Great talk. The comparison to other round buildings particularly interesting. Though I'm sceptical of her claim that the heights of the brochs might be proportional to the mechanical strength of the stone. Even the softest sandstone should be capable of building far higher than the highest brochs, so shouldn't be a limiting factor. I would have thought the height would be more (mechanically) limited by dry stone building skill / technique, in which case the flat slabs of sandstone would surely be beneficial...?
I found this really interesting. I've been exploring the local iron age sites and I've had a thought. When and why did people change from building in circles, to building with corners (of varaing and questionable accuracy)? May I also say what a lovely accent! Is it from Shetland?
I think they could be compared to structures even further away. The Tas Tepeler sites in what is now Turkey were also built on bedrock, and in circular shape with a wall within a wall. Also, if the brochs were built by the Picts, who some believe to have been of Scythian descent, they could have brought the idea with them and passed it down. I know this is something that probably seems far-fetched but it's always good to keep an open mind when we don't know who built them or why they were made this way.
I appreciate that your perspective is one of seeing commonalities rather than differences. Academic archaeology seems to be overly concerned with microcultures, making their "specialties". They seem to have forgotten we are human creatures, adapting general concepts about space use and construction to our individual lives and needs.
I enjoyed your talk; it was a nice presentation. There's a comment by niklar55 below, who says he hasn't a clear idea what your intentions were. I replied to that explaining what I thought the key points were. Have I got them right?
Its funny that when we remove established history from the narrative ,we find more accurate assesments. The opposite where we add established history to ruins we completely destroy any ability to find out what they were.
The accent, combined with the vocal volume undulations of the narrator, which gave it an almost staccato effect at times, made this very difficult to understand, for me. Also, the acoustics of the room produced an echo that exacerbated the problem. In fact, at the end, I still had no clear idea what the talk intentions were. In general, it seemed to me that the young lady had a load of answers, looking for problems. My assessment of Broch's is that, the larger more complete examples are surprisingly sophisticated. The most complete almost mimics the shape of a modern cooling tower, which has a partial hyperbole, and is very stable. The construction would serve two primary purposes, First shelter from the elements, which in Scotland can be quite inclement, and second protection from raiders. The shelter aspect mimics modern cavity wall construction, where the outer wall keeps the rain out, and the inner wall keeps the heat in. Protection from raiders, is provided, first by the height, which would preclude anyone trying to set fire to the roof, and then climb in, the density of the wall, and, again, by the double wall structure. This would mean that anyone trying to break through the wall from the outside, would find themselves in a narrow corridor, where they could easily be dispatched by a large rock on their head. It would also be very difficult to defend themselves in such a narrow space. The stair within the wall would provide access to the top which would give an ideal lookout position. In addition the steps would act as 'wall ties' to help stabilise the two sheaths of the wall. Other spaces between the walls would be cooler than the central space, and would provide storage space for food, and maybe also for sleeping in. In effect, they are miniature castles. Their internal layout would be decided by the individual community's experience and living style requirements.
I like the speaker’s vocal volume undulations, as you call them. They convey her attitude to the questions she’s discussing. For example, at 28:02 where she discusses what architecture can tell us about how much the broch builders competed to out-build one another in height. I lecture, and I do the same. It’s better than delivering in a monotone. As for the accent, don’t you have any friends from Scotland? If not, find some. Just remember not to visit the country outside May to late September, or you’ll either drown in the horizontal rain, or die of cold. Regarding the talk’s intentions, the main one, I think, is to examine brochs from an engineering/architectural point of view. Do structural analyses, for example, to calculate how high, given a particular ground diameter, you can build the walls before the broch collapses. From that, you can work out whether a broch was in fact built to be as tall as possible. That tells you something about how fiercely the builders tried to out-build one another. And that in turn gives clues about how they tried to advertise their status. There’s more about this in Romankiewicz’s www.researchgate.net/publication/284750932_Land_Stone_Trees_Identity_Ambition_the_Building_Blocks_of_Brochs , “Land, Stone, Trees, Identity, Ambition: the Building Blocks of Brochs”, Archaeological Journal, 173:1, 1-29, 2016. Romankiewicz mentions something related at 28:02, when she says that the brochs built with better stone had thinner walls. This implies that the builders weren’t competing, because the ones with the better stone threw away the advantage that it would have given them. Within this engineering/architectural analysis, I believe one intention is to show how brochs are related to other Iron Age dwellings, e.g. wheelhouses and crannogs or wooded houses. Archaeologists have traditionally regarded these as distinct, and seen brochs as something very special. But when you look at the architecture, you can see how all these varieties are related: see the diagram at 6:59 and a comment at 42:05. This reflects a change in approach that started in the 1990s. It also enables you to see brochs themselves as a continuum rather than as identical instances of some stereotypical building (39:59). Each particular broch’s position on this continuum tells us things about its regional identity (40:40, 43:00), and about personal choices in design (43:51). You can see how the designers adapted to the local materials (29:32), and that they were built by people who understood their properties. Incidentally, this tendency to see buildings as instances of stereotypes has been criticised elsewhere. See e.g. structuralarchaeology.blogspot.com/2009/01/18-credibility-crunch-hits-iron-age.html , “Credibility Crunch Hits Iron Age Building”, Geoff Carter, 15 January 2009. I suppose I should add that any such talk will contain more questions than answers. We just don't have enough evidence. See www.personal.reading.ac.uk/~lascretn/IAAgenda.htm , "Understanding the British Iron Age: An agenda for action", Draft Report of a Working Party of members of the Iron Age Research Seminar, probably 2000. This makes it clear how much wasn't known 20 years ago. Much of that may still be true.
