This pdf of your paper in The Neolithic of Europe belongs to the publishers Oxbow
Books and it is their copyright.
As author you are licenced to make up to 50 offprints from it, but beyond that
you may not publish it on the World Wide Web until three years from publication
(May 2020), unless the site is a limited access intranet (password protected). If you
have queries about this please contact the editorial department at Oxbow Books
(editorial@oxbowbooks.com).
THE NEOLITHIC OF EUROPE
papers in honour of alasdair
Whittle
an offprint from
THE NEOLITHIC OF EUROPE
papers in honour of alasdair
Whittle
Edited by
PENNY BICKLE, VICKI CUMMINGS,
DANIELA HOFMANN AND JOSHUA POLLARD
© Oxbow Books 2017
Oxford & Philadelphia
www.oxbowbooks.com
Published in the United Kingdom in 2017 by
OXBOW BOOKS
The Old Music Hall, 106–108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JE
and in the United States by
OXBOW BOOKS
1950 Lawrence Road, Havertown, PA 19083
© Oxbow Books and the individual authors 2017
Hardcover Edition: ISBN 978-1-78570-654-7
Digital Edition: ISBN 978-1-78570-655-4 (epub)
A CIP record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Bickle, Penny, editor of compilation. | Cummings, Vicki, editor of
compilation. | Hofmann, Daniela, editor of compilation. | Pollard, Joshua,
editor of compilation. | Whittle, A. W. R., honoree.
Title: The Neolithic of Europe : papers in honour of Alasdair Whittle /
edited by Penny Bickle, Vicki Cummings, Daniela Hofmann, and Joshua
Pollard.
Description: Oxford ; Philadelphia : Oxbow Books, 2017. | Includes
bibliographical references.
Identifiers: LCCN 2016057995 (print) | LCCN 2017017652 (ebook) | ISBN
9781785706554 (epub) | ISBN 9781785706561 (mobi) | ISBN 9781785706578
(pdf) | ISBN 9781785706547 (hardcover) | ISBN 9781785706554 (electronic)
Subjects: LCSH: Neolithic period–Europe. | Excavations
(Archaeology)–Europe. | Human settlements–Europe. | Europe–Antiquities.
| Whittle, A. W. R. | Social archaeology–Europe.
Classification: LCC GN776.2.A1 (ebook) | LCC GN776.2.A1 N455 2017 (print) |
DDC 936/.01–dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016057995
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means,
electronic or mechanical including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval
system, without permission from the publisher in writing.
Printed in Malta by Gutenberg Press Ltd
Typeset in India by Lapiz Digital Services, Chennai
For a complete list of Oxbow titles, please contact:
UNITED KINGDOM
Oxbow Books
Telephone (01865) 241249, Fax (01865) 794449
Email: oxbow@oxbowbooks.com
www.oxbowbooks.com
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Oxbow Books
Telephone (800) 791-9354, Fax (610) 853-9146
Email: queries@casemateacademic.com
www.casemateacademic.com/oxbow
Oxbow Books is part of the Casemate Group
Front cover: Alleskoven dolmen, Denmark (Vicki Cummings).
Back cover: La Table des Marchands, France (Vicki Cummings); a reconstructed LBK longhouse in the Paris basin (Penny Bickle);
Carrowmore, Ireland (Vicki Cummings); an excavation in progress at the Herpaly tell, Hungary (Pál Raczky).
Contents
List of figures
List of tables
List of contributors
Tabula gratulatoria
1. Introduction: Alasdair Whittle and the Neolithic of Europe
Joshua Pollard, Penny Bickle, Vicki Cummings and Daniela Hofmann
2. ‘Very like the Neolithic’: the everyday and settlement in the European Neolithic
Penny Bickle and Evita Kalogiropoulou
3. The end of the tells: the Iron Age ‘Neolithic’ in the central and northern Aegean
James Whitley
4. Encounters in the watery realm: early to mid-Holocene geochronologies of
Lower Danube human–river interactions
Steve Mills, Mark Macklin and Pavel Mirea
5. Buried in mud, buried in clay: specially arranged settlement burials from in and around the
Danubian Sárköz, Neolithic southern Hungary
Eszter Bánffy, János Jakucs, Kitti Köhler, Tibor Marton,
Krisztián Oross and Anett Osztás
6. The chosen ones: unconventional burials at Polgár–Csőszhalom (north-east Hungary)
from the fifth millennium cal BC
Pál Raczky and Alexandra Anders
7. A tale of two processes of Neolithisation: south-east Europe and Britain/Ireland
Rick Schulting and Dušan Borić
8. Stag do: ritual implications of antler use in prehistory
László Bartosiewicz, Alice M. Choyke and Ffion Reynolds
9. Towards an integrated bioarchaeological perspective on the central European Neolithic: understanding the pace
and rhythm of social processes through comparative discussion of the western loess belt and Alpine foreland
Amy Bogaard, Stefanie Jacomet and Jörg Schibler
10. Size matters? Exploring exceptional buildings in the central European early Neolithic
Daniela Hofmann and Eva Lenneis
11. Feasts and sacrifices: fifth millennium ‘pseudo-ditch’ causewayed enclosures from the southern
Upper Rhine valley
Philippe Lefranc, Anthony Denaire and Rose-Marie Arbogast
12. From Neolithic kings to the Staffordshire hoard. Hoards and aristocratic graves in the European Neolithic:
the birth of a ‘Barbarian’ Europe?
Christian Jeunesse
vii
xi
xii
xv
1
7
24
35
47
63
82
107
120
145
159
175
vi
Contents
13. Sudden time? Natural disasters as a stimulus to monument building, from Silbury Hill (Great Britain)
to Antequera (Spain)
Richard Bradley and Leonardo García Sanjuán
14. Art in the making: Neolithic societies in Britain, Ireland and Iberia
Andrew Meirion Jones, Andrew Cochrane and Marta Diaz-Guardamino
15. Community building: houses and people in Neolithic Britain
Alistair J. Barclay and Oliver J. T. Harris
16. Passage graves as material technologies of wrapping
Vicki Cummings and Colin Richards
17. Rings of fire and Grooved Ware settlement at West Kennet, Wiltshire
Alex Bayliss, Caroline Cartwright, Gordon Cook, Seren Griffiths, Richard Madgwick, Peter Marshall
and Paula Reimer
18. Remembered and imagined belongings: Stonehenge in the age of first metals
Joshua Pollard, Paul Garwood, Mike Parker Pearson, Colin Richards, Julian Thomas and Kate Welham
19. Interdigitating pasts: the Irish and Scottish Neolithics
Alison Sheridan
188
201
222
235
249
279
298
List of figures
Figure 2.1.
Figure 2.2.
Figure 2.3.
Figure 2.4.
Figure 2.5.
Figure 3.1.
Figure 3.2.
Figure 3.3.
Figure 3.4.
Figure 4.1.
Figure 4.2.
Figure 4.3.
Figure 5.1.
Figure 5.2.
Figure 5.3.
Figure 5.4.
Figure 5.5.
Figure 5.6.
Figure 6.1.
Figure 6.2.
Figure 6.3.
Figure 6.4.
Figure 6.5.
Figure 6.6.
Figure 6.7.
Figure 6.8.
Figure 7.1.
Figure 7.2.
Figure 7.3.
Figure 7.4.
Map of Europe indicating the regions discussed in this paper.
Distribution of sites in northern Greece. A) Macedonia; B) western Thrace.
Example of building and thermal structure associations from the Neolithic site Avgi I in Kastoria.
Distribution of sites in the Paris basin.
Examples of longhouse plans from the RRBP (A–C) and VSG (D–F) in the Paris basin.
Plan of the Aegean showing sites mentioned in text.
Plan of Lefkandi, Xeropolis.
Plan of Vardaroftsa (modern Axiochori), showing the relationship between the central tell (toumba) and its
surrounding tables (trapezes).
Photo of the toumba of Saratsé (modern Perivolaki).
Map showing main geographic features, rivers and sites mentioned in the text.
Geomorphological map of the Teleorman valley (SRAP) study area showing river terraces, palaeochannels,
and location of archaeological sites.
Map of the Turnu Măgurele–Zimnicea study area showing main features and sites mentioned in the text.
Map of the study area with the main sites mentioned in the text.
Human remains inside ovens from Alsónyék.
Feature 1531 from Alsónyék: a complete human skeleton and part of a fragmented skull found inside an
oven.
Pit 3036 from Szederkény-Kukorica-dűlő, which contained remains of four individuals.
Feature 65 from Fajsz-Garadomb: secondary burial.
Fragmented clay figurines unearthed in feature 65 from Fajsz-Garadomb.
Polgár-Csőszhalom. 1: the topography of the tell and the horizontal settlement; 2: magnetometric plan of
the site with the excavated areas and the locations of the burials mentioned in the text.
Polgár-Csőszhalom. Distribution of 16 grave good types in burials furnished with various artefacts.
Burial 1. Polgár-Csőszhalom, tell settlement – grave 3.
Burial 2. Polgár-Csőszhalom, horizontal settlement. Detail from feature 836/1827.
