Dwellings, Identities and Homes

Dwellings, Identities and Homes European Housing Culture from the Viking Age to the Renaissance

Edited by Mette Svart Kristiansen & Kate Giles

Dwellings, Identities and Homes

1

Dwellings, Identities and Homes European Housing Culture from the Viking Age to the Renaissance Edited by Mette Svart Kristiansen & Kate Giles

Jutland archaeological Society 3

Dwellings, Identities and Homes European Housing Culture from the Viking Age to the Renaissance © The authors and Jutland Archaeological Society 2014 Layout & prepress: Louise Hilmar Cover: Louise Hilmar English revision: Jens Damm Type: Palatino Linotype Printed by Narayana Press, Gylling Front cover: A bourgeois family at home, print by Benedict Buchpinder, Augsburg 1488 Printed in Denmark ISBN: 978-87-88415-89-6 ISSN: 0107-2854 Jutland Archaeological Society Publications Vol. 84 Published by: Jutland Archaeological Society Moesgaard Museum DK-8270 Højbjerg Distributed by: Aarhus University Press Langelandsgade 177 DK-8200 Aarhus N www.unipress.dk

Published with financial support of:

The Aarhus University Research Foundation Queen Margrethe II´s Archaeological Foundation

4

Contents

7 Introduction Kate Giles & Mette Svart Kristiansen

Part 1. Exploring Domestic and Social Space 13 Ways of Living in Medieval England Kate Giles 29 Human Spatial Behaviour in Dwellings and Social Psychology Ole Grøn 39 The Investigation of Domesticated Space in Archaeology – Architecture and Human Beings Thomas Kühtreiber 53 The Investigation of Domesticated Space in Archaeology – Beyond Architecture Christina Schmid

Part 2. Regions and Regionality 67 The Rural Home. Local or ’European’ Style? Eva Svensson 79 ‘The Schleswig Farmstead’ – A Key to the Dynamics of Culture in the Danish-German Borderland from Medieval to Recent Times Peter Dragsbo 87 Medieval Turf Houses in Jutland, Denmark – A Regional Building Practice? Charlotte Boje Hilligsø Andersen & Anne-Louise Haack Olsen 97 Islands Across the Sea – Aspects of Regionality in the Norse North Atlantic Diaspora Mogens Skaaning Ravnsbjerg Høegsberg

5

Part 3. Houses, Homes and Social Strategies 113 Houses and Households in Viking Age Scandinavia – Some Case Studies Sarah Croix 127 Opening Doors – Entering Social Understandings of the Viking Age Longhouse Anna S. Beck 139 “Þat var háttr í þann tíma” – Representations of the Viking Age and Medieval Houses in Grettis saga Teva Vidal 149 Proper Living – Exploring Domestic Ideals in Medieval Denmark Mette Svart Kristiansen 163 Form and Function in the Late Medieval Rural House – An example from the Weald and Downland Open Air Museum, Sussex Danae Tankard 175 A House is Not Just a Home – Means of Display in English Medieval Gentry Buildings Jill Campbell 185 Smoke Houses and Entrepreneurship in Two Rural Villages of Medieval Scania, Örja and Skegrie Adam Bolander 195 The ‘Stube’ and its Heating – Archaeological Evidence for a Smoke-Free Living Room between Alps and North Sea Rainer Atzbach 211 Medieval Houses in Aalborg, Denmark – a Study of Excavated Timber Houses Christian G. Klinge 223 Burned-down Timber-framed Houses in Medieval Odense, Denmark Anne Katrine Thaastrup-Leth 231 The House as a Social Project in Northern-Central Italy, c 700-1000 Paola Galetti 243 The Development of Dutch Townhouses 700-1300 Jeroen Bouwmeester 255 List of Contributors

6

The Investigation of Domesticated Space in Archaeology – Architecture and Human Beings Thomas Kühtreiber Abstract Houses do not only reflect social structures, in many cultural context the idea of ‘house’ and ‘households’ is used as a metaphor in philosophical and religious discourse. Thus we may assume that the material relicts of houses offer traces through which it is possible to decode and interpret features as materialisations of social space. The paper delineates recent theoretical and methodological approaches which seek to explore the integration of human actors into debates about houses as crucial elements through which cultural identities were constructed in the past.

Introduction What does it mean “to make oneself at home in the world” from the human perspective (Ingold 2000: 172)? As Tim Ingold points out, there are strong similarities between human or animal inhabitations, because both act based on their biological and social needs and the environmental resources available to them (Ingold 2000: 173f). Antique and post-antique texts emphasize another approach, however, associated with structuring of the environment through design and the idea of ‘order’. Quoting Xenophon “There is nothing, which is so useful and beautiful to mankind like order”. Only when all things are on their proper place, a household can be kept in divine sense (Xenophon 1828: 1090). Therefore it can be suggested that the arrangement of things reflects social systems. A concept familiar in both antiquity and the Middle Ages is the term ‘household’. The household as a model of ‘god-given’ social order may refer to the family unit (in culturally differing structures) as well as to the whole community (see further Lemmer 1991; Meyer 1998; Richarz 1991). In this context one has to keep in mind that the concept of household is not always identical with that of the house. Whereas

