Theoretical Structural Archaeology

35. Olszanica Longhouse 6: Why has it got wide doors?

2009-10-26T22:02:00.037Z

When I saw her, it was love at first sight; beautiful, slender, elegant, complex, and I know size isn’t everything, but she has got the biggest roof I’ve ever seen on an early Neolithic building.

But there was something else. Not that I noticed it at first, as I ran my eyes over her sleek form, but eventually my eyes were drawn to the openings.

So let's cut to the chase: Longhouse 6 from Olszanica in Poland [1], has a doorway 2.20m wide, and it is dated to 5000 BC.

So what is that all about?

Olszanica Longhouse 6

The Olszanica site B1 is a typical LBK period settlement [Linear Pottery Culture, etc.]. It was one of several sites excavated on this loess area above the flood plain of the River Rudawa, on the outskirts the ancient Polish city of Kraków.

The site was part of a much wider series of sites covering 50 ha, with traces of subsequent Lengyel, and perhaps Funnel Beaker, cultures found. The former was discussed in the previous article, and the latter is discussed below. [2]

The site plan looks like any other settlement of this period, with the remains of about 10 longhouses formed by postholes. These structures are similarly aligned, with some overlying each other, and are cut by later pits. These characteristic borrow pits, typical of the period, were dug for material for daub walls and then filled with refuse, the residue of which largely defines their culture 6000 years later.

In common with other buildings of the period, these vary in width from 4.75 – 6.5m, with size being achieved by increasing the length of the structure.

However, Building B6, at 41.5 long (that’s 136’), is the longest building known from the period, 50% longer than Elsloo 32, covered in a previous article.[3] It is still a longhouse, with a broadly similar structure, but there are some important differences. In fact there is so much to say about this building, a more detailed analysis will be covered in a later article.

It has a remarkably well-preserved set of posthole foundations, although the trench of the stave wall was only apparent on the NW side. The building has three lines of postholes running the length of the building, with double sets at the southern end.

The basic pattern follows that of Elsloo, with a stave wall section, with evenly spaced sets of internal posts, a central ‘hall’ section roof with wider and more complex bays, and a section with double postholes at the southerly end. As would be expected, there is clear indication of a doorway at this end, perhaps projecting from the end of the building.

In addition there are two gaps in the wall on the eastern side of the building, suggestive of entrances, at either end of the central section.

This is where the trouble starts.

Cart Shed?

The diagram below has a label “Cart shed?". This would not be a problem, but for date of the building. In all other respects, I would be happy to call it a “cart shed”; but the site has radiocarbon dates that put it in completely the wrong millennium for carts!

So, what are we to make of this?

In terms of the current evidence for wheeled vehicles, which we will briefly consider below, LBK buildings are simply too early to have entrances wide enough accommodate carts. Two obvious explanations present themselves:

* There is some other reason for wide entrances.

* Postholes have been missed by the excavator.

As I have observed in an earlier post,[4] normally the only reason you need a wide door on a farm is to allow access for a wheeled vehicle.

Neither humans nor stock need a door wider that necessary. In the case of the latter, the last thing you want is an animal to able to turn around while it is going through a door or passage. Offering animals choice is not how farming works.

Wide doors are more difficult to construct and hang, and serve no purpose in vernacular architecture, unless to allow something wide to enter the building.

The model of the Elsloo 34 longhouse noted that a single missing post was the only indication of the presence of an entrance. This building has two posts missing at each point. In the real world, excavators miss features for a variety of mundane reasons. It’s all perfectly normal, if somewhat frustrating for a specialist in building plans.

Edward De Bono,who came up with, among other things, the concept of lateral thinking, pointed out in his book Po: Beyond Yes & No that a concept like ‘po’, that exists beyond simple yes or no, is important for developing ideas.[5] In exploring the detail architecture of prehistory, very much an unknown land, like many frontiers in archaeology, I am happy to leave issues hanging unresolved and move on; there are pieces of the jigsaw that don’t fit, things that can get ignored as we describe the picture we have made with the bits that do fit.

There are those who would take all the odd, anomalous and unexplained to weave an alternative narrative. This is to miss the point. Being ‘unexplained’ can only be resolved in terms of the existing narrative based on the majority of the evidence.

In terms of the current understanding, a cart shed of this date is out of the question. However, as archaeologist who specialises in structures, this building intrigues me, and I think it would be useful to look at the implications for the built environment of wheeled transport. This is a line of evidence that has not been widely explored.

Thinking the unthinkable

The model developed for Elsloo 32 was of a tripartite building, with a stave wall section, a central hall, and a floored part at the southerly end. There is a door at this end, and at least one, and quite possibly two, further entrances along one side. These correspond to the position of passages that separate the three main sections.

Schematic plans of Olszanica 6 and Elsloo 32

Olszanica 6 appears to have end sections of a very similar size to Elsloo 32. Most of the extra 50% of length comes in the middle section. This is an interesting observation, indicating that whatever functions the stave wall and floored parts of the building represent, their capacity has not increased with the size of the building.

The hall section is 60’ long. This compares with 30’ for Elsloo, which may be viewed as three 10’ bays. The Olszanica building hall section has six bays of uneven size, wider (about 12’) in the middle, with narrower bays at the ends.

The doorway suggested next to the floored section in Olszanica 6 is in about the same position as the passage in Elsloo 32.

The entrance provides a gap of about 8’. It opens into a space about 18’ long and 10’ wide, room enough for a modest saloon car, but a bit tight fit through the door!

There is only one post in the space, located to the left of the door. While this appears to narrow the entrance, it is actually also 8’ from its nearest post in the opposite wall.

The more northerly entrance has a post in a similar position. However, a second possible feature indicated to the south [dashed on the plan], would block the interior. This entrance is 6’ wide, and leads to another wide bay, which seems to be part of the central section.

As we will see, there are some compelling arguments to suggest that carts at this early date are highly improbable. However, my reasons for considering that the term ‘cart shed’ could be applied to this part would be as follows:

It is positioned where we might reasonably expect there would be an entrance.
It is next to a floored section of the building that most authors would assign some agricultural function, such as a granary.
It is of sufficient width to be of use to store a wheeled vehicle.

That is a far as the evidence goes, and no further.

We will return to consider other aspects of this impressive building in more detail in a later post. Next we should consider more generally what adoptions and changes to the built environment would be required by, and may be indicative of, the introduction of wheeled vehicles.

Theoretical Built Environments

The early LBK farmers who first cleared the land and established the agricultural infrastructure and built environment, would require relatively narrow paths and openings. Deliberately constructed pathways might require sufficient width for two cows or people with baskets to pass with ease, but there is no pressing reason for width in a farming context: narrow lanes and entrances are convenient for moving stock around.

However, once wheeled vehicles were introduced, provision would have to made for them in the built environment.

Considerations for new and existing infrastructure:

Pathways, gates, and entrances have to be widened;
Gradients must be reworked.

Considerations for new and existing buildings:

Wider and higher doors;
The ergonomics of wheeled vehicles [e.g., loading platforms];
The greater logistic potential of wheeled transport [i.e., bulk loads].

Buildings have to be developed or adapted for:

Storage of wheeled vehicles;
Storage of associated tack and accessories;
Requirements of draught animals;
The making and maintaining of wheeled vehicles.

These features appearing in your built environment are likely indications of the presence of wheeled transport.

When was the wheel invented?

This question actually is more complex than it looks and actually prompts three further questions:

What do you mean by "the wheel"?
What do you mean by invented?
What do you mean by when?

At present, the best short answer is probably that the potter's wheel was invented first, in the 5th millennium, and wheeled vehicles probably in the following millennium, both in Mesopotamia.[6]

It is fairly clear that pottery produced on a slow wheel appears in the early phase of Sumerian culture known as Ubaid period [5300 –4100 BC], and was quite widespread. The development of wheeled vehicles and the fast potter's wheel is associated with the following Uruk period [4100 - 2900].

Left: Late period Ubaid pottery from Tel al Ubaid, [British Museum] [7]

The Uruk period is also particularly significant for the invention of writing, which later would create the conditions necessary for the invention of historians. But there is more to the story than that, and ‘when’ is always a complex and contentious issue for archaeologists and historians, and the further you go back, the hazier the answer becomes.

A brief history of archaeological time

There has always been a conflict between ‘real time’ as measured by our clocks and calendars, and time as measured by the various means employed by archaeologists and historians.

It is important we tackle this issue, so let's start in c17th century Ireland, where Archbishop James Ussher made the most famous, but not the first, calculation of age of the earth, by adding up the reigns, lifetimes, and periods in the Bible. He came up with October 23, 4004 BC, a date still regarded as accurate by those who ascribe similar properties to the Bible.

While Ussher's conclusions have long since been rejected, his methodology has survived in certain branches of archaeology studying periods where the reigns of pharaohs, kings, and their priests were recorded. Thus archaeology developed a complex, intricate and ingeniously linked chronology based largely on time as perceived and recorded in the past.

The Radiocarbon Calibration Curve, with a simple timeline for the development of the wheel [8]

Archaeologists in prehistoric Europe, without any written records, were forced into even more tenuous associations with this chronology until rescued by the advent of radiocarbon dating. Radiocarbon relies on the fact that the rarer C14 form of carbon, found in the atmosphere and captured by animal and plants, decays to form C12 at a known rate. Measure the amount left in any remains and you can back-calculate the time of death of the organism. You also must be able to estimate the amount of C14 you should have started with, that is, its proportion in the atmosphere at the time of death.

However, when objects of known age, like tree rings, were tested, it demonstrated that the amount of C14 in the atmosphere must have varied over time. This gave rise to a calibration curve to adjust the radiocarbon date to a calendar date, +/- a margin of error.

So now we have ‘historical’ chronologies, radiocarbon dates, and calibrated radiocarbon dates, as well as calendar dates, which can be obtained with the most accuracy from local dendro-chronologies created by comparing the annual growth rings preserved in ancient wood.

Global events like large volcanic eruptions, which leave a wide and distinct footprint in the archaeological record, provide the best method of synchronising these various systems. Attention has focused on the eruption of Thera, which destroyed the Mediterranean island of Santorini in the Minoan Period. Radiocarbon, dendro-chronology and other dating evidence suggest a date for the eruption around 1628 BC, about a century earlier than the ‘traditional’ date based on chronology. We need go no further into concepts like ‘High’ and ‘Low’ chronologies, but it is important to note that by the middle of the Second Millennium BC we have a disparity of a century.

Olszanica BI is dated to 4400 – 4000 bc in un-calibrated radiocarbon years, which corresponds to about 5400 - 5000 BC as a calibrated date. In other words Longhouse 6, one of the later buildings on the site, is probably a little over 7000 years old, and dates from around the time that wheel-turned pottery appears in Mesopotamia, but long before evidence of carts in central Europe.

The wheels of Change

In 1976, an excavation at Bronocice in SW Poland uncovered parts of a pot with incised decoration depicting two carts with yokes. [left] [9]

The site was occupied during the Funnel Beaker or TBR culture phase, one of a complex group of cultures that succeeded the LBK in northern Europe, in the Fifth and Fourth Millennia BC.

Bones from the pit in which the pot was found gave radiocarbon dates of around 3635 - 3370 BC, which, as the excavators pointed out, is earlier than dates for pictograms of wheels from the Samarian Uruk Period.

Details of the decoration of the Bronocice pot, showing two carts in a stylised landscape [10]

There a two other main lines of evidence in this period, both from graves associated with the Baden culture that is found in central Europe in the period 3600 – 2800BC.[11]

In cemeteries like Budakalász on the Danube in Hungary, pottery models of carts have been found. The example, from Grave 177, was painted and is incised with zigzag decoration. [Left] [12] Some models with handles, which may be drinking cups, have been found on the earliest Baden cultures sites like Boglarelle on Lake Balaton.

However, what was also found at Budakalász was a grave containing two humans with the bodies of a pair of cattle laid out at right angles to them. Double cattle burials occur in other Baden cemeteries dated to the middle of the Fourth Millennium.[13]

Matters arising

There is remarkable convergence of evidence around 3500BC from a variety of sites and sources for the presence of wheeled vehicles in central Europe. Furthermore, the use of draught animals for ploughing may be placed in a similar timeframe.[14] However, how long this technology took to become fully developed, and what period elapsed before it was thought appropriate to bury draught animals with the dead, is not clear. Mesopotamia is still seen as the most likely source of this technology.

In the late 1920s, while excavating the cemetery at Ur, Iraq, Leonard Woolley found deep shaft graves where the rulers of the Sumerian city were buried around 2500 BC, along with their finest possessions, and a complete retinue of deceased soldiers, servants, and assorted hangers on -- even draught animals! This prompted Woolley to christen it ‘the Great Death pit of Ur’.

The grave goods, although badly decomposed and crushed, were some of the most extraordinary archaeological ‘treasures’ ever found. While undoubtedly overshadowed by the discovery of Tutankhamun’s tomb earlier in the decade, the finds from the death pit are a thousand years earlier and in many ways much rarer and more valuable. Their recovery and conservation was a considerable technical achievement for the time.

The Ur Royal Standard

One object, known as the Royal standard, is a tapering box of uncertain function, beautifully inlaid with a colourful mosaic made of lapis, ivory, and limestone stuck together with bitumen. It is one of the earliest depictions of an army and warfare, and it illustrates carts with composite wheels, bristling with spears, being pulled by teams of four male donkeys [jacks].

We have almost, but not quite, reached that icon of ancient warfare, the horse-drawn chariot with spoked wheels. It was still five centuries away, but that is a whole new chapter. However, it does remind us that, while evidence for carts is emerging in Europe at around 3500 BC, far to the east in Kazakhstan the horse was being domesticated by the Botai Culture.[15]

Conclusions

It would clearly be unwise to argue for a cart shed in a late LBK building -- it simply does not fit with the other evidence. Irritatingly, it is not actually 'impossible', as the building is roughly contemporary with the earliest wheel-made pottery.

There are two important points about wheels and animal traction. Firstly, they are two separate technologies; and secondly, they are difficult ideas to keep secret [compared with metallurgy, for example.] We could also consider sledges, or some other form transport dragged by an animal. I have always tacitly assumed that the several hundred pieces of timber required for building a longhouse could be dragged by an animal, presumably an ox.

If nothing else, it has been a useful exercise to consider the impact on the infrastructure and built environment of wheeled vehicles. It provides a different approach to this issue.

It reminds us of the importance of carts, wagons, and wains in the past, not least to the generations of Cartwrights, Wainwrights, Wheelwrights [above right] [16], and Carters, who built and drove them. What is now a rapidly vanishing area of technologies once was a vital new cog in the agricultural, and broader cultural, system.

It also revolutionised the movement of goods and people, and the practicalities of an itinerant lifestyle.

To bring the wheel full circle to the British Iron Age, an age of chariots and roundhouses, I should also point out that some large roundhouses had projecting 'porches' with entrances 8 – 10’ wide, something that is too easily overlooked.

So what is that all about?

Roundhouse 'porches' with wide entrances: A: Pimperne Down, Hampshire. B & D: Little Woodbury, Wiltshire. C: Moel Y Gaer P10, Flintshire. E: Longbridge Deverill Cow Down, Wiltshire. F: Orsett S9, Essex. [17]

Sources and further reading:

[1] S. Milisauskas (1975): 'The Linear Culture site at Olszanica B1 in Poland', Archaeologia Polona vol. 16:
http://www.iaepan.edu.pl/archaeologia-polona/article/245 (accessed 28 October 2009)

[2] http://structuralarchaeology.blogspot.com/2009/10/34-curious-case-of-lengyel-longhouses.html (accessed 28 October 2009)

[3] http://structuralarchaeology.blogspot.com/2009/08/33-elsloo-32-neolithic-longhouse-made.html (accessed 28 October 2009)

PJR Modderman (1970): 'Linearbandkeramik aus Elsloo und Stein 2.' Tafelband, Leiden Univ., Faculty of Archaeology.

PJR Modderman (1975): 'Elsloo, a Neolithic farming community in the Netherlands,' in Bruce-Mitford, R L S, Recent archaeological excavations in Europe, Chapter IX.

