Talk:Ancient Greek units of measurement

Untitled

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

Cleanup

This article is not in Wiki format and needs a bit of work. Xaa 23:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Shusi?

The "sh" phoneme doesn't exist in Ancient Greek, and neither does "ch" as in "cherry." That's why Chandragupta became "Sandracottus" (Σανδρακόττος). There are numerous other non-Greek words in the table. It's not clear which system they come from and what they are being compared with. --69.245.192.52 00:29, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

comparae ancient digits

"1 digit, "shusi" or "uban" (+/- 17.67 mm) Assyria"

Rktect 15:31, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Shushi is a reduplicated semitic root with the sense of divide evenly into fingers or measure. shh to cut or divide shwy evenly

ENTRY: shh

DEFINITION: To sharpen, scrape off, peel. Swahili, from Arabic sawil, of the coast, Swahili, from sawil, plural of sil, coast, active participle of saala, to scrape off, smooth, plane.

ENTRY: shwy.

DEFINITION: Central Semitic, to be(come) even, equal. 1. Shiviti, from Hebrew iwwîtî, I have set (first word of Psalm 16:8), from iwwâ, to set, place, derived stem of *wâ, to be(come) even. 2. schwa, from Hebrew w, schwa, probably from Aramaic (Syriac) (nuqz) wayy, even (points), plural passive participle of w, to be even, equal.

The Greeks standards of Measure come from Ugarit by way of the Akkadians, Mittani, Luwians, Hittites and various sea peoples such as the Luka, Weshesh, Meshwesh, Peleset, Tjecker, Danoi, Shardana and Kretanoi. I suppose a shorter way to put that would be through the Phoenicians and Punics especially as regards standards of measure used in the copper trade, boatbuilding, cedar wood from Lebanon, grain shipments from Egypt in return for olive oil, and the Persian influence in connection with the cities of Sideon and Tyre up to the tiem of Alexander.

The above has only an indirect bearing on this article. Since the article is about *Greek* units of measurement, Greek terminology should be used. Petrouchka 11:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Disputed

See also User:Egil/Sandbox/rktect#Articles_under_attack -- Egil 15:33, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Egil I looked at your sandbox there is nothing in it but kitty litter. Try stating specifically what fact you dispute and then backing it up with a referenceRktect 01:00, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

The dispute for this page in particular is to the table of units of lengths, which contain many many definitions of units in terms of some claimed common Greek daktylos, and in particular many forign units. This is dubious, and I'm afraid the burden of proof falls on whoever presented these definitions. -- Egil 07:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

When you dispute things it would be good if you could cite specifically what it is you dispute. Your simply not being familiar with a term doesn't make it not so. Note that both the finger size and composition of the foot as 4 palms and 3 hands are variables. The Egyptian foot can be divided into either hands or feet

because the mh or foot cubit glyph is placed across the 15-16 interval.

• [daktylos]
• [daktylos]

As you can see in the above table 18 mm is in the

• Egyptian 16 fingers of 18.75 mm = 4 palms = 300 mm
• Roman 16 fingers of 18.5 mm = 4 palms = 296 mm range

20mm and 21 mm are in the Mesopotamian range with

• Mesopotamian 15 fingers of 20 mm = 3 hands = 300 mm = Olympic pous
• Mesopotamian 15 fingers of 21 mm = 3 hands = 315 mm = Pergamene pous
• Mesopotamian 15 fingers of 21 mm = 3 hands = 315 mm = Aeginetan pous

similar to the Athenian pous of 316 mm

You can generally tell at a glance which system you are looking at but for the uninitiated the expectation that all measures are divided into palms and the failure to think about whether the divisions are palms, hands, fists, spans, or quarters can result in confusion.

The variety of Greek pous are normally categorized as short, median and long

• short is generally 300 mm, 304.8 mm, 308.4 mm
• median is 315 mm, 316 mm
• long includes anything from 325 mm up to 375 mm which is a remen.

but generally either the Attic Greek pous of 308.4 mm or the Ionian Greek pous of 296 mm or the remen of 375 mm are used for stadia measures.

• Foot based stadia are 185 mm
• remen based stadia are 222 m
• cubit based stadia are 157.5 m

[comparae ancient digits]

• "1 digit, "shusi" or "uban" (+/- 17.67 mm) Assyria"
• "1 digit or "digitus" = 18.44 mm Rome"
• "1 digit or zebo (=18.7 mm) Egypt (anglicizing dj as z/ebo in an archaic way)"
• "1 digit or "daktylos" - plural : "daktyloi" (= 19.3 mm) Greece"

(claimed common Greek daktylos 19.275 mm makes a pous of 308.4 mm)

In addition there are all the feet in between Mesopotamia and Egypt in Palestine and along the eastern coast of the Mediterranean which all generally are some integral number of fingers in the range 18-20 mm usually also integrally palms or hands.

As Stecchini points out 3 hands of 15 fingers or 4 palms of 16 fingers are commonly taken as feet and 5 palms and 10 palms as remen and double remen respectively, and 4 hands or 5 palms ordinary cubits and 6 hands or 7 palms great cubits and 8 palms or 6 hands being considered a nibw or double foot, but there are also examples of measures running up to 8 palms or 9 hands sometimes being mistaken for feet when they are really elles or yards respectively.

Since that covers the integrals 4,8,12,16,20,24,28,32 and 5,10,15,20,25,30 what remains are generally multiples of fists 6,12,18,24,30,36, spans, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60 and quarters 12,24,36,48,60

That gives you common increments of feet divided into fingers at 15,16,18,20 and some rare instances of feet that are 17, 19 or 21 fingers long. The English cubit vestigally preserved as the diamond on the Stanley tape measure which measures 19.2" is divided into 24 fingers of .8" or 20.32 mm implying its foot is 16 fingers or 325.12 mm or a long Greek foot.

