by Chris Fowler
The architectural elements of Bandkeramik dwellings may be divided into three categories of variation, which leaves a range of more or less individual elements that do not seem tied to collective norms.
1.The first category (uniformity) includes seven elements with only one available option: the ground plan is quadrangular; the building long and oriented towards the middle Danube; the entrance opposite the rear wall; there always is a physically unnecessary superabundance of posts; interior posts are grouped in rows of three; walls are not load-bearing.
2.The second category (limited variation) includes six elements that are not uniform, but occur in only two or three variants, one often heavily dominating the others: the form of the ground plan (strictly rectangular, slightly trapeziform, or rectangular between the façade and the rear corridor, and then slightly trapeziform); the partition of interior space (two or three sections); the ways to separate sections of the house (a corridor or a row of three deeply set posts); the façade (with or without antas, open porch-like structures); wall construction in the rear of the house (discontinuous uprights, foundation trenches, paired uprights); the presence or absence of a child burial.
3.The third category (strong variation) includes six architectural traits which occur in diverse, but narrowly defined, forms allowing between four and seven options, such as the organization of the front and central sections; the number of units in the rear section; the spacing of the rows of three posts in the central unit; the arrangement of the long walls; the external space (see Fig. 16.3).
4.Finally, the fourth set comprises a small number of elements that do not fit any cultural norms: the number of posts; the length of the house; and the relationship between form and length of the central part of the house.
To better understand the chronological transformations of the Bandkeramik house, we must also include the dwellings of the Danubian groups that continued the Bandkeramik tradition but allowed distinguishable regional groups to emerge (Lengyel, Hinkelstein/Grossgartach/Rössen, Stichbandkeramik, and Villeneuve-Saint-Germain/Blicquy) to inventory the architectural elements found, those not found, or those found under a different guise.
Our hypothesis is that the more alternative forms are available for a specific architectural element (i.e. the more variation there is between individual houses), the earlier and the more rapidly that element will be transformed, or disappear altogether. In contrast, the fewer the options, the longer the element persists.
Indeed, the architectural components in the third and most variable category changed first: as early as the middle Bandkeramik for certain types of front section, before the final Bandkeramik for construction pits and drainage trenches, and at the beginning of the post-Bandkeramik for interior spatial units. The transformation of elements in the second category began later, with the post-Bandkeramik groups (new forms of ground plan, new types and architectonic functions of the walls, new ways for internal separation). The most uniform architectural traits of the Bandkeramik house were maintained until the end of the Danubian tradition (including the post-Bandkeramik groups), except for those concerned with the most material functions of the house (e.g. the system of joints and the physical function of the walls). Until the very end, post-Bandkeramik Danubian buildings were—like the image of the original house—quadrangular, long, and oriented towards the middle Danube, and several rows of three posts marked the interior space.
In addition, over the same length of time, the changes affecting the most variable architectural components (the third category of variation) were more numerous and, thus, of shorter duration than the components of the second category of variation. This hypothesis can be extended to every architectural tradition: the more uniform (single-option) or only slightly variable (two or three options) elements a traditional dwelling possesses, the more durable that tradition is (see below). On the other hand, the more very variable elements (six or seven options) a house has, the easier it can be conceptually transformed, or can integrate elements from other traditions.
The relations between our different categories of variation (not forgetting the components that do not fit any cultural norms) can be translated into a curve combining four points, each representing a different category of variation (Fig. 16.4). The resulting abstract ‘structuration’ graphically translates what constituted the traditional Bandkeramik longhouse, and this abstraction allows us to compare several traditions. With respect to the chronology of architectural transformations, the higher the left-hand part of the curve (representing the uniform and only slightly variable components) relative to the right-hand part (the highly variable and individual components), the more persistent the conception of the buildings is.
FIG. 16.4. The abstract structuration of the Bandkeramik longhouse tradition given by the relationship between the different levels of variation of the culturally defined elements of the house and its contingent elements, or idiosyncratic differences—this structuration allows conceptual comparisons with other architectural traditions (for instance the New Guinean Baruya and North American Hopi dwellings).
