Digging for Medieval perception schemes
Research into the presence of perception schemes at a number of High Medieval settlements in and around the town of Brecht, Belgium.
Vincent Stevenson S1529587 Definitive version
Cover illustration: The features of main building HS07 in the excavation trench, photographed from the north (source: ADC ArcheoProjecten).
Vincent Stevenson
Prins Bernhardstraat 20, Oosterhout v.stevenson@hotmail.com
Digging for Medieval perception schemes
Research into the presence of perception schemes at a number of High Medieval settlements in and around the town of Brecht, Belgium.
Master thesis Vincent Stevenson
S1529587 (4ARX-0910ARCH)
Archaeology of the Roman Provinces, Middle Ages and Modern Period Supervisors: Dr. R. M. R. van Oosten and P. L. M. Hazen
Faculty of Archaeology, Leiden University Oosterhout, June 7th 2019
3
Table of Contents
Preface 7 1. Introduction 9 1.1 Research questions 12 1.2 Outline 12 1.3 Limitations 13 2. Perception schemes 152.1 Research on perception schemes 15
2.1.1 The human-environment perception schemes 16
2.1.2 The gender perception schemes 19
2.1.3 The Life cycle perception scheme 24
2.2. Structures 26
2.2.1 Main buildings 26
2.2.2 Transitional buildings 35
2.2.3 The discussion of the oval shaped house 37
2.2.4 Outbuildings 47
2.3. Limitations 54
2.4. Conclusion 56
3. Case study: Brecht – Molenstraat, Laarweg 57
3.1 The landscape 57
3.2 Archaeological history 58
3.3 The Medieval settlement 60
3.4 Main buildings 62 3.5 Outbuildings 65 3.6 Wells 69 3.7 Ditches 72 3.8 Phases 74 3.9 Conclusion 74
4
4. Farm yards 77
4.1 An archaeological description of the term farm yard 77
4.2 Farm yard 1 77 4.3 Farm yard 2 79 4.4 Farm yard 3 80 4.5 Farm yard 4 81 4.6 Farm yard 5 82 4.7 Conclusion 83
5. Case Study: looking for the presence of perception schemes
at Brecht – Ringlaan 85 5.1 Introduction 85 5.2 Main buildings 87 5.3 Outbuildings 90 5.4 Wells 94 5.5 Ditches 94 5.6 Pits 95 5.7 Phases 95 5.8 Farm yards 96 5.9 Conclusion 97
6. Case Study: looking for the presence of perception schemes
at Brecht – Zoegweg 101 6.1 Introduction 101 6.2 Main buildings 102 6.3 Outbuildings 105 6.4 Wells 106 6.5 Ditches 106 6.6 Pits 107 6.7 Phases 107 6.8 Farm yards 108 6.9 Conclusion 110
5
7. Case Study: looking for the presence of perception schemes
at Brecht – Hanenpad 113 7.1 Introduction 113 7.2 Main buildings 114 7.3 Outbuildings 118 7.4 Wells 118 7.5 Ditches 119 7.6 Pits 119 7.7 Phases 119 7.8 Farm yards 120 7.9 Conclusion 123
8. Discussion and conclusion 129
Summary 134
Bibliography 135
List of tables 138
List of figures 139
Appendices
Appendix I: Excavationplan Brecht – Molenstraat, Laarweg Appendix II: Building overview Brecht – Molenstraat, Laarweg Appendix III: Building report Brecht – Molenstraat, Laarweg
7
Preface
During the excavation of the rural Medieval site of Tilburg-Stappegoor in 2016 my interest for Medieval farm yards and their layout was piqued. So much so that it lead to me writing my Bachelor thesis on the subject of farm yard organization at Tilburg-Stappegoor for the excavating company: ADC
ArcheoProjecten. When I had the opportunity to write my Master thesis on a
similar subject for the Vlaams Erfgoed Centrum, a subsidiary of ADC
ArcheoProjecten, I took it with both hands.
I would like to thank ADC ArcheoProjecten, the Vlaams Erfgoed Centrum and their staff for the opportunity to conduct a research internship at their
company the past year. A very special thank you goes out to Peter Hazen for his coaching, cooperation and guidance. Finally, I would like to thank Dr. Roos van Oosten for her proofreading of paragraphs, her constructive feedback and tips.
9
1. Introduction
In 2007 Antionette Huijbers published her PhD thesis titled
“Metaforiseringen in beweging. Boeren en hun gebouwde omgeving in de Volle
Middeleeuwen in het Maas-Demer-Scheldegebied” in which she studies rural
Medieval settlements in the Meuse-Demer-Scheldt region, their structures and their layouts. She argues that the inhabitants of these rural settlements arranged their surroundings based on perceived social relations, experiences and
interactions with their natural surroundings such as plants and animals, and also their experiences with the supernatural. The culmination of all these experiences are thought to be expressed by the rural communities through a certain layout or order of yard elements, such as the main building, outbuildings and a well, on their farm yards. The various ways in which these elements are ordered on farm yards are called “perception schemes” by Huijbers. She defines three main perception scheme groups, namely the human-environment perception scheme, the gender perception scheme and the life cycle perception scheme. These perception scheme groups are based upon the presence and placing of a number of elements on the farmyard relative to one another, namely the main building, the outbuildings, water wells, pits and ditches (Huijbers 2007, 143-204; Huijbers 2007, 209; Huijbers 2007, 247). These perception schemes are further elaborated upon in chapter 2 of this thesis, alongside the varying main- and outbuildings, which play essential roles in explaining and differentiating the varying perception scheme groups. Huijbers’ perception schemes are based on the results of a number rural Medieval settlements in the Meuse-Demer-Scheldt region she studied. Especially the settlements in the east of the region proved to be fruitful, for most of the main buildings in this area were found to be still intact when excavated (Huijbers 2007, 98). The buildings on which Huijbers bases her perception schemes all date from the Late-Caroline Period until the end of the High Middle Ages, ca. 850-1225 AD (Huijbers 2007, 97-134; Huibers 2007, 145-192).
Currently, some gaps exist in the literature, one of which is that Huijbers based her research on excavations which were conducted until 2002. A large number of rural Medieval settlements have been excavated since then, yet not
10
much has been published on perception schemes. This is due to the fact that commercial archaeology offers little room for academic reflection. Secondly, Huijbers her theories were rarely used by other archaeologists working inside the MDS-area, let alone outside of it. It would be interesting to test Huijbers her theories on perception schemes on archaeological sites on the edges of the MDS-area. Applying these theoretical concepts would require largescale
excavations which would not only require the presence of main buildings, but of complete farm yards. Finding sites that meet these preconditions are rare, but in the Flemish town of Brecht, see fig 1.1, multiple excavations meet these
preconditions.
Fig 1.1. The location of the town of Brecht (encircled in red) in Belgium (www.googlemaps.nl).