Burial 2. Polgár-Csőszhalom, horizontal settlement east of the tell-enclosure complex – feature 836/1827.
Burial 2. Polgár-Csőszhalom, horizontal settlement east of the tell-enclosure complex – feature 836/1827,
grave goods.
Burial 3. Polgár-Csőszhalom, horizontal settlement west of the main tell-enclosure complex – Str. 265.
Burial 4. Polgár-Csőszhalom, horizontal settlement, feature 5/122.
Map showing locations of key sites mentioned in the text.
Plot of δ13C and δ15N values on Mesolithic and early/middle Neolithic human bone collagen from southeast Europe.
Plot of δ13C and δ15N values on Mesolithic and early Neolithic human bone collagen from the Danube
Gorges area.
Comparison between δ34S and δ15N values on the same individuals from the Danube Gorges area by main
chronological periods.
viii
Figure 7.5.
Figure 7.6.
Figure 7.7.
Figure 7.8.
Figure 8.1.
Figure 8.2.
Figure 8.3.
Figure 8.4.
Figure 8.5.
Figure 8.6.
Figure 8.7.
Figure 8.8.
Figure 8.9.
Figure 8.10.
Figure 8.11.
Figure 8.12.
Figure 8.13.
Figure 8.14.
Figure 8.15.
Figure 9.1.
Figure 9.2.
Figure 9.3.
Figure 9.4.
Figure 10.1.
Figure 10.2.
Figure 10.3.
Figure 10.4.
Figure 10.5.
Figure 10.6.
Figure 10.7.
Figure 10.8.
Figure 10.9.
Figure 11.1.
Figure 11.2.
Figure 11.3.
Figure 11.4.
Figure 11.5.
Figure 11.6.
Figure 11.7.
Figure 11.8.
Figure 11.9.
Figure 11.10.
List of figures
Post-weaning human bone/dentine collagen δ13C and δ15N values from coastal/near-coastal Mesolithic and
Neolithic sites in Britain and Ireland.
Human bone/tooth collagen δ13C values from British and Irish Neolithic coastal and near-coastal sites
plotted against the average of the 95.4% range of the calibrated radiocarbon date.
Human bone/tooth collagen δ13C and δ15N values from inland and coastal Neolithic sites in Ireland, Wales,
England and Scotland.
Average ± 2 standard errors for δ13C and δ15N values on human bone/tooth collagen from inland and
coastal Neolithic sites in Britain and Ireland.
Approximate areas of Celtic and Scythian influence in northern Hungary during the Iron Age.
The percentual distribution of identifiable Iron Age animal bones at Sajópetri–Hosszú-dűlő.
The anatomical position of the worked stag skull fragment.
Frontal view of the stag skull fragment with fine cut mark at the base of the right pedicle.
Fronto-occipital view of the stag skull fragment with rough cut mark in the parietal region on the right side.
The inner view of the stag skull fragment, showing the well preserved surface of the brain case.
The location of posthole 95.34 in relation to other features in the south-western section of the Sajópetri–
Hosszú-dűlő settlement.
The age distribution of major animal groups exploited at Sajópetri–Hosszú-dűlő.
The standard scores of red deer bone measurements from Sajópetri–Hosszú-dűlő in relation to the average
of Bronze Age red deer in Hungary.
Cernunnos on the first century Pillar of the Boatmen in the Museé de Cluny in Paris.
Cernunnos depicted on the inside plate No. C 6571 of the Gundestrup cauldron from Denmark.
Imaginary reconstruction of the way a Palaeolithic reindeer antler decoy might have been used.
Image of a stag tattoed on the left shoulder of the ‘Princess of Ukok’ 2500 years ago.
Marsigli’s depiction of a ‘deer of plenty’.
Remains of red deer trophies recovered near the middle Bronze Age palisade at Jászdózsa–Kápolnahalom,
Hungary.
Chronology table with the cultural groups mentioned in the text.
Map of the area considered in this paper, with location of the regions mentioned.
Importance of domestic and wild animals in Neolithic lakeshore settlements of central and eastern
Switzerland.
Comparison between importance of wild animals based on numbers of bone fragments, site type and
chronology.
Map of LBK distribution with main sites mentioned in the text.
Bylany, house 306 as one example of tripartite houses on a south–north slope.
Plan of Harting. Exceptionally long buildings are shaded.
Simplified plan of houses 9 and 10 at Harting.
Plan of Geleen-Janskamperveld showing different house types.
A type 1a house (house 24) from Geleen-Janskamperveld.
Bipartite house types of Cuiry-lès-Chaudardes compared to tripartite LBK Großbauten from Miskovice,
Bohemia.
Stock breeding and game in relation to house size at Cuiry-lès-Chaudardes.
Relation of domesticated animals and game on the basis of bone weight at Mold.
Evolutionary scheme of a ‘pseudo-ditched’ enclosure.
Distribution of ‘pseudo-ditched’ enclosures in the first half of the fifth millennium cal BC in Europe.
Simplified chronological sequence of the Neolithic cultures in the southern Upper Rhine plain (5300–4000
cal BC).
Distribution of Alastian enclosures mentioned in the text.
Plan of the Planig-Friedberg/Rössen period enclosure at Vendenheim ‘Aux portes du Kochersberg’.
Plan of the Rössen period enclosure at Meistratzheim ‘Station d’épuration’.
Plan of the Bischheim period enclosure at Schwindratzheim and its pseudo-ditch sections.
Plan of the Bischheim/Bruebach-Oberbergen period enclosure at Duntzenheim ‘Frauenabwand’.
Plan of the Bischheim–BORS enclosure at Entzheim ‘Les Terres de la Chapelle’.
Section five of the Entzheim ‘Les Terres de la Chapelle’ enclosure, showing its constitutive segments and
pseudo-ditch sections.
List of figures
Figure 11.11.
Figure 12.1.
Figure 12.2.
Figure 12.3.
Figure 13.1.
Figure 13.2.
Figure 13.3.
Figure 13.4.
Figure 13.5.
Figure 13.6.
Figure 13.7.
Figure 14.1.
Figure 14.2.
Figure 14.3.
Figure 14.4.
Figure 14.5.
Figure 14.6.
Figure 14.7.
Figure 14.8.
Figure 14.9.
Figure 14.10.
Figure 14.11.
Figure 14.12.
Figure 15.1.
Figure 15.2.
Figure 15.3.
Figure 15.4.
Figure 16.1.
Figure 16.2.
Figure 16.3.
Figure 16.4.
Figure 16.5.
Figure 16.6.
Figure 16.7.
Figure 16.8.
Figure 16.9.
Figure 17.1.
Figure 17.2.
Figure 17.3.
Figure 17.4.
Figure 17.5.
Figure 17.6.
ix
Distribution of pig mandibles at Duntzenheim ‘Frauenabwand’.
Miniature bronze cult wagons from G1 graves. 1: Trudshøj; 2: Strettweg.
The Bajč grave, late LBK, Slovakia.
Brześć-Kujawski culture G2 grave of a woman from Krusza Zamkova, Poland.
The Locmariaquer monument complex.
Le Grand Menhir Brisé.
Interior general view of Menga (Antequera, Málaga, Spain).
Excavation in progress at Menga’s well in 2005.
La Peña de los Enamorados (Antequera, Málaga, Spain) at dusk from the east.
Camorro de las Siete Mesas in El Torcal’s karstic landscape (Antequera, Málaga, Spain).
Diagram showing the aggregated radiocarbon dates for El Toro, Menga and Viera, together with El
Aguadero ‘Axarquía E-[0-9]–[0-9]’ earthquake.
Fourknocks I, Co. Meath.
Orthostat L19, Newgrange Site 1, Co. Meath.
Rock art at Drumsinnot, Co. Louth, Ireland.
Partially erased eyebrow motif on the face of Folkton drum 2 (Folkton, North Yorkshire, Britain). Left: line
drawing highlighting the outline of the motif. Right: the motif viewed under Reflectance Transformation
Imaging specular enhancement mode.
Detail of a decorated menhir, found grouped with seven other menhirs near the village of Figueira (Budens,
Vila do Bispo, Portugal).
Menhir 1 of Padrão (Vila do Bispo, Portugal).
Decorated orthostats in the gallery grave of Soto 1 (Trigueros, Huelva, Spain). Orthostat I23, a reused
statue-menhir, shows a ‘T’-shaped motif in low relief on its lower end, interpreted as an inverted face.
Tracing of one of the orthostats of the dolmen of Monte dos Marxos (Rodeiro, Pontevedra, Spain).
Multiple plot of the calibrated probability distributions for the radiocarbon measurements mentioned in the
text.
View of a flat area of the Pedra das Ferraduras (Fentáns, Pontevedra, Spain), showing a series of
engravings attributed to the Neolithic.
Detail of panel 4 in the Cueva del Castillo (Monfragüe, Cáceres, Spain). The tracing shows a complex
series of superimposed motifs.
Grave goods documented in the passage grave of Anta Grande da Ordem (Portalegre, Alentejo, Portugal),
including various decorated stone plaques.
Comparative range of early Neolithic buildings from Britain and Ireland.
Comparative plans of White Horse Stone, Lismore Fields and Horton.