Finally, in the context of the social and conceptual ‘functions’ of a dwelling evoked at the beginning of this paper (i.e. that the house implements the rules and references of a society), we may affirm that the more ‘very variable’ components an architectural tradition has, the more easily the culture to which it belongs can transform itself. Inversely, the more ‘uniform’ components there are, the longer the principles and rules that ground the society may last. This hypothesis has been confirmed by several studies undertaken in Papua New Guinea (Coudart 1994a, 1994b) and by observations among the Hopi and Navaho in the south-west of the United States (Rapoport (1969b).
NOTES
1.A dwelling combines numerous conceptualizations of spatial organization (cartographies or topologies) and time (sequences of construction and of use). For instance, ‘up’ and ‘down’ can lead to two cartographies and related construction sequences: the roof can be built from the top to the bottom (cartography 1), the walls from the bottom to the top (cartography 2). The same is true with the conceptual oppositions ‘inside/outside’ or ‘close/open’: using a door (from the outside to go in or vice versa) implies, at least, two different cartographies; etc.
2.The percentages given below are based on a very detailed study of 349 well preserved LBK and 75 well preserved post-LBK Danubian dwellings from 76 sites (Coudart 1998).
3.The notion of ‘model’ is here understood as a mental representation of a set of traits and components constituting a coherent architectural system; it therefore differs from the ‘model’ as traditionally understood by architects.
4.The term ‘trapeziform’ seems more appropriate for this kind of ground-plan than ‘trapezoidal’ (a geological term indicating a volume of which all sides form a trapezium), generally used by archaeologists.
5.The term ‘village’ is here used independently of the significance it has been accorded by medieval historians or modern urbanists; it designates simply a grouping of dwellings (contemporaneous or not) in the same location.
6.The variation index V of an architectural component is calculated for each chronological phase of a village. Three elements are taken into account: a) the number of types present for the component concerned; b) the percentage of houses with the most commonly used type; and c) the percentage of houses with other types of variation. The calculation consists of adding a and c, whilst keeping c equal to 100-b, and therefore involves the following procedure: a + (100-b). In order to avoid reducing the small number of types—between three (e.g. for the possible forms of the ground plan) and six (e.g. for the kinds of rear section)—with respect to the percentage, the number (100-b) is multiplied by 0.1. For each architectural component, the index of variation V is therefore calculated as follows: V = a+[(100-b)/10].
7.This irregularity of the yields, and the fact that productivity could fall below the minimum threshold needed for several successive years, persisted until
the nineteenth century (see Tits-Dieuaide 1978).
8.We are here looking at segments of society and not at individuals.
9.Based on the study of the highland New Guinean Baruya, Maurice Godelier (1982, 1986, 1991) elaborated a theoretical evolutionary continuum of social transformations with—at its two extremes—‘Great Men’ societies (defined from the relatively egalitarian Baruya society where Godelier arrived 16 years after their ‘first contact’) and ‘Big Men’ societies (as defined by Marshall Sahlins 1963). ‘Great Man’ organization is based on exchanges of identical things in similar quantities; moreover, its kinship system does not require the accumulation of wealth to obtain a wife. Great Men are not ‘chiefs’ (pace Spriggs 2008), but temporary leaders: they act for the benefit of the group as a whole, and competition through gift exchange is not transformed into social power or authority over others. In contrast, the Big Man system—whether the product of colonial (in Spriggs’opinion) or pre-colonial organization—rests upon quantitative and qualitative nonequivalence; moreover Big Men are rich and play a dominant part in competitive exchanges, basing their power on their capacity to redistribute wealth at the right moment. For Big Men to exist, the situation must favour competitive exchange and wealth accumulation. Notwithstanding the presence of a storage area in certain Bandkeramik dwellings, which are much longer than the others, the complete conformity of all houses to a European architectural model and, above all, the very limited quantity of prestige goods and very limited agricultural production, seem incompatible with the existence of Bandkeramik Big Men (Coudart 1991).
