2016 - Review of the Year

One of basic principles that always governed my professional practice in commercial world was “Always do what you say you are going to do”, if everyone sticks to this, then even quite complex projects can come together successfully.   Since the year started with a bold statement of intent concerning building a model of a CAD Class Ei building, some form of progress report is probably due.   However, what happens, or is reported on this blog, is a separate issue to what is going on in terms of research; you can do it or write about it; it is not that there is nothing to report, but that things are changing; you can spend weeks illustrating and writing a post about a particular problem, only to find that you have solved it. 

There are other things going on; I am virtually busy working on a range of other case studies, methodology, and projects with other people; there is even the real world, which exacts its a terrible crushing toll on a daily basis.  

Forthcoming 2014 Digital Exploration Season; Modelling Stonehenge and Edwin Harness.

Blogging your own research does allow you to preview what is coming up in future posts, and demonstrate despite the long gaps between posts you are still alive and kicking. [1]
My main in 2014 focus will be presenting 3D CAD models of Prehistoric roofed structures using Sketchup.

When I started building CAD Models of archaeological structures in 1990, it would have been quicker to build them in balsawood, and I little dreamt that one day a tool like Sketchup would not only run on a standard desktop, but also be available for free.
At present I am working on several [competing] fronts, with active models of Stonehenge, and an interesting Native American Building at the Edwin Harness Mound. In addition, I hope to do some additional work on Roman Military engineering structures, as well as Neolithic Longhouses should the opportunity arise. The problem that there is so much I have still to publish; among the built environments I have looked at in detail is a Romano British pottery at Orsett and Bronze Age fort which has a huge forge with a smoke bay.  However, as my work on Natïve American architecture demonstrates, you never what opportunities for collaboration may arise.
In this post I want to focus mainly on practical methodologies in 3D modelling of timber structures from archaeological ground plans.

Starting to model Woodhenge in Google SketchUp

The Story so far
Since I decided to blog this research five years ago, one recurrent theme has been my attempts to understand the largest class of prehistoric buildings Class Ei. [1] This includes Durrington Walls, the Sanctuary, Mount Pleasant, Stonehenge, and Woodhenge, the latter being the most interesting as a result of its non-circular plan.
When, as a result of Tim Darvill’s 1996 paper, [1], I first considered Class Ei buildings, I was initially very sceptical of their scale; I had been working on IA roundhouses where there were clear engineering limits, and these appeared to break my rules for timber structures.   
Against this, I began the compilation of a list of characteristics that indicated they were buildings. While the technical insight that resolved this dilemma probably came from studying the engineering of earlier Longhouses, ultimately, progress comes from breaking down your preconceptions by building models that don’t work. I took the unusual step of actually publishing some the models that had not worked in order to demonstrate why it was necessary to create a more complex solution.
It is harder than you might imagine to deduce from the evidence, rather than simply impose ideas on it.

'...when you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.'
Sherlock Holmes –
The Blanched Soldier, The Case-Book of Sherlock Holmes, Arthur Conan Doyle, 1927

Debunking the myth of timber circles

The Myth

In archaeology there is the evidence, and there are the opinions put forward to explain and connect it.

In the highly subjective world of archaeological opinion, it has become widely accepted that the concentric rings of prehistoric postholes, once thought possibly to be buildings, were the freestanding timber equivalents of Neolithic stone circles.

These ‘timber circles’ have become central to modern understanding of ancient landscapes, as realised by Time Team. [1] Recently, Professor Vince Gaffney has even detected a ‘Timber Stonehenge’ [2].

They account for some important archaeological sites including Woodhenge, Durrington Walls, and The Sanctuary, and are even found in the Iron Age.

In 1996, Tim Darvill called these structures Type Ei buildings, [3][above left]. However, once others, particularly Alex Gibson, ventured the opinion they were too large to be roofed, they became ‘Timber Circles’ [4]. Many academics have long since moved off to explore this strange freestanding ‘ritual’ landscape, although, officially, it appears that the jury is still out:

“A timber circle is the foundation of a large wooden structure comprising a series of two or more roughly concentric rings of postholes which once supported substantial timber uprights variously interpreted as stanchions of a roofed building or freestanding posts. Timber circles are generally over 20m in diameter and the individual postholes are typically over 0.5m across.”

English Heritage web site. [5]

Actually, they are not too big, but entirely consistent with the scale other large oak timber roofs, and this can be demonstrated because they were made from trees.

39. Interlace Theory; Understanding Woodhenge

In this article I am going to start prising the lid off a box of treasures so extraordinary that it should change your vision of prehistory. The tool I am going to use is Interlace Theory. Due to the large number of drawings and illustrations involved, this article will deal with Interlace Theory and the next will deal with the detailed modelling of Woodhenge as a building.

Interlace Theory explains how large prehistoric buildings like Woodhenge were constructed, and is based on the detailed structural analysis of archaeological plans. It can account for the precise position, function, and three-dimensional relationships of each of the 156 postholes at Woodhenge, with a reasonable degree of accuracy. It resolves the series of problems with simplistic modelling discussed in the first part of this analysis of Woodhenge.