15th January 2008, 03:13 PM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by tom wilson
Pedant? Me? Actually, Achingknees I highlighted your reference to his age because it took me (at least) a while to work out whom you were talking about.
Disregard, for a moment, the fella's age, class, birthplace, attire, etc. and tell me whether you think that prehistoric domestic constructions are likely to be more substantial than early Medieval domestic constructions in the same field. How about any accompanying pits and ditches?
In some areas a change in the level of the water table might cause this, but that's the only circumstance I can think of where the above statement would be true.
(Note: concerning [u]likelihood</u>, not all cases).
Attire - you got a problem with his dress sense too? [:p]
Well yes, after 20 odd years of digging around here I have found prehistoric occupation sites from the Upper Palaeolithic, Mesolithic, Neolithic, Bronze Age, Iron Age. The latter four have all had structural survival in terms of holes of varying sizes
.Diddly squit Viking structures. I shouldn't answer for all my colleagues in the office but I'm sure I would have heard if any of them had found a Viking occupation site.
Re domestic structures - my point was that this site with 1000s of artefacts needn't be a domestic occupation site.
Not sure which above statement would be true re changes in water table [?][?].
Quite a good debate on Britarch this lunchtime...
Achingknees (the Younger)