Archaeology Design Theory and the Reconstruction of Prehistoric Design Systems

7/28/2019 Archaeology Design Theory and the Reconstruction of Prehistoric Design Systems

1/41

Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 1986, pages 44 5 -4 85

Archaeology, design theory, and the reconstruction ofprehistoric design systemsC ChippindaleDepartment of Archaeology, and Girton College, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB2 3EN, EnglandReceived 15 September 1985; in revised form 9 January 1986

Abstract. Arc haeolog y, systematic inquiry into the past using its material relics, is largelyconcerned with the study of artefacts, of the design systems that created them, and of thesocial and econom ic inferences that may be draw n. Artefa ct study, which began withtypological sorting within an evolutionary framework, is more usefully seen as a systematic'archaeological morphology' of artefacts, with regard to the character of the design systemswhich pro duc ed the m . T he archaeo logical recovery of weights and measure s is given as asimple methodological example.The internal order of the design system is distinguished from the external inferences inhistorical - anthro polog ical re con structio n that can be drawn from artefacts and from designsystems: the 'mid dle-ra nge' theo ry that conn ects internal to external systems is explored.The limitations of insight into design systems that can be gained by typological classificationare noted, as is the particular character of prehistoric material.

Four case studies in the recovery of preh istoric design systems are given. (1) T he Th ornhypothesis of exact geometry in prehistoric stone rings is presented, together with othergeom etric and nongeo m etric hyp othe ses. Me ans for assessing them are set out, together witha simulation app roa ch. (2) A typological classification for the corn u motif in preh istoricAlpine rock art is presented, together with a simulation study of the kind of variability in thisartefactual form that would arise casually. (3) T he limits of deduction from distributionmaps, a commonplace of artefact study, are stated, and an example given of a more secureapp roac h to spatial distribution . (4) T he evidence of hum an manufacture an d for earliestdesign systems, offered by first stone tools is given.The common pattern in the case studies is summarized, with a focus on the insights ofdesign reconstruction over artefact sorting, the need for specific testable hypotheses, the roleof simulation, and the distinction between formal and vernacular design systems.1 IntroductionA p a p e r o n a r c h a e o l o g i c a l m e t h o d h a s n o o b v i o u s p l a c e i n a j o u r n a l c o n c e r n e dwi th co n te m po ra ry des ign theo r y . I t t u rn s ou t , how ever , t ha t m any i s sues a res h a r e d , a s i s s h o w n b y t h e p r e s e n c e o f a n a l y t i c a l s t u d i e s o f h i s t o r i c a l a r c h i t e c t u r e -a l l qu i t e modern to a p reh i s to r i an ' s sense o f agein Planning and Design. A n darchaeo logy a s much a s a rch i t ec tu ra l des ign l a rge ly rema ins "an und i sc ip l inedem pi r i ca l d i sc ip l ine . .. an in tu i t i ve sk il l an inexp l i c i t m an ip u la t i ve dex te r i t y l ea r nedb y r o t e " ( C l a r k e , 1 9 6 8 , p a g e x ii i) . T h e ' N e w A r c h a e o l o g y ' w h i c h , f o ll o w in g t h e'New Geography ' o f t he 1960s , se i zed the i n i t i a t i ve du r ing the 1970s had a s i t sp r i m e c o n c e r n t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f a n e x p li c it b o d y o f t h e o r y t o d i s c i p l i n e t h ed i sc ip l ine , a s des ign theo ry t r i ed t o d i sc ip l ine des ign ( 1 ) .1.1 Archaeology and artefact designsB y t h e d i c t i o n a r y d e f i n i t i o n ( B r a y a n d T r u m p , 1 9 7 0 , p a g e 2 1 ) , a r c h a e o l o g y i s " t h es tudy o f man ' s pas t by means o f t he ma te r i a l r e l i c s he has l e f t beh ind h im" , i nW There is a striking coincidence in the gestation and birth of the New Archaeology inBritain and the school of explicit design theory identified with Planning and Design. Clarke,the key figure by reputation and by formal citation (Sterud, 1978) in the movement andauthor of its founding text Analytical Archaeology (1968), was based at Peterhouse, Cambridge,at the same time Alexander, March, Martin, Steadman et al, were working with very similarconcerns and techniques in the school of architecture.


2/41

446 C Chippindale

contrast to historical records and documents . The material relics are distinguishedby their shape, form, and design, so archaeology is essentially the study of designs,of their design systems, and of the social and economic inferences that can bedrawn from them.This makes the task of the artefactual archaeologist the exact reverse of thedesigner 's . A designer or artisan works from a brief of function, purpose,manufacturing process, raw materials, stylistic convention, and so on, within acertain economic and social context, towards an artefact. An archaeologist worksfrom the artefact back through the design process, inferring function, purpose,stylistic convention, and so on, from the evidence of the artefact. Where thedesign theorist is concerned to explore the range of artefactual possibilities whichfulfil the brief, the theoretically inclined archaeologist explores the range of possiblebriefs which the artefact fulfils.Figure 1 sketches the processes involved. It also points to the balanced roles ofdesign theory and archaeological theory: design theory makes the design processexplicit, in the hope this will lead to a fuller understanding of what designs wouldbe 'suitable for the job' and how best to choose from the range available;archaeological theory makes the process of reconstructing the brief explicit, in thehope this will lead to a fuller understanding of what inferences are possible, andhow best to choose from the range available. The crit ical importance, for thatarchaeological inference, of the contemporary range of design variability is indicated.

In the distant human cultures usually studied in prehistory, it is probably notsafe to depend on a view of the design process which places a Western importanceon such considerations as measured cash cost, so this is queried as an element inthe brief. A craft tradition, in which the processes of design and manufacture arenot separated, can often be assumed.Design, from formal, informal, and implicit brief to artefact:Brief Design possibilities Artefactspecifying, for example

functionmaterialcontext'style'expectations and habits 'range of designs made design(within a craft tradition) suitable for the job'technical knowledgesymbolism and 'meaning'efficiency? minimal costArchaeology, f rom a r t e f ac t t owards exp l i c i t and impl ic i t br ief and o th e r use fu l i n f e r ence :Brief as reconstru cted Design possibilities Artefactindicatingfunctionmaterialcontext'style'dategeographical locationexpectations and habits 'contem porary range(within an archaeological -+ of artefact variability' - found objecttradition)technical knowledgeefficiency? minimal cost??social context?? symbolism and 'meaning'Figure 1. A r c h a e o l o g y as the i n v e r s e of d e s i g n .


3/41

Archaelogy, design theory, and prehistoric design systems 447

Two important extra elements in archaeology are the inferences that can bemade as to date of making (not a variable much under the artisan's control) , andgeog raphical affinities. Ag ain con sidera tion s of minim al cash cost may no t becasually assum ed. 'M iddle -rang e the or y' (see section 4.1), in which the linksbetween the design and the brief are studied, is reckoned most difficult in socialcontext, symbolism and 'meaning', hence their double queries.

As its interest is defined by method, rather than by time or place, archaeologyruns from the earliest trac es of hom inids ab ou t 4 million BC to, increasingly, the'ethnoarchaeology' and material-culture dynamics of modern societies (for example,Go uld, 19 80). I t has the major role in prehistory. For historical perio ds, itscontribution is roughly in inverse proportion to the richness of documentarysources, and generally declines as those increase. Qu estions of theory and me thodare therefore at their most acute in the prehistoric context, where archaeology ison its own, and tend to increase with age.1.2 Typological approaches to designIn its modern form, archaeology came of age in the later nineteenth century, applyingtechniques borrowed from natural sciences to what had previously been the materialof disordere d antiquarian collections. Key essentials were the chronologicalframeworks provided by Lyell's geology and by the recognition of three successivetechnological eras defined by the use of stone, bronze, and iron (Daniel, 1962).

Like so many Victorian social sciences, archaeology began by interesting itselfparticularly in classification and evolution.A model for classification was provided by Linnaean biology, and the habit wasestablished of sorting artefacts by their character into classes defined by idealtypes, on the pa tter n of distinct species. In bo th systems, the defining ty pe-specimen was the key.Two me thod s of arranging the types presen ted them selves. The y could be groupedtogether by place and date into a geo gra ph ical-h istoric al framew ork. Or theycould be set into evolutionary schemes tracing the descent of artefacts in a

' typological tree of progress ' from the simplest human tools (or even ultimateprototypes in the animal kingdom) through the diverging branches which led to themo dern diversity of complex ar tefacts (Steadman, 1979, pages 8 7 - 9 5 ; Tho mp son,1977, pages 3 5 -4 2 ) . In the evolutionary scheme, older types were representedequally by archaeological f inds and by the contemporary artefacts of modernprimitives (Pitt-Rive rs, 187 5). T he se artefactual survivals of primitive formsprovided a means to make sense of ancient artefacts, just as 'living fossils' of abackw ard character explicated the palaeontological record. Again, 'mo dern savages'provided social 'living fossils', to be set alongside the ancient societies whosematerial culture had com parab le types and technologies. T he style of thiscomparative ethnology is encapsulated in the title of Lubbock's epoch-makingbook, Pre-Historic Times, as Illustrated by Ancient Remains, and the Manners andCustoms of Modern Savages (Lubbock, 1865).

