Talk:Mile/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] U.S. survey mile

Is the U.S survey mile really the same as the geographical mile? Can we have cites, please?

No it isn't. That was my mistake, I corrected it now. AxelBoldt

Regarding the term statute mile, there is some confusion. In

Is that a US-specific definition? I've always assumed that "statute mile" here in the United Kingdom refers to the international mile, but as I'm not sure I'm not editing. Loganberry 00:03, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] data mile - used for radar calibration

Another site,

  • [data mile], lists yet another definition for mile called a "data mile." How might a definiton for "data mile" be added without copying content from that page? I have no personal knowledge of the term, so can't help track down any source for the info. If accurate, it would be an interesting addition to the list

The mile-as-a-race seems relevant (it's what I think of when I think "mile", since we have SI now), but I'm not sure how to add it. Maybe I'll just add a link to 4_minute_mile at the end. Suggestions?


[edit] Herodotus on the length of ancient measures

For that you go to Herodotus (and Ptolomy)
Herodotus explains that the Persian stadia are 500 to a degree
rather than 600 so their stadion is 222 meters rather than 185 and
based on 750 Persian feet rather than 600 Greek feet.

The geographical ~7.5 km mile, land and sea, is the brainchild of Ole Rømer - the Prussian king later adopting it.

  • Ole Roemer invented it more than 1500 years after the Romans did Rktect 23:56, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
VI. Further, the length of the seacoast of Egypt itself is sixty “schoeni” --of Egypt, that is, as we judge it to be, reaching from the Plinthinete gulf to the Serbonian marsh, which is under the Casian mountain--between these there is this length of sixty schoeni. [2] Men that have scant land measure by feet; those that have more, by miles; those that have much land, by parasangs; and those who have great abundance of it, by schoeni. [3] The parasang is three and three quarters miles, and the schoenus, which is an Egyptian measure, is twice that.
VI. autis de autês esti Aiguptou mêkos to para thalassan hexêkonta schoinoi, kata hêmeis diaireomen einai Aigupton apo tou Plinthinêteô kolpou mechri Serbônidos* limnês, par' hên to Kasion oros teinei: tautês ôn apo hoi hexêkonta schoinoi eisi. [2] hosoi men gar geôpeinai eisi anthrôpôn, orguiêisi memetrêkasi tên chôrên, hosoi de hêsson geôpeinai, stadioisi, hoi de pollên echousi, parasangêisi, hoi de aphthonon liên, schoinoisi. [3] dunatai de ho parasangês triêkonta stadia, ho de schoinos, metron eon Aiguption, hexêkonta stadia.
VII. By this reckoning, then, the seaboard of Egypt will be four hundred and fifty miles in length. Inland from the sea as far as Heliopolis, Egypt is a wide land, all flat and watery and marshy. From the sea up to Heliopolis is a journey about as long as the way from the altar of the twelve gods at Athens to the temple of Olympian Zeus at Pisa. [2] If a reckoning is made, only a little difference of length, not more than two miles, will be found between these two journeys; for the journey from Athens to Pisa is two miles short of two hundred, which is the number of miles between the sea and Heliopolis.
VII. houtô an eiêsan Aiguptou stadioi hexakosioi kai trischilioi to para thalassan. entheuten men kai mechri Hêliou polios es tên mesogaian esti eurea Aiguptos, eousa pasa huptiê te kai enudros kai ilus. esti de hodos es Hêliou polin apo thalassês anô ionti paraplêsiê to mêkos têi ex Athêneôn hodôi têi apo tôn duôdeka theôn tou bômou pherousêi es te Pisan kai epi ton nêon tou Dios tou Olumpiou. [2] smikron ti to diaphoron heuroi tis an logizomenos tôn hodôn touteôn to mê isas mêkos einai, ou pleon pentekaideka stadiôn: hê men gar es Pisan ex Athêneôn katadei pentekaideka stadiôn mê einai pentakosiôn kai chiliôn, hê de es Hêliou polin apo thalassês plêroi es ton arithmon touton.


IX. From Heliopolis to Thebes is nine days' journey by river, and the distance is six hundred and eight miles, or eighty-one schoeni. [2] This, then, is a full statement of all the distances in Egypt: the seaboard is four hundred and fifty miles long; and I will now declare the distance inland from the sea to Thebes : it is seven hundred and sixty-five miles. And between Thebes and the city called Elephantine there are two hundred and twenty-five miles.
81 schoeni = 608 miles
1 schoeni = 7.5miles = 1/10 degree = 11.1 km
1 Parasang = 30 furlongs

Rktect 8/9/05 User Egil is self admittedly not knowledgable about measures so should not be editing any articles related to them. His allegations regarding them constitute opinion rather than fact

He knows plenty about measurements. More importantly, his bullshit meter is finely tuned. Gene Nygaard 13:47, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Rktect 8/9/05

I have visited your page and seen Egil recruiting you to vandalize pages
so you can put that in your meter and measure it.
How about telling me what either he or you have against putting up references
you have reverted references on ancient weights and measures at least twice.
neither of you makes any attempt to list sources. I just listed some of
the standard references for the material below as footnote. If you want to
debate them we can get into it page by page, you bring your sources and
I'll go get mine.
and for what its worth, neither of you seems to want to list your expertise
in the subject, where you have an interest in standards of measure,
what you have studied, researched, read, investigated, what your source material is...

[edit] Rktect References

ArchaeologyColin Renfrew
A History of Seafaring George F Bass
The Ancient Near East William H McNeil and Jean W Sedlar
The Epic of GillgameshTranslated by Andrew George
The Ancient Near East James B. Pritchard
Bahrain through the Ages,
Shaika Haya Ali Al Khalifa and Michael Rice
Prehistory and Protohistory of the Arabian Peninsula
Dr. Muhammed Abdul Nayeem
Mesopotamia 10 The Sumerian Language Marie-Loise Thomsen
Cultural Atlas of Mesopotamia and the Ancient Near East" Michael Roaf
The Archaeology of Ancient China Chang
The Arabic Alphabet Nicholas Awde and Putros Samano
Gardiner Egyptian Grammar § 266 for names of Egyptian units
A Concise Dictionary of Middle Egytian Raymond O Faulkner
Ancient Egyptian Antonio Loprieno
Atlas of Ancient Egypt Baines and Ma'lek
Egypt's Making Michael Rice
Mathematics in the time of the Pharoahs, Gillings, chapter 20.
Ancient Egyptian Construction and Architecture
Somers Clarke and R. Englebach
Land Tenure in the Ramesside Period Salley L.D. Katary
In Search of the Indo Europeans J. P. Mallory
Rivers in the Desert Nelson Glueck
From Alpha to Omega Anne H. Groton
Our Latin Heritage Hines
The Ten Books on Architecture Vitruvius
The Geography Claudias Ptolemy
The History of Herodotus
Old Hittite Sentence Structure Silvia Luraghi
The Rise of the Greeks, Michael Grant
A Field Guide to Rock Art Symbols of the Greater Southwest
Alex Patterson
The Historical Roots of Elementary Mathematics
Lucas N. h. Bunt, Phillip S.Jones, Jack D. Bedient
The World of Measurements H Arthur Klein
Norman's Parrallel of the Orders of Architecture R. A. Cordingley
The Medieval Machine Jean Gimpel
The Atlas of the CrusadesHJohnathan Riley Smith
The Plantagenet Chronicles Elizabeth Hallam
Medieval Warfare H.W. Koch
You tie particular references to particular "facts", then we can consider whether or not those references really establish those facts (are they controverted by other referernces, are you just misinterpreting what is in the references you cite, etc.). That's the way it works, not just a list of every book you've ever looked at.
See Wikipedia:Cite sources for guidance. Gene Nygaard 18:33, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Rktect 23:41, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
The cited sources were interleaved with each point made
in the footnote to this page, 4 hours before you posted
that, why not take a look?
By the way, where can I see a page where you have provided footnotes
or cites, or sources or quotes to back up a statement?


The content below, between the horizontal lines, has been removed from the article. There is already a section on history, and much of the content here seems to be not so relevant. More importantly, much of it seems to be original research by the author. The "Greek Milos" for instance, exists only in Wikipedia. Not good at all. Im fact, I really have not found any documentation of any of these claims. -- Egil 16:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Rktect 8/10/05 Ever read the Bible Egil?, Try Matthew 5

The Greeks derived their systemized standards of measure from a variety of sources including ancient Europe, Mesopotamia, Persia, Phoenicia and Egypt.

The credit for the first systemized collection and standardization probably goes to the empire builders of Mesopotamia and Egypt but the international commerce of the people who benefited by those great empires, the Greeks and Persians and the Romans who followed them is what really required the system be standardized over such vast areas.

The Mesopotamians measured their arable land in garden plots or sar and combined them into fields or iku of 100 cubits to a side. The Egyptians measured out the irrigation ditches that bounded their 3ht or fields as strips a cubit wide and 100 cubits long known as kht. Their st3t which was a field 100 cubits to a side became the Greek Aroura.

It is probable that farmers measured out the land their community allowed them to plow in return for digging the ditch by pacing it off and built up an enclosure for it with the stones they found in their furrows.

