Friday 15 June 2012

Puck of St. Catherine's Hill



I mentioned our recent North American visitor a few posts ago.  At one point the conversation came round, via cookery, to weights and measures, and the late unlamented imperial system with its 16 ounces to the pound, 14 pounds to the stone, 8 stones to the hundredweight, and 20 hundredweights to the ton.  Not to mention gills, pints, quarts and gallons, or yards, chains, furlongs and miles.

I can't believe we used to have to learn all that at primary school.  I can still reel off obsolete magic numbers like "1760 yards to a mile" and "112 pounds in a hundredweight", as if they were universal constants. Working in a shop, before decimalisation and before electronic tills and scales, required a nimble mind.

Which reminded me of my mother, who used to work in a shoe-shop, and how she would bring home old coins for me that had turned up in the till.  Before decimalisation, Victorian pennies were commonplace, worn smooth and black from their adventures, and every now and then a fat Georgian "cartwheel" penny would roll out of someone's purse: a full ounce of copper minted in 1797, and still legal tender until 1971.  People used to use them as kitchen weights. Once, someone handed over a William III silver sixpence -- dated 1696 and as exotic as a piece of eight -- in exchange for their court heels or slingbacks.

You had a real, if unconscious sense of the continuity of history, going down to the sweet-shop with an assortment of old metalwork chinking in your trouser pockets. Pounds, shillings and pence had a noble lineage that included storied ancestors like the farthing, the groat, and the golden guinea.  But I don't think anyone missed them, once they were gone, and the simplicity of the new mental arithmetic meant our collective national brain could relax and take a permanent holiday from twelves and twenties.

The forty years since decimalisation have seen a steady erasure of that sort of link with the past in Britain.  If you happen to live in a historic old town then the ancient traces may appear to be there, but this is illusory, as the "grandfather's axe" paradox is being enacted around you: all the parts of everything have certainly been replaced at some point over the centuries.  We live in a world of permanent makeover, where 50 years counts as old.  The block of flats where I spent my adolescence, built in 1950 and as solid as a nuclear bunker, has already been demolished, the site levelled, and built over again.

There is a patronising view in Europe of the USA as a "young" country with little history, a view reinforced by American popular culture -- I think of comics and cartoons, with their obsessive repertoire of spooky mansions, gothic graveyards, ghost towns, and abandoned mines.  In reality, such places would be how old, now? 100, 200, possibly even 300 years? Well, I think most of us living in Britain would be hard-pressed to find a building within 50 miles that could get a walk-on part as a haunted house.  There aren't even many graveyards now where you can find a gravestone older than 150 years.  We are becoming a "young" country, too.

So "ancient" is probably more of an idea than a place on the map.  After all, everyone has ancestors going back to Eve, but hardly anyone still lives in Eve's village.  We're all migrants, tourists, and blow-ins.

The next day, I stood with our American visitor on top of St. Catherine's Hill above Winchester, and pointed out the landmarks, like a native guide.  The Iron Age fort, the Norman cathedral built on a Saxon site, the mediaeval hospital and plague pits, the undated Miz Maze -- possibly ancient, possibly some antiquarian's folly -- and the chalky tops where the detectorists find Roman coins, and where we find skylarks, peewits and golden plovers.

I began to feel like Puck, the oldest Old Thing in England, but we were within earshot of the Twyford Down motorway cutting, where 5 acres of ancient downland and 500,000 years of history (not to mention 65 million years of geology) were dug away, in order to smooth the path of traffic from Southampton to London.  It is conventional to huff and puff about this, but we live on a crowded island, over-stuffed with remnants and relics.  We must accept that the Twyford cutting, too, is our history, for the simple reason it is what we did next.

In its day, I imagine, the hillfort above the cutting must have been equally appalling.  Dug out by slave labour, an eyesore of heaped chalk rubble and palisades, it was a place of domination and brutality; mutilated human remains have been found in the ditches.  No doubt its construction violated immemorial holy springs and groves; there will have been protests.  Short-lived protests, no doubt.  In their turn, venerable Saxon abbeys were demolished to raise the Norman cathedral -- more domination and brutality. Later, toxic slums were cleared to build housing estates, and ancient fields were ripped open, scattering flints and coins and Roman roof-tiles, to provide those estates with water and electricity.

Who can regret any of this? To go forward you need to build, and to build you need to clear ground, whether it be a crumbling castle, a block of flats, or irrational weights and measures.  Whether this also necessitates slaughtering and disinheriting the previous inhabitants, and then writing them out of history, is another question.  On the evidence, however, this does seem to be the English Way, and a substantial part of our legacy to the Now-Not-So-New World.