In the summer of 2018 an excavation was carried out in the Belgium town of Brecht. During this excavation the remnants of multiple main buildings,
outbuildings and water wells of a rural Medieval settlement were uncovered. Due to the number of buildings, and their differing shapes, the settlement is thought to have been inhabited in multiple phases. The excavation was conducted by the Flemish archaeological company called Vlaams Erfgoed Centrum, under
supervision of Peter Hazen. The rural Medieval settlement here is one of a series of rural Medieval settlements encountered in and around the town of Brecht, making this town the ideal candidate for testing Huijbers her theories on. This
11
research will focus on the habitation history of four rural settlements, namely Brecht – Molenstraat, Brecht – Ringlaan, Brecht – Zoegweg and Brecht – Hanenpad. At these sites a total of 7 complete and 8 incomplete Medieval farm yards were identified.
Brecht is located in the south-central part of the MDS region and, because Huijbers based her concepts on sites which are located in the eastern part of the MDS region, see fig 1.2, it would be interesting to test if her perception schemes can also be applied to the excavations here (Huijbers 2007, 87).
Fig 1.2. Location of the Meuse-Demer-Scheldt area, with the location of brecht encircled in red and the area in which Huijbers did her research encircled in blue (Huijbers 2007, 8).
12
1.1 Research questions
To test if the perception schemes of Huijbers are applicable in the south-central part of the MDS region, the excavations in and around Brecht will be treated as theory testing case studies. The main research question is therefore:
To what extent do the farm yard layouts of the differing excavations in and around Brecht match one or more of the perception schemes of Huijbers, namely the human-environment perception scheme, the gender perception scheme and the life cycle perception scheme, what does that mean? How can aberrations be explained?
This research question will be answered with the help of the following sub-questions:
How do farm yards, in terms of main building, outbuilding and property demarcations, look like in the four excavations of Brecht?
To what extent do the four excavations of Brecht have a similar build up of their farm yards and their layout? What does this mean?
1.2 Outline
The subject of this thesis is the organization of the rural landscape during the Medieval period in and around the Belgian town of Brecht. Four of rural Medieval sites in Brecht will be used as case studies in this thesis. Three of these sites have been excavated and have had their reports published in the past decades. One site has been excavated in late 2018 and this thesis will also serve as a partial report of that site. Specific attention will be paid to the potential presence of farm yards and their layout in these rural settlements of Medieval Brecht. If farm yards are found to be present here, the layout will be compared with the existing (social) theories of rural Medieval farm yard layouts in the Meuse-Demer-Scheldt area of the northwest European continental mainland.
The second chapter of this thesis deals with the theoretical framework and lays the foundation for the research into rural Medieval farm yard layouts. A clear overview of rural Medieval building typologies of both the main buildings and outbuildings are discussed, alongside current social theories about how the
13
differing layouts of Medieval farm yards are structured. This framework will be based on research done by national and international scholars. In chapter three the recent excavation of a rural Medieval settlement in Brecht will be elaborated upon and is treated as the first in a series of case studies. The details of the structures excavated here will be elaborated upon based on the currently available literature and, when possible, dated. Then the remaining farm yard elements will be described, documented and, where possible, dated too. The data gained by this analysis will be compared with the theoretical framework on rural Medieval farm yard layouts as described in chapter 2. Chapter four contains the possible farm yards that are encountered during the analysis of the first case study mentioned above. Chapters five, six and seven function as further case studies of the area around Brecht. The sites discussed in these chapters have been excavated in the past and had their excavation reports published, or are currently in preparation for publication. In these chapters the excavation reports are reviewed once more for an up to date picture. Finally, in the last chapter the outcome of the case studies are compared to one another. They function as comparative material to establish if there is a common denominator in building tradition and in farm yard layout in and around the town of Brecht, and if so, if it fits within the current theoretical framework of rural Medieval building tradition and farm yard layout in the Meuse-Demer-Scheldt area.
1.3 Limitations
Since the excavation in Brecht – Molenstraat, Laarweg was only recently completed, specialists have not yet been able to determine all the find materials. Moreover, the amount of finds at the site are severely limited, making absolute dating of all the archaeological features very difficult. As of this moment, the limited amount of ceramics have been dated, but 14C monsters and pollen monsters have not been dated or determined. Find material of the other three excavations, namely those of Brecht – Ringlaan, Brecht – Zoegweg and Brecht – Hanenpad, will not be reexamined and their dates will be taken over in this thesis.
Dates used in this thesis will therefore be a combination of absolute dates and relative dates, with the relative dates primarily being based on the geological
14
superposition of archaeological features and typo chronology of the encountered structures and their assumed dates of use/habitation.
15
2. Perception schemes
It is essential to have a proper understanding of the theoretical
background of rural Medieval housing tradition and Medieval worldviews in order to be able to interpret and comprehend the differing layouts of rural Medieval settlements. The first paragraph will deal with the Medieval worldview and how this worldview could have been expressed on the surroundings by the inhabitants of these rural settlements. The second paragraph will give an overview of the differing rural Medieval structures in Northeastern Europe and the factors as why they are distinguishable from one another. The third paragraph deals with the limitations that come with applying the immaterial to the material. Finally the last paragraph will hold some closing remarks.
2.1 Research on perception schemes
In her PhD thesis Huijbers studied peasant culture during the High Middle Ages. She studied the internal cultural and social relations of peasants during the Middle Ages by investigating the layout and composition of their farm yards, which she calls perception schemes. These perception schemes consist of at least one main building and a contemporary well ordened in a particular way on a farm yard (Huijbers 2007, 89-94; Huijbers 2007, 247). The idea of perception schemes, that is the idea that the cultural backgrounds of people are expressed through their agency, is not something Huijbers coined. Her perception schemes rely heavily on the work done by the French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu and his work “Outline of a Theory of Practice”. In his work, Bourdieu attempts to reconcile the division of two approaches in sociology, namely the subjectivist on one hand who believe that society is shaped by the thoughts and acts of people and
objectivists who believe that people act and think based on societal structures on the other hand (Bourdieu 1977, 3-15). To reconcile the differences Bourdieu introduces the term habitus, which can be explained as the mental structure that people develop in differing social environments from birth throughout their lives. This mental structure dictates the way they perceive the world around them, how they value that world and how to act within that world. And because the habitus is shaped within certain social environments, people with similar social background
16
will not only develop the same kind of habitus, but will also find their perspective on the world and its entailing (social) norms to be a natural and logical conclusion (Bourdieu 1977, 72-95).
Huijbers’ perception schemes draw heavily from Bourdieu’s idea of
habitus. They both make logical arguments, as ones own cultural background
and upbringing directly affects the way one views the world. In the case of Huijbers her perception schemes, it seems that the rural farming communities in the MDS area had similar cultural backgrounds which influenced how they
perceived the world around them and why they acted the way they did, as they all had a Christian background or were recently Christianized (see paragraph 2.1.3). This Christian cultural background, and their own beliefs all played a part in the way these rural farming communities lived and ordered their farm yards.