in many societies the household is the smallest social unit of a community, houses are physical units, which may be congruent with household but may also be part of more complex household systems. Nevertheless, the metaphorical use of the term ‘house’ is deeply related to concepts of dynasty and descent. Thus conceptions of houses reflect models of communities and beyond this, ‘world views’ reflecting transcendence (see Derks 1996; critical: Opitz 1994; Weiß 2001). Houses can therefore be analyzed both as social categories and as physical structures. From a sociological point of view, space can be seen as a system of social goods or of people, which/ who concurrently define a social order (Löw 2001: 234). Space becomes constituted by iterative interaction between social activities and social structures; it is result and pre-condition of individual and social behavior (Löw, Steets & Stoetzer 2008: 63, see also for this and the following C. Schmid in this volume). Therefore, space is not only the setting for activities, but also the product of them. People arrange objects as well as themselves, and thereby influence spatial organization; thus human actors are the crucial factors in the social constitution of space. However,

H u m a n S p a t i a l B e h av i o u r i n D w e l l i n g s a n d S o c i a l Ps y c h o l o g y

39

artifacts are not merely as passive objects. They affect the qualities of space by means of the senses and perception (ie smells, sounds). Space can therefore only be fully analyzed by looking at the relationships between all of these constitutive elements (Löw, Steets & Stoetzer 2008: 65). This approach can be applied particularly to architecture in the sense of the ‘built environment’ (for the term see Rapoport 1990: 13): Buildings constitute and represent social realities through their spatial organization (see also Hillier & Hanson 1987: 198). Therefore they bear social and cultural information in their design and structure. Both elements of spatial organization are used as social media to exercise control over activities inside of the building (Allison 2002: 1). Bearing these points in mind the paper will focus on three methodological aspects: place and space in built environments, detecting individuals and collective as actors within housing culture and networks and boundaries as metaphors for social as well as for architectural studies.

Place and space in built environments The theoretical framing of building history and building archaeology within cultural studies coincides with recent theoretical developments in the field of landscape archaeology. In both cases mankind is studied as a knowledgeable being acting within a particular historical perspective. The main question which has arisen in both these contexts in the last two decades is how identity is constructed spatially. I would suggest that the answer to this is embedded within the idea of ‘colonization’. Colonization is the concept of the transforming process from natural to cultural environment (see for example the pioneering work of the Center for Environmental History, University of Klagenfurt in cooperation with Rolf-Peter Sieferle 1997). Of course, humans are not only biological and social organisms but as Tim Ingold (2000: 172) notes, they are ‘divided’ between the biological and cultural sphere, and are therefore active mediators between these two milieus.

40

T h o m a s K üh t r e i b e r

By acting intentionally in the natural environment, human beings transform ecofacts into artifacts, and these artifacts integrate ‘ecological’ qualities or information, such as material, and cultural information, such as design. Moreover, humans build the ‘bridge’ between these two spheres not only by transforming the shapes and substance of the physical world, but also by giving all these phenomena specific cultural meanings. It can be argued that it is less important to understand whether a concept of things precedes the production of the material objects or vice versa. What is important is that the mental act of giving meaning to specific objects within the perceived world is a means of acculturation. Following Ingold (2002: 173), inhabiting the world can be understood as the main human practice of acculturation. In terms of spatial analysis these inhabited spheres can be correlated with physical space on the one hand and the cognitive space on the other, filtered by human perception and imagination (Hartmann 1980, see also: Doneus & Kühtreiber 2013). From this perspective, landscape is understood as both physical and cognitive space. Physical space is the basic framework, transformed by intentional and by unconscious acts of individuals and collectives. Places play a central role in this model of humans as spatial actors; they are the nodal points, around which a network of human communicative interaction with the environment occurs. Individual as well as collective experiences are memorized spatially and therefore play a crucial role in the development and stability of both individual and collective identities, as lieux de memoire (Csaky 2004; Löw 2001). It is interesting that places are often only perceived when they appear on the ‘radar screen’ of subjective attitudes or needs. They become spatially-bound resources, loaded with meaning by individual or social expectations. Such places do not simply exist on the large scale, they also become freighted with meaning in small-scale settlements and buildings. Once again, memory plays an important role in this process. Story-telling and shared ‘acting out’ of collective memories is one way in which we know this occurs ethnologically. The problem for archaeologists is that we do not always know these tales and stories. We are cultural outsiders and have to try and

decode or decipher these multiple meanings from the traces they leave behind. It is therefore often easier to understand the collective, rather than the individual meanings of culture, drawing on Klaus P. Hansen’s (2009: 17-19) understanding of culture as a process and product of the standardization of individual attitudes and acting habits. Since culture requires a communicative agreement of the collective society or community, then individual attitudes and habits can be understood as part of a larger cultural canon. We therefore need to explore whether we can detect the relationship between the cultural life of the individual and the collective in the archaeological record.

