Neolithic and Chalcolithic Architecture in Eurasia: Building Techniques and Spatial Organisation 9781407305738, 9781407336336

Citation preview

BAR S2097 2010

UNION INTERNATIONALE DES SCIENCES PRÉHISTORIQUES PROTOHISTORIQUES UNION INTERNATIONALE DES SCIENCES PRÉHISTORIQUES ETET PROTOHISTORIQUES INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR PREHISTORIC AND PROTOHISTORIC SCIENCES INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR PREHISTORIC AND PROTOHISTORIC SCIENCES PROCEEDINGS THE WORLD CONGRESS (LISBON, SEPTEMBER 2006) PROCEEDINGS OFOF THE XVXV WORLD CONGRESS (LISBON, 4-94-9 SEPTEMBER 2006) ACTES CONGRÈS MONDIAL (LISBONNE, SEPTEMBRE 2006) ACTES DUDU XVXV CONGRÈS MONDIAL (LISBONNE, 4-94-9 SEPTEMBRE 2006) Series Editor: Luiz Oosterbeek Series Editor: Luiz Oosterbeek VOL. VOL. 48 48

GHEORGHIU (Ed) NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC ARCHITECTURE IN EURASIA

B A R UISPP 48 2097 cover.indd 1

Session C35 Session C35

Neolithicand andChalcolithic Chalcolithic Neolithic ArchitectureininEurasia: Eurasia:Building Building Architecture Techniquesand andSpatial SpatialOrganisation Organisation Techniques Edited Edited byby

DragoşGheorghiu Gheorghiu Dragoş

BARInternational InternationalSeries Series2097 2097 BAR 2010 2010 01/02/2011 12:03:02

UNION INTERNATIONALE DES SCIENCES PRÉHISTORIQUES ET PROTOHISTORIQUES INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR PREHISTORIC AND PROTOHISTORIC SCIENCES PROCEEDINGS OF THE XV WORLD CONGRESS (LISBON, 4-9 SEPTEMBER 2006) ACTES DU XV CONGRÈS MONDIAL (LISBONNE, 4-9 SEPTEMBRE 2006) Series Editor: Luiz Oosterbeek VOL. 48

Session C35

Neolithic and Chalcolithic Architecture in Eurasia: Building Techniques and Spatial Organisation Edited by

Dragoş Gheorghiu

BAR International Series 2097 2010

ISBN 9781407305738 paperback ISBN 9781407336336 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407305738 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

BAR

PUBLISHING

TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction – The Archaeology of Architecture as Semiotics (The Materiality of Prehistoric World: Clay, Wood And Stone)..................................................................... 1 Dragos Gheorghiu The early sedentism in Mesolithic Japan: towards a comparative study for Neolithization ........................................................................................................... 11 Makoto Tomii Les cycles d’occupation des abris Natoufiens Mallaha-Eynan (Israel)................................ 19 Nicolas Samuelian The transition from the round plan to rectangular – reconsidering the evidence of Cayönü ........................................................................... 29 Mehmet Özdoğan Proto-historic courtyard buildings in the Southern Levant .................................................. 35 Yosef Garfinkel Méthode d’analyse spatiale des vestiges architecturaux du site neolithique ancien stratifié de Kovačevo (Bulgarie) ......................................................................... 43 Cynthia Jaulneau Building techniques during the Neolithic and Eneolithic in Eastern Slavonia .................... 55 Jacqueline Balen Architecture of the Linearbandkeramik settlement at Balatonszárszó–Kis-Erdei-Dűlő in Central Transdanubia ................................................................................................. 63 Krisztián Oross Human activity zones around the house of the Linearbandkeramik culture in southeastern Poland (site: Zwieczyca) ....................................................................... 81 Maciej Dębiec and Aleksander Dzbyński Detecting social complexity among the Neolithic hunter-gatherers in Finland – The example of Pattijoki Kastelli................................................................................... 85 Jari Okkonen Socio-economic structure of the Lengyel culture reflected by two settlements................... 89 Judit Regenye The technology of building in Chalcolithic Southeastern Europe ....................................... 95 Dragoş Gheorghiu i

New data regarding the architecture of the Precucuteni culture buildings......................... 101 Nicolae Ursulescu and Adrian Felix Tencariu Sur l’architecture de la civilisation Chalcolithique Ariuşd-Cucuteni-Tripolye – techniques de construction, types de maison................................................................ 111 Attila László Neo-Eneolithic cult constructions in Southeastern Europe: building techniques and space management – a brief overview................................... 119 Gheorghe Lazarovivi and Cornelia-Magda Lazarovici Intentional firing of South Eastern Europe Chalcolithic houses? A perspective from experimental archaeology............................................................. 129 Dragoş Gheorghiu and Romeo Dumitrescu Structural evidences and interpretable features in Early Neolithic Northern Italy............. 135 Fabio Cavulli L’Architecture domestique en Sardaigne (Italie) entre la fin du Néolithique et le Chalcolithique ...................................................................................................... 157 Maria-Grazia Melis The VSW variant chalcolithic house on the Titelberg, Luxemburg................................... 165 Ralph M. Rowlett

ii

LIST OF FIGURES Fig. 1.1. Ground plans of Jomon house structures. 1 Mitaka-gochu, Initial Jomon in Eastern Japan; 2 Akyu, Early Jomon in Eastern Japan; 3 Ota-nishiokuda, Initial Jomon in Western Japan; 4 Reihei, Early Jomon in Western Japan; 5 Naganawate, Middle Jomon in Western Japan............................................................ 13 Fig 1.2. Stone tools. 1-2 tranchet-like chipped axes from Uenohiro, Incipient Jomon; 3 polished adze from Torihama, Early Jomon; 4 polished axe from Torihama, Early Jomon; 5 chipped digger from Sogo-miyanoshita, Middle Jomon ....................... 15 Planche 2.1. L’emboîtement des abris 131, 51, et 62 (Natoufien ancien). a) plan schématique des abris 131, 51, et 62. Les différents niveaux d’occupation sont perforés par de nombreuses fosses plus récentes. b) Coupe schématique des abris 131, 51, et 62. La construction de l’abri 51 arrase le mur 131 mais n’endommage pas le sol supérieur du 131 (IVA). Par contre, le 62 détruit une grande partie du sol 51 ......... 21 Planche 2.2. La superposition des sols 26, 45, et 22 (Natoufien récent). a) plan schématique des abris 26, 45, et 22 (d’après Perrot 1960). Les murs fragmentaires qui apparaissent ne sont probablement que des réaménagements. Ce cas de figure suggère plutôt des superposition de sol dans un même abri. b) Coupe schématique de l’abri 26 (reconstituée d’après Perrot 1960). Les 3 sols sont bien separés les uns des autres. Le gros mortier est utilisé sur 2 niveaux d’occupation (26 & 45) ................ 23 Planche 2.3. L’emboîtement des abris 200 et 208 (Natoufien final). a) plan schématique des abris 200 et 208. L’extrémité est du mur 200 est probablement réutilisée par l’abri 208. On note également l’alignement d’installations domestiques entre les deux extrémités du mur 200. b) Coupe schématique de l’ emboîtement de la structure 208 dans la 200. On note la faible épaisseur qui sépare les sols des deux abris ainsi que la réutilisation de certains éléments ................................................................ 24 Planche 2.4. Les superpositions des sols de l’abri 203 (a, b, c) (Natoufien final). a) plan schématique de l’abri 203. Les sols a) et c) n’occupent pas les mêmes surfaces et n’ont pas la même fonction. b) Coupe schématique de l’abri 203. Les 3 niveaux d’occupation (a, b, c) sont très resserrés. Le sol b), dont l’interprétation est difficile ressemble à une phase de prération au sol a). Certaines pierres de structures domestiques sont réutilisées sans etre deplacées lors des occupations postérieures ...... 25 Fig. 3.1. Super imposed round and open grill buildings at Çayönü ..................................... 30 Fig. 3.2a. A closed grill building with paved courtyard, Çayönü ........................................ 31 Fig 3.2b. Reconstitution drawing of a grill building ............................................................ 31 Fig. 3.3a. One of the most developed examples of round buildings at Çayönü, though still with sunken floor......................................................................................... 31 Fig. 3.3b. Reconstitution drawing of a round building ........................................................ 31 iii

Fig. 3.4. The development of grill buildings at Çayönü ...................................................... 32 Fig. 3.5. A cell building, Çayönü......................................................................................... 32 Fig. 4.1. Map of the site of Sha‘ar Hagolan ......................................................................... 36 Fig. 4.2. Plan of Area E, Sha‘ar Hagolan............................................................................. 36 Fig. 4.3. Plan of Building Complex I in Area E, Sha‘ar Hagolan........................................ 37 Fig. 4.4. Plan of Building Complex II in Area E, Sha‘ar Hagolan....................................... 37 Fig. 4.5. The Plan of Building Complex I in Area H, Sha‘ar Hagolan ................................ 38 Fig. 4.6. Map of the site of Tel Tsaf .................................................................................... 39 Fig. 4.7. Plan of Area C at Tel Tsaf, at the end of the 2006 season ..................................... 40 Fig. 5.1. Situation géographique de Kovačevo .................................................................... 43 Fig. 5.2. Situation topographique du site et localisation du chantier principal .................... 44 Fig. 5.3. Carroyage du chantier principal............................................................................. 45 Fig. 5.4. Décompte des structures principales par secteur et par catégorie.......................... 47 Fig. 5.5. Codage des ensembles architecturaux et des vestiges architecturaux solides........ 47 Fig. 5.6. Codage des structures en creux et des couches d’habitat....................................... 48 Fig. 5.7. Code de représentation graphique des schémas stratigraphiques .......................... 49 Fig. 5.8. Code de représentation graphique des schémas planimétriques ............................ 50 Fig. 5.9. Extraction et exploitation des données au travers des schémas stratigraphiques et planimétriques (secteur type théorique) ........................................... 51 Fig. 5.10. Synthèse méthodologique.................................................................................... 53 Fig. 6.1. The position of the sites mentioned in the text ...................................................... 56 Fig. 6.2. The plan of Sopot with the position of the trenches .............................................. 57 Fig. 6.3. A reconstruction of the two types of the Sopot culture houses at Sopot................ 58 Fig. 6.4. The plan of Vučedol with the position of the trenches .......................................... 59 Fig. 6.5. Door traces on the floor of a Vučedol culture house at Vučedol ........................... 59 Fig. 6.6a. Traditional building in Slavonia .......................................................................... 60 Fig. 6.6b. Detail of wattle and daub construction ................................................................ 60 Fig. 7.1. Principal sites mentioned in the text: 1, Almásfüzitő–Foktorok; 2, Balatonszárszó–Kis-erdei-dűlő; 3, Balatonszemes–Szemesi-berek; 4, Becsehely II– Homokos; 5, Biatorbágy–Tyúkberek; 6, Bicske–Galagonyás; 7, Blatné; 8, Brunn am Gebirge; 9, Budapest–Aranyhegyi út; 10, Budapest–Békásmegyer; 11, Budapest– Kőérberek-Tóváros lakópark; 12, Budapest–Tabán; 13, Čataj; 14, Dunakeszi– Székesdűlő; 15, Dunaújváros; 16, Érd–Hosszú-földek; 17, Gellénháza–Városrét; 18, Győr–Pápai vám; 19, Harta–Gátőrház; 20, Hegykő; 21, Kaposvár–Téglagyár; 22, Káloz–Nagyhörcsök; 23, Kisunyom; 24, Kiskánya; 25, Kóny–Barbacsi-tó; 26, Letkés; 27, Mold; 28, Mosonszentmiklós–Egyéni-földek; 29, Mosonszentmiklós–Pálmajor; 30, Muraszemenye–Aligvári-mező; 31, Neszmély–Tekerespatak; 32, Ordacsehi–Bugaszeg; 33, Petrivente–Újkúti-dűlő; 34, Sormás–Török-földek; 35, Strögen; 36, Sukoró–Tóra-dűlő; 37, Štúrovo; 38, Szentgyörgyvölgy–Pityerdomb; 39, Szécsény–Ültetés; 40, Tapolca–Plébániakert; 41, Tihany–Apáti; 42, Törökbálint–Dulácska; 43, Vörs–Máriaasszony-sziget; 44, Zalaegerszeg– Andráshida-Gébárti-tó; 45, Zánka.................................................................................. 67 Fig. 7.2. Plan of the Neolithic settlement at Balatonszárszó–Kis-erdei-dűlő ....................... 68 iv

Fig. 7.3. Balatonszárszó–Kis-erdei-dűlő. House 12............................................................. 69 Fig. 7.4. Balatonszárszó–Kis-erdei-dűlő. House 1............................................................... 70 Fig. 7.5. Balatonszárszó–Kis-erdei-dűlő. House 28............................................................. 70 Fig. 7.6. Balatonszárszó–Kis-erdei-dűlő. House 6............................................................... 71 Fig. 7.7. Balatonszárszó–Kis-erdei-dűlő. House 50............................................................. 71 Fig. 7.8. Archaeological cultures and culture groups in Transdanubia: a. between 5600/5500–5400 cal BC; b. between 5300/5250–5000 cal BC...................................... 74 Fig. 8.1. Location of the site ................................................................................................ 81 Fig. 8.2. Excavated area with a reconstruction of longhouses ............................................. 82 Fig. 8.3. Scatter plot of pits dimensions............................................................................... 82 Fig. 8.4. Human Activity Zones around house no 3. Grey points – endscrapers, black points – hammer-stones, grey dots – flakes, light grey dots – blades and production waste, B – animal bones............................................................................... 83 Fig. 9.1. Map of the giants’ church site in Pattijoki Kastelli. The two opened heaps (Test Pits 1 and 2) are marked. The rectangular-shaped 52 x 30 meter stone enclosure “The giants’ church” is in the middle ............................................................ 86 Fig. 9.2. Cross-section of the heap of fire cracked stones Test Pit 1). The locations of the OSL, TL and radiocarbon samples are marked in the middle .............................. 86 Fig. 10.1. The study area with sites of the Lengyel culture ................................................. 90 Fig. 10.2. Szentgál, Teleki-dűlő, layout of the house .......................................................... 91 Fig. 10.3. Veszprém, Jutasi Str., site plan and house 1 ........................................................ 91 Fig. 11.1. Collapsed house, Spring 2006, Boian village ...................................................... 95 Fig. 11.2. Pit for clay extraction, Vadastra village, Campaign 2005 ................................... 96 Fig. 11.3. Foundation trenches, Vadastra village, Campaign 2005 ..................................... 96 Fig. 11.4. Wattle and daub semi-subterranean house, Vadastra village, Campaign 2005 .............................................................................................................. 97 Fig. 11.5. Ovcarovo tell, after Todorova 1982..................................................................... 97 Fig. 11.6. Clay model of a group of houses, Gumelnita tradition, Oltenita Museum .......... 97 Fig. 11.7. Roof carpentry, Vadastra village, Campaign 2006 .............................................. 98 Fig. 11.8. Beams fastened with wood nails, Vadastra village, Campaign 2006 .................. 98 Fig. 11.9. House protected by palisade and ditch, Vadastra village, Campaigns 2003-2004 ................................................................................................... 99 Fig. 12.1. Isaiia, Iaşi County, Romania. 1: general plan of the complexes discovered in 2002; 1: the plan of houses nos. 1 and 1A, with the location and specification of the most important elements of interior architecture; 3: plan of the house no. 11; 4: profile and plan of the foundation trench for the house no. 7 north wall ................. 103 Fig. 12.2. 1-3. Situation of some hearths and ovens above pits. 1. Târgu Frumos, Iaşi county, Romania, house no. 8; 2. Târgu Frumos, house no. 11; 3. Isaiia, oven of house no. 3; 4: Isaiia, cult complex discovered in the house no.1; 5-7: Isaiia, cult ensemble from the old phase (1A) of the sanctuary: 5: askos vessel; 6a-b: clay plates with symbolic incised signs; 7: Isaiia, shrine-stable; 8: Târgu Frumos Shrine discovered in house no.11; 9-10: Isaiia, column discovered near the hearth of house no.6; 11-13: Isaiia, clay plates found near the hearth and oven of house no.7; 14-17. Isaiia, v

cult structures discovered in house no.5: clay frame (14), who had inside two big pots and a clay leg foot shaped (15); clay box, with four legs in the corners and the fifth in the middle (16-17)......................................................... 106 Pl. 13.I. Ariuşd. Le plan des maisons L 1-3 (selon László F. 1914. les lignes des axes longitudinaux des maisons ajoutées par A. László) ..................................................... 113 Pl. 13.II. Fig. 1: Malnaş Băi. Le plan de l’habitation L2, avec la possibilité de reconstitution aux parois intérieures de séparation ou à division en quatre “nefs” par les rangs de poteaux. 1. “plateforme”; 2. poteaux primaires; 3. poteaux secondaires; 4. le bord du foyer; 5. enduits du foyer; 6. pierres de la structures du foyer; ........................................................................................................ 115 Pl. 13.II. Fig. 2: Malnaş Băi. Section à travers le rang de creux de poteaux de l’habitation L2. 1. reste de la plateforme L1 (niveau IIIb); 2. niveau IIIa; 3-4. restes du plancher de l’habitation L2 (niveau II); 5. niveau II; 6. couche de nivellement; 7-8. niveau 1; 9. terre vierge; 10. terre de remplissage de la place (du creux) des poteaux primaires; 11. terre de remplissage des fosses d’implantation; 12. terre de remplissage brunâtre; 13. torchis calciné; 14. restes de foyers; 15. pierres; 16-17. traces de brûlure; 18. terre de remplissage des poteaux secondaires ................................................................................................................... 115 Fig. 14.1. Parţa, Sanctuary 2 .............................................................................................. 120 Fig. 14.2. Lepenski Vir sanctuary...................................................................................... 120 Fig. 14.3. Piatra Elişovii, sculpture of Lepenski Vir type.................................................. 121 Fig. 14.4. Kormadin (Serbia) Sanctuary, Vinča C phase ................................................... 122 Fig. 14.5 Târgu Frumos (Romania), altar from a Precucuteni sanctuary ........................... 123 Fig. 14.6. Stellae at Beycesultan........................................................................................ 123 Fig. 14.7. Isaiia (Romania), stellae with bucrania in building D7 ..................................... 124 Fig. 14.8. Roszochuvatka (Ukraine), Cucuteni-Tripolye culture, sanctuary model........... 124 Fig. 14.9. Painted pillars from Căscioarele (Romania) sanctuary, Boian culture .............. 124 Fig. 14.10. Kachti altar ...................................................................................................... 125 Fig. 14.11. Altar with pillars, bullheads and painted hands at Çatal Hüyük ...................... 125 Fig. 15.1. Wattle and daub palisade, Vadastra village, Campaign 2004............................ 130 Fig. 15.2. Replica of a Gumelnita house, Vadastra village, Campaign 2005..................... 130 Fig. 15.3. Plastered wooden platform and central post, Vadastra village, Campaign 2005 ............................................................................................................ 130 Fig. 15.4. Plastered central post and beams, Vadastra village, Campaign 2005 ................ 131 Fig. 15.5. Stacked wood inside the house, Vadastra village, Campaign 2006................... 131 Fig. 15.6. Firing the wattle and daub house, Vadastra village, Campaign 2006 ................ 131 Fig. 15.7. The combusted house, after three hours, Vadastra village, Campaign 2006 ............................................................................................................ 132 Fig. 15.8. The unfired wood positioned outside the house ................................................ 132 Fig. 15.9. The combusted house, after four days, Vadastra village, Campaign 2006 ........ 132 Fig. 16.1. Ancient Neolithic sites in northern Italy............................................................ 136 Fig. 16.2. Lugo de Grezzana (VR): area XA plan, with the foundation palisa de trench and the shallow ditch outside, and XB with the complex interpreted as a hut, in between the burning pit.............................................................................. 138 vi

Fig. 16.3. Inclination vectors of structure ES 287.............................................................. 142 Fig. 16.4. Example of narrow channels dividing fields in the Po Plain nowadays ............ 142 Fig. 16.5. Examples of wells from: Campo del Ponte and Campo Cinque Fili (Vhò di Piadena – CR) ................................................................................................. 143 Fig. 16.6. Example of a clay mixing pit............................................................................. 144 Fig. 16.7. Savignano, structure III ..................................................................................... 144 Fig. 16.8. Campo Ceresole (CR): the structure interpreted as a “Tan Pit” ........................ 144 Fig. 16.9. Examples of a modern forage silo: a) in well drained ground; b) in wet ground; c) with isolation of the walls (made of bricks)................................. 146 Fig. 16.10. Lugo di Grezzana (VR): the burning pit ES 920 ............................................. 147 Fig. 16.11. Savignano sul Panaro (MO): antlers and a pig skull at the bottom of the pits...................................................................................................................... 149 Fig. 16.12. Savignano sul Panaro (MO): distribution of antlers, skull, millstone, squared stone and other particular finds ...................................................... 150 Fig. 16.13. Campo Ceresole (CR): antlers and other finds at the bottom of a pit .............. 151 Fig. 16.14. Plan and section of structure US 104 in area III of Lugo de Grezzana............ 151 Fig. 17.1. 1: gravure pariétale dans l’abri sous roche de Frattale-Oliena, qui représente le plan d’un village; 2-4: briques d’argile du village de Su Coddu-Canelles (Selargius, Cagliari),................................................................ 159 Fig. 17.2. 1-4: caractéristiques morphométriques des briques d’argile de Su Coddu-Canelles (Selargius, Cagliari); fragments de torchis (5-6) et d’enduit (7) du village de Su Coddu-Canelles (Selargius, Cagliari); 8: fragments de torchis du village de Monte d’Accoddi-Sassari.................................. 161 Fig. 18.1. Map showing the location of the Titelberg in southwestern Luxembourg ........ 166 Fig. 18.2. Plan of the Chalcolithic house and mint foundry foundations bronze smelter, near the center of the Titelberg ........................................................... 166 Fig. 18.3. Stratigraphy in Squares J-I of Trench 35 of the Titelberg excavations.............. 167 Fig. 18.4. Graph showing overlap of the TL dates from pottery of the house floor........... 168 Fig. 18.5. Potshards from the Titelberg House and vicinity .............................................. 169 Fig. 18.6. Potshards and bone and shell from Titelberg House and vicinity...................... 170 Fig. 18.7. Flint artifacts and engraved shell from the Titelberg House and vicinity.......... 171

vii

INTRODUCTION THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF ARCHITECTURE AS SEMIOTICS (THE MATERIALITY OF PREHISTORIC WORLD: CLAY, WOOD AND STONE) Dragos GHEORGHIU

The present volume containing a selection of 19 papers from a session organized at the XVth UISPP Congress in Lisbon in 2006, tries to approach some of the building techniques methods and spatial organization of the early architecture in Eurasia, from the Mesolithic Jomon tradition to the Wartburg-Stein-Vlaardingen-SteinWartburg Variant of the Western Neolithic techno complex in Europe.

It is generally agreed that the problem of early sedentism put in relationship with the first built features, is still a sensitive subject for the Epipaleolithic societies in East Asia (Habu 2004: 107; Kobayashi 2004: 99), and the Near East (see Vella 2008: 41 ff; Cauvin 1997: 31). In East Asia the Jomon tradition adopted the geometry of the round shapes (a “Jomon ideal”, Kobayashi 2004: 104), which can be perceived as an isomorphism, since it shaped the spatial organization of the pit-dwellings, stone alignments, as well as of settlements.

Its goal is not to present this subject as a grand narrative of an evolutionary process of Eurasian architecture, but as a series of semiotic case studies of the building process (i.e. as studies of the geometrical forms, in two dimensions or spatial, and of the materials employed), to help the reader understand the importance of the materiality of the geographic formative contexts, together with the influence of social changes upon the built forms. A second goal is the presentation of the materiality of architecture as a crucial factor in the understanding of the complexity of the built forms.

In the Near East round pit-dwellings are mentioned as early as the Kebarian (Cauvin 1997: 31), but it is only with the Harifian structures that one can speak of the emergence of a real architecture, characterised by semicircular and semi-buried walls (Goring-Morris 1991), although there is still no certitude of permanent settling. Even at Mallaha, where there is an overlapping of semicircular and oval architectural shapes, one cannot speak with certitude of a permanent settling (Valla 2008: 118). The Early Natufian semi-circular patterns indicate that the early architectural features were simple abris (Valla 2008: 118), since the overlapped oval shapes from the final phase are an index of an increasing sedentarity of the hunter-gatherer populations and the beginning of a new economy. Additionally, the intensive use of stone as a building material, especially in the Mount Carmel/Galilee, seems to have been another index of the increase of sedentarity.

GEOMETRIES A new climate At the beginning of the Holocene, the “Climate Optimum” of the Atlantic period had a notable influence on the living condition of the Eurasia populations (Price and Gebauer 1995: 3ff; Cauvin 1997: 27 ff; Esin 1999: 14; Habu 2004: 42).

An interesting example of the relationship between the architecture and emergent sedentarity in hunter-gatherer societies, during the transition between Mesolithic and Neolithic in the first half of the 7th millennium B.C., comes from the north Balkans at the Danube Gorges, where various patterns for floor plans were used, from round to trapezoidal (Radovanović 1996: 122; Whittle 1996: 24 ff; Bailey 2000: 62 ff).

A first example of this relationship between the built form and climatic change could be attested archaeologically in East Asia, in the Jomon tradition (see Tomii, this volume). The second one comes from the Near East, where the climatic change in the period of transition between the Younger Dryas and the “Climate Optimum” led in PPNA to “sedentism, storage, high population density, high resource diversity, processing and harvesting technology, good potential domesticates” (Hayden1995: 277).

The economy of domestication in the Near East (Bellwood 2005: 64, 65), imposed a new geometry, which allowed a better control of the dwelt space, because the cultivation of the land, increased storage, and population growth needed a new and simple structure of the built space and of mental templates. An important change in the perception of the space occurred as early as the PPNA (to cite only the sub-rectangular structures which were

A new economy – a new geometry This new kind of economy, which involved sedentism and domestication, generated a new geometry of the dwelt space, which is one of the important subjects of this volume. 1

NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC ARCHAEOLOGY IN EURASIA: BUILDING TECHNIQUES AND SPATIAL ORGANISATION

attested at Jericho, for example), materialized as a transition from the round patterns of the architectural plans to rectangles with rounded corners and later on to the grid-like patterns of the PPNB. This change in geometry did not mean a sudden disappearance of the round patterns, but a slow overlapping; therefore at Jerf el Ahmar, in Syria (c. 9600-8500 BC), the two geometries coexisted in the same settlement.

MATERIALS

In Japan beside the circular shapes, one can notice oval shapes (Fudodo, Toyama Prefecture), or deformed hexagons (see Kobayashi 2004: 114, fig. 6.12).

The stone was employed in the Natufian for small walls or to fix the vertical wooden structures of the abris (see Samuelian, this volume), or under the shape of grid structures, its role being that of supporting clay walls and ventilating the basement of the constructions (Hauptmann 2004: 20). Being more resistant than the other materials employed in the building process, it had sometimes a skeuomorphic role, i.e. to copy the structural pieces made of different materials (see Guilaine 2005: 400; Melis, this volume).

Stone architecture – clay architecture In a classification based on criteria referring to the materials employed, one can divide the early architecture into three categories, determined by the dominant material of the context, i.e. stone, clay and wood.

A shape with right angles was the result of measurement and planning, and such properties created a new relationship between prehistoric populations and their environment. The advantages of a rectangular shaped plan were the following: it allowed a growth of the built volume without creating technological problems for covering this space with a roof, for the inner partition (see Özdoğan, this volume), or for the circulation through it. By utilizing a grid pattern as mental template, the built space could have been developed horizontally and even vertically without constraint, forming at Çatalhöyük “a series of joined cubes” (Guillaine 2005: 34). Additionally, the geometry of the right angle, i.e. the rectangle or the square patterns, allowed an efficient planning with compact shapes, for the settlements positioned on minimal surfaces of land (see for example Levels 6-8 at. Çatalhöyük, in Cutting 2005: 60-61, figs. 6-8 – 6.10).

Along with the narrow stone lower structures or massive structures like the Jericho “tower”, new materials like sun-dried clay-bricks (Guillaine 2005: 32; see Özdoğan, this volume) or lime-plaster were employed. The clay was extracted from clay pits as early as the Early Neolithic, and these negative shaped technological features had the role of collecting water, draining the dwellings, preparing the materials for construction, depositing vegetal material, or breeding and/or keeping animals, as ethnographic data suggest (Budis et al. 2005: 100). Sometimes the clay pits would serve as foundation trenches, with an important role in the creation of a solid wattle and daub architecture. Being a plastic material, clay began to be shaped in modules, like mud bricks and fired clay bricks.

Last, but not least, an additional dwelling surface was created by the flat roofs of the rectangular constructions. A new economy – a new symbolism

The wood, used alone or in conjunction with vegetal plaiting, has left few direct and indirect evidence in the archeological record, like holes in the ground or imprints in fired clay. In Eurasia the wood was put to work as horizontal or vertical structures. Very large posts were used in Japan in the Jomon tradition, or in Central and Western Europe in the LBK tradition. One can stress in Jomon the existence of a megaxilism, to cite only the monumental wooden structures from Sannai Maruyama, Aomori Prefecture (Middle Jomon) or Teraji, Niigata Prefecture (Final Jomon).

There is general agreement that the “Neolithic package”, i.e. “a material reflection of the Neolithic mentality” (for an extended bibliography see Cilingiroglu 2005), included objects and processes related to the domestication of plants and animals (Perlès 2001; Cilingiroglu 2005). Cauvin (1997: 46 ff) added to this list the symbols of the woman and of the bull, as being the fundaments of a new religious attitude. I believe that, beside the symbolic representations and the technological processes mentioned above, one could add the new geometry of the right angle and rectangular spaces, as an important symbolic element of the “Neolithic package”.

The first mud bricks buildings in the Near East used frequently wood structures (Mellaart 1962: 60), but in time the wooden posts were replaced with mud brick pillars (ibidem; Cutting 2005: 56).

I also believe that the perceptual revolution occurring at the beginning of the Neolithic was equivalent with the discovery of the perspective in the Renaissance (cf. Panofsky [1927] 1993), and that the use of the right angle, the rectangular plan and the parallelepiped space, led to a new symbolic perception of the dwelt space, modeling the human visual perception in the same way the symbolism of the perspective did in Europe half a millennium ago (Gheorghiu 2009).

Building elements of early architecture The foundations Real foundations emerge in the Natufian with the advent of the rectangular floor plans and implicitly of the vertical walls, which supported the weight of the roof and 2

D. GHEORGHIU: INTRODUCTION – THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF ARCHITECTURE AS SEMIOTICS…

needed a solid base to support them (see Özdoğan, this volume).

The roof A revolution in roof design in the Near East was the replacement of the conical or vaulted shapes with a flat surface, promoted by the rectangular architecture, an inference supported also by miniature clay objects (Hauptmann 2004: 20).

Due to the process of recycling, sometimes the foundations were made of the stones from the demolished houses (Hauptmann 1999: 70), to cite the case of the stone foundations from Çayőnű. A large width of the PPNB foundations could be explained both by the heavy weight of the walls and by the draining properties of a dry stone structure.

In Europe the different climatic conditions with rainy and snowy seasons, imposed an angular design for the roofs (see Gheorghiu, this volume).

The wattle and daub or the wood construction of the European Neolithic employed a perimeter ditch with the role of foundation, to fix the wooden structure (see Ursulescu and Trencariu, this volume).

Fireplace There were different uses of fire within the built space, or in its proximity (see Cavulli, this volume), some of them involving a process of construction. The fire-places would have had diverse shapes, from simple depressions in the ground to complex shapes copying architectural objects, as in the Balkan Neolithic-Chalcolithic. An important index to understand the basic functioning of a floor plan in a prehistoric building is the positioning of the fireplace.

The posts In East Asia, in the Jomon tradition, large chestnut trees with a diameter of over one meter were used to make large posts for megaxilic vertical structures, with a symbolic role (see Kobayashi 2004:187, fig. 8.16). In the Near East a first vertical architectural structure of support was the “T”-shaped stone pillar, displaying a set of cupules on the upper side of the capitol (see http://www.archaeology.org/0811/abstracts/turkey.html). A possible role of these negative shapes could have been to fix the [conical?] wooden structure of the roof, an inference supported also by the radial position of some of these pillars (as for example at Gobekli Tepe). In my opinion this technological solution could have been a skeuomorph of the architectural solution of covering the built space with a wood structure like that reconstructed in Mallaha (Vella 2008: 51, fig. 3).

The construction – deconstruction processes A common method of construction both for stone and clay architecture was the use of modular materials. Pieces of cut stone, of approximately the same size, or clay balls, and later clay bricks with standardized shapes, were added to the building during an additive process, in a similar way in which clay containers were made. Sometimes the pieces of stone were bound with mud mortar (Hauptmann 1999: 70) as for example at the Early Neolithic site Nevali Çori. In this perspective the plastered architecture of the Near East could have had a similar symbolism with the plastered baskets or wooden planks containers.

The wall Unfortunately the first conical wall-roofs of the Natufian round buildings in the Near East left little archaeological traces, as well as the later clay walls erected on stone foundations.

After a period of utilization some buildings were deserted and left to the natural process of decay. But beside the natural processes, sometimes an intentional process of deconstruction and recycling can be identified in the archaeological record. In PPNB Grill Building period one can observe a ritual of “burying” a house under a layer of pebbles, after several successive levels of dwelling (Özdoğan 1999:46). This ritual will last until the second layer of the Large Room Buildings.

An evolved phase of the technology of building in stone is that of the walls displaying structural stone pillars and stone filling, like at Ain Ghazal. At the beginning of the 6th millennium B.C. the Near East adopted an architecture with mud slab and mud brick walls. Specific for a part of Neolithic Western Asia and part of Europe’s architecture will be the wattle and daub wall.

A more dramatic ritual of intentional annihilation of the buildings was that of the symbolic transformation of the wattle and daub houses through fire (Stevanovič 1997; Gheorghiu and Dumitrescu, this volume).

The amount of wooden material varied according with the geographic context, to compare the Starčevo tradition with LBK tradition for example. A good preserved archaeological record of the wooden walls is to be found in Final Jomon, Japan, where the preserved ligneous material at Aota (Niigata Prefecture), helps to understand the shape of the vertical structures, and of the walls (Kobayashi 2004: 112, fig. 6.11).

In many settlements the process of constructiondeconstruction was cyclical, as evidenced by the repeated reconstruction of new houses on old locations, such as in the Anatolia Early Neolithic settlements or in the Balkan tells. A cyclical process of construction-deconstruction compelled the dwellers to recycle a large part of the 3

NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC ARCHAEOLOGY IN EURASIA: BUILDING TECHNIQUES AND SPATIAL ORGANISATION

materials used in the initial buildings, and the opportunity to have close at hand, prepared materials for building, together with the advantages of a good location, were decisive reasons for the reuse of an old dwelt place.

In PPNB, along with the small size buildings, there is a series of large buildings with social role, which are the result of a high energetic effort of construction. These architectural objects display a special treatment of the exterior and interior walls: plastered surfaces with traces of colour, sometimes decorated with zoomorphic images (Hauptmann 1993: 57-67), furnished with stone benches and T-shaped pillars, like at Nevali Çori.

Clay, stone and wood were recycled when they were not ritually transformed by burying or by firing. There are some instances when the fired material was also reused, such as in the Balkan Chalcolithic, where the material collected from the demolished buildings was used to fill the space between the palisades (Todorova 1978: 49), the burned walls were crushed and leveled (Popovici et al. 2000: 17) to prepare the floors of the new houses (Marinescu-Bilcu 1997: 69).

It is difficult to ascribe a clear function to this monumental stone architecture, because of the modern Eurocentric clear-cut division between the “sacred” and profane areas (Lewis-Williams and Pearce 2005: 104; see also Lazarovic and Lazarovic, this volume). The PPNB period witnessed an important technological and social transfer: the high standing stonewalls from the public monumental stone architecture, began to be employed in ordinary dwellings (see Özdoğan, this volume), which can be related to the syncretism between the sacred and profane functions in this epoch.

SPACES The emergence of the rectangular plan did not mean only a new geometrical partition of the space of the buildings, but also of the space of the settlements, and the most relevant examples are from the early Neolithic Near East, where the compact way of dwelling structured the extradomestic space according to the geometrical rules of the straight lines and right angles. There was a gap of time measured in millennia between the first experiments and the generalization of the use of the new space in the Near East (see Özdoğan, this volume), or elsewhere in Eurasia.

Space typology There are two categories of built space identified in relationship with the walking ground: semi-buried and surface dwellings. The first category is attested from Early Jomon shallow pit-dwellings with stake holes (see Tomii this volume; Demoule 2004: 189) to Starčevo (see Balen, this volume) or LBK (see Oross, this volume) semi-subterranean dwellings.

When speaking about the prehistoric built spaces, the basic semiotic classification is that of an interior and an exterior space. Recent archaeological finds of courtyard houses in the Yarmukian tradition (see Garfinkel, this volume), revealed the existence of an intermediary space, situated between the domestic interior of the built perimeter of the house and the exterior one of the street.

In the 10th millennium B.C., in the Urfa and in the middle Euphrates river regions, during the incipient phase of PPNA, there is evidence of semi subterranean round or oval-shaped dwellings with central posts (Hauptmann 2004: 16). During the 6th millennium B.C. semi subterranean buildings of rectangular and square shapes were present at Ilipinar, on the cultural interface between Near East and the Balkans, as well as in the Balkans at Balgarčevo (Perničeva et al. 2000: 1), the tradition of the semi-buried dwelt spaces being continued by Starčevo in the Balkans and Central Europe.

Spatial functions of the early prehistoric buildings A principal function of the early architecture was that of habitation, which could accept sometimes secondary functions along with it, as one can observe from the internal structuring and furnishing of the built space in the Natufian for example (see Vella 2008).

THE STRUCTURE OF THE VOLUME Chapter I The early sedentism in Mesolithic Japan: towards a comparative study for Neolithization

As early as the PPNB the domus, a new concept of the use of the built space began to bring under a single roof former separate functions like the domestic activities, husbandry, and stocking of reserves.

Makoto Tomii’s chapter is a comparative approach between the emergence of architecture in two different economies and geographic contexts: Mesolithic Japan and Neolithic British Isles. In Eastern Japan he notices a stronger relationship between the vegetation change, transformations in stone tools, and the structure of wooden buildings, than in the Western parts of the archipelago. The study presents the transformations occurred in the geometry of the dwellings floor plans, starting with the Initial Jomon round shapes to the

The dimensions of the prehistoric building varied according to the social structure and climate: if in the Near East a dwelling had modest dimensions, being destined for nuclear families, in the Central and North Western Europe LBK tradition, as well as in Japan, very large buildings sheltering many families together or with different functions (Habu 2004: 113), are attested. 4

D. GHEORGHIU: INTRODUCTION – THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF ARCHITECTURE AS SEMIOTICS…

rectangular ones of Middle Jomon. In the Neolithic British Isles the climatic deterioration during the Late Neolithic led to a process of diminishing the dimensions of the built space, and in general of its substantiality, compared to the Early Neolithic period, but without consequences on the shape and dimensions of the stone tools. Tomii’s comparison between Eastern Asia and Western Europe infers the idea that house form depends as much on the environmental conditions as on culture.

Hagolan and Tel Tsaf, in the central Jordan valley, revealed the existence of a different type of dwelt space, that of the courtyard houses built of sun-dried mud-bricks, which created a tradition in this region. Compared with the dimension of the domestic space of the building, the central courtyard is larger and seems to have been the dominant space. The advantage of such a spatial partition is that the indoor and outdoor activities occur in an area isolated from the rest of the settlement, implying privacy and protection. Therefore the dwelt area included also the activities which normally took place outside it, like the technologies of tools and food production. A similar constructive tradition is attested in Iran from prehistory until modern times.

Chapter II Les cycles d’occupation des abris Natoufiens (Mallaha-Eynan, Israel) The end of Epipaleolithic in the Near East is characterised by the emergence of the Natufian hunter-gatherer tradition, which created the first architectural productions in the region. Nicolas Samuelian discusses the architectural features which reflect the social organization of these hunter-gatherer societies of builders. He believes that the stretching of the dimensions of the semi-circular architectural features and the use of individual buildings during the Early Natufian could be explained by the changes which occurred in the family structures. The emergence of ovoidal shapes in the Final Natufian, as in Mallaha, prepares the birth of a new architectural type, being a transition from the geometry of the circle to one of the rectangle. In spite of the changes of the ways the sites were occupied, Samuelian observes a continuity between the cultural phases in the use of the round pattern and of stone in the architecture of the Natufian period.

Chapter V Méthode d’analyse spatiale des vestiges architecturaux du site néolithique ancien stratifié de Kovacevo (Bulgarie) This chapter by Cynthia Jaulneau discusses the methodological difficulties of interpreting the architectural features of a prehistoric clay building from an early Neolithic site from the Balkans, whose details were not fixed in ceramic material by fire. Jaulneau describes her method to select the data from excavations, consisting of the encoding of the architectural features following diverse criteria, to cite the negative shapes and the solid architectural features, which, both, could be re-encoded following more detailed criteria. In this perspective, the process of interpretation is focused on two dimensions: a macro level of the spatial organization and the micro level of the functionality of the dwelling.

Chapter III The transition from the round plan to rectangular

Chapter VI Building techniques during the Neolithic and Eneolithic in Eastern Slavonia

A fundamental issue of the Near East Neolithic is the passage from the round to the rectangular patterns in the plans of dwellings. Seen from the perspective of the building techniques, this is a very important problem, since it explains the emergence of the building’s walls as a continuous carrying feature, the emergence of lintels, and the new solutions to solve the corners. At Çayőnű in southeastern Turkey, Mehmet Özdoğan identifies a 3000 years period of experimentation to shift from the round or ovoid patterns of PPNA wattle and daub buildings structured like baskets, to the rectangular shapes of PPNB. Between the two limits of this process Özdoğan discovers a missing link which keeps the archaic features of walls and roofing. The following sub-phases, subject of a trial and error process of finding structural solutions and adequate materials, lasted roughly a millennium.

Two types of building characterised the South eastern European Neolithic architecture: surface wattle and daub rectangular [or with round corners] buildings, and semisubterranean pit dwellings. Jacqueline Balen’s chapter on Eastern Slavonia’s prehistoric architecture presents a long technological tradition of the wattle and daub houses issued from the Starčevo tradition, discussing two building methods: the one using vertical wooden posts, and the rare one, using horizontal wooden logs. In the Sopot tradition Balen identifies the use of foundation ditches and a tripartite partition of the interior space of the buildings. The Vučedol Chalcolithic tradition will continue the Neolithic technological tradition of the rectangular wattle and daub buildings.

Chapter IV Proto-historic courtyard buildings in the Southern Levant

Chapter VII Architecture of the Linearbandkeramik settlement at Balatonszárszó–Kis-Erdei-Dűlő in Central Transdanubia

Contrary to the general agreement that the architecture of the Pottery Neolithic Period had regressive traits compared with that of PPNB, the recent discoveries by Yosef Garfinkel in the Yarmukian tradition at Sha'ar

In Central Europe the Early Neolithic communities adapted the technological knowledge of the wattle and 5

NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC ARCHAEOLOGY IN EURASIA: BUILDING TECHNIQUES AND SPATIAL ORGANISATION

daub architecture to the new climatic and material context. The floor of the above ground/surface/ long houses of the LBK tradition built of wooden posts plastered with clay begin to grow, the new dimensions requiring a new carrying structure, with many post rows positioned on the long axis of the building, and long pits flanking the lateral sides of the houses. Along with the surface longhouses semi-subterranean dwellings are to be found in the LBK tradition. Krisztián Oross discusses the two types of buildings in different Transdanubian settlements. In the Balatonszárszó–Kis-Erdei-Dűlő site he notices uniformity in the orientation of buildings as well as the differences in size and between the technique of construction of these buildings, some of them being erected with foundation trenches.

to Early Copper Age in Central Europe, Judit Regenye reveals the relationship existing between the access to resources, social structure and settlement and house structure. Regenye interprets the hierarchical differences discovered between the dimensions of the two sites and their technique of building as a result of the emergence of a central place due to the control of the lithic material. The Veszprém site with its monumental architecture of timber and clay is a central place and therefore differs from the Szentgál site characterised by smaller wattle and daub constructions. Other differences could be found in the floor plan layout and in the structural solutions for the support of the roof (i.e. in the dimension and positioning of the central posts), as well as in the foundation techniques (i.e. simple postholes or foundation trenches). When looking at the dimensions of the foundation trenches from the Veszprém site, one can infer the existence of storeyed monumental buildings as it is hypothesised for other Chalcolithic traditions in Eastern Europe.

Chapter VIII Human activity zones around the house of the Linearbandkeramik culture in southeastern Poland (site: Zwieczyca)

Chapter XI The technology of building in Chalcolithic southeastern Europe

The LBK above ground/ surface/ buildings were characterised by large dimensions which required large quantities of clay for plastering the wooden walls, extracted from long pits. Maciej Debiec and Aleksander Dzbynski’s chapter, focused on the clay extraction pits from the LBK tradition, presents different types of these negative shaped features from the Zwieczyca site situated in the northern area of the Carpathian Mountains. After the interpretation of the archaeological material contained in these technological pits, Debiec and Dzbynski identified a wide spectrum of human activities, trying to infer different functions for them.

The emergence of surface buildings with wood platforms that occurred between Early and Mature Chalcolithic in the Lower Danube area was a complex process that implied a change in the tradition of construction with the introduction of new techniques of carpentry, as well as of new rituals of building, to cite only the foundation trenches with a simultaneously technological and ritual role. For the archaeologist this architecture illustrates the best the changes occurred in an emergent stratified society through the changes in building structure and volume as well as in the use of new instruments, these being the indexes of a great energetic effort implying the coordination of a large number of people. By analyzing a set of reconstructed surface houses with platform, dating from the transition from early Chalcolithic to mature Chalcolithic, Dragos Gheorghiu discusses the chaînesopératoires of the process of wattle and daub building to estimate the number of people involved and the quantities of materials employed.

Chapter IX Detecting social complexity among the Neolithic hunter-gatherers in Finland. The example of Pattijoki Kastelli The Stone Age of the middle 3rd millennium B.C. in Finland was characterised by the monumental architectural structures of the hunter-gatherer populations. These large rectangular stone enclosures labeled “giants’ churches”, containing fire-cracked stones and situated in close access to water, whose function is not yet understood, are discussed by Jari Okkonen. The rectangular stone enclosure from Pattijoki Kastelli one of the most important archaeological monuments in the Northern Finland, located on the coastal area of the Northern Ostrobothnia, may indicate a symbolic and ritual competition between the trans-egalitarian societies living on the coastal of Northern Finland, and the development of a more complex social structure within these societies.

Chapter XII New data regarding the architecture of Precucuteni buildings The East European Chalcolithic was characterised by a wattle and daub architecture, displaying technological uniformity on a large geographical surface. Contrary to the Balkan area where there is evidence for many building details like the way the vertical posts were fixed in the ground, in the East Carpathian – West Pontic area such details were not identified in the archaeological record. After systematic excavations in the Precucuteni from Isaiia, Nicolae Ursulescu and Adrian Felix Tencariu were able to put into evidence the wattle plaitings which fixed the vertical posts of the carrying walls, and the foundation trenches, this demonstrating the homogeny of the

Chapter X Socio-economic structure of the Lengyel culture reflected by two settlements In a comparative study of two settlements (Szentgál and Veszprém) belonging to the transition from Late Neolithic 6

D. GHEORGHIU: INTRODUCTION – THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF ARCHITECTURE AS SEMIOTICS…

Chalcolithic building technology. The Precucuteni foundation trenches were dug with a V or U profiles for an efficient anchoring of the posts and trellis. All the dwellings excavated by Ursulescu and Trencariu showed a rich interior architecture inventory like hearths, ovens, benches, offering pots and pots, inferring a complex activity within these spaces.

houses. It is generally agreed that many fired buildings were the result of an intentional action, and one of the methods to demonstrate this hypothesis could be experimental archaeology. Following a series of full scale experiments, whereby different architectural features (as wattle and daub palisades or houses) were fired, Dragoş Gheorghiu tried to reproduce the process of crumbling of the walls and of the transformation of the objects and animal bodies, during and after the combustion. A complementary experiment, carried by Romeo Dumitrescu, to study the combustion of the animal bodies, took place during the combustion of a large megaron house. Dumitrescu intended to experiment the use of the house combustion as a funerary ritual in Cucuteni-Tripolye tradition, where a series of fired skeletons were discovered inside the fired houses.

Chapter XIII Sur l’architecture de la civilisation Chalcolithique Ariuşd-Cucuteni-Tripolye – techniques de construction, types de maison It seems that the technology for anchoring the posts of the wattle and daub houses with the help of foundation trenches was not a generalized trait of the Chalcolithic technology of building in Eastern Europe. From the analysis of the architecture of the Ariusd tradition at Malnas-Bai, a regional variant of Cucucteni-Tripolye, and the analysis of ceramic architectural models from Ukraine, Attila László infers the existence of an alternative method for the anchoring of the walls on the soil surface for the buildings with platform. Because there were no traces for anchoring the walls on the wooden clay plastered platforms found in the archaeological record, László proposes the use of an off ground system of anchoring, similar in shape as a bed plate, inspired from ethnographic examples, and the clay miniature of the house from Vorosilivka.

Chapter XVI Structural evidences and interpretable features in Early Neolithic Northern Italy The diversity of the architectural features and consequently of the related human activities existing in Early Neolithic settlements from North Italy is presented by Fabio Cavulli in a detailed study on the negative shapes identified in the archaeological record. Many of the categories identified like the above ground structures, the underground features, fireplaces, surface features and the organized areas, extend the understanding of the process of making and exploiting the built forms in a prehistoric settlement. Cavulli segmented the categories mentioned in detailed sub-categories like roofed structures, foundation trenches for palisades, foundation channels, postholes, underground features for water management, ditches, channels and ducts, wells, pits for clay extraction, decantation and clay mixing pits, silos, various pyrostructures, floors and terraces, which can be analyzed independently or in relationship, to better understand the housing, production or maintenance activities.

Chapter XIV Neo-eneolithic cult constructions from southeastern Europe: Techniques of building and spatial organization Beginning with PPN in the Near East there a new kind of buildings emerges, which, due to their dimensions, finishing, and decoration were different from the large corpus of the common architectural production. Some of them were labeled “sanctuaries”. By comparing the monumental prehistoric architecture from the Near East with that of the Balkans (the Vinča tradition) or the West Pontic area (Precucuteni – Cucuteni-Tripolye traditions), Gheorghe Lazarovici and Cornelia-Magda Lazarovici try to find analogies in southern Europe for this kind of special buildings, discussing a large set of architectural features from different Neolithic traditions as well as anthropomorphic sculptures, stelae and fireplaces which could be related to cult practices. A special attention is given to pillars and horns. G. Lazarovici and C-M. Lazarovici approach to prehistoric spirituality uses also historical models to infer meaning to prehistoric architectural features which could then be assimilated to temples, sanctuaries, altars or thrones.

Chapter XVII L’Architecture domestique en Sardaigne (Italie) entre la fin du Néolithique et le Chalcolithique There are few happy instances when the information on prehistoric architecture was preserved under the shape of skeuomorphs. This is the case, presented by MariaGrazia Melis, of Sardinia hypogea, whose cavities carved in the bedrock, were designed under the shape of the wooden structures of the houses of the epoch. The detailed skeuomorphs allowed Melis to identify the houses’ floor typologies whose patterns combined the rectangle with semi-circular features. Other architectural features copied are the central posts, the beams supporting the roof and even the funerary furniture. In Central Sardinia, the dry stone buildings with rectangular floors with a semi circular side had analogies in the skeuomorphic carved chamber tombs labeled domus de janas.

Chapter XV Intentional firing of southeastern Europe Chalcolithic houses? A perspective from experimental archaeology A characteristic of Chalcolithic traditions from the Near East to southeastern Europe is the horizons of fired 7

NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC ARCHAEOLOGY IN EURASIA: BUILDING TECHNIQUES AND SPATIAL ORGANISATION

BAR International Series 1999. Oxford: BAR Publishing.

Chapter XVIII The VSW variant Chalcolithic house on the Titelberg, Luxemburg

GORING-MORRIS, A.N., 1991, The Harifian of the Southern Levant, pp. 173-216. In Bar-Yosef, O.; Valla, F.R., (eds.), The Natufian culture in the Levant, Michigan: Ann Arbor, International Monographs in Prehistory.

In southwestern Luxembourg at Titelberg, Ralph M. Rowlett identifies a building tradition specific to the Late Neolithic or Chalcolithic in northwestern Europe, i.e. an architecture less robust than the one of the previous epoch. The buildings of the Wartburg-Stein-VlaardingenStein-Wartburg (VSW) Variant of the Western Neolithic Techno complex, at the beginning of the 3rd millennium B.C., were of rectangular shape with a fireplace inside, with a circulation non-obturated by a central row of posts. A regular house had the entrance oriented to the south east, gracile structural posts fixed directly into the ground, with the roof supported by a central ridge pole. Rowlett believes this type of building hosted a nuclear family.

GUILAINE, J., 2005, La mer partagée. La Méditerranée avant l’ectriture 7000 – 2000 avant Jesus Christ, Paris: Hachette. HABU, J., 2004, Ancient Jomon of Japan, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

References

HAUPTMANN, H., 1993, Ein Kultgebäude in Nevali Cori, pp.57-57. In Frangipane, M.; Hauptmann, H.; Liverani, M.; Matthiae, P.; Mellink, M. (eds.), Between the rivers and over the mountains, Archaeologica Anatolica et Mesopotamica, Alba Palmieri Dedicata, Roma.

BAILEY, D., 2000, Balkan Prehistory. Exclusion, incorporation and identity, London and New York: Routledge.

HAUPTMANN, H., 1999, The Urfa Region, pp. 65-86, In Özdoğan, M.; Başgelen, N. (eds.), Neolithic in Turkey. The Cradle of civilization, Ancient Anatolian Civilization Series 3, Istanbul, 2 vol.

BELWOOD, P., 2005, First farmers: the origins of agricultural societies. Oxford / Malden (MA): Blackwell.

HAUPTMANN, H., 2004, Une nouvelle image de la “Révolution Néolithique” en Asie du Sud-Ouest: le Néolithique Ancien de la Haute-Mésopotamie, pp. 1128. In Guilaine, J. (ed.), Aux marges des grandes foyers du Néolithique. Périphéries débitrices ou créatrices?, Paris: Editions Errance.

BUDIS, M.; CIOBANEL, A.I; MINOIU, M.R., 2005, Gospodaria. In Ghinoiu, I. (ed.), Habitatul, Raspunsuri la chestionarele Atlasului Etnografic Roman, Vol. I, Oltenia, Bucharest: Editura Etnologica.

HAYDEN, B., 1995, A New Overview of Domestication, In Price, T.D.; Gebauer, A.B. Last Hunters, First Farmers, Santa Fe: School of American Research.

CAUVIN, J., 1997, Naissance des divinités. Naissance de l’agriculture. La révolution des symboles au Néolithique, Paris: Flammarion.

KOBAYASHI, T., 2004, Jomon reflections. Forager life and culture in the prehistoric Japanese archipelago, Oxford: Oxbow Books.

CILINGIROGLU, C., 2005, The concept of “Neolithic package”: considering its meaning and applicability, Documenta Praehistorica XXXII: 1-13.

LEWIS-WILLIAMS, D. and PEARCE, D., 2005, Inside the Neolithic mind: Consciousness, Cosmos and the Realm of Gods, London, Thames and Hudson.

CUTTING, M.V., 2005, The Neolithic and Early Chalcolithic farmers of Central and Southwest Anatolia. Household, community and the changing use of space, BAR Internatioonal Series 1435, Oxford: BAR Publishing.

MARINESCU-BILCU, S., 1997, Archaeological research at Bordusani-Popina (Ialomita County) Preliminary report 1993-1994. In Cercetari arheologice X: 35-39.

DEMOULE, J.-P., 2004, Au marges de l’Eurasie: le Japon préhistorique et le paradoxe Jomon, pp. 1772002. In Guilaine, J. (ed.), Aux marges des grandes foyers du Néolithique. Périphéries débitrices ou créatrices?, Paris: Editions Errance.

MELLAART, J., 1962, Excavations at Çatal Hüyük: first preliminary report, 1961, Anatolian Studies 12: 42-65. ÖZDOĞAN, A., 1999, Cayönű, pp. 35-64. In Özdoğan, M.; Başgelen, N. (eds.), Neolithic in Turkey. The Cradle of civilization, Ancient Anatolian Civilization Series 3, Istanbul, 2 vol.

ESIN, U., 1999, Introduction. The Neolithic in Turkey: A general review, pp.13-23. In Özdoğan, M.; Başgelen, N. (eds.), Neolithic in Turkey. The Craddle of civilisations, Istanbul: Arkeoloji ve sanat yayinlari.

PANOFSKY, E., [1927] 1993, Perspective as symbolic form, Zone Books.

GHEORGHIU, D., 2009, The Symbolic construction and representation of the dwelt space in the Lower Danube Chalcolithic (6th millennium B.C.), In Djindjian, F. and Oosterbeek, L. (eds.) Symbolic Spaces in Prehistoric Art. Territories, travels and site locations. Espaces symboliques dans l’art préhistorique. Territoires, déplacements et localisation des sites,

POPOVICI, D.; RANDOIN, B.; RIALLAND, Y.; VOINEA, V.; VLAD, F.; BEM, C.; HAITA, G., 2000, Les recherches archeologiques du tell de Harsova (dep. de Constantza) 1997-1998. Cercetari arheologice XI, vol. I: 13-34.

PERLÈS, C., 2001, The Early Neolithic in Greece, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

8

D. GHEORGHIU: INTRODUCTION – THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF ARCHITECTURE AS SEMIOTICS…

PERNIČEVA, L.; KULOV, I.; GREBSKA KULOVA, M., 2000, Early Neolithic house from Balgarčevo, Blagoevgrad region (SW Bulgaria), Archaeologia Bulgarica IV, pp. 1-10.

STEVANOVIČ, M., 1997, The age of clay: The social dynamics of house destruction, Journal of anthropological archaeology, vol. 16, no4, pp. 334-395. TODOROVA, H., 1978, The Eneolithic period in Bulgaria in the 5th millennium BC, BAR, 49.

PRICE, T.G., and GEBAUER, A.B., 1995, New perspectives on the transition to agriculture, pp. 3-19. In Price, T.G.; Gebauer, A.B., Last hunters, first farmers, New perspectives on the prehistoric transition to agriculture, New Mexico: American School of Advanced Research, Seminar Series.

VALLA, F., 2008, L’Homme et l’habitat. L’Invention de la maison durant la Préhistoire, Paris: CNRS Editions. WHITTLE, A., 1996, Europe in the Neolithic. The Creation of new worlds, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

RADOVANOVIĆ, I., 1996, The Iron Gates Mesolithic, Michigan: Ann Arbor, International Monographs in Prehistory.

9

THE EARLY SEDENTISM IN MESOLITHIC JAPAN: TOWARDS A COMPARATIVE STUDY FOR NEOLITHIZATION Makoto TOMII Abstract: It is widely accepted that the characteristics of the sedentism in ‘Jomon’ (i.e., Mesolithic in Japan) have gradually developed, but the data for it is mostly based on the examples in Eastern Japan. This paper therefore outlines the early sedentism not only in Eastern Japan but also in Western Japan by focusing on the relationship between house structures and stone tools for creating a living space, and then compares the characteristics of these two areas. In addition, in order to put the early sedentism of Jomon into the context of World Prehistory, the comparison with the nature of the early sedentism in British Isles is attempted. Key-words: Jomon, house, pit-dwelling, stone tool, sedentism. Résumé: Les caractères de la vie sédentaire comme celles de la tradition Mésolithique de Jomon se sont developpés graduéllement pendant la préhistoire, mais, en général, les examples utilisés pour les expliquer proviennent du Japon de l’Est. C’est la raison pourquoi le chapitre présent discute le sédentarisme aussi dans le Japon de l’Ouest, en se concentrant sur les relations entre la structure des maisons et les outils en pierre utilisés pour créer un habitat, et en comparant les caractères de ceux deux régions. Aussi, pour mettre le sédentarisme ancient dans le contexte de la préhistoire générale, on a essayé une comparaison avec le sédentisme ancien des Iles britanniques. Mots-cléf: Jomon, maison, maison enfouie, instrument en pierre, sédentarisme

INTRODUCTION

RESEARCH BACKGROUND ON THE JAPANESE FIRST SEDENTISM

There is abundant evidence of house structures such as pit-dwellings to show that people of the Jomon period, namely, the Japanese Mesolithic hunter-gatherers, basically lived not a mobile but a sedentary life (e.g. Kobayashi 2004: 99-103), as the first sedentary people in Japanese Archipelago. The main purpose of this paper is to sketch the development of the construction of houses in the earlier Jomon period. In the first place, this paper will outline the characteristics of the relationship between house structures and stone tools for creating a living space, both in Eastern Japan and in Western Japan, and will compare them of the two areas.

Japanese Archipelago is located mostly in the Temperate Zone, but it stretches its one end far to the northeast direction, and another to the southwest. Therefore, there are/were significant differences in vegetation, landscape, and so forth, between Western Japan and Eastern Japan, as well as a topographical difference. They are usually regarded as the main reasons why Eastern Japan is denser than Western Japan in the number of Jomon settlements; Eastern Japan being considered to have been richer both in food supply such as chestnut and salmon and in flat plateaus for occupation (e.g. Sasaki 1971: 62-74, Yamanouchi 1964: 142-144).

In discussion on the so-called Neolithization, while the origins of pottery and agriculture have usually played a significant role, it looks as if the nature of the first sedentism has not so much attracted archaeologists so far. This must be chiefly because the examples of house structures are less sufficient than those of pottery and domesticates. Therefore, in the next place, this paper will try to exploit a comparative study about the early substantial houses in the coastal temperate zone of Eurasia. On this line, the examples in Southern British Isles as one end of the Eurasian Continent are compared with those in Japanese Archipelago as another end: both areas seemingly having functioned as a door to the advanced continent. On the one hand, the use of pottery, the construction of a substantial house structure, and the introduction of agriculture are usually considered to have appeared all at once in British Isles (e.g. Darvill 1987: 48). In Japanese Archipelago, on the other hand, making pottery was the earliest phenomenon, and building a substantial house came second. Thousands of years later, domesticating animals and plants finally started. The understanding of this difference definitely contributes to the discussion on the diversity of cultural activities relating to Neolithization.

In Eastern Japan, since people of the Jomon period usually exploited a diluvial plateau for the core of the settlement, an archaeologist can recognize with ease the trace of a house structure in her/his excavation as the extent of a black fill within the canvas of the yellowishbrown diluvial ground; the trace usually representing a pit-dwelling. Thus, there have been far more than ten thousand Jomon house structures excavated in Eastern Japan so far. The plan for the use of the residential area within a settlement is well-known from many examples of settlements; the most classical type being a circular alignment of a considerable number of pit-dwellings revealed after the abandonment of the settlement. At the same time, because of a limited number of diluvial plateaus in Western Japan, people there of this period were usually settled on a stream terrace or a relatively large natural-levee in an alluvial fan. An archaeologist therefore needs to pay her/his best attention to the earth in order to distinguish those archaeological features which are indicated by a black fill within the canvas of the blackish alluvial soil. To make matters worse, such alluvial zones have also been used by, and served for, 11

NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC ARCHAEOLOGY IN EURASIA: BUILDING TECHNIQUES AND SPATIAL ORGANISATION

farmers of subsequent periods recurrently for a long time. Because of this difficulty in recognition and preservation of features in Western Japan (Nishida 1985: 136-43), Jomon houses have been found, if the examples in Kyushu Island are excluded, only about seven hundred in number (Kansai Jomon Studies Group 1999, Tomii 2002).

area. The depth of a pit-dwelling, namely, the height of walls, also increases. Besides, setting a hearth inside the house became prevailing (Miyamoto 1990: table 1). The plan of a house kept unchanged as a sub-rectangular one (e.g. Yamamoto 1993: 17-19). It can be said that the highly sedentary way of life must have been attained at latest by the first half of Early Jomon.

As mentioned above, the number of excavated dwellings of the Jomon period has been overwhelming in Eastern Japan. Therefore, studies on both a house structure and housing of the early sedentism in Japanese Archipelago have been based on the examples in Eastern Japan. Thus, let us look, at first, at the cases in Eastern Japan.

It is frequently pointed out that a polished stone tool which has increased its number since the latter half of Initial Jomon reaches at functional differentiation in Early Jomon between an axe as a large and heavy type and an adze as a thin and small one; the former for felling and the latter for carpentry (e.g. Hayakawa 1983: 64-6). This suggests that large, hard, consequently heavy trees could be more easily cut down by the axe (Jin’no 2002), and that precise and complicated woodwork, such as processing posts or timbers and making a mortise on them, could be more easily carried out by the adze; both of these leading to the construction of a more substantial house with a wider loft, and perhaps leading to the increasingly cooperative works in a community. This is well documented by the fact that there were often extra-large houses built in the northern half of Eastern Japan; some cases measuring about a hundred square metres.

DEVELOPMENT IN EASTERN JAPAN During the first half of Initial Jomon,1 a hilltop or a gentle slope on a mountain was usually preferred as the place to be settled to a diluvial plateau, as well as in Paleolithic. A house structure is usually a shallow pit-dwelling with a small floor area containing a number of stake-holes (Fig. 1.1: 1). Some examples show their stake-holes along the side of walls, but in other cases, stake-holes are less articulated (Harada 1983, 1984). The plan of a house mostly represents a sub-rectangle, in contrast to an elliptical shape of the Paleolithic transient house, which has been rarely found in the whole Japanese Archipelago (Yoshida 1998: Table 2). This difference in a grand plan might be explained as the result of progress in construction technique; the way of putting up rafters and/or erecting upright for building a more substantial house. Hearth was usually set not inside the house but outside, and close to, the house.

The innovation of a chipped stone digger is also added to the characteristics of such a significant change. A tranchet-like chipped stone tool started to become thinner and longer from Early Jomon (Suzuki 1983: 56-7). This morphological change would make it possible to dig the earth deeper, faster, and more easily. Although this stone tool of this stage has been unclear in its function, the one which belongs to the immediately subsequent stage is recently reported, in some cases, as a hoe through a microscopic use-wear analysis (e.g. Iketani 2000).

As for a stone axe (see Fig. 1.2 for morphological reference), a chipped one like a tranchet was still common from Incipient Jomon, while a polished one was quite occasional (Suzuki 1983: 54-56; Hayakawa 1983: 61-64). Vegetation at this moment is reconstructed from pollen analysis (Yasuda 1980: 111-2). According to its reconstruction, Eastern Japan was largely covered by deciduous broad-leaf forest of cooler temperate, which might have been less exploit. As a whole, it does not seem at all that mobile lifestyle was swept off (Jin’no 2001: 678).

The change enabled people to easily produce a higher wall and a larger floor area, as well as to easily provide a deeper post-hole for holding a substantial post. It is therefore reasonable to think that these improvements in stone tools for construction altogether brought about an ample space in a house both horizontally and vertically. Early Jomon also witnessed a vegetational change (Yasuda 1980: 112-7). Deciduous broad-leaf forest of warmer temperate became dominant. The Japanese chestnut, Casanea crenata, is included into this category, and is the most common species as building materials in Eastern Japan of the Jomon period (Chino 1983: 29). This proclivity must be due to its high durability (Suzuki et al. 1982: 269), as well as its straightness (Chino 1983: 33-5). This species, at the same time, generally serves as one of the main nuts for diet because it does not require processing: it contains no harshness. Then, it is often pointed out that, the increase in use of the Japanese chestnut both as food supply and as raw material for construction opened up to the prosperity of the Jomon culture in Eastern Japan, and that the Japanese chestnut

In Early Jomon, diluvial plateaus were increasingly occupied, and at latest by the latter half of this stage, stake-holes turned into post-holes (Fig. 1.1: 2), suggested by the increase in both the diameter and the depth of a hole (e.g. Miyamoto 1983: table 1-2; Jin’no 2002). This shift is closely connected with the extension of a floor 1

Periodisation of Jomon as the following is based on the relative dating of pottery, and absolute dates have recently been rapidly accumulated (e.g. Rekihaku 2004). Incipient Jomon from about 16,000 to 10,000 BP; Initial Jomon from about 10,000 to 7,000 BP; Early Jomon from about 7,000 to 5,500 BP; Middle Jomon from about 5,500 to 4,000 BP; Late Jomon from about 4,000 to 3,000 BP; and Final Jomon from about 3,000 to 2,400 BP.

12

M. TOMII: THE EARLY SEDENTISM IN MESOLITHIC JAPAN: TOWARDS A COMPARATIVE STUDY FOR NEOLITHIZATION

Fig. 1.1. Ground plans of Jomon house structures. 1 Mitaka-gochu, Initial Jomon in Eastern Japan (after Yamamura 1983); 2 Akyu, Early Jomon in Eastern Japan (after Higuchi 1982); 3 Ota-nishiokuda, Initial Jomon in Western Japan (after Okamoto 1998); 4 Reihei, Early Jomon in Western Japan (Morishita et al. 1994); 5 Naganawate, Middle Jomon in Western Japan (after Kameyama 2005) was under well-designed management (e.g. Suzuki and Noshiro 1997: 338-339).

woodland, obtaining substantial wood materials, processing a timber, and digging up wider and deeper to create an ample space in a house.

Middle Jomon is the most flourishing time of the Jomon period, with both a huge number of artefacts including pottery and stone implements, and with a great number of features including storage pits and house structures. In terms of house construction, this prosperity must have been supported by the persistently abundant supply of the Japanese chestnut under the well-managed exploitation strategy. Technologically, a polished axe, a polished adze, and a chipped hoe must have been widely and fully spread, suggested by the growing number of both settlements themselves and the settlements with enough those stone tools. Almost all settlements might well have been able to extend the residential space by clearing

DEVELOPMENT IN WESTERN JAPAN In Initial Jomon, most house structures were built on a hilltop or a gentle slope on a mountain as well as in Eastern Japan. A house shows its shallow stake-holes aligning along the inner side of a rather low wall, representing a pits-circle, with most holes being slightly inclined inside to the centre of a house (Fig. 1.1: 3). These characteristics are quite similar to those in the Paleolithic houses, though the number of the latter excavated is small, as mentioned above. Additionally, hearth was not 13

NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC ARCHAEOLOGY IN EURASIA: BUILDING TECHNIQUES AND SPATIAL ORGANISATION

commonly set inside the house. These strongly suggest that people of this stage were less sedentary. The presence of tranchet-like stone tools which is numerous in Incipient Jomon (Fig. 1.2: 1-2) are unclear, while there are few polished axes (Oshita 2002: 16) and almost no chipped stone digger (Oshita 2003: 23). Flora seems to have been similar to that in Eastern Japan, covered mainly by deciduous broad-leaf forest of cooler temperate (Yasuda 1980: 111-2).

7), there was no large increase as a whole by the middle of Late Jomon (Oshita 2004: 17). Besides, the territory recognized as the distribution area of localised pottery sub-style had been unchanged since the middle of Middle Jomon, indicating that the new style of pottery might well have been introduced as an adoption in each area (Tomii 1995). These analyses suggest that the changes in material culture as a whole should be regarded as the result of the indigenous adaptive strategy rather than that by the rapid diffusion. Thus, while the changes in artefacts took place inconsistently, the attributes of a house changed synchronically, in spite of the seemingly minor modification in vegetation (Yasuda 1980: 112-117).

During Early Jomon, in spite of the topographical shift of settlement location to the lower area, the house of circular stake-holes type is still prevalent. However, there are a few examples of a pit-dwelling with post-hole(s) inside: four post-holes arranged as a square in a house, or only one post-hole in the centre probably serving as a pivot of rafters (Fig. 1.1: 4). Hearth was generally introduced into the inside of the house. A polished stone axe achieved one of the important positions in a tool-kit in many settlements, and started the size differentiation between an adze and an axe (Fig. 1.2: 3-4), resulting from the functional divergence (Oshita 2003: 27). It is quite the same as the case in Eastern Japan. However, different from Eastern Japan, there are still few chipped stone diggers until Late Jomon. As for vegetation, ever-green broad-leaf forest became penetrating (Yasuda 1980: 112117). This also differs from Eastern Japan where the dominance of deciduous broad-leaf forest of warmer temperate contributed to the fruitful and deliberate use of chestnut.

To sum, the development of house construction in Western Japan must have also been made possible by the introduction of a polished adze, axe, and a chipped digger. However, it is not the immediate or direct reaction to the vegetational change, and the rate of progress is slow. These points contrast with the case of Eastern Japan. Besides, compared with the case of Eastern Japan, there is a time-lag between the differentiation between a polished axe and a polished adze and the increase of chipped diggers. CONTRAST BETWEEN EASTERN AND WESTERN JAPAN In Eastern Japan, the sufficient use of the chestnut tree which has been conspicuous since Early Jomon makes a completely sedentary lifestyle possible, and is closely connected with the improvements in stone tools for construction of a substantial house structure. In order to sustain the increasing member of a community, the wide and flat diluvial plateau comes to be immensely occupied, though its soil is hard. This may be why a wellthinner chipped digger is innovated and becomes numerous.

From the end of Middle Jomon, the number of house structures, as well as that of settlements, suddenly increased. There can be also seen the changes in house construction (Fig. 1.1: 5). Stake-holes are replaced by deeper post-holes. A rectangular plan begins to appear widely, and the stone-surrounding hearth inside the house becomes common. The height of walls, if well preserved, seems to have grown. In other aspects of material culture, there are also significant changes. The new style of pottery which is relatively thick and which has a flat base begins to be used as a substitute for the one which is thin and which has a narrowly rounded base. Clay figurine restarts to be produced after the long break of thousands of years since Initial Jomon. Stone phallus appears for the first time. All these changes, with the probable sharp increase of chipped stone diggers in number, have been considered to have taken place at the end of Middle Jomon as the result of the rapid diffusion from Eastern Japan (e.g. Izumi 1991: 95-103). It is just like a “package”.

In Western Japan, because of the topographically narrow space for settlement under a threat of a flood, and because of the limited quantity of the edible species of nuts which does not require processing, the first sedentary household(s) and community are too difficult to grow larger. While the evolution in woodworking might take place early, that in house constructing is rather stagnant. This is possibly because the soil might be relatively easy to remove and might be too light to serve as higher walls for a pit-dwelling, resulting in less necessity to introduce a thinner chipped digger. In short, in Eastern Japan, in reaction to the vegetational change, much food and hard soil have caused almost synchronic and systematic changes in technology for house construction. By contrast, in Western Japan, less food and light soil have admitted the slow changes in technology for house construction which are far less related to the vegetational change and which occur independently.

Recent precise analyses, however, do not agree with this explanation. There can be seen the lack of teamwork; some changes occurring earlier and others later. The emergence of a stone-surrounding hearth seems to have been traced back to the middle of Middle Jomon (Kanzaki 1999: 28). Although chipped stone diggers (Fig. 1.2: 5) came to be used in several settlements (Oshita 2004: 1614

M. TOMII: THE EARLY SEDENTISM IN MESOLITHIC JAPAN: TOWARDS A COMPARATIVE STUDY FOR NEOLITHIZATION

Fig 1.2. Stone tools. 1-2 tranchet-like chipped axes from Uenohiro, Incipient Jomon (after Tamura 1989); 3 polished adze from Torihama, Early Jomon (after Tanaka 2003); 4 polished axe from Torihama, Early Jomon (After Tanaka 2003); 5 chipped digger from Sogo-miyanoshita, Middle Jomon (after Takehara 1982). All are from Western Japan DEVELOPMENT IN NEOLITHIC SOUTHERN BRITISH ISLES

469). The reason for it is also easily explained as the reaction to the environmental deterioration.

