This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Mediæval weights and measures

This article was taken from part of the former article Historical weights and measures, which was move to Ancient weights and measures. As a result, some of the discussion & history for Medieval weights etc. may be found in Talk:Ancient weights and measures

The reason for splitting the articles was simply size - over 41Kb. It is intended that these articles are closely linked. Ian Cairns 17:12, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't there better be separate articles for each system/country/culture instead? After all many of the units or measures in this article may actually have been used in the Middle Ages and thus be medieval, but most of the definitions given are 17th to 19th century, i.e. modern era. Of course there are many connections that should be highlighted by hyperlinks—some even say all human systems before the metric one were related (megalithic yard etc.). Crissov 15:01, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Looks to me like one basic problem is a poor choice of terminology by whoever split "historical" into "medieval" and "ancient" leaving that gap above "medieval". Gene Nygaard 16:24, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Move English system?

"Shouldn't there better be separate articles ... ?" asks Ian Cairns. I say "Yes."

I've just created an English unit page. Perhaps (the bulk of) the section on English units could be moved there.

In fact ... what are we waiting for? I'm doing just that. It should be done for the others too. User:Jimp 13Jul05

rktect 8/3/05 If you are going to reorganize how about looking at organizing by the history of the units themselves rather than by the history of the various countries that adopted them.

No, that is not a good idea, for reasons I have stated many times. -- Egil 13:31, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

No, I agree with Egil. I don't think that that's such a great idea either. You'd loose the sense of the measurement system. User:Jimp 6Aug05

rktect 8/6/05 Not if you did it properly

so that for example you put the units in as a system

and then compare their value for the people who used that system

I have put up a couple of pages with a table like this

Table of Unit Comparisons

Jemdet Nasr Units	Dilmun	Elam	Sumer	Akad	Mycenian	Egypt	Notes
Dilmun fingers	šu 15	?	?	?	?	?
Elamite fingers	?	šusi 16.67	?	?	?	?
Sumerian fingers	?	?	shusi 17.67	?	?	?
Akkadian fingers	?	?	?	sheshi 20	?	?
Egyptian fingers	?	?	?	?	?	db 18.75
Mycenean fingers	?	?	?	?	?	daktylos 19.275
thumbs	18	20	21.2	uban 24	?	mtr 22.5	?	mtr = precise
condylos	30	33.3	35.3	40	37.5	38.55
palms	60	66.67	70.67	shepsi 80	?	ssp 75	?
hands	qat 75	83.33	88.33	100	?	drt 93.75	?
fists	90	100	106	120	?	amm 112.5	?
spans	šu-dù-a 150	zipaþ 166.67	zapaþ šu.bad 176.67	200	?	spd 187.5	?
feet	?	?	?	300	?	bw 300	?	bw = 1 ft
remen	?	?	?	353.53	?	rmn 375	?
small cubits	?	?	?	500	?	mh 450	?
large cubits	?	?	?	nibw 600	?	mh 525	?	ni bw = 2 ft
double remen	?	?	?	707	?	rmn750

Removed content

The following content by anon rktect has been removed (between the horizontal lines, below). It is basically ramblings vaguely about the subject that are unsubstatiated, probably the authors original reseearch, plus statements that either have no meaning or as outright false. I tried to verify the claim about Abbe Mouton claims, for instance, and it seems their origin is from the anti-metric movement, claiming that the imperial system is just as metric as the frog-eater system, since they are all based on Sumerian measures. Or something of that sort. Anyway, there was a Mouton, but his real name was Gabriel Mouton. He was an abbot (hence the confusion with Abbe which of course is French for abbot), and definitely worth an article. (I have just started). -- Egil 13:31, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

rktect 8/5/05

You should better research and cite your sources Egil.

What I contributed was from Klein and refers to the well known Abbe Mouton

who was the gentleman who first proposed the metric system.

English may not be your first language, so I try not to be harsh

but here is the essence of your complaint

"This individual is talking about a lot of things I have little or no knowledge of"

What I have written is not "basically ramblings" but cites from sources

The Sources I have cited are not unsubstantiated

When you attribute to me as "original research" things that have been

in publication through half a dozen reprints it makes me wonder

what you have for credentials in this field whose work you are so critical of.

