Measurements And Ancient World

Did You Ever Heard About The Ishango Bone, Or What About 20000 BC Date?

In 1950, Belgian geologist and anthropologist Jean de Heinzelin de Braucourt unearthed the Ishango Bone during excavations near the Semliki River, close to Lake Edward, on the border between modern-day Uganda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The bone is approximately 10 cm in length and is believed to be a fibula from a baboon or another large mammal. It is housed at the Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences in Brussels, Belgium.

The Ishango Bone has been the subject of extensive research, leading to various interpretations. Some researchers suggest that the notches on the bone represent early arithmetic operations, possibly indicating knowledge of prime numbers and basic arithmetic functions. Microscopic examinations have led to the hypothesis that the notches may correspond to a lunar calendar, potentially used for tracking lunar phases. Other studies propose that the notches reflect a base-12 counting system, with sub-bases of 3 and 4, suggesting a complex numerical understanding. A 2025 study identified structural patterns in the notches, revealing repeating sums and dualistic pairing structures, indicating a deliberate and complex mathematical arrangement. The Ishango Bone is considered one of the oldest known mathematical artifacts, providing insight into the cognitive and cultural practices of prehistoric societies. Its study continues to offer valuable perspectives on early human numeracy and symbolic thinking.

Assuming the excavated artifact, we can only speculate about its direct use, but the marks and the logic of its positional structure suggest that some form of relative metrical standardisation should reasonably be considered among all other suggestions...

Further, we will lead our honorable reader through the chain of the main well-known ancient cultures, and will provide the generalizations just before we leap into the medieval period of length standardisation...

Nabta Playa, Or Pure Evidences of Measurements Used But Even Speculations Will No Define The Units...

• About Culture

Nabta Playa is a large dry basin (playa) in the southern Egyptian/Nubian Desert that was seasonally filled and habitable in the early–mid Holocene. Archaeological occupation begins in the early Holocene and intensifies in the 7th–5th millennia BC (radiocarbon ranges for different components span roughly ~7500–4500 BC depending on feature). The environment then supported lakes, wells and pasturage that attracted seasonal or semi-sedentary groups.


• Scientific Summary

Evidence shows organized seasonal camps and, later, more permanent village-like layouts with wells that held water year-round. Subsistence included wild plant gathering and, increasingly in the mid-Holocene, pastoralism (domestic cattle, goats/sheep appear in the record), and cultivation/management of plants such as millets/sorghum is suggested in some analyses. Large hearths, pottery and tool assemblages indicate complex, repeated occupation and food processing activities.


• Metric System Existed?

Archaeologists have documented tumuli (burial mounds), carved/worked stones, pottery (decorated in later phases), hearths, deep wells, and stone alignments/cromlechs (stone circles). Cattle burials (ritual interment of cattle in clay-lined chambers) are a prominent feature of some phases, indicating the cultural importance of cattle.
The site contains stone alignments and a so-called “calendar circle” (a ring of paired standing stones with internal standing slabs). Several researchers interpret some megalith orientations as pointing to sunrise on the summer solstice and to bright stars — i.e., the site may preserve early archaeoastronomical practice used to mark seasonal events (important for pastoralists tracking rains). However, the precision and intended use are debated; many specialists emphasize that while alignments are plausible, their calendrical accuracy and symbolic meanings remain interpretive.
There is no widely accepted, directly attested standardized ruler/unit of length from Nabta Playa. What exists are geometrical and dimensional analyses of megalith layouts and speculative proposals that patterns reflect implicit measurement schemes. Those proposals range from conservative (geometric/layout relationships) to very speculative (direct numerical length units or “star-distance” scales). Below I summarize main positions and the evidence backing or opposing each.
Some researchers (e.g., Shatalov, Haynie and others in analytic/geometry studies) have suggested the stone circle follows dimensional-geometric relationships — i.e., repeating length ratios and angles that could reflect a working measurement concept (for laying out plans, aligning monuments, or marking seasonal positions). These are mathematical/architectural interpretations based on measured inter-stone distances and angular relationships. They do not prove a named unit like “a Nabta foot” existed, but they do suggest intentional patterning.
A small number of authors (not mainstream archaeologists) have proposed exotic claims — e.g., that the stones encode precise stellar distances or an advanced long-distance astronomical scale (the Brophy “star map / distance scaling” idea is a prominent example). These claims are not accepted by the mainstream archaeological/astronomical community because they rely on selective measurements, disputed correlations, and assume intentions not demonstrated in the field record. Scholarly rebuttals and re-analyses emphasize that such results are not robust given dating uncertainties and measurement/interpretation biases.

Merimde Beni Salama (commonly called Merimde) 5000 BC Dated. Speculative Measurement Units...

• About Culture

Merimde Beni Salama (commonly called Merimde) is located in the western Nile Delta. Occupation dates primarily to the late 6th to early 5th millennium BC (~5000 BC), during the Neolithic period. The site represents one of the earliest sedentary village cultures in the Nile Delta region, contemporary with Buto and other predynastic cultures.
Evidence shows permanent villages with rectangular houses made of wattle-and-daub. Subsistence was primarily agricultural, including cultivation of emmer wheat, barley, and legumes. Animal husbandry included cattle, sheep, goats, and possibly pigs. Fishing and fowling supplemented diets due to proximity to Nile wetlands.
Burials found at Merimde show flexed interments, sometimes with grave goods, suggesting emerging social stratification. The scale of settlement and planning implies some coordinated community management.
Merimde represents a stable, early sedentary community in the Nile Delta. Demonstrates Neolithic innovations: crop cultivation, domesticated animals, settlement planning. These innovations set the stage for later predynastic Egyptian cultural development.