2.1.1 The human-environment perception schemes
The human-environment perception scheme is focused on the
relationships between people and their environment. It reflects gradations in the relationship between people on the one hand and plants and animals on the other, both as living beings and as meat and waste. This perception scheme group can be subdivided into two perception schemes, namely a concentric experienced human-environment perception scheme and a binary experienced human-environment perception scheme. Both reflect the experienced mental proximity between man and their environment, but differ in the way this
relationship was expressed on their farmyards (Huijbers 2007, 273- 330; Huijbers 2011, 102-104).
2.1.1.1 The concentric experienced human-environment perception
scheme
The concentric experienced human-environment perception scheme is based on the mental proximity of humans with plants and animals. This mental proximity is expressed through six imaginary zones in which the degree of cleanliness plays an important part. In this model the hearth in each house functions as the center. Around the hearth meals are made and animals are
17
transformed into meat. The hearth is the centerpiece in this concentric perception scheme because of its attributed value of cleanliness through fire and cooking.
Fig 2.1. The concentric experienced human-environment perception scheme with a farm yard as example (Huijbers 2011, 104).
The second imaginary zone envelops the remaining space within the building. During the High Middle Ages cattle is also located within this zone, for they are the regarded to be the most closely related animal as one can have to a pet. They are, however, located further away from the hearth, because they are found to be less clean. Interestingly the special relationship of man with its cattle is a typical High Medieval phenomenon, as pigs were regarded more highly during the Early Middle Ages (Huijbers 2007, 325). The third zone compromises the outside walls along with the roof. The borders of the inside and outside of houses are considered to be liminal zones due to the occasional animal internments found in this area. The fourth imaginary zone consists of an area in which wells and pits are located alongside outbuildings which were used for the grinding of grain. In the fifth zone stables and sheds are located which harbored animals other than cattle, such as pigs, sheep, horses and goats. These outbuildings
18
were usually transversally placed alongside the house. Finally, the last zone inhibits the demarcation of the yard. The boundary of the farm yard is also a liminal zone due to it being a place where animals were usually buried (Huijbers 2007, 324-328; Huijbers 2011, 102-105).
Fig 2.2. The expression of the binary experienced human-environment perception scheme on a farm yard (after Huijbers 2007, 329).
19
2.1.1.2 The binary experienced human-environment perception
scheme
The binary experienced human-perception scheme assumes that the inhabitant of a farm could also have expressed mental proximity to plants and animals in a binary way. Instead of the location of the yard elements relative to the location of the main building being important, which is the case with the concentric experienced human-environment perception scheme, the most important factor in the binary experienced human-environment perception scheme is location over the varying yard elements relative to one another
(Huijbers 2007, 328). This is visualized on the previous page. Besides the house which can be divided up into different areas, the farm yard could also have similarly been arranged like this. In this case, Huijbers argues that the farm yard can be divided up into two parts: one part signifying people and the other
signifying the plants and animals. The part of man contains the living area of the house, the well and possibly an outbuilding. The presence of an outbuilding here, could possibly signify the retiring of the parents due to its close location near both the living area of the main house and the well. The other half of the yard, which is meant for animals and plants, is located on the other half of the main building containing the working area. This part of the yard also contains one or more outbuildings related to work.
With the concentric experienced human-environment perception scheme the location of the yard elements in relation to the main building is the most important aspect, whilst the most important aspect of the binary experienced human-environment perception scheme is the location of the yard elements relative to one another (Huijbers 2007, 328-330; Huijbes 2011, 102-105).
2.1.2 The gender perception schemes
Besides the human-environment perception schemes Huijbers applies another group, namely the gender perception schemes. The term gender is used here for differences in sexes, both physically and mentally. These physical and mental differences are expressed by peasants though the layout of their farm yards. Because gender interpretations and their expressed meanings are fluid and change over time, these changes can be expressed on the yards in a large
20
number of differing ways. This makes it impossible to draw a straight line over each farm yard to separate the male from the female side (Huijbers 2007, 331; Huijbers 2011, 105). Because of the many possible interpretations in the
expression of gender on farmyard layout, I will limit my research to the concentric experienced gender perception scheme, the binary experienced gender
perception scheme and the reconciliation of extremes gender perception scheme. These are each individually discussed in the paragraphs below.
2.1.2.1 The concentric experienced gender perception scheme
The concentric experienced gender based perception scheme is similar to the concentric experienced human-environment, but differs in reducing the numbers of zones from six to two. The first zone is centered around the women and the house and the second zone around the man and the farmyard.
Traditionally, the house and the household are associated with women. Practices such as cooking, cleaning and taking care of children, which were typically
undertaken by women, all took part inside of the house. Women had the power to withhold food from men, thereby forcing them in a submissive role. A text from Conrad van Regensburg dated to 1352 endorses this claim. According to Konrad, men should subject women and because men are stronger than women, they should do things which require strength. He ought to supply the house of everything necessary from the outside, whilst the woman has the role of
managing those supplies inside of the house. This tekst points to women being the ‘lady of the manor’, so to speak, during the Late Medieval Period (Huijbers 2007, 337-340; Huijbers 2011, 105).
2.1.2.2 The binary experienced gender perception scheme
Based on the position of yard elements relative to one another, namely the location of the well on one side and the outbuildings on the other, one can suppose that a form of opposition is exposed on the farmyard. This could be an expression of the perception of gender on the farmyard, for it is known from Medieval sources that a strong dichotomy was present in the division of labour. In a 9th century text a clear distinction is made between opera ruralia and opera textilia, i.e. work on the land and working with textile (Huijbeers 2007, 341). Other
21
Fig 2.3. The concentric experienced gender perception scheme expressed on a Medieval farmyard (after Huijbers 2007, 339).
Fig 2.4. The binary experienced gender perception scheme expressed on a Medieval farmyard (Huijbers 2011, 106).
22
cattle and carts with men and textiles, household goods, the spindle and scissors with women (Huijbers 2007, 341). When one does not take into account the practices which were involved with the different yard elements, it is not possible to understand the meaning of these elements for one misses the context. For example: as stated earlier the area outside of the house is associated with men, this includes working on the land and with cattle, therefore yard elements such as cattle sheds and haystacks have strong associations with men and masculinity.
Activities around the hearth and well were undertaken by the woman, for she cooked the food at the hearth and collected water from the well. According to Huijbers it is no coincidence that the patron saint of the well was the virgin Mary, for she was the embodiment of cleanliness and purity (Huijbers 2007, 343-344). Wells were generally made using hollowed out trees. Figurines of the virgin Mary were put inside hollow trees in legends. This connection between the virgin Mary and hollow trees is thought to be a metaphor of the mother’s womb. Furthermore, hollow trees were associated with healing properties. Besides the hearth and well, woman were also involved with other household activities, such as spinning and weaving. When present, the sheep pen is usually also located on the female part of the farmyard because it is related to the activities of spinning and
weaving.
