Does form follow function? Towards a methodical interpretation of archaeological building features

Abstract

The form of buildings does not depend only on function, but also on climate, topography, available material and techniques, on symbolism and social structures. This can even be demonstrated by the example of modern architecture, for which the maxim 'form follows function' was originally coined. The functional interpretation of prehistoric architecture is especially difficult, because of its fragmentary state of preservation and because possible functions are not known a priori. Therefore this paper presents and evaluates five groups of methods, which allow interpretations of archaeological building features: 1) Ad hoc interpretations: these are mostly made implicitly and should be replaced by systematic approaches; 2) equalization of building types with functions: this method has limits because functional equivalents have to be considered; 3) conclusions by analogy: they depend mostly on the choice of objects for comparison; 4) circumstantial evidence: timeconsuming and expensive techniques of excavation and sampling as well as careful studies of taphonomy are necessary; 5) contextual analyses: easily run into the danger of circular arguments. In practice often only a combination of various methods provides good results; that is why a clear explanation of analytical methods is so important.

New findings about the arrangement of internal buildings in La Tène quadrangular enclosures in Bohemia based on the example of the site of Markvartice, East Bohemia Nové poznatky k organizaci vnitřní zástavby laténských čtyřúhelníkových valových areálů v Čechách na příkladu lokality Markvartice, okr. Jičín

“…It is, however, questionable whether such architecture was a bearer of identical ideas which cannot be satisfactorily answered due to the nature of available sources. The possibility that identical architectural types had been perceived differently in various cultural or geographical contexts was already discussed in the past (Trebsche 2009, 511, fig. 3).…”

“…Nevertheless, as indicated by some other findings, the low frequency of such a strictly defined type is mainly due to the state of research. In most known enclosures, it is influenced by the size of the investigated area, the absence of traces of an entrance or unfavorable conditions for the preservation of remains of above-ground buildings and the identification of their appearances (more comments on this, e.g., in Trebsche 2009). This relatively narrow group can also be expanded by other cases which do not manifest such a high degree of regularity in the arrangement of buildings (fig.…”

The Agrarian Life of the North 2000 BC–AD 1000

“…The primary goal was to contribute to the process of posthole pattern recognition by establishing a feature based systematic approach, using architectural necessity rather than the previous templates. The examples here presented deal with this aspect and a replication of this model may contribute to a better praxis, especially when combined with more deductive ways of excavation (Trebsche 2009). The geometric configurations here presented, as graphic representations of a reproducible mathematical pattern, could be automated within a GIS program.…”

From features to fingerprints: A general diagnostic framework for anthropogenic geomorphology

“…Middens are among the first and most prominent examples of physical remnants of resource exploitation activities in the archaeological record, with potential consequences for a range of related physical and chemical characteristics, for example increased soil alkalinity, and in particular increases in levels of nitrogen, calcium, potassium and manganese (Cook-Patton et al, 2014). Middens offer an important archive of information about human dispersal and group diversification because they can be created either at the household level or the community level (Trebsche, 2009). They preserve records that are particularly valuable for the development of interdisciplinary approaches in investigating human–environment interaction, social relations and the role of resource exploitation in the developmental trajectory of human groups (Álvarez et al, 2011; Rick et al, 2005).…”