unique as some people
propose if lintelled timber rings and palisades were common. The inadequate footings for many uprights
also demonstrate their inexperience with building in stone and lack of understanding of gravity, and
possibly several of the Stonehenge stones fell within the lifetime of the builders. This may have
happened at Brodgar (Richards 2013) so, although we see stone as permanent, they may have perceived
things differently.

The corbelling at Irish and Orkney passage chambers indicates that those builders were very experienced
in building with stone, and understood the effects of gravity on it, how it can ‘stick’ large heavy objects
together. The local stone in Orkney, with its natural shearing into thin sheets, lent itself to the building
of delicate and more mathematical structures. Contrast this to the situation in the North Netherlands and
Denmark which are limited to large glacial boulders, and a distinctly clumpy building style in the long
barrows, which nevertheless are on a comparable scale to those in Britain and Ireland.

Multiple ring circular sites

Timber multiple ring sites such as the Sanctuary, Mount Pleasant and Stanton Drew, are scaled sets of
concentric rings of diameters that are multiples of the inner ring diameter (Iliffe 2019a). This is very
simple to do using peg and line. A common type is a 3x donut, where the outer ring has a diameter 3x
that of the inner ring. This is seen at very different types of site, from the tourist attraction Stonehenge to
small sites such as Birkrigg in Cumbria. This suggests that such scaling was widely used by families and
larger communities.

Case studies: Scaling as a construction mechanism:

The structures seen in the British Neolithic can easily be designed and made using simple circle segment
and arc, and scaling devices (Barnatt and Herring 1986, Ruggles and Barclay 2000, Iliffe 2017). The
essential characteristic of such a construction system is that it is measure-independent. Peg and rope
construction automatically uses scaling, and doubling/halving. Cursuses demonstrate specialist
surveying skills, being able to survey straight lines over 6 mile distances. The laying out of a long cursus
can be achieved by constructing a set of aligned circles of equal diameter using sighting poles.

Early Scottish rectangular timber buildings are on a scale of about 10x20-27m, and often show 2:1 to 3:
1 scaling divided into 6 to 8 partitions with symmetry about a central line. The trenched ‘houses’ such as
at Doon Hill, Balbridie and Sprouston (Figure 1a) are all a very similar size, 20-23m x 8-11.5m with
length 2-3 times the width (Fairweather and Ralston 1993, Barclay, Brophy, MacGregor 2002). These
are similar in scale to the more open plan buildings at Balfarg and Carsie Mains (Millican 2016). Early
LBK 5000 BC long ‘houses’ in Poland are on a similar scale, as are smaller English long barrows
(Bradley 1998). Bradley also notes that many sites do not have obvious entrances, or only had entrances
added later in their development (Bradley 2007). There is a possibility that some sites were accessed
from above with ladders, or were designed not to be accessed at all.

The timber ‘houses’ at Balfarg are almost identical (Figure 1b) and may be constructed using two
overlapping circles. Other twin sites display this ‘photocopy’ layout, eg Lismore (in Bradley 2007).
Some oval cropmark sites are very similar size and exhibit a geometry which can be matched by
overlapping circles, but display the overlap eg Nether Kelly (Figure 1c).
4
 Figure 1a Doon Hill, Balbridie and Sprouston (from Smith 1991)

Figure 1b Balfarg 1 and 2 comparison

Figure 1c) Nether Kelly (Millican 2016)

Whilst rectangular cursuses are linear structures, long barrows may be constructed by use of a
circle segment, and the increase in girth may have led to the observation that a doubled length gives a
doubled width at the end of the long barrow. Many barrows have been ploughed out at the lower end so
the original length is much longer eg Notgrove. It is possible to extrapolate the barrow sides back to
their origin to get what is possibly their survey layout length, and this can reveal some interesting
structures.

