Temporary Palaces

The Great House in European Prehistory

Richard Bradley

• Publisher: Oxbow Books
• Year: 2021
• ISBN:
  9781789256628
• Topic: Historia
• Subtopic: Historia antigua

The Great Houses of the prehistoric and early medieval periods were enormous structures whose forms were modelled on those of domestic dwellings. Most were built of wood rather than stone; they were used over comparatively short periods; they were frequently replaced in the same positions; and some were associated with exceptional groups of artefacts. Their construction made considerable demands on human labour and approached the limits of what was possible at the time. They seem to have played specialised roles in ancient society, but they have been difficult to interpret. Were they public buildings or the dwellings of important people? Were they temples or military bases, and why were they erected during times of crisis or change? How were their sites selected, and how were they related to the remains of a more ancient past? Although their currency extended from the time of the first farmers to the Viking Age, the similarities between the Great Houses are as striking as the differences. This study focuses on the monumental buildings of northern and northwestern Europe, but draws on structures over a wide area, extending from Anatolia as far as Brittany and Norway. It employs ethnography as a source of ideas and discusses the concept of the House Society and its usefulness in archaeology. The main examples are taken from the Neolithic and Iron Age periods, but this account also draws on the archaeology of the first millennium AD. The book emphasises the importance of comparing archaeological sequences with one another rather than identifying ideal social types. In doing so, it features a range of famous and less famous sites, from Stonehenge to the Hill of Tara, and from Old Uppsala to Yeavering.

Part One

A problem shared

A modern wood carving at the entrance to the early medieval site of Yeavering. Photograph: Richard Bradley.

CHAPTER 1

‘Nobody on earth knew of another building like it’

Introduction

The title of this book comes from a ‘light poem’ by the Scottish artist Robert Montgomery which has been displayed in a variety of settings across Europe (www.robertmontgomery.org/recycledlightpoems). It featured in the 2011 Venice Biennale and at a disused swimming pool in former East Berlin. It was also shown in Stavanger, at a dock for unloading fish in Lyon, at the Palais de Tokyo in Paris, and on the side of a multi-storey carpark in Cardiff. The inscription was powered by solar energy and read ‘All palaces are temporary palaces’.

Like Montgomery’s other work, this installation raises questions about ownership and power, but the idea that palaces might be temporary constructions has a particular resonance for archaeology where enormous but short-lived buildings are a recurrent and puzzling phenomenon. They have often been studied individually but are rarely considered as a group, and that is the aim of this book. It extends from the west of Asia as far as the Atlantic coastline, and from the time of the last hunter gatherers to the Viking Age (Fig. 1). It considers timber buildings more often than stone constructions and investigates their relationship with domestic architecture. Like the text from which it takes its name, its main concern is with social and political questions.

The starting point is another of Montgomery’s installations: ‘There are wooden houses on land in far-away places ….’ One such place was close to the North Sea in Scotland. That is where this account begins.

Fig. 1 The main regions studied in this book, with the locations of additional examples used in Chapters Two and Four.

Cases of mistaken identity

Britain: the influence of Yeavering

In the 1960s an important excavation took place outside Dunbar (Fig. 2). Its results have featured in many studies of early medieval Scotland, but their authors confronted the problem that the results of such influential work were never published (Ralston 2019). The original project was undertaken by the Cambridge archaeologist Brian Hope-Taylor who was undoubtedly one of the most accomplished fieldworkers of his time, but very few of his projects were brought to completion. The one important exception was at the remarkable complex of Yeavering in northeast England where he investigated a royal centre documented by the historian Bede. His monograph recorded the traces of a series of timber buildings whose plans had been identified from the air (Hope-Taylor 1977).

Fig. 2 Outline plans of two superimposed halls on Doon Hill, compared with timber buildings of similar size at Yeavering and Balbridie. Information from Ralston (2019), Hope-Taylor (1977) and Fairweather and Ralston (1993).