I realize that all of that is stuff you don't know or at least didn't before, but it makes you look foolish to argue against such basic and easily citable facts.

When you go to a site and it says something you don't need to assume everything it says is correct. Often you will need to separate the wheat from the chaff, but after a few decades of study it will all start to make some sense to you I hope. Rktect 15:24, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Without independent citations, the enormous number of assertions above carry no weight. This is the discussion page, not the main article! If the article is disputed and these facts are "easily citable" (which is untrue, by the way: it'd take a hell of a lot of work to provide definite evidence for all of these), then citations of some ancient texts are obviously needed; like others, I am also unsure what is disputed, but the material above neither proves nor resolves anything.

BTW a lot of the entries on the page as it stands contain gibberish -- e.g. "1 uncia âˆ" -- I presume the ∠gibberish is an error that's happened somewhere along the way and somehow been replicated. Does anyone know what it's supposed to read? There are numerous problems with singular/plural forms of words too. Petrouchka 11:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

What is it exactly that the dispute is about? Federal Street 03:13, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Did somebody mention Stecchini? Zyxwv99 (talk) 23:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Moved external link to German Wikipedia

I removed the following link from this entry as the page it links to is in German. I moved the links to the German Wikipedia.

• More on the schoinos

Epolk 21:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Herodotus's schoinos

Herodotus 2.6 says the schoinos is 60 stadia, not 40. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.145.32.101 (talk) 14:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Herodotus 2.6 "schoine, which is an Egyptian measure, is equal to sixty furlongs" (ὁ δὲ σχοῖνος, μέτρον ἐὸν Αἰγύπτιον, ἑξήκοντα στάδια). 2.149 "The measure of its circuit is three thousand six hundred furlongs (being sixty schoines), and this is the same number of furlongs as the extent of Egypt itself along the sea." (τῆς τὸ περίμετρον τῆς περιόδου εἰσὶ στάδιοι ἑξακόσιοι καὶ τρισχίλιοι, σχοίνων ἑξήκοντα ἐόντων, ἴσοι καὶ αὐτῆς Αἰγύπτου τὸ παρὰ θάλασσαν) (furlong = stadion)

Pliny the Elder Historia naturalis Book 5 chapter 11 "Lake Mareotis, which lies on the south side of the city, is connected by a canal which joins it to the Canopic mouth, and serves for the purposes of communication with the interior. It has also a great number of islands, and is thirty miles across, and 150 in circumference, according to Claudius Caesar. Other writers say that it is forty schoeni in length, making the schoenum to be thirty stadia; hence, according to them, it is 150 miles in length and the same in breadth." Text original V.XI.63 : "Mareotis lacus a meridiana urbis parte euripo e Canopico ostio mittit ex mediterraneo commercia, insulas quoque plures amplexus, XXX traiectu, CCL ambitu, ut tradit Claudius Caesar. alii schoenos in longitudinem patere XL faciunt schoenumque stadia XXX: ita fieri longitudinis CL p., tantundem et latitudinis."

Strabo Book XVII. 1. 24 "Now this is the full description of the country from Alexandria to the vertex of the Delta; and, according to Artemidorus, the voyage up the river is twenty-eight schoeni, that is, eight hundred and forty stadia, reckoning the schoenus as thirty stadia. When I made the voyage, however, they used different measures at different times when they gave the distances, so that even forty stadia, or still more, was the accepted measure of the schoenus, according to the place. That the measure of the schoenus among the Aegyptians in unstable is made clear by Artemidorus himself in his next statement; for from Memphis to Thebai each schoenus, he says, is one hundred and twenty stadia, and from Thebai to Syene sixty, and, as one sails up from Pelusium to the same vertex of the Delta, the distance, he says, is twenty-five schoeni, that is, seven hundred and fifty stadia, using the same measure" (text original). Pilot Pirx (talk) 16:15, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Display of characters

There's something very wrong (I think) with the character set(s) that were used by one or more editors in the past. For example, I see "1 uncia âˆ" for the third entry in the table. The wikitext is

1 ''uncia''<!--Roman?--> âˆ

I can't fix it, because I don't know what it's supposed to say. Ardric47 22:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've figured out that the problem originated here. Is there an easy way to change those "special" characters back, or would it have to be done manually? Ardric47 22:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

medimnos=48Kg?

Something very wrong here! The article says 1 medimnos is 48 kg but the linked article says it is equal to 25kg. I think the linked article must be right - if a choinikes is 1.1 Litres, and there are 48 of them in a medimnos, then a medimnos is about 52 Litres. Converted to mass, that amounts to 52 kg of water. I'm sure a dry measure of grain weighs a lot less than that! Consider also the fact that a litre of wheat grain would not weigh the same as a litre of barley. So I think the Wiki article is poorly written. If 1 medimnos is 25 kg of barley seed, a Thetes rated at a maximum 200 medimnoi per year, would then grow 5000kg of barley seed per year. That seems an awful lot to me! According to Wiki, it's a whopping 10 000 kg per year. Lucretius 08:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I have now revised the article myself since nobody else seemed interested. The problem lay in using medimnos as a liquid measure. I revised the article using the referenced text. Lucretius 10:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Mess

