Content uploaded by Roope Kaaronen
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Roope Kaaronen on Jun 03, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Accepted manuscript, published version available at Science:https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adf1936
1
Body-based units of measure in cultural evolution
Authors: Roope O. Kaaronen1*, Mikael A. Manninen1, Jussi T. Eronen1,2
Affiliations:
1Past Present Sustainability Research Unit, Faculty of Biological and Environmental
Sciences, HELSUS, University of Helsinki, FI-00014.
2BIOS Research Unit, Helsinki, Finland, FI-00170.
*Corresponding author. Email: roope.kaaronen@helsinki.fi
Version note: This is the accepted version of a research article published in Science (Vol. 380,
Issue 6648, pp. 948–954). Differences between this and the published version are only cosmetic.
The published version is available at: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adf1936
Abstract: Measurement systems are important drivers of cultural and technological evolution.
However, the evolution of measurement is still insufficiently understood. Many early standardized
measurement systems evolved from body-based units of measure, such as the cubit and fathom,
but researchers have rarely studied how or why body-based measurement has been used. We
document body-based units of measure in 186 cultures, illustrating how body-based measurement
is an activity common to cultures around the world. We describe the cultural and technological
domains these units are used in. We argue that body-based units have had, and may still have,
advantages over standardized systems, such as in the design of ergonomic technologies. This helps
explain the persistence of body-based measurement centuries after the first standardized
measurement systems emerged.
One-Sentence Summary: Body-based units of measure have cognitive and behavioral
advantages, which accounts for their use and long-term persistence worldwide.
Accepted manuscript, published version available at Science:https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adf1936
2
Main Text:
The ability to measure things is central for human cultures. Throughout the history of human
cultural evolution, systems of measurement have been products and drivers of cultural complexity
(1–4). Global industry, technologies and commerce, as well as science itself, are largely built upon
interchangeable units of measure. Standardization systems, such as the International System of
Units, permeate the everyday lives of people across the globe. Some might say modern times are
built upon our ability to measure the world. But how does the current system compare with those
from the past, and what role has measurement played in the development of human societies?
Worldwide, many early standardized measurement systems are thought to have evolved from
body-based units of measure (3,4). For example, one of the earliest known standard measures, the
royal cubit of Old Kingdom Egypt (ca. 2,700 BCE), evolved from the use of the natural cubit (the
distance from one’s elbow to the tip of the extended middle finger) (5). Harappan measurement
systems were influenced by units such as the fingerbreadth (6), and various Ancient Mesopotamian
measurement systems were abstracted from body-based units such as the foot, cubit, and pace (4).
Traditional Chinese (7), Roman (8), Greek (3), Aztec (9) and Maya (10) measurement systems
also used body-derived standards for measurement.
A unifying feature of past measurement systems is the use of individually variable body parts as
units of measure (1,3,4,11). “Body-based units” are here defined as those units that are
determined by using components of the human body. We analyze the use of body-based units of
measure in 186 cultures across the world, describing common units and the cultural domains in
which they are used. Body-derived yet standardized units of measure, such as the British Imperial
foot, are not included in our data – even if the etymology of these units suggests an earlier use as
body-based units.
Recent work has suggested that the cultural evolution of measurement can be characterized as a
series of stages, starting from practical and gestural comparisons between objects, proceeding
through unequal comparisons and initial standardization, followed by interrelated standardized
units that form abstract and complex systems of measurement (1). Yet these are not historical
stages that cultures transition through and leave behind, and units of various types may coexist (1).
We find that a recurrent pattern in historical and ethnographic data on measurement is that body-
based units have persisted alongside standardized measurement systems.
Not all cultures adopted standardized measurement systems to the same extent, and many cultures
used body-based units well into the 20th and 21st centuries – hundreds to thousands of years after
the first emergence of standardization. In the past, body-based measurement systems have often
been described as primitive predecessors of standardized units (12). We question this notion and
illustrate how body-based measurement systems have offered various problem-solving solutions
and adaptive advantages in the evolution of human cultures and technologies (Fig. 1).
Drawing on our ethnographic dataset, we discuss potential cognitive-cultural causes for the long-
term persistence of body-based measurement, documenting mechanisms by which body-based
units have proven to be successful and competitive with standardized systems.
Accepted manuscript, published version available at Science:https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adf1936
3
Fig. 1. Examples of objects designed with body-based units.
Top left: Karelian skis, early 1900s. The gliding ski was the user’s fathom plus six spans (36). Top right:
Mapuche ponchos were measured from the neck to halfway between the waistline and knee, and from neck
to thumb with arm outstretched (26). Center: Yahi bow, early 1900s. The bow’s length was from the
opposite hip joint (X) to the tip of the outstretched arm (Y) (37). The width below and above the hand grip
was four fingers for a powerful bow. (The posture pictured is not a typical Yahi shooting position.) Bottom:
Yup’ik kayak from the Alaskan coast, late 1800s. The kayak’s length was two fathoms (B) plus one half-
fathom (C) plus the length of the cockpit, which was the length of an arm with a closed fist (D) (19). The
kayak’s height at the cockpit was one cubit with closed fist (A). The kayak’s width was two cubits.Images:
Ski: National Museum of Finland (CC-BY 4.0). Poncho: Wikimedia commons (CC BY-SA 2.0), by
Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile. Bow: Internet Archive (identifier: yahiarcherysaxton00poperich).
Kayak: Internet Archive (identifier: eskimoberingstrait00nelsrich). Human models: MakeHuman. Hand:
Wikimedia commons (FAL 1.3), by JNL.
Accepted manuscript, published version available at Science:https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adf1936
4
Results
We document body-based units in 186 cultures (Fig. 2A). Table 1 lists the most common units.
Variations of the fathom, hand span and cubit are most frequent and exhibit striking similarities
between cultures around the world (Fig. 2B–D). We also find 62 cases of activity-based units of
measure. These are units based on bodily activity, such as “a day’s travel by foot” (measure of
distance), or “a day’s plowing” (measure of area).
Cultures in our dataset are coded based on their inclusion in the Standard Cross-Cultural Sample
(SCCS) to mitigate Galton’s problem (see Materials and Methods for further discussion). In total,
our dataset includes evidence of body-based measurement in 99 SCCS cultures (ca. 53% of all
SCCS cultures). The SCCS subset allows us to better estimate the independent use of specific
body-based units (Table 1). In the SCCS subset, the fathom (44 observations; 23.7% of all SCCS
cultures), hand span (41 and 22%, respectively), and the cubit (40 and 21.5%) are the most frequent
body-based units, suggesting that these units appear most commonly in human cultures (note that
their frequency might also be a product of remarkably distant common origins). These estimates
are only lower bounds, because body-based measurement has often gone undocumented.