PJR Modderman (1985), D'ie Bandkeramik im Graetheidegebiet, Niederländisch-Limburg.' Berichte der Römisch- Germanischen Kommission, 66:25-121

[4] http://structuralarchaeology.blogspot.com/2009/04/27-trip-to-farm.html (accessed 28 October 2009)

[5] Edward de Bono (1973): Po: Beyond Yes and No ISBN 0-14-021715-0

[6] P. Charvat (2002): Mesopotamia before history London: Routledge; p148

H. E. W. Crawford (2004): Sumer and the Sumarians. Cambridge Univ Pr; p180

[7] After: http://www.hartford-hwp.com/image_archive/ue/pottery03.jpg (accessed 28 October 2009)

[8] After; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Radiocarbon_dating_calibration.svg (accessed 28 October 2009)
Data from: M. Stuiver, P. J. Reimer and T. F. Braziunas (1998): High-Precision Radiocarbon Age Calibration for Terrestrial and Marine Samples. Radiocarbon 40, 1127-1151. Downloadable from University of Washington, Quaternary Isotope Lab: http://depts.washington.edu/qil/datasets/uwten98_14c.txt (accessed 28 October 2009)

[9] J. Kruk & S. Milisauskas (1999): Rise and fall of Neolithic agricultural societies, Krakow

[10] Image source: http://www.ma.krakow.pl/wystawy/wozy_z_bronocic [in Polish] (accessed 28 October 2009)

[11] Eva Maria Wild, Peter Stadler, Mária Bondár, Susanne Draxler, Herwig Friesinger, Walter Kutschera, Alfred Priller, Werner Rom, Elisabeth Ruttkay, & Peter Steier (dng): New Chronological Frame for the Young Neolithic Baden Culture in Central Europe (4th Millennium BC). At: http://winserion.org/Stadler/StadlerP_2002g.pdf (accessed 28 October 2009)

[12] S. Piggott (1973): Ancient Europe. Edinburgh Pl, Xa p96, & fig. 48 p. 93.

[13] A. W. R. Whittle (1996): Europe in the Neolithic: the creation of new worlds. Cambridge University Press Fig 5.1 & pp 121-123

[14] A. Sherratt (dng): Animal traction and the transformation of Europe. http://www.archatlas.dept.shef.ac.uk/people/Frasnois.pdf (accessed 28 October 2009)

[15] A K Outram, N A Stear, R Bendrey, S Olsen, A Kasparov, V Zaibert, N Thorpe, and R P Evershed (2009): 'The earliest horse harnessing and milking.' Science 6 March 2009: Vol. 323. no. 5919, pp. 1332–1335

[16] J G Jenkins (1978): Traditional country craftsmen. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London

[17]After D. W. Harding, I. M. Blake, and P. J. Reynolds (1993): An Iron Age settlement in Dorsett: Excavation and reconstruction. University of Edinburgh. Department of Archaeology Monograph series No. 1
G. Bersu (1940): 'Excavations at Little Woodbury, Wiltshire. Part 1, the settlement revealed by excavation.' Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 6, 30 -111
G. Guilbert1 (1981): "Double-ring roundhouses, probable and possible," in Prehistoric Britain Proc Prehist Soc 47 &. G. Guilbert (1982): 'Post-ring symmetry in Roundhouses at Moel y Gaer and some other sites in prehistoric Britain', in Structural Reconstruction - Approaches to the interpretation of the excavated remains of buildings; British Archaeological Report 110, BAR, 67-86
S. C. Hawkes (1994): "Longbridge Deverill Cow Down, Wiltshire, House 3: A Major Round House of the Early Iron Age." Oxford Journ. Archaeol. 13(1), 49-69
G. A. Carter (1998): 'Excavations at the Orsett ‘Cock’ enclosure, Essex, 1976'. East Anglian Archaeology Report No 86

34. The Curious Case of the Lengyel Longhouses

2009-10-05T09:19:00.049+01:00

There are some things that are just wrong, and Lengyel longhouses transcend odd, through strange, into weird; buildings should not taper. Well, not at 7°, they shouldn’t. It's just not a right and proper thing for them to do. At least two sides should be parallel, otherwise your roof will be in some way irregular. It is all very worrying for a structural archaeologist. So why would Neolithic builders, like those who created this example from Biskupin, Poland [left], [1] make a building with such an unusual shape?

In the previous article we looked a LBK longhouse from Elsloo, Netherlands, using a theoretical model to investigate how the builder might have dealt with the inconvenience of using tapering timber in creating a near parallel-sided building. However, slightly later in the Neolithic, archaeological sites with determinedly tapering buildings, known as ‘Lengyel Culture’, became quite widespread in parts of Central Europe.

In this article we will look briefly at this strange phenomenon. Not that I would claim to have resolved the puzzle, but that is the point: it is important to consider and discuss what you don’t really understand equally as thoroughly as the things you do.

Lengyel Culture

This culture, named after Lengyel in Hungary, is seen as the successor or later contemporary to the Linear Pottery Culture [LBK] in many parts of central Europe. These were farming people, growing grain and keeping livestock, mainly cattle, some pigs, and a few goats and sheep. There is still plenty of fish and game in the diet.

The buildings we shall look at come from Poland, on the northern extent of this cultural spread, which is in part recognised by its trapezoidal longhouses. The evidence for these structures usually comprises a continuous bedding trench presumed to have held a stave wall similar to those associated with LBK longhouses. [2]

A simplified plan of The Lengyel Settlement of At Brześć Kujawski [3]

At Brześć Kujawski, a settlement dating from 4500-3900 BC [4], the remains of up to 50 such buildings have been found, many superimposed in a complex archaeological puzzle. Part of the solution is shown on the left. They are associated with the characteristic borrow pits used to produce the daub for the walls. Buildings range in size, and some are associated with workshop features.

The site was home to a stable and long-lived farming community, one of many in the area, which would have had similar architectural needs to the LBK farming settlements. The emphasis on the outer stave wall rather than using posts is a departure from LBK longhouse tradition. LBK longhouses often have stave walls at one end, and even continuous timber walls, but have considerably more internal postholes than are evident on Lengyel sites.

And they don’t usually taper quite as much.

Biskupin Longhouse Theoretical Model

Simple models of a tapering roof based on Biskupin Longhouse

At the outset, there appear to be three main possibilities to resolving the shape of the roof on a tapering structure:

Option A: The pitch of the roof is constant, the wall is level, and so the ridge slopes down at the narrower back.

Option B: The ridge and the wall are level, and so the pitch of the roof increases as the roof narrows towards the back.

Option C: The ridge is level, and the roof pitch is even, but the height of the wall increases towards the narrower back.

Option A has been suggested as a solution, partly supported by ethnographic parallels from the Pacific.[5] However, in theoretical structural archaeology, what people do in Papua New Guinea, an area with a markedly diverse architectural culture, much of it based on the use of bamboo, is not considered cogent to the North European Plain in the fifth millennium BC. Which is not reason to dismiss this form of roof.

The main issue with A is things' not being level, since not just the ridge, but also the other ‘horizontal’ roof timbers would have to slope to stay parallel to it. In a previous article [6], it was shown how heavy snow can double the static load of a roof; throw in dynamic wind loading, and the disadvantages of having a tilted structure probably outweigh any perceived advantage like lower wind resistance.

Option B would also give the builder a headache, in that each pair of rafters would slope at a different rate, giving each ‘frame’ in the roof a different geometry. At least everything in the option is level, which has much to commend it as a structural principle.

My preferred option would be C, or rather should be, as it cleverly incorporated the idea of tapering wall plates, [D, above]. This shows a series of tapering wall plates set on level stave wall sections, creating a continuous sloping wall plate rising to the back.

But there is a problem: it doesn't really work. It is the geometry of the model that does not work, and making a building work goes to the heart of our methodology.

Above / below left: How an oak tree grows [7]

The main problem is the amount of taper. The model tapers at about 12:1 cm/m, or 6:1 cm/m on each side, which is far more than I would expect to see in timber.

Taper in trees is a complex business. It is dependent on growing conditions and species, but I think a 2--3° rate of taper would be as much as I would like to see, The figures for trees like English oak, illustrated above, if modelled as cones, give taper rates in the region of 1--2 cm/m.

It would be strange if timber with excessive taper were all that was available to Neolithic builders, given that silviculture is an essential ingredient to successful buildings. It might be argued for an individual building, where timber was sourced from natural 'wild wood', that irregular timber, probably split from larger trees, had to be used, but in a well-established community the necessary timber would be expected to be grown locally.

Building is also about geometry. That is its secret, the syntax of architectural form. It is how the forces are tamed and brought in equilibrium, and the eye is pleased. This is very much a problem of geometry.

Looking at the geometry of our model [left], what interests us is the value ‘h’, which is the theoretical difference, or rise, in wall height between the front and back. The value of the reduction of width ‘w’ on each side is a constant at about 1.7m.

In a roof with a pitch of 45°, h will equal w. In other words, the wall would have to rise 1.7m to make the rising wall model work. Over the length of the building [L], that corresponds to a rise of 6 cm/m. If we slacken the roof pitch to 37°, this reduces the rise to 4.4 cm/m, and h to 1.25m (which we can calculate from the tangent rule). This is closer to taper in timber, but not close enough. If we increase the roof pitch to 53°, a more realistic angle for thatch, then h will increase to 2.26m, making the problem worse.

So even slackening the roof to a point where only turf might the viable surface, the wall's rising due to taper in the wall plate still does not appear to work.

There is something else about the geometry of our model, something it shares with other Lengyel longhouses: the narrow end is roughly half the width of the wide end, or (Wf =Wb/2). In terms of w, then, the wide end is 4 x w, and the narrow 2 x w.
This is significant.

In terms of the geometry of a traditional longhouse, an arcade half the width of the building supports the roof, i.e., 2 x w wide, its position corresponding to the position of the back wall. An interesting example of a tapering building comes from Grossgartach [B8], Julich-Welldorf [left].[8] It is constructed with posts, and the position of the arcade and ridge piece can be seen clearly running down the centre of the building to the narrow end, where they intersect the tapering wall line.

If these stave wall structures are built with reversed assembly ties supporting the wall plate [right], as suggested for Elsloo 32 [9], then this is the obvious place to support an upper floor in the roof space.

A typical longhouse is about 24’ wide, and by simple geometry, the centre of the roof will be 12’ from the edge, and its [arcade] supports 6’. In a 45° pitched roof the headroom at the arcade plate would be about 6’, so would roughly mark the edge of usable headroom, as well as being a convenient position to define the upper floor.

So this width of 2 x w, or Wb, also marks the limit of usable roof space, offering a different partial solution to our original problem.

If the roof ridge and other timbers remain horizontal, and the wall is reasonably level, at some point near the narrow end it becomes possible to create a clerestory, to allow illumination and ventilation of the upper floor. What happens in the middle of the building would still be problematic; in our posthole example, only half the building tapers distinctly.

So there it is, the curious case of tapering Lengyel longhouses. Hardly a definitive solution to the mystery, but that is not the point; it would have been wrong to ignore these apparent exceptions to the norms of good structural design. These basic considerations, rooted in the geometry of the models inferred from a structure's foundations, are fundamental to this approach to archaeological interpretation. To see these principles apparently defied is worthy of investigation.

While a better solution may present itself in the future, I like my timbers level. Having a pitched roof is problem enough without tilting it in another plane, so I would be prepared to sacrifice my even-pitched roof first. So throw in some form of clerestory -- and that is a close as I can get, without a lot more study.

Local Issues

We have already strayed a long way from our “ . . . especially the archaeology of the lost timber built environment of prehistoric Southern England” mission statement, but given that only a handful of early buildings are known from here, it is hardly surprising. It is one of the reasons theoretical structural archaeology came into being, and explains why I have been looking at continental Neolithic longhouses. In a future post, I will look at what all this tells us about how to look for, and find, Neolithic buildings in native posthole palimpsests.

However, we do have some interesting indirect evidence in the form of Long Barrows, like West Kennet, Wiltshire [left], which are trapezoidal in shape. In Neolithic Britain, these were tapering elongated mounds formed from materials dug from flanking ditches, with a communal tomb at the wider end. This end often featured megalithic stones, and a forecourt with traces of 'activities'. There is seems no reason to avoid the obvious interpretation that the tomb represents a house for the dead.[10]

In a strange episode of serendipity, Martha Murphy, unaware of this article, who was editing my article “Why almost nothing in the Celtic world was square”, wrote to remind me about the importance of cattle in the Neolithic, and mentioned that she had read that the tapering structures might in some way be symbolic of cattle.[11]

For the structural archaeologist this presents problems, since it implies a level of architecture above and beyond the call of duty. As a rule, the stance so far in TSA is that symbolism is secondary to structural form. Subsequently, those aspects of a form that acquire particular meaning may be emphasised to enhance a building's symbolic value, but not to the extent where it undermines the structural stability of the original form.

One reason this is difficult, and to be avoided, is that we can read a standing building with its surface decoration intact with some degree of confidence, but this level of preservation is exceedingly rare in prehistory. We must never forget that we are dealing with foundations, which is why it is ‘theoretical’. While we can define some rules for modeling roofed space from its foundations, we must not overreach ourselves. To go too far beyond this, to consider the symbolism and perception of, the spaces we can define, requires a different knowledge base and approach.

However, utility is another matter, and in the next article we are returning to Poland to look at what may be the earliest Neolithic cart shed ever discovered.

Sources and further reading:

[1] Bogucki, P. 1988. Forest Farmers and Stockherders. Early Agriculture and its Consequences in North-Central Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p70, fig. 4.9 [Taken from: Grygiel, R. 1986. The household cluster as a fundamental social unit of the Lengyel Culture in the Polish Lowlands. Prace i Materialy Muzeum Archeologicznego i Etnograficznego w Lodzi 31: 43-334.]

[2] Bogucki, P., The Neolithic Mosaic on the North European Plain. School of Engineering and Applied Science: Princeton University. http://www.princeton.edu/~bogucki/mosaic.html [Accessed 01/10/2009]
Also: Czerniak, L., Raczkowski, W, & Sosnowski,W., 2003. New prospects for the study of Early Neolithic longhouses in the Polish Lowlands. Antiquity Vol 77 No 297 September 2003.

[3] Bogucki, P. 1988. Forest Farmers and Stockherders. Early Agriculture and its Consequences in North-Central Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p67, fig4.8 [Taken from Grygiel, R. & P. Bogucki. 1997. Early Farmers in North-Central Europe: 1989-1994 Excavations at Oslonki, Poland. Journal of Field Archaeology 24: 161-178]

[4] Bogucki, P., 1991, Changing Neolithic Landscapes at Brzesc Kujawski, Poland.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, New Orleans, Louisiana, April 1991. http://www.princeton.edu/~bogucki/landcape.html [Accessed 01/10/2009]
http://antiquity.ac.uk/projGall/czerniak/czerniak.html [Accessed 01/10/2009]

[5] Marshall, A., 1981. Environmental Adaptation and Structural Design in Axially-Pitched Longhouses from Neolithic Europe. World Archaeology, Vol. 13, No. 1, Miscellany (Jun., 1981), 101-121 . Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/124216

[6] http://structuralarchaeology.blogspot.com/2009/02/22-iron-age-graphs-important-discovery.html

[7] James. 1989. Forester's Companion. Cambridge University Press. p 355

[8] Whittle, A. W. R., 1988. Problems in Neolithic archaeology. Cambridge. Fig. 3.7, p46.

[9] http://structuralarchaeology.blogspot.com/2009/08/33-elsloo-32-neolithic-longhouse-made.html

[10] For example see: Hodder, I., 1984. Burials, houses, women and men in the European Neolithic. In: Miller, D., Tilly, C., eds. Ideology, Power and Prehistory. Cambridge.

[11] Quite possibly: Darvill, T., 2004. Long Barrows of the Cotswolds and Surrounding Areas, Tempus 2004

Notes and Queries - Roman Forts

2009-09-24T18:03:00.011+01:00

One of the advantages of publishing research on a website, is that you can respond to questions and enquires from readers. Tim Holland recently sent me a very detailed piece concerning his observations about the layout of Roman Forts, complete with illustrations, [which I have spoiled by resizing]. He has kindly agreed to let me feature his enquiry.
Theoretical Structural Archaeology is a way of thinking about building foundations from the perspective of the architects and builders that caused them to be created, and while I cannot do full justice to the questions Tim raises, I will attempt set them in this context.

The Layout of Roman forts by Tim Holland

I’ve been frustrated at the lack of interpretation information at Roman sites regarding practical details on the construction; a feeling of “why did they do it like that” I’ve had no luck with the guides and internet searches, so when I stumbled on your blog, you seemed to have a similar curiosity and distinctly practical bent!

