Sun 4 Oct, 2015
Is it not more logical, from an experimental archaeology perspective, to extrapolate thematically from what appears to be a roaringly good idea? For example, Tangs and Loops and Wedges. When we see TLW in the artifacts (actually implied wedges) then why not more of this same excellence elsewhere in the design. A take-apart stand for example, winch components that knock down into sub-assemblies (like Firefly), a catch and trigger mechanism that can easily be dismounted. Improvements like this are thematically consistent with the found artifacts and including them might well be considered more “authentic” than not including them. A prosaic solution, like using rivets to hold the machine together in certain key areas, would impede the functionality of a take-apart strategy, and is thus a diminution of the inventor’s obvious intent made apparent in the aforementioned TLW. Here “prosaic” may not be as Occam as we think. All of the available facts have to be considered. A take-apart “intent” is indisputably apparent in all the surviving artifacts of iron frame ballistas.
In this game, parsimony can be as much an enemy of the truth as extravagance.
— There, one more deck chair moved.