To understand a Harris matrix you have to have a grasp of stratigraphy. Are you an archaeologist
i disagree, i think you need a dictionary and a bs meter. so is it used widely or limited to just harris himself? what is the level of acceptance of this so-called 'time' machine? (i use the word time machine as the article made a point of highlighting that aspect of its purpose)
are the criticisms warranted? what benefits come from this matrix that can't be found in any other method? since you have a personal stake in this topic, how do we know you are being objective in your assessment of its value and complexity?
well you have proven to me your intellectual capibilities, so with the harris matrix dismissed because you haven't bothered to answer any of the questions (which by the way according to most on this board ruins your credibility). lets move on to another one , with the limitation placed that they have to be involved and working in the middle east.
archaeologist wrote:well you have proven to me your intellectual capibilities, so with the harris matrix dismissed because you haven't bothered to answer any of the questions (which by the way according to most on this board ruins your credibility). lets move on to another one , with the limitation placed that they have to be involved and working in the middle east.
I don't think I can explain the Harris Matrix to you as you seem to have no grasp of the importance of stratigraphy. I can't teach you algabra if you don't understand integers.
archaeologist wrote:well you have proven to me your intellectual capibilities, so with the harris matrix dismissed because you haven't bothered to answer any of the questions (which by the way according to most on this board ruins your credibility). lets move on to another one , with the limitation placed that they have to be involved and working in the middle east.
Just read this again and caught the bolded text for what it was - why the middle east - so we can talk about religion again?
archaeologist wrote:well you have proven to me your intellectual capibilities, so with the harris matrix dismissed because you haven't bothered to answer any of the questions (which by the way according to most on this board ruins your credibility). lets move on to another one , with the limitation placed that they have to be involved and working in the middle east.
I don't think I can explain the Harris Matrix to you as you seem to have no grasp of the importance of stratigraphy. I can't teach you algabra if you don't understand integers.
you're shooting too high, OAS.
start with addition and maybe even subtraction, in a few years.
I don't think I can explain the Harris Matrix to you as
you can't answer a few questions, hahaha nice excuswe for saying you don't understand it either.
the reason i limited it to the middle east is because that is what i wanted to limited it too. why should i have to read some obscure unheard of archaeologist that is posted by you just for the simple reason that it gives you another reason to attack me?
you are not very subtle and yo need to limit your responses to my posts and not me.
I don't think I can explain the Harris Matrix to you as
you can't answer a few questions, hahaha nice excuswe for saying you don't understand it either.
the reason i limited it to the middle east is because that is what i wanted to limited it too. why should i have to read some obscure unheard of archaeologist that is posted by you just for the simple reason that it gives you another reason to attack me?
you are not very subtle and yo need to limit your responses to my posts and not me.
Look back and remind yourself that you started this thread to see who was active in the field. I made an entry into your thread on-topic. You pounced. I question your motives.
But back to the converstation you initiated. You think Dr. Harris is obscure? Why don't you give us all your insights into site stratigraphy? You know more about it than me that's great. I came on this board to learn things. Educate me.....
you want to learn something about stratigraphy, then read Dr. John D. Currid's book, 'Doing Archaeology in the Land of the Bible.'
never said you were off topic which was appreciated but you jump to conclusions without evaluating all the influencing factors which would play a part in my calling harris obscure.
you see, i dismiss Dever and Finkestein based upon facts and evidence does that make me unqualified or non-credible? no, it means i , like every other archaeologist, theologian or scientist has made decisions based upon what evidence has been offered.
if you are as skilled and qualified as yu say you are, yu would know this but obviously you only apply it , if you do, in a double standard manner which makes you feelmore superior to another human being.
thus my encounters with you lead me to state that you must be from toronto or the eastern part of canada, not the maritimes, as your writing style lends to arrogance that is indicative of that region.
Actually I was born in England, but thanks for the nice comments about my wife, kids and all my Canadian friends. Look up "stereotype" in the dictionary.
I never commented on your views on Finklestein et al. What mystified me is that you do not seem to have any understanding of stratigraphy but you sure do want to discredit it. I just don't understand that.
you do not seem to have any understanding of stratigraphy but you sure do want to discredit it.
let me put this into perspective before you completely twist this issue and blow it out of proportion.
you do not know my level of understanding of stratigraphy nor have i sought to discredit it. you posted someone's invention of a method that has never been widely discussed or used and you use that example as a spring board to attack the credibility of another person.
i read the blurb on its purpose and it reads like a snake oil saleman's pitch of the old west. long on promise short on details. plus the fact that its use seems to be limited to an area that is very limited and has no world wide implications, just local ones.
so your attempt to prove something has failed.
if you want to learn more about stratigraphy i would suggest the lecture: stratigraphy in geography, history...and archaeology by Dr. John Monson.
It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
-- Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World
"Give us the timber or we'll go all stupid and lawless on your butts". --Redcloud, MTF
Anyone that knows about archaeology knows about stratigraphy - hardly obscure. I'm still waiting for your explanation of how it works, or why it does not.
you do not seem to have any understanding of stratigraphy but you sure do want to discredit it.
let me put this into perspective before you completely twist this issue and blow it out of proportion.
you do not know my level of understanding of stratigraphy nor have i sought to discredit it. you posted someone's invention of a method that has never been widely discussed or used and you use that example as a spring board to attack the credibility of another person.
i read the blurb on its purpose and it reads like a snake oil saleman's pitch of the old west. long on promise short on details. plus the fact that its use seems to be limited to an area that is very limited and has no world wide implications, just local ones.
so your attempt to prove something has failed.
if you want to learn more about stratigraphy i would suggest the lecture: stratigraphy in geography, history...and archaeology by Dr. John Monson.
Monson is a lecturer at Wheaton College, a Christian College. Motto on the homepage, "For Christ and His Kingdom" http://www.wheaton.edu/ I would think I know why you agree with what he says, but I would caution you that archaeology performed by researchers with a religions agenda are seldom unbiased in their work or reporting.
For the record, plenty of credible archaeologists don't like/don't use the Harris Matix and don't excavate stratigraphically. It's OK not to use it, but I would like to hear your own reasons in your own words.
Anyone that knows about archaeology knows about stratigraphy
again you are misrepresenting what is being talked about. you are upset thati have dismissed your friend's matrix i have never dismissed stratigraphy.
still not everyone uses the matrix or advocates it. i asked O.A.S. if the criticisms had any merit, he avoided answering preferring to attack my credibility. anyone can be mentioned in wikipedia that doesn't lend to credibility and many wing nut or lunatic fringe archaeologists could use the procedure does that mean it is worthless?
i believe i stated i was trying to judge its value and immediately, O.A.S. came apart at the seems and evaded the purpose of my questions. so i am lead to think that that matrix is of little or no value and is useless onsite.