Caerleon Roman Fort [1]

Roman forts seem to have a pretty standard layout, but a couple of things about Caerleon fort, in South Wales have puzzled me. The excavated portion the fort is dark, the orientation is with north at the top.

The fort complex has been partially excavated, and work continues, but the geophysics has mapped it pretty completely. The north west section has been conserved and revealed some of the standard barrack blocks, but the orientation has the veranda’s facing north east; there doesn’t seem an obvious reason for this, a south west orientation would have been more comfortable? I can’t see an obvious reason for the orientation but I may have missed something.

Even more puzzling, there’s a large latrine in the north west corner and the drain appears to have been channelled behind one of the blocks running parallel down the slight slope; again this seems a rather odd arrangement. The outflow presumably ran out into the river; was this the standard arrangement in forts? I’ve seen the same latrine construction at Housesteads located more practically by the downhill side of the rampart, but there’s no river there; did it just settle in a big slurry heap by the fort, next door to where the locals seemed to be living? Am I being too C21st but this doesn’t seem a very ‘military’ solution? Maybe it was recycled into the fields?

Detail of the latrine outflow, via a culverted drain behind the barracks. Direction of the photo marked with an arrow.

Housesteads Fort. Latrine location on the lower part of the site shown grey, downhill is south, [2]

The other puzzle I have is at Housesteads, where there’s more visible reconstructed walls, and here the similar barrack blocks seem to have been rebuilt at some stage, combining what were individual rooms into large double rooms as the population of the fort changed. But instead of just taking out alternate dividing walls, they appear to have built a double wall, creating detached units with a narrow gap between, about 6 inches wide. This seems an odd design, taking twice the stone and a gap that’s difficult to maintain. Today they’d probably have to do the same for local building regulations; or was it just to create work for a bored workforce! Or acoustic separation from noisy neighbours!

Housesteads, showing the diving wall of the converted single barrack rooms

The same appears to have happened to a grain store; originally one large building with internal columns supporting the roof, its been re worked to provide 2 separate buildings, separated by a narrow gap. But the new walls are substantial, 2 foot thick and presumably supporting 2 roofs. Again, this seems a strange design.

Two walls of the granaries, showing the location of the central pillars holding up the original single span roof.

The pillars are presumably left in place to illustrate their original positions, but were removed when the building was modified?

Another converted barrack block, showing the narrow dividing wall.

Laying out Roman forts by Geoff Carter

"The Praefect of the camp, though inferior in rank ..., had a post of no small importance. The position of the camp, the direction of the entrenchments, the inspection of the tents or huts of the soldiers and the baggage were comprehended in his province. His authority extended over the sick, and the physicians who had the care of them; and he regulated the expenses relative thereto. He had the charge of providing carriages, bathorses and the proper tools for sawing and cutting wood, digging trenches, raising parapets, sinking wells and bringing water into the camp. He likewise had the care of furnishing the troops with wood and straw, as well as the rams, onagri, balistae and all the other engines of war under his direction. This post was always conferred on an officer of great skill, experience and long service, and who consequently was capable of instructing others in those branches of the profession in which he had distinguished himself."

Epitoma rei militaris by Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus C5thAD [3]

Barracks
The layout of a Roman fort was, to reasonable extent, standardised; this extends to the types and design of building, and almost certainly to their structural components.

Roman Military Buildings [4]

The essence of building is creating roofed space; this is the critical aspect of the project and is mostly concerned with protecting people and materials from water. Wide roofs are more complex so you will note roman military structures are narrow and long. As a general rule, forts have roofs of c.25’ to 35’wide. It is possible that timber forts had narrower buildings. The larger central structures usually comprise of a range narrow buildings arranged around a central court.

The narrow gap between the barracks allows for a shared drain, [or water butt], and saves space. The ‘long axis’ of the fort, as dictated by the orientation of the barracks, should run down hill. However, the fort at Inchtutil in Scotland has barracks in both directions.

Roman forts, while strategic, are not always placed simply with defence in mind. Architecturally, the axis of the fort was the main through road, the Via Principalis, with the principle buildings being laid out in relation to this, however, its placement and orientation would have to have taken into account the slope in terms of drainage.

One by-product of creating large areas of roofed space and metalled surfaces is water run off, in addition to the waste-water created by the occupants. This is distinct from the problem of getting clean water into the fort, though clearly the two problems are related. In terms of construction, after site clearance, laying the drains is probably one of the earliest phases of construction. A roman fort would rapidly have become fetid mire without a robust drainage infrastructure!

The practicalities of drainage, probably overrides other considerations such as aspect in the placement of barrack blocks.

The positioning of the latrines at Housesteads in the SE corner of the fort, probably relates to the Kings Burn, the nearest watercourse, 200m to the East.
NB. The latrine pits for the C1st legionary fortress in Colchester are legendary – huge and almost bottomless, I’m not sure we ever found the bottom of one! [5].

Granaries

"An army unsupplied with grain and other necessary provisions will be vanquished without striking a blow "

Epitoma rei militaris by Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus C5thAD [3]

Granaries are the most important buildings in the fort. The roman army was powered by grain, and just as we have oil wars . . .

These buildings are traditionally very robust and well constructed, dry, with raised floors and good ventilation. However, even if you create the correct built environment for grain storage, there is the danger of infestation, a principle threat. Timber granaries were often burnt down prior to rebuilding, which may indicate an accident, fumigation with extreme prejudice, or even malicious action. There is always something of a conflict between centralising resources, and placing them ‘all in one basket’.

So why replace a single wall [dividing/party] wall with a double which Tim had observed at Housesteads? This is found elsewhere, such as at Hardknott, Cumbria.

Even with the wider examples with a single wall, I am inclined to see these as having 2 pitched roof with a valley in the centre, rather than a single large pitched roof. My reasons for this are that there is no advantage to be gained by having a larger and higher roof; a roof base of 50-60’ would be significantly more than c.30- 35’ which usual for stone foundations.

Pushing two granaries together may save materials, but a double wall with a gap is a more effective firebreak, and a better barrier to vermin that a shared roof with a valley. As with barrack the shared drain was in this case preferred to a common valley.

Many thanks to Tim for raising these issues, and I hope others will feel free to comment and raise others issues to do with the archaeology of structures.

Sources and further reading

[1] http://adriennegoodenoughtravel.blogspot.com/2007/11/caerleon-roman-fort-baths-amphitheatre.html (Caerleon)
[2] http://www.geocities.com/sionmc/fort/fortplan.htm
[3] http://www.pvv.ntnu.no/~madsb/home/war/vegetius/
[4] After figs 63 & 70 ;Roman Forts by Roger Wilson. Bergstrom / Boyle Books 1980 ISBN 0 903767 07 4
[5] See Colchester Archaeological Reports 6 by Philip Crummy 1988 chapters 2/3 & fig. 3.17. ISBN. 0-9503727-7-3

33. Elsloo 32, a Neolithic longhouse made from trees

2009-08-29T22:15:00.075+01:00

In this article we will look in detail at a 7000-year-old farmhouse from Elsloo in the Netherlands. Built by some of the first farming communities, this kind of longhouse represents the beginnings of architecture in the Northern Europe. It is argued that it has left a heritage in architectural form and function that is still evident in the historical and contemporary built environment.

The key to understanding this structure lies in the nature of the trees it was built from, and the far from convenient fact that tree trunks taper. Constructing a large timber building from trees is a much trickier proposition than it might first appear, but these pioneers of timber building were more than up to the task.

LBK Longhouses

If there were a prize for the prehistoric material culture with the most number of names, it would be won by the early farmers in northern Europe, which is ironic given the uniformity of their material remains. Consensus, I think, certainly in countries where it is found, favours LBK [aka Linearbandkeramick/ Linear Pottery culture, etc.], named after the distinctive pottery of these first agriculturalists.

One of the problems of archaeological cultures this old is dating. Dates still float about a bit by the odd century here and there, and carry the usual warning: their value can go down as well as up, and historical performance is not necessarily a guide to future performance. However, in general terms, settled agricultural communities had developed in Anatolia by about 7000 BC, and spread out from there, reaching SE Europe and the Balkans and by about 6000 BC. Agriculture then spread up the major river valleys like the Danube and the Rhine to reach central Europe by about 5500 BC.[1] The site at Elsloo was thought by the excavator Pieter Modderman to have appeared around 5250/ 5200 BC.[2]

A plan of part of the site at Elsloo

Elsloo, in the valley of river Maas in the Netherlands, like much of the North European Plain, has a loess soil. This fertile windblown deposit was favoured by these early settlers. The LBK farmers grew wheat, barley, peas, and flax, and kept cattle with some sheep and goats. Pigs are also known, and a range of wild animals and plants were also exploited

The site is typical of the area, and of LBK sites in general, excavation revealing a series of similarly aligned structures defined by postholes and bedding trenches for vertical timbers [above].[3] These structures usually have borrow pits running parallel to their sides, from where it is assumed the material was dug to make the daub for the walls.

Most sites like Elsloo show continuous rebuilding over centuries, with the remains of many buildings spread across wide areas. Some sites were clearly defended. Darion, in Belgium, was surrounded by a ditch and timber rampart.[4] Pieter Modderman has suggested a classification into three types based on size. The occurrence of a ‘Y’ formation of posts in the centre of the building is seen as an indication of an early type.

In common with most aspects of LBK culture, these types of building and settlement occur at similar sites in the area like Sittard,[5] Geleen,[6] and Darion to the west. There is remarkable uniformity in width of these buildings, although length varies considerably. The orientation of the structures is also remarkably similar, with NW-SE predominating [right].[7]

The buildings have been characterised as having three types of unit: a central one, which is always present [the one with/without the ‘Y’]; a NW end formed by a foundation trench; and an area defined by double postholes at the SE end.

The loss of floor surfaces due to agricultural ploughing is a common problem, which has made it difficult to determine the different uses of individual buildings, or the areas within them. In the larger, three-element buildings, it is generally agreed that the centre section is the main working/social space, and that the main door was in the SE end. W Startin argued that the SE part was floored, used for grain storage, and that the NW section was byre,[8] which Professor Modderman had thought was the living/sleeping area.

A selection of Neolithic ground stone tools and a reconstructed flint flake sickle, in the museum of the Palatinate, Speyer, Germany.[9] Note in the left foreground the ‘shoe–last celts’ long square section carpentry tools.

A sedentary agricultural life requires a permanent built environment, which was facilitated by two key aspects of LBK culture: firstly, silviculture, the ability to farm trees and create timber to order; and secondly, the use of ground stone tools. This was the key cutting edge technology. Axes, and in particular, chisels, were ground from hard igneous rock, particularly basalt and amphibolites. Their edges were durable and serviceable, and well suited to carpentry.

Prehistoric post and lintel architecture would have been based on mortice and tenon joints, so please put aside images of forked sticks and buildings tied together with string. The ability to routinely cut a mortice hole, of predetermined size, through a tree trunk is essential, since for reasons of rigidity, the tenon on the head of each post would joint with at least two horizontal timbers, perhaps more if bracing is considered.

Theoretical Structural Archaeology

In Europe, from the Neolithic onwards, trees were grown, and postholes were created by a wide variety of cultures in a range of contexts. The focus of theoretical structural archaeology is working out how these trees were fitted together for each individual structure, by creating a drawn three-dimensional ‘theoretical model’ based on the known position and depth of the posts.

The purpose of these case studies is to explore the methodology further while looking at real archaeological examples. It is important to stress that buildings are studied individually, and conclusions are not based on a drawing together of a number of examples from a variety of sites. Although my data on this structure is not of the standard I would have liked, I have chosen Elsloo 32 because it has been previously discussed, and, for a 7000 year old farmhouse, is quite well known.

For sake of simplicity and brevity, it is not possible to draw every possibility, or even properly explore every aspect of the methodology in each case, since it is to be remembered, this is an ongoing exercise, and issues may be returned to at a more appropriate juncture in the overall narrative of these articles.

The theoretical model is a ‘best fit’ conception of something that no longer exists, but it is based on clearly defined set of assumptions, which have been covered in earlier articles. None of these ideas is difficult to understand, and they form the basis of some conception of a ‘structural literacy’ required to apply this type of methodology, to able to interpret this type of archaeological evidence. So, by way of a bit of revision, we will have another look at how roofs work, and then look at how the shape of roofs affects the positioning of the supporting postholes.

Simple model roofs

This simplified model roof section represents the type of roof used in the Neolithic [left]. The posts support the tie beams (reversed assembly), which in turn support the wall plate. An arcade plate on each side and a ridge piece in the centre form the roof, both elements supported by posts.

The model shows a roof with a pitch of 45°, with the arcade positioned halfway between the wall and the ridge. This makes the proportions simple to understand: ‘x’ is a quarter of the width, and roof width is directly proportional to roof height (above the wall).

Using this simple model we can build up a surprisingly complex roof [above], which illustrates how a variety of different entrances, windows, and openings can be created based around the position of the arcade plate.

By adding wings we can create complex building shapes; however, this is a feature of later periods, and I have not observed this in LBK buildings.

For longhouses there are four main types of roof, often used in combination, distinguished by the form of the roof at the ends of the building [left]. A plain pitched roof is known as a saddleback, while a sloping end is known as a hip; half-hip and gambrel roofs combine both types.

Using our simple model, we can plot the position of the posts we might find for each type of roof. We are ignoring the wall itself, and its ties, and just looking at the roof support.

The taller centre posts are offset slightly to avoid the arcade tie that runs between the arcade posts. The situation is complicated by the convenience of proximity, in that, in the our model, the arcade tie will pass precisely next to the centre post, offering the opportunity of some form of joint, thereby increasing the rigidity of the structure. In addition, there is often a need to keep posts in lines for the sake of architectural order, regardless of their height. Clearly, in this type analysis, a distance equivalent to the thickness of a post/timber is significant.

When drawing in the horizontal timbers running between posts, their precise position is important, as is the precise depth of the posthole, this being indicative of height of the post. This is the essence of theoretical structural archaeology.

Advanced considerations

Returning to the LBK Neolithic, we will have to work with a slightly more complex model. In reality, 45° is not a good angle for a roof. The pitch of the roof is the angle it makes with the horizontal at the wall, and 45° is probably too slack for thatch, especially in more complex roofs with valleys. In Northern Europe snow is also a significant factor, and this is another reason why steeper angles are preferred. The geometry used in the section [left] is a 3:4:5 triangle. Roofs in this proportion have a better pitch around 53°. This is a useful triangle used by surveyors because triangles in this proportion have a right angle.

The model roof is formed of two such triangles; if the roof is 4 high at the centre, the rafters will be 5 long, and the whole roof 6 wide. In terms of x, 2x=3.

In terms of the Elsloo 34, x is roughly 6'; so 3 = 12', 4 = 18', and 5 = 30'. That is a 24' roof base and 30' rafters. I am not being perverse; these buildings do make much more sense in feet, and they certainly weren't laid out in metres!

In this model, the arcade is positioned in the middle of the roof, half way between the edge of the roof, which includes the eaves, and the ridge. This appears to be the Neolithic practice, at least in the case of Elsloo 32, and is more structurally correct, especially since the lower half of a roof composed of tapering timbers will have an uneven weight distribution, biased towards its base. Putting the posts nearer the wall increases the size of the central area at the expense of the margins (or, technically, increases size of the nave at the expense of the aisles), but having read article 21, you’d spotted that.

There is a much more significant problem which has to be considered in modeling Neolithic buildings, and that is the shape of trees.

What ancient builders learnt from the god of gravity was that, if you want tall structures, you have to have wide foundations to spread the weight, hence pyramids. It was a problem that trees had solved over 200 million years earlier in the Triassic.

This is why trees taper. Light competition between trees ensures they grow straight upwards, which is good news for builders; but in order not be crushed under their own weight, they taper, which is bad news for builders.

The taper of the trunk will vary in different part of the tree and change with age, and may be best described as some form of mathematical curve. Modeling tree taper has always been of interest to those who work with trees, and has been approached from both theoretical and empirical perspectives, though the final word will undoubtedly go modern laser-controlled sawmills that now routinely record such data.

