It’s becoming increasingly common to buy a house, raze it, and build something bigger and better. Or blow up a sports stadium to build a mall, or implode one casino to build another. In each of these cases one building is destroyed, the grounds excavated, and something new built up and, quite often, the new foundations are more extensive than the old.
This makes sense to me.
While wiki-ing around I came across a description of a Viking meadhall:
Every now and again I’ll read a reference about a modern city that was “built over” an ancient city.
This doesn’t make sense to me, probably because of my modern sensibilities.
1000 or 3000 or 5000 years ago, when they tore something down - didn’t they excavate the site? The idea of “building over a city”, to me, is that they just kept building up while the original foundations kept sinking, and if we continue to do this all cities will eventually be the size of Mount Everest.
Of course, I live in the upper Midwest where 4’-8’ foundations are de de rigueur to prevent frost heave and everyone has a tornado-resistant basement, and perhaps I’ve just answered my own question, but I’ve gotten this far so I’m going to finish:
What do archaeologists mean, exactly, when they say that City Y is “built over” City X?