Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T00:31:50.320Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pits and Pit-dwellings in Southeast Europe*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Werner Buttler
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In connexion with the publication of the report on the neolithic settlement at Koln-Lindenthal I undertook, in the autumn of 1933, with the support of the Notgemeinschaft der deutschen Wissenschaft, two months’ exploration in Hungary, Rumania and Jugoslavia. Apart from museum researches in prehistory the chief object of this journey was to study the building methods of the primitive peasant cultures in these countries. In compiling the report on the ‘band keramik’ settlement at Koln-Lindenthal it was found necessary, in order to elucidate many of the finds, to compare them with ethnographic material from settlements peopled by primitive peasants in modern Europe. This method proved no less helpful than when employed earlier by Oelmann, Menghinl and others in dealing with other prehistoric studies. Prehistoric cultures invariably comprise objects the use of which can only be ascertained by comparison with cognate ethnographic or cultural material. For, owing to the conservative character of the peasant, modern primitive peasant cultures have retained certain structures and institutions which are derived, without a doubt, from archaic, even neolithic prototypes. Comparison of modern material with our prehistoric finds by no means postulates a direct historic connexion between the two, especially when the objects compared are widely separated in place, culture, nationality and race. Rather is ethnography called in to furnish a sound basis for assumptions about our finds by relating them to similar phenomena of modern times.

Type
Research Article
Information
Antiquity , Volume 10 , Issue 37 , March 1936 , pp. 25 - 36
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd 1936

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

From the Bonner Jahrbücher, CXXXIX, 134–44, Darmstadt, 1934, by permission of the Editor.

References

1 Oelmann, F. ‘Hausurnen oder Speicherurnen?’ Bonn. Jahrb, 134 p.iff.; Google Scholar ‘Das Speichermodell von Melos’ Athen. MittlL, p.19 ff.;Google Scholar Menghin, Weltgeschichte der Steinzeit Vienna 1930.Google Scholar

2 Personal communication from Dr Nestor of Bucharest.

3 Miete, stack : the word originally denoted a heap of beet or the like stacked in a pit ; later it was used for the pit.

4 Photos in the Ethnographic Museum, Budapest.

5 Personal communication from Professor Vuia of Klausenburg (Kluj).

6 Cf. Söregi, J. Das Problem der in die Erde gegrabenen bienenkorbf&rmigen Gruben Debreczin,1932 Google ScholarSöregi’s identification of the conical pits as clay-pits connected with pot-making cannot be accepted as of universal validity. His main arguments against the theory that they were storage-pits-that the walls of modern storage-pits are always fired and that conical- or hive-shaped pits are found only in clay soil-are by no means always applicable.

7 Cf. Buttler, and Haberey,Die bandkeramische Ansiedlung von Köln-Lindenthal, p.21 (5)Google Scholar

8 Anz.f. eis. Alt., 1910, 5, p. 217 ff

9 Germania, 1923, vm, 82, fig. 1 (Kb).

10 Anz.f. Schweiz. Alt.1913 xv, p. 1 ff, fig. 3, pit 32;Bonn. Jahrb., 139, p. 211.

11 Op. cit., pi. 21 (7).

12 Bonn. Jahrb., 122, plan, pi. xxiv, pits 67, 77.

13 Schriften des Hist. Mus. d. Stadt Frankfurt/M, u, p. 55, fig. 1, pit 7.

14 Personal communication from Dr Petrovic, Ethnographic Museum, Belgrade.

15 Cf. Cf. Oelmann, Haus und Hof im Altertum 1927 1, 11.Google Scholar

16 Cf. Germania 1934 xvni, 144 ;Google Scholar Westdeutscher Beobachter 1934 no. 436 (26 Sept.).Google Scholar

17 Cf. Hungary: Ebner, Mag. Ném. Múz. Népr. Taranak Ért 1912 8, 165;Google Scholar 1929, 21 4 ff. Rumania : Plopsor, Bull. Soc. Reg. Romane de Geogr. in Bucar esti, 1922 XLI, 124 ff ;Google Scholar Jäneke, Das rumänische Bauern- und Bojarenhaus, Bucharest 1918; Google Scholar JakobiKastell Zugmantel (Obergerm.-rhätische Limes no. 8), p. 23ff, figs. 1-3.Google Scholar Albania: Haberland Kulturwiss. Beitr. z. Völkerkunde von Montenegro, Albanien und SerbienVienna,1917,p. 56 ff. Google Scholar Poland: Griesebach: Das polnische Bauernhaus p.11, fig. 3. Google Scholar France : ViolIet-le-Duc: Dictionnaire de Varchitecture francaise 6 p.293 ff.Google Scholar Northeast Europe : Hellwald: Haus und Hof 1888 p.66ff;Google Scholar Bielenstein, Holzbauten und Holzgeräte der Letten p.56ff;Google Scholar Martha Bielenstein, Mannus 1932,24 p.231ff.Google Scholar

18 Sirelius, Finnisch-ugrische Forschungen 1907 7, 106 ff, fig. 74 ;Google Scholar Ratzel Völker-kunde Ii, fig. no. 436 p.765; Google Scholar Buschan Illustr. Völkerkunde(Asien), pp.298,350; Google Scholar SchurzUrgeschichte der Kulturp.422.Google Scholar

19 Sarfert, Archiv, f. Anthr., N.F. 7, P.130ff;Google Scholar Anthropos 1909, 6,590, fig. 17, 18.Google Scholar

20 Schachtzabel, Suppl. to vol. 11 of Internat. Arch. f. Ethn., p. 58 (Temben). At Horns in Tripolis I measured in 1932 a rectangular Arab pit-dwelling sunk £ m. into the ground. It resembled the pit-stable in fig. 10 described pp. 34-35.

21 Ebner, op. dt., 1929, xxi, 4, fig. 5.

22 Plopsor, ‘Bordeiul in Oltenia ’, Bull. Soc. Reg. Romàne de Geogr. in Bucaresti, 1922, XLi, 124 if.

23 Photos in the picture collection of the Ethnographic Museum, Budapest.

24 Personal communication from Dr Ebner of the Ethnographic Museum, Budapest.