Sorry but the more I look at this Wiki page the stupider it seems. It's titled 'Greek Measures'. But which Greeks? The different city states had different standards. This needs to be defined clearly. I suspect the general assumption is Athenian standards. Also I don't understand why lengths are expressed in terms of so many exotic units. It's confusing. Higher up, one contributor complains that there are no citations for all these lengths. There was no reply to this complaint. It's a valid complaint. Consider for example this weird assertion: 1 daktylos = 19.275mm. You must be kidding! The 'Greeks' measured as finely as 1 thousandth of a millimeter? And where did they keep the template for this precise length? Did they have it engraved on a brass rod located up some philosopher's backside? As I said, it's a mess. Lucretius 10:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It is, indeed. I will not tire you with the story about why it became like this, but the process certainly wore me out entirely (you can look at Pseudoscientific metrology for a small summary about what we are talking about). Yes, please, please, if you can get rid of all the mess in here, that would be a wonderful thing. -- Egil 12:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I have now revised the page. I've provided a very simple format that can be developed further by other contributors. As I see it, it's just a new beginning. At least it's now free of some nonsense that was passed off as historical fact. I have yet to add my sources. I'll get around to that later. Lucretius 02:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Further Improvements

After viewing the revised article, John Porter emailed me with these comments (John is author of one of the web pages I have cited):

I'm not really all that confident in the page you cite: it uses rather out of date sources (cited at the bottom of the page).

If I were you, I'd consult, e.g., the new Oxford Classical Dictionary, Brill's translation of the junior Pauly Wissowa, or Richardson's book.

My web page was intended to give an indication of the various units of measurement and their rough equivalents, but I don't regard it as in any way definitive.

In other words, the article as it now stands is to be considered only a rough guide to the topic. So there is still work to be done by anyone wishing to make the article more definitive. The Richardson book that John refers to is:

Richardson, W.F Numbering and Measuring in the Classical World. Bristol 2004

Lucretius 07:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm waiting to get a copy of the recent Oxford Classical Dictionary and will work on this article as soon as I can. In the meantime, I stuck in a couple of graphics. One is the Athens Olympic Stadium - a bit anachronistic but still relevant for reasons of etymology. If u don't like it, feel free to get rid of it (:))Lucretius 10:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Walking stadion

I'm an amateur student of ancient metrology and I'll just pick one item in this article that seems to me to exemplify sloppy scholarship. In the section on lengths (the stadion) we have the referenced statement "...and the walking stadion, 157.5 m" with the reference given as the website of the Hellenic Institute of Metrology, eim.org.gr. These people may be very good MODERN metrologists, but lack a lot as historians. They give no references at all for the stadion of 157.5 m. (For the Athenian stadion and the Olympic stadion, for which they also give no references, there is ample evidence.) Where does this 157.5 m. number come from?

Let me explain why this is NOT a reliable number. In the first place it is 300*0.525m = 157.5 m. Thus we are ASSUMING that 300 Egyptian Royal Cubits of 525mm is the relevant stadion. Where does that careless assumption come from? It comes from outright speculation. Some of the references to the work of Eratosthenes (lost except thru secondary references) tell us that he gave the circumference of the earth as 252,000 stadia. Others claim Eratosthenes used 250,000 stadia as the circumference. Pliny, Vitruvius, etc. use the former figure, 252,000/360 = 700 stadia to the degree, and it is plausible if we assume that Eratosthenes and Ptolemy both used 11/83 of a circle as the angle of the ecliptic (incorrect) and 31 degrees as the latitude of Alexandria (also incorrect.) But 525mm is NOT a reliable figure for the cubit used in Alexandria -- it is a conveniently rounded metric number easier to publish than 523.55 mm. or 524.08 mm. or 524.86 mm. The 525 mm. value did not appear in the literature of Egyptian metrology until after the French Revolution, was an early Egyptian unit and probably was not used in Greek Alexandria. By the time of Eratosthenes, Egypt had been overrun by the Assyrians, Persians, and Greeks and Egyptian metrology was in flux. Alexandia, after all, was a Greek city.

From the statements of Vitruvius we have more reason to consider Eratosthenes stadion to be 500 feet of the 317 to 317.5 mm. foot -- 5/7 of the Roman cubit.

Assuming that Greeks in Egypt used an Egyptian Royal cubit of 525mm AND divided the degree into 210,000 (rather than 211,000 or 211,640) cubits is a hand-me-down "truth" for which there is remarkably little evidence in the form of measurable artifacts or written documentation. It is just such carelessness that makes all of the Wikipedia entries on ancient metrology too suspect for me to recommend to the serious scholar.

The website eim.org.gr is a "me-too" and unreferenced website, useless as a reference or a source of additional information. The reference should be deleted, and a more informative reference found so readers can at least track down the source of this odd assumption. Donbury (talk) 06:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Donbury

Summary: I question the validity of a Greek stadion of 157.5m and the use of an unreferenced site to validate it. Donbury (talk) 06:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Donbury

I agree with you completely. All my data came from the OCD. Someone else put in the other bits along with the Greek script. Make the necessary changes if you like or you could revert to my previous edit (27 October, I think). My original edit did not feature the Greek script. The problem with Greek script as part of the presentation is this - every new addition in units now requires a Greek parallel, which in turn requires quite a bit of computer know-how. Anyhow, you might be one of those who thinks Greek script is necessary if we are serious about metrology. It's up to you.

By the way, I'm moving your comments to the bottom of the page, which is the right place for them since discussion should go in temporal sequence.

Orthography?