Given that building is based on the idea of things' being level, and assuming our posts are the same height, constructing a roof with a wall plate with a thick end and a thin end is going to present some problems [above]:

One end of the wall plate is higher than the other;
For ease of jointing, a thick end of the wall plate will require a post of similar diameter, as will the thin end;
In buildings longer than a single tree-length, how are tapering wall plates going to be joined?

In the theoretical model of Elsloo 32 longhouse, we will try to address these issues.

Theoretical Model: Elsloo Building 32

Like most buildings of this type, the structure is defined by five rows of postholes oriented roughly NW – SE, with a foundation trench for the vertical timbers of a stave wall at the NW end. The postholes in the three centre rows are generally deeper, with more complex double postholes at the SE end. Three postholes forming a prominent ‘Y’ at the centre of the building are a distinctive feature of this type of building. There are two wider spaces evident in the postholes of the wall, assumed to be doors.

Note that the posthole marking the south corner of the SE wall is markedly smaller than the one at the opposite end.
In the model, we place a (theoretical) post in the centre of each posthole with some regard to size, and the timbers in the bedding trench are illustrated as a continuous line of posts.

The first thing that is apparent is that ties running between the posts across the building would not intersect the internal posts, although some would be adjacent, indicating the viability of ties, the importance of which we have already noted. This may account for the odd angles of some of the ties and to some extent, the slight offset in the symmetry of the building. Ties shown at the NW end are speculative. Two of these ties project to create a side gable towards the middle of the SW side, which is how we will account for the ‘Y’ setting of posts.

This gable would be slightly wider at its base than those at the ends of the building; since it is supported by ties below the wall plate, and therefore starts at a lower point than the main roof.

One post of the NE side opposite the door has no pair, so could not have had a tie. This was puzzling, and indicates that perhaps not every post pair had a tie, but also set me off thinking about bracing. I noticed that, because the posts of the wall were fairly evenly spaced, it was possible to draw various diagonals between them across the building. If you draw a rough 53° diagonal between many of the sets of wall posts, it does not intersect the interior posts, but significantly, many of the diagonals will pass right next to an interior post. Timbers in this position would brace the building and effectively trap posts in the interior, greatly increasing the rigidity of the structure. [Shown in purple above]

This internal geometry is strong enough to indicate the presence of diagonal bracing at this angle, although whether every post had one, or even two, braces attached to its head is not clear. The geometry of one centre post is exceptional in this respect, in that two diagonals pass right through it [shown in green above], making a horizontal timber in this position unlikely. However, this relationship may reflect the nature of the building's initial setting out, perhaps indicating the use of 3:4:5 geometry in this process.

To simplify the model visually, bracing does not form part of the drawings from this point onwards, although, in reality, bracing would be required in all planes to make the structure rigid.

The wall plate would be placed above the ties, but from how many lengths of timber it would be formed is not clear. On the basis of the smaller posthole in the south corner, the model assumed this is at the ‘thin end’, while the opposite is true in the E corner.

There are perhaps two main probabilities about the length of the wall plate sections: Either there were two very long sections or three shorter ones.[12] How these long tapering timbers were ‘joined’ is also unclear. The model illustrates two possibilities using ‘long’ wall plates: either these timbers overlapped laterally at their ‘thin’ end, or they butted up against each other, which would be feasible under the side gable.

To be honest, I have not yet resolved this to my own satisfaction in this particular building, and to avoid overcomplicating the analysis, we will return to this issue in the next article.

The model illustrates a first floor at the SE end below the level of the ties, on the basis that the extra postholes are not very deep, and are not under the ties, indicating they support something else at a lower level. This being the case, the building is assumed to have a two-storey elevation, with an additional higher floor level supported by the ties in the roof space.

The two arcade plates with ties and the ridge-piece form the main roof structure. These timbers must have also have tapered and been 'joined', but this is not explored in the model.

[Click to enlarge]

The roof is formed by tapering timber rafters in pairs, each pair jointed at the top, which in itself creates some degree of offset, which may be reflected in the asymmetry in the wall posts and the ties between them. This suggests that the rafters may have been placed on either side of the ties.

There is a gable formed on the SW side of the building, with a pitched roof dormer shown on the opposite side of the ridge, utilising the ‘Y’ shaped post setting. The entrance next to the gable may have had its own pitched roof dormer, since the tie is missing here.

Upper floors are shown at both ends of the building, supported by the ties.

The final roof shape is a saddleback roof with a projecting gable on the SW side, The asymmetry of the ‘Y’ posts suggests that there is no corresponding feature on the NE side. However, as illustrated, it would be a good place to put a dormer, offering the possibility of a opening to create a through draught. The additional gable, and those at the ends of the building, provide opportunities for windows for light and ventilation.

The height of the side elevation is based on the need to create a functional floor level below the wall ties at the SE end. The ridge and arcade of the SW gable are not directly supported by posts, but by additional timber framing supported by the wall plate.

The position of two doors is shown, one as noted on the original plan, and a second possible door next to the stave wall at the NW end.

The model illustrates windows at two levels in the projecting gable to allow for light and ventilation of the open central section. I suspect that there may have been some form of dormer over the door, and perhaps a more complex roof or window arrangement associated with the floors at the SW end.

When viewed in section, the position of the post supporting the ridge piece is not central, but offset to the NE. However, (and this is important) this would balance up the building section; the thinner, lower end is further away from the ridge, and the higher end closer to it, which is how it should be to create a symmetrical roof pitch in this situation. This resolves the problem of tapering wall plates, at least in section; quite how this works in plan we will return to in the next post.

The elevation shows the door placed in the wider gap created by offsetting the post supporting the ridge; above this, both of the floors have windows.

Conclusions

While theoretical structural archaeology is primarily concerned with the detection and definition of structural forms, it could be argued that function is to some extent encoded in the structure's form. So I would like to look briefly at how the spaces defined by the model might have been used, and try to set them in the broader context of the later timber frame tradition of its descendents. I feel obliged at this point to restate one of the underlying principles of TSA: Architects create the space required by their society to protect people, activities, processes, livestock, and materials from the environment, using the building technology at their disposal, and while there may be cultural constraints, you don’t have to invent buildings.

It is quite clear that we dealing with three different elements in this building, and this tripartite division is a feature of many ancient and historic structures. It is very similar in layout to a medieval building, with [in medieval terminology] a central hall open to the roof, flanked on one side by a service area, and on the other by private quarters or a solar, with chambers above. A pair of cross passages separates these sections, though not necessarily open at both ends.

I would argue that the service end was at the NW of the structure, heavily built to protect intrusion by vermin and, perhaps, humans. It was a cool, dark, secure environment, as befits storage area. We know ovens were located outside houses, but other important food processing and preparation may be associated with this part of the building. The trenched construction would make drainage more difficult, an important feature if this area was to act as a byre, as was suggested by Sartin.

The open hall is the principle space in the building, probably public in nature, associated with social activities, as well as providing a large covered working space, but is unlikely to be the only living space.

The SE end, with its extra floor, could be the private quarters, referred to as a solar in medieval buildings. However, while there are there are no indications of animals' using this building, if it were a byre, having the sleeping quarters over it to benefit from the animals’ heat has a long tradition. In terms of its layout, the wider door and the two spaces on the NW side of the space would form an ideal byre with two stalls, eminently suitable for milking. The warm moist atmosphere typical of a cow byre is incompatible with having grain storage above.

The presence or absence of animals is, of course, significant for the interpretation of other buildings found in association with these large longhouses, in particular the type 2 & 3 structures. It would be unwise to assume all building were dwellings, and if animals and their feed and bedding were not kept in the main house, they must be have been kept somewhere during bad weather, and cows require somewhere for milking.

In this interpretation, people entering through the door at the SE end would pass either through the byre, or through the private part of the building, which is a little odd. In addition, in the European tradition most formal entrances to longhouses may be expected to be on the long side, a possible exception being more urbanised settings where buildings lie perpendicular to a street.

This suggests that the formal entrance was the SW side, leading into a passage, with the hall on the left and the byre/solar to the right. This passage is mirrored by a similar arrangement at the other end of the building. Some form of stairs would be required to reach the chambers and lofts, and the staircase would probably be positioned relative to the passage and doors, in either a transverse arrangement, or parallel and next to an outer wall.

Timber buildings are usually conceived of in ‘bays’, a unit of structural division marked by a main truss, or in this case, a tie. However, since the posts that define the outside wall are spaced at 4’ intervals, it is difficult to be too specific. The analysis above tentatively suggests that the structure could be viewed as 6½ bays, but because we have no posts at the NE end, where the half bay would be is unclear.

In structural terms, the three elements effectively join at the passages – marked by six postholes. It is here the roof timbers, and quite possibly those of the wall plate, probably meet.

In the theoretical modelling of building, we try not to make ‘primitive’ or ‘simplistic’ assumptions about the structure, since, working without modern engineering conceptions, builders would have over-designed. There is no need to assume that builders who were capable of conceiving of, and creating, a door, would be incapable of constructing windows or stairs. The likelihood that the processing of timber had not advanced sufficiently to produce regular timbers that could be ‘scarf ‘ jointed together did not stop builders creating buildings several tree lengths long.

There is a standard width for this type of building of this period, around 6-7m. Lengthening the structure was used to create size, suggesting a conservative building tradition. For reasons you should be familiar with by now, width is a more difficult to achieve than length, and in later articles we will look buildings in the later Neolithic and early Bronze Age where there is a marked increase in this dimension.

While the model leaves several issues unresolved, in particular how wall plates worked in plan, there is sufficient evidence at the SE end to indicate the structure was laid out to compensate for tree taper. Small variations in width in longhouse plans are often evident, often giving them a slightly trapezoidal appearance; this phenomenon is probably best explained as an adaptation to the taper in individual timbers.

In the next post we will consider different group of Neolithic buildings with an even more radical solution to the problem of building from trees.

Sources & Further Reading:

[1] P. Bogucki (1996), 'The Spread of Early Farming in Europe'. American Scientist, Vol. 84, No. 3, May-June, 1996.

[2] PJR Modderman (1970), 'Linearbandkeramik aus Elsloo und Stein 2.' Tafelband, Leiden Univ., Faculty of Archaeology.

PJR Modderman (1975), 'Elsloo, a Neolithic farming community in the Netherlands,' in Bruce-Mitford, R L S, Recent archaeological excavations in Europe, Chapter IX.

PJR Modderman (1985), D'ie Bandkeramik im Graetheidegebiet, Niederländisch-Limburg.' Berichte der Römisch- Germanischen Kommission, 66::25-121.

[3] S. Piggott (1973), Ancient Europe after pl III, p 51

[4] L. Keeley & D. Cahen (1989), 'Early Neolithic forts and villages in north-east Belgium'. Journal of Field Archaeology

[5] PJR Modderman (1958), 'Die Bandkeramische Siedlung von Sittard.' Palaeohistorica, 6.

[6] LPH Kamermans & IA Schute (1992), 'Geleen. Bandkeramische nederzetting, IJzertijd-sporen' …L Kooijmans, Archeologische kroniek van Limburg over, 1991

[7] A. Marshall (1981), 'Environmental Adaptation and Structural Design in Axially-Pitched Longhouses from Neolithic Europe.' World Archaeology, Vol. 13, No. 1, Miscellany (June, 1981), pp. 101-121.

[8] W. Startin (1978), 'Linear Pottery Culture Houses: Reconstruction and manpower.' PPS 44, 1, pp. 43-159.

[9]Picture from: http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:Erntemesser.jpg&filetimestamp=20060819075740 by http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Bullenw%C3%A4chter

32. Hadrian's Timber Wall

2009-07-26T18:54:00.083+01:00

Between Hadrian’s Wall and the ditch to north, archaeologists have found three lines of double postholes running parallel to the Wall, which may represent an early timber 'Wall', albeit temporary, comprising a box rampart and the ditch. This was almost certainly the largest structure timber ever built in this country, its full extent is not known for certain, but it was quite probably 117 km long, and would have required an estimated 2.5 million trees.

The evidence for these double postholes, often referred to as ‘cippi pits’, had been picked up in several excavations, and was compiled by Paul Bidwell of Tyne and Wear Museums (TWM) Archaeology, who were responsible for several of the excavations, [1]. His paper sought to set the evidence in the wider context of other Roman frontiers, and drew on Julius Caesar’s Account of the Gallic war, [De Bello Gallico],[2], particularly the siege of Alésia, in reaching his conclusion that these postholes represented ‘obstacles’ on the berm, probably sharpened wooden entanglements, similar to the ‘cippi’ referred to by Caesar. We shall return to these arguments, and Caesar, later, but it is clear that I consider term 'obstacles’ to be somewhat underselling this remarkable structure.

The Wall, ditch, and 'cippi' pits at Shields Road, Byker, Newcastle [4]

The Evidence
The evidence was admirably described by Paul Bidwell,[1], so it will not be covered in great detail, but it comes principally from excavations at Buddle St, Wallsend, [3] Shields Road Byker, [4], Throckley, [5], and also from Melbourne St, Newcastle,[6]. As a structural archaeologist working with postholes, (my) best practice is consider each site on its own merits, and my analysis is based primarily on the site at Buddle St, where there is clearly defined block of pits, [below].

The Excavation and plan of Buddle Street, Wallsend

The double post pits occur in 3 rows, the inner and outer rows are aligned parallel to the wall (E-W), and the central row perpendicular to it (N-S). The pits have been robbed, and appear enlarged by this process, particularly at Buddle St; at Shields Road they were more rectangular and better defined. In most cases the traces of a pair of post pipes are evident at either end of the pit, representing posts of 0.2 – 0.3m in diameter.

Archaeologists spend a surprising amount of time watching men digging holes in the road, it's often ‘routine’, but just occasionally it really pays off, and the watching brief on a trench being dug by Northumbrian Water in Throckley yielded further important evidence. The trench ran for 2.2 km along the berm,parallel to wall, giving a long, but very narrow, glimpse of the post pits, and proving they extend as far as Throckley.

In addition, it also produced a most important piece of evidence; as the pits approached the position of Turret 11b on the wall, they changed direction towards it. What is significant here, is that the ditch does the same thing, curving to towards the turret. This suggests that the post pits, ditch, and turrets are part of the same system, at least at this point. It has puzzled archaeologist why the ditch curved in towards the turrets creating a narrowing of the berm, a phenomenon observed in several places, [1], but this is explained if the rampart represented by the post pits ran between, but in front of, the turrets,along with the ditch, as a temporary expedient, while the stretches of stone walling linking the turrets on a more direct line were under construction.

The deviation of the Postpits and Ditch toward the turret Throckley.

The theoretical model; a Hadrianic box rampart.

A theoretical model is a best fit design which conjectures the position of the horizontal timber based on the known position of the posts, the logic inherent in the structure, and the context of its construction. The Model is based on the use of a 10’ timber baulk as a standard component, although the posts are in some cases twice this length. Clearly, a variety of different lengths could have been used, and lengths in the range 10’ –12’ can readily be accommodated in the structure, and of coarse shorter lengths can also be used. As the 10’ baulk appears to be inherent in the design, and would greatly simplify the logistics and foraging, the model is illustrated on this basis.

Basic interpretation and simple theoretical model of the structure at Buddle St.

Despite the denuded state of the individual post pits the structure at Buddle St is laid out with a significant degree of accuracy and regularity. Each pit is centred at 4’, in Roman feet, (Pes - 0.296m), with the entire structure being 10’ wide edge to edge. The overall geometry is heavily triangulated, which would facilitate bracing, and begins with an offset, suggesting that this was also an important aspect of the design to help avoid ‘racking’. The front and back face, and perhaps other aspects of the structure could be offset, and this is shown in the model.

Theoretical Model; horizontal module plan and general section/elevation

The basic structure works by placing N-S baulk between the outer opposing pairs of posts, which project to support the baulks forming the E-W facings. The baulks running up the middle between the central set of posts support the centre of the N-S baulks. Laid out this way, natural gaps appear to accommodate diagonal bracing baulks to strengthen the structure. The box rampart is built up in alternate layers of E-W and N-S baulks, presumably offset and braced as required.

Box ramparts were widely used, particularly in the bronze age, and they have been discussed in an earlier articles, in essence it is a massive log built cavity wall, filled with material from a ditch which was usually dug in front.

