In Praise of Traditional Measurements

Trevor Peterson May 2008

OK, Ill admit it. I swallowed a lot of liberal propaganda when I was growing up in public school. Somewhere along the way, for instance, I bought into environmentalismeven adopted my own humpback whalethen later repudiated the idea under the inuence of Rush Limbaugh. Ive since come back around to what is more properly labeled conservation, which is a great conservative value (even etymologically) and resonates with my innate abhorrence of waste and with the way I was brought up. Something I accepted more wholeheartedly and never thought to repudiate until now was the metric system. My ambitions at the time were mathematical and scientic, and it did seem like a natural t. I embraced the simplicity of the decimal base, the regularity of its t to scientic applications, and the universality of the system. On the other hand, I guess I did come to accept that America wasnt changing anytime soon. And by that point Id already internalized traditional America measurements. Metrics was a nice system to play around with in science classes, but since then I havent given it much thought. I just went on with the assumption that it was better. Well, no more! I am now decidedly pro-traditional measurements. Why? Glad you asked. Theyre traditional; and, well, you should know by now how I feel about tradition. The point here is that theyve been used for centuries, even millennia, and theyve worked quite well. You have to askor at least I dowhats the compelling reason to change? (And whom does it serve to do so?) Theyre endangered. Theres been a specic campaign to abolish traditional measurements, mostly by governments and pseudo-governments 1

that have no business in such areas anyway. The U.S. may be only one of three countries that still use traditional measurements ocially (though there are plenty of others that havent given them up altogether), but I dont see that as a bad thing. The bad thing is that so many others have caved to an articial standard. From an antiquarian perspective, traditional measurements are a whole lot more interesting. The metric system is a boring, bureaucratic standardization. Its history is the sort of thing to help with insomnia. The story of traditional measurements has twists and turns and legends and myths. Whats not to like about that? Traditional measurements, to a great extent, make more sense in real life. The scales t our normal measurement needs. The units are based on familiar things to which we can relate. (Well, they would be if our culture werent so degenerate that it no longer knows what length of furrow makes good sense with an ox-drawn plow.) But lets look at some examples.

1
inch

Units of length, based on the human body:

thumb width hand width w/o thumb (3 in.) palm + thumb (4 in.) hand width stretched out (9 in.) foot length forearm length (18 in.) belt length (or 1/2 fathom) (etymologically) 1/12 ft.

palm hand span foot cubit yard

fathom armspan (6 ft.) Of course, everyones body is a little dierent, and I suppose theres something mildly sexist in the assumption that were talking about the body of an adult male. (Though I must say, there are some women around who could squash me like a bug.) But the point is that as rough approximations, 2

these units are pretty good. And the nice thing is, you can estimate lengths in a pinch without any ruler at all.

2
pace rod

Units of distance, based largely on agriculture:

paired marching step (5 ft.) 16 mens feet (16 1 ft.) 2 4 rods standard plow furrow length = 10 chains (etymologically) 1000 paces 8 furlongs hours walk 3 mi.

chain furlong Roman mile English mile league

Now, this section needs some extra clarication. Keep in mind that standard denitions and conversions would have come later. For generations, the dierent units could have got along quite nicely without correlating in any precise way. Most notably, the shorter length units seem to have developed in isolation from the longer distance units, resulting in the awkward relationship between feet and rods. Also, we have a historical development from the Roman mile to various local standards. In the English system, which we adopted here, the accepted conversion came to be eight furlongs to a mile. (Eight is in fact the closest estimate, if youre going to dene a mile in terms of furlongs.) The rod and chain were surveyors tools to break down the furlong into more manageable units. As the tradition goes, you get the length of a rod by having 16 men line up their left feet. In any case, there was probably no specic concern to make the rod come out an even number of feet until much later, at which point the length was relatively stable and didnt easily t. Not that it makes much dierencewe dont have too many instances where its even necessary to convert from the shorter inches, feet, and yards to chains, furlongs, and miles. The etymology of furlong is pretty obviously the length of a standard plow furrow. This is fairly meaningless to us now (though it may not be 3

for long, with the way fuel prices are going), but it would have been almost universally relevant for talking about land measurements up until the past century or so. Now that we mostly think of acreage as applied to suburban and exurban residential parcels, perhaps we should adjust to something specic to lawn-mowing. But sticking with the agricultural standard, the logic gets even more interesting when we turn to

3
acre

Units of area:
furlong rod days plow w/two oxen 1/4 division (40 acres) 1/4 section (160 acres) sq. mi. (640 acres) 36 sections (6 mi. 6 mi.) furlong chain

rood

subdivision division section township

In particular, note the denition of an acre, which becomes much more elegant once you know what a chain and a furlong are. So assuming a standard plow drawn by two yoked oxen, youd have a parcel of land that could be done in a day. The furrows were an acceptable length, and the optimal number of passes t into a tenth of that distance. The rood would make sense as a unit, just because you could measure the width easily with a rod. (And I suppose it might be worth knowing that it takes a quarter of a day to plow a roodtwo before lunch, two after?) The rest shows a more uniquely American system, which established one-square-mile sections, divided them into quarters, then again into quarters, which is why 40 acres comes up as a basic parcel of farmland (back 40, 40 acres and a mule, etc.). I included township just because Ive heard the term used so often but never knew where it came from.