The community would give the fields out in pairs, one to be plowed and one to remain fallow which were planted in rotation. As beasts of burden were domesticated and yoked to the plow the amount of land under cultivation increased, and a third field was added to be planted in hay or fodder for the plow animal. The side of this cluster of fields became standardized at 350 cubits or one minute of march.

The Milos was based on a stadion equivalent to the Egyptian minute of march.

In Egypt the minute of march was 350 royal cubits long and an hour of march or itrw was 21,000 royal cubits long. The Greeks tell us they noted their measures of 6 plethrons and 8 stadions, were both the equivalent of the Apothem or slant side of the Great Pyramid.

Using unit measures like the Stadion, Stadium and Furlong which were originally used to lay out fields and only gradually became defined as areas like the Aroura or thousand square royal cubits, the empire builders measured out their roads.

The Greek Milos was originally 8 stadions or 600 Greek pous × 8 = 4800 pous. The Pous came in long, short, and median variations so depending on which one you used the number of pous would vary even as the length of the stadion and Milos remained the same. 600 Attic pous were equal to 625 Ionian pous but both stadions were 185 meters long.

The Romans standard pes was the Ionian pous of 296 mm so they made their stadium of 185 meters equal to 625 pes or 1000 passus and that made their Milliare 5000 pes.

What makes that a great system for empire builders is that the passus is now a measure of the pace at which the army moves. If such standards of measure are well suited to controlling the movements of armies with milestones related to how much distance can be covered in a set period of time they are equally servicable to the needs of commerce.

Just as the farmer can use the stone walls that border his field to help him restablish its boundaries after a flood, the community can establish its bounds in terms of how much land it needs to irrigate to sustain its population and the lugal or narmr (chief farmer) can determine how many men he needs to dig the irrigation system and how much land to alot to each oinkos, gene and phratre in return for their service. It's all very feudal.

The city state is based on a market or agora that serves a number of communities which are spaced about as far apart as a man can walk in a day driving a team of oxen pulling a cart.

[edit] changes to the English Mile

Rktect 8/9/05
This is from memory I'm at work and don't have Klein with me
but I believe the original Greek and Roman 1480 m Mile definitions
were in variance in England, Scotland and Wales before they were changed in England
by Athelstane, c 940, by William, c 1066, again by Henry VIII c 1547,
then by rule of thumb because of the confusion until Elizabeth c 1593 statute Mile.
Prior to Elizabeth I have found no evidence of a 304.8 mm foot and considerable
evidence from just prior to the staute that cartographers were still using a milliare.
c 1816 there were variations due to redefinition because the metric system was coming
on line on the continent so standards were being tightened resulting in the English Mile,
Survey Mile and American all being different at something like the sixth decimal,
then all were redefined again c 1878, reconciled c 1959, revised several times
since by changes in standards and metrification


I agree that this is largely incomprehensible and mostly irrelevant to this article. Unless any appropriate information is culled from it and cleaned up, and credited to reliable sources, I'll help you in reverting these repeated insertions. Gene Nygaard 14:57, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A specific example from Rktect

Miles
The Greek Milos of 4800 pous and
the Roman Milliare of 5000 pes and
The English Myle of c 49 BC - 1593 AD
are 8 stadions, stadiums, furlongs of 185 m.

[mile]

  • A Scotish Mile based on a Roman Milliare with an Egyptian Royal Cubit in its scale composed according to the Greek Orders of Architecture as Ionic cornice and frieze.
Stadions
The ordinary Mesopotamian sos or side at 6 iku and 180 meters
was the basis for the Egyptian minute of march
the Egyptian minute of march at 183 m and 350 royal cubits
was the basis for the stadion of the Greek Milos
The stadion of the Greek Milos at 6 plethrons or 100 orguia and
600 Atic pous of 308.4 mm at 185 m
was the basis for the stadium of the Roman milliare
The stadium of the Roman Milliare at 625 pes of 296 mm
was also 185 m and at 1000 passus of 5 pes
was the basis for the furlong of 625 fote of the English Myle
Leauges
3 Milos of 4800 pous = 24 stadions = 14,400 pous = 1 leauge = 4440 m
3 Milliare of 5000 pes = 24 stadiums = 15,000 pes = 1 leauge = 4440 m
3 Myles of 5000 fote = 24 furlongs = 15,000 fote = 9375 English cubits = 1 leauge = 4440 m
3 Miles of 5280 feet = 24 furlongs = 15,840 feet = 9900 English cubits = 1 leauge = 4828 m
7.5 milliare = 1 schoeni = 1 kapsu = 2 parasang = 60 furlongs = 11.1 km = 1/10 degree
1 degree (eec) = 1 itrw = 10 schoeni = 20 parasangs = 600 furlongs = 21,000 royal cubits
Rktect wrote (I italicized all just to set it off):
On old maps the scales are generally given in Milliaria
which means the standard being used is Roman miles.
Even is some areas of the United States, which were settled prior to 1593
you can find property defined by the older set of standards
so that fields were laid out to a furlong which was 1/8 of a Myle of 5000 fote.
One of the earliest of all tables of English linear mesures,
Richard Arnold's Customs of London, c. 1503,
contains the following sentence ...
The length of a barley corn 3 times make an ynche [inch] and
12 ynches make a fote [foot] and
3 fote make a yerde [yard] and
5 qaters [quarters] of the yerde make an elle.
5 fote make a pace.
123[125 in Klein] pace make a furlong
and 8 furlong make an English myle [mile]
Sources:
The World of Measurements, by H. Arthur Klein,
736 pages, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1974, SBN 671215655
http://www.littletechshoppe.com/ns1625/nshist03.html


Rktect 8/10/05
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
the hide is 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, half a knights fee
but it was typically between 80 and 120 acres, 1/4 knights fee
Its actually 60 modern English, and 70 old Roman acres
We are told that the bovate is 1/8 of a carucate,
which also appears in the Domesday Book originated as a Danish measure
and it is found in the northeastern English counties
constituting the Danelaw.
Lets allow a carucata or carucate, like
1 hide, is approximately 120 acres and
like the bovate was found in the Danish counties.
Lets allow 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. (see definitions of Sumerian areas)
We are told the plowland compares with the knight’s fee
which we have established originates with the Milos
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) used as a measure of area in Saxon counties.
30 acres is 1/4 sulong
We have the Arpent AS a unit of length =~ 191.8 feet and
the (square) arpent used as a unit of area, area
(180 old French 'pied', or foot) used in France, Louisiana, and Canada.
approximately .845 acres, or 36,802 SF
Clearly derived from 1000 square orguia = 36,850 SF
which is itself derived from 1 sos = 10,000 square orguia.
We have the Morgen a unit of area =~ .6309 acres. or 27, 482 SF
used in Germany, Holland and South Africa, as 3/4 the Arpent
derived from the German word Morgen ("morning").
It represented the amount of land that could be plowed in a morning.


[a map of scotland Leslie, John, 1527-1596 ]

On Mercators map you can see the Roman Milliare is divided into 8 furlongs

[Mercator, Gerhard, 1512-1594 Scotia Regnum]

"So far as I have tryed be cownt or experience I do find a common myle of our cowntrey to hold of ellns sixteen hundreth, sumtyms they ar longer, sumtyms they ar shorter, and very rudelie ar they cownted but I do hold this may be a just proportion to stand for all, being measured in a right lyne."

"I do find that 50 of our myles agreeth best of all to 60 Italian miles or a degree, wherupon I have followed out all the latituds of Scotland."

Cowell speaking of Scotland.

I read that to mean that a degree of latitude is taken as 60 miles in Italy, but 50 miles in Scotland and thus is related to a Roman Mile of which there are 75 to a degree as 50/75 or in other words 1600 ellns = 3333.33 Roman feet of 296 mm

  1. Mercator in his legend uses "Miliare Scotica" That is not a Roman mile. That is a Scottish mile.
A Milliare is a Roman Mile. A Milliare Scotia is a Roman Mile of Scotland.
The Scotish mile is based on a Roman Mile just as that of Richard Arnold
writing in London England half a century earlier. If a Mile is defined as 80 chains
then 10 chains = 1 furlong. Since a chains = 24 ells, 10 chains = 240 ells = 1 furlong
Elizabeth defined the furlong as 220 yards or 660 feet so if 240 ells = 660 feet
then an elle would be 2.75 feet or 838.2 mm
Cowles tells us the Milliare Scotia is 1600 elles but 80 x 24 comes out to 1920 elles
so it clearly has been increased
Mercator's map published c 1595 was probably drawn several years earlier.
its scale features an Egyptian royal cubit and its degrees are divisible into three parts of 5
or in other words 5 minutes of a degree = 6.25 Roman milliare of 8 stadiums of 625 feet
6.25 Roman milliare = 50 stadiums
If you look at some of the later maps you will see how the standard changed after 1593
so the Scottish Milliare changed as the English mile did from 4800 feet or
80 chains of 24 ells of remem or 80 x 24 x 2 remen of 381 mm or 15" to
80 chains of 24 ells of two feet or 80 x 24 x 2 feet of 308.4 mm or 12" = 618.8"
"The "ell" is an ancient measure of length,...
mentioned explicitly in the Magna Charta,...
reluctantly signed by King John on 15 June 1215.
This document contains sixty-three pledges or clauses;
the thirty-fifth is the "measurements" pledge.
Translated from the medieval Latin into modern English,
this clause reads: "Throughout the Kingdom
there shall be standard measures of wine, ale, and corn.
Also there shall be a standard width of dyed cloth, russet,
and haberject; namely a width of two ells within the selvedges.
Weights also are to be standardized similarly."


