spatial organization in european neolithic · pdf filespatial organization in european...

SPATIAL ORGANIZATION IN EUROPEAN NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENTS: EXAMPLE OF THE CENTRALEUROPEAN DANUBIAN NEOLITHIC

56003600 BC

Christian Jeunesse1

1 Université de Strasbourg / UMR 7044 Archimède, Institut Universitaire de France, MISHA, 5, allée du Général Rouvillois, 67083Strasbourg cedex, [email protected]

Abstract: Large houses are set well apart and laid out parallel to one another forming rows, sharing the same orientation and entranceon the same side: the internal organization of Linear Pottery Culture (LBK) settlements is by now well known. What is less wellknown though is how the pattern created in the Middle Danube area as early as the earlier stage of this culture, towards the middleof the 6th millennium, later persisted in the post-LBK cultures of the Danubian complex. This complex is composed of cultures de-scending from the LBK and is located in an area which, around 5000 BC, spans most of Central Europe, from the Channel to theCarpathian Basin. Whereas in the westernmost part its history lasts only a few centuries, in the eastern part of Central Europe itendures up to around 3600 BC. Along with funerary practices, the type of settlement organization is one of its most prominentidentity traits. By reviewing the data available for the whole chrono-cultural block, we will try to point out its main characteristics(general principles, chronological and cultural variations). A comparative approach with the other great European Neolithic patternsof spatial organization will also enable us to highlight the originality of the Danubian one.

Key words: settlement pattern, Danubian Neolithic, Linear Pottery Culture

Abstrakt: Vnútornú organizáciu sídlisk kultúry s lineárnou keramikou (LBK) už v súčasnosti dobre poznáme: samostatne stojace dlhédomy sú usporiadané do pravidelných paralelných radov, majú zhodnú orientáciu a vstup na rovnakej strane. To o čom vieme menej,je pôvod tohto modelu na území stredného Podunajska. Jeho korene siahajú do polovice 6. tisícročia BC, teda do obdobia skoršiehoako najstarší stupeň kultúry LBK, ktorý neskôr pretrval do času postlineárnych kultúr dunajského komplexu. Komplex vznikol z kultúr po rozpade LBK a je rozšírený na území, ktoré okolo 5000 BC zaberalo širšiu strednú Európu, t.j. od Lamanšského prielivupo Karpatskú kotlinu. Zatiaľ čo v západnej časti existoval len niekoľko storočí, vo východnej časti centrálnej Európy pretrval až do ob-dobia 3600 BC. Spolu s pohrebným rítom je spôsob organizácie sídliska jedným z jeho najvýraznejších identifikačných rysov. Pri analýze dát dostupných z celého chrono-kultúrneho súboru, sme sa pokúsili vypichnúť jeho hlavné charakteristiky (všeobecné princípy, chronologické a kultúrne odchýlky). Vyzdvihnutie originality dunajského modelu umožnila jeho komparácia s inými veľkýmeurópskymi neolitickými modelmi a ich priestorovou organizáciou.

Kľúčové slová: sídlisková štruktúra, dunajský neolit, kultúra s lineárnou keramikou

1. Introduction

Spatial organization within a settlement refers to the way houses and other buildings are laid out in relationship to oneanother, their orientation, and the possible existence of structuring features such as pathways, squares, eventually ditchesor palisades partitioning the internal space of the settlement, etc. Its study can be addressed through a point of view bothstatic (the state of a settlement at a given point in its evolution) and dynamic, the latter being likely, as we will see later,to provide a valuable insight into the organization principles which sometimes become clear, within a given settlement,only after several generations, when the spatial occupation has become dense enough to make the whole design visible.As regards this issue, Danubian Neolithic is known mostly through the numerous studies, generated by abundant vestiges,devoted to the Linear Pottery Culture, hereafter referred to as “LBK” after the name given by German researchers. Spe-cialists have paid less attention to the other cultures of the Danubian cultural complex, which have yielded fewer vestiges

MUSAICA ARCHAEOLOGICA 2/2016 l 7-26 7

and lack the aura surrounding the “pioneer” culture of the Central European Neolithic. Table in Fig. 1 shows the majorcultures and indicates their chronological range and relationships with the LBK. This time range can be divided into fourchronological horizons, corresponding to four stages in the development of the Danubian Neolithic, and to four phasesin the progressive reduction of the area occupied by this cultural complex, for which only the western part, extendingfrom the western half of the Carpathian Basin to Normandy, will be dealt with in this paper.- 5600–4900: LBK;- 4900–4400: Stichbandkeramik/Lengyel/Hinkelstein-Bischheim;- 4400–3900: Epi-Roessen and Epi-Lengyel horizons;- 3900–3600: Latest Danubian cultures in Poland and the Great Hungarian Plain.

The emergence of the Cerny Culture in the Paris Basin (circa 4900/4800 BC), followed by the development (in the samearea) and expansion towards the East of the Michelsberg Culture (4400–3700 BC) are, successively, responsible for theprogressive reduction of the area occupied by the Danubian Neolithic (Fig. 2 to 5). The notion of Danubian Neolithicis rooted into the German research from the first half of the twentieth century. It is defined mainly by the architecture(the “Danubian” house) and the funerary practices (Jeunesse 2006 and to be published). The aim of this paper is to showhow the forms of settlement organization are a third structuring trait. They indeed follow a single pattern which emergesin the Early LBK and then rules the internal layout of the villages up to the last Danubian cultures of the first half of the4th millennium.

