HISTARCHers:

I've come a bit late to the discussion, having been out of the office.
While most of my thoughts on the subject have already been covered (use
what's appropriate in the field, give both metric and local measurements in
the report, use a combined scale in the photographs for artifacts, and its
easy to make your own photographic scales), I have one more point that
hasn't been covered.

I'll preface the point with an anecdote.

When I first started doing some historical archeology in Alaska in 1980, I
was to do some testing of a Russian period site in Sitka. The prehistorian
in the central office insisted I use metric measurements to lay out a grid
system. I argued a little, primarilly because all my tapes, recording forms
and graph paper were in an English system. Eventually I caved in, simply to
make him happy, and charged the American taxpaper to double existing supply
of tapes, rules, and paper.

Now, the features I found on the site were built by Russians. In the early
19th century, the Russians used a measurement system based on the sazhen,
which is about 7 feet (2.13 meters) long. With my testing program, I was
only doing some spot placing of those incredibly small 1-meter square
units, and accidentally hit a wooden sill out in the front yard of the
Russian structure I was working around. I found another sill about 28 feet
(8.53 meters) away. In the field this meant nothing to me (24 feet, or even
9 meters might have implied something....). It wasn't until later that I
even learned about sazhens and saw the map that showed a garden plat laid
out in three sections four sazhens to a side. Had I made the connection in
the field, I might have been able to do a little more extensive testing of
the garden feature. So, as a young archeologist, I learned to find out what
system of measurement the folks who made the site were using so I could
recognise patterns when I needed to in the field, and not get bogged down
in arguments with prehistorians.

But the real kicker of the entire episode, is that this central office
prehistorian giving me marching orders further insisted I draw up my maps
on engineer's paper. You know the kind: darker blue grid lines one inch
apart with 5 or 10 light grid lines between each solid line. I couldn't
believe it! After the big fuss about what to measure with in the field
(which ended up not helping me a bit either way), the guy wanted me to use
a 1 inch = 1 meter (or 1:39.37) scale. Seems that's the way he did it,
probably to save the taxpaper money because that green-lined metric grid
paper was harder to find, harder to draw on, and there were no architects
interested in his prehistoric sites.

Now, it seems to me, you either measure in English, then use a 1:12 scale
(1 inch = 1 foot) for your drawings, or you measure in metric and use a
1:100 (1centimeter = 1 meter) scale (or 2:100, or 5:100 or whatever). That
way, the architects (or exhibit specialists) that may well be using your
drawings have something halfway familiar they can use to plan a recreated
historic garden or to blow a recreated glass bottle. But 1:39.37?!!!

The point? Use what will best help you interpret what you are finding in
the field. Draw up your maps in the same type of measurement (DON'T mix
English and metric!), then use both (or all three!) measurements in your
report, on your drawings, and in your photographs.


Cathy Spude
[log in to unmask]