I remember Philip Rhatz instructing me how to work in inches and yards, at
Wharram Percy.(1985!!)....The rest of the dig was working in centimetres and
metres....

Well....

Until Napoleon freed Continental Europe of the medieval local measurement we
(Holland) also had yards, feet, thumbs, elbows, hands, passes, inches, poles,
troys, bushels, stones, quarters and other unlogic nonsense. Unfortunately this
did not enter the Anglo-American world and medieval measurements remained there
or got exported (not counting some break away parts of the empire).

Even more...

From January 1st 2002,  approximately after 1700 years since the Roman system
faded away, we will have one coin in the most of Europe again. So after centuries
of pennies, quarters, greats, schellingen, liras etc. we will understand each
other again. Of course we will not publish medieval coins in the accurate value
of the Euro (in case the wil be some) of that day.
Or shall we turn back the clock and deal in ounces of silvershred, bushels of
grain and barrels of wine again?

Use the old sources to measure old amounts, but publish them in both ways.

Michiel Bartels
Amsterdam NL







Robert L. Schuyler schreef:

> How about doing your field work in metric or English but then when
> you publish giving all signficant measurements in both (  ) and using a
> combined scale or two separate scales in all published photos. A bit of
> work but it would make everyone happy. Also, there are some journals,
> I think the Journal of Field Archaeology is one (?), that require
> metric in its articles.
>
>                                         RLS
>
> At 01:38 PM 6/1/2001 -0400, you wrote:
> >Jim's argument is blatantly Ameri-centric, and also ignores the fact that
> >many states require the use of the metric system (the Pennsylvania
> >Department of Transportation, for example).  In the era of the internet and
> >world-wide e-publishing, it is ridiculous to be arguing that we should
> >forego English for metric, because Americans can only understand English.  I
> >personally hope that my work is being read beyond the US, and I would like
> >Candadian or European or whatever readers to be able to understand my
> >measurements without needing a conversion chart.
> >
> >It does not matter which type of ruler you use, all responsible
> >archaeologists should consistently include both measurement systems in their
> >reports.  If everybody did this, metric vs. English would be a non-issue for
> >archaeologists.
> >
> >Chris Espenshade
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: James G. Gibb [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> >Sent: Friday, June 01, 2001 1:09 PM
> >To: [log in to unmask]
> >Subject: Re: centimeter scales
> >
> >
> >Mike's point regarding the units of measure used by the people we study
> >is well taken, but I add a fundamental and inescapable fact overlooked
> >by those retorting that we might use cubits as well: rank and file
> >Americans predominantly use English standard. Throwing metric
> >measurements at engineers in technical reports or at readers of
> >newspaper and historical society journal articles mystifies rather than
> >enlightens. And it is not the job of archaeologists to convert US
> >citizens to an international system of measurement. Now, should the
> >powers at large want to talk about increasing funding, pay, and benefits
> >for archaeologists, then perhaps there is room for negotiation.
> >Jim Gibb
> >Annapolis, MD
> >
> >
> Robert L. Schuyler
> University of Pennsylvania Museum
> 33rd & Spruce Streets
> Philadelphia, PA l9l04-6324
>
> Tel: (215) 898-6965
> Fax: (215) 898-0657
> [log in to unmask]