Somebody fiddled with the Greek letters apparently in the interests of 'orthography'. Unfortunately it has not worked as many of the Greek letters are now replaced with meaningless squares (or is there something wrong with my browser?). If anyone else is having this problem, I suggest the changes should be deleted. I personally don't see any reason why the article needs Greek letters at all. I can well understand a love of all things Greek but the article doesn't benefit from the self-indulgence of its contributors. Lucretius 03:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, it is a problem with your browser and/or operating system. I see the polytonic Greek characters perfectly well with the default font settings of the Firefox included in a fresh Ubuntu LiveCD (a freely downloadable OS and browser). Install some decent Unicode fonts with polytonic Greek support or switch to a better browser or operating system. Just because you see squares instead of the correct characters, or just because you have the very peculiar thought that including accurate information about the original-language names of the units described in the article is a mere "self-indulgence" from the part of the contributors (?!), is no valid reason why this fully encyclopedic and necessary info should be deleted. 213.37.6.23 02:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I still think it's self-indulgence despite your supposed outrage. Why is the Greek script necessary? Those of us who read Greek don't need the Greek translation and those who can't read Greek can't understand the translation, so what's the point? If I were to look at an article on Egyptian measurements I would not expect to see the units of measurement expressed in hieroglyphs. It simply clutters the presentation. My suggestion to you is this - create a subsection in the article where all the units are translated into Greek, instead of cluttering the main text. Lucretius 06:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, since you do go on about necessary info, you should be aware that you have left out the breathings for some words. I suggest you fix that up first and lecture me afterwards. Lucretius 06:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

more units

Gnu units lists more than just these units. It cites "Weights and Measures: their ancient origins and their development in Great Britain up to AD 1855 by FG Skinner" for these. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Random832 (talk • contribs) 01:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Adding Clean up

Adding cleanup tagging for two reasons:

1) non-standard format -- bold is not MOS default... see other articles in Category:Obsolete units of measure;

2) Needs current conversion factors... normally (again see other articles) given in metric (SI) equivilents.

Best regards // FrankB 20:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for advice Fabartus. I have now rewritten the article. SI now features whenever appropriate. However, scholarly doubts about exact values of Greek measurements make SI conversion pointless most of the time. Regarding non-standard format, I like the format here. Bold print helps the eye pick out the significant data. However, I have considerably reduced the use of bold because there was too much of it in the previous edition.

I know there are people out there who like to show off their Greek and I hope they'll resist the temptation to provide a Greek translation for every anglicised unit of measurement. If they insist on writing stuff out in Greek they might as well translate the whole article. A fat lot of good it will do anyone.

My references are all to the OCD 2003 edition. Hopefully somebody will back this up with other referenced texts.Lucretius 08:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

This article is about Greek, not English, units of measures. As such, giving their actual names in Greek (apart from their anglicized versions) is not only good thing, it is a necessary and unavoidable thing for this article to be truly serious and encyclopedic, and your wholesale deletion of this info one might even qualify as vandalism (at most, one could delete the repetitions, but not the first instance each name is given in its original form). Having the nerve to go and wholesalely delete this encyclopedic information, providing the nonsensical rationale you've just exposed —as if offering that info were an exercise in "showing off how good our Greek is" (!?)— is akin to going to the article on Aristotle and deleting his original name in Greek characters, saying that otherwise we "might as well translate the whole article into Greek". 213.37.6.23 23:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh you also had your say here. I'll simply quote what I said higher up:

I still think it's self-indulgence despite your supposed outrage. Why is the Greek script necessary? Those of us who read Greek don't need the Greek translation and those who can't read Greek can't understand the translation, so what's the point? If I were to look at an article on Egyptian measurements I would not expect to see the units of measurement expressed in hieroglyphs. It simply clutters the presentation. My suggestion to you is this - create a subsection in the article where all the units are translated into Greek, instead of cluttering the main text.

Lucretius 06:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, since you do go on about necessary info, you should be aware that you have left out the breathings for some words. I suggest you fix that up first and lecture me afterwards. Lucretius 06:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Your point about Aristotle is interesting. Go have a closer look at that article and tell me what else is translated into Greek there? Maybe you should go across to that article and translate into greek there also.Lucretius 06:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

fwiw, I think including the Greek script for the units is necessary, and that comparison with a hypothetical equivalent article on ancient Egyptian units is valid - I'd want to see the glyphs they historically used in such an article too, not just the "translations". It would actually be even more critical in such an article since the actual pronunciations aren't too clearly known, due to the fact that vowels were obscured by the script. Given the fact that ancient Greek and modern Greek have significant sound changes, I'd say including the Greek script is also necessary in this article to remove the ambiguity. It would be necessary anyway, for completeness of information. The known sound change issue is just an added reason. Rhialto 07:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Rhialto and thanks for your comment. I'm not sure if you are the previous contributor with the licence number 213 etc but I'll assume you are someone new to the debate. Your argument involves niceties of pronunciation that don't actually have much to do with an article on ancient Greek measurement but rather belong in a text dedicated to the Greek language. Also I'm not sure why differences in modern and ancient Greek pronunciation should be significant here. Moreover, when you start getting into niceties of Greek pronunciation you might as well also write the words in their historically accurate printed form rather than in the cursive form, which I think came into fashion some time close to 100BC. Such niceties are silly. Regarding the article on Aristotle, even the titles of his works are written there only in the Roman alphabet. Your argument would require much of that article to be translated into Greek. Lucretius 08:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I am new to this debate. My point was that the information about how they would have written the units' names is very relevant to the article. I'm no expert on ancient Greek writing practices, but it would not surprise me at all to be told they only wrote in what we today would call upper case. If that is so, then the Greek words should then also be in upper case. I don't know enough about Greek to judge.

