Talk:Historical weights and measures/Archive 5

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.

Contents

All Cubits Great & Ordinary

I've just moved the following from the article page.

--

 *My editor asks
 *Is one the ordinary cubit à 30 shusi (500 mm)
 *and one the great cubit à 30 uban (600 mm)
 * short answer: No.

 *Both were split into 15 digits (shusi not uban) and hands qat 
 *The Gudea rule is divided into two parts of 15 pieces each, with two ends 
 that extend beyond the division marks. Until the early 20th century the ends 
 were erroneously counted as digits.

--

69.164.70.243,

The normal thing to do is to keep such comments here in the talk page. Also note that Crissov is hardly your editor. He's editing this page but it's not your page ... unless you own Wikipedia.

Jimp 19Jul05

  • I have rewritten the introduction and removed the disputed tags
removing the references to pyramids, irrationals, remains to be proven
uncited conjecture. As per instructions I am commenting here.
I propose that before we change the main page again we discuss
some of the issues and attempt to identify what items are
questionable and why.
69.164.70.243 20Jul05

69.164.70.243,

Please sign & date your comments otherwise this talk page gets very hard to read.
For example, who wrote what in the section above? It's also helpful to use indentation
(I've taken the liberty to add some to your comments above).
69.164.70.243, you continue to delete the "disputed" and "cleanup" templates
on this article. Thank you for putting a comment here this time. However more
in the way of a discussion or explanation was what I'd had in mind.
What's going on? Just look at this talk page and tell me that there is no dispute
as to the accuracy of the article (particluarly your contributions). Look at the article:
it's a jumble. It badly needs a clean up. Being split into several articles (Roman units,
Greek units, etc.) might not be a bad idea either.

Jimp 20Jul05

7/19/05 rktect (pardon: I thought ID and date was kept on the history page)

 I am posting most of my material to this page in an 
 attempt to ask and answer. Scroll up, pick a measure 
 you disagree with copy it down here and tell me why. 

 As soon as I can I will respond with a cite and as much 
 backup as possible. 

 I don't like to see people making statements that have   
 no leg to stand on. If you want to edit something I wrote 
 by inserting a paragraph that makes it sound like I want  
 to base the history of measures on unproven assumptions  
 and speculations, I would prefer that you do bring it  
 here for discussion first.
Rktect,
ID and date is kept on the history page, yes. However, it's
helpful to include it here as well so that readers don't have to
sift through these history pages just to tell who's writing what.
Perhaps you're perfectly right about Crissov's references to the
pyramids and irrational numbers. Perhaps this does remain to be
proven and perhaps it is uncited conjecture. There seems to be
quite a bit of this flying about on this article (most of which
coming not from Crissov).
I have noticed, however, that gone are claims that the same system
has been used throughout history. Gone also are claims that they
can all be traced back to a single system. Yes, I'd like to see
some discussion, citation and/or evidence before such claims reappear.
Discussion, it seems you agree, is the best way to resolve the dispute.
Edit wars are just a waste of time for both/all parties. Discussion,
however, is a two-way street. It's best not to expect that others
discuss their edits with you whilst you make no effort to yours with them.
"If you want to edit something I wrote ..." you write "... that makes it
sound like I want to ..." This comment has intrigued me to no end.
Edits to this page are not about making you sound like anything.
It's not as if you are credited as the author.
Jimp 20Jul05

I agree with the last. rktect 7/19/05, but would support by cite and by identity proof, that the same system has been used throughout history and traced back to a sngle system.

I don't have a lot of problems with pyramids as evidence for Egyptian standards of measure as long as you include ordinary buildings, inscription grids, all known rulers and rods, fields, nileometers, the volume of h3kts, generally do your homework.

Irrational numbers are irrational, using measures to make them rational along with the classic problems of greek antiquity would be interesting to discuss.

Irrational numbers are irrational. You can't make them rational by using measures.
Not even a god could make an irrational number rational.
Jimp 20Jul05

One way to rationalize an irrational number is to construct a geometric ratio using two units related as the sides of a square to its diagonal or the diameter of a circle to its circumference. Its a somewhat subtle, very Egyptian concept where numbers are not thought of as iterations but rather as individuals as in the seked or ratio of unit rise to unit run so also foot to remen or remen to cubit. ie the ratio is 1x:1y