@@colourrevolution I do not need a monotone to understand people. I have had many conversations with Scottish people, starting at age 12, when I attended an international Boy Scout Jamboree, in Auchengillen, and later, during 9 years in the military, where I had Scottish friends, and have had no difficulty in understanding them. More recently, my son and daughter also lived in Scotland for several years, so I visited Scotland frequently, and of course, conversed with their Scottish friends. I also used to be able to mimic the various accents of the people I met. However, that was in the past. Since then, due to my age, and industrial damage, my hearing has deteriorated significantly, which means that I have lost 85-90 % of my hearing range, and also have a DB loss. Therefore, extreme range of sound levels means that if I adjust my hearing to the highest level, then when her voice drops, it goes below my hearing range. In the reverse, it overmodulates, and distorts. In normal conversation, I rely on lip reading to help fill in the gaps. Thats not possible on this video. My comment was a statement of fact, not a criticism, and as I said, the echo in the room exacerbated the problem. The building material, would have dictated the construction practices, and these would be the same, wherever the structures were located. In addition, humping rocks to build with, is damned hard work, so labour would have been minimised, and kept in proportion to the strengths of the material used. I am presently living in a 'rubble stone' built house, ie Not dressed stones, and having carried out various works on the building, can vouch for the effort required when building with stones. When talking of a style, or type of building that was practiced over several hundred years, errors and mistakes would have become evident quickly, as the structures would have suffered collapses. So, it was probably an iterative process of mistakes, and learning, and those that remain were obviously the apex of the learning process. Previous unsuccessful attempts would have been demolished, and rebuilt using the reclaimed materials, so non of those would survive. As you may conclude from my original comment, the final constructions were remarkably sophisticated, and show a high level of understanding of the physics involved. The best are probably the most complete, except where some have been used as quarries. Anyway, thank you for explaining the program, and clarifying some of the less obvious facts. As an Engineer, with 30 years experience operating my own construction company, I can gain most of the meaning from the diagrams shown. (Old saying, ''One picture is worth a thousand words.'' applies.) After watching many programs on archaeology, I have formed an opinion that many archaeologists would benefit from a short course on modern building practices, as it would give them an insight into the constructional necessities of building dwellings. (There are many so called architects that should do the same!) PS. From my visits, drowning in the horizontal rain, or dying of cold, is not necessarily confined to Sept to May. .
@@JamesBrown-mt5ru I think the ''captions'' have the same trouble as me! It frequently prints 'bras' instead of Broch's, and other slightly humorous errors. It also misses the endings of sentences due to her sudden drop in volume, as I do. My main problem is industrial damage to my hearing and age related loss. One thing I find ridiculous amongst so-called 'experts' is when they argue 'this' or 'that' singular interpretation must be correct, when it is obviously both, or several. .
![⭐ฮิตในTikTok!! ( หมูเด้ง MooDeng ) Ver. แดนซ์โจ๊ะๆ ReMix BY [ ดีเจกิต รีมิกซ์ ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/3krsyfWUeHU/mqdefault.jpg)
Thanks for this wonderful video/lecture. Terrific work.
Well done. Well spoken.
Thank you!
GREAT TALK THANK U, SHARE, SHARE
Great talk. The comparison to other round buildings particularly interesting.
