The Great Houses of the prehistoric and early medieval periods were enormous structures whose forms were modelled on those of domestic dwellings. Most were built of wood rather than stone; they were used over comparatively short periods; they were frequently replaced in the same positions; and some were associated with exceptional groups of artefacts. Their construction made considerable demands on human labour and approached the limits of what was possible at the time. They seem to have played specialised roles in ancient society, but they have been difficult to interpret. Were they public buildings or the dwellings of important people? Were they temples or military bases, and why were they erected during times of crisis or change? How were their sites selected, and how were they related to the remains of a more ancient past? Although their currency extended from the time of the first farmers to the Viking Age, the similarities between the Great Houses are as striking as the differences. This study focuses on the monumental buildings of northern and northwestern Europe, but draws on structures over a wide area, extending from Anatolia as far as Brittany and Norway. It employs ethnography as a source of ideas and discusses the concept of the House Society and its usefulness in archaeology. The main examples are taken from the Neolithic and Iron Age periods, but this account also draws on the archaeology of the first millennium AD. The book emphasises the importance of comparing archaeological sequences with one another rather than identifying ideal social types. In doing so, it features a range of famous and less famous sites, from Stonehenge to the Hill of Tara, and from Old Uppsala to Yeavering.
A calibration based upon Minze Stuiver and Gordon W. Pearson (1986) yields a date of 1020–1260 AD, quite within the Song dynasty (960–1279 AD). Adrian Joseph finds fault with the results of the radio-carbon analysis of the skeletal ...
The late Frederic Wakeman, Jr.—following perhaps Weber, but more probably the Weberian inclinations of his mentor, Joseph Levenson—was one of the most active proponents of applying the concept of patrimonial domination to the history of ...
Altan Khan identified himself as a reincarnation of Khubilai ; others laid claim to the charisma of Chinese emperors like Tang Taizong . Thus Ligdan Khan , the last Chahar ruler and a Tibetan Buddhist patron , styled himself in ...
Until temporary palaces were built in later Qing times, the emperor and his entourage slept in tents during their northern hunting expeditions, another reflection of their nomadic ethos. Indeed, while Peking was the primary seat of Qing ...
... the organization of magnificent tours of the south and shorter visits to other regions stimulated the construction of temporary palaces and left behind a visible symbol of imperial power.200 In Beijing, the real center, ...
Let me ask you, are temporary palaces on the same level as palaces? After moving to the capital, there will be the palace. The rules and regulations must be at a much higher level than the palace. " Chen Shouxin said with a smile.
And two years later the Imperial Palace was largely destroyed by fire, and a process of removal to temporary palaces began that was to continue throughout the period. In 982 the repaired palace burned again, and armed forces were sent ...
Could it be that if someone bullies my Lao Yuan, my Lao Yuan is not allowed to retaliate?" Seeing Liu Lang not replying for a long time, Yuan Ning suddenly had a bitter face. Earlier, when he saw Liu Lang charging about recklessly like ...