Look, I can see where you're coming from with this "rationalising
the irrational" but, you surely realise, it's a play on words. In
the mathematical sense of the word there is no rationalising
irrational numbers: a number is either rational or irrational.
There is, of course, the other sense of "rationalise" meaning "to
make sense of". Yes, it would be interesting to look at how
people used measures to do this.
Jimp 23Jul05
One good example might be the slide rule. There are a lot of variations
on it but essentially its a spread sheet, it allows you to set 1x:1y
where x and y can be any two formulas. When you combine that with the Egyptians
use of unit fractions you have continued fractions, fluxions, anything you like.
Another good example would be the tables on a framing square

Proof of the same-system hypothesis

I'd love to see your proof that "the same system has been used throughout
history and traced back to a sngle system." All I say is that until it appears,
refrain from making such claims in the article.
Jimp 20Jul05

rktect 7/20/05

  • Thesis: The same system of measures has been used throughout History.
  • Antithesis: The same system of measures has not been used throughout History.
  • Synthesis:* Either the Thesis is correct or the Antithesis is correct
Reword your antitheis: There is no one system which has been used
throughout history.
Jimp 23Jul05
Rktext 7/29/05 I respectfully disagree and suggest
that rather than start with the conclusion,
we proceed to test the hypothesis.
I'm not trying to start with the conclusion. All I'm suggesting
is clearer wording.
Jimp 6Aug05
  • Proof by Testable Hypothesis:
  • 1.) For Mesopotamia, Egypt, Greece, Rome, Europe
The World is bigger than this. What of the Aztecs, what of Japan,
what of Tasmania? You've not even really taken into account
ancient Scandinavia.
Jimp 23Jul05
Rktext 7/29/05 The system originated with civilization.
Scandanavian is a nice mix of Roman and Greek Measures

What of the Aztecs? What of Japan, What of Tasmania?