With the retreat of evolutionary models, this link between typology and progresshas faded. Typo logical classification rem ains, nev erthele ss, a basic of archaeolog icalmethod, the reflex action of an archaeologist faced with a heap of artefacts toma ke sense of; it has an obvious value as a simple pr oc ed ur e to organize a massof inform ation. Bey ond this, the re is a lively con cern an d som e cynicism as tohow best to sort into types, and just what it is that the types represent (Klejn,1982; Whallon and Brown, 1982), and there are a variety of other methods (suchas functional analysis and sorting by a series of shared attributes) that do notdepend on ideal types.


4/41

448 C Chippindale

2 Reconstructuring design systems from their productsThe major component of archaeology, then, is the study of ancient artefacts largeand small, the pro du cts of extinct design systems. By ano ther definition, archaeolo gyis "the description and explanation of differences and similarities observed in thearchaeological reco rd" (Binford, 197 2, page 110). T he meth ods are necessarilycom parative. A s well as archaeological material, m ode rn m aterial is used, whoseremoteness in time and place from the prehistoric context is offset by theethnohistorical information available about the social context of the design system.How different is 'different', how similar is 'similar', what should be matched withwhat and on what basis, are central questions.

As the proper theoretical basis for architectural design is an 'architecturalmorphology' (Steadman, 1983), so the proper basis for artefact studies inarchaeology is a systematic 'archaeological morphology', an understanding of thenature of variation in the shape and form of artefacts.In this paper, I explore aspects of comparative archaeological morphology, usinga variety of worked examples.Ancient artefacts, whether single physical objects or larger forms such as the spatialdistribution of settlements, are the product of implicit or explicit design systems.A major purpose of archaeological morphology is to reconstruct the internalsystematics of those design systems, partly for its own sake, and partly as the basisof historical deductions about the societies in which those design systems operated.3 Reconstructing systems of prehistoric(2) weights and measuresAn established system of weights and linear measures is likely in those earlysocieties that show either evidence for bulk exchange of commodities or forcomplex monum ental architecture. It may exist in othe rs. Ho w is such a designsystem to be recovered?3.1 WeightsConsider, first, weights.

A prelimin ary essential is to identify which artefacts are the weights themselves - thephysical objects. Since the sole purp os e of the design system is a con cern w ithmass, the materials or shape of the blocks is a matter of convention orconv enience , requiring only that the m aterial be heavy and durab le. By analogywith do cum ente d systems, on e may expect the weights to be regularly shaped . Ifthe weights are natural objects, unshaped pebbles for example, rather than humanartefacts, they may not be distinguishable as a group of putative weights.A quantum hypothesis, that the weights represent multiples of a standard unit,can be tested statistically (Berriman, 19 53 ; Bro adbe nt, 19 55; 1956) if the mass of

a sufficiently large num be r of putativ e weights is m easu red. Th is metho d ha ssuccessfully identified, it is believed, the units of weight in cast brass blocks fromAshanti societies of West Africa (Hewsa, 1980), lead blocks from the laterprehistoric Ae gean (Petruso, 1978 ; 1979), and stone blocks from the Indus Valleycivilization of the India n peninsu lar (Hemm y, 1931 ). Som e limits on the m etho dare these: if the unit is not sufficiently standardized, either because it varies fromcontemporary household to household and settlement to settlement or because itdrifts w ith time, the quan ta may not be recogn izable. If too few weights are fou nd,statistical tests may not be decisive. A nd if wh ole-nu m ber m ultiples are no t used ,the relationship of the quanta may be lost.W Strictly, the societies in these examples are protohistoric or even historic, but theinformation available from their undeciphered or limited scripts is so slight that they areeffectively prehistoric.


5/41


Standard units demonstrate the existence of a concept of weight, the idea of amodular unit, and the development of a system of numeration with fixed units(Renfrew, 1983a , page 13 -1 4 ). T he weight ratios those from the Indus are as1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 320, 1600may hint at the base of arithmetic being used.All these matters concern the internal systematics of the weight system.

Inferences may also be drawn about Ashanti, Aegean, and Indus societies fromthe intern al systematics. W hen me asurin g scales are also found , the weight systemis confirmed to have functioned as a measuring device to map the world in one ofits aspects. T he ir use implies the notion of an equiva lence, on the basis of weight,among different physical materials (Renfrew, 1983a, page 14). A rate of exchangebetween commodities is a likely corollary, and is comfortably congruent with otherarchaeological evidence from the Aegean and the Indus of organizing urban centrescontrolling, and being supported by the products of, an agricultural hinterland.3.2 Measures of lengthUn its of length are ha rd er to recove r. Alth oug h unit weights have often beenrecovered from prehistoric contexts, standard measuring rods have not(3 ).Un its of m easu re can, there fore, only be recov ered indirectly. Given a stand ardunit, it is thought likely that architectural designers would lay out dimensions inwh ole-nu m ber m ultiples of units. Th ere fore , statistical analysis of a very largenumber of building measurements of the same design-system should yield the unitsof length, using similar methods to those applied to weight (Broadbent, 1955;Kendall, 1974).

T he techniqu e is extraordinarily old. Sir Isaac New ton derived "the Sacred C ubitof the Jews" this way from, in part, measurements of the Great Pyramid (Manuel,1963, pages 16 1, 294 ). It was applied to Stonehenge in the 1720 s, when theantiquary William Stukeley measured 2000 of its dimensions and found them, byan unstated statistical procedure, to be "perfectly agreeable" to the Egyptian cubitof 20 f inches ; he co nclud ed that th e abse nce of the Ro m an foot of 11 i inchesruled out the architect Inigo Jones's belief that Stonehenge was a Roman building(Jones and Webb, 1655), but did not take it to prove that Stonehenge wasEg yptian-b uilt (Stukeley, 174 0). Petrie, after good success with stone-b uilt Egy ptianmonuments, found British prehistoric sites trickierfor if the monument is a massof eroded earthworks, where are the exact points to measure exact distancesbetween (Petrie, 1877)?

Recent applications include the claimed finding of two measures of length in thebuildings of Minoan Crete , one of 0.27-0.28 m and one of 0.33-0.35 m (Preziosi ,1983; but co ntras t Gr aha m , 1 960 ), and of the 'megalithic' inch (about 2.1 cm),yard (ab out 0.83 m), and fathom (abou t 1.66 m) in the roug h-sto ne m onu m ents ofBritain (Thorn, 196 2; 196 4; 196 8; Thorn and Tho rn, 1977) (see below, section 9).4 Interna l des ign sys temat ics a n d ex t erna l in f erencesIt is convenient to distinguish the internal systematics of the design system fromexternal, historical, or anthropological, inferences (4). W here the internal systematicsare largely descriptive, informing about how the design system worked and with

(3) Exceptionally, wooden measur ing rods have been found in Egypt which a r e divided intoequal units b y inc ised marks, providing repeated evidence of a s tandard uni t in a singlephysical artefact (Petrie, 1 9 2 6 , page 4 0 , sect ion 9 0 , n u m b e r s 13 , 14 ) .(4 ) His tor ica l o r anthropologica l , because in Europe a rchaeology h a s mostly been direc tedtowards his tor ica l reconstruct ion of par t icu la r cu l ture - sequences , whereas Nor th Amer icanarchaeology h a s been concerned more with comparat ive cultura l anthropology.


6/41

450 C Chippindale

what technology, the external inferences are explanatory, relating the design systemto economic, social , and cognitive concerns, and often attempting to account forthe particular character of the design system in terms of them.The coupling of internal systematics to external forces is critical for historical-anthropo logical re con struction. Indee d, the whole enterprise of archaeology, if i t isto attempt much more than description, depends on the finding of internal systematicsin the surviving m aterial cu lture w hich reflect real historical - anth rop olog icalvariables.The most developed theory available is the semiotic view, which sees anindividual artefactual system, the built environment, or even human culture as awhole 'as a system of meaningful signs' (Broadbent et al , 1980; Leach, 1976;Preziosi, 1979; Wallis, 1973).Arch aeolog ically, the semiotic qu estion has two distinct aspects. Firs t is thegeneral question of whether a full semiotics of material culture exists and is usefulas an explanatory app roac h. Op inion is divided.Especially vital for prehistory, with its special restrictions of available evidence,is a second qu estion: can a m aterial-culture semiotics be recovered , without externalhistorical know ledge, solely by examining the artefacts of the material-culture system?For this second aspect, the experience of deciphering ancient languages is aninstructive prec ed en t. It offers ideal conditions a design system of m aterialculture whose known and primary purpose is the conveying of a specific kind of

meaning in a known man ner . Pope (19 75 , pages 1 8 6 -1 9 1 ) concludes, aftersurveying success and failure in script decipherment, that three conditions havealways been necessary: confidence the prob lem w as soluble; the existence of avery small identified target within the problem (almost always the identification ofpro pe r names know n in othe r scripts); and the discovery of the rules of thescriptthe means by which the message is encoded.It is hard to see, in the published literature on the semiotics of prehistoricarchitecture and design, evidence of more than the first condition applying(Hodder, 1982; Miller and Tilley, 1984).