Though I'm sceptical of her claim that the heights of the brochs might be proportional to the mechanical strength of the stone. Even the softest sandstone should be capable of building far higher than the highest brochs, so shouldn't be a limiting factor. I would have thought the height would be more (mechanically) limited by dry stone building skill / technique, in which case the flat slabs of sandstone would surely be beneficial...?
I found this really interesting. I've been exploring the local iron age sites and I've had a thought. When and why did people change from building in circles, to building with corners (of varaing and questionable accuracy)? May I also say what a lovely accent! Is it from Shetland?
I think they could be compared to structures even further away. The Tas Tepeler sites in what is now Turkey were also built on bedrock, and in circular shape with a wall within a wall. Also, if the brochs were built by the Picts, who some believe to have been of Scythian descent, they could have brought the idea with them and passed it down. I know this is something that probably seems far-fetched but it's always good to keep an open mind when we don't know who built them or why they were made this way.
Thanks for sharing your ideas, Ellen! Definitely a good idea to look to other places for inspiration when looking back at Scotland's history.
I appreciate that your perspective is one of seeing commonalities rather than differences.
Academic archaeology seems to be overly concerned with microcultures, making their "specialties". They seem to have forgotten we are human creatures, adapting general concepts about space use and construction to our individual lives and needs.
gold leaching tanks. th-cam.com/channels/OORjqXrUsgYb5XX_7n_syg.htmlvideos
I enjoyed your talk; it was a nice presentation. There's a comment by niklar55 below, who says he hasn't a clear idea what your intentions were. I replied to that explaining what I thought the key points were. Have I got them right?
Were brochs ever rendered?
Its funny that when we remove established history from the narrative ,we find more accurate assesments. The opposite where we add established history to ruins we completely destroy any ability to find out what they were.
The accent, combined with the vocal volume undulations of the narrator, which gave it an almost staccato effect at times, made this very difficult to understand, for me. Also, the acoustics of the room produced an echo that exacerbated the problem. In fact, at the end, I still had no clear idea what the talk intentions were. In general, it seemed to me that the young lady had a load of answers, looking for problems.
My assessment of Broch's is that, the larger more complete examples are surprisingly sophisticated.
The most complete almost mimics the shape of a modern cooling tower, which has a partial hyperbole, and is very stable.
The construction would serve two primary purposes, First shelter from the elements, which in Scotland can be quite inclement, and second protection from raiders.
The shelter aspect mimics modern cavity wall construction, where the outer wall keeps the rain out, and the inner wall keeps the heat in.
Protection from raiders, is provided, first by the height, which would preclude anyone trying to set fire to the roof, and then climb in, the density of the wall, and, again, by the double wall structure. This would mean that anyone trying to break through the wall from the outside, would find themselves in a narrow corridor, where they could easily be dispatched by a large rock on their head. It would also be very difficult to defend themselves in such a narrow space.
The stair within the wall would provide access to the top which would give an ideal lookout position. In addition the steps would act as 'wall ties' to help stabilise the two sheaths of the wall. Other spaces between the walls would be cooler than the central space, and would provide storage space for food, and maybe also for sleeping in.
In effect, they are miniature castles. Their internal layout would be decided by the individual community's experience and living style requirements.
gold leaching tanks. th-cam.com/channels/OORjqXrUsgYb5XX_7n_syg.htmlvideos
I like the speaker’s vocal volume undulations, as you call them. They convey her attitude to the questions she’s discussing. For example, at 28:02 where she discusses what architecture can tell us about how much the broch builders competed to out-build one another in height. I lecture, and I do the same. It’s better than delivering in a monotone.
As for the accent, don’t you have any friends from Scotland? If not, find some. Just remember not to visit the country outside May to late September, or you’ll either drown in the horizontal rain, or die of cold.
Regarding the talk’s intentions, the main one, I think, is to examine brochs from an engineering/architectural point of view. Do structural analyses, for example, to calculate how high, given a particular ground diameter, you can build the walls before the broch collapses. From that, you can work out whether a broch was in fact built to be as tall as possible. That tells you something about how fiercely the builders tried to out-build one another. And that in turn gives clues about how they tried to advertise their status. There’s more about this in Romankiewicz’s www.researchgate.net/publication/284750932_Land_Stone_Trees_Identity_Ambition_the_Building_Blocks_of_Brochs , “Land, Stone, Trees, Identity, Ambition: the Building Blocks of Brochs”, Archaeological Journal, 173:1, 1-29, 2016.