Region Foot Name Foot Measure
China che 333.45 mm
Japan shaku 303.02 mm
Korea chok 303.02 mm
Costa Rica tercia 278.64 mm
Aztex Mexico pie 278.89 mm
Ecuador -El Salvador tercia 304.8 mm
Paraguay pie 288.8 mm
Tasmania foot 304.8 mm
And this is supposed to prove ... Your "Tasmanian" foot is
just an Imperial foot (surprise surprise). What of pre-colonial
Tasmania? Similarly your South American feet look suspiciously
Latin. Even Scandinavia ... what about pre-Grecio-Roman
influence? The Far East units are interesting but, as I've
mentioned, simply showing an approximate equivalence
hardly proves that two units are related. We haven't ruled
out coincidence nor have we ruled out different cultures
happening on similar defintions ... or does this count as
the "same theme"?
Jimp 6Aug05
  • 2.) A system of measures organized by increasing length, area, volume exists
Several systems have existed they might be related as the
Imperial and U.S. systems are but even these are not the same.
Jimp 23Jul05
The American system is inarguably derived from the British Imperial System and has only deviated from it in relatively modern times. The Imperial system is in every respect the same system as was used in ancient Greece, Rome, Palestine, Persia, Egypt amd Mesopotamia.
Seems you've dug yourself into a bit of a hole there. The US
system is inarguably derived from earlier English units but not,
as you claim, from the Imperial system. Still, sure, the point
you'd wanted to make is that they share a common ancestor.
However to say that the two systems are derived from one common
source and to say that they are the same are two different
things. The argument applied also to the Imperial system verses
the Roman system. They are related but to say that they are
"in every respect the same system" would be to use language too
strong. Just as there are 4 fluid ounces to a US gill as
opposed to the 5 per Imperial gill, there are 280 extra feet in
the Imperial mile as opposed to the Roman 5000 foot mile.
Similar, sure, but not the same.
Jimp 6Aug05
Then there is the metric system: you'll be stretching it if you
point out that the height of an A4 sheet is one Roman foot. Even
today some use of three different systems is being made.
Jimp 23Jul05
Ancient Measures from Greece, Rome, Mesopotamia and Egypt were the source of the Metric System. Google Jomard and Napoleons French Savants, and/or read your Klein.
  • 3.) Each civilization has a unit measure which corresponds
  • 4.) to a unit measure in each other civilization by
  • 5.) name, position in the system, length, area, volume
  • 6.) Each measure is systematic in that it is part of an iterative sequence
  • 7.) 1 finger, 2 fingers, 3 fingers, palm, hand, fist and so forth
  • 8.) each area is the square of a unit length and you can convert between systems
  • 9.) each voume is the cube of a unit length and you can convert between systems
The Imperial gallon is the cube of what unit of lenght?
Jimp 23Jul05
How about we choose an Egyptian royal cubit as the side of a cube.
Wickopedia cites the British Imperial Gallon as 277.42 cu in
British Imperial Gallon
multiply 32 x 277.42 cu in = 8877.44
take the cube root of 8877.44 = 20.7" = the side of an Egyptian Royal cubit
the cube which is 1/32 Egyptian royal cubit is the hkt measure used with
the Horus eye doubling series to apportion bread and beer in the mathematical
problems of the Rhind papyrus.
Interesting, sure, however the Imperial gallon was originally
defined not to be 1/32 of the cube of an Egyptian Royal cubit
but to be the volume of 10 lb of water (at certain thermodynamic
conditions). Jimp 8Aug05
Try converting to U.S. gallons.
Jimp 23Jul05
Ok, presumably you have never read 1 Kings
homer (= 10 baths) 60 US gallons - mentioned in Ezek 45.11-14
NT metretes = 38 US gallons = side of 1 royal cubit - mentioned in John 2.6
bath (= 1/10 homer = 6 hins; also = 1 ephah of dry measure =6 US gallons 1 Kgs 7.26; Isa 5.10
hin (= 1/6 bath or 12 logs) 1 US gallon Exod 29.40,41; 30.23-25; Num 15.4-10
log (= 1/12 hin or 1/72 bath) 1/3 US pint Lev 14.10,21
1 wine gallon = 8 cubic Athenian pous, and is 1/12 the cube whose side is the Biblical talent.
4 wine gallons = 31 Cubic Attic Greek pous, 30 cubic English feet, 28 cubic Roman pes
Haven't you ever done any of this? Its all the same system but the conversions allow you
to take different unit fractions of the same volume.
The ratio is 5-6 just like mesopotamian ordinary cubit - great cubit
Let's say the side of a royal cubit that contains 32 BIG's is 20.7"
The ordinary cubit is side 5/6 that or 17.7" it contains 20 BIG's and 24 wine gallons
100 ordinary cubits (mh t3 or land cubits) are the side of a square of 1/2 acre
17.7/12 X 100 = 147.5 ft and if you square and multiply x 2 you get 43512.5 SF
The differance is round off error and some inaccuracy in the standards that tends
to creep in when people redefine them.
Okay, presumably you've got a modern American translation of the
Bible because you can be pretty damn certain that U.S. gallons
are not mentioned anywhere in the original texts.
Haven't I ever done "any of this"? Any of what: looking for
connexions that don't exist? Sure, I've done that. Guess what
I found: nothing.
The Ezekiel passage you mention is interesting. It talks about
using a single standard. This would seem to indicate that there
were different standards in use at the time of writing. Why
else would the author be insisting on consistancy?
If five of my gallons equal six of yours then we are not using
the same system ... even if this ratio is exact. However in the
case of US verses Imperial gallons the ratio is not five to six
exactly.
Five to six is only an approximation the exact ratio is
4.99674355488 to 6.0008388. To blame this on "round off error
and some inaccuracy in the standards that tends to creep in when
people redefine" them would be rather silly.
Are we talking about what the standards are or are we
talking about what they should be? If we're talking about
what they should be then why should there be any difference
at all between an Imperial gallon and a US one?
Jimp 23Aug05
  • 10) where changes and conversions between systems occur they occur systematically
  • 11) a stadion is 600 pous = 185 m a stadium is 625 pes = 185 m
  • 12) a Milos is 8 stadions, A Milliare is 8 stadiums
You can identify Jupiter as Zeus but you still haven't proven anything about Vishnu.
Jimp 23Jul05

Jupiter is the sky father, Peter, Pitar, Ptah all the same pantheon

... and Vishu? Jimp 6Aug05
  • 13) a sexigesimal cubit of 30 fingers becomes a septenary cubit of 28 fingers
  • 14) they share a system of unit measures fingers, palms, hands, feet, remen, cubits etc;
  • 15) they share the same system
  • Parenthesis: Proof by identity
What is identity proof? Do you mean if you take two measures and show that
they are (approximately) equal or related by simple ratios, you've proven
a connexion? This is a very unscientific approach. There may well be other
explanations for the phenomenon.
Jimp 20Jul05
  • Items 11 and 12 are examples of Proof by Identity, ie; the essence of the scientific method
  • a model is created which is based on a testable hypothesis
  • If the tested results match the predicted results
  • the model works and the hypothesis is proved
  • If the tested results do not match the predicted results
  • the model fails, the hypothesis is disproved and the antithesis is proved
You don't prove a scientific theory.
Jimp 23Jul05
The use of a testable hypothesis to make a proof is the scientific method
This is simply false. You might confirm a scientific
hypothesis or theory but you never prove it. Science
involves inductive logic. Jimp 8Aug05
  • We measure weigh and judge the Similarity and Difference between a proposition and reality
  • to learn its truth
  • Everything which exists changes, if simply by becoming older, but also remains the same.
  • Proof by identity: Things which are the same match.
However not all things that match are necessarily the same. Jimp 8Aug05
  • The Agregate of all Becoming, (which changes constantly) = Being which remains the same
  • One example of Proof by Identity includes synthesis by resolution of paired opposites
  • a minute of march becomes a stadion becomes a stadium becomes a furlong