The Individual and the Collective In this paper there is not enough space to reconsider the last 20 years’ discussion of the implementation of sociological approaches in theoretical archaeology. However, one of the main areas of discussion within this field has been the issue of how to represent the individual actor’s perspective and agency in the interpretation of archaeological evidence. Of course, as Schmid discusses in this volume, not all human activities produced archaeological records and there are multiple filters in the transformation of past social activity into archaeological contexts. One way of approaching this is to acknowledge that physical traces of human behaviour are relicts of former meaningful action or agency, because every human being acts in a culturally- and temporallyspecific environment and social position, and operates with a certain level of technological knowledge and competences. These create possibilities as well as limitations for intentional and unconscious forms of behavior, but nevertheless, make each social action meaningful and, because they are influenced by the individual’s enculturation, also rational and logical. This approach, known as the ‘structural-individualistic approach’, and pioneered by Siegwart Lindenberg (1985), sees humans as Resourceful, Restricted, Expecting, Evaluating, Maximizing Man (RREEMM-Model). The relationship between individuals and collectives can be theorized using the macro-micro-macro-Model of

Hypothetical link

Social situation

,macro’

Bridge hypothesis

Explanandum

Precept of aggregation ,micro’

Agent

Precept of action

Individual action

Figure 1. Macro-micro-macro-Model after Coleman (‘Coleman’s bathtub‘).

James Samuel Coleman (2010; Figure 1). Here, culture is seen as an aggregate which stands in an unknown relationship to individual phenomena. This requires the development of a ‘bridge hypothesis’ to explain the relationships between individual behavior and wider social and cultural contexts. Volker Kunz (2004: 107ff) proposes four different ways of bridging this issue: – the testing of different assumptions through simulations (‘analytic constructions’) – the postulation of ‘obvious’, common sense ideas – the theory of social production functions (see also Lindenberg 1996) – direct empirical construction through questioning and written documents In the following example two of these methodological approaches will be applied to one specific phenomenon in rural architecture. Looking on houses as ‘social goods’ (point 3) the paper explores the possible functions but also symbolic meanings of particular architectural features within a specific cultural context. This is achieved first, by the comparative analysis of the building type in space and time, and second, through the evaluation of the hypothesis in the context of contemporary written sources (point 4).

The tower and the castle: bridging cultural norms It is possible to explore the relationship between collective cultural norms and individual perceptions and actions in the context of high-status domestic

T h e I n v e s ti g a ti o n o f D o m e s ti c a t e d S p a c e i n A r c h a e o l o g y – A r c h it e c t u r e a n d H u m a n B e i n g s

41

buildings in medieval Europe through the motif of the tower. From the 9th/10th centuries onwards, towers, together with surrounding walls and great halls, became one of the key elements of castle buildings. Indeed, towers sometimes stand in documentary, literary sources for the idea of the castle itself, since they comprise the iconographic features of a high building with massive walls, crowned with battlements, prominent entrances and windows (Kühtreiber 2009: 65-67; Wheatley 2004: 29). From the 13th century onwards, it is possible to identify attempts across Europe to legislate or regulate the construction of castles, in contradistinction to ‘normal’ buildings. A building needed permission if it was higher than two storeys, had a surrounding fence or wall higher than a horseman was able to reach with his hands, sitting on his horse, and had an entrance set higher than knee-level (Kühtreiber 2009: 64). These criteria of height are also reflected in the German word used for a castle, ‘Burg’, which is related to ‘Berg’ (mountain) and means ‘guarding by being founded in a high position’ (Gebuhr & Gebuhr 2001: 421f). If we take a look at the architectural spread of tower-like buildings in Middle Europe we find a group of architectural complexes which seem to oscillate between castles and farmsteads (Figure 2). On the one hand, they do not feature fortifications such as moats, ramparts or massive surrounding

walls; on the other these farmstead complexes contain tower houses, which are sometimes integrated in the main building, and sometimes standing isolated in the farmstead area. The impression of a high-status building was consolidated by the provision of a decorative façade which highlighted the details of doors, windows and angles (Figure 3). In the scholarly debate many of these building complexes are regarded as ‘castles at low level’, sometimes identified with medieval terms like curia or curtis (Kühtreiber & Reichhalter 2009; Kühtreiber & Reichhalter forthcoming). These buildings parallel tower houses in the border regions of England as well as more secular ‘fortified manor houses’, which often acquired licences to crenellate in England during the same period (Johnson 2002: 23f). The example of the castle and the tower can be used as a means of illustrating the potential of bridge hypotheses discussed above. The castle was perceived within society as a high status building, built by those at the upper levels of society. Over time, one defining element of the castle, namely the tower, was appropriated by those lower down the social scale. The explanation of this process can be developed in relation to what has been described as the etic/outsider or emic/insider-position (Doneus & Kühtreiber 2013). In order to explore these ideas further it is necessary to think about the original

Figure 2. ‘Kälberhof’ farmstead, Lower Austria, with tower-house. Photo author 2008.