Rktect 8/10/2005
First as an agent of Egil you are constrained not to edit the pages under mediation.
Your actions will be pointed out to the mediator as will Egil's request
that you take these actions.
Secondly: Milliare is the Roman word for Mile. You can't argue that someone using
the Roman word for mile on a map has has no knowledge of such a standard or
its value and has not been influenced by knowledge of it or
that the Scottish mile is an independant invention.
"I do find that 50 of our myles agreeth best of all to 60 Italian miles or a degree,
wherupon I have followed out all the latituds of Scotland."

Cowell speaking of Scotland.

A third point is as pointed out above, the Cartographer is closely following the
Methodology of Ptolomy in relating his lengths to degrees of the great circle of the earth.

You cannot see one damn thing about a "Roman mile" on Mercator's map.

Perhaps you might try looking at the scale, see if you note anything of interest.
Its an Egyptian royal cubit divided into 7 palms of 4 fingers for a total of 28 fingers
  1. You don't have more than two significant digits in any of these numbers, and much less than that in most of them.
The agreement between the units of the different systems is better than the variance
between all the iterations of the units in any one system. To make the point clearer
a variance of 3 mm is approximately an 1/8th of an inch = 3.175 mm
the base unit in the table is a finger which means the variance is 3 orders of magnitude
less than than the unit variable

All those six-digit numbers are meaningless. Throwing that meaningless garbage into everything you do is one of the many reasons your edits are not well accepted.

I'm not sure you understand the difference between a system and a standard
let's see if I can make it clear. If the count is four fingers thats a palm
if the count is five fingers that's a hand. There is an order of magnitude
systematic difference between a palm and a hand which makes it possible
to make a disctinction. The same applies to finger and thumb, or foot, remen and cubit.
and indeed to all standards of measure within a system.
They are all systematic and defined as such.
Its further possible to work backwards and identify the multiples
of the standards within a system. For example you divide a hand into
five fingers and a palm into four fingers. That's not rocket science
An ell is two feet, a yard is three feet, a pace is five feet, a fathom six feet.
In every case a foot will be evenly divisible into
either or both fingers or thumbs and palms or hands
The size of the feet vary according to the size of the fingers or thumbs they contain
No foot will measure an odd number of fingers and thumbs in its base unit.
Generally you can make further systematic distinctions
a stadia is always a division of a degree
A mile is always an even multiple of its stadia.
If you divide a degree into 500 stadia then the stadia are 222m and 600 remen
If you divide a degree into 600 stadia then the stadia are 185 m and 600 pous or 625 pes
If you divide a degree into 700 stadia then the stadia are 160 m and 300 great cubits
If you divide a degree into 800 stadia then the stadia are 144 m and 240 great cubits
Whats systematic about that?
1.) a large round number of stadia with a lot of factors making them easy to work with
2.) 8 stadia of 185 m = 1480 m = 1/75 degree of 111 km
3.) 50 stadia of 222 m = 11.1 km = 1/10 degree of 111 km
  1. On Mercators legend near in the upper right quadrant of the map, there are about 16 Scottish miles to 20 minutes of arc. About 48 Scottish miles per degree.
You will I hope note that the divisions of latitude and Longitude
are divided into 15 parts not 16. With division into 15 parts its relatively easy
to subdivide a degree into 60 minutes.
"I do find that 50 of our myles agreeth best of all to 60 Italian miles or a degree,
wherupon I have followed out all the latituds of Scotland."
Cowell speaking of Scotland.

In other words, a Scottish mile of roughly 1¼ nautical miles, since 1¼ times 48 gives you the roughly 60 nautical miles in a degree (something that isn't exact because the Earth isn't quite round).

Aside from your conjecture being contrary to the evidence provided by the contemporary
Scottish geographer Cowell what we are left with is that in other words
a mile is related to a degree. An independently invented concept? Not likely.
  1. It's not clear to whom each of your quotes should be attributed. That's another reason why your edits are not well received.
"I do find that 50 of our myles agreeth best of all to 60 Italian miles or a degree,
wherupon I have followed out all the latituds of Scotland."
Cowell speaking of Scotland.
  1. Those Scottish, not Roman, miles on Mercator's are divided into quarters, not eighths, if those are actually subdivisions rather than decorative hatching. It is 8 subdivisions in two miles, so you've misinterpreted that as well.
  1. There is no evidence whatsoever of a furlong equal to 1/8 of a Roman mile.
False. 1503 is ninety years before Queen Elizabeth when the Myle was still the Roman milliare
of 5000 pes. If that is divided into 8 furlongs each one is a stadium of 625 pes.
One of the earliest of all tables of English linear mesures,
Richard Arnold's Customs of London, c. 1503,
contains the following sentence ...
The length of a barley corn 3 times make an ynche [inch] and
12 ynches make a fote [foot] and
3 fote make a yerde [yard] and
5 qaters [quarters] of the yerde make an elle.
5 fote make a pace.
123[125 in Klein] pace make a furlong
and 8 furlong make an English myle [mile]
Sources:
The World of Measurements, by H. Arthur Klein,
736 pages, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1974, SBN 671215655
http://www.littletechshoppe.com/ns1625/nshist03.html


The Roman Milliare became the English Mile and retained
its divisions as can clearly be seen from the size of the acerage in medieval land holdings.
Milliare
1 square Milliare of side 5000 pes
64 square stadiums of 390,625 square pes,
34,225 square meters, 368,554 SF
25 square actus of side 1000 pes with 25 acres or 20 heridia
1 Heridia was 1.25 Roman acres so there were
20 Heridis to a square Actus
625 areas of 40,000 square pes, 3802.78 m, 40,950.46 SF
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
Myle
1 square Myle of side 5000 fote or 8 furlongs
64 square furlongs of side 625 square feet
in a square acre there were 40,000 square feet or fote
each acre had a side of 200 fote
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
8 hydis = 480 English acres

[edit] Anglo - Saxon use of Roman and Greek Units

1 Myle of 5000 fote became 1 Mile of 5280 feet in 1593
1 square Mile of side 5280 feet was now divided into 8 furlongs of 220 yards
where before it had been 8 stadium/furlongs of 625'
1 acre = 43,560 SF because it was increased by Queen Elizabeth
The side of each square furlong was increased 35'
The area that had been 8 Heridia of 1.25 acres or 9 acres was now divided into 10 acres
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 was 5 square Actus
in a square acre there were 40,000 square feet or fote
each square acre had a side of 200 feet

In fact, what Elizabeth I did was to coordinate the lengths of the furlong and the mile, by increasing the length of the mile to 8 furlongs.

No what Elizabeth did was make an acre measure a perch by a furlong

That's where the extra 280 feet came from. Before her change, there were 7 19/33 furlongs in a mile of 5000 English feet, which was itself longer than the old Roman mile of 5000 Roman feet.

Does that make sense to you ?
Why would someone change from a system of land division
that was easy to calculate and divide up into 8 parts
to an increment of 7 19/33 furlongs
I'm just dying to see your cite for that one.
  1. Do you have any other independent evidence of the existence of any ell of anywhere in the neighborhood of 617 mm (throwing out the other three totally useless digits you presented)?
The Greeks used 600 stadions (of 600 pous of 308.4 mm) = 111 km
2 feet of 308.4 mm = 616.8 mm
evidence of an ell as 2 feet goes back to
the Egyptian ni bw of 8 palms = 600 mm
which is the same as the Mesopotamians great cubit of 2 feet of 300 mm
Ellen = alen = 2 fod
Now I should point out here that
the Greeks and Romans connected with Europe
well before the Jasdorf iron age so places like Hallstadt and la Tien
had probably been using Greek standards of measure since they
began moving baltic amber and metals south into Greece in the copper age
and undoubtedly had contact with all the different iterations
of Greek foot
Roman - Ionic = 296 mm, Attic = 308.4 mm, Athenian = 316 mm
but its really interesting to trace the connection between the spread
of IE language and iron from the Hittites and Mittani c 1650 BC
contemporary with the domestication of the horse and
the use of blue water sailing ships to move cargos across the Black Sea
and transfer them to longboats which carried horses for portage as they
worked their way up the Dneister, Dneiper, Don and Danube
and down the Oder, Weser and Rhine to the North Sea
The connections between the ur-altic languages and
sumerian go back before that
and that is where the 600 mm Scandinavian measures come from
also the definitions of measures are almost word for word identical
with the sumerian as for example the definition of
a field with side 100 cubits as
the amount of land that can be plowed in a day.
In 1670 Abbe Mouton suggested a primary length standard
equal to 1 minute of arc on a great circle of the earth.
For this basic length Mouton offered the name milliare.
This was to be subdivided by seven sub units with each one
to be 1/10 the length of the one preceeding or
Milliare = 1 minute of arc = 36524 English feet = 1.11 km
Centuria =.1 minute of arc = 3652.4 English feet = .111 km
Decuria = .01 minutes of arc = 365.24 English feet = 111.1 m
Virga = .001 minutes of arc = 36.524 English feet =11.1 m
Virgula = .0001 minutes of arc = 3.6524 English feet = 1.11 m
Decima = .00001 minute of arc = .36524 English feet = .111 m
Centesima = .000001 minute of arc .36524 = English feet = 113.25 mm
Millesima = .0000001 minute of arc .036524 = English feet = 11.325 mm
  1. None of these miles was based on a degree on the Earth's surface.
What do you think a degree of the earths great circle measures?
Go back and read your Ptolomy then check how many old maps cite Ptolomy
and or put their scale of miles next to a scale of degrees

