Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Question_Assumptions

I’ll check the library. But the piles of rock that make up the “walls” there wouldn’t hold livestock in, much less attackers’ out. They’re not even much good as cover. Maybe they were better built and higher once?


35 posted on 12/29/2008 2:09:05 PM PST by Little Ray (Do we have a Plan B?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]


To: Little Ray

Keeley doesn’t talk about that site in particular but about the tendency among archaeologists to assume that primative people are peaceful and that things serve a non-warlike purpose by default in general. It’s possible that this particular site isn’t a fortification but don’t assume that what you see now is all that was ever there. A lot of primative fortifications were built of mixed materials that included gravel, dirt, clay, wood, and other materials that can decay or wash away. Stone is heavy and hard to work and thus requires a lot of effort to build with. England was once covered with small castles and keeps made of wood, none of which have survived. All you’ll see now are mounds of dirt that were once part of the fortifications.


36 posted on 12/29/2008 2:43:53 PM PST by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson