I agree with Gary that it is good to use original measurements that make
sense but it can be a leap to get to 'interpretation of a maker's or users
intent'. One advantage of using metric to measure Imperial is that we can
distinguish between oversize, undersize, short, long units that may have
interpretative potential different to the maker's or users' intentions.
One particular circumstance where I've been caught out is in measuring
construction timbers, which as we all know came as 2 x 4 [inches], 4 x 4
[inches] etc. Because they sometimes shrink or are cut rough its always
easy to use the measuring term when you are jotting notes in the field, but
sometimes there is value in seeing the pattern of different 4 x 4s measured
to the millimetre in a structure. In one case the 4 x 4s turned out to be
oversize 3 x 3s, not visibly different until measured and interpreted in the
context of a building's change. Another example is bricks, which are all
exactly 1 brick wide x 1 brick long x 1 brick deep and were used
accordingly. The actual variation in brick dimension requires measuring
them using something that can express the relevant variation, either mm or
some fraction of an inch, that can tell us what we want to know.
I imagine that most many manufactured 19th C. commodities like 9" plates
also suffered from slight variations or dodgy manufacturing that meant that
some were bigger or smaller 9"s, perhaps usefully for our purposes as
archaeologists. I know for a fact that my XL t-shirts are now a lot tighter
than even 10 years ago, meaning this phenomenon lives into the current
millenium. And don't get me started about how stair risers are increasing
with astonishing speed.
Denis
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Denis Gojak
Banksia Heritage + Archaeology
PO Box 457
Newtown NSW 2042
Australia
W 02 9558 0220
F 02 9558 4120
M 0413 030 293
E [log in to unmask]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary Vines" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 1:23 PM
Subject: Re: Measurements
I wasn't suggesting not using metric equivalents, having been part of the
last Australian generation to learn both Imperial and metric systems - we
got our dollars and cents in 1966 and most of the others in the decade after
that. The rule might be to quote the original measure where it provides
interpretation of the maker's or users intent, and the current accepted
measure for the conversion and for other non-cultural measurements.
Gary Vines
Archaeologist
mobile: 0428 526 898
mailto:[log in to unmask]
Biosis Research Pty. Ltd.
Natural and Cultural Heritage Consultants
322 Bay Street (PO Box 489)
Port Melbourne Vic 3207
ph: (03) 9646 9499
fax: (03) 9646 9242
___________________________________
-----Original Message-----
From: Larry Porter [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, 10 September 2003 1:06 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Measurements
And, more importantly, researchers 100 years from now who, by then, will
have gone through about two generations of the universal use of metrics,
will understand it too.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel H. Weiskotten" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 8:10 PM
Subject: Re: Measurements
> That's why you would say it:
>
> "a three chain road (49.5 feet, 60.35 meters) 640 acre section (259
> hectares) with 1 mile (1.61 km) frontage to roads."
>
> That way we all understand it and nothing is lost.
>
> Dan W.
>
>
>
> At 09:49 AM 9/10/2003 +1000, you wrote:
> >I am another for measuring in the original units. Even at the broader
> >scale, when colonial regulations demanded road widths and sections
> >surveyed to a standard, the following make no sense in metric
> >
> >60.3504 metre Road
> >258.998811 hectare Section
> >1.609344 km frontage;
> >
> >which were set out as the three chain road (width of reserve), 640 acre
> >section with 1 mile frontage to roads.
> >
> >Gary Vines
>
|