Back in the Paleolothic, when I was teaching courses in historical
archaeology, I encouraged students to present measurements, when possible,
in units used originally by the producer, especially when these were either
US Customary or metric. All artifacts are ideas made tangible, so the name
of the game is to get at the idea or ideas surrounding their manufacture,
distribution, and use without imposing a set of extraneous (in this case,
archaelogical) values on the data. One did not walk into a store and order
a bottle of gin in an oval shaped container that is eight inches tall, four
inches wide, and an inch-and-a-half deep. One instead asked for a pint of
gin (in this case, actually, 4/5ths of a pint, or 750 milliliters).
If one is describing parts from a German-made car, metric should be the
measurement of choice. If the car is American manufactured, US Customary
measurements would be in order.
In the last few years, of course, American manufactuers of containers
have been going metric in their measurements. Somewhere on liquor bottles
there are molded numbers giving their capacities, now universally in metric.
You could formerly buy a pint or quart, but the likelihood is that you're
now paying about the same price for 375 ml. (4/5ths pint) or 750 ml. (4/5ths
quart). If out of habit you ask for a pint or quart, you'll probably get a
fifth less.
But that's part of the social, political, and economic history of
packaging, isn't it? And aren't those the kinds of things we're trying to
get at?
Since the United States has not gone universally metric, I believe --
with Pfeiffer -- that most measurements, such as as those for architectural
units, should be presented using the US Customary scale. All U.S. builders
and architects I know think and deal in terms of square footage and not
square meters, and their measurments are in feet and inches. Why impose a
system on the data that was not there in the first place?
B. Fontana
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Pfeiffer" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2003 7:49 AM
Subject: Re: measuring historic materials, structures, etc
> I always prefer using US Customary measurements for historic era sites
> with metric following in parenthasis. Non archaeologists like local
> historical societies and forest service folks who have to help locate and
> manage these sites want something in measurments they can understand. I
> consider that putting the measurements in mertic is a disservice to those
> who are paying for all of this. Since I was trained to be an
> anthroplogicaly oriented archaeologist, it makes much more sense to use US
> Customary (note: this is NOT English measurements) since that is the
system
> used by the groups that made the site and artifacts and is still the
system
> in common use by their descendents. The measurements can easily be added
> in metric for ease of conversion for an international audience. As for
> preshistoric archaeology since we don't know what they actually used, any
> system is as good as any other one.
>
> Two major points. 1) If anyone has had the Federal Law Enforcement
> Training Center ARPA Couse, one of the most important DO NOTs is to use
> metric in a site damage assessment report that will have to go to a jury
OR
> any of the backround documents that will be requested by the defendant's
> lawyers. It will not only turn a jury off but can occasionally antagonize
> them.
>
> 2) Using metric does NOT make what we do "science". If you want to be
> scientific, use the SYSTEME INTERNATIONAL
> Also referred to as the New International System or by its initials SI. It
> was adopted by the 11th General Conference on Weights and Measures in
> Paris, October, 1960. It is fundamentally an expansion of 18th century
> metric to incorporate scientific and technological developments of the
20th
> century. SI has seven base units (meter, kilogram,second, ampere, kelvin,
> mole, and candela) and two supplementary units (radian and steradian).
>
> OK, Now let the fur fly !!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> :-)
>
> Smoke.
>
>
> Smoke (Michael A.) Pfeiffer, RPA
> Ozark-St. Francis National Forests
> 605 West Main Street
> Russellville, Arkansas 72801
> (479) 968-2354 Ext. 233
> e-mail: [log in to unmask]
>
> It is easier to get forgiveness than permission.
>
>
>
>
> Anita
> Cohen-Williams To: [log in to unmask]
> <sdpresidio@MIND cc:
> SPRING.COM> Subject: Re: measuring
historic materials, structures, etc
> Sent by:
> HISTORICAL
> ARCHAEOLOGY
> <[log in to unmask]
> u>
>
>
> 09/08/2003 02:54
> AM
> Please respond
> to HISTORICAL
> ARCHAEOLOGY
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Carol,
>
> Most archaeologists in this country use the metric system when measuring.
> The only time I found people using inches was at Wharram Percy in
> Yorkshire.
>
>
>
> At 01:47 PM 9/5/2003 -0700, you wrote:
>
> >This may be mundane to some (many?) of you...but I was wondering (having
> >perused Noel-Hume's If Pottery Could Talk the other day)...how the rest
of
> >you...out there...measure your historic artifacts...etc. We always use
> >metrics for prehistoric stuff (artifacts, units, etc.)...but have the
> >policy (out here in San Diego) that English measure is used when dealing
> >with historic stuff. Yet NH measured the plates, etc. in centimeters.
Is
> >that just British...or is it done regionally in the US also?
>
> Anita Cohen-Williams
> Search Engine Optimizer/Guru
> http://www.mysearchguru.com
> "Get Your Web Site Noticed!"
>
> Listowner of HISTARCH, SUB-ARCH, & SPANBORD
> Archaeology Online Blog (web log)
> http://archaeology.blogspot.com
>
|