Hazleton North and Waylands Smithy display the geometry of half circle segments. At Hazleton North
the barrow structures occupy one half of the 100m segment and burials are at the middle of the barrow,
at the quarter mark (Figure 2a). A 5 to 1 ratio circle segment of 20x100m, Hazleton has a complex
segmented construction of which the passages were an integral part (Saville 1990) and has similarities
with the cellular structures seen at the Pere long mound at Prisse-la-Carriere (Laporte 2016). At
Waylands Smithy (Figure 2b), the original burial mound is double wrapped by large banks which would
extend to make a 150-170m radius circle segment. The later kerbed barrow is a slightly smaller mirror
5
image of Hazleton North, with small cardinal stone chambers compared to the size of the previous
structure, and is part of a 1 in 6 ratio segment of 15x90m. Stoney Littleton (Figure 2c) is a full circle
segment of 16x65m (1 in 4 ratio) with the barrow occupying half of the segment, and the cardinal
chambers taking up a quarter as at Hazelton North. These long barrow sites show that the building
process possibly encompassed a far larger area than the product that remains visible in modern times,
and that although they appear to be a linear feature, long barrows are essentially parts of a circle.
Bearing in mind the already noted tendency for doubling and tripling at large circular sites, long barrows
also often display partitioning into halves and quarters.

Figure 2a Hazleton North (from Saville 1990)

Figure 2b Waylands Smithy

Figure 2c Stoney Littleton

Many Irish structures show construction by circle segment. The chambers of the Tully court tomb in
Fermanagh, Ireland sit in a 1:1 ratio segment equilateral triangle, with the rear stone of the rear chamber
at the centre of a 20m radius circle (Figure 3a). The outer banks are delineated as a segment of an outer
circle of 40m radius, giving an overall 2:1 ratio segment. The burials are dated from 3961 to 3374BC
(Waterman 1978). The 20x40m segment cairn at Edenmore is very similar in form and size, as is East
Bennan on Annan, with cross-channel stylistic links. Another similar sized Irish site with burials dated
around a millennium later, 2500-2000BC (Brindley, Lanting and Mook 1987) the wedge tomb at
Labbacallee has an unusual double segment of 22m, with the early burial at exactly the halfway mark
(Figure 3b).

6
 Figure 3a Tully court tomb (Waterman 1978) r= 33m

Figure 3b Labbacallee double segment wedge tomb (Brindley, Lanting and Mook 1987)
r =22m

The use of circle segment seen in Ireland and Waylands Smithy on the Cotswolds, is seen again at West
Kennet, where the entrance chambers are in a 15.5m circle segment (Figure 4a) and are dwarfed by the
wrapping banks which extend to 104m, half way along the 210m circle segment (Figure 4b). At least
two levels of scaling can be seen: the overlapping geometry of 5:1 and 3:1 ratio segments of 15.5m
radius making up the entrance chambers, a 104-210m doubling, and a 10:1 scaling of 210:21m. The
dimensions of the 15.5m segment ends are 3.1m and 5.2m due to the pi ratio of diameter to
circumference. Whatever unit is used, if a circle is constructed so that the diameter in units equals the
number of posts or stones on the circumference, then the segment end length will be just over 3 units
(3.14 units). So 1 unit = pi/3 metres or 1.04m, and this is the conversion factor between metres and West
Kennet units (Figure 4c). The dimension 3.15m is found at Mount Pleasant in the ring spacing (Iliffe
2019a).

7
Figure 4a) West Kennet entrance chambers

Figure 4b West Kennet barrow extension

8
Figure 4c) Circle segment geometry: 5 to 1 and 3 to 1 ratio segments. N= segment number.

The dimensions of 3.1 and 5.2m seen in the 15.5m segment at West Kennet are also seen at an entirely
different type of site at Maes Howe, a passage chamber in Orkney. The chamber is built around four
earlier orthostats (Richards 2005) that are set in a rectangle 3.1 x 5.2m, and depending on the dates,
these may have been set out to the West Kennet ratios. As West Kennet is dated to at least 3670BC
(Bayliss, Whittle and Wysocki, 2007) and the Maes Howe stones would be dated to before 2800 BC, it
would appear that West Kennet is the earlier standard.