4.1 'Middle-range theory": from internal design system to external inferenceA major concern of recent archaeological method, outside the semiotic analogy, hasbeen the development of 'middle-range theory' securely to l ink the internal patternsof design systems to external variables.Consider ceramics, for example, the ubiquitous material culture of later prehistoryand the basis for defining so many archae ologica l entities. A rn old (1 98 5) refutesthe comfortable assumption that ceramic variation reflects culture-historicdifferences. A dam s (1979) finds the ceramic sequence in Nu bia is quite unrelated

to the political, religious, social, or cultural history of the area; Tsch opik (19 50 )that Aymara pottery of the Titicacca Basin, Peru, barely changes, despite Inca andthen Spanish domination, between pre-Inca and the present day; Charlton (1976)that ceramics in the valley of Mexico only began to change 150 years after theSpanish conq uest. A rno ld (1985) therefore attem pts, using ethnog raphic ma terial ,to construct a 'ceramic theory' which would describe and analyze the relationbetween external variables (such as raw materials and environmental constraints),ceramics (as archaeologically recoverable), and nonceramic aspects of society, suchas gender roles among artisans.A ceramic theory would allow the reliable recovery of external variables fromthe information internal to the ceramic design system, which archaeologists so oftenare deluged with.


7/41

Archaelogy, design theory, and prehistoric design system s 451

In defence of traditional archaeological classification, it must be said that manyentities (often called 'cultures') defined by their internal systematics alone, are clearat tha t level. O n field su rvey in cen tral Italy, for exam ple, the finding of a piec e ofpottery no larger than a little fingernail is reliably diagnostic of the ApennineBronze Age', if its fabric is the characteristic hard, black or brown burnished warethat defines the culture. W hat the A pen nine B ronze Age may represen t in externalsocial or econ om ic term s (Barker, 19 81) is un certa in; but it is securely located intime and place and it has a sufficiently distinct internal design system that itsproducts are reliably recognizable.4.2 Limits to m iddle-range theory, and to external inferenceEthnoarchaeological studies of contemporary material culture are beginning toprovide a few elements of a middle-range theory, but most findings are relentlesslydiscouraging for reconstructing external variables by inference. Th ree areas ofdifficulty can be identified.First, the coupling between external variables and internal design systematics isambiguo us. Eth nog raph ic studies of funerary rites (Uck o, 1969) show that thestanding of a buried corpse, as measured by the nature and richness of funeralrites and grave goods, is not a simple function of that of the living person.Patterns of burial wealth do not plainly mirror wealth in life. In m od ern Eu rop e,for example, working-class funerals are often more lavish than middle-class funerals,and some socially marginal groups, such as gypsies, are famously showy in theirburial rites.

D eath and funerals at least hav e the adv antag e of being ub iquito us. Individ ualsystems of architectural design may be so peculiar that no close analogues exist indocumented ethnohistor ical circumstances.The repertoire of Mayan ceremonial architecture, from later prehistoric centralAmerica, offers open plazas, easy access from several directions, private buildingswith restricted entry, tall pyramids topped by small-roomed structures, courts forplaying a sacred ball-game, and sweatbaths (Hammond, 1982, pages 241-261) .Spatial patterning does inform about some rules of the planning system (Hammond,1975, pages 72-85), for example, that designers preferred to expend vast effort onmaintaining a centralized plan for a ceremonial site as it grew in size, rather thanallowing it to develop a linear form. Teotihu acan, the urban centre located inprehistoric central Mexico, with a population exceeding 100000, has no plainhistorical ana logu e. Inference ab ou t its spatial organiza tion (Cowgill et al, 19 84 ,page 156) has to deal with "the extraordinary size and intrinsic complexity" of thesociety of the city; it demands a deep general understanding of urban spatial designsystems as a whole class, which can be applied, with allowances for economic andsocial conditions, to this particular system of which no direct historical recordexists.

Second, there may be an absolute information loss between external variablesand interna l systematics. Little hu m an figures are mad e for a variety of reaso nsthat rang e from religious cults to children's toys . Small po ttery figurines offer arather simple design system, in which the capacity for variability is not large;figurines created even in the same period and area but with different purposes mayhave the same physical form. Acc ording ly, a historica l collection of figurines,defined by the shared internal design systematic of modelling a human figure inceramic, may reflect a variety of external functions and uses, which are notexpresse d in the design schem es. T ha t inform ation, if it was lost originally, cann otbe recovered by any modern study of figurines from, say, early Egypt and Crete(Ucko, 1968) .


8/41

45 2 C Chippindale

Third, if a whole class of design systems is extinct, the nature of the couplingcan now here be doc um ented as a m odel for the prehistoric context. Roc kengraving, the carving of representational and nonrepresentational figures on openrock surfaces, was a lively tradition in the Alps (for example, Mont Bego,section 10) and Scandinavia during later prehistoric times; it seems to haveexpired, at latest , about the t ime that l i teracyand the basis of historical records-came in, leaving no independent evidence of the external variables to which theinternal design systems of ancient Eu ro pe an rock figures refer. Go ody (1 978 )argues that writ ing represents so fundamental a change in the human world viewthat it irreversibly alters the role of pictures an d how they are perceived. T he re iseloquent support for this view in the last stages of the rock art of Valcamonica, thebest-d ocu m ented sequen ce in the Alp s. A s writing begins, in the 5th century BC,the quantity and range of rock figures immediately dropsalthough the populationis kno wn to have incre ased . Visual subjects beco m e few, and stock figures a rerepea ted in the same positions and att i tudes. A s written inscriptions take theirplace, a world of pictures becomes a world of written words (Anati , 1976,p a g e s 1 4 2 - 1 6 0 ) .5 What kind of internal design systematics?Pessimists and optimists have both issued convincing polemics about the possibility ofdeveloping middle-rang e theory. W hichever view is correct, a good und erstand ing ofinternal design systematics is essential, for the pessimists because that is all thatcan be achieved, for the optimists because it is the only secure route to externalinference.

Internal design systematics has usually meant typological classification, for goodhistorical and practical reasons (section 1.1).5.1 What kind of classification!A collection of artefacts may be classified in an indefinitely large nu m be r of ways,the nature of the classification following its purpose.

H ere , archa eolog ical typolog y has found real difficulties. T h e fading awayof evolutionary preoccupations has removed the original purpose, of finding theevolutionary ord er of prog ress that is defined by successive types. T he prob lem sof middle-range theory throw doubt on whether the internal systematics of thedesign system actually reflect anything intelligible about its making in anthropological -historical terms . Th ere is no such thing as 'neutra l ' or 'natu ral ' typology, bu t onlytypology for a particular purpose, the purpose indicating the appropriate variables.So the uncertainty of purpose has left the form of typology drifting.For a known design system, such as the 'Samian' fineware ceramics of the

Roman period, appropriate typologies are known: by fabric for place of manufacture;by shape and size for function; by subject and style of de co ratio n for icono grap hy;by suitable comb inations of these for chronology. Som e of these typologies, suchas iconography, reflect and reconstruct the design systems to which the artisan wasaware of having wo rked. Oth ers, such as chronology, do not, but define anddocument variables that are real and archaeologically interesting.Comparable sorting of prehistoric material is generally justified by its efficiency:a 'neutral ' classification identifies 'real groupings', which make archaeological senseas a distinct spatial or chronological distribution within the range of the designsystem.Work with Beaker pottery demonstrates the difficulty of finding the righttypology in preh istoric ma terial (figure 2). Bea kers, so nam ed be caus e they hav e


9/41


been thought to be drinking cups, are a distinctive type of fine ceramic vesselwidely distributed in Europe, from Poland to Spain, and Sicily to Scotland, in thecenturies after about 2100 BC. The British Beakers were first classified in three

(a)

(c )Figure 2. Three schemes to classify the prehistoric vessels found in Britain and known asBell-beakers, (a) Aber crom bie (1912 ), following Victorian preceden t, found a straightforwardpattern of A - B - C in chronological order, (b) Clarke (1970), in a pioneering application ofcomputer sorting to a matrix of many attributes, found a more complex pattern, with sevenkinds of Beak er intrusive into Britain (indicated by bold diagonal arrow s). From the se typesdeveloped regional variants in East Anglia, north Britain (N2 to N4), and south Britain (SIto S4). (c) A mo re recent schem e, by Case (1977), returns to a simple orde r of three broa dgrou ps in a chrono logical sequen ce. T he drift in app roa che s to Be ake r classification reflectsuncertainty as to what are the significant variables in their design system.


10/41

454 C Chippindale

groups, A, B, and C (Abercrombie, 1912), thought to represent a chronologicalsequence. Reexam inat ions subdivided the Ab ercrom bie scheme, which wassupp lanted by Clarke 's (197 0) system. W ith thirty-nine attributes concerning shape ,size, proportions, posit ion of decoration, and the decorative motifs, this pioneeringuse of computerized matrix-sorting methods divided the Beaker population intofifteen groups, which Clarke took to represent seven distinct incursions intoBritain, and the regional development of variant styles from those importedpro totyp es. T h e Clarke schem e did not find favour, archaeological opinionpreferring the seven subdivisions of Lan ting and van der Waals (197 2). T h e m ostrecent scheme, by Case (1977), is simpler again, dividing the Beakers into justthree groups, as Abercrombie did seventy years ago.5.2 The purpose of classificationClearly, a classification that drifts from three up to fifteen groups and then backdow n to seven and th ree again over the years is an unea sy affair. It reflectsarchaeologists ' ignorance of what Beakers represent, and how their design systemwo rks. Th re e particular kinds of unce rtainties can be identified.