Christian Jeunesse l Spatial organization in European Neolithic settlements8

Fig. 1. Chronology.

Obr. 1. Chronológia.


Fig. 2. Distribution area of the LBK Culture (5600–4900 BC).

Obr. 2. Rozšírenie kultúry s lineárnou keramikou (5600–4900 BC).

Fig. 3. Location of the cultures mentioned in the text, from the 4900–4400 BC time horizon.

Obr. 3. Rozšírenie kultúr v časovom horizonte 4900–4400 BC.

2. LBK and pattern development

Two models have been proposed to account for the internal organization of LBK villages and for the principles whichrule their evolution over time (Fig. 6). The Hofplatz model (Boelicke et al. 1988) is characterized by potato-shaped areas,each corresponding to plots of land on which a single social unit (for instance a lineage) builds and re-builds his housegeneration after generation, always with a twenty-odd meters minimal spacing with the preceding house; the internalevolution and spatial extension of the various Hofplätze can be determined by combining this spatial criterion and thepottery-based dating of the houses. All this forms a chaotic cluster of “lineage” plots in which any attempt to find regu-larities proves completely unrealistic. Since the years 2000 this pattern has been challenged by one in which preferenceis given to an organization in rows of synchronous houses (Rück 2007, 2008 and 2012; Link 2012) and whose definition,based on the idea that potsherds found in lateral pits do not tell the whole duration of the building’s story, involves a radical review of the chronological system used by LBK specialists since the 1930s. It indeed implies that houses be-longing to at least two different stages or pottery phases may have co-existed, with for instance a row in which a housebuilt during stage III (Middle LBK) co-existed with another one built during stage IV (Recent/Late LBK). This patternquestions the traditional methods of internal periodization, based on the two following premises: 1, the variability observedin potteries of a given settlement owes mostly to the chronology, and 2, the chronological position of a house can be de-termined by studying the decorated sherds found in lateral pits.For some reasons too numerous to go into here, it seems more sensible to remain true to these two premises, yet in noway does this position imply to agree with the Hofplatz model. We thus propose a third model, which provides thedouble benefit of preserving the role of “timer” played by the decorated pottery and of explaining the existence of rows.The presence of rows was observed from the very first extensive excavations carried out on LBK settlements; yet, the ideathat they could play a structuring role was occulted in the discussion by the long prominent Hofplatz model which over-looks the mechanism of their formation.Even though they do not account for all the spatial configurations observed, the existence of rows is particularly patenton settlements occupied during a short period of time in the LBK western fringe, for instance at Cuiry-lès-Chaudardes(Fig. 7). Even in this example, though, the rowss dissolve as soon as the chronological parameter is considered, as testifiedby Cuiry and Langweiler 9 (Fig. 8). Hence the following paradox: since no LBK person has obviously ever seen singlerows of houses, how can we explain the key importance of this kind of spatial layout in LBK settlements? Seemingly, therow does not result from a deliberate will to structure the space actually occupied and “experienced” by a community,but indirectly from an evolutionary dynamics which, over the multi-generational history of a village, creates groups ofhouses laid out in more or less regular rows. The only possible explanation then lies in the evolution of a settlement beingconditioned by the existence of a settlement area divided from the very beginning into parallel strips, each attributed toa basic social unit. If each household in this unit is isolated within its own strip, then all the successive houses of the samedescent group will inevitably end up resembling a row on maps drawn seven millennia later and compiling the featuresproduced during the hole lifespan of the settlement. Fig. 9 sums up this theoretical pattern which is still to be refined inorder to take into account the presence of a greater or lesser number of remaining “non-aligned” buildings in all the largesettlements known to this day (namely Cuiry, see Fig. 7).The other major characteristics of LBK settlements are well known and need only a brief reminder:a, contemporary houses in the same settlement all have the same orientation;b, they are all oriented towards the same direction and thus all open on the same side;c, they are usually placed well apart, sometimes up to several tens of meters between two contemporary houses next toone another. This very “airy” layout is not systematic, though, and thus cannot be on the list of necessary criteria to definethe Danubian organizational pattern. Settlements from the earliest LBK (phase I) for instance show denser patterns thanlater ones (Fig. 10).d, available settlement plans do not show privileged pathways or empty spaces that could be considered as village squares.Gathering places enclosed by ditches and traditionally regarded as “enclosures” do exist in some settlements, but they arelocated outside the settlement itself, as shown by the well-known examples of Langweiler 8 and Langweiler 9.



Fig. 6. Interpretation of the spatial organization during settlement phase 5 of the Dresden-Prohlis (Saxony) LBK site. A: based onthe Hofplatz pattern (Boelicke et al. 1988); B: based on the “rows” of synchronous houses pattern (Rück 2007). After Link 2012.