Metathesis:

  • If there are other different explanations
  • we measure, weigh and judge them against these explanations.
  • Esthesis: The whole is the sum of its parts. QED.
QED? I think not. Here's disproof for you. The Imperial system
and the U.S. system are different. They've both been used.
Different systems have been used in history. QED. Oh, yeah,
the metric system is not even related to either and is the most
used system today and has been for several decades.
Jimp 23Jul05
Not really, they are the same system with some disagreement
about how to define an accurate standard. The argument dates back
first to Elizabeth and some shrewd land speculators that had her ear,
and then to Thomas Jefferson and his redefinition of the wine gallon.
["http://www.unc.edu/~rowlett/units/usmetric.html wine gallon]
gallon "(gal) [1]

a traditional unit of liquid volume, derived from the Roman galeta, which originally meant a pailful. Gallons of various sizes have been used in Europe ever since Roman times. In the United States, the liquid gallon is legally defined as exactly 231 cubic inches; this is equal to the old English wine gallon, which originated in medieval times but was not standardized until 1707, during the reign of Queen Anne. Some scholars believe the wine gallon was originally designed to hold 8 troy pounds of wine. The U. S. gallon holds 4 liquid quarts or exactly 3.785 411 784 liters; a U.S. gallon of water weighs about 8.33 pounds. American colonists were also familiar with the Elizabethan beer and ale gallon, which held 282 cubic inches (4.621 liters). gallon (gal) [2] a historic British unit of dry volume still used implicitly in the U.S. In the U.S., the term "gallon" is not used in dry measure, but if it were it would be equal to 1/2 peck, or 4 dry quarts, or 268.8025 cubic inches, or approximately 4.404 884 liters. This unit is the English corn or grain gallon, standardized during the reign of Elizabeth I in the sixteenth century. The earliest official definition of a dry gallon in Britain is a 1303 proclamation of Edward I, where the gallon is defined as the volume of 8 pounds of wheat; the current U.S. "gallon" contains about 7.5 pounds of wheat. Grain gallons have tended to be larger than liquid gallons throughout the history of British units, apparently because they were based on heaped rather than "struck" (leveled) containers. A container in which grain has been heaped above the top will hold as much as 25% more grain, and the traditional corn gallon is in fact 16.4% larger than the wine gallon. gallon (gal) [3] currently the British use a larger gallon than either of the American gallons. The Imperial Weights and Measures Act of 1824 established a new unit for all volumes, liquid or dry, replacing all the other gallons in previous use in Britain. The imperial gallon, designed to contain exactly 10 pounds of distilled water under precisely defined conditions, holds exactly 4.546 09 liters or approximately 277.4194 cubic inches. The imperial gallon equals 1.20095 U.S. liquid gallons (British wine gallons) or 1.03206 U.S. dry gallons (British corn gallons). gallon (gal) [4] a traditional unit of volume in Scotland equal to 4 Scots quarts. This is almost exactly 3 British Imperial gallons, 3.6 U.S. liquid gallons, or 13.63 liters. "

They have both been abused by people who didn't know
what they were doing, to put it bluntly
Be it use or abuse, whether they knew or knew not what they were
doing the Imperial system and US system have been used. If your
"disagreement about how to define an accurate standard" leads to
differing definitions, then you've got different systems. If
five of my pints are a tad bigger than six of yours, then we're
using different systems. Jimp 23Aug05

The metric system was first used in decimal form in ancient mesopotamia.

Our modern rediscovery of it goes back to when it was first being proposed in the 16th century. Its adoption and definition were based on a survey of ancient measures by Napoleons savants and it was used by the French peasantry as a political tool to overthrow the feudal system

Original research?

