Talk:Ancient Roman weights and measures/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This 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.
This is, of course, the talk page of the article Ancient Roman units of measurement.
However Jimp and me (Paul Martin) discussed here firstly the digital or hexadecimal foot.
Later on, we decided to separate the two discussions, but some back-links refer also to here.
If you are arriving from one of these pages, please see:  Talk:Hexadecimal metric system.


Please see ancient weights and measures for previous edit history and discussions wrt this article.

Newer discussions:

Archive I   (archived for making place for further talks.)   -- Paul Martin 18:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Archive II   (Topo: Impossible precision, older replies.)   -- Paul Martin 12:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


Contents

Impossible precision

Suite:

Hi Jimp, eventually my reply on the topo. I put the first part of our talk into an archive.

What do you think about these notes under the table, by keeping your 296 mm value:


Notes:

The value: 296 millimetres for the Roman foot is a usual rounding to the closest integer millimetre precision. A correct usual value, nearby the length really used by ancient Romans.
However, the value of the historical Roman foot scientifically obtained by modern statistical methodes is 296.2 mm ± 0.5 mm or about ± 0.17 % (cf. Rottländer, Tübingen, Germany).
The widely accepted ratio of the Roman foot and the English foot is 36:35. The latter one is 16/28 Mesopotamian cubit and the ratio between this one and the Roman cubit is 20:24.
If the present English foot is taken as for reference, the Roman foot should be 296⅓ millimetres. That is within the margin obtained by R.C.A. Rottländer (cf. Ordo et Mensura, 2004).
The comparison of the Roman foot with the height of a sheet of A4 paper is descriptive, but with + 0.27 % out of range.

(End of the proposed notes)


Then I think we have clearly to distinguish the ancient measures in use by great European nations at the end of the 18th century and the ancient measures out of use at the arriving of the decimal metre definition.

To the first categorie belong next to the French foot, notably the Austrian foot, of course the English foot, a.s.o. more.

Excursus to your statement:
"Changing the definition of a unit doesn't redefine the units it was once based on. The older definition is abandoned and a new one adopted or are you going to insist that the length of the earth's meridian along a quadrant is exactly the distance travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 10 000 000/299 792 458 of a second?"
No, it's about 10 001 965.75 / 299 792 458, since we know that the decimal metre is defined about 0.02 % to short respectively to its conceptual idea.
Of course a measure once "definitively" defined (in 1799 for instance of the metre) and widely used in science like it is its case since about 150 years,
can not be redefined whensoever our cognition converge to the real value. That's evident and this, we have to accept.

With the measures not or no longer used in exact science such redefinitions – inside exiguous limits, of course – can be suitable, see the English compromise foot of 1959.
Example: If we know and if we accept that the Austrian "pous metrios" is 28/27 of the English foot and if we take for reference the present legal English foot, then we can say, retrospectively: The Austrian metrologues of 1872 were in "error" to define the Austrian fathom as 1.8965 metres exactly one (and not 1.8965,3, m).
If contrariwise we consider that the Austrian definition is the "best one", the modern one: Then the English foot should be 304.7946,428571, millimetres.
The difference of about ± 0.000879 % is a honorable older precision. A question of mutual according, just like between the English foot and the American foot before 1959. Those modern reasonable ajustments would yield problems with measures used in exact sciences; admittedly. But that's nothing as regards to an obsolete foot like the Austrian one, and an agonising one like the English foot. Sure, the historical definition laws (1872, 1959, etc.) and its values must always be mentioned.

However the best value of the Roman foot should really be the modern 296.352 mm definition. This has nothing to do with falsify history etc. Then afterwards we can say for example: this archaeological gratuated Roman foot stick found at that archaeological site dated to that epoch is with its, say, 296.5 mm is quite 100.05 % of the modern definition for the Roman foot. The only reason why – preliminary – I renounce to state this modern defined value into the current article is that this value is not yet "widely accepted". Just a question of time.

Happy New Year Jimp.  Cheers!  Paul Martin 16:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Reply

Yes, happy new year Paul though it be late. No, I'm afraid that I still can't swallow your wording and, yes, it's the same old problem. No, your "modern 296.352 mm definition" is not widely accepted but nor contrary to what you claim is your 35 barleycorns definition. If you're going to be insisting otherwise in the article, let's see some references.