Obr. 6. Interpretácia priestorovej organizácie sídliska LBK Dresden-Prohlis (Sasko) v 5. sídliskovej faze. A: na základe modelu Hofplatz (Boelicke et al. 1988); B: na základe modelu s domami usporiadanými do radov (Rück 2007). Podľa Link 2012.


Fig. 7. Map of the LBK Cuiry-lès-Chaudardes (France, Aisne) settlement, showing the virtual rows. Background map after « 3789 av. J.-C. en Bassinparisien », catalogue d’exposition, Musée de Préhistoire d’Ile-de France, Nemours, 17 mai -31 décembre 1989.

Obr. 7. Plán sídliska LBK Cuiry-lès-Chaudardes (Francúzsko, Aisne), s naznačenými radmi domov.


Fig. 8. Langweiler 9. General map and breakdown into building phases(general map after Kuper et al. 1977).

Obr. 8. Langweiler 9. Celkový plán a stavebné fázy (plan podľa Kuper etal. 1977)

Fig. 9. Schematic presentation of the “rows” plotting pattern (LBK Culture)

Obr. 9. Schematická ukážka modelu sídliska s domami v radoch(kultúra LBK)

Fig. 10. Maps of two Earliest LBK settlements (LBK I). A: Bruchenbrücken (Hessen), after Gronenborn 1990; B: Brunn (Lower Austria), afterLenneis 2008.

Obr. 10. Plány dvoch sídlisk kultúry so starou LBK. A: Bruchenbrücken (Hesensko), podľa Gronenborn 1990; B: Brunn (Dolné Rakúsko), podľaLenneis 2008.


Fig. 11. Map of the Grossgartach and Planig-Friedberg (circa 4800–4700 BC) Hambach 260 settlement (North Rhine-West-phalia). After Dohrn-Ihmig 1983b.

Obr. 11. Plán lokality Grossgartach a Planig-Friedberg (cca 4800–4700 BC), Hambach 260 (Severné Porýnie – Westfálsko),podľa Dohrn-Ihmig 1983b.

Fig. 12. Settlement with palisade and ditch at Oslonki (Poland), Brześć-Kujawski Culture. After Bogucki 1998.

Obr. 12. Sídlisko s palisádou a priekopou Oslonki (Poľsko), kultúra Brześć-Kujawski, podľa Bogucki 1998.


Fig. 13. Creglingen-Frauental (A) and Nördlingen-Baldingen (B) (Baden-Württemberg) Bischheim settlements. Circa 4400–4300 BC. A: after Lück-erath 1987; B: after Zeeb 1994.

Obr. 13. Creglingen-Frauental (A) a Nördlingen-Baldingen (B) (Baden-Württemberg) sídliská Bischheim. cca 4400–4300 BC. A: podľa Lückerath1987; B: podľa Zeeb 1994.


Fig. 14. Jelšovce Epi-Lengyel settlement (Slovakia), Ludanice group(circa 4000 BC). After Pavúk – Bátora 1995.

Obr. 14. Epi-lengyelské sídlisko Jelšovce (Slovensko), ludanická skupina(cca 4000 BC), podľa Pavúk – Bátora 1995.

Fig. 15. Tiszalúc-Sarkad settlement(Hungary), Hunyadihalom group(circa 3800 BC). After Kienlin 2010.

Obr. 15. Tiszalúc-Sarkad settlement(Maďarsko), skupina Hunyadihalomgroup (cca 3800 BC), podľa Kienlin2010.

Fig. 16. Maps of the Aichbühl (A; circa 4200 BC) and Bad Buchau-Taubried (B; circa 3850 BC) (Baden-Württemberg) wetland settle-ments, Aichbühl group and Schussenried Culture. After Ströbel2000.

Obr. 16. Plány sídlisk Aichbühl (A; cca 4200 BC) a Bad Buchau-Taubried (B; cca 3850 BC) (Baden-Württemberg) wetland settle-ments, skupina Aichbühl a kultúra Schussenried, podľa Ströbel2000.


3. Posterity of this pattern in post-Danubian cultures

These characteristics form the framework of Danubian dwelling in all post-Danubian cultures. Because of space con-straints, only a few examples and the main references in a shortened bibliography can be presented here. Well-documentedexamples showing obvious continuity of the pattern developed in the LBK phase are known over the whole DanubianNeolithic, between 5600 and 3600 BC. They mainly belong to the following cultures: Grossgartach/Planig-Frieberg (Fig.11) and Rössen (Dohrn-Ihmig 1983a and b, Lüning 1982), Stichbandkeramik (Cladders et al. 2012), Lengyel (with therecently excavated site at Alsónyék, Ösztás et al. 2012; Bánffy 2016, fig. 1), Brześć-Kujawski (Fig. 12), Bischheim (Fig.13), Ludanice (Fig. 14), Aichbühl, Schussenried, Hunyadihalom (Fig. 15). All these cultures have in common the fourcharacteristics mentioned above, and we will see later that in the context of the European Neolithic-Chalcolithic blockthese are far from “natural”. Some readers may have been astonished to see Aichbühl and Schussenried mentioned here,since they are classically listed under the lakeside or wetland cultures category of settlements. Their belonging to theDanubian complex has however long been acknowledged by pottery specialists (for whom they are part of the Epi-Rössencultures), and a careful examination of the plans available, in particular for the Aichbühl and Taubried settlements (Fig.16), show significant differences with later lakeside dwellings (see below) and, above all, a general organization which fitsperfectly in the Danubian pattern as defined on the basis of the data available for the LBK. As seen above, the closespacing between houses is in no way an obstacle for this attribution.We can thus see that for all the cultures that have produced exploitable data, settlements are structured in the same way,which means according to the rules a, b, c and d mentioned above. Obviously this does not prevent a rather strongchronological and geographical variability, visible in particular in the spacing between houses, the size, shape and plan ofthe buildings (Fig. 17), but which does not involve the basic principles of the settlement organization. Better awarenessof the importance of this trait and of the existence of a clear relationship between a specific pattern and the DanubianNeolithic can be achieved by taking a step back and trying to evaluate the place of this pattern at the level of the EuropeanNeolithic and Chalcolithic. By doing so, hopefully we will be able to fully realize that the regional traditions within theDanubian world do reflect a secondary variability which does not disturb the functioning of the general rules governingthe organization and evolutionary dynamics of the settlements over time.