Although the evidence of house structures in the first sedentism in Southern British Irish, compared with that even in Western Japan, is quite poor, it can be pointed out that there are three significant changes in the attributes of a house structure from the earlier Neolithic to the later Neolithic,2 every one of which can be thought to be derived from the difficulty in obtaining the proper building materials (Tomii 1996: 22-24). The first one is the decrease in the diameter of post-holes, suggesting the degeneration from a post-built to stake-built house structure. According to the environmental analyses, it seems apparent that sites with house structure(s) in the later Neolithic were located in more open landscape with few trees than those in the earlier Neolithic. The decrease in forest resources by the deterioration of climate may be the main reason for it. People who lived in an open environment were obliged to accept the substitution of stakes for posts to deal with the difficulty in obtaining large trees.

In short, because of the difficulty in obtaining enough building materials which must have been attributed to the poor vegetation caused by the deterioration of climate, a house structure in the late Neolithic turns to less substantial than that in the early Neolithic, even though there can be seen no retrogression of stone tools. Even food-producing communities must be submitted to the vegetational regression, leading their house structures to relatively fragile and small ones. CONCLUSION From the cases in Eastern Japan, Western Japan, and Southern British Isles, there can be seen a difference in the development of construction of a house structure in the early sedentary societies. In every case, however, environmental conditions seem to have more influence on constructing a house structure than technological achievements, and possibly than ideological norms. While settlement location may depend on topography and the subsistence strategy, accessibility to building materials is crucial to construction of a house; contingent on the vicinity of, or transportability of, long and heavy trees.

The second one is the emergence and abundance of the circular ground plan of a house structure, as often pointed out (e.g. Simpson 1971: 143). In terms of mathematics, a circular house would require fewer wattles and perhaps fewer uprights in number than a square house, if the two types of house have both the same floor area and the same interval between posts or stakes. Thus, the shift to a circular house can be regarded as the reaction to the decrease in forest resources. The final one is the reduction of a floor area, as have been frequently pointed out as well (e.g. Bradley 1978: 109; Grogan and Eogan 1987:

References BRADLEY, R., 1978, The Prehistoric Settlement of Britain. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. 155 p. CHINO, Y., 1983, Chestnut trees and vegetation near the Jomon settlement in the Kanto region. Bulletin of the Tokyo Metropolitan Archaeological Center. II: 25-42 (In Japanese).

2

The earlier Neolithic in British Isles roughly parallels Early Jomon, and the later Neolithic approximately parallels Middle Jomon.

15

NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC ARCHAEOLOGY IN EURASIA: BUILDING TECHNIQUES AND SPATIAL ORGANISATION

DARVILL, T., 1987, Prehistoric Britain. London: Batsford. 223 p.

MORISHITA, M.; MORI, T.; NAKAGAWA, N. 1994,, Kuni Palace. In Preliminary Reports of Cultural Properties in Kyoto Prefecture 1994. Kyoto: Kyoto Prefectural Board of Education. p. 1-42 (In Japanese).

GROGAN, E.; EOGAN, G., 1987, Lough Gur excavations by Seán P. Óríordáin: further Neolithic and Beaker habitations on Knockadoon. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. 87/C: 299-506.

NISHIDA, M., 1985, The environment of the Jomon period. In Kondo, Y. and Yokoyama, K., eds. Japanese Archaeology 2: Humans and Environment. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten. p. 111-164 (In Japanese).

HARADA, M., 1983, Pit-dwellings in the Yoriito-mon stage of Initial Jomon. Saturday Archaeology. 7: 6595 (In Japanese).

OKAMOTO, H. 1998, Ota-nishiokudaKuni Palace. In Excavations Reports of Cultural Properties in Okayama Prefecture 129. Okayama: Okayama Prefectural Board of Education. p. 28-30 (In Japanese).

HARADA, M., 1984, Pit-dwellings in the Yoriito-mon stage of Initial Jomon (2). Saturday Archaeology. 8: 57-74 (In Japanese). HAYAKAWA, S., 1983, Polished stone axe. In Kato, S.; Kobayashi, T. et al. eds. Research on Jomon Culture 7: Tools and Technology. Tokyo: Yuzankaku. p. 6074 (In Japanese).

OSHITA, A., 2002, Outlines of stone tools of Incipient and Initial Jomon in Kansai region. In Stone Tools of the Jomon Period I: Incipient and Initial Jomon in Kansai Region. Osaka: Kansai Jomon Studies Group. p. 13-20 (In Japanese).

HIGUCHI, S. ed. 1982, Akyu Excavations Reports. Nagano: Nagano Prefectural Board of Education. 460 p. (In Japanese).

OSHITA, A., 2003, Outlines of stone tools of Early and Middle Jomon in Kansai region and consideration on their assemblage. In Stone Tools of the Jomon Period II: Early and Middle Jomon in Kansai Region. Osaka: Kansai Jomon Studies Group. p. 11-39 (In Japanese).

IKETANI, K., 2000, Introductory remarks on a chipped stone axe. Archaeology of Tokyo. 18: 105-110 (In Japanese). IZUMI, T., 1991, Jomon Culture. In Mori, K., ed. Archaeology: Its Viewpoints and Interpretations, vol. 1. Tokyo: Chikuma Shobo. p. 75-114 (In Japanese).

OSHITA, A., 2004, Outlines of stone tools of Late and Final Jomon in Kansai region. In Stone Tools of the Jomon Period II: Late and Final Jomon in Kansai Region I. Osaka: Kansai Jomon Studies Group. p. 1130 (In Japanese).

JIN’NO, M., 2001, Pit dwellings in the Incipient and Initial Jomon period: Hokkaido, Tohoku and Kanto districts. In Asakawa, H., ed. Reconstruction Study on the Spatial Division of Pit Dwellings. Kyoto: International Research Center for Japanese Studies. p. 59-83 (In Japanese).

REKIHAKU. 2004, Radiocarbon dates. In Imamura, M., ed. Constructing the System of Radiocarbon Chronology for the Jomon and Yayoi Periods by High-precision Results. Chiba: National Museum of Japanese History. p. 56-87 (In Japanese).

JIN’NO, M., 2002, The emergence of a felling axe and its background. In Advances in the Study of Cultural Properties III. Nara: Nara National Research Institute for Cultural Properties. p. 19-30 (In Japanese).

SASAKI, K., 1971, Before Rice Cultivation. Tokyo: NHK. 316 p. (In Japanese). SIMPSON, D.D.A., 1971, Beaker houses and settlements in Britain. In Simpson, D.D.A. ed. Economy and Settlement in Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Britain and Europe. Leicester: Leicester University Press. pp. 131-152.

KAMEYAMA, Y. 2005, Naganawate. In Excavations Reports of Cultural Properties in Okayama Prefecture 189. Okayama: Okayama Prefectural Board of Education. p. 7-36 (In Japanese). KANSAI JOMON STUDIES GROUP, 1999, House Structures of the Jomon Period in Kansai Region. Osaka. 308 p. (In Japanese).

SUZUKI, J., 1983, Chipped stone digger. In Kato, S.; Kobayashi, T. et al. eds. Research on Jomon Culture 7: Tools and Technology. Tokyo: Yuzankaku. p. 4859 (In Japanese).

KANZAKI, M., 1999, Kumanobe site. In House Structures of the Jomon Period in Kansai Region. Osaka: Kansai Jomon Studies Group. p. 28-30 (In Japanese).

SUZUKI, M.; NOSHIRO, S., 1997, Forest vegetation and utilization of wood during the Jomon period in Japan. The Quaternary Research. 36(5): 329-342 (In Japanese).

KOBAYASHI, T., 2004, Jomon Reflections. Oxford: Oxbow Books. 240 p.

SUZUKI, M.; NOSHIRO, S.; UEDA, Y., 1982, Wood Remains. In Ju’no Excavation Report (Organic Remains). Saitama: Saitama Prefectural Board of Education. p. 261-282 (In Japanese).

MIYAMOTO, N., 1983, The development of pitdwellings of the Jomon period in Kanto region. In Advances in the Study of Cultural Properties. Nara: Nara National Research Institute for Cultural Properties. p. 3-37 (In Japanese).

TAKEHARA, K. 1982, Sogo-miyanoshita. In Preliminary Reports of Excavations in Kyoto Prefecture 2. Kyoto: Kyoto Prefectural Archaeology Center. p. 1-37 (In Japanese).

MIYAMOTO, N., 1990, From a hearth to a oven. Archaeology Quarterly. 32: 50-54 (In Japanese). 16

M. TOMII: THE EARLY SEDENTISM IN MESOLITHIC JAPAN: TOWARDS A COMPARATIVE STUDY FOR NEOLITHIZATION

TAMURA, Y. 1989, Uenohiro. In Hisai-Seiwa Excavations Reports (1). Mie: Mie Prefectural Board of Education. p. 21-74 (In Japanese).

Chugoku and Shikoku regions. In Archaeology of the Shikoku Region and Its Neighbours. Kochi: Asuka Print. p. 133-155 (In Japanese).

TANAKA, Y. 2003, Outlines of stone tools in Fukui Prefecture. In Stone Tools of the Jomon Period II: Early and Middle Jomon in Kansai Region. Osaka: Kansai Jomon Studies Group. p. 255-298 (In Japanese).

YAMAMURA, T. ed. 1983, Mitaka-gochu Excavations Reports. Tokyo: Mitaka City Board of Education. 393 p. (In Japanese).

TOMII, M., 1995, The analysis of pottery and its interpretation. As a paper read in the conference named From Jomon to Star Carr.: Cambridge and Durham, U.K.

YAMANOUCHI, S., 1964, Jomon culture. In Ancient Japanese Arts (1): Jomon Pottery. Tokyo: Kodansha. p. 140-144 (In Japanese).

YAMAMOTO, T., 1993, The plans of pit-dwellings. Archaeology Quarterly. 44: 17-22 (In Japanese).

YASUDA, Y., 1980, Starting Environmental Archaeology. Tokyo: NHK. 270 p. (In Japanese).

TOMII, M., 1996, Neolithic Sedentism of Small-scale Communities in the British Isles: Inference from Housing and Woodland Exploitation. M.A. Thesis, Department of Archaeology, University of Durham.: Durham, U.K. 59 p.

YOSHIDA, M., 1998, After making the corpus of the Paleolithic ‘houses’. In Reports of the Public Seminars: “Charred Remains from the Paleolithic Roam Layer in Yoda” and “In pursuit of the Paleolithic House Structures”. Kanagawa: Kanagawa Prefectural Archaeology Center. p. 94-101 (In Japanese).

TOMII, M., 2002, Towards a systemic prehistoric study of the house structures of the Jomon period in

17

LES CYCLES D’OCCUPATION DES ABRIS NATOUFIENS D’EYNAN-MALLAHA (ISRAEL) Nicolas SAMUELIAN

INRAP, 34-38, avenue Paul-Vaillant-Couturier, 93120 La Courneuve, FRANCE Résumé: Le développement de la sédentarité à la période natoufienne (13200-10200 av J.C.) conduit à l’apparition de gisements densément occupés, et marqués par un recours de plus en plus fréquent à la pierre comme matériau de construction. La succession des trois phases du Natoufien sur le site d’Eynan-Mallaha (Israël) permet une étude diachronique unique des modes de construction, d’occupation, et surtout de réoccupation de l’habitat. A travers des exemples qui couvrent les différentes phases du Natoufien, on s’interroge sur la signification des superpositions des abris et de leurs sols, c’est-à-dire sur les modalités d’occupation. On tente d’extraire les implications directes de ces observations sur les questions plus vastes d’organisation de l’habitat et d’occupation du territoire. Mots-cléf: Natoufien, architecture, réoccupation, modalités d’occupation, sédentarité Abstract: The sedentary way of life adopted with the natufian period (13200-10200 Cal BC) comes together with large scale and dense settlements based on perennial stone foundations. The succession of the three chronological phases of the Natufian culture at Eynan-Mallaha gives the unique opportunity of providing diachronic comparisons regarding the building techniques, settling pattern, and rebuilding choices. Through different examples from each phase, we are inquiring the meaning of successive uses of structures and the overlying of different floors. Eventually these observations are replaced in the larger context of the end of the Epipalaeolithic in the Levant. Key-words: natufian, architecture, successive use of building, occupation modality, sedentism

architecture “en dur” se concentrent essentiellement dans la région du mont Carmel/Galilée2 (Israël) où semble s’être développé une certaine sédentarité. Les structures sont désormais construites pour durer. De cette prolongation des occupations découle la pratique des superpositions des abris. C’est le thème de ces réoccupations successives que nous allons traiter ici à travers l’observation des modes de construction.

INTRODUCTION Le terme “architecture” ne semble prendre son véritable sens qu’avec l’apparition des premiers hameaux1 à la fin de l’Epipaléolithique levantin, au Natoufien (1320010200 av. J.C.). Cette culture marque une rupture avec le mode de vie précédent. Les populations, qui jusqu’alors étaient nomades, deviennent de moins en moins mobiles, voire même sédentaires.

Par la superposition des trois phases culturelles du Natoufien et la présence de constructions en pierres dans chacune d’elles, le gisement d’Eynan-Mallaha (Galilée) est le site le plus apte à illustrer les problèmes de réoccupations successives des abris et à se prêter à des comparaisons diachroniques. Dans un premier temps, on évoquera les modes d’occupation et de réoccupation à travers des exemples de chaque phase. Dans un deuxième temps, on s’interrogera sur leur signification, c’est-à-dire sur les modalités d’occupation et leur évolution à travers le Natoufien ancien, récent et final. Avant de développer ce thème, on évoque rapidement les quelques exemples les mieux documentés d’occupations successives antérieures au Natoufien.

La sédentarité ou “mobilité réduite” (Bar-Yosef et BelferCohen 2002) qui semble acquise au début du Natoufien, puis qui, à la phase suivante, semblerait régresser, et disparaître au Natoufien final, est très difficile à définir (Edwards 1989; Kelly 1992; Boyd 2006). Cette relative sédentarité se traduit par des sites plus vastes, occupés plus longtemps et une pression inédite de l’Homme sur son environnement (chasse sélective, commensalisme, et premières expériences agricoles). Ce nouveau mode de vie s’accompagne d’innovations concernant la manière d’occuper l’espace et la façon de construire. “Ce qui fait nouveauté, et là il y a réel basculement, c’est à la fois la qualité des constructions, leur nombre et l’aspect systématique d’associations jusqu’alors attestées mais rarissimes” (Valla 1991: 120). Les gisements sont plus densément et plus durablement occupés qu’auparavant et l’emploi de la pierre, comme matériau de construction, se généralise. Cette utilisation de la pierre à une échelle inédite, associée à des constructions en creux (semienterrées), aux formes courbes (circulaire et semicirculaire) est considérée comme un marqueur culturel fort. Cet aspect du Natoufien n’est pas représenté de la même manière sur tout le territoire culturel. Les sites à

Une pratique ancienne Au Levant, excepté les grottes, les témoignages archéologiques les plus anciens concernant la réoccupation d’un même lieu, et plus précisément d’une même structure d’habitat, datent du Paléolithique supérieur. Les vestiges sont peu nombreux et ne permettent pas de développer l’analyse au-delà du simple constat de l’existence de sol préhistorique.

1

2

Dans le cas du Natoufien, le terme de hameau représente le stade entre le campement saisonnier composé de structures légères et le véritable village du Néolithique aux maisons de pierres, de briques et de bois.

Cette région, ainsi que la vallée du Jourdain, concentre les sites aux caractéristiques culturelles natoufiennes les plus marquées. Ce sont les sites majeurs du Natoufien.

19

NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC ARCHAEOLOGY IN EURASIA: BUILDING TECHNIQUES AND SPATIAL ORGANISATION

Les premières traces archéologiques exploitables, grâce à une bonne conservation du gisement et à une approche scientifique minutieuse, remontent à environ 21000 av. J.C., soit au début de l’Epipaléolithique levantin. Il s’agit du site d’Ohalo II sur la rive occidentale du lac de Tibériade en Israël. Cette fouille a permis la mise au jour de plusieurs fonds de hutte. Au moins l’une d’entre elles, semble avoir été occupée à trois reprises (Nadel 2006). Les structures légères de ce site sont les exemples d’habitat les mieux conservés dans la région pour des périodes aussi reculées.

− le sol inférieur (IVb) qui correspond à la base du mur, est marqué par un ensemble de galets. − le sol supérieur (IVa) qui butte à peu près à la moitié de la 1ère assise est exceptionnel par la série de sept calages de poteaux installés parallèlement à 1m en avant du mur (R/4, P-Q/5, O-P/6, O/8, P/9, Q/10, et R/5) par quatre structures de combustion (P/6, P/7, R/5, et S-T/8) ainsi qu’une grande quantité de vestiges (planche n° 2.1-a). Ce sol a été minutieusement étudié par F. R. Valla (1988). C’est à ce niveau que semble associé la célèbre sépulture au chien, H.104 (R-S/5) (Davis and Valla 1978).

Il existe d’autres exemples d’habitations réoccupées pendant l’Epipaléolithique. L’ancienneté des fouilles et les conditions de conservation, ainsi que le peu de détails fournis par les publications, ne laissent disposer que d’informations éparses. Le site d’Ein Guev I (Kébarien), au pied du plateau du Golan, a révélé l’un des premiers exemples de structure employant la pierre comme matériau de construction, mais également une superposition de trois sols (Stekelis et Bar-Yosef 1965). La reprise des archives de fouilles de Jiita II au Liban (Melki 2004) a permis d’affiner l’étude d’une cabane kébarienne anciennement connue (Hours 1966; Chavaillon et Hours 1970). Trois phases d’occupation, impliquant des réfections architecturales, sont également identifiées.

Un état plus ancien de l’abri 131 est signalé par un alignement de quatre blocs (N-O/8-9). L’abri 51 Cet abri est construit par-dessus le 131 et se superpose par endroits à son mur sans en détruire le sol (planche n° 2.1b). Le mur 51 est relativement bien conservé (3-4 assises de gros blocs sur 1m de haut) mais par contre son sol est détruit par la construction d’une structure plus récente (abri 62). Seul demeure intact l’espace entre les murs 51 et 62. Les cendres de deux foyers indiquent le niveau du sol (N/8-9 et N-O/6) (planche n° 2.1-a). C’est probablement une structure semi-circulaire ouverte vers le nord-est (Valla 1988).

Ce n’est véritablement qu’à fin de l’Epipaléolithique, avec l’apparition des hameaux natoufiens, que la pratique de réoccupation se développe et se généralise. Elle est la conséquence directe de l’adoption d’un mode de vie où les gisements sont occupés longtemps.

L’abri 62 La construction de cet abri marque la dernière occupation de cet espace. Il est creusé dans le remplissage de l’abri 51 et détruit une très grande partie de son sol (Perrot 1966; Valla 1981, 1988). Par contre, cette nouvelle implantation n’endommage pas le sol 131 (planche n° 2.1-b). Les extrémités du mur ont été détruites et on ignore si cette construction était circulaire ou semicirculaire. Seul un arc de 7 m de diamètre et de 1,2 m de hauteur maximale subsiste.

LE GISEMENT D’EYNAN-MALLAHA Les phases ancienne et récente de Mallaha sont illustrées par des abris décrits anciennement (Perrot 1960, 1966; Valla 1981, 1988, 1991). On en fait ici un bref rappel qui nous servira à introduire certaines découvertes récentes du Natoufien final.

Un pan de mur à l’ouest (mur 73) semble révéler un état plus ancien de la construction. Ce mur d’environ 1,5 m de long élargi l’arc 62 jusqu’à 8 m de diamètre (P-Q-R/1011).

Le Natoufien ancien: les abris 131-51-62 Dès son apparition, le Natoufien se démarque des cultures précédentes. Les modes d’occupation et de constructions (dimension, matériaux, etc.) sont les marqueurs les plus visibles de ce changement culturel. Les constructions ne seront jamais aussi “massives” qu’à cette phase ancienne.

Le sol 62 est relativement bien conservé comme en témoigne une série de dalles calcaires (R/9) et un foyer ovale (T/8) limité par des pierres calcaires et des fragments de mortier en basalte (planche n°2.1-a). On note également la présence de structures non appareillées telles que le bassin 75 (P-Q-R/7-8-9).

L’abri 131

Après l’abandon de cette dernière construction, ces trois abris furent partiellement détruits par le creusement de fosses au Natoufien récent.

L’abri 131 représente probablement l’exemple d’architecture natoufienne le plus spectaculaire. Le mur de forme semi-circulaire, dont le diamètre mesure 8m, est conservé sur 40-50 cm de hauteur par endroits (Valla 1988). Deux niveaux d’occupation sont identifiés (planche n° 2.1-b):

Cette succession d’abris constitue un des exemples d’emboîtement les plus clairs du Natoufien grâce à des 20

N. SAMUELIAN: LES CYCLES D’OCCUPATION DES ABRIS NATOUFIENS MALLAHA-EYNAN (ISRAEL)

Planche 2.1. L’emboîtement des abris 131, 51, et 62 (Natoufien ancien). a) plan schématique des abris 131, 51, et 62 (d’après les relevés originaux effectués par D. Ladiray in Perrot 1966, 1976; Bocquentin 2003). Les différents niveaux d’occupation sont perforés par de nombreuses fosses plus récentes. b) Coupe schématique des abris 131, 51, et 62 (d’après Perrot et al. 1988). La construction de l’abri 51 arrase le mur 131 mais n’endommage pas le sol supérieur du 131 (IVA). Par contre, le 62 détruit une grande partie du sol 51 21

NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC ARCHAEOLOGY IN EURASIA: BUILDING TECHNIQUES AND SPATIAL ORGANISATION

niveaux bien dissociés les uns des autres: cinq sols se superposent dans quatre constructions au moins (1 sol antérieur au 131, 2 appartenant au 131, 1 au 51 et 1 au 62).

d’un nouveau mur mais plutôt d’un rehaussement du précédent. Un grand nombre d’outils de mouture se situent sur le sol (une vingtaine de pilons et meules en K/13-14). L’association de 7 pilons forme une figure (cf. plate 2, figure C, Perrot 1960).

Le Natoufien récent: les abris 26-45-22

De nombreuses fosses sont creusées soit depuis ce niveau, soit d’un niveau postérieur. L’une d’elles a été enduite et une autre a été reconvertie comme fosse sépulcrale. Le nombre de fosses non sépulcrales, est important au Natoufien récent, contrairement à la phase ancienne.

Au Natoufien récent, un certain nombre de sites majeurs sont abandonnés (Kébara, Wadi Hammeh 27), d’autres apparaissent (Nahal Oren, Rakefet, Shukbah, etc.). A Mallaha, ainsi qu’à Hayonim, l’activité architecturale se poursuit malgré un possible retour à une vie plus mobile qu’auparavant (Bar-Yosef et Belfer-Cohen 1989, 2002). A cette période apparaissent, à Mallaha, des structures circulaires fermées aux dimensions plus modestes qu’à la phase ancienne.

L’apparition de structures circulaires reflète un probable changement de mode de vie des natoufiens. L’ancienneté de la fouille de l’abri 26 explique de possibles erreurs d’interprétation telles que celles qui tendent à considérer les différents niveaux d’occupation comme de nouveaux abris.

L’abri 26

Le Natoufien final: les abris 200 et 203

Cet abri est l’une des premières constructions natoufiennes à avoir été décrite (Perrot 1960). Le niveau d’occupation inférieur se compose d’un mur circulaire, partiellement détruit, de 6-7 m de diamètre (planche n° 2.2-a). Cet espace de 28 m2 est marqué par un foyer carré, bordé de pierres et rempli de cendres (M-N/14). Au nord, contre le mur, il y a un petit caisson de pierres (N-O/1617) de fonction inconnue. A côté, un ensemble de pierres dispersées fait penser aux vestiges d’une ancienne installation. Des dalles de calcaire posées à plat sur le sol sont interprétées comme des supports pour poteaux. Un petit vase, des pilons et des broyeurs en basalte sont associés à un gros mortier dressé sur le sol et creusé dans un bloc de pierre (M/13).

Le Natoufien final est une phase mal connue car les sites occupés à cette période sont rares (Mallaha, Nahal Oren, El Ouad, Fazaël IV, Wadi Humeima, et Mureybet IA). On peut se demander si cette raréfaction des occupations, n’est pas la confirmation de l’hypothèse, souvent défendue, d’un retour à une plus grande mobilité amorcée dès le Natoufien récent (Bar-Yosef et Belfer-Cohen 1989). Seul le site de Mallaha possède un niveau d’occupation bien en place, auquel sont associées des constructions en pierres pour cette phase finale du Natoufien (Valla et al., sous presse). Cependant, il existe des sites contemporains avec des constructions pérennes dans le Néguev et le Sinaï (Goring-Morris 1987, 1991). Il s’agit d’un faciès régional du Natoufien: le Harifien. Dans cet environnement aride, on sous-entend qu’il s’agit désormais d’occupations éphémères.

L’abri 45 Cette construction dans l’abri 26 n’est probablement pas à considérer comme une nouvelle structure (Perrot 1960) comme cela a été suggéré, mais plutôt comme une réutilisation. Le sol, situé une trentaine de centimètres audessus du précédent, réutilise le mur 26. La présence d’un muret (abri 45) a suggéré la reconstruction d’un abri pardessus l’autre. S’il s’agit réellement d’une nouvelle paroi au nord-est, alors l’espace domestique tend à diminuer (20 m2). Le gros mortier précédemment cité est encore utilisé (planche n° 2.2-b). Son ouverture se trouve désormais au ras du sol. Entre ce mortier et le nouveau muret, il semble qu’il y ait un foyer non appareillé (M/12). De grosses pièces de mobilier gisent sur ce sol (cornes de gazelles, fragments de vaisselle et un manche de faucille sur côte) (Perrot 1960).

La découverte de nombreuses structures en pierres sur le niveau Natoufien final du site d’Eynan-Mallaha, par F.R. Valla et H. Khalaily entre 1996 et 2005, a bouleversé nos connaissances sur le Natoufien final. Cette dernière phase d’occupation du site est marquée par une série de constructions dont la variété et la densité indiquent une organisation aussi complexe qu’aux phases ancienne et récente. Il ne s’agit probablement pas d’une simple halte saisonnière. On illustre ici cette dernière phase d’occupation avec deux abris. Ces constructions n’étant pas complètement démontées, on traite des niveaux supérieurs d’occupation qui ont fait l’objet d’une étude détaillée et qui sont considérés comme des habitations.

L’abri 22

L’abri 200/208

Cette ultime phase d’occupation se situe au niveau de la dernière assise du mur sud. Un nouveau mur en arc de cercle, ouvert vers le sud-ouest, est construit par-dessus l’abri 45. (planche n° 2.2-a). La surface est estimée alors à 14 m2. La nature de cette construction est également sujette à discussion. Il est probable qu’il ne s’agit pas

Cette construction résulte de l’emboîtement de deux murs (planche n° 2.3-b). Le plus ancien, le 200, a connu plusieurs phases d’occupation. On ne traitera ici que de la dernière. Cette construction est de forme ovale dont seule une moitié est circonscrite par un mur. L’autre moitié est 22

N. SAMUELIAN: LES CYCLES D’OCCUPATION DES ABRIS NATOUFIENS MALLAHA-EYNAN (ISRAEL)

Planche 2.2. La superposition des sols 26, 45, et 22 (Natoufien récent). a) plan schématique des abris 26, 45, et 22 (d’après Perrot 1960). Les murs fragmentaires qui apparaissent ne sont probablement que des réaménagements. Ce cas de figure suggère plutôt des superposition de sol dans un même abri. b) Coupe schématique de l’abri 26 (reconstituée d’après Perrot 1960). Les 3 sols sont bien separés les uns des autres. Le gros mortier est utilisé sur 2 niveaux d’occupation (26 & 45) limitée par la présence d’un cailloutis.3 Entre les deux extrémités du mur, c’est-à-dire sur l’axe médian, sont installées des structures domestiques (planche n° 2.3-a): une cavité bordée de pierres interprétée comme un calage

de poteau (221 en K/91) se situe à l’extérieur du mur; à l’intérieur une réserve de matériaux (226 en J/91-92 composée de bouchardes en silex, et de galets et de plaquettes de basalte) est associée à un premier foyer bordé de pierres et rempli de cendres concrétionnées (224 en J/92); une seconde structure de combustion, en partie bordée par des rangées de pièces en calcaire et en basalte, forme une légère dépression (222a en H-I/92-93); puis un

3

Ce que l’on nomme cailloutis correspond à la matrice de la couche Ib dans laquelle se sont installés les derniers occupants. Ce niveau se compose d’un mélange de sédiment et de très nombreuses petites pierres. L’intérieur des constructions est dépourvue de ce cailloutis.

23

NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC ARCHAEOLOGY IN EURASIA: BUILDING TECHNIQUES AND SPATIAL ORGANISATION

Planche 2.3. L’emboîtement des abris 200 et 208 (Natoufien final). a) plan schématique des abris 200 et 208. L’extrémité est du mur 200 est probablement réutilisée par l’abri 208. On note également l’alignement d’installations domestiques entre les deux extrémités du mur 200. b) Coupe schématique de l’ emboîtement de la structure 208 dans la 200. On note la faible épaisseur qui sépare les sols des deux abris ainsi que la réutilisation de certains éléments

ensemble creusé et formé de pierres, recouvert par deux grosses dalles pourrait avoir servi de support (siège ou autre) (227 en H/93). Il existe également, en dehors de cet axe, une petite structure comprise comme un calage de poteau (233 en H/91-92) et un ensemble de deux dalles (I/94) posées sur le sol qui a probablement joué le rôle de siège.

L’abri 203

Ce sol qui marque la dernière occupation de la structure 200 est recouvert par un nouvel abri, le 208. Un nouveau mur est construit 15-20 cm en avant du mur 200 et pardessus son sol. A ce niveau est associé un calage de poteau massif creusé profondément à travers les sols antérieurs (216 en J/93). Le foyer central de la 200 (222b) est réaménagé. L’ensemble 227 qui a pu servir de support est réutilisé ainsi que probablement le calage 221. Malgré tout, ce nouveau sol n’affecte que très peu l’ancien.

L’espace du troisième niveau d’occupation (203c), qui n’est pas le plus ancien, est occupé par quatre installations domestiques associées à l’usage du feu. L’une est une petite cuvette, au pied du mur, remplie de cendres et de petites pierres calcaires chauffées (237 en I/97). Une autre cuvette plus profonde, et aux contours peu soignés, contient le même type de remplissage (234 en J/98). A ce niveau d’occupation est associé le dernier stade de fonctionnement du foyer 232 (J/97). Il est en forme de fer à cheval. Contre celui-ci, on trouve un autre foyer, de forme triangulaire, creusé et bordé de gros blocs calcaires (le 225 en K/97). A la structure 203 est accolée une construction annexe, la 230 (planche n° 2.4a). C’est un bassin de pierres, au fond brûlé, qui forme

Cet abri a connu au moins quatre phases d’occupation (planche n° 2.4-b). Contrairement à l’exemple précédent, elles sont circonscrites à l’intérieur d’un même mur. La structure est ouverte vers le nord où ses limites sont mal définies (Samuelian, 2004).

La sépulture H.166 (I/92), située entre les foyers 224 et 222, est postérieure à l’abri 200. Elle est elle-même recouverte par le foyer 207, ultime trace d’activité natoufienne dans ce secteur. 24

N. SAMUELIAN: LES CYCLES D’OCCUPATION DES ABRIS NATOUFIENS MALLAHA-EYNAN (ISRAEL)

Planche 2.4. Les superpositions des sols de l’abri 203 (a, b, c) (Natoufien final). a) plan schématique de l’abri 203. Les sols a) et c) n’occupent pas les mêmes surfaces et n’ont pas la même fonction. b) Coupe schématique de l’abri 203. Les 3 niveaux d’occupation (a, b, c) sont très resserrés. Le sol b), dont l’interprétation est difficile ressemble à une phase de prération au sol a). Certaines pierres de structures domestiques sont réutilisées sans etre deplacées lors des occupations postérieures

une sorte de dépendance à la 203 à ce moment de son occupation.

disposés sur une rangée et au moins deux assises; les abris ouverts en direction du nord; leur séparation en deux par une série d’installations domestiques; et une série de réoccupations.

On ne détaillera pas le niveau qui succède à celui-ci (203b) car sa nature est difficile à apprécier. Par contre, le dernier sol de la 203 (a) est bien compris. Il s’organise comme celui de l’abri 200 (a). La corde de l’arc formée par le mur est occupée par deux calages de poteaux bordés de pierres (205 en J/97 et 213 en J/98). L’extrémité nord du sol est marquée par un foyer (201 en L/99) similaire, par sa conception et son remplissage, au 224 de l’abri 200. Ce sol est moins étendu que les précédents et mieux délimité.

Les niveaux les plus anciens des abris 200 et 203 se prêtent difficilement aux études spatiales à cause des perturbations provoquées par les occupations postérieures. Les liens de contemporanéité entre les installations domestiques sont très difficiles à établir, voire impossibles. Les sols sont trop fragmentaires. Au Natoufien final, il existe d’autres structures dont les fonctions paraissent spécialisées et qui présentent des cas de reconstruction. Elles sont en cours d’étude. C’est le cas des abris 202/206 et 215/228.

Les abris 200 et 203 ne connaissent pas la même suite de réoccupations. Par contre leur dernière phase montre une organisation architecturale similaire, et dont on suppose qu’ils ont alors fonctionné comme unité d’habitation à cause de la variété des activités pratiquées. A partir de cette organisation commune, on a établi l’ébauche d’un modèle. On rappelle brièvement ses caractéristiques (Samuelian 2005): la forme ovale dont une moitié est limitée par la paroi et l’autre par le cailloutis; les murs construits avec des blocs calcaires calibrés et

DISCUSSION Eynan-Mallaha donne l’unique opportunité de se livrer à des études comparatives entre les trois phases chronologiques du Natoufien. On s’aperçoit qu’il existe des différences de comportement entre le début et la fin de l’occupation du site. 25

NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC ARCHAEOLOGY IN EURASIA: BUILDING TECHNIQUES AND SPATIAL ORGANISATION

sur le mode d’occupation du site. Elles sont très nombreuses au Natoufien récent où l’on suppose un retour progressif à une certaine mobilité en partie due à la dégradation progressive du climat (Dryas III).

Les modes d’occupation Les principaux indices dont on dispose à Mallaha, pour évoquer un sujet aussi ambitieux que les modes d’occupation, sont l’organisation des constructions les unes par rapport aux autres et les abris eux-mêmes. En effet, l’observation de l’évolution de la dimension et de la forme des abris peut nous renseigner sur la manière dont est occupé le site.

Les modes de construction et de réfection On a vu qu’il existait une évolution des modes d’occupation du site au fil du temps. Par contre les modes architecturaux et, à travers eux, les modes de réoccupation ne semblent guère varier. Il s’agit toujours d’une fosse creusée, aux formes courbes et parée de pierres.

La reconstitution de l’espace d’un gisement préhistorique est toujours délicate à cause de la conservation partielle des structures et des surfaces fouillées. A Mallaha, grâce à l’usage de la pierre, les constructions sont clairement identifiables. Par contre, les surfaces fouillées ne permettent que des interprétations préliminaires. F.R. Valla (1991) distingue des organisations distinctes à chaque phase. Les abris du Natoufien ancien seraient plutôt construits au pied du talus, ceux de la phase récente sur la pente et le replat et ceux de la phase finale sur une pente caractérisée, en partie, par le cailloutis. Ces remarques composent l’ébauche d’un modèle d’organisation qui pour être validé devrait être complété par une extension des fouilles de chacun des niveaux. Par contre, on peut affirmer avec une certaine assurance l’existence d’une orientation sud-nord des abris (Valla 1991) à chacune des phases.

Les réoccupations des abris se font toujours sous la forme de simple superposition de sol ou d’emboîtement de mur. Il est d’ailleurs possible d’associer certaines constructions en fonction de leur mode de réaménagement. L’emboîtement des abris 200 et 208 rappelle celui des structures 131, 51, et 62 par la reconstruction d’un mur et le réaménagement successif des sols. D’autre part la superposition des sols de la 203 est comparable à celle observée dans l'abri 26 où le mur de paroi est réutilisé et même rehaussé au fil de l’accumulation des niveaux. Les modalités d’occupation L’étude stratigraphique détaillée entre les abris des trois phases nous révèlent des différences de comportements. Le point de départ de cette réflexion est l’épaisseur de sédiment qui sépare les sols d’occupations. Cet écart varie de manière significative entre le début et la fin du Natoufien. On observe que les sols des structures de la phase finale sont bien plus resserrés qu’aux phases précédentes: une dizaine de centimètres, et moins par endroits, entre les différents niveaux des abris 200 et 203 du Natoufien final, et une trentaine entre certains sols de l’abri 26 du Natoufien récent. Cette fine épaisseur entre les niveaux accentue le phénomène de réutilisation des pierres de sols plus anciens et complique davantage leur identification. A cela, s’ajoute également l’homogéneité du sédiment.

La dimension des abris diminue progressivement comme en témoigne le passage de surfaces mesurant une trentaine de m2 à des structures ne dépassant pas la douzaine. Les abris sont de moins en moins profondément creusés et la hauteur des murs diminue également. Ceux de la phase finale ne dépassent pas deux assises, excepté l’abri 218 partiellement dégagé. Ils s’apparentent plus à des murets servant d’assise à une superstructure légère, en matériaux périssables, qu’à de véritables “maisons de pierres”. Cette réduction de la dimension de l’habitat natoufien est l’objet de spéculations fondées sur l’ethnologie. Les grands abris du Natoufien ancien pourraient avoir été occupés par des familles nucléaires, alors que les constructions plus modestes de la phase récente pourraient refléter des maisons individuelles (Valla 1991). On va vers la subdivision du groupe social en petites unités (Valla 1991). C’est peut-être également le cas du Natoufien final qui marque une sorte de retour aux structures légères. Cette évolution diachronique des structures appuie l’idée d’occupations de moins en moins longue du site. En revanche, la forme des abris demeure toujours courbe. Les abris sont cependant soit complètement circulaires, soit semi-circulaires. La forme ovale, qui apparaît pour la première fois à la phase finale (structures 200 et 203) préfigure les constructions du début du Néolithique (PPNA) qui suit immédiatement (e.g.: Netiv Hagdud, Hatula).

La nature des réaménagements Jusqu’à l’apparition de la culture natoufienne, la réoccupation d’abris se faisait au sein de groupes certainement nomades. La séparation entre deux niveaux est interprétée comme la trace d’un abandon provisoire du lieu. Désormais avec le Natoufien, dont les auteurs sont considérés comme sédentaires ou presque, la présence de ces réoccupations revêt un autre sens. Certes, les niveaux superposés sont considérés comme les témoignages d’occupation prolongée mais ils ne nous renseignent pas sur la nature de l’occupation. Ces successions de niveaux suggèrent des ruptures. La détermination du temps qui sépare les réaménagements est l’une des clefs de l’identification du mode d’occupation. Il a pu exister deux types de rupture: brève ou longue.

Les fosses sont peu présentes au Natoufien ancien, par contre elles deviennent très nombreuses à la phase suivante et disparaissent au Natoufien final. Leur présence a certaines phases seulement, est porteuse d’informations 26

N. SAMUELIAN: LES CYCLES D’OCCUPATION DES ABRIS NATOUFIENS MALLAHA-EYNAN (ISRAEL)

La rupture brève peut être illustrée par une succession de réaménagements sans interruption d’occupation ou bien avec de très courtes interruptions. Dans ce cas, l’abri n’est jamais déserté et est régulièrement réaménagé. Ce serait la rupture d’aménagement.

s’ajoutent également celles fournies par des restes fœtaux de sangliers qui supposent une chasse en mars-avril. Les restes d’oiseaux sont également riches en informations. Beaucoup d’entre eux sont migrateurs et attestent d’une chasse entre décembre et février (Simmons in Valla et al. 2004). La mise bout à bout de ces périodes d’abattage indique une présence annuelle quasi continue des natoufiens.

La rupture longue peut être illustrée par des périodes d’abandon de l’abri, de durée inconnue. Celles-ci interviennent soit dans des contextes individuels, c’est-àdire que seul cet abri n’est pas déserté au sein du hameau, soit dans un contexte collectif, c’est-à-dire d’abandon momentané mais général de tout le site. La durée des ruptures demeure très difficile à établir. Ce serait la rupture d’occupation.

CONCLUSION Au-delà de l’identification du niveau Natoufien final comme une phase d’occupation, les données de Mallaha viennent pallier en partie le hiatus qui existe entre le Natoufien récent et le Néolithique dans les données archéologiques. Le Natoufien final apparaît, d’un point de vue architectural, en continuité directe avec les phases ancienne et récente. Néanmoins, la construction d’abris plus petits, associés à des sols très resserrés les uns audessus des autres, suggère un mode et un rythme d’occupation différent. En effet, ces données associées à des abris que l’on peut qualifier de structures légères, à cheval entre la hutte kébarienne et la “maison” du Natoufien ancien, suggèrent une plus grande mobilité des populations sans pour autant basculer dans le nomadisme.

Les rythmes d’occupation du Natoufien final Dans le cas des abris de Mallaha, on est face à deux interrogations: celle du temps d’occupation d’un sol; et celle du temps qui sépare deux sols. Pourtant par des approches très différentes on peut dans certains cas obtenir quelques données temporelles. On illustre ici trois cas d’observations de ce type faites à différentes échelles. La chronologie relative entre les abris Parmi les quatre structures majeures fouillées à présent sur les quelques 130m² du secteur récemment investi (Valla et al. 2004), l’une d’elle est certainement plus ancienne que les autres. La construction double 228-215 n’est pas construite en effet à partir du sommet (actuellement préservé) du cailloutis comme les autres exemples précédemment évoqués. La structure 215-228 est au contraire comblé de cailloutis ce qui assure son antériorité. C’est actuellement le seul indice qui permet de diviser en deux temps, au moins, l’occupation de Mallaha au Natoufien final.

L’auteur tient à remercier F. Bocquentin et F.R. Valla pour leurs remarques et commentaires. References BAR-YOSEF, O.; BELFER-COHEN, A., 1989, The Origins of Sedentism and Farming Communities in the Levant. Journal of World Prehistory. 3(4): 447- 498. BAR-YOSEF, O.; BELFER-COHEN, A., 2002, Facing environmental crisis. Societal and cultural changes at the transition from the Younger Dryas to the Holocene in the Levant. In Cappers, R.T.J.; Bottema S. eds.- The Dawn of Farming in the Near East. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environnement 12, 1999. Berlin: ex oriente. p. 55-66.

Le temps écoulé entre les sols Les indices concernant le temps qui sépare deux occupations successives d’un même abri sont rares. La sépulture H.156 inhumés entre deux sols de l’abri 203 apporte cependant des informations de cet ordre. Le cadavre a été déposé dans un contenant rigide posé à même le sol (niveau b), entre la dernière et l’avantdernière occupation de la maison. Plus tard, lors de l’aménagement du sol supérieur (a), la sépulture a été délibérément remaniée avant d’être scellée définitivement (Bocquentin 2003). Ce remaniement implique que la structure sépulcrale n’était pas encore effondrée et donc que l’abri a été réoccupé relativement peu de temps après le décès.

BOCQUENTIN, F., 2003, Pratiques funéraires, paramètres biologiques et identités culturelles au Natoufien: une analyse archéo-anthropologique. Thèse de 3ème cycle. Université de Bordeaux 1. 629 p. http://147.210.235.3/proprietes.html?numero_ordre=2 769 BOYD, B., 2006, On ‘sedentism’ in the Later Epipalaeolithic (Natufian) Levant. World Archaeology, 38(2) Sedentism in Non-Agricultural Societies. p. 164-178. CHAVAILLON, J. et HOURS, F., 1970, Jiita II (Dahr el Mghâra). Campagne 1971, rapport préliminaire. Bulletin du Musée de Beyrouth. XXIII, p. 215-231.

La durée d’occupation d’un sol L’âge d’abattage des gazelles à 2, 5-8, et 10-18 mois (Rabinovich in Valla et al. 2001), assurent la présence d’occupants dans l’abri en juillet-août, en octobredécembre, et à partir de mars-avril. A ces informations

DAVIS, S.J.M.; VALLA, F.R., 1978, Evidence for domestication of the dog 12,000 years ago in the Natufian of Israel. Nature. 276(5688): 608-610. 27

NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC ARCHAEOLOGY IN EURASIA: BUILDING TECHNIQUES AND SPATIAL ORGANISATION

EDWARDS, P.C., 1989, Problems of Recognizing Earliest Sedentism: the Natufian Example. Journal of Mediterranean Achaeology. 2(1): 5-48.

PERROT, J.; LADIRAY, D.; SOLIVERES-MASSEI, O., 1988, Les Hommes de Mallaha (Eynan), Israel. Mémoires et Travaux du centre de Recherche Français de Jérusalem, 7. Paris: Association Paléorient. 208 p.

GORING-MORRIS, A.N., 1987, At the Edge: Terminal Pleistocene hunters-gatherers in the Neguev and Sinaï. Oxford: B.A.R. International Series, 361. 526 p.

SAMUELIAN, N., 2005, Mise en évidence d’un modèle d’organisation de l’espace au Natoufien final: l’exemple des abris 200 et 203 de Mallaha (Eynan), Israël. Deuxièmes rencontres doctorales OrientExpress. Paris: Orient Express. p. 17-24.

GORING-MORRIS, A.N., 1991, The Harifian of the Southern Levant. In Bar-Yosef, O.; Valla, F.R., eds.The Natufian Culture in the Levant. Michigan: Ann Arbor, International Monographs in Prehistory. Archeological series, 1. p. 173-216.

STEKELIS, M.; BAR-YOSEF, O., 1965, Un habitat paléolithique supérieur à Ein Guev (Israël). Note préliminaire. L'anthropologie. 69(1-2): 176-183.

HOURS, F., 1966, Rapport préliminaire sur les fouilles de Jiita. Bulletin du Musée de Beyrouth. XIX: 11-28.

VALLA, F.R., 1981, Les établissements natoufiens dans le nord d’Israël. In Cauvin, J.; Sanlaville P., éds.Préhistoire du Levant. Paris: C.N.R.S. p. 409-419.

KELLY, R.L., 1992, Mobility/Sedentism: Concepts, Archaeological Measures, and Effects. Annual Review of Anthropology. 21: 43-66.

VALLA, F.R., 1988, Aspects du sol de l’abri 131 de Mallaha (Eynan). Paléorient. 14(2): 283-296.

MELKI, E., 2004, Jiita II: la cabane kébarienne. In Aurenche, O.; Le Miere, M.; Sanlaville, P., éds.- From the River to the Sea. The Palaeolithic and the Neolithic on the Euphrates and in the Northern Levant. Studies in honour of Lorraine Copeland. Oxford: B.A.R. International Series, 1263. p. 271-280.

VALLA, F.R., 1991, Les Natoufiens de Mallaha et l’espace. In Bar-Yosef, O.; Valla, F.R., eds. The Natufian Culture in the Levant. Michigan: Ann Arbor: International Monographs in Prehistory. Archeological series, 1. p. 111-122.

NADEL, D., 2006, Residence ownership and continuity: From the Early Epipalaeolithic unto the Neolithic. In Banning, E.B.; Chazan, M., eds.- Domesticating Space. Construction, Community, and Cosmology in the Late Prehistoric Near East. Studies in Early Near Eastern. Production, Subsistence, and Environment, 12. p. 25-34.

VALLA, F.R. [et. al.], (sous presse), What Happened in the Final Natufian? VALLA, F.R. [et. al.], 1999, Le Natoufien final et les nouvelles fouilles à Mallaha (Eynan), Israël, 19961997. Mitekufat Ha’even, Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society. 28: 105-176. VALLA, F.R. [et. al.], 2001, Le Natoufien final de Mallaha (Eynan), deuxième rapport préliminaire: les fouilles de 1998 et 1999. Mitekufat Ha’even, Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society. 31: 43-184.

PERROT, J., 1960, Excavations at Eynan (Ein Mallaha). Preliminary Report on the 1959 Season. Israel Exploration Journal 10(1):14-22. PERROT, J., 1966, Le gisement natoufien de Mallaha (Eynan), Israël. L’Anthropologie, 70(5-6): 437-484.

VALLA, F.R. [et. al.], 2004, Les fouilles de Mallaha en 2000 et 2001: 3ème rapport préliminaire. Mitekufat Ha’even, Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society. 34: 49-244.

PERROT, J., 1976, Mallaha, au 10emillénaire avant l’ère chrétienne. Courrier du CNRS, 22: 13-18.

28

TRANSITION FROM THE ROUND PLAN TO RECTANGULAR – RECONSIDERING THE EVIDENCE OF ÇAYÖNÜ Mehmet ÖZDOĞAN Abstract: Consequences of the revolutionary changes that took place in subsistence patterns during the Neolithic Period are best observed in architecture and in the organization of habitation sites. One of the most significant achievements that took place during the Neolithic period is the transition from the round and/or oval huts to buildings with rectangular ground plans. This should not only be considered as a simple change of plan-type, as its consequences had far reaching implications. Transformation of simple dwellings, such as huts, to houses, or “homes” is one of the most evident outcomes of this change. Innovative developments that took place during this period in architectural techniques are best observed at the prehistoric site of Çayönü, located in South-eastern Turkey. The paper will present an overview of the evidence as observed at Çayönü. Key-words: Pre-Pottery Neolithic, architecture, Çayönü, domestic buildings Résumé: Les conséquences des changements révolutionaries dans les modes de survie pendant le Néolithique sont visibles dans l’architecture et dans l’organisation des habitats. Une des plus significantes réalisations qui a eu lieu pendant le Néolithique a été la transition entre les huttes ovales ou rondes et les maisons avec un plan rectangulaire. Ce fait ne doit pas être consideré comme un simple changement de plan, du moment que ses conséquences ont eut des implications dans le temps. La transformation des habitats simples comme les huttes, en des “maisons” est l’un des résultats les plus évidents de ce changement. Les innovations qui ont eut lieu pendant cette période dans les téchniques architecturales peuvent être observées clairement dans le site préhistorique de Çayönü, dans le sud- ést de la Turquie. Le chapitre présente une image générale des dates identifiés à Çayönü. Mots-cléf: Neolithique acéramique, architecture, Çayönü, batiment de maison

INTRODUCTION: RECONSIDERING SOME OF THE CONVENTIONAL DEFINITIONS

ourselves in considering on the changing concepts related to “architecture”, “house” and “space”.

The sequence of events that took place in the Near East during the early stages of Holocene, whether phrased as “Neolithic” or “Early Village Farming Communities”, represents an exciting and at the same time an innovative period that laid the foundations of our present civilisation. There is an extensive literature covering almost all aspects of this period, thus, here in the introductory chapter, we find it unnecessary even to present a conspectus of the Neolithic Period. However still, we find it necessary to note that during the last decades, with the new work in the field, not only that our knowledge has grown, but more specifically the meaning of Neolithic has drastically changed. The over simplistic picture drawn in early 1960’s of the Neolithic communities as living under the stress of obtaining food has been challenged by a new picture, now defining the early Neolithic communities as extremely complex societies. It is now evident that the early communities not only attained high standards in organising their settlements, but also employed high technologies in building.

The conventional view on the emergence and development of permanent settlements, considered this innovative development as the consequence of the changes that took place in subsistence patterns, more specifically related it to the beginning of food producing economies. Recent evidence however, clearly indicates that appearance of the permanent settlements took place much earlier then the beginning of the changes in subsistence patterns. Nevertheless, the new way of life, regardless of the pertaining economic model, soon led to the establishment of permanent villages that required larger living and storage space. Likewise, it is now evident that the social dynamics of that period was somehow controlled by an elite group, possibly based on the belief system, as reflected in appearance of monumental non-domestic structures. The function and the social status of these buildings are beyond the concern of this paper; here we shall restrain in noting that the construction of these prestige buildings, such as special cult buildings or temples, has also been highly implemental in the developing in architectural designs, which in time were adopted to the domestic buildings.

The new picture of the Neolithic Period is so different from the conventional one that, still some time is needed for these new concepts to sink into our thinking system. In this respect, it should also be taken into consideration that integrating the new evidence with our conventional knowledge requires a radical change in the mode of our thinking, almost forcing the limits of our intellectual capacity. This, nevertheless, more strongly than before, points to the need for developing new definitions, even including what is implied by the term “Neolithic” (Özdoğan 2002). With this paper, we shall restrict

In spite of the growing interest on the Neolithic of the Near East, there are certain biases that have been deeply rooted in our thinking. In this respect, subjects such as architectural practices or settlement organisation, since the beginning of Neolithic studies, have always been the scene of primary interest, even at times overrunning cultural aspects. This is rather understandable as the Neolithic Period was conceived as the time of transition from a mobile life style to sedentary practices. However, 29

NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC ARCHAEOLOGY IN EURASIA: BUILDING TECHNIQUES AND SPATIAL ORGANISATION

due to the over simplistic perception of the period, it was taken for granted that what ever architecture present, to be hardly anything more than simple dwellings, even would not be considered under the term of ”architecture”. Thus, the tower of Jericho, the first of the monumental architecture of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic Period to be recovered, like in the recovery of Çatal Höyük somewhat later, was accepted with some constraint. The first examples of special cult-buildings of the Neolithic Period, which now can with confidence called as “pristine temples”, appeared as early as the 1964 field season at Çayönü, but not until the second half of the 1980’s, even the excavators considered them, as normal dwellings.

experience. Among these, construction of upright walls that had to support the weight of the roofing, binding of corners, lintels for openings such as doors are to be accounted.

Excavation strategies has been the source of other biases; until about a few decades ago, most of the exposures were in extremely restricted areas, mainly designed in finding evidence on subsistence patterns, overlooking featuring the settlement, as there was no expectation of any complexity related to the sites. The last two decades or so, the picture of Neolithic settlements has changed so drastically that, it was inevitable that some time was needed for the new picture to sink in to our perception. Attributes such as “mega-sites”, “organised settlements”, “planned settlements” or “hierarchic settlement organisation” that we now are using in defining Neolithic settlements, have drastically revolutionised our view of the period. In this respect, there are numerous other innovative issues to be accounted for. However, the most significant one is the shift from round planned huts to houses with corners. This should not only be considered as a simple change of plan-type, as its consequences had far reaching implications. Transformation of simple dwellings, such as huts, to houses, or “homes” is one of the most evident outcomes of this change (Bailey 1990; Özdoğan 1996; Watkins 1990). The developing social requirements of the Neolithic way of life, such as need for storage, larger living area, and functionally differentiated units within the building are among the issues underlined in this context (Özdoğan 1996). Likewise, the symbolic values now attained to buildings, or more specifically “personification” of buildings (Özdoğan and Özdoğan 2002) is among the topics highlighted during the last years. In spite of all the attention given to social and symbolic aspects of Neolithic buildings, how the simple dwellings of the Final Palaeolithic or of the ProtoNeolithic cultures evolved into houses during the Neolithic Period is mostly overlooked.

Recent work in South-eastern Turkey has revealed evidence exemplifying the evolutionary steps between the round-plan and rectangular buildings. In this respect Çayönü stands out as the only site (Fig. 3.1) where it has been possible to observe every stage in the evolution of rectangular plan type through a trial-and-error period that lasted some three thousand years (A. Özdoğan 1999). This period of experimentation, which also required a considerable amount of innovative trials, eventually laid the foundations of architecture. As a generalisation, the round plan type characterises the earliest stage of the PrePottery Neolithic of the Near East, more conventionally known as the PPNA, while rectangular buildings are the regular structures of the next stage, the PPNB.

The shift from round to rectangular can be observed in all over the formation zone of primary Neolithic; however there are only a very few excavated sites where how this transformation took place, revealing the innovative stages between the two distinct structural types. Nemrik (Kozlowsky and Kempisty 1990) or Jerf al Ahmar (Stordeur 1999) for example the conventional round construction develops with pillars though still sustaining its round form.

Fig. 3.1. Super imposed round and open grill buildings at Çayönü THE EVIDENCE OF ÇAYÖNÜ

From the point of architectural techniques, the change from round to rectangular plan-type was not an easy one (Rapoport 1969; Watkins 2004); the structure of a round building is either like a basket or a tent, where the roofing is not differentiated from the walls. Thus, such a structure needs neither foundations nor supporting junctures, as the walls do not carry any weight. However, once the building is designed according to a rectangular plan, then the builder had to deal with a number of structural problems, for which they had not accumulated any

The architecture of the basal layers of Çayönü (A. Özdoğan, 1999), dated to Pre-Pottery Neolithic A horizon, as in contemporary sites all over the Near East, consists only of round and ovoid hut like structures, mostly of wattle and daub. The following stage, the Grill Phase consists of superimposed six building layers, each revealing progressive stages in the emergence of rectangular lay-out of the buildings. While the material assemblage in the earlier phases of the Grill Phase is in 30

M. ÖZDOĞAN: THE TRANSITION FROM THE ROUND PLAN TO RECTANGULAR …

the PPNA tradition, the upper layers bears the finger prints of the PPNB assemblage; thus the Grill Phase represents the missing link between the two consecutive stages of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic culture, which is not discerned at other sites. As will be described in some detail below, the transitional nature of the material assemblage is also to be seen in the architectural practices of Çayönü. By the end of the Grill Phase, the plans of the buildings at Çayönü are, in the ground level, rectangular; however their constructional details, such as the walls and the roofing, are still structured as in the round-plan buildings. The progression of both structural details and the building materials were accomplished during the next cultural stages, denominated as the “Channelled” and “Cobble Paved” building Phases at Çayönü, both revealing Early PPNB assemblages. Rectangular buildings that are fully developed appear only by the Cell Building Phase, dated to the Middle or to the Classical PPNB Stage; the developments that took place later can hardly be called as ”innovative”, as they reflect modifications and/or improvements. Considering that the early grills at Çayönü are dated to 8500 cal. BC and the early Cells to 7500 cal. BC. It is clear that it took a time span of over one thousand years to solve the structural problems that were encountered in modelling a new living space; the case of Çayönü clearly indicates that this development was through a slow process of experimentation, or more correctly of trial and error method. Here, we shall try presenting a conspectus on the development of certain structural components.

Fig. 3.2a. A closed grill building with paved courtyard, Çayönü

Fig 3.2b. Reconstitution drawing of a grill building

THE GROUND PLAN The earliest grill-buildings at Çayönü are to be considered as the initial step in the emergence of rectangular layout. The earliest grills, like the earlier round-plan buildings, are actually very simple, hut-like constructions (Fig. 3.2ab); the main difference between the two types is the use of parallel rows of stones, aligned to raise the living floors of the buildings. In this respect, raising the living floors of houses above the ground level, seems to be the main motive, as in the round buildings (Fig. 3.3a-b), hollowed ground below the living floors were covered with branches, thus providing sub-floor ventilation and/or insulation from the groundwater. The use of stone in the grills instead of branches, probably unintentionally led to a rectangular layout. It is possible to surmise that the need for an extended indoor space to have set off this change. The purpose of the grill-like stone alignments was simply to raise the living floor of the house off the ground, again to provide ventilation and to drain the ground water. Even though at first glance, the stone alignments look like foundations, they were made by putting stones side by side without binding, obviously insufficient to carry the weight of a wall or any superstructure. The presence of numerous postholes aligned by the ends of the grill walls, indicates that the upper structure was vaulted and constructed of very light material. Accordingly, it is evident that in the construction of the early grills, also

Fig. 3.3a. One of the most developed examples of round buildings at Çayönü, though still with sunken floor

Fig. 3.3b. Reconstitution drawing of a round building 31

NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC ARCHAEOLOGY IN EURASIA: BUILDING TECHNIQUES AND SPATIAL ORGANISATION

known as the “open grills”, there was no intention of giving the structure a rectangular shape. In the next building level, the original layout of the grill substructure was slightly modified by connecting the alternating ends of each row, thus attaining a more durable construction. There have been further innovative modifications in the layout of the grill-like alignments through the following building levels. In its final stage, all the grills are connected at the ends by a row of stones, thus for the first time the structure, in ground plan displaying a defined rectangular shape (Fig. 3.4). Fig. 3.5. A cell building, Çayönü building with rectangular corners, the opening of the doorway must be protected with a lintel on its upper part so as to avoid breaking down of the structure. It is evident that this went through a considerable trial and error stage, as in the primary rectangular buildings at Çayönü, the doors were placed at the corners; the best example being the Bench-Building (Özdoğan, 1996, fig. 14). As the upper parts of the buildings are not preserved, it is not possible to see when true lintels developed, by the house models from the Cell Building phase of Çayönü (Bıçakçı 1995) clearly reveal that they were present at that stage.

Fig. 3.4. The development of grill buildings at Çayönü The sub-floor stone alignments were neither bound nor connected, thus the construction, though looking rectangular, was actually still a wattle and daub structure, covered with light vaulted, the building taking the look of a gabled, semi-rectangular structure with rounded corners. Fully developed rectangular setup will appear by the Cobble Paved Phase.

WALLS AND ROOFS The upper structure of a circular or an oval building is “woven” of branches and reeds and then plastered with clay. As the structure is either vaulted or gabled, the “wall” and the “roofing” are not differentiated. Accordingly, the upper structure does not necessitate foundations that would support a heavy weight. On the other hand, when the building is designed to have a rectangular shape, then the sides must be as upright walls that would carry the weight of the roofing. In a building with modest dimensions, it is still possible to construct straight walls with wattle and daub; but if a larger living space is needed, then this is no more possible. The building has to have thick and heavy walls, strong enough to support a roof that now became separated from the geometry of the sides. Such a development paved the way to new requirements, such as solid building material that is strong enough to carry the weight of the roof, stable foundations and finding means to drain rainwater from the roof. As noted above, the building material of through the Grill Phase was branches, twigs, reeds and mud. The first trials in developing “solid” building material are to be seen during the Channelled Building Phase at Çayönü, when slabs of mud were packed upon the stone foundations, layer by layer and left to dry, somewhat like in the tauf technique that is still used in some parts of the Near East. In this respect, it should be noted that the properties of clay were known since Proto-Neolithic times. Clay had been used, tempered with straw, to shape figurines and to plaster the walls of the wattle and daub

CORNERS One of the main difference between buildings with round or ovoid plans and rectangular ones is not the geometric shape, but the binding at the corners. In a round planned building, the wall is a continuum, that is it is not broken into segments as the building is structured like a basket. Likewise, even in the latest phase of the grill buildings at Çayönü, the stone alignments encircling the buildings, though being straight, are not properly bound at the corners. It is evident that developing corners went through a period of experimentation and the know how was achieved only during the Cobble Paved building stage. With the Cell Plan buildings, the corners are adequately bound (Fig. 3.5). DOORS AND LINTELS In a building structured like a basket, a door or any other opening can be executed at any part of the wall without causing structural problems. On the other hand, in a 32

M. ÖZDOĞAN: THE TRANSITION FROM THE ROUND PLAN TO RECTANGULAR …

huts; likewise, hand shaped lumps of clay were used as filling material filling in the walls. Still, developing this material into sun-dried bricks took some time; the first experiments were by making very long bricks, some being as long as 1.20 m. (Özdoğan, 1999, fig. 13). The disadvantages of a sun dried clay brick this long were soon recognised; in the course of the Cell Building Phase, the mud bricks of Çayönü became nearly as standardised as those from later periods.

place within a building needed other measures, such as devises for the smoke, chimney, and for fire insulation. A typical grill building is composed of three separate divisions: the main living area raised on grill like subfloor installations at the rear, a rectangular inner courtyard in the middle and a third a smaller part in the front with cellular divisions. The raised floor of the main section is of thick clayey material and at least in one building there are some traces of red coating. The central part is evidently an open courtyard, occasionally paved with small cobbles; in at least in two buildings, there is a fireplace set into the corner of the courtyard. It is evident that the paved court with the fireplaces was the place where all daily activities took place; in any case in the open spaces in between the grill buildings, there are neither fireplaces nor other detectable activity areas. The function of the section at the front with small cell-like divisions is not clear, two of the cells in one of buildings had burials; it is also possible that this section besides being used for burials also served as a storage area.

Stone as building material was being used since the later stages of the round buildings; through the Grill Phase, it had already became the main component of the substructure, both aligning the contours of the buildings and also raising the floorings. However still, the employment of stone in the constructions of the early period, presents a striking dualism between the domestic and the “special cult” buildings that will be further explained below. Nevertheless, in the domestic buildings, solid stone walls, up to two courses high, appears by the Channelled building Phase. In the Cell Building Phase, stone walls of several courses, up to a meter high were already used to raise the mud-brick walls.

As no complete buildings were recovered from the Channelled and from the Cobble Paved Phases, the locations of the functional areas during those stages are not known. On the other hand, during the Cell Phase, it is clear that the “concept” of activity areas have again went through new changes. The buildings of the Cell Phase do not display a standard plan as it was in the grills; both their dimensions and inner divisions vary considerably. Nevertheless, the cell buildings, regardless of their sizes, are quite substantial structures, all having inner partition walls and basements which were seemingly used as storage areas. There are no fireplaces or ovens in the buildings. On the other hand, activity areas of daily use are again on the outside, in specially prepared large open yards. The layout of the settlement during the Cell Building Phase is considerably different from the preceding periods. The houses are arranged in groups, like quarters, around open courtyards. The open parts of the courtyards in between the buildings were close by a wall, so that each open space was reserved to certain buildings. The fireplaces, which are conspicuously absent in the buildings are in these open courtyards; likewise, it is evident that other daily activities, including knapping, took place within these areas. Whether this new organisation of shared activity areas implies grouping by kinship or by social status, is difficult to say.

SPECIALIZED ACTIVITY AREAS It is possible to surmise that the onset of a new way of life necessitated to have defined areas reserved for special functions, such as storage, cooking, food preparation, burials and cult practices. Difficulties that are to be encountered in dividing living space in a building with circular plan are evident, though not impossible. It seems likely that, along with the need for defined functional areas, there also was a pressure to attain larger space. Even though in some of the PPNA sites in Northern Syria such as Mureybit and Jerf al-Ahmar (Stordeur 1999; Stordeur and Abbes 2002), the space within the round structures have been subdivided into smaller units, there is no indication of such practice at Çayönü. At Çayönü, through the entire span of the Round Building Phase, the inner space is undifferentiated and there are clear indications that most of the daily activities took place in the open spaces between the huts. Likewise, there are no fireplaces or bins within the buildings, all being located in the open activity areas. Concerning space, at Çayönü, interior areas of the round buildings rarely reached 30 m2; however, with the grills, the living space exceeded 50 m2. The first attempt to incorporate functional areas with the buildings is evidenced during the second stage of the Grill Phase, keeping in reserve that this change might have happened already during the earliest phase, where architectural remains are restricted. Nevertheless, combination of functional areas with the living space is to be considered as a revolutionary change in the planning of buildings, as it had far reaching consequences. Features such as reserving an area for storage could have been solved by conventional methods; however installing a fire

CONSTRUCTION OF THE CULT BUILDINGS AND DOMESTIC STRUCTURES During the last decade or so, it has been fully attested that, since the PPNA Period, buildings that were specially designed to serve as cult buildings are present in the core area of the Near Eastern Neolithic. These buildings, now more explicitly called as “pristine temples” (Özdoğan and Özdoğan 2002), are differentiated from the domestic 33

NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC ARCHAEOLOGY IN EURASIA: BUILDING TECHNIQUES AND SPATIAL ORGANISATION

structures not only by the presence of cult objects such as sculptured pillars, but also by their plan and architectural details. Characteristic features such as walls with niches and pillars, concrete or paved flooring, benches or sitting platforms by the walls are exclusively present from the earliest round ones in PPNA to the later, PPNB ones with rectangular plans. Describing the cult buildings is far beyond the scope of this paper, here we shall restrict in noting some particulars related to our subject that has been mostly overlooked.

References

As already noted above, the domestic structures of the earliest Neolithic horizon, the PPNA, are either of wattle and daub or tauf, the use of stone in the constructions being extremely limited. However, even the earliest cult buildings, such as those at Hallan Çemi, Göbekli Tepe or Çayönü, have high standing stone retaining walls that clearly display competent masonry. Among these, those of Göbekli Tepe, standing up to the height of over 3 meters, though having round plans, are remarkable structures, indicating that the construction of stone walls were not unknown to the builders of the PPNA period. This stands as a remarkable contrast with the architectural style of the domestic buildings. Whether there was some sort of a taboo to distinguish cult buildings from the houses is difficult to say; it was only by the PPNB stage that high standing stonewalls were employed in normal houses. We consider that this practice is indicative of the status allocated to buildings during the Pre-Pottery Neolithic Period.

KOZLOWSKİ, S.K.; KEMPISTY, A., 1990, Architecture of the Pre-Pottey Neolithic Settlement in Nemrik, Iraq. World Archaeology. 21:3, p. 348-362.

BAILEY, D.W., 1990, The Living House: Signifying Continuity. In Samson, R., ed. The Social Archaeology of Houses. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, p. 19-48. BIÇAKÇI, E., 1995, Çayönü House Models and a Reconstruction Attemp for the Cell-plan Buildings. In Halet Çambel İçin Prehistorya Yazıları. İstanbul: Graphis Yayınları, p. 101-125.

ÖZDOĞAN, A., 1999, Çayönü. In Özdoğan, M.; Başgelen, N., eds. Neolithic in Turkey. İstanbul: Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları, p. 35-63 (Text), 19-35 (Plates). ÖZDOĞAN, M., 1996, From Huts to Houses: “Firsts” in Architecture. In Beykan, M., ed. Housing and Settlement in Anatolia. A Historical Perspective. İstanbul: Türkiye Ekonomik ve Toplumsal Tarih Vakfı, p. 19-30 (HABİTAT II). ÖZDOĞAN, M., 1999, The Transition from Sedentary Hunter Gatherers to Agricultural Villages in AnatoliaSome Considerations. In Dinçol, A., ed. Çağlar Boyunca Anadolu'da Yerleşim ve Konut Uluslararası Sempozyumu (Bildiriler). İstanbul: Ege Yayınları, p. 311-319. ÖZDOĞAN, M., 2002, Redefining the Neolithic of Anatolia. In. Cappers, R.; Bottema, S., eds. The Dawn of Farming in the Near East. Berlin: Ex Oriente, p. 153-159.

CONCLUSIVE REMARKS With this paper we tried to present an overview of how simple dwellings- or huts- developed into houses- or to substantial buildings during the life span of the PrePottery Neolithic Period. This, in a wider perspective, is at the same time the birth of architecture, that involved the development of building materials, such as the emergence of mud-bricks, the “invention” of walls, roofing, insulation systems, foundations, lintels etc, but more exciting are the social implications of these innovative developments. What can be observed during the successive stages of the Neolithic period, reveals how architectural practices reflected the requirements of the new life style. This period of trial and error lasted for about three millennia; even though it looks as if an exceedingly slow progression, nevertheless it had revolutionary consequences that lasted up to present.

ÖZDOĞAN, M.; ÖZDOĞAN, A., 2002, Buildings of Cult and the Cult of Buildings. In Arsebük, G.; Mellınk, M.; Schırmer, (eds.) Light on Top of the Black Hill Studies Presented to Halet Çambel, Ege Yayınları, İstanbul, p. 581-601. RAPOPORT, A., 1969, House Form and Culture. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc. STORDEUR, D., 1999, Organisation de l’espace construit et organisation sociale dans le Néolithique de Jerf el Ahmar (Syrie, Xe-IXe millénaire av. J.-C.). In Braemer, F. [et al.], eds. Habitat et Société. Antibes: Edition APDCA, p. 131-149. STORDEUR, D.; ABBES, F., 2002, Du PPNA au PPNB: mise en lumière d’une phase de transition à Jerf el Ahmar (Syrie). Bulletin de la Societé Préhistorique Française 99:3, p. 563-595. WATKINS, T., 1990, The Origins of House and Home. World Archaeology. 21:3, p. 336-347. WATKINS, T., 2004, Building houses, framing conceps, constructing worlds. Paléorient. 30:1, p. 5-23.

34

PROTO-HISTORIC COURTYARD BUILDINGS IN THE SOUTHERN LEVANT Yosef GARFINKEL Abstract: New data from two proto-historic sites in the Jordan Valley, Sha‘ar Hagolan and Tel Tsaf, are presented. Neolithic structures, until now, were usually classified into three main types: round houses, simple rectangular houses and multi-partite complex houses. Now, Sha‘ar Hagolan and Tel Tsaf add a fourth category to the proto-historic Near East: courtyard houses. Key-words: Near East, Neolithic period, Architecture, Courtyard houses, Sha‘ar Hagolan, Tel Tsaf Résumé: L’article présente de nouvelles donées provenant de Sha‘ar Hagolan et de Tel Tsaf, deux sites proto-historiques de la Valée du Jourdain. Si jusqu’à present les structures architecturales du Néolithique étaient classifiées dans trois catégories principales (maisons rondes, maisons rectangulaires simples et maisons composées de plusieurs éléments), les découvertes de Sha‘ar Hagolan et de Tel Tsaf apportent pour le Moyen Orient proto-historique une nouvelle catégorie, les maisons avec cour intérieure. Mots-cléf: Moyen Orient, période Néolithique, architecture, maisons avec cour intérieure, Sha‘ar Hagolan, Tel Tsaf

INTRODUCTION

time, the population of the Pottery Neolithic period was supposedly organized in small, semi-nomadic groups that inhabited each site only part of the year, and dwelled in pit-buildings or circular huts. This picture, however, is completely wrong. In the excavations I conducted in the last few years at Sha‘ar Hagolan and Tel Tsaf large courtyard buildings have been exposed. This new type of architecture was unknown in the Levant previously. Both sites are located in the central Jordan valley, and both are dated to the periods conventionally designated “Pottery Neolithic”. I have some reservations on this terminology (Garfinkel 1999), but it is not relevant to our presentation here. In absolute radiocarbon dates Sha‘ar Hagolan is dated to ca. 6400-5800 BC calibrated and Tel Tsaf to 5200-4600 BC calibrated. In both sites sun-dried mudbricks were used for the construction of the buildings.

The Pottery Neolithic period of the Southern Levant has traditionally been neglected in research because it fell between prehistoric archaeology and biblical archaeology. For the prehistorians, it is considered too late, for the biblical archaeologists, it is simply too early. The lack of modern research was also explained as a reflection of the actual finds of the period, or in the words of Bar-Yosef, “Part of the blame for the fragmentary data may be placed on the character of the remains themselves” (1992: 31). Already in the first account of her excavations at Jericho, Kenyon termed the chapter on the Pottery Neolithic period: “A Retrogression,” and stated that the “newcomers brought with them the use of pottery, but in every other respect they were much more primitive than their predecessors” (1957: 77, and see also 1960: 67–68).

SHA‘AR HAGOLAN

Kirkbride summarized the Pottery Neolithic period as: “The pit dwelling settlements of these people who, until Wadi Rahah and late Jericho VIII, appeared to have no solid architecture, point to a semi-nomadic way of life in Palestine” (Kirkbride 1971, and see also Perrot 1968; BarYosef 1992: 31–38).

Sha‘ar Hagolan is a 20 hectare site which was excavated by Stekelis in the years 1949-52 and later by the current author in the years 1989-90, 1996-2004. This is the type site for the Yarmukian culture, which occupied large parts of the Mediterranean climatic zone of the south and central Levant. While the first expedition excavated only small text pits and did not identify solid architecture (Stekelis 1972), the renewal expedition uncovered nearly 3,000 sq. m. in five different parts of the site (Garfinkel and Miller 2002, Garfinkel 2004). In Area E nearly 1,800 sq. m. were opened and a well planned settlement, with streets and two complete courtyard structures has been unearthed. In Area H nearly 800 sq.m. were opened and a plastered street and one complete courtyard structure were found. Here we will focus on these three courtyard buildings.

More recently the same description of the Pottery Neolithic Period has been presented: “The transition of the pattern of settlement from large villages of multiroomed rectangular houses in the PPNB to the small hamlets of pits and huts in the Pottery Neolithic Period clearly indicates that the process of social change in Israel is non unilineal evolution. It appears that the climatic crisis at the beginning of the period forced the communities to abandon previous sites and led to their dispersion into smaller groups of polygynous families that preferred the circular hut, as did their ancestors of the PPNA in the eighth millennium B.C.E.” (Herzog 1997: 27–29).