First , the anthrop ological - historical (semiotic) interpretation of Beake rs hasdrifted also. Tak en as the chara cteristic artefacts of the first co pp er users , theywere regarded by the 'culture = people' hypothesis as evidence of a dominant pan-Eu rop ea n wa rrior-aristocracy of metal trad ers. No w they seem primarily a ceramicentity, part of a 'prestige or fashion packet' or the material apparatus of a cult(Burgess, 1980, page 63) (although the abandoned 'Beaker folk' still linger as ashadowy conceptual entity: Harrison, 1980). With no consistent view of theanthropology of Beakers, no consistent requirements exist of the ult imate externalvariables, perhaps social and symbolic, to be pursued by the internal systematic ofthe typology.

Second, a reliable middle-range theory has not been developed to l ink thesevaried views of the social meaning of Beakers to the internal systematics of Beakerdesign. W ith no indica tion as to what kind of variation exists in ceram ic designsystems expressing the particular social role, symbolism, or 'meaning' that ispostulated, the appropriate variables are unknown.Last, there is no clear measure of the technical efficiency of classification.There are around 900 complete Brit ish Beakers altogether, no two identical, so aclassification may run from a single undivided group (simply the definition of aBeak er) up to 900 distinct entit ies, each represe nted by one Beak er. A s thenumber of divisions increases, the classification is in one sense more informative,since i t takes m ore ac coun t of the variation that is prese nted ; in another sense, i tis less informative, since it increases the complexity of the classification withoutprod ucing entit ies which m ake sense in an thropo logical - historical terms.5.3 An alternative to classificationThe crit ical questions that follow from the inadequacies of typological sorting arewhether a more refined approach to classification will suffice, or whether adifferent view of artefacts is neces sary. Th is choice is take n up at the end of thepaper (section 13).6 Th e designed artefacts and the design system that created them6.1 In the historical periodIn historical contexts, there is often sound information about the design process bywhich a set of artefacts was generated.The principles of classical architectural design, still a living tradition, have beenwell doc um ented since Hellenistic times. Given, therefore, a m onu m ental building


11/41


in the Western classical tradition, whether Hellenistic, Roman, Palladian, orcontemporary, the priorities and methods of the design system are known, and maybe reconstructed . T he o rder, as defined primarily by deco ration but also involvingbase, capital, and en tab latu re, is the first variable. Pro po rtio ns of colum ns andtheir spacing, allowed to vary somewhat under each order, are a second variable.But the heights (thicknesses) of the individual drums which make up the columnsare irrelevant, a matter of simple builders ' convenience, which may have been tomake them quite consistent.Would this be obvious to a prehistorian, coming to a classical building withoutforeknow ledge? I suspec t not, certainly if he or she took th e 'natura l' priorities offunctionalism, which would place drums as a primary matter, the physical basis ofconstruction; pro po rtion s as a seconda ry m atter of free design choice within theengineering limits of drum -, column -, and beam-building meth ods; and ornam entsof base and capital as minor matters, indicative of individual taste and fashion,useful if they chanced to be indicative of date also, but in no way fundamental tothe real design system. Th is prehisto rian, for one , has no confidence that hewould understand, after finding that capitals on adjacent sides of the Parthenondiffer in width by 2\ inches and intercolumn spacing by If inches (Lawrence, 1967,page 169), that this was a planned effect to avoid monotony, rather than haphazardvariation, incompetence, or simply looseness in the design system.

Th e ultimate aim of anthropological - historical reconstruction requires theprehistorian to reproduce the methods of the prehistoric design process as well asthe results. Arch aeolog ically, therefo re, Stiny and M itchell's (197 8a) shape -grammar restatement of the Palladian system (Palladio, 1738) is in this singlerespect unhelpful. T he proce sses of the Stiny and M itchell gramm ar are:gene rating a sym me trical 'tar tan ' grid; defining the exterio r and interio r wallpa ttern ; remo ving som e interior walls to mak e rectangular, T-, H-, or + -shape drooms; realigning interior walls; adding principal entrances; adding exteriororna m ents; and piercing windows and do ors . T he me thod precisely reconstructsthe repertoire of finished designs of the Palladian canon (Stiny and Mitchell,1978b), and attempts maximum efficiency, in generating the full canon by the mosteconomical route (5 ). But Palladio's own writing and other Renaissance treatises onarchitecture (fore example, Alberti, 1485; Serlio, 1575) show that those designsw ere arrived at in a very different way. T h e an throp olog ical - historical insights ofthe grammar reconstruction are correspondingly restrictedthey indicate whatPalladio did rather than what he thought he was doing. Do es this matter,supposing Palladio to have been an anonym ous prehistoric craftsman? Clearly itdoes, if we attempt a cognitive 'archaeology of mind' and want to know what hethough t (Renfrew, 198 3b). If we prefer to conc entrate o n what he actuallyproduced, the formal evidence of the Stiny and Mitchell grammar is appropriate.6.2 In the prehistoric periodIn preh istory, direct reco rd of the design pro cess is by definition lost. Ne verthe less,evidence detectable in the artefact of how it was made, simple functional needs (forexample, shelter and housing), engineering constraints (for example, in monumentalbuilding), and experimental replication (especially in technologies such as metalworking) usually show what kind of design system to expect. Som etimes there arephysical traces of the design process, such as fine-scratched lines that set out thegeometric forms to be followed by incised decoration on iron-age 'La Tene' mirrors.(5 ) Economy is an appropriate goal when the purpose is automating the design process, butnot for reconstruction of the activity of design as formerly practised.


12/41


13/41


14/41

458 C Chippindale

Second, he suggested the circles were not casually ill-shaped, but followed aseries of exact geometries based on Pythagorean triangles (figure 4 (7 )) .Third, he found patterns in the orientation of sites which implied an advancedknowledge of the motion of sun, moon, and stars.All three hypotheses are independent, as far as their internal systematics areconcerned, although Thorn does l ink them together in a unified vision of megalithicscience. Nev ertheless, they are conn ected at the level of an thro po log ical- histo ricalinference, since each makes more sense in a society possessing the other two skills,and the three taken together amount to a vision of megalithic society quitecontrary to that otherwise archaeologically reconstructed (MacKie, 1977)andimplying a knowledge of mathematics and astronomy far greater than is possessedby almost any archaeologist .

type I type II(b) (d)Figure 4. The six standard geometric constructions proposed by Thorn for stone rings, andhow they may be gener ated . Th ey are all bilaterally symm etrical (modified from T horn an dThorn, 1978; Heggie, 1981). (a) The circle is struck from its cen tre, (b) T he ellipse ismeasured from its two foci, F x and F2, and depends on a Pythagorean triangle, with sidesa, b, c. (c) The flattened circles are struck from four points, half or two thirds of the wayfrom the centre of the unflattened circle at A, the balance from a point on its circumferenceat D y and two points, B and C, inside the circle. For type A , a 240 arc is struck from p oint A,and points B and C fall at the apices of a 120 isosceles triangle with A. For type B, a 180arc is struck from point A, and points B and Clie on the diameter of the unflattened circleperpendicular to AD. [Thorn and Thorn (1978, page 18) add two variants, a modified type B,and a hybrid between types A and B called type D.] (d) T he egg shapes are based on a pairof Pythagorean triangles, ABD and ACD, placed back to back. In type I, arcs are struck from allfour poin ts that mak e the vertices of the triangles. In type II, arcs are struck from two only, andjoined by straight lines parallel to two sides of the quadrilateral ABCD formed by the triangles.[Thorn and Thorn (1978, page 18) add a type III egg shape with semielliptical end.]

(7) In recognition of their noncircular plans, the name 'stone rings' is now preferred.


15/41


I deal he re only with the hyp othe sis of geom etry in the stone rings. [For asummary of metrology, see Heggie (1981 , pages 3 2 -5 9 ); of astronomy, see Heggie(1981 , pages 83 - 1 8 4 ) and Ruggles et al (198 4); of the anthropological - historicalimplications of the Thorn hypothesis, see Ruggles and Whittle (1981).]9.3 The Thorn geom etric hypothesis for the design systemThis sup poses that r ings were repeatedly constru cted to six geometric forms: circles,ellipses, flattened circles of two types, A and B, and egg shapes of two types, I and II(figure 4). A few sites, amo ng them A vebu ry and Ston ehen ge, have m ore com plexgeometries (Thorn, 1967, pages 8 4 - 9 1 ; 1978 , pages 3 2 - 3 4 ; 14 1 - 1 49 ) .

Three questions arise as to the internal systematics of the stone-ring designsystem. Firs t, do es the Tho rn hypo thesis satisfactorily ac cou nt for the plans of thesites? If it does , is it the mos t econo mica l ex plana tion of their plans since asimpler hypothesis that matched the plans equally well should be preferred?(So might a more complex hypothesis if it matched the plans sufficiently better.)'Eco no m ical' may be taken in variou s ways; an alternative set of figures may besimpler in its formal geometry, or require simpler means physically to lay out, orbo th. La st, there is a m ore purely historical - anth ropo logic al qu estion: is thehypothesis compatible with other information about the intellectual capabilities andpursuits of prehistoric Britons?Figure 5(a) shows the plan of Burnmoor circle B, one of five rings on a plateau

in west Cum bria in the Eng lish Lak e District. It is a small ring of eleven stone s,over a diam eter of abo ut 50 feet. Ea ch sto ne is in plan a delimited a rea ofupwards of 2 or 3 square feet, so a whole series of geometric shapes, all more orless complex, fulfil a strict requirement that it should pass through each stone.Among them is a set of polygons with as many sides as there are stones to befitted [figure 5(b))]. Bu t only four ston es are sta nd ing , and it is likely the o the rseven hav e top pled in the falling; the strict requ irem ent is un reaso nab le. A simplecircle passes through all four upright stones, and through or near the other seven.Notice that the choice of a circle, its diameter and position, depends on arbitrarybu t reason able judgm ents as to what cons titutes the 'best fit '; since no circle fitsall the stones, it is reasonable to take more notice of those that are standing thanthose that are fallen.Fig ure 6 shows Brats H ill, a larger ring in the same gro up . A circle is clearly apo or fit, and Th orn uses a type-A flattened circle. Ag ain, the exact geom etry, size,and position of the imposed shape are a matter of reasonable judgment.

