In: H. Meller/S. Friederich/M. Küßner/H. Stäuble/R. Risch (Hrsg.), Siedlungsarchäologie des Endneolithikums und der frühen Bronzezeit. 11. Mitteldeutscher Archäologentag, 18. bis 20. Oktober 2018 (Halle 2019), 393-417
authors: T. Schunke / H. Stäuble
Understanding Únětice Culture long houses and an attempt at est... more authors: T. Schunke / H. Stäuble
Understanding Únětice Culture long houses and an attempt at establishing a typology: Ground-plans of Early Bronze Age houses have been discovered in central Germany for the past approximately 25 years. A number of outstanding features were identified from the start, which allowed archaeologists to identify and date many of these ground-plans even without analysing the finds recovered. Given the regional discrepancies with regard to the state of publication, however, a clear typological definition has not yet been proposed. Thanks to the overview of approximately 140 such ground-plans this volume has provided us with, it has now been possible to define the “Zwenkau”-type house, which was named after the earliest and largest central German site with such features and was characteristic of the Únětice Culture.
Above ground, the “Zwenkau”-type building can be reconstructed as a long house with a rounded narrow end and probably a hipped roof in the west, an entrance in the centre of the south wall and a narrow end in the east, which could be temporarily and perhaps seasonally closed off with a gate or possibly a more robust construction. Depending on the interior constructions, three variants of the “Zwenkau”-type house have been defined and named after important sites. Besides representing chronological trends, the variants also point to functional differences.
The “Zwenkau”-type ground-plan can be identified as characteristic of Únětice Culture houses. Because its criteria have been quite narrowly defined, some ground-plans found at Únětice Culture sites have not been ascribed to the type due to certain differences in their appearance. In many cases it could not be ascertained beyond doubt whether these belonged to a preceding Late or Final Neolithic phase of settlement or whether they did, in fact, date from the Early Bronze Age as well. It is clear that the bearers of the Únětice Culture also erected buildings that did not belong to the “Zwenkau” type. The fact that these are comparatively limited in number, however, does stress the relevance of the type as it has been defined.
A supra-regional analysis shows that diverging types of construction are usually found in the periphery of the distribution area of the Únětice Culture and can therefore be attributed to influences from northern Europe or southern Germany. Further developments leading to three-aisled buildings appear to have occurred in central Europe and may have provided the impetus for house construction in the north.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Uploads
Papers by Harald Stäuble
Understanding Únětice Culture long houses and an attempt at establishing a typology: Ground-plans of Early Bronze Age houses have been discovered in central Germany for the past approximately 25 years. A number of outstanding features were identified from the start, which allowed archaeologists to identify and date many of these ground-plans even without analysing the finds recovered. Given the regional discrepancies with regard to the state of publication, however, a clear typological definition has not yet been proposed. Thanks to the overview of approximately 140 such ground-plans this volume has provided us with, it has now been possible to define the “Zwenkau”-type house, which was named after the earliest and largest central German site with such features and was characteristic of the Únětice Culture.
Above ground, the “Zwenkau”-type building can be reconstructed as a long house with a rounded narrow end and probably a hipped roof in the west, an entrance in the centre of the south wall and a narrow end in the east, which could be temporarily and perhaps seasonally closed off with a gate or possibly a more robust construction. Depending on the interior constructions, three variants of the “Zwenkau”-type house have been defined and named after important sites. Besides representing chronological trends, the variants also point to functional differences.
The “Zwenkau”-type ground-plan can be identified as characteristic of Únětice Culture houses. Because its criteria have been quite narrowly defined, some ground-plans found at Únětice Culture sites have not been ascribed to the type due to certain differences in their appearance. In many cases it could not be ascertained beyond doubt whether these belonged to a preceding Late or Final Neolithic phase of settlement or whether they did, in fact, date from the Early Bronze Age as well. It is clear that the bearers of the Únětice Culture also erected buildings that did not belong to the “Zwenkau” type. The fact that these are comparatively limited in number, however, does stress the relevance of the type as it has been defined.