Comparative ‘villages’ – Horton, Lismore Fields and Corbally.
Comparative use ‘spans’ of the structures at White Horse Stone, Horton house 1 and Warren Field.
Aerial view of Maeshowe passage grave.
View of the Maeshowe ditch as a container of water.
The passage grave at Newgrange Site K.
The Newgrange passage grave.
The smaller passage graves at Knowth surrounding the main mound.
The central passage grave at Knowth is surrounded by earlier passage graves.
Plan and section of Bryn Celli Ddu, showing the unusual location of the kerb.
The large standing stone in the chamber at Bryn Celli Ddu.
Burial cist B was one of the primary features within the passage grave of Quanterness.
Alasdair Whittle directing excavations at Windmill Hill in 1988.
Overall plan of the West Kennet palisade enclosures showing the locations of the dated samples.
Probability distributions of dates from the West Kennet palisaded enclosures. Each distribution represents
the relative probability that an event occurs at a particular time.
Probability distributions for the number of years between the constructions of the two palisaded enclosures
at West Kennet.
Probability distributions for the construction of the West Kennet palisaded enclosures following alternative
archaeological interpretations.
Probability distributions of dates from the West Kennet Grooved Ware settlement.
x
Figure 17.7.
Figure 17.8.
Figure 17.9.
Figure 17.10.
Figure 17.11.
Figure 17.12.
Figure 17.13.
Figure 17.14.
Figure 17.15.
Figure 17.16.
Figure 17.17.
Figure 18.1.
Figure 18.2.
Figure 18.3.
Figure 18.4.
Figure 18.5.
Figure 18.6.
Figure 18.7.
Figure 18.8.
Figure 18.9.
Figure 18.10.
Figure 19.1.
Figure 19.2.
Figure 19.3.
Figure 19.4.
Figure 19.5.
Figure 19.6.
Figure 19.7.
Figure 19.8.
List of figures
Probability distribution for the number of years during which settlement activity occurred at West Kennet.
Probability distributions for the number of years between the constructions of the palisaded enclosures and
the Grooved Ware settlement at West Kennet.
Probability distributions of dates from Neolithic activity in the Avebury area.
Probability distributions of dates for late Neolithic activity on Windmill Hill.
Probability distributions of dates from the Longstones enclosure.
Probability distributions for the number of years between the foundation of the Grooved Ware settlement at
West Kennet and completion of the lower organic mound in the centre of Silbury Hill.
Probability distributions of dates associated with Beaker pottery in the Avebury area.
Probability distributions of dates from Neolithic linear monuments.
Key parameters for estimated dates of construction for selected middle Neolithic monuments in England.
Probability distributions of dates from other palisade enclosures in Britain.
Key parameters for palisaded enclosures in Britain.
Stonehenge and its landscape.
Principal features of Stonehenge Stage 3.
Principal features of Stonehenge Stage 4.
Principal features of Stonehenge Stage 5.
The distribution of Beaker and early Bronze Age ceramics within Stonehenge.
Axe and dagger carvings on stones 4 and 53.
Detail of the south-eastern sector of Stonehenge during Stages 4 and 5, showing features related to the
marking of the midwinter sunrise and/or southernmost moonrise.
Areas of (a) early Bronze Age settlement and (b) middle Bronze Age field systems in the Stonehenge
landscape.
The Palisade/Gate Ditch.
The Palisade Ditch under excavation, with sheep burial in late phase pit.
Breton-style monuments: Achnacreebeag and Ballintoy; distribution; Breton-style late Castellic pot from
Achnacreebeag; supposed route taken by Breton settlers.
Castellic pottery in the Morbihan region of Brittany and in Normandy and some of its ceramic
‘descendants’ in Scotland and Ireland.
The Carinated Bowl Neolithic: examples of pottery, and hypothetical route taken by settlers from northern
France and their descendants.
Antrim porcellanite axeheads (and related implements): complete axe found at Shulishader, Isle of Lewis;
distribution as of 1986; Irish distribution as of 1998.
Axeheads from hoard of Antrim flint items found at Auchenhoan; pitchstone core from Nappan; map
showing directions in which Arran pitchstone travelled during the Neolithic.
Clyde cairn at East Bennan, Arran, and court tomb at Creggandevesky, Co. Tyrone, showing the striking
similarities between these cognate monuments.
Fourth millennium ceramic connections between Ireland and Scotland.
Map showing part of the south-west spread of ideas, practices and objects from Orkney towards Ireland at
the beginning of the third millennium, highlighting early Grooved Ware and stone/timber circles.
List of tables
Table 6.1.
Table 7.1.
Table 7.2.
Table 7.3.
Table 9.1.
Table 13.1.
Table 14.1.
Table 17.1.
Table 17.2.
Table 17.3.
The14C dates from Polgár-Csőszhalom mentioned in the text.
Mesolithic and early/middle Neolithic human stable isotope values in south-east Europe.
Mesolithic and early/middle Neolithic human stable isotope values in Britain and Ireland.
Average Neolithic human δ13C and δ15N values (± 1 SD) by region from coastal and inland sites in Britain
and Ireland.
Comparison of dryland sites and waterlogged well fills of different LBK sites.
Selection of radiocarbon dates for Menga and Viera (Antequera, Málaga, Spain).
Radiocarbon dates mentioned in the text.
West Kennet palisade enclosures – radiocarbon and stable isotope measurements.
Radiocarbon and stable isotope measurements from selected English and Welsh palisaded enclosures.
Radiocarbon and stable isotope measurements from selected English cursus.
List of contributors
AlexAndrA Anders
Institute of Archaeological Sciences, Eötvös Loránd
University, Múzeum körút 4/B, 1088 Budapest, Hungary
rose-MArie ArbogAst
Université Marc Bloch, UMR 7044, 5 allée du Général
Rouvillois, 67083 Strasbourg, France
eszter bánffy
Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Römisch-Germanische
Kommission, Palmengartenstr. 10–12, 60325 Frankfurt,
Germany
AlistAir bArclAy
Wessex Archaeology, Portway House, Old Sarum Park,
Salisbury, SP4 6EB, UK
lászló bArtosiewicz
Department of Archaeology and Classical Studies, University
of Stockholm, Lilla Frescativägen 7, 10691 Stockholm,
Sweden
Alex bAyliss
Historic England, 1 Waterhouse Square, 138–42 Holborn,
London, EC1N 2ST, UK
Penny bickle
Department of Archaeology, University of York, The King’s
Manor, York YO1 7EP, UK
AMy bogAArd
School of Archaeology, University of Oxford, 36 Beaumont
Street, Oxford OX1 2PG, UK
Dušan Borić
School of History, Archaeology and Religion, Cardiff
University, John Percival Building, Colum Drive, Cardiff
CF10 3EU, UK
richArd brAdley
School of Archaeology, Geography and Environmental
Science, University of Reading, PO Box 227, Reading
RG6 6AB, UK
cAroline cArtwright
Department of Conservation and Scientific Research, The
British Museum, Great Russell Street, London WC1B
3DG, UK
Alice M. choyke
Department of Medieval Studies, Central European
University, Nádor utca 9, 1051 Budapest, Hungary
Andrew cochrAne
School of History, Archaeology and Religion, Cardiff
University, John Percival Building, Colum Drive, Cardiff
CF10 3EU, UK
gordon cook
SUERC Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory, Scottish Enterprise
Technology Park, Rankine Avenue, East Kilbride G75 0QF,
UK
Vicki cuMMings
School of Forensic and Applied Sciences, University of
Central Lancashire, Preston PR1 2HE, UK
Anthony denAire
Université de Strasbourg, UMR 7044, 5 allée du Général
Rouvillois, 67083 Strasbourg, France
MArtA diAz-guArdAMino
Department of Archaeology, University of Southampton,
Highfield, Southampton SO17 1BF, UK
leonArdo gArcíA sAnjuán
Departamento de Prehistoria y Arqueología, Universidad de
Sevilla, María de Padilla s/n. 41004 Sevilla, Spain
List of contributors
xiii
PAul gArwood
School of Classics, Ancient History and Archaeology,
University of Birmingham, Arts Building Birmingham B15
2TT, UK
MArk MAcklin
School of Geography and Lincoln Centre for Water and
Planetary Health, University of Lincoln, Brayford Pool,
Lincoln, LN6 7TS, UK
seren griffiths
School of Forensic and Applied Sciences, University of
Central Lancashire, Preston PR1 2HE, UK
richArd MAdgwick
School of History, Archaeology and Religion, Cardiff
University, John Percival Building, Colum Drive, Cardiff
CF10 3EU, UK
oliVer hArris
School of Archaeology and Ancient History, University of
Leicester, University Road, Leicester LE1 7RH, UK
dAnielA hofMAnn
Universität Hamburg, Archäologisches Institut, EdmundSiemers-Allee 1, Flügel West, 20146 Hamburg, Germany
stefAnie jAcoMet
Integrative prähistorische und naturwissenschaftliche
Archäologie (IPNA), Basel University, Spalenring 145,
4055 Basel, Switzerland
jános jAkucs
Institute of Archaeology, Research Centre for the
Humanities, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Úri utca 49,
1014 Budapest, Hungary
christiAn jeunesse
Université de Strasbourg – Institut Universitaire de France,
UMR 7044, 5 allée du Général Rouvillois, 67083 Strasbourg,
France
Andrew Meirion jones
Department of Archaeology, University of Southampton,
