Edward Harris is a Bermudian archaeologist widely recognized for his groundbreaking contribution to archaeological methodology: the Harris Matrix. Developed in 1973 and formally published in 1975 and 1979, the Harris Matrix revolutionized how archaeologists record and interpret stratigraphy, providing a systematic and standardized method to document the sequence of layers and features at excavation sites. Today, the Harris Matrix is used worldwide and has become an indispensable tool in the science of archaeology.
Beyond his work on stratigraphic recording, Dr. Harris has had a prolific career in archaeological research, museum curation, and heritage conservation. As the longtime Executive Director of the National Museum of Bermuda (1980–2017), he played a key role in preserving the island’s historical sites and artifacts. His efforts in public outreach, heritage advocacy, and academic contributions have left a lasting impact on both archaeological practice and the understanding of Bermuda’s past.
In this interview, we will explore his career, the development and evolution of the Harris Matrix, and his thoughts on the future of archaeological methodology.
- What initially inspired you to pursue a career in archaeology? Were there any particular experiences, mentors, or excavations that shaped your approach to the field?
In my first year at university, an inspiring humanities lecturer, Lydia Lloyd Wyckoff, introduced the class to archaeology (Dr. Wyckoff was later a famed American anthropologist). She said that in England you could volunteer on an excavation without payment, unlike most exercises in the United States, which required a hefty tuition. Her inspiration was such that I dropped out of university in December 1966 and spent the next few months making money to go to Britain. I arrived on my first “dig” in June 1967 and was soon enamoured with archaeology and excavation in particular. There was no turning back and I returned to Winchester every summer including 1971, the year I graduated from Columbia University, New York, with a BA in Anthropology.
At Winchester, my first dig was on the burial spot of St. Swithun (in the shadow of the present cathedral), under the tutelage of Martin and Birthe Biddle. He was the director of the projects and she, his Danish wife, was the supervisor of the site at the Cathedral Green. Later Martin and I excavated and recorded the Roman South Gate at Winchester; he was an excellent recorder and interpreter of stratification. From he and Birthe, I learnt how to excavate and record in the Wheeler-Kenyon system, then perhaps the pinnacle of stratigraphic methods in archaeology worldwide.
To both Dame Kathleen Kenyon and Sir Mortimer Wheeler, archaeologists own a considerable debt for the advancement of stratigraphic methods. At Winchester, those methods were refined but not revolutionized during the extensive excavations of the 1960s and early 1970s. Many thousands of stratigraphic units were recognized and recorded, an increase seen on other digs of that time. The stratigraphic data were becoming a mountain of historical facts, with no way of seeing a stratigraphic sequence, the diagram of time on a site.
In 1972, I spent a year on the magnificent site of the Bryggen, in Bergen, Norway, under the supervision of the redoubtable director, Asbjorn Herteig. It was on that site that questions of the validity of stratigraphic methods arose. Between the “Bergen system” and that of Wheeler-Kenyon, I was unable to decide which was the “true” way in the recording of stratification. In January 1973, I had the opportunity to go back to Winchester to carry out post-excavation work, known, thanks to Kenyon, as “phasing”. We now know that starts with the making of a Harris Matrix, or stratigraphic sequence of a site—during the excavation, not afterwards.
- The Harris Matrix is one of the most influential innovations in archaeological methodology. What specific challenges in excavation recording led you to develop this system? Did you anticipate its widespread adoption at the time?
At Winchester, I was instructed in “phasing”, that is, the reading of stratigraphic records in site notebooks and examination of section drawings to determine which stratigraphic units could be grouped into “phases” and “periods”. After reading a certain amount and making drawings that could be called “incipient stratigraphic sequences”, the data from the site notebooks (recorded in order of the excavation) had to be re-written in “phase”, or apparent stratigraphic order. Once several pages were turned, it was impossible to remember what stratigraphic units were related, even for an Einstein of an archaeologist.
Except for the incipient drawings, there was no way “to see” one’s position in the “stratigraphic sequence” (few seemed to use that phrase at the time). Indeed, the Harris Matrix was to be the format for the making of a “Layer Chart”, as most of the data were records of deposits, with some surfaces, or “interfaces”, noted as “Features”, like postholes or pits. Now, stratigraphically speaking, it may be said that most pre-Harris Matrix sites under-recorded by a large margin, as surfaces were not generally recorded. Yet surfaces are the key to the interpretation of stratification and the compilation of the stratigraphic sequence.
The inability “to see” the sequence of layers in the phasing process led to the accidental creation of the Harris Matrix on the evening of 28th February 1973, fifty-two years ago. Layers at that time were numbered in circles, but that Wednesday evening I started using rectangles, derived from metric-gridded mylar, overlain by a clear piece of that plastic drawing paper. For some reason, I started doodling and making a field of small rectangles, separated by clear gaps.
