U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 04-09-2014, 11:09 AM
 
2,684 posts, read 2,928,958 times
Reputation: 1208

Advertisements

If this doesn't belong here, please tell me where it belongs. I cannot find a forum for archaeology and I have a question. My hope is that there is someone who has done professional digs. The question: When an archaeological article says that, below where they are searching, there is an older structure and, beneath that structure Is a still older structure, does the writer really mean a "structure" or only the remaining signs of one long since gone? Maybe just a foundation of an old building or signs in the soil that there once was a structure there? I suspect the author means a base of a structure. Just want to be sure. Thank you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-09-2014, 08:51 PM
 
Location: Somewhere in northern Alabama
17,882 posts, read 54,180,694 times
Reputation: 30369
Base or clear remnants. Basic idea : Tell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2014, 07:45 AM
 
2,684 posts, read 2,928,958 times
Reputation: 1208
Quote:
Originally Posted by harry chickpea View Post
Base or clear remnants. Basic idea : Tell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Thank you. That's pretty much what I thought but you never know. I'm forever learning things I "never knew". To me a structure is a building, not its remains. I should perhaps pull out my Oxford dictionary?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2014, 09:35 PM
 
Location: Somewhere in northern Alabama
17,882 posts, read 54,180,694 times
Reputation: 30369
Nah, it is just a common shorthand. We all do the same type of thing all the time and never realize it.

"Put the plug in the socket." = "Insert the properly oriented prongs on the male connector into the corresponding receptacles on the face of the 120 volt power outlet nearest you."

"Go in the kitchen and make me a pie" = "*POOF* You are now a pie!" or... yada yada
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2014, 03:59 AM
 
2,684 posts, read 2,928,958 times
Reputation: 1208
Quote:
Originally Posted by harry chickpea View Post
nah, it is just a common shorthand. We all do the same type of thing all the time and never realize it.

"put the plug in the socket." = "insert the properly oriented prongs on the male connector into the corresponding receptacles on the face of the 120 volt power outlet nearest you."

"go in the kitchen and make me a pie" = "*poof* you are now a pie!" or... Yada yada
:d
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2014, 06:12 PM
 
Location: God's Gift to Mankind for flying anything
5,327 posts, read 11,051,487 times
Reputation: 4151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazel W View Post
Thank you. That's pretty much what I thought but you never know. I'm forever learning things I "never knew". To me a structure is a building, not its remains. I should perhaps pull out my Oxford dictionary?
OK, so now after many have given their opinion between the two items, what did *you* call that *pile of rubble* beneath the other *pile of rubble* ?
As far as I understand, you mean that in archeology, once below ground level, there will never be a structure ?

As I stated above, I call those items/entities a *pile of rubble* ...

On the other hand, if the entity was called a *structure*, then in the literal sense, it could be a structure, since a structure is just something that has a complex form, as in something that was, artificially or not, put together ?

A building, could be called a structure, whether it was complete or halfway finished or demolished partly ?
Conversely, any structure, does NOT have to be a building per sť. Like *sentence structure* ?
If they would find an old bridge under all that dirt, that could be called a *structure* ...

Last but not least <I should perhaps pull out my Oxford dictionary?>
Yes, would not hurt or ?

-- Origin -- late Middle English (denoting the process of building): from Old French, or from Latin structura, from struere 'to build' or 'to assemble'. Today also the word *construct*. The verb is rarely found before the 20th century.

Last edited by irman; 04-13-2014 at 06:22 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-14-2014, 06:21 AM
 
2,684 posts, read 2,928,958 times
Reputation: 1208
Quote:
Originally Posted by irman View Post
OK, so now after many have given their opinion between the two items, what did *you* call that *pile of rubble* beneath the other *pile of rubble* ?
As far as I understand, you mean that in archeology, once below ground level, there will never be a structure ?

As I stated above, I call those items/entities a *pile of rubble* ...

