Civilization One: The World is Not as You Thought it Was (16 page)

Because Jefferson adopted a second as the time interval for his pendulum he, like the French, was automatically linking himself with the underlying structure of the Sumerian system. He then made a major improvement in the process by following the discovery of fellow countryman Mr Leslie (‘an ingenious artist of Philadelphia’), who identified that a fine, ridged rod used instead of a string on a pendulum would have much more accurate results. Such a rod would not need a weight on the end and it would have to be half as long again as a string pendulum to produce the same swing period.

This led to a rod that was a fraction under 1.5 metres, at 149.158 centimetres – almost exactly three Sumerian kush. Jefferson then divided this rod into five parts to create a new unit he called a ‘foot’. He then stated that there would be 1,000 such feet to his proposed furlong.

Unbeknown to the man who was to become third president of his fledgling nation, his foot and furlong taken from the second of time was directly related to the Megalithic and Sumerian systems; 366 Jefferson furlongs are the same as a Megalithic Degree of arc of the Earth and 366
²
Jefferson furlongs describe the exact circumference of the Earth. He had never considered the size of the Earth, so it is now clear that the second of time is, in some way, intrinsically related to the dimensions of our planet.

The next step was for Jefferson to define new weights and capacities which he did by means of cubing his linear units. In the course of conducting this work he studied existing measures and, in doing so, detected that there was some ancient pattern underpinning units which were previously (and still are) thought to be random accidents of history. In finding that a cubic imperial foot held precisely 1,000 ounces he deduced that this was not coincidence but due to some extremely ancient design.

He also identified that the two systems of weights (the avoirdupois and the troy) were not separate systems as generally assumed, but two halves of some single ancient system – one based on the weight of water and the other on the weight of the same volume of wheat grain. Jefferson mused on what far-distant circumstances had led to the creation of such an ancient integrated system, saying that it was the result of ‘design and scientific calculation’ rather than coincidence.

One of the great men of American history had, like us, found that there was once a highly-developed system of weights and measures that had become fragmented over the course of a very long period of time.

¹
A full account of what Jefferson had to say can be found at
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/jeffplan.htm
and on a number of other websites.

We felt strongly that we would have worked well with Thomas Jefferson. His approach to history was as pragmatic as it was open-minded and he clearly had no reservations about publishing his observations. But his calculations regarding the relative weight and volume relationship between cereal grains and water were distinctly different to our own.

We had found that all grains, whether barley, wheat or rice behave in a very predictable way when poured into a cube-shaped container. Experiments had shown that the shape of the seeds causes them to occupy a volume that is 125 per cent that of the same weight of water, which in reverse meant that an equal volume of seeds weighs 20 per cent less than water. The 4 x 4 x 4 Megalithic Inch cube proved to hold an imperial pint of water but when the same cube was filled with barley grains it weighed exactly one imperial (or avoirdupois) pound. We also found that the same cube filled with wheat also produced a quantity of wheat that weighed one pound, even though the seeds were a different shape and size than the barley.

Successive experiments demonstrated that the process also worked with rye and with whole rice, although not with polished rice or pearl barley (in which the shape of each seed has been altered by polishing). Our practical experiments were very simple and the results were very clear and yet Jefferson had reported a different relationship between water and wheat. This was a dilemma because we could not see where we could have made an error and it seemed unlikely that a man of Jefferson’s abilities was wrong. Could the differences be reconciled?

Jefferson’s report identifies that there were two separate systems of weights in use in the United States at that time, the one called avoirdupois, the other troy. Jefferson explains them as follows:

The pound is divided into 16 ounces;

The ounce into 16 drachms;

The drachm into 4 quarters.

The pound is divided into 12 ounces;

The ounce (according to the subdivision of the apothecaries) into 8 drachms;

The drachm into 3 scruples;

The scruple into 20 grains.

According to the subdivision for gold and silver, the ounce is divided into twenty pennyweights, and the pennyweight into 24 grains.

So that the pound troy contains 5760 grains, of which 7000 are requisite to make the pound avoirdupois; of course the weight of the pound troy is to that of the pound avoirdupois as 5760 to 7000, or as 144 to 175.’

Then, as now, it was normal to assume that the two systems were accidents of history, from different origins with no relationship between them, but Jefferson could see that there was a rather interesting ratio of 144:175. He explains why this caught his attention:

‘It is remarkable that this is exactly the proportion of the ancient liquid gallon of Guildhall of 224 cubic inches, to the corn gallon of 272; for 224 is to 272 as 144 to 175.’
[The gallon of Guildhall was an ancient standard gallon kept at the Guildhall in London.]

Here Jefferson had identified that the relationship between the avoirdupois pound, as used today, and the troy pound exhibit the same relationship as between liquid and grain measures. He was highly surprised to discover this and went on to explain that this links up various measures from the past:

‘It is further remarkable still, that this is also the exact proportion between the specific weight of any measure of wheat, and of the same measure of water; for the statute bushel is of 64 pounds of wheat. Now as 144 to 175, so are 64 pounds to 77.7 pounds; but 77.7 pounds is known to be the weight of 2150.4 cubic inches of pure water, which is exactly the content of the Winchester bushel, as declared by the statute…
[Winchester weights and measures were very ancient and though from a different city, had been used in London when the London standards had been lost or became corrupt.]
That statute determined the bushel to be a cylinder of 18½ inches diameter, and 8 inches depth. Such a cylinder, as nearly as it can be cubed, and expressed in figures, contains 2150.425 cubic inches… We find, then, in a continued proportion 64 to 77.7 as 224 to 172, and as 144 to 175, that is to say, the specific weight of a measure of wheat, to that of the same measure of water, as the cubic contents of the wet gallon, to those of the dry; and as the weight of a pound troy to that of a pound avoirdupois.’

So, Jefferson had identified a relationship between wheat and water that is a ratio of 144:175, which means that he discovered that water is just over 21.5 per cent heavier than grain for a known capacity. Yet our practical experiments with cubes of a given volume had revealed a relationship between wheat grain and water of 4:5 – i.e. water is 25 per cent heavier than wheat grain.

Using his analysis Jefferson then commented as to how these units must once have been used before the relevance became lost:

‘This seems to have been so combined as to render it indifferent whether a thing were dealt out by weight or measure; for the dry gallon of wheat, and the liquid one of wine, were of the same weight; and the avoirdupois pound of wheat, and the troy pound of wine, were of the same measure. Water and the vinous liquors, which enter most into commerce, are so nearly of a weight, that the difference, in moderate quantities, would be neglected by both buyer and seller; some of the wines being a little heavier, and some a little lighter, than water.’

Who was right – Thomas Jefferson or ourselves?

We rechecked our cube calculations once again and could find no errors. But Jefferson had told us that he used cylinders (‘Such a cylinder, as nearly as it can be cubed.’) We therefore conducted the experiment with cylinders instead of cubes and found that he was quite correct. The conclusion is that grain behaves very differently in a cube-shaped container than it does in a cylinder of the same volume. Strangely, a cube holds 3.47 per cent more grain than a cylinder and we assume this must be due to the way the grains interlock differently where corners are involved.

Understanding the volume of a cylinder requires a knowledge of pi and the use of an arithmetical calculation, which implies a more recent origin than the use of cubes. The Megalithic people did not have a notation system and would have been obliged to use cubes but peoples from the Sumerians onwards could easily have used cylinders. There are therefore two traditions, both of which are derived from the relative weights of wet and dry goods based on grain and water – one using cubes and the other using cylinders. But the importance of grain in all measurement systems is now very clear.