In Table 2, we present a typology that describes the behavioral and cultural domains in which
body-based units are used. We find body-based units especially common in the design of
technologies, highlighting the important role of body-based units in technological evolution. We
also document noteworthy use of body-based measurement in trade, agriculture, and rituals. Body-
based units are mostly one-dimensional measures of length. However, cases of measuring area,
volume (e.g., handfuls) and temperature are also documented.
Body-based units are found on all inhabited continents (Fig. 2A). Our results suggest that cultures
around the world use very similar units (Fig. 2B–D). Mostly, body-based units are used in specific
contexts, such as the measurement of a particular technology. However, our dataset also
documents elaborate domain-general systems of body-based measurement, such as those among
the Māori, Mara, Siwai, Trobriand, Iban, Katu, Kwakwakaʼwakw and Chuuk.
Fig. 3 depicts the temporal distribution of the evidence of body-based measurement per each
cultural region in our dataset. We find ample evidence for the use of body-based units in the 20th
century. According to global reviews on historical metrology (3,4), most cultural regions had
encountered standardized units of measure prior to the 20th century. Table S1 and Fig. 3 document,
for each cultural subregion in our dataset, plausible early dates for the introduction of standardized
measurement systems. Our dataset supports the general claim that body-based measurement
systems have persisted despite potential access to standardization (Fig. 3).
Definitive claims on culture-specific retention of body-based units are difficult to make because
the first emergence of standards often pre-dates the categorization of contemporary cultures, and
culture-level evidence on encounters with standardized measurement systems is sometimes
lacking. However, we surmise that within cultural regions, such contact would often occur and
therefore knowledge of standardization would spread, and in many cases cultures could opt to
adopt nearby standard units if they deemed them necessary or superior.
Accepted manuscript, published version available at Science:https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adf1936
5
Fig. 2. Cultures in the dataset on a world map. The maps illustrate the widespread practice of body-
based measurement. Each diamond represents a culture in the dataset. Cultures included in the Standard
Cross-Cultural Sample (SCCS) are colored blue, other cultures are colored red. Map A depicts the
distribution of all documented cultures with body-based units of measure. The other maps illustrate the
three most common body-based units in the dataset: the fathom (B), cubit (C), hand span (D). Locations of
cultures are based mostly on eHRAF coordinates. Note that locations are only rough estimates, since many
cultures and ethnic groups are geographically widespread and/or mobile.
In certain cases, the retention of body-based units is more obvious. For instance, in the Middle
East, where some of the first known standardized measurement systems evolved three to five
millennia ago (3,4), body-based units have been documented as late as the 21st century (Fig. 3).
Similarly, in various European regions, the first emergence of standards dates to the Roman
Republic or Hellenistic Greek eras or even prehistoric times (13), but body-based units are still
documented from the Middle Ages to the 1900s (table S1; Fig. 3). In an exemplary case, the
Zapotec have used body-based units in the mid-to-late 20th century, even though at the time
Spanish standards were well-known, and standards such as the vara (the rod) were introduced
centuries earlier (14). The Zapotec have even named some of their body-based units after Spanish
standards (14). Our dataset documents similar cases of retention in Hawaiian, Turkish, Yup’ik,
Palestinian and Mapuche cultures. Moreover, as discussed below, body-based measurement is still
used in some contexts in the industrialized West.
Accepted manuscript, published version available at Science:https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adf1936
6
Fig. 3.Timeline of standardization and recorded body-based measurement. For each cultural region
in our dataset (based on the HRAF regional categories), we defined the earliest known case of standardized
units of measure (blue points), the coverage dates of ethnographic evidence for body-based measurement
(red segments; darker segments signify overlap of evidence), and the most recent evidence for body-based
measurement (red points). These dates are defined and described in more detail in table S1.
Accepted manuscript, published version available at Science:https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adf1936
7
Table 1:Body parts used for measurement. The fifth column counts the fourth column as a proportion
of the total 186 SCCS cultures, describing the proportion of all SCCS cultures in which we have
documented each body-based unit of measure with. Incidence refers to the number of cultures with the
specific unit. Note that the parity in the number of cultures (186) in our dataset and in the SCCS is
coincidental.
Unit
Description and variations
Inciden
ce (full
dataset)
(N = 186)
Incidence
(SCCS
subset)
(N = 99)
% of
total
SCCS
(N =
186)
Fathom
(arm
span)
Distance between fingertips of outstretched
arms. Variations include, e.g., the fathom with
closed fists.
85 44 23.7%
Hand
span Distance between the tip of the extended thumb
to the tip of one of any four other fingers on an
outstretched hand.
81 41 22.0%
Cubit
(ell) The distance from the tip of the elbow to the tip
of an extended finger (typically the middle
finger). Also sometimes measured to the closed
fist or wrist, or from elbow crease to fingertips,
etc. Other similar forearm-based units are
included.
76 40 21.5%
Arm
length Any units based on the length of an arm,
typically from tip of outstretched fingers to one
of the following: armpit, shoulder, or middle of
chest (half
-
fathom).
66 35 18.8%
Activity-
based
measures
Units of measure based on physical activity,
such as a “day’s journey” or “stone’s throw”
(linear measures) or a “day’s worth of plowing”
(measure of area).
63 32 17.2%
Finger
width Width of one or multiple fingers (or
fingernails), excluding the thumb (cf. “thumb
width”).
44 21 11.3%
Hand
width Width of the palm (also known simply as the
“palm”). Also includes the width of four fingers
or the fist, or the circumference
of the palm.
39 16 8.6%
Pace
A pace, step or stride.
34
19
10.2%
Finger
length Length of any of the four fingers, thumb
excluded (cf. “thumb length”). Includes the
length of finger joints and combinations
thereof.
34 18 9.7%
Height
A person’s
height from the sole of the foot to
the tip of the head, or to the tip of vertically
extended arms. Also includes measures of
height to other specified points of the upper
body (e.g., navel, eyes, forehead).
28
16
8.6%
Foot Inner or outer length of the foot. Also includes
foot width.
27 15 8.1%
Handful Cupped hand (handful) or two cupped hands
(double handful), a measure of volume.
26 18 9.7%
Accepted manuscript, published version available at Science:https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adf1936
8
Thumb
width
The width of the thumb (including nail-width). 15 8 4.3%
Fistmele Width of the fist with an extended thumb
(similar to “thumbs up” gesture).
14 5 2.7%
Thumb
length
The length of the thumb or thumb joint(s). 14 7 3.8%
Hand
length
The length of a hand, typically from the wrist
joint/crease to the tip of the middle finger.
12 7 3.8%
Arm
thickness
As thick as the arm (or wrist). 7 5 2.7%
Armful As much as a person can carry in both arms (a
measure of volume), or the circumference the
arms can surround.