Highfield, Southampton SO17 1BF, UK
eVitA kAlogiroPoulou
School of History and Archaeology, Aristotle University of
Thessaloniki, 54124 Thessaloniki, Greece
kitti köhler
Institute of Archaeology, Research Centre for the
Humanities, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Úri utca 49,
1014 Budapest, Hungary
PhiliPPe lefrAnc
Université de Strasbourg, UMR 7044, 5 allée du Général
Rouvillois, 67083 Strasbourg, France
eVA lenneis
Institut für Urgeschichte und Historische Archäologie,
Universität Wien, Franz-Klein-Gasse 1, 1190 Wien, Austria
Peter MArshAll
Historic England, 1 Waterhouse Square, 138–42 Holborn,
London, EC1N 2ST, UK
tibor MArton
Institute of Archaeology, Research Centre for the
Humanities, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Úri utca 49,
1014 Budapest, Hungary
steVe Mills
School of History, Archaeology and Religion, Cardiff
University, John Percival Building, Colum Drive, Cardiff
CF10 3EU, UK
PAVel MireA
Muzeul Judeţean Teleorman, str. 1848, nr. 1, 140033
Alexandria, jud. Teleorman, Romania
krisztián oross
Institute of Archaeology, Research Centre for the
Humanities, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Úri utca 49,
1014 Budapest, Hungary
Anett osztás
Institute of Archaeology, Research Centre for the
Humanities, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Úri utca 49,
1014 Budapest, Hungary
Mike PArker PeArson
Institute of Archaeology, University College London, 31–4
Gordon Square, London WC1H 0PY, UK
joshuA PollArd
Department of Archaeology, University of Southampton,
Highfield, Southampton SO17 1BF, UK
Pál rAczky
Institute of Archaeological Sciences, Eötvös Loránd
University, Múzeum körút 4/B, 1088 Budapest, Hungary
PAulA reiMer
School of Geography, Archaeology and Palaeoecology, The
Queen’s University Belfast, Elmwood Avenue, Belfast BT7
1NN, UK
xiv
List of contributors
ffion reynolds
School of History, Archaeology and Religion, Cardiff
University, John Percival Building, Colum Drive, Cardiff
CF10 3EU, UK
Alison sheridAn
Department of Scottish History and Archaeology, National
Museums Scotland, Chambers Street, Edinburgh EH1 1JF,
UK
colin richArds
Institute of Archaeology, University of Highlands and
Islands, Orkney College, Kirkwall, Orkney, KW15 1LX, UK
juliAn thoMAs
School of Arts, Languages and Cultures, Manchester
University, Mansfield Cooper Building, Manchester M13
9PL, UK
jörg schibler
Integrative prähistorische und naturwissenschaftliche
Archäologie (IPNA), Basel University, Spalenring 145,
4055 Basel, Switzerland
rick schulting
School of Archaeology, University of Oxford, 36 Beaumont
Street, Oxford OX1 2PG, UK
kAte welhAM
Department of Archaeology, Anthropology and Forensic
Science, Bournemouth University, Talbot Campus, Fern
Barrow, Poole BH12 5BB, UK
jAMes whitley
School of History, Archaeology and Religion, Cardiff
University, John Percival Building, Colum Drive, Cardiff
CF10 3EU, UK
Tabula gratulatoria
In publishing this volume, the editors, contributors and publishers congratulate Alasdair on his contribution to many aspects
of prehistoric archaeology: theoretical, practical and interpretational. His work and his teaching have been inspirational to
the discipline as a whole and, in particular, to several generations of students, many of whom have gone on to make their
own contribution.
The following wish to join us in congratulating Alasdair, and in celebrating his contribution to archaeology (so far).
Umberto Alberella
Mike Allen
Luc Amkreutz
Hugo Anderson-Whymark
Carol Bibby
Niels Bleicher
Corinne Bobin
Peter Bogucki
Lisa Brown
Nigel Brown
Jessica Butt
Derek Chambers
John Chapman
Rosamund Cleal
Gabriel Cooney
John Cruse
Lech Czerniak
Patrick Daniel
Timothy Darvill
Thomas Doppler
Gundula Dorey
Renate Ebersbach
Veronica Edwards
Mike Efstathiou
Judie English
Christopher Evans
Linda Fibiger
Tony Fleming
Chris Fowler
Charles French
Vicki Harley
Frances Healy
Gill Hey
Angela Gannon
Julie Gardiner
Bisserka Gaydarska
Alex Gibson
Chris Gosden
Rose Hooker
Carleton Jones
Barbara Jones
Kristian Kristiansen
Jonathan Last
Jim Leary
Katina Lillios
Clare Litt
Leendeert Louwe-Kooijmans
Roy Loveday
Arkadiusz Marciniak
Inna Mateiciucová
Francesco Menotti
Nicky Milner
Jan Oldham
Rick Peterson
Matt Pope
Joanna Pyzel
Henrietta Quinnell
Peter Rowley-Conwy
Stephen Shennan
Wolfram Schier
Martin Smith
John Smythe
Nick Snashall
Elisabetta Starnini
Harald Stäuble
Graham Steele
Patricia Steele
Stephen Taylor
Soultana-Maria Valamoti
Tina Walkling
Graeme Warren
Chris Williams
Michael Wysocki
Istvan Zalai-Gáal
Andrea Zeeb-Lanz
relaxing in Eileanreach...
10
Size matters? Exploring exceptional buildings in the
central European early Neolithic
Daniela Hofmann and Eva Lenneis
Introduction: about the longhouse
‘The longhouse was the central fact of LBK existence’,
as Alasdair Whittle (2012, 195) once put it, and it has
remained an enduring concern in his work over the years. His
contribution has always challenged received ideas about the
house, be this in terms of the size of the social unit inhabiting
it, the idea of autonomous households, or more recently the
controversy between alternative yard and row settlement
models or the applicability of the ‘house society’ concept
(e.g. Whittle 1988, 67–73; 1996, 162–7; 2001; 2003, 134–43;
2009; 2012). Instead, he has stressed the ways in which
the longhouse brought a range of diverse people together,
functioning as a focal point within a meshwork of relations.
He has also addressed the mythological and symbolic aspects
of the building, most recently suggesting a homology between
the human body and the house (Whittle 2012).
In contrast, the question of why the LBK house follows
a relatively predictable modular pattern, long established
by Modderman (1970; 1972), has been of more passing
interest, although he has addressed the problematic relations
between house size and partition (Whittle 1988, 69–73).
Elsewhere, the significance of partition is much debated,
sometimes with the same aim to find ‘the’ single correct
answer that Alasdair has also noted for settlement patterns
(e.g. Whittle 2012, 196). Initially, it was argued that the three
parts of the house served different economic functions – for
instance cattle stalling in the back with its planked walls,
cereal storage in the front with its double posts, and general
everyday activities in the centre (Modderman 1970, 101–9).
For Van de Velde (1990) tripartition was connected with the
status of the inhabitants, with tripartite structures associated
with greater numbers of adzes at some of the Langweiler
sites, but this remained difficult to substantiate elsewhere.
Others have pointed towards house length as an indicator
of extensive networks and, indirectly, status (Hofmann
2012). In contrast, for Coudart (2015) the tripartite house
is intimately bound up with the maintenance of egalitarian
relations, whereby houses with an extensive front end were
responsible for storing and redistributing the community’s
grain, always under the careful scrutiny of others.
However, it is now being recognised that there may be
more diversity in how the building was actually inhabited,
as well as in the importance accorded to clear internal
partitioning. This is true for example in Poland, where it
can be difficult to discern three parts based on the post
constellations inside the house (e.g. Czerniak 2016, 47–53).
In her comprehensive work, Coudart (1998) also pointed out
that none of the houses in the Paris basin show three parts as
described by Modderman. At this western edge of the LBK
and in this late phase of the culture, one can only distinguish
between large and small houses on the basis of the number
of post rows in the rear parts of the buildings, i.e. behind
the back corridor, but there are no front modules any more
(Hachem 2011, 212, fig. 129). The biggest houses of this
kind reach the same lengths as the tripartite Großbauten
or type 1 houses in other parts of the LBK. As we discuss
below, the large houses of Cuiry-lès-Chaudardes seem to
have played a special role in the community, as is sometimes
also supposed for Großbauten further east. But what is the
significance of such variation? Is it simply incidental, an
aspect of the house allowed to vary randomly, or was it
bound up in social projects at local and regional scales?
146
Daniela Hofmann and Eva Lenneis
Our approach to tripartition is informed by recent
interpretations that stress the variability of the Bandkeramik
house. Thus, while we recognize that at a general level,
humans and houses are ‘entangled’ and mutually constitutive
(e.g. Hodder 2013, 350), we also want to explore the
significance of the morphological differences between
buildings in detail and have therefore chosen a vantage
point rooted in the specific circumstances in which such
houses were built. For us, then, variability is most of all
concerned with the different social contexts and narratives in
which the LBK house could be deployed, and the different
ways in which its inherent possibilities for action would
consequently be brought to the fore (Hofmann 2013).