42


Figure 3. Storage building in Lungau, Salzburg (Austria). Photo Gerhard Reichhalter.

motivations of the builders of castles, which, following Rössler (1999: 76f) can be conceptualized as both meeting well-being or biological needs and creating social esteem. Medieval castles clearly fulfilled both of these functions. Castles might indeed provide effective military protection but their design also represented and symbolized the capacity to enact military authority without this actually needing to be enacted (Kühtreiber 2009; see also Creighton 2002: 65ff; Liddiard 2005: 46ff). Over time, towers appropriated this symbolic meaning and thus it is possible to find towers integrated into castles which served little or no military function but rather reflected the power of lords over surrounding landscapes, settlements and households. Reviewing the evidence of more than 60 surviving ‘tower-like’ buildings as parts of farmsteads of the 13th to the 18th centuries in the Eastern parts of

Austria, reveals important evidence of their function (Kühtreiber & Reichhalter 2009). Most of the ’towers’ have at least two entrances, one at ground level or leading into a basement, the other set at a slightly higher level. The windows of these towers are often very small and secured with grills, but only very few of them have formal features of fortification, such as battlements or arrow or gun loops. Moreover, in contrast to ‘normal castles’ there is no evidence either for the provision of residential functions such as heating, water provision, toilets etc. So if these were neither military or residential, what was their original function? Here, it is useful to look more closely at their relationship to other buildings within the farmstead. Sometimes, tower buildings are integrated in another building; normally a 3-5room structure which features a central entrance at the longside of the building with residential and cooking rooms toward the principle façade and the tower building to the rear (Figure 4). An alternative variation on this layout features a two-storey structure which has a larger mass and form than the rest of the building, but which is not a tower per se. Archaeological investigations in high-medieval deserted villages in Moravia suggests that this morphological structure has its origin in the dual function of single-room dwelling houses with storage pits. From the 13th century onwards, the storage pit was replaced by massive buildings, which became gradually integrated in the dwelling house by the construction of a corridor (Frolec 1982; Nekuda 2003). It can therefore be suggested that the towers of late medieval and early modern farmsteads in Austria functioned as storage buildings and that their ‘fortified’ features were protective, rather than militaristic in function and in meaning. These massive buildings, which included vaults at first-floor level preventing the spread of fire, whilst their small windows and high-level entrances protected the goods within from daylight, humidity and rodents. From this perspective, such storage towers have clear precedents in the wooden buildings known as ‘Rutenberge’ or ‘Bergfried’ in German, a term which itself seems to be borrowed from medieval castle terminology, as Hermann Hinz (1971; see also Zimmermann 1991; 1995) suggests.


43

Figure 4. ‘Dietmar‘ farmstead, Dürnstein, Styria (Austria). Groundplan and interpretation: Gerhard Reichhalter.

This interpretation provides a means of returning to the idea of the ‘bridge hypothesis’ outlined above. The lives of the builders of these farmstead ‘towers’ and storage builders were rooted in the ‘rural sphere’, where the precious goods stored within such buildings were the basis of livelihood, economic welfare and thus the status of the household. At one level, these meanings might seem very different to the symbolic meanings of high-status castle towers discussed above. Yet such towers were also often used for storage functions. Further light can be shed on the meanings of these structures by returning to the insider-emic perspective mentioned above, and to the legislative requirements of castle building. Importantly, two of the three criteria outlined above, namely the number of floors and the highleveled position, characterize such storage towers. Indeed, a closer inspection of multiple storey towers

44


reveals that all of them are built against a slope, presenting ‘3 floors’ to visitors (Figure 5). The entrances, too, fit the criteria of the castle. All storage towers have high-level entrances into the first or second floors; however, many also feature a second entrance, into basement level. Using these criteria it is possible to draw a fine distinction between storage buildings and aristocratic towers, which is also reflected in another aspect of the latter, which is not regulated in contemporary land laws. Whilst the wall thickness of storage buildings is usually between 0.9 m-1.2 m (3-4 feet), most of the castle towers have wall thicknesses over 1.5 m and more. The fact that wall thickness was also part of the cultural norms of tower construction is indicated by a tantalizing reference in a charter dated to 1262 between Abbot Hermann of Niederaltaich and his vassal Tyrolf of Purchstal. In it the abbot forbid Tyrolf from completing the construction

of a tower, permitting him rather to store his possessions in a cellarium which was to have walls no thicker than 3 feet (Chmel 1848: Nr. 36). In summary, it is possible to suggest that ‘towers’ in late medieval or early modern farmsteads fulfilled two functions. They protected agricultural goods and were thus of crucial importance for the socio-economic well-being and status of the owner, his family and his household. Ethnographic sources reveal the enduring importance of both crops and household tools and objects for family members at this level of society (Hinz 1981: 99ff). However, this valuable socio-economic function was communicated to the outside world through the appropriation of the symbolic militaristic meaning of the tower from contemporary aristocratic architecture.