10.See Rapoport, A. 1969b. The pueblo and the Hogan. A cross cultural comparison to two responses to an environment. In P. Oliver (ed.), Shelter and society 1, 66–79. London: Barrie and Jenkins Ltd.
REFERENCES
Allard, P. 2005. L’industrie lithique des populations rubanées du nord-est de la France et de la Belgique. Rahden: Marie Leidorf.
Bakels, C.C. 1978. Four Linearbandkeramik settlements and their environment, a paleoecological study of Sittard, Stein, Elsloo and Hienheim. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia XI, 1–245.
Bakels, C.C. 1987. On the adzes of the northwestern Linearbandkeramik. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia XX, 53–85.
Bedault, L. and Hachem, L. 2008. Recherches sur les sociétés du Néolithique danubien à partir du Bassin parisien: approche structurelle des données archéozoologiques. In L. Burnez-Lanotte, M. Ilett, and P. Allard (eds), La fin des traditions danubiennes dans le Néolithique du Bassin parisien et de la Belgique (5100-4700 av. J.C.). Autour des recherches de Claude Constantin, 221–243. Paris: Presses universitaires de Namur.
Bogaard, A. 2004. Neolithic farming in central Europe. Oxford: Routledge.
Bonnardin, S. 2004. La parure funéraire du Néolithique ancien en Bassins parisien et rhénan. Matériaux, techniques, fonction et usage social. Unpublished PhD thesis, Université Paris I.
Bourdieu, P. 1970. La maison Kabyle ou le monde renversé. In J. Pouillon and P. Maranda (eds), Échanges et communications. Mélanges offerts à C. Lévi-Strauss à l’occasion de son 60e anniversaire, 739–758. Paris: Mouton.
Bourdieu, P. 1979. Algeria 1960: the disenchantment of the world. The sense of honour. The Kabyle house or the world reversed. Essays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chapman, D. 1955. The home and social status. London: Routledge.
Clarke, D.L. 1976. Mesolithic Europe: the economic basis. In G. de G. Sieveking, I.H. Longworth, and K.E. Wilson (eds), Problems in economic and social archaeology, 449–481. London: Duckworth.
Clarke, D.L. 1978. Mesolithic Europe: the economic basis. In Analytical archaeologist. Collected papers of David L. Clarke, 207–262. London: Academic Press.
Connelly, J.C. 1979. Hopi social organization. In A. Ortiz (ed.), Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 9, Southwest, 539–553. Washington: Smithsonian Institution.
Coudart, A. 1991. Social structure and relationships in prehistoric small-scale sedentary societies: the Bandkeramik groups in Neolithic Europe. In S.A. Gregg (ed.), Between bands and states, 395–420. Carbondale: Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University.
Coudart, A. 1994a. Maisons néolithiques, maisons de Nouvelle-Guinée: l’ethnologie comparée du choix social et technique. In B. Latour and P. Lemonnier (eds), De la Préhistoire aux missiles balistiques: l’intelligence sociale des techniques, 228–252. Paris: La Découverte.
Coudart, A. 1994b. Using the dwelling to study culture. In Value in tradition: the utility of research on identity and sustainability in dwellings and settlements, 35–50. Berkeley: IASTE Working Paper Series 1994–1995 (62).
Coudart, A. 1998. Architecture et société néolithique. Paris: Editions de la Maison des sciences de l’homme.
Duncan, J.S. 1982. Housing and identity: cross-cultural perspectives. New York: Holmes & Meier.
Godelier, M. 1982. La production des grands hommes. Paris: Fayard.
Godelier, M. 1986. The making of Great Men. Male domination and power among the New Guinea Baruya. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Godelier, M. 1991. An unfinished attempt at reconstructing the social processes which may have prompted the transformation of Great-Men societies into Big-Men societies. In M. Godelier and M. Strathern (eds), Big men & Great men. Personifications of power in Melanesia, 275–304. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gregg, S.A. 1988. Foragers and farmers. Population interaction and agricultural expansion in Prehistoric Europe. Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press.
Hachem, L. 2000. New observations on the Bandkeramik house and social organization. Antiquity 74, 308–312.