• Archaeology In Facts And Speculations

Nevertheless, there are no standardized metric system has been found at Merimde, archaeologists have recorded dimensions of houses, hearths, and storage pits, allowing reconstruction of approximate building modules. Measurements suggest consistent proportions, e.g., houses roughly 4–5 m wide, but this appears practical rather than formalized.
Some researchers suggest that building layouts reflect repeated units (possibly pacing or rope lengths). No artifacts like rulers, marked rods, or inscriptions survive, so any proposed unit is hypothetical.
Assumption may led us to thoughts, that metrics in the culture were based on human-based measures (arm span, step, or pacing) applied consistently in local construction.


• Initial Discoveries

The site was first identified by Hermann Junker during his West Delta Expedition in 1928. Excavations were conducted from 1929 to 1939, uncovering domestic structures, lithic tools, and faunal remains


• The complex analytical review of old world neolithic the mediterrian basin

In recent years, research into the Neolithisation of both Europe and North Africa has been increasing, notably so into the process by which varied communities adopted new food producing strategies. The implementation of new technology, methods, and theories have contributed to refinements in the timing of change in economies, analysis of the types of food eaten, and the reasons behind these transformations

Tassili n’Ajjer Cultures Sahara, Or Continuing Efforts To Find Length Units Evidences...

• About Culture, And Bovidian or Pastoral Period (6000 - 4000 BC)

During this era, the Sahara experienced a gradual aridification, leading to the decline of large wild fauna and the emergence of domesticated animals like cattle, sheep, and goats. The rock art from this period vividly depicts these transitions, showcasing scenes of pastoral life, domesticated herds, and human figures engaged in daily activities. Notably, the Running Horned Woman, a prominent painting from this time, illustrates a female figure adorned with bull horns, symbolizing fertility and the integration of cattle into Saharan societies
Archaeological findings in the region, including settlements, tumuli, and enclosures, have yielded abundant ceramic materials, providing further context to the rock art. These artifacts suggest a complex society with developed cultural practices and social structures. The presence of architectural elements in the artwork, such as representations of tents and enclosures, indicates an evolving understanding of space and community organisation


• Length Units ..?

While there is no direct evidence of standardized measurement systems (such as units of length or volume) from the Bovidian period, the rock art provides indirect insights into the spatial organisation and scale of prehistoric societies. The depiction of human figures, animals, and architectural elements suggests an understanding of proportionality and spatial relationships.Some researchers have examined the proportions of human figures and animals depicted in the rock art. The consistent use of specific ratios in these depictions suggests an inherent understanding of proportional relationships, which may have served as a rudimentary form of measurement. For instance, vessels with a circumference of one 'royal cubit' were found to hold approximately half a 'hekat' of liquid, indicating an early system of volumetric measurement. The spatial organisation of settlements and enclosures, as inferred from archaeological findings, suggests an understanding of spatial relationships and dimensions, possibly indicating the use of informal measurement units.

Gobero Culture, Southern Sahara...

• About Culture

The site sits beside what was once a palaeolake (Lake Gobero), around 3 km in diameter during humid periods. The geology includes paleodune (ancient sand dunes), lake deposits, and a fault ridge in the underlying dinosaur-age sandstone that helps explain water supply sometimes-independent of rainfall. More broadly say, Gobero located in the southern Sahara, in Niger, on the western edge of the Ténéré desert.
There are ~182 burial sites, ~67 excavated in early reports. The early burials (Kiffian) are hyperflexed: bodies tightly flexed (knees to chest etc.).
From the anthropological point of view, we may describe the culture by artfacts, excavated, and include such grave goods as pottery, beads, ivory, bone ornaments; harpoons, hooks, etc.
The Archeological researching propose the summary that common activity of the local population were fishing (tilapia, Nile perch, catfish), use of aquatic fauna (softshell turtles, crocodiles), hunting savannah fauna, collecting plant resources, making tools (stone, bone). In the Tenerian phase some evidence of animal domestication/herding appears, though not a dominant signature in all middens.


• Measurements In Gobero ...

Here authors should provide disclamer, that no direct evidences of the measurement units the culture may show to us, what in other words may shaped as: nevertheless Gobero is richly documented in many respects, the archaeological record does not show evidence of any formal or standardized system of length units (like “foot,” “cubit,” etc.). Next couple additional points will arguing the tesis.
No rulers, measuring rods, inscribed linear scale artifacts have been reported in published literature as of now. Archaeological reports have not identified consistent repeated architectural modules (walls, building sizes, or enclosures) that could clearly imply formal measurement units. The middens, pottery, and burials provide size data (e.g. skeleton heights, tool sizes), but these are not evidence of a cultural standard for length — more individual or functional.
But we took upside our own responsibility and here is a field of our suggestions...
The height of people, the sizes of tools and vessels, distances walked (movement around the lake) could be relatively standardized in practice even if informal. For example, measurement of fish sizes, fishhooks, or consistency in tool lengths might imply some “rule of thumb” measures. But no direct evidence. If many implements (stone blades, axes, hafts) have very similar size ranges, that suggests craft traditions with preferred dimensions — this could be a proto-unit standard. But published works focus more on typology of tools rather than exact size standardisation. Burials in cemeteries with patterned placement; habitation/refuse areas near the lake edges and dunes. This may reflect spatial organisation, but not yet shown to use measurement units. Pottery shapes are documented (jars, bowls), and some decorated with standard decorative motifs; whether that implies volume units or size standardisation is not shown.

Cultural Transition From African Prehistory to Sumer and Egypt, Or Great Migration Pathway

A widely spread approach of attempting to support any claim with notifications akin to “British Royal Society Discovers That Wet Underwear Is a Sign of Genius” is not our way. When certain points need to be declared, our honorable reader should be patient and ready to consider the arguments that supplement the declarations we provide in this article.