(aside on the Aristotle article: the article there is about the person, not the name of his works. It's a different issue entirely).

Including just the transliterations is bad. Some scholars will reasonably want to know he way they wrote it in Greek. And depending on whether they think these transliterations are using modern or ancient Greek standards, they could come up with something very different. Basically, the transliteration system is lossy, to use the data jargon term. The common standard in related articles is to use the term in the original script as a headword, and include appropriate transliterations and translations as a subtext in the adjacent column. I think that would work very well here. At a (very inadequate imho) bare minimum, a note should be made on whether those transliterations were made assuming modern or ancient Greek pronunciations of the Greek letters. Rhialto 08:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi again Rhialto and thanks for the quick answer. Differences in modern and ancient Greek pronunciations aren't relevant here. The ambiguity in pronunciation comes for example in deciding whether the anglicized 'e' refers to eta or epsilon. Students of Greek are used to dealing with little problems like that and I don't think they need the Greek script to help them. The Greek script clutters the information and doesn't help develop the main purpose of the article. If it seems important to add Greek script, then I'd prefer a separate subsection dedicated to the translation into Greek. That's how I see it. Lucretius 08:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the differences are more than just the eta/epsilon. I understand there are some consonantal changes too. And you're right in that a student of Greek would reasonably be expected to know the differences between ancient and modern. But wikipedia isn't meant to be written to a specialist audience, but to a reasonable inquisitive person of average intelligence but no specialist knowledge. Such a person would definitely find the script to be an additional useful piece of information. Including it is certainly the standard in every equivalent article on units of measurement which deals with units sourced from regions that use a non-Latin script. Rhialto 09:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right when you say wikipedia isn't meant to be written to a specialist audience, but to a reasonable inquisitive person of average intelligence but no specialist knowledge. But you're wrong when you say Such a person would definitely find the script to be an additional useful piece of information. What use would he/she make of this information? The script has been inserted to make the article look scholarly, that's all. It's pedantic and practically useless. However, you are welcome to your opinions and we'll just have to agree that one of us is wrong. The other contributor who inserted the Greek text will need to include the breathing because it ain't accurate Greek without it (the non-specialist of course wouldn't appreciate this fact and would probably accept any squiggle as a Greek letter). Thanks for the debate. Lucretius 10:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all, it seems you don't understand what Wikipedia is about. This is a project to build a serious encyclopedia that purposefully strives to be accurate, complete, scholarly and fully referenced. That you find some scholarly content "pedantic and practically useless" is your personal problem. Go somewhere else if you don't like writing content in an encyclopedic manner. And please, stop treating us with that aura of superiority, pretending to know what everyone should find "pedantic" or "useful". We're not primary school kids and this is not your classroom. BTW, concerning the Greek polytonic accents, for your information I do not have appropriate input methods for polytonic Greek installed at this moment and had to got into great lengths to look up the words in dictionaries and copy-and-paste the appropriate accented characters; it is very understandable that some of the accents may be missing as a result. If you find a typo with the breathing accents, the appropriate thing for a good-faith editor to do is to correct the mistakes he finds; but what you have done instead is to try to ridicule my effort. 213.37.6.23 23:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello 213. You've got things the wrong way around. You accused me of vandalism because I removed the Greek text and I felt entitled to treat you in turn as a vandal for inserting it in the first place. Wiki is not just about buildiing a serious encyclopaedia for the reader (you should join the editorial staff of a professionally produced encyclopaedia if you want that kind of interaction) - it is also about contributors learning how to be editors. My opinion is that the Greek is unnecessary and it clutters the presentation of information. As a teacher I know that presentation is important. The only justification for Greek script is that it is quite conventional to include it. But its inclusion is not necessary and conventions can be stupid sometimes.

You talk about good faith. I wrote the article, someone later inserted the Greek. I subsequently revised the article to take account of criticisms by another contributor. In the process, I left out the Greek and you restored it again. I made space on the discussion page so that we could discuss the issue. It has been discussed. Where is the bad faith?

I am not in the habit of writing Greek on a computer. My browser seems not to function properly at Wiki. Many of the letters don't come out on screen (I get a lot of squares instead). That's another reason why I did not include your Greek in my edit.

More importantly, why should other contributors have to preserve non-English words in an English version of the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit? Your insistence marginalizes the great majority of contributors. That's why I talk about your contribution being pedantic.Lucretius 21:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

