Ancient and ArchaeologyΒ permalink
Reconsidering the English Foot
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by J Jacobs (U9505276) on Thursday, 29th January 2009
Does the Foot Fit Britannia?
"At Stonehenge, there are 365,000 feet per meridian degree"
.... A fair and accurate statement would be, "Britannia's mean geodetic radius inscribes a circle about 365.25 times 360,000 feet in circumference." ....
What do you think about the questions posed?
-
Message 2
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Thursday, 29th January 2009
Excuse my ignorance, but what does geodetic mean?
-
Message 3
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Thursday, 29th January 2009
Re: Message 1.
Stoggler,
I feel "bewildered" when looking to the "Jacobs" site.
Warm regards,
Paul. -
Message 4
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Thursday, 29th January 2009
Addendum to message 3.
Stoggler,
of course I wanted to say: "Re: Message 2"
And just found out by clicking on the name the following:
Warm regards,
Paul. -
Message 5
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Friday, 30th January 2009
I've just read it Paul and it's a load of tosh frankly. Best ignored if you ask me (and if you look at that thread you posted a link to, Nordmann et all give this guy a good reply).
-
Message 6
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Friday, 30th January 2009
He appears to be stating that the British foot has remained a constant from the end of the last Ice age, echoing a claim made by John Neil that the foot is the basis of all standards of measurement. This would appear to be a spin off from the attempts to define the megalithic yard but the article takes the idea one stage further by giving the foot a rational definition of length comparable to that used to define the metre. It therefore seems that the use of the foot appears to pander to those that favour customary measurements over the metric system. Personally I find the method to be too complicated for deriving such a short unit of measurement and does not account for the similarity between the British medieval foot and that employed by communities on different meridian arcs at different time periods across the globe. That is unless one concludes that they all derive from the same source in some pre-diluvial super-civilisation. Further more he admits that he has only tested the theory on six megalithic monuments and reported his findings on just two of them, far too few to be able to test the statistical significance of the conclusions he has arrived at.
In any case I wonder what significance the earth's circumference and meridian arcs are supposed to have had for the communities that enclosed these neolithic spaces. It is all very wel plotting such relationships but there seems to be very little in the way of attempts to provide an explanation as to why these figures are significant. I mean they cannot have been built just to show that they knew how to measure the curvature of the earth as surely the cursus monument would be a more appropriate means of displaying this than hiding it within the diameter of such monuments. -
Message 7
Posted by J Jacobs (U9505276) on Sunday, 1st February 2009
< He appears to be stating that the
> British foot has remained a constant
> from the end of the last Ice age ...
I missed that part. What Ice Age?
Are we reading the same article?
> Personally I find the method to be
> too complicated for deriving such
> a short unit of measurement
A degree can be divided into very short units.
> unless one concludes ... some pre-diluvial
> super-civilisation. ...
Which article are you reading again?
> he has only tested the theory on six
> megalithic monuments ... too few to be
> able to test the statistical significance ...
The article's hypothesis is that the foot DOES NOT fit the equator, as stated in books. The article asks if the foot fits Britannia, then concludes that it does somewhere near the mean latitude.
The article reports that there are 365,000 feet per degree at Stonehenge. The point is, there are alternatives that DO FIT, and they are in Britannia where the foot is the metric.
And, a fit is a fit, not a probability subject to inferential statistics.
> ... I wonder what significance the
> earth's circumference and meridian
> arcs are supposed to have had ...
Isn't that the point of the article, in part? Authors writing the foot is based on equatorial circumference and days per year are shown to be wrong, not? With Stonehenge served up to illustrate what they overlooked, how a true fit fits, and that astronomy is not the one plausible fit.
> .. I mean they cannot have been built
> just to show that they knew how to
> measure the curvature of the earth ...
If you measured the earth, you likely
would monumentalize where you did so.
And "where" does variate the results.
So, a monument would be showing "where"
and not showing they knew how.
Besides, doesn't everyone know how?
Civilizations standardize measure, and Thom has shown measure was standardized in the Neolithic. Stonehenge is Neolithic, not from the Ice Age. -
Message 8
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Sunday, 1st February 2009
Re: Message 6.
lol,
I don't know why I do this. Perhaps as a second you or a second Nordmann? It is stronger than myself. To debunk would-be history statements...and I have no time...having a pile of new subjects to "costume" at a French messageboard...neverthelees so happy to see you once again on the "barricades"...
"meter"
Yes, the meter seems to have something to do with the meridian of the earth. From the time of the French Revolution?
"foot"
As usual on the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ and also on my French messageboard the last ")" don't appear.
Click on "Search for "Foot(length" in existing articles". There click on "See all pages that begin with "this prefix"" and you arrive immediately on the right URL.
