As a writer of books concerning such subjects as the Pyramids of Egypt or the Mayan Calendar, I have come to realise that the history of the world is clearly not as tidy as we are generally given to believe. Whilst it is, of course, the job and duty of historians and archaeologists to organise and categorise the past into an acceptable framework, this is seldom achieved cleanly. Inevitably assumptions are made and sometimes these can be so wide of the mark that they effectively turn history on its head. Often a clay pot, for example, can only be dated by reference to other clay pots whose style of manufacture and design seems to be similar. Provided these pots have an accepted date of manufacture, then the newly found one can be ascribed an age range that is comparable. This is how archaeology works. It is a painstaking process of investigation, analysis of finds, comparison with known data and deduction as to the significance of what has been found. Bit by bit, using these techniques, the jig-saw puzzle of man’s pre-historic past has been put together to form what is assumed to be a more or less coherent whole.

Now it is not to be denied that the development of archaeology over the past 150 years has been breathtaking. The achievements of titans such as Layard, Woolley, Mariette and, of course, Flinders-Petrie are colossal. However, it is also true that in order to recreate the past and set their finds into an acceptable chronology, these early archaeologists did at times cut corners. More particularly, they often had to ignore historical documents and finds that contradicted the grand scenario of world history that they were putting together.

Nowhere has this been more so than in the case of British archaeology which has, almost from the start, been dogged by a stubborn refusal of the ‘experts’ to countenance that there is anything positive to be gained from a study of such written records (mainly in Welsh) as have come down to us. In place of the accurate chronologies and dateable king-lists of these records, archaeologists have instead resorted to such vague terms as "Beaker folk" or "Wessex Culture" that tell us almost nothing about the people involved and serve only as a cover for profound ignorance.

The difficulty of gaining a proper understanding of the British past has been increased a hundredfold by the absurd use of the term "Celtic" to describe the peoples of Britain in the centuries before the Roman Conquest of 43 AD. In point of fact the ancient Britons never ever called themselves (and nor were they ever referred to by others as "Celts") until the term was appropriated and misused by a curator of the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford around 1700. There is no excuse for this. Julius Caesar, the first Roman General to visit Britain (in 55 and again in 54BC) tells us that the Celts were a people who in his time lived in Central Gaul. He distinguishes them from other residents of Gaul, such as the Belgae who lived in closer proximity to Britain, saying that they spoke a different language and had a different religion. Other ancient writers tell us that the Celts were a tall race of people with either blond or red hair who came from either Switzerland, Germany or even Scandinavia. Conversely, according to the VIth century historian Jordanes (quoting the now partially lost Annals of the 1^st century historian Cornelius Tacitus) the Silures of Southern Wales were a stocky race of people, Mediterranean in appearance with dark, curly hair. This description is still true of the native Welsh today. You have only to look at Tom Jones, Catherine Zeta Jones, Shirley Bassey or any gathering of Welsh miners to see that in the main the Welsh are not and never were "Celtic" as described by classical authors. This is not surprising as in point of fact the blond or red-headed Celts were of Scythian stock and would, paradoxically, have had far more in common with the later Scottish, Anglo-Saxon and Viking invaders of Britain than the aboriginal Britons of Caesar’s time.

This begs a question: if the ancient Britons weren’t Celts, who then were they and where did they come from? Well one way of finding an answer to this question is to see what earlier generations of Welsh authors had to say about their nation’s origins. These state with one accord that the Welsh—or rather the Cymry as they prefer to be called— came originally from Troy in Asia Minor. Some of these sources date back to the 9^th century and even earlier and therefore predate by many centuries Geoffrey of Monmouth’s "History of the Kings of Britain". Invariably they tell the same story: that a prince of the Royal House of Aeneas freed a remnant of the Trojans from slavery in Greece and brought them to Britain. According to these Welsh legends, Brutus founded London though this city was first called Trinovantum or ‘New Troy’. From Brutus, or so the annals and pedigrees tell us, descended the ancient line of pre-Roman and pre-Saxon Kings of Britain. He himself was buried at the Bryn Gwynn or "White Hill" on which now stands the central keep of the Tower of London.

This is the founding legend of Britain and while it may not seem very PC to today’s academics, it does have the enormous advantage over more modern theories of being what is written in all the history books prior to about 1700. It also explains why, in general appearance, the Welsh do not look "Celtic" in the classical sense but rather resemble Mediterranean peoples such as the Romans and Greeks. This, surely, is what one would expect of a people who came originally from Troy, i.e. what is now north-western Turkey.

This then is the scenario of traditional history: that pre-Roman Britain was a fundamentally civilized country, ruled over by a dynasty of Trojan ancestry from their capital city of Trinovantum. The question remains though: is there any evidence from outside of these Welsh records that these legends are based on truth? I believe that such evidence is to be found and it comes from a surprising source: the writings of Julius Caesar himself.

