It looks like a clock, because it is a clock, because a clock is a stable function viewed from a different order.
If we think about Hayek’s point about the function and emergence of religion in relation to the public’s understanding of the macro evolution of itself I think I can make a point that is related to our understanding of certain inventions and other scales of archaeological discoveries.
Depending on perspective and what function of timeline one chooses to observer from I suspect it is true to suggest certain social advances can be viewed as a “scalable” timeline.
That is to say evolution would appear to be taking place in a clock work setting. A negative way to put this is one could find a pattern to any thing they want to convince themselves of by distorting their perspective.
Of course my point about hayek is that the actual individuals that comprise this system and follow the clockwork might not themselves wholly, or at all, understand it.
A house of cards (also known as a card tower) is a structure created by stacking playing cards on top of each other. “House of cards” is also an expression that dates back to 1645 meaning a structure or argument built on a shaky foundation or one that will collapse if a necessary (but possibly overlooked or unappreciated) element is removed. Structures built by layering in this way, such as Stonehenge, are referred to as “house of cards architecture”, which dates back to the Cyclopean and Megalithic ages.
Then we can think about such building materials as the stonehenge “blocks” and their relation to cards and cardhouses. The easiness and weakness of cardhouses in their construction, I think is not so relevant, as is the economic difficulty the stonehenge blocks would pose for anarchist individuals in the stonehenge society as well as their sturdiness in relation to “climate” type events or natural disasters (then some relation to their size and thickness vs their environment might be useful (as well as the social economics involved in moving them)).
I think this shows a problem with presenting archaeological evidence with a story behind it. It might be we do not understand our own perspectives well enough, our own clocks that we create and obey, to be able to narrate past civilizations and their “purposes”.
But it also suggests like many of the sentiments of TWOC that perspective and generalized formula of it (so so a language to express it) might play a key role in the re-solution of our understanding of our history (and so evolution and our future!).