Fairly speaking, modern anthropology generally accepts the hypothesis of a human migration pathway from the African continent. Instead of relying on statements like “Some Society Discovers,” this hypothesis is supported not only by declarations but also by numerous archaeological evidences (see the link below: “Great Migration Pathway… see more”).

In this chapter, we will uncover the evolution of measurement systems, and it is logically appropriate to walk through the Mediterranean area, then return to Africa with its Egyptian civilisation, and continue to the Jewish kingdom.

Settlements And Habitant Groups On Nile Shore, Or Before The Kingdom Times Of Egypt

Unfortunately, we have no clear evidence related to proto-Egyptian sites, and this is reasonably conditioned by later cultural layers, which mainly erase and intertwine the possible artefacts, potentially revealing much about the groups.

But, based on the logic of all other similar cultures’ evolution, we may firmly assert that they were. In order not to be compromised as suspicious writers, we mark all later context of this section as unproven narration, designed by the authors for clarification purposes only, and solely to expose to the readers our approach to hypothesis building, in cases when the scientific brain heavily strives from lack of facts.

Early Egyptians lived along the Nile Valley, from the Delta to Upper Egypt. Villages were small (hundreds to a few thousand people), with clustered mudbrick houses. Based on irrigated agriculture (wheat, barley, flax) and supplemented by fishing, hunting, and livestock. Some communities show specialization, e.g., Predynastic cemeteries with high-status grave goods.

Stratification in early sites, as these were communities of course, naturally took place, and at that time may only boast goods diversity, family consumption in everyday life, and grave richness with ritual artefacts. Related to site-times, scarcely may it be adoptable even to suppose some kind of cosmetics or ornaments, which are usually more related to ritual attributes than personal use.

Cities, Settlements And State Formation, Brief Overview...

Hierakonpolis (Nekhen): One of the largest Predynastic centres, with religious and administrative functions, early temples, and elite tombs.

Abydos: Necropolis and ritual centre with evidence of long-distance trade and centralized burials.

Naqada: Regional centres with pottery workshops and cemeteries showing social hierarchy.

Settlements were often clustered along Nile tributaries, reflecting control of water and land as key resources.

Hey, we are hearing: it is not necessary to urge us. Now is the time of Pre-Dynastic State Formation and Political Evolution!

By c. 3100 BCE, Upper and Lower Egypt show signs of unification under a single ruler (traditionally Narmer/Menes). The conditions, general, and historically defined as required, all were relevant to that period: requirements of controlling irrigation networks, defense against raiders and nomadic incursions, economic integration (trade, tribute), religious authority concentrated in a single hand (kingship and temples as administrative hubs).

You may consider several places of archaeological excavations as evidence of state evolution: Narmer Palette (ritual unification symbolism); fortifications at Hierakonpolis and Tell el-Farkha; elite tombs with standardized grave goods; early writing (tags, labels) indicating administrative record-keeping.

Now Is The Right Place for Mapping Egypt Development As State

Background

Badarian Culture (ca. 5500–4000 BC) placed at Middle Egypt, centred on Badari (Asyut area), mainly characterized with early agricultural villages; rudimentary craft specialization; copper use begins, without direct evidences of political structure.
So we may set the point as cultural and economic foundation of later Upper Egyptian societies.

Conditional Period

Naqada I (Amratian) Period, positioned at Upper Egypt (Naqada, Hierakonpolis, Abydos), may be characterised with increasing settlement hierarchy, long-distance trade with Nubia, Red Sea, and Levant, distinctive black-topped red ware pottery, early governmental institutions represented with local chiefdoms, and each settlement sovereign, but toughly interacted each other.
Lower Egypt: Maadi–Buto Culture occupied Nile Delta, centred around Maadi, Buto, and Heliopolis, had trading activity, predominately with Southern Levant (Canaanite ceramics found), settlements shaped in simple villages; less monumental craft output compared to Naqada

Political Consolidation (ca. 3500-3200 BC)

During socio-cultural evolution, it is an unavoidable process of establishing authority and attempts to take power, which grow from the early forms of leadership. Such behavior can be seen in Ancient Egyptian cities just before the formation of the Egyptian state, around 3500–3200 BC, when settlements in Upper Egypt were expanding northward. As evidence, we may consider the emergence of elite cemeteries (Hierakonpolis HK6, Abydos U Cemetery), the construction of fortified centres and proto-palatial structures, and excavations dated to this time showing the introduction of Mesopotamian motifs (niched façades, boats, animals, elite scenes).
There were several proto-kingdoms, which later acted as significant impacters in state formation, but for now, we simply list them. Abydos / Thinis (Upper Egypt, near modern Girga) — a probable future royal centre. Naqada — an important religious and cultural hub. Hierakonpolis (Nekhen) — the major ritual and political capital of the south. Nubt (Ombos) — a lesser centre near Naqada. Each controlled surrounding villages through kinship ties and tribute. Warfare and symbolic conflict, as seen in palette iconography, show a rising trend toward centralization.
Upper Egypt, political consolidation under Thinis/Abydos and Hierakonpolis. As evidences of the evolution we may consider royal iconography (White Crown (Upper Egypt), Red Crown (Lower Egypt)), proto-hieroglyphic writing (Abydos tomb U-j; labels, jars), seals and accounting systems emerge (administrative control of goods). The most well-known rulers are Scorpion I–II, Ka, Iry-Hor (sometimes called “Dynasty 0” kings). Northern regions represented with Buto and Maadi (still semi-independent), and subdued by southern forces around 3100 BC.

