Roman Amphitheatre of Uthina The Roman Amphitheatre of Uthina is located in Uthina , near Tunis, Tunisia . Building for Uthina began in 40 BC and continued through to 135 AD. The amphitheatre may have been a later addition to what was already a large town. Also located there were a fortress, cisterns, an aqueduct, a triumphal arch, a theatre, and a basilica with a circular crypt . Coordinates 36.608598,10.169214 Description The amphitheatre, partly buried, measures 113 by 90 meters. The arena measures 58 by 35 metres, giving surface areas of 7988 and 1539 square metres respectively. There are four entrances, two main entrances at each end, with the seating area supported by three tiers of columns and arches. (Although these are no longer there, measurements and amphitheater descriptions rely on a complete building.) Measurements for the amphitheatre on site are 12 0 by 89 metres, with the arena measuring 67 by 36 metres. The surface areas measure 10680 an d 24...
Long Meg and her Daughters
Long Meg and her Daughters is a Bronze Age stone circle near Penrith in Cumbria, UK.
Coordinates
54.728013,2.667401
Description
The circle consists of 59 stones (of which 27 remain upright) set in an oval shape measuring 340 ft (100 m) on its long axis. The outside stone is known as Long Meg and is 12 ft (3.6 m) high and made from red sandstone. It is positioned 80 ft (25 m) to the southwest of the circle.
Long Meg is marked with examples of megalithic art, including a cup and ring mark, a spiral, and rings of concentric circles.
Circle
What seems like a complicated circle with most stones standings can be perceived as a slightly simpler code made from '1s' and '2s'.
These 1's and 2's are derived from angles which join the outer stones together. In this case, the start line is east/west at maximum tilt or 0°. This east/west line begins with an arrow shaped stone, the 2nd line is at 24° to the outside stone which is also marked with an arrow stone, the number 2,2,2,1,2,2 and 2,1,2,2,1 are produced.
If aligned together they appear as 2,2,2,1,2,2,2,1,2,2,1 which suggests a reducing sequence of 2221/2221/221, if this is the beginning then the rest of the sequence would be 221/21/21.
The sequence would appear as 2,2,2,1,2,2,2,1,2,2,1,2,2,1,2,1,2,1. As the angles are unknown, but the sequence is, then it just requires an angle that produces the sequence.
A similar marker is at 70° but isn't arrow shaped, this produces 1,1,2,1, this isn't part of the sequence but is considered as √(12) giving an angle of 3.46°.
√(12) from 1,1,2,1
√(12)=3.46°
Using 3.46° gives the required 2,2,1, and an angle of 42° from another prominent stone gives the 2,1,2,1.
Horizon
() 2,2,2,1,2,2
24°
2,1,2,2,1
70°
1,1,2,1
3.46°
2,2,1
42°
2,1,2,1
222122÷21221=10.467
√(12) from 1,1,2,1
√(12)=3.46°
Final sequence
2,2,2,1,2,2,2,1,2,2,1/221/21/21
The final 2,1,2,1 is from 42° derived from a stone to the outside stone, both left and right.
From here, the three angles 70°, 42° and 24° all cross the horizontal east/west except the 3.46°.
This angle narrows and meets the horizontal at a distance of 300 metres towards the west.
The area of this triangle is 2720m² and its perimeter is 618m.
The intersecting distances are 32m and 42m. If the meeting distance is '22', then it is 300-90, which is 210m (32+42+16).
This could suggest 10 as it is 210 plus 10, the difference increase, and hence 220 divided by 10 is equal to 22.
Conclusion
The circle is rather complicated in just depicting a reducing sequence, and as each part is obtained, a pyramid connection number appears like 10.46, 3.46, and 618.
This, along with root and location, would put it about the same age as the Callanish Standing Stones and its connected monuments in Dumfries and Galloway.
There are other possibilities giving numbers after the build of the Giza pyramids, differences, and angles of the lines are used. The most likely is 2252 as 2252 bc as it includes the number 22.
210×10+16=2116
2116+70+42+24=2252
(3.46×210)+(70×32)+(42×42)+(24×16)=5115
With this, a final number '52' is then associated with the final length of '16', together, this appears as 5216. If the area number is subtracted, a number of 2496 is produced.
5216-2720=2496
Also possible is the length multipled by the number of each part giving 5526. If this is considered as a coordinate, then the difference would put it 60kms towards the north.
(210×22)+(32)+(42)+(16×52)=5526
This last example as a polynomial in the form (1×x³)+(1×x²)+1=0 gives an alternative angle to the circle, which gives a number similar to the above.
(3.46³)+(3.46²)+1=54.39
This new number 54.39 is 0.33° less than the latitude for the site, which is 54.72° north.
The difference in angle for the site to be 54.39° would be 30 years earlier. This could just be maximum tilt in 1985, as coordinates are up to date. The angle is 0.05° (nearest number) and distance change of 366 metres.
These last two numbers could be as above, and they are numbers to subtract 2720, whose difference is 213 years.
5526 - 2720 = 2806
5439 - 2720 = 2719
As a decreasing sequence, they are 23/10 years apart; this is too big for a duration of build, but 230 subtracted from 2720 equals 2490. The other numbers from above are just possibilities. The polynomial suggests maximum tilt; the 5526 was similarly formed from the circle's differences. The 366-metre difference could be considered as 1 + 2.66, the 2.66° is the site's longitude.
This circle is linked to this polynomial and angle of 3.46°, and uses numbers from the building of the pyramids. The 23/10 as 230 could be as 2496 - 230 = 2266 BC, the year of build.
May2005.jpg){kind=link}
Archeology77 ©
Comments
Post a Comment