creigs1707 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "... assuming the name/address information on the
> plan is impossible to read and there are no other
> copies available from any other source - at what
> point are you happy to accept that this is still
> the plan for that house? Or is this plan - which
> so clearly matches the layout of the house - now
> to be rendered (due to insufficient corroborating
> evidence) - as coincidence?"
The existance of a number of houses built at the exact same era that conform to the standard AND the evidence that the techniques were actively used in other structures.
A very good example of this is the "hitching post of the sun" (Intihuatana) in Inca architecture; a structure that marks the southernmost point in the sun's yearly journey. The best surviving example is in Machu Piccu. However, there are other such stones (the Spaniards destroyed most of them, but we can see the bases) and they had consistant features:
* the civilization had astronomical tables and religious festivals based on astronomical events (many Incan examples)
* not one, but many of this type of structure were constructed in the same way (more than one Intihuatana.)
* there are records from other civilizations (the Spaniards) of the existance and meaning of these objects. In this case, it was because they felt the Intihuatana was a part of the Incan "demonic worship" and they wanted to destroy these cultural objects.
* there's evidence of the importance of the celestial object involved (many inscriptions about the object, identifying the object with a god, day names involving the object, festivals involving the celestial object. In this case, the relation of the Intihuatana to the sun is well established.
Even unique structures follow the same rule. Unless it was one person's personal vision, there are other cultural markers that address the significance. In the case of huge public monmuments, the public symbolism is based on obvious and popular references in ancient cultures.