4. Danubian pattern and other patterns

It is universally acknowledged that regarding the quality of the available documentation on settlement vestiges, DanubianNeolithic is rather well-positioned. The range of cultures that have yielded easily legible architectural remains has indeedexpanded over the last three decades, owing in particular to a growing number of discoveries dating from the Early Ne-olithic in the British Isles, or from the Recent/Late Neolithic in Western and Northern France; nevertheless, culturesproviding enough data concerning settlement organization are still a small minority. After setting aside the cases for whichthe poor documentation does not allow to form a general idea of the ruling principles, three contexts remain for the Eu-ropean Neolithic and Chalcolithic: lakeside Neolithic in the circum-alpine area, Early Chalcolithic in Carpato-BalkanicEurope, and lastly the later phase of the Tripolje Culture in Ukraine.

4.1. Lakeside settlements of the Alpine regionThe plans of the Stockwiesen, Pestenacker and Torwiesen II villages (Fig.18) testify to the momentous changes that haveoccurred since the emergence, at the end of the 5th millennium, of the first villages in wetland contexts, for which the organisational model was still deeply rooted in the Danubian tradition; compact urbanism, regular rows of contempora-neous houses close to one another and facing each other on either sides of a constructed pathway are features very far in-deed from the concept developed in LBK settlements and still alive in the wetland Aichbühl group. Since the housesfacing each other share the same longitudinal axis, it creates an orthogonal structure confirmed by the maps of settlementsshowing more than two lines, such as Arbon “Bleiche” (Leuzinger 2000 and 2012). The other difference lies in the shortduration of most lakeside settlements, in contrast with the highly stable and long-lasting Danubian settlements. The hugestratigraphic sequences observed in some lakeside sites should not indeed be misleading: they result from the stacking ofoften short phases of occupation (less than a generation, even often less than 10 years), separated by phases of abandon-


Fig. 17. Distribution of the main architectural traditions during the 5th millennium in Danubian Neolithic (orientations not realistic).

Obr. 17. Rozšírenie hlavných stavebných tradícií dunajského neolitu počas 5. tisícročia BC (orientácie ilustračné)

Fig. 18. Maps of the Stockwiesen (A, Germany, end of the 4th Millennium) and Pestenacker (B, Germany, circa 3500 BC) lakeside settlements, andreconstruction of the village of Stockwiesen (C). A and B after Schlichtherle 2006; C after Schlichtherle 1997.

Obr. 18. Plán nákolného sídliska Stockwiesen (A, Nemecko, záver 4. tisícročia) a Pestenacker (B, Nemecko, cca 3500 BC) a rekonštrukcia sídliskaStockwiesen (C). A a B podľa Schlichtherle 2006; C podľa Schlichtherle 1997.


ment of variable length. Besides, it is interesting to note that in lakeside dwellings the size of the houses is remarkablyhomogeneous. It is true that significant differences have been observed, Bad Buchau-Torwiesen being a model case(Schlichtherle et al. 2010), but they are tiny compared with the variations observed in Danubian settlements.

4.2 Chalcolithic tells in South-eastern EuropeTells in South-eastern Europe are a phenomenon spreading over an area that stretches from the eastern part of theCarpathian Basin to the Black Sea. It goes far beyond the mere Chalcolithic framework since it develops during the EarlyNeolithic and endures for at least two millennia, until the Middle Chalcolithic. Nevertheless, Chalcolithic is the only pe-riod for which whole villages have been excavated, and hence the only one that can produce satisfactory results concerningorganisational issues. The most relevant examples belong to the Bulgarian Early/Middle Chalcolithic and date fromaround the middle of the 5th millennium.The map of one of the occupation levels of the Poljanica tell gives a good indication of the internal layout of these squaresettlements usually surrounded by an enclosure (Fig.19): compact urbanism, houses constructed directly adjacent to oneanother, protected by palisaded ditches, with a various number of rooms, slightly sinuous alleys which nevertheless followan orthogonal organisational pattern. This pattern is well established since the Karanovo IV/V – Boian horizon at thebeginning of the 5th millennium (Raczky 2015) and characterized by the presence of four accesses positioned at the fourpoints of the compass. Fundamentally, the most salient feature of this model could be the dilution of the house as an in-dependent space clearly separated from the other houses. The recently acknowledged existence, based on observationsmade on sites like Pietrele, Romania (Hansen et al. 2015) and Polgár-Csőszhalom, Hungaria (Racky 2015), among others,of lower towns developing at the foot of the tells obviously do not question the existence of this organisation principle.Even though it shows some similarities with the “lakeside” pattern (orthogonality), the stability of the settlements, builtagain and again on the same spot for centuries, is a trait shared with the Danubian Neolithic.

