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

Abstract

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

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 13 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.