I quite agree--nothing substitutes for drawing a profile, especially a
complex profile, "live," in the field.  Figuring out stratigraphic
linkages across a site is absolutely basic to understanding and
interpreting that site.  However, the necessary processes for
identifying, understanding and recording profiles and site stratigraphy
are quite time-consuming, and difficult to explain to supervisors
without archaeological background, especially in a CRM context.  As
in--"You've got your #@!%&^$#^%$! Artifacts--why are you wasting my time
with drawings?"  Explaining the even less obvious esoteric of a Harris
matrix is even further out there.  Comments?

D. Babson.


-----Original Message-----
From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
praetzellis
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 1:07 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Harris matrix program, minority opinion

HISTarchers,

The advantages of using one of these programs are well known: they are
fast,
help preserve your sanity, and they draw the little boxes for you.

However, NOT using a matrix program forces the archaeologist into a
deeper
understanding of the stratigraphic complexity of their site. Being
forced to
go through the process of working out these relationships by hand means
that
you truly understand the site and can spot apparent stratigraphic
impossibilities that are (dare I say it?) mistakes on the part of person
in
the field.

Peace,

Adrian Praetzellis
California