I agree entirely with Chris Espenshade.

I've worked on both sides of the Atlantic, and this has bothered me for
some time.  I admit it's mildly hypocritical for me to take the stance
I'm about to, since when I was working in the USA, I used non-metric
measurements.  But I have the Nuremburg defence - I was just following
orders (and I wasn't allowed to use British spelling either; apparently
'artefact' and 'colour' are unacceptable in the US).

Now, It would be disingenuous for me to claim that metric has replaced
Imperial (note - _not_ 'English' over here) entirely in the UK, as anyone
who's followed the recent 'metric martyr' court case knows. But while the
legal status of metric measurements in the USA is muddied by
differences in Federal and State preferences, the USA - to the best of my
knowledge - is the only major industrial nation where non-metric
measurements are so universally preferred (Thatcher, Hague, and a few
other thankfully unelectable Conservatives notwithstanding. Am I allowed
to mention the UK general election in an archaeological forum?).

Under the circumstances, to insist wholesale on the use of non-metric
measurements can limit the international accessibility of data - and
historical archaeology is an international field by necessity.
Furthermore, there's the simple fact that non-metric measurements are
_not_ identical across national boundaries.  A British gallon is different
from an American gallon.

Believe me, this metric-Imperial problem isn't abstract.  Despite the fact
that I've used both metric and non-metric measurements, and can work
(usually) in either, I can't casually translate between the two. To
take an everyday example, using my American recipe books in the UK is
sometimes more trouble than it's worth.

That said, it obviously makes sense to acknowledge the standard units
of measurement relevant to the original construction of an
artefact. Surely the simple solution would be to describe a plate, for
example, as having a diameter of "10 inches (25.4cm)" - or vice versa, as
the mood or preference takes you.  It's not precisely hard, is it?

Alasdair Brooks

On Fri, 1 Jun 2001, Espenshade, Chris 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.