Hamon, C. 2006. Broyage et abrasion au Néolithique ancien. Caractérisation technique et fonctionnelle des outillages en grès du Bassin parisien. Oxford: BAR.
Johnson, G.A. 1982. Organizational structure and scalar stress. In C. Renfrew, M.J. Rowlands, and B.A. Segraves (eds), Theory and explanation in archaeology, 389–421. New York: Academic Press.
Langohr, R. 1990. The dominant soil types of the Belgian loess belt in the early Neolithic. In D. Cahen and M. Otte (eds), Rubané et Cardial. Actes du Colloque international de Liège, novembre 1988, 117–124. Liège: Université de Liège.
Lemonnier, P. 1991. From Great Men to Big Men: peace, substitution, and competition in the highlands of New Guinea. In M. Godelier and M. Strathern (eds), Big Men & Great Men. Personifications of power in Melanesia, 7–27. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lichardus, J., Lichardus-Itten, M., Bailloud, G., and Cauvin, J. 1985. La Protohistoire de l’Europe, le Néolithique et le Chalcolithique. Paris: Presses universitaires de France.
Mattheusser, E. 1991. Die geographische Ausrichtung bandkeramischer Häuser. In J. Lüning (ed.), Studien zur Siedlungsarchäologie I, 1–52. Bonn: Habelt.
Rapoport, A. 1969a. House form and culture. Milwaukee: University of Wisconsin.
Rapoport, A. 1969b. The pueblo and the Hogan. A cross cultural comparison to two responses to an environment. In P. Oliver (ed.), Shelter and society (1), 66–79. London: Barrie and Jenkins Ltd.
Rapoport, A. 2005. Culture, architecture and design. Chicago: Locke Sciences Publishing.
Oliver, P. 1987. Dwellings. The house across the world. Oxford, Austin: Phaidon Press.
Preston-Blier, S. 1987. The anatomy of architecture. Ontology and metaphor in Batammaliba architectural expression. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sahlins, M.D. 1963. Poor man, rich man, big-man, chief: political types in Melanesia and Polynesia. Comparative Studies in Society and History 5, 285–302.
Spriggs, M. 2008. Ethnographic parallels and the denial of history. World Archaeology 40, 538–552.
Talayesva, D.C. 1942. Sun chief, the autobiography of a Hopi Indian. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Tits-Dieuaide, M.J. 1978. Cereal yields around Louvain, 1404-1729. In H. van der Wee and E. van Cauwenberge (eds), Productivity of the land and agricultural inn
ovation in the Low Countries (1250-1800), 97–105. Louvain: Centre belge d’histoire rurale.
Watts, L.K. 1997. Zuni family ties and household-group values: a revisionist cultural model of Zuni social organization. Journal of Anthropological Research 53, 17–29.
* * *
* Received July 2009, revised December 2011
CHAPTER 17
HOUSES, HALLS, AND OCCUPATION IN BRITAIN AND IRELAND
KENNETH BROPHY
PREAMBLE
IF we believe that houses ‘are an arena in which cultural values, narratives of identity and the practicalities of daily life intersects’ (Brück 2008, 248) then they are key to our understanding of Neolithic society. Yet the study of ‘houses’ in the Neolithic of Britain and Ireland has until recently received relatively little attention. Why? First, it was difficult to identify where Neolithic people were living, and structures that could be comfortably interpreted as ‘houses’ were rare in most areas until the 1990s. Second, expectations of what Neolithic settlement would look like were unhelpful. Ideas of a sedentary lifestyle, fields, and farmhouses dominated discourse until the 1980s. Changes in our perception of Neolithic settlement patterns and a ‘boom’ in discoveries of occupation sites due to developer-funded excavations changed all of this. We have rapidly moved to a position where we have a wide range of occupation locations and houses, set within a framework of mixed mobility settlement patterns and regional and temporal variation, indicative of a range of rhythms of life. It seems likely that houses in the Neolithic were places where the mundane tasks of everyday life took place, and the fundamental structures and rules of society were maintained.