On the other side of the yard a zone of life ending activities was present. The slaughtering of livestock and the threshing of wheat or grain was done by men. Outbuildings in which cattle was stationed or in which grain was threshed can therefore be identified as the male part of the farmyard. These differences between men and woman, one ends life and the other makes it, can also be seen in the layout of their farmyards due to the spatial separation of activities linked to both sexes.
Finally, there are some mitigating factors/nuances which must also be named. Sometimes sheep pens and pits in which grain was ground are found on the male side of the farmyard, whilst these elements are usually associated with the female sex. In these instances one cannot speak of a division of the farmyard into a male and female part. This means that other factors are at play as well which do not correspond with the current version of the binary experienced gender perception scheme (Huijbers 2007, 341-352; Huijbers 2011, 105-107).
23
2.1.2.3 The reconciliation of extremes gender perception scheme
The final group of perception schemes within the gender perception scheme is the reconciliation of extremes gender perception scheme. This
perception scheme suggests that the location of the yard elements are not based on the differences between the sexes, but are a form of reconciliation between the two. Both the masculine deconstructive and feminine constructive aspects of the binary experienced gender perception scheme are used in this one (see fig 2.4), yet this perception scheme differs in its incorporation of a third zone. The third zone functions as a middle ground in which the extremes of the masculine and feminine aspects meet. The location of the house in the middle of the
farmyard flanked by the two extremes on either side could therefore function as a place of reconciliation. This theory could also explain why no yard elements are found in the center part of the yard (Huijbers 2007, 361-362).
Fig 2.5. The reconciliation of extremes perception scheme expressed on a Medieval farmyard (after Huijbers 2007, 360).
24
2.1.3 The life cycle perception scheme
The life cycle perception scheme suggests that farmyard layout is partly determined by important moments in the life cycle or phase of its inhabitants, such as the birth of a child, marriage and the retiring of elders. Huijbers also ascertains that a large number of churches are built in the tenth century. She interprets this as a phase of (re)Christianisation. This re-Christianization is observable in three different phases in the MDS-region, with each phase having an impact on the way farmyards were organized.
The first phase starts in the Late Caroline period and lasts until 1050 AD. This phase is interpreted as an intermediate period. A period between the arrival of the first missionaries, 700-850 AD, and the re-Christianization of the area in the eleventh century. In the period of the arrival of the first missionaries houses have a east-west orientation, but during this intermediate period the orientation changes to north-south, whilst in the following period the east-west orientation resurfaces. This phenomenon could be explained by a period of
de-Christianization of the area, followed by a revival of the Christian faith.
The second phase starts around 1050 and lasts until 1100-1130 AD. In this period, farmyards have a layout modeled on Christian teachings, i.e. east-west orientation. This change to an east-east-west layout is thought to have been the influence of cross symbolism. Between 1000-1050 AD a strong rise of cross symbolism is noted. The change in yard layout is interpreted as an adoption of this cross symbolism onto yard layout.
The third phase starts around 1100-1130 and lasts until 1200 AD. Large changes take place in the twelfth century. The ritual of marriage starts to take place in the church during this period. The font for baptizing also appears in this period. These changes are thought to be a way to ‘lure’ people to conduct their life cycle rituals inside of the church (Huijbers 2007, 385). Before this period marriage and baptizing rituals took place outside of the church, most likely on the farmyards of the farmers themselves as they contained varying elements which are related to the life cycle of people, such as the well, the house and the ash heap (Huijbers 2007, 385). As a result of the Christianization of the people and farmyards, rituals celebrating the life cycles of man, such as birth, marriage and death, no longer take place on the outsides, but on the insides of churches (Huijbers 2007, 375-412).
25
Fig 2.6. The different phases over time in the life cycle perception scheme (after Huijbers 2007, 410).
26
2.2 Structures
Huijbers created new building typologies for High Medieval rural settlement structures in order to specify the relationship between the rural Medieval settlement inhabitants, the buildings they built and how these buildings were distributed on the farm yards. These new typologies are to an extent random, for each typology is based on a main criterion. Just because the buildings are ordered in the way they are now, does not necessarily mean that the same criteria were the most important aspects of the buildings back then (Huijbers 2007, 97).
The typological ordering of rural Medieval buildings was not something new, for there existed a number of various typologies which were named after the towns or villages where these buildings were excavated. The first typology of rural Medieval structures in the MDS-region was drawn up in the 1980s by Frans Theuws. The so called ‘Dommelen’ typology was based on a number of Medieval structures excavated in and around the Dutch village of Dommelen. The buildings were grouped together into small, medium and large buildings, with the
discerning factor being the number of post pairs (Theuws 1990, 272-300). Following the results of the ‘Maas-Demer-Schelde project’ in the late 1990s, a new typology was created, for the buildings that were excavated during new projects were found not to fit in the Dommelen typology. At the same time it was found that the primary criterion of the Dommelen typology, the amount of post pairs was not the factor on which to base building chronology, whilst the placing of the main posts within the structure was (Huijbers 2014, 377-378).
2.2.1 Main buildings
Antoinette Huijbers created a new typology following the results of the
‘Maas-Demer-Schelde project’ and discerned five different types of main
buildings with the primary criterion being the placing of the main roof posts within the structures in combination with the course of the long walls. The form of the buildings’ corners, the linkage of the long walls with the main posts and the shape and form of the entrances and its posts are also important factors in identifying the building type. Because of these differences and the various combinations of these factors, a total of five different types of main buildings could be discerned, namely types H0 through H4. Each type has its own period in
27
which it was built and used (Huijbers 2014, 378-381). Below is an image which gives a clear overview of the terminology used in this thesis when describing the main buildings. On the following page a table is presented, giving a clear
overview of the differing house types and their temporal use.
28
Table 2.1. Characteristics of the various house types of the MDS chronology (Huijbers 2014, 41).
29
Table 2.2. Further characteristics of the differing house types of the MDS chronology (Huijbers 2014, 45).
2.2.1.1 House type H0
Structures grouped into the H0 house type are characterized by the implementation of straight lines of roof posts in combination with straight long walls. This particular house type is rooted in the Caroline building tradition with its rectangular core of roof posts. Whilst Caroline houses have a lot in common with house type H0, they are not entirely the same. The use rectangular core is similar, but the amount op post pairs varies between the two. Caroline houses have an average number of four post pairs, whilst houses of the H0 type have an average of five post pairs. It is surmised that the entrances to the houses of this type were situated on the long sides of the buildings, since the earlier types lack closing posts.