Networks and Boundaries: Architecture as social mirror? This paper started by exploring useful sociological models for explaining intercultural phenomena, particularly the relationship between past social structures and forms of architectural and spatial organization. Archaeologists must also, however, model the ways in which these cultural and spatial

relationships change over time. Two models propose themselves here. The first is the classic metaphor for biological and social evolution, namely the ‘life tree’ (Ingold 2000: 134ff). This is a model for how initial ideas grow and develop over time and space. For Ingold this metaphor informs genealogical concepts of cultural development, where descent plays a crucial role in identity, either defining your place in a community based on your ancestors or by integrating ancestor cults in everyday life. In contrast, Deleuze and Guattari (1988: 15) propose what they term the ‘Rhizome model’, where the idea of a network is used to explain how the individual actor defines his/her position in the world in a dynamic and communicative relation to all other participants, whether living or non-living objects. Although the latter seems more appropriate for our understanding of the modern world, the genealogical model has considerable resonance with antique and medieval emphases on divine and patriarchial order, in society and at household level (Handzel 2011: 26ff; Schmidt 2008: 302). It is possible, for example, to see this reflected in concepts of the household having an inner sphere, which has its center at the hearth fire and is connoted to the housewife, whereas the outer sphere including the economic and social interaction with the ‘world outside’ is the male side of the

Figure 5. ‘Moar‘ farmstead, Adendorf, Styria (Austria): View from the Southeast. Photo Gerhard Reichhalter.


45

Figure 6. Pürnstein Castle, Upper Austria: Groundplan. After Götting 1976.

household (Wigley 1992). Although there are no contemporary documentary or literary sources which shed specific light on the structuring frameworks behind the organization of domestic space within farmhouses in medieval Central Europe, it might be possible to map this binary opposition of inside/ female: outside/male spheres onto the layout of the typical Central European late medieval farmhouse of the ‘Middle-Corridor-Type’ plan, which is divided into residential/domestic: storage/service functions. Such a division can also be argued to exist in high-status architecture, and here, it is possible to compare architecture and written sources in some specific examples. In the middle of the 15th century members of the landlords of Starhemberg built a new castle in Pürnstein, Upper Austria (Figure 6). This noble residence was modern in its design; a

46


symmetrical three-wing-building enclosed by two concentric rings of massive, turetted walls (Götting & Grüll 1967: 171-190). The northern wing, situated next to the main entrance, containing the Great Hall and the main staircase, is set opposite the south wing, which contains residential rooms linked to the courtyard by means of an external stair. A central wing integrates the residential rooms with a chapel and with the kitchen adjacent to the Great Hall. In the upper floor there are also corridors which link the residential rooms with the Great Hall. An inventory dating to 1564, around 100 years after the building of Pürnstein Castle, provides a detailed description of the wings, their rooms and their fittings and fixtures. Here, it is interesting to note that the term used for the northern wing was named ‘Herrenhalb’ or ‘Herrenzimmer’, which means ‘the male half’ or ‘Lord’s

apartment’, whereas the southern wing is named ‘Frauenzimmer’, ie ‘Lady’s apartment’. These terms are also supported by the apparent functions and fittings and fixtures of the rooms within them (Grüll 1976; Handzel 2011: 128). In this high status building it is possible to identify the architectural and functional division of the castle into different sections for living, storage and access routes and to explore how this mapped onto nearcontemporary peceptions of gendered elite space. An access analysis diagram, based on the architectural structures of approximately 1450 (Figure 7) and the room functions around 1564 (Figure 8; Handzel & Kühtreiber forthcomming), reveals the careful control of access to the castle, its interior spaces and its inhabitants which fits medieval concepts of a gradual retreat from public to private space (see Meckseper 2002). It can also be argued that such analysis reinforces the association of the ‘public’ with the male sphere, while the ‘private sphere’ is associated with the ‘female part’ of the household. However, there are changes between 1450 and 1560, which are indicated by the division of the lordly apartment in two separate apartments. During this period the lord moved to the northern wing, and residential rooms were installed above the Great Hall. This evidence may find its expression in theoretical architectural literature of the Renaissance, which recommends the strict division of male and female spheres in the (noble) household to ensure the effective control of ‘weak wives’ (Handzel 2011: 32; Wigley 1992: 332f). These changes are associated with an apparent rise in the ability of the Lord to control and survey other parts of the castle complex during this period. The new Lord’s apartment facilitated visual control over a cluster of guest rooms, servant’s rooms and the Great Hall and rooms such as the spinning room which was occupied by young female members of the household, but also over access routes into the castle and even the inner courtyard. It could therefore be argued that the agency, especially of female members of the Pürnstein castle household, became increasingly restricted during this period. Such architectural conceptions of gendered separation has been identified until now only in new built royal and high aristocratic castles up from the 1550s (Hoppe