4.3 “Megasites” of the Tripolje CultureThis concerns a group of around thirty sites spreading over more than a hundred hectares and belonging to the recentphase of the Tripolje Culture. They are concentrated in a small area between the Dniester and the Dnieper rivers anddate from between 4000 and 3600 BC. This phenomenon is believed to have lasted about three centuries (Müller 2016,Müller et al. 2016). Its detailed study has been initiated only recently and is the subject of several on-going programmes(Videjko 1995, Chapman et al. 2014, Rassman et al. 2014), but the general principles that rule the organization of thesesites are already quite well known. The settlements are large, sometimes even very large (maximum 350 hectares), and inthe wider ones up to 20,000 or 30,000 inhabitants may have lived (Müller et al. 2016). Like the site of Maidanetskoe(Fig. 20), they show an ellipsoidal plan and a radial organization, with several (up to nine) concentric circles of housesclose to one another and a large central square. This forms an original configuration clearly different from the three otherpatterns presented in this article. These settlements had a quite brief lifespan, estimated to a maximum of one centuryand a half (Müller 2016).

5. Conclusion: an occupation of the inhabited space specific to the Danubian world

Lakeside dwellings, Chalcolithic tells from South-eastern Europe, and giant settlements from the Ukrainian Recent Chal-colithic show, by contrast, the singularity of the Danubian pattern, whose main characteristics result from specific culturalchoices (Fig. 21). In no way can the latter be considered as an archaic mode of spatial structuration specific to the EuropeanEarly Neolithic. On the contrary, the fact that it lasted for two millennia makes the Danubian “urbanistic” model a long-lasting phenomenon with strong identity overtones. This pattern is one of the pillars of the Danubian identity, togetherwith the architectural traditions, the characteristics of funerary practices, the subsistence system and the forms of socialorganization. It thus belongs to the set of various traits whose crystallisation in the eastern part of Central Europe towardsthe end of the first half of the 5th millennium had established the Danubian cultural complex.


Fig. 19. Poljanica Chalcolithic tell (Bulgaria), level 3. After Todorova 1982.

Obr. 19. Poljanica, eneolitický tell (Bulharsko), level 3, podľa Todorova 1982.


Fig. 20. Map of the Maidanetskoe (Ukraine, Tripolje Culture, circa 3900–3600 BC) “mega-site” and location of the “mega-sites” area of the TripoljeCulture. A and B: after Videjko 1995.

Obr. 20. Plán “mega-sídliska” Majdanetskoe (Ukrajina, tripoľská kultúra, cca 3900–3600 BC) a rozšírenie tripoľskej kultúry. A a B podľa Videjko1995.

Fig. 21. Schematic of the four patterns of spatial organization. A: “mega-sites” in Ukraine; B:Danubian pattern; C: Chalcolithic tells in South-eastern Europe; D: “lakeside” pattern.

Obr. 21. Schéme štyroch modelov priestorovej organizácie. A: “mega-sídliská” na Ukrajine; B:Dunajský model; C: Eneolitické telly v juhovýchodnej Európe; D: “jazerné” modely.


Bibliography

Bánffy, E. 2016: Alsónyék - Bátaszék, Ungarn. Der größte neolithische Fundort in Mittel-Europa. e – Forschungsberichtedes DAI 2016 Faszikel 1 - urn:nbn:de:0048-DAI-EDAI-F.2016-1-29-8, 174–178.

Boelicke, U. – Brandt, D. von – Lüning, J. – Stehli, P. – Zimmermann, A.1988: Der bandkeramische SiedlungsplatzLangweiler 8. Rheinische Ausgrabungen, Bd 28, Köln.

Bogucki, P. 1998: Holocene climatic variability and early agriculture in temperate Europe : the case of northern Poland.In: Zvelebil, M. – Dennel, R. – Domanska, L. (eds.): Harvesting the Sea, farming the forest. The emergence of neolithicsocieties in the Baltic Region, Sheffield, 77–85.

Chapman, J. – Videiko, M. – Gaydarska, B. – Burdo, N. – Hale, D. 2014: Architectural differentiation on a Trypilliamega-site: preliminary report on the excavation of a mega-structure at Nebelivka, Ukraine. Journal of Neolithic Archae-ology 16, 135–156.

Cladders, M. – Stäuble, H. – Tischendorf, T. – Wolfram, S. 2012: Zur linien- und stichbandkeramischen Besiedlungvon Eythra, Lkr. Leipzig. In: Wolfram, S. – Stäuble, H. (eds.): Siedlungsstruktur und Kulturwandel in der Bandkeramik,Beiträge der internationalen Tagung „Neue Fragen zur Bandkeramik oder alles beim Alten?!“, Leipzig 23. Bis 24. Sep-tember 2010, Arbeits- und Forschungsberichte zur sächsischen Bodendenkmalpflege, Beiheft 25,146–159.