Log built walls are fairly easy for an attacker to scale, [left A], so some form of parapet would be added to prevent this, [left B]. The ditch is an obstacle to direct assault on the rampart face, and making it more difficult to scale with ladders, [left c]. The spoil, in addition to filling the structure, can be built up on the berm to form a continuous slope with the ditch known as a glacis, giving the attacker no firm or level position for the attack the rampart from, [left d]. The glacis material also strengthens and conceals the base of the rampart. Spoil may be added to the outer edge of the ditch, where it is known as a counterscarp.

Putting some form roofing over the structure protects the defender and the structure from missiles and the elements. Similar features, built on medieval fortifications, often overhanging, (although they seldom survive), are known as hoardings, or even hoards, [7] ,(hiding and protecting the defenders).

The model does not specify the distribution of spoil, but it must have gone somewhere, and filling the base of the rampart and creating a glacis is the most likely scenario, most excavations have found trace of a bank on this southern edge of the ditch, but its origin is unclear.

Theoretical model Construction Details

In the model, the top of the posts are tied together by horizontal bracing timbers and ties (N-S), jointed to the head of the post. Interestingly, the centre posts both align to only one of the outer posts leaving one post in each pair free to support a second set of braces and ties higher up the structure. The lower set is presumably the platform at the top of the rampart, and the higher supports a roof, or hoarding, or a second, higher gallery for defenders.

Building from logs necessitates little jointing, the baulks can be largely held in place by the weight of structure above, the gaps this creates between layers allows the use of wood that is not particularly straight. The basic model has a lot of space between the baulks, whether the facing is offset, [left A], or in blocks, [left B], these gaps can be filled with additional timbers, both N-S, [left c], and E-W, as well as further bracing in all planes.

One obvious variation is to have double thickness facing by placing baulks on both sides of the outer posts, [right]. The structure is very flexible and adaptable, the upper part can be lightly constructed, while the lower portion can be of much more massive, and part filled with spoil from the ditch, which can also be piled on the berm at the foot of the rampart to form a continuous glacis slope with the face of the ditch.

Timber logistics

"The line between disorder and order lies in logistics…” Sun Tzu The Art of War (c6th bce)
“Forget logistics, you lose"Lieutenant General Franks, 7th Corps Commander, Desert Storm [8]

The construction of the Hadrianic frontier, like any military operation, was foremost an exercise in logistics; in terms of the ‘Wall’, one obvious problem being the lack of existing sources of stone, aggregate, and lime, and the infrastructure necessary to exploit them, which would have contributed to the 6 years that it took to build it. The retreat from Southern Scotland, and the creation of the frontier in this form, suggests that the overriding concern in Northern England was ‘security’, without it, the job of constructing the wall would be much more difficult, thus creating a temporary defensible frontier could be seen as entirely logical, and almost a prerequisite. To be feasible, the project has to have realistic logistics, but since timber was the principle material used for the construction in the Iron Age, it should have been readily available, along with the roads and tracks, necessary to exploit it.

It is possible to estimate the quantity of timber required for the model, but what this represents, in terms of the area land needed to supply it, is dependent on 3 main factors;

1. The size of trees

2. The density of trees in woodland

3. The proportion of woodland in the countryside

As we have discussed before [9], the growth pattern of trees, in terms of size and density of woodland, can be modelled from standard forestry tables [10]. The amount woodland is not easily discerned for this period; however, Northern England was historically quite well forested, when a figure of 15% coverage was a rough average for the medieval countryside. Using this figure as a minimum, the model visualises from 15-50% woodland coverage in the area around the wall, in terms of the timber required to build it.

The model examines building the rampart from 10’ baulks taken from small, medium, and large trees; - you need fewer larger trees, but they grow in less dense woodland. The model assumes the use of timber in the round, rather than squared baulks split from larger timber. Each 4’ section of the basic model requires between 300’ and 470’ of timber, depending on thickness, which corresponds to about 20 – 47 trees, depending on their height; scaling this up into new money, each 100m stretch requires between 867 - 3953 trees, very roughly 3 ha worth.

What the model shows is that the larger more mature trees, [60 –80 year old oaks left], were the most efficient source of timber, with small younger trees being the least, despite growing more densely. As noted in earlier articles on this site, this is exactly the type of tree would have been grown for building in prehistory, [9].

A graphical representation of the timber required for the rampart, in terms of area of woodland

The model, though crude, and quite conservative, produces a reassuring answer; even with only 15% woodland cover, sufficient timber could probably be found within 1 km of the construction site. So even if we double the amount of timbers required, and then significantly increase its scarcity, the timber wall would appear logistically feasible, and quite doable - which is important.
Historical sources

Julius Caesar's Account of the Gallic War, is a must read far all archaeologists of the Iron Age, granted it's partial, biased, and in places, little short of Julian propaganda, but we don’t exactly have a plethora of first hand accounts of warfare in ‘Barbarian’ Europe to choose from. It tells the story of Caesar’s campaigns to subjugate Gaul between 58 – 51 bce, a quite extraordinary tale of total warfare Roman style.

One of the big set pieces at the climax of the war, and the book, is the siege of Alésia, a hillfort in France, where the Gaulish leader Vercongeterix, [below left] ,was holed up with most of his army. The Romans built a series of encircling siege works around the hillfort, including diverting rivers, then, in order to protect himself from any relieving forces, and the Gaulish cavalry, which had escaped, built a second set of defences to protect their siege works from attack from outside, [below [11]].

There is quite a detailed account of the building of these works, which is worth reproducing in full:

LXXII. Caesar, on learning these proceedings from the deserters and captives, adopted the following system of fortification; he dug a trench twenty feet deep, with perpendicular sides, in such a manner that the base of this trench should extend so far as the edges were apart at the top. He raised all his other works at a distance of four hundred feet from that ditch; [he did] that with this intention, lest (since he necessarily embraced so extensive an area, and the whole works could not be easily surrounded by a line of soldiers) a large number of the enemy should suddenly, or by night, sally against the fortifications; or lest they should by day cast weapons against our men while occupied with the works. Having left this interval, he drew two trenches fifteen feet broad, and of the same depth; the innermost of them, being in low and level ground, he filled with water conveyed from the river. Behind these he raised a rampart and wall twelve feet high: to this he added a parapet and battlements, with large stakes cut like stags' horns, projecting from the junction of the parapet and battlements, to prevent the enemy from scaling it, and surrounded the entire work with turrets, which were eighty feet distant from one another.

LXXIII.--It was necessary, at one and the same time, to procure timber [for the rampart], lay in supplies of corn, and raise also extensive fortifications, and the available troops were in consequence of this reduced in number, since they used to advance to some distance from the camp, and sometimes the Gauls endeavoured to attack our works, and to make a sally from the town by several gates and in great force. On which Caesar thought that further additions should be made to these works, in order that the fortifications might be defensible by a small number of soldiers.
Having, therefore, cut down the trunks of trees or very thick branches, and having stripped their tops of the bark, and sharpened them into a point, he drew a continued trench everywhere five feet deep.
These stakes being sunk into this trench, and fastened firmly at the bottom, to prevent the possibility of their being torn up, had their branches only projecting from the ground. There were five rows in connection with, and intersecting each other; and whoever entered within them were likely to impale themselves on very sharp stakes. The soldiers called these cippi.

Before these, which were arranged in oblique rows in the form of a quincunx, pits three feet deep were dug, which gradually diminished in depth to the bottom. In these pits tapering stakes, of the thickness of a man's thigh, sharpened at the top and hardened in the fire, were sunk in such a manner as to project from the ground not more than four inches; at the same time for the purpose of giving them strength and stability, they were each filled with trampled clay to the height of one foot from the bottom: the rest of the pit was covered over with osiers and twigs, to conceal the deceit.
Eight rows of this kind were dug, and were three feet distant from each other They called this a lily from its resemblance to that flower.
Stakes a foot long, with iron hooks attached to them, were entirely sunk in the ground before these, and were planted in every place at small intervals; these they called spurs.

De Bello Gallico LXXII - LXXIII

The term ‘cippi’ seems to apply to a trench filled with branches, and trunks with branches still attached, and then backfilled, presumably, wood remaining after the straight lengths of trunk had been used in the main defences. It is placed at a distance from the rampart so that the archers would be able to engage the enemy as they dealt with the entanglement, in addition, once this had been breached, the defenders could concentrate their fire on the breach.

It appears to me, that the term ‘cippi’ in this context is a bit of soldierly gallows humour Caesar is sharing with his readers. A cippi is a marker, a post, often marking a grave, [12], "so that the men call them cippi" – effectively ‘gravestones’, and can be seen in the same light as the expressions ‘lilies’ to describe the for tapering pits, shaped like the flower of a lily, with a sharpened stake at the bottom, and the use of ‘spurs’ for the iron hooks designed to catch peoples feet. As Paul Bidwell noted the expressions only appear in this context and nowhere else.

There is another interesting passage about fort building from earlier in the campaign;

IX … … … … He ordered his camp to be fortified with a rampart twelve feet high, with breast-works built on it proportioned to its height; and two trenches, each fifteen feet broad, with perpendicular sides to be sunk: likewise several turrets, three stories high, to be raised, with a communication to each other by galleries laid across and covered over; which should be guarded in front by small parapets of osiers; that the enemy might be repulsed by two rows of soldiers. [osiers are small branches , like willow]

The one of whom, being more secure from danger by their height, might throw their darts with more daring and to a greater distance; the other, which was nearer the enemy, being stationed on the rampart, would be protected by their galleries from darts falling on their heads. At the entrance he erected gates and turrets of a considerable height.

De Bello Gallico IX

This passage emphasises the importance of height, and the advantages of having more than one fighting platform, to concentrate firepower at the point of attack, as well as demonstrating the practice of protecting defenders from aerial bombardment. These structures were probably defencible from both sides.

Another important source of information on Roman military engineering is Trajan’s column in Rome, which depicts his two victorious campaigns against Dacians, (101/2 &105/6 ce), [above left]. One scene shows a ballista set on a structure made from layers of logs laid at right angles to each other, while another shows legionaries cutting and extracting timber baulks.

The Obstacle theory

Paul Bidwell’s theory that these post pits once held pointed pieces of wood is much easier to draw than to realise, and has several disadvantages as an explanation.

Generally, trees are grown to be straight, in conditions which discourage branching; in prehistory most postholes are 0.20-0.40m diameter, suggesting, if oak was used, trees were harvested at c. 50- 80 years. Close spaced groups of branches, may occur at the crown, [9], which is generally thrown away, however for the crown of a tree to be 0.20 –0.40m in diameter, the basal diameter would have to be quite significant greater, certainly larger than those that are represented in postholes of the period.

Another objection is practicality; once this entanglement was in place, how was it maintained?

It would rapidly become overgrown with weeds, and soon start to develop the characteristics of a hedge, and would end up providing cover for attackers.

An artists impression of the 'cippi' style wooden entanglements curving towards the turret at at Throckley , [13].

My third objection is on grounds of strategy; entanglements are designed to slow down attackers, and concentrate them into a field of fire in a battlefield context. As Caesar described, obstacles can be overcome by counter measures, (except by cavalry, which is unlikely to be attacking a wall). The most practical method of attacking a wall is with scaling ladders, which is one of the principle reasons for having a ditch(es), which is why the position of the Hadrian’s Wall Ditch is so odd, too far from the wall to be effective, especially with its normal, expected position, apparently usurped by a wooden entanglement.

The Buddle Street road mystery.

One of the most puzzling aspects of the Buddle St plan is that rampart starts on the east of the site, but is missing from the centre and west of the site, which is covered by a motley collection of postholes and other features. While I do not intend to pursue this idea very far, an obvious explanation occurs that explains most of the postholes to some degree, Which is what we do here!

An interpretive plan of the archaeology at Buddle St, Wallsend

There are a series of ditches and gullies, crossing the site roughly N-S, but about 85° to the line of the wall, the spacing of these gullies about 90-100’ [pes] apart with a central pair about 40’ apart, together with some areas of possible surfacing, is suggestive of a Roman road crossing the site. This being the case, then the road would have lead to the facilities on the riverbank prior to the construction of the wall, running north along the east side of Wallsend Golf Course, where its line may have been preserved in the landscape.

Sketch plan of the possible tower at Buddle Street

When the timber phase was constructed, the road was still in place, and the rampart starts from edge of the central carriageway. To the west is a series of postholes, mostly aligned on the road, but while respecting the line of back of the Timber Rampart. My initial interpretation of these features is that they represent a gateway structure constructed across the central carriageway with a tower and further barrier extending to the ditch at the west edge of the road. This ditch may have been re-cut, 4’ to the west at this stage, the ditch to the east appears to have been diverted through the timber wall, also moving it to the west by about 4’. The structures built across the road are quite complex, and very probably ad hoc, and require more detailed study in their own rite, and are on the long list for further study.

The approximate position of the possible road crossing the Buddle St site

If the road was still in use, and required a gateway, then the ditch must also had a gap in it at this point, and this may be reflected in the differing profile of the ditch at this point. By the time the wall was built here, the road would have been realigned on the Segudunum Fort just to the east.

Theoretical Structural Archaeology

Postholes, although often little regarded, are the key to understanding much of the archaeological built environment, and it’s best not to ignore them, or explain them away – they may be filled voids now, but they are called postholes because they once held posts, and therein lies their utility – as Lao Tzu might have said.

It is important to stress that as a researcher specializing in postholes, I am not necessarily that concerned with the broader implications of this, or any other, of my theoretical models. Evidence for posts can occur in a variety of periods and contexts, and I am in reality no more a Roman specialist than someone studying the carbonised remained of wood would be. I study the commonest of all features, postholes, and the structures they represent, which is not even regarded as a specialist subject, and I am probably the only archaeologist in the country studying these features from a structural as opposed to a structuralist perspective.

As the first of the case studies articles, it’s a bit of a showcase study, something of a loss leader, since it is structurally very simple compared with some of the topics we shall be covering in later articles; a Bronze Age box rampart does much the same thing but with half as many posts, making it more complex to model, but compared to a large span roofs, ramparts are simple to understand.

However, it does demonstrate the importance of what I shall refer to as internal geometry in the study of structures, [13], since much of the form is encoded and governed by the geometry inherent in the ground plan; obviously, projecting a plan into a three dimensional structure is the tricky bit. In this instance I built a model using matchsticks at 1:100 scale, a technique ideally suited to testing the theory and design of this type of structure.

Regular readers won’t find the nature of this article surprising, but new ones may consider it inappropriate that I should choose to ‘publish’ in this way, and not in recognized journal like Britannia; in my defence, I have quite literally begged Newcastle University for help with this research, but their initial enthusiasm waned, when they realized I just cannot afford their help right now.

Because, as an individual, I do not inherently attract any state or other funding, my research is of no value to the academic system, and it is literally, if not actually, worthless, or vica versa. Thus, Theoretical Structural Archaeology is a dangerous place where the reader has to make up their own mind about the content, without the reassurance of their peers’ prior approval. I have little option but this method of dissemination for my research, especially, since these articles lag at least 2 years behind the actual research I was doing for a PhD, so I am running to catch up with myself.

I judge that I now have sufficient readership to make it worth putting Hadrian’s timber wall out there where it might do some good, especially since the XXI International Limes Congress (Roman Frontiers), [15] , is being hosted here in North-East England, so spread the word, this is really quite an exciting discovery.

Conclusions

The construction of the Hadrian’s Wall begun in 122ce was certainly one of the more visible episodes in the Roman occupation, and a significant achievement, whose shear physical presence could easily obscure the more transitory aspects of frontier. The discoveryof the presence of the timber wall, though entirely logical, feasible, and consistent with the evidence, represents quite a big and surprising shift in the visual culture of the Roman Wall.

The model suggested for Buddle street works reasonable well for the other sites, but given the flexibility inherent in the design, and the need to adapt the structure to changes in slope, features such as streams, and differing ground conditions, combined with likelihood of towers, stairs, sally ports, and other ancillary features, we cannot be too prescriptive about the model, or its application. The detail of its construction, its height, number of galleries, disposition of towers was probably quite variable, and cannot be known with any degree of certainty.

I consider the general feasibility of a timber faced box ramparts built predominantly in alternating, and probably overlapping, layers of standard baulks to be proven as a good match for the evidence. The timber requirements are not excessive, materials for flooring, roofing, parapets, etc, would have come from the smaller trees of the woodland under story like hazel. In the context of establishing a secure military corridor across northern Britain, one would envisage the clearance of a wide strip of land, with a road, and defendable boundaries of both sides; several hundred feet to south of the Timber rampart, was the ditch and earth rampart system known as the Vallum. This defendable military corridor would help protect the workforce, materials, supplies, grazing animals, and stock, from the potentially hostile native population, whose former territory was being effectively split into two zones.

