Philologist claims single ancient measurement system

Philologist claims single ancient measurement system

What if Sumer, Egypt, Phoenicia, Greece and Rome did not each have their own measurement systems, but shared a single, identical one? This is the thesis defended for fourteen years by a Philology graduate and Historical Metrology researcher, author of a reconstruction of the so-called Anthropometric Measurement System. Its central unit—the Man—equates, according to his proposal, to 24 Palms, or 1.80 meters. The proposal, presented in an interview on Debate Uruguay and a lecture at the Ateneo Mercantil de Valencia (Valencia Mercantile Athenaeum), argues that this common pattern was used in architecture, geography and astronomy, leaving its mark on both the Great Pyramid and the Parthenon.

The researcher does not ask for faith: he asks that sources be read. He cites Girard (1809, p. 14), Lepsius (1884, p. 6), Iversen (1975, pp. 18-19) and Gros de Beler (2006, p. 103), stating that all wrote that the Man equals 24 Palms and 1.80 meters. The work rests on three pillars: texts describing the system, ancient rules preserved in various locations, and the human model that served as its central unit, which still exists.

What is debated when proportion is discussed

The conversation quickly turned into a fundamental clash: whether architectural projects are defined by dimensions or proportions. Some argue that proportion is the heart of artistic creation and that a large circle is identical to a small one: what varies are dimensions, not relationships. From that logic, temples or statues function with ratios—3, 4 and 5—and it matters little if the unit is the palm, the cubit or the meter.

The counterargument comes from construction practice: architecture has utility and a program of needs. A sports pavilion measuring 30x40x10 centimeters serves no purpose; it must be in meters. Proportion does not replace measurement, it requires it. Here enters the researcher’s argument: historical plans and drawings show scales in French fathoms (toesas) and Castilian varas, proving, he says, that the measurement system was part of the project document.

---

The pyramid, the royal cubit and the common standard

The design of the Great Pyramid has generated endless debate among specialists. The researcher refers to a key book, The Shape of the Great Pyramid, by Canadian mathematician Roger Herz-Fischler, which reviews all geometric models proposed throughout history to explain its form. The discussion on the building's angle and dimensions is not resolved with a single figure, and this is where the anthropometric system aims to intervene.

In parallel, another line of work appears: the existence of a common measure linking Babylonian, Egyptian and Greek systems, attributed in the conversation to Mr. Louis Chesnut of the American University of Milwaukee. If true, there would be a shared pattern between civilizations distant in time and geography, reinforcing the thesis of a single origin. The connection extends, in some messages, to Tiahuanaco and Easter Island, though the researcher himself remains cautious: he prefers not to speak about what he has not studied thoroughly.

Pharaonic canon and the Man in I, Y and X

One of the most concrete contributions of the exchange concerns the pharaonic canon. In ancient Egypt, particularly referencing the Temple of Luxor in Karnak, Egyptians allegedly excluded the man from their measurements, requiring nuance on how the human model was applied in practice. The researcher responds that the evolution of the Man in I, Y and X is explained in an interview for Zona Historia, starting at minute 20:45 of the first part.

The discussion also touches on the historical transmission of the system. Against the idea that each culture had its own standard, the thesis defends that there was a single anthropometric system that traveled and was preserved. The classic quote summarizing this logic is from Mayora (1855): "Man is the unit of Earth's measures and Earth is the unit of the Universe's measures." First the body, then the ground, then the sky.

Fourteen years, a desk and a French historian

The personal aspect weighs heavily in the narrative. The researcher states he has spent fourteen years—from 2011 to 2025—trying to publicize the work, dealing with health issues since 2008, and denounces that since 2023 a French historian has been spreading what he considers falsehoods about him and his research. He asks for help to get the material off his desk, reach specialists and go viral, offering his Academia page with nearly two hundred articles organized by topic.

The work has echoed in media. A note signed by journalist Helen da Silva covered the proposal, and an Argentine outlet published the article "From Vitruvian Man to the Great Pyramid: a revolution in the History of Measures," trinc the discovery of Vitruvius's basilica in Fano (Italy). The researcher celebrated this as pogre. Others recommend he leave niche circuits and seek broader audiences, with more cordiality and less noise.

The resident skeptic

The most repeated objection does not deny the data: it denies the relevance. It argues that something measuring one meter will continue to measure one meter, regardless of the unit, and that the measurement system does not change dimensions, proportions or angles of anything. From that position, knowing in which unit a building was designed is scholarly curiosity, not an explanation of how it was built.

The researcher responds with the scheme of architecture's three stages: design—measurement system and geometric layouts—, process—materials and techniques—, and result—finished building and subsequent modifications—. His contribution lies in the first stage, arguing that without it, one cannot understand how the building was conceived. The discussion, for now, remains exactly there: whether the design is part of the mystery or the whole mystery.