7 6 3.2%
Pinch A small measure for volume measured by
pinching the thumb against the tip of a finger
(e.g., a “pinch of salt”).
7 6 3.2%
Leg
length
The distance from the sole of the foot to the
knee or hip.
5 2 1.1%
Ring Measure of circumference made by pinching
the tip of a finger to the thumb (similar to the
“OK” or “ring”
gesture).
5 4 2.2%
Leg
thickness
As thick as (any part of) the leg. 3 2 1.1%
Accepted manuscript, published version available at Science:https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adf1936
9
Table 2:Behavioral and cultural domains in which body-based units of measure are used. The third
column describes the incidence of the trait in the full dataset (i.e., the number of cultures the trait appears
in). The fourth column describes the number of SCCS cultures in the dataset that are recorded with each
trait.
Theme Description Incidence
(N = 186) Incidence
(SCCS
subset)
(N = 99)
Technological domains
Garments and
cloth Body-based units are used in the design, measurement,
or weaving of garments or cloth. Includes textiles,
clothes, footwear, and other wearable items.
44 23
Building Body-based units are used in design or construction of
buildings or ot
her infrastructure. Includes carpentry.
34 17
Weaponry Body-based units are used in the design or construction
of weapons (bows, spears, etc.).
31 17
Transport Body-based units are used in the design or construction
of transport-related technologies, e.g., kayaks, canoes,
boats, skis, equestrian items, sleds, etc.
24 13
Household Body-based units are used in the design or construction
of other household items, such as mats, pottery, utensils,
looms, etc.
21 12
Fishing tools Body-based units are used in the context of fishing (also
crabbing, shellfish harvesting, etc.), such as the
measurement of fishing nets, lines, hooks, and harpoons.
13 9
Agricultural
tools
Body-based units are used in the design or construction
of agricultural technologies, such as scythes or plows.
5 1
Instrument Body-based units are used in the design or construction
of musical instruments.
3 0
Other cultural
domains
Trade Body-based units are used for trade, in markets and
barter, or for measuring units of currency.
35 21
Agriculture Body-based units are used in agriculture (or
horticulture), e.g., in measuring cultivated land or
agricultural products, or d
istance between sowed seeds.
29 14
Ritual Body-based units are used in ritual, ceremonial,
religious, burial, or divination purposes.
23 12
Animals Body-based units are used to measure the size (or value)
of animals/livestock.
9 5
Cooking Body-based units are used in cooking and the
measurement of food items.
6 3
Medicine
Body
-
based units are used for medical purposes.
3
2
Games Body-based units are used in the context of games or
play.
2 2
Dimensionality
Linear Body-based units measure linear distance (one-
dimensional; between two points).
169 90
Area Body-based units measure area (two-dimensional
space).
29 13
Volume Body-based units measure volume (three-dimensional
space).
27 17
Accepted manuscript, published version available at Science:https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adf1936
10
Other
Ergonomic Instances where body-based units of measure are
mentioned to be used in designing custom-sized
(ergonomic) technologies.
25 12
Temperature Instances where the body is used to measure temperature
(e.g., when something is “too hot to touch” or of “body
temperature”).
2 1
Discussion
From the dataset we identify four cognitive-cultural mechanisms that help explain why body-based
units have been used to begin with, and why they were still often preferred to standardized units
up until the recent past.
1. Ergonomic design
Body-based units have the advantage that they afford custom-made ergonomic designs in ways
that standardized systems often overlook (Fig. 1). We find references to ergonomic design by
body-based units of measure in 25 cultures (Table 2). We take indigenous ergonomics to be an
especially favorable domain for the use of body-based units. Erased by the industrial revolution,
ergonomics largely re-emerged in the Western world only after WWII (15).
Illustrative evidence of ergonomic design is found in kayak-building. A responsive kayak requires
proper positioning of the body. Consequently, no one-size-fits-all design serves all kayakers.
Kayaking cultures, including the Yup’ik (16) and Greenlandic Inuit (17), have used body-based
units to correct kayak designs for interpersonal variation. Kayaks were typically designed “by and
for their user for the best possible performance” (18), to ensure “perfect fit between the kayak and
its maker” (16). Yup’ik kayaks were designed with various body measures (16,19), as described
in Fig. 1. Similar methods are used in the design of paddles: a common length for a double-bladed
Greenland paddle is the user’s fathom plus one cubit, and the blade-width is determined by the
maximum breadth one can grip (17).
Body-based units have also guided the design of tools such as skis. For example, a Khanty ski
maker might measure ski width with their outstretched “finger-and-thumb span plus two fingers”,
and ski length to their eyebrows (20). This affords ergonomic balance: too narrow skis would sink
into soft snow, and too wide skis would be cumbersome and carry excessive snow. 16th century
evidence suggests the length of Saami skis were the height of the user for the kicking ski, and the
user’s height plus foot for the gliding ski (21) (see also the Karelian skis in Fig. 1). In fact, in
contemporary skiing cultures, it is still commonplace to use one’s own height to determine ski and
pole length. For repetitive and injury-prone practices such as farming, ergonomic tool design is
especially important (14). Various Zapotec tools were measured with the user’s own body
measures, such as the Zapotec vara (fathom), to ensure that the farmer’s tools (e.g., plows and
axes) were custom-made and therefore ergonomic (14).
Weapons such as bows also require ergonomic design to ensure proper shooting form and draw
length. Body-based bow design is found in various North American indigenous cultures. For
instance, Ojibwe bow length varied with the stature of the bow’s owner, measuring from “the point
of the shoulder across the chest to the end of the middle finger of the opposite hand” (22) (see also
Accepted manuscript, published version available at Science:https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adf1936
11
Yahi bow design in Fig. 1). Similar design is found in Europe, as documented in Edward IV’s
orders for every Englishman between 16–60 years of age to construct a longbow of their own
height plus one fistmele (width of fist with thumb extended) (23). Even today, body-based units
are being used in archery and bowhunting. A description of Yup’ik spear throwing highlights the
importance of an ergonomically sized weapon (16):
“They can use one yagneq (arm span) to measure when they make a nanerpak [seal spear].
People use their own body measurements. If a person uses a spear of someone taller than
he is, it will be too long for him, and he will throw it differently. But when they make it to
size, it can hit the target when thrown.”
Custom tailored clothes and footwear are also made using body-based units. An illustrative
example is the case of Mapuche poncho design, depicted in Fig. 1. Indeed, even tailors in
commercial economies today use body measures to ensure the custom-fit of garments.
These findings suggest that body-based units and indigenous ergonomics have played an important
and typically overlooked role in the design and evolution of technologies worldwide. Not unlike
today, cultures in the past have struggled with ailments caused by repetitive and intensive activities
(24), and reducing strain through functional design would have been essential.