Courtyard Complex I in Area E

Thus, modern research has created a false impression concerning most aspects of this period. We see that according to the accepted scholarly consensus up to this

This building is located in the eastern part of Area E. It consists of a large triangular courtyard with eight rooms 35

NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC ARCHAEOLOGY IN EURASIA: BUILDING TECHNIQUES AND SPATIAL ORGANISATION

Fig. 4.1. Map of the site of Sha‘ar Hagolan around it. Its measurements are approximately 17.3 x 15.8 m., and its total size is 233 sq. m. This complex comprises eight closed rooms (B, C, D, E, F, G, H and I) enclosing an open courtyard (A). Room B in the south-west corner is round, while all the other rooms are rectangular or square. Five of the rooms have a beaten earth floor and three (D, G and I) are paved with closely fitting flat basalt pebbles. A clearly defined entrance was not found in any of the stone-paved rooms, and they were probably entered through a window-like opening that was higher than the currently preserved tops of the walls. Since these rooms are distinguished by their paved floors and lack of an entrance at floor level, their function was probably different from that of the other rooms. The paving and the high entrance may have been for purposes of insulation, perhaps against insects, rodents or damp. This would have provided good conditions for storage, and these rooms should be seen as storerooms.

Fig. 4.2. Plan of Area E, Sha‘ar Hagolan 36

Y. GARFINKEL: PROTO-HISTORIC COURTYARD BUILDINGS IN THE SOUTHERN LEVANT

Fig. 4.3. Plan of Building Complex I in Area E, Sha‘ar Hagolan Building Complex I displays a modular arrangement in which there are three units each consisting of a room and a storeroom: C-D, F-G, H-I. A fourth unit in the northeast corner (E) does not have a storeroom, but half of the room is taken up by two stone-paved installations which could have been granaries. This data suggests a modular pattern repeating itself four times around the courtyard. In view of Building Complex I’s large size and modular arrangement, it was occupied by four nuclear families. Living in such proximity indicates close kinship, probably an extended family (Flannery 2002; Garfinkel 2002).

Fig. 4.4. Plan of Building Complex II in Area E, Sha‘ar Hagolan corner is missing. From the surviving remains, we can see that here too there was a row of small rooms, one of which (K) was paved with basalt slabs.

Courtyard Complex II in Area E This building is located in the western part of Area E. Its maximum dimensions are approximate 35 by 20 m. Its total size is 710 sq. m. and the net floor area, calculated without the walls, is 510 sq. m. This building is, without doubt, the largest structure from such an early period to have been uncovered in the Near East.

On the north the building is enclosed by a straight wall formed by the large main room (Q) and the corner room (R). In Room Q several figurines were discovered, including a complete clay figurine decorated with herringbone pattern and another carved on a stone pebble. This room contained a curving wall that created a separate room (P). The northern part of Room R yielded an unusually high number of finds, including about twenty stone vessels and utensils (bowls, a grindstone, a pestle and hammerstones), a cooking pot, and a large granary jar that was set into the floor of the room. Since this area was clearly connected with food preparation, we called it “the kitchen” during its excavation.

It is different in ground plan from Building I, nevertheless the architectural concept is clearly that of a courtyard building. There are 24 rooms of various sizes around the courtyard, some of which are paved. Building II is separated from the street that borders it on the east by a wall running from the south-east to the north-east corner. The building’s entrance was apparently in this wall. Along the wall is a series of small rooms, similar in size to the small rooms on the eastern size of Building Complex I. Room G, paved with closely fitting basalt pebbles, was probably a storeroom.

Unlike the other three sides, the west side of Building II is not enclosed by a straight wall, but the building’s edge is formed by the seven rooms on the western side of the courtyard. There is a similar layout in Building I, which is enclosed in a well-defined line on the east, south and west, but is bordered on the north by the combination of three spaces. In the open central courtyard of Building II

The southern end of Building II is currently within the flooding zone of the River Yarmuk; part of it has been carried off by floods in the past and the entire south-east 37

NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC ARCHAEOLOGY IN EURASIA: BUILDING TECHNIQUES AND SPATIAL ORGANISATION

were several installations of various kinds (pits, stone paving, mud plaster paving, and four large mortars).

to rooms with beaten earth surface and together create four pairs (B-C, D-E, F-G, J-K). Rooms H and I are open directly to the courtyard and do not have a storage facility nearby.

The rooms were arranged in approximate seven clusters (C,F; E,G,H,I; O,P,Q,R; S,T,U,V; N-M; L-K; X-Y). This complex was thus used by a large extended family, with eight nuclear families living together.

After unearthing three complete courtyard structures at Sha‘ar Hagolan it is clear that the site exhibits an architectural pattern which has a standard type of dwelling, with a number of rooms built together around one courtyard. No superimposed walls or rooms were found one on top of the other. The walls are abutting each other and the courtyard floors run to the various rooms, indicating that functionally and stratigraphically the various parts of the courtyard buildings were one unit. Is it not possible that individual rooms were built randomly without any pattern throughout the settlement but over time found themselves organized systematically around courtyards. It is impossible that completely accidental the unplanned courtyard buildings just happened to end with straight lines along plastered streets. Thus, the Sha‘ar Hagolan architecture reflects pre-planning of large courtyard buildings.

Building II is without a doubt the largest structure from such an early period that has been uncovered in the Middle East. It was clearly a courtyard house with rows of rooms on all four sides. Courtyard Complex I in Area H This area represents another part of the ancient settlement, ca. 300 m. north of Area E. An area of 700 sq. m. was dug and one courtyard building has been completely uncovered. It has a large, open central courtyard (A) surrounded by ten rooms. On the west is a row of four small rooms (B-E). On the south is the largest room in the building (F) and an adjacent small room to the east (G). To the east of the courtyard two additional rooms (H-I) border it. On the north, two rooms were found in the north-east corner of the building (J-K). Room K is partly stone-paved and a basalt mortar was found on its floor.

TEL TSAF Tel Tsaf is a 5 hectare site which was excavated by Gophna in the years 1978-80 and later by the current author in the years 2004-6. The first expedition excavated small text pits and uncovered fragments of walls without clear pattern (Gophna and Sadeh 1988-89). The renewal expedition uncovered so far nearly 800 sq. m. in three different parts of the site (Garfinkel et al. 2006; in press). In Area C nearly 700 sq. m. were opened and large areas of three different buildings were exposed. Yet, more field work is needed in order to get the complete plan of these structures. The plans of two buildings are quite clear and we will focus on these here. Unlike the structures at Sha‘ar Hagolan where the various rooms of each complex were built abutting each other around a courtyard, at Tel Tsaf the concept was different. Here an enclosure was created by free standing fence walls. Inside the enclosure various rooms and installations were constructed. Thus, Tel Tsaf presents another type of courtyard building and in order to differentiate it from the above mentioned Sha‘ar Hagolan’s type, it is designated here as enclosure complex. Enclosure Complex I This structure is located in the north-west part of Area C. So far it has been exposed to 21 m. length and 16 m. width, so its size was at least 340 sq. m. It consists of a large enclosure, an open courtyard, bordered by walls in the south and east, while the north and west are currently beyond the excavated area. Inside the enclosure various architectural units were identified: one rectangular room, two rounded structures and five rounded silos. A few phases of usage were noticed, but the general plan of the complex had not been changed.

Fig. 4.5. The Plan of Building Complex I in Area H, Sha‘ar Hagolan Four of the rooms have paved rooms, either made of stone (E, G, K) or an exceptionally thick plaster (C). These rooms do not open directly to the courtyard and apparently were storage rooms. They are located adjacent 38

Y. GARFINKEL: PROTO-HISTORIC COURTYARD BUILDINGS IN THE SOUTHERN LEVANT

Fig. 4.6. Map of the site of Tel Tsaf The main room is an impressive rectangular unit, ca. 10 by 5 m. It was partly plastered. In the northwest corner a mud-brick bench was noticed. The location of the entrance to the room has not been identified yet. In the courtyard a number of rounded silos were found, some of them on the same axis. Two other rounded structures were noted in the courtyard, which seems to be different from the silos, but further excavations are needed in order to verify their exact character. A large number of fire installations and ovens were found scattered within the courtyard.

DISCUSSION How the new types of buildings uncovered at Sha‘ar Hagolan and Tel Tsaf fit into the general development of Neolithic architecture? Various works on Neolithic architecture in the Near East have been published (Flannery 1972, 2002; Aurenche 1981; Kubba 1987; Garfinkel and Ben-Shlomo 2002). The various Neolithic structures were usually classified into three main types: round houses, simple rectangular houses and multi-partite complex houses. Further subdivision was observed in each of these categories. The scheme is morphological, considering both the general shape of the houses and the internal architectural plan. Now, Sha‘ar Hagolan and Tel Tsaf adding a fourth category of building to the protohistoric Near East: courtyard houses.

Enclosure Complex II This structure is located in the north-east part of Area C. So far it has been exposed to 16 m length and 14 m. width, so it size was at least 225 sq. m. It is consists of a large enclosure, an open courtyard, bordered by walls in the south, west and the north, while the east is currently beyond the excavated area. As the eastern side of Area C is badly damaged by slope erosion, it is not clear if the eastern part of the complex has been survived at all. Inside the enclosure various architectural units were identified: two rounded rooms used for dwelling and three rounded silos. In the courtyard various installations were found like rounded clay basins, pits and a baby burial in a jar. This enclosure is completely separated from the previous complex by elongated wall which run from north to south.

The courtyard house-type is singled out because it has a dominant central unit: the open courtyard, while the rooms are much smaller. The courtyard occupies a large portion of the structure, usually 40–50% of the net usable area of the building. The rooms are arranged around or inside the courtyard. Access to the various units of the complex is through the courtyard, including the main entrance to the house. Other, somewhat different courtyard structures have been reported from the 6th millennium BC at Zaghe, Iran (Negabhan 1979: 240–244, Fig. 2; Malek 1979: 187– 39

NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC ARCHAEOLOGY IN EURASIA: BUILDING TECHNIQUES AND SPATIAL ORGANISATION

Fig. 4.7. Plan of Area C at Tel Tsaf, at the end of the 2006 season 189), Level II at Hassuna (Lloyd and Safar 1945, Fig. 45, but see other possible reconstruction in Breniquet 1991, Fig. 9); Dabaghiyah (Kirkbride 1975, Pl. II) and Sabi Abyad (Veerhoeven and Kranendonk 1996, Fig. 2.17). Among traditional agrarian communities in the Near East, the basic architectural concept of the courtyard house is found to remain in use to this day. For example, the modern village Hasanabahd, North Western Iran, is built of several courtyard houses. The courtyards are used for various outdoor activities and for short-term storage of crops. At the edge of the village is located the “Qal‘a”, the landlords house. This courtyard building is bigger, especially its courtyard, in which the landlords share of the crop is kept at harvest time (Watson 1979: 34, 40, 294, Fig. 5.29).

What are the advantages of the courtyard structure that have made its plan relevant to this day? It provides optimum solutions to the basic needs of the household and the activities carried out in it. These needs can be classified into indoor and outdoor activities, including: cooking and eating; shelter from bad weather and sleeping, storage of food and goods; keeping domestic animals; working space (flint knapping, weaving, basketry, etc.); and sometimes burials. In the other types of buildings mentioned above: round houses, simple rectangular houses and multi-partite complex houses, the outdoor activities were probably carried out near the house, in the open area between the buildings. This situation did not provide much privacy or a good protection for private property. The solution provided by 40

Y. GARFINKEL: PROTO-HISTORIC COURTYARD BUILDINGS IN THE SOUTHERN LEVANT

the courtyard house was to enclose the open-air activities in the architectural frame of the house. The area remained open without a roof, yet it was now isolated from the rest of the village.

GARFINKEL Y., D. BEN-SHLOMO, M. FREIKMAN and A. VERED, in press, Tel Tsaf: the 2004-2007 excavation seasons. Israel Exploration Journal. GARFINKEL, Y. and A.M. MILLER, 2002, Sha‘ar Hagolan Vol 1. Neolithic Art in Context. Oxford: Oxbow.

References

GOPHNA, R. and S. SADEH, 1988–89, Excavations at Tel Tsaf: An Early Chalcolithic Site in the Jordan Valley, Tel Aviv 15–16: 3–36.

AURENCHE, O., 1981, La Maison Orientale: l`Architecture du Proche Orient Ancien des Origines au Milieu du IVe Millenaire. Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner S.A.

HERZOG, Z., 1997, Archaeology of the City (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology, No. 13). Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University.

BAR-YOSEF, O., 1992, The Neolithic Period. In BenTor, A. (ed.), The Archaeology of Ancient Israel, pp. 10–39 Hew Haven: Yale University Press.

KENYON, K.M., 1957, Digging Up Jericho. London: Benn.

BRENIQUET, C., 1991, Tell es-Sawwan—Réalités et problèmes. Iraq 53: 75–90.

KENYON, K.M., 1960, Archaeology of the Holy Land. London: E. Benn.

FLANNERY, K.V., 1972, The Origins of the Village as a Settlement Type in Mesoamerica and the Near East. In Ucko, P.J., R. Tringham and G.W. Dimbleby (eds.) Man, Settlement and Urbanism, pp. 23-53. London: Duckworth.

KIRKBRIDE, D., 1971, A Commentary on the Pottery Neolithic of Palestine. Harvard Theological Review 64: 281–289.

FLANNERY, K.V., 2002, The Origins of the Village Revisited: From Nuclear to Extended Households. American Antuquity 67: 417-433.

KUBBA, S.A.A., 1987, Mesopotamian Architecture and Town Planning: from the Mesolithic to the End of the Proto-Historic Period C. 10,000–3,500 B.C. (B.A.R. International Series 367). Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.

KIRKBRIDE, D., 1975, Umm Dabaghiyah 1974: A Fourth Preliminary Report. Iraq 37: 3–11.

GARFINKEL, Y., 1999, Neolithic and Chalcolithic Pottery of the Southern Levan (Qedem 39). Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

LLOYD, S. and F. SAFAR, 1945, Tell Hassuna. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 4: 255–289.

GARFINKEL, Y., 2002, The Effect of Population Size on the Human Organization at Sha‘ar Hagolan. In Garfinkel, Y. and M.A. Miller (eds.) Sha‘ar Hagolan Vol 1. Neolithic Art in Context, pp. 257-262. Oxford: Oxbow.

MALEK, S.S., 1979, A Specialized House Builder in an Iranian Village of the 6th Millennium BC. Paléorient 5: 183–192. NEGABHAN, E.U., 1979, A Brief Report on the Painted Building of Zaghe. Paléorient 5: 239–250.

GARFINKEL, Y., 2004, The Goddess of Sha‘ar Hagolan. Excavations at a Neolithic Site in Israel. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

PERROT, J., 1968, La préhistoire palestinienne. In Cazelles, H. and A. Feuillet (eds.) Supplément au Dictionnaire de la Bible, pp. 286-446. Paris: Letouzy and Ané.

GARFINKEL, Y. and D. BEN-SHLOMO, 2002, Sha‘ar Hagolan Architecture in its Near Eastern Context. In Garfinkel, Y. and M.A. Miller (eds.) Sha‘ar Hagolan Vol 1. Neolithic Art in Context, pp. 71-85. Oxford: Oxbow.

STEKELIS, M., 1972, The Yarmukian Culture of the Neolithic Period. Jerusalem: Magnes Press. VERHOEVEN, M. and P. KRANENDONK, 1996, The Excavations: Stratigraphy and Architecture. In Akkermans, P.M.M.G. (ed.) Tell Sabi Abyad; The Late Neolithic Settlement, pp. 25–119. Istanbul: Netherlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut.

GARFINKEL Y., D. BEN-SHLOMO, M. FREIKMAN and A. VERED, 2006, The Renewed Excavations at Tel Tsaf: A Site in the Jordan Valley from the Middle Chalcolithic Period. Qadmoniot 132: 78-86 (Hebrew).

WATSON, P.J., 1979, Archaeo-Ethnography in Western Iran. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

41

METHODE D’ANALYSE SPATIALE DES VESTIGES ARCHITECTURAUX DU SITE NEOLITHIQUE ANCIEN STRATIFIE DE KOVAČEVO (BULGARIE) Cynthia JAULNEAU Résumé: Du traitement quantitatif et statistique au traitement via les systèmes d’informations géographiques (GIS), nombre de possibilités s’offre aujourd’hui aux chercheurs pour réaliser une analyse spatiale. L’orientation méthodologique de cet article a délibérément été choisi pour montrer qu’une méthode d’analyse s’adapte ou se met en place en fonction de chaque site et de chaque problématique. La problématique générale de cette analyse est de définir l’organisation des ensembles architecturaux du site. La mise en place de la méthode d’analyse spatiale présentée dans le cadre de cet article a été orientée par deux aspects: la nature des vestiges traités (les vestiges architecturaux) et la configuration du site. Ce site se démarque d’autres sites néolithiques balkaniques parce qu’il ne s’agit pas d’une colline d’habitat. De plus, les vestiges architecturaux sont conditionnés par des modalités de fossilisation des couches et de taphonomie des structures assez mauvaises. Néanmoins la fouille et l’enregistrement minutieux de ce site offrent un corpus d’étude d’une haute qualité et d’une grande quantité. La méthode d’analyse organisée selon trois opérations distinctes (l’homogénéisation, la caractérisation et l’interprétation), amène à des résultats orientés selon trois axes d’études. Un axe “fonctionnel” et un axe “spatial” qui amènent, par croisements de données, à un résultat selon un axe “chronologique”. Cette méthode passe entre autre par un travail sur les volumes et sur les densités de mobilier au sein des structures et l’établissement d’un codage de ces dernières. Mots-clés: néolithique ancien, codage, méthode d’analyse spatiale, Kovačevo

ceptibles de révéler des structures de l’habitat”, “réaliser l’analyse en utilisant les méthodes quantitatives adaptées” et “interpréter les structures spatiales obtenues”.

INTRODUCTION Cet article traite de la méthode d’analyse spatiale des vestiges architecturaux du site d’habitat néolithique ancien de Kovačevo en Bulgarie, fouillé sous la direction de J.P. Demoule et M. Lichardus-Itten du côté français (Université Paris 1, Panthéon-Sorbone) ainsi que V. Nikolov et L. Perniceva du côté bulgare (Institut archéologique de Sofia). La méthode a été mise en place pour traiter les données de ce site qui, du fait qu’il ne s’agit pas d’une colline d’habitat (tell, magula, tumba) a la particularité d’être mal conservé. Peu d’incendies ont laissé de traces évidentes d’une architecture en terre et des phénomènes d’érosion et de colluvionnement ont, depuis le plus ancien Néolithique, rythmé la configuration des couches et des vestiges. Cette analyse spatiale, entreprise dans le cadre d’une thèse de doctorat, ne concerne que les vestiges dits “architecturaux”. Les données traitées comprennent tous les vestiges qui résultent de l’architecture des bâtiments et de tout autre élément annexe qui contribue à l’organisation interne du village. La problématique générale est de définir l’organisation des ensembles architecturaux du site. Cette organisation est appréhendée selon deux axes: un axe spatial et un axe fonctionnel. L’axe spatial s’appuie essentiellement sur les axes préférentiels de construction des bâtiments et l’organisation interne du village. En revanche, l’axe fonctionnel se définit par l’interprétation des structures d’habitat: leur fonction, leur fonctionnement et leur organisation entre elles. Ces deux axes se croisent pour amener à une organisation selon un axe chronologique pour établir des plans du ou des villages par période chronologique et par phase d’occupation. Cette méthode est particulière car elle est adaptée aux caractéristiques du site de Kovačevo: ces caractéristiques ont dues être pré-alablement distinguées pour mener une analyse correcte en fonction de quatre étapes essentielles (Djindjian 1997: 17): “déterminer l’influence des processus post-dépositi-onnels”, “sélectionner les vestiges sus-

LE SITE Kovačevo se situe au sud-ouest de la Bulgarie (fig. 5.1). Le site fait l’objet de campagnes de fouilles annuelles depuis 1986 dans le cadre d’une convention signée par le Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et le Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique du côté français et l’Académie Bulgare des Sciences et le Ministère Bulgare de la Culture du côté bulgare. Plusieurs occupations du Néolithique ancien sont suivis par des vestiges datant du Néolithique

Fig. 5.1. Situation géographique de Kovačevo 43

NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC ARCHAEOLOGY IN EURASIA: BUILDING TECHNIQUES AND SPATIAL ORGANISATION

Fig. 5.2. Situation topographique du site et localisation du chantier principal fouille systématique et étendue (près de 1850 m2 sondages inclus) a offert une documentation exceptionnelle (fig. 5.2). Le site a révélé une stratigraphie de 2,5 m dans la partie nord et ouest du chantier principal. La fouille extensive s’adapte à la configuration du site. Le chantier (fig. 5.3) est composé de 17 secteurs (1 de 106 m2, 11 de 100 m2, 5 de 50 m2 et 1 de 25 m2). Chaque secteur est découpé en 4 carrés, puis en m2 (fig. 5.3). Les secteurs sont séparés par des bermes de 1 à 2 mètres de large.

moyen et du Chalcolithique moyen (terminologie européenne, Lichardus et Lichardus-Itten, 1986: 354). Situé dans la moyenne vallée de la Struma (Strymon en Grèce), il est un des rares points de communication entre la mer Egée et l’intérieur des Balkans. Plus ancien site néolithique connu à ce jour en Bulgarie, il permet de mieux comprendre la néolithisation de la péninsule balkanique et à plus large échelle de l’Europe (Lichardus-Itten et al. 2002: 100). Il s’étend sur une surface de 6 à 7 hectares. La 44

C. JAULNEAU: MÉTHODE D’ANALYSE SPATIALE DES VESTIGES ARCHITECTURAUX DU SITE NEOLITHIQUE ANCIEN STRATIFIÉ DE KOVACEVO

Fig. 5.3. Carroyage du chantier principal Pour comprendre la méthode mise en place, il est indispensable de comprendre les conditions taphonomiques du site. Celles-ci influent directement sur le degré de fiabilité des vestiges immobiliers (en situation primaire, secondaire, tertiaire, voire plus). Les vestiges découverts lors de la fouille sont des structures après abandon, ayant subi de multiples perturbations autant anthropiques que naturelles, sans faire exception des processus sédimentaires de recouvrement généralement lents pendant ou après l’occupation. De plus, plus l’occupation est longue, plus les espaces occupés pour une activité particulière (habitation, stockage, cuisson…) sont nombreux. La multiplication et la superposition de ces espaces troublent la lecture des couches et rendent difficile l’interprétation. La taphonomie et les processus sédimentaires du site sont conditionnés par la présence de bâtiments érigés en terre crue. A la différence de la plupart des sites néolithiques bien connus de la Bulgarie, les vestiges de Kovačevo n’ont pas subi d’incendies et sont de ce fait difficiles à détecter. Si l’on reconnaît les structures évidentes assez aisément, il reste des espaces incompris qui correspondent bien souvent aux vestiges d’éléments architecturaux en terre non brûlée mal fossilisés. De plus, de nombreuses perturbations (actions anthropiques diverses) viennent bouleverser les couches archéologiques déjà en place. Les vestiges ne sont souvent pas conservés à cause d’un brassage dû essentiellement à la réutilisation de la terre pour l’édification des bâtiments (Brochier 1994: 624). En plus des perturbations anthropiques, le site de Kovačevo a été soumis à une forte érosion depuis le début de l’occupation du site due à sa situation topographique en bordure de terrasse et à la nature de ses sédiments. Certaines couches ont disparu. On observe également un “tassement” des couches archéologiques ce qui peut également

PARTIE 1: LE CORPUS ET LA METHODE Le corpus et la conservation des vestiges L’objectif de cette analyse étant de déterminer l’organisation spatiale des vestiges architecturaux du site, le corpus d’étude correspond aux structures définies sur le terrain, dont le nombre s’élève à 3544. Le terme “structure” regroupe en réalité une grande variété de vestiges. Ces structures se présentent sous la forme de témoins constituant un regroupement significatif dont la pertinence est fondée sur la répétition de situations analogues. Aux définitions proposées par A. LeroiGourhan, on ajoutera les notions de structures évidentes1 et structures latentes.2 Les structures sont représentées de façon inégale et varient selon l’état et le mode de conservation des sites (sites avec couches d’habitat, en situation primaire et/ou secondaire, fossilisées avec ou sans sol pédologique, sans couches d’habitat à seules structures en creux conservées) (Brochier 1999: 19). La configuration des conditions de fossilisation des sédiments offre à Kovačevo des structures s’accordant parfaitement avec ces définitions: les structures évidentes sont représentées par les fragments de planchers, sépultures, cailloutis, concentrations de pierres, structures creusées (etc…) et les structures latentes par des effets de parois, certaines concentrations de mobilier, les traces révélées par les ethnofaciès relevés par les sédimentologues sur le terrain,3 etc. 1

Structure évidente: groupe de témoins dont la structuration est directement perceptible (foyer, amas de débitage…). 2 Structure latente: structure dont la pertinence n’est décelable que par l’analyse microtopographique […]. 3 Jacques-Léopold Brochier, UMR 5594 du CNRS, Centre d’Archéologie Préhistorique de Valence, et Jean-François Berger, UMR 6130 du CNRS, Sophia-Antipolis, Valbonne.

45

NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC ARCHAEOLOGY IN EURASIA: BUILDING TECHNIQUES AND SPATIAL ORGANISATION

influer sur la forme des structures évidentes, notamment celles des structures creusées (Brochier, communication orale).

Les structures principales et le codage des structures Le but premier de ce travail est de reconnaître les différentes unités d’habitat de Kovačevo. Une unité est un ensemble de vestiges qui compose un habitat, c’est-à-dire d’un village (bâtiments, structures de combustion, canaux…). A Kovačevo, on observe les catégories de structures principales suivantes: les ensembles architecturaux (réunion d’éléments qui participent à l’architecture d’un bâtiment), les fosses (aux fonctions variables et souvent multiples), les couches d’habitat (composées d’unités de fouille et de structures éparses), les sépultures, les structures de combustion et de stockage, les pavages et cailloutis, les structures en creux diverses (trous de poteau, dépressions, tranchées, fosses). Si une part d’interprétation intervient dans la dénomination des catégories de structures principales, on insiste sur la nécessité de rester le plus neutre possible lors de leur définition.

La méthode La méthode d’analyse est non seulement adaptée aux vestiges archéologiques de Kovačevo, mais aussi au type d’enregistrement des données de terrain. En effet, les quantités particulièrement importantes de mobilier interdisaient l’enregistrement précis dans l’espace de chacun des artefacts. Le mobilier a par conséquent été enregistré par structure (vestige archéologique interprétable) ou par unité de fouille (couche d’habitat). L’analyse spatiale se concentre donc exclusivement sur l’organisation des structures entre elles. L’analyse se déroule selon trois opérations. L’homogénéisation des informations constitue un premier travail puisque le langage et la terminologie, parfois également l’état des connaissances des différents fouilleurs ont conduit, sur la longue durée de la fouille, à une grande hétérogénéité des descriptions et des interprétations des différentes structures archéologiques. La création de “structures principales” s’est par ailleurs avérée nécessaire pour regrouper tous les éléments (structures) appartenant à un même ensemble chronologique et/ou fonctionnel cohérent.

Le codage des structures principales Un code est octroyé à chaque structure principale. Ce codage a été mis en place pour caractériser les structures principales en vue de l’analyse et de l’exploitation finale des données. Il a été établi avec la volonté de rester au maximum à un niveau descriptif et non interprétatif. En plus des descriptions de terrain, le codage prend en compte un aspect quantitatif au travers de l’ajout de critères accordés grâce au travail effectué sur les volumes des structures et les densités de mobilier.

La caractérisation consiste en un traitement quantitatif et qualitatif des structures ou structures principales et de leur contenu. D’une part sont considérés leurs volumes et la densité de leur mobilier et d’autre part il s’agit d’élaborer un codage qui respecte les données morphométriques et typologiques des structures.

L’élément premier est la structure principale déclinée ensuite en quatre grandes catégories: les structures en creux, les couches d’habitat, les ensembles architecturaux et les vestiges architecturaux. La première figure présente le codage des “ensembles architecturaux” et des “vestiges architecturaux” et la seconde le codage des “structures en creux” et des “couches d’habitat”.

La dernière opération concerne l’extraction de certains types de données déjà analysées et triées pour amener à l’interprétation des structures et structures principales. Ce travail achevé il est dorénavant possible de proposer des plans thématiques par périodes chronologiques ou phases d’occupation pour ainsi répondre à la problématique de départ.

Parmi les “ensembles architecturaux” (fig. 5.5), qui correspondent à de potentiels bâtiments, se distinguent quatre grandes sous-catégorie créées en fonction de la surface des ensembles: EA1 (surface supérieure à 100 m2), EA2 (surface comprise entre 51 et 100 m2), EA3 (surface comprise entre 21 et 50 m2) et EA4 (surface inférieure à 21 m2). Ces quatre sous-catégories se subdivisent aussi en fonction de l’orientation de l’ensemble (nord-est/sud-ouest ou nord-ouest/sud-est) puis selon la présence ou non d’un vide sanitaire sousjacent (Lichardus-Itten et al. 2002: 114). Les ensembles architecturaux font l’objet d’une description plus poussée que les autres types de structures principales. Les critères descriptifs nécessaires à la pleine exploitation de ces unités sont enregistrés dans un autre fichier. Ces critères descriptifs relatifs exclusivement aux ensembles architecturaux permettent une analyse à l’échelle de l’unité d’habitat. Ils sont d’une part très généraux (dimensions et types de structures qui les composent) et d’autre part spécifiques (aménagement du sol, gros oeuvre

PARTIE 2: L’EXTRACTION ET L’EXPLOITATION DES DONNEES DE TERRAIN: L’ANALYSE ET LA RECONSTITUTION Les trois opérations qui rythment l’analyse spatiale des vestiges architecturaux de Kovačevo se croisent et sont développés au cours de l’étude. L’extraction et l’exploitation des données permet un déroulement logique de l’analyse en passant par la réalisation d’étapes essentielles telles que la définition des structures, l’attribution d’un code à celles-ci, et la réalisation de schémas stratigraphiques et planimétriques pour la visualisation et la répartition des structures et structures principales dans l’espace. 46

C. JAULNEAU: MÉTHODE D’ANALYSE SPATIALE DES VESTIGES ARCHITECTURAUX DU SITE NEOLITHIQUE ANCIEN STRATIFIÉ DE KOVACEVO

Fig. 5.4. Décompte des structures principales par secteur et par catégorie

Fig. 5.5. Codage des ensembles architecturaux et des vestiges architecturaux solides 47

NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC ARCHAEOLOGY IN EURASIA: BUILDING TECHNIQUES AND SPATIAL ORGANISATION

Fig. 5.6. Codage des structures en creux et des couches d’habitat et techniques d’édification, aménagements externes et quantités de mobilier).

de deux critères: les dimensions et le type de remplissage. Malheureusement, ces critères ne présentent pas toujours de caractères suffisamment discriminants pour permettre l’attribution d’une fonction à une fosse. De plus, une fosse présente rarement une fonction unique (primaire). Des fonctions secondaires, voire tertiaires sont très souvent reconnues. Par exemple, les fosses dites “d’extraction”, dont la fonction primaire est l’extraction de la terre pour l’édification d’éléments d’architecture, peuvent aussi servir secondairement au rejet des détritus. L’établissement de ce codage des fosses n’a été possible que par une réflexion basée sur notre connaissance du terrain. Elles se subdivisent en cinq sous-catégorie: les fosses à dépôt (F1), les sépultures (F2), les puits (F3), les “autres” (F4) et les “indéterminées”. La sous-catégorie “autre” se divise elle-même en deux: les fosses détritiques (F41) et les fosses non détritiques (F42). Le codage des fosses F42 est affiné par l’apport d’informations supplémentaires: extraction de terre (F421) et aménagement particulier par la rubéfaction des parois (supposées fosses de stockage) (F422).

Les “vestiges architecturaux solides” (fig. 5.5) se scindent en quatre sous-catégories: les VAS1 (les murs) se subdivisent selon les matériaux de construction (pierres et terre crue préparée), les VAS2 (les “plaques”) en torchis, argile et concrétions carbonatées, les VAS3 (les “bandes”) en torchis et en terre préparée et les VAS4 (les structures de combustion) se subdivisent en foyer et four. Le troisième codage est celui des “structures en creux” (fig. 5.6). Elles se subdivisent en trois sous-catégories: les tranchées, les fosses et les dépressions. Les tranchées se distinguent selon leur largeur: T1 (inférieure à 40 cm), T2 (entre 41 et 100 cm) et T3 (supérieure à 100 cm). Puis, ce codage se précise en fonction de leur “aménagement” (présence ou absence de trous de poteau, présence ou absence d’un aménagement interne construit). Le codage suivant est celui des fosses (fig. 5.6). Il est réalisé à partir de leur aspect fonctionnel. Or, il est très difficile de définir la fonction exacte de ce type de structure. Dans la grande majorité des cas, l’attribution d’une fonction à une fosse s’effectue selon l’observation

Enfin, la dernière sous-catégorie des structures en creux, les dépressions (fig. 5.6), se subdivise simplement par la présence de mobilier correspondant à un aménagement 48

C. JAULNEAU: MÉTHODE D’ANALYSE SPATIALE DES VESTIGES ARCHITECTURAUX DU SITE NEOLITHIQUE ANCIEN STRATIFIÉ DE KOVACEVO

Fig. 5.7. Code de représentation graphique des schémas stratigraphiques

particulier de cette dépression (avec mobilier (D1) ou sans mobilier (D2).

sont exécutées selon deux plans: verticaux et horizontaux. Les trois dimensions sont ainsi prises en compte.

Le codage des couches d’habitat (fig. 5.6) a été réalisé par rapport aux densités de mobilier au sein des couches. Le volume (en m3) de chaque U.F. a été calculé le plus précisément possible pour permettre une pondération des résultats. Les couches d’habitat se subdivisent tout d’abord en fonction de la densité totale de mobilier puis en fonction de la densité de torchis (vestige architectural). Quatre sous-catégorie apparaissent: les couches d’habitat dont la densité totale est inférieure à 5 kg/m3 (CH1), les couches d’habitat dont la densité totale est comprise entre 5 et 10 kg/m3, les couches d’habitat dont la densité totale est comprise entre 10 et 20 kg/m3 et les couches d’habitat dont la densité totale est supérieure à 20 kg/m3. Chaque sous catégorie se partage ensuite en fonction de la densité de torchis: inférieure à 1 kg/m3, entre 1 et 5 kg/m3 et supérieure à 5 kg/m3.

La représentation du plan vertical correspond à l’organisation des structures principales au sein de la stratigraphie (fig. 5.7). Il est à noter que ce sont bien des “schémas stratigraphiques” et non des “diagrammes stratigraphiques”. Cette précision est importante car l’expression “diagramme stratigraphique” évoque implicitement le fameux “diagramme de Harris”, mis au point dans les années 70. Le but escompté étant une analyse de toutes les données architecturales révélées lors de la fouille, cette méthode de représentation de la stratigraphie aurait demandé un travail à l’échelle de la “structure”. Or, comme il l’a été vu précédemment, la nature de nos données ne permet pas un travail à cette échelle. Cette méthode s’est donc rapidement révélée inadaptée. Chaque schéma présente l’organisation verticale des structures principales au sein de la stratigraphie d’un secteur. C’est la première étape de l’établissement d’une chronologie relative puisque les rapports d’antériorité ou de postériorité entre les structures principales sont représentés. C’est une amorce de la séquence stratigraphique de chaque secteur. Pour permettre une compréhension immédiate de ces schémas, une systématisation de la représentation graphique est nécessaire. Chaque niveau est découpé par passes.

Les schémas stratigraphiques et planimétriques Après la caractérisation des unités de cet habitat grâce à la définition des structures principales et l’attribution d’un code pour chacune d’elles, il importe d’organiser ces données dans l’espace. La nature des données a conduit à réaliser des “schémas”. Ces représentations graphiques 49

NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC ARCHAEOLOGY IN EURASIA: BUILDING TECHNIQUES AND SPATIAL ORGANISATION

Fig. 5.8. Code de représentation graphique des schémas planimétriques Chaque passe correspond à une couche d’habitat mise en évidence lors de la définition des structures principales. Toutes les structures principales sont représentées sur les schémas (nature et n° de la S.P.).

pas encore établie définitivement (analyses céramiques en cours sous la direction de Laure Salanova4) nous ne sommes pas encore en mesure de présenter une analyse à partir des données réelles du site.

La représentation du plan horizontal correspond à l’organisation planimétrique des structures principales (fig. 5.8). Ces schémas permettent d’appréhender la stratigraphie horizontale des vestiges grâce à l’observation de leur organisation entre eux (superpositions, chevauchements, interruptions…). Toutes les structures principales et les structures en creux diverses qui leur sont associées sont aussi représentées. Chaque structure principale est dessinée (contour de son extension maximale) et codée par une couleur selon son type. Dans un premier temps, les schémas planimétriques présentent l’ensemble des structures principales sans tenir compte des codages et des rapports d’antériorité ou de postériorité. Ce n’est qu’après l’extraction des données nécessaires aux divers processus d’analyse, indispensables pour répondre à la problématique générale, que des schémas thématiques sont réalisés.

Cette analyse “type” s’oriente vers une problématique chronologique: comprendre l’organisation des unités d’habitat datées de la période du Néolithique le plus ancien du site et tenter d’appréhender des phases d’habitat à partir des données d’un “secteur type”. Cette phase d’analyse consiste à décrire succinctement le secteur exploité via la présentation des schémas stratigraphiques et planimétriques. La figure 5.9 présente les structures principales datées du Néolithique le plus ancien du site du secteur type en stratigraphie et en planimétrie. Les quantités de certaines catégories de mobilier sont figurées par des graphiques (industrie en silex, matériel de mouture, industrie en matière dure animale, parure, industrie en “roche dure”, autels, “pintaderas”, “fusaïoles” et “figurines”). Un graphique à barres verticales (hauteurs des barres proportionnelles aux valeurs) et un graphique sectoriel (circulaire dont les parts représentent les données en pourcentage total) sont réalisés pour chaque ensemble architectural. Le second

Extraction et analyse des données des secteurs Si l’objectif de cet article est avant tout méthodologique, il ne prend son sens qu’à travers un “exemple type” d’analyse. Du fait que la chronologie interne du site n’est

4 Laure Salanova, UMR 7041 du CNRS, Maison de l’ethnologie et de l’archéologie, Nanterre.

50

C. JAULNEAU: MÉTHODE D’ANALYSE SPATIALE DES VESTIGES ARCHITECTURAUX DU SITE NEOLITHIQUE ANCIEN STRATIFIÉ DE KOVACEVO

Fig. 5.9. Extraction et exploitation des données au travers des schémas stratigraphiques et planimétriques (secteur type théorique) type de graphique est réalisé avec les données de seulement trois catégories de mobilier (industrie en silex, matériel de mouture et industrie en matière dure animale). Ils ont pour but de représenter la part de chacune de ces catégories de mobilier aux fonctions bien particulières au sein de chaque ensemble architectural. Ces données permettent d’orienter l’analyse vers une interprétation fonctionnelle des ensembles architecturaux.

stratigraphie de 2,50 m au maximum et de 1,70 m au minimum. 21 structures principales ont été définies à partir de 90 structures distinguées sur le secteur. Le schéma stratigraphique matérialise 10 couches d’habitat réparties sur 7 niveaux. Les ensembles architecturaux sont au nombre de 3 et répartis dans les niveaux 5 à 7. La très faible densité de structures principales dans les niveaux supérieurs (1 à 4) traduit deux phénomènes éventuels: une mauvaise conservation des vestiges ou un hiatus dans l’occupation de ce secteur. Le Néolithique le plus ancien du secteur type est représenté par 6 structures principales: 2 ensembles architecturaux, un cailloutis et trois fosses. Une des fosses est codée F3, c’est un puits. La répartition

La description du “secteur type” qui suit est totalement inventée et ne correspond en rien à la réalité. Ce n’est qu’un exemple qui permet d’exposer au mieux la méthode d’analyse mise au point. Ce “secteur type” présente une 51

NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC ARCHAEOLOGY IN EURASIA: BUILDING TECHNIQUES AND SPATIAL ORGANISATION

de mobilier au sein des ensembles architecturaux indique une forte représentativité des catégories traitées. Un des ensembles (EA XXXX) se caractérise par un pourcentage d’outils en silex supérieur à la moyenne des ensembles architectu-raux datés du Néolithique le plus ancien du site.

nelle? Les quantités et les types de mobiliers recueillis dans ces ensembles présentent-ils des caractéristiques à même d’apporter une définition fonctionnelle aux structures principales? Organisation spatiale générale des structures principales du Néolithique le plus ancien du site de Kovačevo: interprétation finale

PARTIE 3: L’ORGANISATION DE L’HABITAT: L’INTERPRETATION

L’interprétation générale proposée est la réponse à la problématique posée au départ de cet article. Les organisations selon un axe spatial et selon un axe fonctionnel permettent désormais d’avancer des propositions pour expliquer l’organisation de ces ensembles architecturaux.

Une fois les données triées, extraites et analysées, il est désormais possible de proposer une interprétation de l’organisation des structures principales datées du Néolithique le plus ancien du site. L’organisation générale de ces structures s’agence en fonction de trois axes.

Organisation selon un axe spatial

Avant tout, est-il toujours nécessaire d’utiliser des termes neutres pour nommer ce qui est très certainement des “bâtiments”? Si l’utilisation de termes comme “structure principale”, “unité” ou “ensemble architectural” était nécessaire pour éviter une sur-interprétation, l’analyse de l’organisation des vestiges à travers l’axe spatial a permis d’en comprendre certains. Il convenait de réaliser cette étude pour s’assurer de l’existence d’un bâtiment pour chaque “ensemble architectural”. C’est leur agencement au sein de la stratigraphie, la répartition des vestiges en plan et la reconnaissance de collages et collections nombreux qui permettent de préciser s’il existe ou non un bâtiment pour chaque ensemble architectural. Mais, il est évidemment très difficile de les appeler “habitations” d’autant plus que certains présentent des caractéristiques aptes à avoir une fonction autre que celle de loger les habitants du village.

L’organisation spatiale générale a pour but de mettre en évidence des liens éventuels entre les structures principales. La question de départ, concernant l’organisation des bâtiments entre eux, pousse à observer l’orientation des ensembles architecturaux, leur répartition générale au sein du site et leur agencement (relations stratigraphiques). Cet aspect est traité également grâce aux données issues de l’étude de certaines catégories de mobilier (à travers les recollages d’individus entre structures principales par exemple).

Les caractéristiques architecturales des bâtiments ne s’orientent pas toutes vers la même interprétation. Si certaines apportent des informations fonctionnelles, d’autres apportent des informations chronologiques. La fonction des bâtiments peut être perçue grâce aux caractéristiques architecturales et aux caractéristiques propres au mobilier. L’interprétation chronologique s’effectue grâce à l’interaction d’une caractéristique architecturale, de l’organisation stratigraphique des bâtiments et de collages de mobilier en céramique.

Organisation selon un axe fonctionnel

La quantité et la représentativité de certaines catégories de mobiliers au sein des bâtiments sont aussi indicatrices de fonction. Par exemple, les bâtiments qui révèlent une proportion importante d’une des catégories de mobilier peuvent être destinés à la réalisation d’une tâche particulière.

L’axe “spatial” qui établit des liens entre les ensembles architecturaux et des tendances dans l’agencement des structures au sein du site. On travaille à l’échelle du chantier. L’axe “fonctionnel” concerne les problématiques particulières aux bâtiments. On aborde la question fonctionnelle de chaque bâtiment pour mieux comprendre l’organisation des bâtiments entre eux. Cet aspect est traité grâce à l’exploitation des données issues du codage des structures et des quantités de mobilier. On travaille à l’échelle de la structure principale. Enfin, l’axe chronologique qui met en évidence de phases d’habitat et propose ainsi une vue d’ensemble affinée du village à un moment donné: c’est l’interprétation.

Ces questions se développent autour d’une question principale: Quelle est la fonction des bâtiments? L’aspect fonctionnel des ensembles architecturaux peut être appréhendé grâce aux caractéristiques de chaque ensemble. La mise en évidence de ces caractéristiques se fonde sur la synthèse des données issues des différents types d’exploitation décrits dans la partie précédente. Dans ce cadre, le codage des ensembles architecturaux et les données quantitatives relatives au mobilier de chaque ensemble sont exploités. Les caractéristiques étudiées ont été choisies en fonction de quelques questions que pose la fonction des ensembles architecturaux: la dimension des bâtiments et la présence de vides sanitaire sous-jacents ont-t-elles une explication chronologique ou fonction-

L’interprétation chronologique des bâtiments du Néolithique le plus ancien de Kovačevo, c’est-à-dire l’établissement des phases d’occupation, est très difficile à réaliser. Néanmoins, des indices permettent d’ébaucher des hypothèses de l’existence de phases d’occupation. C’est la combinaison de plusieurs caractéristiques qui a conduit à cette possibilité: la répartition des bâtiments, leur orientation, leur organisation au sein de la stratigraphie (rapports de postériorité/antériorité) et les collages de mobilier. Les éventuelles phases, bien que probables, sont 52

C. JAULNEAU: MÉTHODE D’ANALYSE SPATIALE DES VESTIGES ARCHITECTURAUX DU SITE NEOLITHIQUE ANCIEN STRATIFIÉ DE KOVACEVO

Fig. 5.10. Synthèse méthodologique

mises en avant par l’étude de la distribution spatiale des vestiges. Leur validité doit être vérifiée par l’étude chronologique fine de la céramique.

représentation”, In Gasco J., Gutherz X. et de Labriffe P.A. (dir.), Temps et espaces culturels du 6° au 2° millénaire en France du Sud, Actes des quatrièmes rencontres méridionales de Préhistoire récente, 28 et 29 octobre 2000, Nîmes, pp. 21-32.

CONCLUSION ET PERSPECTIVES

BROCHIER, J.L., 1994, “Étude de la sédimentation anthropique. La stratégie des ethnofaciès sédimentaires en milieu de constructions en terre. Le site de Kovačevo” Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique, n°118, pp. 619-645.

La problématique archéologique définie au début trouve réponse avec une étude menée grâce à la mise en place d’une méthode d’analyse spatiale adaptée aux données extraites du site de Kovačevo. Les données sont traitées depuis la phase d’observation, sur le terrain, jusqu’à la phase d’interprétation. Seule une méthode stricte, adaptée aux types de vestiges présents sur ce site, permet une exploitation sensée, objective et ouverte à interprétations. L’organisation des vestiges architecturaux est révélée grâce à une méthode d’analyse scandée en plusieurs étapes indispensables (fig. 5.10). Grâce à cette méthode, les résultats obtenus entrent parfaitement dans le cadre des problématiques de départ.

BROCHIER, J.L., 1999, “Taphonomie de sites: fossilisation et conservation de l’espace habité”, In Beeching A. et Vital J. (dir.), Préhistoire de l’espace habité en France du Sud, Travaux du centre d’Archéologie préhistorique de Valence, n°1, pp. 19-28. DEMOULE, J.P. and M. LICHARDUS-ITTEN, 1994, “Fouilles franco-bulgares du site néolithique ancien de Kovačevo (Bulgarie du Sud-Ouest), rapport préliminaire (campagnes 1986-1993)”, Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique, n°118, pp. 561-618.

Les résultats proposés par ce type d’anlyse ouvrent des perspectives d’étude à plus grande échelle. En effet, il est envisageable d’intégrer toutes les données concernant l’organisation des structures d’habitat dans un système d’informations géographiques (SIG, GIS). Un tel système permettrait une exploitation croisée de toutes les données (environnementales, sédimentologiques, mobilières…) issues du site et amènerait à des interprétations thématiques plus aisées.

DEMOULE, J.P. and M. LICHARDUS-ITTEN, 2001, “Kovačevo (Bulgarie), un établissement du néolithique le plus ancien des Balkans”, In Guilaine J. (dir.), Communautés villageoises du Proche-Orient à l’Atlantique (8000-2000 avant notre ère), Séminaire du Collège de France, pp. 85-99. DJINDJIAN, F., 1997, “L’analyse spatiale de l’habitat pré- et protohistorique, perspectives et limites des méthodes actuelles”, In Auxiette G., Hachem L et Robert B.(dir.), Espaces physiques espaces sociaux dans l’analyse interne des sites du Néolithique à l’âge du fer, actes du 119ème Congrès national des sociétés historiques et scientifiques, Amiens, 26-30 octobre 1994, ed. du CTHS. pp. 13-21.

Bibliographie BEECHING, A. and BROCHIER, J.L., 2003, “Espace et temps de la Préhistoire: biaisage et problèmes de 53

NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC ARCHAEOLOGY IN EURASIA: BUILDING TECHNIQUES AND SPATIAL ORGANISATION

LICHARDUS-ITTEN, M., J.P. DEMOULE, L. PERNIČEVA, M. GREBSKA-KULOVA and I. KULOV, 2002, “The Site of Kovačevo and the Beginnings of the Neolithic Period in South-Eastern Bulgaria, the French-Bulgarian excavation 1986-

2000”, In Licharchus-Itten M., Lichardus J. & Nikolov V. (dir.), Beiträge zu Jungsteinzeitlichen Forschungen in Bulgarien, Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde, vol. 74, Bonn, pp. 99-158.

54

BUILDING TECHNIQUES DURING THE NEOLITHIC AND ENEOLITHIC IN EASTERN SLAVONIA Jacqueline BALEN Abstract: In the territory of eastern Slavonia two methods of house construction are typical for all the Neolithic and Eneolithic cultures: the pit-houses and above-ground houses. The ground plans of above-ground structures – houses, are generally rectangular, but frequently have rounded corners, which is a consequence of a construction method. In the mentioned area, regardless of the sequence of cultures and the according change of populations inhabiting these territories, the tradition of building residential and economic structures with wattle and daub remained in use during several millennia, i.e. from the neolithic period until today. Key-words: Neolithic, Eneolithic, Slavonia, methods of house construction Résumé: Deux méthodes de construction d’habitations sont typiques pour les cultures néolithiques et énéolithiques en Slavonie de l’est: les fosses d’habitat et les maisons construites au dessus du niveau du sol. Les plans des maisons construites au dessus du sol sont généralement rectangulaires mais possèdent souvent des coins arrondis à cause des méthodes de construction. Dans cette région, indépendamment des cultures et des changements de populations, la tradition de construction par clayonnage et enduit de crépi des habitations et des bâtiments à vocation économique est restée en usage durant plusieurs millénaires, c’est-à-dire depuis la période néolithique jusqu’à nos jours. Mots-clés: néolithique, énéolithique, Slavonie, méthodes de construction des habitations

All these prehistoric cultural phenomena resulted in an exceptional wealth of archaeological finds. However, most of those were found accidentally and only a small part comes from systematic archaeological excavations. Because of this, unfortunately, our understanding of the settlement planning, i.e. settlement organization of individual cultural phenomena is still fragmentary and unsatisfactory.

The territory of eastern Slavonia, which offered favourable positions for the life of populations from the Stone Age continuously until today, plays an important role in the understanding of the Neolithic and Eneolithic cultures. Namely, this is precisely a core area of several of these cultures (the Sopot, Kostolac, Vučedol cultures). The territory of eastern Croatia occupies the southwestern part of the Pannonian plain, that is the eastern part of the territory between the Sava and the Drava rivers. Eastern Croatia is part of a large basin shaped between the mountain ranges of the Carpathains, Dinarids and the Alps. This area, as a geomorphologically closed unit, on account of its position and natural communications, fluvial plains and waterways, is closely connected with the neighbouring areas. From the prehistoric period its continuous feature was very intensive living. This is an open, lowland region, mostly composed of recent river alluvia and loess sediments. The lowermost part is formed by periodically flooded alluvial plains along the main rivers. The river action brought about the separation of higher plains. The highest parts of the region are elevations of older basis, covered by the Pleistocene loess sediments. The loess elevations, on account of their composition, are drier, naturally fertile and therefore also more favourable in terms of ecology, which is why they were settled earlier and during longer periods than the more spacious, relatively humid and structurally less homogeneous plains surrounding them. In terms of geomorphology, we distinguish three large units, that is the smaller valleys of the Drava, Danube and Sava rivers.

Due to the construction of numerous roads, there is at present a growing number of salvage excavations in eastern Slavonia, which can cover, that is uncover fairly large surfaces, and this can lead to exceptionally useful new information. These are mostly single-layer sites with a horizontal stratigraphy, which can give us a wealth of information regarding the settlement organization of a specific prehistoric population. Systematic excavations are far more rare; those that merit mention are those of the Starčevo culture at Galovo in Slavonski Brod (Minichreiter 2005: 25); further, the excavation at the eponymous site of the Sopot culture in Vinkovci (Krznarić Škrivanko 2006: 11-12), and finally the excavations at Vučedol (Forenbaher 1995: 17-18; Durman et al. 2003: 46). In the territory of eastern Slavonia two methods of house construction are typical for all the Neolithic and Eneolithic cultures: the pit-houses and above-ground houses. The pit-house manner of dwelling is usually linked with the Neolithic Starčevo culture whereas the above-ground structures are linked with the Neolithic Sopot culture and the late Eneolithic Kostolac and Vučedol cultures. In the case of the Baden culture on the territory of Croatia, both ways of dwelling are characteristic.

The area of eastern Slavonia in the Neolithic and Eneolithic periods was settled by the populations of the Starčevo, Sopot, Lasinja, Retz-Gajary, Baden, Kostolac and Vučedol cultures. All settlements are generally positioned next to the waterways, on loess elevations or low hills (Marković 1993: 123). 55

NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC ARCHAEOLOGY IN EURASIA: BUILDING TECHNIQUES AND SPATIAL ORGANISATION

Fig. 6.1. The position of the sites mentioned in the text diameter between 4.00 and 6.00 m, dug more shallowly (up to 1.00 m); they were used for various daily activities, offering the inhabitants protection from bad weather. As working spaces appear structures with a long, narrow access system, which widens at one end into an irregularly shaped pit, filled with a web of elevations and inner pits. Residential structures in the real sense of the word were the pit-houses – spacious and complex structures, usually containing several separate spaces, dug into the ground, of irregular shape, with a special separate entrance positioned in the lee-side. The exterior and interior edge of the pit-house is defined by a sequence of post- and stake-holes that supported a tent-like roof construction. There are also examples of pillar-shaped pithouse edges – those may have served for supporting the roof construction. Hearths and ovens are usually positioned outside residential structures and are repaired in several instances.

THE NEOLITHIC In Croatia, a larger surface of the Starčevo settlements has so far been excavated at only a few sites: at the Tržnica (Marketplace) tell in Vinkovci, where 11614 m2 were uncovered (Krznarić Škrivanko 1999: 11-12); at Zadubravlje near Slavonski Brod, with the total of 6200 m2 (Minichreiter 1992: 29-35), at the site of Brekinja near Virovitica, where 5400 m2 were excavated (SekeljIvančan and Balen 2006: 71) and at Galovo near Slavonski Brod, with 2200 m² of excavated surface (Minichreiter 2005: 25-29). In those excavations a scheme consisting of the following regularities has been observed: (1) pit-house structures appear,1 (2) within a settlement there are smaller groups of residential and working structures with empty interspaces, (3) working pits are grouped according to craft type (Minichreiter 1993: 108; Dizdar and Krznarić Škrivanko 2000: 9).

The eponymous site of the Neolithic Sopot culture – Sopot– lies 5 km to the southwest of Vinkovci, at the right bank of the Bosut river. This is an elevated settlement of oval shape, measuring 113 x 98 m, on a relative height of 3 m. The site was named after the forest that covered the area in the past. So far only 2% of the settlement has been excavated, in trenches opened at the far southwestern part of the settlement plateau (Krznarić Škrivanko 2006: 11, ill.1).

As regards the residential structures, these are of the pithouse type and dug relatively deeply into the ground. Smaller pits, with a diameter between 2.00 and 3.00 m and dug deeper (1.00 – 1.50 m), of circular or oval shape, served as refuse pits. Then there are the pits with a 1

One has to bear in mind here that the first above-ground structure of the Starčevo culture in Croatia was discovered recently, as part of the excavations in Vinkovci (Dizdar and Krznarić Škrivanko 2000: 9-10).

56

J. BALEN: BUILDING TECHNIQUES DURING THE NEOLITHIC AND ENEOLITHIC IN EASTERN SLAVONIA

Fig. 6.2. The plan of Sopot with the position of the trenches (after Krznarić Škrivanko 2006, ill.1) The excavations of the site, carried out by the Vinkovci Municipal Museum, discovered three separate residential horizons in two developmental phases of the settlement. We can include the ditch into the fourth, that is the earliest horizon; however, the excavations so far have not revealed residential structures synchronous with the ditch. The ditch running in the northwest – southeast direction, almost six metres wide, was dug three metres into the virgin soil (six metres of relative depth), and it was partly revealed in the length of ten metres. Along the ditch, both inside and outside, were discovered stake-holes and channels, probably forming part of the fortification wall (Krznarić Škrivanko 2003: 63). The ditch with a palisade was filled up before the beginning of the 2nd phase of the Sopot culture (houses with the inventory attributed to the 2nd phase were built over the ditch). This confirms that the first settlement at Sopot was much smaller than the one from the 2nd and 3rd phases of the Sopot culture. It would seem by the Sopot excavations so far that the houses were built in rows, with one or two metres in-between; the distance is smaller at the plateau, i.e. the houses are denser (Krznarić Škrivanko 2006: 12, ill.2).

northwestern part of the house was a small oven, while the entrance lay at the southwestern side of the house (Krznarić Škrivanko 1999: ill. on p. 15). The second house type consists of horizontally laid wooden logs. However, that type is rather rare (until today only two such houses were documented: one at Otok near Vinkovci and the other at Sopot). The Sopot house belongs to the earliest phase of life in the settlement and is the only one with a northeast – southwest orientation. The construction method of the house at the site of Sopot consists of horizontally laid log halves, with no vertical posts or ditches. Judging by the section of the floor and adjoining walls, the thickness of the outside walls was around 40 cm, and the partition walls within the house were up to 20 cm thick. The house measured 6.70 x 4 m, and it is divided transversally into three parts, that is, into three rooms (Krznarić Škrivanko 2003: 64-66; Krznarić Škrivanko 2006: 14-16). The house from Otok is somewhat different – horizontally laid logs were supported by vertical side posts driven into the ground, and the division into three parts is longitudinal (Dimitrijević 1969: 54, ill. 5).

The houses are mostly rectangular, lying in the SE-NW direction, measuring 6 x 4 m or more rarely 10 x 5 m. Two methods of construction were documented:

Another type of construction of above-ground structures in the Sopot culture was documented at the sites of Dubovo-Košno near Županja and Kruševica near Slavonski Šamac. At the site of Dubovo-Košno, situated in the lowland area with no significant oscillations in relief, at approximately 82 m above sea level, close to the

The majority of the houses have adobe floors and the wall construction made of wooden posts with intertwined wattle, which was subsequently covered with daub. In the 57

NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC ARCHAEOLOGY IN EURASIA: BUILDING TECHNIQUES AND SPATIAL ORGANISATION

THE ENEOLITHIC The site of Vučedol is located on the right bank of the Danube, some 5 km downstream from Vukovar. In contrast to the left bank of the Danube, which is mostly marshy and covered with forest, along the right bank stretches a loess elevation, in the width of 10 to 15 km and raised some thirty metres above the water level. The access to the river is possible only through deep gullies or ravines, called “surduks” by the local population. These gullies were formed by water courses, which emerged in the post-glacial period. Vučedol was positioned on one such ravine. The settlement extended over four flattened elevations: Gradac, Streim Vineyard, Streim Cornfield and Karasović Vineyard. The Streim Cornfield and Vineyard (1.3 and 1.7 ha) make up the horseshoe-shaped elevation that surrounds Gradac (600 m2). These three positions together make up the larger of the two units, whereas the other one, at the position of the Karasović Vineyard, lies detached on the other side of the “surduk” (Forenbaher 1994: 308).

Fig. 6.3. A reconstruction of the two types of the Sopot culture houses at Sopot (photo J. Balen) Sava river north of Županja, the entire revealed surface was 8575 m2. The settlement layout is typical of the Neolithic period, and belongs to the type of lowland unfortified settlements with pit- and above-ground structures. At the site, dated into the earlier phases of the Sopot culture, the documented type of building involved dug-in longitudinal foundations, i.e. a narrow foundation ditch in which are discerned traces of supporting posts, and transversal posts that divide the structure into three parts. The discovered house of that type is rectangular, measuring 12 x 5 m, with a north – south orientation and an entrance at the southern side (Marijan 2006: 4445).

Vučedol is a multi-layered site of the tell type, with a cultural layer reaching up to three metres in elevation. Even though only some 10% of the site has been excavated so far, and most of that in the peripheral parts (with the exception of Gradac, which was entirely excavated by a German archaeologist, R.R. Schmidt), the quantity of excavated material and obtained data contribute to a comprehensive picture of –above all– the Eneolithic period of the western part of the Pannonian Plain. The settlement of the Baden culture at Vučedol is characterized, in addition to the pit-houses, also by the above-ground structures, which is a fact in favour of the view that at Vučedol this culture had an organized and long-living settlement, from which apparently a larger area could be controlled. The structures are completely destroyed, the traces of floor were documented only sporadically; nevertheless, the thick layer of debris (daub) confirms that they were constructed in the usual technique – the wall structure of beams interlaced with wattle and subsequently covered in daub (Balen 2004: 66).

The same type of structure was also documented at the site of Kruševica near Slavonski Šamac, likewise attributed to the earlier phases of the Sopot culture. The structures also have a north – south orientation, the entrance is at the south, and they measure 11.90 x 6.40 m and 11.60 x 5.60 m (Miklik-Lozuk 2004: 37-38). That the above-ground structures are not the exclusive method of construction in the Sopot culture is testified by the results of the excavation at the site of Ervenica near Vinkovci, which belongs to the early phase of the Sopot culture. At the site of Ervenica the main residential structure is of the pit-house type. Along the steep pithouse wall supports are driven into the ground, which statically reinforced the inner row of support stakes, and the pit-house walls contain openings for laying the beams of the roof construction. No traces of hearths were found within the pit-houses, so it is supposed that they were situated outside the pit-houses, in the open space. The pits are of various dimensions, ranging from the large irregular shapes, filled with a maze of shallowly dug plateaus and inner pits, to the smaller ones of regular shapes, which may have served as working surfaces, or were formed as a consequence of the extraction of clay for the building of the above-ground construction above the pit-houses (Krznarić Škrivanko 1997: 206, 208).

The population of the Kostolac culture at Vučedol built only solid above-ground structures of adobe, which were, however, quite destroyed by later digging of the Vučedol population. Another cause of the substantial destruction and impracticability of determining the Kostolac structures is their construction over the earlier Baden pits, into which they occasionally sank and collapsed. The determination of one structure was almost entirely successful, even though this structure also partly collapsed into an older pit structure and was later also penetrated by three Vučedol pits. The base of the house consists of compact yellow loess, with occasional traces of fire. The layer of loess is not of uniform thickness, which can be explained by the fact that the Kostolac 58

J. BALEN: BUILDING TECHNIQUES DURING THE NEOLITHIC AND ENEOLITHIC IN EASTERN SLAVONIA

Fig. 6.4. The plan of Vučedol with the position of the trenches settlement there existed larger free spaces, i.e. that individual households occupied far larger surfaces than those of the Vučedol culture, for whose households it was calculated that they occupy an area of less than 100 m2 on average (Forenbaher 1994: 318-319). The second hypothesis is that the Kostolac settlement – in contrast to the Vučedol one, whose house floors were built in the shape of a ring along the edge of the plateau – was oriented much more towards its centre. The Kostolac settlement at Vučedol was certainly smaller than the one of the Vučedol culture. During the Vučedol culture the settlement encompassed the entire complex, i.e. the Streim Vineyard, the Cornfield and Gradac (total of 3 ha) as well as the Karasović Vineyard. An independent Kostolac layer was documented so far by the excavation at the position of the Streim Vineyard, and the revision of the published (and unpublished) material also documents it at Gradac. In the excavations at the Streim Cornfield and the Karasović Vineyard the Kostolac ceramics was encountered only together with the Baden or the Vučedol material (Dimitrijević 1977-78: 3-4; Durman 1982: 4).

Fig. 6.5. Door traces on the floor of a Vučedol culture house at Vučedol structure was built right above the older (Baden) pits, and that it was partly reconstructed on account of the collapse. The structure measures 6 x 7 m, but it has to be mentioned that not a single edge of the structure was determined (Balen 2005: 26-27).

Regarding the intensity of population settlement of Vučedol, the heyday was reached at the time of the Vučedol culture. The excavations demonstrated that the culture, named after this very site, was coming into existence precisely in that area, and that the site of Vučedol had for a long time represented its most important centre (Durman 1988: 45). The systematic excavations at Streim Vineyard revealed six construction

Based on the excavations at Vučedol so far it can be concluded that the concentration of the Kostolac structures (pits and houses) is far smaller than those of the Vučedol and Baden cultures (Balen 2005: 34-35). The state of research until today allows two hypotheses. One would consist in the claim that within the Kostolac 59

NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC ARCHAEOLOGY IN EURASIA: BUILDING TECHNIQUES AND SPATIAL ORGANISATION

were preserved. The earlier horizons contain preserved house floors, some of which had been reconstructed on several occasions. All the houses were built in the same technique as in the Neolithic period – floors of adobe and wall construction made of beams with intertwined wattle and subsequently applied daub (Durman 1988: 46; Forenbaher 1994: 311-314). Traces of partition walls were discovered in some houses, and it is also interesting that in two structures at the southern side were documented the concentric traces of wear brought about through scraping action of the doors against the floor (Forenbaher 1994: 317; Durman et al. 2003: 49, ill. 3). All the houses were of the same orientation, northeastsouthwest, and of similar dimensions (4 x 6 m or 5 x 8 m). The houses are rounded, and around each house a ditch was dug, up to 10 cm wide, into which vertical stakes making up the wall construction were set. Before each reconstruction the floors were thoroughly cleaned and little or no finds were found on them. The residential structures were positioned in a circle along the edge of the settlement. All the structures were rather densely built, which leads one to assume that an average household occupied an area of less than 100 m2, and a single household consisted of a residential structure and one or two pits (Forenbaher 1994: 318-319; Forenbaher 1995: 22). Fig. 6.6a. Traditional building in Slavonia (photo J. Balen)

CONCLUSION In the considered area in the set period we can distinguish two types of residential structures: pit-houses and aboveground houses. The term “pit-house” is applied to a dwelling dug into the ground which offers partial protection from draught, i.e. these are those pits that by virtue of their dimensions, plan, presence of a hearth and possibility of access fulfil the condition that they can be used for residence, and that they contain stake-holes or shallow channels for supporting the roof construction. The ground plans of above-ground structures – houses, are generally rectangular, but frequently have rounded corners, which is a consequence of a construction method, of which two are known so far: (1) the base of stakes driven into the ground is filled with a wattle construction and covered in daub – this is the most frequently used method of construction. Varieties of this type can be seen at the Sopot culture sites of Dubovo-Košno and Kuševica – (1b) a base of longitudinal ditches and stakes driven into the ground;3 and in the case of the Vučedol culture at Vučedol – (1c) a ditch surrounding the perimeter of the house; (2) a classic log cabin type, built of logs and likewise covered in daub.

Fig. 6.6b. Detail of wattle and daub construction (photo J. Balen) horizons of the Vučedol culture settlement (Forenbaher 1994: 317-318;2 Durman et al. 2003: 46). The youngest one is considerably damaged by ploughing, and generally only pits and series of post- and stake-holes

In the Slavonia region, regardless of the sequence of cultures and the according change of populations inhabiting these territories, the tradition of building

2

Forenbaher mentions 3 building horizons; however, at the time of writing the works in the excavation trench III have not been finished yet. The excavations in the mentioned trench were resumed after 11 years, i.e. in 2001.

3

At recently excavated Lasinja culture sites near and Đakovo and Osijek the same type of houses were found.

60

J. BALEN: BUILDING TECHNIQUES DURING THE NEOLITHIC AND ENEOLITHIC IN EASTERN SLAVONIA

residential and economic structures with wattle and daub remained in use during several millennia, i.e. from the Neolithic period until today (Španiček 1995: 26). The construction by the mentioned technique is not only readily available, not very demanding in terms of materials and tools needed in construction, but has also been proved as a comfortable and secure way of dwelling.4

KRZNARIĆ ŠKRIVANKO, M., 1997, Prapovijesno naselje na Ervenici u Vinkovcima (The prehistoric settlement of Ervenica in Vinkovci). Opuscula Archaeologica. Zagreb. 21: 205-215.

References

KRZNARIĆ ŠKRIVANKO, M., 2003, Neki naseobinski pokazatelji na eponimnom lokalitetu sopotske kulture (Some settlement features of the eponymic site of the Sopot culture). Opuscula archaeologica. Zagreb: 6369.

KRZNARIĆ ŠKRIVANKO, M., 1999, Mlađe kameno doba (Late Stone Age). In Jozić, S. (ed.) – Vinkovci u svijetu arheologije (Vinkovci in the world of archaeology). Vinkovci: Gradski muzej Vinkovci: 1121.

BALEN, J., 2004, Izvještaj s četvrte sezone sustavnog arheološkog iskopavanja tela Vučedol (Report on the fourth campaign of systematic archaeological excavations at the tell Vučedol). Obavijesti Hrvatskog arheološkog društva. Zagreb XXXVI(3): 43-67.

KRZNARIĆ ŠKRIVANKO, M., 2006, Istraživanja na Sopotu (Die Ausgrabungen aus Sopot). In Tomaž, A., ed. – Between Sopot and Lengyel. Contributions to Stone Age and Copper Age Cultures between the Sava and the Danube. Koper: Založba Annales: 11-19.

BALEN, J., 2005, Kostolački horizont na Vučedolu (The Kostolac horizon at Vučedol). Opuscula Archaeologica. Zagreb: 25-40. DIMITRIJEVIĆ, S., 1969, Das Neolithikum in Syrmien, Slawonien und Nordwestkroatien – Einführung in den Stand der Forschung. Archaeologia Iugoslavica. Beograd. X: 39-76.

MARIJAN, B., 2006, Neolitičko naselje Dubovo-Košno kod Županje (The neolithic site at Dubovo-Košno near Županja). In Tomaž, A. (ed.) – Between Sopot and Lengyel. Contributions to Stone Age and Copper Age Cultures between the Sava and the Danube. Koper: Annales Mediterranea: 43-51.

DIMITRIJEVIĆ, S., 1977-1978, Zur frage der Genese und der Gliederung der Vučedoler Kultur in dem Zwischenstromlande Donau-Drau-Sawe. Vjesnik Arheološkog muzeja u Zagrebu. Zagreb. X-XI: 1–96.

MARKOVIĆ, Z., 1993, Neolitička, eneolitička i ranobrončandobna naselja u sjevernoj Hrvatskoj (Neolitische, Kupfer- und Frühbronzezeitliche Siedlungen in Nordkroatien). Izdanja Hrvatskog arheološkog društva. Zagreb. (16): 113-125.

DIZDAR, M. and M. KRZNARIĆ ŠKRIVANKO, 2000, Prilog poznavanju arhitekture starčevačke kulture u Vinkovcima (A contibution to the study of the Starčevo Culture architecture in Vinkovci). Vjesnik Arheološkog muzeja u Zagrebu. Zagreb. XXXIIXXXIII: 7-22.

MIKLIK-LOZUK, L., 2004, Kruševica – Njivice. In Mesić, J., ed. – Hrvatski arheološki godišnjak. Zagreb: Ministarstvo kulture RH: 37-39.

DURMAN, A., 1982, Novi elementi u stratigrafiji lokaliteta Vučedol. Glasnik slavonskih muzeja. Vukovar. XVII(46): 2–6.

MINICHREITER, K., 1992, Starcevačka kultura u sjevernoj Hrvatskoj. Zagreb, 104 p. MINICHREITER, K., 1993, Arhitektura starčevačkog naselja kod Zadubravlja (The architecture of the Starčevo settlement at Zadubravlje). Izdanja Hrvatskog arheološkog društva. Zagreb (16): 97111.

DURMAN, A., 1988, The Vučedol Culture. In Durman, A. ed. – Vučedol – three thousand years B.C. Zagreb: Muzejski proctor: 45-48. DURMAN, A., J. BALEN, and M. HUTINEC, 2003, Nastavak sustavnih istraživanja na lokalitetu Vučedol – Vinograd Streim (Continuation of systematic archaeological excavation at the Vučedol site – Vineyard Streim). Obavijesti Hrvatskog arheološkog društva. Zagreb XXXV(1): 46-50.

MINICHREITER, K., 2005, Arheološka istraživanja na Galovu u Slavonskom Brodu (Archaeological Excavations at Galovo in Slavonski Brod). Annales Instituti Archaeologici. Zagreb I: 25-30. SEKELJ-IVANČAN, T. and J. BALEN, 2006, Prapovijesno naselje Virovitica – Brekinja (Prehistory Settlement Virovitica – Brekinja). Annales Instituti Archaeologici. Zagreb, II: 67-72.

FORENBAHER, S., 1994, The Late Copper Age Architecture at Vučedol, Croatia. Journal of Field Archaeology. 21: 307-323. FORENBAHER, S., 1995, Vučedol: graditeljstvo i veličina vučedolske faze naselja (Vučedol: architecture and magnitude of the latest copper age settlement phase). Opuscula Archaeologica. Zagreb. 19: 17-25.

ŠPANIČEK, Ž., 1995, Narodno graditeljstvo Slavonije i Baranje. Vinkovci: Privlačica. 231 p.

4

I would like to thank the following colleagues for helping me with this paper: Aleksandar Durman, Maja Krznarić-Škrivanko, Sanjin Mihelić, Ivan Radman-Livaja and Anita Rapan-Papeša.

61

ARCHITECTURE OF THE LINEARBANDKERAMIK SETTLEMENT AT BALATONSZÁRSZÓ–KIS-ERDEI-DŰLŐ IN CENTRAL TRANSDANUBIA Krisztián OROSS Abstract: The investigation of the settlements of the Central European Linearbandkeramik culture (LBK) has been and remains one of the focal issues of prehistoric studies in several Central European countries. LBK finds and assemblages have since long been known from Transdanubia (western Hungary). Until recently, however, the archaeological record was very patchy indeed as regards the culture’s houses and settlement layout. The large-scale investment projects begun after 1990, and especially the motorway constructions, have brought to light several sites, which have radically transformed our picture of LBK settlements. The most extensively excavated LBK settlement in Transdanubia lies at Balatonszárszó–Kis-erdei-dűlő, where timber-framed buildings so typical to the LBK, as well as the culture’s contracted burials within the settlement’s confines and sections of a large circular enclosure have been uncovered. The houses uncovered at this settlement were all above-ground, post-framed structures, which were the norm across the culture’s distribution. A few architectural elements differ from both the buildings in the more distant LBK regions and the ones brought to light in the north-westerly areas of the Carpathian Basin. The Neolithic architecture observed at Balatonszárszó fills in some important details of the 6th millennium BC history of the Carpathian Basin. Key-words: LBK, central Transdanubia, Balatonszárszó, Neolithic settlement, above-ground longhouses Résumé: L’investigation des établissements de la culture de la Céramique Linéaire (LBK) de l’Éurope Centrale a été et continue a être un sujet central des études préhistoriques dans plusieurs pays européens. Dans la région de la Transdanubie (l’ouest de l’Hongrie) la Céramique Linéaire (LBK) a été identifiée depuis longtemps, mais les dates concernat l’architecture ont été jusque récemment très éparses. C’est après 1990 que des projets d’investissement à grande échelle, en particulier la construction des autoroutes, ont mis au jour plusieurs sites, qui ont changé radicallement notre perception sur les établissements du LBK. La fouille la plus complète a été faîte à Balatonszárszó–Kis-erdei-dűlő, ou ont été découverts des bâtiments en bois, typiques pour le LBK, des sépultures en position contractées et des sections d’un grand enclos circulaire. Les maisons fouillées était positionées à la surface du sol et présentaient la structure de poteaux en bois typique pour cette tradition. Peux de details architecturaux les différenciaient des batiments de l’LBK des autres régions. L’architecture de Balatonszárszó apporte des informations importantes sur le 6-eme millénaire dans le Basin Carpathique. Mots-cléf: LBK, Transdanubia centrale, Balatonszárszó, village Néolithique, maisons longues de surface

INTRODUCTION

province of Central Europe and the Balkanic-Aegean Neolithic koine; Transdanubia was an obvious candidate in the Carpathian Basin (Kalicz 1993: 90; Kalicz 1994: 67; Kalicz, 1995: 26, 29).1 However, for a very long time it proved impossible to identify the horizon representing the direct typological and chronological link with the Starčevo culture. Juraj Pavúk’s Nitra and Hurbanovo phases (Pavúk 1980: 42–44) were based on a handful of sherds and were thus unsuitable for drawing broad conclusions.