After I had made several dozen of these, I had an artistic epiphany, “an experience of a sudden and striking realization”, that a solution to the stratigraphic chaos of notebook data was on hand. I worked into the night to produce an A3 sheet of such rectangles—and named it the “Harris Matrix”— that is, a grid or mesh into which stratigraphic data could be arranged, with early units at the bottom and recent at the top.
Thus was born the 4D model, or “DNA chart”, or “stratigraphic sequence”, which is unique to every site, but can be “seen” in a universally-applicable Harris Matrix. Several years, however, would be needed to unravel why stratigraphic data put into a Harris Matrix sheet were in a very classic sense, “Garbage In, Garbage Out”: puns intended.
- When you first introduced the Harris Matrix, how was it received by the archaeological community? Did you face resistance to implementing it, and if so, how did you overcome those challenges?
The Matrix in the beginning was generally well received in archaeological circles, but some opposition came from geologists and archaeologists. They seemed to fail to understand that archaeology had invented the “true” stratigraphic-sequence-model in the Harris Matrix, a way of seeing that is equally applicable to geological and archaeological stratification.
Being a matter of Time, stratigraphic sequences have to be expressed in diagrams, in as much as watch faces and Gregorian calendars order our daily lives, extracted from the physical evidence into “ways of seeing” Time. Sections, once the icons of stratigraphy in archaeology, being material evidence of Time, are like the sun rising and falling on civilizations. They are one-dimensional entities which must be translated into a time diagram in a Harris Matrix to create the four-dimensional stratigraphic sequence.
The resistance seemed to have dissipated with the publication in 1979 of Principles of Archaeological Stratigraphy, a small work now in 14 languages, most for free downloading at www.harrismatrix.com. The book arose because in 1976 at University College London, Professors David Wilson and James Graham-Campbell allowed me to write my PhD thesis on stratigraphy in archaeology, when another avenue of research was closed.
In retrospect, the genesis for my thesis and the book was the conviction that “archaeological stratification” marks the “Greatest Unconformity” (to use an iconic term from geology), or change, in the overall stratification of the Earth. To cope with that change, physically and theoretically, we needed our own science of the subject, evolved from geological axioms, but being independent for Archaeology. Fifty-two years at the “Top of the Charts” seems to suggest that the Harris Matrix and those Principles, arising from the advent of the Matrix, remain the established precepts, the “industry standard”, of stratigraphic methods in archaeology.
- The Harris Matrix has been called a fundamental tool for archaeological recording. In your view, how has its adoption transformed excavation techniques and the interpretation of stratigraphy? Are there particular projects or discoveries where its application was especially impactful?
The transformation of recording techniques on archaeological excavations began with several experiments in Britain. The first concerned the recording of all surfaces on an excavation. It was conducted at Winchester by Patrick Ottaway and myself in 1975 and proved the efficacy and ease of such detailed attention to recording the other “half” of stratification. The idea of surface recording had been suggested to me by English archaeologist, Lawrence Keen, a little earlier and was a major key in understanding the nature of archaeological stratigraphy.
The concepts of “interfaces” and “surfaces” became a central factor in the development of an science of archaeological stratigraphy. In the process, the labourious “period plan”, which often represented a phase that the excavation had reached, was made redundant. The superposition of single-surface plans meant that a phase or period plan could be composed by overlaying such in the stratigraphic sequence, as dictated by the Matrix, at any time, but especially after the analysis of artefacts and other dating materials. After all, it is clear that the reconstruction of a site is the recreation of its topography, or surface “geography in area”, based fundamentally on the unravelling and recording of its stratification, or “geology in depth”.
The second experiment took place on the excavation of the General Post Office site in London, when in the mid-1970s, Brian Hobley and his team of archaeologists at the London Museum undertook to record the excavation for several months using the methods I suggested. That was a resounding success and led to the creation of their now famous “context” definition and the replacement of notebooks with single-sheets of paper, one per context or stratigraphic unit. The significance of that change in recording format was that the sheets could be shuffled in phasing, rather than a labourious re-writing from notebooks.
Site notebooks and period plans are composite entities, both largely incapable of breaking into single stratigraphic components, the individual surface or deposit. To free the archaeological data from that constriction was one of the considerable achievements of the development of the Harris Matrix, along with the necessary new theoretical foundations and axioms, such as the “Laws of Archaeological Stratigraphy”, published in an article in 1977.
The stratigraphic sequence, or Harris Matrix, is the unique calendar of every archaeological site and forms the testing pattern against which most post-excavation analyses must be validated. It is the unbiased representation of the physical, stratigraphical evolution of a site, as no one sets out to create stratification in the processes of building for daily life. The capture of the stratigraphic sequence is the primary role of the excavating archaeologist, for all later interpretations depend up the construction of that unique calendar for each site.