Romankiewicz mentions something related at 28:02, when she says that the brochs built with better stone had thinner walls. This implies that the builders weren’t competing, because the ones with the better stone threw away the advantage that it would have given them.
Within this engineering/architectural analysis, I believe one intention is to show how brochs are related to other Iron Age dwellings, e.g. wheelhouses and crannogs or wooded houses. Archaeologists have traditionally regarded these as distinct, and seen brochs as something very special. But when you look at the architecture, you can see how all these varieties are related: see the diagram at 6:59 and a comment at 42:05. This reflects a change in approach that started in the 1990s.
It also enables you to see brochs themselves as a continuum rather than as identical instances of some stereotypical building (39:59). Each particular broch’s position on this continuum tells us things about its regional identity (40:40, 43:00), and about personal choices in design (43:51). You can see how the designers adapted to the local materials (29:32), and that they were built by people who understood their properties.
Incidentally, this tendency to see buildings as instances of stereotypes has been criticised elsewhere. See e.g. structuralarchaeology.blogspot.com/2009/01/18-credibility-crunch-hits-iron-age.html , “Credibility Crunch Hits Iron Age Building”, Geoff Carter, 15 January 2009.
I suppose I should add that any such talk will contain more questions than answers. We just don't have enough evidence. See www.personal.reading.ac.uk/~lascretn/IAAgenda.htm , "Understanding the British Iron Age: An agenda for action", Draft Report of a Working Party of members of the Iron Age Research Seminar, probably 2000. This makes it clear how much wasn't known 20 years ago. Much of that may still be true.
@@colourrevolution
I do not need a monotone to understand people.
I have had many conversations with Scottish people, starting at age 12, when I attended an international Boy Scout Jamboree, in Auchengillen, and later, during 9 years in the military, where I had Scottish friends, and have had no difficulty in understanding them. More recently, my son and daughter also lived in Scotland for several years, so I visited Scotland frequently, and of course, conversed with their Scottish friends. I also used to be able to mimic the various accents of the people I met.
However, that was in the past. Since then, due to my age, and industrial damage, my hearing has deteriorated significantly, which means that I have lost 85-90 % of my hearing range, and also have a DB loss.
Therefore, extreme range of sound levels means that if I adjust my hearing to the highest level, then when her voice drops, it goes below my hearing range. In the reverse, it overmodulates, and distorts. In normal conversation, I rely on lip reading to help fill in the gaps. Thats not possible on this video.
My comment was a statement of fact, not a criticism, and as I said, the echo in the room exacerbated the problem.
The building material, would have dictated the construction practices, and these would be the same, wherever the structures were located. In addition, humping rocks to build with, is damned hard work, so labour would have been minimised, and kept in proportion to the strengths of the material used.
I am presently living in a 'rubble stone' built house, ie Not dressed stones, and having carried out various works on the building, can vouch for the effort required when building with stones.
When talking of a style, or type of building that was practiced over several hundred years, errors and mistakes would have become evident quickly, as the structures would have suffered collapses. So, it was probably an iterative process of mistakes, and learning, and those that remain were obviously the apex of the learning process. Previous unsuccessful attempts would have been demolished, and rebuilt using the reclaimed materials, so non of those would survive.
As you may conclude from my original comment, the final constructions were remarkably sophisticated, and show a high level of understanding of the physics involved. The best are probably the most complete, except where some have been used as quarries.
Anyway, thank you for explaining the program, and clarifying some of the less obvious facts. As an Engineer, with 30 years experience operating my own construction company, I can gain most of the meaning from the diagrams shown. (Old saying, ''One picture is worth a thousand words.'' applies.)
After watching many programs on archaeology, I have formed an opinion that many archaeologists would benefit from a short course on modern building practices, as it would give them an insight into the constructional necessities of building dwellings. (There are many so called architects that should do the same!)
PS. From my visits, drowning in the horizontal rain, or dying of cold, is not necessarily confined to Sept to May.
.
Subtitles (Closed Captions) might help. Click on the the little CC icon at the bottom right of the film.
@@JamesBrown-mt5ru
I think the ''captions'' have the same trouble as me!
It frequently prints 'bras' instead of Broch's, and other slightly humorous errors. It also misses the endings of sentences due to her sudden drop in volume, as I do.
My main problem is industrial damage to my hearing and age related loss.
One thing I find ridiculous amongst so-called 'experts' is when they argue 'this' or 'that' singular interpretation must be correct, when it is obviously both, or several.
.