//oi r-\T \ }c\ \

N \ i,I/J(a) (b) (c)Figure 5. Burnmoor B stone ring, Cumbria (after Thorn et al, 1980, page 36). (a) The ringof eleven stones that are the subject of the geometric study, (b) A strict requirement thatany geometric construction must pass through each stone generates, among others, a family ofeleven-sided polygons within the delimiting lines, (c) The Thorn construction, a circle of49.7 feet diameter passes through six stones, touches two, and misses three. It achieves aneater geometric shape than an eleven-sided polygon at the expense of goodness of fit.


16/41

46 0 C Chjppindale

Another Cumbrian stone ring, Castle Rigg, is fitted to exactly the same geometricshape and size as Brats Hill (figures 6 and 7) (Thorn et al, 1980, pages 28-30).Ten stones making a 'corridor' on the east side are reckoned to belong with asepa rate geometry. Again, the fit is reaso nab le, bu t a series of stones on th enorthwest side fall within the curve; that is, a slight systematic deviation from theflattened circle type-A geometry is present as well as the haphazard deviationnoted for Brats Hill.

These few examples, taken from the 229 in Thorn et al's report (1980), indicatehow the plans are fitted and with what order of accuracy.0 _ - ^ - G - >.n

&\p

,'0

* * V/ rv0

O v

o - - _ ^ - H - O - ^ c r - * ' "Figure 6. Brats Hill (Burnmoor E) stonering, Cum bria. A ty p eA flattened circlepasses through twenty-eight, touches four,and misses twelve stones (after Thorn et al,1980 , page 40).

Figure 7. Castle Rigg stone ring, Cumbria.A type-A flattened circle passes throughtwenty-seven, touches three, and misses tenstone s. (After Thorn et al, 1980, page 28).

9.4 Other geometric hypo theses for the design systemThorn's ellipses and egg shapes are based on Pythagorean triangles, that is, right-angled triangles all of whose sides are integral numbers of his megalithic units oflength. Thorn (19 67, pages 27 - 2 8 ) finds exact Pythagorean triangles were usedfrom the simplest 3, 4, 5 up to 12, 35, 37, also the approximations to Pythagoreantriangles provided by, for example, 8, 9, 12 which just fail to meet the Pythagoreanequa tion. Th orn (1 96 7, page 33) also note s that the perim eters of the rings fall asintegral numbers of his megalithic fathom.

The Thorn design system postulates, therefore, a mixture of three relativelydistinct form s: circles; flattened circles ; and ellipses and egg shap es bas ed onPythagorean constructions.Encouraged by Thorn's work, other researchers have developed different designsystems for the rings.Cowan (1970) developed a set of shapes very similar to Thorn's (flattened circlesof types A and B, oblate circle, and eggs of types I and II; plus a circle) allconstructed by the same method of rope and peg. In each case there are twoanchor points for the rope, which bends as it meets two other posts (figure 8).Cowan's construction gives a single design system for all the noncircular shapes.It requires lines ax-a 2 and p1-p 2 to be laid down at right angles, but no knowledgeof Pythagorean triangles (8 ).

(8 ) However, it can be argued that a knowledge of Pythagorean triangles would have helpedin setting the lines perpendicular.


17/41


An gell (19 76 ; 197 7) no ted th at a circle is scribed by a rop e tied to a singlepost, and an ellipse by one passed round tw o. Exten ding the method to loopsround three or four posts, he generates a different set of shapes which alsoapproximate closely to Thorn's series and to the shapes of stone rings (figure 9).Angell provides a single design system for all the stone rings, at the expense ofuncertainty as to how the construction posts were set out.Type Geom etry Stake lines Constructional inscription

Figure 8. Cowan's construction methods for generating shapes like those of Thorn's geometrywith posts and rope (after Cowan, 1970).For flattened circles of types A and B, the rope, tied to anchor point auis bent round otherposts px and p2 as it scribes the arc. T he figure is com pleted by an arc struck from theother anchor point a2. Oblate circles (ellipses) and egg shapes are constructed in much thesame manner with, again, pairs of posts set at right angles.


18/41

46 2 C Chippindale

o-'o'0' 'ff/&/t*o( o0 PxIa 0

\ ^d-o^O

. o - * - - - ^

OOP3

o O


19/41


Sto ne r ings a re f i n it e i n nu m be r , and m or e o r l e s s i l l -p re se r ved . T he y of fe r al imi t ed to t a l quan t i t y o f ev idence .

S o m e a r e s i m p l e i n s h a p e , s u c h as t h e ' f o u r - p o s t e r s ' (B u r l , 1 9 7 6 , p a g e s 1 9 0 - 1 9 5 ) , atype concen t ra t ed in cen t ra l Sco t l and wh ich inc ludes on ly fou r s tones i n a roughqua d r i l a t e r i a l ; s i nce i t i s no t req u i r ed in m a tch ing a r i ng to a geo m et r i c co ns t ru c t io ntha t a l l t he s tones pass t h rough the cu rve , t he fou r -pos t e r s can be ma tched to an yon e sch em e o f eac h des ign sys t em . T he y o f fe r no re l eva n t ev ide nce .

Su rv iv ing s tones i n some r ings a re concen t ra t ed in a sma l l l eng th o f t hep e r i m e t e r , so a v a r i e ty o f g e o m e t r i e s c a n b e a c c o m m o d a t e d b y t h e m . T h e y o ff eri n a d e q u a t e e v i d e n c e .

Some r ings have been re s to red in who le o r i n pa r t , so i t i s unce r t a in how fa rthe i r p r e se n t d i sp os i t i o n re f l ec ts t he p re h i s to r i c p l an . T he y o f fe r m i s l ead inge v i d e n c e ( 9 ) .In mos t r i ngs , many s tones have tumbled f rom the i r o r ig ina l up r igh t pos i t i ons ( 1 0 ) .

Tho rn (1967 , t ab l e 5 .1 ) reckoned the s i ze and shape o f 145 r ings cou ld bees t ab l i she d wi th go od accu rac y . Ba rna t t and Mo i r (1 98 4 , t ab l e 3 ) u se s t r i c t e rc r i te r i a a n d a c c e p t o n y s e v e n t y si x. T h e y a t t e m p t to d i s c r i m i n a t e b e t w e e n h y p o t h e s e sof exac t geometr ies and of s igh t ing by eye in th ree ways: by consis tency ofd i a m e t e r , s in c e n o n c i r c u l a r g e o m e t r i e s s h o u l d g e n e r a t e r e g u l a r d e v i a t i o n s : b ysymmet ry , s i nce t he geomet r i e s a re symmet r i ca l and s igh t ing by eye shou ld l ead toha ph az a r d a sym m et ry ; and by rep e t i t i o n o f sha pe , s i nce s igh t ing by eye shou ldgene ra t e haphaza rd dev ia t i ons f rom c i rcu l a r i t y wi th no spec i f i c shapes be ingr e p e a t e d .

I n r e d u c i n g t h e a c c e p t a b l e d a t a s e t b y a l m o s t half, B a r n a t t a n d M o i r e l i m i n a t ea l l bu t one pos tu la ted e l l ipse , a l l bu t two of the type-A and a l l bu t one of thetyp e-B f la t tened c i rc les , a ll bu t on e typ e-I and a ll bu t on e type -II egg sh ap e . Lef twi th on ly a hand fu l o f r i ngs t ha t ma tc h the su pp os ed ge om et r i e s , t hey con c lud etha t no p roven theo re t i ca l geomet r i e s ex i s t t o be exp la ined , apa r t f rom the s imp lec i rc l e .


20/41

464 C Chippindale

9.7 Simulating the design processThis may be the end of the affair, especially if the reliable data set is simply toosmall to allow further successful testing. In that case, a judgment must be made onthe basis of rather limited formal testing, on the usual principles of economy andparsimo ny, and on relevan t anthro polo gical - historical informa tion abou t the know ncultural context of the stone rings.

Two tiny openings remain to be explored.First, there remain a handful of stone rings not yet surveyed and studiedthatis , a small new data set, whose integrity has not been compromised by its role indeveloping the hypothesis that is to be tested (11).Second, the Barnatt and Moir design system, of sighting by eye, is not wellun de rsto od . It is reaso nab le to expect that designs gen erated tha t way would bevariable in shape, rather asymmetrical, and of no clear geometrical form, as theyargued against Th orn. Bu t how variable, how asym m etric, and how form less?Accordingly, the next step has been to lay out a modern set of over 100 stone-ringplans by eye, to survey them, and to compare the pattern in the order anddisorder of the plans with that of the noncircular ancient rings (Barnatt andHerring , 1986 ). Th ere are unquantifiable uncertainties. Ho w mu ch does them oder n perception of shape differ from the ancient? How much does perce ptionchange with the size of the ring? Ho w m uch does c are, skill, and pra ctice affectthe circularity of the results? Ho w m uch is the result affected by the real wo rk ofbuilding a stone ring (the simulation simply sets out more portable modernartefacts)?but a pattern in the simulated population which followed that in thereal noncircular rings will much strengthen this case.