2000). Pürnstein castle is not only the first example of this phenomenon in a landlord’s context, but also for the adaption of an older building for such concepts. However, the 1564 inventory also reminds us of the need to explore the ‘gaps’ or slippages between architectural design and social practice. The inventory reveals the ways in which the strict separation of gendered spheres was undermined in reality by the presence of personal belonging of the Lord in the Lady’s chamber. Similar evidence for such practices in a princely context can be found for instance at the Augustusburg near Chemnitz, built in the years around/after 1568 (Hoppe 2000: Abb. 9). When we take a last look at the shape of access diagrams of late medieval castles, it is possible to argue that their design shows similarities with the ‘lifetree’-model of genealogically-based societies. Is this a mere coincidence, given that access diagrams analysis of medieval castles normally highlight patriarchal conceptions of social control? The analysis of Pürnstein suggests that (following Wunder 1992: 58f) the heated ‘Stube’ was the centre of the medieval household. However, between the 15th and 16th centuries, the relationship of the Lord’s apartments to other spaces had become more complex, the potential of gaining access to the Lord more restricted. At the same time, the Lord had gained increasing visual control over the surrounding buildings. Whilst this seems to reinforce the idea of the patriarchal household, the analysis of gendered objects in the Pürnstein castle inventory of 1564 demonstrates that such spatial hierarchies constructed in stone, could also be negotiated and contested by everyday life and practice.

Conclusion To come to an end, it is time to reconsider. Like other social goods, buildings are not only designed by societies but also affect social behavior. Architectural space must therefore be seen both as a setting for – and as a product of – human activities. In consequence it is necessary to analyze buildings by applying a combination of structural and behavioral perspectives drawn from sociology and other cognate disciplines. Using houses to understand the construc-


47

O Wall walk

Attic floor

Corridor

Hall Wing Stair floor 4

Hall

Corridor

Kitchen / Serving room for Stove

Stair floor 3 Stair

Great Hall

Foreroom

Room 1 floor 1

Room 2 floor 1

N

Gate

Corridor

Stair level 2

Stair level 1

Gate hall

Cellar

Stair Foreroom

Kitchen

Chapel

Court yard

S

Gallery Cellar

Stair

Bath?

Cellar

Stair

Privy Room 1 floor 1

Room 2 floor1 Stiege

Outside stair

Stube Outside stair

W Figure 7. Pürnstein Castle. Access D iagram a. 1450.

48


Privy

Vaulted chamber Stube

Chamber

Chamber

Corridor

Chamber

Appartment Wing

Privy

O Wall walk

3 Guest chambers

11 Servants´chambers

Corridor

TEIL „HERRENHALB“/ Lord’s

Stair floor 4

School Lord’s Stube

Corridor

Lord’s chamber Small kitchen/

Stair floor 3

beverage storage

Stair Great Hall

Bakery

Baker’s chamber

N

Gate

Corridor

Foreroom

Stair floor 2

Stair floor 1

Gate Hall

Stair

Beer cellar

Meat pantry

Kitche n

Chapel

Court yard

S

Gallery

Vine cellar

Stair

Iron chamber /

Wall walk

Pantry cellar

Stair

Privy

former bath Meal room

Stube in Tower

Stube upon Gate

Stair

Outside stair

Lady’s Stube

Salt chamber Bailiff’s Stube

Lower lady’s chamber?

Lady’s chamber

Outside stair

Privy

Treasure chamber

Lady’s Stube

Stube

Lady’s chamber

Privy

Chamber Corridor

Chamber

Stair floor 4

Bailiff’s chamber Chamber

Gun powder tower

Linen Stube

W

Green Stube

Meal room

Linen chamber

Children’s Stube

Damsel’s chamber

Lady’s appartment

Figure 8. Pürnstein Castle, Access Diagram a. 1560.


49

tion of individual and collective social identities and cultural norms is challenging. However, combining archaeological analysis with that of contemporary historical sources and these theories sheds important new light on deeply-embedded cultural concepts in the past. As Winston Churchill noted, “There is no doubt whatever about the influence of architecture and structure upon human character and action. We make our building and afterward they make us.” (Lockton 2011, quoting Churchill 1924).

References Allison, P.M. (2002) Introduction. In: The Archaeology of Household Activities, ed. P.M. Allison, 1-18. London: Routledge. Chmel, J. (1848) Auszüge aus einer Pergamenthandschrift des 13. Jahrhunderts, von dem Abbte Hermann von Nieder-Altaich begonnen, und mehreren seiner Nachfolger fortgesetzt, Archiv für Österreichische Geschichte 1/1, 1-72. Coleman, J.S. (2010) Grundlagen der Sozialtheorie. Band 1: Handlungen und Handlungssysteme. Scientia nova 1. München: Oldenbourg. Creighton, O. (2002) Castles and Landscapes. London: Continuum. Csaky, M. (2004) Die Mehrdeutigkeit von Gedächtnis und Erinnerung. Ein kritischer Beitrag zur historischen Gedächtnisforschung. In: Digitales Handbuch zur Geschichte und Kultur Russlands und Osteuropas. Virtuelle Fachbibliothek Osteuropa (http://epub.ub.unimuenchen.de/603/1/csaky-gedaechtnis.pdf, last access 2011-11-18). Deleuze, G. & F. Guattari (1988) A thousand plateaus: capitalism and schizophrenia (trans. B. Massumi). London: Athlone Press. Derks, H. (1996) Über die Faszination des „Ganzen Hauses“, Geschichte und Gesellschaft 22, 221-242. Doneus, M. & T. Kühtreiber (2013) Landscape, the Individual and Society: Subjective Expected Utilities in a Monastic Landscape near Mannersdorf am Leithagebirge, Lower Austria. In: Historical Archaeology in Central Europe, ed. N. Mehler, 339-364. Society of Historical Archaeology Special Publications no. 10. Germantown: Society of Historical Archaeology. Frolec, J. (1982) Interpretaci geneze trojdílého komorvého domu (Ve světle archeologických výzkumů na jihozápadní Moravě), Archaeologia historica 7, 67-78. Gebuhr, K. & R. Gebuhr (2001) Bemerkungen zum Begriff „Burg“. In: Sein & Sinn / Burg & Mensch, eds. F. Daim & T. Kühtreiber, 418-426. Katalog des Niederösterreichischen Landesmuseums N.F. Part 434. St. Pölten: Amt der

