by Charles William Johnson

Today, we think of art and science as representing two diametrically opposed fields of human endeavor. With counted exceptions, the people who are dedicated to one field or the other are at opposite ends of the personality chain. One either does science or art, but seldom both. The artwork of the ancient past is thought to be wholly on the side of art, with little or nothing to do with science. At best, it may be conceded that some architectural constructions may have required a high level of engineering skill, but even that is thought to have been within the realm of technology and not science as such. Furthermore, there are those who persistently refuse to consider any contribution to science by the ancient cultures.

In our studies of science in ancient artwork, we have come to realize that we know very little about the inner workings of the ancient past. We have no knowledge of the computational math behind much of the ancient artwork and ancient reckoning systems. Such documents as the Rhind Papyrus, deal with common household computations, although it is cited as an example of the computational math involved in mathematics of ancient Egypt. Hardly anything is known about the mathematics of other cultures, such as the maya system.

The absence of such knowledge does not impede the dissemination of wide held views about the worth (or lack of worth) of ancient science. In fact, the very concept of science is all but thought to have been non-existent then by most scholars now. There are many exceptions, whereby scholars and laymen alike are attempting to unveil the way in which ancient cultures functioned, not only at the level of archaeological digs, but at the level of abstracted, theoretical thinking.

Many theories and ideas exist regarding a possible relationship among the different archaeological sites around the world embracing many different cultures. Those societies that constructed pyramidal structures are often thought to have come from the same source. The reasoning questions the coincidence of all those pyramids having been built without there having been some kind of shared source of knowledge. Simply, why did all those ancient cultures think of building pyramids; why didn't some of them build structures into the ground instead of upwards to the sky; or, why didn't some of them build vast flat platforms as far as the eye could see; and so on. The similar characteristics of the pyramidal structures around the world cause one to think that they all came from the same school of thought.

For that reason many of these structures are researched in an isolated fashion, as of the culture in which they exist, without relating a structure of one culture with another from a distinct culture. Comparative analyses are made at times, but usually with the purpose of denying any relationship among the cultures being compared. Exceptions, however, do exist, as we shall review briefly below.

No historical evidence exists that proves these ancient pyramidal structures were related to one another, other than the historical fact that they all existed in the framework of the ancient past. But, the shared trait of having existed in the past is nothing more than circumstantial evidence to many scholars, ergo, meaning no evidence at all.

The first person we ever heard speak about a grid system for the entire planet was Hugh H. Harleston, Jr, back in 1974 in Mexico City. His analysis of the site of Teotihuacan and the subsequent discovery of markers placed throughout the Western Hemisphere, lead him to propose the idea that theTeotihuacan site, in fact, was based on a geodesic grid. In our analyses of the Teotihuacan site some twenty-odd years later, we visualized a grid system based on the geometrical designs within the pyramidal structures of that site. More recently, we have published other considerations regarding basic designs of a grid system within the Teotihuacan site and that of Giza. (Cfr., Earth/matriX, Essay Nos. 83, 85).

Our analyses are based mainly on the numbers of the series of perfect right triangles (Cfr., Earth/matriX, Essay No. 64: "the 3-4-5 Perfect Right Triangle: 5-12-13 and 6-8-10). The perspective that we have followed is that of considering the pyramidal structures within a specific site to other pyramidal structures within that same site. We have compared this internal view of the layout of the structures, without any regard to the placement of the sites on the longitudinal and latitudinal coordinates of the planet.

Carl P. Munck, in his work entitled, The Code, analyzed and compared the coordinate system of the different pyramidal sites around the world. In his analysis, he has assigned the site of Giza, of ancient Egypt (kemi) the starting point for his grid system or, pyramidal matrix as he refers to it. In time, his work is being recognized as having posited the idea of a matrix corresponding to the layout for all or most of the major pyramidal sites around the world, irrespective of the particular culture involved. Personally, I know of no one else who has studied in detail the maps of these sites and related their coordinates on the globe in the manner in which Carl P. Munck has done so.

We shall examine, in a much less detailed manner, possible relationships and characteristics among some of the ancient pyramidal structures and sites around the world. Even if one shows the pyramidal sites to be related as of the geometry of a circle and a sphere (in terms of degrees, radians and the concept of pi), the logic of numbers is insufficient to convince most readers of the conscious design behind the placement of those sites. In our discussion, we shall rely more on the geometry of design than upon the mathematics to discern possible relationships among the different sites. Obviously, we cannot prove that the ancient sites were related, but the discussion may be suggestive of the need for such a proof. Most scholars believe that the different sites are unrelated to begin with, and therefore need no proof.

EVENTPOINT COSMOGEOGRAPHY Eventpoint Cosmogeography, a new study, opens up a distinct line of inquiry into the geography of the Earth.  Charles William Johnson, from Earth/matriX, Science Today, questions the theory of continental drift by examining the distances between geographical extreme points and selected cosmogeographical event points. The translation and centrosymmetries of geographical coordinate points suggest the fact that the continents undergo movement, but that they have not drifted randomly on the face of the Earth for the past 250 million years as proposed by Alfred Wegener nearly a century ago. The symmetry between extremepoints and eventpoints illustrated in this study suggests that continental drift theory must be reconsidered, possibly abandoned. Eventpoint Cosmogeography A Study in Relating Event Point Cosmogeography and Extreme Point Geography Earth/matriX Editions ISBN 1-58616-432-5 Purchase in Amazon 344 Pages Fully illustrated with drawings. Price: $8.99 US