Here Authors Desided To Embed A Short Review Of Greece Region Evolution

Minoan Crete (pre-Greek / early Greek influence)

Major Centres: Knossos, Phaistos, Malia, the structure at that time, shped as complex palace-centred societies; not strictly “city-states” in the Classical sense. Centralized economic, religious, and administrative authority. Sources support us with measurement data; linear: Minoan cubit ≈ 0.523 m (estimated from palace architecture and storage vessels), volume: Standardized units inferred from storage jars (amphorae, pithoi)

Period: 3000–1450 BC

Mycenaean Greece (Late Bronze Age)

Major Centres: Mycenae, Pylos, Tiryns, Thebes

Establishments characteristic: linear palace-centred authority; centralized taxation and resource collection, proto-bureaucratic. Measurement Units: Linear: Estimates suggest cubit ~0.46–0.50 m, based on architectural remnants Area: Land measured in plethra (from later Greek usage, inferred from Linear B tablets)

Archaic Greek Poleis

Major City-States: Athens, Sparta, Corinth, Megara, Argos

Period: 800–500 BC

State Structure: Athens: Early monarchy → aristocracy → archon system → democracy foundations, Sparta: Dual kingship + Gerousia (council of elders) + Apella (citizens assembly). Each polis had its own political organisation, laws, and coinage.

Measurement Units: length: Greek foot (pous) ~0.308–0.312 m (regional variations), Cubit (pechys): ~0.462–0.468 m, Stadion: ~600 feet ≈ 180–185 m (used in athletics, military drills, and land measurement)

We Promised...

• Athen Measurements

Linear Units: Pous (foot): 0.308 m, Pechys (cubit): 0.462 m (~1.5 pous), Stadion: 600 feet ≈ 184.8 m

Area Units: Plethron: ~100 m² (used in land allocation), Stremma (later usage, from Roman/Byzantine adaptation): 1000 m²

Volume Units: Choenix: 1.08 L (grain), Metretes: ~39 L (liquid measure)

Weight Units: Drachma (silver coin, weight standard): ~4.3 g, Talent: 26 kg silver



• Sparta

Linear Units: Pous: 0.308–0.310 m, Pechys: 0.462 m, Stadion: ~180 m (used in military and gymnastic training)

Area Units: Plethron: ~100 m²

Volume Units: Choenix: 1.08 L, Kyathos: ~0.03 L (smaller measures for liquids)

Weight Units: Drachma: ~4.3 g, Obol: ~0.72 g (1/6 drachma)



• Corinth

Linear Units: Pous: 0.308–0.310 m, Pechys: 0.462 m, Stadion: 180–182 m

Area Units: Plethron: ~100 m²

Volume Units: Choenix: ~1.08 L Metretes: ~39 L

Weight Units: Drachma: 4.3 g, Obol: 0.72 g, Talent: 26 kg



• Delphi / Phocis (Sanctuary and regional polis)

Linear Units: Pous: 0.308 m, Pechys: 0.462 m

Area Units: Plethron: 100 m² (temple lands, sacred precincts)

Volume Units: Choenix: 1.08 L, Metretes: 39 L

Weight Units: Drachma: 4.3 g, Obol: 0.72 g



• Syracuse (Sicilian Greek colony)

Linear Units: Pous: 0.303–0.308 m (slightly shorter than mainland), Pechys: 0.462 m, Stadion: ~180 m

Area Units: Plethron: 100 m²

Volume Units: Choenix: 1.08 L, Metretes: 39 L

Weight Units: Drachma: 4.3 g, Obol: 0.72 g, Talent: 26–27 kg (local variation)



• Summary.

As shown in listing of units, the difference mostly reflects in values.

Suffixing by polis: Often units had the city name appended in inscriptions or coinage (drachma syrakousios, pous athenaion).

Regional variations: Even when the unit name was the same, the metric value could differ slightly (Athens foot 0.308 m vs. Syracuse 0.303 m).

Specialized units: Some cities had additional local units for construction, trade, or religious purposes (e.g., megalos pechys for temple constructions).






---




The Greece culture (more correct Hellenian) had its impact on world's science, and philosophy, but significantly later. The first aloud sound was belled at the Alexander The Great conquests, but it was a very short period. Cultural interchanging processes usually require a significant time-gap, as those all have evolutionary characteristics rather than instant implementation. But if we take into account, distal in time, the Rome prosperity as an empire period, it will definitely be traceable the Hellenistic impact to a wide range of this mentioned here state. And in its turn, in a collateral way, this impact feels very well within all subordinated to the Roman Empire cultures, and territories.

The process of the end of Hellenistic civilisation started from the destroying the concept of independances the City states, which took place with Philip II Of Macedon (Father of Alexander The Great).

Prehistory of Philip II of course may be perceived as conditional, and in aim to show for spectator the picture in panoramic exposition, authors here will let some historical observations.

Internal weakening of the poleis, conditioned by events like Peloponnesian War (431–404 BC), Rise of Thebes (4th c. BC) (temporary domination under Epaminondas after Spartan decline, but no lasting unified control), and, for example, political fragmentation: Most poleis became weaker, constantly at war with neighbors, unable to form a cohesive defensive strategy.

The decaying processes continuing with Macedonian conquests, which starts from gradually imposing hegemony over Greek city-states through diplomacy and military campaigns by Philip II. Significant point from the chain of historical events becomes the Battle of Chaeronea (338 BC) (Philip defeats Athens and Thebes, effectively ending Greek political independence). Alexander The Great had hammer the final nail into the coffin lid of the Hellenistic social structure in Greece, by complete deprivation of poleis autonomy. Surely, he Extend Greek culture across the Near East. May be obvious that all Greece poleis should become a central core of the potentially rising Macedonian empire (mostly covered Antigonid Macedonia with conquered Ptolemaic Egypt, Seleucid Empire), but established cultural, and social structure of the poles were incompatible with governmental principles required to build, and later maintaining such construct as an Empire.

Such a way, Greece's glory wilting, with rising lights of the Roman empire, and become a Roman province. Poleis survive as cultural and economic centres, but no longer sovereign states.