What? You say you felt "entitled to treat me as a vandal for inserting it in the first place" (FYI, I am not the original contributor who first added the Greek-character rendering of the unit names, that was user 62.103.147.55; I restored them where they were previously and only added those for units that weren't in the old version — although by looking at the article's history, I see that, in fact, units such as the akaina and the pygon were actually there in the original article, until on June 26th you first edited it and significantly altered and reduced its content). Sorry, but a vandal is someone that removes the valuable contributions of others purposefully (such as you did: you came here and single-handedly without any discussion or consensus took away significant parts of the valid work of others, although I will assume that you didn't do it in bad faith), not someone that restores encyclopedic content to the article. You need to brush up at lot about the concepts and workings of Wikipedia. Moreover, you even claim that "I wrote the article", as if that somehow conferred you some kind of "ownership" or "right" about its content and its modifiability (which it does not, read the warning at the bottom of the Edit page: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it"). Not to mention that there was an article here previously that you independently, without any previous consensus, chose to rewrite almost entirely and replace with your own, significantly reduced version where lots of info was removed without reason. You shouldn't be surprised in the least if someone else even went so far as to revert the whole of your article rehauling to the previous version, given that you chose to delete lots of others' contributions without consensus. Regarding the problems with your browser not properly displaying Greek characters, that's no valid reason in the least to delete valuable encyclopedic content. If your argument were valid, we could now start to delete every instance of non-Latin characters (and even of non-ASCII Latin accented letters) throughout the English Wikipedia, thereby deleting lots and lots of encyclopedic content and significantly degrading the quality of this free information resource. If you have a problem visualizing characters in your browser/computer (which is a problem on your side, not a problem with Wikipedia), then either take the trouble to identify the root of the problem and fix it, or else deal with it; but do not start to remove valid content from articles just because you cannot see it displayed correctly, or because you personally think it is "practically useless" "pedantic" info that only "clutters" the text and that is "stupid" to include because what's supposedly the most important in Wikipedia is not to provide accurate encyclopedic info but your subjective perceptions about "presentation", etc. without first gaining consensus that such info is in fact considered by a majority to be really "pedantic", "practically useless" and that as such does not belong in a serious encyclopedia. 213.37.6.23 00:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello 213. I didn't operate single-handedly. I'll quote: Yes, please, please, if you can get rid of all the mess in here, that would be a wonderful thing. -- Egil 12:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC). I got rid of the mess that was here and set things up for a fresh start. I encouraged others to contribute. I have expressed my preferences and I have not unilaterally acted against the stated preferences of others. You have unilaterally ignored my stated preferences without the courtesy of debating the matter first. I challenged your edit here on the Discussion page but I did not re-edit your work. There was nothing amiss in anything I have done. You're just hot under the collar because I called your edit pedantic. Anyhow, at least you have got involved and I thank you for your input. But I still think your edit is pedantic. That's my final say on the topic and you are welcome to fire back. Lucretius 02:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion

Somebody deleted the section on length. I will restore my own edit unless someone else fixes the article first. My edit does not contain Greek script and it also does not contain disputed units (see comment by Donbury above). Lucretius (talk) 07:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Volumes

I don't have access to Greek accents and I can only make use of cut and paste techniques to make up Greek words for units from existing text. Someone else can supply the missing words for volume as the existing text does not cover all the letters needed. This is one example why Greek text is not a good idea as it marginalizes many contributors. Those who think it is necessary can finish the section, if they know the Greek, if they have the computer facility to generate accents and breathings, if they read this, if they can be bothered. That's a lot of ifs. Lucretius (talk) 05:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

That's why the edit screen links to polytonic orthography, where you can find everything. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Attic stadion = 177,6 m!

How long is the Attic measure "stadion"?

The measure called "stadion" consists of 600 pous.

In Athens/Attica 1 pous = 296 mm (see this article, referring to "Measures" in The Oxford Classical Dictionary 2003).

Therefore the Attic stadion = 177,6 m.

But isn't the Attic building called stadion = 184,3 m?

Yes, but please do not mix up the building with the measure!

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scepsis (talk • contribs) 10:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution. However, I think your concern is completely unnecessary. The picture of the Athens stadium is merely included for a bit of colour and also to point out an interesting fact about etymology - it is not intended to say anything about the precise length of the Attic unit, stadion. I think your text merely confuses the issue and I'm deleting it. If you are still worried about the picture, delete the picture but please don't add unnecessary text. Thanks (:}) Lucretius (talk) 01:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I just added the Attic lengths into the tables, as examples. --Scepsis (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi again Scepsis. Could you please add the citation for your edit and also it should be an approximation sign, not an equal sign. I've deleted the edit in the meantime. I agree that the OCD supports the measurement you have listed for the pous but personally I don't think you should use this to derive an exact value for the Attic stadion. Thanks again. Lucretius (talk) 22:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, it should be an approx sign, and the source is already mentioned for the Attic/Athenian foot. The Attic stadion then simply derives from this. --Scepsis (talk) 10:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi again Scepsis. Yes, you're right - the citation is already in the introductory paragraph, which makes me wonder why you are doing the math for the reader, converting Attic podes to Attic stadia. Anyhow, it's nice to see someone getting involved. Also don't forget the decimal point. Cheers Lucretius (talk) 23:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Mna

Is there some reason you are using the unassimilated mnea rather than the Arric mnâ? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Good question. I don't have the the inflected a in my little collection of copied Greek letters so I used ea instead. That's what happens when people insist on using Greek - many of us are limited in what we can contribute either for technical reasons or because of a lack of knowledge of Greek. Personally I think we should leave the Greek out of it but I'm a barbaric voice in the wilderness and nobody listens. By all means change to inflected a. Thanks Lucretius (talk) 02:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

As above, cut and paste from polytonic orthography, that's why it's on your edit screen. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - I'm beginning to get the hang of all this cut and paste Greek:

καὶ σἐβομαι γ', ὦ πολυτίμητε, καὶ βούλομαι ἀνταποπαρδεῖν

Lucretius (talk) 00:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Amphora

In Greek system of capacity measures for liquids (μέτρα ὑγρά), 1 amphora (ἀμφορεύς) was 72 cotyla (κοτύλη) o 1/2 metreta (μετρητής), i.e., 19.44 l, not "144 cotylae, approx 1 amphora wine, about 40L".
References:

• François Cardarelli, Encyclopaedia of Scientific Units, Weights, and Measures: A Practical Guide to Metrication. Springer, 2003, page 70 ISBN: 185233682X, ISBN: 9781852336820 (on-line)
• Karl Gottlob Zumpt, A Grammar of the Latin Language. Harper & Brothers, 1856, page 557 (on-line)
• Guy Rachet e Marie Francoise Rachet (editors), Dizionario Larousse della civiltà greca. Roma : Gremese Editore, 2001, pages 155-6, ISBN 8884401070, ISBN 9788884401076 (on-line) (in Italian)
  

F.chiodo (talk) 05:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

According to my Greek Lexicon 1ἀμφορεύς is about 9 gallons. According to my English dictionary 1 gallon=8 pints and 1L is about 1.75 pints. Doing the math: ἀμφορεύς = (9 x 8)/1.75 = 41.14L

Also according to my Greek Lexicon 1 μετρητής = 1ἀμφορεύς i.e. 9 gallons.