Maes Howe and Bookan are both square sites within round layered mounds. Just up past Brodgar Ness,
Bookan is a square chamber of about 3.5 x 3.5m with a narrow entrance half a metre wide. At the
complex site Maes Howe, the central 3x3m area sits within a 9x9m square formed by the attached side
cells (Figure 5a). The three side cells have an area which is 8.7m2 approximately equal to 9 square units,
the central area. The entire chamber-cell complex with the entrance passage fits within a 5:3 ratio
rectangle 9x15m, which expands the 3x5m rectangle three times, the same expansion as the 3x3m to
9x9m.

These dimensions 3.1 and 5.2m seen at West Kennet and Maes Howe are also found much later at the
sarsen circle at Stonehenge of 2600BC. At Stonehenge the average theoretical lintel length has to be
about 314cm because the ring diameter is about 30m and there are 30 stones. This relationship could
have been common knowledge gained from other sites. There are many timber and stone rings where the
ring diameter (in metres) is the same (or a simple multiple of) as the post/stone number. If the sarsen
circle diameter is taken to be 31m it is the same size as the circle segment diameter at West Kennet, and
the overlapping geometry is also the same. A sarsen plus gap is 3.1m wide and a set of two uprights and
a gap is 5.2m wide. Stonehenge appears to be laid out to earlier dimensions at these other sites and this
makes it part of an inherited scaling system of construction, not a unique site set apart.

The outer sarsen lintel height is the same as the Aubrey pit-pit distance 4.9m, suggesting intra site
scaling. The topographical diagram Figure 5b shows the overlapping ratios, and the vertical scaling (also
seen at Maes Howe) and how the inner trilithons are fitted into the scheme. The vertical scaling of the
sarsen circle and the inner trilithons is such that a line taken from the original height of the great
trilithon, aligns with the side trilithons, the sarsen ring and meets the ground at the outer ditch rim, ie the
henge diameter, which of course at the henge entrance does not have a ditch, but various post holes. The

9
Aubrey ring radius of 45m is three times the radius of the inner sarsen radius, and a 9:1 ratio would give
54 pit positions. That there are 56 suggests that other factors were at play.

Figure 5a) Maes Howe built around four standing stones, with a 3x3m to 9x9m expansion

5b) Scaled shared dimensions of West Kennet, Maes Howe and Stonehenge sarsen circle.

Small scale artefacts: chalk and gold

The Folkton chalk barrels
The three carved chalk barrels found in a barrow at Folkton, East Yorkshire, dated by its designs to the
Late Neolithic. Their measurements of diameter 104x83mm, 125x104mm and 146x120mm (Figure 6a)
fit a model of shared and scaled proportions of 5x4, 6x5, and 7x6 units and 80-100-120-140 units of
1.04mm (pi/3). This is the same scalar found at West Kennet, based on a5:3 circle arc. The Folkton
barrels give evidence that Neolithic constructions used scaling and shared dimension standards at a
small scale as well as for large sites.

10
 Figure 6a) Scaled nested dimensions of the barrels.

The tops of the barrels could be stepped by squaring off the circle and having the inner circle radius
equal to the diameter of the square (Figure 6b). This is geometrically simple but mathematically more
complex compared to the simpler doubling and tripling diameter scaling seen at Mount Pleasant. This
scaling geometry involves the 5-5-7 triangle (Figure 6c) and is also found on two carved petrospheres
found in Scotland (Iliffe 2019a) so appears to originate from the Neolithic. The ratio of outer to inner
circle diameter is 7: 5 (√2) and the mathematical proof that the area is doubled is:

Area of inner circle = 52 x pi

Area of outer circle = 72 x pi area ratio 49/25 = 1.96 (2x)

Figure 6b) The Folkton barrels, showing stepped top geometry of squared circle, and shared dimension
scaling. The small barrel displays overlapping circle geometry needed to produce a square.