And here will be justified place to pass the Roman measuremental approaches, and the background researching chapter...

What We Know About Measurement Units In Early Rome?

The Romans adopted several Greek units of measurement.

Let us introduce them: Digitus (finger), Pes (foot), Palma (palm), Uncia (inch), Cubit (cubitus), Gradus (step), Passus (pace)

These units were borrowed from Greek city-states (poleis), reflecting the influence of Greek culture and trade on early Roman society.

As Rome expanded, regional variations in measurement standards emerged (As examples: Pes Monetalis: Approximately 296 mm, used in monetary contexts, Pes Drusianus: Approximately 333 mm, used in some provinces, particularly Germania Inferior, Pes Atticus: Approximately 300 mm, used in Attica.). These variations were influenced by local customs, practical needs, and the integration of different cultures within the expanding Roman Empire.

Maybe It Is Time To Expose The Really Golden Standards, Or Did You Ever Hear Where The 'Golden Standard' Term Comes From?

We already passed through early Rome briefly, but here it will be appropriate to point out the turning point of establishing the conditions we so frequently note, which led to the standardisation itself. And this is the famous and well-known Twelve Tables Of Rome.
While not directly, the Twelve Tables are the zero milestone of all later Roman development pathways, both for Roman laws and for many other cultural architectures, including the unification of units.
Formal Standardisation Efforts (circa 1st century BCE – 1st century CE). The role of Magistrates and Surveyors was established in the mentioned tables, and evolutionarily came the decision to unify the units being used. They used tools like the groma, a surveying instrument, to establish consistent measurements for land division and construction.
Counting the standardized units, we may create a short list: Pes (foot): Approximately 296 mm., Uncia (inch): One-twelfth of a foot, approximately 24.6 mm., Mille Passus (mile): 1,000 paces, approximately 1,480 meters., Actus: A unit of area, 120 feet by 120 feet., Jugum: A unit of land area, approximately 2,523 square meters.

We promised to decrypt where the 'Golden Standard' phrase comes from?

Once, one single man woke up with a heavy headache. Maybe he had been too drunk yesterday, we have no idea for now, but... Emperor Augustus erected a monument in the Roman Forum marking the starting point of all Roman roads, symbolizing the centralization and standardisation of distances across the empire.

You may search in the table below the Roman Standardized Units, for the Rome Empire Period (Before the Empire Split).

Rome Units Summary

We listed the main conditional keys of the Roman Measurement system, and here we should summarize the units in order to maintain consistency with the article's topic theme.

We pointed out earlier that standardisation always covers the territory where the sovereign’s authority extends. But what about localities where such standards already exist? Are the local social rules and rights, along with their traditional standards, completely replaced by the imposed rules and norms of the conqueror (in the case of defeated states)?

Looks like this is an appropriate place to look far away from Rome and turn our view to the Middle East, now known as Israel, at the time of the Jewish kingdom’s fall under Roman imperial power.

Unfortunately, this work is not available for free, but if you are critically interested in comprehensive research, we strongly recommend the book: *Surveying Instruments of Greece and Rome* (M. J. T. Lewis, University of Hull).

Old Babylonian Period — The Systematizers

As we have already seen, the Babylonian Kingdom did not arise in a vacuum — its very existence was shaped by historical inevitability. The following points will only emphasise these outcomes.

By the time of King Hammurabi of Babylon (r. 1792–1750 BCE), a well-developed linguistic model already existed — Akkadian, in its Babylonian dialect — which, under the king’s administration, was further refined and standardised for official use.

Under the king’s regulations, the so-called Code of Hammurabi was designed and promulgated. It served not merely as a legal text but also as a catalogue of standardised measures and values — covering grain, land, and labour.

The proto-scientific evolution of Babylonian thought led later generations to preserve and refine the Sumerian base-60 arithmetic, producing tables for squares, cubes, and reciprocals — a genuine form of proto-algebra, forming a structured body of knowledge for future advancement.

The metrological system, already well known by its names — Cubit (kuš) ≈ 0.497 m; Shekel ≈ 8.4 g; Mina = 60 shekels (≈ 504 g); Talent = 60 minas (≈ 30.2 kg); and the volume measures (gur, sila, ban) — formed the base units for grain and liquid trade.

Continuation of the Sumerian long-term celestial recordkeeping, but with systematisation for calendrical use.

A vast amount of our contemporary knowledge base about Sumerian civilisation is owed to Babylonian records.

Now Time Of Units?, So, Follow Us...

These conversions are approximate — ancient measures varied over regions and epochs.

- Babylonian (Neo-Babylonian) systems often preserved and used older Sumerian standards.

- Volumetric capacity units often were tied to water weight equivalences, so a sila ≈ 1 litre is a standard working assumption.

Time To Units...

