Part of Deep Time Research Institute · All Research · Papers

Results

Per-Database Z-Scores — Land-Constrained Monte Carlo

Z-score at 50 km threshold under land-constrained Monte Carlo simulation (N=10,000 trials). All databases corrected for coastal bias.

UNESCO (871)
1.92
1.92
p3k14c (36,693)
2.09
2.09
XRONOS (28,127)
5.91
5.91
Pleiades pre-2000 BCE (778)
6.45
6.45
Pleiades monuments (406)
6.74
6.74
Megalithic Portal merged (61,913)
8.77
8.77

Land-constrained baselines reject ocean placements via Natural Earth 1:10M land mask. See methodology § 5b for the correction protocol.

Higgs boson discovery threshold: Z = 5. Medical trial threshold: Z ≥ 2.

Age Dependence

Older sites cluster more strongly on the circle. This holds across both databases independently.

Megalithic Portal

Prehistoric
Z = 20.86
20.86
Later periods
Z = 8.30
8.30

Ratio: 2.51× stronger for prehistoric sites

Pleiades Gazetteer

Pre-2000 BCE
Z = 10.68
10.68
All periods
Z = 3.84
3.84

Z at 25 km threshold. Independent replication.

Type Enrichment

Percentage of each site type that falls within 50 km of the circle:

Top Types by Circle Proximity

Geoglyphs
24.4%
24.4%
Pyramids
16.4%
16.4%
Ancient Temples
6.2%
6.2%
Mines / Quarries
4.9%
4.9%
Palaces
2.9%
2.9%
Carvings
2.7%
2.7%
Earthworks
2.5%
2.5%
Standing Stones
2.2%
2.2%
Settlements
1.7%
1.7%
Passage Graves
 
0.0%

Settlement Baseline Test

The critical geographic control — are all types enriched, or just monumental ones?

Monumental vs. Settlement Sites (Pleiades, ancient only)

Monumental (185 sites)
Z = 6.74
6.74
Settlements (414 sites)
 
−2.91
Monumental enrichment 2.52×
Settlement enrichment anti-clustered
Z-score difference 9.65

Interpretation: If the circle simply traced fertile geography, settlements would cluster on it too. They don't. The signal is specific to monumental architecture — pyramids, temples, and geoglyphs — not to where people lived.

The Clusters

Corrected 2026-08-23. This section previously described eight clusters. The site set it drew on included OpenStreetMap and Wikidata records, which are not part of the eight-database analysed corpus — OSM having been excluded after an audit found bulk satellite imports inflating its counts. Restricted to the analysed corpus, the corridor holds 1,688 sites in three concentrations: Peru/Andes (1,655), Egypt/Levant (29) and Iran (4). Easter Island, Indus Valley, Southeast Asia and Amazon/Brazil contained no sites from those databases and are no longer shown. The table below is retained as a record of the superseded structure and its counts should not be cited.

Cluster Sites Share Oldest Key sites
Egypt / Levant 315 8.6% ~7000 BCE Giza, Siwa, Petra, Nazareth, EES & BORDERSCAPE sites
Peru / Andes 2,467 67.7% ~3600 BCE Nazca Lines, Palpa, Cusco, Ministry of Culture sites
Easter Island 153 4.2% ~700 CE Moai platforms (ahu)
Amazon / Brazil 62 1.7% ~1000 CE Tapajós sites, Acre geoglyphs, Marajó earthworks
Iran / Persia 44 1.2% ~5000 BCE Persepolis, Pasargadae, Tall-e Bakun
Indus Valley 164 4.5% ~2500 BCE Mohenjo-daro, Harappan sites in Sindh
Southeast Asia 143 3.9% ~1250 CE Sukhothai, Preah Vihear, That Nang Ing
Other 297 8.1% Various Kebar Valley, Caution Bay, North Africa

Pre-Construction Evidence — withdrawn

This section asserted that each cluster includes sites predating known cultural contact between regions, and tabulated them. It has been withdrawn (2026-08-23) for two reasons. The claim was refuted by its own table, whose youngest entries (Easter Island ~700 CE, Amazon ~1000 CE, Southeast Asia ~1250 CE) fall well inside the period of known contact. And the data file built to carry per-site pre-construction evidence (enriched_sites.json) held 3,489 empty records and has been deleted.

Summary

6.74 Monument Z-score (LC)
−2.91 Settlement Z-score
9.65 Divergence
2.52× Monument enrichment (LC)

The pattern is statistically overwhelming, age-dependent, type-specific, and independently replicated across multiple independent databases. It is not explained by geographic coincidence. The mechanism remains unknown.

Paper 2 Findings

The following figures are from the companion study From Migration to Monumentality: The Alison Great Circle as a 60,000-Year Human Corridor (Allan 2026). That manuscript was withdrawn from peer review on 2026-08-21 and has no current venue; the DOI below is its preprint deposit, and the preprint's title differs from the description above. All analyses use distribution-matched Monte Carlo simulation (10,000 iterations) against latitude-profile-matched random great circles. Preprint on Zenodo →  |  Explore the interactive migration map →

Figure 1 (world map) has been withdrawn. It rendered a monument enrichment of 5.05× and Z = 11.83 — the unconstrained values, superseded by the land-constrained 2.52× and Z = 6.74 — and a significant agricultural result that is in fact null. Withdrawn 2026-08-23; not regenerated.
Figure 2 (monument–settlement divergence) has been withdrawn. Its chart showed 5.05× and Z = +11.83 / −0.95 while its own caption gave the corrected 2.5× and Z = −2.91, and its title claimed seven databases while plotting four. Withdrawn 2026-08-23; not regenerated.
Figure 3 (temporal layering) has been withdrawn. It rendered Z = 11.83 for the Bronze Age and marked an agricultural result significant that the canonical record lists as null (p = 0.57). Withdrawn 2026-08-23; not regenerated.
Figure 4: Egypt close-up with Ahramat Branch intersection
Figure 4. Great Circle–Ahramat Branch intersection in the Memphis necropolis. Compound probability p = 0.00016.
Figure 5: Directional Ripley's K clustering analysis
Figure 5. Directional Ripley’s K-function. Pyramids are arranged along the Great Circle axis (parallel/perpendicular ratio = 0.08, p < 0.0001).