Carl Steen posted the following comment on September 10th in the discussion
of measurements.

      "I have, as usual, stayed out of this discussion. However, I would
point out to George and everyone that     trying to use the measurments you
THINK a potter or person from the past used can only lead (first) to a
tower of bable effect and eventually to crys for standardization.
Commercial sizes are often used           euphemistically, as we all know.
Instead of having to wonder whether the pints, quarts etc the author
discusses are the same as the pints, quarts, etc I understand I would
prefer to see a single standard of        measure used. Metric is already
with us and by far the easiest system to use. With the aid of a calculator
conversions can be made painlessly to translate those unfamiliar numbers
into numbers anyone can             understand. My two cents... (an
American coin, a copper alloy disc about 19mm in diameter and 2mm thick,
weighing 2.5 grams -- much smaller than the 1790's American cents, by the
way)"

      Carl is correct that commercial sizes are often different than actual
sizes.  Denis Gojak and others have pointed out that the sizes of what we
are studying changed over time.  Parks Canada published two studies that
are helpful in this discussion.  They are:

Olive Jones
1987  Cylindrical English Wine & Beer Bottles 1735 ? 1850. Parks Canada in
Ottawa.

      Olive Jones has provided a very good summary of changes in the
English wine bottle capacity including information from the British
Parliamentary enquiry that Denis mentioned in his posting.

      The other reference has already been mentioned is;

Lester Ross
1983 Archaeological Metrology: English, French, American and Canadian
Systems of Weights and Measures for North American Historical Archaeology.
Parks Canada in Ottawa.

      I provided a brief discussion of changes in the sizes of plates, teas
and bowls in the appendices in my 1991 article "A Revised Set of CC Index
Values for Classification and Economic Scaling of English Ceramics from
1787 to 1880" (Historical Archaeology 1991(1):1-25).  This has been
reprinted in the second edition of the SHA reader titled Approaches to
Material Culture Research for Historical Archaeologists that was compiled
by David T. Brauner and published in 2000.


      Acknowledging that sizes have changed over time is just the beginning
of the discussion.  When and why these changes took place can add another
dimension to our understanding of these artifacts.  Carl and others suggest
that we measure all of our artifacts in metric because it is easy to
convert them to whatever measurement you need.  I fail to see the advantage
of measuring all of my ceramics and glass in metric if I am going to have
to convert them to inches and ounces so that they can be compare them to
the price lists, catalogs and invoices.  Comparing the sizes of the objects
is a crucial step in gaining an understanding the evolution of the sizes
and in documenting when it was happening.  The enlargement of pottery sizes
was part a process that them cheaper through time and more accessible to
consumers.


      It is a complex subject, however, Carl's comment that ". . . trying
to use the measurements you THINK a potter or person from the past used can
only lead (first) to a tower of bable . . ." is not what was being
advocated.  Measurement in inches and ounces is the first step to trying to
unravel the way that pottery sizes grew larger thought time.  In the case
of glass containers, the movement appears to be in the opposite direction.
Some bottles were advertised as "2 ounces to hold 1 ¾ ounces."  This was to
accommodate those selling the contents of these containers.  At a previous
SHA conference I gave a paper on changing pottery sizes titled Potters'
Dozens and Evolving Vessel Sizes.  That paper was to be published but has
been delayed.


      In summary, to say that inches and ounces are too complex to use is
like saying that a site will be excavated in arbitrary levels because the
stratigraphy is too complex to deal with.  All I am asking is to have
someone show me a good reason to measure the artifacts I am studying in
metric.  As many have pointed out, it is easy to convert systems by several
programs on the web and other places.  That doorway opens in either
direction so I intend to continue using inches and ounces.  If anyone would
like a copy of Potters' Dozens and Evolving Vessel Sizes they can contact
me via my email address.


George L. Miller


URS Corporation


P.S.  Carl, are you still measuring pipe stems in 64ths of an inch?