Excavations undertaken in the Dutch villages of Someren, Beek en Donk and Geldrop uncovered variations of the H0 house type. A number of Late-Caroline houses were excavated here which had roof-bearing elements outside of their rectangular cores. Based on the depth of these, they were considered to be part of the construction and were determined as closing posts. Another variation between the H0 types is the form of the long wall, which is no longer exclusively straight. Whilst the shape of the house starts to resemble the classic boat shaped houses of the High Middle ages through the use of closing posts, there is no curved course present in the roof bearing posts yet. Based on the
30
presence and the number of closing posts in the structure, Huijbers has
subdivided house type H0 into three subtypes: house type H0a, house type H0b and house type H0c. All three subtypes were build and in use during the period 850-1000 AD (Huijbers 2007, 100-107; Huijbers 2014, 37-42).
Fig 2.9. The various forms of house type H0 (after Huijbers 2014, 33).
2.2.1.2 House type H1
House type H1 is characterized by the placing of straight post pairs in combination with a curved long wall. Structures of this house type also have closing posts incorporated into the structure on either one- or on both short sides. This house type can be distinguished from its predecessor by the following factors: the number of post pairs, which are usually three instead of five, the incorporation of two closing posts on one or on both sides of the structure, the orientation of the house in relation to the location of the well and the location of the entrances. The main entrances of the H1 house types are always located on the short sides of the structure. This is likely to be related to the change in location of the wells. Wells are found along the short sides of the houses starting in the period in which house type H1 is found. It is interesting to note that posts of the H1 type houses were not dug deeper that those of the H0 type houses, nor was there an increase in length or width of the structures. Yet houses of the H1 type have fewer post pairs, which attests to a greater level of craftsmanship and thus a development of said craftsmanship. Houses of type H1 are dated to have been in use from 900-1200 AD (Huijbers 2007, 107-115; Huijbers 2014, 42).
31
Fig 2.10. The ground plan of house type H1 (after Huijbers 2014, 33).
2.2.1.3 House type H2
House type H2 differentiates from its predecessor by the implementation of curved post pairs alongside the use of curves long walls, heavier foundations, a larger middle section and a larger size of the overall structure. The number of post pairs varies greatly with this house type. They have been excavated with as little as three post pairs, to as much as seven post pairs. The incorporation of closing posts into the skeleton also differs. Some houses have been found with just one closing post on one short side of the house and two on the other short side, or with two closing posts on one side and none on the other. But in general, houses of this type have two closing posts on both short sides of the structure. This house type is built upward from 1050 AD and because of the implementation of curved post pairs alongside with the curved long walls, these are the first classic boat shaped structures. Discussion about the classic Medieval boat shaped structures can be found in paragraph 2.1.3.
House type H2 was in use for a relatively short time, with its earliest date being 1050 AD. After 1200 AD they are rarely documented (Huijbers 2007, 118-121; Huijbers 2014, 42-46).
32
2.2.1.4 House type H3
Structures of this type are similar in build to those of house type H2, for they both have long curved walls and are oval shaped. The big difference between the two is the incorporation of one line of post pairs which are curved and one line of post pairs which are straight. The number of post pairs also differs between the two house types. House type H2 is usually found containing five post pairs, whilst houses of type H3 are found with an average of three post pairs. Houses of this type have had a limited use temporally. They are dated between 1075-1200 AD (Huijbers 2007, 121-134).
Fig 2.12. The ground plan of house type H3 (after Huijbers 2014, 33).
2.2.1.5 House type H4
House type H4 has a different layout compared to its predecessors. Structures of this house type have straight lines of roof post pairs combined with straight long walls. Another notable difference is that the wall posts are not linked with the roof posts. The wall stands on itself. Also the closing posts are on the inside of the structure. Finally the shape of the building is striking, it is no longer classically oval shaped, but rectangular. Hiddink suggests that the wall type, z, may have served as additional support for the roof, making the structure more stable whilst also increasing the amount of useable space. This house type was in use for only a short time: from approximately 1200-1225 AD. This statistic could however be distorting, since only fifty building of this type have been excavated. One explanation for this could be that a large percentage of excavations which have been dated to 1200-1250 AD all took place on high ground. It is known that these high grounds were partially abandoned around
33
1250 AD in favour of the lower areas in the landscape, so it could be quite possible that the building tradition of these types of houses was continued there after 1250 AD (Huijbers 2007, 134-42; Huijbers 2014, 45-46).
Fig 2.13. The ground plan of house type H4 (after Huijbers 2014, 33).
2.2.1.6 Interior layout
Whilst it is impossible to determine whether areas in the houses were physically separated from one another by interior walls, it is possible to identify certain zones in the structures based on how spaces were used. One important factor in this is the location and the number of entrances to the structures. Houses of the H1, H2, H3 and H4 types are known to have at least two, and possibly more, entrances. This suggests that each entrance lead to a zone in the structure in which space was used differently than in the other zones.
Another important clue as to how space was used within the houses is the location of the hearth. The location of the hearth in H0 type houses is not known, for there are very few found. Houses of H1-H4 types often have a hearth located one third along the way of the length axis. It is supposable that these hearths are located in the living area of the houses. When looking at similar houses during the same time period in the western part of the Netherlands, it is seen that these houses are divided into two or three sections containing a living area, a working area and an area for animal stalls. This kind of interior layout was likely also present in the houses of the MDS region.
Finally, another important factor elements M and N also some to hold some sort of significance. It is not known what purpose they served. They are usually found close to the hearth and could be posts of on oven. Another option
34
is that they may have been part of the entrance somehow or that the posts were part of a loom. Whatever function they might have had, they are nevertheless almost exclusively found and aligned alongside hearths, suggesting zonings of equivalent space in all the house types. Houses of H1 type have the elements M and N present outside the core of the building, but inside the long walls.
However, variations in the layout of this house type can be observed when looking at the position of the elements M and N in relation to their location to the hearth. It appears that the relation between the elements M and N with the hearth have some form of chronological relevancy and Huijbers identifies two styles of interior layout: early and late. The early style houses have a tripartite layout with the elements M and N and the hearth located in the central zone, whilst the late style houses are divided into two or three zones and have the hearths and
elements M en N located in one specific half of the house (Huijbers 2014, 47-49).
Fig 2.14. Various options of the interior layouts of the differing house types (after Huijbers 2014, 49).
35
2.2.2 Transitional buildings
Besides the main house types H0 through H4, there is another category: that of the transitional house types. These buildings exhibit a mixture of forms of differing house types, indicating experimentation of different building forms and an accumulation of better craftsmanship and experience over time. Theoretically, House types H0b and H0c could be considered as transitional types between H0 and H1 due to the incorporation of closing posts and the reduction in roof posts. As stated in the previous paragraph, whilst the roof posts of house type H1 were dug just as deep as those of type H0 and were of the same dimensions, the amount of roof post pairs dropped from five to three. This attests to a greater degree of craftsmanship as fewer trusses were needed to support the same dimensions of the house. A transitional building between house type H1 and H2 has also been found. Whilst this building has one roof post pair more than its predecessor, the width of the posts are smaller.
