Understanding the Neolithic Longhouse

Archaeology is recorded in diagrams

All pictures of a Neolithic Longhouse are imaginary; generally, all that remains are the archaeological plans of their foundations, however, it is possible to produce a theoretical model of the form of engineering that fits the nature of this data.

Prior to the advent of digital recording systems large amounts of information were routinely recorded by visual representation in the form of hand drawn plans and sections.  Structural archaeology takes these diagrams and extends them into a ‘theoretical’ three dimensional space; in some respects these models are as accurate as the original plan.

Theoretical structural archaeology is theoretical because it based on measurements and ideas that can be expressed as diagrams and models which are the best fit for an imperfect data set.  This fit tends to improve with further study and this article represents an updating of my previous articles.

In these I considered the general background of LBK colonisation of NW Europe. More specially, the issue of building with tapering tree trunks, the importance of ground stone chisels in cutting mortise joints, and the general structural principles of this type of building were discussed with reference to building 32 at Elsloo. [1]

Theoretical Model; Elsloo Neolithic Longhouse 

• The pitch roof is shown as a 3:4:5 triangle, this being a minimum practical angle for a thatch roof.
• The load baring structure of the building is founded on posts sunk in the ground, which below ground at least are in the round.
• The centre of the pitched roof is marked by the deepest postsholes that support a Ridge Piece; since this line is offset from the theoretical centre, the presence of a Collar is presumed.
• Parallel to the ridge are the posts with ties supporting an Arcade positioned midway between the centre and the edge of the roof.
• The lowest support from the roof comes from a Roof Plate supported on Ties.
• The Arcade Plate and Ridge Pieces, while indirectly supported by posts at their ends can be supported by Queen Posts and King Post respectively from the Ties in the middle of the building.
• Among the Posts on either side forming what is nominally the wall, the shallowest are taken to resent support for a Secondary Frame/s.
• The Secondary Frame has its own posts ties and longitudinal timbers that support the floors and increase the rigidity of the frame, and the shallowest postholes within the interior relate to lower frames.

• The pitched roof is formed by Rafter Pairs, joined at the apex above the Ridge Piece, supported in the middle of their span by an Arcade Plate, and carried at the base of a Roof Plate, which in turn is supported on Ties morticed to the head of the posts.
• To simplify this key junction, [Post / Tie / Wall Plate / Rafter], the components are offset, forming 3 separate joints; the opposing rafters sit on either side of the Post and Tie, the latter, morticed to Posts run at a slight angle across the base of the roof.
• In addition there is provision in the layout for Braces at 45° and 60° which together with Ties can trap the posts in increase the rigidity of the building.

• Depending on the size of the bays, it is possible that in addition to the primary frame, there could be two or even three separate frames in parts of some longhouses.
• The lower frame can replicate portions of the roof allowing for Rafter Pairs to be supported below the main roof, so that it becomes practical to create a lower roof below a clerestory or window

Utilisation

The utilisation of space within the building is principally a matter for other lines of archaeological evidence, which in turn have to be viewed as deriving from the occupation of a floored structure. From an architectural perspective, and presuming these building are farmhouses, my general view is as follows.

• In plan structure is divided into three principle spaces separated by cross passages, creating by the overlapping of three separate structural units.
• These probably mark the position of entrances; [a presumed entrance on the SE is sometimes illustrated].
• The square SE section contains the stairs, and serves as the entrance to the domestic portion of the house.
• The central space seems the best location for a byre, with principle living quarters on the floors above; this implies a low ceiling space on ground floor. 
• The stave built section at the rear of the building is the coolest and most secure space, and presumably housed the important products and processes of the farm. [Granary]
• The general proportion based on the width of the roof, are not necessarily metrically significant, and are to illustrate the architectural approach.

Matters arising

Just to be certain the implications of this analysis are understood, I should make the following general points.

• People do not emerge from woods, caves, or the Mesolithic to start building timber frame longhouses.
• This engineering is a technology brought into an area by individuals as part of a wider a well-established farming culture.
• From the LBK  onwards, Northern European mixed agriculture is based around the use of timber buildings to house the stock, produce and processes. 
• Rooms, doors, windows, floors and stairs do not have to be ‘invented’; but they do have to be engineered.

• The archaeological data can produce an understanding of the engineering of the buildings frame, which can be tested for ‘fit’, and ‘built’ physically or electronically.
• This model accounts for most of the physical and spatial characteristics of the evidence, it still requires further study using three-dimensional modelling of appropriate data sets. 

• Reversed assembly structures, with Ties morticed directly to the Posts, naturally lend themselves to jettied construction, a feature of later ‘timber framed’ buildings in Northern Europe.
• Reversed assembly is still used in Chinese timber architecture where it has been retained due to its resilience in earthquakes, however, the use of dougongs the and absence of bracing, are significant technological developments of this basic Neolithic model.

Imagining a Longhouse

In the previous post I dealt with issue of ‘realism’ in images and its impact of archaeological thinking; while you cannot see the past, some contemporary archaeological approaches, like post-processualism, is often descriptive of imaginary landscapes and buildings, perceived through the eyes of imaginary people. This is particularly true of the prehistoric timber built environment, which has largely vanished, leaving behind nothing but a problem of how archaeologists express tentative ideas about structures visually. 

Built environments are important; you know where you are in both space and time by the buildings; architecture is backdrop to history, the context of culture, and the spatial focus of people’s daily experience;  a central aspect of a ‘culture’, both for those who inhabit them, and those who need to imagine or realise it.

This is delightful drawing, adapted from of Approach to Architecture by Manning and N K Robertson, illustrates the difficulties of finding a style to satisfy demanding clients. [2]  It also neatly sums up the dilemma faced by archaeology; in some cases it may be possible to understand the theme or form of the structure, but the all-important visual aesthetic – what the customer wants – requires decisions to be made about issues we have no data.

To satisfy both doubt and the legitimate expectation of a ‘picture’, I deliberately add anachronisms, subvert conventions, and create contextual ambiguity to emphasise its imaginary nature.

This first image is my minimal view of a two frame building, with a first floor and attic space. It features a half hip roof at the NW end, and a central bay turned through 90° to produce a SW facing gable facilitating the lighting of the main living quarters.  

This is a three frame structure with a slightly more complex roof and windows.  It is probably close the limit in terms of elevation for this form of structure using 40 -  50’ / 12- 15m timbers. 

Essentially, these images portray a two or three storey farmhouse made from the local trees, mud and thatch, built  for needs local farmers by craftsmen who had been building for generations. Look at the ancient farms and barns of a location, and it will give a sense of scale - how much hay has to be stored, grain to be dried, and how many cows to be milked.  

The past is not a foreign country; it’s the same country a long time ago.

Sources and further reading

[1] PJR Modderman (1970), 'Linearbandkeramik aus Elsloo und Stein 2.' Tafelband, Leiden Univ., Faculty of Archaeology.

PJR Modderman (1975), 'Elsloo, a Neolithic farming community in the Netherlands,' in Bruce-Mitford, R L S, Recent archaeological excavations in Europe, Chapter IX.

PJR Modderman (1985), D'ie Bandkeramik im Graetheidegebiet, Niederländisch-Limburg.' Berichte der Römisch- Germanischen Kommission, 66::25-121.

[2] After; Robertson, M & N K , 1948, Approach to architecture, Edward Arnold & Co 1948,Fig. 12.