Hiya, Marley. Nice to see you here, and I'll second your plug for yours
and Ed's book. Now, as to "flames," the only person I was flaming at was
Linda, and she and I are old buds who've been around this before. She
pointed out that I may have read a bit much into her words. However, what
she said was that Ed stated in person in Alabama that if archaeologists
couldn't see any stratigraphy, they shouldn't be digging.
 
My response was based on the assumption that Linda represented Ed's words
fairly. If so, what I said stands. No flames involved or intended. Because
the consequences would be that no unstratified sites should be excataed.
That notion would be, as I said, "dead wrong." I believe that both you and
Ed would agree with me on that. So who's being offended "behind their
back" or otherwise?
 
Dan Mouer
Virginia Commonwealth University
[log in to unmask]
http://saturn.vcu.edu/~dmouer/homepage.htm
 
On Thu, 11 Jun 1998, Marley Brown wrote:
 
> I follow with interest the dicussion of the Harris Matrix, having
> collaborated with Dr. Harris on a book about applications of this
> technique of stratigraphic interpretation (Practices of Archaeological
> Stratigraphy, Academic Press, 1993).  I believe that Linda Derry
> probably captured the essence, if not the actual words, of Harris
> regarding failure to recognize stratigraphy when presented with it.  I
> don't read anywhere that Edward Harris is suggesting that all
> archaeological sites are visibly stratified or that prehistorians are
> necessarily bad diggers by virtue of employing arbitrary levels.
> To learn that Harris is "dead wrong" thus comes as somewhat of a
> surprise.  Is this what such forums are all about- putting words in
> other peoples' mouths so that others may take offense?  I don't find
> such exchanges very productive.
>
> Many prehistorians do, in fact, put the Matrix to good use where
> appropriate.  As a technique for keeping track of complex stratigraphy,
> the Harris Matrix has proven itself around the world.  I share Derry's
> suprise that a technique that has been in use for nearly a quarter of a
> century should fall on deaf ears, or at least appear to her to have done
> so.  After reading all the postings related to hers, I also do not
> understand how this technique (or rather words attributed to its
> inventor) could have managed to provoke such heated misunderstanding at
> least from one quarter.  I'll have to let Dr. Harris know that he has
> been "flamed" in abstentia.
>                    A NEW SUBSRIBER
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>