The scaling of the barrels themselves is the same series: the diameter of the large barrel is twice that of
the inner circle of the small barrel (Figure 6d). Thus both the barrel sizes and the design on the tops
conform closely to a model of a series using the geometric ratio 7:5. Showing doubling areas with
lozenges and rectangles is self-evident, but possibly the barrels show how circles follow the same area
rule as rectangles, something that might be assumed but is not as visually obvious.

11
Figure 6c) Geometry of squared circles. Order of construction: C1 outer circle, line AB, arcs from A and
B and line CD, square AFBE, inner circle C2.

Figure 6d) Model for the scaled dimensions of the barrels and lipped centres.

Gold lozenges and rectangles of the early Bronze Age

The Clandon (110x155mm) and large Bush barrow (155x186mm) golden lozenges were found to share
dimensions, and along with other gold artefacts the lozenges fit into a 31x31cm template (Iliffe 2019a).
The expansion from small (31x186mm) to large lozenge is 31 x5 (155) and 18.6 x 5 x 2 (186). It is one
more step of 155x2 to transform the small 31x18.5mm Bush barrow lozenge to an identically
proportioned 5: 3 lozenge of 310x186mm. This cycle of x5 and x2 is the equivalent of a decimal 10x
expansion, and demonstrates that the entity 5 may have been used as a scaling transformer like 2 and 3.
The small Bush barrow lozenge has a length: width ratio of 5:3 and a 6x6 expansion (Figure 7b) fits
within the large Bush barrow lozenge and the ratio of their areas is 7:5. The ratio of the areas of the large
Bush barrow and Clandon lozenges is 17:10 (close to 5:3).

The three lozenges form part of a series of right angle triangles whereby the hypotenuse is the side of the
next triangle, so, like the Folkton barrels fit into a scaled series (Figure 7c). Because it is not just
proportions, but also dimensions that are shared, it is highly unlikely that this is coincidental, and
because these ratios are so distinct it is possible that the lozenge dimensions were assigned whole
number values. The lozenge geometry originates from two overlapping circles (Figure 7d).

a= 5 b=7 (c=8.6) d= 10 e= 11
a= 10 b=14 c=17 d= 20 e= 22

12
 Figure 7b) A 6x6 expansion of the small Bush Barrow lozenge (SBx36)

Small Bush x36 Large Bush Clandon

Figure 7c) Scaled nested dimensions of the gold lozenges

Small Bush x36 = 10x17 large Bush = 14x17 Clandon= 10x14

Figure 7d) Lozenge geometry produced from overlapping circles.

A micro-macro scaling system

The gold lozenges found buried near Stonehenge 600 years after the sarsen circle was built, appear to be
part of the same scaling system as used to build the circle. This use of the same scale for both massive
and small objects was an unexpected finding, but by using a simple 5:3 ratio they could build at any
size, with accuracy. In fact the small lozenge has a length of 31mm compared to the 31m circles at West
Kennet and Stonehenge, suggesting the scaling was very exact. A good mid scale standard, between the
large 90m henges and the small artefacts might be the West Kennet standard of 3.1m, the size of the
Maes Howe chamber, a x5 and x2 cycle from the 31x31cm lozenge template. A x2 x5 cycle gets to 31m
at Stonehenge, and from 31m another cycle would go to 310m. This is possibly too large for most
13
communal resources, so doubling and tripling would come into play, to produce the 90m range, which
has many site types, the 180m Priddy henges, Dowth henge 165x175m and the exceptional 270m Ure
henges.

The possibility of a 5x 2x decimal cycle is intriguing, as such a system is supposed to have been
historically a late development. However, as part of a scaling system it certainly keeps the numbers
simple. Examples seem to be the gold lozenges and possibly the Duggleby Neolithic-Bronze Age multi-
phase mound with a 37m mound inside a 370m enclosure. The 7m Bookan mound is also in a 10x scaled
70m enclosure.