Yes the foot seems to have something to do with the foot. Although it seems a rather small foot, if you look to the average of British men. Mine at least corresponds a bit better to the "length" foot with a size of "46" "10 1/2" German size, don't know it in British size...measuring my foot...and as the British perhaps at the end understand metrical (although they seem to have won the battle of the advertising of the "pound" in the shop "vitrine" versus the European Union)...exactly 28.7 cm from the back of the heel to the top of the toe...bare...foot...(baarvoets)
Warm regards from your friend and with esteem.
Paul. -
Message 9
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Monday, 2nd February 2009
What absolute twaddle. No modern historian of geodysy would even venture to suggest that the foot was derived from a fraction of the earth's circumference. A few scholars, particularly in the Academie des Sciences may have believed that ancient systems of measurement were derived from fractions of the earth's circumference but by and large this was a cross fertalisation of the metric project of the late eighteenth century with the round figures applied by Ancient Greek writers to the size of the earth. They had to ignore the fact that the basic unit they were expressed in had a fairly constant value whereas the there were numerous competing estimates for the size of the earth.
Whilst it is true that societies standardise units of measurements it is hardly certain that there was sufficient standardisation of lengths in the construction of Neolithic monuments despite Thorn's article. There is of course a crucial difference between the work of Thorn and what this article wants to suggest. Thorn set out to calculate the basic unit of measurement employed in the construction of Neolithic monuments by comparing their diameters from which he derived an average for the megalithic yard of 5.43 feet. As such it was an exercise in reconstructing the thinking of the ancient population. This article takes the modern measurement of the foot as having been derived from the meridian arc of the UK based upon a spurious correlation. The two values are already known and so it is not so much an attempt to recreate the factors governing an ancient population's understanding of length but forces a modern interpretation onto them. This is the case with all attempts to fit customary measures into a "mensura perpetua" derived from geodetic surveys.
In any case the article states "If the English foot fits the earth, it should fit the earth where the unit arose, on land in Britannia in the fog of long ago when sea level was different." Sea levels have remained more or less constant since the English channel was filled some eight thousand years ago as the climate began to become more stable, therefore the article assumes that the foot predates the Neolithic. Mind you so does Stonehenge. It is also worth noting that the number of feet per meridian arc corresponds to the length of the year at any point on the same degree of longitude as the British isles. -
Message 10
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Monday, 2nd February 2009
Paul, personally I'm not sure what the foot has to do with the bits on the end of our legs. The legend suggests that the English foot was derived from Henry I's foot measurement but it seems he needed clowns shoes if that is the case. I did see that the Saxon foot was divided into 13 inches but this was reduced to twelve after the Norman conquest. It seems to add new meaning to the phrase give them an inch and they will take a mile.
-
Message 11
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Monday, 2nd February 2009
Re: Message 9.
lol,
It is also worth noting that the number of feet per meridian arc corresponds to the length of the year at any point on the same degree of longitude as the British isles.Β
You are the master, I bow in esteem.
Warm regards,
Paul. -
Message 12
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Monday, 2nd February 2009
Re: Message 10.
lol,
,
an admirer. -
Message 13
Posted by J Jacobs (U9505276) on Tuesday, 3rd February 2009
You write, "A few scholars, particularly in the Academie des Sciences may have believed that ancient systems of measurement were derived from fractions of the earth's circumference ..."
This remains the case if you remove the scholars. And those who do are taken to task.
Scientists and scholars should not be believers, albeit they often fail that test, and more often fail to identify the boundaries of interpretation and evidence. And sometimes, people read interpretation into evidence presented.
You write, "Sea levels have remained more or less constant since the English channel was filled some eight thousand years ago." Indeed, but that's little consolation to the people of Bangladesh, or the Dutch below sea level. So, how much does +10 feet radius move such geodetic marker? Isn't that the point of the article asking the elevation of the Sarsen Circle?--that the fit will be lost if the methods are improved!! And another improves if sea level rises.
By miles not, because the slide rule is all island long, over 500 miles, for a change of 450 feet in meridian length? Each foot in elevation moves that geodetic mark over a mile--pretty good definition that slide rule has.
Imagine how much difference a layer of pollutantus gravitas between two layers of pollutantus literati would make. LOL.
Let's use this to monumentalize present day sea level, quick, before it changes! -
Message 14
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Tuesday, 3rd February 2009
Well I suppose one of the biggest problems with the article has to be the changing definition of the foot over recorded history. For all the writer's pleas that we look for exact values, this does seem to be a pretty large variable. Not sure if you have seen this article but it uses a similar methodology except it applies Athelstan's slightly shorter definition of the foot and so pushes the area where the correlation applies even further north.
Given that sea level and the weight applied to the landmass are other variables in this correlation perhaps it would be wise to recalibrate the calculations to reflect the change in geodetic markers.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.