Here, the authors will show, in a systematic scientific way, how to build a theory, design a hypothesis, and then derive outcomes to set them as patterns, which, in the next stage of the research procedure, will undergo probing for their credibility.
So, we have a collection of cultures (no need to list them here—just glance at the paragraph above). And what should scientists do? From experience, scientists know that every creature localized within a specific territory acquires certain characteristics dictated by environmental factors. For example, the hippo is so shaped by the factors of its territory that there must be lakes with mud, swamps, shores rich in plants and grasses—mostly bushes—a temperature range within a defined frame, and other environmental conditions. Dramatically changing these conditions leads to a decrease in the species’ population and may even result in its extinction. These predispositions show us the schema for collecting data, generalizing it, and classifying it into sets of objects, which later provide the predictive power of the scientific approach.
Just as described above, let's classify the listed cultures. From the described cultural characteristics, we may generalize them into two main groups by their specialization of activity. These categories are: metal working (basic knowledge of metallurgy), agricultural basics, animal domestication, and the use of river fauna as a significant resource supplement.
Now, classification stage. Index 0 we set to Baluchistan Highlands. Each culture will be scored by its cumulative evaluation, where metal knowledge +2, domestication +1, agriculture +1, fishing +0.5. So for index 0, we score [0] = metal(+2), domestication(+1), trading(+2). Indus Upper Basin (index 1), [1] = domestication(+1), agriculture(+1). Sindh and the Lower Indus Basin (index 2), [2] = trading(+2), metal(+2), agriculture(+1), domestication(+1). Ghaggar–Hakra (Sarasvati) Region (index 3), [3] = domestication(+1), agriculture(+1), trading(+2). Gujarat, Kutch, and Saurashtra Peninsula (index 4), [4] = fishing(+0.5), trading(+2), agriculture(+1), domestication(+1). Rajasthan and the Ahar–Banas Cultural Zone (index 5), [5] = metal(+2), trade(+2), domestication(+1), agriculture(+1). Northern Frontier and Himalayan Foothills (index 6), [6] = fishing(+0.5), domestication(+1). Central Indian Plateau and Deccan Neolithic (index 7), [7] = metal(+2), trade(+2), agriculture(+1), domestication(+1).
Precalculation will reveal the following: [0]:5, [1]:2, [2]:6, [3]:4, [4]:4.5, [5]:6, [6]:1.5, [7]:6. And these score ratings we will call the developmental scale of proto-society.
This section is purely speculative content, aimed at showing the reader the classification and evaluation approaches, but it contains no real scientific facts. Below, we will explore the actual historical evolutionary processes of the territory and compare them with the predictions sketched here.

The Indus (Harappan) Civilisation

Transition from Mehrgarh to Early Harappan (c. 3500–2600 BCE)
After Mehrgarh’s late Chalcolithic period, the Kachi Plain and neighboring valleys (Nausharo, Mundigak, Damb Sadaat) developed into regional centres connected through trade and shared cultural traits.
The Indus (Harappan) Civilisation — The First Real “Statehood” (c. 2600–1900 BCE): Formation of the Mature Harappan State: by about 2600 BCE, cultural unification across Baluchistan, Sindh, Punjab, and northwestern India produced the first true state system in South Asia.
Baluchistan acted as the western wing of this civilisation. Sites like Nausharo and Mehrgarh (late phases) were part of the Harappan economic network, possibly supplying metals and minerals to the core Indus cities.
Collapse of the Harappan State (c. 1900–1300 BCE): The causes that led to the collapse may be listed as climatic aridification (drying of the Ghaggar–Hakra river system), decline in trade with Mesopotamia, and localization and fragmentation into smaller regional cultures (Late Harappan phase).
Cultural Successors in Baluchistan: Jhukar Culture (Sindh and Baluchistan) and Kulli Culture (southern Baluchistan, with fortified towns and local chiefdoms) both represented post-urban, ruralized kingdoms or chiefdoms with limited bureaucracy but clear elite presence.
After the Harappan world fragmented, Iranian and Indo-Aryan groups began to dominate the wider region. To the east (Punjab, Indus Basin), Indo-Aryan tribes formed janapadas—tribal proto-kingdoms that would later give rise to the Mahajanapadas of India. Baluchistan, being peripheral, oscillated between Iranian and South Asian cultural spheres.

The Indus (Harappan) Measurement System

It is time to introduce the cultural measurement system. To avoid fragmentation among the units, we choose exactly the c. 2600–1900 BCE (Mature Harappan Phase) period, and note that the system mainly developed from earlier regional practices (e.g., Mehrgarh and Early Harappan Amri–Kot Diji cultures).
As a classificative factor, we may assume that the system possessed the characteristics of being standardized and decimal (base 10 and 2 multiples), uniform across > 1500 km—from Harappa to Dholavira—showing central regulation, used for trade, taxation, architecture, and crafts, possibly one of the earliest known state-wide metric systems.
Before the units are presented, we should clarify some linguistic and cultural notes.
Continuity of ‘Karsha’ (≈ 13.6 g): The Arthaśāstra and early Buddhist texts use karsha or suvarna as a standard trade weight. Its mass (≈ 13.5 g) matches the Harappan base unit almost exactly—suggesting direct survival of the Harappan standard into early historic India (2,000 years later).
Binary + Decimal Progression: Harappan multiples followed binary expansion (× 2), while later Vedic/Mauryan systems used 16 masha = 1 karsha—another binary-derived (2⁴) pattern. This mathematical consistency hints that the Indus system shaped the logic of later South Asian metrology.
Absence of Script Names: Because Indus glyphs remain unread, scholars use descriptive labels (‘Harappan unit’, ‘chert cube Type A’) or retrofitted Indic names for teaching and comparison. The cultural transmission path may be ordered as Mehrgarh → Harappan → Late Harappan → Vedic → Mauryan administrative codification (Arthaśāstra). Each stage preserved both the mass ratios and binary progression.

The concept of the classification roughly aligns with archaeological evidence:

- Bricks: standardized ratio 1 : 2 : 4 (height : width : length).

- Street widths, wall lengths, and granary modules conform to multiples of the ~33.5 cm unit.

Application and Administration — Speculative Notations:

- Primary Uses: Trade accounting (weights found in markets and docks), craft workshops (bead-making, metallurgy), urban planning — brick and street modules imply central authority, possibly tax or tithe collection (granary evidence).

- The uniformity suggests a central metrological authority — possibly a “standard house” or temple bureau, similar to the Mesopotamian “House of Weights.”

Indus seals may encode metrological marks; some pictographs might represent standard values or commodity types.

🏰 Kingdom of Mohenjo-Daro (Lower Indus Valley)

Location: Sindh, near the Indus River delta.

Ecology: Riverine and marshland environment with flood management needs.