2. Motor efficiency
Body-based units afford convenient motor routines. For example, measuring slack items such as
fishing nets or rope with standard rulers is impractical, as they must be outstretched for each partial
measurement, and can be inconveniently long. On the other hand, manual measurement could be
conducted with relative ease, using simple motoric procedures. Consider, for example, Samoan
methods of measuring three-ply braid (25):
“[T]he worker measures the braid by holding one end with the left hand and running it
through the right as he stretches the arms to full length. The full arm span is called a ngafa.
The right hand holds the farthest point of the first span and draws it into the left hand which
seizes the point. The second span is run through and so on until the number of spans or
ngafa are counted.”
Our dataset documents similar techniques of using fathoms to measure nets and ropes around the
world. The influence of such practices is still observable today: a standardized fathom is used for
measuring water depth in the British Imperial system. A likely explanation for these similarities
across cultures is the procedural ease by which the fathom suits the measuring of slack items.
3. Availability
Body-based units have the advantage that their use does not require additional, and often
cumbersome, measurement tools. This provides access to easy measurement even for highly
mobile populations. Availability is useful even in contexts where standardized measures exist. For
example, as one Mapuche informant describes (26):
“But I do not always have a meter measure handy; I know that my wima [the length from
Adam’s apple to tip of fingers of an outstretched arm] is nearly a meter and I use it.”
Accepted manuscript, published version available at Science:https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adf1936
12
4. Integration with local knowledge
Unlike standardized units, the use of body-based units is often restricted to specific practical tasks.
Accordingly, they often account for local information in ways that standardized units overlook.
This is especially the case with activity-based units of measure.
For example, the Nicobarese have conveyed canoe trip distances as quantities of young coconut
drinks consumed (27). Hydration is an especially important factor in the saltwaters of the Indian
Ocean, and it would make practical sense to measure journey distances with required hydration
units. In addition, standardized units of length such as nautical miles would not alone account for
local variation in currents, weather, and wind conditions, which can all affect physical effort and
travel time (and therefore, the amount of hydration required).
Vernacular units may in fact be sensitive to local conditions, conveying relevant information that
standardized measures disregard. For instance, the Ifugao have used the number of rests required
as a measure of distance, which is reasonable given that the local mountainous terrain is highly
variable, rendering standard linear measures less useful (28). Similarly, in some cultures, land is
measured in terms of physical activity, such as a day’s worth of plowing, which also naturally
adjusts for variabilities in terrain quality (29). Such measurement units allow adaptation to
practical local context in deliberate ways. These findings align with research suggesting that
context-specific counting systems can have cognitive and practical advantages (30).
Finally, standardized units of distance may simply not be very useful in everyday local lifeways.
Local societies typically know their surroundings very well, and there would be little need to
measure distances between these points. For example, distances on the Ifaluk Atoll are so short
and universally known by locals that “there is little need to discuss them” (31).
From rules of thumb to standardization
Our data show that body-based units were still used worldwide in the 20th century – close to five
millennia after the emergence of the first known standardized units. Our analyses suggest that
considerable time lags existed between the regional emergence of standardized units and the use
of body-based units (Fig. 3). This may be due to practical advantages, such as ergonomics and
availability.
Another potential (not mutually exclusive) explanation for the persistent use of body-based units
is cultural inertia. Cultural innovations are often slow to spread, and new formal innovations that
require auxiliary technologies and standardization are often delayed in their cultural diffusion. This
traction is well-documented in histories of measurement (2,32).
We suggest that pressures for standardization grow mainly in large-scale societies, and particularly
intercultural states and commerce. We therefore raise the possibility that the transition from body-
based units to standardized ones often spread as a case of “seeing like a state” (33) and not only
for practical purposes: standardized measurement systems were cognitive-cultural inventions that
enabled seamless statecraft. The early use of standardized units typically revolves around
governance and administration (32), whereas body-based units are more often used by manual
workers and artisans (14,16). Statecraft-related activities such as intercultural commerce,
regulation and taxation would have demanded standardization and divisibility in ways that body-
Accepted manuscript, published version available at Science:https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adf1936
13
based units of measure could not deliver. This would also explain why standardized units primarily
emerge through the influence of empires and large states (see table S1).
Ultimately, idiosyncratic rules of thumb could not coexist with the demands of mass production.
This is evident in industrialist Taylorist principles, which were antagonistic towards “inefficient
rule-of-thumb methods” (34). Even if body-based measurement could serve manual workers, they
could not be adapted to the strict requirements of factory workflows. The move from body-based
measurement systems to standardized and abstract systems therefore reflects a larger break in
human cultural evolution, one that has seen production systems evolve from local and
heterogenous to global and homogenous. As a consequence, traditional units of measure are
endangered in the broader cultural extinction event (35) that has followed globalization,
industrialization and colonization.
Materials and Methods
Data collection
We collected a dataset that includes descriptions of body-based units of measure in 186 cultures
or ethnic groups. The dataset, analysis code (R), and readme are available at
https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/FEGVR. The dataset includes direct quotes from ethnographic
sources, which provide detail and context on how body-based units of measure are/were used in
each culture. Also provided are references to original sources, thematic codes (elaborated below),
and culture-level details.
Our main source for ethnographic data is the online ethnographic archive eHRAF World Cultures
(https://ehrafworldcultures.yale.edu/). First, we used subject-based search (OCM: “804 Weights
and Measurement”) to search for cases of body-based measurement. (Note that this subset of our
dataset, with OCM code 804, is similar to the one used in (1).) Next, to capture instances not tagged
with this subject code, we used keyword-based search on eHRAF (using keywords “finger”,
“measure”, “cubit”, “fathom”, “thumb”, “rule”, “foot”, “feet”, “arm”, “span”, “stride”, “length”,
“width”, “height”, “body”, “unit”, “fist”, “palm”, and “leg”). Finally, we supplemented the eHRAF
data with a literature review, especially targeting areas and cultures not included in eHRAF. This
involved searching through other archives and search engines (focusing on digital collections such
as archive.org, Google Books/Scholar, and doria.fi). 158 cultures include data from eHRAF (but
not exclusively).
We restricted data collection to cases in which cultures or individuals were described using
personal body parts or proportions (anthropometrics) as units of measure. We also chose to include
units of measure that denote physical/bodily activity, such as measuring distance by “a day’s travel
by foot” or “stone’s throw”. Our dataset does not include fully standardized measurement units or
systems. We did not include standardized units that derive from body-based units, such as the
British Imperial foot, the Japanese foot (shaku) or the Chinese foot (chi). Standardized
measurement systems like these have been documented in detail elsewhere (3,4). One challenge
in data collection was distinguishing body-based units from homonymous standardized measures.