Trackway and Camp and City lost,
  Salt Marsh where now is corn;
Old Wars, old Peace, old Arts that cease,
 And so was England born!


Puck's Song, from Puck of Pook's Hill, by Rudyard Kipling





10 comments:

doonster said...

I recall watching those pop-archaeology programmes on TV. Once, they visited a site in the US where every inch* of topsoil was carefully trowelled and sifted for remains. The history they were after was in the first foot or so of ground, representing two- or three-hundred years.
Contrast with sites in the UK, where they exscavated through the first 3 feet or so: modern history is too well represented and if it wasn't at least 500 years old, they weren't much interested. And any occupied site contained human history all the way down: layer on layer of redevelopment, repurposing, reinvention. It has ever been thus, it ever shall continue.

*it's not lost on me that I find the most appropriate measures here to be in old money. Metric's lack of a human dimension makes it an odd choice for approximations.

Mike C. said...

doonster,

Interesting point about the ongoing resonance of old units of measure -- I find height, in particular, impossible to relate to in centimetres.

"She walked through the door, 190cm tall" conveys nothing of the impact of "6 foot 2". Curiously, it seems to be the same for my kids' generation, who have grown up metric.

Mike

Gavin McL said...

I started at school in 1974 and was taught almost wholly in metric. Whilst at university if I was bored with my work I used to pull out old journals. My favourite was the North East Coast Institute of Engineers and Shipbuilders. Their journals dated back to the 1880's and I remember one paper from around that time advocating the adoption of the metric system if Britain was to remain competitive in Europe!
Once I started work (1991) I was thrown back into the imperial system as I had joined an American engineering company and all their software was written in US imperial units including some new ones I was not familiar with Kips and Slugs (force and mass respectively). I now work for an Italian outfit and I am back with the SI system which if you are doing engineering calculations is so much easier, though it would have been nice if they'd arranged it so the acceleration due to gravity was 10 m/s2 rather than 9.8 m/s2
We are a conservative nation (note the small c) and development tolerated rather than welcomed but so much development here is so bloody poor quality you can't help wishing they'd go away save some more pennies and do a proper job. My childhood spooky mansion is now a block of flats I suspect many have gone that way

Mike C. said...

Gavin,

One advantage of the old system for engineering-type applications, in the days before calculators, was divisibility -- using fractional quantities like 1/16 and 1/32 of an inch meant a lot of calculation could be done mentally. (Or so I'm told -- mental arithmetic is not my forte).

It was the differences between US and imperial measures that got this discussion started -- cups, gallons, etc.

Mike

Mike C. said...

Gavin,

Meant to ask: As someone obviouslt fluent with weights and measures, do you think of people's heights in metric? Given a height in cm, do you think e.g. "that's really tall" or "she's tiny!"?

Mike

Gavin McL said...

I suspect I'm like most people of my generation who grew up being taught metric but living with parents who thought in imperial and yes heights are all imperial along with miles and wood sizes - a sheet of plywood is 8 x4. Though I do rope diameter in mm but my father who taught me to sail always thought of ropes in terms of circumference and in inches.
At work working in the oil industry which was once so driven by American firms steel thickness is in mm but tubular diameters are always in inches. So we lay 24" dia pipelines with 34mm wall thickness. Foundation piles are 72" diameter but 80mm WT. The handy size barges we use for moving things around the North Sea are 300' x 90' but it's displacement will always be given in metric tonnes.
It keeps you on your toes

Mike C. said...

Gavin,

Blimey, and they wonder why we haven't put a man on the moon since 1972...

Mike

Martyn Cornell said...

Man, you should try working in Hong Kong, and having to translate, as I did recently for a report, cattys per mu (I kid thee not) into tonnes per hectare. (A catty, in China, is set at 500g; a mu is 666.66 square metres. It was a report about improved potato production …)

Centimetres I'm OK with, as British newspapers have worked in metric for more than 30 years. The problem I have is temperature: I still can't work out what clothes I should be wearing if it's 15C outside. Tell me it's 59F, and I'll get me coat …

Mike C. said...

Martyn,

"cattys per mu", eh? Isn't that the Kowloon System ("cows per mu"?). Sorry...

Temperature-wise, I feel cold in Centigrade, and hot in Fahrenheit.

Mike

Gavin McL said...

Well Mike they did loose that Mars climate vehicle a few years ago. The cause was finally identified as a unit mismatch. As a result NASA now does all it's calculations in metric.

My favourite unit is the dogs bark. It's evidently used in Finland and is the furtherest you can hear a dog bark in winter.

Gavin