close
more_vert

Littlestone wrote:
tiompan wrote:
LS there are examples of mortise and tenon in wood pre -dating Stonehenge e.g. http://www.world-archaeology.com/news/neolithic-treasure-chest/ .
Nice link tiompan, though it doesn’t really prove that mortise and tenon joints in wood preceded those in stone – just that those in the well preceded those at Stonehenge.
Of course ,it only pushes back the earliest date of a particular type . Just as if we find an earlier mortice and tenon in stone tomorrow it only means it preceded the earliest , as yet , wooden ones . it can never be absolute .

" it can never be absolute "

Absolutely, that is why it makes the world such a marvellous place to live in ;)

tiompan wrote:
Of course ,it only pushes back the earliest date of a particular type . Just as if we find an earlier mortice and tenon in stone tomorrow it only means it preceded the earliest , as yet , wooden ones . it can never be absolute .
Never say never ;-) Meanwhile I’m happy with the possibility that the technique existed in stone before it did in wood.

tiompan wrote:
Littlestone wrote:
tiompan wrote:
LS there are examples of mortise and tenon in wood pre -dating Stonehenge e.g. http://www.world-archaeology.com/news/neolithic-treasure-chest/ .
Nice link tiompan, though it doesn’t really prove that mortise and tenon joints in wood preceded those in stone – just that those in the well preceded those at Stonehenge.
Of course ,it only pushes back the earliest date of a particular type . Just as if we find an earlier mortice and tenon in stone tomorrow it only means it preceded the earliest , as yet , wooden ones . it can never be absolute .
The problem is taphonomic , one is far more likely to have survived than the other . So even if we did have the earliest dated in stone , the chippies will always have a decent claim . As it stands they have the bragging rights .