The earliest Neolithic settlements in Transdanubia (western Hungary) can be linked to the Starčevo culture. Until the 1990s, it was believed that the northern boundary of the culture’s distribution lay south of Lake Balaton, in the heartland of southern Transdanubia (Kalicz 1990: Table 2). A handful of recently identified sites, such as Gellénháza–Városrét (H. Simon 1996), Vörs–Máriaasszonysziget (Kalicz et al. 1998; Kalicz et al. 2002), and Tihany–Apáti (Regenye 2007) suggest that this boundary lay more to the north, in the Balaton region (Kalicz 1993: 87, Fig. 1–2; M. Virág and Kalicz 2001: 265, fig. 1).

Following the excavation of the formative LBK settlement at Szentgyörgyvölgy–Pityerdomb lying west of Lake Balaton between 1995 and 1998 (Bánffy 2000; Bánffy 2004), it became clear that the horizon marked by sites such as Bicske–Galagonyás (Makkay 1975; Makkay 1978) and Budapest–Aranyhegyi út (Kalicz-Schreiber and Kalicz 1992), considered to represent the earliest LBK, was preceded by an even earlier LBK phase. This formative phase is represented by some of the finds from Tapolca–Plébániakert (Sági and Törőcsik 1990) and the assemblage uncovered at Zalaegerszeg–AndráshidaGébárti-tó (H. Simon 2002) west of Lake Balaton. The settlement at Brunn am Gebirge II in the Vienna Basin

Transdanubia plays a key role in the settlement history of the Central European Linearbandkeramik culture (LBK). Hans Quitta assumed that there was a very early LBK settlement in Transdanubia, even though there were barely any find assemblages supporting his arguments at the time (Quitta 1960: 159). It soon became a tenet of archaeological research that the LBK had emerged in the westerly regions of the Carpathian Basin and in the adjacent eastern Austrian areas (Gläser 1991: 53; Gronenborn 1998: 193, Fig. 2c; Zvelebil 2000: Fig. 7: 2). Nándor Kalicz regarded Transdanubia as the cradle of the LBK (Kalicz 1994: 67; Kalicz 1995: 23). In his view, the LBK could only have emerged in a region, where there was direct contact between the Early Neolithic culture

1

In addition to Transdanubia, Kalicz mentions two other potential areas, one around Kalocsa by the southern reaches of the Danube in Hungary, the other in the Middle Tisza region, where Early Neolithic sites lie in the immediate vicinity of the later LBK distribution.

63

NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC ARCHAEOLOGY IN EURASIA: BUILDING TECHNIQUES AND SPATIAL ORGANISATION

(Stadler 1999; Stadler 2005) can also be assigned to this chronological horizon.

1966: 23–25). It is quite obvious that these post-holes were the remains of the southern end of a large LBK house. The various features of pit complexes IV and VI outline the longpits (Längsgrube) flanking the building. The settlement features lying east of and parallel to this building can perhaps be interpreted as the remains of two other houses built around a framework of upright timbers, even though the post-holes do not outline its ground plan and structure. The building or buildings were oriented north to south (Mithay 1966: Fig. 5; Kalicz 1988: 188– 189). The pottery finds were dominated by Zseliz/ Želiezovce wares.

The currently known radiocarbon dates from Austria and Hungary indicate that the emergence of the LBK can be dated between 5600 and 5500 cal BC (Bánffy and Oross – in press). Eszter Bánffy has argued that the sites mentioned above clearly prove that the Balaton region played a key role in the emergence of the Central European Neolithic since settlements of the late Starčevo culture representing the Early Neolithic world of the northern Balkans and formative LBK sites can both be found in that region (Bánffy 2000: 182–183; Bánffy 2004: 353–391). Transdanubia, and especially the Balaton region, played a vital role in the neolithisation of Central Europe and thus the region’s settlement history during the entire span of the LBK sequence remains one of the focal points of Neolithic research. In the following, I shall offer an overview of new advances in this field of prehistoric studies, and in particular of the house remains from the LBK settlement at Balatonszárszó–Kis-erdei-dűlő.

In his first preliminary report on the investigation of the Sukoró–Tóra-dűlő site, János Makkay mentioned various features from which he reconstructed large residential buildings dug into the rocky soil (Makkay 1969: 21). The second report described the typical, timber-framed LBK longhouses arranged into at least two rows (Makkay 1970: 15). The pottery finds were assigned to the culture’s later, Notenkopf phase (Makkay 1970: 16). According to another brief excavation report, a large, 29 m by 14 m large building of the Zseliz/Želiezovce phase was uncovered at Almásfüzítő–Foktorok.2 The pottery finds were predominantly recovered from the longpits beside the house (V. Vadász 1971). The pottery from the site is still unpublished.

RESEARCH OF LBK SETTLEMENTS BEFORE 1990 One year after the publication of the monograph on the LBK settlement at Köln–Lindenthal (Buttler and Haberey 1936), Ferenc Tompa wrote an overview of prehistoric research in Hungary during the preceding twenty-five years, in which he described and discussed the LBK finds from Transdanubia (Tompa 1937: 28–32, Table 7–8). With its 600 m2 large investigated area, the Békásmegyer settlement occupied a prominent place in the archaeological record. Tompa dismissed the evidence for possible buildings at this site because in his view the pits, which could be interpreted as dwelling-pits, were too irregularly shaped (Tompa 1937: 31). Dwelling-pits were reconstructed for the site at Budapest–Tabán, whose pottery was dominated by Notenkopf wares (Tompa 1937: 32, Table 7: 17–18).

Makkay initially interpreted the various post-holes in Trenches I and II uncovered during the 1976 excavation season at Bicske–Galagonyás as the remains of houses from the Notenkopf period (Makkay 1978: 11). In the later, detailed publication of the features and finds, he only mentions a single timber-framed building of the Sopot–Bicske culture (Makkay et al. 1996: 31, Fig. 10). Some of the post-holes uncovered at Káloz–Nagyhörcsök, a settlement occupied during the Notenkopf and the classical Zseliz/Želiezovce period, were evidently the remains of a typical LBK longhouse. Unfortunately, it proved impossible to uncover the entire building dating from the Zseliz/Želiezovce period. Animal bones and human skeletal remains were recovered from Pits 13 and 14, lying some 6 m apart, which Makkay interpreted as foundation sacrifices. The ground plan of the house is still unpublished (Makkay 1983: 160–162, Fig. 73–74; Makkay 1986: 170–172, Fig. 2–3). Quoting István Bóna, Kalicz mentions that above-ground, post-framed houses were brought to light at Hegykő and Dunaújváros (Kalicz 1988: 189).

Few advances were made in LBK research after World War 2. The excavations at Győr–Pápai vám in 1952 and 1954 provided the single well documented buildings as regards the culture’s architecture. Sándor Mithay reconstructed several pit-dwellings from the pit complexes unearthed at the settlement, although he noted that the floor level of these dwellings lay not on the pit floor, but ca. 30–40 cm higher (Mithay 1966: 18–21). Uncovered between pit complexes IV and VI was a series of oval post-holes (Mithay 1966: Fig. 5) corresponding to the features, which are now usually interpreted as raised grain storage areas in the southern part of the LBK buildings assigned to the Großbau category. Mithay too noted their resemblance to the LBK structures described as granaries at Köln–Lindenthal. He reconstructed two buildings from the post-holes, a wholly excavated one indicated by oval post-holes and a partially excavated one from the round post-holes to the former’s north (Mithay

An observation made at Szécsény–Ültetés suggests the presence of buildings differing from the ones typical for LBK settlements. The site lies north-east of the Danube and Budapest and can be assigned to the Zseliz/Želiezovce period on the testimony of the ceramic inventory. 2

The excavation report specified the building’s size as 14 by 29 cm, an obvious slip of the pen. The width of 14 m most likely refers to the distance between the outer edges of the longpits flanking the houses, rather than to the house’s width since the width of LBK houses generally varies between 5–8 m.

64

K. OROSS: ARCHITECTURE OF THE LINEARBANDKERAMIK SETTLEMENT AT BALATONSZÁRSZÓ–KIS-ERDEI-DŰLŐ…

Virág Soós excavated a 6 m by 15 m large debris layer, which she interpreted as the remains of a building. The 2– 3 cm thick smoothed clay fragments lying on top of the disturbed debris probably came from the one-time floor. There were no finds indicating the nature of the wall structure and thus it is uncertain whether the debris layer can indeed be interpreted as the remains of a house (Soós 1982: 9–10). In a recent study on the face pots from this site, the size of the debris layer described in the preliminary report was correctly given as measuring 6 m by 5 m (Fábián 2005: 5). While the lack of post-holes may cast some doubts on the interpretation of this feature as a house, the size of the burnt daub debris allows its identification with a section of a standard LBK building.

road network in order to boost economic development. Roughly one thousand kilometres of motorways and multi-lane roads were built during the past fifteen years. The archaeological investigations preceding these motorway constructions opened new perspectives in prehistoric studies and, at the same time, posed a daunting challenge to Hungarian archaeology. The mechanical removal of the topsoil often damaged archaeological features and the strict deadlines called for very precise excavation schedules, but even so, it now proved possible to systematically explore extensive areas on a previously unprecedented scale. The excavation of the Mosonszentmiklós–Egyéni-földek site in 1993–1994 can be regarded as a major milestone in the research of LBK settlement patterns. The site lies some 30 km from the border with Austria, on the M1 motorway between Budapest and Vienna. According to Ildikó M. Egry’s excavation report, five LBK buildings were wholly excavated and three were uncovered partially in 1993. They measured 25 m by 7 m on the average (M. Egry 1996: 18). The report for the 1994 season mentions four completely and five partially excavated buildings (M. Egry 1997: 18). The number of known LBK houses thus rose to eighteen (M. Egry 1997: 19).3 The plan of the site published in a later study shows the ground plan of twenty LBK houses. According to M. Egry, some of the houses were 40 m long; all were 6–8 m wide and were without exception north-west to south-east oriented. The post-holes of the three longitudinal rows of upright timbers lay roughly 80 cm apart. Some buildings had double post-holes in their south-eastern part. The longpits flanking the buildings were also uncovered. The ceramic inventory from the site indicated that the settlement was occupied from the earlier LBK to the Zseliz/Želiezovce phase, although the overwhelming majority of the pottery can be assigned to the later LBK period (Egry 2003a; Egry 2003b). András Figler investigated a settlement occupied during the Notenkopf phase and the Zseliz/Želiezovce period at Mosonszentmiklós–Pál-major in 1993–1994. Uncertain traces of timber-framed houses were identified during the excavation, but these could not be precisely observed owing to later intrusions (Figler 1996: 19; Figler 1997: 19). Various features of an LBK settlement were unearthed at Kóny–Barbacsi-tó in western Hungary prior to the construction of a gas pipeline. Parts of several north-west to south-east oriented post-framed structures were uncovered; unfortunately none of these buildings could be completely excavated (Egry 2001: 8–9). The remains of at least four timberframed houses can be distinguished on the plan of the site published in the preliminary report (Egry 2001: Map 2), but it is unclear which of these houses can be associated with the LBK occupation. According to the report describing the archaeological features from various periods, three buildings date from the LBK period, one from the Late Copper Age, and six post-framed houses

In addition to above-ground buildings built around a framework of upright timbers, which can be regarded as the norm in the LBK distribution, sunken pit-dwellings are still periodically reconstructed for the culture’s Transdanubian sites. The perhaps best known case is the large pit interpreted as a house at Bicske–Galagonyás. According to Makkay, who excavated the site, the feature dug into the virgin soil could first be clearly identified at a depth of 160 cm, even though the concentration of finds in the area suggested that it had been dug from –140 cm. Its greatest depth from the surface was 247 cm, i.e. 87 cm from the level where it was first noted. Makkay described the pit-dwelling in which he uncovered several post-holes as being kidney shaped. He dated the building to the earlier LBK (Makkay 1978: 12–16, Fig. 1–2). Several large pit-dwellings with a round hearth measuring 1 m in diameter were brought to light at Neszmély–Tekerespatak, a site assigned to the Zseliz/Želiezovce phase (Makkay 1959). Comparable features dating from various LBK phases have been reported from Kiskánya (Csalog 1941: 9–10; Kalicz 1988: 189–190), Kaposvár–Téglagyár (Draveczky 1966: 29; Kalicz 1988: 189). Zánka (Bakay et al. 1966: 192; Kalicz 1988: 190), Letkés (Papp 1973: 14– 32; Kalicz 1988: 190) and Kisunyom (Károlyi 1984: 433; Kalicz 1988: 190). The features uncovered at these sites were defined as pit-dwellings based on the post-holes and burnt daub debris found in association with them. In sum, there was some evidence for the architecture of the Transdanubian LBK. The archaeological record suggested that similarly to other regions of Europe, the LBK population erected large, above-ground, timber-framed houses. Most excavations were conducted over relatively small areas, revealing little about the layout of LBK settlements. The view that pit-dwellings were widely used as seasonal or permanent dwellings in the culture’s Transdanubian distribution recurred repeatedly in LBK studies. RESEARCH OF LBK SETTLEMENTS IN TRANSDANUBIA DURING THE PAST FIFTEEN YEARS Following the political changes in 1990, large-scale construction projects were begun to improve the country’s

3

This would imply that one of the building uncovered during the 1993 excavation season was identified at some later date.

65

NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC ARCHAEOLOGY IN EURASIA: BUILDING TECHNIQUES AND SPATIAL ORGANISATION

represented the Late Bronze Age Tumulus culture (Szőnyi et al. 2001).

Székesdűlő most likely represent the standard timberframed house type.

LBK settlements were investigated during the excavations preceding the construction of the M0 ring road around Budapest. Two completely and three partially excavated north to south oriented LBK houses have been reported from Törökbálint–Dulácska. Their structure was made up of three internal, longitudinal rows of posts and the two rows along the building’s long sides. The pottery finds represent the later LBK period in the Transdanubian sequence and include both Notenkopf and Zseliz/ Želiezovce wares. A deep pit beside one of the houses yielded the conjoinable fragments of an anthropomorphic vessel (Endrődi 1994; Horváth et al. 2004: 35–36, Fig. 12; Endrődi et al. 2005a). In addition to various other LBK features, a house was also excavated at the nearby site of Biatorbágy–Tyúkberek. The house was north– north-west to south–south-east oriented and had three internal rows of post-holes and one row for the posts reinforcing the western wall. The pottery finds could be dated to the later LBK period in view of the Notenkopf wares and several pieces with incised Zseliz/Želiezovce patterns (Horváth et al. 2004: 34–35, Fig. 11: 1; Endrődi et al. 2005b). An LBK settlement extending over roughly six hectares was completely excavated at Budapest– Kőérberek-Tóváros lakópark. Five timber-framed LBK buildings were brought to light, each with three internal rows of post-holes. With the exception of one house with a north to south alignment, the buildings were north-west to south-east oriented. The ceramic inventory was made up of Notenkopf and Zseliz/Želiezovce wares, meaning that this site too represents the later LBK period (Terei et al. 2005 a, p. 196; Terei et al. 2005b: 82). Two LBK buildings erected adjacent to each other were uncovered at Dunakeszi–Székesdűlő on the left bank of the Danube. One house was ca. 20 m long judging from the associated settlement features, the other was 30 m long. The longpits and several post-holes survived in good condition. The finds were assigned to the earlier LBK period (Horváth 2002a: 12–13, Fig. 6: 6; Horváth 2002b: 15, p. 24–28, Fig. 6: 4). László András Horváth described the two buildings as representing atypical, earlier unencountered structures diverging from the standard LBK house types. In his view, the most striking feature was that the houses only had three longitudinal rows of timbers, they lacked the U shaped bedding trenches in their north-western part and they contained hearths in their interior (Horváth 2002b: 27; Horváth 2004: 90). However, the axis of the house plans as reconstructed by Horváth is not parallel to the longpits flanking the houses (Horváth 2004: Fig. 1). In addition to the post-holes of the three internal rows of upright timbers, other post-holes holding the timbers supporting the long walls were also uncovered. Horváth’s claim that these houses differ from the LBK norm is based on his reconstruction of the buildings, in which he assigned some of the wall posts to the internal row of uprights. LBK buildings with bedding trenches are very rare in the Carpathian Basin, irrespective of their structure. The buildings uncovered at Dunakeszi–

The remains of 15–20 m long, above-ground, post-framed buildings were unearthed at Érd–Hosszú-földek near Budapest during the construction of the M6 motorway leading to southern Transdanubia. The pottery finds were assigned to the Zseliz/Želiezovce period (Ottományi 2005: 212–213). The excavations along the southern Transdanubian section of the motorway are still in progress. They will no doubt enrich our knowledge of LBK architecture in that region, which is still a blank spot on the archaeological map of this period. The most significant LBK settlement uncovered along the County Somogy section of the M7 motorway linking Budapest with Croatia and Slovenia is the Balatonszárszó–Kis-erdei-dűlő site, to be described in detail below, where forty-eight of the fifty-three prehistoric houses can be assigned to the LBK. A settlement of the Keszthely group was investigated at the nearby Balatonszemes–Szemesi-berek site, where features resembling the LBK longpits and a row of post-holes were uncovered, allowing the reconstruction of the size and orientation of various buildings (Bondár et al. 2000: 95–97; Bondár et al. 2007; Honti and Németh 2002). In addition to features yielding finds of the Zseliz/Želiezovce period, three rows of post-holes for the timbers of a massive building, perhaps also dating to the LBK period, were unearthed at Ordacsehi–Bugaszeg (Polgár and P. Szeőke 2004). Judit Kvassay uncovered a large timber-framed LBK house and a longpit beside it yielding pottery of the Keszthely group at Muraszemenye–Aligvári-mező along the motorway’s County Zala section (Kvassay 2002: 11). Several extensive LBK settlement sites have been investigated in this region during the past few years. Even though the post-holes of the timber structure did not survive or left few traces in the archaeological record, some of the archaeological features uncovered on these sites resemble the longpits flanking the houses known from other LBK settlements. These longpits were usually dug to a greater depth than the post-holes and thus their orientation and length allows a more-or-less precise reconstruction of the one-time houses. The longpits suggested the presence of at least ten LBK buildings with an estimated length of 16–20 m at the Petrivente–Újkútidűlő site (Horváth and Kalicz 2003: 8). A closer look at the plan of the site reveals the remains of a building from which several post-holes survived, including a few oval ones in the building’s southern end (Horváth and Kalicz 2003: Fig. 1: 2). Judit P. Barna reconstructed 6–7 buildings based on the north to south oriented longpits at the Becsehely II–Homokos site (P. Barna 2004: 34). She tentatively identified another LBK house at Sormás– Török-földek from a few pits beside the assumed building (P. Barna 2005: 20, Fig. 1: 2, 4). The Szentgyörgyvölgy–Pityerdomb site yielding finds of the earliest, formative LBK phase too lies in County Zala. 66

K. OROSS: ARCHITECTURE OF THE LINEARBANDKERAMIK SETTLEMENT AT BALATONSZÁRSZÓ–KIS-ERDEI-DŰLŐ…

Fig. 7.1. Principal sites mentioned in the text: 1, Almásfüzitő–Foktorok; 2, Balatonszárszó–Kis-erdei-dűlő; 3, Balatonszemes–Szemesi-berek; 4, Becsehely II–Homokos; 5, Biatorbágy–Tyúkberek; 6, Bicske–Galagonyás; 7, Blatné; 8, Brunn am Gebirge; 9, Budapest–Aranyhegyi út; 10, Budapest–Békásmegyer; 11, Budapest–Kőérberek-Tóváros lakópark; 12, Budapest–Tabán; 13, Čataj; 14, Dunakeszi–Székesdűlő; 15, Dunaújváros; 16, Érd–Hosszú-földek; 17, Gellénháza–Városrét; 18, Győr–Pápai vám; 19, Harta–Gátőrház; 20, Hegykő; 21, Kaposvár–Téglagyár; 22, Káloz–Nagyhörcsök; 23, Kisunyom; 24, Kiskánya; 25, Kóny–Barbacsi-tó; 26, Letkés; 27, Mold; 28, Mosonszentmiklós–Egyéni-földek; 29, Mosonszentmiklós– Pál-major; 30, Muraszemenye–Aligvári-mező; 31, Neszmély–Tekerespatak; 32, Ordacsehi–Bugaszeg; 33, Petrivente–Újkútidűlő; 34, Sormás–Török-földek; 35, Strögen; 36, Sukoró–Tóra-dűlő; 37, Štúrovo; 38, Szentgyörgyvölgy–Pityerdomb; 39, Szécsény–Ültetés; 40, Tapolca–Plébániakert; 41, Tihany–Apáti; 42, Törökbálint–Dulácska; 43, Vörs–Máriaasszony-sziget; 44, Zalaegerszeg–Andráshida-Gébárti-tó; 45, Zánka The remains of two north to south oriented buildings lying at a distance of 33 m from each other could be identified from the burnt daub fragments and the longpits. The estimated size of House 1 was 13–14 m by 8 m, the distance between the longpits was 9.5 m. House 2 was ca. 14–15 m long and 7 m wide, the longpits lay 7.6 m apart. A hearth was found inside the latter building and another hearth lay west of the building, in its immediate vicinity. The features around House 2 suggested that its entrance lay in the south. The two buildings were probably contemporaneous since no major differences could be noted in the pottery finds from them (Bánffy 2004: 33– 47).

A settlement dating from the later LBK and the Zseliz/ Želiezovce period was investigated at Harta–Gátőrház, a site lying on the left bank of the Danube along the river’s southern Hungarian stretch. The remains of six LBK buildings flanked by longpits were uncovered (Kustár and Lantos 2004). The number of house remains uncovered in the LBK distribution was well over two thousand by the late 1980s (Mattheußer 1991: 4), at a time when less than a dozen reliably observed and documented structures were known from Transdanubia. It has since become clear that the above-ground, timber-framed houses typical for the LBK 67

NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC ARCHAEOLOGY IN EURASIA: BUILDING TECHNIQUES AND SPATIAL ORGANISATION

Fig. 7.2. Plan of the Neolithic settlement at Balatonszárszó–Kis-erdei-dűlő in Central Europe were also the norm in Transdanubia and in the adjacent areas. As a result of intensive research during the past years, the number such LBK houses flanked by longpits, which have been published to some extent, has risen to over one hundred in Hungary. One major advance is that the interpretation of features made up of a few pits and post-holes as pit-dwellings has been finally discarded, not least owing to the occurrence of these features alongside genuine houses on extensively investigated sites. The best indication of the change in this respect is that parallel to the welcome increase of the archaeological evidence, not one single “pit-dwelling” of this type has been reconstructed during the past fifteen years. We may confidently state that pit-dwellings had not functioned as permanent residential buildings during the LBK period in Transdanubia (contra Lichardus-Itten and Lichardus 2004: 43, 49–50).

descends to the lakeshore in a smooth slope. The archaeological features excavated at this site lie some 2– 2.5 km from the lake’s current shoreline. The lake’s water-level was higher during the Neolithic and the shoreline lay roughly 1 km closer to the settlement than at present.4 The site was investigated by the Archaeological Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences in 2000–2003 and 2005–2006. Uncovered were the ruins of a medieval church and the graveyard around it, as well as an LBK settlement. Other periods were also represented at this site: the investigations brought to light a few settlement features of the Middle Copper Age Balaton–Lasinja culture and finds of the Avar period. The Neolithic village was investigated in 2001–2003 and 2006. The description of the excavations and the most important findings has been published in a series of preliminary reports (Belényesy et al. 2002; Marton 2004; Oross 2004a; Oross 2004b; Oross et al. 2004).

THE LBK SETTLEMENT AT BALATONSZÁRSZÓ–KIS-ERDEI-DŰLŐ

Forty-eight of the fifty-three prehistoric buildings could be assigned to the LBK period. Five houses with bedding trenches were constructed on the plateau during the Middle Copper Age. Three LBK buildings (Houses 41, 42 and 44) lay in the north-eastern part of the investigated

The most extensively investigated LBK settlement during the past fifteen years was the Balatonszárszó–Kis-erdeidűlő site. Balatonszárszó lies on the southern shoreline of Lake Balaton in the heartland of Transdanubia. The site is situated south-east of the modern settlement, on a natural plateau bordered by smaller valleys to the west, south, and east. The plateau is open toward the north, where it

4

Dr. Pál Sümegi’s (Department of Geology and Palaeontology, University of Szeged) kind personal communication.

68

K. OROSS: ARCHITECTURE OF THE LINEARBANDKERAMIK SETTLEMENT AT BALATONSZÁRSZÓ–KIS-ERDEI-DŰLŐ…

area, which yielded pottery of the early, Bicske–Bíňa phase. The remains of forty-three LBK houses lay in the southern part of the excavated area, which was densely built up during the Neolithic. The associated longpits and the surrounding area yielded Keszthely and Zseliz/Želiezovce type pottery, dating this settlement part to the later Transdanubian LBK period. Lying between these two parts of the settlement was an open area with fewer settlement features and two LBK buildings (Houses 45 and 47). The date of the finds associated with the latter two structures is uncertain, although they are certainly later than the Bicske-Bíňa phase. Some areas of the Neolithic settlement had few, irregularly spaced postholes or none at all. However, pits resembling the longpits flanking the houses and aligned in the same direction were found in these areas too, suggesting that in addition to the structures which could be clearly interpreted as houses, other buildings had also been part of the Neolithic settlement.

100–120; Modderman 1972) can be applied to these buildings to a limited extent only. The two outermost longitudinal rows of posts were made up of smaller, more closely spaced timbers, which reinforced the walls. Traces of the latter survived in fewer cases. The buildings were flanked by longpits along their long sides. The distance between the posts of the last or last two cross-rows at the southern end of some buildings differed from the others and they sometimes lay beyond the area enclosed by the longpits. They can probably be interpreted as posts supporting a porch protecting the entrance on the house’s southern side. The structure described above is illustrated by House 12 (Fig. 7.3).

Forty-three burials were uncovered in the pits of the Neolithic settlement. Except for two burials, the deceased were all laid to rest in a contracted position, usually in the uppermost layer of the pit. We uncovered a ca. 160 m long section of a large, most probably oval enclosure, which was interrupted by four or five entrances in the southernmost part of the investigated area.5 Most of the archaeological features were post-holes and pits of varying function. The ceramic inventory did not include wares of the earliest, formative LBK phase. The pottery from the north-eastern part of the excavated area is dominated by the Bicske–Bíňa type wares of the early LBK period, while the ceramics from the site’s southern area mostly include vessels decorated in the Keszthely and Zseliz/Želiezovce style. Pottery fragments decorated in these two styles were sometimes recovered from the same pit. Painted pottery is typically made up of fragments bearing red paint applied after firing, usually in bands framed by incised lines. Yellow and red polychrome painting, a hallmark of Zseliz/Želiezovce wares, occurs but rarely. In addition to pottery, the finds included many chipped and polished stone artefacts, bone tools, animal bones, shells/mussels and snails.

Fig. 7.3. Balatonszárszó–Kis-erdei-dűlő. House 12 The remains of the three buildings dating from the early LBK period were spaced some 50 to 80 m apart, a relatively large distance. Compared to the well preserved house remains of the later LBK period, these buildings left fewer traces, whose interpretation is often uncertain. The longpits could not be identified and the post-holes do not outline a regular, consistent system. Only a few north–north-west to south–south-east oriented rows could be observed.

THE LBK HOUSES OF THE BALATONSZÁRSZÓ SETTLEMENT The LBK buildings unearthed at Balatonszárszó had a wooden framework of five parallel rows of upright timbers. The post-holes marking the three longitudinal rows of massive timbers inside the houses, which supported the roof structure, could be clearly observed in most buildings. The cross-rows indicated by three postholes were regularly spaced and thus the typology elaborated for the LBK houses in Western Europe (Waterbolk and Modderman 1958–59; Modderman 1970:

The largest building, House 1, was 25.5 m long. Even though the building’s interior was in part destroyed by a medieval ditch cutting diagonally across the house, some of the rows of post-holes survived in spite of the later intrusion. The longpit beside the building’s eastern wall was unearthed along its entire length (Fig. 7.4).

5

Only one side of an assumed entrance fell into the excavated area and thus the line of the enclosure in that area remains unknown.

69

NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC ARCHAEOLOGY IN EURASIA: BUILDING TECHNIQUES AND SPATIAL ORGANISATION

Fig. 7.4. Balatonszárszó–Kis-erdei-dűlő. House 1

Fig. 7.5. Balatonszárszó–Kis-erdei-dűlő. House 28

The post-holes of Houses 17 and 28 formed long rows extending for 17 m, but the longpits flanking these buildings continued toward the north. A few other postholes lay in the northern part of the area enclosed by these pits. It seems likely that the posts in these areas were perhaps set in shallower pits, of which little has survived. The length of the three buildings is more-or-less identical, ca. 25 m. The longpit by the western side of House 1 was not continuous. The row of six post-holes in this area was disturbed by a later intrusion and thus its interpretation ran into difficulties. The longpit flanking the western side of House 17 was likewise interrupted. This deviation from the other buildings can perhaps be taken to indicate a separate north-western and central room, while the gap in the longpits as reflecting another, western entrance in addition to the one on the southern side. The presence of a third, south-eastern room in House 28 is suggested by the two double post-holes formed by two pairs of post-holes

(nos 3733 and 4288; nos 3735 and 3736; Fig. 5). These post-holes, however, do not correspond to the oval or double post-holes regarded as one of the hallmarks of Großbauten with three rooms. These three houses were the largest buildings of the settlement. There were several smaller, medium-sized buildings with a length ranging between 14 and 19 m. House 6, a 16.2 m long building with eight cross-rows of post-holes, was a strikingly regular construction, although the remains of the posts supporting the walls could not be observed. Little survived of the longpit on the western side, while the one on the eastern side could be excavated completely (Fig. 7.6). Many of the smaller houses had an internal timber structure of six cross-rows of posts. Their length varied between 9 and 14 m. Houses of this type mostly lay in the 70

K. OROSS: ARCHITECTURE OF THE LINEARBANDKERAMIK SETTLEMENT AT BALATONSZÁRSZÓ–KIS-ERDEI-DŰLŐ…

Fig. 7.7. Balatonszárszó–Kis-erdei-dűlő. House 50

Fig. 7.6. Balatonszárszó–Kis-erdei-dűlő. House 6

Modderman’s Type 1a is characterised by a bedding trench around the entire building, while Types 1b and 2 have a continuous U shaped bedding trench along the northern side and northern section of the eastern and western side (Modderman 1972: 80, Fig. 49). The bedding trenches of Houses 43 and 46 uncovered during the 2003 season had U shaped bedding trenches along the southern side and the southern section of the eastern and western side. These buildings were assigned to the Copper Age Balaton–Lasinja culture in view of the pottery recovered from the pits in their immediate vicinity. The bedding trenches of two other Copper Age buildings (Houses 49 and 52) uncovered during the 2006 season extended to the northern side too, suggesting that House 38, enclosed by a continuous bedding trench on the northern, eastern and western side, which had initially been categorised as an atypical LBK house, had in fact been built in the Copper Age. This is also confirmed by the fact that LBK houses with bedding trenches are extremely rare in the Carpathian Basin. According to the current evidence, houses with a continuous bedding trench are lacking in this region and houses with a U shaped bedding trench along their northern side are uncommon too. A building of this type (House 390) has been reported from Štúrovo (Pavúk 1994: 49–50). Another building at this site, House 184, had a bedding trench along its short, northern side (Pavúk 1994: 36–38). Both buildings were dated to the Zseliz/Želiezovce period.

south-eastern part of the excavated area. There was nothing to indicate an internal partition inside the houses and they can be assigned to the Kleinbau buildings in Pieter Jan Remees Modderman’s typology of LBK houses. The buildings include a few unusually small houses, a rare feature on LBK settlements in the Carpathian Basin. Their internal structure was made up of four or five crossrows of posts. The length of the longpits flanking the houses corresponds to the size outlined by the timber structure. The length of the smallest buildings was less than 9 m. House 50 is a good example of these buildings: it was 8.7 m long, while its width was ca. 5.5–6.5 m judging from the post-holes marking the wall (Fig. 7.7). One good parallel to this building is House 11 of the Mold site in Austria (Coolen 2006: 70–72, Fig. 4–5, with an excellent overview of the Kleinbau type buildings of the LBK). Comparable, although somewhat larger, 14–17 m long buildings with a similar structure have been reported from Füzesabony–Gubakút, a settlement dating to the early phase of the Alföld Linear Pottery culture (Domboróczki 2001: Pl. 4–7; Domboróczki 2003a: 104, Fig. 2; Domboróczki 2003b: 104, Fig. 2). Houses with a bedding trench represent a separate category. Modderman distinguished several types of houses with a bedding trench on the Dutch sites of the LBK. 71

NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC ARCHAEOLOGY IN EURASIA: BUILDING TECHNIQUES AND SPATIAL ORGANISATION

There were but a few buildings, whose width was under 6 m along certain sections. The fairly consistent width of the buildings of varying lengths can probably be attributed to the house structure of five longitudinal rows of posts.

THE LENGTH OF THE LBK HOUSES AT BALATONSZÁRSZÓ Disregarding the buildings, a part of which extended beyond the excavated area in the south, the length of the LBK houses at Balatonszárszó varied between 6.8 and 25.5 m. It seems likely, however, that some parts of the smallest buildings measuring 7 m did not leave a trace in the archaeological record. The length of the smallest buildings with four cross-rows of posts, which can be regarded as having been completely uncovered in view of their associated features, ranged between 8.5 and 9 m. The longitudinal rows of post-holes were completely uncovered or at least some rows were entirely excavated in the overwhelming majority of the forty-five houses lying in the settlement section post-dating the Bicske-Bíňa phase. The average length of these houses was 13–14 m.

THE ORIENTATION OF THE LBK HOUSES AT BALATONSZÁRSZÓ With the exception of a single building, the houses were uniformly north–north-west to south–south-east or northwest to south-east oriented. The deviation of the house axes from the north to south cardinal direction toward the west varied between 0° and 27°. The axis of House 39, lying on the plateau’s eastern edge diverged toward the east by some 8–9°. The alignment of the forty-three houses in the settlement’s densely occupied southern part indicated that buildings with an orientation diverging more toward the west lay in the south-western part of the investigated area, while the houses in the south-eastern settlement section were much closer to the north–south direction. This tendency seems quite clear, even if there were a few exceptions. The single north–north-east to south–southwest oriented building, whose alignment was consistent with this pattern, lay on the settlement’s eastern periphery.

The LBK settlement at Štúrovo has been fully published and it is thus the single site suitable for comparisons in the Carpathian Basin. The average length of the thirteen buildings, whose exact or minimum dimensions were published by Pavúk, exceeded 24 m. The average length of the settlement’s houses was over 21 m, even taking into account all of the twenty-two buildings, some of which survived incompletely, but with a measurable length. The length of Houses 15 and 186 exceeded 30 m (Pavúk 1994: 24–26, 38–40). The smallest completely excavated structure was House 140, dated to the Zseliz/ Želiezovce period, whose length was 14 m (Pavúk 1994, 30). Houses measuring some 40 m were uncovered at Mosonszentmiklós–Egyéni-földek in western Transdanubia (Egry 2003a: 104; Egry 2003b: 104). The dimensions of the buildings uncovered at this site have not been published in detail and thus they are unsuitable for statistical comparisons.

In her discussion of the orientation of early LBK houses, Bánffy emphasised the significance of the northern orientation, suggesting that this might be a Mesolithic tradition (Bánffy 2004: 69). The two houses of the Szentgyörgyvölgy–Pityerdomb settlement (Bánffy 2004: 35–41, Fig. 5) and Houses 2 and 4 uncovered at Strögen (Stäuble 2001: Fig. 119–120, 123) were indeed north to south oriented. However, north–north-west to south–south-east oriented houses have been documented in the early LBK period, as shown by several structures of the Schwanfeld settlement (Houses 3, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18 and 19) (Stäuble 2005: 205, Table 140–150) and the alignment of the houses from the earliest, formative LBK occupation of the Brunn am Gebirge II site (Stadler 2005: Fig. 5). A few other house remains from the early LBK period, such as a badly preserved building from Strögen (House 1), probably diverged slightly to the east from the north–south direction (Stäuble 2001: Fig. 119, 124). The two buildings uncovered at Dunakeszi–Székesdűlő in the Hungarian LBK distribution can also be assigned to this category since their deviation to the east from the north– south line did not exceed 15° (Horváth 2002b: Fig. 6: 4).

The 30–40 m long buildings known from later phases of the local LBK sequence in the north-westerly areas of the Carpathian Basin were lacking from among the houses yielding Keszthely and Zseliz/Želiezovce pottery at Balatonszárszó. In contrast, the excavated buildings include several structures, which are unusually small compared to the buildings known from other sites. This is all the more striking in view of the fact that west of the Carpathian Basin, small buildings of the Kleinbau type are quite common on certain sites (e.g. Bylany: Modderman 1986: 392, Table 47) and in certain regions (e.g. Holland: Modderman 1970: 112; Modderman 1972: 81–82). The average length of the houses was definitely smaller than of the buildings of the LBK settlements in the areas to the north and west.

Buildings with an orientation diverging from the north to south line toward the west are known from several settlements of the later LBK in Transdanubia. These include the LBK houses at Biatorbágy–Tyúkberek, Budapest–Kőérberek-Tóváros lakópark, Kóny–Barbacsi-tó, Mosonszentmiklós–Egyéni-földek and Sormás–Török-földek. North to south aligned buildings have been reported from Becsehely II–Homokos, Budapest–Kőérberek-Tóváros lakópark, Győr–Pápai vám, and Törökbálint–Dulácska. The remains of buildings with an orientation diverging to the east from the north to south line were uncovered at

The width of the houses could be accurately measured in the case of buildings, in which the post-holes for the timbers reinforcing the wall could be observed on both sides. The length of the cross-rows of posts and the distance between the longpits too allowed the reconstruction of a building’s width. The width of most houses varied between 6 and 7.5 m, a rather narrow range. 72

K. OROSS: ARCHITECTURE OF THE LINEARBANDKERAMIK SETTLEMENT AT BALATONSZÁRSZÓ–KIS-ERDEI-DŰLŐ…

Petrivente–Újkúti-dűlő. The ground plans of these houses are rarely published in the preliminary reports and their exact dimensions are often also omitted, and it is therefore impossible to offer a more detailed overview of the orientation of the LBK houses from Hungary.

each of these sections had a specific function (Waterbolk and Modderman 1958–59: 163, 168–169; Modderman 1970: 100–112; Modderman 1972: 80–81; Lüning 1982: 142, Fig. 18). The southern part of these large buildings usually had oval, double post-holes, which led to the reconstruction of these southern parts as granaries, with one post supporting the roof, the other a raised floor (Speicherboden) (Waterbolk and Modderman 1958–59: 170–171, Table XVII, 2; Modderman 1972: 81; Lüning 1980: 54, 58; Lüning 1982: 142, Fig. 16).

Houses aligned in a north-east to south-west direction were quite common on settlements in the broader region, e.g. at Štúrovo (Pavúk 1994: 24–50, 68–70), Blatné (Pavúk 1994: 69), and Čataj (Pavúk 1986: Fig. 2–4; Pavúk 1994: 69), as well as on the settlement section dated to a later LBK phase at Brunn am Gebirge (Stadler 2005: Fig. 5).

None of the forty-eight LBK buildings uncovered at Balatonszárszó–Kis-erdei-dűlő had a structure of this type. This architectural element could be observed in several LBK buildings in the north-westerly region of the Carpathian Basin and in adjacent areas. The post-framed building from Győr–Pápai vám can be definitely assigned to this category (Mithay 1966: Fig. 5). Houses of this type are mentioned in the preliminary reports on the settlement at Mosonszentmiklós–Egyéni-földek, but without a more detailed description of their features (Egry 2003a: 104; Egry 2003b: 104). Oval post-holes were uncovered in the south-western part of two LBK buildings at Štúrovo. House 187 of this settlement had five cross-rows of oval post-holes, with only a single post set in the post-holes of the northernmost row. The house was assigned to the settlement’s first occupation horizon, corresponding to the later LBK period (Pavúk 1994: 40–41, 199–201, Fig. 18). The southern end of House 186 had two cross-rows of single posts (which may be interpreted as one row of double posts owing to their extremely close spacing), followed by four cross-rows with oval post-holes. The house was assigned to the third occupation horizon, marking the end of the Notenkopf occupation of the later LBK period (Pavúk 1994: 38–40, 204–206, Fig. 17). Two larger post-framed buildings were unearthed at Čataj in western Slovakia, which could be dated to the later LBK horizon characterised by Notenkopf wares. House 1 was 34.6 m long and all five longitudinal rows of posts survived intact together with the longpits flanking the house. Five cross-rows of oval post-holes were found in the building’s south-western part. House 2 was 30 m long; the post-holes of the wall posts did not survive. Two cross-rows of oval post-holes lay in the house’s southwestern part. Pavúk accepted the interpretation of this house part as a granary. He argued that this structure was restricted to a certain period since it could not be observed among the buildings of the Zseliz/Želiezovce period (Pavúk 1986: 363–372, 375, Fig. 1–4). A structural element of this type was observed in House 4, a building of the earlier LBK, at the Strögen site in Lower Austria (Lenneis and Lüning 2001: 202–204, Fig. 63). The length of a large, tripartite LBK building at the nearby Mold site was estimated at 37.5 m. The house was probably occupied during the LBK I–II transition. Five cross-rows made up of oval features containing several post-holes were observed in its southern part, from which Eva Lenneis reconstructed a raised floor made up of two parts, of which the northern one was triangular (Lenneis 2004a: 152, 154, Fig. 4; Lenneis 2004b).

Elke Mattheußer has noted that while a north to south orientation was preferred during the earlier LBK, the culture’s later phases were characterised by a much greater variability in the alignment of houses (Mattheußer 1991: 26, 30, Fig. 30). According to Mattheußer and Pavúk, the divergence toward the west from the north to south line during the later LBK period was the greatest in France, the westernmost part of the LBK distribution, whereas moving toward the east, the alignment of the buildings deviated much less from the north. In Bohemia, Moravia and Austria, the orientation generally corresponds to north axis, while in Slovakia house alignment tends to shift toward the east. The variation in the alignment of the LBK houses in Central Europe was noted quite early. A north-west to south-east orientation was quite widespread in Poland (Mattheußer 1991: 30, 41, Fig. 22, Pavúk 1994: 68–69). Maria Cladders and Harald Stäuble noted that the alignment of the early LBK houses diverged less from the north to south line than that of the later LBK buildings. A shift of 0–40o toward the west could be documented in the case of the former, while the latter showed a deviation between 10–70o, with most falling between 40–60o (Cladders and Stäuble 2003: 493). The number of buildings from the earlier LBK is so low in Hungary that no broad generalisations can be made either as regards their orientation or their other characteristic features. The evidence from recent excavations in Transdanubia indicates that there was a great variability in the orientation of buildings during the later LBK even within a single region. In addition to the north-east to south-west oriented houses, which conform to the tendency described by Mattheußer and Pavúk, north-west to south-east aligned buildings were also quite common and some houses had a north to south alignment. The north–north-west to south–south-east orientation of the Balatonszárszó houses recalls the general orientation of the early LBK period. THE RAISED STORAGE AREA IN THE SOUTHERN END OF GROßBAU TYPE HOUSES The detailed analysis of the timber-framed LBK houses has revealed that the large, so-called Großbau houses were made up of three sections. It has been suggested that 73

NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC ARCHAEOLOGY IN EURASIA: BUILDING TECHNIQUES AND SPATIAL ORGANISATION

Fig. 7.8. Archaeological cultures and culture groups in Transdanubia: a. between 5600/5500–5400 cal BC; b. between 5300/5250–5000 cal BC (after Bánffy 2000: Fig. 1 and Kalicz 1991: Fig. 1)

LBK houses with cross-rows of posts set in double or oval post-holes in their southern part, which are generally interpreted as the remains of a raised floor for storing grain, were quite widespread in northern Transdanubia and western Slovakia. A building with a comparable structure was unearthed at Petrivente–Újkúti-dűlő (Horváth and Kalicz 2003: Fig. 1: 2), suggesting that this house type was also known in more southerly areas, even if their presence is still sporadic. It yet remains to be clarified whether the lack of this architectural element at Balatonszárszó should be attributed to a local tradition or whether its absence is merely due to its chronological position – however, this issue can be only resolved once there is a suitable sample for comparison from new, well documented excavations.

groups and, later, by the earliest LBK groups. The contact area in the Balaton region survived into later periods too, as shown by the ceramic assemblages from various settlements in a fairly well-definable zone, which include pottery ornamented in both the Keszthely and the Zseliz/Želiezovce style. The only difference between the two periods is that the boundary between these two regions shifted northward in western Transdanubia in the later LBK period. However, the extraordinarily northerly location of the formative LBK settlement at Brunn am Gebirge II in the Vienna Basin (Stadler 1999; Stadler 2005) suggests that the possible explanation for the northward shift in the western part of this contact zone should perhaps be sought in an earlier period (Fig. 7.8). The LBK settlement at Balatonszárszó–Kis-erdei-dűlő lies in this contact zone. The finds from several settlement features confirmed earlier observation on the joint occurrence of pottery decorated in the Keszthely and Zseliz/Želiezovce style (Marton 2004: 85). The location of the settlement provides an explanation for the variations in its architecture, differing from the structures common in the regions, whose pottery is dominated by Zseliz/Želiezovce wares. It is also possible that some elements in the architectural traditions of the Balatonszárszó settlement can be traced to a cultural identity rooted in the Starčevo culture, diverging from the traditions in the north-westerly areas of the Carpathian Basin. Southern Transdanubia is a blank spot as regards the region’s LBK architecture and it is therefore impossible to say at this point whether the features observed at Balatonszárszó were unique to this site or fairly common in central and southern Transdanubia. As regards possible antecedents, not one single above-ground timber-framed building has yet been uncovered in the

NEOLITHIC CULTURE GROUPS IN TRANSDANUBIA IN THE 6TH MILLENNIUM BC The pottery assemblages from the later LBK phases, between ca. 5300/5250 and 5000 cal BC, the period marking the most extensive occupation of the Balatonszárszó settlement, was dominated by Zseliz/Želiezovce type wares in northern Transdanubia and south-western Slovakia. This cultural complex is often labelled Zseliz/Želiezovce culture or Zseliz/Želiezovce group in view of its distinctive ornamental designs (MitschaMärheim 1924; Pavúk 1969). The ceramic finds from southern Transdanubia are decorated in the Keszthely style during the same period (Kalicz 1991). The north– south divide across Transdanubia recalls the formative LBK period, some 200–600 years earlier, when the southern regions were occupied by Starčevo communities, while the northern ones by still little known Mesolithic 74

K. OROSS: ARCHITECTURE OF THE LINEARBANDKERAMIK SETTLEMENT AT BALATONSZÁRSZÓ–KIS-ERDEI-DŰLŐ…

Transdanubian Starčevo distribution. Only pit-dwellings have been reported from the adjacent Slavonian areas, e.g. at Pepelane (Minichreiter 1990, Table 1b–e; Minichreiter 1992: 71, Fig. 5–6), Vinkovci–Nama (Minichreiter 1992: 70, Fig. 9), Vinkovci–Tržnica-Hotel (Minichreiter 1992: 70), and Zadubravlje (Minichreiter 1992: 70, Fig. 12–15). Kornelija Minichreiter has suggested that the widespread presence of pit-dwellings, regarded as a hallmark of Starčevo architecture in Slavonia, can perhaps be attributed to the strong Mesolithic traditions and the great distance from the culture’s heartland (Minichreiter 1992: 71). However, it seems more likely that the lack of postframed houses is simply a reflection of the current state of research. Above-ground post-framed houses resembling the buildings of the Körös culture at Tiszajenő– Szárazérpart (Selmeczi 1969: 18; Raczky 1976: Fig. 1–2) and Szajol–Felsőföld (Raczky 1983: Fig. 1–2; MeierArendt 1989: Fig. 6) and the LBK structures known from northern and central Transdanubia will probably also be uncovered in the western Starčevo distribution. A better knowledge of the Starčevo and LBK building traditions in the areas south of Lake Balaton will contribute to resolving several key issues, one of which is the origins of the LBK longhouses, a problem which has been widely studied from various perspectives (Meier-Arendt 1989; Lenneis 1997; Lenneis 2000; Lichardus-Itten and Lichardus 2004; Bánffy 2004: 49–71). The lack of an adequate body of architectural remains, however, limits possible generalisations.

this site, differ from the architecture in northern Transdanubia and south-western Slovakia during the same period. The manuscript was completed in December 2006.

Refrences BAKAY, K.; KALICZ, N.; SÁGI, K., 1966, Veszprém megye Régészeti Topográfiája. A Keszthelyi és Tapolcai járás. Budapest: Akadémiai kiadó. 266 p. (Magyarország Régészeti Topográfiája; 1). BARNA, P.J., 2004, Becsehely – Homokos. Előzetes az M7 gyorsforgalmi út 71. sz. lelőhelyén feltárt neolitikus telep kutatásáról (1999 – 2000) (Becsehely– Homokos. Preliminary Report on the Exploration of the Neolithic Settlement at site 71 of M7 Motorway . Debrecen. 2, p. 33–44. (1999–2000)). Őskoros Kutatók II. Összejövetelének konferenciakötete.

ΜΩΜΟΣ

BARNA, P.J., 2005, Sormás–Török-földek településtörténeti áttekintése. A középső neolitikum (The history of the settlement at Sormás–Török-földek. Middle Neolithic). Zalai Múzeum. Zalaegerszeg. 14, p. 17–36. BÁNFFY, E., 2000, The Late Starčevo and the Earliest Linear Pottery Groups in Western Transdanubia. Documenta Praehistorica. Ljubljana. 27, p. 173–185. BÁNFFY, E., 2004, The 6th Millenium BC boundary in Western Transdanubia and its role in the Central European Neolithic transition (The Szentgyörgyvölgy-Pityerdomb settlement). Budapest: Archaeological Institute of the HAS. 451 p. (Varia Archaeologica Hungarica; 15).

SUMMARY The LBK buildings from the culture’s Hungarian distribution fit nicely into the general picture of LBK house construction. The remains of above-ground houses built around a framework of massive timbers have been uncovered on several extensively investigated settlement sites. It is now quite obvious that pit-dwellings were not used as permanently occupied buildings and in any case, the observations on these alleged pit-dwellings are controversial, to say the least.

BÁNFFY, E.; OROSS, K., (in press), The earliest and earlier phase of the LBK in Transdanubia. To be published in the volume of the International Symposium “The Spread of the Neolithic to Central Europe”. Mainz, 24 – 26 June 2005. BELÉNYESY, K.; MARTON, T.; OROSS, K., 2002, Balatonszárszó–Kis-erdei-dűlő. In Honti, Sz.; Belényesy, K.; Gallina, Zs.; Kiss, V.; Kulcsár, G.; Marton, T.; Nagy, Á.; Németh, P.G.; Oross, K.; Sebők, K.; Somogyi, K. A tervezett M7-es autópálya Somogy megyei szakaszán 2000-2001-ben végzett megelőző régészeti feltárások. Előzetes jelentés II. Somogyi Múzeumok Közleményei. Kaposvár. 15, p. 9– 15.

Large-scale excavations over the past few years have enabled the reconstruction of the different phases and changes in a settlement’s layout and occupation. The occupation of the settlement at Balatonszárszó–Kis-erdeidűlő, the perhaps most extensively investigated LBK site, spans the period from the early Bicske-Bíňa phase to the late LBK period (Keszthely and Zseliz/Želiezovce groups) of the culture’s Transdanubian sequence. The excavations at this site have conclusively proven that settlements spanning successive generations of houses and LBK phases can be found in this region too.

BONDÁR, M.; HONTI, SZ.; KISS, V., 2000, A tervezett M7-es autópálya Somogy megyei szakaszának megelőző régészeti feltárása (1992-1999.) Előzetes jelentés I. Somogyi Múzeumok Közleményei. Kaposvár. 14, p. 93–114.

The main architectural elements of the LBK houses at Balatonszárszó–Kis-erdei-dűlő correspond to the culture’s standard buildings. A few structural elements of the buildings constructed during the later LBK period, accounting for the greater part of the houses uncovered at

BONDÁR, M.; HONTI, SZ.; MÁRKUS, G.; NÉMETH, P.G., 2007, Balatonszemes-Szemesi-berek. In Belényesy, K.; Honti, Sz.; Kiss, V., eds. Gördül id . Régészeti feltárások az M7-es autópálya Somogy

ő ő

75

NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC ARCHAEOLOGY IN EURASIA: BUILDING TECHNIQUES AND SPATIAL ORGANISATION

Magyar régészet az ezredfordulón. Budapest: Nemzeti Kulturális Örökség Minisztériuma and Teleki László Alapítvány, p. 104–106.

megyei szakaszán (Zamárdi és Ordacsehi között). SMMI – MTA Régészeti Intézete, p. 123–133. BUTTLER, W.; HABEREY, W., 1936, Die bandkeramische Ansiedlung bei Köln-Lindenthal. Berlin und Leipzig: Verlag von Walter de Gruyter & Co. 178 p., 83 Taf., 2 Beilagen (Römisch-Germanische Forschungen; 11).

EGRY, M.I., 2003b, Mosonszentmiklós–Egyéni földek: A Neolithic village in Transdanubia. In Visy, ZS., ed. Hungarian Archaeology at the turn of the Millennium. Budapest: Ministry of National Cultural Heritage and Teleki László Foundation, p. 104–106.

CLADDERS, M.; STÄUBLE, H., 2003, Das 53. Jahrhundert v. Chr.: Aufbruch und Wandel. In Eckert, J., Eisenhauer, U.; Zimmermann, A., hrsg. Archäologische Perspektiven. Analysen und Interpretationen im Wandel. Festschrift für Jens Lüning zum 65. Geburtstag. Rahden/Westf: Verlag Marie Leidorf GmbH, p. 491–503 (Internationale Archäologie, Studia honoraria; 20).

ENDRŐDI, A., 1994, 40. Törökbálint – Dulácska (MRT 7. k. 36/7. lh.) (Pest m.) (III). Régészeti Füzetek. Budapest. S. 1, 46, p. 28. ENDRŐDI, A.; V. VADÁSZ, É.; M. VIRÁG, ZS.; HORVÁTH, L.A.; HORVÁTH, M.A., 2005a, Törökbálint, Dulácska. In Zsidi, P., ed. Kincsek a város alatt. Budapest régészeti örökségének feltárása, 1989–2004. – Treasures under the city. Survey of the archaeological heritage of Budapest, 1989–2004. Budapest: Budapesti Történeti Múzeum, p. 22–23.

COOLEN, J., 2006, Das Haus 11 von Mold, Niederösterreich und andere Kleinbauten der Linearbandkeramik. Archaeologia Austriaca. Wien. 88[2004], p. 67– 102.

ENDRŐDI, A.; V. VADÁSZ, É.; REMÉNYI, L.; HORVÁTH M.A.; TEREI, GY., 2005b, Biatorbágy, Tyúkberek. In Zsidi, P., ed. Kincsek a város alatt. Budapest régészeti örökségének feltárása, 1989–2004. – Treasures under the city. Survey of the archaeological heritage of Budapest, 1989–2004. Budapest: Budapesti Történeti Múzeum, p. 24.

CSALOG, J., 1941, A “Vučedol-zóki” típusú kerámia lelőhelyei Tolna vármegyében. Archaeologiai Értesít . Budapest. S. 3, 2, p. 6–14.

ő

DOMBORÓCZKI, L., 2001, The excavation at Füzesabony–Gubakút. Preliminary Report. In Kertész, R.; Makkay, J., eds. From the Mesolithic to the Neolithic. Proceedings of the International Archaeological Conference held in the Damjanich Museum of Szolnok, September 22 – 27, 1996. Budapest: Archaeolingua Foundation, p. 193–214 (Archaeolingua, Main Series; 11).

FÁBIÁN, SZ., 2005, Arcos edénytöredékek a zselizi kultúra lelőhelyéről, Szécsény-Ültetésről (Anthropomorphic vessel with representations of human face from Szécsény-Ültetés, location of the Zseliz culture). Archaeologiai Értesít . Budapest. 130, p. 5–20.

ő

DOMBORÓCZKI, L., 2003a, Füzesabony–Gubakút. In Visy, ZS., ed. Magyar régészet az ezredfordulón. Budapest: Nemzeti Kulturális Örökség Minisztériuma and Teleki László Alapítvány, p. 104.

FIGLER, A., 1996, 22/2. Mosonszentmiklós–Pál major (Győr-Moson-Sopron m.) (XVIII). Régészeti Füzetek. Budapest. S. 1, 47, p. 18–19. FIGLER, A., 1997, 24/3. Mosonszentmiklós–Pál major (Győr-Moson-Sopron m.) (XVIII). Régészeti Füzetek. Budapest. S. 1, 48, p. 19–20.

DOMBORÓCZKI, L., 2003b, Füzesabony–Gubakút: a Neolithic settlement in the Great Hungarian Plain. In Visy, ZS., ed. Hungarian Archaeology at the turn of the Millennium. Budapest: Ministry of National Cultural Heritage and Teleki László Foundation, p. 103–104.

GLÄSER, R., 1991, Bemerkungen zur absoluten Datierung des Beginns der westlichen Linienbandkeramik. Banatica. Reşiţa. 11, p. 53–64. GRONENBORN, D., 1998, Ältestbandkeramische Kultur, La Hoguette, Limburg, and … What else? – Contemplating the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in southern Central Europe. Documenta Praehistorica (Poro ilo). Ljubljana. 25, p. 189–202.

DRAVECZKY, B., 1966, Neuere Angaben zur Verbreitung der Linearkeramik im südlichen Teil von Transdanubien. Acta Antiqua et Archaeologica. Szeged. 10, p. 27–33.

č

EGRY, M.I., 1996, 22/1. Mosonszentmiklós–Egyéni földek (Győr-Moson-Sopron m.) (XVIII). Régészeti Füzetek. Budapest. S. 1, 47, p. 17–18.

HONTI, SZ.; NÉMETH, P.G., 2002, Balatonszemes– Szemesi-berek. In Honti, Sz.; Belényesy, K.; Gallina, Zs.; Kiss, V.; Kulcsár, G.; Marton, T.; Nagy, Á.; Németh, P.G.; Oross, K.; Sebők, K.; Somogyi, K. A tervezett M7-es autópálya Somogy megyei szakaszán 2000-2001-ben végzett megelőző régészeti feltárások. Előzetes jelentés II. Somogyi Múzeumok Közleményei. Kaposvár. 15, p. 6–9.

EGRY, M.I., 1997, 24/1. Mosonszentmiklós–Egyéni földek (Győr-Moson-Sopron m.) (XVIII). Régészeti Füzetek. Budapest. S. 1, 48, p. 18–19. EGRY, M.I., 2001, Preliminary report about a new site of the Transdanubian Linear Pottery. Kóny-Barbacsi lakeside. Régészeti Füzetek – Archaeological Reports 1997. S. 1, 51 [1998], p. 7–13.

HORVÁTH, L.A., 2002a, Neolitikus leletek Dunakeszi határában (Neolithische Funde in der Gemarkung von Dunakeszi). Budapest Régiségei. Budapest. 35(1), p. 7– 34.

EGRY, M.I., 2003a, Egy újkőkori falu a Dunántúlon: Mosonszentmiklós – Egyéni földek. In Visy, ZS., ed. 76

K. OROSS: ARCHITECTURE OF THE LINEARBANDKERAMIK SETTLEMENT AT BALATONSZÁRSZÓ–KIS-ERDEI-DŰLŐ…

HORVÁTH, L.A., 2002b, Neolithische Funde und Befunde in der Gemarkung von Dunakeszi. Acta Achaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae. Budapest. 53, p. 1–40.

KÁROLYI, M., 1984, Az újkőkor kutatásának tíz esztendeje Vas megyében (1973-1983). Vasi Szemle. Szombathely [1984], p. 429–440. KUSTÁR, R.; LANTOS, A., 2004, 182. Harta, gátőrház. Régészeti Kutatások Magyarországon – Archaeological Investigations in Hungary. Budapest. [2003], p. 227.

HORVÁTH, L.A., 2004, Angaben zu den Haustypen des mittleren Neolithikums in Ungarn. Antaeus. Budapest. 27, p. 87–93.

KVASSAY, J., 2002, 705 Muraszemenye – Aligvárimező. In Horváth, L.; Frankovics, T., eds. Megel z régészeti feltárások az M7-M70 autópálya tervezett nyomvonalán. Összefoglaló jelentés az 1999-2002-ben végzett feltárásokról. Becsehely: Zala Megyei Múzeumok Igazgatósága, p. 11–12.

HORVÁTH, L.; KALICZ, N., 2003, Újkőkori település feltárása Petriventén (Zala megye). Excavation of a Neolithic site at Petrivente (Zala county). Régészeti kutatások Magyarországon – Achaeological Investigations in Hungary. Budapest [2001], p. 5–29.

őő

HORVÁTH, L.A.; REMÉNYI, L.; TÓTH, A., 2004, Régészeti kutatások az M0 autóút bővítése kapcsán. Archaeological excavations preceding the widening of highway M0. Régészeti kutatások Magyarországon – Achaeological Investigations in Hungary. Budapest [2003], p. 27–49.

LENNEIS, E., 1997, Houseforms of the Central European Linearpottery culture and of the Balkan Early Neolithic – a comparison. Poro ilo. Ljubljana. 24, p. 143–149.

č

LENNEIS, E., 2000, Hausformen der mitteleuropäischen Linearbandkeramik und des balkanischen Frühneolithikums im Vergleich. In Hiller, S; Nikolov, V., eds. Karanovo III. Beiträge zum Neolithikum in Südosteuropa. Wien: Phoibos Verlag, p. 383–388.

KALICZ, N., 1988, A termelőgazdálkodás kezdetei a Dunántúlon I-II. Unpublished DSc thesis. Budapest. KALICZ, N., 1990, Frühneolithische Siedlungsfunde aus Südwestungarn. Budapest: Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum. 164 p. (Inventaria Prehistorica Hungariae; 4).

LENNEIS, E., 2004a, Architecture and Settlement Structure of the Early Linear Pottery Culture in East Central Europe. In Lukes, A.; Zvelebil, M., eds. LBK Dialogues. Studies in the formation of the Linear Pottery Culture. Oxford: BAR Publishing, p. 151–157 (British Archaeological Reports International Series; 1304).

KALICZ, N., 1991, Die Keszthely-Gruppe der Transdanubischen (Mitteleuropäischen) Linienbandkeramik im Lichte der Ausgrabung in Kustánszeg (Westungarn). Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae. Budapest [1991], p. 5–32. KALICZ, N., 1993, The early phases of the Neolithic in Western Hungary (Transdanubia). Poro ilo. Ljubljana. 21, p. 85–135.

LENNEIS, E., 2004b, Ein bandkeramischer Großbau aus Mold bei Horn, Niederösterreich. In Hänsel, B.; Studeníková, E., hrsg. Zwischen Karpaten und Ägäis. Neolithikum und ältere Bronzezeit. Gedenkschrtift für Viera N mejcová-Pavúková. Rahden/Westf: Verlag Marie Leidorf GmbH, p. 379–393 (Internationale Archäologie, Studia honoraria; 21).

č

KALICZ, N., 1994, A dunántúli (közép-európai) vonaldíszes kerámia legidősebb leletei és a korai Vinča kultúra. In Lőrinczy, G., ed. A k kortól a középkorig. Tanulmányok Trogmayer Ottó 60. születésnapjára. – Von der Steinzeit bis zum Mittelalter. Studien zum 60. Geburtstag von Ottó Trogmayer. Szeged: Csongrád Megyei Múzeumok Igazgatósága, p. 67–84.

ě

ő

LENNEIS, E.; LÜNING, J., 2001, Die altbandkeramischen Siedlungen von Neckenmarkt und Strögen. Bonn: Verlag Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH. 443 p. (Universitätsforschungen zur Prähistorischen Archäologie; 82).

KALICZ, N., 1995, Die älteste transdanubische (mitteleuropäische) Linienbandkeramik. Aspekte zu Ursprung, Chronologie und Beziehungen. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae. Budapest. 47: 23–59.

LICHARDUS-ITTEN, M.; LICHARDUS, J., 2004, Frühneolithische Häuser im balkano-karpatischen Raum als Grundlagen linearbandkeramischer Bauweise. In Bátora, J.; Furmánek, V.; Veliačik; L., hrsg. Einflüsse und Kontakte alteuropäischer Kulturen. Festschrift für Josef Vladár zum 70. Geburtstag. Nitra: Archeologický ústav SAV and Univerzita Konštantína Filozofa, p. 25–56.

KALICZ-SCHREIBER, R.; KALICZ, N., 1992, Die erste frühneolithische Fundstelle in Budapest. Balcanica. Beograd. 23, p. 47–76. KALICZ, N.; M. VIRÁG, ZS.; T. BIRÓ, K., 1998, The northern periphery of the Early Neolithic Starčevo culture in south-western Hungary: a case study of an excavation at Lake Balaton. Documenta Praehistorica (Poro ilo). Ljubljana. 25, p. 151–187.

LÜNING, J., 1980, So bauten die Zimmerleute der Steinzeit. Bild der Wissenschaft. LeinfeldenEchterdingen. 8, p. 44–59.

č

KALICZ, N.; T. BIRÓ, K.; M. VIRÁG, ZS., 2002, Vörs, Máriaasszony-sziget (Somogy megye). Régészeti kutatások Magyarországon – Archaeological Investigations in Hungary. Budapest [1999], p. 15– 26.

LÜNING, J., 1982, Forschungen zur bandkeramischen Besiedlung der Aldenhovener Platte im Rheinland. In Chropovský, B., ed. Siedlungen der Kultur mit Linearkeramik in Europa. Internationales Kolloquium Nové Vozokany 17. – 20. November 1981. 77

NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC ARCHAEOLOGY IN EURASIA: BUILDING TECHNIQUES AND SPATIAL ORGANISATION

Nitra: Archäologisches Institut der Slowakischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, p. 125–156.

MINICHREITER, K., 1990, Starčevačko naselje u pepelanama kod Vitrovice. Vjesnik Archeološkog Muzeja u Zagrebu. Zagreb. S. 3, 23, p. 17–40.

MAKKAY, J., 1959, Neszmély–Tekerespatak (Komárom m., tatai j.) (179. XLVIII). Régészeti Füzetek. Budapest. S. 1, 13, p. 15–16.

MINICHREITER, K., 1992, Starčevačka kultura u sjevernoj Hrvatskoj. Zagreb: Arheološki zavod Filozofskog fakulteta Sveučilišta u Zagrebu. 104 p. (Disertacije i monografije; 1).

MAKKAY, J., 1969, 23. Sukoró–Tóra dűlő (Fejér m., központi (székesfehérvári j.) (XXXVI.). Régészeti Füzetek. Budapest. S. 1, 22, p. 20–21.

MITHAY, S., 1966, Zselizi típusú leletek a Győr, Pápai vámi újabb-kőkori lakótelepen (Funde Zselizer Typus auf einem jungsteinzeitlichen Siedlungsorte bei der Pápaer Maut in Győr). Arrabona. Győr. 8, p. 5–52.

MAKKAY, J., 1970, 21. Sukoró–Tóra dűlő (Fejér m., székesfehérvári j.) (XXXVI). Régészeti Füzetek. Budapest. S. 1, 23, p. 15–16.

MITSCHA-MÄRHEIM, H., 1924, Vorgeschichtliches aus dem unteren Grantale. Wiener Prähistorische Zeitschrift. Wien. 11, p. 105–117.

MAKKAY, J., 1975, A bicskei neolithikus telep és temető. Az István király Múzeum Közleményei. Bulletin du Musée Roi Saint – Étinenne. Székesfehérvár. S.D, 104.

MODDERMAN, P.J.R., 1970, Linearbandkeramik aus Elsloo und Stein. ’s-Gravenhage: Staatsuitgeverij. 218 p., 232 Taf. (Nederlandse Oudheden; 3).

MAKKAY, J., 1978, Excavations at Bicske. I. The Early Neolithic – The Earliest Linear Band Ceramic. Alba Regia. Székesfehérvár. 16, p. 9–60.

MODDERMAN, P.J.R., 1972, Die Hausbauten und Siedlungen der Linienbandkeramik in ihrem westlichen Bereich. In Schwabedissen, H., ed. Die Anfänge des Neolithikums vom Orient bis Nordeuropa. Köln– Wien: Böhlau Verlag, p. 77–84 (Fundamenta; A/3 Va).

MAKKAY, J., 1983, Foundation sacrifices in Neolithic houses of the Carpathian Basin. In Anati, E., dir. The Intellectual Expressions of Prehistoric Man: Art and Religion. Acts of the Valcamonica Symposium ’79 (Valcamonica Symposium III). Brescia: Edizioni del Centro and Editoriale Jaca Book Spa, p. 157–167.

MODDERMAN, P.J.R., 1986, On the typology of the houseplans and their European setting. In Pavlů, I; Rulf, J; Zápotocká, M. Theses on the Neolithic site of Bylany. Památky archeologické. Praha. 77, 2, p. 383– 394.

MAKKAY, J., 1986, Bauopfer in der Lengyel-Kultur und seine Beziehungen zu den Bauopferformen der KörösKultur und der Linienbandkeramik. In Chropovský, B.; Friesinger, H., eds. Internationales Symposium über die Lengyel – Kultur. Nové Vozokany 5. – 9. November 1984. Nitra-Wien: Archäologisches Institut der Slowakischen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Nitra and Institut für Ur- und Frühgeschichte der Universität Wien, p. 169–175.

OROSS, K., 2004a, Das neolithische Dorf von Balatonszárszó (Forschungen zwischen 2000-2002). Antaeus. Budapest. 27, p. 61–80. OROSS, K., 2004b, Újkőkori telepkutatások Balatonszárszó, Kis-erdei-dűlő lelőhelyen 2000–2003 között. Neolithic settlement investigations at the Balatonszárszó, Kis-erdei-dűlő site between 2000 and 2003. Régészeti kutatások Magyarországon – Archaeological Investigations in Hungary. Budapest. [2003], p. 17–25.

MAKKAY, J.; STARNINI, E.; TULOK, M., 1996, Excavations at Bicske-Galagonyás (part III). The Notenkopf and Sopot-Bicske cultural phases. Trieste: Edizioni Svevo. 308 p. (Società per la Preistoria e Protoistoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia; Quaderno 6.).

OROSS, K.; MARTON, T.; FÁBIÁN, SZ., 2004, Balatonszárszó–Kis-erdei-dűlő középső neolit településének temetkezései. Előzetes jelentés (Bestattungen der mittelneolithischen Siedlung von Balatonszárszó–Kis. Szombathely. 3, p. erdei-dűlő. Vorbericht). 283–292. Őskoros kutatók III. Összejövetelének konferenciakötete. Halottkultusz és temetkezés.

MARTON, T., 2004, Material finds from Balatonszárszó, Neolithic settlement: connections within and without the TLPC territory. Antaeus. Budapest. 27, p. 81– 86.

ΜΩΜΟΣ

MATTHEUßER, E., 1991, Die geographische Ausrichtung bandkeramischer Häuser. In Hänsel, B.; Hauptmann, H.; Jockenhövel, A.; Lippert, A.; Lüning, J.; Müller-Wille, M., hrsg. Studien zur Siedlungs-archäologie I. Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, p. 1–49 (Universitätsforschungen zur Prähistorischen Archäologie; 6).

OTTOMÁNYI, K., 2005, 150. Érd, Hosszú földek. Régészeti kutatások Magyarországon – Archaeological Investigations in Hungary. Budapest [2004], p. 212–213. PAPP, L., 1973, Eine jungsteinzeitliche Siedlung und Gräber in Letkés. Mitteilungen des Archäologischen Instituts der Ungarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Budapest. 3 [1972], p. 13–58.

MEIER-ARENDT, W., 1989, Überlegungen zur Herkunft des linienbandkeramischen Langhauses. In Bökönyi, S., ed. Neolithic of Southeastern Europe and its Near Eastern connections. Budapest: Institute of Archaeology of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, p. 183– 189 (Varia Archaeologica Hungarica; 2).

PAVÚK, J., 1969, Chronologie der Želiezovce-Gruppe. Slovenská archeológia. Nitra. 17(2), p. 269–367. PAVÚK, J., 1980, Ältere Linearkeramik in der Slowakei. Slovenská archeológia. Nitra. 28(1), p. 7–90. 78

K. OROSS: ARCHITECTURE OF THE LINEARBANDKERAMIK SETTLEMENT AT BALATONSZÁRSZÓ–KIS-ERDEI-DŰLŐ…

PAVÚK, J., 1986, Linearkeramische Großbauten aus Čataj. Slovenská archeológia. Nitra. 34(2), p. 365– 382.

SOÓS, V., 1982, Előzetes jelentés a Szécsény-ültetési zselizi telep feltárásáról (Vorbericht über Ausgrabungen der Siedlung der neolitischen Zseliz-Gruppe in Szécsény-Ültetés). Nógrád Megyei Múzeumok Évkönyve. Salgótarján. 8, p. 7–46.

PAVÚK, J., 1994, Štúrovo. Ein Siedlungsplatz der Kultur mit Linearkeramik und der Želiezovce-Gruppe. Nitra: Archäologisches Institut der Slowakischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. 284 p., 77 fig. (Archaeologica Slovaca Monographiae; 4).

STADLER, P., 1999, Die älterlinearbandkeramische Fundstelle von Brunn am Gebirge, Flur Wolfholz (5620-5200 v.Chr.). Brunn. 13 p. Ausstellung in Brunn im August 1999.

POLGÁR, P.; P. SZEŐKE, J., 2004, Ordacsehi–Bugaszeg (M7/S-29 lelőhely). In Honti, Sz.; Belényesy, K.; Fábián, Sz; Gallina, Zs.; Hajdú, Á.D.; Hansel, B.; Horváth, T.; Kiss, V.; Koós, I.; Marton, T.; Németh, P.G.; Oross, K.; Osztás, A.; Polgár, P.; P-Szeőke, J.; Serlegi, G.; Siklósi, Zs.; Sófalvi, A.; Virágos, G. A tervezett M7-es autópálya Somogy megyei szakaszának megelőző régészeti feltárása (2002–2003). Előzetes jelentés III. Somogyi Múzeumok Közleményei. Kaposvár. 16, p. 40–45.

STADLER, P., 2005, Settlement of the Early Linear Ceramics Culture at Brunn am Gebirge, Wolfholz site. Documenta Praehistorica. Ljubljana. 32, p. 269– 278. STÄUBLE, H., 2001, STRÖGEN, Die Häuser und Gruben. In Lenneis, E.; Lüning, J. Die altbandkeramischen Siedlungen von Neckenmarkt und Strögen. Bonn: Verlag Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, p. 425– 439. (Universitätsforschungen zur Prähistorischen Archäologie; 82).

