[Aztlan] map scales in Puleston 1983

[Elaine Schele]

Hi Michael,

I don't know if what I am sending will be very helpful to you, but you
have hit upon a subject that is also a pet peave of mine.

Being a map maker (digital only), I totally understand about your
frustration of not having enough information on historical (and even
present-day) maps.  A map should always have a title, a scale, a north
arrow, a creation date and the map-maker's name.  A legend is also
helpful, but not always necessary.

As you have explained, one way to figure out a map's scale is to pick
out an object or building on the map whose measurement you already
know (for instance in the archaeological report there might be
narrative that tells the square meters of something at the site that
is on the map).  When you know that, you find the same building on
your map and measure it simply using a ruler. Then you have a ratio of
a single unit of distance on the map to the equivalent distance on the
ground.

For instance if you know that a building is 2,500 sq. meters and
measures 10 cm on the map, then the map scale is 10/2500 or reducing
it down, 1 cm = 250. This means that one unit of measurement of
anything (cm, foot, etc.) on the map is equal to 2,500 of the same
unit on the ground.  In other words, your building ratio can be
applied to the entire map.

Because maps in publications are copied from originals, the
reproduction process distorts them and so the scale can only be
approximate.

Elaine

On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 11:57 AM, Michael Smith
<Michael.E.Smith.2 at asu.edu> wrote:
> Has anyone worked with the maps of structures in the transects in
> Puleston's survey report? I am trying to figure out the scales of these
> maps.
>
>
>
> Puleston, Dennis E.
>
> 1983   The Settlement Survey of Tikal. Tikal Report, vol. 13. University
> of Pennsylvania, University Museum, Pennsylvania.
>
>
>
> The individual transect maps do not have scales, although the kilometer
> marks are indicated on the transect lines. The key to the maps (located
> between figures 1 and 2) has a scale, but it does not match up with the
> km marks. Can it be assumed that the km. marks are accurate? If so, then
> it is easy to devise a scale for the maps. It amazes me that a major
> publication of maps from a major press lacks scales on the maps.
>
>
>
> Mike Smith
>
>
>
> Dr. Michael E. Smith
>
> Professor of Anthropology
>
> School of Human Evolution & Social Change
>
> Arizona State University
>
> www.public.asu.edu/~mesmith9/
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Aztlan mailing list
> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/aztlan
> Click here to post a message Aztlan at lists.famsi.org
> Click to view Calendar of Events http://research.famsi.org/events/events.php
>
>
>



-- 
http://gispalenque.blogspot.com/
http://volunteermayameetings.blogspot.com/