In 54 AD Caesar invaded Britain for the second time. In his Commentarii de Bello Gallico Julius Caesar he makes some interesting observations about the island including the somewhat strange suggestion that it was triangular in shape:

Caesar’s description of Britain as a triangle probably derived from Druidic sources. He himself only ever visited the south-east corner of the island and he tells us that even Gallic traders knew next to nothing about it except for its southern coast. Yet even a casual look at a true map of Britain reveals that his information was erroneous. Only in the most general terms can it be described as triangular and even then the dimensions he gives for the lengths of the coasts are wildly inaccurate. Thus at first site his map of Britain, if such we may call it, is all but useless.

[

However closer analysis of Caesar's figures reveals that they are based on a geometrical figure with extraordinary properties. Although the dimensions as given seem at first sight unpromising, if the lengths are each divided by 95, we see that the proportions of the sides of the triangle are 5:7:8. When drawn such a triangle looks like this:

Now if you know the relative lengths of the sides of any triangle then it is only a matter of simple trigonometry to ascertain its angles. This reveals that angle A (at the "corner" of Kent) must be 60º.

If we now drop a perpendicular from C to D, we get a right-angled triangle ACD. Since angle A is 60º, angle ACD has to be 30º. This is important as the 30:60:90 triangle is generated by the well-known figure of the Vesica Piscis, which is the basis of the ad-triangulum system of architecture. Also in any 30:60:90 triangle, the sides are in proportion 1:2: Ö3. Since AC = 8, this means AD = 4 and CD = 4Ö3. Thus the triangle ACD is half of an equilateral triangle of side 8 units.

The geometry implicit in Casear's map does not stop here. If we drop a perpendicular from B to E it creates another 30º:60º:90º triangle: ABE. The angle ABE is 30º and as AE has to be half the length of AB, it must be 2.5 units in length. If we subtract this length from AC we get the length of CE which come out at 5.5 units. Using double this length we can construct a square FGHI of side 11 units (see diagram 4). The length CB is 7 units long and if we draw a circle using this as its radius it will have the same perimeter as the square FGHI. In other words, the dimensions of the figurative island of Britain as revealed to Caesar are based on a diagram that enables the circle to be squared.

Using this diagram we can very easily construct a pyramid that is in direct proportion to the Great Pyramid of Giza, where the radius of the equivalent circle is the height of the pyramid and the sides form a square base of equal perimeter length.

The relative dimensions of the square and the circle are implicit in British units of measure to this day. For a circle with a diameter of seven yards will have a perimeter of 22 yards, i.e. 1 chain. The chain of 22 yards is not a measure that is much used these days but it is still the length of a cricket pitch. More commonly used is the furlong of 220 yards or 10 chains. The British mile is 8 furlongs or 80 chains in length.

How or when this knowledge was imported into Britain is not known for sure. However ancient British units of measure show close parallels with Egyptian units of measure and it was established as long ago as the 1960's by the late Professor Alexander Thom that stone circles in Britain were based on complex geometry. The Royal cubit of Egypt, 7 "palms" in length, is very close to being 21 British inches in length (20.62). The standard cubit of 6 palms would therefore be 18", which is half a yard. Thus a British chain is 44 standard cubits in length. A circle of 7 yards diameter therefore produces a square of perimeter 44 Egyptian cubits. This seems unlikely to be a coincidence.

The megaliths in Britain indicate a connection with high civilization in the period 3100-2100, contemporaneous with "Old Kingdom" Egypt. The description of Britain as an idealised triangle that gives the measure of the Great Pyramid may therefore go back to either the time when Stonehenge, Avebury and other Neolithic monuments were built: the Pyramid Age, or it may have been the work of later "Trojans", who traditional British history says sought refuge in the island of Britain two generations after the Trojan war.

The ancient city of Troy: or rather Ilium as it is more properly called, was the capital of a province called the ‘Troad’. This formed the north-western peninsular of Anatolia from which the Britons claimed to have originally come. The Troad is an almost perfect equilateral triangle of side roughly 50 miles that stretches from the ancient city of Dardanus (on the Dardanelles), along Aegean Coast to Cape Lekton, from there along the Gulf of Edremit to Adromittium and finally back overland to Dardanus. The Troad is said by the Greeks to have been so named after an ancestor of the Trojans called ‘Troas’. However inspection of the map would suggest otherwise: that Troad really meant ‘triangle land’ in the language of the Trojans.

This has relevance to out study of Britain. According to Nennius, the ninth century historian, Caesar fought his "Battle of the Ford" outside ‘Trinovantum’. Caesar himself refers to the tribe of Britons living in the region of what we now call London as the "Trinovantes". According to all traditional histories Trinovantum is the ancient name of London. It is said to mean "New Troy". Now, as we have seen, Caesar describes the island of Britain as being triangular. It is therefore tempting to think that the name Trinovantum originally applied to Britain as a whole and was later transferred to London as the capital city in the same way that Ilium, the capital of the Troad, came to be known simply as Troy.