Stratification is a major factor in most archaeological remains. Hence the Harris Matrix principles are now applied over many fields of investigation, including buildings archaeology, rock art, human forensics, fire and crime forensics, and underwater archaeology. The evolution of the Earth—after the Greatest Unconformity—and the development of human existence is much contained in the record of its stratification into deposits and surfaces made mostly by human agency.
- Archaeology has seen significant technological advancements, including GIS, 3D modeling, and AI-assisted analysis. How do you see the Harris Matrix evolving in the digital age? Are there any emerging technologies that you believe enhance its application?
The iconography of the Harris Matrix was later mirrored in the units and folders of a Mac computer desktop, the individual stratigraphic unit being grouped into a phase, and phases being grouped into periods. The advent of the personal computer and “apps” related to that technology have been an immense boon for archaeology. Programmes like the “Harris Matrix Composer”, brought into being by Dr. Wolfgang Neubauer at Vienna (one of Europe’s foremost stratigraphy thinkers in archaeology), allow for the quick creation of stratigraphic sequences and for the integration of spatial and other data with the Matrices.
The invention of laser scanning was an epochal advance for archaeology, as it provides for the instantaneous recording of surfaces, otherwise a labourious process to commit to a paper record. Without records of every surface, a site cannot be reconstructed because surfaces, not deposits, are the “faces” of topography. People live on and with surfaces, not in deposits, until of course, they might join the archaeological record by burial.
The advent of Geographical Information Systems (GIS) is another monumental asset for stratigraphic archaeology, as with that programme, the overlaying of surface plans and the creation of phase and period plans is the work of a moment. The analysis of artefacts, the contained remains of stratification, has benefited greatly from the introduction of the PC, which can analysis and compare thousands of data in a few moments. That is especially important in the analyses of the artefacts and other “facts” contained within and saved from deposits.
However, without the principles of archaeological stratigraphy and the control of a Harris Matrix, the indispensible “testing pattern” for the stratigraphic history of a site, those new computer inventions would have been of little help in creating clarity from the chaos of many former methods of stratigraphy recording and interpretation.
- While the Harris Matrix is your most well-known contribution, you have also played a major role in heritage preservation, particularly in Bermuda. What accomplishments outside of stratigraphy are you most proud of?
Bermuda is my home from birth and thus it was an honour to direct what is now the National Museum of Bermuda, after leaving Britain in 1979, following the completion of my PhD. What was to be a one-year contract turned into 37 wonderful years of heritage production, aided by many friends and colleagues, who donated much to the advancement of the Museum and Bermuda history. We restored many monuments, introduced Bermuda to archaeology, assisted in naming some of the island as a “World Heritage Site” by UNESCO, published some 40 books and cultural magazines, including an archaeological and history journal.
- You have been an advocate for public archaeology and heritage preservation. Why do you think it is important for archaeologists to engage with the public, and what strategies have you found most effective in making archaeology accessible?
Archaeology is of the people and should always be for the people, otherwise it has no solid foundations. Few sciences have taught us as much of the history of the peoples of the world as has archaeology. Thus, our role as Capturers of the Past through proper stratigraphic methods in examining and recording the evidence of the evolution of our species is one of great responsibility, with very significant outcomes of our unique profession.
- Even after an illustrious career, are there any projects or research areas that continue to interest you? What is next for Edward Harris?
Since February 1973, I remain utterly passionate about Archaeological Stratigraphy and in the late 1990s, I bought the copyright to my book Principles on the subject from the publishers. With the help of a series of friends, it has been available for free downloading on the Internet, along with editions in ten other languages. My conviction was to make the Principles always available in the hope that archaeologists worldwide would do their stratigraphic work correctly.
With a couple of friends, I have become involved in artwork related to Bermuda, largely from the 1800s. This began in 2015 with the discovery of albums of painters unknown to Bermuda, the first being published as Dr. Savage’s Bermuda, 1833–1836. I am now working on books for the artists, Admiral Edward Gennys Fanshawe and his daughter Alice, Colonel Edmund Gilling Hallewell, first commandant of Sandhurst, and Admiral Joseph Sherer, an anti-slaver lieutenant of the Royal Navy in the Caribbean.
Along with those books, I am intent on writing an autobiography, so this article for AqueoTimes has helped to inspire me for that labour to come, so thank you and my many friends in Spain.
- And finally, what advice would you give to young researchers considering a career in archaeology?
If you are looking for job satisfaction and interested in making a serious contribution to the history of people on Earth, look no further than the profession and passion of archaeology. Just do it!
Comments