My argument is unchanged. No, the Austrians were not in error. They merely discarded one definition for another (if their foot had indeed been defined in this way to start with). We are not at liberty to redifine the Roman foot. It was what it was.

I've removed the following and done a little rewording. I hope you find this compromise acceptable. Jimp 16:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Since the Roman cubit measures 17.5 English inches, the English foot is Template:Frac0 of the Mesopotamian cubit. Thus the Roman foot measures 35 English barleycorns.

The widely accepted ratio of the Roman foot and the English foot is 36:35. The latter one is Template:Frac0 Mesopotamian cubit and the ratio between this one and the Roman cubit is 20:24. If the present English foot is taken as for reference, the Roman foot should be 296+1⁄3 mm. That is within the margin obtained by R.C.A. Rottländer (see the references below).
For the modern conventional value of the Roman foot, please also see this general note.

General note

In 2003, the conventional value of the Roman foot was defined to be 296.352 mm exactly one by Michael Florencetime. This proposal is too recent to be already widely accepted.
However, the value of 25 x 33 x 73 = 296 352 µm exactly one has the clear advantage to deliver always plain, easy and round values for the deduced units of the ancient Roman foot.

Like it is already widely accepted since long times, the Roman foot is 14 / 25 of the Egyptian Royal cubit, because one Egyptian remen equals five Roman palms.

In his definition M. Florencetime  – who also developed the twice-sixteen-hours hexadecimal time in 1989 –  set the Egyptian Royal cubit to 21 x 33 x 5-1 x 72  =  529.2 mm or actually he defined the well-attested Carthagian foot  – five ninth of the Egyptian Royal cubit –  to equate the exact value of  21 x 31 x 72  =  294 mm.

In concordance to modern statistical researches, he assumed a possible incertitude of 0.17%. Therefore, the Carthagian foot was defined by M. Florencetime: 294 mm ± 0.4998 mm.
This constitutes an "over-all rounding" for all the related ancient measures of length and therefore avoids odd values, resulting by arbitrary particular roundings of the ancient measures.

RE:RE:

Hi Jimp,

Let's begin by your very first [citation needed]-tag.

PR = 16 / 28 NC

The Roman foot is defined to be Template:Frac0 of the Nippur cubit.

If you read the given souce: On the Ancient Determination of Meridian Arc Length by Eratosthenes of Kyrene by acting Director of the Institute for Geodesy and Geo-Information Technology, TU Berlin Dieter Lelgemann, WS – History of Surveying and Measurement, Athens, Greece, May 22-27, 2004. Page 2 / 9 :

<quotation>
Our knowledge about the set of ancient non-metric length units (that are the cubit/foot or pechys/pous units) is mainly based on the Nippur cubit (NC = 518,5mm; museum in Istanbul), the so-called Gudea unit (GU = (20/28)(20/28) NC = 264,55 mm; ouvre / Paris) as well as the pes romanus or “Pous Romaikos” (pr = 16/28 NC = (28/24) GU = 296,3mm). All the ancient metric relations are governed by the very old Egyptian definition of a Remen (Pygon): 1 Remen = (20/28) royal cubits = (20/24) trade cubits = (20/16) “Pous”.
</quotation>   (The important ratio given in this quotation was bolded by me.)

Your "fact"-tag is gratuitous, since for a better legibility an encyclopedia is not oblied to refer all banal assertions.

Mister Lelgemann is incidentally not alone with his assertion: PR = 16 / 28 NC. In the contrary, all the contemporary specialists in ancient measurement are unanimous.
I don't know any serious scientific for contesting it. Do you know one?