Dohrn-Ihmig, M. 1983a: Ein Grossgartacher Siedlungsplatz bei Jülich-Welldorf, Kreis Düren, und der Übergang zummittelneolithischen Hausbau. Archäologie in den Rheinischen Lössbörden. Beiträge zur Siedlungsgeschichte im Rhein-land, Köln 1983, 233–282.

Dohrn-Ihmig, M. 1983b: Neolithische Siedlungen der Rössener Kultur in der Niederrheinischen Bucht. Materialien zurAllgemeinen und Vergleichenden Archäologie, Band 21, München.

Gronenborn, D. 1990: Eine Pfeilspitze vom ältestbandkeramischen Fundplatz Friedberg-Bruchenbrücken in der Wetterau.Germania 68, 223–231.

Hachem, L. 2012: Le site néolithique de Cuiry-lès-Chaudardes – 1. De l’analyse de la faune à la structuration sociale.Verlag Marie Leidorf GmbH., Rahden/West.

Hampel, A. 1992: Frankfurt am Main - Niedereschbach. Ein ältestbandkeramischer Siedlungsplatz, Teil 1 : Die Befunde.Beiträge zum Denkmalschutz in Frankfurt am Main Bd. 5, Bonn.

Hansen, S. – Toderaş, M. – Wunderlich, J. 2015: Pietrele, Rumänien. Neolithische und kupferzeitliche Siedlung am See5200–4250 v. Chr., Die Arbeiten der Jahre bis 2014. e – Forschungsberichte des DAI 2015, Faszikel 3 - urn:nbn:de:0048-DAI-EDAI-F.2015-3-17-7

Jeunesse, C. 2006: Les traditions funéraires du Néolithique moyen en Europe centrale dans le cadre du système funérairedanubien. In : Alt, K. – Arbogast, R.-M. – Jeunesse, Ch. – van Willigen, S. (eds.): Archéologie funéraire du Néolithiquedanubien, Cahiers de l’Association pour la Promotion de la Recherche Archéologique en Alsace 20, 3–26.

Jeunesse, C. 2014: Tumulus royaux et agglomérations géantes dans le Chalcolithique d’Europe orientale (cultures deMaikop et de Tripolje) : comment les « sociétés villageoises » chalcolithiques succombent à la démesure. In : Arbogast,R.-M. – Greffier-Richard, A. (eds.): « Entre archéologie et écologie, une Préhistoire de tous les milieux ». Mélanges offertsà Pierre Pétrequin. Annales Littéraires de l’Université de Franche-Comté, Besançon, Presses Universitaires de FrancheComté, 331–344.

Jeunesse, C. - A paraître: “The 5th millenium BC in central Europe. Minor changes, structural continuity: a period ofcultural stability”. In: Hofmann, D. – Gleser, R. (eds.): Kulturkontakte, Kulturgrenzen und Innovationen im 5. Jahrtau-send. Actes de la table ronde international de Münster (Allemagne), Münster, 28-30 septembre 2015.

Kienlin, T. L. 2010: Traditions and transformations: Approaches to Eneolithic (Copper Age) and Bronze Age metalwork-ing and society in Eastern Central Europe and the Carpathian Basin. British Archaeological Reports, International Series2184, Oxford.

Kuper, R. – Löhr, H. – Lüning, J. – Stehli, P. – Zimmermann, A. 1977: Der bandkeramische Siedlungsplatz Langweiler9. Rheinische Ausgrabungen Bd 18, Rheinland-Verlag, Köln.

Last, J. 1998: The residue of yesterday’s existence : settlement, space and discard at Miskovice and Bylany. Bylany Varia1, Archeologický Ústav AVČR, Praha, 17–46.

Lenneis, E. 2008: Perspectives on the beginnings of the earliest LBK in east-central Europe. In : Bailey, D.W. – Whittle,A. – Hofmann, D. (eds.): Living well together, Oxford, Oxbow books, 164–178.

Leuzinger, U. 2000: Die jungsteinzeitliche Seeufersiedlung Arbon – Bleiche 3. Befunde. Archäologie im Thurgau 9,Veröffentlichung des Amtes für Archäologie des Kanton Thurgaus, Frauenfeld.

Leuzinger, U. 2012: Un bilan des études sur le fonctionnement du village d’Arbon/Bleiche 3 (Thurgovie, Suisse). In :Honegger, M. – Mordant, C. (eds.): L’homme au bord de l’eau. Archéologie des zones littorales du Néolithique à la Pro-tohistoire, Actes du 135e congrès national des sociétés historiques et scientifiques du CTHS, Neuchâtel, 6-11 avril 2010,Cahiers d’archéologie romande et éd. du CTHS (Cahiers d’archéologie romande, 132 et Documents préhistoriques, 30),315–325.