For example, as Pechtl (2009) has suggested, whether the
length of a building became the focus of social elaboration
depended on the social scale – household or site – at which
competition was most intense. Thus, the way ‘the’ house
was embedded socially, and whether or not it was the focus
for internal or exterior elaboration, varied throughout the
LBK (see also Coudart 2015, 319–22), and we can begin to
ask in what circumstances the size of the houses mattered
for their role in the hamlet and when their internal partition
was of greater importance.
Therefore, rather than trying to find a single solution for
the meaning of tripartition, we would like to explore how
this aspect of Bandkeramik buildings was differentially
employed. We concentrate on a comparison of five sites with
sufficient information: Cuiry-lès-Chaudardes in the Aisne
Valley of northern France, Geleen-Janskamperveld in the
Netherlands, Harting in Lower Bavaria, Bylany in eastern
Bohemia and Mold in Lower Austria (Fig. 10.1). For each
site, we summarise the key characteristics and partitioning
of the largest houses and then discuss their role within the
community. In this way, we are hoping to contribute to
the general theme of variability in social relations that has
formed such a cornerstone of Alasdair’s work.
Bylany: size or structure?
Let us begin with the large Bohemian site of Bylany, which
extends over a considerable area and was in use over 25
phases, from the end of the earliest LBK to the late LBK
(Bohemian phases LnK Ic–IVb) (Pavlů 2000, 264 table
7.7.2.A). The 106 houses have been classified in different
ways. P. J. R. Modderman described them according to his
house types and distinguished 39 tripartite houses of type 1b
3
2
1
4
5
N
earliest LBK
maximum extent of LBK
Figure 10.1. Map of LBK distribution with main sites mentioned in the text: 1. Bylany; 2. Cuiry-lès-Chaudardes; 3. Geleen-Janskamperveld;
4. Harting; 5. Mold (base map after Jeunesse 1997, fig. 1).
10. Size matters? Exploring exceptional buildings in the central European early Neolithic
or Großbauten (‘big buildings’), 31 bipartite houses of type
2 (Bauten – of medium size) and 36 of type 3 (Kleinbauten
– ‘small houses’ consisting of just the central module)
(Modderman 1986, 391, table 47). The total length is only
known for part of the houses; of the 39 tripartite buildings
23 were measurable and gave varying lengths from 14.2m
(house 149, phase IId) to 42.5m (house 41, phase IIc). Three
buildings of that kind are mentioned for the earliest phase,
LnK I, but most belong to phases IIa/d–IIIb (Modderman
1986, 386–8, table 43).
All houses classified as type 1b have a southern part with
one or several cross-rows of double posts. As the settlement
is on a slope descending northwards to the Bylanka brook,
these front parts faced uphill (Pavlů 2010, foldout maps).
Recently, doubts have been voiced concerning additional
floors in these front parts and their interpretation as granaries
(e.g. Rück 2009). For Bylany, the position of the houses in
the regional topography makes it absolutely clear that the
double posts in the front section could only have served to
support a platform and not to even out the hill slope (Fig.
10.2). These additional top floors could have functioned as
storage spaces or granaries. Unfortunately, as no systematic
sampling was carried out (Peške et al. 1998), there is no
positive indication for this interpretation, but on sites with
extensive sampling, such as on the Aldenhovener Platte,
there are hints that the harvest was stored in type 1 houses
(Lüning 1988, 82–3). Due to the high soil acidity in Bylany
the faunal remains are rather poor and mainly consist of
animal teeth, so no differences between the houses are
visible (Peške et al. 1998, 88).
In his substantial work on the situational analysis of
artefacts in Bylany, Pavlů proposes a different formal
classification of the houses by length, with limits at 4.3m,
13.5m, 26.0m and 48.5m (Pavlů 2000, 191). The biggest
houses, falling between 26.0m and 48.5m, only appeared in
the tenth period of the settlement (LnK phase IIa) and ended
in the twenty-first period (end of LnK III). Pavlů argues
that these few large houses ‘represent the residence of a
chieftain (big man)’ and were only built when the number
of inhabitants exceeded ten families (Pavlů 2000, 269–73
and fig. 8.2.a). In spite of the poor faunal assemblage, in
a recent correspondence analysis linking animal bones and
houses at Bylany Pavlů suggests that large tripartite houses
had more domestic livestock than the others. They also
seem to be linked with large storage vessels and a higher
proportion of ceramics with linear decoration (Pavlů 2013,
32, figs 1–3), and the author concludes that ‘the occupants
of three-part houses had the highest status, having a fully
Neolithised economy based on animal husbandry and cereal
farming’ (Pavlů 2013, 35).
Comparing Modderman’s and Pavlů’s classification
systems, we can see that they overlap considerably.
Modderman’s type 1b houses range from 14.2–42.5m, type 2
houses from 9.0–33.5m, and type 3 houses from 5.5–13.0m
147
(Modderman 1986, 386–8, table 43). Therefore some type
3 houses fall within the size range of type 2 houses, while
many of the latter are within the range of the tripartite
1b houses. Three of the type 2 houses are over 26m long
(house 88: 27.5m; house 679: 30m; house 702: 33.5m) and
therefore belong to the largest houses by Pavlů’s definition.
Thus, following Modderman we would have to conclude
that in Bylany it was not so much the size, but the structure
of the building which mattered, if we follow Pavlů only
the biggest buildings had a special importance for the
community. This is an interpretive contrast also found
elsewhere.
Harting: big is beautiful
At Harting (Fig. 10.3), a site in the Upper Palatinate region
of Bavaria excavated in 1983 and 1984, the limits of the
settlement were not reached, especially towards the south,
and many building plans have remained incomplete (Herren
2003, 2–6). Eight LBK house generations (I–VIII) date to
the middle and late LBK (Herren 2003, 95), with further
occupation in the succeeding Stichbandkeramik culture
(SBK). Overall, there are many overlapping houses, often
making it difficult to identify the interior structure of
buildings correctly and to assign loam pits with datable
pottery to a particular house.
The most interesting feature of Harting are the many
particularly long buildings. Following Pechtl’s (2009, 188)
definition, which is based on the top 10% of lengths, houses
which exceed 33m can be classed as exceptional. Indeed,
at Harting, size distributions provide a continuous curve up
to around 32.5m, followed by a distinct step up to 36.5m.
Seven buildings fall into this class of very long houses;
the largest is an incomplete house plan measuring over
50m. Both type 1b and type 2 buildings are represented in
this size range, with five and two examples respectively.
In general, at this site (in contrast to Janskamperveld, see
below) partition is not a good predictor of house length –
type 1b and type 2 houses are equally well represented in
the size group between 20 and 32m, and at the shorter end
of the scale there is considerable overlap between types 2
and 3. Since stone tools and animal bones have not yet been
analysed, and the cereal remains were destroyed in a recent
flood damaging an archaeological store (Herren 2003, 3), it
is impossible to comment on economic differences between
kinds of buildings.
While we might thus conclude that at Harting, size was
everything, this was not always the case. Following Herren’s
(2003, 128–38) chronological scheme and her attribution
of houses to yards A–J, it is obvious that very long houses
cluster near the southern end of the site (Fig. 10.3), while
yard H is composed entirely of shorter houses of types
2 and 3. This could provide an interesting parallel with
the situation at Cuiry (see below), where short houses are
148
Daniela Hofmann and Eva Lenneis
Figure 10.2. Bylany, house 306 as one example of the tripartite houses on a south–north slope (Pavlů et al. 1987, 2; reproduced with kind permission of I. Pavlů).
10. Size matters? Exploring exceptional buildings in the central European early Neolithic
149
Harting
G
D
H
J
C
F
A
E
.4
0
.1
ig
eF
,se
10
9/
es
us
ho
B
Type1b
Type2or3
0
50m
N
Figure 10.3. Plan of Harting. Exceptionally long buildings are shaded (base plan after Herren 2003, 129).
connected with the use of more wild resources, but that will
need further confirmation from the animal bone analysis.
Chronologically, the first house generation for which
buildings are attested (generation III) and the two potential
earlier generations (postulated in order to fit all undated
houses within the tenets of the Hofplatzmodell; Herren 2003,
134–6) have yielded no very long houses, and no house of
type 1. This changes in generation IV/V, when the tripartite
house 9, the longest on site, is constructed in yard B. The
special status of house 9 lies not only in its above-average
size, but also in the fact that it was first extensively repaired,
and then re-erected on the same spot as house 10 (Fig. 10.4).
This direct overlap of successive houses is unusual for the
LBK, as are the longitudinal features on the west side of
the building, which are most likely connected to the initial
repair episode, to the dismantling of the earlier house, or
to an attempt to ensure the stability of the second building
on what was by then soft ground (Hofmann 2013, 43).
Overall, this can be read as a house of particular renown
being established, with much energy subsequently invested
in its perpetuation.