Hello Paul,
I'm afraid I don't agree that this assertion is banal. It's no less than a definition that you're giving here. Ian Cairns made the same point in January (below). A little number in square brackets directing us to the link is not about to interfere significantly with legibility. Moreover, can we not find something a little more concrete? I'm not disputing Lelgemann's authority. I'm refering to the fact that this paragraph doesn't explicitely state that the Pous Romaikos was defined as 16/28 NC. All we have is this ratio. Is this ratio something we find stated in ancient literature or was it something we find empirically by study of ancient buildings and artefacts? Jimp 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi Jimp,
Old Egypien metrologists defined the later called Roman digit when – in the early third millennium BC – they decided to share the prevalent Nippur cubit into 28 digits.
Sumeriens themself shared the cubit into 30 digits, cf. sexagesimal system. The egyptien geometers needed to use a good trigonometrical approximation: 20√2 ≥ 28.
Old Egyptian geometers could not calculate the square root of two, but they needed a round value for the hypotenuse. This one percent error was satifying in practice.
The attested raw Nippur cubit is 518.4 mm. This value divided by 28, then multiplied by 16 gives 296.22857142 mm, after an appropriated rounding, that is 296.2 mm.
Because all the ancient metrologists took reference by preexistent measures, (since they were metrologists and geometers, not bunglers), so: the ratio is the definition.
These values are confirmed not only by study of ancient buildings, but also by hundreds of graduated rulers, dating from very ancient times up to early modern time. (Since Bohemia, Oldenburg and Augsburg for example preserved the Roman foot up to the late 19th century with an excellent accuracy.) Some ratios we can find stated in ancient literature. This ratio is – to my knowledge – not related by ancient writs. Modern researches makes on evidence that the Nippur cubit was used since, at least, the middle of fourth millennium BC. However in Roman times – more than three millennia later – the Nippur cubit was replaced by more recent, deduced units. Ancient metrologists cann't refer to the Nippur cubit, because they ignored its older existence. Sadly, we don't have theoretical, metrological treatises before the first millennium BC.  Nevertheless:
•  The confirmed and preserved value of the Roman foot – in its five millennia tradition – proves the ancient ratio-definition.
•  None scientific specialist in ancient metrology, nowadays disputes the fact that the Roman foot is 16 / 28 Nippur cubit.
However, you are right: "A little number in square brackets directing us to the link is not about to interfere significantly with legibility."
Together we will find the way to make it clearer in the article.  -- Paul Martin 11:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

English ft. = 36 / 35 PR

Your current article version:
A far better simple modern conversion is 35⁄36 of an English foot.
If the idealistic value of the English foot with 304.8192 mm is indeed a modern value, the ratios are ancient, not modern!

In the other Lelgemann source, Lelgemann writes page 4 / 7:

<quotation>
Recognise the conservative and long tradition of this non-metric system from the relation English foot = (24/28) Pous basilikos = 304,75 mm.
</quotation>

You see "to err is human" even for a great university professor. Because just before he make the relationship: one pous basilikos = 6 / 5 roman cubit = 533.3 mm.
So he want say: one English foot = (16/28) Pous basilikos. That's an evidence.

Your quotation: "... but nor contrary to what you claim is your 35 barleycorns definition." If the Roman-English foot ratio 36:35 is widely accepted (give me a contemporary specialist, who contests, excepting yourself), then also the 35 barleycorns definition is widely recognised, since this is the same.

Michael Florencetime's (thus not mine) 296.352 mm definition for the "idealistic" Roman foot is not yet widely accepted, so we can let it out of the article. Meantime...