Link, T. 2012: „Hofplatz“ und „Zeilensiedlung“: konkurrierende Modelle oder zwei Seiten derselben Medaille? In : Wolf-ram, S. – Stäuble, H. (eds.): Siedlungsstruktur und Kulturwandel in der Bandkeramik, Beiträge der internationalenTagung „Neue Fragen zur Bandkeramik oder alles beim Alten?!“, Leipzig 23. Bis 24. September 2010, Arbeits- und For-schungsberichte zur sächsischen Bodendenkmalpflege, Beiheft 25, 43–46.

Lückerath, C. 1987: Fünf Häuser der Bischheimer Siedlung von Creglingen-Frauental. Archäologische Informationen10, 230–232.

Lüning, J. 1982: Siedlung und Siedlungslandschaft in bandkera mischer und Rössenner Zeit. Offa 39, 9–33.

Müller, J. 2016: Humans structure social space: what we can learn from Trypillia. In : Müller, J. – Rassmann, K. – Videiko,M. (eds.): Trypillia Mega-sites and european prehistory. 4100–3400 BCE, London and New York, Routledge, 301–304.

Müller, J. – Hofmann, R. – Brandstätter, L. – Ohlrau, R. – Videiko, M. 2016: Chronology and demography: how manypeople lived in a mega-site? In : Müller– J., Rassmann, K. – Videiko, M. (eds.): Trypillia Mega-sites and european pre-history. 4100–3400 BCE, London and New York, Routledge, 133–170.

Osztás, A. – Zalai-Gaál, I. – Bánffy, E. 2012: Alsónyék-Bátaszék, a new chapter in the research of Lengyel culture. Docu-menta Praehistorica XXXIX, 377–396.

Pavúk, J. – Bátora, J. 1995: Siedlung und Gräber der Ludanice Gruppe in Jelšovce. Nitra.

Raczky, P. 2015: Settlement in South-East Europe. In: Fowler, C. – Harding, J. – Hofmann, D (eds.): The Oxford Hand-book of Neolithic Europe. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 235–253.


Rassmann, K. – Ohlrau, R. – Hofmann ,R. – Mischka, C. – Burdo, N. – Videjko, M. Y . – Müller, J. 2014: High precisionTripolye settlement plans, demographic estimations and settlement organization. JungsteinSite, 96–134.

Rück, O. 2007: Neue Aspekte und Modelle in der Siedlungsforschung zur Bandkeramik. Die Siedlung Weisweiler 111auf der Aldenhovener Platte, Kr. Düren. Verlag Marie Leidorf GmbH, Rahden/West.

Rück, O. 2008: New aspects and models for Bandkeramik settlement research. In : Hofmann, D. – Bickle, P. (eds.): Cre-ating communities. New advances in central european Neolithic research, Oxford, Oxbow books, 159–185.

Rück, O. 2012: Vom Hofplatz zur Hauserzeile. Das bandkeramische Dorf – Zeilenstrukturen und befundfreie Bereicheoffenbaren eine neues Bild der Siedlungsstrukturen. In : Wolfram, S. – Stäuble, H. (eds.): Siedlungsstruktur und Kultur-wandel in der Bandkeramik, Beiträge der internationalen Tagung „Neue Fragen zur Bandkeramik oder alles beim Alten?!“,Leipzig 23. Bis 24. September 2010, Arbeits- und Forschungsberichte zur sächsischen Bodendenkmalpflege, Beiheft 25,20–42.

Schlichtherle, H. 1997: Der Federsee, das fundreichste Moor der Pfahlbauforschung. In Schlichtherle, H. (ed.): Pfahl-bauten rund um die Alpen, Stuttgart, Theiss, 91–99.

Schlichtherle, H. 2002: Neue Baubefunde und eine Scherbe der Badener Kultur in der endneolithischen MoorsiedlungTorwiesen II, Bad Buchau, Kreis Biberach. Archäologische Ausgrabungen in Baden-Württemberg, 38–42.

Schlichtherle, H. 2006: Chemins, roues et chariots : innovations de la fin du Néolithique dans le Sud-Ouest de l’Alle-magne. In : Pétrequin, P. – Arbogast, R.-M. – Pétrequin, A.-M. – van Willigen, S. – Bailly, M. (eds.): Premiers chariots,premiers araires. La diffusion de la traction animale en Europe pendant les IVe et IIIe millénaires avant notre ère, Paris,CNRS Editions, 165–178.

Schlichtherle, H. – Bleicher, N. – Dufraisse, A. – Kieselbach, P. – Maier U. – schmidt, E. – Stephan, E. – Vogt, R. 2010:Bad Buchau – Torwiesen: Baustrukturen und Siedlungsabfälle als Indizien der Sozialstruktur und Wirtschaftsweide einerEndneolithischen Siedlung am Federsee. In : Classen, E. – Doppler, T. – Ramminger, B (eds.): Familie – Verwandschaft– Sozialstrukturen: Sozialarchäologische Forschungen zu neolithischen Befunden, Welt und Erde Verlag, Kerpen-Loogh,157–178.

Strobel, M. 2000: Die Schussenrieder Siedlung Taubried I (Bad Buchau, Kr. Biberach). Konrad Theiss Verlag, Stuttgart.

