tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357316514436369105.post4610589748633159664..comments2024-03-11T15:40:37.015+00:00Comments on Theoretical Structural Archaeology: The archaeology of perceptionGeoff Carterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01111820035762957610noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357316514436369105.post-69461265565861467182011-04-12T11:34:52.386+01:002011-04-12T11:34:52.386+01:00Hi Ned,
Thanks for you comment, i'm glad you s...Hi Ned,<br />Thanks for you comment, i'm glad you share an appreciation of Kliban's work.<br /><br />Clearly, as you point out, people are people, and share the same basic set of emotion and responses as we experience in the ‘present’.<br />I think we agree on the importance of drawing a distinction between the evidence, and people’s opinions of it, particularly those offering an explanation of archaeological features in terms of an imagined cosmologies.<br /><br />I am advocating a better understanding of the physical evidence through more objective mythologies; for example, through science, we can tell a great deal about how a bronze was made, but start speculating on how it was perceived or what it represented are you are on shaky ground, although this does not stop speculation – safe in knowledge that it cannot be disproved.<br /><br />Aspects of a building can be identified with certainty, its uses can be harder to discern from the evidence, but how it was perceived is simply a conceit.<br /><br />Postholes are the commonest features found on prehistoric sites, and a the only archaeologist specialising in their interpretation I am determined to push for a more objective approach based on understanding structures not just identifying and comparing shapes, and ignoring those that don’t fit our preconceptions, in this case usually the majority of the data.<br /><br />My distaste at ‘cosmologies’ arises from having my twenty years research on reverse engineering timber structures from their foundations rejected by my tutor at Newcastle University, because it did not address her ideas about ‘Iron Age building cosmologies’. While she knew nothing about engineering or timber building, she was absolutely certain she understood how Iron Age people she had never met perceived buildings that she had never seen.<br /><br />Newcastle University took her side; faith in the magical powers of individuals is alive and well in academic archaeology, and trumps objectivity and the evidence ever time.Geoff Carterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01111820035762957610noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357316514436369105.post-9924783368638773862011-04-11T20:35:42.412+01:002011-04-11T20:35:42.412+01:00Dear Geoff
Delighted to see Kliban in your post. ...Dear Geoff<br /><br />Delighted to see Kliban in your post. I didn't always get the jokes but that's because he was smarter than me.<br /><br />I assume your aim is to take the raw data as far as it can be taken without fantasising. However, this of course becomes frustrating for any of us wanting the archaeology to tell us a story.<br /><br />Geologists used to like to use an old adage that helped them through - 'the present is the key to the past'. It worked wonderfully for two hundred years but is now turning out to be not quite true.<br />However, it allowed much progress in understanding.<br /><br />I think it's always been a useful starting point for archaeologists too. Assume similar motives for past peoples as you might have yourself. Where it always becomes difficult, I suppose, is that you cannot assume similar ideologies.<br /><br />For example, I should imagine that the people who lived near Stonehenge often wanted the best for themselves and their children. They probably argued with their spouses, were disappointed by their children and occasionally wondered what was over the distant hills.<br /><br />What I suspect we'll never know is what Stonehenge meant to any of them.<br /><br />At that point it almost comes back to that old post-processual thing - you choose to interpret the past as it makes sense to you. If you want to believe in civilisations from space guiding the hand of Stonehenge builders, go ahead. If you want a communist paradise where the work was shared equally in a spirit of mutual trust and fairness, find it. I think we must all do a bit of that when interpreting the past.<br /><br />Where I take issue with archaeologists is in not being clear about what part of these 'processes', exactly, they are doing. Sometimes a series of pieces of archaeological evidence bleed imperceptibly into an opinion. And archaeologists who read these opinions often don't seem to be able to distinguish it either.<br /><br />So Mike Pps opinions about Stonehenge ritual are just that. And, ultimately, any opinion you or I offers on the use of Woodhenge is the same.<br /><br />(Sorry, that was a bit long.)<br /><br />NedNed Peglerhttp://armchairprehistory.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357316514436369105.post-51423128753478141502011-04-05T15:29:41.105+01:002011-04-05T15:29:41.105+01:00Thanks for your comment Robert; not sure I concur...Thanks for your comment Robert; not sure I concur about B<br /><br />Architects are certainly portable, and would be as regional as their customer base; if you have the skills to create a palace or a castle, there is an expectation you will to travel to the work. As with any other craft, I am also happy with ‘influences’ in a decorative or technological sense; iron tools and fixings are significant changes introduced from outside. However, I also see architecture as primarily a response to 'local' environments, materials and culture. <br /><br />In most cases I have studied, posts [postholes] are structural components, with specific load baring functions and properties; they are a product of managed woodland; nothing at all like a standing stone, even when they occur in a circle. Simple comparison often concentrates on shapes rather than form, although ‘the plan’, is how the archaeological data is presented.