There are also four variations on the transitional buildings between house types H2 and H4. These transitional types are built from 1150 AD onwards and house type H4 is built from 1200 AD onwards. Therefore, house type H4 is the end stage of the changes made to house type H2. Between the two types a gradual disappearance of the curved line of roof posts and long walls can be determined, with them becoming completely straight at the end. The 90 degree angles of the walls of the long side are thought to be the last phase in the transition to type H4, as the buildings of the transitional variations become less rounded over time. Another development over time was the implementation of the so called ‘short wall type z’, which created more available space indoors at the ends of the building. This could have been done to create additional enclosed spaces along the side aisles. Hiddink has also suggested that the use of short wall type z was done to create additional support for both ends of the roof (Huijbers 2014, 37-46). An overview of the layout of all the transitional house types and their characteristics can be found on the following page.
36
Fig 2.15. Overview of all the transitional house types found in the MDS region. Note that they are generalized abstractions (after Huijbers 2014, 38).
Table 2.3. Characteristics of the transitional house types in the MDS-Region (after Huijbers 2014, 41).
37
2.2.3 The discussion of the oval shaped house
During the Middle Ages a new type of house appeared on the northwest European plain: the oval shaped house. This was a break with the past as houses had always been rectangular in this area during the Prehistoric and Roman Periods. The characteristic oval shaped house quickly became the most dominant rural house type in this part of Europe, and it is not known how or why the shape entered the MDS-region. In this paragraph Huijbers’ explanation for the emergence and spread of the oval shaped houses will be given, followed by a paragraph in which other scholars offer differing opinions to that of Huijbers.
Fig 2.16. Location where the first slightly oval shaped houses can be found (after Huijbers 2018, 129).
The first scholar to identify Medieval oval shaped houses in the
Netherlands was Frans Theuws. From 475-1000 AD three phases of oval shaped houses were identified: phase 1: 475-600 AD, phase 2: 600-700 AD and phase 3: 700-1000 AD. From 475 AD onwards, the first slightly oval shaped houses turn up at excavations in Katwijk. The pronounced oval shaped houses are built upwards of the seventh century. Examples are found in Ede, Kootwijk, Zelhem and Warendorf (see fig 2.17). All of these settlements are located in a relatively small region stretching from the Middle of the Netherlands (MN) to the north of
38
Westphalia (NW) and are situated north of the Rhine and Lippe rivers and south of an inland sea called Aelmere (Huijbers 2018, 126-130). It is interesting to note that all of these early settlements are located close to or next to coastal or riverine areas, suggesting there is a connection between the oval shape of buildings and settlements situated close to water heavy areas. Later settlements date from the 8th to the 10th centuries and are located further inland, suggesting
that the concept of the oval shaped house spread over time from the riverine and coastal areas to areas further inland (see fig 2.18).
Fig 2.17. The locations of slightly oval shaped houses in the period 600-700 AD. Light blue area is a coastal area. Dark blue area is the riverine MN-NW area (after Huijbers 2018, 129).
When attempting to explain the presence and distribution of slightly oval shaped houses in the period leading up to the eighth century, a subdivision has to be made according to Huijbers between the coastal area and the inland riverine area.
39
Fig 2.18. Dispersal of the pronounced oval shaped houses in the period 700-1000 AD (after Huijbers 2018, 129).
2.2.3.1 Coastal area
To explain the presence of slightly oval shaped houses in coastal area, the investigative scope has to be widened. Three angles of approach can be used. Firstly, it fits in a worldwide pattern. Oval shaped houses appear a lot in southeast Asia and the Pacific. Their common denominator of them being on islands and near coasts. Secondly, they fit into a larger picture of oval shaped houses in Northern Europe, as oval shaped houses have been found in England and Scandinavia dating to the first millennium AD. The presence of the oval shaped house on the northwest European plain could therefore be explained as being part of this phenomenon (Huijbers 2018, 131). Finally, the building of these houses could be explained by the coastal settings. A growing presence and consciousness of maritime values could have been expressed through the architecture, in which the houses became metaphors of the inhabitants’ maritime values. This train of thought is strengthened by the comparison to other coastal regions, such as the Pacific, which also had a large number of oval shaped houses. Furthermore interactions with Scandinavia and England, possibly through trade, could have strengthened a form of ship-shape ideology.
40
The appearance of pronounced oval shaped buildings after 700 AD could be viewed as the continual importance of maritime influences and a further developing ship shaped ideology, for contact with Scandinavia and travel by boat increased in this period. Another possibility for the appearance of a pronounced oval shape in buildings during the eighth century are the religious and political changes that sweep through western Europe. In 719 AD parts of the Frisian coast became a part of the Frankish Empire. The inhabitants of these coastal areas were suddenly confronted with Frankish and Christian authority. In
response they might have had a growing urge to display their cultural identity as a sign of resistance. This could fit within a larger picture of expressing identity through ritual and material means as another scholar, Knol, identified a rise in cremation rituals and weapon burials in the northern part of the Netherlands during eighth century (Huijbers 2018, 132-133).
2.2.3.2 Inland area
Interactions with England and Scandinavia and the existence of a ship shape ideology along the coast do not explain the presence of slightly oval
shaped houses further inland along the Middle of the Netherlands and in northern Westphalia. A reason for the choice in location here could be their vicinity to inland seas and major rivers. All of the early oval shaped houses are found alongside majors rivers or near open water, suggesting that the form spread along the Dutch and German river area. It is known that so called Frisian traders traveled from the coast eastwards up the Rhine after 560 AD. It is likely that they played an important role in dispersing the oval shape along the riverine areas. It is also highly probable that oval shaped form entered Germany from the Dutch coast because all oval shaped houses that are found during this period, 475-700AD, are situated alongside rivers. None are found further inland until later.
The inland distribution of pronounced oval shaped houses in the northern part of the research area can be explained by using the shape of the house as a form of resistance to Frankish authority. The spread south, however, is more difficult. During the eighth century, some sort of influence must have been
exerted on the area south of the Rhine and Meuse rivers, whilst at the same time interactions were taking place with contacts north of these rivers. In the ninth century, these prolonged contacts between the regions could have lead to the
41
exchange and mutual adoption of material and cultural features. Identification with and emulation of the northern groups by the people in the southern MDS-region could therefore explain the southward spread of the oval shaped houses. This is further strengthened by the reorientation of their houses in a north-south direction in the ninth and tenth centuries. Political integration would also have played an important role in the spreading of the house shape, as when Frisia became part of the Frankish Empire, the people were no longer hindered by political obstacles and could use the Empires’ infrastructure more freely. Cultural integration could also have played an important part according to de Vaan and
Bruccini. They argue that a common language was spoken throughout the
western, middle and southern Netherlands, namely Franconian. It supposedly spread from 700-1000 AD and would have allowed a more effective way of conveying and exchanging both material goods and immaterial ideas and concepts (Huijbers 2014, 60-62; Huijbers 2018, 132-134).
