Actually in this exercice I put 2 and 3 as an equivalence instead of putting 3 above 2 as you did sir. Thanks for explaining what was going on on this layer. I hope I will understand from my mistakes for my exams lmaoo
Hi! Thank you so much for this video. By far the most informative I've found on youtube so far! I'm in my first year of archaeology and have found myself struggling a bit with the matrix, so thank you for the insights! I have a question, would it have been OK to connect layers 9 and 10 and layers 1 and 4 with the double horizontal line that you show as option C in the three macros? Or does it suffice to just place them as they are in the matrix?
Hi there! Thank you for your comment. Good question! The answer is yes, if you are certain that the two layers ONCE were connected and now they aren't anymore. As mentioned in the video, this cannot be deduced from the drawing (it is open to interpratations). You must know your layers! ;-) In reality first we dig, then we draw so no problem.
12 is a small deposit that occurred after the cut of the pit, maybe it's just some soil that falled in or more labely a preparation for the beam (but that is already an interpretation) we just have to record that 12 is something happening after 5 and is is not part of 11/12 or 9/10
Hello and thank you for a great explanation. The only thing i don't understand is why on the diagram 6 and 4 aren't connected, since the layer 6 is also laying on the layer 4, as it is laying on layer 3? Thank you in advance!
thank you! i was struggling a lot with the matrix, your explanation was the easiest one to follow i've found so far. very helpful video
Actually in this exercice I put 2 and 3 as an equivalence instead of putting 3 above 2 as you did sir. Thanks for explaining what was going on on this layer. I hope I will understand from my mistakes for my exams lmaoo
This is such a great explanation! Thank you for the video, it helped me a lot :^)
Hi! Thank you so much for this video. By far the most informative I've found on youtube so far! I'm in my first year of archaeology and have found myself struggling a bit with the matrix, so thank you for the insights! I have a question, would it have been OK to connect layers 9 and 10 and layers 1 and 4 with the double horizontal line that you show as option C in the three macros? Or does it suffice to just place them as they are in the matrix?
Hi there! Thank you for your comment. Good question! The answer is yes, if you are certain that the two layers ONCE were connected and now they aren't anymore. As mentioned in the video, this cannot be deduced from the drawing (it is open to interpratations). You must know your layers! ;-) In reality first we dig, then we draw so no problem.
@@CAMNES Excellent, many thanks!
Grazie, ho capito un po' di più adesso :D
Do you recommend any programs for making a Harris Matrix? Especially for very complex stratigraphy?
Well, the official one seems pretty complete: harrismatrixcomposer.com/#/
would you care you to explain more about 12 in the order of matrix
12 is a small deposit that occurred after the cut of the pit, maybe it's just some soil that falled in or more labely a preparation for the beam (but that is already an interpretation) we just have to record that 12 is something happening after 5 and is is not part of 11/12 or 9/10
👍🏼
Pls i have to do it
Hello and thank you for a great explanation. The only thing i don't understand is why on the diagram 6 and 4 aren't connected, since the layer 6 is also laying on the layer 4, as it is laying on layer 3? Thank you in advance!
Same question here
Pls help mee