<br /><br />Stonehenge is simply a large [type Ei] timber building with stone elements, of which the sarsens served some structural purpose. While, it is an exceptional and singular bit of architecture, it is not the key to understanding anything other than itself, anymore than the Millennium Done is key to understanding 20th century London. Woodhenge is more clearly a domestic building, and as such, is far more interesting and revealing about the nature of culture in this Early Bronze Age culture in southern England.Geoff Carterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01111820035762957610noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357316514436369105.post-43811378601101063882011-04-05T13:15:08.465+01:002011-04-05T13:15:08.465+01:00Sorry don't have a postcard handy but will go ...Sorry don't have a postcard handy but will go with B with a little bit of influence from C.<br /><br />Just wanted to say a big thank you for your perceptive observations and knowledge you have imparted in this excellent blog site. My only wish is that I had found your essays some years ago, which would have saved me so much head banging whilst attempting to make sense of those 'dam post holes' when writing up my book.<br /><br />Carry on the good work!<br /><br />Robert John LangdonBobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16886732338349957214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357316514436369105.post-6463904431713078582011-04-02T09:59:44.011+01:002011-04-02T09:59:44.011+01:00Gary, your dedication, energy and focus put me to ...Gary, your dedication, energy and focus put me to shame; you have done it, I have yet to achieve any recognition, and the academic have proved very resistant to interacting with my work, or me. <br /><br />Hi Ornithophobe, <br /><br />My work has reached a point that in order to create a structural drawing, I need more than a quality good archaeological plan; if you are going to reconstruct a building, with many thousands of tapering structural timber components, you really require access to 3-CAD of a commercial standards.<br /><br />So it’s a question of resources, if anyone wants to pay me, I’ll sort it out, but for existing stakeholders, understanding a structure in terms of structural engineering, rather than structuralism, is not even on the agenda.<br /><br />Stonehenge is very difficult; it is the plaything of those who have earned the right to express an opinion, it has been badly hacked about by generations of investigation, and carries an enormous weight of prejudicial scholarship. Most people are too wedded to images of people waving things at the sky, to even conceive of Stonehenge as a building; after all, it was built by simpleminded primitive people, so it can be understood by simplistic models.<br /><br />So, from my perspective, it just not worth the hassle, buildings like the Sanctuary and even Woodhenge are easier to work with and understand, although they are still proving difficult to illustrate - because nobody has ever seen one!Geoff Carterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01111820035762957610noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357316514436369105.post-7214011437419877112011-04-02T06:23:05.319+01:002011-04-02T06:23:05.319+01:00Thank you Geoff for the very kind words. I do try...Thank you Geoff for the very kind words. I do try to get things right, and if it weren't for people like you, digging out the truth, I'd be utterly lost.Gary Corbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14759372069119740227noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357316514436369105.post-61726485456854992162011-04-02T05:59:38.288+01:002011-04-02T05:59:38.288+01:00There you go again, teasing us about your Stonehen...There you go again, teasing us about your Stonehenge ideas... you need to put them up! Timber-Stonehenge is intriguing, but I can't for the life of me envision how it would work, with how huge the stones are. It'd have to be one ginormous building. When you do get that one written? Plenty of drawings, please, for those as imagination-challenged as myself.Ornithophobehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08522714232659584430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357316514436369105.post-87141618942386513092011-04-01T20:03:41.966+01:002011-04-01T20:03:41.966+01:00I'm 100% certain I can demonstrate it was a ti...I'm 100% certain I can demonstrate it was a timber building with a stone component. I am also sure it is not domestic, unlike Woodhenge.<br /><br />Beyond that, I have an opinion about the relationship between the Bluestones and the main building.Geoff Carterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01111820035762957610noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357316514436369105.post-44429964120450903802011-04-01T19:49:06.817+01:002011-04-01T19:49:06.817+01:00I rather like the cartoons. As for Stonehenge bein...I rather like the cartoons. As for Stonehenge being some kind of funerary monument, no thanks, but I guess you don't believe it either.sarsen56https://www.blogger.com/profile/05472179335788570408noreply@blogger.com