15th December 2014, 02:27 PM
Love it
That is indeed at the crux of many academic arguments I have read.
But I would go in a different direction because without more accurate dating evidence (for instance dedrochronology - when it works well) we are always examining compressed time. That is to say even when comparing the fills of two pits (for instance) we can't tell their chronological relationship other than within an accuracy of 100 years or so. Therefore any arguments about how long a gap between the digging of one and the digging of the other is moot. Therefore how can we tell how long human activity around the 'site' occured.
Answer we can't.
The poor schmo(s) digging the pit could have spent their entire lifetime living next to one pit, or a mere half an hour. The results of us digging the pit, analysing the contents would look the same.
I feel it would be more useful to gather data in big databases, then ask the databases whether such theories could have been so.
Besides I agree the definition of 'what is a settlement' is as wooly as many other academic definitions. But turn it on its head, how many people now are regularly away from their main place of residence? Are they nomadic? Are the villages of second homes not settlements?
How about thousands of charred grains that were artificially manured and irrigated. How could a nomadic people produce these? Unless of course they set up automatic irrigation/ manuring machinery?
In your eluded ritual-based economy, what were the people eating?
[h=1]scientific fact[/h]
noun
any observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and accepted as true; any scientific observation that has not been refuted
Examples
The structure of a cell membrane is considered a scientific fact.
P Prentice Wrote:but how long do you have to stay in one place for that place to be called a settlement? if you visit the same building once per year is that building a settlement? if you pitch your tent at the same place each year, or twice a year, is that place a settlement?
That is indeed at the crux of many academic arguments I have read.
But I would go in a different direction because without more accurate dating evidence (for instance dedrochronology - when it works well) we are always examining compressed time. That is to say even when comparing the fills of two pits (for instance) we can't tell their chronological relationship other than within an accuracy of 100 years or so. Therefore any arguments about how long a gap between the digging of one and the digging of the other is moot. Therefore how can we tell how long human activity around the 'site' occured.
Answer we can't.
The poor schmo(s) digging the pit could have spent their entire lifetime living next to one pit, or a mere half an hour. The results of us digging the pit, analysing the contents would look the same.
I feel it would be more useful to gather data in big databases, then ask the databases whether such theories could have been so.
Besides I agree the definition of 'what is a settlement' is as wooly as many other academic definitions. But turn it on its head, how many people now are regularly away from their main place of residence? Are they nomadic? Are the villages of second homes not settlements?
P Prentice Wrote:just because some cereal seeds got mixed in some clay that then bacame a pot does that mean the potter was a farmer? or her neighbour, family friend, cousin ....? if cereals where elite commodoties how far would they be traded? were they grown in arenas - we might call causewayed camp or cursus?
How about thousands of charred grains that were artificially manured and irrigated. How could a nomadic people produce these? Unless of course they set up automatic irrigation/ manuring machinery?
In your eluded ritual-based economy, what were the people eating?
P Prentice Wrote:facts dont exist
[h=1]scientific fact[/h]
noun
any observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and accepted as true; any scientific observation that has not been refuted
Examples
The structure of a cell membrane is considered a scientific fact.