Authority Type: Ritual-bureaucratic theocracy — priest-engineers controlling waterworks and sanitation.

Cultural Identity: Cosmopolitan; maritime trade contacts (Mesopotamia); extensive civic planning.

Language: Same script family, but likely a different dialect from Harappa; seal motifs richer in animal totems.

Distinctive Principle: Purity, water-control, and urban hygiene as sacred state duty.

🏰 Kingdom of Saraswati / Ghaggar–Hakra

Location: Haryana–Rajasthan–Cholistan; along the now-dry Ghaggar–Hakra River.

Ecology: Monsoon-fed seasonal river; agrarian heartland.

Authority Type: Hydraulic–ritual monarchy (Fire-Priest system) — state legitimacy through ritual fire and water purity.

Cultural Identity: Proto-Vedic spiritualism; heavy use of fire altars; ploughed field symbolism.

Language: May represent pre-Indo-Aryan linguistic layer that later influenced early Sanskrit ritual terminology.

Distinctive Principle: Integration of religion and governance — early form of “sacred kingship.”

🏰 Kingdom of Dholavira (Kutch Island, Gujarat)

Location: Khadir Bet island in the Rann of Kutch desert.

Ecology: Arid saline basin; dependent on large reservoirs.

Authority Type: City-state monarchy with a hydraulic engineering elite; defensive and self-reliant.

Cultural Identity: Distinct script ordering (fewer animal seals); unique bilingual signage; civic geometry and monumental planning.

Language: Likely related to the western (Elamite–Dravidian) group; highly regionalized vocabulary in seals.

Distinctive Principle: Hydraulic sovereignty — control of water as symbol of legitimacy.

🏰 Kingdom of Lothal (Gujarat Coast)

Location: Near modern Ahmedabad; Sabarmati River estuary.

Ecology: Coastal and deltaic; maritime access to Arabian Sea.

Authority Type: Port-mercantile monarchy / governorate — trade regulation, customs, and shipping registry.

Cultural Identity: Merchant and artisan-oriented; less ritual, more commercial bureaucracy.

Language: Same Indus script but adapted to merchant seals; evidence of contact-terms with Sumerian.

Distinctive Principle: Commercial authority and external diplomacy — a proto-“trade ministry” state.

🏰 Kingdom of Chanhu-Daro (Sindh heartland)

Location: Between Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro, along Indus.

Ecology: Semi-arid; supported by irrigation canals.

Authority Type: Guild-administered industrial city-state; civic administration delegated to craft guild heads.

Cultural Identity: Highly specialized economy; secular, production-oriented society.

Language: Likely same dialect as Mohenjo-Daro, with industrial notations on seals.

Distinctive Principle: Economic corporatism — power through productivity, not priesthood.

🏰 Kingdom of Amri (Lower Sindh)

Location: South Sindh, foothills between Indus plain and Baluchistan.

Ecology: Transitional upland–plain border; early farming & copper trade.

Authority Type: Fortified proto-kingdom / clan monarchy; small-scale defense and trade regulation.

Cultural Identity: Distinct pottery and architecture; semi-independent from Indus core.

Language: Proto-Dravidian, pre-urban dialect; limited script use.

Distinctive Principle: Border defense and metal exchange — local autonomy within federation.

🏰 Kingdom of Nausharo–Mehrgarh (Baluchistan Highlands)

Location: Bolan Pass region, near Quetta.

Ecology: Highland farming & copper mining zone.

Authority Type: Tribal–agrarian monarchy, metallurgy-focused; precursor of Indus metallurgy.

Cultural Identity: Continuity from Neolithic Mehrgarh; goddess figurines, mountain totems.

Language: Likely early Dravidian / Proto-Elamite mix.

Distinctive Principle: Resource sovereignty — control of minerals, not urban trade.

🏰 Kingdom of Surkotada (Kutch–Rajasthan border)

Location: Northeastern Kutch region.

Ecology: Frontier semi-desert; trade & defense corridor.

Authority Type: Military–frontier principality, protecting inland trade from nomads.

Cultural Identity: Smaller fort layout; horse remains (earliest India).

Language: Western dialect of Harappan family.

Distinctive Principle: Border defense, cavalry innovation, and customs control.

Before Summary, Or Our Recommendations To Read...

In aim to be well acqwaited with moders scientific approaches, collecting , and classifying the data, assuptions, and methodolydy in real researching example, we recommend our reader visit the : Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 64 (2021) 101346, 0278-4165/© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license, (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).Setting the wheels in motion: Re-examining ceramic forming techniques in, Indus Civilisation villages in northwest India

For complex overview the Early Bronze Age Cultures of the Indus Civilisation and the Borderlands , we recommend read: A People's History of India 2 THE INDUS CIVILISATION Including Other Copper Age Cultures and History of Language Change till c. 1500 bc (Irfan Habib, Aligarh Historians Society 2002 First published in India 2002 ISBN: 81-85229-66-X)

The Two Rivers Shores Here We Passed Over, And Time To Take A Break, Before We Leave The Indus Lands

From Neolithic–Chalcolithic Cultures → Indus Kingdom System (7000–1900 BCE)

And now it is time to check our prediction scores from the beginning:

Totally vanished cultures we found here (based on facts), indexed within our predictions as:

- [0](Kachi Plain, Bolan Pass, Quetta, and Afghan border regions), we scored this culture with +5

- [1](Indus Upper Basin (Punjab Region – Ravi, Beas, Sutlej Rivers)), we scored it with 2

- [2](Sindh and the Lower Indus Basin), our evaluation for success in consecutive development +6

- [3](Ghaggar–Hakra (Sarasvati) Region — Eastern Indus Fringe), we scored these tribes with 4