For example, distinguishing a body-based foot from a British Imperial foot may be difficult from
textual data alone, although often this is clarified by context. Moreover, body-measures are often
Accepted manuscript, published version available at Science:https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adf1936
14
used alongside standardized ones, which can make distinguishing between the two difficult. In
dubious cases, we have written a clarification under the “Notes” column in the dataset.
Data analysis
We used inductive qualitative content analysis to analyze the dataset. The analysis method consists
of reading through textual data, identifying recurrent and common themes, coding the themes, and
assigning sections of text with codes. A single culture was coded at maximum once with a specific
code. This is because a culture may be mentioned using the unit “fathom”, for instance, in a variety
of references. Since our analysis is only concerned with whether a culture is documented
expressing a specific trait (e.g., the unit fathom), multiple recordings of the same trait only result
in one code (and therefore, as one unit of incidence in Tables 1–2). We use two kinds of codes:
1. We created a categorization for body-based units of measure (Table 1). We emphasize that
simple categories cannot capture all relevant nuances, and the dataset’s text data should be
referred to for a full-detail description.
2. We created a typology to define the cultural and behavioral context in which body-based
measurement is used (Table 2). We also coded other relevant themes, such as whether the
unit of measure is one of length, area, or volume.
To mitigate Galton’s problem, we coded each culture in our dataset based on whether they are
included in the Standard Cross-Cultural Sample (SCCS). Galton’s problem is a common problem
in cross-cultural analysis, where statistical analysis may be compromised due to lack of statistical
independence. In the case of our dataset, the problem can be explained through the following
example: our entire dataset contains 76 instances of the body-based unit cubit. However, this
number alone is an unreliable indicator of the rate of independent use of this unit, since the cubit
may have been transmitted horizontally between cultures. For example, the Finnish kyynärä,
Estonian künar, and Vepsian künabrus all appear in our dataset as unique instances of the cubit,
although their similar names suggest common Baltic-Finnic origin. Therefore, it might not be
appropriate to consider them truly “different” cubits. SCCS has been designed specifically to
include relatively unrelated cultures, therefore mitigating Galton’s problem (38). Using the subset
of our dataset that includes only SCCS cultures allows us to make more reliable inferences
regarding the (relatively) independent use of specific body-based units. Of the 186 cultures in our
dataset, 99 cultures are included in the SCCS. Note that the fact that both the SCCS and our dataset
contain 186 cultures is a coincidence. Tables 2 and 3 include descriptive analyses of our entire
dataset as well as the SCCS subset of our dataset.
Next, we assessed evidence on the question of whether body-based units of measure persist after
the emergence of standardized units of measure. We consulted encyclopedias of historical
metrology (3,4) and more specialized literature to find plausible dates for the earliest appearance
of standardized units for each cultural subregion in our dataset (for consistency, subregions are
defined based on the HRAF subregion typology). This analysis resulted in table S1. We also
defined dates of the latest recorded use of body-based units of measure (Fig. 3). This date was
obtained from the coverage dates of the ethnographical data for each culture (the dates in which
body-based units are described being used – not the date of the publication of the reference). In
most cases, this data was readily available on eHRAF as either the “coverage date” or “field date”
of the source literature. In other cases, this data was inferred from the reference text. By comparing
the subregional earliest dates of standardization and our dataset’s coverage dates for body-based
Accepted manuscript, published version available at Science:https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adf1936
15
units of measure (Fig. 3), one may gain an overall picture of the commonality of body-based
measurement practices after first regional emergence of standardization (but see Results section
for caveats on making culture-level claims with this data).
We acknowledge that our dataset may be biased by research interests of scholars, who have
disproportionately favored the study of some cultures and behavioral domains over others. Our
data on body-based units dates mostly from the 20th and 19th centuries, although much earlier
cases (and contemporary ones) are also reported (Fig. 3). For the sake of coherence, we choose to
refer to all data in the past tense. This does not exclude the possibility that reported body-based
units are still in use today. To facilitate future linguistic and cross-cultural analysis, we have coded
the dataset based on whether the local names of body-based units are described, and we also
defined Glottolog language identifiers for each culture. However, we do not conduct linguistic
analysis in the present manuscript.
References and Notes
1. K. Cooperrider, D. Gentner, The career of measurement. Cognition.191, 103942 (2019).
2. A. W. Crosby, The Measure of Reality: Quantification in Western Europe, 1250-1600
(Cambridge University Press, 1997).
3. J. Gyllenbok, Encyclopaedia of Historical Metrology, Weights, and Measures (Springer,
2018), vols. 1–3.
4. S. A. Treese, History and Measurement of the Base and Derived Units (Springer, 2018).
5. M. H. Stone, The cubit: a history and measurement commentary. Journal of Anthropology.
2014 (2014).
6. J. M. Kenoyer, "Measuring the Harappan world: Insights into the Indus order and
cosmology" in The Archaeology of Measurement: Comprehending Heaven, Earth and Time
in Ancient Societies, I. Morley, C. Renfrew, Eds. (Cambridge University Press New York,
2010), pp. 106–121.
7. D. N. Keightley, A measure of man in early China: In search of the neolithic inch. Chinese
Science, 18–40 (1995).
8. A. M. Riggsby, "metrology, Roman" in Oxford Classical Dictionary (2021).
9. J. E. Clark, "Aztec dimensions of holiness" in The Archaeology of Measurement:
Comprehending Heaven, Earth and Time in Ancient Societies, I. Morley, C. Renfrew, Eds.
(2010), pp. 150–169.
10. P. J. O’Brien, H. D. Christiansen, An ancient Maya measurement system. American
Antiquity.51, 136–151 (1986).
11. W. Kula, Measures and Men (Princeton University Press, 2014).
Accepted manuscript, published version available at Science:https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adf1936
16
12. G. T. McCaw, Linear Units, Old and New. Empire Survey Review.5, 236–259 (1939).
13. A. Teather, A. Chamberlain, M. Parker Pearson, The chalk drums from Folkton and Lavant:
Measuring devices from the time of Stonehenge. British Journal for the History of
Mathematics.34, 1–11 (2019).
14. R. J. González, Zapotec Science: Farming and Food in the Northern Sierra of Oaxaca
(University of Texas Press, 2001).
15. D. Meister, The History of Human Factors and Ergonomics (CRC Press, 2018).
16. A. Fienup-Riordan, Masterworks of Yup’ik Science and Survival: Yuungnaqpiallerput, the
Way We Genuinely Live (Anchorage Museum of History and Art, 2007).
17. J. D. Heath, E. Y. Arima, Eastern Arctic Kayaks: History, Design, Technique (University
of Alaska Press, 2004).
18. J. Robert-Lamblin, The Aleut Kayak as Seen By Its Builder and User and The Sea Otter
Hunt (Musée de l’homme, Mus. Nat. d’Histoire Naturell, Dieppe, 1980).