You are apparently unaware of the main body of mensurational discussion

for the last couple of centuries

I think its possible you would enjoy learning about measures

but have too many other intersts to spend the time to make yourself conversant

with the most basic research in the field.

rktect 8/6/05

Added a correction note to the page on Norway which seems

full of mistakes and eroneous information such as that

there were no standards of measure prior to 1578 when

in fact the rast and mil go back to the time of the Vikings.

Medieval systems of weights and measures arose from earlier systems.

From Medieval guilds and trade associations to banks, and from church to state, everyone had vested interests in keeping weights and measures the same. Over time even non essential changes, like the definition of the inch as three barleycorns, caused widespread confusion and concern. Every time they changed they changed to the advantage of one group and the detriment of another.

Whenever things were changed, as by a king ordering churchgoers to stand in line so the average of their feet could form the basis of a new standard, the essential parts of much older systems were retained by the competant administrators and judges because they defined property.

One example of how this worked occured during the French Revolution when French revolutionaries attempted to use the confusion of definitions to their advantage in order to overthrow the feudal system. They conspired to further confuse the definition of ancient obligations of land in return for service, through their support of the expert authority of various savants who were busily modifying the ancient standards of measure into the metric system.

Up to then it had always been counted among the divine rights of kings and popes to establish the standards of what was right and proper and equitable. Now the ability of scientists to measure weigh and judge accurately made it difficult if not impossible for church and state to simply decree rather than measure, weigh and judge by the standards of science what was due them.

This made it somewhat difficult to establish and collect their tithes and taxes without turning to the experts for the arbitration of disputes.

Earlier during the crusades many Europeans had encountered familiar units of measure in the Ancient Near East. By the Renaisance the study of Greek and Roman measures and cannons of proportion had been extended to the study of Egypt.

Sir Issac Newton was only one of many medieval scholars fascinated by the stability of earlier systems that it was thought might be resablished and overcome the confusion of the Middle Ages as to what should be the proper standard for the common system.

The French Metric Sytem which re-introduced the innovative concept of decimalizing the ancient standards as the Greeks had done was first proposed by the Abbe Mouton in 1670.

The British Imperial System Imperial system arose out of an attempt to resist the adoption of the Metric System in Europe because it was clearly being used to undermine the foundation of the kings right to rule or establish the standards.

The metric system itself had come out of Napoleons savants attempting to restablish the Ancient measures that they had found reference to in Egypt. SI.

xxx English System xxx

The English Myle and its subdivisions of length, area and volume was derived from the Greek Milos which spread widely through Europe North from the Danube as far West as the Rhine by about 800 BC.

Within a millenia the Romans had substituted the Milliare for the Milos everywhere to the west of that. The so calledAnglo-Saxon (Germanic) system of measure based on the units of the barleycorn and the gyrd (rod) were traced by the Roman surveyor Hyginus Gromaticus back to Claudius Ptolomy as the Romans first entered Germanica.

Normanized Roman units from Hispania and Gaul introduced further modifications after 1066 under the influence of William the Conqueror.

The English mile and its subdivisions of length, area and volume was derived from the Greek Milos which spread widely through Europe North from the Danube as far West as the Rhine by about 800 BC.

Within a millennium the Romans had substituted the milliare for the milos everywhere to the west of that. The so called Anglo-Saxon (Germanic) system of measure based on the units of the barleycorn and the gyrd (rod) were traced by the Roman surveyor Hyginus Gromaticus back to Claudius Ptolomaeus as the Romans first entered Germanica.

Normanized Roman units from Hispania and Gaul introduced further modifications after 1066 under the influence of William the Conqueror.

Later development of the English system continued by defining the units by law in the Magna Carta of 1215, and issuing measurement standards from the then capital Winchester. Standards were renewed in 1496, 1588 and 1758.

The last Imperial Standard Yard in bronze was made in 1845; it served as the standard in the United Kingdom until the yard was internationally redefined as 0.9144 metre in 1959 (statutory implementation there: Weights and Measures Act of 1963).

Much of the units would go on to be used in later Imperial units and in the U.S. system, which are based on the English system from the 1700s