This is all very interesting, Rktect, your identity proofs, your
theses, your spreadsheets and such. However, it does sound a
little like original research. Is it not? If it is, posting it
here, I'm afraid, would be against Wikipedia's policy.
Jimp 23Jul05


Rktect 07/29/05 I looked at the Wikipedia definition of original research
It says that if you are posting or citing previously published material
that isn't copywrited or that you have permission to use that's fine
My cites are to previously published non copywrited material
Here is another independant scholar saying essentially the same thing
Clandonia

Does Rktect contend that the material he's posting is consensus among scholars? Because if not, the actual ancient units, on which there often is consensus, ought to separated from the international comparisons, which are not. This would also avoid confusion and reversions. Septentrionalis 15:26, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't like to be contentious but when you cite something from a source like Kleins "World of Measurements' or any of the other cited references then the proper way to dispute it would be to cite a counter source that either says something different or adds on something more besides.

Please answer the question I asked. I am not asking whether you have scholarly support; I am asking if you assert there is a consensus. If not, both PoV should be represented in the article, and separated from the individual measurements, insofar as they are consensus. Septentrionalis 14:21, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Replacements

rktect 7/20/05

  • I would like to replace this


  • I would replace it with a more accurate update

that looks at the Roman units of area in comparison with equivalents of its peers as well as our modern equivalents and gives some sources.

  • I don't think you get the same British Imperial system

equivancy if you only look at its metric system value and so while you may be telling the truth you are not telling the whole truth.

  • The mile has always been divided in 8 stadions, stadiums and furlongs

The Romans also divided the stadium into 5 actus of 125 pes The Greek Milos was the immediate predecessor to the Roman Milliare It derives its acre or aroura from The Mesopotamia iku which is 100 cubits to a side rather than from the Egyptian st3t which is also 100 cubits to a side

  • When the Milos was 4800 pous the stadion was 600 pous and 185 m
  • In a square Milos there were 64 square stadions and 576 aroura
  • 560 acres =~ 576 aroura
  • The square Milos became the Knights fee
  • In a square stadion there were 9 aroura of 40,000 square pous
  • each aroura had a side of 200 pous divisible into 2 plethrons
  • each of the 2304 plethron in a square Milos had a side of 100 pous
  • When the Milliare was 5000 pes the stadium was 625 pes and 185 m
  • In a square Milliare there were still 64 square stadiums but
  • There were also 25 square actus of 25 acres
  • A Heridia was 1.25 Roman acres so there were 20 Heridis to a square Actus
  • 1.25 Roman acres is 50,000 pied = side 217.15 Ft area 47,154.54 SF
  • Each Jugerum was half a Heridium and Half a Jugerum was an acuna.
  • A Centuria was 100 Heredia or 125 acres or 5 square Actus
  • in a square acre there were 40,000 square feet or fote
  • each acre had a side of 200 feet
  • When the Mile was made 5280 feet the furlong became 220 yards
  • Each square furlong was divided into 10 acres or 8 Heridia
  • each acre measured a perch by a furlong
  • Each square furlong was half a square Actus
  • Each Jugerum was half a Heridium and Half a Jugerum was an acuna.
  • Each Furlong was 16 Jugerum and 32 acuna
  • A Centuria was 100 Heredia, 12.5 square furlongs
  • 125 acres or 5 square Actus was one
  • in a square acre there were 40,000 square feet or fote
  • each acre had a side of 200 feet
  • The Romans conquered (much of) Britain,
  • when it was inhabited by Celts, bringing with them their mile
  • In Roman Europe The Bodelian manuscript tells us
  • 14 acres maketh a yerde of land
  • If those are Roman acres of 40,000 pied then the yerde is 12 English acres
  • 5 yerdis maketh a hyde of land which is 70 acres 60 English acres
  • 8 hydis maketh a knights fee which is 560 acres of land = 480 English acres
  • Look at the confusion
  • the redefinition of the Greek Milos by the Romans and
  • The redefinition of the Milliare by the Elizabeathans, and
  • The redefinition of the Mile by the Metric system
  • brings to Europe.
  • The Virgate - "An old English unit of area" is actually Roman in origin
  • equal to one quarter of a hide = 1.25 yerdis = 17.5 acres
  • The amount of land needed to support a person.
  • The hide is at its root a German word for household, but also a Roman derived unit
  • We are told that in the Saxon counties of southern England,
  • it referred to the land sufficient to support one family,
  • which equaled what the family plowed in a year.
  • We are told that depending on the fertility of the land, the hide varied
  • from as little as 60 to as many as 240 acres,
  • but it was typically between 80 and 120 acres.
  • Its 60 modern English, 70 Roman acres
  • We are told that the bovate, 1/8 of a carucate,
  • which also appears in the Domesday Book has its origin as Danish
  • and it is found in the northeastern English counties constituting the Danelaw.
  • Lets allow a carucata or carucate, like a hide, is approximately 120 acres and
  • like the bovate was found in the Danish counties.
  • A Plowland or plowgate is equal to a carucate or an area eight oxen can plow
  • sufficient for a free family to support itself;
  • its origins precede 1100.
  • We are told the plowland compares with the knight’s fee,
  • which was a larger area sufficient to support a knight’s family
  • (perhaps to allow pasture for animal husbandry).
  • Sulung is a Kentish term for two hides.
  • Its 120 modern English, 140 Roman acres
  • A yoke in Kent is 1/4 of a sulung.
  • A virgate is a rod in linear measure and 1/4 of a hide
  • (or 30 acres) as a measure of area in Saxon counties.
  • 30 acres is 1/4 sulong
  • We have the Arpent a unit of length =~ 191.8 feet and
  • the (square) arpent is a unit of area, area
  • (180 old French 'pied', or foot) used in France, Louisiana, and Canada.
  • approximately .845 acres, or 36,802 square feet
  • We have the Morgen a unit of area =~ .6309 acres. or 27, 482 SF
  • used in Germany, Holland and South Africa, derived from the German word Morgen ("morning").
  • It represented the amount of land that could be plowed in a morning.