Barnatt and Herring's findings are so striking that they seem finally to decidethe question . Fir st, it appe ars that judging an exact circle by eye is very har d, inconfirmation of Barnatt and Moir's (1984) belief that the exact circles must havebeen laid out formally, with peg and rop e. Secon d, among the shapes laid out, allof themto their builders' visual inspectionpretty well circular, are numberswhich conform rather well to the ellipses, flattened circles, eggs, and so on, of theformal Thorn geometries (figure 10).This finding emphasizes the critical distinction between the formal properties ofa set of designs and the process by which those formal properties came about.Barnatt and Herring's volunteers have generated a set of shapes which do adhererather well to the Thorn geometries; but the process of design was not geometricalat all. Th ey simply misjudged circles. Ba rnatt and H errin g (198 6) con clude thatthey cannot therefore distinguish on geometric grounds alone, between the twohypotheses, of exact geometry and misjudged visual sighting; nevertheless, they areable to prefer that of visual sighting, on the basis of archaeological context andregional groups and because of its greater simplicity.

(n> The formal statistical requirement that a hypothesis developed on one data set be testedon an independent data set is a formidable obstacle in archaeology. In the case of the Britishstone rings, no other data set exists, beyond these few sites previously overlooked. Even ifthere was another population of prehistoric stone rings, in France perhaps, the differentcultural history of each area would leave open a very real likelihood that the French siteswere built to a different design-system. Their following, or failing to follow, the designsystem of the British Isles would not be conclusive in either way.Partitioning the data set into regional groups offers some help.Stonehenge, the oddest of the stone rings, offers a more difficult challenge. Many of itsaspects appear unique, so how can they be dealt with by comparative methods within a classof designs (Chippindale, 1986b)?


21/41


V.

*- *

,,- v * - -:

'. 4>' . 4 *

f

i

i .* * \4 \" .#

i 1\ . - ' " ' ' " - . >

^ 9.. *

' -

Figure 10. Barnatt and Herring's sighting of rings by eye generates shapes which neatly fitTh orn's formal geo m etries. T he upp er three of these examples conform to the geom etries oftype-I egg shap es, the lower five to those of type-II egg shap es. (After B arnatt and He rring,1986.)10 Geometry in the cornu motif of Mont Bego rock art10.1 The Mont Bego rock engravingsThe bare slopes of Mont Bego, a 2872-metre peak in the French Alps, carry amajor collection of later prehis toric rock art (Lumley et al, 197 6). O n slabssmoothed by glacial action are pecked, with a stone or metal tool, several tens oftho usa nd s of figures. Som e are securely dated to the early 2nd millennium BC.Since no distinct chronological sequence within the figures is proven, it is best toregard all the figures as belonging to a single coherent design system (figure 11).

Among the figures are recognizable pictures of physical objects, daggers andhalberds (blades hafted at right angles, like narrow axes) whose shape and profileconform well to the objects they depict and allow their identification [figure 11(a)and (b)]. For the interna l systematics of this aspect of the design system d isplayedin the Mont Bego figures, nothing more complex is needed than a simple model of


22/41

466 C Chippindale

a representational art system which produces to a good accuracy in size and formthe chara cteristic sh apes of its subjects. T h e anth ropo logica l - historica l context isless certain, but it clearly relates to the very large body of evidence that metalobjects had a very special role in Europe at this period (Coles and Harding, 1979,pages 8 -16) .A no the r d istinctive grou p of figures offers a geom etric sh ape [figure 11(c)].Sometimes thesesuch as open rectangles divided into regular squaresevoke, andmay actually be, realistic depic tions of objects of tho se shap es, nets perh ap s; bu t itis safer to treat this element in the design system in terms of formal geometry, theorganizing scheme to which either they themselves, or the objects they realisticallydepict, clearly adhere.

Figure 11. Som e comm on motifs in the M ont Bego rock figures: (a) dagger, (b) halberd ,(c) geometric shape, (d) geometric shape, perhaps a map, (e)-(j) cornusstylized oxen,(k) two yoked co rnus draw ing a plough, with ploug hm an. (After auth or's draw ings of figuresin the Fontanalba region of Mont Bego.)


23/41

Archaelogy, design theory, and prehistoric design systems 46 7

Some geometric shapes are very reminiscent of maps, in the modern Westernsense [figure 11(d)], and hav e been so interp rete d (Smith, 1985 ). Th is aspect ofthe design system is best studied by exploring the internal systematics of thegeometries and comparing it with the layouts of the contemporary settlements theymay belong with.Much the most common motif is neither realistic nor geometric in its designsystem. Th is is the corn u [figure 11(e) (j)], consisting of an area of pecking, fromthe top of which rise two diverging band s or lines. T he area of pecking is veryvariable in shape and size; it often te nds to a rectang le. T h e lines are variablealso, sometimes straight, sometimes curved, but usually symmetrical left to right,and rarely crossing.Some pairs of cornus are embedded in larger figures [figure ll(k)] of characteristicform. Th es e so clearly follow the shap e of a ploug h, with two oxen (the cornu s), ayoke, shaft, ploughshare, handle, and, often, ploughman, that their identification aspictures of plough teams is secure. Accordingly, the cornu along represents an ox.10.2 Classifying the cornusThe cornu design system may be called diagrammatic, in that it represents salientfeatures of an ox (a body with a pair of horns on the front) but does not closelyfollow its physical app earan ce. No breed of cattle, m odern or prehistoric, hashorns that remotely approach the size, elaboration, or variability of the cornus, socon sidera tions of realism do no t apply. A n an throp olog ical - historical referent isprovided by widespread evidence for oxen and ploughs having a special importancein 2nd millennium B C Europe (Coles and Harding, 1979, page 192; Lumley et al,1976, pages 115-118), but this offers no specific guide as to what elements in the

\y v \J

Y

VYV

V IV jy\Figure 12. Cornu typology classes by body shape (circle, rectangle, triangle) and number ofdistinct bends in the horns (one-segment, two-segment, more-than-two-segm ent). (AfterLumley et al, 1977.)


24/41

468 C Chippindale

interna l system atics might be most im po rtan t. T h e physical location of the figureson a remote mountain top which is snow covered eight months of the year, ourcomplete ignorance of their prehistoric purpose and role, and the absence ofsettlement sites to which the figures relate, offer no leads as to what variables arecentral to the design system.How are the cornus to be studied? (12 ). By num ber alone, they dom inate in thecollection, and therefore sh ould carry subs tantial inform ation of som e kind. Bu tthey seem to vary in every element of size and shape within the wide limits of the'body-plus-two-horns' formula that defines the class (13).In the absence of any guides as to how the cornu design system worked, astraightforward typological approach has been used (Lumley et al, 1977) involvingthe two elements, the shape of the body and the shape of the horns (figure 12).T he bod y is classed by its app rox im ation to a rectang le, circle, or triangle. T hehorns are classed by the number of straight or curved segments they show, that is,by the number of distinct breaks in their curve.10.3 Limitations of a typological approachM any cornus are easily classed by this method . For these the concern is whetherthe internal variation in the design system tracked by the typology actually relatesto any external variables, either in the conceptual intentions of the artisans, or inunconscious patterns in the design system that might be diagnostic of, for example,date . If it do es not, then the typology is simply a conv enient m eans of sorting anuncom fortably large mass of material. Oth er cornus are hard unambiguously toclass (figure 13).

If the body is an irregular blob, it falls between the three exact geometricforms. T he typology offers little guide. Since exact geom etric forms are followedto a high accuracy elsewhere in the design system, one cannot lightly dismiss theseas a technical failure to achieve the 'corre ct' ideal form. T he typology offers id ealtypes which the artisans did not in fact achieve and to which they seem not tohave aimed.Similar problems arise when the horns do not show clear and distinct bends toplace them neatly within a class. It is a nice matte r of judg m ent to d ecide if ashift of direction constitutes a break in segments.Any number of other and different rationales for horn classification exist.Le ngth in relation to the bod y size is a possibility. So is the distinction b etw eenhorns composed of (any number of) straight segments, horns composed of (anynumber of) curved segments, and horns composed of both straight and curvedsegm ents. (Th at classification b rings in equally nice judg m ents as to what isstraight and what is curved.)Classing the corn us offers the classic typological difficulty: an ill-un ders tooddesign system whose controlling variables are a m atter of guessw ork; unc ertain ty inthe classification p roce ss; and a lack of confidence that the typological classesrepresent more than an arbitrary division of the material.

(12> I consider here only the classification of form, and set aside other insights fromtechnique, size, position, etc.


25/41


V v l v v0 10 20 30 cm ^

Figure 13. Some Mont Bego cornus. The basic schema is a body with m ore or lesssymmetrical horns that go up and out. A few have a tail below the body, or a neck betweenthe body and horns; one has two pairs of legs. (After author's drawings of figures in theFontanalba region of Mont Bego.)10.4 An alternative approach to cornu variabilityIn working with the less shapely cornus, I was struck by how frequently littlereliable could be said beyo nd th e falling of the figure within the corn u class. T h etypological approach presumed a set of ideal types which many cornus failed toachieve. Turning the concept of an ideal cornu type on its head (or ho rns, onemight say) produced an alternative set of propositions, based on the idea thatfigures generated to no particular forms or ideal types would nevertheless show'regularities' of the kind the typology dealt with:(a) Some cornus do closely follow well-defined geometric 'ideal' shapes with goodaccuracy.(b) Some cornus display only the vaguest approximation to an ideal shape of bodyor horns.(c) Given that a great many haphazardly generated shapes would show someappearance of order, it is likely that much of the variation explored in typologicalclassification can be accounted for by stochastic variation within a rather freedesign system.