The same process led to the new discoveries at Doon Hill, Dunbar, and Hope-Taylor followed his work at Yeavering with a project on that site. Again he recovered the ground plans of large wooden buildings. There were two of them and in this case they were enclosed by a palisade. The first structure may have been repaired during the course of its history and was eventually destroyed by fire. It was replaced in the same position by a smaller rectangular construction. It was the later building that the excavator compared with those at Yeavering. Emboldened by this comparison, he dated the second structure to the Anglian settlement of the region in the seventh century AD and suggested that its predecessor was a hundred years older and must have been the work of the indigenous population. Until recently, many authorities were content to follow all, or part, of that interpretation. When the site was displayed to the public the outlines of the successive structures were marked on the ground by cement of two different colours.

Problems began when a third site found by air photography was excavated. This was at Balbridie in the northeast of Scotland. Here fieldwork identified a considerable rectangular building whose dimensions and method of construction were virtually the same as those of the first structure on Doon Hill, but in this case it was associated with Neolithic pottery and returned dates in the early fourth millennium BC. Although it seemed possible that it had been built of ancient bog oak, analysis of the burnt grain from the site confirmed its prehistoric origin (Fairweather & Ralston 1993). How could the problem be explained?

A compromise solution was considered but was never plausible. Maybe the earlier and larger building was indeed of Neolithic origin. It would explain its resemblance to that at Balbridie. The later structure at Dunbar would have been built more than four thousand years afterwards, as there seemed no other way of explaining why it looked like buildings at Yeavering whose chronology was not in any doubt. For a time this influenced the form in which Doon Hill was presented to visitors. It seemed possible that the people who erected the second structure at Dunbar recognised the Neolithic foundation trenches and followed them in their work. The idea was highly improbable, for it would have required skills that archaeologists developed more than a thousand years later.

New research has disposed of many of these problems because samples of charcoal associated with both buildings on Doon Hill have returned dates in the early fourth millennium BC. They are consistent with those from Balbridie and from more recently excavated structures of the same kind at Claish, Crathes and Carnoustie in other parts of Scotland (Brophy 2007; Sheridan 2013). Analysis of the surviving records even suggests that the resemblance between the later ‘hall’ at Dunbar and timber structures at Yeavering may have been exaggerated (Ralston 2019). This is understandable as both projects were undertaken by the same person. Hope-Taylor pursued a similar historical narrative in both cases and may have been led astray by his own expectations.

Now a different problem arises. There is no reason to contest the Neolithic date of the structures at Balbridie and Doon Hill, nor is there any case for a radical reappraisal of Yeavering. Not only was that site described in an important historical source, similar buildings have been excavated elsewhere in England and have a secure chronology. The problem is not to choose between a Neolithic context and a medieval one, but to consider why these extraordinary buildings were erected at such different times. Analogous structures dating from the intervening period have never been found.

An added complication is another discovery in Scotland. In 2011 Magnus Kirby published the results of his work at Lockerbie Academy. The site is a located in an area with a rich and varied archaeology and was on a route leading inland from the coast. It produced evidence of Early Bronze Age burials which focused on a low knoll, but what could not have been anticipated were the presence of another unusually large Neolithic building and the discovery of two superimposed structures of similar proportions dating from the first millennium AD. In this case there was no ambiguity as the prehistoric and medieval halls were in different parts of the site. The prehistoric example was associated with diagnostic pottery and a series of radiocarbon dates between 3950 and 3630 BC. The medieval structures provided dates between AD 540 and 670. The excavator emphasised the strategic locations of all these buildings, and this is reflected by the establishment of an Early Bronze Age cemetery at the highest point where its position seems to have been marked by a cairn. That monument could still have been visible in the early medieval period, but no trace of the Neolithic construction would have remained during either phase.

The report on the medieval halls at Lockerbie was published before Hope-Taylor’s dating of Doon Hill was challenged, and for that reason Kirby proposed a similar interpretation for the successive medieval buildings. The earlier was described as ‘British’, and its more substantial successor was ‘Anglian’. Its form was influenced by contacts with the kingdom of Northumbria. Again these unusual structures were related to the politics of the first millennium AD.