QUITTA, H., 1960, Zur Frage der ältesten Bandkeramik in Mitteleuropa. Praehistorische Zeitschrift. Berlin. 38, p. 1–38, 153–188.

STÄUBLE, H., 2005, Häuser und absolute Datierung der Ältesten Bandkeramik. Bonn: Verlag Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH. 292 p., 175 fig. (Universitätsforschungen zur Prähistorischen Archäologie; 117). SZŐNYI, E.; TOMKA, P.; TAKÁCS, K., 2001, 1. Kóny – Gázvezeték 1. (Győr-Moson-Sopron megye) (XI.). Régészeti Füzetek – Archaeological Reports 1997. Budapest. S. 1, 51 [1998], p. 38–39.

RACZKY, P., 1976, A Körös kultúra leletei Tiszajenőn (Funde der Körös-Kultur in Tiszajenő). Archaeologiai Értesít . Budapest. 103, p. 171–189.

ő

RACZKY, P., 1983, Origins of the custom of burying the dead inside houses in South-East Europe (A házba való temetkezés szokásának kezdetei DélkeletEurópában). Szolnok Megyei Múzeumok Évkönyve. Szolnok. 1982–83, p. 5–10.

TEREI, GY.; HORVÁTH, L.A.; KOROM, A.; SZILAS, G., 2005a, 103. Budapest, XI. Kőérberek, Tóvároslakópark. Régészeti kutatások Magyarországon – Archaeological Investigations in Hungary. Budapest. 2004, p. 196–197. TEREI, GY.; HORVÁTH, L.A.; SZILAS, G.; KOROM, A.; FÜREDI, Á.; HANCZ, E., 2005b, XI. KőérberekTóváros Lakópark. In Zsidi, P., ed. Kincsek a város alatt. Budapest régészeti örökségének feltárása, 1989– 2004. – Treasures under the city. Survey of the archaeological heritage of Budapest, 1989–2004. Budapest: Budapesti Történeti Múzeum, p. 80–100.

REGENYE, J., 2007, A Starčevo-kultúra települése a Tihanyi-félszigeten (A settlement of the Starčevo culture Tihany peninsula – Lake Balaton, Western Hungary). srégészeti Levelek – Prehistoric Newsletter. Budapest. 7, 8-9, p. 5-15.

Ő

SÁGI, K.; TÖRŐCSIK, Z., 1990, A Dunántúli Vonaldíszes kerámia “Tapolcai csoportja” (Előzetes jelentés) (Die “Tapolca-Gruppe” der Transdanubischen Linienbandkeramik (Vorbericht)). A Tapolcai Városi Múzeum Közleményei. Tapolca. 1 [1989], p. 29–129.

TOMPA, F. Von, 1937, 25 Jahre Urgeschichtsforschung in Ungarn 1912–1936. Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission. Frankfurt am Main. 24/25 [1934/35], p. 27–127.

SELMECZI, L., 1969, Das Wohnhaus der Körös-Gruppe von Tiszajenő. Neuere Angaben zu den Haustypen des Frühneolithikums. Móra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve. Szeged. 1969(2), p. 17–22.

VADÁSZ, V.É., 1971, 1. Almásfüzitő–Foktorok (Komárom m., komáromi j.) (XII). Régészeti Füzetek. Budapest. S. 1, 25, p. 3.

SIMON, H.K., 1996, Ein neuer Fundort der StarčevoKultur bei Gellénháza (Kom. Zala, Ungarn) und seine südlichen Beziehungen. In Draşovean, F., ed. The Vin a Culture, its Role and Cultural Connections. International Symposium on the Vinca Culture its Role and Cultural Connections. Timişoara: The Museum of Banat and Editura Mirton, p. 59–92. (Bibliotheca Historica et Archaeologica Banatica; 2).

VIRÁG, M.ZS.; KALICZ, N., 2001, Neuere Siedlungsfunde der frühneolithischen Starčevo–Kultur aus Südwestungarn. In Ginter, B.; Drobniewicz, B; Kazior, B.; Nowak, M.; Poltowicz, M., eds. Problems of the Stone Age in the Old World. Jubilee Book dedicated to Professor Janusz K. Kozłowski. Kraków: Jagellonian University, Institute of Archaeology, p. 265–279. WATERBOLK, T.; MODDERMAN, P.J.R., 1958–59, Die Grossbauten der Bandkeramik. Palaeohistoria. Groningen. 6–7, p. 163–171.

č

SIMON, H.K., 2002, Das Fundmaterial der frühesten Phase der Transdanubischen Linienbandkeramik auf dem Fundort Zalaegerszeg–Andráshida, Gébárti-tó, Arbeitsplatz III. Antaeus. Budapest. 25, p. 189–203. 79

NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC ARCHAEOLOGY IN EURASIA: BUILDING TECHNIQUES AND SPATIAL ORGANISATION

ZVELEBIL, M., 2000, The Social Context of the Agricultural Transition in Europe. In Renfrew, C.; Boyle, K., eds. Archeogenetics: DNA and the population

prehistory of Europe. Cambridge: Mc Donald Institute for Archaeological Research, p. 57–79.

80

HUMAN ACTIVITY ZONES AROUND THE HOUSE OF THE LINEARBANDKERAMIK CULTURE IN SOUTH-EASTERN POLAND (SITE: ZWIĘCZYCA) Maciej DĘBIEC and Aleksander DZBYŃSKI Abstract: This article deals with the problem of reconstruction of human activity zones around houses of the Linearbandkeramik culture, and, in particular, on a recently excavated site in South-East Poland – Zwięczyca no. 3. The yard area of house no. 3 was taken into consideration. In zone 36, near this house, we came across a wide spectrum of activities, varying from rather noneconomic to purely house-economy activities. For pit number 232 we were able to suspect activities connected with animal bone processing, the preparation of furs, etc. Key-words: Linearbandkeramik, South-East Poland, human activity zone, pit, dwelling. Résumé: Cet article concèrne la problémathique de le reconstruction des zones d’activitées humaines autour des habitats dans la culture de la Céramique Rubannée. Les auteurs ont tenté de les reconstruire sur le site Zwięczyca 3, récemment découvert en Pologne sud-orientale. On a pris en considération l’entourage de la maison no.3. Autour d’elle, dans la zone no.36, on a observé des traces des plusieurs activitées bien différenciées, à partir des activités non-économiques jus-qu’aux activités doméstiques à caractère économique déterminé. Dans la fosse no. 232, on a découvert les traces des activitées liées au travail de l’os, la préparation des peaux, etc. Mots-cléf: Céramique Rubannée, Pologne sud-orientale, zones d’activitées humaines, fosse, habitat.

Zwięczyca is situated in the foothills of the Carpathian Mountains in South-Eastern Poland. A settlement belonging to linearbandkeramik culture has been discovered and excavated there in the past three years. The settlement is located at the top of a small hill. In geomorphological aspect it lies on the top of the upper terrace of the River Valley (the Wislok is a left tributary of the San River (Dębiec and Dzbyński 2006a)). Over three archaeological seasons 1100 square meters were excavated in the settlement. There were about 320 objects (pits and postholes) in the excavation area (fig. 8.1). The dispersion of the archaeological material over the surface and the conclusions from the studies that have been drawn so far, suggest that there was an intensive, long-lasting linearbandkeramik settlement in Zwięczyca. In this study we would like to present an attempt at a reconstruction of the social and economical activity zones around one of the linearbandkeramik houses in Zwięczyca.

Fig. 8.1. Location of the site

The excavated settlement area allows a reconstruction of at least five long houses belonging to the linearbandkeramik culture which were located NorthWest to the South-Eastern axis (fig. 8.2). Owing to the stratigraphic observations and the distances between the houses, we can suppose that they did not all exist at the same time. Studies from Germany suggest that the basic unit of a linearbandkeramik settlement was a large yard area where the social and economic life of the people (in extended families) took place (Boelicke 1982; Lüning 2005): the distance between houses was significant.

around these houses – taking into consideration that there were yard areas as well – suggests that the relationship between them is a very clear one. We observed here a very small number of objects destroyed by proceeding generations. In the course of the following descriptions we would like to focus our attention on the zone in the Eastern part of the yard area of house number 3. In this zone, feature number 36 is a very large pit. We know that features like this were used originally as sources of clay (for wall clay, or plaster, for the buildings), and then later for many other

There are two well-preserved houses (numbers 2 and 3) in Zwięczyca. The dispersion of the archaeological material

81

NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC ARCHAEOLOGY IN EURASIA: BUILDING TECHNIQUES AND SPATIAL ORGANISATION

Fig. 8.2. Excavated area with a reconstruction of longhouses

Fig. 8.3. Scatter plot of pits dimensions purposes (Milisauskas 1986). In Zwięczyca, close to house number 3, the situation was probably very similar. At a level of 40-50 cm, feature number 36 separated into few single pits in form of a circle or ellipse.

Essentially we can divide these pits into two groups (taking into account their dimensions): wide and shallow pits, or narrow and deeper ones, which has been confirmed by analysis of the dimensions of the pits from 82

M. DĘBIEC & A. DZBYŃSKI: HUMAN ACTIVITY ZONES AROUND THE HOUSE OF THE LINEARBANDKERAMIK CULTURE…

Fig. 8.4. Human Activity Zones around house no 3. Grey points – endscrapers, black points – hammer-stones, grey dots – flakes, light grey dots – blades and production waste, B – animal bones the whole site (fig. 8.3). Similar classifications of pits from other sites of the linearbankeramik culture are known and show that they also had different functions (Rulf 1989; Boelicke 1982). Narrow and deeper pits were probably hiding places, stores or house cellars; however they might have also been used in other ways. Alternatively, the wide and shallow pits might have been used as production areas. In Zwięczyca, for example, we often come across connected deeper and shallow pits.

Feature number 36 is also interesting for the following reasons: in its centre, in one of the deepest pits, a set of very interesting artefacts was found: a double stone axe (ger. Doppelaxt), a stone adze and 2 large pot fragments (Dębiec, Dzbyński 2006a). It should be mentioned here that double axes belong to the rarest group of finds among stone tools in all European prehistory. This fact could suggest their special meaning for the linearbandkeramik people (Czekaj-Zastawny 2004). We know only about 40 such finds in the whole area of this culture. It is hard to say whether we should think about a grave located near house number 3 in Zwięczyca, which was equipped with these artefacts, or whether it was a deposit. Graves in linearbandkeramik settlements are very frequent (Veit 1996), however in the above-mentioned pit no human bones were found. Only the characteristic set of artefacts, and the fact that in Zwięczyca bones are usually badlypreserved, allow us to keep the two parallel interpretations of this finding.

We would like to turn for the moment to the next object of interest. In the analyzed zone, we also have a pit number 232. It is located to the South of feature 36. Pit number 232 is of regular shape and there were many animal bones found in it, together with a relatively large number of endscrapers (red points). The endscrapers are present also in the cultural layer around pit 232. Coming back to object number 36, we can fairly say that its attributes are more complex. The centre of this feature was the fire place, around which the pits of the abovementioned metric groups were concentrated. Fire places in the large features near the bandkeramik houses have previously been found in Strachów, in South-Western Poland (Kulczycka-Leciejewiczowa 1997). Close to the fire there was a deep pit which contained a lot of ceramic finds but practically no stone artefacts. Located close to the fire place there were other pits, which contained mostly stone material. The majority of this material is flint tools, hammer-stones, flakes, blades and production waste. There are therefore intensive traces of production and economic activities observable.

The next noticeable artefact from feature number 36 is a fragment of a human figure (Dębiec, Dzbyński 2006b). It was probably a representation of a standing female of about 25 cm in height originally. The figure was broken in its central section, which was its thickest part. We mention it because there are some arguments that this kind of damage could have been made intentionally (this was the most resistant part of the figure). Biehl´s studies about Neolithic figures from South-Eastern Europe use the idea of intentional breaking to interpret a large group of figures by pointing to the communication activities in society as well (Biehl 2003).

83

NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC ARCHAEOLOGY IN EURASIA: BUILDING TECHNIQUES AND SPATIAL ORGANISATION

At this point we would like to use the above observations to work out an interpretation of the spatial activity patterns around the linearbandkeramik house number 3 in Zwieczyca. We believe that in the Eastern zone of house number 3 the following activities can be recognized (fig. 4). For pit number 232 we can propose activities connected with animal bone processing, preparation of furs, etc. It refers to both the many endscrapers that were found in the pit, and also around it, as well as to the many animal bones within the pit. If we consider studies from other settlements, these activities could have been made generally by women in the community (Milisauskas 1989). In the zone of the large feature number 36 we encounter a wide spectrum of activities, beginning with activities of rather non-economic meaning (the grave or deposit with the stone double axe; the ceramic figure), and ending with purely house-economy activities. We can recognize here the fire place (or oven) and close by the traces of many other activities, such as the production of tools, wood and stone working, as well as pottery use.

CZEKAJ-ZASTAWNY, A., 2004, Symbolic Objects in the Linear Pottery Culture. pp. 177-180. In Lukes, A. and M. Zvelebil (eds.) LBK Dialogues. Studies in the formation of the Linear Pottery Culture. Oxford: B.A.R., (BAR International Series; 1304). DĘBIEC, M. and A. DZBYŃSKI, 2006a, Neue Funde der doppelschneidigen Geräte aus der linearbandkeramischen Siedlung in Zwięczyca, Gemeinde Boguchwała, Wojewodschaft podkarpackie. Sprawozdania Archeologiczne. 58, pp. 223-245. DĘBIEC, M. and A. DZBYŃSKI, 2006b, An Early Neolithic anthropomorphic figurine from Zwięczyca 3, Podkarpakie Voivodeship. Acta Archaeologica Carpathica. 41, pp. 25-29. KULCZYCKA-LECIEJEWICZOWA, A., 1997, Strachów. Osiedla neolitycznych rolników na Śląsku. Wrocław. 298 p. LÜNING, J., 2005, Bandkeramische Hofplätze und absolute Chronologie der Bandkeramik. pp. 49-74. In Lüning, J.; Ch. Frirdich, and A. Zimmermann (eds.) Die Bandkeramik im 21 Jahrhundert MILISAUSKAS, S., 1986, Early Neolithic Settlement and Society at Olszanica. Memoirs of the Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, nr 19, Ann Arbor. 319 p. MILISAUSKAS, S., 1989, Specialized activity areas at Olszanica. pp. 233-242. In Rulf, J. (ed.) Bylany Seminar. Prag. RULF, J., 1989, Typological classification of sunken features from Bylany. pp. 165-186. In Rulf, J. (ed.) Bylany Seminar. Prag. VEIT, U., 1996, Studien zum Problem der Siedlungsbestattung im europäischen Neolithikum. MünsterNew York. 449 p.

The presented analysis and conclusions are, of course, very limited because of the fact that only a small part of the settlement in Zwięczyca has been excavated so far. Actually it is just the beginning of site exploration at Zwięczyca. Therefore we believe that our knowledge of this site will improve with every season, providing a data set for more detailed studies. References BIEHL, P.F., 2003, Studien zum Symbolgut des Neolithikums und der Kupferzeit in Südosteuropa. Bonn 534 p. BOELICKE, U., 1982, Gruben und Häuser: Untersuchungen zur Struktur bandkeramischer Hofplätze. pp. 1728. In Chropovsky, B. and J. Pavuk (eds.) Siedlungen der Kultur mit Linearkeramik in Europa.

84

DETECTING SOCIAL COMPLEXITY AMONG THE NEOLITHIC HUNTER-GATHERERS IN FINLAND – EXAMPLE OF PATTIJOKI KASTELLI Jari OKKONEN Abstract: The architectural features in Nordul Finlandei (i.e. large rectangular stone enclosures, dwelling depressions and cairns), shall be seen as an index for social and cultural changes which took place within the hunter-gatherer societies in the Ostrobothnia during the middle and late Neolithic. Key-words: hunter-gatherer societies, fire-cracked stones, stone enclosure, Stone Age, Northern Finland Résumé: Les elements d’architecture du nord de la Finlande (comme par example les grands enclos en pierre rectangulaires, les surfaces creuses des logements et les cairns), doivent etre regardes comme les indices des changements sociaux et culturels qui ont eut lieu dans les societées des chasseurs-cueilleurs de l’Ostrobothnia pendant le Néolithique moyen et final. Mots-cléf: Chasseurs-cueilleurs, pierres craquées, enclos de pierre, Age de la Pierre, Finlande du Nord

excavations clearly point to the fact that at least some of the heaps were built on the Stone Age beach. Probably the heaps are linked to seal fat processing – although the exact knowledge of the formation and the function of the structures is not fully understood.

INTRODUCTION The stone enclosure known as the ‘Giants’ Church’ in Pattijoki Kastelli is one of the most noted archaeological monuments in Northern Finland. It is located circa 60 kilometers southwest from the town of Oulu on the coastal region of Northern Ostrobothnia. The site consists of several structures and archaeological features, in which the most prominent is a large rectangular stone enclosure. The size of the structure is 52 x 30 meters. The total area of the site is approximately 3.4 hectares. Altogether 43 similar ‘Giants’ Church’ sites are known in Finland. According to isostatic land uplift and shore line displacement chronology, they have been dated to the Stone Age. The archaeological finds from the sites also point to the same period.

In order to get suitable samples for dating, two of the heaps were opened (Test Pit 1 and 2 in Fig. 9.1). Samples of stone, soil and charcoal were collected. In addition, quartz flakes, quartz tools and some burnt animal bones – most likely seal – were found. A clear layer (about 3-5 cm thick) of coastal sand was found near the other opened heap (Test Pit 1 in Fig. 9.1). The sand layer where OSLsamples were collected is clearly coastal-formation. It was most likely covered with new soil, after the erosion caused by contact to the open sea stopped (e.g. flood waves, ice push and wind). With the OSL-method we can determine the date when sunlight last affected the sand layer below the heap, i.e. when the layer was covered with soil, burned stones and charcoal by man. The results obtained by OSL-results give us a time period from 28002200 BC.

The earliest studies concerning the Kastelli site are from the 1860s. In 1862 one cairn was excavated but finds were not discovered. In 1920 another excavation was made and this time the enclosure was more thoroughly researched. All the finds – quartz tools and fragments of slate artefacts – pointed to the Stone Age. In 2001 the Finnish National Board of Antiquities arranged the survey and small-scale excavation at the Kastelli site. Mapping the site and sampling datable material was a priority. During the intensive survey 43 heaps of fire-cracked stones were discovered. There are also seven dwelling depressions and 19 cairns at the site. The map of the site is shown in Fig. 9.1.

The age of the burned stones from the heaps was studied by the TL-method. Altogether 30 fire-cracked stones were taken from the heaps in order to prepare TL-samples. Half of them were from the heap marked Test Pit 1 in Fig. 9.1 and other half from the heap marked Test Pit 2. The TLsamples point to the period 2600-2400 BC. Radiocarbon dating was used successfully on charcoal samples collected from both of the excavated heaps. It was obvious that dated charcoal belongs to the same context as the fire-cracked stones inside the heaps. There are two radiocarbon dating results made from these charcoal pieces with the AMS. The results are Hela-521: 4185±60 BP (calibrated date 2890-2670 BC) and Hela522: 4125±70 BP (calibrated date 2870-2580 BC). These results actually point to the time when burned trees were growing and can therefore be 100-200 years older than the time when the trees were burned.

OSL, TL AND RADIOCARBON DATING The heaps of interest for dating are situated in an approximately 150m-long band-like formation along the 52-meter contour line. They are low mounds, which are undefined in form, and the height range is from 30 to 70 cm. It is obvious that the distribution marks the ancient shoreline, and most likely the close access to the water was essential to the process in which the heated stones were used and the heaps were formed. The archaeological 85

NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC ARCHAEOLOGY IN EURASIA: BUILDING TECHNIQUES AND SPATIAL ORGANISATION

Fig. 9.1. Map of the ‘Giants’ Church’ site at Pattijoki Kastelli. The two opened heaps (Test Pits 1 and 2) are marked. The rectangular-shaped 52 x 30 meter stone enclosure the ‘Giants’ Church’ is in the centre

Fig. 9.2. Cross-section of the heap of fire-cracked stones Test Pit 1). The locations of the OSL, TL and radiocarbon samples are marked in the centre 86

J. OKKONEN: DETECTING SOCIAL COMPLEXITY AMONG THE NEOLITHIC HUNTER-GATHERERS IN FINLAND…

The archaeological finds at the Kastelli site are typical for the Stone Age: quartz flakes and tools, and some fragments of stone tools. From the test-pit dug in the dwelling depression a fragment of asbestos-tempered pottery was found. Evidently it belonged to the potterytype which can be dated roughly to the end of the Neolithic Stone Age, approximately 2900-1800 BC.

development is connected to the more complex social structures and it may indicate symbolic and ritual competition between the trans-egalitarian societies which were living in the coastal region of Northern Finland.

The study clearly shows the great potential of the TL and OSL methods in dating archaeological sites. At the Kastelli site, the result of the different independent dating methods, such as shoreline chronology, pottery typology, TL and OSL together with radiocarbon dating, can be compared. They all seem to point to the same date – the middle of the 3rd millennium BC.

ESKOLA, K.O., J. OKKONEN, and H. JUNGNER, 2003, Luminescence dating of a coastal Stone Age dwelling place in northern Finland. Quaternary Science Reviews Volume 22, Issue 10-13.

References

NUÑEZ, M. and J. OKKONEN, 1999, Environmental Background for the Rise and Fall of Villages and Megastructures in North Ostrobothnia 4000 – 2000 cal BC. Dig it all. Papers dedicated to Ari Siiriäinen. Jyväskylä.

CONCLUSIONS

OKKONEN, J., 2001, Cairns and Cultural Landscape – An Attempt to define Stone Age and Bronze-age Land Use and Territoriality in Ostrobothnia, Finland. Faravid 25: 23-35.

Kastelli ‘Giants’ Church’ can be seen as an indicator of the social and cultural changes which took place within the hunter-gatherer societies in Ostrobothnia during the middle and late Neolithic. The increasing number of dwelling depressions, cairns and ‘Giants’ Churches’ is noticeable in archaeological record around 2500 BC. This

OKKONEN, J., 2003, Jättiläisen hautoja ja hirveitä kiviröykkiöitä – Pohjanmaan muinaisten kivirakennelmien arkeologiaa. Acta Univ. Oul. B 52, Oulu.

87

SOCIO-ECONOMIC STRUCTURE OF THE LENGYEL CULTURE REFLECTED BY TWO SETTLEMENTS Judit REGENYE Abstract: The settlement system of the late Lengyel culture (4500 BC) in central Transdanubia (Western Hungary) is particularly dense. The reason for this feature is the Szentgál flint mine, the greatest flint mine in Hungary. There are a lot of smaller settlements around the mine for the exploitation and processing of the stone and to control accessibility. In this settlement system we can find another type of settlement, an extended site with organised building structure. The processing and trade of the exploited stone needs central places such as this. The role of such places was the distribution of raw material: they were organisational centres. The difference between the two settlement types lies in the dimensions, building construction, and house types. Two excavated settlements, Szentgál and Veszprém show the clear differences in the houses. They show differences in layout and building style. The reason for the difference between the two settlement types is the different role they play in the socio-economic structure of the Lengyel culture. The settlement system of the Lengyel culture, the interactive system of the large central settlements with densely distributed houses and the smaller settlements are direct indicators of the high level of organisation of the society. Key-words: Neolithic, Lengyel culture, settlement study, house structures, social structure Résumé: Le système des établissements du Lengyel tardif (4500 BC) and la Transdanubie centrale (Hongrie de l’Ouest) est particulièrement dense. La raison de ce phénomène est la présence de la mine de silex de Szentgál, une des plus grandes mines de ce type de toute l’Hongrie, qui est entrourée par une multitude de petits établissements specialisés dans l’exploitation et le travail de la pierre et qui controllaient l’accès à la source. Une charactéristique de l’organisation spatiale de ce type d’étabissement du au commerce et au travail du silex est la présence d’une place centrale au rôle de distribution de la matière travaillée. La différence entre les types d’établissements discutés se trouve dans leur dimensions, les méthodes de construction et la typologie des maisons. Deux des établissements fouillés, Szentgál et Veszprém, présentent des différences nettes entre les types de maisons, la raison de cette différence étant due aux rôles différents joués dans la strucutre socio-économique de la culture de Lengyel. Mots-cléf: Néolithique, culture de Lengyel, étude des établissements, strucutre des maisons, structure sociale

ring the settlement pattern, I will investigate the site distribution, because settlement pattern, settlement hierarchy can reflect the structure of the community. Secondly, I will investigate the inter site structure, the location and number of houses; it reflects the character of the settlement, the role played in the structure. Thirdly, I will investigate the individual structures, the houses, because architectural data can give us information about the social complexities of the inhabitants. The houses can be seen as immobile features of the place that are particular arranged by the needs of the builders. They express the social conditions of the inhabitants (Stevanović 1997: 340–341).

INTRODUCTION The Lengyel culture is a significant feature of the Late Neolithic and Neolithic – Early Copper Age transition in central Europe – according to the Hungarian chronology system; other systems call the period Middle Neolithic. The occupation territory extends to the territory of western Hungary, western Slovakia, Lower Austria and south-western Poland, and partly to north-eastern Hungary, Croatia, Slovenia – approximately the territory enclosed by the Drava, the Vistula, the Alps and the Danube. The Lengyel culture is dated essentially from the 5th millennium (4900-4200 BC).

SETTLEMENT PATTERN

The Lengyel people involved some essential changes in the Neolithic economy and in certain respect in the social system. The development of agricultural technology is reflected in the fact that the settlements extended to higher territories and dry soils; it may reflect variability in subsistence strategies. Social change is reflected in the organisational complexity that appears in the building of roundels (circular enclosures, Kreisgrabenanlage), in flint-mining activity and settlement hierarchy.

The study area and sites of the Lengyel culture The study area is in western Hungary (Transdanubia), in county Veszprém. (Fig. 10.1) Previous surveys recorded the location of 64 Lengyel sites in the region. The majority of the 64 sites can be dated to the late Lengyel period. This uneven chronological distribution is a special situation, characteristic only for this region. 4500 BC is a chronological dividing line in the Lengyel culture, the start of the late phase and also the start of the Copper Age in the Carpathian Basin. Nevertheless, the Neolithic way of life survived on the territory of the Lengyel culture for some length.

Settlement analysis is a frequently used way to investigate prehistoric social structures. Settlement studies can be undertaken at three levels: settlement pattern, settlement structure and individual structures within a settlement. For a complete settlement analysis the research of all 3 levels must be integrated. In this article the Lengyel culture settlement data will be used to illustrate the connection of social structure and settlement organisation. In conside-

The most characteristic feature of the late Lengyel period is that it is definitely expansive, the culture reached its 89

NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC ARCHAEOLOGY IN EURASIA: BUILDING TECHNIQUES AND SPATIAL ORGANISATION

Interpretation of the site density The site density of the late phase in this region can certainly be ascribed to stone exploitation activity. The significant role played by the Lengyel culture in flint mining is well known. The settlements in the Bakony Mts. mentioned above had intensive connection to the radiolarite exploitation sites, on examination both of their location and the quantity and composition of the stone industry excavated at the sites (Biró 1993-94; Biró and Regenye 2003). The workshop regions (e.g. at Zirc) lie at high altitudes and on less fertile soils, close to important radiolarite sources (Regenye 2000). The overall situation is unusual for average Neolithic settlements. Their role could be the exploitation of radiolarite. The dense concentration of settlements over a previously unpopulated area presumably served the interests of a more intensive exploitation, as well as offering greater protection for the raw material source. A group of late Lengyel sites controlled the mining of stone raw material; it seems that they fully monopolised the resource. The occupation of the environment of the stone raw materials seems to be a special settlement pattern in the late Lengyel period in Transdanubia. The villages where stone was extracted and processed grew up next to the mines. Another element of this settlement pattern was the site at Veszprém, one of the most significant settlements of the late Lengyel culture in Hungary, located 15 km south-east of the workshop centres.

Fig. 10.1. The study area with sites of the Lengyel culture

greatest expansion in this phase, and a more intensive use of the interior territories can also be observed. An example of this phenomenon is offered by the settlement group on the study area that appeared in the late Lengyel period around Szentgál Tűzköves hill, in a formerly uninhabited zone. Szentgál Tűzköves hill, a prehistoric flint mine, is the greatest stone exploitation site in Hungary (Biró 1995). Tűzköves hill was surrounded by 9 settlements of the late Lengyel culture. The sites are located 4-8 km away from each other, and only 3-9 km from the source of raw material, and they seem to be of the same age, i.e. the late Lengyel period. Next to this workshop region in the Bakony Mts. we can find 2 more raw material sources (Zirc, Pápa), also with some settlements (Biró and Regenye 2003).

SETTLEMENT STRUCTURE Excavations of the sites: Szentgál, Veszprém We investigated two settlements of different types in this settlement pattern. One of them is Szentgál–Teleki-dűlő, a settlement near the flint mine, the other one is Veszprém– Jutasi St., the centre of the settlement system. The difference between the two settlements lies in the dimensions, building structure, and house types. The reason for this difference is, as we will see, the different role they play in the socio-economic structure of the Lengyel culture.

The site density in the late Lengyel period in the study area is striking because the number of Lengyel culture sites decreased as compared to the Linear pottery culture sites: 93 LPC sites and 64 Lengyel sites (Biró and Regenye 1991). The same trend can be seen over the whole territory of the culture. The number of the sites decreased or at least did not increase in relation to the previous Linear pottery period (Kruk and Milisauskas 1999: 306; Pavúk 1986). The tendency to decrease is associated with the settlement concentration process at the beginning of the Late Neolithic. This process can be best studied in the territory of the Tisza culture in eastern Hungary (Raczky and Anders 2006: 21; Makkay 1982: 124–127).

Szentgál-Teleki-dűlő is one of the settlements in the close neighbourhood of the Szentgál-Tűzköves hill (Fig. 10.2). The site lies 6 km south of the raw material source, on a slightly inclined hillside by the Cinca stream. The size of the site is approximately 200 m x 100 m. A test excavation was made in the centre of the site in 1995. A house with post construction was unearthed, as well as some pits of the Lengyel culture (Regenye 2001). Veszprém-Jutasi St. can be found on a plateau over a former tributary of the Séd stream in the north-eastern part of Veszprém. It occupied a territory of about 30 ha. (Fig. 10.3). 90

J. REGENYE: SOCIO-ECONOMIC STRUCTURE OF THE LENGYEL CULTURE REFLECTED BY TWO SETTLEMENTS

Fig. 10.3. Veszprém, Jutasi Str., site plan and house 1

INDIVIDUAL STRUCTURES The excavated houses The Szentgál house is a northwest-southeast oriented, asymmetrical square of smaller dimensions. The length is 10.8 m, the width at the north side 8.10 m, at the south side 7.20 m. The house had a post structure and a dividing wall along its longitudinal axis. We have found 15 postholes belonging to the house structure. They are shallow holes of different diameter. The postholes in the line of the north wall have an outer diameter of 1 m with a smaller hole of 40 cm diameter in the centre where the post actually stood. The other postholes are 50 cm in diameter and those of the east and west walls are very small, shallow holes of 20 cm diameter. The postholes are distributed at a distance of 1 m along the line of the north wall and 1.20 – 2.20 m from the lines of the sidewalls. There was an extra posthole in the inner part of the house, a very deep one (112 cm), while the others were 60-80 cm deep.

Fig. 10.2. Szentgál, Teleki-dűlő, layout of the house

The site is a significant settlement of the late Lengyel culture. In 1972 there was a rescue excavation there. P. Raczky described the IIIrd phase of the Lengyel culture in Hungary based on this assemblage (Raczky 1974). Excavations were conducted at the western border of the settlement in 2003 (Regenye 2004). 8,000 square metres were unearthed on the western edge of the site and 573 features were documented in total. Most of them were the settlement features of the Lengyel culture (houses, pits, fences, ditches). We also found graves: 8 came from the Lengyel culture. The Lengyel settlement was partly overlapped by the settlement of the Baden culture and we also found a settlement fragment from the Early Bronze Age.

The house was built over a freshly filled-in pit and that explains why the roof needed an extra static support after the filling of the pit had sunk. The site of the house was covered with a thick layer of burnt debris. It helped us to 91

NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC ARCHAEOLOGY IN EURASIA: BUILDING TECHNIQUES AND SPATIAL ORGANISATION

reconstruct the wall structure. Between the distant posts there must have been wattle with thick daubing on both sides.

been preserved at both walls. The northern wall is indicated by a very deep trench. Originally oval pits were dug with steps to help the positioning of the posts but they were placed so close to one another that they opened together. The southern wall, similarly to the former one, was not entirely closed with the posts placed to the two sidewalls. The house had two rooms. The dividing wall is marked by three large, oval postholes dug side by side, 14 m from the northern wall: it was 32 m long and 8 m broad. House no. 9 has the vaguest outline. The southern segment of the eastern wall, which intersects building no. 8, can clearly be seen. It is composed of round and oval postholes of a diameter of 60-80 cm. The northern wall with 9 postholes is very plainly outlined. The western wall is next to house 7b, while the southern one is entirely uncertain, and the large posthole that we could expect at houses with open, southern sides is missing. We could not find postholes that would mark an inner-dividing wall. Judged from a few larger postholes, a row of props stood in the longitudinal axis of the house. The house was about 32 m long and 8 m broad.

To sum up, the house was marked by a thick layer of debris hardly preserving traces of its wooden structure sunk into the ground, having an irregular square form with stronger posts along the north wall, on the corners, and along the longitudinal axis; the side walls were lightly built. By excavating the Veszprém settlement, five nearly entire buildings and the fragments of 4 more houses came to light. The first five houses stood in a row, 5 m from each other at the northern border of the excavation territory. All were post structure buildings of a northwest-southeast orientation. House no. 1 was practically complete. It is slightly trapezoidal, being 20 m long and 6.5 m wide to the north, and 8 m wide to the south. It had two rooms, from which the southern one was somewhat smaller. A very deep, L-shaped posthole represented the dividing wall between the two rooms. Each 2 larger postholes can be found in the vertical walls in the line of the dividing wall. Twenty-four postholes outline the western wall. They are more-or-less round holes of a diameter of 50-60 cm and they were distributed at a distance of 20-50 cm from each other. Two 60-80 cm wide foundation trenches marked the eastern wall of the house, which were broken in the middle by the double posthole of the dividing wall. These foundation trenches have irregular shapes and are of uneven breadth with large postholes in them. We did not find postholes on the southern side, only an extremely deep pit for the prop in the axis of the building and 2 small postholes aligned with it.

The other buildings were not complete. Different building structures The excavated settlements show the clear differences in the houses. We know that the household is the primary unit of the production in the Neolithic and for that very reason is important to analyse the architectural data. The houses show differences in layout and building style. The outlined house types indicate two different building methods at least; there are differences relating to (1) construction; (2) strength; and (3) wall structure. 1. For the Veszprém houses, the northern wall, the southern section of the sidewalls, and the single post in the south wall carry the roof load, while the Szentgál house has a support in the middle line as well.

Another group of houses, houses nos. 6-9, stood 25 m to the south from house no. 1. These houses were repeatedly reconstructed. They were also of a northwest-southeast orientation, although their orientation was not the same within the group or as compared to the former group. The foundation trenches were dug close to, sometimes into each other, which made the interpretation of this system of features fairly difficult. The ground plan of four buildings can be outlined with a great probability.

2. There is a marked difference if we have a look at the shallow postholes of the Szentgál house compared to the deep foundation ditches of the Veszprém houses. The large postholes suggest that these houses may have been two-storey constructions. It is well known that there are reports of two-story buildings from contemporary Lengyel, Tisza, Herpály, Tripolye contexts (Pavúk 1991; Kalicz and Raczky 1987; Milisauskas and Kruk 2002: 221).

House no. 6 has two rooms. The inner division is marked by 3 large, oval postholes 8 m from the northern wall, and a similarly deep, wide posthole was found in the middle of the southern wall. Its measurements are 18 m long and 7 m wide. This building was reconstructed later and somewhat shifted aside (house no. 7). The postholes that intersect each other suggest that the southern part of the building was modified. Measurements: house no. 7a was 22 m long and 8 m broad, the northern end was somewhat narrower (7 m); house 7b was 18 m long and just as broad as the above house. Building no. 8 is the easternmost element of the group. The western and the eastern walls are marked by irregular, oval, large postholes. The posts of the eastern wall were dug into the trench of a former fence. The postholes of only the southern rooms have

3. The wall structure of the Szentgál house can be reconstructed as a wattle-and-daub wall on the basis of daub fragments in the thick debris layer and in view of the distant posts. The close-set posts of the Veszprém houses do not allow the supposition of wattle structure. These were timber-and-clay buildings as well, but there was no place between the posts to set wattle. Because of the excavation method in Veszprém – we removed the humus layer by machines – we could not find a burnt rubble layer above the houses, only some daub fragments in the postholes. 92

J. REGENYE: SOCIO-ECONOMIC STRUCTURE OF THE LENGYEL CULTURE REFLECTED BY TWO SETTLEMENTS

We have not enough data to reconstruct the inner structure of the wall.

culture as we can see in some regions in central Europe. Manifestations of the economic aspect in our case are the workshop centres around the exploitation sites; the quantity and composition of the stone industry excavated on settlements (Biró 1998: 62), and the distribution of the radiolarite in the Lengyel period (Biró 1998).

The long house with gabled roof and the above-mentioned building technology, the wattle-and-daub wall was a local invention of the Linear pottery culture in central Europe. This building tradition survived in the rural architecture until recent times. The Lengyel culture improved this post structure house type by the developing of roof frame.

CONCLUSION

Different settlement types

It is apparent from the examples dealt with, that differences in activities and lifestyle resulting from the organisation of society were manifested in the diverse characters of the settlements. There is an interaction between social structure and settlement structure. Patterns of similarity and difference in settlement data reflect social relations; this is possible because social relations are involved in production and economic activity. The operation of this process results in the archaeological visibility of social relations.

The internal structure of settlements can provide insights into the social structure of the community. The difference in arrangement between the two types of settlements presented here is eye-catching. In the Veszprém settlement, the monumental houses stand close to one another or are even built onto one another due to repeated, on-the-spot renovations. In settlements of the other type, on the other hand, a loose arrangement is characteristic, with the few smaller houses being positioned in a scattered manner. The outlined structure corresponds to a two-level settlement hierarchy. Looking at the 2 different settlement structures it seems obvious that the organisation of the society required the existence of the two types of settlement forms.

References APEL, J., 2001, Daggers, Knowledge and Power. The social aspects of flint-dagger technology in Scandinavia 2350-1500 cal BC. Uppsala, p. 364.

Socio-economic aspects of the settlement structure

BINTLIFF, J., 1984, The Neolithic in Europe and social evolution. In Bintliff, J. ed. European social evolution. Archaeological perspectives. University of Bradford, Bradford, p. 83-121.

As we have seen, alongside the traditional agrarian (and industrial – based on the stone exploitation in the Szentgál region) settlements, higher ranking settlements also existed in the settlement structure of the Lengyel culture. They are called ‘central places’ and significant importance was attached to them, which played a role in the distribution of the raw materials (Petrasch 1990). In my opinion, in the case of the Veszprém site, the distribution of the Bakony radiolarite types (Szentgál, Hárskút) resulted in a higher ranking of the site. According to the investigation of the workshop centre in Szentgál, exploitation of radiolarite in the Lengyel culture period was more intensive than before. The intensive mining had social consequences. An exchange system, like that for the stone raw materials, requires distribution centres and this presupposes hierarchical settlement patterns (Apel 2001: 328). We can add that the dense settlement network by itself can be the direct indicator of a settlement hierarchy, because the population concentration means a greater potential for organisation (Bintliff 1984: 84). An excellent example of this feature is the settlement concentration process of the Tisza culture at the beginning of the Late Neolithic, which resulted in a high degree of structural complexity (Raczky and Anders 2006: 21). We can follow the same process in the example of the Lengyel culture.

BIRÓ, T.K., 1993-94, A szentgáli késő neolit telep kőanyaga. Lithic Material of the Late Neolithic Settlement Szentgál, Füzi-kút. Veszprém Megyei Múzeumok Közleményei 19-20, p. 89–118. BIRÓ T.K., 1995, H 8 Szentgál-Tűzköveshegy, Veszprém County. Archaeologia Polona 33, p. 402–408. BIRÓ, T.K., 1998, Lithic implements and the circulation of raw materials in the Great Hungarian Plain during the Late Neolithic Period. Hungarian National Musem. p. 350. BIRÓ, T.K.; REGENYE, J., 1991, Prehistoric workshop and exploitation site at Szentgál-Tűzköveshegy. Acta Archaeologia Hungarica 43, p. 337–375. BIRÓ, T.K.; REGENYE, J., 2003, Exploitation regions and workshop comlexes in the Bakony Mountains, Hungary. In Stöllner, Th., Körlin, G., Steffens, G., Cierny, J. eds. Man and mining – Mensch und Bergbau. Studies in honour of Gerd Weisgerber on occasion of his 65th birthday. Der Anschnitt, Beiheft 16. Bochum p. 55–63. KALICZ, N.; RACZKY, P., 1987, The Late Neolithic of the Tisza region: A survey of recent archaeological research. In Raczky, P. ed. The Late Neolithic of the Tisza region. Budapest–Szolnok. p. 11–30.

The exploitation of the Bakony radiolarite was not limited to the time of the Lengyel culture; it was in use in an earlier period too. But the economic aspects of this activity become more important during the late Lengyel

KRUK, J.; MILISAUSKAS, S., 1999, Rozkwit i upadek

93

NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC ARCHAEOLOGY IN EURASIA: BUILDING TECHNIQUES AND SPATIAL ORGANISATION

społeczeństw rolniczych neolitu – The rise and fall of Neolithic societies. Instytut Archeologii Etnologii Polskiej Akademii Nauk Karaków. p. 403.

spätesten Phase der Lengyel-Kultur in Westungarn. Archaeológiai Értesítő 101, p. 185–210. RACZKY, P., ANDERS, A., 2006, Social dimensions of the Late Neolithic settlement of Polgár–Csőszhalom (Eastern Hungary). Acta Archaeologca Academiae Scientiarum Hung. 57, p. 17–33.

MAKKAY, J., 1982, A magyarországi neolitikum kutatásának új eredményei. Akadémia Kiadó Budapest. p. 1–181. MILISAUSKAS, S.; KRUK, J., 2002, Middle Neolithic, Continuity, Diversity, Innovations, and Greater Complexity, 55/55–3500/3000 BC. In S. Milisauskas ed., European Prehiostory. A survey. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. New York, p. 193–246.

REGENYE, J., 2000, A lengyeli kultúra újabb lelőhelyei Veszprém megyében – New sites of the Lengyel culture in Veszprém County. Veszprém Megyei Múzeumok Közleményei 21, p. 9–19. REGENYE, J., 2001, Settlements of the Lengyel culture around Tűzköveshegy in Szentgál. In Regenye, J. ed. Sites and stones. Lengyel culture in western Hungary and beyond. Veszprém. p. 71–79.

PAVÚK, J., 1986, Siedlungswesen der Lengyel-Kultur in der Slowakei. A Béri Balogh Ádám Múzeum Évkönyve XIII, p. 213–223. PAVÚK, J., 1991, Lengyel-culture fortified settlements in Slovakia. Antiquity 65, p. 348–357.

REGENYE, J., 2004, Háztípusok és településszerkezet a késői lengyeli kultúrában veszprémi és szentgáli példák alapján. – House types and settlement structure in the Late Lengyel culture, based on the examples at Veszprém and Szentgál. Veszprém Megyei Múzeumok Közleményei 23, p. 25–47.

PETRASCH, J., 1990, Überlegungen zur Funktion neolithischer Erdwerke anhand mittelneolithischer Grabenanlagen aus Südostbayern. Jahresschrift der mitteldeutschen Vorgeschichte 73, p. 369–387.

STEVANOVIĆ, M., 1997, The Age of Clay: the Social Dynamics of House Destruction. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 16, p. 334–395.

RACZKY, P., 1974, A lengyeli kultúra legkésőbbi szakaszának leletei a Dunántúlon – Funde der

94

THE TECHNOLOGY OF BUILDING IN CHALCOLITHIC SOUTHEASTERN EUROPE Dragoş GHEORGHIU Abstract: A reconstruction of the prehistoric building techniques could be achieved by the intertwining emic and ethic approaches. The paper discusses the chaîne-opératoires of wattle and daub technique of building with its social implications for the Chalcolithic society living in the wetland environment of the Lower Danube, identified from experiments, ethnographical studies and the analysis of ceramic models. Key words: Lower Danube region, wattle and daub technique, chaîne-opératoire Résumé: Une reconstruction des téchniques préhistoriques de construction peut être faîte en mettant ensamble des approaches subjectives et objectives. L’article discute les chaîne-opératoires de la téchnique du clayonnage, avec ses implications sociales pour les societées Chalcolithiques vivant dans la zone marécajeuse du Bas Danube, téchniques qui ont été identifiées par suite à des expériments, études ethnologiques et l’étude des maquettes en céramique. Mots-cléf: région du Bas Danube, technique du clayonnage, chaîne-opératoire

to the new climatic context of the North Balkans and the Lower Danube area.

THE METHOD The study of prehistoric architecture could be ascribed to a Medium Range Theory resulted from the synthesis of the data from the archaeological record with ethic and emic approaches. The ethic approach could include comparative studies of the behaviour of materials and of the mechanic of buildings, and the emic one the ethnographic, experimental archaeology and iconography studies, the latter being valid when the chance exists of finding clay models of houses (see Todorova 1982: 40, fig. 24; Bem 2002:190ff), or groups of houses (Gheorghiu 2002: 103; Gheorghiu 2005).

It is likely that the selection of the wattle and daub technique as a predominant technology was due not only to climatic reasons but also to the marshy environment with cyclical flooding. As one can see from ethnographic examples (some of them as recent as spring 2006), the houses made of pisé, (Fig. 11.1) crumbled under the load of the roof, when their foundations became wet during the flooding of the settlement, compared with those with a wooden structure which resisted the catastrophe.

The present paper discusses the technology of building of the Chalcolithic societies from the Lower Danube, like Boian and Gumelnita, using the method mentioned above. THE CONTEXT During the 6th and 5th millennia BC, one can identify two different techniques of building within the AnatoliaBalkan technocomplex: one employing wattle and daub and the other employing pisé. In the Lower Danube area one can identify various techniques of construction at the same building site (for example the use of wattle and daub together with pisé technology in the same building, see Pandrea et al. 1999: 147; Marinescu-Bilcu et al. 1997: 65).

Fig. 11.1. Collapsed house, Spring 2006, Boian village

The construction of the wattle and daub walls was a technique predominant in wooded environments (Perlès 2001: 198), and according to Treuil (1983) specific to the European Neolithic, but which could also be identified in the Near East (Perlès 2001: 197).

Other examples of adaptation to the geographical context come from the Hamangia and Gumelnita traditions from the littoral area, which used stone (the material the most accessible in the region) for foundations and small walls, or from the comparison of the structuring of the Anatolian-Balkan tells with those of the FTN (see Stevanovic 2002).

The wattle and daub technique was an adaptation of the First Temperate Neolithic (Nandris 1970; Nandris 2005), 95

NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC ARCHAEOLOGY IN EURASIA: BUILDING TECHNIQUES AND SPATIAL ORGANISATION

THE STRUCTURE AND THE SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE WATTLE AND DAUB TECHNOLOGY The building of a wattle and daub house necessitates relatively complex technology which involving a potentially medium size group of people and labour hours. Experiments revealed that the chaînes-opératories of house building comprised the following stages: − the cutting, the transportation and desiccation of timber; − the digging of the foundation trenches; − the thrusting of the wooden poles into the foundation trenches;

Fig. 11.2. Pit for clay extraction, Vadastra village, Campaign 2005

− the making of the wooden structure of the roof; − the digging of a technological pit for clay extraction;

A structural element of the wattle and daub architecture were the “V” shaped foundation trenches (Todorova 1982: 81, fig. 41; Popovici and Railland 1996-7: 24; Marinescu-Bilcu et al. 1997: 68; Randoin et al. 19982000, 231, Plate V; Ursulescu et al. 2003: 16), (Fig. 11.3) used for a better fixation of the wooden structure and the support of the walls. Both the load of the walls and of the roof if pressing on the soil surface could lead to the fracture of the wattle armature, therefore the hardened base of the wall produced by tossing the soil into the trench would act as a foundation. Because the wooden poles and twigs were tossed into the base of the trench (Ursulescu et al. 2003: 16; Todorova 1982: 81, fig. 42), part of the load of the walls’ clay was supported by the vegetal structure (Fig. 11.4), while the structure of the house benefited from the added anchoring into the soil.

− the mixing of the clay with straw, chaff and water; − the making of daub bricks and their transport; − the plastering of the wattle structure; − the finishing of the walls’ surfaces; − the thatching of the roof; − the deconstruction of the building at the end of the lifecycle by means of combustion (Tringham 1992; 1994; Tringham and Krstic 1990; Stevanovic 1997; 2002; Chapman 1999; Gheorghiu 2005) or via the recycling of the wooden structure. As experiments and ethnographic studies confirm, the large majority of the stages of the chaînes-opératoires were the result of the activity of a medium size number a relatively small number of people. From the experiments carried out during the building of 3 large wattle and daub houses it seems that the number of persons who can raise a house in less than two weeks need not exceed 7 individuals (a household unit?).

THE METHOD OF WORKING WITH THE WATTLE AND DAUB TECHNIQUE An index of the dimensions of a wattle and daub house are the technological pits for clay extraction; (Fig. 11.2) experiments showed that a 8 x 4 x 2.30 m building produced a pit of 3 x 2.5 x 2 m, and a 7.4 x 4 x 1.1 m building one void of 7.2 x 1.8 x 1.1 m, volumes which correspond to the empty spaces discovered in the Boian settlements and which were identified as being semisubterranean houses (see Neagu 2001).

Fig. 11.3. Foundation trenches, Vadastra village, Campaign 2005

It seems that the positioning of the technological pits was parallel to the body of the wattle and daub house as excavations from Precucuteni (Larina 1999) and LBK (Lenneis 2005: 58, fig. 6) traditions demonstrate.

The foundation trenches’ main role was to develop the overlapped settling in tells, by allowing the building of 96

D. GHEORGHIU: THE TECHNOLOGY OF BUILDING IN CHALCOLITHIC SOUTHEASTERN EUROPE

I believe that the use of heavy flint adzes in late Boian and Gumelnita traditions (which are generally labelled as “axes”, in spite of their asymmetry of shape and wearing) is an index of an improvement of carpentry (to cite only the X-like joints of the roof depicted on clay models (see Done 1997: 250, fig. 3; Todorova 1982: 179, fig. 122/4) (Fig. 11.6), and the emergence of a wood architecture of large dimensions. (Fig. 11.7)

Fig. 11.4. Wattle and daub semi-subterranean house, Vadastra village, Campaign 2005 new houses over the demolished ones, which otherwise created a weak soil surface for building up. In order to create the smallest weak surface for overlapped building, the new houses were positioned sometimes transversally over the old ones, this process, in time, generating a movement of rotation of the tell’s levels of settling (Gheorghiu 2002). (Fig. 11.5)

Fig. 11.6. Clay model of a group of houses, Gumelnita tradition, Oltenita Museum

Fig. 11.5. Ovcarovo tell, after Todorova 1982 97

NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC ARCHAEOLOGY IN EURASIA: BUILDING TECHNIQUES AND SPATIAL ORGANISATION

Fig. 11.7. Roof carpentry, Vadastra village, Campaign 2006

Fig. 11.8. Beams fastened with wood nails, Vadastra village, Campaign 2006

An additional index of the use of large pointed posts (Ursulescu et al. 2003: 16; Todorova 1982: 81, fig. 42) are the dimensions of some of the voids of houses or palisades (Ursulescu et al. 2003:7; Marinescu-Bilcu et al. 1996-1998: 95; Todorova 1982: 23-32, figs.13-22); their thrusting into the soil being easily performed by a rotating movement, as ethnographic examples and the author’s experiments demonstrated (Gheorghiu 2005).

At a close inspection the daub from prehistoric buildings seems to have been a composite material made of very short cut vegetal material, probably produced by the crushing of straws with a tribullum and the chaff from the decortications of grains Such a high plastic material covered better the empty spaces between the plaited wattle and, after its combustion, had a better mechanical resistance than the material used in the experiments, which consisted of clay mixed with long straws.

The utilization of a central post or a row of posts positioned inside some of the houses (see Neagu 2001: 19, Comsa 1990: 87, fig. 46) is an index of the large dimensions of the interior spaces; these posts which supported the main load of the roof were plastered with clay which after the combustion of the house produced empty columns of ceramic, fact confirmed by the author’s experiments of house combustion.

One can wonder if the higher resistance of the prehistoric material could not be explained by the addition of starch within the wattle mixture, which could create a sort of natural “cement” after its soaking. It is possible that one of the roles of the technological pits would have been to store the chaff resulted from the processing of cereals, which, combined with the role of collecting the rain water, would transformed them into technological containers for the preparation of a cement-like daub.

The fixing of the wooden pieces could have been done with wooden nails, but fastening with vegetal cords is recorded in clay imprints (Comsa 1990: 84, figs. 44a and b) (Fig. 11.8), as well as plaited twigs (wattle), which had the role of braces and at the same time of clay support.

One explanation for the rarity of the technological pits for clay extraction in tells, could have been their transformation into perimeter ditches whose role is still controversial (Gheorghiu 2003).

From the perspective of materials’ mechanics, wattle and daub could be perceived as the first reinforced material for buildings, the clay mixed with chaff or straws being a composite material with high thermal properties. The wattle and daub walls had their interior surfaces finished with overlapped layers of slip made of fine clay mixed with water and dung, which also used to have a waterproof role, while the platforms made of split wood (Comsa 1990: 88, fig. 47; Todorova 1982: 153, figs. 96 and 97; for the Stoicani-Aldeni regional aspect see Dragomir 1983: 27, Marinescu-Bilcu et al. 1997; Ursulescu et al. 2003: 9, fig. 1) or vegetal floors made of layers of branches and leaves with plaited twigs and reed bunches (Marinescu-Bilcu 1974: 25) were waterproofed with layers of clay mixed with dung.

It is reasonable to accept the utilization of technological pits for clay extraction from the Early and Middle Neolithic also as a solution for temporary settling or as refuse deposits, at the same time with the use of wattle and daub buildings. CONCLUSION One conclusion drawn from the experiments is that the building of large wattle and daub houses implied a coordinated and sustained effort of a medium size group of people. But the emergence of tells as an orderly and compacted way of settling implied the simultaneous building of all 98

D. GHEORGHIU: THE TECHNOLOGY OF BUILDING IN CHALCOLITHIC SOUTHEASTERN EUROPE

the houses, digging of all the perimeter ditch length and building of the palisade (Fig. 11.9), which infers the coordination of several working units at the same time, i.e. the coordination of a large group of people, a fact which could be related to the social changes occurring with the advent of the Chalcolithic of the Lower Danube area with the emergence of stratified society. Examples of simultaneously built first layer of dense settling in a tell with the building material extracted from the perimeter ditch are from the Poljanica tell (4 groups of 3 houses), the Ovcarovo tell (6 houses), see Todorova 1982: 207, ill. 160; the Radovanu tell (12 houses), see Comsa 1990: 72 or the Radingrad tell, see Todorova 1982: 223, Ill. 176).

References BEM, C., 2002, A Special Type of Aeneolithic Dwelling. Unicum or Efficiency of Conservation? Studii de preistorie 1, 153-173. CHAPMAN, J., 1999, Deliberate house-burning in the prehistory of Central and Eastern Europe, In A. Gustafsson and H. Karlsson (eds.), Glyfer och arkeologiska rum – en vanbok till Jarl Nordbladh, Gotarc Series A, Vol.3, 113-126. COMSA, E., 1990, Complexul Neolitic de la Radovanu, Calarasi: Cultura si Civilizatie la Dunarea de Jos VII. DONE, S., 1997, Modele de locuire si sanctuare eneolitice, Cultura si civilizatie la Dunarea de Jos XV, pp.232-259. DRAGOMIR, I.T., 1983, Eneoliticul din sud-estul Romaniei. Aspectul cultural Stoicani-Aldeni, Academia Romana, Bucharest. GHEORGHIU, D., 2002, On Palisades, Houses, Vases and Miniatures: the Formative Processes and Metaphors of Chalcolithic Tells. In: Gibson, A. (ed.), Behind Wooden Walls: Neolithic Palisaded Enclosures in Europe, BAR International Series 1013 Oxford: BAR Publishing, 93-117. GHEORGHIU, D., 2003, Water, tells and textures: A Multiscalar approach to Gumelnita hydrostrategies, In: Gheorghiu, D. (ed.), Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age Hydrostrategies, BAR International Series 1123 Oxford: BAR Publishing, 39-56. GHEORGHIU, D., 2005, The Archaeology of Dwellings. Theory and Experiments, Bucharest: Editura Universitatii Bucuresti.

Fig. 11.9. House protected by palisade and ditch, Vadastra village, Campaigns 2003-2004

LARINA, O.V., 1999, Kultura lineino-lentocnoi PrutoDnestroskovo regiona, Stratum plus 2, pp. 10-140.

Surrounded by the same perimeter ditch, the later layers of settling show a relationship between the deconstruction and construction of new houses, which tend to be built not overlapping the old ones, but changing their orientation, as to cover the smallest surface of the demolished building, which had a weak mechanical resistance.

LENNEIS, E., 2005, Traces du Rubané dans l’architecture Cucuteni?, pp. 55-64, In Dumitroaia, G., Chapman, J., Weller, O., Preoteasa, C., Munteanu, R., Nicola, D., and Monah, D. (eds.), Cucuteni. 120 years of research. Time to sum up, Piatra-Neamt. MARINESCU-BILCU, S., 1974, Marinescu-Bilcu, Cultura Precucuteni pe teritoriul Romaniei, Bucharest: Academia RSR.

One can conclude that the study of the Chalcolithic methods of building should be approached together with the new way of settling represented by tells.

MARINESCU BILCU, S., D. POPOVICI, G. TROHANI, and R. ANDREESCU, 1997, Archaeological researches at Bordusani-Popina (1993-1994), in Cercetari Arheologice, 10, pp. 65-69.

Acknowledgments

MARINESCU-BILCU, S., R. ANDREESCU, C. BEM, T. POPA and M. TANASE, 1996-1998, Santierul arheologic Bucsani (Jud. Giurgiu). Raport preliminar. Campania 1998, Buletinul Muzeului “Teohari Antonescu”, II-IV, pp. 93-98. NANDRIS, J., 1970, Groundwater as a factor in the First Temperate Neolithic settlement of the Koros region, Zbornik Narodnok Muzeja (Beograd) 6, pp. 59-73.

The author would like to thank Professor Dorin Theodorescu and Dr. Romeo Dumitrescu for the financial help to build the wattle and daub houses described in this paper. Many thanks also to the excellent student teams who helped to build the houses. This project was also financed by a CNCSIS grant (No. 1612).

NANDRIS, J., 2005, Adaptive Mediation: The Nature and role of the First Temparate European Neolithic, A

Photography by Dragos Gheorghiu 99

NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC ARCHAEOLOGY IN EURASIA: BUILDING TECHNIQUES AND SPATIAL ORGANISATION

(ed.), Fire in Archaeology, BAR International Series 1098, 55-62.

Short walk through the Balkans: The First farmers of the Carpathian Basin and adjacent regions, institute of Archaeology and Ca’ Foscari, Abstracts.

TODOROVA, H., 1982, Todorova, Kupferzeitliche Siedlungen in Nordostbulgarien, Muenchen: C.H. Beck.

NEAGU, M., 2001, Aspecte ale organizarii spatiului in asezarile neoliticului dezvoltat la Dunarea de Jos, Cultura si Civilizatie la Dunarea de Jos XVI-XVII, 15-28.

TREUIL, R., 1983, Le Neolithique et le Bronze Ancien Egeens. Les problemes stratigraphiques et chronologiques, les techniques et les hommes, Ecole Francaise d’Athenes, diffusion de Brocard, Paris, Bibliotheque des Ecoles francaises d’Athenes et de Rome.

PANDREA, S., V. SARBU, and M. NEAGU, 1999, Cercetari arheologice in asezarea gumelniteana de la Insuratei-Popina I, Jud. Braila. Campaniile 19951999, Istros, 9.

TRINGHAM, R., 1992, Households with faces: The Challenge of Gender in Prehistoric Architectural Remains, In: J. Gero and M. Conkey (eds.), Engendering Archaeology. Women in Prehistory, 93131, Oxford and Cambridge: Blackwell.

PERLÈS, C., 2001, The Early Neolithic in Greece.The First farming communities of Europe, Cambridge University Press. POPOVICI, D. and Y. RAILLAND, 1996-1997, Vivre au bord du Danube il y a 6500 ans, [cat.], Saint Jean de la Ruelle.

TRINGHAM, R., 1994, Engendered places in prehistory, Gender, Place and Culture 1, 169-203.

RANDOIN, B., D. POPOVICI and Y. RAILLAND, 1998-2000, Metoda de sapatura si inregistrarea datelor stratigrafice intr-un sit pluristratificat: Tellul neoeneolitic de la Harsova. Cercetari arheologice X, 199233.

TRINGHAM, R. and D. KRSTIC, 1990, Conclusion. Selevac in the wider context of European prehistory. In: R. Tringham and D. Krstic (eds.), Selevac. A Neolithic village in Yugoslavia, 567-617, Monumenta Archaeologica 15, Los Angeles: University of California Press.

STEVANOVIC, M., 1997, The Age of clay. The Social dynamics of house construction, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 16, 334-395.

URSULESCU, N., F-A. TENCARIU and G. BODI, 2003, Despre problema construirii locuintelor cucuteniene, Carpica XXXII, 5-18.

STEVANOVIC, M., 2002, Burned Houses in the Neolithic of Southeastern Europe. In Gheorghiu, D.

100

NEW DATA REGARDING THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE PRECUCUTENI CULTURE BUILDINGS Nicolae URSULESCU and Adrian-Felix TENCARIU Abstract: We present new data regarding the architecture of Chalcolithic Precucuteni houses: the positioning of house walls within the foundation trenches, where the posts were inserted to enable the intertwining of the wattle and daub. We also analyse the interior layout of dwellings (domestic fire installations, benches, columns, shrines, clay containers and boxes), as well as their (utilitarian and cultic) functionality. Key-words: Eneolithic/Chalcolithic, Precucuteni culture, architecture, household structures, cult structures Résumé: On présente quelques données récentes sur l’architecture des habitations en plein air de la civilisation Précucuteni: la fixation des parois des maisons (fossées de fondation, où les poteaux étaient fichés; le clayonnage des verges et le battement de l’argile, dans le système de palançons). De même, on analyse des éléments d’architecture interne des habitations (des aménagements pour le feu, des banquettes, des colonnes, des autels, cassettes en argile, des boîtes en argile), aussi bien que leur double fonctionnalité (utilitaire et de culte). Mots-cléf: Enéolithique, culture Precucuteni, architecture, structures utilitaires, structures de culte

environmental) and subjective factors (related to the creative abilities of individuals and the technical level reached at different times in different areas).

INTRODUCTION The Early Chalcolithic Precucuteni culture, from eastern Romania, with its variant, Tripolje A, from the western Ukraine, opens up the history of one of the most representative civilizations of prehistoric Europe – Cucuteni-Tripolje, from the developed Chalcolithic. Both cultures form together an extensive entity, with an evolution of approximately 1,500 years (approximately 5000-3500 CAL BC), which influenced large areas of Eastern and East-Central Europe.

We will discuss only the modality of fixing the walls, as well as the interior organization of these houses. The position is are quite clear regarding the system of wall building (a wooden web covered with daub), with no major differences from the majority of Neolithic cultures. What remained unknown is the system of fixing the posts to the walls.

Among the many problems raised by the study of the vestiges left by the population of this representative civilization of the European Chalcolithic is that of the construction of houses with clay platforms and wooden structures, which denotes the existence of a high standard of technical ability. This situation, correlated with the fact that the houses are sometimes found inside large or very large fortified settlements, arranged within an established plan, suggests the existence of a well-organized and elevated social system, characterized by some researchers as a pre-urban or an incipient urban stage of historical evolution (Šmagli 2001; Šmagli and Videjko 2001-2002; Ursulescu 1995: 77-79; for a different opinion see Monah 2005: 261-264).

Until recently, in the excavations carried out in settlements belonging to the Precucuteni and Cucuteni cultures, archaeologists were unable to observe coherent patterns of postholes left in the earth; only rare traces were noticed. This explains the theory of the use, around the clay platform, of wooden ‘shoes’ into which the wall posts would have been fixed (Schmidt 1932: 7; Vl. Dumitrescu et al. 1954: 184-187). Through extrapolation, the same system was also assumed for the Precucutenian houses (Marinescu-Bîlcu 1974: 32), although it was admitted that ‘traces of the wooden shoes have not been identified because they were, of course, buried shallowly into the ground.’ (Marinescu-Bîlcu 1974: 33) The hypothesis of wooden shoes into which the wall posts were fixed became a sort of axiom, widely accepted, explaining the lack of posthole traces, or their rare appearance (Marinescu-Bîlcu 1981: 25-26; MarinescuBîlcu and Bolomey 2000: 25-26; Comşa 1987: 138; Draşovean 1996: 36-39; Ignat 1998: 30; PetrescuDîmboviţa et al. 1999: 187).

Various explanations were formulated for the deciphering of this constructive system. These explanations, in most cases, were extended for the entire area of the cultural complex. Our opinion is that such an approach will be difficult to substantiate as we are talking about a population that evolved over a huge area (approximately 350.000 km2), engendering various local characteristics over its 1500 years of existence. It is obvious that with such a temporal and territorial expanse we cannot talk of only one type of construction, but of an evolution of many types, including houses with platforms. Original construction solutions can appear in different areas, determined by objective factors (historical and

But, on closer look, this hypothetical solution raises a series of question marks. In order to sustain the weight of the posts, the shoe must have been well fixed into the ground and in that case would have left some traces, as necessarily the shoes would have had to be much thicker 101

NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC ARCHAEOLOGY IN EURASIA: BUILDING TECHNIQUES AND SPATIAL ORGANISATION

than the posts (which usually had a diameter of approximately 20 cm).

confirmed soon for the Cucuteni culture too, through the observations made in recent years at Hoiseşti (Dumeşti, Iaşi County) (Ursulescu, Tencariu and Bodi 2003: 5-18) and Feteşti (Adâncata, Suceava County) (Boghian et al. 2004: 121; Boghian et al. 2005: 149; Boghian et al. 2006: 158).

Resorting to other ethnographic data we discover that the shoe has been used in traditional wooden architecture, mostly for those constructions employing horizontally disposed beams, joined at the corners (Vlăduţiu 1973: 169-170; Butură 1978: 99; Cojocaru 1983: 76-77; Bratiloveanu and Spânu 1985: 30-53), and not for those houses supported by vertical ‘forked’ timbers and having wooden lattices, of wattle and daub type, as with the Neolithic and Chalcolithic examples.

Out of the eight Precucutenian houses excavated up to now at Isaiia, seven exhibit, at the margins of the material agglomerations, the contours of trenches (fig. 12.1/1-2). The trenches had widths varying from 0.50 and 0.85 m, and they delimited the quasi-rectangular form of the houses. They had a ‘U’ form, but larger at the mouth than at the bottom. Circular holes were observed along these trenches, holes into which the wall posts were inserted. These posts were 15 to 40 cm in diameter. The section through these trenches and post holes showed that, after the digging of the trenches (with depths varying between 0.50 and 0.75 m from ground level), the posts, with a sharp or rounded end (depending on the cutting of the trees), extended below the bottom of the trench by between 10-15 cm. The pillars were not disposed in a perfectly straight line, but at a slight zig-zag, probably to allow the better fixing and inter-twining of the wattle between the pillars, and, through the adding of clay, to thicken the walls.

These are the reasons why we consider that the use of wooden shoes for the elevation of walls remains an hypothesis, without excluding it completely,1 if we take into consideration the diversity of construction techniques identified within the Precucuteni-Cucuteni communities. When, along the extremities of some clay platforms, traces were noticed of logs arranged along the walls (Vl. Dumitrescu et al. 1954: 187; H. Dumitrescu and Vl. Dumitrescu 1959: 168; Ursulescu et al. 2000: 106-107),2 these probably were mostly used as a kind of frame, within which the clay could be spread over the wooden structure of the platform. Considering the necessity for making solid walls capable of supporting the weight of the roof and keeping out the worst of the weather, we consider that the most probable solution, in the case of wattle and daub walls, was to insert the posts at least 30-40 cm under the soil. In the Chalcolithic cultures of southern Romania (which presents many similarities with those of Moldavia), coherent lines of postholes from these posts, or even the foundation trenches that marked the plan of the house, have already been noticed more than once.

It should be remarked that the posts were quite tight together (approximately three to a linear meter – fig. 12.1/4), and in some cases almost touching,3 which allows us to draw the conclusion that the structure of the walls was mostly of wood (if we take into consideration the birch netting in between the posts), and the clay was less in evidence and used only for the complete filling of void spaces and for smoothing wall surfaces. In this manner the volume of clay that had to be extracted and carried was reduced, while the strength of the wall was increased.

The recent archaeological research at Isaiia (Răducăneni, Iaşi County) (Ursulescu and Merlan 1997; 2002: 73-76; Ursulescu, Merlan and Tencariu 2001: 110-112, pl. 28; 2002: 160-162, pl. 66-67; Ursulescu, Merlan et al. 2003: 158-160, pl. 66; Ursulescu, Tencariu et al. 2004: 149-153, pl. 32; Ursulescu, Tencariu et al. 2005: 188-189, pl. 20; Ursulescu, Tencariu et al. 2006: 187-191, pl. 20; Ursulescu 2001: 51-69; 2002a: 40-43) revealed, as soon as 2002 (fig. 12.1/2), explicit data on the utilization during the Precucuteni culture of foundation trenches to raise the wooden structure of the house walls, a discovery

This suggests to us that, when the walls were built, there was more wood used than clay, although some proposed reconstitutions place the posts at relatively far apart (Marinescu-Bîlcu 1981: fig. 13-14), illustrating a higher use of clay. We think that the existence of a large quantity of wood in the structure of the walls can also be proved by some archaeological clues. Apart from the numerous traces left in the clay of the walls, the greater quantity of wood can explain the intense burning of the clay, sometimes close to vitrification, at the time the houses were destroyed by fire. The high volumes of wood could also explain the situations whereby, in the case of some houses (for example Houses no. 3 and 4 from the Precucutenian settlement of Târgu-Frumos) with only a

1

In spite of what was said in a previous study (Ursulescu, Tencariu, Merlan 2002: 14), we now accept this possibility, taking into consideration, on one hand, the results of the experiments undertaken by Prof. Dr. Dragoş Gheorghiu at Vădastra, who told us that he succeeded in raising stable walls from posts that did not perforate completely the wooden shoes into which they were inserted, and on the other hand the probable presence of such shoes at House no. 1 at the Cucutenian settlement of Feteşti (Suceava County), but, in this case, buried to a depth of approximately 0.50 m (Boghian et al. 2004: 121). 2 We think that it is the same situation in the case of traces of ‘shoes’ found at Gumelniţa culture settlements: (Hârşova. Raport 1995: 37, fig. 8, pl. 3 and 4); Bucşani (Bem et al. 2001: 47-48; idem 2002: 68), Vităneşti (Andreescu et al. 1996: 136), or the Foeni group from Banat (Draşovean 1996: 39; idem 1997: 56).

3 The same arrangement of posts, at intervals of approximately 20 cm, was also observed at the Gumelniţa houses from the tell at Hârşova (Popovici and Rialland 1996: 22).

102

N. URSULESCU & A.-F. TENCARIU: NEW DATA REGARDING THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE PRECUCUTENI CULTURE BUILDINGS

Fig. 12.1. Isaiia, Iaşi County, Romania. 1: general plan of the complexes discovered in 2002; 1: the plan of houses nos. 1 and 1A, with the location and specification of the most important elements of interior architecture; 3: plan of the house no. 11; 4: profile and plan of the foundation trench for the house no. 7 north wall

103

NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC ARCHAEOLOGY IN EURASIA: BUILDING TECHNIQUES AND SPATIAL ORGANISATION

small number of burned clay remains (Ursulescu, Boghian, Cotiugă 2005: 224).4

middle of the house there was another row of posts which helped support the roof (Ursulescu, Tencariu et al. 2005: 189). When coherent rows of posthole traces are not observed, we think that the existence of foundation trenches should be accepted, especially as these present some advantages. It is easier to dig a continuous trench, larger at the mouth, than a row of holes, which should exceed half a meter in depth in order to assure the stability of the posts.

Probably the choice of the technique of construction was essentially influenced by access to the raw material. Certainly, the wood assured a better solidity for the house and filled, with less effort, a large extent of the walls. On the other hand, as the experimental archaeology researches have shown5, the clay was more difficult to obtain and transport than the wood. In any case, the archaeological data showed us that the Precucutenian inhabitants from Isaiia preferred to use wood for the construction of their houses. Rich forests existing in the close vicinity of the settlement encouraged this preference. The massive exploitation of this resource is suggested by the observations made in relation the reduction of the diameters of the poles used in the constructions of later stages, which can be explained by the development, in the meanwhile, of secondary forests.

The existence of foundation trenches was also noticed, sporadically, in the Chalcolithic of Romania at Vădastra (Comşa 1987: 138), or in the Gumelniţa settlements from Blejeşti (Berciu 1961: 545), Hârşova (Popovici and Rialland 1996: 24; Bem et al. 1997: 24; Hârşova. Raport 1997-1998: 36), Borduşani (Marinescu-Bîlcu et al. 1997: 68), Drăgăneşti-Olt (Nica et al. 1995: 10; Nica et al. 1996: 39), Însurăţei (Pandrea et al. 1999: 147), Măriuţa (Şimon and Paveleţ 2000: 183), in the Sălcuţa settlement from Almăjel (Galbenu 1983: 144) or in the Turdaş settlements from Orăştie (Luca 1997: 29, 131 (plan 3), 133 (plan 5); Luca and Pinter 2001: 46) and Turdaş (Luca 2001: 44) and in the Vinča settlement from Zorlenţu Mare (Lazarovici 1979: 82; Draşovean 1996: 37-38), proving that this one was a widespread technical solution for the building of prehistoric houses.

In the three houses nos. 1, 6 and 8 (fig. 12.1/1-2), it was possible to see evidence of complete rebuilding, in the same place, by digging new foundation trenches that had, in part, a different direction, making the plan and the dimensions of the new houses different from the previous ones.

We should stress, based on observations made at Isaiia, that Precucutenian men and women adapted the manner of wall construction depending on various local microclimatic factors. Thus, at more than one house, it was noticed that the north-eastern wall, oriented toward the large valley of the Prut and Jijia rivers, was thicker, either as a result of the use of posts with a diameter of at least 30 cm, or due to the doubling of the line of posts on that side, as was seen at House no. 1. In addition, in order to increase warmth inside, more houses had both hearth and oven.

The detecting of the foundation trenches was usually very difficult because of the colour and composition of the filler soil, which was almost identical to the soil around it. This can be easily explained by the fact that the trench remained opened only for a few days and then refilled with the same soil, which was, of course, very well trodden, in order to consolidate the resistance and the verticality of the sustaining forked posts. This situation can explain why the foundation trenches are not easily detectable during excavation, or can even remain unnoticed, especially when the research is limited to only a few sections; in such cases, the trenches, even if they are caught in profile, can be mistaken for pits, or natural hollows or animal galleries.

As a rule, the houses had a single room of large dimensions in which were located both fire structures. Only in House no. 5 (and probably in House no. 8) were there two rooms, separated by a lighter wall, from which remained the traces of the posts.