As for Michael Florencetime's definition, let's include it the day he's elected Emperor of Ancient Rome. The article is "Ancient Roman units of measurement" not "Modernised Roman units of measurement".
So ... Lelgemann didn't say this but this is what he meant to say ...?
You want a contemporary specialist who contests the ratio? I can give you better than a specialist, I give you logic. We have the metre, the Roman foot and the English foot. The metre was never based on either foot. The Roman foot came before the English one and before the metre so it was never based on either of these. The English foot is the one in question here.
It is the English foot that seems to be chopping and changing. If it had once been defined as 36/35 of a Roman foot, then this definition is no longer valid. One definition has been discarded for another. One definition was dumped and a different on adopted (the reality is of course more complex) just as with the Austrian foot. Jimp 2 June 2006
Reply to Jimp's objections:
•   I liked your "Emperor-humor". However in science a conventional definition can be accepted even afterwards. Especially in context of an obsolete measure with a spread of ± 0.17 %.
•   Yes, to err is human. Typos are not seldom even in serious scientific tracts. Did you never observe it? Sometimes one has to detect the obviously "meant sens".
     Since the well-known pous basilikos is about 533.4 mm, the English foot cann't be 24/28 PB = 457.2 mm, but must be 16/28 PB = 304.8 mm. Obviously a typo.
•   You are right. The decimal "metre was never based on either foot."  However, since the PB is 36/35 NC and the EF is 4/7 PB, the English foot is also 144/245 NC.
     (Because you don't accept the idealistic values, you will get an error of 1/2400 or about 0.04 %.)
     However, just like in communicating vessels, if you define one value, you define all values. The remain is all conceitedness of this or that standard institute.
•   No, the English foot has "never been defined as 36/35 of a Roman foot." Rather 15/16 French pied-du-roi.  However, since the french foot is (32x24 =) 768/1225 (= 25x49) of
     the Nippur Cubit, so the English foot is also (12x12 =) 144/245 (= 5x49) NC, like we already saw above. The remain is all conceitedness of this or that standard institute.
     Yes, in 1959 the legal standard institutes adopted a 127-smooth number definition for the English foot. One English foot is legally: 23 x 31 x 1271 tenth of millimetres.
     An odd definition, but the legal one!  The illegal, but elaborate 7-smooth (cf. A002473) definition is 28 x 35 x 72 tenth of µm, admittedly 1/15875 (≈0.0063%) more.
     Of course, this idealistic definition must be corrected by the factor  (2 x 5 x 19, 109 257)  /  (218 x 36)  to be scientifically correct, like I explained it there.  So the value of 1959 is good at about  99.99915 %.
-- Paul Martin 11:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Other points

Your quotation: "[Austrians] merely discarded one definition for another." You are wrong. They didn't discarted an English foot definition, because in 1872 an official metre definition of the English foot didn't exist before 1959.

If they discarted a definition, this was the US survey definition 1866 for the yard 3600/3937, later on, for the foot 1200/3937, what's the same.

If the Austrians recognised this odd US survey definition their foot as 28:27 English foot would be 11200 / 35433 m. A very odd value. So they rounded their fathom to half a millimetre, about 0.001 958 % smaller than it would be accordingly to the US survey definition. One of both or both are in error!

That: "The Roman pound is exactly three quarters of the Greek mine." is also widely recognised.

Anyway, I rewoked the article, going in your sens.

-- Paul Martin 13:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure of what you're driving at here. If the Austrians redefined their foot, then they redefined their foot. How can the definition of the English foot be dependant upon whether or not the Austrians recognised the odd definition of the US survey foot? It makes no sense. We're talking definitions here, how can a definition be in error? Jimp 06:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
The Austrians didn't "redefine" their foot, but they gave a legal metre value to their 6-feet "Klafter" with the aim to abandon the old measures.
The pragmatical, but ignorant austrian legislator defined this Klafter 5 x 3793 tenth of mm, id est 0.00176 % less than 6 x 28/27 x 304.8 mm. That's ridiculous.
If false national conceitedness not hindered, the European, North-Africain and Near-East nations, at least, in Renaissance times would have made a conference to harmonise their standards. Then, the ratio between the English and the Austrian foot must be 27 : 28, and not 18288 : 18965, i.e. about 54000 : 55999. The opus of modern botchers!
You are right: A definition is a definition. It can not be false or true. However it can be adequated or not.  No, those odd definitons  – even legal –  can not be adequated.
-- Paul Martin 11:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Article tone

This article's tone sounds like a deranged scientist. Marked for cleanup. Ashibaka tock 03:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ashibaka, it's possible that something what is new for you, in your ears "sounds like a deranged science". However, it's your subjective impression. Your sweeping adjudgement is not argued at all. The theory of diffusionism of ancient measures in the Fertile Crescent and in Mediterranean Basin is now the "standard theory" supported by doubtless serious scientists. Paul Martin 14:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

