tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357316514436369105.post5162326058398225669..comments2024-03-11T15:40:37.015+00:00Comments on Theoretical Structural Archaeology: Deconstructing a Stonehenge "House"Geoff Carterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01111820035762957610noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357316514436369105.post-55425334052633910822016-06-27T22:15:49.450+01:002016-06-27T22:15:49.450+01:00I find these data sets so fascinating for the ways...I find these data sets so fascinating for the ways in which they are similar and dissimilar to the prehistoric Native American molds that we have in the Eastern U.S. If you took away the slot features, the size, shape, and dimensions of this structure would be identical to many of the domestic structures we find here in Ohio. If I looked at a similar structure in Ohio, I would be inclined to interpret it as a flexed pole structure (which there is a strong tradition of in the U.S. but not in your part of the world.) I think they do represent different types of structures, especially because of the mysterious slots, but I'm constantly drawn back to the idea that gravity is not culturally specific. So many of the postmold patterns on these pages look so remarkably similar to ones we have here, it sometimes shocks me. There are lots of other things one must consider other than just the distribution of molds (economic needs, woodworking technology, wood species, etc, etc.) but perhaps the big lesson for me is this: despite our eloquent words, we still consciously or unconsciously assume that non-western cultures were primitive builders. I am convinced that they were exceptionally skilled woodworkers and builders and understood all the same concepts as their European contemporaries. I wish that you and I had better data sets to work from. If we could even differentiate posts from stakes, I do believe that would help immensely in the interpretation. As it is, we have to use the data we have, but I like your comment at the end: "I can reserve judgement, but that would be cheating. One of the advantages of modelling is that you can be honest about degrees of confidence and fit." I like that a lot and it's a good way to justify venturing different ideas while acknowledging that such interpretations are always going to be aided or hampered by the quality of the data.Bill Kennedyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14106816424655358051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357316514436369105.post-79547670126959131212015-08-08T13:05:38.190+01:002015-08-08T13:05:38.190+01:00kul postkul postweb lolhttp://web-lol-slo.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357316514436369105.post-209646128799803772015-07-21T01:24:23.186+01:002015-07-21T01:24:23.186+01:00Thanks, again, straight to the point; not sure abo...Thanks, again, straight to the point; not sure about relics; we often have several ph\ses of structure overlain.<br />In theory, if you can understand the basic structure, repairs and alterations may become apparent.<br />There is not any templates - only vague ideas about shape. However, I am working to create a methodology for studying the geometry [maths] of structures and general principles for modelling postholes.<br />Template is far too strong a word for what I am trying to do, but does describe the comparative approach adopted by many archaeologists. <br />Geoff Carterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01111820035762957610noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357316514436369105.post-81637330973276450342015-07-21T00:15:00.876+01:002015-07-21T00:15:00.876+01:00Thank you. I think one of your earlier articles me...Thank you. I think one of your earlier articles mentioned a site with a confusion of 'relics' of holes, which were ignored rather than explained. Presumably these could have been made by various constructions and re-constructions at different times. <br />Do you have some sort of mathematics or computer program to try possible fits and left over anomalies? Presumably there are templates for likely buildings, at least since most buildings are rectangular and may have the biggest holes for the corners. Could you tell if a set of holes was 'over-dug' in a 'grandfathers axe' situation of later repair or re-modelling? Odin's Ravenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10138497698247404499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357316514436369105.post-28049028831382853732015-07-20T17:18:59.054+01:002015-07-20T17:18:59.054+01:00Hi
Thanks for the comment, a good point which goes...Hi<br />Thanks for the comment, a good point which goes to the heart of this type archaeology. Only Radiocarbon or dendrochronology can give a calendar type date for individual bits of evidence; how this related to the structure and what constitutes a structure is the next more difficult issue; -“ joining the dots”<br />Stratigraphy, where available, can give relationships/ relative dating; Context – comparable types / scale of features, with similar Fill – can help group a set of features together . Layout and special relationships can provide a clue to associations between features; this is what I am trying to achieve, although the smaller and more simplistic the building the harder it is to model.<br />Geoff Carterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01111820035762957610noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357316514436369105.post-62163051041538118472015-07-20T15:29:45.636+01:002015-07-20T15:29:45.636+01:00How can you date the 'shadow' of a hole in...How can you date the 'shadow' of a hole in the ground? How can you tell just which holes are contemporary and constitute the set that your theoretical reconstruction has to explain?Odin's Ravenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10138497698247404499noreply@blogger.com