Nobody had any precise measurements of a degree.

so your explanation for the figure of 111 km
that just seems to pop up all over the place would be what?
Civilizations from ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt to Greece and Rome
just picked their numbers out of thin air and claimed
they equaled a degree?
and the fact that they do equal a degree is what?
coincidence?
mil – Danish mile. Towards the end of the 17th century,
Ole Rømer connected the mile to the circumference of the earth,
and defined it as 12,000 alen.
This definition was adopted in 1816 as the Prussian Meile.
The coordinated definition from 1835 was 7.532 km.
Earlier, there were many variants, the most commonplace
the Sjællandsk miil of 17,600 alen or 11.13 km
Finish System
poronkusema = 7.5 km
"The distance a reindeer walks between two spots it urinates on."
"This unit originates from Lapland"
French System
lieue commune – French land league, 4.452 km, 1/25 Equatorial degree
1 Roman cubit = 444 mm so 1000 roman cubits = 4.44 km,
a closer aproximation to 1/25 degree
German System
It's interesting how many of the German Meile make a geocentric cluster
around either 5 Greek Milos (Milion) of 7.4 km.
or a whole number subdivision or multiple of it.
While up to the introduction of the metric system,
almost every town in Germany had their own definitions and
it is said that by 1810, in Baden alone, there were 112 different Ellen,
most divide fairly well into a degree.
Length
5 Greek Milos = 7400 m
Meile – A German geographische Meile or Gemeine deutsche Meile
was defined as 7.420 km, but there were a wealth of variants:
Böhmen – 7498 m
Bayern – 7415 m, connected to a 1/15 Equatorial degree
as 25406 Bavarian feet.
Württemberg – 7449 m
Reichsmeile – New mile when the metric system was introduced,
7.5 km. Prohibited by law in 1908.
Anhalt – 7532 m
the Danish mile at 7532 m, or 24000 Prussian feet.
Also known as Landmeile
Sachsen – Postmeile, 7500 m. Also 9062 m or 32000 feet in Dresden
Hamburg (Prussia) – In 1816, king Frederick William III of Prussia
adopted the Danish mile at 7532 m, or 24000 Prussian feet.
Also known as Landmeile
Vienna – 7586 m
6 Greek Milos = 8880 m
Schleswig-Holstein – 8803 m
Baden – 8889 m before 1810, 8944 m before 1871, 8000 m
6.25 Roman milliare of 625 Roman feet = 9250 m
Hessen-Kassel – 9206 m
Lippe-Detmold – 9264 m
7.5 Roman milliare = 11100 m
Westfalen – 11100 m, but also 9250 m
Oldenburg – 9894 m
3 Greek Milos = 4440 m
Rheinland – 4119 m
Pfalz – 4630 m
Brabant – 5000 m
Osnabrück – 5160 m
Other variants
Wiesbaden – 1000 m
Rute – Roman origin, use as land measure.
Schainos – Uncertain use, between 10 and 12 km,
(11.1 km = 1/10 degree =)
Wegstunde – One hours travel, used up to the 18th century.
Egyptian itrw and atur = 21,000 royal cubits = 1 Hrs travel = 1/10 degree
In Germany 1/2 Meile or 3.71 km, in Switzerland 16000 feet or 4,8 km
Stadion – 1/8 Greek Milos
Norwegian System
mil or landmil – Norwegian mile, spelled miil prior to 1862,
18,000 alen or 11.295 km. Before 1683,
a mil was defined as 17600 alen or 11.13 km.
Another old land-mile, 11.824 km.
Greek stadion = 185 m
kabellengde – cable length, 100 favner 188 m,
or 1/10 international nautical mile, 185.2 m
Swedish system
mil – Mile, also lantmil.
From 1699, defined as a unity mile of 18000 aln or 10.69 km.
"The unified mile was meant to define the suitable distance between inns"

Sure, Eratosthenes did a pretty good job of figuring out the size of the Earth; but we don't know exactly how good a job he did, only that he was in the ballpark.

Hey guess what? Eratosthenes didn't figure it out, he looked it up in the library.
In order for his measures to agree with what he claims he would have had to have
defined his stadia as Egyptian minutes of march not Greek stadions or Roman Stadiums

There was nothing there precise enough to use in constructing standards of length, even in his time.

The first few stabs at it weren't "precise" but gradually people got better at it
The Mesopotamian value is about 108 km, The Egyptian value is closer to 109 Km
The Greeks and Romans settled in at 111 km or 75 Roman milliare.

After that, you don't get much of anything as far as better measurements of the Earth until about the 17th century, and even at the end of the 18th century, those who constructed the metre standard were off by about 0.02 percent from what they intended to measure.

Well let's see if thats true or not.
Ptolomy measures with 500 stadia of 600 remen = 500 x 222 m = 111000
I would say he hit it right on the money
  1. Those relationships between Scottish miles, Italian miles, and Roman miles are not matters of definition. Nor are they claimed to be in any of the sources you have quoted, whoever those quotes belong to.
Sure they are. The Roman mile is classically defined as 1/75 degree

The relationships are approximations of existing relationships of either poorly defined or at least not well understood by the person commenting on them, especially in the case of the stated-to-be quite variable distances called a mile in Scotland. Gene Nygaard 06:19, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

There are scotish maps that define a scotish mile on the scale
as 80 chains of 24 elles
Miles are well defined and have been
the subject of commentary for a couple of millenia
The fact that you and Egil are oblivious to
what you are looking at I can't help.
Saying there is a Scottish mile of 80x24 = 1,920 ells doesn't connect it to a degree, or make it based on a degree. Of course, you also talked about a Scottish mile of 1,600 ells earlier.
The Greeks used 600 stadions (of 600 pous of 308.4 mm) = 111 km
2 feet of 308.4 mm = 616.8 mm
evidence of an ell as 2 feet goes back to
the Egyptian ni bw of 8 palms = 600 mm
which is the same as the Mesopotamians great cubit of 2 feet of 300 mm
Ellen = alen = 2 fod
1920 > 1600 so the Milliare Scotia is increased
Prior to 1593 in Europe we are talking a milliare or mille passus
5000 pes, 8 stadiums or furlongs, 625 pes to a furlong of 185 m
Thats a mile of 1480 m, 75 m = 111 km = 600 stadia = 1 degree
There are variants. East of the Rhine a Greek Milos or milion
is also 8 stadia of 185 m but for the Greeks and the cultures
that borrow from them its 600 pous to a stadion.
mile
1575
Some of the other possible values for an elle or double include,
remen, cubits, long cubits, yards, paces, fathoms and rods.
Because after 1593 we have a major change and suddenly the mile
is no longer geocommensurate in the way it was before.
After that people begin redefining it to suit their own needs.
The Dutch ell becomes 22"
The Danish elle becomes 24.7"
The Flemish elle becomes 27"
The Scottish elle becomes 36"
The English elle becomes 45"
The French elle becomes 54"
In the Netherlands the meter is sometimes called an elle
Here is the 11th edition of Encyclopædia Britannica (1911), s.v. Weights and Measures (contributed by William Matthew Flinders Petrie), showing a furlong of about 661 modern feet (and 600 old feet), and a mile of 10 of those furlongs or 6,610 modern feet (6,000 old feet, Belgic and not the Roman one) (references inserted in square brackets inline rather than just reference number, and numbers without units are by convention modern inches in this article):
You invoke Petrie?!? Lets go see what Petrie has to say about that.
the origin of English measures
"The origin of the English foot—304.799978 mm.
by the Act of 1824; 304.80 by the American standard
has been a deep mystery."
The Weights and Measures Act of 1824 did not define the English foot in terms of the metre. Furthermore, the standard yard in use at the time of that act was destroyed in a fire the 1930s; the Imperial Yard reconstructed in the 1840s remained the standard until the 1959 international agreement (implemented by statute in the Weights and Measures Act of 1963, probably earlier in fact). Gene Nygaard 04
06, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
"Petrie who because interested in Egyptology and metrology,
because of his original interest in pyramidism, in one
of his better moments connected the English foot with
a pes Drusianus used in the German provinces of the Roman Empire.
Roman authors indicate that in the German provinces, there was
used a pes Drusianus equal to 18 fingers of Roman foot;
this foot must have got his name from Nero Claudius Drusus,
the adopted son of Emperor Augustus and brother of
the Emperor Tiberius, who established Roman rule in Germany.
This foot is obviously a barley foot.
The structure of English measures in which the rod is 16/½ feet
and the chain (width of the acre) is 66 feet, indicate that
the English foot was conceived as 10/11 of another unit
which is the pes Drusianus.
" It is agreed that the Roman mile composed of 5000 feet and
divided into 8 stadia of 625 feet equal to
a stadion of 600 artabic feet goes back to Oriental models."
"In the eastern part of the Roman Empire there was used
a unit called milion or miliarum defined as equal