19. J. Lipka, C. Jones, N. Gilsdorf, K. Remick, A. Rickard, Kayak Design: Scientific Method
and Statistical Analysis (Math in a Cultural Context: Lessons Learned from Yup’ik Eskimo
Elders) (2010).
20. P. D. Jordan, Technology as Human Social Tradition (University of California Press, 2014).
21. J. Schefferus, Lapponia id est, regionis lapponum et gentis nova et verissima descriptio. In
qua multa de origine, superstitione, sacris magis, victu, cultu, negotiis lapponum, item
animalium, metallorumque indole, quæ in terris eorum proveniunt, hactenus incognita.
Produntur, & eiconibus adjectis cum cura illustrantur (Ex officina Christiani Wolffii typis
Joannis Andreae, Francofurti, 1673).
22. F. Densmore, Chippewa Customs (Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin, 1929), vol. 86.
23. T. Hastings, The British Archer, or, Tracts on Archery (R. Ackermann, 1831).
24. P. S. Bridges, Prehistoric arthritis in the Americas. Annual Review of Anthropology.21, 67–
91 (1992).
25. P. H. Buck, Samoan Material Culture (Honolulu, Hawaii: The Museum, 1930).
26. M. I. Hilger, Araucanian Child Life and its Cultural Background (Smithsonian Institution,
1957).
27. E. H. Man, The Nicobar Islands and Their People (Royal Anthropological Institute of Great
Britain and Ireland, 1932).
28. R. F. Barton, Philippine Pagans: The Autobiographies of Three Ifugaos (G. Routledge &
sons, 1938).
Accepted manuscript, published version available at Science:https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adf1936
17
29. R. Behnke, The Herders of Cyrenaica: Ecology, Economy, and Kinship among the Bedouin
of Eastern Libya (University of Illinois Press, Urbana, 1980).
30. S. Beller, A. Bender, The Limits of Counting: Numerical Cognition Between Evolution and
Culture. Science.319, 213–215 (2008).
31. E. G. Burrows, M. E. Spiro, An Atoll Culture: Ethnography of Ifaluk in the Central
Carolines (Human Relations Area Files, 1957).
32. J. Vincent, Beyond Measure: The Hidden History of Measurement from Cubits to Quantum
Constants (W. W. Norton & Company, New York, NY, 2022).
33. J. C. Scott, Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition
Have Failed (Yale University Press, 1998).
34. F. W. Taylor, The Principles of Scientific Management (Harper & Brothers, 1919).
35. H. Zhang, R. Mace, Cultural extinction in evolutionary perspective. Evolutionary Human
Sciences.3 (2021), doi:10.1017/ehs.2021.25.
36. U. T. Sirelius,Suomen kansanomaista kulttuuria: esineellisen kansatieteen tuloksia. (Otava,
Helsinki, 1919).
37. T. Kroeber, Ishi in Two Worlds: A Biography of the Last Wild Indian in North America
(University of California Press, 1961).
38. G. P. Murdock, D. R. White, Standard Cross-Cultural Sample. Ethnology.8, 329–369
(1969).
39. T. Collelo, "Chad: A Country Study" in (Federal Research Division, Library of Congress,
1988).
40. D. Matsui, Unification of Weights and Measures by the Mongol Empire as seen in the Uigur
and Mongol Documents (Berlin: Dietrich Reimer, 2004).
41. C. Sanft, Progress and Publicity in Early China: Qin Shihuang, Ritual, and Common
Knowledge. Journal of Ritual Studies.22, 21–37 (2008).
42. M. Loewe, The Measurement of Grain during the Han Period. T’oung Pao.49, 64–95
(1961).
43. S. Ichita, Prasat Sambor as a Prototype of the Pyramidal State-Temple in Khmer Temple
Construction. Archaeological Discovery.09, 52 (2021).
44. J. Gear, D. Gear, Earth to Heaven: The Royal Animal-Shaped Weights of the Burmese
Empire (Silkworm Books, Seattle, Wash.; Chesham, Illustrated edition., 2002).
45. M. D. Gordin, Measure of All the Russias: Metrology and Governance in the Russian
Empire. Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History.4, 783–815 (2003).
Accepted manuscript, published version available at Science:https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adf1936
18
46. J. Morrison, Ancient Greek measures of length in nautical contexts. Antiquity.65, 298–305
(1991).
47. B. J. Williams, M. del C. Jorge y Jorge, Aztec Arithmetic Revisited: Land-Area Algorithms
and Acolhua Congruence Arithmetic. Science.320, 72–77 (2008).
48. A. M. Carlos, F. D. Lewis, Marketing in the Land of Hudson Bay: Indian Consumers and
the Hudson’s Bay Company, 1670–1770. Enterprise & Society.3, 285–317 (2002).
49. D. T. Hudson, Anasazi Measurement Systems at Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. Kiva.38,
27–42 (1972).
50. A. Kubicka, J. Kosciuk, "In a Search for Standards in Inca Measuring System" in Machu
Picchu in Context: Interdisciplinary Approaches to the Study of Human Past, M.
Ziółkowski, N. Masini, J. M. Bastante, Eds. (Springer, 2022), pp. 329–360.
Accepted manuscript, published version available at Science:https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adf1936
19
Acknowledgments: The authors thank members of the Past Present Sustainability Research Unit
for valuable feedback during the writing of this article. We also thank three anonymous
reviewers for valuable constructive feedback.
Funding:
Academy of Finland grant 347305 (ROK)
Academy of Finland grant 338558 (JTE, ROK)
European Union's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme grant 869471
(JTE, MAM)
KONE Foundation grant “Arkistotiedon käyttö ympäristöntutkimuksessa – pohjoisen
sosioekologinen ympäristöhistoria työkaluna ympäristömuutosten ymmärtämiseen” (JTE,
MAM)
HELSUS postdoctoral grant (ROK)
Author contributions:
Conceptualization: ROK, MAM, JTE
Methodology: ROK, MAM, JTE
Investigation: ROK, MAM, JTE
Visualization: ROK
Funding acquisition: ROK, MAM, JTE
Project administration: ROK
Writing – original draft: ROK, MAM, JTE
Writing – review & editing: ROK, MAM, JTE
Supplementary Materials
Table S1
Competing interests: Authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Data and materials availability: The body-based unit of measure dataset is available at
https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/FEGVR. Also included is a readme file with
instructions for the interpretation of the dataset, as well as the R code used to analyze the
data and produce figure 2 and tables 1–2.
Accepted manuscript, published version available at Science:https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adf1936
20
Supplementary Materials for
Body-based units of measure in cultural evolution
Table S1: Plausible dates and sources of early standardized units of measure. For each subregion in the HRAF
typology of cultural regions, the table presents some plausible candidates for dates and sources of the earliest attested
standardized units of measure. We refer the readers to more complete encyclopedias (3,4) for further information.