50


NÖ Landesregierung – Abteilung Kultur und Wissenschaft. Götting, W. & G. Grüll (1967) Burgen in Oberösterreich. Schriftenreihe der oberösterreichischen Landesbaudirektion 21. Wels: OÖ Landesbaudirektion. Götting, W. (1976) Burg Pürnstein. Inventar vom Jahr 1564 (Maps). Linz: Oberösterreichischer Landesverlag. Grüll, G. (1976) Burg Pürnstein. Inventar vom Jahr 1564 (Text). Linz: Oberösterreichischer Landesverlag. Handzel, J. (2011) „Von erst in der grossen Stuben“– Adelige Sach- und Wohnkultur im ausgehenden Mittelalter und der frühen Neuzeit im Gebiet des heutigen Österreich. Phil. Diss. Univ. of Vienna (http://othes.univie.ac.at/15348/, 2012-12-13). Handzel, J. & T. Kühtreiber (forthcoming) Herrenstube und Frauenzimmer. Sozial konnotierte Lebensräume auf Burg Pürnstein in textlicher und materieller Repräsentation. In: Raumstrukturen und Raumausstattung auf Burgen in Mittelalter und früher Neuzeit, eds. K. HolznerTobisch, G. Klug, T. Kühtreiber & C. Schmid. Salzburg: Institut für Realienkunde des Mittelalters und der frühen Neuzeit. Hansen, K.-P. (2009) Kultur und Kollektiv: Eine essayistische Heuristik für Archäologen. In: Kulturraum und Territorialität, eds. D. Krausse & O. Nakoinz, 17-26. Rahden/Westf.: Leidorf. Hartmann, N. (1980) Philosophie der Natur. Abriß der speziellen Kategorienlehre. Berlin: de Gruyter. Hillier, B. & J. Hanson (1987) Introduction: A Second Paradigm, Architecture et Comportement/Architecture and Behaviour 3/3, 197-199. Hinz, H. (1971) Bergfried – Burgturm und bäuerlicher Speicher. In: Burgen- und Siedlungsarchäologie des Mittelalters, 45-50. Veröffentlichungen der Österreichischen Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Ur- und Frühgeschichte 5. Wien: Österreichische Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Ur- und Frühgeschichte. Hinz, H. (1981). Motte und Donjon. Zur Frühgeschichte der mittelalterlichen Adelsburg, Zeitschrift für Archäologie des Mittelalters, Beiheft 1. Köln : Rheinland-Verlag. Hoppe, S. (2000) Bauliche Gestalt und Lage von Frauenwohnräumen in deutschen Residenzschlössern des späten 15. und 16. Jahrhunderts. In: Das Frauenzimmer. Die Frau bei Hofe in Spätmittelalter und früher Neuzeit, eds. J. Hirschbiegel & W. Paravicini, 151-174. Residenzenforschung 11. Stuttgart: Jan Thorbecke. Ingold, T. (2000) The Perception of the Environment. Essays in livelihood, dwelling and skill. London and New York: Routledge. Johnson, M. (2002) Behind the Castle Gate: Medieval to Renaissance. London & New York: Routledge. Kühtreiber, T. (2009): Die Ikonologie der Burg. In: Die imaginäre Burg, eds. O. Wagener, H. Laß, T. Kühtreiber & P. Dinzelbacher, 53-92. Beihefte zur Mediävistik 11. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