On the other hand, if the entity was called a *structure*, then in the literal sense, it could be a structure, since a structure is just something that has a complex form, as in something that was, artificially or not, put together ?

A building, could be called a structure, whether it was complete or halfway finished or demolished partly ?
Conversely, any structure, does NOT have to be a building per sť. Like *sentence structure* ?
If they would find an old bridge under all that dirt, that could be called a *structure* ...

Last but not least <I should perhaps pull out my Oxford dictionary?>
Yes, would not hurt or ?

-- Origin -- late Middle English (denoting the process of building): from Old French, or from Latin structura, from struere 'to build' or 'to assemble'. Today also the word *construct*. The verb is rarely found before the 20th century.
Thank you for details. To answer your question: I wondered how "structure" was being used and I was tying that to the fact that - I think - whole buildings (small ones, I presume) have been found below ground. Some times I start wondering how far below ground we could go and still find evidence of settlements. Somehow, when I read "a structure under a structure which is above another structure" I saw whole buildings. I was wrong, of course. I'm not quibbling over how the word is used; just making sure.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-14-2014, 10:18 AM
 
Location: God's Gift to Mankind for flying anything
5,327 posts, read 11,051,487 times
Reputation: 4151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazel W View Post
Some times I start wondering how far below ground we could go and still find evidence of settlements.
Interesting tho, that people would just build right on top of those whatevers again and sometimes again again ...

Does this mean that the whole area just was inundated with some really large calamity(ies), to destroy almost all of it, or cover it all with *dirt and debris* ?

I have not heard of *modern mankind* doing that, or ?

Maybe the lack of giant bulldozers
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-14-2014, 10:29 AM
 
2,684 posts, read 2,928,958 times
Reputation: 1208
Quote:
Originally Posted by irman View Post
Interesting tho, that people would just build right on top of those whatevers again and sometimes again again ...

Does this mean that the whole area just was inundated with some really large calamity(ies), to destroy almost all of it, or cover it all with *dirt and debris* ?

I have not heard of *modern mankind* doing that, or ?

Maybe the lack of giant bulldozers
I once asked that of a friend who is an archaeologist. I cannot give her exact quotes now. It's been too long. But, basically, she said we'd be surprised at how fast the natural collection of debris and soil collection piles up. It isn't always that we destroyed a building but left its foundation to cover over and build atop. Often It can simply be a buildup over empty land. Watch grass take over in a vacant city lot, burying the brick foundation of a knocked-down building. Come back in a few years and see park-like land in that spot. And, yes, we do now bring in soil to cover. I suppose they did centuries ago also but not with our fancy bulldozers. Manual labor.

Fascinating. I'll have to write to her again and let her refresh my memory.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-14-2014, 05:19 PM
 
5,091 posts, read 8,069,993 times
Reputation: 3066
Quote:
Originally Posted by irman View Post
Does this mean that the whole area just was inundated with some really large calamity(ies), to destroy almost all of it, or cover it all with *dirt and debris* ?

I have not heard of *modern mankind* doing that, or ?
It doesn't always require calamities to erase a good sized area. Back in the '50s, I lived in a community called Stratford Manor in Cincinnati Ohio. There's a large and very interesting thread about it in the Ohio/Cincinnati forum here on C-D. It was an excellent place to live when I was there. It even had a small shopping center. But now there's no physical sign that the place ever existed, except some old photos people have of the place, and the names of one or two streets. The street names give no hint of what it once was, what it was like, or that it existed at all. Stratford Manor was ultimately bulldozed out of existence. At a guess, there are probably buried objects in the ground left behind by the residents that lived there. Even the thread has now pretty much been abandoned. It's currently back on page 6. Modern mankind does eliminate areas now and then, and rebuild on top of it.
1950's-1970's Stratford Manor & Eastwood Village

Just off the coast of Japan, there's an island called Hashima Island (sometimes called Battleship Island) which was once a thriving community. Its been long abandoned. Now, the wind, rain and seawater are gradually eroding the place.
Hashima Island - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOdA3eipM0o
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top