The next very long building (constructed in phase VI)
belongs to a different yard, yard A, while in phase VII it is
the turn of yard D. During these phases, there is only ever one
very long house, which is at the same time the only 1b-type
building. Just as for type 1a houses at Janskamperveld (see
below), one could assume a special status for these houses,
either in terms of competition (Hofmann 2012; Pechtl 2009)
or because they also fulfilled specific communal functions.
These responsibilities were taken on by a different yard
in each phase, and were not inherited down the line. The
picture changes again in phase VIII, the last LBK phase.
There is still only one building which is both exceptionally
long and belongs to type 1b – this time on yard F. However,
the exclusivity rule has been relaxed. Type 1b houses also
exist on yards C, E, G and J, although they all remain below
33m. Conversely, yards A and B construct exceptionally
long houses in this phase, but these are of type 2. Are we
150
Daniela Hofmann and Eva Lenneis
witnessing the breakdown of traditional norms, whereby
once exclusive architectural options are becoming much
more widely available?
With only part of the site excavated, we cannot be certain.
Nevertheless, we are left with an intriguing narrative that
merits to be tested further on other sites. Type 1b buildings
begin as very long, special houses part-way through the
sequence. Yet whatever values are attached to them, they
break down towards the end of the settlement. Perhaps
the very long type 2 houses are an attempt to retain some
element of distinction which tripartition alone could no
longer provide. Be this as it may, this is an episode of
experimentation and reorientation which preceded the new
architectural styles and value systems of the post-LBK world.
N
edge of e
xcavation
0
feature of House 9
20m
feature of House 10
loam pit
Figure 10.4. Simplified plan of houses 9 and 10 at Harting (after Herren 2003, Beilage 1). Walls and wall trenches of both buildings
overlap and have not been separated out in this drawing.
151
10. Size matters? Exploring exceptional buildings in the central European early Neolithic
Building to impress at Janskamperveld
Geleen-Janskamperveld (Fig. 10.5) is part of the Graetheide
settlement cluster in the southern Netherlands and was
excavated in the 1990s. The site is occupied over four
phases in Dutch LBK periods 1b and 1c, and again for one
phase in period 2c (Van de Velde 2007a, 220). Overall, 69
houses were identified, although the limits of the site were
not reached in every direction. Thirty-eight houses were
well enough preserved to reconstruct their internal partition.
Of these, 23 were tripartite, only eight bipartite, and seven
were single-module houses (Van de Velde 2007b, 223). Even
if the less well preserved examples are taken into account,
about half of the buildings are tripartite (Van de Velde 2007b,
223). Tripartition can hence not be considered exceptional.
However, Janskamperveld is part of an area comprising
the German Rhineland, the southern Netherlands and
Belgium where a special form of tripartite building, the 1a
house, also exists. In contrast to the classic tripartite houses
with wall trenches around the back part only (1b), or indeed
with no trenches at all (1c houses, Cladders and Stäuble
2003, 493), a 1a building is entirely surrounded by wall
trenches (Modderman 1970, 110–2) (Fig. 10.6). Applying
these criteria, 21 of the 33 tripartite houses belong to type
1c, and six each to types 1b and 1a (Van de Velde 2007c,
appendix). Clearly, then, a certain exclusivity still attached
to some tripartite buildings, those marked externally by
trenches. This is also emphasised by their greater length.
At Janskamperveld, the three longest buildings (around
31.5m, 30.5m and 25.5m) belong to type 1a and are a clear
Geleen-Janskamperveld
N
0
Type 1a
Type 1b
Type 1c
Types 2 and 3
50m
suggested boundary
between wards
Figure 10.5. Plan of Geleen-Janskamperveld showing different house types. The enclosure is not shown (after De Grooth 2013, 129 fig. 3).
152
Daniela Hofmann and Eva Lenneis
step beyond the longest type 1b building, which reaches
22m. Below this level, the distribution of house lengths
is smoother, although length is quite closely connected to
partition (Louwe Kooijmans et al. 2003, table 3; Van de
Velde 2007c, fig. 4-2). In turn, type 1a houses do not stand
out in terms of artefact distributions: there is great variation
in sherd numbers between houses of the same type, while
flint artefacts were more commonly discarded near type 1b
and 1c buildings (De Grooth 2013, 132–3; Van de Velde
2007b, 235). In sum, the difference between tripartite,
particularly 1a, buildings and other kinds of houses was most
obviously focused towards an outside audience, concerning
wall elaboration and house length.
Looking at the wider context of tripartite buildings, type
1c houses are distributed more or less evenly, while those
of type 1a and 1b cluster in the south-western corner. In
turn, mono- and bipartite structures were most often found
closer to the periphery of the excavated house clusters
(Van de Velde 2007b, 226–7). In a preliminary report
(Louwe Kooijmans et al. 2003, 380–1), the smallest and
simplest structures (type 3) were interpreted as outbuildings
for special-purpose activities, while the remainder were
subdivided into yards, following the Hofplatz model. A
rather different picture emerges if the site is divided into
two so-called ‘wards’ – larger groupings of households
which together formed a social unit, perhaps a moiety, as
argued in the final report (Van de Velde 2007b; these are
possibly similar to the ‘neighbourhoods’ or ‘clans’ identified
at Vaihingen, south-west Germany; Bogaard et al. 2011).
Alongside possible material culture preferences, such as
amount of fine ware (Van de Velde 2007b, 237), there are
differences in the spatial distribution of house types: more
type 1b houses exist in the south (five) than in the north
(one), while 12 type 3 houses in the north contrast with
N
house24
only three in the south. There may also be chronological
patterns. If we accept the chronology proposed in Van de
Velde (2007b, 226; see also Louwe Kooijmans et al. 2003),
a striking picture emerges. The 1a buildings shifted from
one ward to the other between phases. For Van de Velde
(2007b, 238), this suggests a matrilineal transmission of the
right to build such a structure, which in an exogamous and
patrilocal society would result in a new location in each
generation. Other interpretations, for instance a communal
building at the centre of the site, remain possible (Louwe
Kooijmans et al. 2003, 395; cf. Soudský 1969). Whatever
the answer, it seems that 1a houses were connected to
a status or position which was not inherited down the
(patri-)line, but shifted between generations.
In this context, it is interesting to note that at
Janskamperveld, all 1a houses, and only these, were burnt
down at the end of their use life, showing unusually high
levels of charcoal and burnt daub in their wall trenches and
post pipes (Van de Velde 2007b, 238). This treatment is
known from other sites across the LBK, although the data
has never been systematically collected (but see Hofmann
in prep); elsewhere, too, mainly large tripartite buildings
were selected. At Janskamperveld, this highly theatrical
and impressive treatment was deliberately limited to houses
which also stood out architecturally.
In sum, the situation at Janskamperveld seems to
epitomise the idea that a building needed to represent status
in a way that was visible to all, on the outside. The longest
houses are also those most elaborated architecturally, with
wall trenches around the back parts or, in the case of the
longest buildings, all-round. This relates to the amount
of work invested in such buildings – for type 1a houses,
the wall trench was even dug much deeper than the posts
supporting the roof (Van de Velde 2007c, 31), perhaps
indicating a kind of ostentatious over-sturdiness. Finally,
these houses were burnt in what is likely to have been a
very public and impressive occasion. Yet internally, they did
not differ from their less elaborate 1b or 1c counterparts,
and there is no consistent indication that they had access
to a greater range or greater amounts of goods. Indeed,
after the first two settlement phases, the size distinction
between 1a buildings and other tripartite houses is much
reduced; 1a houses now only reach between 20.5 and 25.5m.
While the preferential burning of 1a structures persisted,
whatever status was conveyed by length alone was less
clearly manifested.
unassociatedfeature
Cuiry: house size and economy
associatedfeature
unexcavatedareas
Figure 10.6. A type 1a house (house 24) from GeleenJanskamperveld. Length c. 35m (after Van de Velde 2007c,
fig. 29).
Cuiry-lès-Chaudardes is located at the western edge of the
LBK territory and dates to the very latest phase of this
culture. As indicated above, the longest houses there show
some differences to the Großbauten in other parts of the
LBK. They only consist of what would elsewhere be called
153
10. Size matters? Exploring exceptional buildings in the central European early Neolithic
a central and a back part (Fig. 10.7) (Coudart 1998, 28–9,
fig. 9), and the latter can be rather short with only one
cross-row of three posts dividing it into two units. Houses
of that type in Cuiry have a length of 14.5 to 20.8m, which
is comparable to the so-called ‘Bauten’ or type 2 houses in
other LBK regions. They are clearly separated from the small
houses with a length mainly around 10m, ranging from 9.5 to
14.9m. The biggest houses at Cuiry have a rear part with two
cross-rows of three posts forming three units. Their length
ranges from 17.3 to 39m (Hachem 2011, fig. 126). House
size increased over the three settlement phases, which might
reflect demographic growth (Ilett 2012, 74). In both smaller
and larger houses, the walls of the rear part were built either
from a dense row of smaller posts and wattle-and-daub, or
from thin posts or planks standing in a surrounding trench.
The distances between all cross-rows, except the
corridors, are nearly equal, which is reminiscent of the
big houses of the Želiezovce group at the opposite end
of the LBK territory, which also date to the latest phase.
