Saturday, 23 May 2009
Rizokarpaso building 5: I found this building in the middle of collapse, and couldn't tell whether it had suffered natural decay or deliberate damage. It could have been damaged, then decayed.
Part of the problem with studying and interpreting this material is that different processes can produce similar results, so when you find the results (e.g. the ruins of a building), you cannot always tell what processes caused them (e.g. decay or damage).
Another part of the problem is that a first process can be followed by a second, which disguises or disrupts evidence of the first; so, the building may have been damaged first, then it may have decayed, and the decay might have covered or contaminated the evidence of the damage.
Posted by samarkeolog at 6:30 am