Shared dimensions on Orkney

Some extreme examples of three-dimensional scaling are found in Orkney: the two-tier passage site at
Taversoe on Rousay includes a subterranean box 85x110x160cm (1.5m3), located as a dark space at the
end of a very slim 6m long, dry, blocked vent or chute, scaled from 46cm wide to only 6 cm wide
(Henshall 1963). Described as a ‘drain’, it had a blocking stone halfway along it, and remained dry
during wet weather. The lower passage is scaled 40x60cm to 60x120cm. Like Wideford cairn, Taversoe
also possibly had a chute that was used to fill the chamber with rubble. The chamber at Papa Westray is
a 2:1 scaling, and the long chamber at Isbister seems to be built around a 1.8m length and the end cells
are the same size as at Maes Howe. In general the chambers were easily large enough to stand up in, 1.7-
4.7m high, but the entrances and passageways were tiny in comparison, typically 50x50cm. A building
scale which does not tie in with domestic functionality suggests that there was a simple scaling system,
not a small measurement unit which would have produced more variation in dimensions, and closer
matching to domestic requirements.

The combination of small entrances and passages with large chambers is reproduced at ‘domestic’ sites
such as Skara Brae, the Knap of Howar, Rinyo, and the Links of Noltland. The distinction between
domestic and monumental is unclear: there are some very un- house-like features to the Orkney
‘houses’, and the practicalities of having stone doors at Skara is highly questionable, and more akin to
blocked ‘tombs’. Applying modern domestic labelling such as ‘drains’ or ‘chimneys’ to structures may
not be appropriate, as structure may be determined by the scaling, not by functional fit for use by
humans. Such ambiguity questions modern labelling, and there may be considerable overlap between
monumental domestic ‘houses’ with non-domestic artefacts, and chambers which housed human
remains. We cannot define Neolithic spaces by modern perceptions (Brophy 2016).

The complexes at Skara Brae and Brodgar Ness consist of modular constructions: two of the houses at
Skara Brae have identical dimensions and a third is very similar. Many of the chambers have small
hidden or blocked mini-chambers in them, eg a house at Skara had a hidden chamber, behind the
dresser. The stereotyped, almost identical, layout of the ‘houses’ at Skara, with various sized partitions,
boxes and basins, resemble the standardised scaling and layout of passage chambers and mortuaries. The
ordered scaling seen is a large factor in the monumental ‘feel’ of such sites, and this scaling involves
going from large chambers to very small hidden cubicles. It is as if they had a set of construction rules
that were applied to any structure irregardless of size or context. It may be that they used the same
scaling system for all site types, and the stone ‘settlements’ were only partially domestic or not primarily
domestic at all. Possibly the domestic houses were still far more ephemeral, and people were still
seasonally mobile, living in timber framed dwellings. Arguably a tipi may have been more amenable to
live in than a stone building infested with voles. The strange objects found in hidden compartments have
been labelled as anthropomorphised ‘goddesses’, but may be further examples of scaling.

Technical findings
Overall, a simple scaling system is seen, which would correspond with peg and line surveying. Using
peg and line circle geometry it is possible to reconstruct Neolithic structures at both large and small
scale, and peg and line method naturally lends itself to doubling geometry. This is an extension of the
conformity of ratio and dimensions seen in the early Neolithic rectangular buildings. Because of
14
doubling construction methods, it is difficult to show unambiguous evidence of a standard length but
evidence was found of use of the 5:3 scaling system being scaled by a two stage decimal expansion of
x2 x5. The circle segment barrow at West Kennet contained dimensions based on overlapping 5: 1 and
3: 1 ratio segments giving a linked double scale based on 3 and 5 units (3.1m and 5.2m). These
dimensions and ratios were also found at Maes Howe, Stonehenge and Mount Pleasant, and scaled down
in the gold lozenges. There seems to be several levels of scaling: the 5:3 scaling system, rectangular
expansion by 5x 2x combining to make a 10x decimal system, rectangular and circular area doubling,
and area squaring. In this way construction could use the appropriate scaling: doubling for large sites
such as long barrows, 5-10x for small artefacts such as the gold lozenges, and squaring for expansion in
four directions as seen at Maes Howe. Maes Howe has a 3x3 to 9x9 square geometry which illustrates
the square power law for area, which is displayed by rock carvings and more obviously by the later gold
lozenges, the metal allowing far finer detail than the stone. Simple ratios, eg 2:1 3:1 appear to be
commonly used in early rectangular structures, and 5:1 3:1 5:3 in later ones. Simple arc and line
geometry appears to have been used to construct concentric circles 2x 3x 4x diameter at large sites, and
this is also seen in small gold lozenges, which show more clearly the area square rule. Small artefacts
such as the Folkton barrels and the gold lozenges demonstrate scaling using basic dimension sharing of
expansion from a 5-5-7 triangle, and the ratio 7:5 which involves area doubling.