There are problems with the accuracy of the language in places. The cleanup tag was well-placed. I'll replace. Ian Cairns 11:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ian, can you express your objections more explicitly, more detailed?  Regardful, Paul Martin 21:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Paul. Yes, the language does not read as English. Most sections have a problem, and this would be a major revision to correct all this - hence my replacement of cleanup tag. For example:
Length - "The Roman foot is defined to be sixteen 28th of the Nippur cubit." a sweeping statement like that would need a source / footnote? It is also likely to be phrased differently ~ 16/28?
Mesopotamien -> Mesopotamian;
"The value: 296 millimetres for the Roman foot is a usual rounding to the closest integer millimetre precision" This is French. English would use 'the closest millimetre'.
Area - "This egal 14 400 square feet or about 0.126 hectares," - this is French. English is 'equals'?
more exactly one - not sure what this means
Volume - "Its almost 26.027 litres." -> It is
"The third part of this quadrantal is the Roman peck." - One third of a quandrantal is a Roman peck.
I could go on. However, I hope you see there is much to correct. The article also needs sources. A previous contributor produced this material and more, but his sources were not agreed by the majority of editors. Good sources for the current information must be supplied. Regards, Ian Cairns 23:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


  • "It is also likely to be phrased differently ~ 16/28?"  No! Definitively no.  (We'll discuss this later.)
  • "the closest (integer) millimetre precision"  Perhaps. No problem. Even if: you can also have a "closest tenth of millimetre precision.
  • "equals"  Thanks, ok. m typo.
  • "It is"  Item.
  • "One third of a quandrantal is a Roman peck."  Why not, if you prefer, even if I don't see the fault in the initial phrase.
  • "I could go on."  Aye, Ian, go on!
  • For the sources and its agreement, let's stay in discussion.

Paul Martin 00:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ian, I hope meantime you found the time to check my added references. So, I delete the tags. If you see the need of further discussion on this topo: With you it's always with pleasure. If not, fine. Anyway we'll have occasion for exchanges, soon at Long and short scales/Discussion version. Paul Martin 21:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Area Amendment

  • I have modified you area table to reflect the true logic behind the basis of these measures:
    • The largest area used by the romans is 1 square mile or mille passuum.
    • All other area measures are fractions of this largest unit and must change accordingly.
    • If the foot is 12 inches the saltus becomes 57,600x57,600 inches which is not a mille-passum using your 11.667" roman foot. It is, however, a geodetic Greek foot which is 25/24th longer then the roman foot at 12.154"
    • The mille-passuum is therefore 8 x 7200 geodetic inch or 8 x 7500 conventional roman inch. The foot used for Roman Area is therefore Geodetic.
    • I have recalculated all of your area measures but left your figures remaining to show the difference in metric area between the two feet.

--Michael saunders 13:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


Hi Michael, I didn't see your talk contribution before my rv.

I only calculated: one Remen = 20/16 Pes Romanus = 0.37044 m. So, (100 Remen)2 is indeed about 1372.25 m2.

But this was not the definition of the Roman acre. But: (0.296352 x 120)2 ≈ 1264.67 m2, i.e. almost 8% less!  Ratio: 625:576.

The unusual Roman square mile was indeed 25 million Roman square feet. The customary saltus was 2304 Roman square perches.

-- Paul Martin 19:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


Hi Paul,

I am afraid you have completely missed the point..

  • 1. ALL of the areas quoted are fractions of the saltus.
  • 2. The lowest unit of measure is the square foot.
  • 3. The dispute is not over the length of the square mille passus but over the length of the foot used.
  • 4. All of the areas described are based on the 12.154" attic greek foot and not the 11.667" ionic greek foot.

The ratio between the saltus and square foot is (1/23040000th of the volume) or 1/4800th of the side length.

  • ie. 1600 actus (saltus), 1/14,400th actus (square foot). 1600 * 14400 = 4800 * 4800

Never, ever has the roman mille passus been described as 4800 feet. You know as well as I that the roman foot was 5000 feet to the mile or 1000 x 5 feet (mille(1000) passus(5 pedes)). Therefore the foot used is not the roman foot but a foot that is 25/24th larger.

