I'm afraid that I have to stop lurking for a moment to point out that
recording an historic feature in the units in which it was made provides the
investigator with insight into the behavior of the person responsible that
is not available when using metric.

Consider the following description of a groundhog lime kiln that was found
in southern Indiana:

"The aboveground section of the kiln consists of an arch, with metal spacers
placed between the blocks.  The arch measures 1.90 m in height from the
ground surface to the top of the arch, and is 3.38 m in width.  The depth of
the kiln is 0.93 m."

These are precise descriptive measurements.  If you convert them to
"standard measure" the same passage reads:

"The arch measures 6 feet, 2 inches in height from the ground surface to the
top of the arch, and is 11 feet in width.  The depth of the kiln is 3 feet."

I think that the latter description provides more information about the
intention of the builder.  The builder had a mental template from which he
constructed the lime kiln, and that template was not expressed in
decimeters.

Michael Striker
ASC Group, Inc.
1624 Burlignton Pike, Suite D
Florence, KY  41042
(859) 746-1967
(859) 992-2386


-----Original Message-----
From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Larry
Porter
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2003 5:50 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Measurements


Jumping into the measurement fray with my 2 cents worth. I much prefer to
use the metric system for ALL archeology, historic and that other kind.
Mostly because it makes it a whole heck of a lot easier to make scale maps
and drawings. Also here in Arkansas most, if not all, historic sites also
contain a prehistoric component. Are we to use feet and inches for the
historic features and meters for the prehistoric features? Seems needlessly
cumbersome to me. And what of the Forest Service contracts (remember when
they used to contract archeological surveys?) that required shovel bums to
walk a 30 meter grid? Were we expected to abandon the metric system as soon
as we found a historic site and click over into feet and inches mode?
Considering SOME of the shovel slingers I've worked with in the past, this
is asking a bit much! The metric system is more systematic, divided up into
equal divisions and not THAT hard to convert to that "other" system for lay
readers. Why, I'd bet there's a computer program out there somewhere that
does it for you. Not to mention most graph paper is metric. And, no, Smoke,
it doesn't make it any more or less scientific-just simpler. Being rather
simple minded myself, I say the simpler the better!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Pfeiffer" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2003 3:55 PM
Subject: Re: Measurements


> I well remember working on a survey crew for an engineering company before
> I was drafted, was an artillery surveyor in the Army and worked at it for
a
> while after I got out.  We used the old 100 foot chains that had to be
hand
> wraped and thrown like some modern vehicle windshied heat screens.  All
> measurements under a foot were in 10ths or 100ths of a foot for ease of
> calculation.  The stadia rods were also in feet and tenths since they were
> used to plot both directions, distance, and height while making a plane
> table and Alidade map.  It is pretty basic high school geometry and a lot
> of fun.  One rocked the stadia rod back and forth while in a verticle
plane
> and read the lowest and highest reading on the upper and lower horizontal
> hairs on the Alidade to give distance.  The distance was accurate to 1
foot
> in a hundred.  Great for mapping large areas and moderately easy to make
> accurate contour lines.  If one needed more accurate measurments, one just
> simply chained out the distance.
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>                       Elizabeth Ragan
>                       <EARAGAN@SALISBU         To:      [log in to unmask]
>                       RY.EDU>                  cc:
>                       Sent by:                 Subject: Measurements
>                       HISTORICAL
>                       ARCHAEOLOGY
>                       <[log in to unmask]
>                       u>
>
>
>                       09/08/2003 02:09
>                       PM
>                       Please respond
>                       to HISTORICAL
>                       ARCHAEOLOGY
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Okay, I'll ask: what is US Customary?  I've never heard of it before.
> Most of my historical work in this country has been in decimal feet.
>
> Cheers--
>
> Elizabeth Ragan
> (sorry for the truncated .sig, but it seems to be setting off antiviral
> defenses in my listservs today)