# Energetic Calculator for Ancient Buildings - EnCAB

## Critique

#### Why a Critical Note is Necessary

The algorithms used in EnCAB come from a variety of sources which come
from a wide range of contexts, geographical, chronological and cultural.
Thus there is an assumption being made about the universality of the data
behind the algorithms which should be discussed explicitly.

First, the algorithms are based on the quantification of very specific
actions -- as such, the assumption of universality is not one tied
specifically to cultural traits but to physical ability. Clearly genetics
(and their differences across geography and time) and, indirectly, some
cultural aspects, play a role in calculating that physical ability.

Second, the results of the algorithms are given in absolute units, but
such results can also be used to compare two structures; such a comparison
means that the numeric result of the algorithms can serve as a basis for a
relative comparison between the two, leaving aside the actual results
themselves. As an example, if the mudbricks used to build structure 1
required 15,000 person-hours, and the mudbricks used to build structure 2
required 30,000 person-hours, the argument can be made that the energy
required to make the bricks for structure 2 was double that of structure 1
since the same algorithm was used to calculate both - and that this result
holds true even if the precise number of person-hours given by the
algorithm is called into question.

Finally, there are three methods by which the universality of the
algorithms can be tested: source overlap, parallel algorithms and
calculation of MAD as % of the mean.

eg. Earthen Transport

Ethnographic: Coles 1973, 95

Textual: Heimpel 2009, 83 & 250

Experimental Archaeology: Abrams 1994, 43-47

Unbaked mudbrick weight in:

Buccellati 2016, 109 (bricks from excavation -- 1 m3 weighs 1502 kg)

Buccellati 2016, 108 (bricks from experiment -- 1 m3 weighs 1392 kg)

#### Method 3: Calculating MAD as % of Mean

Unbaked mudbrick weight in: Buccellati 2016, 109 (bricks from excavation
-- 1 m3 weighs 1502 kg) Buccellati 2016, 108 (bricks from experiment -- 1
m3 weighs 1392 kg)

Mean absolute deviation: 55 Which is 3.8% of mean

Back to Home