" to 5400 Roman feet and to 7½ stadia or 600 hybrid feet

or 400 Egyptian royal cubits
"The text of the Berytean Lawbook retranslated into Latin reads:
dederunt mille passus qui faciunt quingentas pertica autem mensura,
in qua sunt octo cubitus. "
"Turning now to England, we find [W. M. F. Petrie, Inductive Metrology (1887) (principles and tentative results] the commonest building foot up to the 15th century averaged 13.22. Here we see the Belgic foot passed over to England, and we can fill the gap to a considerable extent from the itinerary measures..
Go google H.J. Chaney 1842-1906. His theory was that the Belgic Mile
was 6610 US feet, 1330 feet longer than the statute mile and decimal and
that it was supressed in 950 CE. or better yet go find a copy of Klein and
read this stuff for yourself.

It has been shown [W. M. F. Petrie, Proc. Roy. Soc. Edin. (1883-1884) (mile)] that the old English mile, at least as far back as the 13th century, was of 10 and not 8 furlongs.

Actually its 10 chains and 8 furlongs.
Each furlong based on a Greek stadion is 600 pous,
its also 300 ellen and 200 yards 100 orguia and 6 plethrons
Each furlong based on a Roman stadium is 625 pes
Each Milliare is 1000 passus, 5000 pes and 10 chains of 500 pes or 400 remen

It was therefore equal to 79,200 in., and divided decimally into 10 furlongs 100 chains, or 1000 fathoms.

Its actually just 11 stadia of 600 pous =6600 pous
1 schoenus = 10 itrw or atur of 21,000 royal cubits = 60 furlongs

According to Chaney not Petrie, that ancient Phoenician system of 11 stadia was a relic of the tin trade and was supressed in Belgum before the Battle of Hastings. In England and the rest of Europe Chaney points out that the Greek Milos or Milion and Roman Milliare were the root source.

For the existence of this fathom (half the Belgic pertica) we have the proof of its half, or yard, needing to be suppressed by statute (9) in 1439, as the yard and full hand, or about 40 in.—evidently the yard of the most usual old English foot of 13.22, which would be 39.66. We can restore then the old English system of long measure from the buildings, the statute-prohibition, the surviving chain and furlong, and the old English mile shown by maps and itineraries, thus:—

      foot,   3=yard,  2=fathom,  10=chain,  10=furlong,  10=mile.
      13.22   39.66    79.32      793        7932         79,320
"Such a regular and extensive system could not have been put into use throughout the whole country suddenly in 1250, especially as it must have had to resist the legal foot now in use, which was enforced (9) as early as 950. We cannot suppose that such a system would be invented and become general in face of the laws enforcing the 12-in. foot. Therefore it must be dated some time before the 10th century, and this brings it as near as we can now hope to the Belgic foot, which lasted certainly to the 3rd or 4th century, and is exactly in the line of migration of the Belgic tribes into Britain. It is remarkable how near this early decimal system of Germany and Britain is the double of the modern decimal metric system. Had it not been unhappily driven out by the 12-in. foot, and repressed by statutes both against its yard and mile, we should need but a small change to place our measures in accord with the metre."
Gene Nygaard 19:13, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Belgium c 950 was a part of England?
By the way Chaney published this
about the same time Budge was writing
the "Nile" and the "Book of the Dead"
Is this the first time you have come across this?
Your biggest problem is a simple failure to understand what it means when various metrologists postulate a "connection" between different units. Gene Nygaard 04:06, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Correction. Your biggest problem is a total inability to make whatever points you might have comprehensible. You are totally incapable of separating the wheat from the chaff. You insist on throwing out everything you know in response to any point someone else makes, even if 90% of what you know has no relevance whatsoever to the topic under discussion at the time.
You clutter up even the talk pages so horribly that nobody could possibly follow the discussion, and you compound the problem by not even signing your comments. Gene Nygaard 04:12, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
rktect 8/12/05
That second correction is a good point. I often forget that
many people are totally unfamiliar with the vocabulary involved
so I have wikified or linked a number of the words involved.
Its also a good point that a few links will reduce the
need for repetition.
From the number of links that come up red it's evident that
there is a need for some basic definition of terms.
If you will leave the page alone long enough for me to finish
I will attempt to link the units so you will
be able to follow the discussion.
Your problems aren't cured by slapping in a few wikilinks.
Your deletion of what's here and reorganization are even worse than your yet-incomprehensible additions. Are you totally incapable of considering why this article exists in the first place, and why anybody would come to look at it, or link to it from some other page? Gene Nygaard 13:25, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Another point. Latin is no longer the lingua franca it once was, and there is no reason whatsoever for nonsense like using Latin names for Scottish units. There is generally no reason for using other than english names for any of these units, since the names that matter have generally been borrowed into english. None of them are particularly relevant to an article about the mile in any case.
Why don't you just go make yourself a sandbox, and play in it to your heart's content? If you ever come up with anything remotely comprehensible, maybe you can talk somebody into helping you clean it up. In nothing else, you will get some quiet time to work on it without being reverted all the time. Gene Nygaard 13:34, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Another point: the verst and various leagues have nothing to do with the mile. They did not contribute in any significant way to the development of the mile, they are not translated as "mile" but either converted to miles or kilometers or referred to by their other names. At most, some of them might be included in a see also link to other units of a similar size range, with no details here. Gene Nygaard 14:44, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Communication Issues

You don't listen at all, do you, Rktect? You just keep putting in the same, incomprehensible mess.

Hopefully, somebody else will have the sense to revert you soon. I won't violate the WP:3rr rule, but note that you are also on the verge of violating it. Gene Nygaard 15:14, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

He also posts it as a "minor" revision. I came here a couple days ago when writing a units routine for some software, trying to be sure of the "best" way to define a mile in terms of international units. I left in absolute horror at the mess, in which one would have to be particularly astute to even find the expected definition of 5280 feet. I did revert once, but don't check wikipedia often enough to be a crusader for this page. Rktect, I am not someone's sockpuppet or hired hand, I just want a good article here, and yours does not present the information which someone is most likely to want when looking up "mile" in an encyclopedia. I imagine most of the other people who revert this article away from yours feel the same way. Kevin Saff 22:46, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Rktect 8/12/05

Why would you want to define a mile in terms of international units when its essence is the antithesis of SI units? Its like tearing down an historic building to make room for a parking lot serving a McDonalds.

Can you tell me why a definition of "mile" should contain only an SI units perspective? What is so horrifying about encountering information that encourages you to think about things a little differently? Does that waste your time?

Suppose your momentary inconvenience and lack of instant gratification would make somebody elses day as they find an unexpected richness of content in a bland metric wasteland. How would you suggest that information about things that have been around for several millenia and have a history should be dealt with? Just delete them?

Is it better for everyone to to act unilaterally, than to try to achieve consensus or is it just you the rules don't apply to?

I needed to define it in terms of international units for a units library - that is, a library to convert between different kinds of units. I did not say it should contain a "SI units perspective", just that your article was so incredibly messy and difficult to read, I decided to go elsewhere rather than try to read what you wrote. I have a feeling that others seeing this article would also decide not to waste their time on it, which is why I decided to check the history for a better version. From this talk page and the edit history of the article, it seems many others are in agreement. As I was saying, from your version of the page, it's next to impossible to find even the standard definition in terms of feet. One must scroll past a table of contents (with no introduction) past some weird section about Leauges and Stadions (I thought this was the Mile article) to get to the section on statute miles. Most people will give up long before they reach that point. (Ironically, it is your version here which initially defines a mile as (about) 1609 meters, long before it gives a definition in terms of feet.)
There may be good information in your article, but it's impossible to wade through your sloppy formatting. Go look at some featured articles for examples of better wiki code - - even looking through the code on this talk page could teach you something. Learn how to indent, make lists, not have ragged lines like you always do, use sections which make sense, and at least put the most important stuff (such as that in the current version of the article) at top. The other version was so much cleaner than yours, I had no reason to think twice about reverting it. At least listen to this very consistent criticism of your work -- that it is disorganized and poorly formatted -- and consider what you need to do to communicate better. Please read the various articles in the Wikipedia namespace about what makes for a good article. One of the most important is to put the most generally required information at top. Note that you seem to be the only one defending your version of the article -- the rest of those here seem to agree that the other version is much better. Perhaps you should think about why people might think that?
Please learn how to use the "minor edit" checkbox. It's right there under the edit summary. It is intended for correcting typos or spelling, or very minor grammatical changes. You always have the "minor" checkbox checked, even for extremely major changes such as replacing the entire article. This gives people the impression that you are trying to "sneak" your changes through, by claiming they are minor when they are not. -- Kevin Saff 19:54, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Lets allow that proper format is an important way of improving communication, and that communication is essential to building consensus. Don't you think the positive or negative atmosphere of the communication is equally important? Rktect 19:45, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Greek "Milos" is a flower, not a unit of measure

The Greek noun ho milos is relatively uncommon. All of the uses I found in a search through the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae agreed with the definition in LSJ, namely "flower of the yew tree." The reference for anyone who cares would be Liddell, Scott, and Jones, Greek-English Lexicon, available online through the Perseus project (www.perseus.tufts.edu).