This foot is described by Herodotus Strabo and others:

  • Great circle / 60
  • Great circle / 60 / 60 = 1 schoene
  • Great circle / 60 / 60 / 60 = 1 stade (600 feet according to herodotus)

The roman mille-passus is well defined as 75 miles of 60,000 uncia or 5000 pedes per degree. (60 * 60 * 60 * 600)/(360 * 75 * 5000) = 4800 greek feet : 5000 roman feet

Therefore all the area calculations defined as using the roman foot are inaccurate unless you accept the romans are using 2 foot length. 11.667" ionic greek and 12.154" attic greek. Either way, all of the area measures are based on the egyptian rmn or the roman palmipes (palm+pes) of 20 fingers. I really dont see how you can offer any alternative explanation. Can you please amend your information or restore my previous edit. If you do not wish to do so then the accuracy of this artical will be called into question.

Thanks --Michael saunders 21:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Weight vs Volume discussion

If 20 ounce = 1 pint and the concept originates from somewhere....

"It will therefore be convenient to begin with the definition of the Standard of Weight by declaring, that nineteen cubic inches of distilled water, at the temperature of 50°, must weigh exactly ten ounces Troy, or 4,800 grains; and that 7,000 such grains make a pound avoirdupois; supposing, however, the cubic inches to relate to the measure of a portion of brass, adjusted by a standard scale of brass. This definition is deduced from some very accurate experiments of the late Sir George Shuckburgh, on the Weights and Measures of Great Britain; but we propose at a future period to repeat such of them as appear to be the most important.

We think it right to propose that these measures should again be reduced to their original equality; and at the same time, on account of the great convenience which would be derived from the facility of determining a gallon and its parts, by the operation of weighing a certain quantity of water, amounting to an entire number of pounds and ounces without fractions, we venture strongly to recommend, that the Standard Ale and Corn Gallon should contain exactly ten pounds Avoirdupois of distilled water, at 62° of Fahrenheit, being nearly equal to 277.2 cubic inches, and agreeing with the Standard pint in the Exchequer, which is found to contain exactly twenty ounces of water."

1819 Metrological Survey are we sure we shouldn't be using 20 uncia = 1 sextarius ??

  • 40,007,862,917 mm Polar Circumference
  • 875 Eratosthenes inch (1575000000) : 864 Greek inch (1555200000) : 900 Roman inch (1620000000) : Polar circumference
  • 1/50th Earth of 5000 stade of 300 cubit of 21 inch (250,000 stade)
  • 1/60th Earth of 60 schoene of 60 stade of 400 cubit of 18 inch = 252,000 stade of 300 cubits of 144 / 7 inch (700 stade per degree)
  • 360 degrees of 75 roman miles of 60,000 inch
  • 4/60th Earth to Egypts Border (24 degrees North) + 1/50th Earth to Alexandria (31.2 degrees North)

British and Eratosthenes Pound

  • 12 * 24/25 = 11.52 inch
  • 11.52 * 2 * root 2 = 32.583480
  • 32.583480 * 2.54 = 82.762040
  • 82.762040 ^3 = 566883.175282
  • 566883.175282 / 125 = 4535.065402 This is 1cc short of 10 pound of distilled water using British inch
  • 82.762040 * 1.00007178 = 82.767981
  • 82.767981 ^3 = 567005.270044 Cubic megalithic yard
  • 567005.270044 / 125 = 4536.042160 This is exactly 10 pound of distilled water using Eratosthenes inch

Pound Weight

Roman Libra

  • 11.52 * 875 / 864 = 11.666'
  • 11.666' * (864 / 275 / Pi) = 11.667504
  • (11.667504 * 2.54 )^3 = 26027cc Quadrantal
  • (11.667504 * 2 * square root 2 * 2.54) ^3 = 588938.610cc Cubic megalithic yard
  • 588938.6101 / 1800 = 327.188cc Libra
  • 588938.6101 / 21600 = 27.2656cc Uncia 360 * 60
  • 588938.6101 / 172800 = 3.408cc Drachma 360 * 480
  • cubed root (327.188 * 1800 / 567005.270044) = 1.0127313 (875 / 864)
  • cubed root (327.495 * 1800 / 567005.270044) = 1.0130480
  • cubed root (327.453 * 1800 / 567005.270044) = 1.0130047

Uncia and Sextarius

  • 27.291 g * 20 sextarius * 8 = 4366.56
  • 4536cc / 4366.56cc = 1.03880400
  • cubed root 1.03880400 = 1.012770
  • 875 / 864 = 1.012731


Hi Michael saunders, I see your talk contribution. I'll reply you soon. --Paul Martin 13:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


English Headwords?