While the context of Caesar’s siege of Alésia was quite different, and the distinction between defender and attacker almost irrelevant, the military response was in many ways similar, in that a secure perimeter was established using ditch digging and rampart building to allow the main strategy to develop. The real skill in military engineering lies more in placement of defenses than in their actual building, which is usually simply a matter of logistics. Caesar claims that the first 18km was built in 3 weeks, he then had to do the same thing again, adding an addition 21km of contravallation.

How long would it take it build a rampart 117 km long? - about 20 weeks using Caesar's army - but of course it’s just not that simple, however, the Roman army were good at this sort of thing, it’s what they did for a living, and to some extent their lives depended on it, and creating a 117 km corridor was probably achievable within a year, especially since with static defensive structures, it’s all or nothing, you can’t have gaps, as the French learnt in 1939.

It is easy for the eye to drawn to the use of stone in Roman archaeology, but it must be remembered that virtually all military structures in Britain would have been initially built in timber, the fort at Vindolanda, where the evidence survives, had five timber phases,[16], before stone was used. Timber is quick, practical, available, and everybody can join in, since it requires very basic skills to construct this type of rampart. When the Rampart was dismantled it may have generated an estimated 5 million baulks, 10’ or so in length, so keep a lookout for those turning up in Roman structures of the period.

The existing ideas revolving around ’cippi pits’, seem to be derived from a very old joke lost in translation, but if we regard these post pits as foundations for a Timber rampart, other things fall into place; the width of the berm, and its apparent narrowing at the turrets, is explained by regarding the turrets, timber rampart, and ditch, as part of the same initial construction phase, built arround 122 ce, which, since it respects the ultimate line of the stone Wall, was clearly a temporary expedient from the outset.

When, after the probable six years or so, the Wall was complete, the timber wall, probably one of the largest wooden structures ever created, was dismantled, probably section by section, as the wall was completed; its timbers almost certainly recycled into the dozens of new forts, and, into the new stone wall, - it should not be forgotten, that without addition timber works, a simple wall and parapet, while impressive, was not a particularly defendable structure, (especially when your ditch is so far away).

So this enormous structure disappeared leaving only postholes, which, as so often happens, could have been easily overlooked, which would have been a shame, and rather a waste of about 2.5 million trees.

Sources and further reading
[1] Bidwell, P T, 2005 'The system of obstacles on Hadrian's Wall; their extent, date and purpose', Arbeia J, 8, 53-76.
http://www.arbeiasociety.org.uk/journal.htm
[2] Caius Julius Caesar "De Bello Gallico" and Other Commentaries
English translation by W. A. MACDEVITT, introduction by THOMAS DE QUINCEY (1915) http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/10657
[3] Bidwell, Paul T.; Watson, Moira. 1989 'A Trial Excavation on Hadrian's Wall at Buddle Street, Wallsend'. Archaeologia Aeliana, 5th ser., 17 (1989), 21-28.,
[4]Grey literature: Shields Road, Newcastle, Phase 2b, archaeological excavation. TWM archaeology 10/2006
[5] T. Frain, J. McKelvey & P. Bidwell 2005 Excavations and watching brief along the berm of Hadrian’s Wall at Throckley, Newcastle upon Tyne, in 2001-2002. Arbeia J, 8
[6] Grey literature; Throckley, Newcastle upon Tyne, archaeological excavation and watching brief. TWM archaeology 12/2003
Grey literature: Newcastle, Melbourne Street, Archaeological excavations. Archaeological services, University of Durham.
http://csweb.bournemouth.ac.uk/aip/gaz2004/ene.pdf
[7] http://www.pitt.edu/~medart/menuglossary/INDEX.HTM
[8] http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/132
http://www.military-quotes.com/forum/logistics-quotes-t511.html
[9] See; http://structuralarchaeology.blogspot.com/2009/01/17-not-seeing-wood-or-trees.html
& http://structuralarchaeology.blogspot.com/2009/02/22-iron-age-graphs-important-discovery.html
[10] James. 1989, Forester's Companion -Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0631108114
[11] After; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SiegeAlesia.png
[12] Cip´pus n. 1. A small, low pillar, square or round, commonly having an inscription, used by the ancients for various purposes, as for indicating the distances of places, for a landmark, for sepulchral inscriptions, etc.
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, published 1913 by C. & G. Merriam Co.
[13] After Fig 15 p73 Bidwell, P T, 2005 'The system of obstacles on Hadrian's Wall; their extent, date and purpose', Arbeia J, 8, 53-76.
[14] See Also: Carter, G. A. 1998: Excavations at the Orsett ‘Cock’ enclosure, Essex, 1976. East Anglian Archaeology Report No 86.
[15] http://www.twmuseums.org.uk/archaeology/conferencesandevents.html
[16] Burley R 2009, Vindolanda A Roman fort on Hadrians Wall. Amberley ISBN978-1-84868-210-8

31. Primitive Rituals

2009-07-05T11:42:00.054+01:00

I hope you read article no. 30. That’s where I let slip that ‘timber circles’ were buildings, some roundhouses were multi-storey, and Hadrian had a timber wall for while -- so you know I’m not here for the beer. But I wish we both down the pub; we could have a chat about all this, a dialogue where we could respond to each other. It would be good: I like you a lot already; you have had the good sense, taste, and intellectual interest to invest your hard won browsing time in reading this blog.

Speaking of beer, back in some golden summer of British archaeology, before the invention of health and safety, when the only unit of alcohol of note was a pint, muddy people would sit in pubs and have conversations about what they had just dug up, and what it all meant. If it was not obvious, at some point someone would say “it must be ritual then,” and we would all laugh, and then someone would be sent for to the bar for some more inspiration.

Thirty years on, and the professor will throw you out of their lecture if you laugh when they tell you that postholes are “ritual”.

The idea that postholes could be ritual was funny, but now is very important, since it is to ascribe a function and purpose to them so vague, but yet potentially significant, that a whole new type of theoretical archaeology can float its boat on a vast sea of possibilities. This area is wonderfully rich in uncertainty and doubt, and in this new (post-processional) archaeology, avowedly not based on ‘common sense’ or anything that may have constituted a ‘traditional’ approach, ethno-archaeology is a sort of force multiplier for any argument: "This could be true because other cultures do this way." [see Glossary below]

British archaeology developed in the days of empire, when it was somehow appropriate that the archaeologists of the world’s dominant imperial nation should study the remains other great imperial civilisations. It is only natural that we should identify with cultures like the Romans; after all we brought civilisation to backward primitive peoples, much as they had done. Our own unimpressive native archaeology was not really appropriate for a nation of our status, and it became natural see it in terms of the other primitive cultures like tribal Africa: after all, they had the same shaped buildings. Thus it was that archaeologist started to view contemporary tribal Africa as some form of analogue for British prehistory, and the ethnographers and ethno-archaeologists moved in.

As a result, structures built for a different environment, by different cultures with different raw materials, were shoe-horned into a one-size fits all model of the Bronze Age/Iron Age roundhouse. Once this had been realised physically, and since seeing is believing, despite it's being impractical and dysfunctional, this rustic gazebo was established as the one and only possible model of reality.

An experimental archaeologist built a construct, then theoretical archaeologists explained the symbolism of this space and what it tells us about the cosmology of its 'builders' and 'occupants'. Archaeology has been stuck in this logical and visual feedback loop for some time now.

Since this quasi-African mud hut is seen as the pinnacle of prehistoric building, there is no need to consider the subject further. Pre-Roman people were simply too primitive to have architecture or complex buildings of any scale. Archaeologists have anthropomorphised their own structural illiteracy and projected it onto the past.

As a result of decades of theory, and the characterisation of the evidence for the built environment as ‘ritual’,and primitive, archaeology is becoming increasingly like some form of religion, with its own vocabulary, peer-reviewed cosmology, and reasoning, increasing divorced from what passes for rational thought for the rest of us. Academic archaeologists are losing the ability to interpret the evidence, deconstruct each other's arguments, or relate to civilians. ‘Timber circles’ can be ritual structures without ever really defining what rituals are involved. Whether we are talking about outbreaks of Early Bronze Age mummers and morris men doing mass maypole dancing, or figures in diaphanous white robes waving artifacts at the sky, can be left to the imagination of the reader.

Almost nothing is unparalleled in Ethnography

My primary experience of archaeology is through a trowel. I appreciate the subtlety and difficulty of separating the physical layers of the past. Theoretical structural archaeology is all very boring and back to basics; it’s prosaic, grounded, and has an underlying common sense approach. It seeks to set the evidence of prehistoric building in the context of local materials and conditions, seeing these structures as antecedents of the historical built environment. However, I was lucky; just when I was called up to interpret the evidence for ancient archaeological structures, I found myself sharing an office with people who were experts on the ancient timber buildings of the area and others who understood trees and woodland; county councils were interesting places to work. It’s largely down to the extraordinary kindness and patience of people like the late Mike Wadhams, that I managed to grasp something of the nature of timber structures, and that you are reading this.

Back to you and I having a chat down the pub: since there is nobody to argue for the other side, it's going to be a bit one sided, so I am going to introduce you to my imaginary friend, who holds opposite, but entirely typical, views; a modern academic archaeologist, a sort of composite nemesis, a bogus bête noire, a fantasy adversary: meet Dr Gary Barking-Overrun.

Dr Gary Barking-Overrun

I would like to introduce you to a fictitious friend of mine, Dr Barking-Overrun of Tyneside University. Gary is a senior lecturer at the School of Archaeology, Classics, and Historical studies. He specialises in the archaeology of death, identity, and ritual in Neolithic and early Bronze Age Britain. His research includes cosmology, self-identity, and belief in prehistoric Europe, in particular social reproduction through mortuary practices and ritual spaces. He also has a long term interest in the symbolism of animal ornament on Anglo-Saxon pottery in Cambridgeshire.

His most recent book, Avon River of Death, is an exploration of the ritual landscape of Salisbury Plain, and central symbolism of the River Avon in the landscape, connecting its material and spiritual aspects with its occupants, a relationship that is perpetuated through a praxis of mythmaking and ritual, and through the experience and the reciprocal symbolism of sacred spaces, in which the beliefs and cosmology of living are shared with those of the ancestors, in creating a collective sense of space and elemental belonging.

Dialectics

When people see some things as beautiful,

other things become ugly.

When people see some things as good,

other things become bad.

Being and non-being create each other.

Difficult and easy support each other.

Long and short define each other.

High and low depend on each other.

Before and after follow each other

Therefore . .

Extract from Chapter II, Tao te ching, Lao-Tzu, c. C6th – C4th bce[1]

The word dialectic, in its early Socratic/Platonic sense, comes from a form of written philosophical discourse between two people, the master and the pupil, for example, allowing the author to deal with objections and opposing points of view. Obviously it’s a fix; the writer is bound to win the argument, and the philosophical patsy will fall into the traps, and will eventually have to concede all the main points.

Since you already have the 45,000 words in this blog to get where I am coming from, I am not concerned with countering arguments, or promoting my own way of thinking, what I'm trying to depict is a particular way of thinking about the evidence. I am trying to be reasonably fair, and every opinion that Gary holds represents views expressed by academics to me, in many cases repeating ideas and conclusions of prominent academics that have become the ‘prevailing’ view.

Academic archaeology does not ‘think’ anything en masse, but there are certain trends in thinking that are at the opposite end of a spectrum from my own on the issue of postholes. As it would be unreasonable to expect you go away and spend a couple of years catching up on the latest in archaeological thinking, and besides, when it comes to built environment, we have established that much of the accepted wisdom is erroneous. I am going to try to give an impression of the way some prehistorians think and argue, using a very old fashioned method.

The Prologue
Picture a pub in northern England on a late summer's day. It’s raining, which is why we are in the pub. To put this imagined dialog into its proper social perspective, Gary is younger than me, and he is a well-paid, respected, academic archaeologist. I am none of the above, and a student. In terms of my responses, sometimes exactly where I should position my tongue, relative to cheeks and teeth, etc., is problematic. Also, I cannot deploy any technical arguments because, like many archaeologists, he is from an ‘arts’ background, and arguments concerning gravity, mechanics, and the basics of structures [2], could go over his head, which would be awkward.

Act 1 Scene I
Dr B-O, ”So what is this research about?”

GC, “I study buildings and structures represented by postholes; it’s what we used to call structural archaeology."

Dr B-O, ”You can’t call it ‘structural archaeology’ – that will only confuse people. Structural archaeology is the application of structuralism to archaeology.”

GC, “Isn’t that ‘structuralist’ archaeology?“

Dr B-O. ”No.”

GC, “Well, it’s about how to find, and understand, prehistoric buildings from postholes evidence.“

Dr B-O, ”So, it’s about roundhouses then?”

GC, “It’s actually about understanding those postholes, usually the majority, that are not roundhouses, that are usually ignored. But obviously I will have to cover roundhouses, which I think are widely misunderstood."

Dr B-O, ”On the contrary, I think we are being to understand roundhouses now.”

GC, “What? Have I missed a meeting?"

Dr B-O, “We know the entrances are aligned on the east or south-east for cosmological reasons, related to the position of the sun.”

GC, “My farmhouse at 800 feet still faces east. So it’s not the prevailing west or south-west wind then?”

Dr B-O, ”No, not in the Iron Age. It’s clear that they are laid out in relation to the passage of the sun during the day, which illuminates different parts of the interior, dictating the activities, and the essential symbolism of each part of the house, linking it to the wider cycles of time, the year and life. The interior is clearly symbolic of a wider cosmology. They are similar to yurts in this respect.”

GC, “But yurts are Mongolian tents - and I think these buildings had windows."

Dr B-O, "There is no evidence for that; are you really suggesting prehistoric buildings had windows?”

GC, “Yes, and stairs.“

Dr B-O, "Stairs? Why not ladders?”

GC, “Old people and children can’t climb ladders."

Dr B-O, "You would have to find some pretty good parallels for that, and I don’t think roundhouses have stairs in Africa. ”

GC, “I don’t do ethnographic parallels – I like to think of prehistoric architecture as the antecedents of medieval buildings – which would undoubtedly be very different if bamboo rather than oak was native to this island."

Dr B-O, "But Iron age buildings are round; medieval building are rectilinear. And the fact remains that most our advances in interpretation have come through ethnography. Understanding the burial practices in Madagascar led to the realisation that Stonehenge represented a structure to do with death and the ancestors, while wooden henges like Woodhenge are symbolic of life and associated with things like autumn feasting. That's the latest thinking - it' s all covered in my book ”

GC, “Oh! - Stone is symbolic of death in Madagascar therefore stone circles are associated with death and therefore timber circles are associated with life, Q, E, D -- that argument. Well, what about south-east England? They have got no stone. Or parts of Scotland where there is no wood? And besides timber circles are buildings.”

Dr B-O, ”That old chestnut! I think you’ll find most people accept that they are ritual structures.”

GC, “Free standing circles of posts where people met outside - for ritual feasting – in the autumn – in England?"

Dr B-O, "That is hardly a valid argument! The building ideas have been looked at. They are too big to be roofed, and if they were, it would have left a huge drip gully and there is no evidence for that; they are ritual.”

GC, “You clearly using different rainfall figures for water runoff calculations from me, and what about structures in Ireland like Navan Fort, that was built 2000 years later. You can’t say that is ritual.“

Dr B-O, "They are probably a later reinvention of tradition, kept alive by mythology and storytelling.”

GC, “You can’t recite a building; you need an architect and builders. Clearly, I think prehistoric architects were more competent, and their buildings more complex, than you imagine.”

Dr B-O, "We will just have to agree to disagree then, but I don’t think people are willing to believe they are not ritual. Perhaps symbolic of buildings, and I think that if you are going to postulate the existence of prehistoric architects, you going to find some pretty good ethnographic parallels. Have you looked what do they do in Africa?"

GC, “No, the existence of an architect is implicit in the nature of the architecture. Experimental archaeologists miss out on the design and setting-out stages of the building process. They take the plan as a given. Who do you imagine builds the houses of elite?”

Dr B-O, “There is surprisingly little social differentiation in terms of size, or much variation in function in roundhouses.”

