The main aim of this paper is to focus once more on the age-old problem of the Harris Matrix’ application on standing structures (on both buildings in excavations and buildings standing unburied) and on the correct specification of the functional and non physical connections between different structures phased together. A very significant cue has been taken from a paper published by Harris in 2003 (E.C. Harris, The Stratigraphy of Standing Structures, in Archeologia dell’Architettura, 8 (2003), pp. 9-14), where, for the first time, the Author proposes a theoretical reflection on the problem of representing the standing stratifications within the diagram. The critical debate has three main focus points: the time – life determination of the standing structures, the impossibility to apply the stratigraphic principles taken from geology to standing buildings and the necessity to manifest the physical and not functional connections between different structures phased together within the Matrix. In order to answer to these problems, raised repeatedly by those many, who are involved in the study of standing stratifications and have (over the years) proposed quite a range of different alternative solutions, Harris postulates “a return to the fundamentals of archaeological stratigraphy”, starting from a reconsideration of the basic axioms of interfaces, both as deposit surfaces and single surfaces, finishing with criticism on the Stratification Laws. Harris has searched and found good solutions to some of the problems, in particular to the representation within the diagram of the standing buildings’ duration and of the volumes, the limits of which are defined by the surfaces. Nevertheless, their practical effectiveness is restricted to the buildings in excavation or to entire standing stratifications, aimed at producing a “total site Matrix”. After 30 years of applying of the Harris Matrix, merits and faults of the methods have been highlighted. Still the relatively new field of Architectural Archaeology requires further testing. In fact, much incontrovertible Laws governing the standing stratification do not exist, as those applied to the stratigraphic deposits and interfaces. The stratigraphic analysis of standing structures, in fact, is grounded on a conceptual-interpretative model, that derives from a body of technical skills, without which the construction sequences and the transformation modalities of the building structures remain incomprehensible. It seems, nevertheless, that the “manmade stratigraphy”, as Harris labels Architecture, has been finally emancipated from the geological Laws, even if this process has been carried out and acknowledged long since and not a few practical and theoretical problems still remain.
In questo contributo si vuol focalizzare nuovamente l’attenzione sull’annoso problema dell’applicazione del matrix alle strutture murarie (nel contesto dello scavo e al di fuori di esso) e sulla corretta individuazione delle relazioni funzionali, non fisiche, tra strutture diverse pertinenti a medesime fasi. Lo spunto iniziale viene fornito dal contributo pubblicato da Harris nel 2003 (E. C. Harris, The Stratigraphy of Standing Structures, in Archeologia dell’Architettura, 8 (2003), pp. 9-14) dove, per la prima volta, Harris presenta una riflessione teorica sul problema della rappresentazione delle unità stratigrafiche murarie nel diagramma. Tre risultano essere i principali punti, sui quali focalizzare in modo critico il dibattito, ovvero, le indicazioni di durata temporale delle strutture architettoniche, l’impossibilità di applicare alle murature le leggi della stratificazione non consolidata mutuate dalla geologia e la necessità di esplicitare nel matrix i rapporti fisici e non funzionali tra strutture murarie diverse pertinenti a medesime fasi. Per risolvere l’annoso problema, sollevato più e più volte da quanti studiano la stratigrafia degli elevati e che ha portato a un proliferare di proposte e possibili soluzioni alternative, Harris propone “a return to the fundamentals of archaeological stratigrapphy”, intendendo con ciò una riconsiderazione degli assiomi di base, partendo dal concetto di interfaccia con duplice accezione di superficie di deposito o superficie a sé, per terminare con una critica alle leggi di stratificazione. Harris ha cercato e trovato buone soluzioni per alcuni problemi, in particolare la rappresentazione nel matrix della durata temporale del costruito e la rappresentazione dei volumi di cui le superfici sono i limiti. L’efficacia pratica, tuttavia, è confinata ai casi in cui il costruito è nello scavo o è analizzabile come un intero, senza o con lo scavo, al fine di realizzare quello che Harris definisce “total site matrix”.
Medri, M. (2004). Harris 2003: super Su Doku o qualcosa di utile?. ARCHEOLOGIA DELL'ARCHITETTURA, 9, 45-50.
Harris 2003: super Su Doku o qualcosa di utile?
MEDRI, MAURA
2004-01-01
Abstract
The main aim of this paper is to focus once more on the age-old problem of the Harris Matrix’ application on standing structures (on both buildings in excavations and buildings standing unburied) and on the correct specification of the functional and non physical connections between different structures phased together. A very significant cue has been taken from a paper published by Harris in 2003 (E.C. Harris, The Stratigraphy of Standing Structures, in Archeologia dell’Architettura, 8 (2003), pp. 9-14), where, for the first time, the Author proposes a theoretical reflection on the problem of representing the standing stratifications within the diagram. The critical debate has three main focus points: the time – life determination of the standing structures, the impossibility to apply the stratigraphic principles taken from geology to standing buildings and the necessity to manifest the physical and not functional connections between different structures phased together within the Matrix. In order to answer to these problems, raised repeatedly by those many, who are involved in the study of standing stratifications and have (over the years) proposed quite a range of different alternative solutions, Harris postulates “a return to the fundamentals of archaeological stratigraphy”, starting from a reconsideration of the basic axioms of interfaces, both as deposit surfaces and single surfaces, finishing with criticism on the Stratification Laws. Harris has searched and found good solutions to some of the problems, in particular to the representation within the diagram of the standing buildings’ duration and of the volumes, the limits of which are defined by the surfaces. Nevertheless, their practical effectiveness is restricted to the buildings in excavation or to entire standing stratifications, aimed at producing a “total site Matrix”. After 30 years of applying of the Harris Matrix, merits and faults of the methods have been highlighted. Still the relatively new field of Architectural Archaeology requires further testing. In fact, much incontrovertible Laws governing the standing stratification do not exist, as those applied to the stratigraphic deposits and interfaces. The stratigraphic analysis of standing structures, in fact, is grounded on a conceptual-interpretative model, that derives from a body of technical skills, without which the construction sequences and the transformation modalities of the building structures remain incomprehensible. It seems, nevertheless, that the “manmade stratigraphy”, as Harris labels Architecture, has been finally emancipated from the geological Laws, even if this process has been carried out and acknowledged long since and not a few practical and theoretical problems still remain.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.