Yes ... I know 2.718281828 is 'e' .... but for some reason, this figure doesn't "reveal itself" ... I mean specifically, 'precisely' ... in the 'Archaeomatrix' itself.
Interesting. I wonder why it doesn't reveal itself precisely in the matrix ? There is a figure close to 'e' ... 2.719715671 ... that Munck calls "The Megalithic Yard in Feet" ... the precise length in Feet of Alexander Thom's "Megalithic Yard".
This figure ... 2.719715671 ... is the Square Root of the "Master Giza Longitude" (Munck) of ... 7.396853329 (sec) E.Giza .... arc-seconds East of the Giza prime meridian. That longitude-line runs right across the apexes of the three small 4-sided pyramids located just to the east of The Great Pyramid. Is it possible that the "base of the natural log" was a bit "higher" at the time the "matrix" was laid down ? Could that 'base' have been a bit higher in "frequency" or "wavelength" at that time ? ... say ... in 10500 B.C. ? Or ... is the base of the natural log a purely *un-changing geometric* value ?