The fourth column indicates, for each subregion, the years (CE, unless otherwise noted) or year-ranges in which body-
based units have been reported in our dataset’s reference base.
Region (HRAF) Cultural
subregion
(HRAF)
Plausible date(s) and source(s) for
early/earliest standards Coverage dates
of body-based
evidence
Africa Central Africa The Kanem–Bornu Empire, under Mai Idris
Alooma (ruled ca. 1571–1603), introduced
standard units of measure (39). European
colonial regimes (especially Belgium)
introduced metric units in the late 19th century
(
3
)
.
1812–1911
1925
1933–1946
1951–1958
Africa Eastern Africa Roman (and Byzantine) influence in Ethiopia
is recorded from the 3rd –7th centuries CE,
which may have introduced Roman standards
(4). Later standardization may have been
introduced through Arab and Islamic influence
from the 8th century CE onwards (4). Yekuno
Amlak of the Ethiopian Empire introduced
standards in the 1270s (3).
1200–1900
1879–1885
1880
1893–1911
1895–1907
1900–1910
1900–1958
1924
1927–1929
1960
Africa Northern Africa In Old Kingdom Egypt, standardization (e.g.,
of the royal cubit) is recorded as early as ca.
2700–2500 BCE (3,5). Later, especially
Roman influence from ca. 40 BCE would
likely have introduced standardized Roman
units to
Northern Africa
(
3
,
4
)
.
1800–1963
1900–1931
1959–1974
Africa Southern Africa Portuguese colonies (in contemporary Angola
around the 16th century), Dutch colonies
(around South Africa from the mid-17th
century), and later British and German
colonial influence especially in the 1800s
introduced European standards (3,4).
Influence from Arab traders in the 18th century
is also likely
(
4
)
.
1575–1902
1900–1907
1904–1944
1908
1929
1930–1934
1956–1957
1958
–
1966
Africa Western Africa The Mali Empire was established in the region
ca. 1230, followed by the Songhay Empire.
Askia the Great (ruler of the Songhay Empire
ca. 1493–1528) introduced a uniform system
for weights and measures (3). From the mid-
19th century the region saw increased British
and French colonial control, which would
introduced the metric and British Imperial
systems (3,4).
1800–1901
1800–1936
1890–1954
1900–1915
1908
1909–1953
1911
1921–1955
1931–1949
1935
Accepted manuscript, published version available at Science:https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adf1936
21
1950–1996
1967
1968–1969
Asia Caucasus The region was under Roman influence from
the second century BCE, and later under both
Byzantine and Persian (Sassanid) rule, which
would have introduced Roman and Persian
standards to the region. Earlier (e.g., Hellenic)
standards may also have been introduced.
(
4
)
1880–1894
Asia Central Asia From the 13th or 14th century, the Mongol
Empire used standard units of measure
influenced by Chinese and Persian units, and
unified the system of weights and measures in
the area under their rule (3,40).
1225–1900
1904–1925
1911–1920
1925–1985
1940–1959
1953
–
1972
Asia East Asia In China, standardization of units of measure
can be dated at least to the Qin dynasty, when
emperor Qin Shi Huang (r. 221–210 BCE)
standardized units of measure (41). Later
standards were introduced in the Han dynasty
(from 202 BCE). Earlier standardization is
also plausible. (42) Chinese units had
considerable influence on nearby regions (3,
4
)
.
1883–1885
1896
1900–1930
1924–1956
1920–1936
1933
Asia North Asia The metric system was adopted in the Russian
Federation by 1899, and in 1900, fundamental
national units were defined (3). The Soviet
Union adopted the metric/SI system in 1925
(4). Earlier Russian measurement standards
existed, but evidence of their influence in
North Asia is scarce.
1600–1900
1733
1760–1820
1785–1794
1800–1927
1850–1880
1895–1902
1998
–
2005
Asia South Asia Early standardization in the Indus Valley can
be dated to the Harappan Period (2600 to 1900
BCE) (6).
1602–1902
1730–1900
1830–1875
1869–1880
1871–1901
1881–1951
1911–1933
1924–1928
1933–1939
1943–1954
1949–1955
1954–1956
1954
–
1956
Asia Southeast Asia Architectural analysis from 7
th
century Khmer
cities such as Prasat Sambor suggests that they
were built with some standard units of linear
measure (43). The Pagan Empire is known to
have standardized various units of measure as
early as the early 11th century (44). Many
Southeast Asian regions, such as parts of
contemporary Vietnam, were also under
Chinese rule from the 2nd century BCE, by the
time which the Chinese had established
1320–1899
1870–1910
1890–1901
1892–1932
1900
1900
1900–1951
1900–1979
1910–1922
1924–1939
1937
Accepted manuscript, published version available at Science:https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adf1936
22
standardized units of measure (see entry under
row East Asia). 1939–1943
1949–1973
1950–1951
1959–1966
1964–1965
1973–1978
1977–1981
2006
2013
2014
2018
Europe British Isles Evidence of consistent standard linear
measures in monuments and artifacts exists
from Neolithic Britain (third millennium
BCE) (13). Notable proportions of the British
Isles were under Roman rule from the 1st
century BCE (and more completely from 1st
century CE; except for Ireland, although
Roman influence did reach Ireland too). By
this time the Romans had standard units of
measure. Around 1266–1303, in Compositio
Ulnarum et Perticarum, English standards
were established for linear and area measures.
(
3
,
4
)
1200–1400
1400–1500
1590–1950
Europe Central Europe Various Central European regions were under
significant Roman influence or occupation
from ca. the 1st century BCE. By this time the
Romans had standard units of measure.
1498
1927
Europe Eastern Europe Various sources of standards exist. Roman
rule and influence in Eastern Europe is
recorded especially from the 1st century CE. In
the 13th century, Mongol units may have been
introduced (see entry under Central Asia). In
the Russian Empire, notable attempts at
standardization are recorded from 1797
onwards
(
45
)
.
1927
Europe Scandinavia
(Northern
Europe)
In 1665, units of measure were standardized
under Swedish law (3). Russian standards
emerge especially in the late 18th century (see
Eastern Europe). Earlier local standards have
also existed, and access to other standards is
also likely owing especially to Baltic medieval
trade networks.
1600
1907–1922
1910
1911
1912
1913–1947
1920–1922
1927
1936
1971
–
1976
Europe Southeastern
Europe The Greeks drew influence from Egyptian and
Babylonian measurement systems. Standards
varied by locality and were used especially in
Mediterranean trade. Early standardized units
of length are documented during the reign of
Alexander the Great (ca. 325 BCE), but likely
existed even earlier
(
46
)
.