And according to my Greek Lexicon 1 κοτύλη = 0.5 pint. So the math says 1 μετρητής = (9x8)/0.5= 144 κοτύλai

So, without investigating this any further, I'd have to say the article is right. Lucretius (talk) 06:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Time

According Rocci's Vocabolario greco-italiano (Roma: Società Anonima Editrice Dante Alighieri, 1951), the column "Gregorian equivalent" in Time table is erratum. According to Rocci, the right table should be as follows:

Month	Greek name	Gregorian equivalent
Hekatombaeon	Ἐκατομβαιών	July-Aug
Metageitnion	Μεταγειτνιών	Aug-Sept
Boedromion	Βοηδρομιών	Sept-Oct
Puanepsion	Πυανεψιών	Oct-Nov
Maimakteron	Μαιμακτηριών	Nov-Dec
Poseideon	Ποσειδεών	Dec-Jan
Gamelion	Γαμηλιών	Jan-Feb
Anthesterion	Ἀνθεστηριών	Feb-March
Elaphebolion	Ἐλαφηβολιών	March-April
Mounichion	Μουνιχιών	April-May
Thargelion	Θαργηλιών	May-June
Skirophorion	Σκιροφοριών	June-July

F.chiodo (talk) 00:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Chiodo! Rocci is definitely in the minority and 1951 is a long time ago! Thanks for your interest and your polite conduct. Cheers Lucretius (talk) 22:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Athenian pous of 296 mm?

Hi, I've always read that the Roman foot was thought by the Romans themselves to be 24/25 of the Athenian foot. It's also somewhat notorious that the Roman foot itself is 296.2 ± 0.5 mm. How can the Attic foot be itself 296 mm long, then? Dr. Rottländer gives us an Attic/Olympic foot of 310.60 ± 0.388 mm and an Aeginetan foot of 314.00 ± 0.432 mm. Who ever came up with the numbers currently on the page? I'd like to check out those sources, too, before I rush ahead and replace all the values in the page. Thanks. --Wtrmute (talk) 15:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Chronology, POV

The article begins "Ancient Greek units of measurement would later create the foundation of Egyptian ...". Is this true? The Egyptian system, or some part of it at least, was already in use in the Early Dynastic Period of Egypt, about 3100–2686 BC, as is shown for example on the Palermo stone. My ancient Greek history is pretty hazy, but I think that is a few millenia earlier than the flowering of Greek science. Some highly sophisticated Egyptian cubit-rods date from about the time of the Myceneans.

This rather dubious statement, coupled with the quotation, gives a curious and non-encyclopaedic bias to the beginning of the article, almost as if Greek mensuration was being presented as in some way "better". I suggest that the quotation, which without discussion or explanation of the author's interpretation of the "art" and the "science" of measurement does nothing to clarify the topic, should be removed from the lead section, and possibly from the article – which with some references would then, I think, be a good and useful one. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The Greeks certainly had a huge effect on Egyptian culture from the time of Alexander the Great. Even some influence as far back as the 8th century BCE. However, the proto-history of the Greeks can only be traced back to about 1600 BCE (the earliest archaeological evidence for anything remotely resembling Greek/Mycenaean culture). The Great Pyramids of Cheops at Giza go back to something like 2700 BCE and show clear evidence of some kind of measurement and math ability. Of course Petr Beckman in his History of Pi points out that Bronze-Age Egyptian math was frequently overrated.

Conclusion: that first part needs to go. It makes the article look ridiculous. Zyxwv99 (talk) 04:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Excellent! It's a mystery to me why so many dubious statements are left to stand within this particular project; that's one less, anyway. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I did most of the work here under my previous user name Lucretius. My last edit was here and it certainly didn't base Egyptian on Greek measures; quite the opposite. My edit was a medical job on an article that was sick then with OR and my only real source was the Oxford Classical Dictionary. Good luck with it! It's not been on my watchlist for years. McOoee (talk) 02:04, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Just looking at the article again, you are now relying on some very old sources, 19th and even 18th century. The OCD (2003) is highly reliable though not ideal since we shouldn't be quoting other encyclopaedias. But accuracy should come first. To quote my OCD (page 942), addressing a number of issues raised here:

"Measures of length were based on parts of the human body, with foot as unit both for fractions like finger and palm and or multiples like pace and arm-span...Homer is acquainted with the foot standard but the length of his foot is unknown. In historic Greece many standard feet are found, the absolute values for which are derived from surviving stadia (preserved in starting and finishing lines) and literary evidence providing correspondences with the Roman foot."