A strange edit

Despite the fact that you've just proposed that before we the main page again we discuss,
Rktect, you've gone and changed it without discussion. Let's now attempt to identify
what's questionable about this and why.

Old version

Many systems ... are related to a varying degree, despite a number of different
civilisations making ... adjustments to serve their own purposes.
The accuracy of definitions improved over time.

New version

Many systems ... are related to a varying degree. Despite a number of different
civilisations making ... adjustments to serve their own purposes, the accuracy of
definitions improved over time.
You do realise that this completely changes the meaning, don't you, Rktect?
The first version says that the systems were related inspite of the adjustments.
The second version says that the accuracy of definitions improved inspite of
the adjustments.
The first version makes sense: the systems are still related
though different. The second is nonsense: how could these adjustements possibly
have reduced the accuracy of the definitions?
Jimp 20Jul05
Think about that...

I think people do need to re-read and self edit from time to time to remove poor phrasing, obvious typos, and bad formating.

Neither of those first two versions is well phrased.

The first is a run on sentence which says.

1. The systems are related to a varying degree.
2. The degree they are related to varies.
3. The accuracy of the definitions improved over time.
4. This was despite adjustments.
5. A number of different civilizations made them.
6. The adjustments were to serve their own purposes.

That's just too many clauses for a single thought.

The second uses two run on sentences to say.
I
1. The systems are related to a degree.
2. The degree they are related to varies.

This has the misfortune of suggesting the degree was a variable standard.

II
3. The accuracy of the definitions improved over time.
4. This was despite adjustments.
5. A number of different civilizations made them.
6. The adjustments were to serve their own purposes.

Perhaps this is a better way to say it.

Many systems of weights and measures, that have been used throughout history, are related. To a varying degree, despite a number of different civilisations making their own adjustments to serve their own purposes, the accuracy of definitions improved over time.

rktect 7/21/05
rather than continue to see a big sign at the top of my favorite article which says this needs attention, unless someone objects I will give it some.
I would like to try and make it clear why the various systems are related

by listing equivalents to each systems units in the units of their peers rather than just modern or metric equivalents.

In the ancient world people measured things by cubits rather than feet or meters. It would be nice to see just how all the cubit systems equate when evaluated in unit fraction fingers or palms rather than just decimal feet inches or mm.
I have had this in spread sheet form for a decade or so but just never bothered to try to prove it systematically.
One place I would like to pay particular attention is the definition of units of length and their development into areas.
dividing measures up by unit and the various unit fraction multiples rather than culture might be interesting.
The finger, inch, ell, palm, hand, remen, ordinary cubit great cubit, pace, fathom, orguia, rod, perch, cord, chain, minute of march, stadion, stadium, furlong, iku, khet, st3t, 3kr, aht, are, aroura, actus, acre milos, milliare, lyle, mile, yerde, hide, knights fee degree
rktect 7/21/05 cleaned up Egyptian units somewhat, have much more to add
rktect 7/21/05 cleaned up Mesopotamian units, added a lot, broke out Akkadian from Sumerian as per an email exchange with John Halloran