There, at Štúrovo, these large houses post-date the tripartite
houses of the later Slovakian LBK, which still had several
cross-rows of double posts in the front part. The granary
function of these front parts was substituted by storage pits
in the Želiezovce group (Pavúk 1994). It is most uncertain
if storage pits also existed in Cuiry. The 40 isolated pits
contained much fewer finds than the pits alongside the
houses. Most of them are interpreted as possible clay pits
for house construction. Only five isolated pits are round and
small enough to have been used as granaries (Hachem 2011,
252), but this would be difficult to prove. Unfortunately, in
1
Rear
section
3x
Back corridor
Central
section
2x
Front corridor
1x
e
c
Front corridor
Front
section
d
b
a
© coudart 2010
2
Rear
section
Rear corridor
Central
section
a
b
© coudart 2010
Figure 10.7. Bipartite house types of Cuiry-lès-Chaudardes (1b, c, e; 2a, b) compared to tripartite LBK Großbauten (1a, d) from Miskovice,
Bohemia. (Coudart 2015, fig. 16.2; reproduced with kind permission of the author).
154
Daniela Hofmann and Eva Lenneis
Herdingdominant≥ 90 %
Largehouses(2or3rearunits)
Back
Associatedwildanimals
Preferreddomesticate
Deerdominateswild
animalassemblage
Front
Higherproportionofhunting> 23 %
Smallhouses(1rearunit)
Boardominateswild
animalassemblage
Associateddomesticate
‘Mixed’houses,herdingaround 80 %
Largeandsmallhouses
Speciesassociation:
or
Speciesassociation:
Figure 10.8. Stock breeding and game in relation to house size at Cuiry-lès-Chaudardes (Hachem 2011, fig. 136; reproduced with kind
permission of the author).
10. Size matters? Exploring exceptional buildings in the central European early Neolithic
Cuiry the botanical residues are very poorly preserved due
to unfavourable soil conditions, and their small number does
not allow quantification (Michael Ilett, pers. comm.). On
the other hand, excellent bone preservation has yielded the
biggest sample of animal bones for the LBK so far. Their
intensive analysis showed that the large buildings with a
rear section of two or three units were associated with a
different pattern of faunal remains than the small houses.
While in the large houses domestic animals dominate with
around 90%, their proportion in the small houses is below
77%. Favourite species of both domestic and wild animals
differ in the two house types, but there are also some large
and small houses exhibiting a ‘mixed’ structure with about
80% domesticates and different associations of favourite
animals (Fig. 10.8) (Hachem 2011, fig. 136). To sum up,
at Cuiry it is not the structure, but the size of the building
that matters and it is here linked with more intensive stock
breeding and perhaps with the level of integration of the
household into the wider community (Gomart et al. 2015).
Division of tasks at Mold
The recently published results on the economy of the Mold
settlement come from a much smaller site than the previous
examples, but with the big advantage of good preservation of
both animal bones and botanical residues (Lenneis 2011a).
The settlement existed for only about two centuries from
the end of the earliest LBK up to the middle LBK. Among
the 16 ground plans are four tripartite houses, two of them
with a rather exceptional minimum length of 37m and
30.4m – the northern end is unclear in both cases. The front
part consists of two (house 13) and four (house 1) crossrows of double posts.
Eighty per cent of the faunal remains came from the
surroundings of these two largest houses, the rest mainly
from a bipartite house (house 10) and a small monopartite
house (house 11). While the average-sized house 10 has a
very special faunal structure with nearly no game and clear
dominance of cattle, the two largest houses (1 and 13) and
the small one (11) are much more similar to each other. Their
comparison is very interesting. On the basis of the number of
identified bones, domesticated animals make up 90% in the
two large houses and 79% in the small house, but comparing
the more important measure of bone weight, game makes
up less than 10% in the small house and around 20% in
the large houses (Schmitzberger 2011, 243–5, figs. 1–3)
(Fig. 10.9). While the results based on bone numbers are
similar, those on the basis of bone weight are in remarkable
contrast to the situation at Cuiry-lès-Chaudardes.
The amount of botanical residues shows a very close
relation to sample size, therefore the more interesting results
are obtained by comparing finds density. By far the highest
densities of cereal remains were registered for the largest
house (house 1), closely followed by the small house 11,
155
then by a burnt house. The density of residues for the second
very large house (13) was approximately half of that for the
small house (Lenneis 2011b, 334–6, fig. 4 a, b). Interestingly,
house 1 had an exceptionally long southern part with a length
of 18m. This could support the hypothesis that cereals were
stored on the upper floor of these houses. There are only a
few more Großbauten with similarly large southern parts,
and all occur from Bavaria and Bohemia eastwards (Lenneis
2003, Abb. 164).
Economic activity other than food production is only
reflected by ceramics and stone implements. For both, the
highest densities are not to be found around the biggest
houses, but around the houses of medium size. It seems
that the situation on this site indicates a sort of division of
tasks between neighbouring households, but what role did
the two largest houses play in the community?
First, we have to consider that the two largest buildings
did not exist at the same time. Second, their size suggests
a bigger number of inhabitants and therefore finds related
to food production, especially animal husbandry, are higher
than in the other houses. As a group, the people living in
these large houses may have owned the biggest part of
the hamlet’s herds, but they do not seem to have had a
different diet than the persons living in smaller houses.
The exceptionally big southern part of house 1 and the high
density of botanical remains around it may suggest cereal
storage for more people than the inhabitants of this house.
The question remains if the bigger number of people in this
house, together with possible control over the main part of
the herds and cereal storage, resulted in a special status for
the house and its inhabitants (Hofmann 2012). Such roles
may have changed in the later phase, when house 13 with
its much smaller southern part was the biggest building
and showed the highest importance of cattle breeding. Its
inhabitants could have been the community’s herders, but
with a lesser role in cereal storage. In both phases, the people
living in smaller houses fulfilled the remaining economic
needs of the community.
Conclusion: the changing role of tripartite
buildings
Tripartite houses, for as long as they existed, formed a
cornerstone of LBK social life. They may have performed
communal functions or cemented a special status for their
inhabitants. At Janskamperveld, some tripartite houses
were additionally marked out in very public ways. Yet
tripartition was only one possible parameter by which these
concerns could be marked; economic choices and house
size were as important in some cases, and indeed seem to
have become more central over the course of the LBK.
By the time Cuiry was established, classic Großbauten
had become obsolete. A similar pattern can be observed
at a local scale over the course of settlement at Harting,
156
Daniela Hofmann and Eva Lenneis
Cattle
Sheep/goat
Pig
Wild animals
%
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
House 1
House 2
House 7
House 10
House 11
House 13
House 15
0
Figure 10.9. Relation of domesticated animals and game on the basis of bone weight at Mold (after Schmitzberger 2011, Abb. 3).
where partition and size were initially closely connected,
only for this pattern to be subverted in the final phase. At
Mold, the significance of the largest houses lies in their
different economic role. Their inhabitants seem to have
been the most important herders and maybe also stored
the cereals for the community.
Therefore, within the overall and broadly shared
framework of ‘the’ recognisably LBK longhouse (see also
Bickle and Kalogiropoulou, this volume), there was leeway
in the relative importance of partition and size, as well as
in how closely a given building style was connected to
economic preferences. The basic vocabulary was similar,
but specific performances and iterations differed. Building
a longhouse was a huge investment of time and effort, and
people were undoubtedly keen to maximise on the returns,
citing in their own construction elements that were seen as
successful – whether success was measured in a particularly
valued way of organising activities, for instance through
partition, or in going for as large a structure as possible.
From this point of view, the way a tripartite building could be
expected to function, and the goals and aspirations connected
with it, were the source of considerable creative variation,
historically situated and driven by diverging motivations.
This diversification had longer-term consequences.
The late LBK relaxation of norms and experimentation
with the architectural and social possibilities of the house
paved the way for the transformation of longhouse society
which was to come. With Coudart (2015, 322–3) we could
argue that the availability of more options – monumental
walls, front parts of different length and sturdiness, size
classes – rendered the house more susceptible to change in
more fundamental ways, but in various new guises it still
persisted for several centuries after the end of the LBK.
Indeed, it is probably its potential for difference, rather than
any single function or meaning, which ensured the central
role of the longhouse.
References
Bogaard, A. Krause, R. and Strien, H.-C. 2011. Towards a social
geography of cultivation and plant use in an early farming
community: Vaihingen an der Enz, south-west Germany.
Antiquity 85, 395–416.
Cladders, M. and Stäuble, H. 2003. Das 53. Jahrhundert v. Chr.:
Aufbruch und Wandel. In J. Eckert, U. Eisenhauer and A.
Zimmermann (eds), Archäologische Perspektiven: Analysen
und Interpretationen im Wandel. Festschrift für Jens Lüning
zum 65. Geburtstag, 491–503. Rahden: Marie Leidorf.
Coudart, A. 1998. Architecture et société néolithique. L’unité et la
variance de la maison danubienne. Paris: Maison des Sciences
de l’Homme.