Sharing of dimensions as well as proportions are primarily part of the scaling system, and not part of a
mensuration system. This is a subtle but important distinction. Scaling can be used to build simple and
complex structures, and it is not necessary to know the mathematics behind the relationships of the
ratios, to use the system. However some of the relationships, such as the area square law for rectangles
are self evident. Others such as the relationship between circle radius and area are more obscure. There
is no evidence that this geometry was described with mathematics at the time, and specifically, no
evidence that the mathematical relationships were described separately to the geometry.

The dimensions involved in the West Kennet 5:3 circle segment do not have any special meaning: the
lengths 5.2m and 3.1m come from the segment length of 15.5m, which may have been an arbitrary
length chosen by chance, and copied to other sites. It is the5:3 ratio which has meaning. The circle
segment derived scale gave a conversion factor of pi/3 (1.04) to convert metric measure to Neolithic
standard lengths. This factor was seen in the Folkton barrels, suggesting they used the same scaling
system.

Discussion: continuity and change

The same geometric themes pervade structures at all scales from the early Neolithic through to the
Bronze Age in Ireland, Orkney and Yorkshire, and sites in southern England. That sites and artefacts
from a wide geography share very similar scale and dimensions strongly suggests that there was a
common scaling system used across long distance communities in Britain from the earliest structures,
continuing through the Bronze Age and beyond. Standardised construction, with shared dimensions,
indicates a set of rigid scaling rules for building that gives us a monumental feel to sites, and makes it
difficult to decide whether a site was domestic or not. Modern monumental architecture reverts to simple
geometry of the ’four poster’ or octagon, and the cardinal cruciform of passage chambers, suggesting we
are primed towards simple geometry in non-domestic contexts. Such places draw people together in
unified endeavours, a psychological effect which is partially due to the scaled architecture. This
contributes to social cohesion.

The massive post and pit rings at Mount Pleasant and the Stanton Drew are a very public display of
geometry. The small lozenges could easily be hidden, but they were not. That the Bush barrow man
openly displayed the lozenge on his chest would suggest that this knowledge of mathematical concepts
was not a secret, and that its power as a prestige item depended on people knowing what it meant, and
sharing that prestige. A simple scaling construction system may have been common knowledge. The
similarity in 3x donut layout between large sites such as Stonehenge and the Sanctuary, assumed to be
for large communities, and Birkrigg in Cumbria, which is a paved double ring system thought to be a
15
family site, would support the proposition of a simple system that was common knowledge and used for
small local domestic sites as well as large communal monumentalised sites.

The Bush barrow grave is dated at about 1900 BC, a few decades after a final shuffle of the Stonehenge
bluestones. At the same time the Babylonians were also exploring rectangles and their diagonals, but
being explicit in displaying the mathematics of the geometry, unlike their contemporaries in Britain. In
Britain it appears that people used the same geometry, but there is no concrete evidence that they
clarified the mathematics. They built massive scaled timber rings, with geometric number series (Iliffe
2019a), and used geometric decoration of rare and probably highly coveted artefacts, which were
possibly curated for their mathematical heritage as well as their aesthetic qualities.