A supra-regional analysis shows that diverging types of construction are usually found in the periphery of the distribution area of the Únětice Culture and can therefore be attributed to influences from northern Europe or southern Germany. Further developments leading to three-aisled buildings appear to have occurred in central Europe and may have provided the impetus for house construction in the north.
Understanding Únětice Culture long houses and an attempt at establishing a typology: Ground-plans of Early Bronze Age houses have been discovered in central Germany for the past approximately 25 years. A number of outstanding features were identified from the start, which allowed archaeologists to identify and date many of these ground-plans even without analysing the finds recovered. Given the regional discrepancies with regard to the state of publication, however, a clear typological definition has not yet been proposed. Thanks to the overview of approximately 140 such ground-plans this volume has provided us with, it has now been possible to define the “Zwenkau”-type house, which was named after the earliest and largest central German site with such features and was characteristic of the Únětice Culture.
Above ground, the “Zwenkau”-type building can be reconstructed as a long house with a rounded narrow end and probably a hipped roof in the west, an entrance in the centre of the south wall and a narrow end in the east, which could be temporarily and perhaps seasonally closed off with a gate or possibly a more robust construction. Depending on the interior constructions, three variants of the “Zwenkau”-type house have been defined and named after important sites. Besides representing chronological trends, the variants also point to functional differences.
The “Zwenkau”-type ground-plan can be identified as characteristic of Únětice Culture houses. Because its criteria have been quite narrowly defined, some ground-plans found at Únětice Culture sites have not been ascribed to the type due to certain differences in their appearance. In many cases it could not be ascertained beyond doubt whether these belonged to a preceding Late or Final Neolithic phase of settlement or whether they did, in fact, date from the Early Bronze Age as well. It is clear that the bearers of the Únětice Culture also erected buildings that did not belong to the “Zwenkau” type. The fact that these are comparatively limited in number, however, does stress the relevance of the type as it has been defined.
A supra-regional analysis shows that diverging types of construction are usually found in the periphery of the distribution area of the Únětice Culture and can therefore be attributed to influences from northern Europe or southern Germany. Further developments leading to three-aisled buildings appear to have occurred in central Europe and may have provided the impetus for house construction in the north.
WARNING: The version of the paper that can be downloaded here is the uncorrected proof. If you want the final version, you'll have to get the printed catalog.
As the paper was written in English and only then translated into French, I attached the manuscript for everybody like myself, whose French has gone rusty over the years.
The volume contains the Proceedings of the Conference on preventive archaeology held in Rome, the 19th of October 2012. The Conference was organized by IBC and INRAP, in the framework of the ACE project – “Archaeology in Contemporary Europe. Professional Practices and Public Outreach” to take stock of the situation twenty years after the Malta Convention in 1992.
The Conference represented an important opportunity for comparing the experiences of different European countries in the field of preventive archaeology and for once again raising the issue of Italy’s failure to ratify the Malta Convention.
The papers well illustrate the effects of applying the principles of “Malta-archaeology” within the different national contexts, while also highlighting that there is still room for improvement and that the problems which persist have been largely accentuated by the present economic situation.
The last section of the volume is dedicated to pictures taken by the photographer Pierre Buch for the ACE exhibit “Working in archaeology”.
(development-led) archaeology in former ‘Eastern’ Europe; (TH2-10) After 1990: a turning point in the guiding principles of rescue excavations and its impact on scientific research; (TH2-19) Preventive Archaeology, Scientific Research and Economic Development.
The very fact that the EAA’s Scientific Committee accepted three sessions focused on preventive archaeology and that 44 papers and 3 posters were presented by authors from 22 countries, clearly speaks for the paramount importance of the preventive archaeology not only in heritage protection sector, but for the archaeological discipline in general.