Coudart, A. 2015. The Bandkeramik longhouses. A material, social,
and mental metaphor for small-scale sedentary societies. In C.
Fowler, J. Harding and D. Hofmann (eds), The Oxford handbook
of Neolithic Europe, 309–25. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Czerniak, L. 2016. House and household in the LBK. In L.
Amkreutz, F. Haack, D. Hofmann and I. van Wijk (eds),
Something out of the ordinary? Interpreting diversity in
the early Neolithic Linearbandkeramik and beyond, 33–64.
Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
De Grooth, M. 2013. Spatial aspects of flint working in the
early Bandkeramik settlement of Geleen-Janskamperveld
10. Size matters? Exploring exceptional buildings in the central European early Neolithic
(prov. Limburg, the Netherlands). In C. Hamon, P. Allard and
M. Ilett (eds), The domestic space in LBK settlements, 127–39.
Rahden: Leidorf.
Gomart, L., Hachem, L., Hamon, C., Giligny, F. and Ilett, M. 2015.
Household integration in Neolithic villages: a new model for
the Linear Pottery culture in west-central Europe. Journal of
Anthropological Archaeology 40, 230–49.
Hachem, L. 2012. Le site néolithique de Cuiry-lès-Chaudardes. 1.
De l’analyse de la faune à la structure sociale. Rahden: Leidorf.
Herren, B. 2003. Die alt- und mittelneolithische Siedlung von
Harting-Nord, Kr. Regensburg/Oberpfalz. Befunde und Keramik
aus dem Übergangshorizont zwischen Linearbandkeramik und
Südostbayerischem Mittelneolithikum (SOB). Bonn: Habelt.
Hodder, I. 2013. From diffusion to structural transformation: the
changing roles of the Neolithic house in the Middle East, Turkey
and Europe. In D. Hofmann and J. Smyth (eds), Tracking
the Neolithic house in Europe. Sedentism, architecture, and
practice, 349–62. New York: Springer.
Hofmann, D. 2012. Bodies, houses and status in the western
Linearbandkeramik. In T. Kienlin and A. Zimmermann (eds),
Beyond elites. Alternatives to hierarchical systems in modelling
social formations, 183–96. Bonn: Habelt.
Hofmann, D. 2013. Narrating the house. The transformation of
longhouses in early Neolithic Europe. In A. Chadwick and
C. Gibson (eds), Memory, myth and long-term landscape
inhabitation, 32–54. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
Hofmann, D. in prep. Longhouse people: life, death and
transformation in the early Neolithic Linearbandkeramik
culture of central Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ilett, M. 2012. Linear Pottery and Blicquy/Villeneuve-SaintGermain settlement in the Aisne valley and its environs.
An overview. In R. Smolnik (ed.), Siedlungsstruktur und
Kulturwandel in der Bandkeramik. Beiträge der internationalen
Tagung ‘Neue Fragen zur Bandkeramik oder alles beim
Alten?’, Leipzig 23.–24.9.2010, 69–79. Dresden: Landesamt
für Denkmalpflege.
Jeunesse, C. 1997. Pratiques funéraires au Néolithique ancien.
Paris: Errance.
Lenneis, E. 2003. Ein bandkeramischer Großbau aus Mold bei
Horn, Niederösterreich, in seinem europäischen Kontext. In B.
Asamer and W. Wohlmayr (eds), Akten des 9. Österreichischen
Archäologentages, 135–7. Wien: Phoibos.
Lenneis, E. (ed.). 2011a. Die bandkeramische Siedlung von Mold
bei Horn in Niederösterreich. Teil 1: Naturwissenschaftliche
Beiträge und Einzelanalysen. Rahden: Leidorf.
Lenneis, E. 2011b. Ergebnisse zur Siedlungs-, Wirtschaftsund Sozialstruktur der Siedlung von Mold im Rahmen
der europäischen Linearbandkeramik. In E. Lenneis (ed.),
Die bandkeramische Siedlung von Mold bei Horn in
Niederösterreich. Teil 1: Naturwissenschaftliche Beiträge und
Einzelanalysen, 329–48. Rahden: Leidorf.
Louwe Kooijmans, L., Van de Velde, P. and Kamermans, H. 2003.
The early Bandkeramik settlement of Geleen-Janskamperveld:
its intrasite structure and dynamics. In J. Eckert, U. Eisenhauer
and A. Zimmermann (eds), Archäologische Perspektiven:
Analysen und Interpretationen im Wandel. Festschrift für Jens
Lüning zum 65. Geburtstag, 373–97. Rahden: Leidorf.
157
Lüning, J. 1988. Frühe Bauern in Mitteleuropa im 6. und 5.
Jahrtausend v. Chr. Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen
Zentralmuseums Mainz 35, 27–93.
Modderman, P. J. R. 1970. Linearbandkeramik aus Elsloo und
Stein. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 3. Leiden: Leiden
University Press.
Modderman, P. J. R. 1972. Die Hausbauten und Siedlungen
der Linienbandkeramik in ihrem westlichen Bereich. In
H. Schwabedissen (ed.), Die Anfänge des Neolithikums vom
Orient bis Nordeuropa. Va. Westliches Mitteleuropa, 77–84.
Köln: Böhlau.
Modderman, P. J. R. 1986. On the typology of the houseplans and
their European setting. In I. Pavlů, J. Rulf and M. Zápotocká,
Theses on the Neolithic site of Bylany. Památky Archeologické
77, 383–94.
Pavlů, I. 2000. Life on a Neolithic site. Bylany – situational analysis
of artefacts. Praha: Czech Academy of Sciences.
Pavlů, I. 2010. Activities on a Neolithic site of Bylany. Praha:
Czech Academy of Sciences.
Pavlů, I. 2013. The role of Linear Pottery houses in the process of
Neolithisation. Documenta Praehistorica 40, 31–7.
Pavlů, I., Zápotocká, M. and Soudský, O. 1987. Bylany – Katalog
sekce B, F. Praha: AÚ ČSAV Praha.
Pavúk, J. 1994. Štúrovo. Ein Siedlungsplatz der Kultur mit
Linearkeramik und der Želiezovce-Gruppe. Nitra:
Archäologisches Institut der Slowakischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften.
Peške, L., Rul, J. and Slaviková, J. 1998. Bylany – ekodata.
Specifikace nálezů kostí a rostlinných makrozbytků. In I. Pavlů
(ed.), Bylany Varia 1, 83–118. Praha: AÚ ČSAV Praha.
Pechtl, J. 2009. A monumental prestige patchwork. In D. Hofmann
and P. Bickle (eds), Creating communities. New advances in
central European Neolithic research, 186–201. Oxford: Oxbow
Books.
Rück, O. 2009. New aspects and models for Bandkeramik
settlement research. In D. Hofmann and P. Bickle (eds),
Creating communities. New advances in central European
Neolithic research, 159–85. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
Schmitzberger, M. 2011. Die linearbandkeramische Fauna
von Mold bei Horn, Niederösterreich. In E. Lenneis (ed.),
Die bandkeramische Siedlung von Mold bei Horn in
Niederösterreich. Teil 1: Naturwissenschaftliche Beiträge und
Einzelanalysen, 241–308. Rahden: Leidorf.
Soudský, B. 1969. Étude de la maison néolihique. Slovenská
Archeológia 17, 5–96.
Van de Velde, P. 1990. Bandkeramik social inequality – a case
study. Germania 68, 19–38.
Van de Velde, P. 2007a. On chronology – pot sherds, house ghosts,
and carbonized seeds. In P. van de Velde (ed.), Excavations at
Geleen-Janskamperveld 1990/1991. Analecta Praehistorica
Leidensia 39, 205–22.
Van de Velde, P. 2007b. The Bandkeramik settlement. In P. van de
Velde (ed.), Excavations at Geleen-Janskamperveld 1990/1991.
Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 39, 223–44.
Van de Velde, P. 2007c. The Neolithic houses. In P. van de Velde
(ed.), Excavations at Geleen-Janskamperveld 1990/1991.
Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 39, 21–70.
158
Daniela Hofmann and Eva Lenneis
Whittle, A. 1988. Problems in Neolithic archaeology. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Whittle, A. 1996. Europe in the Neolithic. The creation of new
worlds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Whittle, A. 2001. From mobility to sedentism: change by degrees.
In R. Kertész and J. Makkay (eds), From the Mesolithic to the
Neolithic. Proceedings of the International Archaeological
Conference held in the Damjanich Museum of Szolnok, Sept.
22–27 1996, 447–51. Budapest: Archaeolingua.
Whittle, A. 2003. The archaeology of people. Dimensions of
Neolithic life. London: Routledge.
Whittle, A. 2009. The people who lived in longhouses: what’s
the big idea? In D. Hofmann and P. Bickle (eds), Creating
communities. New advances in central European Neolithic
research, 258–63. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
Whittle, A. 2012. Being alive and being dead. House and grave in
the LBK. In A. M. Jones, J. Pollard, M. J. Allen and J. Gardiner
(eds), Image, memory and monumentality. Archaeological
engagements with the material world, 194–206. Oxford:
Prehistoric Society Research Papers.
Daniela Hofmann
Eva Lenneis