Only exhaustive research of the surface of the house, after the study and collection of its remains, can offer concrete data on the system of fixing the sustaining wall posts, which, in our opinion, could only have been constructed in two ways (when using wattle and daub): either with the help of postholes for every ‘fork’, or by the digging of foundation trenches. The two systems are not mutually exclusive, but can be used together in the same settlement, as has been demonstrated by House no. 11 from Isaiia, whose contours were identified by the postholes of the sustaining wall posts (fig. 12.1/3). In the

The utilitarian elements of architecture are closely related to different interior arrangements that could play a cult role. Thus the hearths and the ovens, apart from the utilitarian role, represented for the people of every period, areas with a special attraction, because of the magic that fire, transformer of the substance of things, exerted on the human subconscious (Bachelard 1989: 31-35, 52-53).

4 Also, R. Vulpe (1957: p. 39) observes that in the Precucutenian layer from Izvoare the fragments of wattle were rarer than in the Cucutenian, suggesting that during the Precucuteni culture ‘the houses were built using a larger proportion of wood and less clay’. 5 Research carried out at Cucuteni in the summer of 2002 by a team of the Faculty of History of the “Al.I. Cuza” University of Iaşi, coordinated by Vasile Cotiugă.

This is the reason why hearths, as places for nurturing fire, were considered to be the most important areas of the house, a real ‘centre of the world’ (axis mundi), around it taking place both the main quotidian activities – household and cult (Eliade 1992: 30; Pont-Humbert 1998: 104

N. URSULESCU & A.-F. TENCARIU: NEW DATA REGARDING THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE PRECUCUTENI CULTURE BUILDINGS

136-140; Evseev 1994: 198). It is possible that in the first place the location of the hearth was fixed and then, around it, the house was raised. This is suggested by the fact that at more than one house from the Precucuteni or Cucuteni culture the positioning of the hearth was noticed above a pit, in some cases with a rich deposit, including cult pieces as offerings. The repetition of such situations shows us that we are dealing with a current cult practice through which the dual role of the hearths was assured: on one hand keepers of warmth and giver of light – attributes of the solar divinities – and also places for the deposition of offerings to the chthonian divinities of germination and fertility. This situation was most clearly seen in the Precucutenian area at Houses no. 8 and 11 (fig. 12.2/1-2) from Târgu Frumos (Ursulescu, Boghian and Cotiugă 1999: 121; 2000, 107) and at House no. 3 from Isaiia (fig. 12.2/3) (Ursulescu, Tencariu and Merlan 2002: 161, pl. 67/2). In all these cases the hearth, built over a filled pit, had to be repaired several times because of the compacting of the filling. Therefore this location of the hearth could only have had a religious explanation, as the chosen solution was not advantageous from a technical point of view.6

small clay cones that could be united, with the help of wooden sticks with 21 small clay balls, partially perforated, and, finally, a necklace formed of 42 clay beads (fig. 12.2/4) – was placed near the hearth from the newer phase of construction of Sanctuary-house no. 1 (Ursulescu 2002: 40-43). Near the hearth of the older phase of the same building another cult assemblage was discovered. Even though it was a disturbed complex, a cult table, an askos, and one or two cult tablets with incised symbolic signs, were recovered from it (fig. 12.2/5-7) (Ursulescu 2003: 7-8, fig. 4-6). Besides these archaeological complexes, which suggest cult ceremonies around the hearths and ovens from the Precucutenian houses, recent discoveries brought us even clearer evidence of the arrangement of cult structures and objects near these sacred places of the house. In House no. 11 from the north-east section of Târgu Frumos there was a hearth of large dimensions, in front of which, slightly to one side, on a thick clay platform built on logs, a domestic shrine was found (Ursulescu, Boghian and Cotiugă 2003; Ursulescu, Boghian et al. 2002: 37, fig. 6), surrounded by a ‘U’-shaped clay border. Both the altar and the border were covered with a whitish dye, on which a decoration was painted, before burning, with redbrownish colour. The shrine is of a type undocumented up to the present. It is formed of two clay plates united by a cornice that continued to the back with another plate parallel to the first two (fig. 12.2/8). The two front plates suggest, in a very schematic manner, two human shapes (at their superior part the frontal plates had, on their sides, a slight bending towards the exterior, suggesting the ‘shoulders; the cornice started at their level). The superior part of the cornice was broken, but we cannot exclude the possibility of existence of heads for the two anthropomorphic representations, if we are to consider the examples offered by the shrines discovered at Parţa (Lazarovici et al. 2001, 227, fig. 185-186) (Vinča culture from Banat) or Truşeşti (Petrescu-Dîmboviţa et al. 1999: 528-530, fig. 372/6) (Cucuteni civilization).

The hearth, in its role of keeper of fire (which had a divine, celestial origin), assured this through its construction over a pit that went into the sacred ground, the connection between the two forces of life: Sky and Earth. Their union was, in essence, an expression of the ‘divine couple’, a form of manifestation of hierogamy. Thus the filling of such pits, over which the hearth of a house (its most important feature – Eliade 1992: 30) was constructed, could be considered, in such cases, as a foundation deposition. The compulsory presence of hearths and ovens during cult ceremonies is highlighted by the models of the houses of Popudnja (Passek 1949: 95-96, fig. 50/4) type or by the discovery of the cult scene from the sanctuary-building from Sabatinovka (Makarevič 1960: 290-292, fig. 1; Zbenovič 1996: 32-33; Monah 1997: 35, 48, 191, 255), both in the Tripoljan area from Ukraine. At Poduri (Bacău County), around each of the two hearths of the Precucutenian House no. 36, there was a cult complex: near the first one, the so-called ‘Saint Family’, formed of seven figurines, a clay throne and a miniature vessel, and near the second hearth there were put, in a vessel, 21 statuettes and 13 miniature thrones – an assemblage known as ‘The Council of the Goddesses’ (Monah et al. 1983: 15-20; 1986: 138; Monah 1982: 1113; 1995: 14-16; 1997: 34-35, 191-192; Mantu, Tsaravopoulos and Dumitroaia 1997: 179181).

The most important aspect of this unusual shrine is represented by the painting on the shrine’s frontal plates. The main motif of the painted decoration on the two plates is represented by a rhombus, in the centre of which was a quasi-circular shape. Four parallel lines were traced above the rhombi, under the cornice. Placing the shrine near the hearth is not a random act – this is the place for performing ritual ceremonies. We have to remember here that the hearth of this building was placed on the exact location of a pit (no. 29) from the previous inhabitation level, filled with many vestiges.

In addition, a great cult assemblage was found at Isaiia, consisting of 21 female statuettes, 13 small clay chairs, 21 6 The hearth/oven from House no. 8 at Târgu Frumos was remade nine times (Ursulescu, Boghian et al. 2002: p. 36, fig. 5).

105

NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC ARCHAEOLOGY IN EURASIA: BUILDING TECHNIQUES AND SPATIAL ORGANISATION

Fig. 12.2. 1-3. Situation of some hearths and ovens above pits. 1. Târgu Frumos, Iaşi county, Romania, house no. 8; 2. Târgu Frumos, house no. 11; 3. Isaiia, oven of house no. 3; 4: Isaiia, cult complex discovered in the house no.1; 5-7: Isaiia, cult ensemble from the old phase (1A) of the sanctuary: 5: askos vessel; 6a-b: clay plates with symbolic incised signs; 7: Isaiia, shrine-stable; 8: Târgu Frumos Shrine discovered in house no.11; 9-10: Isaiia, column discovered near the hearth of house no.6; 11-13: Isaiia, clay plates found near the hearth and oven of house no.7; 14-17. Isaiia, cult structures discovered in house no.5: clay frame (14), who had inside two big pots and a clay leg foot shaped (15); clay box, with four legs in the corners and the fifth in the middle (16-17) 106

N. URSULESCU & A.-F. TENCARIU: NEW DATA REGARDING THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE PRECUCUTENI CULTURE BUILDINGS

The cult arrangements can present themselves as columns, or schematized clay plates, as the recent discoveries from Isaiia has shown. The role of the two small columns discovered here (fig. 12.2/9-10) (Ursulescu and Tencariu 2004: 139, 143, fig. 10) seems to have been similar to that of the columns from Căscioarele (Valachia) and Parţa (Banat), interpreted as assuring the connection between Earth and Sky (Eliade 1992: 32-35, 49-51).

adapting to the local conditions of the environment, using original solutions. This creativity, springing from the desire to escape the monotony imposed by canonical styles, will find superior forms of manifestation during the next stage of evolution – the Cucuteni-Tripolje civilization.

A good analogy for the three clay plates discovered near the hearth and the oven from House no. 7 from Isaiia (fig. 12.2/11-13) (Ursulescu and Tencariu 2004: 143, fig. 11), can be found in the Tisza culture, at Véstö-Mógar. There, the piece was ascribed to the known form of cult object with consecration horns.

References ANDREESCU, R.-R., BORŢUN, C., MIREA C., 1996, Vităneşti, “Măguricea”, com. Puricani, jud. Teleorman. Cronica. Campania 1995. Brăila, p. 136. BACHELARD, G., 1989, Psihanaliza focului. Bucureşti: Editura Univers, 108 p.

We can also consider as cult places the benches encountered in almost all the houses researched at Isaiia and, very clearly, in House no. 11 (with the shrine) from Târgu Frumos (fig. 12.2/2) (Ursulescu, Boghian and Cotiugă 2003: 31-32; Ursulescu and Tencariu 2004: 143144, fig. 2). It should be mentioned that they appear only in houses with clay platforms built over a wooden structure. Although they could have served, in the first instance, as sleeping furniture, nevertheless, taking into consideration their close situation to the hearths and ovens, and in the case of House no. 11 from Târgu Frumos near the shrine also, we do not exclude the possibility that these benches served, for example, for the deposition of offerings during ceremonies. Such a situation was noticed at Parţa (Lazarovici et al. 2001: 221, fig. 17) and Sabatinovka, for example.

BEM, C. [et al.], 1997, Hârşova-tell. Cronica. Campania 1996. Bucureşti, p. 24. BEM, C. [et al.], 2001, Bucşani. Punct: Pod. Cronica. Campania. 2000. Bucureşti, p. 47-48. BEM, C. [et al.], 2002, Bucşani. Punct: Pod, La Pădure. Cronica. Campania 2001. Bucureşti, p. 68. BERCIU, D., 1961, Contribuţii la problemele neoliticului în Romînia în lumina noilor cercetări. Bucureşti: Editua Academiei, 594 p. BOGHIAN, D., IGNĂTESCU, S., MAREŞ, I., NICULICĂ, B.-P., 2004, Feteşti, com. Adâncata, jud. Suceava. Punct: La Schit. Cronica. Campania 2003. Bucureşti, p. 119-123. BOGHIAN, D., IGNĂTESCU, S., MAREŞ, I., NICULICĂ, B.-P., 2005, Feteşti, com. Adâncata, jud. Suceava. Punct: La Schit. Cronica. Campania 2004. Bucureşti, p. 148-150.

The House no. 5 from Isaiia showed us, more clearly than in other cases, that the clay cases (fig. 12.2/14-15) and boxes (fig. 12.2/16-17), usually interpreted as recipients for cereals, played an important cult role, for the deposition of the offerings, probably during some sacred ceremonies. We must underline the fact that these were also found in the vicinity of the hearths and ovens from the houses.

BOGHIAN, D., IGNĂTESCU, S., MAREŞ, I., NICULICĂ, B.-P., 2006, Feteşti, com. Adâncata, jud. Suceava. Punct: La Schit. Cronica. Campania 2005. Bucureşti, p. 155-159. BRATILOVEANU, Gh., SPÂNU, M., 1985, Monumente de arhitectură în lemn din ţinutul Sucevei. Bucureşti: Editura Meridiane, 136 p.

In conclusion, we consider that four categories of cult arrangements around the hearths and ovens of the Precucutenian houses can be noticed:

BUTURĂ, V., 1978, Etnografia poporului român. ClujNapoca: Editura Dacia, 466 p. COJOCARU, N., 1983, Casa veche de lemn din Bucovina. Bucureşti: Editura Meridiane, 144 p.

− shrines; − columns (made of clay, wood of clayed wood);

COMŞA, E., 1987, Neoliticul pe teritoriul României. Consideraţii. Bucureşti: Editura Academiei, 200 p.

− plates with consecration horns; − cases and boxes for offerings.

DRAŞOVEAN, F., 1996, Cultura Vinča târzie (faza C) în Banat. Timişoara: Editura Mirton, 224 p., 133 pl.

These data provided by the recent excavations allow us to enlarge our vision of the quotidian life of Precucutenian communities. A series of technical and spiritual elements are combined, with a larger proportion of the spiritual content. In addition, the multitude of forms of construction (beyond certain canons) for the buildings and for the interior architecture shows us an inventive population, with a rich creative imagination capable of

DRAŞOVEAN, F., 1997, Die Petreşti-Kultur im Banat. Praehistorische Zeitschrift. 72, 1, Berlin – New-York, p. 54-88. DUMITRESCU, Hortensia; DUMITRESCU, Vl., 1959, Săpăturile de Traian-Dealul Fântânilor. Materiale şi cercetări arheologice, VI, Bucureşti, p. 157-175.

107

NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC ARCHAEOLOGY IN EURASIA: BUILDING TECHNIQUES AND SPATIAL ORGANISATION

DUMITRESCU, Vl. et al., 1954, Hăbăşeşti. Bucureşti: Editura Academiei, 712 p.

MARINESCU-BÎLCU, Silvia, 1974, Cultura Precucuteni pe teritoriul României, Bucureşti: Editura Academiei, 272 p.

ELIADE, M., 1992, Sacrul şi profanul. Bucureşti: Humanitas, 296 p.

MARINESCU-BÎLCU, Silvia, 1981, Tîrpeşti. From Prehistory to History in Eastern Romania. BAR International Series 107, Oxford, 187 p., 245 fig. + XV pl.

EVSEEV, I., 1994, Dicţionar de simboluri şi arhetipuri culturale. Timişoara: Amarcord, 222 p. GALBENU, Doina, 1983, Aşezarea de tip Sălcuţa de la Almăjel, jud. Mehedinţi. Cercetări arheologice, VI, Bucureşti, p. 143-158.

MARINESCU-BÎLCU, Silvia, BOLOMEY, Alexandra, 2000, Drăguşeni. A Cucutenian Community. Bucureşti: Editura Enciclopedică – Tübingen: Wasmuth Verlag, 200 p., 190 fig. + 4 pl.

GHEORGHIU, D., 2006, Compactness and void: Addition and subtraction in SE European Chalcolithic clay cultures, In Frere-Sautot, M-C. (ed.), Des trous.. Stuctures en creux pré- et protohistoriques (Actes du Coll. de Dijon et Baume-les-Messieurs, 24-26 mars 2006). Dijon: Editions Monique Mergoil.

MARINESCU-BÎLCU, Silvia [et al.], 1997, Archaeological Researchs at Borduşani-Popină. Cercetări arheologice, X, Bucureşti, p. 35-143. MONAH, D., 1982, O importantă descoperire arheologică. Arta. Bucureşti. 7-8, p. 11-13.

HARŢUCHE, N., 1987, Cercetările arheologice de la Lişcoteanca I. Aşezarea “Movila Olarului” (19701976). Istros, V, Brăila, p. 7-90.

MONAH, D., 1995, Practici rituale în vremea culturii Cucuteni. In Credinţă şi cultură în Moldova. I, Iaşi: Trinitas, p. 10-18.

Hârşova. Raport 1995 (1995), Programul de cooperare arheologică româno-francez pe tell-ul neo-eneolitic Hârşova. Raport 1995. Bucureşti: Muzeul Naţional de Istorie a României.

MONAH, D., 1997, Plastica antropomorfă a culturii Cucuteni-Tripolie. Bibliotheca Memoriae Antiquitatis III, Piatra Neamţ. 524 p.

Hârşova. Raport 1997-1998 (1998), Programul de cooperare arheologic româno-francez pe tell-ul neoeneolitic Hârşova. Raport 1997-1998. Bucureşti: Muzeul Naţional de Istorie a României.

MONAH, D., 2005, O stafie bântuie prin Europa: protooraşele neolitice. Arheologia Moldovei, XXVII (2004), Iaşi, p. 261-264. MONAH, D. [et al.], 1983, Cercetările arheologice de la Poduri-Dealul Ghindaru. Cercetări Arheologice, VI, Bucureşti, p. 3-22.

IGNAT, Doina F., 1998, Grupul cultural neolitic Suplacu de Barcău. Timişoara: Mirton, 256 p. LAZAROVICI, Gh., 1979, Neoliticul Banatului. Bibliotheca Musei Napocensis IV, Cluj-Napoca: Muzeul de Istorie al Transilvaniei, 274 p. + XXVII pl.

MONAH, D., CUCOŞ, Şt., POPOVICI, D., DUMITROAIA, Gh., 1986, Noi date C14 din nivelurile aparţinând culturii Precucuteni din staţiunea de la Poduri “Dealul Ghindaru”, jud. Bacău. Cercetări Arheologice, VIII, Bucureşti, p. 137-142.

LAZAROVICI, Gh., DRAŞOVEAN, F., MAXIM, Zoia, 2001, Parţa. Timişoara: Waldpress, vol. I.1, 414 p; vol. I.2, 115 pl., 137 fig.

NICA, M., SCHUSTER, C., ZORZOLIU, T., 1995, Cercetările arheologice în tell-ul gumelniţeanosălcuţean de la Drăgăneşti-Olt, Corboaica. Campaniile din anii 1993-1994. Cercetări arheologice în aria nord-tracică, I, Bucureşti: Institutul Român de Tracologie, p. 9-45.

LUCA, S.-A., 1997, Aşezări neolitice pe valea Mureşului (I). Habitatul turdăşean de la Orăştie-Dealul Pemilor (punct X2). Bibliotheca Musei Apulensis IV, AlbaIulia. 190 p. LUCA, S.-A., 2001, Aşezări neolitice pe valea Mureşului (II). Noi cercetări arheologice la Turdaş-Luncă. I. Campaniile anilor 1992-1995. Bibliotheca Musei Apulensis XVII, Alba Iulia. 210 p.

NICA, M., ZORZOLIU, T., FANTANEANU, C., TANASESCU, B., 1996, Drăgăneşti-Olt, “Corboaica”, jud. Olt. Cronica. Campania 1995, Brăila, p. 39.

LUCA, S.-A., PINTER, Z.-K., 2001, Der Bähmerberg bei Broos/Orăştie. Eine archäologische Monographie. Bibliotheca Musei Apulensis XVI, Sibiu. 258 p.

PANDREA, S., SÎRBU, V., NEAGU, M., 1999, Cercetări arheologice în aşezarea gumelniţeană de la ÎnsurăţeiPopina I, Judeţul Brăila. Campaniile 1995-1999. Istros, IX, Brăila, p. 145-169.

MAKAREVIČ, M.L., 1960, Ob ideologičeskikh predstavlenijakh u tripol’skikh plemen. Zapiski Odesskogo archeologičeskogo obščestva. I (34), p. 290-301.

PASSEK, Tatjana S., 1949, Periodizacija tripol’skich poselenij. Materialy i issledovanija po archeologii SSSR, 10, Moskva-Leningrad: Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR, 146 p.

MANTU, Cornelia-Magda, TSARAVOPOULOS, A., Dumitroaia, Gh. (eds.), 1997, Cucuteni, the last great Chalcolithic Civilization of Europe. Thessaloniki: Athena Publishing & Printing House Bucharest, 240 p.

PETRESCU-DÎMBOVIŢA, M., FLORESCU, Marilena, FLORESCU, A.-C., 1999, Truşeşti. Monografie arheologică. Bucureşti: Editura Academiei – Iaşi: Complexul Muzeal Naţional “Moldova”, 812 p. 108

N. URSULESCU & A.-F. TENCARIU: NEW DATA REGARDING THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE PRECUCUTENI CULTURE BUILDINGS

PONT-HUMBERT, Catherine, 1998, Dicţionar universal de rituri, credinţe şi simboluri. Bucureşti: Lucman, 368 p.

URSULESCU, N., BOGHIAN, D., COTIUGĂ, V., 2005, Problèmes de la culture Précucuteni à la lumière des recherches de Târgu Frumos (dép. de Iaşi). In Spinei, V.; Lazarovici, C.-M.; Monah, D. eds. Scripta praehistorica. Miscellanea in honorem nonagenarii magistri Mircea Petrescu-Dîmboviţa oblata. Iaşi: Trinitas, p. 217-260.

POPOVICI, D., RIALLAND, Y. (eds.), 1996, Viaţa pe malul Dunării acum 6500 de ani. Bucureşti – Paris: Caisse Nationale des Monuments Historiques et des Sites, 64 p.

URSULESCU, N.; BOGHIAN, D. [et al.], 2002, Cercetări interdisciplinare în aşezarea precucuteniană de la Târgu Frumos (jud. Iaşi). Aportul arheozoologiei. Acta Terrae Septemcastrensis, Sibiu. I, p. 29-54.

SCHMIDT, H., 1932, Cucuteni in der Oberen Moldau, Rumänien. Berlin und Leipzig: Walter de Gruyter, 132 p + 4 pl. ŞIMON, M., PAVELEŢ, E., 2000, Consideraţii generale asupra aşezării gumelniţene de la Măriuţa, com. Belciugatele, jud. Călăraşi. Buletinul Muzeului “Teohari Antonescu”, 5-6 (1999-2000), Giurgiu, p. 181-203.

URSULESCU, N.; MERLAN, V., 1997, Isaiia. Cronica. Campania 1996, Bucureşti, p. 32. URSULESCU, N.; MERLAN, V., 2002, Un sanctuar de acum 6000 de ani. Magazin Istoric. Bucureşti. XXXVI, 5 (422), p. 73-76.

ŠMAGLI, M.M., 2001, The large Tripillya settlements and the problem of early urbanization. Kiev.

URSULESCU, N.; MERLAN, V.; TENCARIU, F.-A., 2001, Isaiia, com. Răducăneni, jud. Iaşi. Cronica. Campania 2000. Bucureşti, p. 110-112, pl. 28.

ŠMAGLI, M.M., VIDEJKO, M.Iu., 2002, Majdanetskoe – tripol’skij protogorod. Stratum plus, SanktPeterburg – Chišinev – Odessa, 2 (2001-2002), p. 44140.

URSULESCU, N.; MERLAN, V.; TENCARIU, F.-A., 2002, Isaiia, com. Răducăneni, jud. Iaşi. Punct: Balta Popii. Cronica. Campania 2001, p. 160-162, pl. 6667.

URSULESCU, N., 1995, Prémisses du phénomène de l’urbanisation dans l’histoire ancienne de la Roumanie. Studia Antiqua et Archaeologica, II, Iaşi, p. 75-86.

URSULESCU, N., MERLAN, V. [et al.], 2003, Isaiia, com. Răducăneni, jud. Iaşi. Cronica. Campania 2002. Bucureşti. p.158-160, pl. 66.

URSULESCU, N., 2001, Dovezi ale unei simbolistici a numerelor în cultura Precucuteni. Memoria Antiquitqtis, XXII, p. 51-69.

URSULESCU, N., TENCARIU, F.-A., BODI, G., 2003, Despre problema construirii locuinţelor cucuteniene. Carpica, XXXII, Bacău, p. 5-18.

URSULESCU, N., 2002, Începuturile istoriei pe teritoriul României, Casa Editorială “Demiurg”, Iaşi. 202 p.

URSULESCU N., TENCARIU, F.-A., MERLAN, V., 2002, Noi date privind sistemul de fixare a pereţilor în cultura Precucuteni. Carpica, XXXI, Bacău, p. 13-18.

URSULESCU, N., 2002a, Sanctuarul eneolitic de la Isaiia. Religie şi magie acum 6000 de ani. Academica. Bucureşti: Academia Română, S.N., XII, 2002, nr. 23, p. 40-43.

URSULESCU, N., TENCARIU, F.-A. [et al.], 2004, Isaiia, com. Răducăneni, jud. Iaşi. Cronica. Campania 2003. p.149-153 and pl. 32.

URSULESCU, N., 2003, Complessi di culto nella civiltà Precucuteni dell’est di Romania. Annali della Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia, XLV (2002), Università degli Studi di Bari, p. 5-25.

URSULESCU, N., TENCARIU, F.-A. [et al.], 2005, Isaiia, com. Răducăneni, jud. Iaşi. Cronica. Campania 2004. P.188-189 and pl. 20.

URSULESCU, N., BOGHIAN, D., COTIUGĂ, V., 1999, Târgu Frumos. Cronica. Campania 1998. Bucureşti, p. 120-121.

URSULESCU, N., TENCARIU, F.-A. [et al.], 2006, Isaiia, com. Răducăneni, jud. Iaşi. Cronica. Campania 2005. P. 187-191, pl. 20.

URSULESCU, N., BOGHIAN, D., COTIUGĂ, V., 2000, Târgu Frumos. Cronica. Campania 1999. Bucureşti, p. 106-107.

VLĂDUŢIU, I., Etnografia românească, Bucureşti: Editura Ştiinţifică, 508 p.

URSULESCU, N., BOGHIAN, D., COTIUGĂ, V., 2003, L’autel peint del’habitat de Târgu-Frumos (dép. de Iaşi), appartenant à la civilisation Precucuteni (Énéolithique ancien). Studia Antiqua et Archaeologica, IX, Iaşi, p. 27-40.

VULPE, R., 1957, Izvoare. Săpăturile din 1936-1948. Bucureşti: Editura Academiei, 396 p. ZBENOVIČ Vl.G., 1996, Siedlungen der frühen Tripol’eKultur zwischen Dnestr und Südliche Bug. Archäologie in Eurasien, Bd. 1, Espelkamp: Marie Leidorf GmbH, 62 p. + 40 pl.

Abreviations Cronica Cronica cercetărilor arheologice din România. Campania ....., CIMEC Bucureşti

109

SUR L’ARCHITECTURE DE LA CIVILISATION CHALCOLITHIQUE ARIUSD-CUCUTENI-TRIPOLYE – TECHNIQUES DE CONSTRUCTION, TYPES DE MAISON* Attila LASZLO Résumé: On discute quelques hypothèses concernant les types de maisons et les techniques de construction à la lumière des observations faites dans les habitats d’Ariuşd et de Malnaş Băi (Sud-Est de la Transylvanie), corroborées avec les observations faites dans les habitats de l’aire Cucuteni-Tripolje. Il en résulte que les structures de résistance s’appuyant sur des poteaux enfoncés dans la terre sont documentées, avec certitude, uniquement en ce qui concerne les maisons à plancher en simple enduit d’argile (sans substruction en bois). Mots-cléf: Chalcolithique, Culture Ariuşd-Cucuteni-Tripolye, types de maisons, techniques de construction Abstract: The aim of this study is to discuss some aspects concerning the house types and building techniques as we can observe from the research of Ariuşd and Malnaş Băi settlements (Southeastern Transylvania) and in comparison with similar discoveries from the Cucuteni-Tripolye area. At this moment we can say that resistance structures made by wooden posts placed in holes were found certainly only at the houses with clay-daub floor, but without wooden sub-structure. Key words: Chalcolithic, Ariuşd-Cucuteni-Tripolye Culture, house types, construction techniques

Les préoccupations liées à la reconstitution de l’aspect et des manières de construction des maisons néolithiques et chalcolithiques sont tout aussi anciennes que la recherche même de ces périodes préhistoriques, y comprise la civilisation Ariuşd-Cucuteni-Tripolye. Les nouvelles hypothèses lancées ces dernières décennies (maisons à étage, habitations construites sur des pilotis à une certaine distance du sol etc.) ont soulevé de vives discussions qui ont contribué à l’éclaircissement des idées et même à la conciliation d’idées qui paraissaient incompatibles. Selon nous, le plus grand avantage de ces discussions est le fait que les spécialistes se sont rendu compte qu’aucune hypothèse ne doit être tenue comme absolue et que la culture Cucuteni (comme toutes les autres cultures de l’époque, en général) a inclus plusieurs types de maisons et des techniques variées de construction, en fonction de différents facteurs (naturels et culturels), qu’on peut plutôt supposer que déterminer avec précision. Un autre avantage de ces discussions a été la reconnaissance du besoin de vérifier les hypothèses non seulement par de nouvelles observations de fouilles mais aussi par des moyens de l’archéologie expérimentale (László A. 1988; 2000; Monah et al. 2004; László, Cotiugă 2005).∗

sur la structure de résistance de celles-ci (soutien du toit et des parois). L’habitation “standard” de la culture Cucuteni (Monah et al. 2004) est imaginée comme une construction rectangulaire, ayant une superficie qui varie entre 40 et 100 m.c., le plancher sous la forme d’une plateforme composée de troncs d’arbres et/ou poutres, couverte d’une couche d’argile mélangée avec de la balle de blé. Les parois étaient en argile appliquée sur un squelette de pieux et branchages entrelacés. Toutefois, le seul élément mieux conservé (et qu’on a pu minutieusement étudier) reste la plateforme brûlée accidentellement, selon certains, intentionellement, selon les autres. Malgré l’importance accordée aux plateformes, il n’y en a pas une définition rigoureuse. On parle, en général, d’une substruction solide en bois couverte de l’enduit argileux, mais il y a aussi des cas où les plateformes consistent uniquement d’une couche épaisse de l’enduit d’argile appliquée directement sur le sol (Dumitrescu 1968: 389-390; Marinescu-Bîlcu 1974: 25; Petrescu-Dîmboviţa et al. 1999: 187; PetrescuDîmboviţa, Văleanu 2004: 101-102). Ce problème acquiert une grande importance et les précisions deviennent indispensables lorsqu’on essaie de démontrer l’existence des maisons à étage ou des habitations au plancher “suspendu” à une certaine distance du sol.

*

Dans l’aire est-carpatique, Cucuteni et Tripolye, où on a étudié des centaines d’habitations (dont la plupart avec plateforme), on n’a pas découvert qu’exceptionnellement et isolément des trous qui pourraient provenir des poteaux de soutien du toit et des parois. Puisque dans beaucoup de cas on ne peut pas douter de l’exactitude de la méthode des fouilles (Hăbăşeşti, Truşeşti, Cucuteni-Cetăţuia etc.), l’absence des trous des poteaux doit être acceptée comme telle. Par conséquent, on doit admettre que, dans ces cas, les fourches et les montants de soutien n’ont pas été enfoncés dans la terre, mais fixés à l’aide d’autres méthodes.

Les essais de reconstitution des habitations de la civilisation Ariuşd-Cucuteni-Tripolye se fient presque exclusivement à l’investigation et interprétation des restes de torchis calciné provenant des maisons. Ces dernières (surtout si elles sont bien conservées) peuvent offrir des informations véridiques sur la forme et les dimensions des habitations, la nature du plancher et des parois, les matériaux de construction utilisés, mais elles laissent de la place aux spéculations sur le plan des maisons et surtout Une variante plus ample et plus richement illustrée du présent travail: László A. 2006.

∗

111

NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC ARCHAEOLOGY IN EURASIA: BUILDING TECHNIQUES AND SPATIAL ORGANISATION

À cause de l’absence des observations liées aux éléments portants des constructions de Cucuteni et de Tripolye, les essais de reconstitution souffrent, plus d’une fois, du manque de concordance entre les dimensions en plan horizontal de la maison (longueur, largeur), correctement évaluées, et l’ampleur de la structure de résistance de la construction, souvent sous-évaluée, les éléments de soutien des parois et, surtout, du toit étant imaginés de manière simpliste. Ce fait devient éloquent lors de la comparaison entre certaines reconstitutions proposées pour les maisons de Tripolye et d’autres reconstitutions de maisons appartenant à la culture de la céramique rubanée de l’Europe Centrale faites surtout en vertu des trous des poteaux alignés sur plusieurs rangs (cf. Lenneis 2005; László A. 2006: fig. 1/1-6, apud Ellis 1984, Hiller 2001, Soudsky 1969).

notamment les maisons dont les vestiges, y compris les trous des poteaux, ont été découverts à Ariuşd. D’habitude, les trous étaient considérées comme les traces (fosses) des poteaux (montants) d’appui du toit et des parois. Selon I. Paul, cette interprétation est erronée. Il “argumente” de la manière suivante: si ces fosses appartenaient aux poteaux d’appui des parois, ils devraient être mieux alignés, alignement sans lequel on ne peut pas obtenir une forme tant soit peu régulière de l’habitation. Or, à Ariuşd aussi qu’à Păuca, les pilotis sont disposés en ligne relativement droite uniquement sur un des côtés étroits, probablement à l’entrée. Pour le reste, les pilotis étaient fixés en fonction des besoins de soutien de la plateforme (Paul 1967: 16, n. 21). En ignorant l’objection non fondée de Paul, conformément à laquelle les trous des poteaux de soutien ne seraient pas assez bien alignées, on doit constater que l’affirmation liée au rôle des “pilotis” de soutenir la plateforme est toute aussi non fondée. Car (et c’est au moins curieux que ce fait n’a pas été pris en compte) les maisons de Ariuşd n’ont pas eu de plancher à substruction fait de troncs d’arbre et/ou poutres et, par conséquent, elles ne pouvaient pas être “suspendues”! De la présentation bien documentée des vestiges des maisons de Ariuşd et de leur analyse attentive (László F. 1914: 325-381, 402-414, fig. 9-79), faites il y a presque un siècle, mais pas prises en compte, il en résulte sans doute que ces habitations et leurs planchers et tous les aménagements intérieurs (foyers, fours etc.) ont été construits directement sur le sol, sur un terrain antérieurement aménagé, y compris par une couche de nivellement de terre jaune argileuse, de 10-15 cm d’épaisseur. Ce “détail”, observé aussi à Malnaş Băi (voir ci-dessous) annule encore un “argument” invoqué par I. Paul à l’appui de son hypothèse, notamment celui qu’on n’a jamais observé de nivellement ou aménagement préalable du terrain sur lequel l’habitation était bâtie. “Or, sans un aménagement préalable, les plateformes n’auront pas pu être construites directement sur le sol” (Paul 1967: 6, 8). Quod erat demonstrandum!

* Des trous de poteaux alignées sur plusieurs rangs, en conformité avec le plan des maisons, ont été découvertes au début du 20ème siècle à, dans l’établissement éponyme de la variante du sud-est de la Transylvanie de la civilisation Cucuteni-Tripolye (László F. 1914: 325-381, 402-414, fig.79) (pl. I dans le présent travail). Bien qu’elles soient souvent mentionnées dans la littérature spécialisée comme des exceptions, les découvertes et les observations qui ont permis la définition des traits généraux des maisons de Ariuşd n’ont jamais été discutées, dans le fond, en connaissance de cause, en ce qui concerne les techniques de construction de la culture Cucuteni-Tripolye (cf., toutefois, Childe 1949, apud Hodder 1996: 63; Piggott 1965/1987: 66, fig.24; Dumitrescu 1968: 393; Curinschi-Vorona 1976: 24, fig.14). La découverte, dans les années 60 du siècle passé, des habitations de surface à plateforme aussi dans l’aire de la culture Petreşti, accompagnées parfois par les traces des poteaux enfoncés, a déterminé Iuliu Paul à entamer une discussion sur la fonction des plateformes et le rôle des pilotis trouvés sous certaines de ces habitations. Compte tenu de ses propres découvertes (notamment celles de Păuca), mais aussi en vertu de certaines données liées aux habitations de la culture Cucuteni-Tripolye, I. Paul est arrivé à la conclusion que toutes les habitations à plateforme des cultures Petreşti et Cucuteni ont été bâties sur des pilotis, à une certaine distance du sol (Paul 1967). À la suite des critiques justifiées formulées par certains spécialistes par rapport à cette idée (Dumitrescu 1968; Marinescu-Bîlcu 1974: 34-35 etc.), I. Paul a nuancé ses conclusions, considérant que son hypothèse serait valable pour les habitations sous lesquelles on a trouvé des traces claires de pilotis, y compris des fossés d’implantation des pilotis (Paul 1992: 33).

Le plancher était en terre argileuse mélangée avec de la balle de blé et couvrait la couche de nivellement, ayant une épaisseur de jusqu’à 1 cm. La surface de l’enduit du plancher est plus ou moins calcinée et présente des fissures. Sur et entre les fragments de l’enduit du plancher on a remarqué un mince dépôt de charbon. À l’heure de la découverte, l’enduit couvrait de vastes portions, surtout autour des foyers, sans que le plancher en son entier se soit conservé intact. Il est intéressant d’observer qu’à certains endroits l’enduit du plancher s’étend sans interruption en dehors de l’espace délimité par les rangs extérieurs des trous des poteaux. De cette manière, les informations les plus précieuses sur la forme, les dimensions et la structure de résistance des maisons sont offertes par la disposition des trous des poteaux de soutien du toit et des parois, alignés sur plusieurs rangs conformément au plan de la construction. Lors de la reconstitution des maisons, à part les observations

* I. Paul inclut parmi les habitations à plateforme, bâties sur des pilotis, aussi certaines découvertes plus anciennes, 112

A. LÁSZLO: SUR L’ARCHITECTURE DE LA CIVILISATION CHALCOLITHIQUE ARIUSD-CUCUTENI-TRIPOLYE…

Pl. 13.I. Ariuşd. Le plan des maisons L 1-3 (selon László F. 1914. les lignes des axes longitudinaux des maisons ajoutées par A. László) propres, on a fait appel à des analogies archéologiques et parallèles ethnographiques.

de ce poteau n’a pas pu être déterminée avec certitude (László F. 1914: 325, 337, 354, 369-370). Cela ne signifie pas qu’elles n’aient pas pu exister. D’ailleurs, l’arêtier du toit de la maison L 2 aurait pu s’appuyer tout aussi bien sur le poteau no. 64a, du milieu de la pièce extérieure, et pour ce qui est de l’habitation L 3 on pourrait envisager tout un rang médian composé des poteaux no. 136, 179, 150, 180, 142, 88a et 34, qui n’ont probablement pas fonctionné simultanément. En tout cas, le schéma proposé récemment par Eva Lenneis (2005: 61, fig.10), selon laquelle l’arêtier du toit L 3 se serait appuyé sur les poteaux no. 134, 184, 186 et 241 ne peut pas être réelle, puisque le rang ainsi imaginé est perpendiculaire sur l’axe long réel (et donc sur la direction de l’arêtier du toit) de la maison, et les deux derniers poteaux mentionnés ne font pas partie de la structure L 3. La ligne imaginaire cidessus coïncide plutôt avec la ligne du seuil qui sépare les deux pièces de l’habitation.

Parmi les vestiges des trois habitations publiées, les plus concluantes sont celles de l’habitation L 1 qui, en première pour l’archéologie de nos régions, a été reconstituée sous la forme d’une maquette à l’échelle 1:10 de matériaux similaires à ceux utilisés à l’époque préhistorique (Tzigara-Samurcaş 1925: 8-11, 32, 51; László F. 1978: 40, 219-220, n.60 et photographie d’époque; Monah et al. 2004: 47-48, fig.10; László A. 2006: 108, fig.5/1-2). Les maisons étaient rectangulaires, à deux pièces, séparées par un seuil, la pièce extérieure ayant le plancher situé plus bas (László F. 1914: 376-378, fig.79). Le toit avait deux versants qui finissaient aux deux bouts étroits de la maison par des frontons triangulaires. “La colonne vertébrale” du squelette était le poutre (les poutres) de l’arêtier du toit, qui s’appuyait sur les poteaux les plus gros, enfoncés dans la terre sur la ligne de l’axe longitudinal central de la maison.

Au milieu de l’axe longitudinal de l’habitation L 1 on a observé en fait deux trous de poteau voisins (notés sur le plan de la maison H 10 et H 11), ce qui signifie probablement que, à cause de la longueur de plus de 8 m, l’arêtier du toit a dû être construit de deux poutres, joints à leurs bouts intérieurs, où ils s’appuyaient sur les deux poteaux médians. Les parallèles ethnographiques confirment la nécessité de l’étayage à l’aide des fourches de l’arêtier du toit des maisons longues, tous les 4-5 m, pour empêcher le ploiement de l’arêtier et pour rendre possible, si nécessaire, son montage à l’aide de plusieurs poutres plus courts, raccordés ensemble (László F. 1914: 376).

En comparant les plans des maisons, en fonction de la disposition des trous des poteaux, F. László a signalé une corrélation entre les dimensions (la longueur) de la maison et la structure du toit, dans le sens que pour les maisons plus grandes le poutre de l’arêtier du toit devait s’appuyer sur des poteaux non seulement aux deux bouts de la maison mais aussi au milieu de celle-là. Ainsi, la maison L 1, d’une longueur d’au moins 8,25 m, présentait aussi un poteau de soutien central, alors que pour L 2 et 3, d’une longueur de 6,30 et respectivement 6,50 m, la trace 113

NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC ARCHAEOLOGY IN EURASIA: BUILDING TECHNIQUES AND SPATIAL ORGANISATION

La partie inférieure de la structure du toit (de la charpente) s’est appuyée sur les sablières, c’est-à-dire sur les poutres horizontales, posées sur les poteaux verticaux (fourches, montants) fixés aux coins et le long des côtés longs de la maison. Ces poteaux verticaux ont constitué aussi le support principal des panneaux des parois consistant en un réseau de pieux et verges entrelacés, enduit d’un mélange d’argile et balle de blé. Le squelette de la charpente comprend aussi des poutres en position oblique (chevrons) entre l’arêtier et les sablières, en suivant les deux plans inclinés du toit. Pour soutenir la toiture il était encore nécessaire de monter sur les chevrons des rangs horizontaux de lattes et verges. En jugeant selon les traces sur quelques fragments de torchis calciné, la toiture consistait de gerbes de paille et roseau, pour la maison L 3 existant même des indices de l’utilisation dans ce but aussi du bois (des planches) (László F. 1914: 363-367, 370).

résultée du piochage des fosses, a y été réintroduite et bien foulée autour des poteaux. Cette méthode ingénieuse a permis la fixation étroite des poteaux et a assuré la solidité de toute la construction. La supériorité de la méthode ci-dessus devient évidente si on la compare à la fixation des poteaux dans les soi-disant «fossés d’implantation» de l’habitation L 1 de Păuca, beaucoup plus larges et de forme irrégulière (Paul 1967:16-17, fig.10; 1992, pl. VII). La place des poteaux à l’intérieur des fosses a pu être distinguée, tant en plan qu’en profil grâce à la terre de remplissage différente: plus foncée et ameublie à l’emplacement du poteau (qui pouvait même rester partiellement vide si le bois pourrissait), c’est-à-dire l’argile jaune extrêmement compacte dans la fosse. Après la fixation des poteaux, le terrain a été aménagé à l’aide d’une couche de nivellement de terre argileuse, d’une épaisseur de 10-15 cm, qui apparaît en profil au-dessus du niveau I d’habitation et au-dessus de l’ouverture des fosses d’implantation, étant percée seulement par le lieu des poteaux.

*

On n’a pas pu déterminé avec certitude si l’étape suivante à été la réalisation du plancher ou si la construction a continué avec l’accomplissement du squelette de bois de la charpente (du toit) et des parois, soutenu par les poteaux qui étaient déjà dressés. Dans ce dernier cas, le boussilage à l’enduit argileux des parois et du plancher pouvaient être deux opérations de finalisation de la maison, conjointement avec le montage de la couverture du toit.

Les observations et conclusions ci-dessus ont été non seulement confirmées, mais aussi complétées par les résultats de nos fouilles de Malnaş Băi qui attestent également la diversité des types de maisons et des techniques de construction propres à la culture AriuşdCucuteni-Tripolye (László A. 1988, 2000, 2006). Ainsi, la maison L 2, qui appartient au niveau II d’habitation de l’établissement de Malnaş Băi (pl. II), correspond au type de maison présenté ci-dessus, conformément aux habitations (L-1-2-3) de Ariuşd. Les observations faites à Malnaş complètent, en même temps, nos connaissances sur l’organisation du travail, la succession des opérations, la structure de la maison et aussi sur la manière d’enfoncer les poteaux de soutien dans la terre, élément essentiel pour la stabilité de tout l’édifice. La méthode de fouille, qui a assuré la poursuite des phénomènes archéologiques tant en plan qu’en profil, tout comme l’enregistrement adéquat des observations, a permis quelques précisions importantes, parmi lesquelles se trouvent aussi celles mentionnées ci-dessous.

De toute façon, le plancher n’avait pas de substruction en bois, et si (dans les publications antérieures) on a utilisé le terme de plateforme, cela est dû au fait qu’il s’agit d’un aménagement qui, surtout dans sa forme finale, était comparable à l’aspect des plateformes des habitations du type Cucuteni. Sans donner maintenant des détails (cf. László A. 1988: 29-30, fig.2/3; 4/1-2; 2000: 247-249; László, Cotiugă 2005: 149-150, fig.2/2, 3/1-3), on a pu constater que, initialement, le plancher consistait des enduits d’argile, d’une épaisseur de 5-6, plus rarement 7 cm, appliqués directement sur la couche de nivellement. Sur cette couche, à la base du plancher, on a pu observer des portions aux traces de brûlure (un mince dépôt de charbon). Les enduits même du plancher témoigne des traces de l’effet du feu: leur couleur varie du jaune à l’orange et rouge brique clair, mais sans se solidifier (sans se transformer en ce qu’on appelle “torchis calciné”). On a des indices qui montrent que l’habitation a fonctionné, un certain temps, avec ce plancher. A un moment donné, peut-être suite à un incendie qui a partiellement détruit la maison, le plancher a été reconstruit par le nivellement des débris et leur recouvrement d’une nouvelle couche d’enduit. On a obtenu, de la sorte, une “plateforme” qui, dans l’enceinte délimitée par les rangs extérieurs des poteaux de la maison, avait une épaisseur de 25-33 cm et dans la structure de laquelle on a déposé de nombreux vaisseaux d’offrande. A cause du feu, ces enduits sont devenus rougeâtre-orange, ayant une certaine consistance, et ont été très bien conservé dans la terre, jusqu’à leur

Au début de la construction de la maison, le niveau de marche correspondait à la surface du niveau I (inférieur) d’habitation, qui a été nivelée. Après le choix de l’emplacement de la maison, la première opération a dû être le marquage de l’emplacement des poteaux de soutien, selon un plan préétabli, sans lequel on ne pourrait pas expliquer l’alignement presque parfait des trous des poteaux. La seconde opération a été le piochage, en y mettant grand soin et grande adresse, à des distances régulières, des fosses d’implantation des poteaux, observées pour la première fois dans l’aire de la civilisation de Ariuşd-Cucuteni-Tripolye. Les fosses d’implantations sont étroites, quasi-cylindriques, au diamètre de 0,35-0,45 m et à la profondeur de 1-1,10 m. Dans ces fosses ont été mises, en position verticale, des poteaux en bois (des troncs d’arbres pelés), au diamètre de 0,18-0,20 m, qui constituaient la structure de résistance de la construction. L’argile jaune de la terre vierge, 114

A. LÁSZLO: SUR L’ARCHITECTURE DE LA CIVILISATION CHALCOLITHIQUE ARIUSD-CUCUTENI-TRIPOLYE…

Pl. 13.II. Fig. 1: Malnaş Băi. Le plan de l’habitation L2, avec la possibilité de reconstitution aux parois intérieures de séparation ou à division en quatre “nefs” par les rangs de poteaux. 1. “plateforme”; 2. poteaux primaires; 3. poteaux secondaires; 4. le bord du foyer; 5. enduits du foyer; 6. pierres de la structures du foyer

Pl. 13.II. Fig. 2: Malnaş Băi. Section à travers le rang de creux de poteaux de l’habitation L2. 1. reste de la plateforme L1 (niveau IIIb); 2. niveau IIIa; 3-4. restes du plancher de l’habitation L2 (niveau II); 5. niveau II; 6. couche de nivellement; 7-8. niveau 1; 9. terre vierge; 10. terre de remplissage de la place (du creux) des poteaux primaires; 11. terre de remplissage des fosses d’implantation; 12. terre de remplissage brunâtre; 13. torchis calciné; 14. restes de foyers; 15. pierres; 16-17. traces de brûlure; 18. terre de remplissage des poteaux secondaires découverte, mais puisqu’ils n’ont pas été renforcés par le feu (comme le “torchis calciné”), ils s’ont avéré très friable au démontage.

A l’occasion de la reconstruction de la maison on a monté de nouveaux poteaux, auxiliaires, un à un ou, parfois, sur plusieurs rangs, ce qui indique aussi, probablement, la 115

NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC ARCHAEOLOGY IN EURASIA: BUILDING TECHNIQUES AND SPATIAL ORGANISATION

modification de la structure, respectivement du plan initial de la maison. Les poteaux auxiliaires (secondaires) ont été introduits de la surface de la plateforme, leurs “fosses” (marquées en noir sur les plans et profils ci-joints) se distinguant clairement de l’emplacement des poteaux primaires. Cette différentiation a été possible grâce à l’observation des “trous” des poteaux dès le niveau du plancher (de la plateforme) et à la détermination du niveau auquel on a creusé les fosses d’implantation. Sans de telles précisions, les poteaux et leurs fosses d’implantation peuvent appartenir à n’importe quelle maison/à n’importe quel niveau d’habitation, en dessus du niveau auquel on a découvert les traces des poteaux.

fouilles sous le plancher L 2 et l’obtention de profils complets, du niveau III b jusqu’à la terre vierge (László A. 1988) qu’on s’est rendu compte de la manière de fixer les poteaux et du fait qu’ils faisaient partie de la structure de résistance de L 2. Ainsi, il nous reste à résoudre le problème de la structure de résistance de la maison L 1 de Malnas, habitation de laquelle s’est conservée, pratiquement, uniquement la plateforme bâtie sur la substruction de bois, comme c’est le cas des habitations du type Cucuteni (László A. 1988: 25-27, fig 1/1-2; 2000: 246-247). Puisqu’on exclut la possibilité de n’avoir pas remarqué les trous des poteaux lors de la découverte de cette habitation, on doit accepter l’idée que les poteaux portants de la maison L 1 n’ont pas été enfoncés dans la terre, mais fixés à l’aide d’autres méthodes. On a en vue l’hypothèse plus ancienne selon laquelle la structure du toit et des parois s’appuyait sur des montants fixés dans des patins en bois qui formaient une sorte de cadre autour de la plateforme et qui constituaient le fondement de toute la construction (Schmidt 1932: 6-7; Dumitrescu et al. 1954: 187). Bien que les preuves archéologiques directes en faveur de cette hypothèse soient, pour le moment, peu nombreuses (Dumitrescu 1968: 394; Marinescu-Bîlcu 1974: 29-33; Petrescu-Dîmboviţa et al. 1999: 187-189), ce système de construction est fortement documenté du point de vue ethnographique (cf. László A. 2006: fig.15/1-2, apud Ortutay 1977/1987) et son utilisation dans l’architecture Cucuteni-Tripolye est suggérée aussi par certains modèles de maison qui représentent ces détails architectoniques. On pense, par exemple, à la maquette de Vorosilivka et à d’autres quelques maquettes de l’Ukraine, récemment publiées, qui montrent, avec suffisante clarté, les montants joints en haut par des sablières, et aussi les patins où est fixé leur fondement (cf. Monah et al. 2004: fig. 4, 6-9).

Puisqu’il ne s’est rien conservé des parois in situ, les esquisses ci-jointes, selon lesquelles la maison, à l’intérieur d’approximativement 7,50 x 6,50 m, a initialement eu deux, et après reconstruction trois pièces, représente uniquement une des reconstitutions possibles (cf. aussi László 2006: fig. 13). Le support principal de la charpente a été constitué des poteaux des trois rangs longitudinaux intérieurs (marqués par deux lignes interrompues et une ligne continue, superposées sur l’esquisse ci-jointe), l’arêtier du toit s’appuyant sur les poteaux plus hauts du rang central (ligne continue). Le bord inférieur (l’auvent) du toit pouvait s’appuyer non seulement sur les quatre poteaux angulaires (“fourches”) des coins de la maison, mais aussi sur les poteaux plus bas et plus denses des rangs latéraux du nord et du sud, mais leur rôle principal a été de soutenir les parois extérieures de la maison. L’existence des cloisons, c’est-à-dire des murs intérieurs de séparation n’est pas obligatoire. Les rangs de poteaux divisent la maison en quatre “nefs”, un type de construction bien connue du monde de la culture de la céramique rubanée d’Europe Centrale (Soudsky 1969; Lenneis 2005 etc.). La structure à cinq rangs longitudinaux de poteaux, de hauteurs différentes et ayant des fonctions diverses, permettait aussi le montage d’un plafond et même l’aménagement d’un grenier (ou même d’un “étage”), selon des analogies archéologiques et les parallèles ethnographiques (cf. László A. 2006: fig. 14/13, apud Bader 1995; Hiller 2001). Ce problème dépasse, toutefois, les limites de cette présentation.

EN GUISE DE CONCLUSION Il en résulte, des observations faites à Ariuşd et Malnaş Băi (corroborées avec les observations liées aux habitations du type Cucuteni et Tripolye), que les structures de résistance s’appuyant sur des poteaux enfoncés dans la terre sont documentées, jusqu’à présente, uniquement en ce qui concerne les maisons à plancher en simple enduit d’argile. Pour la construction des habitations à plateforme avec substruction en bois on a préféré, semble-t-il, la méthode de la fixation des pieux dans des patins en bois. Il nous reste à vérifier jusqu’à quel point il y a réellement un rapport entre les deux systèmes de réalisation de la structure de résistance des maisons, d’un côté, et le type de plancher des habitations, de l’autre côté.

* Avant la fin, il nous faut signaler que les premiers trous des poteaux de la maison L 2 ont été remarqués dans la “plateforme” de celle-là, qui ont été atteints après le démontage de la plateforme de l’habitation L 1 (du niveau supérieur, III b) et après la découverte et, puis, le ramassement des traces d’habitation du niveau III a, superposé sur le niveau II, y compris sur les vestiges de la maison L 2. A cette étape des fouilles, on a estimé que les trous ont un rapport avec la structure de la maison L 1, sous laquelle ils ont été découverts. Nous nous sommes imaginé que les poteaux profondément fixés par frappement ont percé le niveau IIIa et ont pénétré dans les vestiges de la maison L 2 qui se trouvaient en dessous (László A. 1980). C’est uniquement après le progrès des

Bibliographie BADER, T., 1995, Prähistorische Rekonstruktionen und experimentelle Archäologie in Keltenmuseum 116

A. LÁSZLO: SUR L’ARCHITECTURE DE LA CIVILISATION CHALCOLITHIQUE ARIUSD-CUCUTENI-TRIPOLYE…

Hochdorf /Enz Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae. Budapest. XLVII:. 199-213.

LÁSZLÓ, F., 1914, Ásatások az erősdi őstelepen (19071912) – Fouilles à la station primitive de Erősd (19071912). Dolgozatok-Travaux. Kolozsvár (Cluj). V, 2: 279-417.

CHILDE, V.G., 1949, Neolithic house-types in temperate Europe. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society. Cambridge. 15: 77-85.

LÁSZLÓ, F., 1978, Táj és tudomány. Válogatott írások (ed. A. László), Bucharest. LENNEIS, Eva, 2005, Traces du Rubané, dans l’architecture Cucuteni?. In Dumitroaia G. et al. (eds.) – Cucuteni. 120 ans de recherches. Le temps du bilan. Piatra Neamţ. p. 55-64.

CURINSCHI-VORONA, G., 1976, Istoria universală a arhitecturii ilustrată, I, Bucureşti. DUMITRESCU, V., 1968, Cu privire la platformele de lut ars ale locuinţelor unor culturi eneolitice. Acta Musei Napocensis. Cluj-Napoca. V: 389-396.

MARINESCU-BÎLCU, Silvia, 1974, Cultura Precucuteni pe teritoriul României. Bucureşti.

DUMITRESCU, V.; DUMITRESCU, Hortensia; PETRESCU-DÎMBOVIŢA, M.; GOSTAR, N., 1954, Hăbăşeşti. Monografie arheologică. Bucureşti.

MONAH, D.; COTIUGĂ, V.; COTOI, O., 2004, Construcţii experimentale pentru culturile Precucuteni şi Cucuteni. Arheologia Moldovei. Institutul de Arheologie Iaşi. XXVII: 41-60.

ELLIS, L., 1984, The Cucuteni-Tripolye Culture. A Study in Technology and the Origins of Complex Society, BAR International Series, 217, Oxford.

ORTUTAY, G. (ed.), 1977/1987, Magyar Néprajzi Lexikon, I, Budapest, 1977; IV, Budapest, 1987.

HILLER, S., 2001, Pfosten als Wandvorlagen in der vorgeschichtlichen Hausarchitektur. In Festchrift für Gheorghe Lazarovici zum 60. Geburtstag. Timişoara, p. 245-266.

PAUL, I., 1967, În legătură cu problema locuinţelor de suprafaţă cu platformă din aşezările culturilor Petreşti şi Cucuteni-Tripolye. Studii şi cercetări de istorie veche. Institutul de Arheologie “Vasile Pârvan”, Bucureşti. 18(1): 3-24.

HODDER, I., 1996, Theory and Practice in Archaeology. London.

PAUL, I., 1992, Cultura Petreşti. Bucureşti.

LÁSZLÓ, A., 1980, Şantierul arheologic Malnaş Băi, jud. Covasna. Materiale şi cercetări arheologice. Tulcea. XIV: 124-126.

PETRESCU-DÎMBOVIŢA, M.; FLORESCU, Marilena; FLORESCU, A.C., 1999, Truşeşti. Monografie arheologică. Bucureşti-Iaşi.

LÁSZLÓ, A., 1988, Date noi privind tehnica de construcţie a locuinţelor neolitice. Arheologia Moldovei. Institutul de Arheologie Iaşi. XII, p. 23-31.

PETRESCU-DÎMBOVIŢA, M.; VĂLEANU, M.-C., 2004, Cucuteni-Cetăţuie. Săpăturile din anii 19611966. Monografie arheologică. Bibliotheca Memoriae Antiquitatis XIV. Piatra-Neamţ.

LÁSZLÓ, A., 2000, Some data on house-building techniques and foundation rites in the Ariuşd-Cucuteni Culture. Studia Antiqua et Archaeologica. Universitatea “Al.I. Cuza” Iaşi. VII:. 245-252.

PIGGOTT, S., 1965/1987, Ancient Europe from the beginnings of agriculture to classical antiquity. A survey. Edinburgh University Press, 1965 / Az európai civilizáció kezdetei. Az őskori Európa az első földmüvelőktől a klasszikus ókorig. Budapest, 1987.

LÁSZLÓ, A., 2006, Despre arhitectura culturii AriuşdCucuteni-Tripolye. Tipuri de case, tehnici de construcţie. In Ursulescu, N. (ed.) – Dimensiunea europeană a civilizaţiei eneolitice est-carpatice. Iaşi. p. 105-132.

SCHMIDT, H., 1932, Cucuteni in der oberen Moldau, Rumänien. Berlin-Leipzig. SOUDSKÝ, B., 1969, Étude de la maison néolithique. Slovenská Archéologia. Bratislava. XVII, 1, p. 5-96.

LÁSZLÓ, A.; COTIUGĂ, V., 2005, On the chalcolithic house-building. Archaeological observations and some experimental data. Studia Antiqua et Archaeologica. Universitatea “Al.I. Cuza” Iaşi. X-XI: 147-170.

TZIGARA-SAMURCAŞ, A., 1925, L’art du peuple roumain. Genève.

117

NEO-ENEOLITHIC CULT CONSTRUCTIONS IN SOUTHEASTERN EUROPE: BUILDING TECHNIQUES AND SPACE MANAGEMENT – A BRIEF OVERVIEW Gheorghe LAZAROVICI and Cornelia-Magda LAZAROVICI Abstract: In this article we focus on the Neo-Eneolithic cult constructions from Southeast Europe, taking as examples the first ones from Near East and Anatolia, with which there are many analogies. The area under investigation shows the existence of temples, sanctuaries, home or communitarian altars, within a complex organized society. We have analyzed some of their architectonic elements, as entrance, fireplace, oven, stellae, pillars and sketch some tentative interpretations. Key-words: temple, sanctuary, architectonic elements, fireplace, oven, pillar, stella Résumé: L’article présent discute les analogies fréquentes qui existent entre les constructions de culte Neo-Enéolithiques de l’Europe du Sud-Est et celles du Proche Orient. La zone analysée démontre l’existence des temples, sanctuaires et autels des résidences privées ou communautaires dans le cadre des societées très organisées. Les auteurs présentent le résultat de l’anayse de quelques éléments architecturaux comme l’entrée, l’âtre, le four, les stellae, les colonnes, et proposent quelques interprétations sur leur signification. Mots-cléf: temple, sanctuaire, éléments architecturaux, âtre, four, colonne, stella

The building of sanctuaries and altars supposes some rules determined by the basic elements and cult needs, or socio-religious factors present in a community. For the Neolithic and Copper Age periods one can speak of temples, sanctuaries, communitarian or domestic altars. We must also mention clay models or models made of perishable materials.

DEFINITIONS AND GENERAL PERSPECTIVE In our opinion, a temple is a monumental cult building, that has several altars and sanctuaries where religious rituals were performed. A typical temple example is Sanctuary 2 at Parţa (Banat culture) (fig. 14.1), partially reconstructed in Banat Museum, at Timişoara. This temple was devoted to several divine couples such as the Great Mother (with anthropomorphic or zoomorphic heads) and the Bull or Sun and Moon. Another cult present here is related to the Pillar, axis mundi (single or double pillars marking the entrance or other sanctuaries: Lazarovici Gh. 1998; Lazarovici Gh. et al. 2001: 214; Lazarovici Gh. and Maxim 1995 etc.). At Parţa there are several buildings used for sacral rituals: a monumental altar with a double statue, Altar A for the ritual of burning; Altar D for ritual offerings and blood sacrifices offered to the Great Mother – Bull couple; the cult of grinding is represented on the western wall, where a grinding stone and a cup have been discovered; ritual offerings in pots, Altar B; Altar C for cereal offerings dedicated to the Sun – Moon couple; Altar E, with ritual offerings for the Great Mother – Bull couple and others. In this temple, in front of the double statue, there was a large opening, probably used for the adoration of the sunrise. The opening was marked by two pillars with bullheads, having different symbols between their horns, suggesting the Sun and respectively the Moon. Another example of a temple is at Madjari, where a monumental altar has been discovered (Lasota Moskalewska and Sanev 1985-1986).

THE FIRST SANCTUARIES Building techniques differ from one period to another, from one epoch to another, from civilization to civilization. They are related with the dominant architecture of each civilization and the existing raw materials. Impressive monumental stone temples and sanctuaries appear starting with Pre Pottery Neolithic anterior to the Southeastern Neolithic. Monumental stone sanctuaries with altars, statues, pillars, some of them decorated have been discovered at the springs of the rivers Tiger and Euphrates, in the southern part of eastern Turkey, partly in Syria and Israel, in sites such as Göbekli Tepe, Nevali Çori, or 'Ain Ghazal (Schmidt 1995; 1999; 2000; 2001; Hauptmann 1993; 2001; Hauptmann and Schmidt 2000; Rollefson 1983; 1985; 1986; 1987; 1997: fig. 2-4, 9; Kafafi and Rollefson 1994; 1995). We do not insist too much on these, but we must underline that their architecture, the shape of the pillars, the raw material used show the existence of a civilization with a strong spiritual life, in which signs and symbols had a specific well established place.

The sanctuary or the altar is only a part of a temple. Sometimes it might even be a separate building intended for the adoration of a divinity or of some of its attributes. It might also take the form of a sacred, inviolable place.

These examples show the high level reached by the religious art during the Stone Age period, which rivals 119

NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC ARCHAEOLOGY IN EURASIA: BUILDING TECHNIQUES AND SPATIAL ORGANISATION

Fig. 14.1. Parţa, Sanctuary 2 with the French-Cantabric art, when the transition from the cave-temple to the temple-house can be observed. The apogee reached by the semisedentary or full sedentary communities is marked by the Early Neolithic discoveries at Çatal Hüyük. EUROPEAN SANCTUARIES Returning to the European area this impression of monumentality is revealed by the Lepenski Vir discoveries (Srejović 1969; 1971), where sculpted stone blocks showing fish faces, have been deposited in communitarian or domestic sanctuaries (fig. 14.2).

Fig. 14.2. Lepenski Vir sanctuary (after Srejović)

Similar discoveries are mentioned on the Romanian bank of the Danube, on the opposite part of Lepenski Vir, under the Trescavăţ mountain (a natural sanctuary maybe, where the Lepenski Vir communities prayed: Srejović 1969: fig. 3) at Piatra Elişovii (fig. 14.3), Cuina Turcului or Veterani (Mesolithic), (Păunescu 1970).

than with the economic one. Starting with the first stages the site maintains a special spatial organization that includes groups of five-seven dwellings, with constructions that have sculptures (domestic sanctuaries?). In the later phases, each group has such a sculpture. This grouping may be only our interpretation, but it might also reflect the spatial organization of the Mesolithic sites from the area: Lepenski Vir, Padina, Vlassac, Hajducka Vodenica, Schela Cladovei and maybe others.

The Lepenski Vir discoveries bring new elements in the architecture of the communitarian or domestic sanctuaries. This site presents mostly socio-religious elements, much more related with the spiritual and social life of the Mesolithic communities in the Iron Gates area

This grouping might also explain the large number of sanctuaries and domestic sanctuaries present here. In our 120

NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC ARCHAEOLOGY IN EURASIA: BUILDING TECHNIQUES AND SPATIAL ORGANISATION

subjective, to cite for example Procopius of Caesarea’s Arcana Historia).

Another ritual used at the beginning of the building is the placing of specific idols, pots or other artefacts in the foundation, as reflected by the Parţa discoveries (Lazarovici Gh. et al. 2001: 284) or these related with Cucuteni –Tripolye culture (Dumitrescu H. and Dumitrescu Vl. 1959: 166; Niţu et al. 1971: 59; Dragomir 1996: 64; László 2000; Marinescu-Bîlcu and Bolomey 2000: 25).

STATIC MONUMENTAL ELEMENTS, ARCHITECTONIC ONES, PRESENCE, MEANING The entrance in temples and sanctuaries/altars has specific elements, sometimes decorated. In Sanctuary 2 at Parţa, a niche above the entrance hold an idol torso with a zoomorphic head (fig. 18); in other cases, decorated frames were used. Near the eastern entrance, a grinding stone and a cup for cereals were positioned close to the wall, under the Sun – Moon couple (Lazarovici Gh. et al. 2001: 225). In other temples, like Sabatinovka (Precucuteni-Tripolye A, ca. 4750-4600 CAL B.C.) the threshold was paved with stones and an idol was discovered on top of it (Makkay 1971: 138; Gimbutas 1984: 25, 74; 1991: 261, fig. 7-59-a-b; Zbenović 1996: 33; Monah 1997: 35; Lazarovici Gh. et al. 2001: 290; Lazarovici C.-M. 2004: 48, fig. 2). Sanctuary models offer very interesting information regarding the type of dwelling, showing one or more storeys, with different shapes of entrances (fig. 18c, d), reflecting the most evolved architectural patterns of Precucuteni-Tripolye A (Lazarovici C.-M. 2004: 7-8, 11-15).

Entrances or windows are bordered by inner pillars (Parţa, Sanctuary 2) or have pillars in front of the entrances, in the exterior, as at Rife, Egypt (Müller-Karpe 1974: pl. 123/15-23; Lazarovici C. -M. 2004: fig. 55/1-2). Fireplaces for burnings and offerings. Even from the first earlier PPN sanctuaries, fireplaces were very sophisticated. There are round fireplaces with a hole in the middle and underground channels, from where air came up to intensify the fire, as at ‘Ain Ghazal. Other fireplaces have a semiround shape, bordered by big stone blocks or pillars, true altars. During the Developed Neolithic, in the Danubian region, fireplaces have a rectangular or oval shape. In Banat culture at Parţa there are two types of fireplaces. At Kormadin some have been built on top of old (‘8’ shaped) ovens (fig. 14.4) (Jovanović 1991: Fig. 1) and some were mobile.

Fig. 14.4. Kormadin (Serbia) Sanctuary, Vinča C phase (after Jovanović) 122

NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC ARCHAEOLOGY IN EURASIA: BUILDING TECHNIQUES AND SPATIAL ORGANISATION

Dumitrescu Vl. 1970: 21; 1974: 477-478, fig. 487/1; 1986: 69-72, fig. 1; Monah 1997: 33; Lazarovici Gh. et al. 2001: 246, 286, 292). We must mention that seven posts appear in many situations: at the Vinča megaron (Milojčić, apud Lazarovici Gh. et al. 2001: 270, fig. 242); seven posts surrounded the small pillar at Căscioarele (Dumitrescu Vl. 1970: 21; 1986; Lazarovici Gh. et al. 2001: 246, 286, 292), seven vertical posts are inside Kormadin sanctuary (fig. 14.4) (Jovanović 1991: Fig. 1). These posts may represent in the Near East and Old European mythologies the seven posts supporting the Sky, a symbol to be found in the seven levels of the ziggurat, or in the seven terraces of the Borobudur temple (Eliade 1991: 34; Lazarovici Gh. 2001: 61). Also the underground world had seven doors in the old Babylonian mythology; there were seven planetary circles, seven questions, seven important gods and seven judges (Krammer 1962: 144, 262; Eliade 1981: 67; Lazarovici Gh. 2001: 61). At Çatal Hüyük sanctuary seven vultures are depicted (Lazarovici Gh. 2001).

Fig. 14.7. Isaiia (Romania), stellae with bucrania in building D7 (after Ursulescu, Tencariu)

The number seven is present on the sanctuary model found at Căscioarele II sanctuary (Gumelniţa) which presents seven big holes (seven windows), (Dumitrescu H. 1968; 1973; Dumitrescu Vl. 1970: 21). Other examples came from the Lengyel culture (seven posts in the house models, at Strelice, see Gimbutas 1991: 81, fig. 3-34; Müller-Karpe 1968: 285, table 208/34) or from Cucuteni culture (seven phalloi made of small conic idols at Isaiia, Ursulescu 2001: 65), and the series of seven feminine statuettes, representing old, mature or juvenile characters, sometimes associated with groups of 7, 13 (or 14) objects or with seven big and seven small thrones like at Isaiia, Poduri, Sabatinovka or Pietrele (Monah 1997: 35; Monah et al. 1997: 109, cat. 14a-d; Berciu 1956; Lazarovici Gh. et al 2001: 289; Ursulescu 2001: 65; 2004) etc. A group of two pillars is present at Dolnoslav in the sanctuary related with the fertility and fecundity cult (Radunčeva 2003: fig. 59, 63).

Fig. 14.8. Roszochuvatka (Ukraine), Cucuteni-Tripolye culture, sanctuary model (after Gusev)

Pillars and their meanings. The head of some pillars is extremely interesting, suggesting the divinity that connects the Sky and the Earth. Some of these pillars have bull, ram, or male-goat heads. These heads have cult signs and symbols. In some cases the head is the symbol of that divinity, as in many examples at Çatal Hüyük. The most significant stella altar with three pillars supporting bull, male-goat or ram heads is from Old Cypriote Kachti (Karagheorghis 1977: 43). On this stella there are also two erected phalloi (fig. 14.10). The lower part could be interpreted as representing a masked person that receives the sacred “seed” in an amphora, to be spread on the fields, houses and women to obtain the divine fertility and fecundity. At the base of this stella there is a bench. Fig. 14.9. Painted pillars from Căscioarele (Romania) sanctuary, Boian culture (after Vl. Dumitrescu)

The pillars in front of the monumental statues at Parţa have been decorated with eyes, and other symbols. On the 124

NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC ARCHAEOLOGY IN EURASIA: BUILDING TECHNIQUES AND SPATIAL ORGANISATION

P. Matthiae and M. Mellink [eds.], Between the rivers and over the mountains. Archaeologica Anatolica et Mesopotamica, Alba Palmieri dedicata. Rome, Università “La Sapienza”, p. 37-69.

LAZAROVICI, C-M., 2004, Sanctuarele PrecucuteniCucuteni. Arheologia Moldovei, 25/2002, Iaşi, p. 4764. LAZAROVICI, Gh. and Z. MAXIM, 1995, Parţa und die Arhitektur der Banater–Kultur. Symposium. VeronaLazisse, Memoriae Museo Civico, 4, Verona, p. 5566.

HAUPTMANN, H., 2001, Possible Contacts between upper Mesopotamia and Central Anatolia during the Early Neolithic. Rond Table, Istanbul. Available on www: http: / The CANEW Project.

LAZAROVICI, Gh., F. DRAŞOVEAN and Z. MAXIM, 2001, Parţa. Monografie arheologică, Vol. 1.1 341 p.; vol. 1.2, 115 pl., 137 fig., “Waldpress”, BHAB, 12.

HAUPTMANN, H. and K. SCHMIDT, 2000, Frühe Tempel – frühe Götter?. Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Archäologische Entdeckungen. Die Forschungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts im 20. Jahrhundert, Zaberns Bildbände zur Archäologie: 258-266.

MAKKAY, J., 1971, Altorientalische Parallelen zu dem ältesten Heiligtumstypen Südosteuropas, Alba Regia 11, Székesfhérvár, p. 137-144. MARINESCU-BÎLCU, S. and A. BOLOMEY, 2000, Drăguşeni. A Cucutenian Community. Ed. Enciclopedică, Bucureşti.

HEGEDUS, K. and J. MAKKAY, 1987, Véstö Magór. A Settlement of the Tisza Culture. In The Late Neolithic of the Tisza Region, Budapest-Szolnok, p. 85-103.

MELLAART, J., 1975, The Neolithic of the Near East. Thames and Hudson, London.

IDOLE (Cat.), 1985, Idole. Frühe Götterbilder und Opfergaben. Prähistorische Staatssammlung München, Museum für Vor-und Frühgeschichte, Gisela Zahlhaas (Verantworlich für die Ausstellung und Katalogredaktion), Verlag Philipp von Zabern, Mainz am Rhein.

MONAH, D., 1997, Plastica antropomorfă a culturii Cucuteni-Tripolie, Bibliotheca Memoriae Antiquitatis, III, Piatra Neamţ. MONAH, D., F. MONAH, C.-M., MANTU and Gh. DUMITROAIA, 1997, Cucuteni. The Last Great Chalcolithic Civilization of Europe, ed. C.-M. Mantu, A. Tsaravopoulos, Gh. Dumitroaia, Athena Publishing & Printing House, Bucharest, 246 p.

JOVANOVIĆ, B., 1991, Die Kultplatze und Architekture in der Vinča-Kultur. Banatica 11, Reşiţa, Internationales Symposion “Die Vinča Kultur – Rolle und Ihre Beziehungen”, p. 119-124. KAFAFI, Z. and G. ROLLEFSON, 1994, 'Ain Ghazal 1993-1994. Biblical Archaeologist 57 (4), p. 239-241.

MÜLLER-KARPE, H., 1968, Handbuch der Vorgeschichte, I. München.

KAFAFI, Z. and G. ROLLEFSON, 1995, The 1994 Season at 'Ain Ghazal: Preliminary report. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 39, p. 13-29.

MÜLLER-KARPE, H., 1974, Handbuch de Vorgeschichte, II, Jungsteinzeit. München. NEAGU, M., 2000, Comunităţile Boian-Giuleşti din Valea Dunării. Istros X, Brăila, p. 25-34.

KALICZ, N. and RACZKY P., 1981, The Precursor to the “Horns of Consacration” in the South-East European Neolithic. Acta Archaeologica Hungarica, 33, Budapest, p. 5-20.

NITU A., S. CUCOS and D. MONAH, 1971, Ghelăieşti (Piatra Neamţ, I, Săpăturile din 1969 în aşezarea cucuteniană “Nedeia”). Memoria Antiquitatis, III, Piatra Neamţ, p. 11-64.

KARAGHEORGHIS, J., 1977, La grande déese de Cypre et son culte. Collection de la maison de l'Orient et Mediterannée ancienne, ser. Arh., 5, 4, Lyon.

PAUL, I., 1965, Un complex de cult descoperit în aşezarea neolitică de la Pianul de Jos (r. Sebeş, reg. Hunedoara). Studii şi comunicări, 12, arheologie– istorie, Muzeul Brukenthal, Sibiu, p. 5-18.

