Mobilizing architectural formal analysis for stratigraphic decision-making

IF 0.9 2区历史学 0 ARCHAEOLOGY

Archaeological Research in Asia Pub Date : 2024-12-06 DOI:10.1016/j.ara.2024.100581

A. Gopher , G. Haklay

{"title":"Mobilizing architectural formal analysis for stratigraphic decision-making","authors":"A. Gopher , G. Haklay","doi":"10.1016/j.ara.2024.100581","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Newly developed methods for architectural spatial analysis open new possibilities in studying architectural planning and design as we have shown in a series of papers in recent years. In some cases, these methods can generate new insights about the stratigraphy of sites and architectural features, sometimes in disagreement with reconstructions based on classical stratigraphy.</div><div>Traditionally, stratigraphic phasing in architecture-bearing sites is based, beyond sedimentological considerations, on the field relations of the various architectural elements. In assessing the relative position of architectural elements, Architectural Formal Analysis (AFA) seeks to elucidate the logic of architectural design and identify the planning methods involved. It also considers geometric regularities, the formulation of small-scale floor plans and the use of measurement units for construction in desirable (planned) proportions. When traditional stratigraphy and AFA match – the assignment of architectural features to stratigraphic phases is clear. The question is how to deal with cases in which the two mismatch?</div><div>Recent experience unraveling the logic and design methods that guided the planning, layout and construction of architectural features [e.g., Natufian Eynan; PPNA Göbekli Tepe; PPNB Çayönü; and, Chalcolithic Ghassulian Teleilat Ghassul], foster the validity of AF(geometric)A. Thus, in case of a mismatch between stratigraphy and AFA, we suggest considering the possibility that the architectural analysis prevails. Architectural design processes should be considered, and AFA should be included as an analytical tool against which stratigraphy in multi-phased architecture-bearing sites can be tested.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51847,"journal":{"name":"Archaeological Research in Asia","volume":"41 ","pages":"Article 100581"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archaeological Research in Asia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352226724000825","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"ARCHAEOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Newly developed methods for architectural spatial analysis open new possibilities in studying architectural planning and design as we have shown in a series of papers in recent years. In some cases, these methods can generate new insights about the stratigraphy of sites and architectural features, sometimes in disagreement with reconstructions based on classical stratigraphy.

Traditionally, stratigraphic phasing in architecture-bearing sites is based, beyond sedimentological considerations, on the field relations of the various architectural elements. In assessing the relative position of architectural elements, Architectural Formal Analysis (AFA) seeks to elucidate the logic of architectural design and identify the planning methods involved. It also considers geometric regularities, the formulation of small-scale floor plans and the use of measurement units for construction in desirable (planned) proportions. When traditional stratigraphy and AFA match – the assignment of architectural features to stratigraphic phases is clear. The question is how to deal with cases in which the two mismatch?

Recent experience unraveling the logic and design methods that guided the planning, layout and construction of architectural features [e.g., Natufian Eynan; PPNA Göbekli Tepe; PPNB Çayönü; and, Chalcolithic Ghassulian Teleilat Ghassul], foster the validity of AF(geometric)A. Thus, in case of a mismatch between stratigraphy and AFA, we suggest considering the possibility that the architectural analysis prevails. Architectural design processes should be considered, and AFA should be included as an analytical tool against which stratigraphy in multi-phased architecture-bearing sites can be tested.

查看原文本刊更多论文

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Archaeological Research in Asia ARCHAEOLOGY-

CiteScore

2.50

自引率

13.30%

发文量

期刊介绍： Archaeological Research in Asia presents high quality scholarly research conducted in between the Bosporus and the Pacific on a broad range of archaeological subjects of importance to audiences across Asia and around the world. The journal covers the traditional components of archaeology: placing events and patterns in time and space; analysis of past lifeways; and explanations for cultural processes and change. To this end, the publication will highlight theoretical and methodological advances in studying the past, present new data, and detail patterns that reshape our understanding of it. Archaeological Research in Asia publishes work on the full temporal range of archaeological inquiry from the earliest human presence in Asia with a special emphasis on time periods under-represented in other venues. Journal contributions are of three kinds: articles, case reports and short communications. Full length articles should present synthetic treatments, novel analyses, or theoretical approaches to unresolved issues. Case reports present basic data on subjects that are of broad interest because they represent key sites, sequences, and subjects that figure prominently, or should figure prominently, in how scholars both inside and outside Asia understand the archaeology of cultural and biological change through time. Short communications present new findings (e.g., radiocarbon dates) that are important to the extent that they reaffirm or change the way scholars in Asia and around the world think about Asian cultural or biological history.