Todorova, H. 1982: Kupferzeitliche Siedlungen in Nordostbulgarien. Materialien zur Allgemeinen und VergleichendenArchäologie 13, Verlag C. H. Beck, München.

Videjko, M. 1995: Grosssiedlungen der Tripolje-Kultur in der Ukraine. Eurasia Antiqua 1, 45–80.

Zeeb, A. 1994: Die Hausbefunde der frühjungneolithischen Siedlung von Nördlingen-Baldingen im Nördlinger Ries.Arbeiten zur Archäologie Süddeutschlands 2, Dr. Faustus, Büchenbach.


Résumé V štúdii sa autor zaoberá priestorovou organizáciou neolitických sídlisk. Analyzuje situovanie domov a iných objektov,ich orientáciu a vzájomný vzťah, taktiež poukazuje na možnú existenciu ostatných štruktúr ako napríklad chodníky, cen-trálne priestory, eventuálne priekopy a palisády rozdeľujúce plochu sídliska. Na chronologickej tabuľke (obr. 1) zobrazujesledované kultúry a ich vzťah ku kultúre s lineárnou keramikou (LBK) a vyzdvihuje skutočnosť, že dunajský neolit jeúzko spojený práve s kultúrou LBK. Sledované obdobie rozdeľuje do štyroch chronologických horizontov: 5600–4900:LBK; 4900–4400: Stichbandkeramik/Lengyel/Hinkelstein-Bischheim; 4400–3900: Epi-Rössen a Epi-Lengyel; 3900–3600: najmladšie neolitické kultúry. Cieľom príspevku je poukázať na formy vnútornej organizácie neolitických stredo-európskych sídlisk, s upriamením pozornosti na ich štruktúru, ktorá sa objavila v kultúre so starou lineárnou keramikoua pretrvávala až do konca dunajských kultúr v prvej polovici 4. tisícročia BC. Z pohľadu priestorovej organizácie sa du-najský model vyznačuje týmito dobre známymi rysmi: chronologicky súčasné domy majú na jednom sídlisku rovnakúorientáciu; všetky sú taktiež otvorené rovnakým smerom; väčšinou sú postavené vedľa seba, občas je medzi dvoma domamivzdialenosť niekoľko desiatok metrov (čo však nie je systematický prvok a tým pádom nepatrí k hlavným kritériám defi-nujúcim dunajský model); na sídliskách pravdepodobne nevznikali privilegované komunikácie /chodníky, resp. voľnýpriestor, ktoré by bolo možné považovať za centrum (námestie) sídliska. Na jedinečnosť tohto dunajského „urbanistického“modelu LBK a post-lineárnych kultúr autor poukazuje na základe porovnania s jazernými sídliskami, eneolitickými tellmiv juhovýchodnej Európe a rozsiahlymi tripoľskými sídliskami na území súčasnej Ukrajiny.Jazerné alpské sídliská (obr. 18) majú na prvý pohľad mnoho znakov, ktorých pôvod je možné nájsť práve v koncepcii vy-chádzajúcej z LBK sídlisk a sú stále viditeľné napríklad v skupine Aichbühl. K špecifickým prvkom však patrí pravouhláštruktúra sídliska, vytvorená situovaním domov čelom k sebe v pozdĺžnej osi. K ďalším rozdielom patrí krátke trvanieväčšiny jazerných sídlisk, čo je v kontraste s tými z dunajskej oblasti.Telly juhovýchodoeurópskeho eneolitu patria k fenoménom, ktorých vývoj siaha do včasného neolitu od Panónskej panvyaž po Čierne more. Relevantné príklady nájdeme na území Bulharska z včasného/stredného chalkolitu okolo polovice 5.tisícročia BC. Charakterizuje ich: kompaktný urbanizmus; domy postavené priamo vedľa seba; existencia palisády, miernekrivolaké uličky, dodržujúce pravouhlú organizačnú koncepciu (obr. 19). Tento model poznáme od Karanovo IV/V –Boian, nedávno bol rozpoznaný na lokalitách Pietrele v Rumunsku (Hansen et al. 2015) a Polgár-Csőszhalome (Raczky2015) v Maďarsku. Tento model ale ukazuje na niektoré podobnosti s alpskými jazernými sídliskami (pravouhlý pôdorys),na druhej strane na spoločný element s dunajským neolitom poukazuje zase stabilita sídliska (stavba tellu opakovane najednom mieste).„Megasídliská“ tripoľskej kultúry (Videjko 1995, Rassmannet al. 2014) predstavujú skupinu špecifických lokalít rozpre-stierajúcich sa stovky hektárov (maximum 350 hektárov) a s predpokladaným počtom obyvateľov dosahujúcich čísla do20 000 až 30 000 (Müller et al. 2016). Tripoľské sídliská charakterizuje elipsoidný pôdorys, radiálna organizácia s domamipostavenými do koncentrických kruhov vedľa seba a veľký centrálny priestor (napr. Majdanetskoe). Táto originálna kon-figurácia sa jasne odlišuje od troch predchádzajúcich modelov. Dunajský „urbanistický“ model patrí k pilierom dunajskej identity, spolu s tradíciou v architektúre, charakteristickýmipohrebnými zvykmi, subsistenčným systémom a formami sociálnej organizácie.
