As someone who works in both old world and new world archaeology, the standard
practice in a situation where the ancient measurement system is known and
arguably significant (i.e., Mesopotamia, Egypt) is not to use the ancient unit
itself but to convert the metrically-recorded data when the data itself is
complete enough to make the conversion meaningful.

So, you've got your "ancient" inches and feet for English ceramics, building
proportions, etc. and can point out in text, catalogue or wherever when the
English measurement is significant. Saying, for example, that an incomplete
stretch of wall is 12.4 ft. long is no more signficant that its metric
equivalent because the feature is incomplete.  The rim diameters of a tea set
might be more meaningful because they can be completed via reconstruction and
because the context (ceramics of a certain period) can be viewed as following
a measurement standard. Proportions of a complete building would also be in
this category.

We are metric all the way, being scientists, therefore, down to the particular
analysis stage mentioned above - and despite the extra expense of those 50m
tapes, metric scales and metric-gridded items as opposed to the feet and
inches variety.

Maureen Basedow
Visiting Assistant Professor of Archaeology
UNC-Wilmington




>===== Original Message From HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY <[log in to unmask]> =====
>How about doing your field work in metric or English but then when
>you publish giving all signficant measurements in both (  ) and using a
>combined scale or two separate scales in all published photos. A bit of
>work but it would make everyone happy. Also, there are some journals,
>I think the Journal of Field Archaeology is one (?), that require
>metric in its articles.
>
>                                        RLS
>
>
>
>
>At 01:38 PM 6/1/2001 -0400, you 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.
>>
>>Chris Espenshade
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: James G. Gibb [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>>Sent: Friday, June 01, 2001 1:09 PM
>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>Subject: Re: centimeter scales
>>
>>
>>Mike's point regarding the units of measure used by the people we study
>>is well taken, but I add a fundamental and inescapable fact overlooked
>>by those retorting that we might use cubits as well: rank and file
>>Americans predominantly use English standard. Throwing metric
>>measurements at engineers in technical reports or at readers of
>>newspaper and historical society journal articles mystifies rather than
>>enlightens. And it is not the job of archaeologists to convert US
>>citizens to an international system of measurement. Now, should the
>>powers at large want to talk about increasing funding, pay, and benefits
>>for archaeologists, then perhaps there is room for negotiation.
>>Jim Gibb
>>Annapolis, MD
>>
>>
>Robert L. Schuyler
>University of Pennsylvania Museum
>33rd & Spruce Streets
>Philadelphia, PA l9l04-6324
>
>Tel: (215) 898-6965
>Fax: (215) 898-0657
>[log in to unmask]