This study has showed that the later structures and artefacts used the same scaling and geometry as early
sites. The conventional view was that the artistry of the gold lozenges came to Britain with the Beaker
DNA influx of 2600BC, when Britain opened up to an increasing influx of people. However, that later
gold artefacts were close replicas of the much older stone motifs found at Brodgar, suggests that it was
the culture of the indigenous population that was the origin of the design of these fabulous items.
Genetic studies (Olalde et al 2018) show that although the indigenous DNA was subject to an influx of
Steppe DNA, the 9:1 dilution effect stabilised by 2100 BC, when Irish pottery displaced Beaker. The
people who organised the large scale landscaping of the Bronze Age knew the landscape well, and had
experience in planning on a grand scale, and this describes the indigenous minority rather than a
probably disorganised migrant majority who came from a wide diaspora. There is evidence of
Mesolithic taming of the landscape and ecology long before the advent of domestic animals, and the
indigenous natives were on a similar trajectory as the incomers, going by early pottery. The genetic data
has been used to separate two populations which may have had more cultural similarities than
differences, and may have interbred without conflict.

An interesting question is that a rigid building system may indicate a rigid mind-set, and the ordered
geometry may mirror a society of strict conformity. This may mean that the Neolithic was a period of
reaction to a chaotic, unpredictable environment of rising sea levels, which continued to the death of the
great hilltop forests as the climate cooled 1500BC. In one way mathematically scaled building is an
expression of communal power and prestige: it is a very public statement that those people are no longer
being controlled by nature, they are in control and making powerful statements of human intellectual
power on the landscape. Despite the lack of stone circles, this was mirrored in Europe too. Building
massive structures can be a way of both recruiting allies and impressing potential enemies and deterring
invasion.

We still use the ratios seen in the Neolithic; the 5: 3 ratio is the 1.66 aspect ratio used by the film
industry for large screen. The ISO paper size system uses the 7:5 (√2 1.414: 1) ratio seen in the Clandon
lozenge and Folkton barrels. This ratio gives a halving/doubling of area with retention of the same
aspect ratio. We use scaled area in construction eg: 2x4 and 4x8 feet ply sheets. These are basic
construction strategies for modular building, and this suggests that expansion in the Neolithic was on
such a large scale that a simple system that could be used by anyone was an integral part of that
expansion.

References
Barclay G, Brophy K, MacGregor G. 2002 Claish, Stirling: an early Neolithic structure in its context.
Proceedings if the Society of Antiquities of Scotland 132, 65-137.

Barnatt J and Herring P 1986. Stone circles and megalithic geometry: an experiment to test alternative
design practices. Journal of Archaeological science 13, 431-449

16
Bayliss A., Whittle A, & Wysocki M. 2007. Talking About My Generation: The Date of the West
Kennet Long Barrow. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 17(S1), 85-101.
doi:10.1017/S0959774307000182

Bradley R 1998. The significance of monuments. London. Routledge,

Bradley R 2007. The prehistory of Britain and Ireland. Cambridge, Cambridge University press

Brindley A, Lanting J, and Mook W. 1987. Radiocarbon Dates from Moneen and Labbacallee, County
Cork. The Journal of Irish Archaeology 4: 13-20.

Brophy K. 2016. On ancient farms: a survey of Neolithic potentially domestic locations in lowland
Scotland. Chapter 10 in The Neolithic of Mainland Scotland. Eds Brophy K, MacGregor G, Ralston I.
Edinburgh University Press

Darvill T. 2011 Prehistoric Gloucestershire. Stroud, Amberley

Fairweather A, Ralston I (1993) The Neolithic timber hall at Balbridie, Grampian Region, Scotland: the
building, the date, the plant macrofossils. Antiquity vol 67, issue 255, 313-323

Gaffney V, et al. 2013. Time and a Place: A luni-solar time-reckoner from 8th millennium BC Scotland',
Internet Archaeology 34. https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.34.1

Gibson A. 1994. Excavations at Sarn-y-bryn-Caled cursus complex, Welshpool, Powys and the timber
circles of Great Britain and Ireland. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 60 143-217.

Gibson A, Bayliss, A. (2009), Recent Research at Duggleby Howe, North Yorkshire. Archaeological
Journal, 166, 39-78.