GC, “That may be true of reconstructions -- but it does not apply to the evidence, and built environments usually comprise more than one building; I have found round and rectilinear structures together at Springfield Lyons.”

Dr B-O, “That sounds highly unlikely! Why would you have round and square buildings on the same site?”

GC, “ Why not? They are not mutually exclusive forms. They have this type of structure on the continent, just across the channel. Remarkably, I think the rectangular buildings are part of the structure of the fort.”

Dr B-O, “The site is a probably a farm, albeit high status and defended, perhaps with ritual uses. In terms of distribution of finds, the area around the entrance is very clean, which contrasts with the rear of the site, suggesting some formal arrangement and zoning of the space.”

GC “A farm! It's got a ditch, box rampart, and more military metalworking debris than anywhere else in the country, and the only reason the open area is ‘clean’ in terms of finds is because there are no features there! But interestingly, I think one, the rectangular building at the rear, has a smoke bay and is associated with weapons manufacture.”

Dr B-O, “But a lot of the metalworking debris at Springfield Lyons comes from the ditch terminals near the entrance, spatially outside the enclosure, suggesting the swords and another weapons were brought to the site in their moulds, which were then broken and ritually thrown in the ditch in some form of structured deposition, while the sword or other artefact was ceremonially passed inside the enclosure to the elite occupant.”

GC, “What unfinished! It's in the ditch because you don’t want metalworking debris lying around. It’s toxic; heavy metals that sort of thing, so you take it out of the gate and hoy it in the ditch, simple. This is a fort, there are no suitable hills in Essex, and you need competent architects or builders to create defensive structures. It is like a metalworking -- it’s a key technology in a military society."

Dr B-O, “You are making a lot of assumptions about the role of weapons. Many were probably made as ritual odjects for deposition and display. And hillforts may not simply be defensive in a military sense; they may have great significance in protecting the occupants from perceived spiritual dangers and supernatural forces.”

GC, “Mmm . . . “Act 1 Scene II
Several hours later. It’s still raining . . .

Dr B-O, “. . . the Ibo for example, err ethno-archae-Oh bugger! I ‘ve got a train to catch.”

GC, “Quite frawnkly, I don’t give a ‘king Matabele gumbo bead for ethnograwical parodies – You can hoy the lot in the ‘king great grey-green, greasy Limpopo River. It’s got absolutely buggerall to do with postholes.”

Dr B-O, "Calm down, we only making up ‘king stories about the past – who gives a Nuns. . . . What time is it?”

GC, “Wednesday. So d’you see the match?"

Dr B-O, “Yeah, ‘king terrible! Time for a short?”

... and there we must draw a veil over proceedings, and leave our little reverie and return to what passes for reality.

Epilogue

Academic archaeologists are top people, well read in the literature of their own field. It is not their fault that field archaeologists don’t understand and interpret the majority of the postholes that they find. Similarly, it not the field archaeologists' fault that academic archaeologists have not seen fit to direct research into solving this problem. Academic literature is quite a closed box. You can be the leading expert on ‘roundhouses,’ for example, having read all the reports, and synthesised the material, and despite this level of literacy, still be ‘structurally illiterate’, largely because British prehistory identifies buildings predominantly on shape, and their similarity to the shape of other structures identified on other sites.

Ritual?

It is little short of breathtaking naivety that links buildings of similar shape, and not unlike Eric Von Däniken et al linking all the pyramids. All circular structures are not somehow globally-related at some deep symbolic level, any more than rectangular structures are.
You can legitimately apply social and architectural theory to a built environment that you understand and can set in some wider context, but apply them to the constructs of experimental archaeologists and artistic representation of the same thing, and you are asking for trouble. It’s academic feng shui.

In memoriam

For those who like a little mysterious miasma to shroud their vision of the past, and crave a deeper symbolic meaning in archaeological features, consider this:

The thousands of young oak trees that gave their lives prematurely, have a right to be recognised as architecture, and not simply mythologized as ritual, so that proper respect to be paid to the thousands of postholes that mark their graves.

Glossary of Terms

Dialectics: the art or practice of arriving at the truth by the exchange of logical arguments http://www.answers.com/topic/dialectic

Structuralism: A method of analysing phenomena; chiefly characterized by contrasting the elemental structures of the phenomena in a system of binary opposition; [e.g. sacred: profane, dirty: clean]. http://www.answers.com/topic/structuralism

Ethno-archaeology: A branch of archaeology that uses data from the study of contemporary cultures to inform the examination and interpretation of the archaeological record. http://www.answers.com/topic/ethnoarchaeology-1

Ritual: [adjective]. Associated with or performed according to a rite or ritual; Being part of an established routine. [From Latin rītuālis, of rites, from rītus, rite.] http://www.answers.com/topic/ritual

Post-processional archaeology: I don’t think anybody is quite sure about this, but it covers most new ideas about archaeology in the last 30 years that are different than ideas developed in the previous 30 years. http://www.answers.com/topic/post-processual-archaeology-1

Sources and further reading:

Cartoons by B.Kliban from: The Biggest Tongue in Tunisia and other drawings. Penguin 1986. ISBN0140072209; &

Never Eat anything bigger than your head,& other drawings. Eyre Methuin ISBN 041339118. More on the cartoonist B Kliban : http://www.pbase.com/csw62/kliban & http://lambiek.net/artists/k/kliban.htm

Photographs from Spike Milligan. Transports of delight. Penguin ISBN 0140040560

[1] http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/core9/phalsall/texts/taote-v3.html
From a translation by S. Mitchell
Graphic based on; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tao-te-ching.png
[2] See post 19 & onwards http://structuralarchaeology.blogspot.com/2009/01/19-proper-study-of-mankind-is-postholes.html

Special thanks to University of Tyneside . Book Cover brought to you by UTP

When on Google Earth 63

2009-07-03T01:27:00.012+01:00

Welcome to When on Google Earth is at Theoretical Structural archaeology for the first time in July, I guessed Heather's knotty WOGE 62 as Gordion in Turkey, I know I am meant to be cooking up something exciting to do with postholes, but its not quite done yet, so while away fixing that, this is something for you to identify, have fun:

Clue 2

. Clue 3

The Rules of When on Google Earth are as follows:
Q: What is When on Google Earth?
A: It’s a game for archaeologists, or anybody else willing to have a go!

Q: How do you play it?
A: Simple, you try to identify the site in the picture.

Q: Who wins?
A: The first person to correctly identify the site, including its major period of occupation, wins the game!

Q: What does the winner get?
A: The winner gets bragging rights and the chance to host the next When on Google Earth on his/her own blog!

WOGE on facebook:
When on Google Earth has its own Facebook group.

When on Google Earth 59

2009-06-27T23:56:00.020+01:00

As the winner of Jaime's awesome WOGE58 , Theroretical Structural Archaeology is proud to present WOGE59.But, I may have give up WOGE for a while, (again); I have been distracted from my task of fighting for the right of the thousands of young oak trees, that gave their lives prematurely, to be recognised as architecture, and not simply mythologized as 'ritual', so that proper respect to be paid to the thousands of postholes that mark their graves.

However, while I am away doing that, you can identifie this, something round that nobody has yet connected to roundhouses or Stonehenge.

Good luck.

WOGE59 -Firouzabad or Firuzabad, an amazing sight, spotted by Nathan

The Rules of When on Google Earth are as follows:

Q: What is When on Google Earth?
A: It’s a game for archaeologists, or anybody else willing to have a go!
Q: How do you play it?
A: Simple, you try to identify the site in the picture.

Q: Who wins?
A: The first person to correctly identify the site, including its major period of occupation, wins the game.

Q: What does the winner get?
A: The winner gets bragging rights and the chance to host the next When on Google Earth on his/her own blog!

WOGE on facebook

When on Google Earth has has its own Facebook group.

Previous Winners

#	Host:	Victor:	Site:	Period:
1	Shawn Graham	Chuck Jones	Takht-i Jamshid / Persepolis terrace, Iran	Achaemenid period
2	Chuck Jones	PDD	Church of Saint Simeon at Qalat Siman, Syria	5th-6th c. CE
2.1	Chuck Jones	Paul Zimmerman	Qal’at al-Bahrain	16th c. CE
3	Paul Zimmerman	Heather Baker	Baraqish (Yathill), Yemen	Minaean
4	Heather Baker	Jason Ur	Mohenjo Daro, Pakistan	ca. 2600-1900 BCE
5	Jason Ur	Dan Diffendale	Monte Albán, Oaxaca, Mexico	1st-5th centuries CE
6	Dan Diffendale	Claire of Geevor Mine	Segontium, Caernarfon, Wales	77ish to about 390 CE
7	Claire of Geevor Mine	Ivan Cangemi	Carn Euny, UK	ca. 500 BCE-100 CE
8	Ivan Cangemi	Southie Sham	Monks Mound (Cahokia), IL, USA	fl. 1050-1200
9	Southie Sham	Dan Diffendale	Gergovia, France	fl. 1st c. BCE
10	Dan Diffendale	Dorothy King	Kastro Larissa/Argos, Greece	ca. 1100 CE
11	Dorothy King	Daniel Pett	Utica, Tunisia	C8th BCE– C2nd CE
12	Daniel Pett	Neil Silberman	Caesarea Maritima, Israel	1st century CE–Present
13	Neil Silberman	Chuck Jones	Graceland, Memphis, TN, USA	1939 CE–Present
14	Chuck Jones	Aphaia	Bam Citadel, Iran	pre-C 6th BC–C19thCE
15	Aphaia	Daniel Pett	Myrina, Lemnos, Greece	Classical Greek–present
16	Daniel Pett	Paul Barford	Dambulla Cave Temple, Sri Lanka	1st century BCE
17	Paul Barford	Scott McDonough	Rosetta (Rashid), Egypt	Ptolemaic, Mamluk
18	Scott McDonough	Lindsay Allen	Ani, Turkey	Medieval, C10th-14th CE
19	Lindsay Allen	Heather in Vienna	South Shields, England, UK	Roman Imperial
20	Heather	Scott McDonough	Suomenlinna/Sveaborg fortress, Finland	1748-present
21	Scott McDonough	Chuck Jones	Derbent, Republic of Dagestan	Sasanian-present
22	Chuck Jones	Paul Barford	Amphitheatre of Aquincum, Hungary	Roman
23	Paul Barford	Geoff Carter	The Cursus, (Stonehenge) Wiltshire	Neolithic
24	Geoff Carter	Ferhan Sakal	The Heuneburg, South Germany	Iron Age
25	Ferhan Sakal	Lindsay Allen	Sura, Syria	Roman
26	Lindsay Allen	Andrea Kay	Bannerman Castle, Hudson River, US	C20th
27	Andrea Kay	David Powell	Taposiris Magna, Alexandria, Egypt	C1st bce
28	David Powell	Billy	Ross Abbey, Galway, Ireland	Medieval
29	Billy	Geoff Carter	Great Zimbabwe, Africa	C11th – 14th ce
30	Geoff Carter	Heather	Elsdon Castle, England	C11th – 12th ce
31	Heather	Geoff Carter	Volubilis, Morocco	Roman
32	Geoff Carter	Paul Barford	Su Nuraxi, Barumini, Sardinia	C15th – 6th bce
33	Paul Barford	Ferhan Sakal	Arkona, Germany	Medieval
34	Ferhan Sakal	Heather	Arslantepe, Turkey	Chalcolithic – Byzantine
35	Heather	Ferhan Sakal	Mahabodhi Temple Complex, India	3rd century B.C. – 6th CE
36	Ferhan Sakal	Billy	Borobudur, Buddhist shrine, Indonesia	9th century B.C. – 6th CE
37	Billy	Ferhan Sakal	Browns Island, New Zealand	c. 13th century – 1820
38	Ferhan Sakal	Andrea Kay	Bat, Al-Khutm and Al-Ayn, Oman	3rd millennium B.C.
39	Andrea Kay	Matt B.	Serabit el-Khadim, Egypt	2nd millennium B.C.
40	Matt B.	Andrea Kay	Valsgärde grave field, Sweden	Swedish Vendel /Iron Age
41	Andrea Kay	Lindsay Allen	Siwa oasis, Egypt	fourth century B.C. -Roman
42	Lindsay Allen	David Gill	Castle of Pont Steffan, Wales, UK	Medieval
43	David Gill	Nigel	Hay Castle, Wales, UK	12th century
44	Nigel	Heather	Olympos, Turkey	Hellenistic – Roman
45	Heather	Ferhan Sakal	Carnuntum, Austria	Roman
46	Ferhan Sakal	Troels Myrup	Knossos, Greece	Bronze Age
47	Troels Myrup	Alun Salt	Aggersborg	Viking
48	Alun Salt	Geoff Carter	Marsala, Sicillia.	Punic/Roman
49	Geoff Carter	Matt B	Springfield Lyons, UK	LBA (/Saxon)
50	MattB	Geoff Carter	Kalkriese in Osnabrück, Germany	Roman
51	Geoff Carter	Ferhan Sakal	Grimes Graves, Norfolk, UK	Late neolithic
52	Ferhan Sakal	Oliver Mack	Heraqla, ar-rashid,syria	Late C8 ce
53	Oliver Mack	Matt B	Welzheim, Germany	Roman
54	Matt B	Geoff Carter	Birka, Sweden	Viking
55	Geoff Carter	Heather	Nemrut Dagi, Turkey	C1 bce
56	Heather	Geoff Carter	Choirokoitia, Cyprus.	Neolithic
57	Geoff Carter	Jaime	Woodhenge, UK	Late Neolithic
58	Jaime	Geoff Carter	Gorgora Nova, Ethiopia,	C17th (ce).
59	Geoff Carter	Nathan T.Elkins	Firouabad, Iran	C3rd ce
60

When on Google Earth 57

2009-06-25T04:11:00.012+01:00

While the Germans were asleep, Heather and I played ping-pong with When on Google earth, so that’s 3 in a row for the Brits.

However, Due to an oversight - This is the new version of WOGE 57!!

So, (and for the 4th time in 8 days), Theoretical Structural Archaeology is proud to present WOGE57 #2, good luck.

The Rules of When on Google Earth are as follows:

Q: What is When on Google Earth?
A: It’s a game for archaeologists, or anybody else willing to have a go!

Q: How do you play it?
A: Simple, you try to identify the site in the picture.

Q: Who wins?
A: The first person to correctly identify the site, including its major period of occupation, wins the game.

Q: What does the winner get?
A: The winner gets bragging rights and the chance to host the next When on Google Earth on his/her own blog!

WOGE on facebook

When on Google Earth has its own Facebook group.