There is also a later noun to milion which is simply the Hellenized form of the Latin mille. It does not appear in any early texts. Again, you may see the TLG and LSJ if you care.

Therefore I would suggest that there is no reason to include references to a "Greek milos" in any Wikipedia article except perhaps articles on ancient botany or Theophrastus. --Ctenophore 05:14, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

  • try the spelling mylios. 1.8 mylios / 2.8 kilometrai. olimpinės mylios (1988 m) ir 10 km Rktect 00:00, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Certainly a worthy try, but I think you'll find that mylios and kilometrai are Lithuanian plural forms of mile and kilometre, and not Greek. I do appreciate that it is not easy to keep these two languages apart, they both use strange looking letters, and are both used in countries that are small, and located far, far away, somewhere in Europe. But there are two secret methods that true scholars of linguistics use to separate them. The ancient approach is to look at the rate of strange letters: you'll find that in Greek it is typically higher. The modern is to look in the little white box towards the top of your web browser. If you can locate the letters .lt, chances are that it is Lithuanian. If you find .gr, it might be Greek. -- Egil 12:09, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Rktect's edits on the whole

I'm pretty damn sure you know a lot more about ancient measurements than I do, and your edits to this article and others show that. They also show, that although you may be very knowledgeable, you are in fact, impossible at conveying the knowledge to anyone else in the world.

Your edits here have many many irrelevent "facts", and is almost never explained. You compare ancienct measurements that no one has ever heard of with even more extinct measurements.

For example:

  • The Greek Milos or Milion of 4800 pous - What is a pous? Why is it even there? Why not just tell us how long the Greek mile was in metric terms?! It's useless, no one knows how long the Greek milos is, because your sentence is totally without context.
  • I created a page on the pous or Greek foot (which has a short, median and long form)that attempts to define the variations in terms of the Greek Orders of Architecture and the development of a concept that some sets of proportions are more pleasing than others. There would be a linkage to measures in music except that I don't know enough about music to go there. The basic point is that measures are much more than just a length they also help us relate to things in interesting ways. Some units are related to the earth itself, others to a more human scale or designed to aid in commerce by facilitating calculations of area, volume and weight. There are many rich layers.

Something like :

  • The Greek Milos (used between xxx - yyy) is the equivolent to zzz km?
  • That's a good idea.

At least, then others would be able to understand what a Greek mile actually is!

And this isn't relevent to the mile article, but in your articles about ancienct egyptian measurements, what is a 3ht? or a st3t? How are they pronounced? Do they really contain an integer number in them? What's the actual english equivolent?

  • I created pages on the 3ht, st3t, khet and Aroura but they were all marked for vfd on the grounds that they talked about the same thing. The reason for the number (3) which is a linguistic convention representing one of several implied vowels (3 < ' e sometimes y) in languages which use consonant only systems, is that without it the word would be ht and there is another word ht which is the cord or rope used to measure the side of the field.

The 3ht is a group of three of the fields known as a st3t. The st3t which the Greeks called the Aroura, has a side of one khet or 100 royal cubits and is referenced in the mathematical problems of the Rhind papyrus. The 3ht is a group or cluster of fields linked by crop rotation where one field was plowed, one left fallow and one planted in hay for the plow animal. Since the square khet of the mh t3 or land cubit is 1/2 acre and the st3t using the square khet of the royal cubit is 2/3 acres, the square 3ht is 2 English acres.

  • This length of 300 royal cubits that is the side of the 3ht then becomes an Egyptian stadia such that there are 70 3ht to an itrw or river journey. The Greeks call the itrw the schoenus which Herodotus defines as 60 furlongs or Greek stadions of 185 m. Consequently 10 itrw or 700 3ht or 21,000 royal cubits equal 600 stadions or 1 degree of the earths great circle.
  • The Greek mylios or milion of 4800 pous eguals the Roman milliare or Mille passus or 1000 passus or 500 pes. I created pages on the milion, milliare, Mille passus and pes but they were all marked for vfd on the grounds that they talked about the same thing and are original research and pseudo science because they link the Greek and Roman measures to those of Egypt and imply that ancient civilizations could measure a degree of the Earth's great circle in the same way Eratosthenes did using the Egyptian 3ht as a stadia. Eratosthenes stadia was also removed by vfd Rktect 10:32, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

You've written these articles so only someone with a deep understanding of ancient measurements would be able to read. Wikipedia is a place for very advanced subjects (I'm sure there are some physics stuff on here that would take a phd to read) but you need to ease the reader in slowly. Start off with an overview, explaining all the general concepts to a novice, and then in later sections, elaborate so other experts may glean more information. - Hahnchen 22:59, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

If indeed there is a Greek mile. You are of course free to believe what you will, but I can offer you a counterpoint. Perhaps there is another explanation as to why you do not understand this? -- Egil 23:16, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Egil finds reading about things he doesn't understand extremly frustrating. Rktect 10:32, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Our resident 3rk3tect, OTOH, is quite contented blathering away at things he doesn't understand, and wouldn't be able to communicate even if it were otherwise. Gene Nygaard 12:40, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
"Miles and stadia have been intended to be unit divisions of a degree of the Earth's great circle circumference since they were first defined as standards of measure by the rope stretchers of Mesopotamia and Egypt." True, False or I don't know.
"It was not untill the 17th century that the circumference of the Earth was measured with sufficient accuracy that it could be used as basis for a measure of length." True, False or I don't know.
"the entire concept of a degree as a unit for angle measurement was not known by the ancient Mesopotamian and Egyptian civilizations" True, False or I don't know.
"The Greek milion is simply the name of a Roman mile, it is not a Greek unit of measure at all" True, False or I don't know.
" 1 Milliare Scotia in 1595 = 5 minutes of arc of the great circle of the earth = 9.25 km" True, False or I don't know.
"Ten itrw would be 700 stadia of 300 royal cubits or 1 degree of the earths great circle. " True, False or I don't know.
"that in ancient times, there simply were no maps where degrees of latitude and longitude were indicated"
"there are exactly twice as many seconds in a century as there are inches in the circumference of the earths great circle " True, False or I don't know.
"The Egyptians had a very well documented standard of measure called the khet which was 100 royal cubits in length and was the side of an 3ht or field called a st3t. In Greek and Roman times the Egyptian fields were generally farmed in clusters of three with one left fallow, one plowed and sowed in grain and another planted in hay for the plow animal." True, False or I don't know.
"The Egyptian value for the itrw or river journey was 21,000 royal cubits."True, False or I don't know.
" Moutons definition of a milliare is a minute of arc, which by modern definition would be a nautical mile, but by the knowledge in 1670 was 2.040 km." True, False or I don't know.
"a pous can be both 333.2 mm and 308.4 mm at the same time because the Greeks had short median and long pous." True, False or I don't know.

