3 ms·
The "demolition" argument notes that "the archeological record shows that houses were rebuilt directly on top of the pre-existing foundations of the destroyed b
by colanderman 6y ago
The "demolition" argument notes that "the archeological record shows that houses were rebuilt directly on top of the pre-existing foundations of the destroyed buildings." Presumably this wouldn't be so if the inhabitants were migrating away from an area. (Though I guess a new tribe could have come in and built on the same foundations.)
- Valgrim 6y agoThe reason why a settlement was built in that place could still be valid a few years after the burn, such as proximity to water sources or useful materials.
- IgorPartola 6y agoIt’s not clear but it sounds like they didn’t just build the settlements there but that each house would be rebuilt exactly where the old one was. If that’s the case, it would be really strange if it was built by different people or at different times.
- slickrick216 6y agoYeah foundations maybe or as another poster said it was still viable and likely enviable.