Kühtreiber, T. & G. Reichhalter (2009) Ländliche Speicherbauten. Turmartige Gebäude zwischen Funktion und Repräsentation unter besonderer Berücksichtigung Ostösterreichs. In: Lebenswelten im ländlichen Raum. Siedlung, Infrastruktur und Wirtschaft, eds. S. Felgenhauer-Schmiedt, P. Csendes & A. Eibner. Beiträge zur Mittelalterarchäologie in Österreich 25, 285-288. Wien: Österreichische Gesellschaft für Mittelalterarchäologie. Kühtreiber, T. & G. Reichhalter (forthcoming) Turmartige Speicherbauten in Ostösterreich. Charakteristika, Entwicklung und Deutungsansätze eines wenig beachteten Bautyps. Beiträge zur Mittelalterarchäologie in Österreich. Vienna: Österreichische Gesellschaft für Mittelalterarchäologie Kunz, V. (2004) Rational choice. Campus-Einführungen. Frankfurt am Main: Campus-Verlag. Lemmer, M. (1991) Haushalt und Familie aus der Sicht der Hausväterliteratur. In: Haushalt und Familie in Mittelalter und früher Neuzeit, ed. T. Ehlert, 181-191. Sigmaringen: Jan Thorbecke. Liddiard, R. (2005) Castles in Context: Power, Symbolism and Landscape, 1066 to 1500. Macclesfield: Windgather Press. Lindenberg, S. (1985) An Assessment of the New Political Economy: Its Potential for the Social Sciences and for Sociology in Particular, Sociological Theory 3, 99-114. Lindenberg, S. (1996) Die Relevanz theoriereicher Brückenannahmen, Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 48, 126-140. Lockton, D. (2011) Architecture, urbanism, design and behaviour: a brief review. In: Design with Intent Blog (http:// architectures.danlockton.co.uk/2011/09/12/architectureurbanism-design-and-behaviour-a-brief-review/, 201212-13). Löw, M. (2001) Raumsoziologie. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp Verlag. Löw, M., S. Steets & S. Stoetzer (2008): Einführung in die Stadtund Raumsoziologie. Opladen: Barbara Budrich. Meckseper, C. (2002) Raumdifferenzierungen im hochmittelalterlichen Burgenbau Mitteleuropas, Chateau Gaillard. Etudes de Castellologie medievale 20, 163-171. Meyer, U. (1998) Soziales Handeln im Zeichen des ‚Hauses‘. Zur Ökonomik in der Spätantike und im frühen Mittelalter. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht. Nekuda, R. (2003) Construction development of granaries in Mstenice, Ve Službach Archeologie 4, 2003, 147-149. Nekuda, V. (1975) Pfaffenschlag. Zaniklá středověká ves u Slavonic. Brno: Moravské muzeum v Brně. Opitz, C. (1994) Neue Wege der Sozialgeschichte? Ein kritischer Blick auf Otto Brunners Konzept des ‚ganzen Hauses‘, Geschichte und Gesellschaft 20, 88-98.

Rössler, M. (1999) Wirtschaftsethnologie. Eine Einführung. Zweite, überarbeitete und erweiterte Auflage. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag. Sandkühler, H.-J. (2009) Kritik der Repräsentation: Einführung in die Theorie der Überzeugungen, der Wissenskulturen und des Wissens. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. Schmidt, H.R. (2008) „Nothurfft vnd Hußbruch“. Haus, Gemeinde und Sittenzucht im Reformiertentum. In: Ehe – Familie –Verwandtschaft. Vergesellschaftung in Religion und sozialer Lebenswelt, eds. A. Holzelm & I. Weber, 301-328. Paderborn,Wien, München, Zürich: Ferdinand Schöning. Sieferle, R.-P. (1997) Kulturelle Evolution des GesellschaftNatur-Verhältnisses. In: Gesellschaftlicher Stoffwechsel und Kolonisierung der Natur. Ein Versuch in Sozialer Ökologie, eds. M. Fischer-Kowalski, H. Haberl, W. Hüttler, H. Payer, H. Schandl, V. Winiwarter & H. Zangerl-Weisz, 37-56. Amsterdam: G+B Verlag Fakultas. Richarz, I. (1991) Oikos, Haus und Haushalt. Ursprung und Geschichte der Haushaltsökonomik. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht. Rapoport, A. (1990) The meaning of the built environment: a nonverbal communication approach. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Weiß, S. (2001) Otto Brunner und das Ganze Haus. Oder: Zwei Arten der Wirtschaftsgeschichte, Historische Zeitschrift 273, 335-369. Wheatley, A. (2004) The Idea of the Castle in Medieval England. York: York Medieval Press. Wigley, M. (1992) Untitled: The housing of Gender. In: Sexuality and Space, ed. B. Colomina, 327-389. Princeton: Princeton Architectural Press (http://www.colorado. edu/envd/courses/envd4114-001/Spring %2006/Theory/ Wigley.pdf, 2012-12-13). Wunder, H. (1992): ’Er ist die Sonn, sie ist der Mond’. Frauen in der Frühen Neuzeit. München: C.H. Beck. Xenophon (1828) Von der Haushaltungskunst und Hiero oder Herrscherleben. In: Xenophon’s von Athens Werke. Dritte Abteilung, Neuntes Bändchen, ed. A.H. Christian. Stuttgart: Verlag der J.B. Metzler’schen Buchhand lung. Zimmermann, W.H. (1991) Erntebergung in Rutenberg und Diemen aus ethnographischer und archäologischer Sicht, Néprajzi Értesitö a Néprajzi Muzeum Evkönyve 71-104. Zimmermann, W.H. (1995) Der Rutenberg – Ein landwirtschaftliches Nebengebäude zum Bergen von Feldfrüchten und Heu. In: Der sassen speyghel. Sachsenspiegel – Recht – Alltag, ed. M. Fansa, 207-216. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Nordwestdeutschland 10. Oldenburg: Stadtmuseum Oldenburg.


51