It goes on to give some examples: Olympic foot=320 mm, Pergamene=330 mm, Aeginetan=333 mm, Attic=295.7 mm (unlike previous ones, this was probably based on the unshod foot). The OCD then goes on to express the foot in other measures, such as condylus and plethron. You should get hold of the OCD if you can. Trouble with the subject of ancient Greek measurements is that sources do seem to be few and far between. The OCD only recommends 3 sources, all in German, from 1882 through to 1990. McOoee (talk) 02:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the OCD lengths and those actually in the article cited from Smith (1851), it's obvious that Smith derived his pous=308mm by averaging the Attic and Olympic feet: (295.7 + 320)/2= 307.85. That's an unusual way to do things, I think. Anyhow, I had too many issues on this page (some my own fault) to get involved again. Good luck. McOoee (talk) 03:44, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

In the current edit, some of the dimensions are given in Attic units, and some in Smith's eccentric units. You should make them all Attic and provide the readers the means to convert to other units, without doing it for them. Anyway, that's up to you. McOoee (talk) 09:06, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Original Research

In the section Length:

Greek measures of length were based on the relative lengths of parts of the body such as the foot and finger segment.

Greeks measures of length were named after body parts and in most cases were very roughly the size of the part in question. However, this was true in practically every culture on earth before the invention of the metric system. Even though body parts may be used to measure things informally, civilizations that have reached a Middle Bronze-Age level of development usually have physical standards of some sort (see Cubit). At that point the body parts are mere names and rough informal measures.

Perhaps scholars have figured out which Greek units came first, and which later units were derived from earlier units. If so, we would need a reference for that. To just assume that body parts were the basis is original research. Also, to assume that the smallest unit is the basis for the larger units also constitutes original research. And finally, even when societies have a story to explain the origin of a particular unit, even if that story has been enacted into law, scholars are frequently able to determine from archaeological evidence that the story is wrong. Zyxwv99 (talk) 15:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

See my comment above. McOoee (talk) 02:44, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

List-defined references?

Does anyone object if I change the reference system of this article to list-defined, which puts all the references in the Reference section instead of scattered through the article text? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

aroura

"aroura (ἄρουρα) 2500 podes = 237.5 m²"

Arura "The term arura was also used to describe a measure of land in ancient Egypt (similar in manner to the acre), a square of 100 Egyptian cubits each way. This measures 2700m^² or 2/3 of an acre"

"Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities": :"ARU´RA (ἄρουρα), a Greek measure of surface, which would appear, from its name, to have been originally the chief land-measure. Herodotus (...) mentions a measure of the same name, which is almost certainly identical. He says that it is a hundred Egyptian cubits in every direction. Now the Egyptian cubit contained nearly 17 3/4 inches (Hussey, Ancient Weights, &c. p. 237); therefore the square of 100 x 17 3/4 inches, i. e. nearly 148 feet, gives approximately the number of square feet (English) in the arura, viz. 21,904. (Wurm, de Pond. &c. p. 94.) The different estimate of Suidas, making it the fourth part of the πλέθρον or 2500 square Greek feet, is erroneous (Hultsch, Metrol. p. 38, n. 4; p. 284)."

Herodotus (2.168):

"This acre is a square of a hundred Egyptian cubits each way, the Egyptian cubit being equal to the Samian." text original : ἡ δὲ ἄρουρα ἑκατὸν πηχέων ἐστὶ Αἰγυπτίων πάντῃ, ὁ δὲ Αἰγύπτιος πῆχυς τυγχάνει ἴσος ἐὼν τῷ Σαμίῳ.

"hamma (ἅμμα) 60 podes = 18.5 m"

ἅμμα

"1. knot (...)

6. measure of length (like our chain), = 40 πήχειςIs

Is hamma related to chain? Pilot Pirx (talk) 17:32, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits

Rktect (talk · contribs) was banned in 2005 from all articles dealing with weights and measurements and after frequent violations indefinitely blocked. He has come back recenty editing from two accounts and several IP addresses. Those accounts are now blocked. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rktect. Dougweller (talk) 07:40, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

1850 was a looooong time ago

for something like ancient metrology where the scattering of unreliable literary notices have to be verified and contrasted to lots of a field data. This article very much needs to be rebuilt

(a) using a more modern source (1, 2, &c.)

(b) giving the full range of values (at minimum including the max and min of the unit ranges) to avoid the present illusion of the existence of a single system accurate to the tenth of the millimeter, which is risible

(c) if we're only giving the range to the foot and no other units, then the multiples need to be of the foot and not the digit

(d) give glosses for more terms (e.g., kondylos)

(e) if we're giving a single unit, use the Attic foot and not whatever odd hybrid has been chosen here instead

See palm's section on ancient Greek for examples and modern citations. — LlywelynII 20:53, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ancient Greek units of measurement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050408035420/http://www.tulane.edu/~august/H310/handouts/Coinage.htm to http://www.tulane.edu/~august/H310/handouts/Coinage.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:44, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Small Volumes

I have seen the use of drachma and oboli as liquid measures. Anyone knowledgeable like to comment on this? Should these small volumes be included here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Droopyfeathers (talk • contribs) 20:31, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Note that these and others are discussed in Pliny (Book XXI, C. 109):

"Chap. 109. (34.)—An Explanation Of Greek Terms Relative To Weights And Measures. As we have occasion to make use of Greek names very frequently when speaking of weights and measures, I shall here subjoin, once for all, some explanation of them. The Attic drachma—for it is generally the Attic reckoning that medical men employ—is much the same in weight as the silver denarius, and is equivalent to six oboli, the obolus being ten chalci; the cyathus is equal in weight to ten drachmmæ. When the measure of an acetabulum is spoken of, it is the same as one fourth part of a hemina, or fifteen drachmæ in weight. The Greek mna, or, as we more generally call it, "mina," equals one hundred Attic drachmæ in weight." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Droopyfeathers (talk • contribs) 19:34, 6 November 2020 (UTC)