KRAMMER, S.N., 1962, Istoria începe la Summer, Bucureşti.

PAUNESCU, Al., 1970, Epipaleoliticul de la Cuina Turcului. Studii şi Cercetări de Istorie Veche, 21, 1, Bucureşti, p. 3-29.

LASOTA MOSKALEWSKA, A. and V. SANEV, 19851986, Preliminary analysis of bones remains of animals from the Neolithic archaeological site Tumba Madžari near Skoplje (Yugoslavia). Macedonica Acta Archaeologica 10, Prilep, p. 55-71.

PETRESCU-DÎMBOVIŢA, M., 1963, Die wichtigsten Ergebnisse der archäologischen Ausgrabungen in der neolithischen Siedlung von Truşeşti (Moldau). Prehistorische Zeitschrift, XLI, Berlin, p. 172-186.

LÁSZLÓ, A., 2000, Some data on house-building techniques and foundation rite in the Ariuşd-Cucuteni culture. Studia Antiqua et Archaeologica, VII, Iaşi, p. 245-253.

PETRESCU-DIMBOVITA, M., M. FLORESCU, A.C. FLORESCU, 1999, Truşeşti, monografie arheologică. Editura Academiei Române, Bucureşti – Iaşi.

LAZAROVICI, Gh., 1998, Monumentale Plastik in Parţa. Acta Musei Napocensis, 35, 1, Cluj-Napoca, p. 9-15.

RADUNČEVA, A., 2003, Kîsnoeneolitnoto obšcestvo v Bîlgarskite zemi. Raskopki i proučvanija, Sofija.

LAZAROVICI, Gh., 2001, The Eagle – the bird of death, Regeneration – Resurection and Messenger of Gods. Archaeological and Ethnological Problem. Tibiscum, X, Caransebeş, p. 57-67.

ROLLEFSON, G., 1983, Ritual and Cemetery at Neolithic 'Ain Ghazal (Jordan). Paléorient 9 (2), p. 29-38. 126

INTENTIONAL FIRING OF SOUTH EASTERN EUROPE CHALCOLITHIC HOUSES? A PERSPECTIVE FROM EXPERIMENTAL ARCHAEOLOGY Dragos GHEORGHIU and Romeo DUMITRESCU Abstract: The fired house and settlements is a feature of the Chalcolithic of the South Eastern Europe. A problem to which archaeologists were confronted for decades is the intentionality of the process of combustion. In this perspective the present paper tries, through a series of experiments, to demonstrate that a wattle and daub construction was a fireproofed object and that to fire it with results similar with the material found in the archaeological record, an additional energy under the form of amplified human effort and large quantities of fuel were essentially. This preliminary study of the chaîne-opératoires of the house collapse and combustion will be continued with the excavation of the fired remains. Key words: Chalcolithic, intentional combustion, collapse of the architectural structure, pyrolisis of a carcass Résumé: Une charactéristique du Chalcolithique de l’Éurope du Sud-Est sont les maisons et les villages incendiés, qui a produit et continue à produire des problèmes d’interprétation en ce qui concerne l’intentionalité du phénomène. Suite a une series d’expériments, l’article peresent essaye de démontrer qu’une structure de bois couverte d’argile devient un objet ignifuge qui, pour arriver au niveau de cuisson trouvé dans la fouille archéologique, doit être soumis à un effort énergetique (sous forme d’activité humaine intensive et grandes quantitées de combustible), ce qui peut être un argument en faveur d’un processus intentionnel. Cette étude préliminaire du collapse de la maison va etre continuee par l’excavation des restes incendies. Mots-cléf: Chalcolithique, combustion intentionelle, collapse de la structure achitecturale, pyrolise d’un cadavre animal

INTRODUCTION

THE METHOD

The firing of wattle and daub households in the Neolithic and Chalcolithic Balkan – Lower Danube area is a subject which was often addressed in the last decades by archaeologists (Tringham 1992; 1994; Tringham and Krstic 1990, Stefanovic 1997; 2002, Chapman 1999, Gheorghiu 2005), but despite all the theories designed to explain the intentionality of firing (see Stefanovic 2002), little experimental work was carried in this field, such as the firing of a peasant house in Yugoslavia (Bankoff and Winter 1979), and, in the last two years, the firing of a couple of replicas of prehistoric buildings in Romania.

The role of Experimentation

Dr. John Chapman (1999: 116 ff), summarized the hypotheses on this subject, to cite only: the selective combustion of the walls (Marinescu-Bilcu et al. 1997: 66 ff), the lack of fired zones between houses as an index of a separate firing of every house (Tringham 1992: 122; Tringham et al. 1992: 382), the use of additional fuel beside the furniture of the houses to reach high temperatures (cf. Bankoff and Winter 1979), or the occurrence of funerary rituals (Raczky 1982-83) like the interment of corpses (see Dumitrescu 1925: 38, Angelov 1961, Mazanova 1992: 258; Raduntcheva 1996).

To understand the firing of a wattle and daub object the archaeologist is compelled to start theorizing only after being sensitised by experimentation.

To explain the processes of construction and deconstruction of prehistoric architectural objects, scholars shall use first experimental archaeology (see Coles 1973), together with other approaches, and not rely solely upon theory. The experiment, especially at full scale, helps to understand the behaviour of materials (Tringham 1978: 182) and some ritual and technological processes (cf. Mathieu 2002), being perceived as “an engine of hypothesis generation” (Mathieu and Meyer 2002: 75).

The firing of the household as a rite of passage The firing of clay objects such as vases, figurines, braziers, lamps, models of houses or loom weights, could be viewed as having been a technical rite of passage of transforming matter by means of fire. Could the firing of the house be perceived as an analogous act?

The present paper is a multivocal approach supporting the intentionality of the process; the first author will discuss the subject of firing architecture from the perspective of the experimentalist, while the second will approach the combustion from a medical perspective.

Among the many hypotheses formulated that of intentional destruction through combustion for symbolic reasons (Tringham and Krstic 1990; Tringham et al. 1992, Stevanovic 1997; Stevanovic 2002), seems to be 129

NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC ARCHAEOLOGY IN EURASIA: BUILDING TECHNIQUES AND SPATIAL ORGANISATION

closest to the mentality of South Eastern Chalcolithic societies.

fire, therefore the combustion was maintained by a continuous feeding of the fire for several hours until the collapse of the walls and the transformation of all wattle into ceramics.

It seems that there the material culture of the Lower Danube Chalcolithic societies was subjected to a rite of construction-deconstruction (Gheorghiu 2001), which could explain the cyclical destruction of wattle and daub houses.

E3: The firing of a robust wattle and daub house1 (Vadastra village, August 2006) A replica of a Gumelnita house (see Todorova 1982; Comsa 1990) was built in the Vadastra village (Fig. 15.2), using a wooden structure with main posts of pine wood of 0.15 to 0.18 m diameter and secondary posts of acacia wood of 0.05 to 0.10 m diameter. The built volume (of 8.00 x 4.00 x 2.10 m) with walls of 0.5 to 0.20 m thick was divided into two rooms (the northern and the southern) by two walls, each 0.80 m thick; in the north room, a wooden platform made of split pine trunks and plastered with clay occupied half of the floor. (Fig. 15.3)

DESCRIPTION OF EXPERIMENTS E1: The firing of a palisade (Vadastra village, August 2004) (Fig. 15.1) One experiment tried to explore the result of an intentional fire upon a vertical structure of a palisade of 1.8 m height, 4 m long, and 1 m wide, made with the wattle and daub technique (Gheorghiu 2005), by heaping up the fuel between the two parallel walls which were covered with pieces of wood positioned transversally. Two successive firings of ½ hour each, at an interval of two months, fuelled with 200 kg of beech wood and 100 kg of straw, left no trace on the surface of the walls, the heat dissipating along the heat diffusion cone (see Hallcox and Welch 2006: 185).

Fig. 15.2. Replica of a Gumelnita house, Vadastra village, Campaign 2005

Fig. 15.1. Wattle and daub palisade, Vadastra village, Campaign 2004 E2: The firing of wattle and daub fragile houses without ceiling (Cucuteni village, October 2004) This experiment carried by a team led by Dr. Romeo Dumitrescu and Vasile Cotiuga (University of Iasi), consisted of the firing of two houses (with a built volume of 6.30 x 4.00 x 2.10 m) made of a fragile wooden structure of beech wood and without ceilings and wood platforms. For the firing of each house a quantity of approx. 10 t of beach wood and reed was used. The pattern of combustion was the following: a very rapid consummation of the reed roof followed by the implosion of the unfired material, with a tendency of quenching the

Fig. 15.3. Plastered wooden platform and central post, Vadastra village, Campaign 2005 1

The house was built in 10 days in the village of Vadastra during the 2005 campaign of experiments by a group of sculptors from the National University of Arts in Bucharest (Catalin Oancea, Marius Stroe, Dragos Manea, with Stefan Ungureanu).

130

D. GHEORGHIU & R. DUMITRESCU: INTENTIONAL FIRING OF SOUTH EASTERN EUROPE CHALCOLITHIC HOUSES?…

The house was oriented with the entrance positioned on the Southern wall and with two round windows of 0.50 m diameter perforating the Western wall.

Three Platinum-Rhodium thermocouples were positioned at 0.20 m from the floor, as follows: T1 in the Southwestern corner of the northern room; T3 in the Northeastern corner of the same room, and T2 in the Northwestern corner of the southern room.

The wooden structure of the house and of the roof was fixed with acacia nails and a central post of 5 m high and 0.20 m in diameter plastered with clay supported the two principal beams of the ceiling and the main beam of the roof. (Fig. 15.4) Compared to the rest of the house, the ceiling was not very well plastered; therefore part of its wooden structure was visible.

The combustion process was initiated from inside the two rooms at the same moment, and it benefited from a relatively good air-draught due to moderate air turbulence. The two fireproofed white screens (Fig. 15.6) were positioned to protect the thermocouples on the western and Northern facades, at the standard distance between two buildings in a tell. They also had the role of creating air currents, as would be the case in a tell dense settlement, and to show the action of the arson on the neighbouring houses. One conclusion was that except for the roof’s fire, carried by the air turbulence at a certain distance from the house, all combustion developed inside the built perimeter.

Fig. 15.4. Plastered central post and beams, Vadastra village, Campaign 2005 Inside the two rooms and in the attic several objects of different materials were positioned by Dr. Fabio Cavulli (University of Trento), their excavation and analysis constituting a future step in the project. On the platform a small pyre was built and the carcass of a sheep was put on it. A quantity of approx. 2.5 t of beech wood was stacked along the interior walls, together with 200 kg of straw, while a quantity of approx. 1 t of wood was stacked along the exterior walls. (Fig. 15.5)

Fig. 15.6. Firing the wattle and daub house, Vadastra village, Campaign 2006 Probably due to a poor quality of work, the southern ceiling, that had been recently repaired, was the first to ignite and collapsed in approx. 15 min., the ceiling of the northern room resisting another 15 min. of intense firing, which allowed the rise of the temperature to initiate the combustion of the entire internal wooden structure. As soon as the wooden structure of the ceiling started to burn, the fallen plastered clay partially quenched the combustion at the base of the walls, in this way slowly rising the temperature at the level of the floor up to 740°C within three hours. It is interesting to note that in two different experiments, using the same fuel, the temperatures reached on the floor were similar (at Cucuteni 770°C and at Vadastra 768°C). The loss of the roof and ceiling structures diminished the resistance of the house’s structure, the walls continuing to be anchored only by the foundation trenches. (Fig. 15.7)

Fig. 15.5. Stacked wood inside the house, Vadastra village, Campaign 2006 131

NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC ARCHAEOLOGY IN EURASIA: BUILDING TECHNIQUES AND SPATIAL ORGANISATION

Therefore after 2 h of combustion, the Northern wall of the ceiling collapsed inside the house.

During the following days after the fire was extinguished, one could observe a process of implosion of the perimeter walls, similar to that observed in the archaeological record (see Marinescu-Bilcu 1974: 29); this phenomenon could have two reasons. First, the combustion of the wooden posts started on their inner face, and secondly, on the inner face of the walls, after the contact with fire, a frail layer of ceramics emerged, while the exterior surface of the walls still kept thick layers of unfired wattle and daub, therefore resulting in completely different mechanical properties for the interior and exterior surfaces. A week after the arson, the degree of collapse of the walls within the built perimeter was approx. 85% (Fig. 15.9), partly due to the herds of animals of the near village. (D.G.)

Fig. 15.7. The combusted house, after three hours, Vadastra village, Campaign 2006 After 3 h of combustion, the maximal temperatures recorded were: 768°C (T3) for the northern room and 740°C (T2) for the southern room, the temperatures beginning to decrease slowly, after 4 and a ½ h reaching 114°C (T1) and 440°C (T3) for the northern room, and 162°C (T2) for the southern room. The temperatures recorded after 14 h, 380°C (T1), 50°C (T3) and 45°C (T2), demonstrate the initiation of a process of pyrolisis of the animal’s carcass, which lasted for 7 days, with a visible emission of white smoke and at a constant temperature of 220-250°C.

Fig. 15.9. The combusted house, after four days, Vadastra village, Campaign 2006

In spite of repeated efforts, the wood stacked along the exterior surface of the walls did not ignite (Fig. 15.8), fact which could indicate that the combustion of a wattle and daub house would not produce damages in the densely settled structure of a tell, especially when its vegetal roof was removed.

THE FUNERARY ROLE OF THE COMBUSTION OF THE HOUSE The fact that Chalcolithic houses, especially in the Gumelnita tradition, were used for funerary rituals has a long history (see Dumitrescu 1925). Generally the bodies interred in houses belonged to children, but there were also adults or osteological fragments of adult skeletons like skulls (see Dumitrescu 1986: 78) which had the role of foundation offerings. Until today there is no data for the incineration of corpses within the fired buildings; this invisibility of the phenomenon in the fired houses could be explained by the complete consummation of the body, after the collapse of the walls over the funerary pyre and the charcoal created, the combustion process continuing for several days until the complete transformation of the skeleton and muscles into charcoal. Later on, after the levelling of the house, the fired remains were collected or crushed and transformed into thin layers of charcoal, frequently found during the excavations of fired houses.

Fig. 15.8. The unfired wood positioned outside the house 132

D. GHEORGHIU & R. DUMITRESCU: INTENTIONAL FIRING OF SOUTH EASTERN EUROPE CHALCOLITHIC HOUSES?…

I believe that the energy expended for firing a wattle and daub house was sufficient to completely consume the bodies of the children sacrificed usually in foundation pits.

As for the uses of the house within the funerary rituals of bodily consumption, future analyses will confirm or infirm this hypothesis. (D.G.)

Therefore, together with the study of the combustion of architectural features I wished to experiment the combustion of an animal body whose anatomical attributes would be close to that of the human body, i.e. a sheep.

Acknowledgements The authors are indebted to, Catalin Oancea, Marius Stroe, Dragos Manea, Stefan Ungureanu, Stefania Stroe for their help in building and firing the house in Vadastra.

The funerary pyre was made of beech wood and straw, and positioned on the wooden platform, near the northern wall. The body of the animal was covered with wood and straw, and was covered by the clay of the roof and by the crumbled wall of the attic. After 2 days when the temperature of the fired remains lowered to that of the atmosphere, a short rain regenerated the process of combustion of the body, its temperature stabilizing around 220-250ºC for another week. Finally, the temperature of the charcoal body reached 284ºC. Analyzing the firing process of the body, one can observe the presence of a process of pyrolisis of the biomass (i.e., the destructive distillation of carbonaceous materials in the absence of air, which produces charcoal along other sub-products; Rehder 2000: 28). A small osteological fragment unearthed by scavenging animals exhibited a large part of charcoal that would be easily crushed.

Thanks also to Dr. Fabio Cavulli (University of Trento) and arh. Oana Parau for their work on recording data. Last but not least thanks to Bogdan Capruciu for correcting the English version of this text and to Cornelia Catuna for the editorial help. Photography by Dragos Gheorghiu. References ANGELOV, N., 1961, Rabotilnitsa za ploski kosteni idoli v selishnata mogila pri S. Hotnica, Tarnovsko, Arkeologiya 3: 34-38. BANKOFF, F., and WINTER, F., 1979, A House-burning in Serbia, Archaeology 32: 8-14.

These are preliminary observations and only the complete excavation of the rest of the body, during the next campaign, will confirm or infirm the hypothesis of the use of fired houses as instruments designed to consume the body of the sacrificed young individuals. (R.D.)

CHAPMAN, J., 1999, Deliberate house-burning in the prehistory of Central and Eastern Europe. In Gustafsson A. and H. Karlsson (eds.) Glyfer och arkeologiska rum – en vanbok till Jarl Nordbladh, Gotarc Series A, Vol. 3. pp. 113-126. COLES, J., 1973, Archaeology by experiment, New York: Charles Scribner Sons.

CONCLUSION

COMSA, E., 1990, Complexul Neolitic de la Radovanu, Cultura si Civilizatie la Dunarea de Jos VII, Calarasi.

As already mentioned, the results presented are preliminary, but even so we hope to have provided supporting evidence for some of the hypotheses mentioned at the beginning of the paper:

DUMITRESCU, Vl., 1925, Fouilles de Goumelnita, Dacia II: 29-103.

• the use of additional fuel during an intentional firing seems to have been compulsory to consume a robust wattle and daub house like that built in Vadastra village, since an accidental firing could have not produced important damages (except the firing of the roof), unless large quantities of extra fuel were added;

DUMITRESCU, Vl., 1986, Stratigrafia asezarii-tell de pe ostrovelul de la Cascioarele, Cultura si civilizatie la Dunarea de Jos 2: 73-81. GHEORGHIU, D., 2001, Tropes in material Culture. In Gheorghiu, D. (ed.) Material, Virtual and Temporal Compositions. On the Relationships between Objects, BAR International Series 953, Oxford: BAR Publishing.

• the collapse of the walls inside the built perimeter seems to have been facilitated by the very process of construction;

GHEORGHIU, D., 2005, The Archaeology of Dwellings. Theory and experiments, Bucharest: Editura Universitatii Bucuresti.

• a selective combustion of the walls seems to have been possible, depending of the positioning of the fuel inside the house;

HALLCOX, J. and WELCH, A., 2006, Bodies we’ve buried, New York: Berkeley Books.

• moreover, the combustion inside the house (without firing the surrounding environment), demonstrated the possible existence of an intentional ritual, where the houses of a concentrated settled structure like the tells were fired separately.

MARINESCU-BILCU, S., 1974, Cultura Precucuteni pe teritoriul Romaniei, Bucharest: Editura Academiei. MARINESCU BILCU, S., D. POPOVICI, G. TROHANI and R. ANDREESCU, 1997, Archaeological re133

NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC ARCHAEOLOGY IN EURASIA: BUILDING TECHNIQUES AND SPATIAL ORGANISATION

searches at Bordusani-Popina (1993-1994), Cercetari Arheologice, 10: 65-69.

STEVANOVIC, M., 2002, Burned Houses in the Neolithic of Southeastern Europe. In Gheorghiu, D. (ed.) Fire in Archaeology, BAR International Series 1098. Oxford: BAR Publishing. pp. 55-62.

MATHIEU, J.R., 2002, Introduction: Experimental archaeology. Replicating past objects, behaviors and processes. In Mathieu, J.R. (ed.) Experimental archaeology. Replicating past objects, behaviors and processes, BAR International Series 1035. Oxford: BAR Publishing, pp. 1-12.

TODOROVA, H., 1982, Kupferzeitliche Siedlungen in Nordostbulgarien, Muenchen: C.H. Beck. TRINGHAM, R., 1978, Experimentation, ethnoarchaeology, and the leapfrogs in archaeological methodology. In Gould, R.A. (ed.) Explorations in Ethnoarchaeology, University of New Mexico. pp. 169-199.

MATHIEU, J.R., and MEYER, D.A., 2002, Reconceptualizing experimental archaeology: Assessing the process of experimentation. In Mathieu, J.R. (ed.), Experimental archaeology. Replicating past objects, behaviors and processes, BAR International Series 1035. Oxford: BAR Publishing. pp. 73-82.

TRINGHAM, R., 1992, Households with faces: The Challenge of Gender in Prehistoric Architectural remains. In Gero, J. and M. Conkey (eds.) Engendering archaeology. Women in Prehistory. Oxford and Cambridge: Blackwell. pp. 93-131.

MAZANOVA, V., 1992, Tellsiedlung Junazite – die Spatkupferzeit, Studia Praehistorica 11-12: 248-261.

TRINGHAM, R., 1994, Engendered places in prehistory, Gender, Place and Culture 1: 169-203.

RACZKY, P., 1982-83, Origins of the custom of burying the dead inside houses in South East Europe, Szolnok Megyei Muzeumi Evkonyv (1982-83): 5-10.

TRINGHAM, R., and D. KRSTIC, 1990, Conclusion. Selevac in the wider context of European prehistory. In Tringham, R., and D. Krstic, (eds.) Selevac. A Neolithic village in Yugoslavia, Monumenta Archaeologica 15, Los Angeles: University of California Press. pp. 567-617.

RADUNTCHEVA, A., 1996, Dolnoslav. A temple centre from the Eneolithic, Godishnikna Department Arheologii (Nov Bulgarski Universitet) II-III: 168181. REHDER, J.E., 2000, The Mastery and uses of fire in Antiquity, Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

TRINGHAM, R., B. BRUKNER, T. KAISER, B.K. OROJEVIC, L. BUKVIC, P. STELI, N. RUSSEL, M. STEVANOVIC, and B. VOYTEK, 1992, Excavations at Opovo, 1985-1987. Socio-economic change in the Balkan Neolithic, Journal of Field Archaeology 19: 351-386.

STEVANOVIC, M., 1997, The Age of clay. The Social dynamics of house construction, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 16: 334-395.

134

STRUCTURAL EVIDENCES AND INTERPRETABLE FEATURES IN EARLY NEOLITHIC NORTHERN ITALY Fabio CAVULLI Abstract: In spite of the traditional interpretations of the Neolithic pits as semi-subterranean dwellings or simple rubbish pits, the actual knowledge about early Neolithic features shows a much more varied archaeological reality including palisades, ditches, storage pits, and knapping areas as well as a few dwellings. The difficulty in interpreting these settlements is due to post-depositional events and problems related to the methodology of research: mainly that the areas investigated were too small to understand the spatial organization of the features. At first sight, the few extensive field excavations that have been undertaken did not give the expected results. However, reconsidering these results by the means of spatial analysis, a comparison of the structural evidence and additional recent research, allows a revised and much more interesting picture of the early Neolithic settlements. These differ completely from both the Mesolithic and middle Neolithic evidence. Key-words: pit, archaeological structure, Neolithic, Northern Italy, methodology Résumé: Malgré les interprétations traditionelles des fossées Néolithiques comme logéments semi-soutterains ou simplement des fosses à déchets, la conaissances actuelle des éléments constructifs du Néolithique ancien démontre un vaste répertoire archéologique qui comporte des palisades, des fossés, des puits à provisions, des zones a travailler la pierre ainsi que des maisons baties à la surface du sol. La difficulté d’interpréter les exemples mentionés est causée par les evenéments post-dépositionnels et par la méthodologie de recherche des zones aux dimensions très réduites pour comprendre leur organisation spatiale. Au commencement le nombre réduit des grandes surfaces excavées n’a pas apporté les résultats attendus, mais, en réconsiderant ces résultats à l’aide de l’analyse spatiale, une comparaison des données structurelles a permis la construction d’une image plus intéressante des localités du Néolithique ancien, qui diffèrent completement des ceux du Mésolithique ou du Néolithique moyen. Mots-cléf: fosse, structure archaéologique, Néolithique, Italie du Nord, méthodologie

INTRODUCTION

particular cases (Lugo di Romagna). Today, the reconsideration of past excavations (such as Savignano, Campo Ceresole) and the comparison of these with research still in progress (Sammardenchia, Lugo di Grezzana) give us new perspectives, a ray of hope. Archaeological and ethnographical comparisons, supported by tools which allow for the management and the analysis of considerable amounts of data, are now offering results, perhaps not always decisive, but surely unexpected with respect to a few years ago, and help us to characterize the dwelling structures of the Early Neolithic.

The term “manmade structure” indicates a non transportable artefact constituted by an organised group of remains, correlated by a network of relationships. It can be defined by the disposition of elements (such as sediment, wood, stone, burnt daubs, bones, artefacts), in other words “positive” elements, or the removal of material (from here the terms “negative structure” and “hollow structure”), that is to say the manipulation and/or the cutting of sediments previously deposed. All the elements and their relationships with each other that characterize the structure are connected to an activity, or to activities, that took place on that site such as housing, production of handicrafts, agriculture or simply the maintenance of the area.

In this paper we limit the field to signal the interpretable evidences of the most meaningful contexts, and offer some food for thought. For a deeper analysis of all the different features we invite you to consider whole job of analysis (Cavulli 2005; 2008).

Studies in the past have highlighted many interpretative problems related to the retrieval of such evidence, that ongoing field research has only partly clarified (Cavulli 2003). The reason behind such difficulties may be due to the processes of formation of archaeological deposits (both in a depositional and post-depositional aspect) and in the inadequacy of the methods applied. From the beginning of the Atlantic Period, archaeological sites have been involved in a strong pedogenesis process and later, in the post-Atlantic period, in erosive processes caused by climatic change and significant human activity (Cremaschi 1983; 1990; 1996; 2000). The scarcity of large excavations in Italian Neolithic sites (cfr. Tozzi 1993) renders the understanding of the spatial organization within the inhabited areas quite difficult. Recent research has worked on extensive areas yet it has not produced directly interpretable results, if not in

INTERPRETABLE STRUCTURAL COMPLEXES AND ELEMENTS Structural complexes and elements have been interpreted, either by archaeologists working on the field or, most often, by an analysis carried out during PhD research which considered all available documentation (published or not) regarding all features in Northern Italy (Fig. 16.1; Cavulli 2005). The analyses are based on the morphological and topographical characteristics and on intrinsic structural particularities. The structures to which it is possible to attribute a specific function, can be divided into large groups: 135

NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC ARCHAEOLOGY IN EURASIA: BUILDING TECHNIQUES AND SPATIAL ORGANISATION

Fig. 16.1. Ancient Neolithic sites in northern Italy position, spatial relationship between the structures and between these structures and the original position of the artefacts found are scarcely meaningful almost nothing can be said as to the function of these pits. It is the paradox of archaeological research: “… we deduce the activities from the presence of artefacts and some remains, but the places of activity themselves are mostly without depositions.”1 (Vidale 2004: 44).

− pits to sustain vertical wooden elements (roofed structures, wooden palisades trenches, foundation channels, post-holes); − underground features or depressions whose use is related to their hypogeous morphology (Bagolini et al. 1993; wells, ditches, channels, “cistern pits” and “ducts”, pits for sediment extraction, decantation pits, clay mixing pits, tanning pits, silos, rubbish (and butchery) pits or areas);

The addition of material, on the contrary, is often more meaningful archaeologically, as it contains artefacts and therefore brimming with functional and cultural implications. However, if removed from their original context, they “only” indicate that the pit was used as a dump (although they may indicate specific activities that took place in another undefined area of the settlement).

− fire places, built on the surface, in a cuvette (shallow depression) or in a pit (hearths, complex burning structures as cooking griddles, burning pits, empierrements, covered ovens); − Surface features and organized areas, above ground level (stepping surfaces and floors, walls, stone and post-holes alignments, terraces, knapping areas, charcoal or burnt daub concentrations and latent features).

The presence of particular infillings, such as pebble/stones flooring and or traces of fire inside these pits, points out a certain structuring, a specific use of the feature which contains them. Furthermore, we believe that some recurrent associations (antlers, animal skulls, millstones or quadrangular stones) and concentrations of findings at the bottom of the pits (stones, charcoal, flint,

The material filling the pits is frequently to be considered a secondary deposit (Barfield and Bagolini 1976; Shiffer 1972; Leonardi 1992) and indicates the last function of the structure which quite often corresponds to a refuse pit. Thus, all that remains of the original function of the pit is its shape. The removal of material, however, seems to give less information than its addition. Then, if the shape,

1

“… deduciamo le attività dalla presenza di manufatti e residui, ma i luoghi di attività sono in larga misura punti di non deposizione.”

136

F. CAVULLI: STRUCTURAL EVIDENCES AND INTERPRETABLE FEATURES IN EARLY NEOLITHIC NORTHERN ITALY

etc.) must refer to a function other than that of a simple rubbish dump and may indicate a previous use which probably corresponds to the reason the pit was dug originally.

The hut was found about twelve metres from the palisade. It is composed of a pavement of compacted silt and sand, which measures 10x7 m and it is divided into two rooms of 42 m2 and 28 m2 by an oblong depression and some posts (probable trace of an inner wall). The perimeter walls were built of wattle plastered with a mix of clay and sand and supported by vertical joists at 90 cm intervals. Inside the hut a central hearth in relief and a barrel-shaped oven were found.

ABOVE-GROUND STRUCTURES Roofed structures (huts) They concern complexes articulated around post-holes, flooring, one or more fire-places inside or outside, association between findings and accumulations of decayed material belonging to the original standing structure, such as large quantities of daub or charred wooden elements.

Outside at the southeast corner of the hut is found “what is probably a small pit, cylindrical in form, filled with various deposits of organic refuse and fragments of artefacts”2 (Degasperi et al. 1998: 117). In Lugo di Grezzana (Fig. 16.2; Moser and Pedrotti 1996; Moser 2000; 2002; Pedrotti et al. 2000; Pedrotti et al. 2002; Cavulli 1999-2000; 2002; 2005; Cavulli and Pedrotti 2003; Cavulli, et al. 2003; Angelucci 2003; Fronza 2003-2004) a light depression (E.S. 906) of subquadrangular form (7.1x5.3 m and 10 cm to 30 cm in depth) is filled by a greyish layer (U.S. 852). The complex includes a hearth at its centre (E.S. 807) and is delimited by nine post-holes. The fillings U.S. 282a and 282b, thin grey lenses of organic sediment with scarce findings, represent the phase of life (floor surface) and deterioration of the structural complex, while the underlying U.S. 852, with a sandier matrix and almost lacking in archaeological materials, seems to be a preparation for the pavement, characterized by evident compression of the upper surface (with lamellar section) and some scattered findings on the surface.

The complexes are characterized by a quadrangular plant and by symmetrical disposition of the elements, not a rigorous characteristic but present nevertheless, due to the technical solutions adopted for the construction of the standing parts in rigid materials (posts or double/multiple arched lintels, trusses, posts leaning against each other or supported by a lintel, etc.). The main post-holes that testify the presence of a standing, possibly roofed, structure have considerable diameter and depth, directly proportional to the weight and the complexity of the structure. Sometime they have compact material around the post as a sort of wedge, as is the case of the hut in Lugo di Grezzana, Verona, where some holes of the complex were filled with dense blocks of burnt daub that form a ring with a vertical cylinder of sediment: the print of the wooden post that once filled the hole.

A standing wall had to limit the layers described above. Other post-holes have been found inside the complex and a hole with considerable dimensions (1.15x0.85 m) is present in a central position to support the roof of the hut, probably conical considering the position of the posts.

In the analysis of these complexes it is important to consider the dynamics of deterioration. Such degenerative processes can include collapse and post-depositional factors, whether natural, such as erosion caused by light flooding, or caused by human activities related to the continuous occupation of the area and the search for building materials to employ in other huts or to use as firewood (cfr. David 1971; Cameron and Tomka 1993; Balista and Leonardi 1992). An elliptic mouth or a conical profile to the post-hole may indicate the deliberate dismantlement of the wooden elements of the structure. (Fronza and Valenti 1997; Valenti 1996).

A band of about 50 cm on the southern part of the hut is characterized by abundant charred woven fibres interpretable as a mat or bedding and probably represents an area used for specific activities. The complex is surmounted by a rather wide heap of burnt daub made up of large blocks, sometimes with traces of reed prints, and minced daubs. The U-shaped accumulation encircled the northern part of the complex and it has been interpreted as the collapse of the wattle and daub walls. The absence of this material in the southern area leads one to think that only the northern walls of the hut were plastered.

A particularly interesting dwelling structure is represented by a hut uncovered in Lugo di Romagna – Fornace Gattelli, Ravenna (Von Eles Masi and Steffé 1987; Degasperi et al. 1993a; 1993b; 1996; 1997; 1998; Degasperi and Steffè 1997) that will definitely supply a noteworthy amount of data once available in a definitive publication. The exceptional conservation of this settlement, which includes huts, auxiliary structures and fencing structures forming the enclosure of the settlement, has been guaranteed by fire and flooding and gives us snapshot of daily life 7.500 years ago.

The function of the regular rectangular shallow pit E.S. 851 which lays along the eastern wall is still unclear. 2 “un probabile pozzetto di forma cilindrica colmato da varie gettate di rifiuti organici e manufatti frantumati”.

137

NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC ARCHAEOLOGY IN EURASIA: BUILDING TECHNIQUES AND SPATIAL ORGANISATION

Fig. 16.2. Lugo de Grezzana (VR): area XA plan, with the foundation palisade trench and the shallow ditch outside, and XB with the complex interpreted as a hut, in between the burning pit A particular complex has been uncovered at Savignano sul Panaro, Modena (Bernabò Brea and Steffé 1981; 1982a; 1982b; 1983; Steffè 1984-1985; Bernabò Brea et al. 1990). The structure XLIX is a depression measuring a maximum of 8.4x6.8 m, and is “about 40 cm” in depth, the bottom is flat and lays on the underlying gravel, the walls around the depression are subvertical except at the south-west corner where they act as an inclined plane, forming a sort of ramp. The infilling is generally more clayey than surrounding sterile sediment. US 1 is a superficial clear brown layer, undulated at the base, that becomes thicker near the edges of the pit. The underlying unit (US 2) is darker and contains in some areas irregular spots of very dark ground. At the bottom US 3 lies directly on the gravel and is a “layer of terrain with a sandier consistency”3 (Steffè 1984-1985); it has a non homogeneous colour due to the presence of light and dark sediment spots.

The building technique used for this shelter is very simple, using only wooden poles and boards and probably brushwood, mats, shingle or hides for covering. There is no evidence of vertical walls, if the low walls enclosing the quadrangular depression are not considered. The subquadrangular pit is undoubtedly associated to the inner and the external post-holes. Considering the position of the post-holes along the central axis and after stringent archaeological comparisons it can be presumed that it was a double pitched roof that discharged its weight partially on the lintel and, partially, on the ground at the base of side poles. The system consisting in arched beams with double (or triple) forks finds comparisons in Germany in Nördlingen-Baldingen (Zeeb 1994), and ethnographical parallels in Brazil with the settlements of the Guatò and Bororo people (Pellegrino 1982: 140, 151), but was used in Germany even in the VII-VIII century AD, to quote just some examples. The case of Savignano is rather complicated due to the lack of supports for posts at the northern end: we can hypothesize that they were not deep enough to be preserved from surface erosion or that the posts were only leaning on the ground.

The presence of a standing structure is testified by a couple of post-holes at the centre of the depression and another couple a few centimetres from the southern limit, both along the long central axis of the complex. Using contemporary and non-contemporary archaeological and ethnographic comparisons we consider the complex as the remains of a roofed standing structure held up by a roof beam which acted as a bearer for the side poles leaning against it. 3

The bottom layer of sandy material could have been for floor isolation. The intermediary layers seem to represent the collapse of the organic elements that constituted the inner, support and roofing structure. The largest quantity of findings was found in this layer, mostly along the northwest and southeast sides.

“fascia di terreno di consistenza più sabbiosa”.

138

F. CAVULLI: STRUCTURAL EVIDENCES AND INTERPRETABLE FEATURES IN EARLY NEOLITHIC NORTHERN ITALY

In some areas of the pit, and particularly in the north-west corner, clusters of small and medium-sized pebbles were found, apparently placed casually and thus without an order. “These may be found, almost without lacks, through the entire filling material.”4 (Steffè 1984-1985), it means that the stones precede or are contemporary to the sandy layer. For this reason we may discard the hypothesis that the pebbles were just dumped into the pit and it seems more likely that we are dealing with a deteriorated structural element.

2002), remains doubtful as post-holes or any other features testifying to a standing structure are completely lacking. Nevertheless the presence of the underground oven is an element of great interest. It is worth mentioning an important discovery that occurred just outside the Italian border, in Bellinzona in Ticino, in the Castel Grande locality. The arrangement of numerous post-holes allows us to outline two separate standing complexes. The largest can be referred to a dwelling structure measuring 10x4 m, with a rather regular symmetrical plan and probably a double sloping roof, considering the presence of holes along the central axis. What seems to be the remains of a hearth was uncovered outside the perimeter of the post-holes. The level dates to 5062-5222 cal. BC. A smaller construction (4x1.5 m) is perhaps what remains of a roof that covered a pit (of roughly 40 cm in diameter) with both its sides and its base lined by slabs.

The distribution of the archaeological material is signifycant not only because it is almost absent in the lower filling and in the above layer, but because it is much more abundant in the collapse layer of this pit than in the other structures in Savignano, usually not very rich in findings. Pit XXXII, found near the ramp approach (about 80 cm), can be compared, both for its shape and its filling, to a pit in a similar position in Lugo di Romagna. It has a circular mouth of about 1.20 m in diameter and a truncated cone profile which is 55 cm deep. It may be interpreted as a rubbish pit, due to a browny-red median infilling which originated from the abundant presence of burnt daub and pottery fragments concentrated in an inclined lens, probably the result of the cleaning of the hearth. Nevertheless we have no other traces of a hearth, that could have been outside the hut and, thus, cancelled by superficial erosion. Its absence inside the complex leads us think it was not a dwelling, but rather a store, a shelter for animals or an auxiliary structure for other activities.

FOUNDATION TRENCHES Wooden palisade trenches The exceptional coincidence between the wooden palisade of Lugo di Grezzana and the one in Lugo di Romagna forces us to consider this type of complex not as an unicum, but as an important feature of Early Neolithic settlements (a tradition that continued up to more recent times, considering the fence dug in the S.M.P.7 site of Le Mose – Bernabò Brea et al. 2005 – and of La Vela – Degasperi & Pedrotti 2002).

Malavolti, following the excavations of the site of Fiorano, Modena, conducted by workers for extraction of clay, talks about “round or oval semisubterranean hut foundations, of modest size, along with surface huts…”5 (Malavolti 1944: 160), but he doesn’t furnish greater details.

Trenches about one metre in depth and not very wide (max. 80 cm) can surround the whole settlement (as in Lugo di Romagna) or only part of it (as in Lugo di Grezzana). Both these arrangements find valid comparisons in the rest of Europe (Varndell and Topping 2002).

Among the so-called “semisubterranean hut foundations”, those dug by Chierici in Albinea, Reggio Emilia (Chierici 1877), are probably the most articulate. The two “figureof-8” complexes have six verified post-holes along the walls of the pit and two at the centre, a burnt wood arrangement (maybe boarding) at one end and along the shallow sides, burnt daub fragments along the sides and “a crust of burnt clay interpreted by Chierici as a hearth”6 (Tirabassi 1987: 127). Lacking more detailed information the remains cannot be interpreted as a standing roofed structure. It could be a storage pit or by all means some sort of storage structure.

The functional interpretation is testified by evident traces of posts placed side by side, one after the other. At the base of the trench different arrangements can be found depending on the local substratum: horizontal wooden boards, (Lugo di Romagna), or stone wedges to secure the posts and not let them sink. The posts are usually of oak (and ash in Lugo di Grezzana) in radial section, almost certainly tempered to make them more resistant to the damp of the ground. The entrance to the enclosure can be a corridor that bends toward the inside (Lugo di Romagna), or a gap in the posts, probably with a closing system (Lugo di Grezzana).

Also the reconstruction of the roof and above-ground elements proposed for the site at Alba, Cuneo (Venturino Gambari 1987; 1995; 1998; Venturino Gambari et al.

The height of the paling must have reached 3 metres as is testified by the burnt collapsed posts of part of the palisade in Lugo di Romagna.

4

“Essi interessano, quasi senza soluzione di continuità, l’intero spessore del riempimento”. 5 “fondi di capanne tonde od ovali, di modesta ampiezza, alternati a capanne all’aperto …”. 6 “una crosta d’argilla cotta interpretata dal Chierici come focolare”.

7

Square Mouthed Pottery culture or V.B.Q. (Vasi a Bocca Quadrata) corresponding to the Middle Neolithic period in Northern Italy.

139

NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC ARCHAEOLOGY IN EURASIA: BUILDING TECHNIQUES AND SPATIAL ORGANISATION

Even if the primary function of these complexes was to limit the space, probably with defensive purposes, we can presume they also had a significant symbolic role, as can be deduced by ethnographic comparisons (Chaussin 1978; Scarduelli 1982; 1985) and by deliberate depositions at the bottom of the trenches close to the entrance in both sites: the leg of a dog covered by an upside-down cup in Lugo di Romagna and a fragmentary leg of ceramic figurine of the Vhò type in Lugo di Grezzana.

the pit then the post-hole will have an asymmetrical profile with a deeper, smaller hole on one side and a larger one above (this is more frequent). Both morphologies are often accompanied by filling or wedges to keep the post upright, made up of sediment, angular stones or pebbles, burnt daub in small fragments or in blocks, or even pottery fragments or flint flakes. In the fillings the artefacts can have any inclination, even vertical, which is contrary to that found on occupied levels where they tend to lie parallel to the surface itself.

Foundation channels In Lugo di Grezzana elongated depressions with nearvertical sides, concave or irregular bottoms (formed by various depressions) and a U-shaped profile may represent the buried part of vertical elements, such as continuous paling or wattle (and daub) walls. They are not usually very deep (max. 50 cm) nor wide (less 80 cm), but they are usually part of a complex, being close to large depressions and concentrations of post-holes.

In areas with a large number of post-holes it is easy to find large holes with shapes indicating that they once held two or more posts. These can be due to later reinforcement efforts or maybe to the practice of digging large holes for the erection of a number of posts. This kind of feature in settlement areas implies the presence of a standing above-ground structure, while the oval mouth or the conic profile of the post-hole may suggest the dismantlement of the wooden elements of the complex (Fronza and Valenti 1997).

In Campo Ceresole (Bagolini 1990; Bagolini and Biagi 1976; Bagolini et al. 1977; Bagolini et al. 1987), a long channel with a bottom characterized by double convexity in transversal section and undulated in the longitudinal one bends with a 90° angle and outlines, according to researchers, a (indemonstrable) dwelling structure.

In the hut dug in Lugo di Romagna the circular section of the charred post in oak was preserved, surrounded by a wedge of burnt daub and sediment. Some post-holes, such as the central one, are quite wide and of modest depth when compared to their diameter. As in other huts of different periods, where the remains of dwelling structures are recognizable, these holes lodged the weightbearing posts of the structure. Wooden elements of the structure didn’t have to support themselves as they were tied up and leaning against each other to form the skeleton of the structure. The framework of the structure built in this manner could evenly distribute the weight of the complex to the ground.

Similar features can be found in other areas of Italy. In Catignano (Pescara), for instance, some narrow and shallow channels outline three sides of possible huts (Tozzi and Zamagni 2003). POST-HOLES The hole of a post (stake hole) is the print left by the insertion into the ground of a wooden pole either by pressure, rotation or percussion. This comprehends all those elements with symmetrical shape and modest dimensions in which the depth of the hole is often greater than its diameter. The diameter can be limited to thirty centimetres if the hole has vertical sides (while it may be greater if it has a conical profile). The functional interpretation of these small narrow holes is often achieved through a process of elimination, finding no other possible function for such a feature.

Extensively excavated sites bring to light a higher concentration of these elements in certain areas (Lugo di Grezzana) confirming the presence of standing structures, even if they cannot always be clearly reconstructed; it is worth bearing in mind that the observation of post-hole alignments, with an aim to comprehending the structure of the standing complexes, involves a certain degree of subjectivity. The superimposition of successive occupationnal and building phases, the erosion of the deposits, the pedogenesis so frequent in Neolithic sites make hard to recognize and understand what the standing part of the structure was. Moreover, archaeologists are looking for a regular topography of these features, based on repetitive geometric units, which not always are real architectural needs.

The hole for a post is a pit dug in order to secure a wooden pole into the ground. The diameter of the pit is always greater then that of the pole. These elements are often characterized by a large hole with a deeper narrower hole on its bottom or by the shape and size of a smallmedium size regular pit (about 30-60 cm).

In Early Neolithic sites in northern Italy, post-holes are not common elements in all the sites. Many were found in Lugo di Romagna, Lugo di Grezzana, Savignano, La Vela (Bagolini 1977; Pedrotti 1990; Degasperi and Pedrotti 2002; Pedrotti 2001) and Imola-Ospedale Nuovo (Bagolini and von Eles 1978), as well as in Castel

If a large hole was dug first and then at its centre a post was secured deeper into the ground by pressure and/or rotation the pit will have a symmetrical profile with a step in the centre, on the other hand if the post, once inserted into the larger hole, was placed leaning against on side of 140

F. CAVULLI: STRUCTURAL EVIDENCES AND INTERPRETABLE FEATURES IN EARLY NEOLITHIC NORTHERN ITALY

Grande in Bellinzona; on the other hand very few were found in Campo Ceresole, Sammardenchia, Albinea, Riparo Gaban (Bagolini 1980 and bibliography quoted here), just one in Cecima (Simone 1983; 1983-1984) and, perhaps some traces in Brignano Frascata (Tiné 1993).

It is well known that the Atlantic Period it is not climatically homogeneous, but the general characteristics described above remain valid for the Po Plain. Thus, we may appreciate the reasons for the attention paid by Neolithic communities to water supply. Ditches, channels and ducts

UNDERGROUND FEATURES (PITS AND DITCHES)

Depressions or deep elongated pits (width-length ratio less then 1:3) and with different profiles. They can be ditches, channels or ducts according to their size and function. Their shape, together with the topography of the area, may suggest the function of these structures. Considering the inclination of the base, the depth, the plan and position with respect to the slope or the occupied area can help in understanding if we are dealing with a drainage channel or an installation to carry water, a kind of enclosure surrounding a certain area or an entire settlement, a defensive structure, etc.

Features or simple depressions dug into the ground whose function is related to the fact that they lie below surface level (negative features). They did not sustain any standing element (Bagolini et al. 1993: 33). Underground features for water management There is evidence that certain features were involved in water management. These features were pits or channels excavated in order to reach the water table, probably to access a water supply or for ground drainage.

The largest ditch found in northern Italy is that dug in the Fornace Cappuccini settlement in Faenza, referable to the Adriatic Impressed Ware Culture (Antoniazzi et al. 1990): the section under investigation is 680 m long, 2.2-2.5 m deep, 3 m wide at the top and 80 cm at its base. It is worthy to note that the feature insists on a “preexisting natural ditch” (Antoniazzi et al. 1987: 554) because it stresses one of its functions: to contain water. Its large size along with reconstruction and maintenance works testify the importance of its role in the settlement. It is probable that, as in Lugo di Romagna, it surrounded the whole dwelling area. On the other hand, as for the palisades with which such ditches are often associated, here, in Lugo di Grezzana, as in Lugo di Romagna the defensive function of this feature has not been proven by particular finds such as arrowheads or axes.9 Lacking an embankment or a palisade, the ditch could perhaps have been crossed, but not without difficulty considering its width.

The presence of water in these features is sustained by micro-morphological analyses in pit 153 at Sammardenchia. The lack of serious analyses of the bottom sediments of other structures permit us only to guess the presence of water. On the other hand, the presence of deep and regular structures and elongated shallow channels constitutes an evidence in itself. The necessity of water in the settlements, and in the surrounding areas, can be understood when considering the development of larger communities with respect to the previous period and when taking into account an economy based on animal and land exploitation. Besides, the building of “wattle and daub” structures implicates the need for an abundant water supply (Gheorghiu 2003; 2005). The climate, which allowed for a period of geomorphologic stability and of prevalent pedogenesis, has been exemplary synthesized by Cremaschi (1983) analyzing the Neolithic and post-Neolithic sediments of the lowland between Cremona and Mantova: “The establishment of mixed oak forests at high altitudes in the Appenines indicates a rise in temperatures with respect to present values, estimated (Evans, 1972) at 1-3°C annually; rainfalls were lower or at least had a different distribution than today, which was enough to block the spread of beech (Bertoldi 1981) even at higher altitudes. Similar conditions therefore must have been present in the Po Valley (Bertolani and Marchetti 1970). It is very probable therefore that the Po Valley’s soil moisture and thermic regimes were more xeric and thermic than today”8 (Cremaschi 1983: 17).

In Lugo di Romagna, this kind of feature runs externally along the palisade and a low wood and mud wall and is characterised by many shallow elongated depressions linked together. This morphology seems suggest a function related to the containment of the water. The regular shallow ditch found in Lugo di Grezzana is set uphill from the palisade. The bottom slopes slightly southward. In this case the main function was probably the drainage of the surrounding area, carrying the water collected to a large pit to the south10 (Fig. 16.3). dovevano a maggior ragione sussistere nella Pianura Padana (Bertolani, Marchetti, 1970). È molto probabile quindi che il regime idrico dei suoli padani fosse più spiccatamente xerico e termico che non l’attuale …”. 9 On the contrary in the phase 1d of Crickley Hill, in Gloucestershire (Dixon 1988), the distribution of the arrowheads, all around the palisade and ditch, is an unequivocal sign of war. 10 After the rain, during the period of excavation, the area inside dried much more quickly than the rest.

8 “L’affermarsi del Querceto Misto ad alte quote nell’Appennino indica un aumento di temperatura rispetto all’attuale, stimabile (Evans, 1972) in 1-3 °C annui; le precipitazioni dovevano essere inferiori, o almeno non distribuite come le attuali, tanto da non permettere l’instaurarsi del faggio (Bertoldi, 1981) neppure alle alte quote. Simili condizioni

141

NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC ARCHAEOLOGY IN EURASIA: BUILDING TECHNIQUES AND SPATIAL ORGANISATION

Fig. 16.3. Inclination vectors of structure ES 287 The ditch dug in Piancada (Ferrari and Pessina 1992; 1996; Pessina et al. 1998), uncovered for a stretch of 12 metres, is a wide structure with a concave profile. If it is artificial it could be interpreted as a delimitation and draining system for the inhabited area or the area dedicated to the butchery of animals and maybe food consumption, considering the abundance of animal bones recovered in its filling. The presence of wide, shallow enclosure channels or ditches in the sites mentioned above leads us to believe that such structures were mainly used to contain water, useful for the fields and animals in dry periods and/or to drain the surrounding areas in the wet ones. They must have been similar to the narrow modern channels that divide fields in the Po Plain nowadays (Fig. 16.4). This interpretation doesn’t exclude other functions, such as dividing wild and domesticated animals or even a larger symbolic role as a limes to separate the human world from the unknown one (see Gravina 1975; 1980; Whitehouse 1994; Scarduelli 1985). All these functions could have been served by the same feature at the same time. Wells for water supply

Fig. 16.4. Example of narrow channels dividing fields in the Po Plain nowadays (photo: F. Fontana)

Such features are characterized by a circular mouth, subvertical sides and, above all, by a notable depth. Summarizing: in Chiozza the well is about 1 m in diameter and 6.6 m in depth (Manfredini 1970) in Campo del Ponte the diameter is 1.5 m and the depth 4.4 m; in

Campo Cinque Fili the well has a diameter of 1.18 m and a depth of 3.18 m (Fig. 16.5); in Campo Ceresole, 142

F. CAVULLI: STRUCTURAL EVIDENCES AND INTERPRETABLE FEATURES IN EARLY NEOLITHIC NORTHERN ITALY

structure XVIII has a depth of 2.3 m, other pits have a depth of about one metre (Bagolini and Biagi 1975 and bibliography). The cavities in Campo Cinque Fili and Campo del Ponte have two charred horizontal structures made of boards and branch wood (probably for their closure) at about two thirds of their depth. Similar evidence is also found in the Middle Neolithic, for instance in Campo Donegallo, in Vhò di Piadena, and in Razza Barani locality, (the so-called “well huts”, capanne pozzo; Tirabassi 1981). Bagolini notes that the features in Vhò mentioned above reach the current water-table (Bagolini and Biagi 1975: 115). Based on its regular shape and its depth, this type of artificial feature has been interpreted for water supply. Wells for collecting water and small “cistern pits”? A particular structure uncovered in Sammardenchia can be functionally placed in between a ditch and a well. The micromorphological analysis of the fillings of the large pit 153 (4x4x1.5 m) has revealed the presence of water, testified by a laminar layer on the bottom. A short channel sloping into the pit and the low-lying characteristics of the surrounding area led Ferrari and Pessina (1999) to suggest that it probably functioned as a water collecting system. Stones and pebbles (refuse or the remains of cobbled paving?) on the external surface and a flask on the bottom of the pit seem to confirm this interpretation. As far as size and shape are concerned, this structure does not find comparisons in northern Italy. Other pits, generally shallow, irregular or sub-circular, plastered by a thick and irregular clay or silty-clay layer have been brought to light in Sammardenchia and in other sites, such as Campo Ceresole. It is possible that they were dug and rendered waterproof (where necessary) to collect rain-water for animals and fields, for the building of huts or for handicraft activities. Drinking pools for animals can still be found today across the alpine region; they often depend just on rainfall and can reach large dimensions maintaining a limited depth. UNDERGROUND FEATURES RELATED TO OTHER ACTIVITIES Pits for sediment extraction Some pits could have been dug to allow for the collection of mud and sediment necessary for the building of standing structures (for filling or the plastering of walls, ovens, etc.), for other features (for instance hearths or pavements), or, if the sediment was of a clayey nature, for the production of pottery. Good examples are found in some structures and underground features in the Lugo di Romagna site: the sediment collected from the bottom of

Fig. 16.5. Examples of wells from: Campo del Ponte and Campo Cinque Fili (Vhò di Piadena – CR) 143

NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC ARCHAEOLOGY IN EURASIA: BUILDING TECHNIQUES AND SPATIAL ORGANISATION

the ditch could have been used as filler for the small wooden wall in front of the palisade and the silty-sandy sediment used for the pavements of the huts surely has non local origin. In other contemporary settlements in Central Europe, wide pits running externally along the walls of long houses are known. Pits dug for the extraction of mud and sediments are usually characterized by an irregular mouth and profile and can have one side rather sloped to form a kind of access ramp (Degasperi 1999). Fig. 16.7 Savignano, structure III (after Bernabò Brea et al. 1990)

The hollows created could be reused later for the mixing and decantation of clay or as dump pits. Decantation pits

Tan pits

These pits were dug for the decantation of clay sediment for use in the production of pottery. Water is added to the clay in the pits to separate the coarse fraction from the finer sediment, letting the mix settle by gravitation (gravitational sorting). Archaeological evidence, when noteworthy, is given by the presence of sterile clay in the lower part of the pit which becomes more and more silty and sandy towards the bottom of the feature. Often a large pit is divided into smaller depressions in the lower part. Like many other structures of this kind, once they have fulfilled their function, they are filled in the upper part by waste (Lugo di Romagna).

A “cigar-shaped” pit, about 3 m in lenght with two deeper pits at both ends, brought to light in Campo Ceresole. This pit has been interpreted, by analogy with similar features in Central Europe, as a pool and a trench destined to support a structure for the stretching and tanning of animal hides (Van de Velde 1973). Despite close analogies with the Linear Bandkeramik Culture, this interpretation was formulated without the support of any chemical analysis. There are no other sites with similar features in Italy except for Belforte di Gazzuolo, dated to Middle Neolithic (Fig. 16.8).

Clay mixing pits These pits were used for the mixing of clay sediment with straw and other organic material (such as animal droppings). If the substratum allowed it, it is possible that pits used for sediment extraction could have been used for mixing the material subsequently employed as plaster for hut walls (Kofi Agorsah 1985). The pits are characterized by an irregular mouth and profile, particularly at the bottom, due to the mixing process that can be done by hand or employing animals (Fig. 16.6; Houben and Guillaud 1994). They are often filled with an irregular layer of clayey-silt, usually associated with scarce organic material or artefacts. Archaeological examples have been uncovered in Savignano (structure III; Fig. 16.7), Campo Ceresole and Brignano Frascata.

Fig. 16.8. Campo Ceresole (CR): the structure interpreted as a “Tan Pit” (after Bagolini et al. 1977) Silos (and silos versus ‘cisterns’) The auxiliary features that aroused most interest in recent years are probably the storage structures.

Fig. 16.6. Example of a clay mixing pit (after Houben & Guillaud 1994) 144

F. CAVULLI: STRUCTURAL EVIDENCES AND INTERPRETABLE FEATURES IN EARLY NEOLITHIC NORTHERN ITALY

A silo is defined as an artificial pit with a circular mouth and a cylindrical form, often covered with fine isolating plaster on the sides and (usually) on the bottom. It is presumed that its function concerned the storage and preservation of foodstuffs such as cereals, legumes and tubers.

(Ottavi and Marescalchi 1898: 182-184). The compression of stored foodstuffs is made possible by the weight of a large heap of earth placed above it and, of course, by the care given by whom built the silo. Also the choice of an elevated site for the construction of the silo, the preparation of “a floor of gravel some centimetres thick” and the digging of a “duct all around it” (Ottavi and Marescalchi 1898: 182) are very interesting (Fig. 16.9).

Examples can be found in Fagnigola (for instance pit 30, but they are almost exclusive to this site), in Sammardenchia, rare in Savignano (XXI), and perhaps in Vhò. Their presence in Lugo di Grezzana is not certain. The functional interpretation is based on their very regular shape (ESS 234 and 540) and on the presence of a central post-hole at the bottom of each of two large cylindrical pits (1 m in diameter and 80 cm deep). The silos are completely absent in Lugo di Romagna, not confirming the hypothesis of the proximity of these features with dwelling complexes, as found in more recent periods (Pessina 1999).

We can conclude that the profile is linked to storage which in turn depends on the type of food stored. The storage of cereals, or “grain” is generally not subject to compression, such foodstuffs are preferably stored in pits with a restricted opening, which permits easier and airtight closing. Forage and similar voluminous vegetables are, on the contrary, better preserved in pits with inclined walls, which help eliminate the air from inside, thanks to the pressure practiced by the weight of the earth above. The proposed silo model (Ottavi and Marescalchi 1898) shows an external part of the structure in relief with respect to the surface (figures ‘a’ and ‘b’). In this case, this component doesn’t serve to protect the silo or act as a “sign-post” to indicate the position of the underground feature, as already stressed in other examples by Pessina (1999). It is in fact an integral part of the silo’s structure, which, especially in the case of badly drained soil, can develop almost entirely above ground leaving only a shallow depression on the ground (figure ‘b’). This shallow pit is of great interest as it may help explain some archaeological finds, which, even if plastered, are not deep and are not to be considered significantly damaged on the upper part by surface erosion if we take into account the presence of some parts of the original vertical stratigraphy in the site.

In S. Giustina di Baldaria (Salzani 1986; 1990) regular, circular and shallow pits are found in clusters; this particularity can be noted in Fagnigola and in more recent sites suggesting the hypothesis that a specific area (or specific areas) of the settlement was reserved for storage. In two cases the pits uncovered in S. Giustina have burnt walls, which could have been due to the disinfection of the silos or to a process aimed at making the walls impermeable. It seems, however, more probable to act as a burning feature (see below). According to medieval and more recent comparisons, storage pits are characterized by deep vertical or inward sloping walls, to insure greater air tightness of the closing system. The whole upper part of such features would be lacking in the archaeological record because removed by superficial erosion. This assertion, even if founded, constitutes a preconceived idea which archaeological evidence does not always confirm: a silo in order to have a storage function must have vertical or inward sloping walls plastered with clay.

Despite the fact that the use of underground storage pits has survived up to the present day, we find that as early as the Bronze Age such methods of storage were already less common in comparison to the preceding Neolithic Period (Barfield and Bagolini, 1976). A possible explanation for this trend could be the adoption of more functional solutions and/or greater availability of raw materials, which allowed the construction of simpler yet efficient structures (Degasperi 1999). It is our opinion, however, that an important role in these changes is to be attributed to a complex of climatic, geomorphologic, social and demographic transformations.

Silos can have, however, a component below ground and another above ground level. The first feature, according to other comparisons, can even have a concave or truncated conical profile and, if the ground is well drained, lack plastering. Such an open profile would allow the stored material to settle in a more compact manner in the pits, an important detail as the worst enemies of food preservation are air and water: “The secret to success is perfect and absolute compression, repeated in all layers of the silo. […] It is best to have sloping walls as in the image, as in silos with vertical walls it is more difficult to achieve a perfect compression along the edges. Foodstuffs that aren’t well compressed would let air and water get through and thus preservation in the silo would be less effective.”11

Rubbish (and butchery) pits or areas We use this term to define areas or pits dedicated to the accumulation of discarded material (in other words dumps). Their function is often stressed by the abundance and variety of finds, as well as by a characteristic organic nella figura, poiché nel silò a pareti verticali più difficilmente si ottiene una completa compressione dei bordi. Il foraggio poco compresso lascerebbe passar l’aria e l’acqua e quindi men facile sarebbe la conservazione del silò.”

11 “Il segreto della riuscita è la compressione perfetta, assoluta, ripetuta dei diversi strati del silò. […] Le pareti sarà bene farle inclinate come

145

NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC ARCHAEOLOGY IN EURASIA: BUILDING TECHNIQUES AND SPATIAL ORGANISATION

Fig. 16.9. Examples of a modern forage silo: a) in well drained ground; b) in wet ground; c) with isolation of the walls (made of bricks) component; this doesn’t mean however, that a filling with few finds, or without dark sediment, doesn’t represent discarded material. We cannot be sure if certain pits were dug on purpose for the burying of waste materials, what is known however is that in permanent communities the domestic spaces and those frequently used were cleaned regularly (Schiffer 1972; Murray 1980).

The evidence brought to light from the Early Neolithic can be divided into fire places, burning pits, cooking griddles, empierrements (or Polynesian pits/ovens) and domed ovens. Some features described in old reports are to be interpreted as secondary deposits (according to Schiffer 1972), in other words hearths or ovens removed from their original position.

If the pit is filled with animal bones, possibly with signs of cutting and stripping, these are defined as butchery pits (i.e. Campo Ceresole; Bagolini et al. 1993).

The recovery of fire places in situ is not frequent in northern Italy because of the post-Neolithic erosion phase (see above). Despite this, 10 of the 15 hearths were found on the surface (Lugo di Romagna, Lugo di Grezzana, Chiozza, Imola, Riparo Gaban, Moletta Patone) and 2 in shallow depressions (Lugo di Grezzana); only 3 in pits (Alba-Cooperativa L’Oasi, Lugo di Grezzana).

FIRE PLACES Fire places are well defined portions of an occupied area characterized by a reddish-black colouring caused by the thermic alteration of the ground and by a compact consistency. It may contain charcoal fragments, ash on the surface and a specific layout and/or particular arrangements. It is the area dedicated to the lighting of fire, for both heat and light, the cooking of food and handicraft activities.

They are reddened areas, often hardened, with a circular plan, sometimes elongated (sub-oval shape) and they are generally lacking any particular kind of layout or boundary. An exception is the series of central superimposed hearths found in the Lugo di Romagna hut, made up of specific layers, they assume a convex surface. In addition, the Early Neolithic hearth in Moletta Patone is bordered by some stones.

By analysing these features their importance and close relationship with the huts becomes evident. Complexes in which the dwelling function is more evident always contain at least one fire place, usually in the centre. In the hut in Lugo di Romagna there are different features in both shape and function, characterized by restorations and repeated use (a central hearth, a domed oven and a cooking griddle).

COMPLEX PYROTECHNICAL STRUCTURES These structures are characterized by well defined features, specific functions and usually, continuous and repeated use which have left clear evidence of burning (such as hardened reddish soil). 146

F. CAVULLI: STRUCTURAL EVIDENCES AND INTERPRETABLE FEATURES IN EARLY NEOLITHIC NORTHERN ITALY

Two structures containing evidence of fire in S. Giustina di Baldaria can be attributed to this same typology, even if less deep.

Cooking griddles They are made up of a sandy-silt layer with the upper surface completely hardened and made smooth by fire and repeated use which results in small reddened fragments. They can be concave with raised borders and an oval shape as in pit 24 of Piancada, or flat and rectangular as in the small room of the hut in Lugo di Romagna. These characteristics let suppose a repeated use and prolonged in time and implicate a constant maintenance (cleaning, rearrangements, and reparation).

The difference with simple hearths in a pit and these burning pits can be found in the alteration of the bottom and walls. Functionally the dissimilarity is in free combustion or slow covered (“smothered”) combustion, which can reach higher temperatures. We had no indication of what could have been burned in these pits, up to now. It seems possible that they could have been employed for the firing of pottery or other material rather than the cooking of food.

Burning pits Some of the pits uncovered are circular or slightly oval in shape, they have hardened reddened walls and are filled mainly with charcoal which may contain large fragments of wood and/or the remains of beams. Alterations caused by heat and fire are quite evident around the sides of the pit yet not so marked at the bottom, as in ES 920 in Lugo di Grezzana (Fig. 16.10), where the proximity of two holes of about 25 cm in diameter lead us to assume the presence of ventilation holes which would have allowed air reach the lower parts of the material being burnt.

“Empierrements” These features are also known as “Polynesian oven” or “umu”, “canaque”, “underground oven” and are built to achieve a constant, indirect and prolonged combustion. The standard construction characteristics show a pit with sub-vertical walls, filled with a layer of large and medium-sized stones, split and cracked by fire, which covers a layer of charcoal, often in large pieces, joists or beams. There are traces of reddening and hardening on the walls of the oven and sometimes on the bottom (Vaquer 1981). In an environment with a reduced supply of oxygen, the wood burns and heats the stones which slowly disperse the heat and at the same time keep the temperatures high and prevent the wood fire from extinguishing. Rectangular structures of this kind uncovered in France can reach the length of 11 m and are more similar to those found in Mileto, Catignano or in southern Italy, than those in Alba – Cooperativa dei Lavoratori, Cuneo, or Lovere, Brescia (Poggiani Keller 1999). Even if the stratigraphy of the infillings is the same, pits found in the north have a circular mouth and smaller dimensions. They have a diameter of about 1 m and a depth of about 50 cm. Analyses performed on the charcoal of the fillings of both Neolithic sites revealed traces of oak, poplar, hornbeam, hawthorn, thornbush and ash. An experiment related to the remains found in Mileto (Florence) suggests the possibility that these structures were used for firing pottery (Sarti et al. 1991); similar structures in Polynesia, on the contrary, are used for the cooking of food. It is very interesting to note that in the last two types of pit the filling indicates the primary use of the structure and not only that of final use, even if in the upper layers may contain waste infilling anyway. We do not know if these complexes presented an upright above-ground structure. It seems probable that, if such a structure was needed, it was temporary and limited to the

Fig. 16.10. Lugo di Grezzana (VR): the burning pit ES 920 147

NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC ARCHAEOLOGY IN EURASIA: BUILDING TECHNIQUES AND SPATIAL ORGANISATION

phase of firing or burning. The firing process could have been slowed down by partly suffocating the combustion with a pile of earth and branches which would also increase the internal heat.

Guillaud 1994: 188-189). Burnt daub elements with prints have also been found in contexts not associated with huts: in Campo Ceresole, Campo Costiere, Dugali Alti, Chiozza and Brignano Frascata.

Covered ovens

In Lugo di Romagna, a narrow foundation trench is evidence of an internal dividing wall found inside a hut. In Lugo di Grezzana the passage between the inside and the outside of the complex is marked only by a single step, although cut by hand to level it with the inner floor, is due mostly to the accumulation of material around the perimeter walls of the hut.

Structures made up of two main elements: a cooking griddle on the ground surface (see above) and a standing structure, usually built of hardened mixed clay (daub), which formed a sort of vault or dome that covered the cooking griddle. Even though such structures were known since the Paleolithic, in the Early Neolithic of northern Italy an example of such an oven is found only in Lugo di Romagna. This domed oven is placed half way along of the short wall of the hut and is elongated in shape with a smoothened griddle, rich in ash, with a partially collapsed vault. The cooking chamber is narrow and with a flanged mouth.

The long wood and earth wall built between the palisade and the ditch in Fornace Gattelli is of particular interest and comparisons to similar elements in other sites are unavailable. Horizontal boards are supported by pairs of posts to create a kind of large crate filled with sediment. Besides the organisation and alignment of post-holes, which constitute the dwelling structures mentioned above, other alignments found in Lugo di Grezzana and in Imola associated with a hearth, offer no clear interpretation.

Some medium-large burnt daub fragments covered with prints of wooden elements (Lugo di Grezzana) or with a brown and white coloration (Casa Gazza; Bernabò Brea 1987) can be interpreted as the remains of demolished oven vaults removed in ancient times.

Terraces These structures are found on slopes and are usually built by cutting into the slope itself above the desired site of construction and the excavated material is then used slightly downhill in order to create a central levelled area.

SURFACE FEATURES AND ORGANIZED AREAS Stepping surfaces and floors All kinds of surface-level feature referable to the early phase of the Neolithic are not well known in northern Italy due to processes of erosion which began in the Neolithic itself (Cavulli et al. 2003).

An artificial terrace has been recognized in Aica di Fiè/Völseraicha (Bagolini et al 1982). Here we have a stone filling just downhill from the cut slope, thus creating a flat surface. It could have been an agricultural setup, as affirmed by Bagolini, or, considering the presence of a post-hole, an arrangement of the slope for dwelling purposes. It has no contemporary comparisons in northern Italy.

Only intense and prolonged trampling of a certain area can create a recognisable stepping surface. It is therefore easier to identify such features within defined structures such as dwellings (an example in Lugo di Grezzana).

Knapping areas, charcoal or burnt daub concentrations and latent features

Within the huts, horizontal layers of sandy-silt sediment can be found which probably acted as a form of isolation from the ground below (Lugo di Romagna, Lugo di Grezzana and Savignano).

The concentration of certain finds in restricted areas or the presence of artefacts in association with particular structures or features, can help to give us an idea of the activities that took place there or maybe to explain the function of a certain arrangement if found in their original position.

Walls, stone and post-holes alignments These upright structures or positive elements, are quite uncommon for the given period and area.

The sites of Lugo di Grezzana and Piancada, although not exempt from superficial erosion, have preserved some partially intact settlement surfaces. This allows for the recognition, on the surface itself or in depressions, of concentrations of chippings, pottery, charcoal or burnt daub accumulations, and latent features.

One can suppose from the regular distance between postholes found in huts in Lugo di Romagna, Lugo di Grezzana and Castel Grande, and by the burnt daub with traces of trelliswork, that the hut walls were built with wattle supported by narrow stakes (the so-called wattle and daub technique), or by stakes and beams constituting a framework which was then dressed with a cementing mixture (cob on posts technique; Houben and

Knapping areas are characterized mainly by the presence of flint/obsidian/hyaline quartz flakes, blades and cores 148

F. CAVULLI: STRUCTURAL EVIDENCES AND INTERPRETABLE FEATURES IN EARLY NEOLITHIC NORTHERN ITALY

even if finished products may be rarely found; the absence or scarce presence of stone tools, the homogeneity of raw material and flakes for refitting can be good indicators for the recognition of such workshops. These elements are spatially organized, which often make up semicircular dispersions and can constitute an evident or latent structure. In Lugo di Grezzana these areas indicate the last occupation of the settlement, suggesting the probable systematic removal during the preceding phases. The spatial distribution analysis of these elements is significant all over the sites, rich of functional implications, but not so easy to interpret.

such remains, as well as the constant and repeated position, seem to undermine such an interpretation that at first glance may seem logical. The butchering function is completely rejected in the lower parts of structure XXXVI by the finding of a particular arrangement consisting in a large deer’s antler covered, evidently on purpose, by large pebbles.

RITUAL OR FUNCTIONAL? SOME RECURRENT CONTEXTS IN THE LOWER FILLING MATERIAL In more than one site the repeated presence of horns, skulls or millstones found at the bottom of pits, or concentrations of ochre, fragments of ceramic figurines, a particular fine pottery (“figulina”) in defined areas of the settlement can be noted. In this paper we would like to describe these contexts without analysing any further the meaningful spatial features of these settlements. For an in-depth analysis please see Cavulli 2008. Even considering that most of the times the infilling of the pits is the result of the final phase of use (Barfield and Bagolini 1976), in these cases the fillings present more than one clearly recognizable arrangement, like surfaces of pebbles or stones (Savignano), probably not waste material, and interpretable only as testimony to the different functions of the open pit. Furthermore, the presence of particular findings at the very bottom of the pit (separated from it by a fine lens, 1 or 2 cm thick) reflects, in our opinion, the primary use of the pit; in other words, the reason behind the initial digging of the pit. Some recurrent concentrations in the lower parts of the pits have been sometimes noticed (and soon forgotten); for instance, back in 1941 Laviosa Zambotti describes the constant presence of stones, ash and charcoal uncovered at the bottom of many of the 49 pits dug in Chiozza (Laviosa Zambotti 1943).

Fig. 16.11. Savignano sul Panaro (MO): antlers and a pig skull at the bottom of the pits (after Bernabò Brea et al. 1990) In other Savignano pits some stone tools such as millstones were found in the same stratigraphical position. In such structures, and others nearby, particular categories of artefacts were found such as ochre, fragments of figurines and shards of a particular fine pottery (named “figulina” pottery) which were not found in other areas of the settlement.

The occurrence of certain categories of artefact in Savignano is of particular interest considering their recurrent stratigraphical position (Figs. 16.11 and 16.12). Deer antlers (found in 2 pits), a pig’s skull (in 1 pit) and some millstones or square stones (in 5 pits) have been found lying on a fine alluvial lens that covers the bottom of some pits. The animal remains could be interpreted as leftovers from simple butchery activities. However, the scarcity of other anatomical parts in the same fillings, together with the functional12 and ideological13 value of

Even the association between pit bottoms and millstones was noticed by Laviosa Zambotti in the Chiozza site. Implements of this kind have been recovered in many settlements (for instance Pescale, Fiorano, Campo Ceresole, Campo Sera Mattina, Casa Gazza). Malavolti, working in Fiorano, noticed the presence inside three of the “huts” that “the workers found and destroyed” of “at least four large stones, almost certainly

12

Needles, pins, palette knives, handles for tools and more could be made from these ‘ecofacts’. 13 Even today an “added value” is attributed to these objects, a value that goes beyond their possible use.

149

NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC ARCHAEOLOGY IN EURASIA: BUILDING TECHNIQUES AND SPATIAL ORGANISATION

Fig. 16.12. Savignano sul Panaro (MO): distribution of antlers, skull, millstone, squared stone and other particular finds millstones”14 (Malavolti 1944: 150). Unfortunately not all is known of their recovery.

Recoveries of similar elements have been reported in Middle Neolithic settlements: Razza di Campegine – Fondo Paglia or Razza di Campegine-Capanna Fabretti. Furthermore, it is interesting to notice that Savignano, Campo Ceresole, Razza di Campegine are all sites in which the bones of wild animal are more abundant than those of domestic animals. The importance of these animals for the survival of these communities must have been quite remarkable and probably influenced their ideology in a significant way.

The presence of complete sets of antlers at the bottom of holes or pits is reconfirmed by an oval-shaped pit dug in Campo Ceresole during the excavations of Anversa, Buttarelli and Sartori (1974; Fig. 16.13). In trench III in Lugo di Grezzana a circular pit with a deeper hole contained two horns set vertically into the sterile bottom surrounding a centre of flint and a large block of burnt daub (Fig. 16.14). 14

To testify to the existence of propitiatory or founding rites we can consider the bottom of the palisade trench close to

“almeno quattro grossi ciottoloni, certamente macine”.