1700
1926–1933
1960
Europe Southern
Europe The first known legal regulation of weights
and measures in Rome is the Lex Silia de
ponderibus publicis
of
ca.
the mid
-
3rd
century
1976–1979
Accepted manuscript, published version available at Science:https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adf1936
23
BCE (8). Roman units are known to have been
influenced by earlier Hellenic units, which in
turn were influenced by Egyptian and
Babylonian units.
Middle America and
the Caribbean Central America Aztec standards (e.g., linear units based on
land rods) have been documented from the
turn of the 15th and 16th century (47).
Following the Spanish conquest (from ca.
1519), the Aztec system (which also included
various body-based units) was correlated with
the Castilian (standardized) system.
(
3
)
1900–1965
1927
1940–1941
1943–1948
Middle America and
the Caribbean Central Mexico See Central America. 1500–1579
1900–1933
1940–1958
1940–1967
1957–1959
1965
–
1967
Middle America and
the Caribbean Maya area Studies on Late Classic Mayan architecture
suggest that units of measure seem to have
been standardized, at least to a notable extent,
from around 750–1000 CE. These units were
likely derived from body-based measures
(such as the arm span). Standards varied
between communities.
(
10
)
1927–1933
1932–1936
1938–1944
1950–1960
1967–1968
Middle America and
the Caribbean Northern
Mexico Spanish colonialists would likely have
introduced standardized units of measure to
the regional vicinity from the 16th century. A
decree from 1801 stipulated the use of
standard linear and weight measures in the
region of Mexico.
(
3
)
1930–1931
Middle East Middle East The Mesopotamian region has some of the
earliest cases of standardization. Perhaps most
notably, under the reign of Naram-Sin of the
Akkadian Empire (ca. 2254–2218 BCE),
many competing measurement systems were
unified by single official standards (3). In Old
Kingdom Egypt, standardization is recorded
as early as ca. 2700 BCE (see Northern
Africa).
1000 BCE – 600
BCE
2000 BCE – 400
BCE
1880–1947
1900–1928
1947–1955
1957
1960
2015
North America Arctic and
Subarctic By the latest, standardization was introduced
by the United States (e.g., through the
acquisition of Alaska in 1867), Denmark
(through its claim on Greenland in 1921),
Britain (through its control of New France by
1763), or Canada (by control of the North-
West territories in the 1870s) (3,4).
1750–1975
1820–1924
1850–1929
1883–1935
1905–1925
1907
1909–1910
1930–1940
1932–1940
1933
1934–1956
1940–1945
1942–1953
1958–1970
1960–2004
1985–2003
2010
Accepted manuscript, published version available at Science:https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adf1936
24
North America Eastern
Woodlands Various Spanish, British, and French colonies
introduced European standards from the 16th
to 18th centuries onwards (3).
1500–1910
1675–1690
1700–1912
1750–1912
1844–1850
1900–1925
1908–1911
North America Northwest Coast
and California British Columbia became part of the
Dominion of Canada in 1871. By then,
Canada used both British and metric systems
(along with other regional standards) (3).
Spanish (standardized) units of measure are
documented in the region of contemporary
California pre-1860 (4). From 1853, the
Territory of Washington was incorporated to
the United States. By then, the United States
used both British Imperial and metric systems
(3). Earlier introduction of standards is
possible, especially since the region saw
Spanish, Russian and British trade from the
late 1700s.
1700–1910
1741–1972
1775–1980
1790–1956
1800–1925
1820–1949
1840–1924
1850–1933
1850–1937
1881–1929
1885–1895
1900–1920
1903–1906
1912–1916
1920–1925
1924–1925
1925–1930
2001
North America Plains and
Plateau European traders introduced standards from
the late 17th century onwards, such as in the
case of the Hudson Bay Company (48). Later
mid-19th century standards were established
under British, U.S. or Canadian governance
(3).
1850–1940
1850–1951
1860–1926
1875–1911
1902–1911
1920–1925
1939
–
1940
North America Southwest and
Basin Increasing U.S. influence and governance in
the region from the mid-1850s would have, by
the latest, introduced standards (especially
British Imperial units) (3). Anasazi units do
not seem to have been strictly standardized
(49).
1774–1865
1800–1950
1840–1921
1840–1937
1846–1969
1849–1935
1879–1900
1881–1894
1890–1940
1901–1988
1928
1929–1931
1931–1935
1937–1942
1946
Oceania Australia British colonization from the late 1700s and
especially 1800s introduced British Imperial
standards
(
4
)
.
1913
1954–1957
Oceania Melanesia European, especially German and British,
colonial influence introduced British Imperial
standards and the metric system from the late
19th century onwards (3). Earlier contact with
standards through trade is plausible.
1877
1925–1927
1928–1929
1929–1930
1929
–
1930
Accepted manuscript, published version available at Science:https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adf1936
25
1938–1939
1938–1976
1973–1982
1975
1980
–
1984
Oceania Micronesia Spanish, German and British colonial
influence introduced British Imperial
standards and the metric system from the mid-
19th century onwards (3). Earlier trade with
Europeans is also recorded.
1820–1920
1900
1900
1900
1900–1938
1903
1907–1910
1908–1910
1909–1910
1910–1945
1912–1920
1916–1932
1947–1948
1947–1969
1961–1962
1963–1965
Oceania Polynesia British, U.S., French and German colonial
influence introduced standards from the mid-
19th century. Hawaii adopted the weights and
measures of Massachusetts in 1840. (3)
1800–1950
1815
1920–1921
1927–1928
1928–1929
1928–1929
1928–1952
1930
1933–1934
1938
–
1939
South America Amazon and
Orinoco See Central Andes. 1940–1941
1947–1958
1954
–
1969
South America Central Andes There is uncertainty about the precise use of
standards in the Inka Empire, and units may
have largely been anthropometric (50). The
Spanish conquered the region ca. 1535, and by
then, the Spanish would have used various
standards for weights and measures. (3)
1200–1600
1200–1600
1450–1940
1539–1560
1610
1937–1938
1940–1941
1940–1942
1946
–
1952
South America Eastern South
America Especially Portuguese influence and
governance in Brazil is recorded from the
mid-16th century onwards, introducing the Old
Portuguese system of measures. Brazil
adopted the metric system in 1862. (3)
1900–1974
1908
1908–1940
1983
South America Northwestern
South America The region was annexed as a part of the
Spanish colonies (Kingdom of the New
Granada) in 1549. By this time the Spanish
would have used a variety of standardized
systems of measurement
.
(
3
)
1946–1950
South America Southern South
America
The metric system has been official in Chile
since 1848, and prior to this Spanish
1918–1924
Accepted manuscript, published version available at Science:https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adf1936
26
measurement systems were used (3). Earlier
contact with Europeans is also documented
from the 16th century onwards.