Harding J 2013. Cult, religion and pilgrimage. CBA research report 174, York. Council for British
Archaeology

Henshall A. 1963 The chambered tombs of Scotland, vol. 1. Edinburgh. 222

Iliffe C. 2017. Putting the Early Yorkshire Neolithic Monuments into a Geographical and Psychological
Context: a Cursus Review Prehistoric Yorkshire 54. 45-50

Iliffe C 2019a. Simple solutions for Neolithic construction part 1. A British Neolithic mind-set: a scaling
three-dimensional geometric number system.
https://www.academia.edu/38997525/Simple_solutions_to_Neolithic_constructions_Part_1_A_British_
Neolithic_mind-set_a_scaling_three-dimensional_geometric_number_system

Jahn, R., Devereux, P., Ibison, M. 1996. Acoustical Resonances of Assorted Ancient Structures, J.
Acoust. Am Soc Vol. 99 No.2: 649-658

Laporte L, 2016. Structural functions and architectural projects within the long monuments of Western
France. In The Megalithic architectures of Europe. Ed Laporte L and Scarre C. Oxford, Oxbow

Leary J. 2010. Silbury hill: a monument in motion. In Round mounds and monumentality in the British
Neolithic and beyond. 139-152. Oxford: Oxbow Books

Leary J, Canti M, Field D, Fowler P, Marshall P, Campbell G. 2013 The Marlborough mound, Wiltshire.
A further Neolithic monument by the river Kennett. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 79, 137-164.
17
Millican K. 2016 Seeing the wood in the trees: the timber monuments of Neolithic |Scotland, Chapter 8
in The Neolithic of Mainland Scotland. Eds Brophy K, MacGregor G, Ralston I. Edinburgh University
Press

Olalde et al 2018. The Beaker phenomenon and the genomic transformation of northwest Europe.
Nature vol 555 8 march 2018 190-196. doi:10.1038/nature25738 (David Reich team)

Richards C. 2005. Dwelling among the monuments: The Neolithic village of Barnhouse, Maeshowe
passage grave and surrounding monuments at Stenness, Orkney. Cambridge, McDonald Institute for
Archaeological Research

Richards C. 2013. Wrapping the hearth: constructing house societies and the tall stones of Stenness,
Orkney. Chapter 3 in Building the great stone circles of the north. Oxford, Windgather (Oxbow)

Ruggles C. Barclay, G. 2000. Cosmology, calendars and society in Neolithic Orkney: a rejoinder to
Euan MacKie, Antiquity 74: 62–74

Saville A. 1990. Hazleton North- The Excavation of a Neolithic long cairn of the Cotswold-Severn
group. Engish Heritage,

Smith M. 1991 Sprouston, Roxburghshire: an early Anglian centre of the eastern Tweed basin.
Proceedings if the Society of Antiquities of Scotland, 121: 261-294

Stewart H. 1984. Cedar : Tree of life to the Northwest Coast Indians. University of Washington Press

Thomas J, Sanderson D, Kerr C. 2015. A Neolithic ceremonial complex in Galloway. Oxford, Oxbow

Vatcher F (de Mallet), Vatcher L. de 1965 East Heslerton Long Barrow, Yorkshire: Eastern Half.
Antiquity, 39, 49-52.

Waterman D, Wells C, Northover J. 1978. The Excavation of a Court Cairn at Tully. County
Fermanagh. Ulster Journal of Archaeology Third Series, Vol. 41 (1978), pp. 3-14

Watson A, Keating D. 1999. Architecture and sound: an acoustic analysis of megalithic monuments in
prehistoric Britain. Antiquity 73. 323-336

Figures

https://www.yas.org.uk/Sections/Prehistoric-Yorkshire/Neolithic/Neolithic-Yorkshire-the-Folkton-
Drums

Skara Brae T. Hugo Anderson-Whymark

https://sketchfab.com/models/b92c93fed6f3476bb6587e107e98825c

18