Rktect 04:16, September 3, 2005

  • What's the use in this true or false quiz? If you're going to be the quizmaster Rktect, then I don't think many will trust your answers. I'm not knowledgable in ancient measurements, but I would say the Egytian value for the itrw is 20,000 royal cubits, am I correct? - Hahnchen 00:07, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Many of the above statements have been made by participants in a controversy which now resolves down to whether the are true or false. I would allow it is acceptable to say you don't know, but if that is the case then you shouldn't be attempting to decide the issue. Ken would like us to think he has a dog in the hunt so I'd like to see if he can tell a duck from a moose.
It really is a methodological issue and comes down to whether you want your encyclopedic content to be well researched or just a grab for the first thing that comes to hand. I would like to see a page for each of those questions with both perspectives presented with as much intellectual honesty as possible, so that both sides are hearing eachothers part of the discussion. I'm for greatly reducing the attacks on opposing points of view and for greatly increasing the attempts to hear what the other guy is saying.
    • The "quiz" was originally a dig at my supposed lack of intellectual honesty: [1]. In my opinion the "correct" answer to that question is "I don't know," because nobody today knows with certainty what value the Ancient Egyptians used for the itrw. There aren't any left alive, and they don't seem to have documented their comparative measurements terribly well by modern standards. Most references use a standard of "approximately 20,000".
      Ken talk|contribs 00:36, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
The list of questions, though presenting three choices, really reduces to two sets. Either you think you know the answers or you don't. In your case Hahnchen, you know that you don't know, so it would be possible for you to look them up online and learn something about each of those topics if you were interested in them. I like your approach in taking a guess and then asking if you are correct. The best way to find out is to to do some research.
Ken doesn't know but immediately begins to opine. He says that "most references use a standard of aproximately 20,000". He further says that they don't seem to have documented their comparative measures terribly well by modern standards, which is an extremely odd statement.
The Egyptians have documented their comparative measures terribly well by anybodies standards. Their obsession with documenting their measures is legendary. They left us their mathematical textbooks which include methods of finding the area of circular fields with a circumference of up to a mile, inscription grids, rulers, rods, nileometers, mekherts, beys, plummets, squares, methods of determining slopes and of dividing circles into degrees, dimensioned architects drawings and calculations, stele and boundary markers, illustrations of their surveyors tools and methods, and ledgers of accounts for administering everything from their land to the portions of bread and beer distributed to workers.
  • To pass my test of intellectual honesty Ken might have said what you said.
    " Both 20,000 rc and 21,000 rc could be supported by cites to scholarly opinion."
    Generally primary sources are prefered to secondary sources.
The Primary source is Herodotus who is the one telling us the Greek schoenus is a measure of Egyptian origin equal to 60 furlongs. The English furlong is used to translate the original Greek term for a stadion of 600 pous of 304.8 mm or 185m . 60 x 185 m = 11100 m. The royal cubit is 525 mm so there are 21,000 rc or 210 rods of cord in the Greek Schoenus.
Gardiner says the itrw is a schoenus. This makes it a lot easier to support 10 rods of cord = 21,000 rc, than the 20,000 rc "estimate" in the Egyptian itrw. A second point in support of this would be the Egyptian preference for septenary numbers in their mathematics.
  • Gardiner "Egyptian Grammar" § 266 p 199 is often cited. " In citing Gardiner it should be taken into account that while the Grammer is a definitive work in the field it was written in 1927 and is in its 3rd edition, most of its cites are c 1869-1907 and some things have been studied in more detail in the interim and its primary focus is grammar rather than mensuration.
Gardiner "Egyptian Grammar§ 266 p 199 says" The chief multiple of the cubit was the ht rod of 100 cubits, also called ht n nwh rod of cord." "I made a wide road, (lit. made wide a road)for my offerings considting of 21 rods of cord, ie 2,100 cubits. " swsh n i w3t n wdhw i m ht n nhw 21 " " 3ht n ht 10 r ht 2 a field of 10 rods"
We have 2,100 cubits and decimal multiples of rods of cord.
" Gardiner § 266 p 199 continues " A much larger linear measure was the itrw, river measure, (see AZ 41,58) the Greek schoenus, now estimated on good grounds at 20,000 cubits = 10.5 km" (Borschardt, Lehmann Haupt c 1907)
Some secondary sources cite this as "the itrw, river measure, 20,000 cubits = 10.5 km".
Ken can go there if he wants to, but my thinking is if he does, that demonstrates some serious problems with his methodology. He will have found it necessary to neglect the primary source altogether and because he hasn't looked at the primary version of the secondary source he will be neglecting some substantive portions of that.
" Gardiner § 266 p 199 continues. "However in one place a smaller itrw occurs in conjunction with the ht rod and with two fractions of this which we shall find below as measures of area." "The distance between stela and stela on the hill east of Akhenaten itrw n itrw 6 ht rmn hsb mh 4 makes 6 itrw 1 3/4 rods and 4 cubits. For itrw n makes see § 422, 3."
Another way to read it is that this itrw is one of 6 ht(cord of 100)rmn and that this cord of rmn uses the rmn (diagonal of the square) of 4 mh. Gardiner § 266 p 200 discussion of area " st3t, the Greek Aroura, this was a measure of 1 square khet or 100 cubits squared. A measure of ten arouras is written lit thousand, more fully h3 t3. an abreviated writing is 3ht h3 2, st3t 2 twenty two arouras of field)"
Returning to Herodotus we can begin looking at problems with the cite. Are the number of pous in a stadia and the size of the pous always the same? No. Is that a problem? Maybe. There are hundreds of secondary sources who provide additional information you could use to inform your decision as to what is the value of a royal cubit, what is the value of a stadion what is the value of a pous, but they don't always agree and since there are several different Greek pous how do we know which one was used? If you are interested in solving the problem, breaking each large question down into many smaller pieces makes it easier.
  • Generally whenever the Greeks and Romans use a stadia measure it is a division of a degree, either 185m, 222m, or 157.5m. The number of pous in the stadia, the number of stadia in the degree and the length of the pous multiply out to 111 km. That is a testable hypothesis.
    Greek stadion = 600 pous = 185 m
    600 stadions = 1 degree = 111 kmRoman stadium = 625 pes = 185 m
    600 stadiums = 1 degree = 111 km
    The Egyptian Degree
    1 cord of ht = 100 royal cubits = 1 khet =52.5 m
    1 cord of 3ht = 3 st3t of 100 royal cubits = 157.5 m
    1 itrw = 210 cords of ht = 70 cords of 3ht = 21,000 royal cubits = 11.025 km
    1 Egyptian degree = 700 cords of 3ht = 10 itrw = 110.25 km
    1 itrw is 1 hours river journey
    1 atur is 1 hour of March
    1 Egyptian Minute of March is 350 royal cubits of 525 mm = 183 m
    The Ptolomaic stadia is divided into remen instead of pous
    in Egypt Remen had always been used for land surveys.
    1 Ptolomaic Degree = 500 stadions = 111 km
    111 km divided into 500 stadions of 600 remen of 14.7" = 222m
    Erathosthenes Degree
    1 Persian degree = 700 stadia = 111 km
    10 Egyptian schoeni = 20 Persian parasangs = 600 furlongs
    1 Persian stadia = 157.5 m = 3 Egyptian st3t
    Ken thinks that questioning his intellectual honesty is a dig. I think that if he wants to be believed his status as a fair and impartial observer is a testable hypothesis. Does he care if what has been said is true or false? Will he bother to check it out?
    Ken is among those who take the position that if they don't know, nobody knows. He thinks he knows this to be true, therefore no more research is required by Ken, he can dismiss this topic as definitely settled and just express his opinion as fact.
        • Researching all of the above is necessary for a scientific approach to consider all the evidence. Rktect 16:27, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

I apologize in advance for the rather long rant, to those who find it annoying...

Replying to Rktect: Every reference upon which I have been able to lay my hands to date has said, in the particular case of the itrw/atur/iter/whatever, that it is "approximately 20,000 cubits". That includes the references available locally, those available in the county library system, and those I've been able to access through inter-library loan. I believe I have exhausted the sources available to me. I do not have access to Rktect's doubtless extensive library, but every reference I've been able to check agrees on this particular point: an iter/atur/itrw (btw, all sources also agree that itrw is the plural) is "approximately 20,000 cubits". This goes to Wikipedia:Verifiability: if Rktect states as a fact "X" which isn't plausible on it's face, and has a source which nobody else can locate which says "X", then the statement that Rktect wishes taken as fact is questionable as it can't be checked. This is a known weakness of Wikpedia, but one with which we all must work. (I am actually willing to admit that there may be a reference which states "An Ancient Egyptian Atur was measured at 21,000 royal cubits" but I haven't seen that reference. My "most references" is a way of saying that I haven't been able to actually exhaust all references on the subject, but those I have been able to check don't agree with Rktect's assertion.)

If Rktect doesn't like that I haven't been able to verify this fact, I would ask that he provide me with specific references that I can attempt to obtain and verify. No "See Klein", but "Klein, World of Measurements, Chapter X, page YY of the umpteenth edition" (Klein is a bad example, as I specifically have not been able to obtain a copy of that volume. And I've been trying for weeks, as I happen to like researching obscure topics and the full title promises lots of extra-curricular excursions. To my wife's continual dismay...) The more such references the better, as more references make it more likely that I can actually get hold of one. It is not, however (per WP:V#When adding information), incumbent on me to figure out which of Rktect's references might actually be useful in this particular case, it's incumbent upon him to make sure I have enough information to easily verify his work. And I contend he has not done this. Despite which, I have tried.

Now, I'm tired of Rktect's insinuations that I use bad references, bad methodology, or bad intellectual ethics. I have repeatedly said things like "every reference I have checked," "every reference available to me," and "every reference I can find" and he continues to imply that I have a vendetta against him, that I'm lazy in my research, and that I'm closed-minded. I don't have a vendetta, I've spent at least 60 hours in the past month at the library (something which I can't do in the future, as I have a new project to work on in real life), and if he can manage to provide me with facts I can actually check, I'm always interested in learning something new. (I've learned things about Ancient Greek measurements, and Periclean architecture has been an interest of mine for a couple of decades...)

If he can verify his facts, there's a place for them here. And, even if his eventual bent is to document how all systems of measurement tie in to the dimensions of the Great Pyramid of Khufu (something for which I think even he would admit there is no evidence, as I'm pretty sure I've seen him speak disparagingly of pyramidology), there's a place for that, as Wikipedia has a long history of documenting what mainstream science would call crankery. That place is not, frankly, mainstream articles like Mile or Eratosthenes, other than perhaps by links to the fringe theories. But there is a place for it.