Why is the leading information in each table an English word, and not the Latin name of the unit? It would seem to make more sense to use the names of the units themselves, rather than some translated terms that aren't necessarily informative anyway. Offhand, I have no idea what a peck is, let alone an arpent or a sester. These translated terms are only meaningful to those already familiar with a measurement system that is widely obsolete in the English-speaking world. I propose that the Latin term be placed in the first column, and where useful translations can be provided, they be listed in a comments column on the right end of the table. Rhialto 02:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Rhialto,
If you "have no idea what a peck is..."  You see like it is usefull to consult Wikipedia.
By your objections, I retain the justified reproach to wikify the terms. I'll do so within the next days.  -- Paul Martin 21:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess its a valid point that I could look up these words, but my point was that in order to make sense of the Latin words into a system that I and most modern readers would be familiar with, the article as written essentially requires the reader to learn about a third set of units which are not at all relevant (except very tangentially) to either the topic of the article or the conventional systems in use today. It's almost like having an English-Latin dictionary which asks you to see the corresponding entry in a Russian dictionary to properly clarify the meanming of the terms being discussed. None of the other weights and measures articles in wikipedia have headwords that are not the actual term used in the original context, so it seems to me this is the article that should be changed to match the general pattern. Rhialto 04:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


I figure that the (widely decimal) old chinese units of measurement, often, don't have adequate English translations. In the case of roman units we can give these equivalences.

Take the units of length: eleven units. Eight of them are even etymologically the same word. Exemple: lat. leuga, eng. league. In the case of "pes", "gradus" and "actus", the English words are "foot", "step" and "arpent". Similary the nine weights are the literal traductions, helpful for the readers not familiar with the latin language. A "ligula" is also literaly a spoonful. The "semodius" can rightly be given by roman gallon, since the first one is about 4.67 litres and the English gallon quite a little less. These equivalences are helpfull for the readers.

Harmonisation in the lay-out between similar articles can be sensefull, nevertheless we can also have good reasons to make it different.
However, I appreciate your works in other systems of units, since many of them are in a bad state.  -- Paul Martin 14:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

You're right that those *modern* Chinese units don't have translations, only transliterations. As an aside, the Hong Kong units do have translations, which are the official translations used by the Hong Kong government. No such official translation exists for Roman units.

I have no problem with giving these etymologies of modern units, these translations if you will. My main issue is that these translations are given as the primary header on each line, as if they were the actual words used. This is not so.

In most cases, the translations aren't particularly useful anyway. Certainly, it is interesting that the cubit, step, arpent and so on are decent translations of the units in question, but at least in those three cases, they provide no useful information to a person not already familiar with them, as none of those three were ever used as a unit of measurement in an English speaking country. Similarly, other unit headers make use of extremely convolulted or archaic English to get their meaning across. "one aune of furrows" and "one double third-sester" spring to mind here. In some cases they are even misleading, as the Roman league was only about half the English unit, and teh English perch was almost twice the length of the Roman pertica.

I agree there are cases where an English translation is perfectly meaningful to modern readers, but there are enough places where the English translations are either meaningless or confusing that an attempt to clean the article's translations would result in too many holes in the table. This is why I proposed promoting the Latin names to the first column and demoting the translations to a comments column. This would allow us to add a proper explanation of etymologies where it is useful, and avoid contrived workaround phrases as a headword where there isn't a simple English translation of the unit.

I've added a sample table here of how I think this could be modified. It's not a radical change, but I think it is more logical. Let me know what you think.

Unit Name Roman Feet Metric value Comments
digitus Template:Frac0 18.5 mm a digit
palmus Template:Frac0 74 mm a palm
pes 1 296 mm a Roman foot
cubitus 1+1⁄2 444 mm one cubit
gradus 2+1⁄2 0.74 m
passus 5 1.48 m one pace
pertica 10 2.96 m The old English perch is etymologically derived from this unit.
actus 120 35.5 m The old French arpent is etymologically derived from this unit.
stadium 625 185 m
milliarium 5000 1.48 km the Roman mile
leuga 7500 2.22 km The old English league is etymologically derived from this unit.

Rhialto 01:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)