+- BAJR Federation Archaeology (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk)
+-- Forum: BAJR Federation Forums (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: The Site Hut (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: Is single context recording the only way? (/showthread.php?tid=5229)
Is single context recording the only way? - Wax - 18th March 2014
I may have misunderstood but I always thought the Harris Matrix showed the order in which things happened (chronological). meaning that there would be no problem in representing deposits of soot etc on ceilings. The problem would be if someone tried to infer physical relationships from the matrix. The problem comes in trying to imagine the 2D diagram as a representation of a three D space. Up, down, next to, above and below have no meaning in the matrix where as before and after do. Or do I have to go back to the book?
Is single context recording the only way? - kevin wooldridge - 18th March 2014
Wax Wrote:I Or do I have to go back to the book?Wax you are absolutely right....perfect. Unlike the 'Archaeologist Formerly Known As', who doesn't seem to understand archaeological stratigraphy at all...
Is single context recording the only way? - Marc Berger - 18th March 2014
There must be an example of a harris matrix out there somewhere showing soot/smoke deposited on a ceiling.
just what are the rules for constructing a harris matrix?
Is single context recording the only way? - Crocodile - 18th March 2014
The Harris Matrix has been used to record the layers of paint removed during the cleaning of paintings . I have not read the work but the highest layers would be the highest in the matrix regardless of the direction that the painted face of the canvass was hanging. I still don't see what is inverted
Is single context recording the only way? - Marc Berger - 18th March 2014
Hello Crocodile- you say highest layers but how does this relate to superposition. As I understand it Harris considered superposition to be a law.
Is single context recording the only way? - Crocodile - 19th March 2014
Marc Berger Wrote:Hello Crocodile- you say highest layers but how does this relate to superposition. As I understand it Harris considered superposition to be a law.
I'm confused! How doesn't it relatate to the law of superposition? The lowest layer is the oldest layer, this would be the layer closest to the canvass, if you were considering a painting.
Is single context recording the only way? - Wax - 19th March 2014
Careful about using terms that define special relationships like highest and lowest, use chronological terms like earliest and latest. I think it is the attempt to,directly infer spatial relationships that gets people confused. The canvas would be the earliest context on a painting to be followed by the materials used to prepare the surface then the various layers of paint in the order they were painted. The canvas could be upside down, on the floor or suspended on the ceiling when painted but that would make no difference to the matrix.
Unless the wall floor or ceiling is the surface the painting is on but even then the relationship is not physical,it is temporal (before, same time as, after).
Is single context recording the only way? - Marc Berger - 19th March 2014
I was kinda presuming that when you start an excavation that gravity informed you which way was down and that this would then orientate the stratigraphic terms lowest and bottom. How does it work if you had to clean the picture but it was face down on the floor. Wax I don't see how you work out the chronological order without the direct physical edge between deposits.
Is single context recording the only way? - Wax - 19th March 2014
If the picture is face down on the floor your knowledge and experience would tell you the canvas is usually the earliest and in theory you could take it apart removing canvas first. ( or cut a section through the painting to show the order the paint was put on the canvas). The fact the painting is face down on the floor might confuse you a bit to start with but it should become clear that the paint is related chronologically primarily to the canvas not the floor (the interfaces between the different layers of paint and the canvas will tell you this). The physical spatial relationships give you clues as to the temporal but they are not what you are trying to understand.
The very distinct interface between the final varnished surface of the painting and the floor surface will tell you about the releationship between the two.
The process of taking the picture apart will of course damage it ( archaeology is destructive) unless done in a controlled manner using carefully selected areas.
I am begining to like the deconstruction of a painting analogy for archaeology
Is single context recording the only way? - P Prentice - 19th March 2014
Wax Wrote:If the picture is face down on the floor your knowledge and experience would tell you the canvas is usually the earliest and in theory you could take it apart removing canvas first. ( or cut a section through the painting to show the order the paint was put on the canvas). The fact the painting is face down on the floor might confuse you a bit to start with but it should become clear that the paint is related chronologically primarily to the canvas not the floor (the interfaces between the different layers of paint and the canvas will tell you this). The physical spatial relationships give you clues as to the temporal but they are not what you are trying to understand.what if the painting was a canvas laid in wet paint?
The process of taking the picture apart will of course damage it ( archaeology is destructive) unless done in a controlled manner using carefully selected areas.
I am begining to like the deconstruction of a painting analogy for archaeology
what if a canvass was painted on both sides?