What is physically present?
Begin with survey points, construction phases, orientation, and uncertainty.
Curated research hub
Temples and sites
How the collection is organised
Famous pyramids first; comparative sites widen the method.
Eight famous Egyptian pyramids now form a linked comparison set, including explicit stepped and bent-shape assumptions. Nine further sites widen the method across other cultures. Recognition opens the door; measured geometry, native units, negative results, and clearly labelled interpretation determine what each study can responsibly say.
EGMathematical RatiosGiza, EgyptGreat Pyramid of GizaPetrie's reconstructed casing base is separated from the 440-by-280-
cubit model, showing how one practical slope generates the
seked and two celebrated ratio comparisons.Working measureEgyptian royal cubitPattern440 by 280 cubits; 14:11 half-profile; 5½-palm
sekedEG3:4:5 face triangleGiza, EgyptPyramid of KhafreA near-rival to Khufu's pyramid whose representative original dimensions resolve into a particularly clear rational face triangle.Model215.25 m base; 143.50 m heightPatternHalf-base : height : slant = 3 : 4 : 5EGNear-φ exploratory matchGiza, EgyptPyramid of MenkaureThe smallest main pyramid at Giza shows how a declared tolerance changes which proportional patterns enter the comparison set.Model108.50 m base; 65.50 m heightPatternNear φ slant and 2π perimeter within ±0.5EGStepped-envelope modelSaqqara, EgyptStep Pyramid of DjoserEgypt's first pyramid requires a rectangular, stepped comparison rather than forcing six stacked mastabas into a smooth square-pyramid formula.Model121 × 109 m base; 62.50 m heightPatternTwo face axes; no single slant ratioEGTwo-slope reconstructionDahshur, EgyptBent PyramidThe most visibly irregular famous pyramid turns a design change into the main calculation rather than smoothing it away.Model188.60 m base; 104.71 m heightPatternLower and upper slopes calculated separatelyEGShallow true-pyramid profileDahshur, EgyptRed PyramidOn Dahshur's desert plateau, Sneferu's northern pyramid carries a continuous shallow face above a broad square base.Envelope220 m base; about 105 m original heightFace43.67° reconstructed; seked about 7.33 palmsEGReconstructed smooth formMeidum, EgyptPyramid of MeidumA collapsed and repeatedly altered monument produces Giza-like ratio results, while making the uncertainty of reconstructed dimensions impossible to ignore.Model144.00 m base; 92.00 m heightPatternNear 2π and phi within ±0.5EG5⁄3 exploratory matchSaqqara, EgyptPyramid of UnasA small Old Kingdom pyramid whose historical importance lies inside: the earliest surviving royal Pyramid Texts, not a close pi or phi result.Model57.75 m base; 43.00 m heightPatternSlant ratio near 5⁄3 within ±0.5GRContested Greek moduleAthens, GreeceThe Parthenon and AcropolisThe most famous test case for Greek architectural proportion
is also a warning against forcing a preferred foot or golden
ratio onto every dimension.Working measureAttic or other candidate Greek
footPatternA recurring 4:9 family appears in major
dimensions and column spacingITRoman spatial geometryRome, ItalyThe PantheonA spherical interior concept, a vast concrete dome, and Roman
modular practice meet in one of antiquity’s clearest geometric
experiences.Working measureRoman pes and subdivisionsPatternThe 43.30 m interior diameter equals the height
to the dome apexGBSolar geometry and unit debateWiltshire, EnglandStonehengeThe world’s best-known prehistoric stone circle combines
strong solar geometry with the enduring and disputed claim
that megalith builders shared a standard yard.Working measureMegalithic yard hypothesis, 0.829
mPatternConcentric settings and a midsummer-sunrise to
midwinter-sunset axisKHModules and numerical claimsSiem Reap, CambodiaAngkor WatA temple-mountain in a hydraulic landscape, with a published
2.75 metre planning model and a careful distinction between
numerical fit and a fixed Khmer standard.Working measure2.75 m planning modulePatternSeven enclosures, 60:72 model, and proposed
modular readingsEGPhased Egyptian architectureLuxor, EgyptKarnak Temple ComplexA long-lived sacred landscape makes continuity and change in
Egyptian building practice impossible to ignore.Working measureRoyal cubit, palms, and digitsPatternAxial planning and repeated modules vary across
building campaignsIQMesopotamian scaleUr, southern IraqZiggurat of UrMonumental mud-brick architecture connects scribal measures,
brick production, labour, and the managed geometry of
platforms.Working measureNippur-cubit family and nindanPatternTerraces, stairways, brick modules, and
sexagesimal scaleGREvidence gap statedOlympia, GreeceThe Stadium at OlympiaA 600-foot racecourse set within Olympia's sanctuary landscape and ritual route.Working measureOlympic pous and 600-foot stadionResult600 Olympic feet; 192.3 m ± 0.9 m working modelGRRegional Greek moduleAegina, GreeceTemple of AphaiaLess famous than the Parthenon, Aphaia earns its place
because it gives a focused test of a larger regional Greek
foot.Working measureAeginetan pousPatternA regional foot tested against one coherent
temple planTRHellenistic city and landscapeBergama, TürkiyePergamonRecognition yields here to metrological interest: a royal
hill city connects architectural modules, terrain, long sight
lines, and engineered water.Working measurePhiletaeric pousPatternTerraces, steep theatre, sight lines, and
pressure-fed water across a hill city
Beyond one building
When the measured object is the distance between sites.
Eratosthenes’ Alexandria-to-Syene baseline turns route knowledge and stadia into a planetary calculation. The surviving method is brilliant; the exact modern length of his stadion is not settled.
Reading discipline
Every site uses the same three-part test.
Which unit is historically plausible?
Use a sourced regional standard. When the unit is reconstructed, the label and uncertainty remain visible.
What does the pattern establish?
A numerical fit establishes a relationship. Cultural meaning and design intention need additional evidence.