26/41

470 C Chippindale

(d ) In tha t case , the va r iab i l i ty mon i to red by the typo logy i s un l ike ly d i r ec t ly tore f lec t the in te rna l sys temat ics o f the des ign sys tem, o r any ex te rna l va r iab les .

T h e s e p r o p o s a l s w e r e t e s t e d b y a c o m p u t e r s i m u l a t i o n o f t h e s h a p e s o f c o r n uh o r n s . F i e l d o b s e r v a t i o n s u g g e s t s t h e h o r n s w e r e b e g u n at t h e i r b a s e o n t h e b o d ya n d p e c k e d o n t h e r o c k u p w a r d s a n d g e n e r a l l y o u t w a r d s . S i n c e t h e h o r n s a r egenera l ly symmet r ica l l e f t to r igh t , i t su f f i ced to genera te one , the r igh t -hand horn ,p r e s e n t i n g t h e le ft a s a s i m p l e m i r r o r i m a g e . T h e s i m u l a t i o n g e n e r a t e d a p o p u l a t i o no f h o r n s b y a s i m i l a r p r o c e d u r e , u s i n g p i x e l s i n p l a c e o f p e c k m a r k s o n a r o c k .E a c h p ix e l w a s p l a c e d a d j a c e n t t o i ts p r e d e c e s s o r , s u b j e c t t o t w o c o n d i t i o n s . O n e ,s y s t e m a t i c c o n d i t i o n e n s u r e d t h e g e n e r a l d i r e c t i o n o f t h e p a t t e r n o f p i x e l s c r e a t e d( t he h o r n ) w a s u p w a r d s a n d o u t w a r d s . A s e c o n d , r a n d o m i z i n g c o n d i t i o n e n s u r e dtha t the pa r t i cu la r pos i t ion o f any one p ixe l was s tochas t i c ( 1 4 ) .

F i gu re 14 show s four s im ula te d pa i r s of ho rn s c rea te d in th i s way . I t was foun dt h a t s o m e w e r e v e r y i r r e g u l a r i n s h a p e , w h e r e a s o t h e r s s h o w e d c l e a r c h a n g e s o fd i r ec t ion to d iv ide the horn in to s egments , o f the k ind the typo logy dea l s w i th .T h e n ice ty o f ju dg m en t invo lve d in as ses s ing whe the r a s l igh t dev ia t ion in agenu ine co rnu was conf i rmed by the ve ry r ea l d i f f i cu l ty invo lved in mak ing thes a m e a s s e s s m e n t f o r s i m u l a t e d h o r n s .xx Va) (b)(c) (d)Figure 14. Four simulated sets of cornu horns developed by the part-stochastic process.Each is symmetrical left to right, and 'grows' upwards and outwards from its origin.(a) Simulation 1 shows no very distinct order, although it does seem to have two definiteslight corner s in its line, (b) In simulation 2 the line moves out in distinct rectilinea r step s,alternately up and ou t. (c) Simulation 3 also ma kes a rectilinear ste p, of larger and stro ngerform, (d) Sim ulation 4 again provid es distinct bre aks of directio n. In this simulation runonly, the lower par t is filled in to make a bod y for the cornu . Ea ch ru n uses the samedirectional matrix; it is only the rando m n um ber series which varies.

(14) xhis was achieved by a 'directional matrix' of this form:8 10 554 101 4 8T he empty, central cell represe nts the prese nt position of the pixel. To move the pixel, arando m num ber is chosen from the range 0 0 - 9 9 . If this falls within the first eight (0 0 -0 7 ),then the pixel moves to the cell up and left; if it falls within the next ten (0 8 -1 7 ), the pixelmoves straight up ; and so on. T he pro ced ure is repea ted until the horn made up by thecumulative pixel pattern reaches a convenient length. T he p opulation tends to a limitrepresented by the overall balance of figures in the directional matrix, in this case symmetricallyup and to the right. Th e position of any one pixel is rando m. Details of the proce dure arein Chippindale (1986a).


27/41


The simulation confirmed that a population of shapes generated by a part-stochastic process mimicked features held to be significant in making a typologicalclassification of the corn u figures. T ho se corn u horn s of very clear shap e,repeating, for instance, a short straight segment of standard length in a consistentmanner, are clearly the result of design intent (figure 13); these are not generatedin the simulation. Bu t ho rns of less certain sha pe are.

It is concluded that a large element in horn variation may have been generatedby a haphazard process, in which the only clear requirements were that the twohorns should be symmetrical, and that the horns should go upward, and optionallyoutw ard, from the body. A typological analysis in term s of how many segmentsare scribed in this way is inappropriate, as well as offering serious difficulties ofconsistency in judgment.11 Pattern in archaeological distributionsThe previous case studies have involved particular design systems of two-dimensionalforms. Arch aeolog ical distributions across a landsc ape are also two-dim ensional forms,but of a different and more uncertain charac ter (Hodd er and Orto n, 197 6). Visualinterpretation of the patterns in distribution maps whose spot points represent theoccurrence of monuments of certain types, or the findspots of certain artefacts, isroutine in archaeology (Fox, 1943, pages 10-14) .

A distribution map is an artefact, in two senses.First, it brings together implicit or explicit design choices in prehistory, whichtogether make a systematic patte rn. Sometimes there m ay be a single plan beh indthe pattern : the distribution p attern of Ro ma no-B ritish towns in Britain reflectstheir function of administering a new province of the Empire, and the towns arenotably evenly spaced, each with its administrative territory (Hodder and Hassall,1971). Or repeated individual acts, such as the sacrificial placing of bronzemetalwork in a river or wet place, cumulatively generate a distribution patternalong the river valleys.Second, a distribution map is a modern artefact, created by the archaeologistfrom the information available. So it is entirely subject to the vagaries oftaphonom y, survival, and recovery. Distribution map s in som e parts of the world,and the archaeological entities defined by the evidence of their pattern, have adistressing habit of following mo de rn political bo un da ries : they are the artefacts ofarchaeologists rather than of archaeology.Ta pho no mic effects m ay be overwhe lming. To take a simple examp le, survivingevidence of prehistoric settlement on the fen edge of East Anglia has a very strongpattern of spatial distribution, concentrating in the gravels of the major rivers

(Pryor, 1980 ). Is it significant? Perh aps , bu t thre e con trolling factors must bedisco unte d. Firs t, arab le cultivation of the thin topso il of the limestone hills whichlie higher than the gravels has obliterated almost all archaeological evidence.Second, later silting in the fen itself has covered the prehistoric ground surface bysome metres, so it is only accessible where modern cuts have broken through to it .Third, the river gravels where sites are neither eroded nor deeply buried provideperfect conditions for the discovery of sites by the standard technique of aerialpho tograp hy: T h e distribu tion pa tte rn is only informa tive if it is clearly the resultof more than accidents of survival and recovery.11.1 What kind of order, what kind of scale?If the taphonomic and sampling problems can be overcome, the distribution map maybe ho pe d to reflect som e preh istoric reality. T ha t is, the distrib utio n is an artefact,not a physical one, but the product nevertheless of a prehistoric design system.


28/41

472 C Chippindale

It can be studied as a geographical spatial distribution (Cole and King, 1968,p a g e s 1 6 4 - 3 3 8 ) .How ever, such an 'artefact' will generally be an unlovely crea ture . Some

considerable labour is required to construct the artefact from data that are,generally, scattere d an d of un certain quality. A nd th e choice of wha t is plo ttedtogether is critical, since conflating together distribution systems, each with adifferent pattern, onto a single map misleads.W hat order can be found in a distribution? A s there are an indefinite n um berof typologies for physical artefacts, so there are an indefinite number of spatialord ers to be found in distribu tions. To emph asize the similarity of the que stion tothat of physical artefacts, the process by which the distribution is created will becalled a design system in this section; obviously, the 'design system' will no t hav ethe creation of a distribution map as its intent.T hr ee spatial ord ers are of partic ular relevan ce (figure 15). A ra nd omdistribution [figure 15(a)] provides a model for the kind of distribution that wouldarise hapha zardly. Furthest removed from it are not one but tw o ordered pat terns,a clustered pattern [figure 15(b)] in which the nearest-neighbour distance tends to aminim um , and a spaced pa tter n [figure 15(c)] in which the n eare st-neig hbo urdistance tends to a maximum.Sometimes, there exists a clear hypothesis of the design system from which aparticular pa ttern may be expected to arise. Th om as (1972 ), studying Great Basinforagers' camps in the US West, could expect the artefacts of a winter village to beclustered, whereas projecti le points lost when deer hunting would be scatteredhaphazardly.