2.2.3.3 Other explanations for the oval shaped house
Although I do not completely agree with Huijbers’ argument for the appearance and dissemination of the oval shaped house on the western
European plain, most notably with her argument that oval shaped houses appear in Southwest Asia and the Pacific as well and therefore island and coastal
habitation must equal oval shaped building plans, I do believe that there is a core of truth to the links between the origin of the oval shaped house and
maritime/riverine environments, only much closer to home.
As stated in the previous paragraph, according to Huijbers oval shaped buildings appear on the western European Plain in coastal and riverine areas and spread out from those locations over northwestern Europe. This does not seem to be a coincidence, as these coastal and riverine settlements are important locations from which trade can be conducted. Therefore there seems to be a logical connection between waterborne trade and the origin of oval shaped buildings. That connection even equates on the other side of the world in the Pacific and southeast Asia as Huijbers states, yet I do not believe that the origin of the oval shaped building is located on the western European plain.
Instead I propose the following: the origin of the oval shaped is not located on the western European plain, but in Scandinavia. Scandinavia has a
42
rich naval tradition going back to antiquity. In past excavations it was found that fishermen’s sheds were made by turning old boats upside down and putting them on poles to serve as a vault for fishing gear (Crumlin-Pedersen 2009, 161). Furthermore, it is known that the ground plans of the larger Iron Age and Viking age Scandinavian buildings have curved sides. A prime example is the large Viking fortress of Trelleborg on the island of Sjaelland. Buildings of similar shapes and sizes have been excavated throughout Scandinavia, providing evidence that this type of building ground plan had been in use throughout the 3rd
to the 12th centuries AD (Crumlin-Pedersen 2009, 161-162). The origin of the oval
shaped buildings in Scandinavia is though to be found in boat houses. These buildings were built to house boats of up to 30-35 meters and had to be built particularly solid in western Norway to withstand strong winds and winter storms.
Fig 2.19. The 10th century Viking fortress of Trelleborg on Sjaelland. Note the large number of oval
43
In order to fit this function with a minimal amount of timber incorporated into the roofs, the building would naturally get an oval shape. This oval shape would concurrently reduce the effects of weather related stresses on the roofs. When a boat was stored in the building there would be no place for a fireplace, but during the sailing season it would be empty and therefore an ideal place to host all sorts of activities. Therefore these buildings provided an excellent
inspiration for architectural concepts when building custom halls for Scandinavian chieftains in the Late Roman Period and the centuries leading up to the Viking Age (Crumlin-Pedersen 2009, 162). These architectural concepts/this building tradition was then spread by trade, commerce or warfare to the western European Plain. It is no coincidence that the first appearance of oval shaped building are located in the riverine and coastal areas of the Low Countries, as Scandinavian traders, settlers and warriors traveled by boat and conducted trade and settled in locations which were easily accessible by boat.
Fig 2.20. Scandinavian trade routes during the Viking Age (Ahlström Arcini 2018,40).
Thus, the building concept of the oval shaped house has a strong maritime/seafaring connection embedded into the culture of its builders as Huijbers stated, however currently their origin points to being located in Scandinavian and its boat houses, not on the Western European Plain.
44
2.2.3.4 On the diffusion of ideas
Building on the previous paragraphs, it is highly likely that the
characterizing oval shape of houses was introduced to the MDS-region through the process of diffusion. In the 1960s Everett Rogers, a professor in
communication studies, published a book called The Diffusion of Innovations, in which a number of elements are presented which influence the spread of a new idea. One element that he identified was that the speed in which an innovation was adopted, could be translated to a normal distribution. On this normal distribution five categories could be distinguished in the adoption curve:
innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority and laggards, see figure 2.21 (Rogers 1995, 22 ; Huijbers 2014, 60-62).
Explaining why a new idea is adopted is based on a number of elements according to Rogers. He identified five, namely compatibility, relative advantage, trailabilty, complexity and observability. An idea has to be compatible with the worldview, past experiences and needs of the potential adopters for them to even consider it. It must also offer an advantage over the idea it replaced. The level of complexity also plays an important part, for a difficult to understand idea will have more implementation problems than an idea that is easy to understand. Finally, the idea has to be observable and one must be able to experiment with it.
If all these conditions are met, i.e., the innovation yields more that it costs, it is compatible with the worldview of the adopters, the level of complexity
matches with what the potential adopters can handle and the idea is observable and trialable, the idea will be adopted more quickly and will be more readily disseminated than ideas that do not have these characteristics (Huijbers 2014, 63-65; Rogers 1995, 1-37).
Fig 2.21. Normal distribution based on Rogers’ research into adoption of innovations (Huijbers 2014, 62).
45
This bell shaped curve could also be used in understanding the differing phases of house types and the spread of the oval shaped house over time. The only problem being that it is not exactly known when a house type was
introduced and when it was discontinued. But, if we use Rogers’ model, it can be assumed that when a large number of house types with the same archaeological construction date are found, they were preceded by a phase in which relatively few were built, see fig 2.22. Since each house type was found and identified on a number of occasions, a relatively large data set is present. In this dataset, a peak can be observed for each house type when it was most used. The construction date of house types that have been found more frequent can be seen to have a larger temporal distribution. It is therefore reasonable to assume that the distribution of houses which have been found more frequently have a more realistic distribution than house types which have been found less frequently. Based on the temporal distribution of the differing house types in the MDS-region, Huijbers created an overview of the differing adoption phases per house type, see table 2.4 (Huijbers 2014, 60-65).
If one attempts to explain or translate each of Rogers’ elements of diffusion onto the innovation of the oval shaped house, one could argue the following: The earliest occurrences of oval shaped buildings occur in the coastal and riverine areas of the Low Countries. This is due to them having a strong maritime culture of their own and their links with Scandinavian traders, which made the Scandinavian concept of the oval shaped house compatible with the inhabitants of the coastal and riverine areas of the Low countries. Secondly, the oval shaped building offered an advantage over the rectangular Late Caroline buildings as the oval shaped building required less timber to construct and it was structurally stronger. Thirdly, the concept was trialable. Local inhabitants could build an oval shaped house and test it out. If they did not like it, or if it was deemed not strong enough, they could go back to building the rectangular Late Caroline buildings. Fourthly, as the oval shaped house has many similarities with boathouses, the complexity of the concept oval shaped building should be oversee able for seafaring people and riverine traders. Finally, the oval shaped building is distinctly dissimilar from its Late Caroline predecessors. A new oval shaped building being built in an area with rectangular houses will definitely stand
46
out. Therefore Rogers’ final concept of observability also applies to the oval shaped house.