Previous Winners

#	Host:	Victor:	Site:	Period:
1	Shawn Graham	Chuck Jones	Takht-i Jamshid / Persepolis terrace, Iran	Achaemenid period
2	Chuck Jones	PDD	Church of Saint Simeon at Qalat Siman, Syria	5th-6th c. CE
2.1	Chuck Jones	Paul Zimmerman	Qal’at al-Bahrain	16th c. CE
3	Paul Zimmerman	Heather Baker	Baraqish (Yathill), Yemen	Minaean
4	Heather Baker	Jason Ur	Mohenjo Daro, Pakistan	ca. 2600-1900 BCE
5	Jason Ur	Dan Diffendale	Monte Albán, Oaxaca, Mexico	1st-5th centuries CE
6	Dan Diffendale	Claire of Geevor Mine	Segontium, Caernarfon, Wales	77ish to about 390 CE
7	Claire of Geevor Mine	Ivan Cangemi	Carn Euny, UK	ca. 500 BCE-100 CE
8	Ivan Cangemi	Southie Sham	Monks Mound (Cahokia), IL, USA	fl. 1050-1200
9	Southie Sham	Dan Diffendale	Gergovia, France	fl. 1st c. BCE
10	Dan Diffendale	Dorothy King	Kastro Larissa/Argos, Greece	ca. 1100 CE
11	Dorothy King	Daniel Pett	Utica, Tunisia	C8th BCE–until C2nd CE
12	Daniel Pett	Neil Silberman	Caesarea Maritima, Israel	1st century CE–Present
13	Neil Silberman	Chuck Jones	Graceland, Memphis, TN, USA	1939 CE–Present
14	Chuck Jones	Aphaia	Bam Citadel, Iran	pre-C6th BC–C19th CE
15	Aphaia	Daniel Pett	Myrina, Lemnos, Greece	Classical Greek–present
16	Daniel Pett	Paul Barford	Dambulla Cave Temple, Sri Lanka	1st century BCE
17	Paul Barford	Scott McDonough	Rosetta (Rashid), Egypt	Ptolemaic, Mamluk
18	Scott McDonough	Lindsay Allen	Ani, Turkey	Medieval, C10th-14th CE
19	Lindsay Allen	Heather in Vienna	South Shields, England, UK	Roman Imperial
20	Heather	Scott McDonough	Suomenlinna/Sveaborg fortress, Helsinki, Finland	1748-present
21	Scott McDonough	Chuck Jones	Derbent, Republic of Dagestan	Sasanian-present
22	Chuck Jones	Paul Barford	Amphitheatre of Aquincum (Budapest), Hungary	Roman
23	Paul Barford	Geoff Carter	The Cursus, (Stonehenge) Wiltshire	Neolithic
24	Geoff Carter	Ferhan Sakal	The Heuneburg, South Germany	Iron Age
25	Ferhan Sakal	Lindsay Allen	Sura, Syria	Roman
26	Lindsay Allen	Andrea Kay	Bannerman Castle, Hudson River, US	C20th
27	Andrea Kay	David Powell	Taposiris Magna, Alexandria, Egypt	C1st bce
28	David Powell	Billy	Ross Abbey, Galway, Ireland	Medieval
29	Billy	Geoff Carter	Great Zimbabwe, Africa	C11th – 14th ce
30	Geoff Carter	Heather	Elsdon Castle, England	C11th – 12th ce
31	Heather	Geoff Carter	Volubilis, Morocco	Roman
32	Geoff Carter	Paul Barford	Su Nuraxi, Barumini, Sardinia	C15th – 6th bce
33	Paul Barford	Ferhan Sakal	Arkona, Germany	Medieval
34	Ferhan Sakal	Heather	Arslantepe, Turkey	Chalcolithic – Byzantine
35	Heather	Ferhan Sakal	Mahabodhi Temple Complex, India	3rd century B.C. – 6th CE
36	Ferhan Sakal	Billy	Borobudur, Buddhist shrine, Indonesia	9th century B.C. – 6th CE
37	Billy	Ferhan Sakal	Browns Island, New Zealand	c. 13th century – 1820
38	Ferhan Sakal	Andrea Kay	Bat, Al-Khutm and Al-Ayn, Oman	3rd millennium B.C.
39	Andrea Kay	Matt B.	Serabit el-Khadim, Egypt	2nd millennium B.C.
40	Matt B.	Andrea Kay	Valsgärde grave field, Sweden	Swedish Vendel /Iron Age
41	Andrea Kay	Lindsay Allen	Siwa oasis, Egypt	fourth century B.C. -Roman
42	Lindsay Allen	David Gill	Castle of Pont Steffan, Wales, UK	Medieval
43	David Gill	Nigel	Hay Castle, Wales, UK	12th century
44	Nigel	Heather	Olympos, Turkey	Hellenistic – Roman
45	Heather	Ferhan Sakal	Carnuntum, Austria	Roman
46	Ferhan Sakal	Troels Myrup	Knossos, Greece	Bronze Age
47	Troels Myrup	Alun Salt	Aggersborg	Viking
48	Alun Salt	Geoff Carter	Marsala, Sicillia.	Punic/Roman
49	Geoff Carter	Matt B	Springfield Lyons, UK	LBA (/Saxon)
50	MattB	Geoff Carter	Kalkriese in Osnabrück, Germany	Roman
51	Geoff Carter	Ferhan Sakal	Grimes Graves, Norfolk, UK	Late neolithic
52	Ferhan Sakal	Oliver Mack	Heraqla, ar-rashid,syria	Late C8 ce
53	Oliver Mack	Matt B	Welzheim, Germany	Roman
54	Matt B	Geoff Carter	Birka, Sweden	Viking
55	Geoff Carter	Heather	Nemrut Dagi, Turkey	C1 bce
56	Heather	Geoff Carter	Choirokoitia, Cyprus.	Neolithic
57

When on Google Earth 55

2009-06-24T12:36:00.005+01:00

Having recaptured the WOGE from Matt B, and broken the run of three German winners in a row, the honour of British archaeology has been restored, and I give you When on Google Earth 55, it has got nothing to do with Germany, unless you like pizza, - which is an utterly devious clue!

Bon appetite.

The Rules of When on Google Earth are as follows:

Q: What is When on Google Earth?
A: It’s a game for archaeologists, or anybody else willing to have a go!

Q: How do you play it?
A: Simple, you try to identify the site in the picture.

Q: Who wins?
A: The first person to correctly identify the site, including its major period of occupation, wins the game.

Q: What does the winner get?
A: The winner gets bragging rights and the chance to host the next When on Google Earth on his/her own blog!

WOGE on facebook

When on Google Earth has has its own Facebook group.

Previous Winners

#	Host:	Victor:	Site:	Period:
1	Shawn Graham	Chuck Jones	Takht-i Jamshid / Persepolis terrace, Iran	Achaemenid period
2	Chuck Jones	PDD	Church of Saint Simeon at Qalat Siman, Syria	5th-6th c. CE
2.1	Chuck Jones	Paul Zimmerman	Qal’at al-Bahrain	16th c. CE
3	Paul Zimmerman	Heather Baker	Baraqish (Yathill), Yemen	Minaean
4	Heather Baker	Jason Ur	Mohenjo Daro, Pakistan	ca. 2600-1900 BCE
5	Jason Ur	Dan Diffendale	Monte Albán, Oaxaca, Mexico	1st-5th centuries CE
6	Dan Diffendale	Claire of Geevor Mine	Segontium, Caernarfon, Wales	77ish to about 390 CE
7	Claire of Geevor Mine	Ivan Cangemi	Carn Euny, UK	ca. 500 BCE-100 CE
8	Ivan Cangemi	Southie Sham	Monks Mound (Cahokia), IL, USA	fl. 1050-1200
9	Southie Sham	Dan Diffendale	Gergovia, France	fl. 1st c. BCE
10	Dan Diffendale	Dorothy King	Kastro Larissa/Argos, Greece	ca. 1100 CE
11	Dorothy King	Daniel Pett	Utica, Tunisia	8th century BCE–until 2nd Century CE
12	Daniel Pett	Neil Silberman	Caesarea Maritima, Israel	1st century CE–Present
13	Neil Silberman	Chuck Jones	Graceland, Memphis, TN, USA	1939 CE–Present
14	Chuck Jones	Aphaia	Bam Citadel, Iran	pre-6th century BC–19th century CE
15	Aphaia	Daniel Pett	Myrina, Lemnos, Greece	Classical Greek–present
16	Daniel Pett	Paul Barford	Dambulla Cave Temple, Sri Lanka	1st century BCE
17	Paul Barford	Scott McDonough	Rosetta (Rashid), Egypt	Ptolemaic, Mamluk
18	Scott McDonough	Lindsay Allen	Ani, Turkey	Medieval, 10th-14th centuries CE
19	Lindsay Allen	Heather in Vienna	South Shields, England, UK	Roman Imperial
20	Heather in Vienna	Scott McDonough	Suomenlinna/Sveaborg fortress, Helsinki, Finland	1748-present
21	Scott McDonough	Chuck Jones	Derbent, Republic of Dagestan	Sasanian-present
22	Chuck Jones	Paul Barford	Amphitheatre of Aquincum (Budapest), Hungary	Roman
23	Paul Barford	Geoff Carter	The Cursus, (Stonehenge) Wiltshire	Neolithic
24	Geoff Carter	Ferhan Sakal	The Heuneburg, South Germany	Iron Age
25	Ferhan Sakal	Lindsay Allen	Sura, Syria	Roman
26	Lindsay Allen	Andrea Kay	Bannerman Castle, Hudson River, US	C20th
27	Andrea Kay	David Powell	Taposiris Magna, Alexandria, Egypt	C1st bce
28	David Powell	Billy	Ross Abbey, Galway, Ireland	Medieval
29	Billy	Geoff Carter	Great Zimbabwe, Africa	C11th – 14th ce
30	Geoff Carter	Heather	Elsdon Castle, England	C11th – 12th ce
31	Heather	Geoff Carter	Volubilis, Morocco	Roman
32	Geoff Carter	Paul Barford	Su Nuraxi, Barumini, Sardinia	C15th – 6th bce
33	Paul Barford	Ferhan Sakal	Arkona, Germany	Medieval
34	Ferhan Sakal	Heather	Arslantepe, Turkey	Chalcolithic – Byzantine
35	Heather	Ferhan Sakal	Mahabodhi Temple Complex, India	3rd century B.C. – 6th CE
36	Ferhan Sakal	Billy	Borobudur, Buddhist shrine, Indonesia	9th century B.C. – 6th CE
37	Billy	Ferhan Sakal	Browns Island, New Zealand	c. 13th century – 1820
38	Ferhan Sakal	Andrea Kay	Bat, Al-Khutm and Al-Ayn, Oman	3rd millennium B.C.
39	Andrea Kay	Matt B.	Serabit el-Khadim, Egypt	2nd millennium B.C.
40	Matt B.	Andrea Kay	Valsgärde grave field, Sweden	Swedish Vendel /Iron Age
41	Andrea Kay	Lindsay Allen	Siwa oasis, Egypt	fourth century B.C. -Roman
42	Lindsay Allen	David Gill	Castle of Pont Steffan, Wales, UK	Medieval
43	David Gill	Nigel	Hay Castle, Wales, UK	12th century
44	Nigel	Heather	Olympos, Turkey	Hellenistic – Roman
45	Heather	Ferhan Sakal	Carnuntum, Austria	Roman
46	Ferhan Sakal	Troels Myrup	Knossos, Greece	Bronze Age
47	Troels Myrup	Alun Salt	Aggersborg	Viking
48	Alun Salt	Geoff Carter	Marsala, Sicillia.	Punic/Roman
49	Geoff Carter	Matt B	Springfield Lyons, UK	LBA (/Saxon)
50	MattB	Geoff Carter	Kalkriese in Osnabrück, Germany	Roman
51	Geoff Carter	Ferhan Sakal	Grimes Graves, Norfolk, UK	Late neolithic
52	Ferhan Sakal	Oliver Mack	Heraqla, ar-rashid,syria	Late C8 ce
53	Oliver Mack	Matt B	Welzheim, Germany	Roman
54	Matt B	Geoff Carter	Birka, Sweden	Viking
55

When on Google Earth 51

2009-06-21T23:52:00.003+01:00

Welcome to When on Google Earth 51, having recaptured the prize from MattB it is back on Theoretical Structural Archaeology, obviously you may wish to read my last article, just in case there is a clue (it's worth look- but this time it won't help), I think its easy, good luck.

The Rules of When on Google Earth are as follows:

Q: What is When on Google Earth?
A: It’s a game for archaeologists, or anybody else willing to have a go!

Q: How do you play it?
A: Simple, you try to identify the site in the picture.

Q: Who wins?
A: The first person to correctly identify the site, including its major period of occupation, wins the game.

Q: What does the winner get?
A: The winner gets bragging rights and the chance to host the next When on Google Earth on his/her own blog!

Previous Winners

#	Host:	Victor:	Site:	Period:
1	Shawn Graham	Chuck Jones	Takht-i Jamshid / Persepolis terrace, Iran	Achaemenid period
2	Chuck Jones	PDD	Church of Saint Simeon at Qalat Siman, Syria	5th-6th c. CE
2.1	Chuck Jones	Paul Zimmerman	Qal’at al-Bahrain	16th c. CE
3	Paul Zimmerman	Heather Baker	Baraqish (Yathill), Yemen	Minaean
4	Heather Baker	Jason Ur	Mohenjo Daro, Pakistan	ca. 2600-1900 BCE
5	Jason Ur	Dan Diffendale	Monte Albán, Oaxaca, Mexico	1st-5th centuries CE
6	Dan Diffendale	Claire of Geevor Mine	Segontium, Caernarfon, Wales	77ish to about 390 CE
7	Claire of Geevor Mine	Ivan Cangemi	Carn Euny, UK	ca. 500 BCE-100 CE
8	Ivan Cangemi	Southie Sham	Monks Mound (Cahokia), IL, USA	fl. 1050-1200
9	Southie Sham	Dan Diffendale	Gergovia, France	fl. 1st c. BCE
10	Dan Diffendale	Dorothy King	Kastro Larissa/Argos, Greece	ca. 1100 CE
11	Dorothy King	Daniel Pett	Utica, Tunisia	8th century BCE–until 2nd Century CE
12	Daniel Pett	Neil Silberman	Caesarea Maritima, Israel	1st century CE–Present
13	Neil Silberman	Chuck Jones	Graceland, Memphis, TN, USA	1939 CE–Present
14	Chuck Jones	Aphaia	Bam Citadel, Iran	pre-6th century BC–19th century CE
15	Aphaia	Daniel Pett	Myrina, Lemnos, Greece	Classical Greek–present
16	Daniel Pett	Paul Barford	Dambulla Cave Temple, Sri Lanka	1st century BCE
17	Paul Barford	Scott McDonough	Rosetta (Rashid), Egypt	Ptolemaic, Mamluk
18	Scott McDonough	Lindsay Allen	Ani, Turkey	Medieval, 10th-14th centuries CE
19	Lindsay Allen	Heather in Vienna	South Shields, England, UK	Roman Imperial
20	Heather in Vienna	Scott McDonough	Suomenlinna/Sveaborg fortress, Helsinki, Finland	1748-present
21	Scott McDonough	Chuck Jones	Derbent, Republic of Dagestan	Sasanian-present
22	Chuck Jones	Paul Barford	Amphitheatre of Aquincum (Budapest), Hungary	Roman
23	Paul Barford	Geoff Carter	The Cursus, (Stonehenge) Wiltshire	Neolithic
24	Geoff Carter	Ferhan Sakal	The Heuneburg, South Germany	Iron Age
25	Ferhan Sakal	Lindsay Allen	Sura, Syria	Roman
26	Lindsay Allen	Andrea Kay	Bannerman Castle, Hudson River, US	C20th
27	Andrea Kay	David Powell	Taposiris Magna, Alexandria, Egypt	C1st bce
28	David Powell	Billy	Ross Abbey, Galway, Ireland	Medieval
29	Billy	Geoff Carter	Great Zimbabwe, Africa	C11th – 14th ce
30	Geoff Carter	Heather	Elsdon Castle, England	C11th – 12th ce
31	Heather	Geoff Carter	Volubilis, Morocco	Roman
32	Geoff Carter	Paul Barford	Su Nuraxi, Barumini, Sardinia	C15th – 6th bce
33	Paul Barford	Ferhan Sakal	Arkona, Germany	Medieval
34	Ferhan Sakal	Heather	Arslantepe, Turkey	Chalcolithic – Byzantine
35	Heather	Ferhan Sakal	Mahabodhi Temple Complex, India	3rd century B.C. – 6th CE
36	Ferhan Sakal	Billy	Borobudur, Buddhist shrine, Indonesia	9th century B.C. – 6th CE
37	Billy	Ferhan Sakal	Browns Island, New Zealand	c. 13th century – 1820
38	Ferhan Sakal	Andrea Kay	Bat, Al-Khutm and Al-Ayn, Oman	3rd millennium B.C.
39	Andrea Kay	Matt B.	Serabit el-Khadim, Egypt	2nd millennium B.C.
40	Matt B.	Andrea Kay	Valsgärde grave field, Sweden	Swedish Vendel /Iron Age
41	Andrea Kay	Lindsay Allen	Siwa oasis, Egypt	fourth century B.C. -Roman
42	Lindsay Allen	David Gill	Castle of Pont Steffan, Wales, UK	Medieval
43	David Gill	Nigel	Hay Castle, Wales, UK	12th century
44	Nigel	Heather	Olympos, Turkey	Hellenistic – Roman
45	Heather	Ferhan Sakal	Carnuntum, Austria	Roman
46	Ferhan Sakal	Troels Myrup	Knossos, Greece	Bronze Age
47	Troels Myrup	Alun Salt	Aggersborg	Viking
48	Alun Salt	Geoff Carter	Marsala, Sicillia.	Punic/Roman
49	Geoff Carter	Matt B	Springfield Lyons, UK	LBA (/Saxon)
50	MattB	Geoff Carter	Kalkriese in Osnabrück, Germany	Roman
51