[dentificatio)i of the British Lick as the Unit of Measure. 145 



of the British measures which were used by the Mound Builders, 

 as we see, and by the ancient Egyptians. So that in these mound 

 constructions, we not only have the peculiar play of numbers com- 

 mon to the old Chaldeans and Egy])tians, but also the same numbers 

 applicable with the same identical unit of measure, viz.: the British 

 inch. Let us explain this. It is objected to the British measures that 

 they are imperfect, because, in the make up of the rod, a fractional 

 number of yards and feet is made use of. The objection is a very 

 shortsighted one. 16.5 feet, or 5.5 yards make one rod. The 

 aere is made by a rectangle 5280 feet, or one mile in length, by 

 the half of one rod in width, or 8.25 feet, and 640 of these rec- 

 tangles make one square miie. It will be observed that the length 

 of one mile is 528 feet multiplied by 10; also, that the half of one 

 rod is 8.25 feet, which, as a iiin/il)er, reads as the reverse or inverse 

 of 528, indicating in feet the loth'of one mile. Is this peculiarity 

 of inverse arrangement chance, or purposed ? The latter, for they 

 are changes derived from a common source, which numerically 

 connects itself with the proportional elements of the circle, and 

 those of the especial circle of 360 degrees alluded to. Divide 

 5280 by 256 and the tjuotient will be 20625, and divide 825 by 4 

 and the quotient will be 20625, '^l^^' very number of the reported 

 measure of the Nilometer Cubit. Thus, the number 20.625, in re- 

 lation to our British mile, is an essential part thereof as a common fac- 

 tor in the make up of its denominations of measure, while 20.625 -^• 

 inches is, as seen measured as the recovery of the ancient Egyptian 

 Nilometer Cubit. But the relation extends further. The late John A. 

 Parker discovered the integral proportional relation, numerically, 

 of circumference to diameter of a circle to be 20612 to 6561, the 

 latter being the square of 81, which is the square of 9, which is the 

 square of 3. 'Hiis 20612, as 20.612 B. inches, has been shown to 

 be the recovery of another ancient Egyptian Cubit, called the 

 Turin cubit,* out of which springs the other or Nilometer cubit, 

 thus: 20.612 B. inches : 6.561 :: 64.8 : 20.6264700 inches or the 

 Nilometer cubit, in the last two terms of which proportion, we 

 recognize the numbers mentioned above. 



Now therefore, at the very center of a system of every variety 



*Thi-; Egyptian cubit measure, in the Turin Musevxin, wjs measured with microscopic 

 accuracy, by Bidone and Plana, ami found to be .523524 of the French meter, or 20.61172 

 -j- Britisli inclies ; evidently from a o^reat number ot tests, and lor convincing reasons, 

 one o! the two royal cubits, viz.: 20.612 inclies, the other, as shown below, being 

 20.62647 inches. 