150

F. CAVULLI: STRUCTURAL EVIDENCES AND INTERPRETABLE FEATURES IN EARLY NEOLITHIC NORTHERN ITALY

the entrance in the Lugo di Romagna site: the leg of a dog covered by an inverted cup. The cylindrical leg of a Vhò group figurine (Bagolini and Biagi 1977) has been found in the same type of enclosure and in a similar position in Lugo di Grezzana. Likewise a careened, single-lugged cup was situated upside-down inside the central post-hole, which separates the two rooms of the hut in Lugo di Romagna. One can conclude an interrelation, an integration between the functional sphere, related to subsistence activities and the ideological one. It seems that the two were probably combined in a kind of joint relationship. CONCLUSIONS Reviewing the data accumulated over more than a century of research and from a wide area, such as that represented by northern Italy, has allowed for the individualization of recurrent features and elements and comparisons between different structures. This leads to a new interpretative picture, which produced unexpected results considering the bases. In a context which is generally poor of structures, extensive excavations, even if they may not seem so meaningful after a first analysis, may bring up important results if integrated with deeper botanical, faunal and geological studies, as well as spatial analysis of both structural remains and distribution of finds. And it indicates, in most cases, problems related to the long term occupation of Neolithic palimpsests.

Fig. 16.13. Campo Ceresole (CR): antlers and other finds at the bottom of a pit (after Anversa et al. 1974)

Acknowledgements The author would like to thank Giuliana Steffé for the help given in the analysis of Savignano, Annaluisa Pedrotti for Lugo di Grezzana. Long and useful discussions were very important: first of all those with Giovanni Leonardi, supervisor of my PhD research, those with Giovanni Boschian, and Elena Silvestri. Last but not least, I would like to thank Mark Tomasi for the language revision. References ANGELUCCI, D.E., 2003, Il sito preistorico di Lugo di Grezzana (VR): prime osservazioni micromorfologiche. Preistoria Alpina 38 (2002): 109-130. ANTONIAZZI, A., B. BAGOLINI, G. BERMOND MONTANARI, M. MASSI PASI and L. PRATI, 1987, Il Neolitico di Fornace Cappuccini a Faenza e la Ceramica Impressa in Romagna. Atti XXVI Riunione Scientifica dell’Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria: 553-564. ANTONIAZZI, A., G. BERMOND MONTANARI, G. GIUSBERTI, M. MASSI PASI, D. MENGOLI, G. MORICO and L. PRATI, 1990, Lo scavo preistorico di Fornace Cappuccini. pp. 23-59+tab. 21. In:

Fig. 16.14. Plan and section of structure US 104 in area III of Lugo de Grezzana 151

NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC ARCHAEOLOGY IN EURASIA: BUILDING TECHNIQUES AND SPATIAL ORGANISATION

AA.VV., Archeologia a Faenza. Ricerche e scavi dal Neolitico al Rinascimento.

stratificazione archeologica (Acts from the International Seminar).

ANVERSA, O., B. BUTTARELLI and G. SARTORI, 1974, Fondo di capanna neolitico di S. Lorenzo Guazzone. Resoconti dell’attività del Centro Casalasco di Studi Paletnologici I: 23-29.

BARFIELD, L.H. and B. BAGOLINI, 1976, The excavation on the Rocca di Rivoli. Verona 1963-1968. Memorie del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Verona (II serie) Verona: Sezione Scienze dell’Uomo 1: 173.

BAGOLINI, B., 1977, (ed.) L’ambiente neolitico de “La Vela” (Trento). Il momento meandrospiralico nella Cultura dei Vasi a Bocca Quadrata. Museo Tridentino di Scienze Naturali.

BERNABÒ BREA, M., 1987, I primi agricoltori. Exhibition catalogue. BERNABÒ BREA, M. and G. STEFFÈ, 1981, Savignano sul Panaro (Modena). Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche, XXXVI (1-2): 332.

BAGOLINI, B., 1980, Riparo Gaban. Preistoria ed evoluzione dell’ambiente. Trento: Museo Tridentino di Scienze Naturali, Edizioni didattiche.

BERNABÒ BREA, M. and G. STEFFÈ, 1982a, Savignano sul Panaro (Modena). Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche, XXXVII (1-2): 315.

BAGOLINI, B., 1990, Alcune considerazioni sulle strutture dell’insediamento del primo Neolitico al Campo Ceresole del Vhò di Piadena. pp. 31-33. In Giannitrapani, E., L. Simone and S. Tinè (eds.) Interpretazione funzionale dei “fondi di capanna” di età preistorica. Atti del seminario di archeologia sperimentale (Milano, 29-30 aprile 1989). Genova: Casamara Ed.

BERNABÒ BREA, M. and G. STEFFÈ, 1982b, Savignano sul Panaro (Modena). Emilia Preromana, 1981/82 (9/10): 288-289. BERNABÒ BREA, M. and G. STEFFÈ, 1983, Insediamento neolitico a Savignano sul Panaro: appunti preliminari. Miscellanea di Studi Archeologici e di Antichità I: 1-8.

BAGOLINI, B. and P. BIAGI, 1975, Il Neolitico del Vhò di Piadena. Preistoria Alpina 11: 77-121.

BERNABÒ BREA, M., G. STEFFÈ, and G. GIUSBERTI, 1990, Il Neolitico Antico a Savignano. pp. 77-134. In Sala, B. (ed.) Nel Segno dell’Elefante. Geologia, Paleontologia e Archeologia del territorio di Savignano sul Panaro.

BAGOLINI, B. and P. BIAGI, 1976, Vhò, Campo Ceresole: scavi 1976. Preistoria Alpina 12: 33-60. BAGOLINI, B. and P. BIAGI, 1977, Oggetti “d’arte neolitica” nel Gruppo del Vhò di Piadena (Cremona). Preistoria Alpina, 13: 47-66.

BERNABò BREA, M., MAFFI, M., FERRARI, A., GUARISCO, F., 2005, I siti mesolitici e neolitici di Le Mose (Piacenza). Bollettino Storico Piacentino, C, 1: 11-52.

BAGOLINI, B. and P. von ELES, 1978, L’insediamento neolitico di Imola e la corrente culturale della Ceramica Impressa nel medio e alto Adriatico. Preistoria Alpina 14: 33-63.

BURGESS, C., TOPPING, P., MORDANT, C. and MADDISON, M. (eds.), 1988 - Enclosures and defences in the Neolithic of Western Europe. British Archaeological Reports (International Series), 403 (i): 445 pp.

BAGOLINI, B., C. BALISTA and P. BIAGI, 1977, Vhò, Campo Ceresole: scavi 1977. Preistoria Alpina 13: 67-98. BAGOLINI, B., P. BIAGI and R. NISBET, 1982, Ricerche negli insediamenti di Fingerhof presso Aica di Fié (Volseraicha-BZ). Rapporto preliminare sugli scavi 1980-81. Rivista di Archeologia VI: 11-22.

CAMERON, C.M. and S.A. TOMKA, 1993, Abandonment of Settlements and Regions. Ethnoarchaeological and Archaeological Approaches. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

BAGOLINI, B., G.W.W. BARKER, P. BIAGI, L. CASTELLETTI and M. CREMASCHI, 1987, Scavi nell’insediamento neolitico di Campo Ceresole (Vhò di Piadena, Cremona): 1974-79. Atti XXVI Riunione Scientifica dell’Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria, volume II: 455-466.

CAVULLI, F., 1999-2000, Lugo di Grezzana (VR): contributo allo studio delle strutture antropiche del primo Neolitico dell’Italia settentrionale. Bachelor dissertation, Università degli Studi di Trento. Supervisor Dr. A. Pedrotti. Unpublished.

BAGOLINI, B., A. FERRARI and A. PESSINA, 1993, Strutture insediative nel Neolitico dell’Italia settentrionale. In: Gravina, A., Tavola rotonda “Strutture d’abitato e ambiente nel Neolitico Italiano”. Atti del 13° Convegno Nazionale sulla Preistoria, Protostoria e Storia della Daunia, S. Severo 1991, tomo secondo, Foggia: 33-52.

CAVULLI, F., 2002, L’insediamento di Lugo di Grezzana. pp. 66-67. In Aspes, A. (ed.) 2002. CAVULLI, F., 2003, Sottostrutture antropiche di età neolitica: contributo all’analisi interpretativa. In Bellintani, P. and L. Moser, Archeologie sperimentali, Atti del Convegno, Terme di Comano (Trento), 13-15 settembre 2001.

BALISTA, C. and G. LEONARDI, 1992, Elementi di interpretazione processuale delle stratigrafie in ambiente umido, tramite alcuni studi caso. pp. 153172. In: Leonardi, G. (ed.), Processi formativi della

CAVULLI, F., 2005, Le più antiche strutture antropiche del neolitico in Italia settentrionale. Indagine analitica e proposte metodologiche. Ph.D. dissertation, 152

F. CAVULLI: STRUCTURAL EVIDENCES AND INTERPRETABLE FEATURES IN EARLY NEOLITHIC NORTHERN ITALY

University of Padua. Supervisor prof. G. Leonardi. Unpublished.

Settemila Anni Fa il Primo Pane. Exhibition catalogue. Udine: Edizioni del Museo Friulano di Storia Naturale.

CAVULLI, F., 2008, Abitare il Neolitico. Le più antiche strutture antropiche del Neolitico in Italia settentrionale. Supplement of Preistoria Alpina, 43, Publisher Università degli Studi di Trento and Museo Tridentino di Scienze Naturali, Trento: 480 pp.

DEGASPERI, N. and G. STEFFÈ, 1997, Mostra “L’insediamento neolitico di Fornace Gattelli a Lugo di Romagna” (Lugo-RA 1996). Archeologia dell’Emilia-Romagna I/2: 191-193.

CAVULLI, F. and A. PEDROTTI, 2003, L’insediamento del Neolitico antico di Lugo di Grezzana: la palizzata lignea. Preistoria Alpina 37 (2001): 11-24.

DEGASPERI, N., G. STEFFÈ, and P. VON ELES, 1993a, Lugo di Romagna (RA). Insediamento neolitico di Fornace Gattelli. Studi e Documenti di Archeologia VIII: 347-348.

CAVULLI, F., A. PEDROTTI and D.E. ANGELUCCI, 2003, La successione stratigrafica di Lugo di Grezzana (Verona). Preistoria Alpina 38 (2002): 89107.

DEGASPERI, N., G. STEFFÈ, and P. VON ELES, 1993b, Lugo di Romagna (RA): l’insediamento neolitico di Fornace Gattelli. Studi e Documenti di Archeologia VII, 1991-1992: 190-192.

CHAUSSIN, E., 1978, Aspects spatiaux de l’organisation sociale des Soara. l’Homme 18: 167-182.

DEGASPERI, N., G. STEFFÈ, and P. VON ELES, 1997, Lugo di Romagna, Fornace Gattelli. Archeologia dell’Emilia-Romagna I/2: 36-38.

CHIERICI, G., 1877, Villaggio dell’età della pietra nella provincia di Reggio dell’Emilia. Bullettino di Paletnologia Italiana III (1): 1-12.

DIXON, P., 1988, The Neolithic Settlements on Crickley Hill. pp. 75-87. In Burgess, C., P. Topping, C. Mordant, and M. Maddison (eds.) Enclousures and defences in the Neolithic of Western Europe. British Archaeological Reports (International Series), 403(i).

CREMASCHI, M., 1983, Strutture neolitiche e suoli olocenici nella pianura mantovana e cremonese. In P. Biagi et al., La stazione di Casatico di Marcaria nel quadro paleoambientale ed archeologico dell’Olocene antico della Val Padana centrale. Studi Archeologici, Istituto Universitario di Bergamo, 2: 7-19.

FERRARI, A. and A. PESSINA, 1992, Considerazioni sul primo popolamento neolitico dell’area friulana. Atti della società per la Preistoria e Protostoria della regione Friuli- Venezia Giulia VI: 23-60.

CREMASCHI, M., 1990, Pedogenesi medio olocenica ed uso dei suoli durante il Neolitico in Italia settentrionale. pp. 71-89. In Biagi, P. (ed.) The Neolithisation of Alpine Region. Monografie di Natura Bresciana 13.

FERRARI, A. and A. PESSINA, 1996, (eds.) Sammardenchia e i primi agricoltori del Friuli. Banca di Credito Cooperativo di Basiliano, Arti Grafiche Friulane, p. 134.

CREMASCHI, M., 1996, Una fase di erosione del suolo di età subboreale nei Lessini. pp. 224-225. In Venturino Gambari, M. (ed.) Le vie della pietra verde. L’industria litica levigata nella preistoria dell’Italia settentrionale. Alba: Omega.

FERRARI, A. and A. PESSINA, 1999, Sammardenchia. Cûeis. Contributi per la conoscenza di una comunità del primo Neolitico. Udine: Edizioni del Museo Friulano di Storia Naturale, p. 359.

CREMASCHI, M., 2000, Manuale di geoarcheologia. Roma-Bari: Laterza Ed., p. 386.

FRONZA, G., 2003-2004, Il concotto del sito neolitico di Lugo di Grezzana (VR), campagne di scavo 19982002: descrizione e metodologia di caratterizzazione. Bachelor dissertation, Università degli Studi di Trento. Supervisor prof. A. Pedrotti, co-supervisors Dr. S. Gialanella e Dr. D.E. Angelucci, 2 voll. Unpublished.

DAVID, N., 1971, The Fulani compound and the archaeologist. Word Archaeology 3 (2): 111-131. DEGASPERI, N., 1999, I pozzetti neolitici. Una proposta metodologica e interpretativa. Annali del Museo Civico di Rovereto 15: 3-37.

FRONZA, V. and M. VALENTI, 1997, Lo scavo di strutture in materiale deperibile. Griglie di riferimento per l’interpretazione di buche e di edifici. pp. 172-177. In Gelichi, S. (ed.), SAMI1. I Congresso Nazionale di Archeologia Medievale. Auditorium del Centro Studi della Cassa di Risparmio di Pisa (ex Benedettine). Pisa, 29-31 maggio 1997. Firenze: All’Insegna del Giglio Ed., and updates at http: //www. archeo. unisi. it/archeologia_medievale /Newpages/artbdp. html

DEGASPERI, N. and A. PEDROTTI, 2002, Il sito neolitico di La Vela campagne di scavo 1987-88. Prime considerazioni sulla sequenza stratigrafica. Atti XXXIII Riunione Scientifica dell’Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria, Trento, 21-24 ottobre 1997, Firenze: 229-233. DEGASPERI, N., A. FERRARI, and G. STEFFÈ, 1996, L’insediamento neolitico di Fornace Gattelli a Lugo di Romagna. Exhibition catalogue. Lugo Municipality, p. 17.

GHEORGHIU, D., 2003, Water, Tells and Textures: a Multiscalar Approach to Gumelnita Hydrostrategies. In Gheorghiu, D. (ed.) Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age Hydrostrategies, British Archaeological Reports (International Series), 1123, Oxford: BAR Publishing.

DEGASPERI, N., A. FERRARI, and G. STEFFÈ, 1998, L’insediamento neolitico di Lugo di Romagna. pp. 117-124. In Pessina, A. and G. Muscio (eds.) 153

NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC ARCHAEOLOGY IN EURASIA: BUILDING TECHNIQUES AND SPATIAL ORGANISATION

GHEORGHIU, D., 2005, The Lower Danube Chalcolithic Megaron House with an Internal Column: the Technology of Building Interpreted through experiments. pp. 35-62. In Gheorghiu, D. The Archaeology of Dwelling, Theory and Experiments. Bucharest: Editura universitatii din Bucuresti.

OTTAVI, E. and A. MARESCALCHI, 1898, Vademecum dell’agricoltore. Casale: 181-185. PEDROTTI, A., 1990, L’abitato neolitico de "La Vela" di Trento. pp. 219-224. In: Die ersten Bauern. Pfahlbaufunde Europas, Band 2, Schweizerisches Landesmuseum, Zürich, 1990.

GRAVINA, A., 1975, Fossati e strutture ipogeiche dei villaggi neolitici in agro di San Severo. Attualità archeologiche: 11-46.

PEDROTTI, A., 2001, Il Neolitico. pp. 119-181. In: Lanzinger, M., F. Marzatico and A. Pedrotti (eds.), Storia del Trentino La Preistoria e la Protostoria. Bologna: Ed. Il Mulino.

GRAVINA, A., 1980, Annotazioni sui fossati e sulle strutture ipogeiche dei villaggi neolitici della Daunia settentrionale, Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche 35: 339355.

PEDROTTI, A., F. CAVULLI, and A. MIORELLI, 2000, Lugo di Grezzana (Verona). Insediamento della Cultura di Fiorano: l’industria ceramica del settore IX. pp. 111-123. In Pessina, A. And G. Muscio (eds.), La neolitizzazione tra oriente e occidente. Atti del convegno di studi, Udine, 23-24 aprile 1999, Udine: Edizioni del Museo Friulano di Storia Naturale.

HOUBEN, H. and H. GUILLAUD, 1994, Earth Construction. A Comprehensive Guide. London: Intermediate Technology Publications. KOFI AGORSAH, E., 1985, Archeological implications of traditional house construction among the Nchmuru of northern Ghana. Current Anthropology, 26 (I): 103115.

PEDROTTI, A., L. SALZANI, D. ANGELUCCI, M. BASSETTI, M. BATTISTI, M. BAZZANELLA, P. COLLER, C. FALQUI, L. MOSER, O. MICHELON, C. PANGRAZZI, M. PERNTER, P. SALZANI, and P. TEDESCO, 2002, Il sito neolitico di Lugo di Grezzana (VR). Analisi preliminare delle aree di scheggiatura della selce. Riassunti della XXXIII Riunione Scientifica IIPP, Trento, 21-24 ottobre 1997: 157. PELLEGRINO, F., 1982, Dal riparo a spioventi alla capanna quadrangolare. pp. 137-189. In Cataldi, G., F. Farneti, R. Larco, F. Pellegrino, and P. Tamburini, Tipologie primitive: 1. I tipi ‘radice’. Firenze: Alinea Ed. PESSINA, A., 1999, Le strutture accessorie: silos e sistemi di stoccaggio sotterranei alcuni esempi dalla preistoria al Medioevo. pp. 63-76. In Castelletti, L. and A. Pessina (eds.) Introduzione all’archeologia degli spazi domestici. Atti del seminario – Como, 4-5 novembre 1995. Archeologia dell’Italia Settentrionale 7, Como: Ed. New Press.

LAVIOSA ZAMBOTTI, P., 1943, Le più antiche culture agricole europee: l’Italia, i Balcani e l’Europa Centrale durante il neo-eneolitico. Milano-Messina: Ed. Principato. LEONARDI, G. (ed.), 1992, Processi formativi della stratificazione archeologica (Atti del seminario internazionale). Saltuarie del Laboratorio del Piovego 3: 416, Padova. MALAVOLTI, F., 1944, Una stazione ed un sepolcreto eneolitici alle Fornaci Carani di Fiorano Modenese. (Ricerche preliminari svolte dal 23 luglio 1938 al 30 settembre 1941). Atti e Memorie della Società dei Naturalisti di Modena LXXV: 142-163. MANFREDINI, A., 1970, Nuove ricerche a Chiozza di Scandiano. Origini IV: 145-159. MOSER, L., 2000, Il sito neolitico di Lugo di Grezzana (Verona). I materiali archeologici della campagna di scavo 1993. pp. 125-150. In: Pessina, A. and G. Muscio (eds.) La neolitizzazione tra oriente e occidente. Atti del convegno di studi, Udine, 23-24 aprile 1999, Udine: Edizioni del Museo Friulano di Storia Naturale.

PESSINA, A., A. FERRARI, and A. FONTANA, 1998, Le prime popolazioni agricole del Friuli. pp. 133-146. In Pessina, A. and G. Muscio (eds.) Settemila Anni Fa il Primo Pane. Exhibition catalogue. Udine: Edizioni del Museo Friulano di Storia Naturale. POGGIANI KELLER, R., 1999, Lovere (BG), una sequenza stratigrafica esemplare dal Neolitico Antico al Bronzo Finale in area prealpina. Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche, L: 1-78.

MOSER, L., 2002, Il sito neolitico di Lugo di Grezzana (VR). Tecniche di scheggiatura laminare. Atti XXXIII Riunione Scientifica dell’Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria, Trento, 21-24 ottobre 1997: 327-334.

SALZANI, L., 1986, S. Giustina di Baldaria (Comune di Cologna Veneta). Quaderni di Archeologia del Veneto, II: 99-102.

MOSER, L. and A. PEDROTTI, 1996, L’abitato neolitico di Lugo di Grezzana (Verona): relazione preliminare. pp. 23-33. In: G. Belluzzo, L. Salzani, Dalla terra al museo. Mostra di reperti preistorici e protostorici degli ultimi dieci anni di ricerca dal territorio veronese, Ministero per i Beni Culturali e Ambientali, Soprintendenza Archeologica per il Veneto, Nucleo operativo di Verona.

SALZANI, L., 1990, Comune di Cologna Veneta, S. Giustina. Quaderni di Archeologia del Veneto, VI: 198-202. SARTI, L., C. CORRIDI, F. MARTINI, and P. PALLECCHI, 1991, Mileto: un insediamento neolitico della ceramica a linee incise. Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche, XLIII, 1-2: 73-154.

MURRAY, P., 1980, Discard location: the ethnographic data. American Antiquity, 45(3): 490-502. 154

F. CAVULLI: STRUCTURAL EVIDENCES AND INTERPRETABLE FEATURES IN EARLY NEOLITHIC NORTHERN ITALY

SIMONE, L., 1983, Cecima (Pavia). Capanna del Neolitico Inferiore padano. Notiziario della Soprintendenza Archeologica della Lombardia, 1982: 15.

VALENTI, M. (ed.), 1996, Poggio Imperiale a Poggibonsi: dal villaggio di capanne al castello di pietra. I, Diagnostica archeologica e campagne di scavo 19911994. Firenze: Ed. All’Insegna del Giglio. p. 421.

SIMONE, L., 1983-1984, Fondo di capanna del Neolitico antico a Cecima (PV). Sibrium, XVII: 189-199.

VAN DE VELDE, P., 1973, Ritual, skins and homer: the Danubian “Tan Pits”. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia VI: 50-65.

SCARDUELLI, P., 1982, I Nias dell’arcipelago indonesiano. pp. 243-282. In Arioti, M., Uomini e re. Roma-Bari.

VARNDELL, G., and TOPPING, P., 2002, Enclosures in Neolithic Europe, Oxbow Books, Oxford.

SCARDUELLI, P., 1985, La morfologia dell’organizzazione simbolica del territorio. La ricerca folklorica 11: 5-12.

VENTURINO GAMBARI, M., 1987, Scavo di strutture del Neolitico antico ad Alba, loc. Borgo Moretta. Notiziario Soprintendenza Piemonte 6: 42-47.

SCHIFFER, M.B., 1972, Archaeological context and systemic context. American Antiquity 37(2): 156-165.

VENTURINO GAMBARI, M., 1995, (ed.) Navigatori e contadini. Alba e la valle del Tanaro nella preistoria. Alba: Famija Albèisa.

STEFFÈ, G., 1984-1985, L’insediamento neolitico di Savignano sul Panaro (Modena): scavi 1981–1983. Specialisation thesis, University of Pisa, supervisor prof. R. Grifoni Cremonesi. Unpublished.

VENTURINO GAMBARI, M., 1998, Forme e dinamiche degli insediamenti umani nel Neolitico e nell’Eneolitico. Archeologia in Piemonte, volume I, La Preistoria: 101-120.

TINÉ, V., 1993, Una capanna del Neolitico a Brignano Frascata. pp. 17-26. In Pantò, G. (ed.) Archeologia nella Valle del Curone. Quaderni della Soprintendenza del Piemonte, Monografie, 3.

VENTURINO GAMBARI, M., G. GAJ, D. DELCARO, and M. GIARETTI, 2002, Abitare ad Alba nel Neolitico. Dati archeologici, analisi tecnologica ed ipotesi ricostruttive. pp. 427-435. In: Ferrari, A. and P. Visentini (eds.) Il declino del mondo neolitico. Quaderni del Museo Archeologico del Friuli Occidentale, 4.

TIRABASSI, J., 1981, Campegine. p. 12. In Ambrosetti, A. (ed.), Catasto archeologico della Provincia di Reggio-Emilia. Supplemento 1. Municipio Reggio Emilia-Civici Musei. TIRABASSI, J., 1987, I siti neolitici. p. 207. In Ambrosetti, A. (ed.) Catasto archeologico della provincia di Reggio Emilia, 2, Municipio di Reggio Emilia-Civici Musei.

VIDALE, M., 2004, Che cos’è l’etnoarcheologia. Ed. Carocci, pp. 128, Roma. VON ELES MASI, P. and G. STEFFE, 1987, Primi risultati delle ricerche nell’insediamento neolitico di Lugo di Romagna (Ravenna). Atti XXVI Riunione Scientifica dell’Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria: 595-602.

TOZZI, C., 1993, Strutture di abitato e ambiente nel Neolitico Italiano. pp. 11-15. In Gravina, A. Tavola rotonda “Strutture d’abitato e ambiente nel Neolitico Italiano”. Acts from the 13th National Convention on Prehistory, Protohistory and History of the Daunia, S. Severo 1991, tomo secondo, Foggia.

WHITEHOUSE, R.D., 1994, Società ed economia nel Neolitico italiano: la problematica dei fossati. pp. 275285. In Tusa, S. (ed.) La preistoria del Basso Belice e della Sicilia meridionale nel quadro della preistoria siciliana e mediterranea.

TOZZI, C. and B. ZAMAGNI (eds.), 2003, Gli scavi nel villaggio neolitico di Catignano (1971-1980). Firenze: Origines, p. 334.

ZEEB, A., 1994, Die Hausbefunde der frühjungneolithischen Siedlung von Nördlingen-Baldingen im Nördlinger Ries. Arbeiten zur Archäologie Süddeutschlands, band 2: 94+tab. 40.

VAQUER, 1981, D’étranges fosses néolithiques. La Recherche, 124: 882-883.

155

L’ARCHITECTURE DOMESTIQUE EN SARDAIGNE (ITALIE) ENTRE LA FIN DU NEOLITHIQUE ET LE CHALCOLITHIQUE Maria-Grazia MELIS Résumé: Nous présentons ici l’analyse de différentes classes de monuments, allant des structures partiellement creusées dans le sol aux cabanes de pierre. Une partie des données concernant les structures néolithiques bâties en pierre vient du secteur funéraire, car certains aspects de ces constructions sont souvent représentés dans les tombes à hypogée; ces informations sont confirmées par quelques importants habitats. Le panorama s’enrichi au cours du Chalcolithique, où l’on observe une considérable variabilité typologique. En ce qui concerne les structures partiellement creusées dans le sol, pour lesquelles les données archéologique sont rares, nous présentons ici le résultat de nos fouilles dans le village de Su Coddu/Canelles (Sardaigne méridionale). Mots-cléf: Architecture, Néolithique récent, Chalcolithique, Sardaigne, hypogée Abstract: We present the study of various monument classes, ranging from semi-subterranean structures to stone huts. Much information on late Neolithic stone huts can be gained from funerary evidence, as some architectural elements are duplicated in the hypogeum graves; the excavations of some important village confirms these data. The panorama is richer for the Copper age, characterised by considerable typological variability. Archaeological reports on semi-subterranean structures are scarce: we present below a new contribution from the village of Su Coddu/Canelles, in southern Sardinia. Key words: Architecture, Late Neolithic, Chalcolithic, Sardinia, hypogeum

L’imposant phénomène des hypogées sépulcraux en Sardaigne (appelés “domus de janas” dans la tradition populaire), qui concerne quelques milliers de monuments, constitue une documentation très riche pour la reconstruction de l’idéologie funéraire, mais aussi pour celle de l’architecture domestique, du Néolithique final au Chalcolithique.

petites marches circulaires concentriques s’approfondissant vers le centre. Quelquefois il s’agit d’une simple cuvette creusée dans le sol. Les hypogées sardes fournissent également de nombreuses informations sur le système de couverture. En effet le plafond des chambres funéraires reproduit la structure en bois du toit, avec le faîtage longitudinal et les poutres transversales. Il y a des toits coniques et semiconiques, plats, à un ou à deux pans inclinés. En cinq cas de cette dernière disposition, tous de tombes de la province de Sassari, dans la Sardaigne nord occidentale, il y a un motif en relief, en escalier, qui a été interprété comme élément de raccord entre la paroi et le toit.

En effet, on a depuis longtemps mis en évidence les nombreux éléments qui permettent de déterminer d’étroits rapports avec l’architecture domestique, ce qui est important car il n’y a pas beaucoup de documentation sur les villages. Dans un nombre considérable de tombes on remarque des éléments architectoniques tels que piliers, foyers, toits reproduisant le poutrage en bois. Aux parois il y a parfois des décorations, qui pourraient représenter des tapisseries, pendues aux murs des maisons.

Dans une tombe de Sant’Andrea Priu, le souci de réalisme se pousse jusqu’à représenter des poutres déformées par le poids, avec un gros pilier qui soutiens la panne faîtière et les poutres latérales.

L’étude des hypogées a permis de reconnaitre un certain nombre de types planimétriques (Tanda 1984); parmi les plus fréquents, remarquons celui qui est composé d’une antichambre semi-circulaire et d’une chambre rectangulaire; celui avec deux pièces rectangulaires contiguës selon l’axe le plus long et celui avec deux pièces rectangulaires de dimensions différentes. Les chambres semicirculaires ont un toit semi-conique, alors que celles qui sont rectangulaires ont un toit à un ou deux pans inclinés.

L’exemple le plus connu de toit plat se trouve dans l’extraordinaire hypogée de Mandra Antine – Thiesi, avec les parois et le plafond peints (Contu 1964). Le long d’une parois on voit une fausse porte encadrée d’un motif multiple à cornes de bœuf où l’on distingue la tête de l’animal. C’est une partie architectonique des cabanes réelles, ici sans caractère fonctionnel, qui sert à représenter la porta inferi. Les motifs circulaires sur les parois semblent être des objets suspendus, d’emploi domestique, mais en même temps ils décorent les cornes de l’animal. Le plafond est divisé en panneaux rectangulaires par des poutres, comme dans les toits à deux pentes.

Le pilier, souvent pourvu d’une plinthe, les fenêtres, les parastates, les portes et les fausses portes, la base de la paroi, le toit, sont des éléments architectoniques qui se répètent fréquemment dans les hypogées. Parmi les parties architectoniques sculptées de ces hypogées il y a aussi des lits funéraires et des foyers. Ces derniers sont reproduits au centre des pièces principales et ils ont un plan circulaire. Ils sont souvent délimités par un bord en relief ou, dans un seul cas, constitué par des

La paroi d’un hypogée de la Sardaigne nord occidentale présente une décoration très intéressante: un motif en damiers et chevrons qui semble représenter une tapisserie (Tanda 1992: fig. 2). Ceci nous offre des informations sur 157

NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC ARCHAEOLOGY IN EURASIA: BUILDING TECHNIQUES AND SPATIAL ORGANISATION

les décorations des maisons et en même temps sur la pratique du tissage.

des cabanes en pierres sèches que des structures en creux. S’agit-il de deux classes fonctionnelles d’habitation? Les données de Selargius paraissent suggérer une réponse affirmative, du moment qu’à côté de structures utilisées comme silos, puits et dépôts d’ordures, on trouve aussi celles avec un foyer et des niveaux d’usage domestique.2

D’autres structures des maisons sont reproduites dans les hypogées par des bandes en relief, souvent peintes, le long des parois. Il s’agit de parastates ou de poteaux portants. On trouve également des portes et fausses portes. Elles sont souvent pourvues d’une architrave et d’une corniche qui tiennent lieu de montant et de seuil. D’autres indications sur la technique de construction des parois nous viennent de la domus de janas I de LudurruBuddusò (Baltolu 1973): sur les parois de la chambre B on voit une série de lignes verticales peintes qui partent du plafond, et qui sont interprétées par l’auteur de la recherche comme la représentation du toit. Mais leur position1 nous suggère plutôt à une paroi en bois, avec des roseaux ou d’autres éléments végétaux.

Pouvons-nous entrevoir une relation entre les domus de janas et ce second type d’architecture domestique? La réponse est difficile, mais il est certain que tant les hypogées que les structures en creux ont parfois un plan curviligne (circulaire, elliptique, réniforme, à lobes).3 Les fouilles du village de Selargius ont mis en évidence l’usage de pains ou briques de terre crue. Les premières découvertes ont été effectuées dans la structure 96 de la phase “classique” d’Ozieri (Ugas 2000: 899), qui correspond à la première phase du village. Il s’agit de morceaux de briques de terre et paille, trouvés en position secondaire, et qui selon l’auteur ces fouilles, pouvaient être en rapport avec un édifice cultuel.

Plus récemment, l’importante découverte du village de Serra Linta – Sedilo, dans la Sardaigne centrale (Tanda 1988), a fourni une contribution fondamentale à la recherche. Les murs des cabanes sont en pierres sèches à leur base, alors que la partie supérieure était vraisemblablement en bois. La planimétrie des cabanes, divisées en deux pièces principales, une rectangulaire et l’autre semi-circulaire, rappelle celle des domus de janas. La partie supérieure non conservée (parois et toit), en bois, peut être raisonnablement reconstruite grâce à la documentation fournie par les hypogées.

Nous avons recueilli de nombreuses autres informations lors de fouilles plus récentes à Selargius, ce qui nous permet de disposer pour la première fois d’une documentation graphique et photographique détaillée de ce type de materiel. Les briques sont de dimensions variables, et ont généralement une forme de parallélépipède. Des restes de pisé, de torchis et d’enduit offrent de précieuses indications sur les structures en matériel périssable, avec finissage à l’argile. Dans certains cas il y a des traces de dallages4 ou de sols d’argile battue.

Un différent genre d’informations viens de l’analyse d’une gravure pariétale dans un abri sous roche (fig. 17.1,1), qui représente vraisemblablement le plan d’un village (Moravetti 1980).

L’emploi de terre massive compactée peut être soupçonné, mais nous n’en avons aucune preuve directe.5 Par contre la fouille de Selargius a mis en évidence la présence d’éléments modulaires, les pains ou briques (fig. 17.1, 2-4). La face principale peut être elliptique, elliptique allongée, rectangulaire, ou rectangulaire allongée. Le mauvais état de conservation ne permet pas toujours de reconnaitre la forme originale.

On y distingue les différents types planimétriques des domus de janas: circulaire simple, à deux chambres (une semi-circulaire et l’autre rectangulaire), rectangulaire simple, à deux chambres rectangulaires, et enfin elliptique. On n’observe aucune organisation générale de l’espace: ces structures sont disposées de façon désordonnée et chaotique. Mais pour le deuxième type on peut remarquer une certaine constance dans l’orientation.

La face principale est le plus souvent rectangulaire (42%), ou elliptique (fig. 17.2,1).

Tous ces documents nous amènent à considérer une seconde classe de structures d’habitat, la plus fréquente dans le sud de la Sardaigne: les soi-disant “fondi di capanna”, c’est-à-dire des structures creusées dans le sol argileux ou marneux, avec la partie supérieure en matériel périssable. Les structures à plan circulaire et elliptique de la gravure pariétale pourraient y faire allusion.

La coupe longitudinale, lorsqu’elle est déteminable, est plate convexe ou concave convexe, rectangulaire, ou rectangulaire avec un côté concave. La coupe rectangulaire est la plus fréquente, (38%), suivie de celle plate convexe (fig. 17.2,2). 2

Des sépultures ont été découvertes en quelques rares cas dans les cabanes (Ugas et al. 1989: 20). 3 La structure 21 de Su Coddu a deux chambres, reliées par une porte qui est très semblable à celles des hypogées (Nuvoli 1989: 261). 4 L’utilisation de la pierre dans les structures du village est rare: une espèce de socle en petite pierres caractérise la structure – puits 43 (Lai 1989a: 261). 5 La décoration à carreaux de la paroi d’une domus de janas pourrait indiquer l’emploi de terre massive compactée, dans un treillage en bois (Loi 2009).

L’exemple le plus connu et le plus important est le village néolithique et chalcolithique de Su Coddu – Selargius (Ugas et al. 1989 et 1989a; Manunza 2002 et 2004; Melis 2005; Melis et al. 2004 et 2006). A Serra Linta il y a tant 1

L’examen détaillé des surfaces montre que les lignes continuent dans la partie inferieure de la paroi, ou elles laissent des très faibles traces, tandis que dans le dessin publié elles sont limitées à la partie supérieure.

158

M.-G. MELIS: L’ARCHITECTURE DOMESTIQUE EN SARDAIGNE (ITALIE) ENTRE LA FIN DU NÉOLITHIQUE ET LE CHALCOLITHIQUE

Fig. 17.1. 1: gravure pariétale dans l’abri sous roche de Frattale-Oliena, qui représente le plan d’un village (Moravetti 1980); 2-4: briques d’argile du village de Su Coddu-Canelles (Selargius, Cagliari), dessins et photographies de Stefania Piras La coupe transversale est plate convexe, rectangulaire, trapézoïdale, elliptique ou indéterminable. Ici aussi elle est le plus souvent rectangulaire (42%), bien qu’assez fréquemment plate convexe, plus rarement trapézoïdale ou elliptique (fig. 17.2,3).

différentes par leur dimensions et fonctions, tant en creux que subaériennes. Si les éléments modulaires en terre crue donnent des informations sur la construction des parois, les fragments de torchis témoignent également d’une utilisation pour lier des matériaux végétaux employés pour les parois, cloisons et toitures (fig. 17.2, 5-6). Les espèces végétales sont les roseaux et autres plantes typiques des zones palustres, qui pouvaient être recueillies dans les environs, près de l’étang de Molentergius. Des empreintes de diamètres différents témoignent d’espèces diverses, employées dans des buts diversifiés.

Quant aux dimensions, le mauvais état de conservation ne permet pas toujours d’évaluer la longueur et la largeur, alors que l’épaisseur a été constamment mesurée. Cette dernière est très fréquemment comprise entre 6 et 8 centimètres. Différents types de briques sont présents, en majorité parallélépipédiques, et de dimensions moyenness, avec de rares exemplaires de grandes dimensions. Elles pouvaient être employées pour des structures 159

NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC ARCHAEOLOGY IN EURASIA: BUILDING TECHNIQUES AND SPATIAL ORGANISATION

Pour terminer, quelques trente fragments d’enduit ont été également recueillis (fig. 17.2,7). Presque tous ont un corps argileux et un fin revêtement clair. Ils ont généralement une épaisseur soit de 0,4-0,8 cm, soit de 2-4 cm; les revêtements sont le plus souvent jaune pâle6 et ils ressemblent à une chaux aérienne. L’emploi de la terre crue dans les constructions préhistoriques est bien documenté au Proche-Orient. Ce thème a fait l’objet de plusieurs études7 en France, et d’une table ronde à Montpellier 2001 (De Chazelles et Klein 2003; Jallot 2003). En Sardaigne il manque encore une étude systématique.

Au cours du Chalcolithique évolué la tradition du torchis est encore attestée en Sardaigne. Dans le sanctuaire de Monte d’Accoddi il est présent à partir du Néolithique récent (Contu 2005: 42), et encore dans quelques structures de la phase chalcolithique d’Abealzu, à l’est du monument en forme de pyramide tronquée (fig. 17.2,8). Signalons, parmi d’autres, d’abord la cabane p-s, à plan trapézoïdal, avec un niveau intact très intéressant; la plus grande épaisseur d’un des murs extérieurs a suggéré la présence d’un toit à un pan s’appuyant à cet épais mur portant. La cabane l-o, montre un plan qui évoque celui, plus ancien, du village de Serra Linta, avec les deux chambres, une semi-circulaire et l’autre rectangulaire, et les couloirs. Evidemment ce type architectonique a continué pendant longtemps à être utilisé.

Les données de Selargius, qui viennent de la fouille d’un petit secteur d’un vaste village du Néolithique récentChalcolithique, sont en relation avec d’objets qui ne sont plus en position primaire: en effet on les trouve isolés dans des couches formée probablement à la suite de la reconstruction de structures voisines. Remarquons que la technique de construction en briques crues, qui en Sardaigne commence au Néolithique et se retrouve à l’âge du Bronze, a été très fréquemment employée dans la plaine du Campidano (Sardaigne méridionale) jusqu’à la moitié du siècle dernier. Le milieu naturel, et tout particulièrement le manque de matériel lithique de construction, ainsi que la présence de sols alluviaux, ont vraisemblablement conditionné les choix architectoniques. La difficulté de comprendre la fonction des structures en creux, connues en Sardaigne du Néolithique au Chalcolithique, dérive peut-être des nombreux remplois, souvent avec variation de fonction. Les données de Selargius suggèrent qu’il s’agit de cabanes d’habitation, puits, silos, structures de combustion, dépôts de rebuts, peut-être précédés par une phase pendant laquelle se sont formées les fosses, dues à l’extraction de l’argile destinée à la fabrication des briques et de la céramique. Bien que l’on ne puisse pas percevoir une organisation de l’espaces à l’intérieur du village, on observe la présence de structures plus vastes, autour desquelles se disposent des structures mineures.

Dans ce cas, tout comme à Selargius, on remarque l’utilisation d’éléments végétaux de différentes dimensions, mais non pas d’origine palustre. Ercole Contu, qui effectua la fouille dans les années Cinquante, suppose qu’il s’agit de lentisque, un arbuste local. Les fragments de torchis montrent souvent une partie aplatie. Cela peut indiquer qu’ils n’avaient pas seulement fonction de liant des différents couches d’éléments végétaux, mais aussi celle de finissage de la surface. Les fragments furent découverts surtout dans le secteur oriental, avec une concentration particulière près de l’angle sud-est du monument. La présence d’un seul fragment dans la cabane p-s, détruite par le feu qui a permis la bonne conservation de sa dernière phase d’existence, témoigne une utilisation réduite de l’argile dans la phase chalcolithique d’Abealzu. En effet, la plupart des fragments de torchis est rapportable au Néolithique final (Ozieri).10 Ils sont presque tous documentés uniquement par des esquisses dessinées par Ercole Contu dans la documentation de fouille. L’utilisation de l’enduit pour le finissage des parois est bien documentée à Monte d’Accoddi dans le monument de la première phase, où il est souvent peint de couleur rouge. Un des échantillons de malte analysés a une composition à base de calcaire tendre cénozoïque, semblable à un agrégat à base de chaux aérienne (Tinè et Traverso 1992: xvi; xxviii-xxix).11

L’absence de trous de poteaux8 peut avoir une double explication: la partie subaérienne pourrait avoir été une structure en bois autoporteuse, comme l’indiqueraient par exemple les reconstructions expérimentales effectuées à Alba en Piémont (Venturino Gambari et al. 2002: 427428); mais elle peut s’expliquer aussi, dans quelques cas, par l’utilisation de briques crues. Quant à l’enduit, puisque les parois de ces structures sont creusées dans l’argile et peuvent être isolée naturellement, il devait être utilisé surtout pour les parties subaériennes.9

Durant le Chalcolithique évolué, au temps de la culture de Monte Claro, l’usage de la pierre pour la construction des cabanes est généralisé, alors que des structures fortifiées sont bâties pour défendre l’habitat, qui souvent se dresse sur des lieux protégés naturellement la morphologie du paysage. Les reconstructions graphiques de Monte

6

Munsell 2.5Y 8/2 (33%), 2.5Y 8/3 (28%), 10YR 8/3 (39%). Les analyses archéométriques en cours d’élaboration pourront mieux définir la composition et la technique de fabrication. 7 En rapport au torchis, signalons les études récents de M. Gomez Puche sur la péninsule ibérique (2004 et 2006: ivi bibliographie). 8 Un probable trou de poteau, qui vraisemblablement soutenait la toiture, a été mis en évidence entre les deux pièces de la structure 33 (Lai 1989: 27). 9 Mais Ugas mentionne le revêtement d’argile de certaines structures (Ugas 2000: 898). En Italie du nord, une structure en creux du village

néolithique de Roncade (TV) contenait des briques d’argile, interprétés comme éléments servant à isoler les parois (Degasperi 2002: 515). Cependant, il n’est pas certain qu’elles aient été en position primaire. 10 La présence de petites dalles, mais en nombre réduit, ne permet pas de supposer l’existence d’une couverture telle celle mise en évidence par exemple à Les Vautes, et réalisée en bois, chaume, terre et dallettes (De Chazelles 2003: 51). 11 Cette donnée et celle de Selargius (voir note 6) pourrait être la plus ancienne preuve de l’usage de matériaux semblable à la chaux aérienne en Sardaigne.

160

M.-G. MELIS: L’ARCHITECTURE DOMESTIQUE EN SARDAIGNE (ITALIE) ENTRE LA FIN DU NÉOLITHIQUE ET LE CHALCOLITHIQUE

Fig. 17.2. 1-4: caractéristiques morphométriques des briques d’argile de Su Coddu-Canelles (Selargius, Cagliari); fragments de torchis (5-6) et d’enduit (7) du village de Su Coddu-Canelles (Selargius, Cagliari); 8: fragments de torchis du village de Monte d’Accoddi-Sassari. (5-6: dessins et photographies de Stefania Piras) Baranta (Moravetti 2004), dans la Sardaigne septentrionale, montrent des cabannes parfois avec dallage ou cailloutage, parois avec base en pierre sèches, bois et branches en haut et dans la toiture.

D’autres données viennent de la Sardaigne centreorientale, où l’important village sanctuaire de BiriaiOliena est caractérisé par des bâtiments absidiaux. Contrairement à ce qui se passe dans les autres villages, 161

NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC ARCHAEOLOGY IN EURASIA: BUILDING TECHNIQUES AND SPATIAL ORGANISATION

contemporains ou plus anciens, le plan montre une sorte d’organisation de l’espace, avec des groupes et des alignements de cabanes: une anomalie qui pourrait être liée à la nature de lieu de culte de Biriai-Oliena. La grande quantité de pisé et torchis recueillie souligne l’emploi de l’argile pour lier et isoler les structures en bois. Celles-ci sont quelque fois bâties avec des pieux et des troncs équarris, dont les éléments de torchis montrent l’empreinte (Castaldi 1999: 83).

Florence 22-27 February 2005. Firenze: Gennaro Tampone editore. p. 29-42. DE CHAZELLES, C.A.; KLEIN, A. (eds.), 2003, Echanges transdisciplinaires sur les constructions en terre crue. Actes de la table-ronde de Montpellier 1718 novembre 2001. 1 – Terre modelée, découpée ou coffrée. Matériaux et modes de mise en œuvre. Montpellier: Editions des Espérou. 460 p. DE CHAZELLES, C.A., 2003, Les torchis. La toiture en chaume, terre et lauzes. In Guilaine, J.; Escallon G. (eds.) – Les Vautes (Saint-Gély du Fesc, Hérault) et la fin du Néolithique en Languedoc oriental. Toulouse: Centre d’Anthropologie. 346 p.

Au même horizon culturel appartiens la structure circulaire de Sa Corona di Villagreca, dans la Sardaigne méridionale, où de nombreux fragments de torchis ont été découverts. Ils sont vraisemblablement en rapport avec un toit conique en bois (Atzeni 1966). D’autres informations nous viennent de quelques villages de la Sardaigne sud occidentale (Melis 2003; Usai 1997), caractérisés par des cabanes de planimétries variées: quadrangulaires simples ou à deux chambres quadrangulaires, ou à plan complexe avec des chambres raccordées par des couloirs.

DEGASPERI, N., 2002, I pozzetti neolitici di Roncade (TV) loc. Biancade. In Ferrari, A.; Visentini, P. (eds.) – Il declino del mondo neolitico. Ricerche in Italia centro-settentrionale fra aspetti peninsulari, occidentali e nord-alpini. Atti del convegno. Pordenone 5-7 aprile 2001 Quaderni del Museo archeologico del Friuli occidentale 4: 513-516. GOMEZ PUCHE, M., 2004, Los elementos de barro cocido. In Gomez Puche, M. et al. – El yacimiento de Colata (Montaverner, Valencia) y los “poblados de silos” del IV milenio en las comarcas centromeridionales del Pais Valenciano. Recerques del Museu d’Alcoi, 13: 53-127.

La plupart des données sur l’architecture préhistorique sarde est donc en rapport avec des bâtiments de pierre sèche. Des recherches plus récentes sont orientées vers l’acquisition de meilleures connaissances sur les structures en creux et sur les éléments de construction en terre crue. L’étude systématique des informations publiées, les données de fouilles de Selargius et les analyses archéométriques12 offrent et offriront d’importantes indications sur les modalités d’acquisition des matières premières, sur les méthodes de malaxage et de séchage des terres, et enfin sur les techniques de construction.

GOMEZ PUCHE, M., 2006, Estudio de los fragmentos de barro cocido en el yacimiento de La Illeta dels Banyets (El Campello, Alicante). In Soler Díaz, J. A. (ed.) – La occupación prehistórica de la Illeta dels Banyets (El Campello, Alicante). MARQ Museo arqueológico de Alicante, serie mayor 5, Alicante: Diputación Provincial de Alicante, p. 271-279.

Bibliographie

JALLOT, L., 2003, L’architecture à mottes de terre crue de l’habitat néolithique de la Capouliere II (Mauguio, Hérault), fouilles 2000. In Actes des quatrièmes Rencontre Méridionales de Préhistoire Récente Temps et espaces culturels du 6° au 2° Millénaire en France du Sud. Monographies d’Archéologie Méditerranéenne 15. Lattes: Editions de l’Association pour le développement de l’Archéologie en LanguedocRoussillon. p. 410-423.

ATZENI, E., 1966, Il “nuraghe” Sa Corona di Villagreca. In Atti del XIII Congresso di Storia dell’Architettura, I-II, Cagliari 1963. Roma: Centro Studi per la Storia dell’Architettura. p. 119-124. BALTOLU, A., 1973, Alcuni monumenti inediti dell’altopiano di Buddusò e Alà dei Sardi (Sassari). Studi Sardi XXII 1971-72: 38-98.

LAI, G., 1989, Struttura 42, struttura 33, 31ter e 65. In Ugas, G.; Lai., G.; Usai, L. L’insediamento prenuragico di Su Coddu (Selargius-Ca) Notizia preliminare sulle campagne di scavo 1981-1984. Nuovo Bullettino Archeologico Sardo 2 – 1985: 24-30.

CASTALDI, E., 1999, Sa Sedda de Biriai (Oliena, Nuoro, Sardegna). Villaggio d’altura con santuario megalitico di cultura Monte Claro. Roma: Edizioni Quasar, 375 p. CONTU, E., 1964, Tombe preistoriche scolpite e dipinte di Thiesi e Bessude (Sassari). Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche. XIX: 233-263.

LAI, G., 1989a, Struttura 43. In Ugas, G.; Usai, L.; Nuvoli, M. P.; Lai, G.; Marras, M. G. (1989a) – Nuovi dati sull’insediamento di Su Coddu-Selargius. In AA.VV., La cultura di Ozieri. Problematiche e nuove acquisizioni. Atti del I Convegno di Studio (Ozieri, gennaio 1986 – Aprile 1987). Ozieri: Edizioni Il Torchietto. p. 261-267.

CONTU, E., 2005, Architettura lignea pre e protostorica in Sardegna. In Proceedings of the International Conference Conservation of historic wooden structures. 12 Bien que les éléments en terre crue de Selargius aient été trouvés en position secondaire, l’ensemble des différentes lignes d’analyse (examen macroscopique, analyse micromorphologique, etc.) pourra servir à reconstruire la chaîne opératoire, de l’extraction de l’argile à l’abandon des briques (Duvernay 2003).

LOI, C., (2009), Modelli di insediamento nel Barigadu dal Neolitico all’età del Bronzo. In Convegno Nazionale dei Giovani Archeologi Uomo e territorio. Dinamiche 162

M.-G. MELIS: L’ARCHITECTURE DOMESTIQUE EN SARDAIGNE (ITALIE) ENTRE LA FIN DU NÉOLITHIQUE ET LE CHALCOLITHIQUE

Nuovi dati sull’insediamento di Su Coddu-Selargius. In AA.VV., La cultura di Ozieri. Problematiche e nuove acquisizioni. Atti del I Convegno di Studio (Ozieri, gennaio 1986 – Aprile 1987). Ozieri: Edizioni Il Torchietto. p. 253-260.

di frequentazione e di sfruttamento delle risorse naturali nell’antichità. Sassari 27-30 ottobre 2006. pp. 112-119. MANUNZA, M.R., 2002, Selargius (Cagliari). Località Su Coddu. Intervento d’urgenza. Bollettino di Archeologia. Roma, 41-42: 235.

TANDA, G., 1984, Arte e religione della Sardegna preistorica nella necropoli di Sos Furrighesos. Sassari: Chiarella. Vol. I: 134 p., 103 fig. Vol. II: 269 p., 46 fig., 27 tab.

MANUNZA, M.R., 2004, L’industria litica dai nuovi scavi (1994-2003) nel villaggio di Su Coddu – Canelles (Selargius – CA). In Atti del 2° convegno internazionale L’ossidiana del Monte Arci nel Mediterraneo. Pau, 28-30 novembre 2003 Cagliari: Edizioni AV p. 249-253.

TANDA, G., 1988, I monumenti prenuragici e nuragici. In Tanda, G. (ed.) Sedilo 3. I monumenti nel contesto territoriale. Antichità Sarde. Studi e Ricerche 3/III. p. 79-115.

MELIS, M.G., 2003, Aspetti tipologici insediativi e abitativi nell’eneolitico sardo. In XXXV Riunione Scientifica dell’Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria Le comunità della Preistoria italiana. Studi e ricerche sul neolitico e le età dei metalli. Lipari 2-7 giugno 2000. Firenze: Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria. p. 735-743.

TANDA, G., 1992, L’arte del Neolitico e dell’età del Rame in Sardegna: nuovi studi e recenti acquisizioni. In Atti della XXVIII Riunione Scientifica dell’ Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria. Firenze: Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria. p. 479-493. TINÈ, S.; TRAVERSO A. (eds.), 1992, Relazione preliminare. in AA.VV. Monte d’Accoddi, 10 anni di nuovi scavi. Genova: Istituto Italiano Archeologia Sperimentale, p. I-XLIII.

MELIS, M.G., 2005, Nuovi dati dall’insediamento preistorico di Su Coddu-Canelles (Selargius, Cagliari). In 6th Conference on Italian Archaeology Communities and Settlements from the Bronze Age to the Early Medieval Period, Neolithic session. Groningen (Netherlands), April 15-17 (2003), BAR Int. Ser., 1452 (II): 554-560.

UGAS, G.; LAI., G.; USAI, L., 1989, L’insediamento prenuragico di Su Coddu (Selargius-Ca) Notizia preliminare sulle campagne di scavo 1981-1984. Nuovo Bullettino Archeologico Sardo 2 – 1985: 740.

MELIS, M.G.; ZEDDA, M; PIRAS, E., 2004, Le rôle de la malacofaune dans la préhistoire de la Sardaigne. Nouvelles données du village de Su Coddu-Canelles (Selargius, Cagliari). In XXIVèmes Rencontres Internationales d’Archéologie et d’Histoire d’Antibes Petits animaux et sociétés humaines; du complément alimentaire aux ressources utilitaires. Antibes 23-25 octobre 2003. Antibes: Editions APDCA. p. 37-46.

UGAS, G.; USAI, L.; NUVOLI, M.P.; LAI, G.; MARRAS, M.G., 1989a, Nuovi dati sull’insediamento di Su Coddu-Selargius. In AA.VV., La cultura di Ozieri. Problematiche e nuove acquisizioni. Atti del I Convegno di Studio (Ozieri, gennaio 1986 – Aprile 1987). Ozieri: Edizioni Il Torchietto. p. 239-278. UGAS, G., 2000, Strutture insediative seminterrate e ipogeismo sepolcrale nella Sardegna preistorica. In AA.VV. L’ipogeismo nel Mediterraneo. Origini, sviluppo, quadri culturali. Atti del Congresso Internazionale (Sassari-Oristano 23-28 Maggio 1994). II. p. 887-908.

MELIS, M.G.; MAMELI, P.; PIRAS, S., 2006, Aspetti tecnologici e morfologici della ceramica eneolitica. Nuovi dati dall’insediamento di Su Coddu-Canelles (Selargius, Cagliari). In XXXIX Riunione Scientifica dell’Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria Materie prime e scambi nella Preistoria italiana . 2527 novembre 2004. Firenze: Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria.

USAI, L., 1997, Testimonianze di cultura Monte Claro nella Sardegna sud-occidentale. Quaderni della Soprintendenza Archeologica per le province di Cagliari e Oristano 14: 31-43, Cagliari.

MORAVETTI, A., 1980, Riparo sotto roccia con petroglifi in località Frattale (Oliena-Nuoro). In Atti della XXII Riunione Scientifica dell’Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria nella Sardegna centrosettentrionale (21-27 ottobre 1978). Firenze: Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria. p. 199-225.

VENTURINO GAMBARI, M.; GAJ, G.; DELCARO, D.; GIARETTI, M., 2002, Abitare ad Alba nel Neolitico. Dati archeologici, analisi tecnologica ed ipotesi ricostruttive. In Ferrari, A.; Visentini, P. (eds.) Il declino del mondo neolitico. Ricerche in Italia centrosettentrionale fra aspetti peninsulari, occidentali e nord-alpini, Atti del convegno, Pordenone 5-7 aprile 2001, Quaderni del Museo archeologico del Friuli occidentale, 4: 427-435.

MORAVETTI, A., 2004, Monte Baranta e la cultura di Monte Claro. Sassari: Carlo Delfino editore, 276 p. NUVOLI, M.P., 1989, La capanna 21. In Ugas, G.; Usai, L.; Nuvoli, M.P.; Lai, G.; Marras, M.G. (1989a) –

163

THE VSW VARIANT CHALCOLITHIC HOUSE ON THE TITELBERG, LUXEMBOURG Ralph M. ROWLETT Abstract: The relatively well preserved Late Neolithic or Chalcolithic house from the Titelberg provides a good example of the unsubstantial houses built in northwestern Europe at that time. It reveals a rectangular house, traditionally common on the Continent, serviceable for a nuclear family. There is a hint that the house was part of a village of close set structures, but further excavation is needed to test that hypothesis. It seems that most activities took place some distance from the house, since there was relatively little debris outside. The inside of the house did manage to collect some materials. The complicated door structure may have helped retain some of this debris in the house. In general, though, the inside of the house seems clean and neat by prehistoric standards. The stratigraphic traces of similar deposits suggests that perhaps another building stood only slightly more than 3 meters away but the absence of recognizable artifacts makes it unclear what this other structure might have been. Key-words: Late Neolithic/Chalcolithic, Titelberg, house, post-holes Résumé: La maison très bien preservée du Néolithique récent/Chalcolithique de Titelberg offre un bon example de la fragilité des batiments construits dans le nord-ouest de l’ Éurope à cette période. Elle a été batie de forme rectangulaire, une tradition commune sur le continent, pour l’ usage d’ une famille nucléaire. Il y a des indices que la maison faisait partie de la structure architecturale d’ un village, mais des futures fouilles seront nécessaires pour tester cette hypothèse. La rarité des restes des activitées de taille ou de travail des autres matières démontre que la majoritée des activitées se faisaient à quelque distance de la maison. La structure compliquée de l’ entrée a permis de retenir quelqu’ uns des restes de ces matériaux. Une stratigraphie similaire suggère qu’ un autre bâtiment auraît pu être construit à quelques mètres distance, mais l’ absence des artefacts identifiables fait difficile l’ identification de cette structure. Mots-cléf: Néolithique récent/Chalcolithique, Titelberg, maison, trous de poteaux

The relatively well preserved Late Neolithic or Chalcolithic house remains from southwestern Luxembourg, sits on the butte “Titelberg” in the commune of Rollingen/La Madelaine (Fig. 1). The Jurassic butte Titelberg towers by 100 meters over the surrounding countryside, the last little mountain to the west before the Lorraine-Champenoise plain is encountered, and it also towers over the Gutland of southern Luxembourg. The Titelberg is most famous for its 400 year occupation by Gallo-Romans (Thill 1965; Wightman 1971) up to about AD 400, but that was preceded by a very informative four centuries of occupation by Iron Age Gauls (Metzler 1994), who illustrate well the cultural content of Julius Caesar’ s Re Bello Gallico (Rowlett, Thomas, and Sander-Jorgensen 1982). These Iron Age occupations were preceded by some early Bronze occupation and also the Late Neolithic Chalcolithic component right at the center of the butte (Sander-Jorgensen, Rowlett, and Thomas 1980), where the house discussed here was found.

occupation, which underlay directly the Iron Age remains. During the Sub-Boreal climatic era (McIntosh 2006: 7-13; Vehik 1980) the aridity apparently contributed to the build up of loessic deposits on top of the butte, while in the Bronze Age and Iron Age the more humid climate would have eroded the top of the plateau if the Iron Age and Gallo-Roman created sediments had not built up to protect the earlier stratigraphic layers. (Fig. 18.3) The house sits at the bottom of the Orangish Sub-Boreal stratum, which overlies a yellowish, unconsolidated deposit from the early Tertiary times, the Eocene and Oligocene epochs. The floor of the house shows up as a pale blue-grey thin stratum, only 1 cm. thick. The floor of the house proper, although somewhat disturbed by some Augusto-Tiberian mint foundry (Rowlett and Mladenovich 2007) foundations and Mid-Augustan bronze smelter (Fig. 18.2), is still plainly visible and surrounded by relatively small post holes of the walls of the house. A similar pale blue-grey level occurs to the Southeast of the detectable house, but this zone, in the archaeologically excavated portions is too disturbed by Augusto-Tiberan pits to allow its recognition as a possible second house floor. No post holes were recognized or artefacts found in this grey zone, for all the artefacts and ecofacts were found up by the house either on the floor or just outside it at the appropriate level.

Surface finds suggest that there are earlier Neolithic remains, and Mesolithic and Mousterian remains have been excavated as well. Some surface finds look like Auriginacian stone tools also, but since this is at the northern edge of Aurignacian occupation of Europe (Rowlett, Sander-Jorgensen, and Dinan-Williams 1985), that will need to be confirmed. In any case, these earlier occupations seem not to have become mixed with Chalcolithic and Bronze Age remains discussed here.

The bedding trench for the Augustan era mint foundry runs more or less directly through the middle of the house, apparently taking out the remains of the fireplace, although a fair amount of scattered charcoal was found in Square 24/H in the northeast corner of the house. Since this was near a burned out wooden pillar from the mint

The Late Neolithic/Chalcolithic house (Fig. 18.2) was protected by the overlying deposits of the Iron Age and Gallo-Roman times and even the Early Bronze Age 165

NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC ARCHAEOLOGY IN EURASIA: BUILDING TECHNIQUES AND SPATIAL ORGANISATION

Fig. 18.1. Map showing the location of the Titelberg in southwestern Luxembourg

Fig. 18.2. Plan of the Chalcolithic house and mint foundry foundations bronze smelter, near the center of the Titelberg 166

R.M. ROWLETT: THE VSW VARIANT CHALCOLITHIC HOUSE ON THE TITELBERG, LUXEMBURG

Fig. 18.3. Stratigraphy in Squares J-I of Trench 35 of the Titelberg excavations foundry, it was difficult to determine what charcoal belonged to the column and what may have come from the Late Neolithic/Chalcolithic times. Thermoluminesence dates from three shards gave the following dates: Shard 588-73 is 2,762 BC + 535, shard 59-74 provided 3,423 BC +670 years, and shard 191-74 gave a date of 2,336 BC +535.

Keramik cultural area of west-central Europe. Not only is this areal cultural infamous for its plain pottery, it is also renowned for the insubstantial houses (McIntosh 2006: 54, 130-133) often difficult to detect archaeologically. Thus the house from the Titelberg significantly provides some rare insight and concrete information about the houses in this sector of the Western Neolithic Areal Cultural tradition. It is hard to imagine that the house is contemporary with the substantial lakeside houses of the Alpine Variant of the Western Neolithic as manifested in the Cortaillod, Horgen, and Auvernier phases in Switzerland and adjacent parts of France and Germanuy (Egloff 1987; Garrison 1997; Bocquet et al. 1987). The ceramic inventory, however, reflects the cultural kinship more impressively.

These dates overlap most at 28571-2753 BC (Fig. 18.4) with a mean of 2,840 BC+, so this places the floor squarely in the Late Neolithic/Chalcolithic. (SanderJorgensen, Rowlett, and Thomas 1980: 39). Artefacts from this stratum were rather rare, but the six flints and 15 potshards plus the dating place this house in the Vlaardingen-Stein-Wartburg (VSW) Variant of the Western Neolithic Technocomplex. (Sander-Jorgensen, Rowlett, and Thomas 1980). This Variant (McIntosh 2006: 354), is oriented along the Meuse/Maas and Lower Rhine Rivers in Luxembourg, Belgium, and the Netherlands (Rowlett 2003), just west of the TRB Variant in the eastern Netherlands (Bakker 1992). This variant seems to be a somewhat simplified version related to the Seine-Oise-Marne (S.O.M.) Areal Culture of southern Belgium and France, which itself is very similar to the Rhone-Saone Culture of southern France and western Switzerland. All of these belong to the old Kumml

Based on the pale grey floor stain and the position of the structural posts, both pen-and-ink and three-dimensional models of the house have been constructed. The outer limits of the house can be detected quite accurately. The walls are clearly marked by dark greybrown post or stake holes of ca. 8 cm. diameters (Fig. 18.2). The width measures 3.3 meters, while the length measures 6.1 m. Circulation inside the house must have been relatively unobstructed, because the small size did not necessitate a central row of roof support posts. Two 167

NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC ARCHAEOLOGY IN EURASIA: BUILDING TECHNIQUES AND SPATIAL ORGANISATION

Fig. 18.4. Graph showing overlap of the TL dates from pottery of the house floor slightly larger posts of nearly 15 cm. in the middle of the NW and SE sides of the house must have supported a central ridge pole, useful for arranging the exterior covering. If there was a fireplace, it might have been relatively toward the north end of the house, because some scattered charcoals were found in the northeast corner of the floor area. A secondary post midway along the western wall must have been destined for some kind of internal framework or suspensory facility. Using the standard formula for the number of adult occupants of, a house, the floor area in meters multiplied by .1, the result is slightly more than 2, meaning that the house would have served a nuclear family with a small number of children.

If the smoke holes left behind little evidence, the doorway is surprisingly clear. The door seems to have been in the SE corner of the house, a placement necessitated by the central ridge pole support in the middle of the short sides. Secondly, there is a clear cut partial door, traces of which were left in the ground, where the door had apparently fallen after the house had been abandoned. The half-door is evidenced by the traces of a reinforcing structure in the form of a an X shaped trace of a door reinforcement that shows up as a medium brown stain that appears to be made up of wood trimmed in to demi-round rods. In fact, it looks as if the X is made of the two halves of the same split ~ shaped wood rod. The appearance in the ground as well as the symmetry make it clear that these brown traces are not the remains of rodent burrows. The rod must have been ca. 20-22 cm in diameter. The two together, affixed in an horizontally oriented X show that the half door must have been from 90-100 cm tall and a meter wide. The low door, as reconstructed seems to have been designed to keep small animals out of the house, or babies therein--maybe both. In the absence of other evidence, perhaps the upper part of the doorway was closed off with a leather or tissue door.

The small size of the post holes implies that the posts were not places in prepared post holes, but were driven into ground directly. The underlying Tertiary sediments are quite soft when wet, so this would not have constituted a formidable problem. Jurassic limestone outcrops on the side of the Titelberg could easily have provided large stones to use as hammers for driving the stakes into the ground when the limits of the ability of human muscle power to insert the stakes had been met. The ceiling height of the house is based on the circumstance that few people of this era were over 170 cm. tall. Conjectural smoke holes are shown in each to permit the exit of smoke from the fireplace.

All together, the house resembles closely the Vlaardingen Group houses from the Netherlands, which, in fact, do not 168

R.M. ROWLETT: THE VSW VARIANT CHALCOLITHIC HOUSE ON THE TITELBERG, LUXEMBURG

Fig. 18.5. Potshards from the Titelberg House and vicinity exhibit fireplaces (Glasbergen et al. 1967). Only the presence of the scattered charcoal near the NE corner suggests that a fireplace might have once been inside the house.

in the Early Bronze layer above the grey Neolithic/Chalcolithic level. The vertical percolation of artefacts common on archaeological sites (Rowlett and Robbins 1982) fortunately did not cause any mixing with the Gallo-Roman and Iron Age layers, and apparently not with the Earlly Bronze Age, either.

Around the world, it is quite common for early villages to exhibit many pits, as do the Iron Age and Gallo-Roman layers. Even the Early Bronze Age has a small pit., but no pits are recognizable for this VSW component.

The shell is more informative. Since one shard, (Fig. 18.6, h) had extensive shell temper (along with limestone and red and brown ochre), there is already evidence for the use of the shell. The shell piece, however, is not just a piece of scrap, as it is decorated with a groove (Fig. 18.6, k; Fig. 18.7), apparently overlooked for the 1982 site report (Sander-Jorgensen, Rowlett, and Thomas 1980: Pl. 6, k). The rare VSW art object seems to be reconstructable as a pendant with a triangular design (Fig. 18.7).

Artefacts were found both inside and outside the house. These consists of at least 6 flint artefacts, and one small bladelet from the flints displaced by Gallo-Roman activity fits typologically with the small bladelet found here. There were 15 shards, two from the same vessel, and one bone fragment and one piece of shell. The scarce find of bone is not so surprising, as only one bone was found also 169

NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC ARCHAEOLOGY IN EURASIA: BUILDING TECHNIQUES AND SPATIAL ORGANISATION

Fig. 18.6. Potshards and bone and shell from Titelberg House and vicinity Most of the artefacts associated with the house are actually found within it. The only flint on the outside is the bladelet segment (Fig. 18.7) lying just west of the house. All the other flints were found inside the house. The other six artefacts found outside the house are all pottery. The large base (Fig. 18.6, a) was found at the SW corner of the house, just outside, near a small bowl. The

other base, smaller, (Fig. 18.5, e) was inside the house. The two collared shards are also on the inside (Fig. 18.6, h and i). The large outside base is at least 10 cm in diameter, while a large body shard from inside (Fig. 18.6, g) also was least 10 cm. in diameter. The small vase (Fig. 18.5, 170

R.M. ROWLETT: THE VSW VARIANT CHALCOLITHIC HOUSE ON THE TITELBERG, LUXEMBURG

Fig. 18.7. Flint artifacts and engraved shell from the Titelberg House and vicinity e) found inside, however, had a basal diameter of 3.3 cm.

International Monographs on Prehistory. Michigan: Ann Arbor. BOCQUET, Aime’; BROCHIER, J.L.; EMERYBARBIER, Aline; LUNDSTRUM-BUADAIS, Karen; ORCEL, C.; VIN, Francoise, 1987, A Submerged Neolithic Village: Charavines “Les Baigneurs” in Lake Paladru, France. In Coles, J.M. and Lawson, A. J. (eds.) European Wetlands, Oxford: Oxford Univesity Press.

The potshards are very individualized, although two of them did come from the same vase (Fig. 18.5, f and i). Nonetheless, all fifteen can be grouped into four varieties. Most frequent are five limestone tempered shards, usually brownish gray in colour. This set includes the shell and limestone tempered shard. There are six sand tempered shards, while one shard is grog tempered, and two of them have organic temper that has burned out.

EGLOFF, M., 1987, 130 Years of Archaeological Research in Lake Neuchatel, Switzerland. In: Lake Paladru, France. In Coles, J.M. and Lawson, A.J. (eds.) European Wetlands, Oxford: Oxford Univesity Press.

It is highly interesting that such a large percentage of artefacts are found inside the house, as opposed to the outside, where many activities must have taken place. There is little evidence of flint knapping in terms of debris, with only one item, the primary decoration flake (Fig. 18.7), appearing to be debitage. Even it can be interpreted as a tool, a perforator. Clearly the flint knapping, producing dangerously sharp waste flakes took place somewhere else. Likewise, the rarity of bones implies that eating took place away from the residence, or maybe underfed domestic dogs carried the bones away to eat in private.

GARRISON, E., 1997, Lake Neuchatel. In Delgado, J.P. (ed.) British Museum Encyclopaedia of Underwater Archaeology, London: British Museum Press. GLASBERGEN, W.; GROENMAN-VAN WAATERINGE, W.; HARDENBERG-MULDER, C.M., 1967, Settle-ments of the Vlaardingen Culture at Voorschot-ten and Leidschendam. Helinium 7: 3-31; 91-120. McINTOSH, Jane, 2006, Handbook to Life in Prehistoric Europe. New York: Facts on File.

References

METZLER, J., 1994, Titelberg, Oppidum Celtique. Luxembourg: Musee de l’ Etat de Luxembourg.

BAKKER, J.A., 1992, The Dutch Hunebedden: Megalithic Tombs of the Funnel Beaker Culture.

ROWLETT, R.M., 2003, Hydro-strategies in Southern Luxembourg. In Gheorghiu, D. (ed.) Chalcolithic and 171

NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC ARCHAEOLOGY IN EURASIA: BUILDING TECHNIQUES AND SPATIAL ORGANISATION

Early Bronze Age Hydrostrategies, BAR International Series 1123. Oxford: BAR Publishing.

House Floors on the Titelbourg, Luxembourg. Journal of Field Archaeology 9: 301-311.

ROWLETT, R.M.; MLADENOVICH, Dragana, 2007, Pyrotechnology of Iron Age Coin Production. In: Gheorghiu, D. (ed.) Fire as an Instrument: The Archaeology of Pyrotechnologies, BAR International Series 1619. Oxford: BAR Publishing.

SANDER-JORGENSEN Elsebet; ROWLETT, R.M.; THOMAS, H.L., 1980, Neolithic Levels on the Titelberg, Luxembourg. Museum Brief Series, Museum of Anthropology, University of Missouri: Columbia, Missouri, U.S.A.

ROWLETT, R.M.; ROBBINS M.C., 1982, Estimating Original Assemblage Content to Adjust for PostDepositional Vertical Artifact Movement. World Archaeology 14: 73-83.

THILL, G., 1965, Titelberg. Luxembourg: Musées de l’ Etat.

ROWLETT, R.M.; SANDER-JORGENSEN, Elsebet; DINAN-WILLIAMS, Elizabeth, 1985, An Aurignacian Site North of the Loire. Current Anthropology.

VEHIK, Susan, 1980, Neolithic Pollen on the Titelberg. In Sander-Jorgensen Elsebet; Rowlett, R.M.; Thomas, H.L. Neolithic Levels on the Titelberg, Luxembourg. pp. 49-52. Museum Brief Series, Museum of Anthropology, University of Missouri: Columbia, Missouri, U.S.A.

ROWLETT, R.M.; THOMAS, H.L; SANDERJORGENSEN, Elsebet, 1982, Stratified Iron Age

WIGHTMAN, Edith Mary, 1971, Roman Trier and the Treveri. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

172

BAR S2097 2010

UNION INTERNATIONALE DES SCIENCES PRÉHISTORIQUES PROTOHISTORIQUES UNION INTERNATIONALE DES SCIENCES PRÉHISTORIQUES ETET PROTOHISTORIQUES INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR PREHISTORIC AND PROTOHISTORIC SCIENCES INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR PREHISTORIC AND PROTOHISTORIC SCIENCES PROCEEDINGS THE WORLD CONGRESS (LISBON, SEPTEMBER 2006) PROCEEDINGS OFOF THE XVXV WORLD CONGRESS (LISBON, 4-94-9 SEPTEMBER 2006) ACTES CONGRÈS MONDIAL (LISBONNE, SEPTEMBRE 2006) ACTES DUDU XVXV CONGRÈS MONDIAL (LISBONNE, 4-94-9 SEPTEMBRE 2006) Series Editor: Luiz Oosterbeek Series Editor: Luiz Oosterbeek VOL. VOL. 48 48

GHEORGHIU (Ed) NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC ARCHITECTURE IN EURASIA

B A R UISPP 48 2097 cover.indd 1

Session C35 Session C35

Neolithicand andChalcolithic Chalcolithic Neolithic ArchitectureininEurasia: Eurasia:Building Building Architecture Techniquesand andSpatial SpatialOrganisation Organisation Techniques Edited Edited byby

DragoşGheorghiu Gheorghiu Dragoş

BARInternational InternationalSeries Series2097 2097 BAR 2010 2010 01/02/2011 12:03:02