Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Tue, 9 Sep 2003 20:58:44 -0400 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
All of this chatter about metric versus "U.S. Customary" measurements
makes it clear that we do not have unity on what system to use. Anita
Cohen-Williams stated that "Most archaeologists in this country use the
metric system when measuring." I am sure that if you lump those doing
prehistoric archaeology with those doing historical archaeology you would
find that is correct. However, I think that you will find a fair number of
historical archaeologists that still use feet and inches. Many historical
archaeologists here in the east do not use metric measurements.
Smoke Pfeiffer's comments were very helpful in restating this
problem. However, Bunny Fontana gave the best summary of the good reasons
for using the measurement system of the society that you are studying.
This is especially true for measuring artifacts. English potters' price
fixing lists going back to 1770 continuing well into the twentieth century
list ceramics in inches, pints and quarts. There are vast archives of
invoices, account books, and mail order catalogs that use inches, ounces,
pounds, pints, quarts and other measurements to describe their wares. Why
would one measure artifacts in metric and then have to convert later if you
wanted to work with primary records to place your collections into a price
or classification system. Consider the following catalog descriptions in
metric and U.S. Customary.
Artifact x Wooden measuring device found behind the wall of the front
room. It is 91.44 centimeters long and divided into 36 equal units
that are 2.54 centimeters long. The artifact printed in black and
reads "Compliments of Ace Lumberyard, Smithville."
Or
Artifact x Wooden yardstick found behind the wall of the front room. It is
printed in black and reads "Complements of Ace Lumberyard,
Smithville."
As James Thurber said, it looses something in the original.
Too many historical archaeologists seem to be prisoners of the sites they
are working on and held captive by their own small libraries.
George L. Miller
URS Corporation
|
|
|