Rktect has tried to rush into changing the face of Wikipedia's articles on weights and measures (probably because he has a "concept" of what they should be), and he's run smack into the idea of consensus as practiced here. The consensus is that his facts are unverifiable. (Maybe he can verify them, but we can't. And that's not our problem, in the end, it's his.) And the consensus is that, even were his facts verifiable, many of them are misplaced in the articles he wishes to place them in. There is no place in an article on the mile, for instance, for extensive discussions on Greek and Egyptian systems of measure.

One final thing: Rktect has spoken often about solving problems, exploring possibilities, and the like. Wikipedia defines that as original research. And there is no place for that here. Wikipedia can report that there is poor agreement between sources on the size of the atur. It cannot analyse and conclude that one source is correct and others are wrong. That is original research. I'm honestly sorry if that doesn't accord with Rktect's worldview, but that is Wikipedia.

Ken talk|contribs 03:27, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Let me stipulate that I am sure Ken is not lazy. I am sure that he want's to use the corrrect information. I understand that it is not easy for anyone to assimilate 30 years worth of knowledge base overnight. The problem is Ken doesn't know how to tell fact from fiction. It has apparently never occured to him that he can check and see if the data is internally consistent without commiting "original research". Learning something new that contradicts facts that we think we know is complicated when we experience cognitive dissonance or have difficulty admitting we are wrong. Ken would benefit by admiting he has been wrong to accuse me of original research. He would benefit more by actually reading what I provide him for sources.
Most books in a library are pure fiction. Most of what is in a library is copied from other sources. Even those which are non-fiction are geared to at best undergraduate level research projects. Above that level people begin writing their own books because they get frustrated not being able to find what they want. At that point knowing how to work back to the primary sources is critical. Even reference works make mistakes. If you are reading a book written in English the chances of your getting a correct translation of Latin, Greek, Egyptian, Sumerian, Akkadian or Arabic are not good.
Mainstream articles like Mile and Erathosthenes are full of errors which need to be corrected. Given that, I am dissapointed that I gave Ken several cites above which he apparently disregarded. Solving research problems and filling in the missing blanks of information by visits to the bookstore is not original research.
The Primary source is Herodotus who says the Egyptian schoenus (itrw) is 60 stadions
Below you will see cites that each stadion is 600 Greek feet = 185 m. (pous)
The Egyptian itrw is thus 60 x 185 m = 11.1 km
The Egyptian royal cubit is 525 mm
You do the math (accuracy to fractions of a mm is unlikely for ancient standards)
Let me also warn against "the opinion of the many" when it comes to facts.
You need to check facts even when everybody agrees with you
I like the following source but it is not without error. Ken says he would like access to it but can't find it, I will look around and see if I can find him a copy and mail it to him if he emails me his address.
H Arthur Klein "World of Measurement" Simon and Schuster, 1974 SBN 671-21565-5 Chapters 4-9 in Particular.
p 55 "The digitus in and around Rome was about 1.854 cm or .73 inch long. It was related to the largest Roman length units by an interesting sequence of ratios. (Aproximate metric equivalents are given in parenthesis)
4 digiti = 1 palmus (7.4 cm)
4 palmi = 1 pes (29.5 cm)
5 pes = 1 passus (1.48 m)
125 passus = 1 stadium (184.5 m)
8 stadia = 1 milliare (1476 m)
p 60 "To sum up the average or typical short pes (foot) of Rome measured 29.6 cm.
p 61 " The Greek Digit 1.84 cm was close to the the Roman digitus (1.845 cm)
1 orguia = 1.84 m
1 amma = 10 orquias = 18.4 m
1 digit based stadion = 10 ammas = 184.5 m"
p 69 " Arnold's Customs of London appeared about 1500. It contains the following sequence for which we have substituted Arabic for Roman numerals. The length of a barley corn 3 tymes makes an ynch and 12 ynches make a fote and 3 fote make a yerde and 5 quarters (of the yerde) make an elle, 5 fote make a pace, 125 pace make a furlong and 8 furlong make an English Myle. Thus in 1500, 1 ell = 3.75 feet; I furlong = 125 x 5 = 625 feet; and 1 mile = 625 x 8 = 5000 feet."
p 70 "The old English leauge was even longer, about 3 statute miles or 4830 m."
p 71 "The Greek stade (stadium) has been equated with 600 Greek "feet"
[Greek Lengths]
I like Perseus but it is not without error in English translations from Greek
The only way to be sure you are getting the right information is to do your own field work, to learn the languages and scripts and read the originals yourself
[[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0126:book=2:chapter=7:section=1

Herodotus from Perseus]]

VI. autis de autês esti Aiguptou mêkos* to para thalassan hexêkonta schoinoi*, kata hêmeis diaireomen einai Aigupton apo tou Plinthinêteô* kolpou mechri Serbônidos* limnês, par' hên to Kasion oros teinei: tautês ôn apo hoi hexêkonta schoinoi eisi. [2] hosoi men gar geôpeinai eisi anthrôpôn, orguiêisi memetrêkasi tên chôrên, hosoi de hêsson geôpeinai, stadioisi, hoi de pollên echousi, parasangêisi, hoi de aphthonon liên, schoinoisi. [3] dunatai de ho parasangês triêkonta stadia, ho de schoinos, metron eon Aiguption, hexêkonta stadia.
VI. Further, the length of the seacoast of Egypt itself is sixty “schoeni”1 --of Egypt, that is, as we judge it to be, reaching from the Plinthinete gulf to the Serbonian marsh, which is under the Casian mountain--between these there is this length of sixty schoeni. [2] Men that have scant land measure by feet; those that have more, by miles; those that have much land, by parasangs; and those who have great abundance of it, by schoeni. [3] The parasang is three and three quarters miles, and the schoenus, which is an Egyptian measure, is twice that.
Stecchini can be a great source of things to check out. If you distrust him and attempt to prove him wrong by checking his facts you will definitely learn a few things in the process. For just one example take references to a Roman degree of 75 miles. Check that out.
"Through medieval times there had been preserved the memory of the Roman calculation of the meridian of degree as 75 Roman miles."
"Seventy-five Roman miles indicate a degree of 110,979 m. "
"The common practice of Roman times was to divide the Roman mile not into 10 stadia of 600 Roman feet, but into 8 stadia of 600 artabic feet, equal to 625 Roman feet."
"The artabic foot is particularly fitted to the calculation of geographic distances, since 100 such feet are equal to a second of degree. Hence a plethron of 100 artabic stadia fits exactly into the sexagesimal division of the degree. The Persian parasang, equal to an hour of march, is equal to 18,000 artabic feet, and is divided into the triple unit called milia in Roman times; since there are 20 parasangs to a degree, there are 60 milia to a degree."
"The corresponding degree would be the one of 75 Roman miles of 20 parasangs."
"all these figures express in different ways the value of 75 Roman miles or 20 parasangs to the degree."
"Since the Greeks before the time of Aristotle did not possess the state organization necessary to proceed to the measurement of the degree, it follows that the degree had been calculated before Greek times. If the degree had been calculated before Greek times, it follows that it was not the Greeks that discovered that the earth is a sphere."
"Kleomedes reports that Eratosthenes calculated the latitude of Alexandria in Egypt and that of Syene at the First Cataract, and found that this distance, which is the entire length of Egypt, would be 1/50 of the circumference of the earth. Eratosthenes would have calculated the distance between Alexandria and Syene as 5000 stadia, so that the circumference is 250,000 stadia. At the beginning of the nineteenth century it was determined that the Egyptian royal cubit is 525 mm. and hence it was concluded that Eratosthenes calculated by stadia of 300 Egyptian royal cubits."
"Ancient metrological tables state that the Philetairic or Ptolemaic royal cubit (which is the Babylonian-Egyptian royal cubit according to Boeckh’s terminology) is 9/5 of the Roman foot, so that the figure of Eratosthenes comes to be the usual figure of 75 Roman miles to the degree."
"But several authors of the Roman period mention a degree of 700 stadia. This degree value should not be confused with that of Eratosthenes and is based on a stadion of 300 royal cubits of the Pharaonic period; these two points have been made by Letronne. I have reported that the correct Egyptian royal cubit was 525 mm., but it was at times computed as 524. mm. and at times as mm. Assuming a cubit of 525 mm. the degree would be 110,250, and assuming a cubit of 526.3 mm. It would be 110, It is easy to see why the figure of 700 stadia to the degree was chosen: it well fits the pattern of septenary reckoning in the Egyptian royal cubit.""
[[http://www.metrum.org/measures/measurements.htm
I would propose that the best way to handle the information that needs to be there about the history of the Mile, who invented it, where and when, how long was it to begin with, what else has it been called, how has its definition changed over the years, is to use the names of the arcane units that will be missed by somebody who just wants to know about a statute mile but still be there for somebody who really really wants to know everything about the mile in excruciating detail and be able to see a list of footnoted cites for each fact that don't refer back to secondary sources.Rktect 17:51, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please: +ca

I have created this article in my language, catalan. As the article is protected from editing, I can't add it. Can anyone do it, please? the link is ca:Milla Thanks!!!

I have cautiously added the interwiki link you requested, although the page remains protected for the time being. Ian Cairns 18:52, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotected

No ongoing discussion. --Tony SidawayTalk 10:51, 11 September 2005 (UTC)