dAf 67
COUDART Anick
Architecture et société néolithique
L'unité et la variance de la maison danubienne
Domestic architecture is a means of examining The social structure of Neolithic groups in Europe from 5 500 BC to 4 500 BC. Indeed, a house is built as much to order the social milieu as to dominate the physical environment The Danubian house was first laid out according to strict cultural norms. This« uniformity » reflects a relatively «egalitarian» society, and a common Conceptual system. However, numerous Variations occurred. Apparently influenced by the type of relations between a site and its neighbours, this variability enabled individuals to read and act on the system, but also contributed to the break-up of the Bandkeramik culture, and its replacement by new regional entities.
Abstract
Abstract
A house is made as much to order the social milieu as to dominate the physical environment. The architectural analysis undertaken here is thus a pretext for examining the social structure of the earliest neolithic groups in central and western Europe. Originating from the middle Danube regions, these "Danubian" groups spread over a vast territory during the second half of the 6th millennium and the first half of the 5th millennium (fig. 1). The "Danubian" notion covers two chronological horizons, termed here "Bandkeramik" and "post-Bandkeramik" (fig. 3). Simple description and typology of Danubian houses differentiate these two entities, as well as underlining their continuity.
Bandkeramik houses were laid out according to clearly defined typological rules, but layouts varied in a complex manner from one building to another. This variation has thwarted all previous attempts at description based on an unique typology, and these remain unsatisfactory (cf. Modderman 1970: fig. 12). In fact the Bandkeramik house should no longer be considered as a single entity, but must be broken down analytically to restore its multidimensional coherence. Bandkeramik people clearly had several options for laying out each of the three spatial units (front, central and back). Possible combinations were multiple, even if some were used more frequently (fig. 31). The most effective approach is thus to establish a separate typology for each architectural component.
The distance between the three-post cross-rows was apparently determined by cultural norms rather than structural constraints: the longer the Bandkeramik house, the longer the spans (fig. 38a). The cross-rows seem to have served above all to organize space (fig. 10). One of the patterns (the succession of progressive spans or type D) is particularly notable (fig. 43). With a simple statistical analysis, the origin and development of Bandkeramik architecture can be examined on two levels: (1) a conceptual level, involving chronologically and spatially stable architectural elements (described here as traditional); (2) a more irregular lever including elements which only occur in one region, or for which it is impossible to establish a typology. Fourteen components appear to have been particularly stable; others (such as house length or absolute numbers of posts) do not seem to have been culturally determined, but were responses to local or random events. The inevitable transformation of the Bandkeramik architectural model probably started with its most variable traditional features (organization of the front, central and rear parts, distribution of cross-rows, etc.). Features with only two or three optional forms (the spatial division, for example) were only brought into question in the later phases of the post- Bandkeramik, or they changed gradually (the shape of the groundplan or of the separation between the spatial units, etc.). The most standardized components were maintained throughout the duration of the Danubian culture. Right up to the end, post-Bandkeramik houses were, in the image of the original model, long and quadrangular, with the back facing the nearest sea coast and the posts grouped by three in cross-rows.
By conditioning layout of the building, cultural norms prevented technical changes that would have improved structural efficiency. This phenomenum explains the stability of the "labour input / result obtained" ratio; only with the post-Bandkeramik does the first major change in structural efficiency occur (fig. 95). Also, house orientation was probably not chosen to minimize the effects of wind and adverse climatic conditions. The Bandkeramik people certainly built aerodynamic houses (with trapeziform groundplans), but they never generalized their use. There was certainly a link between house orientation and prevailing summer winds, but this does not apply to all the areas occupied by Danubian groups (fig. 102). Furthermore, numerous ethnographic examples show that a trapeziform plan is often used to obtain a high, monumental facade.
Variations in layout occurred throughout the Bandkeramik period, however. Taking on several forms, within a culturally defined range, they respected the architectural tradition. Since the various components of the house had different functions, the factors which stimulated or prevented variability must have been of different kinds. Three types of phenomenum can be identified: "individual" expression, visible in the groundplan; economic or spatial particularities, based on the variation of the front and back parts; and the degree of architectural normalization within a settlement, measured by variation both of the spacing of cross-rows and of middle parts. One could suggest that, in the culture's heartland, during the time of maximum Bandkeramik expansion, there was less household normalization within a settlement than was the case in the newly colonized peripheral areas, and that this phenomenum also occurred when there was a dense network of sites (fig. 113). Both the unity and the cultural coherence of the post-Bandkeramik house were reduced to regional significance; other factors probably now contributed to maintaining social cohesion.
The most common Bandkeramik house was divided into three parts. The front part, or entrance, provided the transition from the outside to the inside world. Assuming that a granary was sometimes built above the entrance, in a position that was visible and could thus be checked by all, a likely hypothesis is that a single household was in charge of the collective granary, for which it was accountable to the other households. The actual "public / private" transition was probably located at the separation between the front and central parts (the uniformity of this separation contrast with the great diversity of the front part). Occasionally linked directly to the outside world (in the case of bipartite houses), but generally separated from it, the central part seems to have been an area that was both restricted and accessible. Due to its direct accessibility, it was a potential area for receiving visitors. The fact that its layout is not related to its size suggests that it was used for various domestic activities rather than for sleeping. Located behind a second separating corridor, the back part was an area to which visitors were probably not admitted.
Given the architectural uniformity and the participation of the hole community in subsistence activities, all primary social segments of Bandkeramik communities were probably structurally equivalent. On average, the number of households in a Bandkeramik settlement was apparently limited to six. This represents an average population of one hundred per settlement; a sufficient number for subsistence tasks, but which, grouped in six units, reduced potential conflict to six sources. However, there is some evidence to suggest that, alongside this egalitarian social structure, there were differences in status and management responsibility. Regional stylistic homogeneity in pottery decoration and the shared architectural model reflect c9mmunities who were not interested in differentiating themselves and who were not in competition with on another. Also, the very few "prestige goods", low agricultural productivity and the lack of quantitative differences in possessions from one domestic unit to the next all seem incompatible with "Big Men". Despite strict conformity to the architectural model, there was nevertheless some demarcation between households and this could have formed the basis for more profound disparities which emerged later. Moreover, some Bandkeramik houses were "discretely" marked out (fig. 117). ln any case, the construction of Bandkeramik houses probably served to reproduce the social cohesion and cultural identity of Danubian groups. The architectural model's slow yet inexorable dismantling is likely to have favoured emergence of the individual manifestations which characterized the post- Bandkeramik. The regional and local differences which then developed indicate that house building could no longer contribute to the reproduction of a supraregional unit.
Keywords
Bandkeramik Europe, cultural identity, social equality.
