Archaeologica.org

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.

not every religious archaeologist has an agenda and while i would agree that bias is on both sides of the fence it does not diminish the evidence they are looking at. to make sweeping generalizations because they are religious is wrong and misleading, while removing qualified input from the topic.

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

you made a big error attacking me on this and i would not use the harris matrix in any research.

does that make me unqualified or non-credible

NO. Your adherence to mythology makes you unqualified and non-credible.

Try researching any subject you intend debating

When I was a heritage administrator I expected those applying for excavation permits to use the Harris matrix and now that I apply for permits, use of the Harris matrix is the norm. To do anything else seems in my opinion, to be unprofessional.
Ref:
http://lists.asu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind9 ... =0&P=12971

however the concept of a seriation diagram of archaeological strata based on said strata's physical relationships had had some currency in Winchester and other urban centres in England prior to Harris' formalisation.
Ref:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harris_matrix

The Matrix will probably prove to be one of the most useful and enduring contributions which historical archaeology has made to the profession in general. It arose out of work carried out on urban sites in England, which included major deposits from the periods to which historical archaeology applies in this hemisphere.
Ref:
http://www.harrismatrix.com/history.htm

The Harris Matrix is the world's leading method for the science of archaeological stratigraphy and recording systems on archaeological excavations.
Ref:
http://www.humbul.com/output/full5.php? ... code=DB.71

Since 1981 the Wadi Tumilat Project has adopted and adapted the method for use in Egypt at the site of Tell el-Maskhuta in the eastern Nile Delta. In the course of preparing stratigraphic information from this site for final publication several modifications or extensions to the system have been developed. These extensions were mainly designed for the purpose of graphic display, providing the viewer with additional visual information by the use of symbols and a modified spatial arrangement of the matrix
Ref:
http://www.bu.edu/jfa/Abstracts/P/PaiceP_18_1.html

And so on..........

Oh, no...Tech.


You could end up on Arch's shit list!

archaeologist wrote:

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

you made a big error attacking me on this and i would not use the harris matrix in any research.

What research are you involved in?

oldarchystudent wrote:

archaeologist wrote:

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

you made a big error attacking me on this and i would not use the harris matrix in any research.

What research are you involved in?

You could end up on Arch's shit list!

no, because what i read on starflower's links led to the impression that it is not the norm

The Harris matrix has now become a useful interpretative tool which is used for many sites at both the excavation and post-excavation stages.

plus i read your links tech and none suggest a wide use, just a limited one with some people prefering to use it over other methods

Iain Stuart
University of Sydney

this guy is just stating his opinion and does notlend much to the broad usage of the matrix, but affirms that not every and maybe a majority of archaeologist don't use it.

i am really enjoying k.a. kitchen's book 'the Bible in its World' as the first chapter is very sobering and honest,. here are three quotes to give you an idea:

pg. 11 "Carbon 14 counts...can help to assess an approximate date for samples tested, although complications can arise from contamination of samples, and so on."

pg. 12 "therefore, the information we obtain by excavation can often be incomplete" {said after a lengthy paragraph giving the reality of the small size of a dig site. e.g. ashod...90 acres total, 1 1/2 acres or 2% excavated and the examples go on for half a page}

pg. 17 "It was upon papyri that fine literature, religious texts... and all administrative records were written. Thus 90% of egyptian papyri are lost forever, our losses of knowledge here are enormous." {said after talking about ostraca and inscriptions on temple walls.}

people may not like him for his beliefs but at least he is being honest and paints a complete picture and not push an agenda.

people may not like him for his beliefs but at least he is being honest and paints a complete picture and not push an agenda.

what does he say about stratigraphy
http://www.watfordservices.com/scuba/NA ... /L3/2a.htm

http://www.denverseminary.edu/dj/articles2001/0100/0104

here is one on kenneth kitchen:

http://www.denverseminary.edu/dj/articles2004/0100/0102

here is a positive review of dever {to be fair}

http://www.denverseminary.edu/dj/articles2003/0100/0107

one on shanks:

http://www.denverseminary.edu/dj/articles2000/0100/0105

now hoffmeier:

http://www.denverseminary.edu/dj/articles1998/0100/0114

and finally, john d. currid

http://www.denverseminary.edu/dj/articles1998/0100/0112

Oh, my....what a surprise.....the Denver Seminary supports bible thumpers.


Is the pope catholic, too?

Oh, my....what a surprise.....the Denver Seminary supports bible thumpers

obviously you didn't read them so it is no surprise that your response is so contradictory of your statement to me---"that's why you never learn anything"

if you were wanting to learn something, you would have read them and discussd what they said. this is why you have no more credibility because you isolate yourself in your own little world and refuse to look at criticisms of what you have chosen to accept.

Min is a Fundamentalist Darwinite in spades.

Arch - don't get mad at me but there is some value in reading the opposing point of view. I have read creationist articles. I read the biblical accound directly. Give it a try. I think that's really all that Min is saying.

Arch - don't get mad at me but there is some value in reading the opposing point of view. I have read creationist articles. I read the biblical accound directly. Give it a try. I think that's really all that Min is saying.

OAS--you are new here so i will give you a pass on this comment. i have already stated repeatedly that i read secular works that disagree with my position.

minimalist is the one refusing to read outside his belief structure and gets angry whenever someone disagrees with him.

so the next time you jump on someone's bandwagon and jump to a conclusion, don't. as you have no idea what you are talking about.