Fig 2.22. The use of varying house types over time. The thick red lines show the period in which that particular house type was most commonly found. The arrows depict the exchange of ideas and
influence between the periods (after Huijbers 2014, 68).
Table 2.4. The differing phases per house type when Rogers’ normal distribution is applied (after Huijbers 2014, 64).
47
2.2.4 Outbuildings
Besides main buildings, which were used by man and animals for inhabiting, there were also outbuildings. These were primarily used as storage buildings for livestock, crops or to dry hay and were used during the whole Medieval period. Sometimes these buildings are also found at archaeological excavations consisting Modern Age contents. Huijbers differentiates eight different types of outbuildings in her thesis. Her most important classification criterions are the lines of roof post pairs in combination with the curvature of the long walls (Huijbers 2007, 145). Furthermore she differentiates two types of outbuildings, namely temporary outbuildings, which are similar in shape and size to main buildings, and lasting outbuildings, which occur throughout the entire Medieval Period (Huijbers 2007, 146). Huijbers created her typology of Medieval outbuildings based on their similarities with outbuildings from the Modern Period (Huijbers 2007, 146). This means that she projected the functions of outbuildings from the Modern Period onto the outbuildings of the High Medieval period, which could be dangerous as the function and meaning of buildings can change over the course of centuries.
48
2.2.4.1 Outbuilding type B0
Buildings of type B0 are circular, single post hay barracks. It can be differentiated from the other outbuildings by the presence of a single post with a large circular ditch around it. Based on Medieval sources, outbuildings of this type were primarily used as storage sheds. This outbuilding type is not bound to any specific period in the Middle Ages. It is characterized as a lasting outbuilding type (Huijbers 2007, 148-152).
2.2.4.2 Outbuilding type B1
Outbuildings of type B1 are angled hay barracks consisting of either three, four or five posts. These angled building shapes are also the most typical and most recognizable feature of type B1. There is no archaeological evidence that these buildings also had walls, but it is not unthinkable. Outbuildings of this type are more commonly referred to as haystacks, as they were primarily used for the storage and drying of hay. This use of this outbuilding type is neither bound to a specific period in the Middle Ages, for it was used throughout the time period (Huijbers 2007. 152-159).
Fig 2.24. Ground plans of an outbuilding of type B1 (after Huijbers 2007, 154).
2.2.4.3 Outbuilding type B2
Outbuildings of type B2 are easily recognizable by their square shape. They consist of two pairs of roof posts, but it is unknown if these outbuildings also had walls. If they did have walls, they could either have been placed between the
49
roof posts, making the walls part of the structures’ skeleton, or on the outside of the skeleton. During an excavation in the Dutch village of Lieshout, an outbuilding of this type was found in conjunction with a ditch located on the outside of the structure. This ditch could possibly have been used as a foundation for a wall on the outside of the structure’s skeleton. It could, however, also have functioned as a drip for the rain. These outbuildings were generally used as a storage place for both dried hay as for grain and Huijbers suggests that outbuildings of this type differ from type B1 based on the length of storage. Outbuildings of type B1 have a stronger skeleton through the use of five or six posts (Huijbers 2007, 159-162).
Fig 2.25. Ground plan of an outbuilding of type B2 (after Huijbers 2007, 158).
2.2.4.4 Outbuilding type B3
Outbuildings of type B3 are similar to the H0 house types, for they are long rectangular buildings with a straight course of roof posts and have either long rectangular shaped long walls or rounded long walls. This depends on how the closing posts are incorporated into the structure. This type of outbuilding has at least three, and as much as seven roof post pairs. Another notable factor is that these buildings can be found with none, one or two closing pair posts on either short side of the building. They are occur from approximately 900-1250 AD. Sizes of this outbuilding type differ during different periods in the Middle ages. Buildings of this type built before 1125 AD are usually smaller than those built after 1125. Differences in the total surface area of the floors have also been
50
observed, from as little as 20 square meters to as much as 225. Based on these findings, a rough subdivision can be made. Buildings built before 1125 AD are usually small, those built between 1125 and 1175 AD are of either small of medium size, and those built after 1175 AD are of either small, medium or large size. This type of outbuilding is another in the sequence of outbuildings used throughout the High Middle Ages and based on similarities with similar buildings dated to the Modern Period, were most likely used as cattle barns or grain threshing sheds (Huijbers 2007, 162-176).
51
2.2.4.5 Outbuilding type B4
Outbuildings of this type are virtually the same as the main buildings of house type H1. They both have a straight course of roof posts combined with curved long walls and because they are both so similar, it is difficult to
differentiate one from another. Nonetheless, Huijbers argues that differences between the building types H1 and B4 can be determined through the positioning of these buildings relative to other present farm yard elements. And although they seem to be related in some way to one another, outbuilding type B4 has a much longer period in which it was built and used, namely from 900-1200 AD.
However, the date of 1200 AD is based on a single structure of this type and its estimated age is not entirely certain.
52
This outbuilding also differs from its predecessor through the
implementation of curved long walls. The size of these buildings is also a lot smaller, for they encompass an average of 80 square meters. However, this could be distorting because they are found in very few numbers. At present, the function of this type of outbuilding is still unknown (Huijbers 2007, 176-181).
2.2.4.6 Outbuilding type B5
Outbuildings of type B5 are similar to house type H2 and H3 because of their size and shape, but differ in the incorporation of closing posts. Unlike houses of types H2 and H3 which have two closing posts on the short sides, outbuildings of type B5 have either no closing posts or just one on each short side. And because either no, or just a single, closing posts was used the entrance is thought to have been on the long sides of the building. This
outbuilding type is characterized by its implementation of a curved course of roof bearing posts in combination of curved long walls. Build dates of this type vary, but they are almost exclusively built after 1100 AD. The size of this building also varies. Small, medium and large versions have been found. Similar to the large versions of type B3, the large versions of this type that were excavated were also almost all built after 1125 AD. Based on parallels with similar buildings from the Modern Period, this outbuilding type was most likely used as a sheep pen or as a shed (Huijbers 2007, 181-188).
53
Fig 2.28. Ground plans of different variations on outbuilding type B5 (after Huijbers 2007, 182).
2.2.4.7 Outbuilding type B6
Outbuildings of this type are similar to house type H3, for they both have a skeleton in which one line of post pairs are curved and the other line of post pairs are straight. Both buildings also have curved long walls. Only a handful of
buildings that were classed as type B6 have been found, all of which dated to the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Because outbuildings of type B6 have a similar build as buildings of type B5, it is highly likely that they both had the same function, namely that of a cattle barn or a shed (Huijbers 2007, 189).
2.2.4.8 Outbuilding type B7
The last of the outbuilding types, this type of building has an iconic cone shaped structure which separated it from the other outbuildings. This type of outbuilding implements the use of a slanted course of roof posts in combination with a slanted course of long walls. The shortest end has a single closing post