Units of volume, based mostly on containers:

teaspoon volume (1/3 T.) soup spoon volume (1/2 oz.) volume of 1 oz.-weight of water 8 oz. 2 c. 2 pints 4 qt. 2 gal. 4 pecks 3 bushels 31 1 gal. 2 2 barrels 8 4 4

teaspoon tablespoon ounce cup pint quart gallon peck bushel bag barrel hogshead cord

The barrel is actually somewhat variable depending on where and what is contained. I havent found where the term hogshead originates, but I just love the term. Which leads me, of course, to a Simpsons quote: The metric system is the tool of the devil! My car gets forty rods to the hogshead, and thats the way I likes it. Abe Simpson, A Star is Burns I dont expect to convince anyone; its just my own preference. But dont be surprised if I talk about a two-quart bottle of pop instead of a 2-L bottle of soda.

Appendix: Measuring Time

Ive been reading lately about the development of standard time in America. I never really thought about there being much controversy around this stu, and as with metrics, Ive probably spent most of my life wholeheartedly embracing the current norms. I liked to set my watch down to the second, usually at New Years. (Yeah, thats what I did at midnightset my watch.) Im the one who zealously goes through the house resetting all the clocks twice a year. When I rst discovered that I could sync my computer clock with the Naval Observatory online, I couldnt get enough of it. And I was really pretty excited (as much as I disliked the idea of getting a cell phone) about having a clock built into my phone that syncs itself regularly. But once I realized that these time standards were not implemented without controversythat they were largely introduced only in a context of waronce I started thinking about them as imposed standards that the government had no business setting, my opinions formed pretty quickly. Im not sure it would be at all practical to turn back the clock on this issue (so to speak), but Im denitely nostalgic for solar time. For just about all of human history until the past couple of centuries, the basic standards of time were found in naturethe sun, the moon, the seasons, etc. For marking out the time of day, the sun was the norm. Sunrise in the morning, high noon, sunset in the evening, and some regular divisions in between. Of course, by colonial times in America, there were clocks to help keep things a bit more regular and bridge the gaps when the sun was not readily visible. But they werent very consistent and had to be constantly re-calibratedto the sun. And because they werent very accurate, it was uncommon to nd precise agreement between one clock and another, so they couldnt be taken very seriously. Their manufacture was relatively expensive, so many people didnt own one. Needs for common time, to schedule a meeting or show up for an event, were met by public devicesa church bell or clock tower, or maybe a town hall. Those who had their own clocks or watches could set them by the public clock in town, and any clock could be set by a sundial. In a less mechanized world, the system worked well enough. Ever since moving to Maryland, Ive had a conviction that drivers around here lack a certain perspective on their own existence. They drive like there is no higher power. When it snows, half of them drive like the roads are perfectly dry and theres nothing to worry about. The other half panic like the world is about to end. The result, of course, is total chaos. But things 6

are dierent in Western New York, where I learned to drive. Snow is a fact of life and a substantial reminder of things beyond human control. You learn to drive with a healthy sense of contingency. Well get there at such and such timeif God wills. It doesnt always go as planned. There seems to be a broader pattern to all of this. There is an older, more traditional way of life that recognizes our place within the natural order; there is a newer, more modern view that rejects this order and seeks the control that comes from crafting our own arbitrary existence. This newer view took the lowly clock and elevated it to a sovereign role for which it was never intended. Instead of expressing the suns time, it came to dene its own time. The sun was just too irregular and too local in its eects. Factories had to run like clockwork, and trains had to keep tight schedules. Indeed, it was the railroads that pushed for, developed, and implemented what we now know as standard time. No longer could timekeeping be a merely local aair. Clocks had to be synced across the continent. The time zones were established, but not without objection. Cities that fell between one meridian and another often balked at adjusting their time as much as a half-hour forward or backward. States were split up by time zones and proceeded to wobble back and forth. The Federal government did not step in until it also chose to impose daylight saving time during WWI, at which point it also codied standard time. DST also sparked controversy and contrary to popular belief, it was not primarily for the benet of farmers. They were, if anything, its most consistent opponents. Their lives operated by natural patterns that could not arbitrarily adjust back and forth each year. The main advocates of DST wanted it for recreational purposes, but it never passed into law without the conviction that it would save energy. (Energy savings is actually the hardest defense of DST to substantiate.) And that usually happened when we were at war. So I take my stand with the more traditional way. (Surprise, surprise!) Again, I dont think its at all likely that Ill be on solar time next week. I do, after all, have to interact with the world around me. I have to show up for work, catch buses, and even attend church according to standard and daylight time. But Im still going to be looking for ways to take back some sanity. One interesting thought I had as I was contemplating all this: Not so long ago, I was actually closer to practicing what I now preach (yet without any principled stance at the time). When I was in school, I kept my watch set to the bell tower at the Basilica. I have (and had) no idea what it was 7

set to (probably standard time). But the point is that my referent was local. In a sense, it didnt matter what it was set to. It was the most prominent public timekeeper in my life, and it was enough to go by. (Admittedly, if it had been too far o from standard time, I wouldnt have used itbut that was me then.) I cant think of a similar referent in my life right now, but if I could, it just might be enough to get me wearing a watch again (instead of always going by the time on my cell phone). Which of course would be ironic in itselfanother clock, to free myself from over-mechanized time. For now, about the most I can do is nd those times to ignore the clock altogether. And maybe invest in a sundial . . .