- [4](Gujarat, Kutch, and Saurashtra Peninsula (Dholavira, Lothal, Rangpur, Surkotada, Kuntasi, Loteshwar, Nagwada, Bagasra)), in our prediction rated with 4.5

- [5](Rajasthan and the Ahar–Banas Cultural Zone (Ahar, Gilund, Balathal, Ojiyana, Bagor (earlier Neolithic))), we rated the culture with 6

- [6](Northern Frontier and Himalayan Foothills (Burzahom, Gufkral (Kashmir), Mandi (Himachal), Sarai Khola (Potwar Plateau, N. Pakistan), Loebanr, Ghaligai (Swat Valley))), we rated their potential as 1.5

- [7](Central Indian Plateau and Deccan Neolithic (Chirand (Bihar, eastern fringe), Inamgaon, Nevasa, Daimabad, Tekwada, Kayatha, Navdatoli (Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra regions))), our estimation scored 6

Below we will present the table with reality data and our prediction. If our prediction rate is lower than 3, the tribe should not have survived; otherwise, we set a green V as a partially adaptable score. Conversely, if a tribe vanished but we scored a high value, it is considered a misprediction.

As you may notice, in our game, we have not used complex data with detailed descriptions of each culture, characteristics, multi-angle perspectives for data filtering, or many commonly used methodological tools. But as a game, the authors’ collective hopes the experience has been interesting for you. And now, it is time to change the location — to a region that hides no fewer secrets and is full of potential discoveries in the cultural and social constructional principles of human society design...

As we mentioned, our choice of the initial point is taken from well-established states...

As recognizable states, we may identify in the Chinese historical retrospective of the so-called antiquity two prominent empires.

⛩️ The Qin Empire (Qin Dynasty, 221–206 BCE) — the first unified imperial state in Chinese history. This state will serve as our primary object for descending analysis, tracing the cultural origins of the civilisation. Founded by Qin Shi Huang, who consolidated the Warring States territories, the Qin introduced full centralisation of bureaucracy, and standardised weights, measures, script, and law. Functionally, Qin created the template of what “empire” means in the Chinese context — centralised command from the Emperor through administrative prefectures.

⛩️ The Han Empire (Western Han, 206 BCE – 9 CE; Eastern Han, 25 – 220 CE) — the successor and stabiliser of the Qin model, yet more sustainable and culturally rich. Han governance introduced Confucian bureaucracy, the early roots of civil service examinations, and a balance between imperial central authority and local administration. It expanded territorial control into Central Asia via the Silk Road, making it the second great imperial consolidation in Chinese history.

⛩️ The Zhou Context (c. 1046–256 BCE)

Zhou dynasty, outstanding in its achievements of assembling dozens of territories, and finally uniting them into one single state under the sole power of the emperor. Nevertheless, there was not an instant path — the consolidation period took more than seven and a half centuries.
– The Zhou dynasty followed the Shang and introduced the idea of the Mandate of Heaven — that moral legitimacy justified rule.
– Early Zhou governance (Western Zhou, 1046–771 BCE) was feudal: power distributed among hereditary lords.
You think all things would be easy? We thought so too... But, this fractioning required more detail.
The Eastern Zhou lifetime was predominantly devoted to conquest activity — and not without achievements:
– Spring and Autumn (771–481 BCE): Dozens of semi-autonomous states, nominally under Zhou kingship. Local rulers began reforms, built armies, and developed bureaucracies.
– Warring States (481–221 BCE): Seven major powers (Qi, Chu, Yan, Han, Zhao, Wei, Qin). Warfare drove centralisation and technological progress.
During the Warring States, the state of Qin, in the far west, gradually strengthened through agricultural reform, military innovation, and strict legalist governance (notably under Shang Yang).
✏️ Transition: From Zhou Disunity to Qin Unification
The Zhou kingship lost practical control; its authority survived only symbolically. Qin adopted Legalism, replaced hereditary aristocracy with appointed officials, and imposed standard taxation and conscription. By exploiting geography (fertile Wei Valley, defensible terrain) and reforms in land use and military discipline, Qin became the most efficient and centralised state. In 221 BCE, Qin Shi Huang defeated the last rivals, ending the Zhou world and founding the first imperial China — the Qin Empire.

Maesurement Units Of Qin Dynasty

As we already know, the Qin governing period was characterized by the centralization of all state-managing functions, including taxation and metrological standardisation. These conditions define the necessity of reviewing the measurement system of the period.

⛏️ Archaeological evidence:

- Bronze measuring rod from Fuling Tomb (Xi’an, 221 BCE) → 1 chi = 23.1 cm

- Fangmatan bamboo slips (Tianshui, Gansu) confirm identical ratios and notation

- Standardized road ruts near Xianyang show cart axle widths ≈ 1.5 m, matching Qin chi–bu

⛏️ Archaeological evidence:

- Bronze weights with inscriptions “Qin liang” unearthed at Xianyang, Yangling, and Shuihudi — all consistent at ~15.6 g per liang.

- Banliang coins (half-liang denomination) weigh ≈ 7.8 g, confirming state-regulated mint ratio (½ liang ≈ 7.8 g).

- Stamped Qin “Jin” stone weights in Xi’an Museum show perfect proportional scaling.

⛏️ Archaeological evidence:

- Bronze “Qin hu” and “dou” vessels excavated at Xi’an and Fufeng sites, with inscribed calibrations consistent with 10:1 ratios.

- Shuihudi bamboo slips (c. 217 BCE) contain inventory tallies using these units.

- Ceramic grain jars found at Terracotta Army pits also inscribed with “Shi” (石) for bulk accounting.

The authors suggest that the system’s internal interrelations may serve as a useful basis for a comprehensive understanding of the period’s metrological standards.

The methodologically grounded derivations of all the above parameters, established with respect to the corresponding artefacts, are hereby presented to the reader’s attention.