When no clear hypothesis exists, clustered or spaced patterns may be sought.Clustered patterns may be identified by the drawing of contours around zones ofhigh density. Spaced pa tter ns a re indic ated by the fitting of a grid (usuallyhexago nal) in which sites fall one pe r polygon. Imp erfections in the patte rn maybe put down to sampling and tap ho no m ic defects. So, em pty cells in the grid maymean only that its site has been destroyed, whereas two points in a cell may showthat they are chronologically distinct, with one site taking the role of its neighbourand predecessor (Hodder and Orton, 1976, pages 4-9) .

The defects of these visually convincing methods are underlined by the ease withwhich a random distribution can be treated as clustered or spaced, according tochoice . Very often an archaeolog ical distribution is no t very clearly orde red(figure 16), and fragments of it are easily persuaded to look either clustered orrand om . Having found a fragment of the design which is 'orde red' , an archaeologistis tem pted to look at this pa rt and set aside the rest. A rang e of m athem atical

* * \ \ \ ! ! ! !v A ! ! ! ! .

* *. 1 1 . :(a) (b) (c)Figure 15. T hr ee kinds of spatial distribution : (a) ran do m , (b) clustere d, (c) spaced. (AfterDavis, 1973.)

i


29/41


methods do exist r igorously to explore particular hypotheses about distributions,but they cannot always offer leads as to what kind of hypothesis is appropriate,givenall too oftenthe kind of pattern of figure 1.7.A no the r area of do ubt conce rns the scale of distributions. A distribution maybe well ordered at one scale, but haphazard at another (figure 18, see over).

(a) (b)Figure 16. Two views of the same random distribution, as made to fit different orders:(a) grou ped into clusters, (b) scattered into even polygons. (After H od de r and O rton , 1 976.)

Figure 17. D istribution of find-spots of Irish bro nz e swords . Solid circles indica te find-spotsexactly know n, ope n circles thos e located app roxim ately. T he patte rn of distributio n, as forthose for other bronze artefacts, is likely to reflect the locations of peat-bogs and theircutting, since that is the most common way Irish bronzework has been found, and theactivities of local collectors, as well as the real prehistoric distribution of metalwork acrossthe island (H arbison , 19 69 , page 1). (After Eogan , 1965.)

11.2 Testing a specific hypothesisThese difficulties have led to an increasing impatience with general distributionmaps. In any case, the finding of a pattern is equivalent to the recognition of adesign, and offers nothing in itself as to the particular design system by which thatpattern came about.


30/41

474 C Ch ipp inda le

Furthermore, the landscape is not the uniform space, entirely white or decoratedwith a few rivers, which a distribution map commonly presents as the backgroundto its array of do ts. R athe r, it is a highly stru ctur ed system, to be treat ed in avariety of ways according to a specific h ypo thesis . Defe nded sites gain inefficiency if they are placed in strategic places, at key river crossings, by valley

c>o

00 00

0

O0


31/41


m ou ths, on high places generally. Th ey will no t be scattered h aph azardly , and atest of their location in this nonuniform landscape should indicate whether anenigmatic kind of m onu me nt genu inely is defensive. If it is believed tha t the designsystem behind the distribution of Irish bronzes is directly connected to theoccurrence of metal ores, to water, or to other structures in the landscape, thismay be tested. A nd so on.

Some design systems for prehistoric distributions are subtle but convincing, allthe less likely to display them selves on gross maps of distribu tion. T he rou ndbarro ws of the 2nd m illennium BC in sou thern B ritain are com mo nly found o n thehigher groun d, bu t not actually on the summit ridges. It is notic eab le, however,that they are often on a 'false crest', visible on the skyline from valleys below.A design system for their positioning places the barrow above the valley-bottomsettlement site, clear of the low-lying arable, and in a conspicuous place high onthe slope (Ashbee, 1960).11.3 An island distribution testedFigure 19 shows the distribution of the thirteen neolithic chambered cairns on theisland of Rou say, in the Scottish O rkney s (Childe, 194 2). For once, the re is som econfidence that no sites have been destroyed, and it is hoped that the sites, forwhich there are no very reliable dates, represent the complete output of the spatialdesign system of cairns in the island. T he re a re no ne in the centre of the island.All but one lie just inside or outside the edge of modern arable land, and theirdistribution is strikingly similar to those of modern crofts.

Evid ently, this is a spaced rath er than a clustered distribu tion. (It can be mademore spaced if it is argued that the two adjacent tombs in the northeast and thethree in the southwest are successive monuments with the same role in the design,so each group can be treated as one.) H ypo thetica l territorie s can be given eachcairn, the frontiers being the lines equidistant between them.The distribution conforms to a design system by which each cairn is placedabout the uppermost edge of the arable land of about a dozen individual family-group s, each with its own territory (Renfrew, 19 73 , pages 13 5 -1 3 8 ). I t has two

Figure 19. Prehistoric chambered tombs on the island of Rousay, Orkney. Solid dots markthe tomb sites. Hypothetical territories relating to the tombs are indicated by the straightlines drawn equidistant between the sites. Areas of modern arable land are dotted; somesupport for the belief that each tomb marks a farming territory is given by the division ofarable land amongst the territories. (After Renfrew, 1973.)


32/41

476 C Chippindale

difficulties (Renfrew, 1979, page 13): frontiers drawn by physical equidistance takeno notice of the very varied terrain, and assume the territories of each site aremutually exclusive.Alternative hypotheses for the design system were also explored (Renfrew, 1979).One hypothesis retains the underlying idea that each cairn was a physical markerin the landscap e for a social gro up. T he assum ption is that the cairns were built inpro m inen t situation s, within sight of the group's activity area. A s the vegetation ofRousay has not much changed, study of modern visibility reflects that of ancienttimes and supports the hypothesis.A second approach was an attempt to specify further the particular considerations(elements in the design brief) for choosing cairn location s. Eigh t factors w eretaken into account which were hoped to reflect the main elements of the design

systemdistance from coast, nature of near coast, slope, drainage, rockiness,altitude, visibility from the main Orkney island (15), and distance from arable land.Repeated simulations were made with these factors weighted differently, so as todetermined which factors and which weightings generated a simulation closest tothat actually found. Th ey showed steep slope (a com man ding situation?) andaccess to the sea (for transport or food?) were major considerations, together withabsolute altitude and adjacency to arable land.12 Design in earliest stone toolsStoneworking, the only technology of early prehistoric periods for which evidencecommonly survives, has one precious characteristic for design reconstruction.Physically, it is a reductive pro cess . Beginning with a natur al block of stone, theartisan chips off flakes until the desired form is reached or a mishit aborts theproc edu re. By putting together matching pieces, the entire manufacturing processcan be reconstructed from choice of flint nodule to finishing of the tool.12.1 Recognizing a human artefactPebbles are naturally broken by chance causes of all kinds, so chipped stone is notin itself diagno stic of any hu m an action at all. A n everyd ay find in field-surveywork is a single flaked flint, with some appearance of design, which is the likelyresult of a blow ma de during cultivationa 'tra ctorfa cf or 'goatefact', according tothe local agricultural economyand not an artefact at all.

Figure 20. 'Eoliths': flint pebbles, especially in glacially redeposited material, have often beenshaped by natural causes in an order which so simulates human design that their naturalmanu facture was long disputed. (After Burkitt, 1933.)

(15> This factor is included in case Rousay acts as a cemetery for the main island, as SanMichele does for Venice.


33/41


Recognizing a flaked stone as a human artefact therefore depends on context(for example, association with hominid bones), on repetition (for example, findingof large numbers of flaked stones together), and on internal order (for example, thepattern of flakes on a stone is ordered rather than haphazard).Glacial conditions may drag frozen gravel over immoveable rocks in a mannerwhich repeatedly flakes pebbles from the same direction, producing collections of' cores ' and 'flakes' which mimic, in form, repetition, and evident order, humanartefacts (figure 20) (Wymer, 19 68 , page 13). Th ese 'eo liths', particu larly found inEast Anglian deposits known for their human artefacts, bedevilled Victorian studiesof early industries in northern Europe until experimental tests showed how naturalcauses could create them (Haward, 191 4; W arren, 1914). Recognizing eolithsrequires a second-order distinction, between the orders resulting from a repeatedand structured natural process and from a human design system.12.2 Earliest design systemsEarly stone tools, now proven to date in East Africa as early as 2 million years BC(Gow lett, 198 4, page 169 ), are robu st and simple in form. Gen erally, these first'Oldowan' industries consist of rounded river cobbles of quartzite, bashed togetherso flakes break off and 'c ho pp er' tools result (figure 21). Re pea ted flakinggenerates both flakes and choppers with multiple flake scars, and a concentrationof flake scars together is common.Even a simple chopper, like that of figure 21 from the Vallonnet cave, southFrance (which provides the earliest securely dated evidence of human occupation inEurope: Lumley, 1976), is reliably diagnostic because it demonstrates a cleardesign system, a routine procedure for the manufacturing process.

There is a clear design choice in repeating the flaking on the same part of thetool. Ho wev er, it is un certain w hethe r the aim was to flake econom ically to yieldthe maximum number of flakes from a block, or to generate a core tool of a setshap e: so it is un certain wh ether these artisans had the conce pt of an abstrac tdesign, or "mental template" (Deetz, 1967, pages 45-49), of the proper form of acho ppe r tool towards which the artisan worke d. Th ey may have simply taken offflakes as required, without regard to the shape of core left behind.

Figure 21 . Chopper tool from Vallonnet, drawn f

Date post:	03-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	luciusquietus
View:	217 times
Download:	0 times

Archaeology Design Theory and the Reconstruction of Prehistoric Design Systems

Documents