In fact there are similarities and differences between structures of these two periods, but they have been overlooked. The buildings on Doon Hill and the comparable structure at Balbridie are all of similar proportions and their lengths are approximately twice their widths. Hope-Taylor’s Hall A (the older of the pair) was 23 m long, compared with lengths of 24 m at Claish (Barclay et al. 2002), 22 m at Balbridie (Fairweather & Ralston 1993), and 22.5 m at Crathes (Murray et al. 2009). All three were very similar to one another. The Neolithic example at Lockerbie was even bigger and measured about 27 m by 8 m. The equivalent figures for the larger of two structures recently excavated at Carnoustie were 35 m by 9 m (www.guard-archaeology.co.uk/carnoustiehoard); the smaller building on that site had similar dimensions to the second construction on Doon Hill. Few Neolithic houses have been identified in Britain (Darvill 1996), but many more are recorded in Ireland where their chronology is comparable to that of the Scottish structures. Jessica Smyth’s (2014) research suggests that almost all of them were square or rectangular. One group was between 6 m and 8 m long and between 4 m and 7 m wide. The dimensions of the larger buildings were less consistent and extended between 9 m and 13 m in length and from 6 m to 8 m in width. It means that a hall like the first building on Doon Hill was truly exceptional and enclosed about 70% more floor space than any of these houses. The enclosed area was five times greater than it was in the smaller Irish dwellings.

Similar considerations apply to the medieval structures. The successive halls at Lockerbie Academy were 15 m and 20 m long, and their widths were 6.5 m and 7 m respectively. Most domestic buildings of the same date were considerably smaller, and on average they enclosed between a third and half as much space. Helena Hamerow (2012) defines early medieval ‘Great Halls’ as structures over 18 m long, and on Hope-Taylor’s site at Yeavering the largest building attained a length of 24 m; their equivalents on extensively excavated sites at Lyminge and Cowdery’s Down in southern England were 21 m and 22 m long respectively (G. Thomas 2018; Millett & James 1983). There is no question about their ages, yet they were the same size as Neolithic halls in northern Britain. At Sutton Courtenay in the upper Thames valley an early medieval structure of the same kind was 30 m in length and 10 m wide (Brennan & Hamerow 2015): almost the dimensions of the Neolithic monument at Carnoustie.

Despite such a remarkable coincidence, there were important differences between the prehistoric and early medieval buildings. Although their dimensions overlap, there were practical limits to their scale. Where any evidence survives the principal timbers were of oak. The widths of these structures must have posed a special problem as experimental reconstructions show that it would have been difficult to manoeuvre rafters of more than 10 m. That may be why longhouses of any date in Northwest Europe were usually about the same width (Bradley 2013a). On the other hand, a rectilinear structure could extend to almost any length provided it could stand up to strong winds.

The halls of both periods made considerable demands. In his report on the excavation at Yeavering Hope-Taylor argues that the wood used in their construction had been acquired from a ‘significantly large’ area and in a striking phrase he refers to the ‘oaken extravagance’ of individual structures at the site (Hope-Taylor 1977, 333–34). That would apply even more directly to the Neolithic building at Balbridie which had an unusual width of 11 m: a higher figure than most of the medieval examples. Its neighbour at Crathes might have posed still greater problems, as pollen analysis shows it was situated in an area of open land, suggesting that the wood was brought from a distance. The raising of all these structures involved the conspicuous consumption of raw material. Assuming, as most reconstructions do, a roof pitch of about 45 degrees, unusually wide buildings of this sort must have been higher than the others and might have appeared more monumental. Oliver Rackham (1976, 73–74) observes that few structures surviving from the Middle Ages used oak timbers much over 6 m long and that those with lengths of 9 m or more were altogether exceptional. They were usually public buildings like cathedrals. Constructing prehistoric halls must have presented a significant challenge. Oak is very heavy. Whatever the dimensions of the individual timbers, their erection required a significant workforce.

If some of the posts were 10 m long and dispersed within an area of forest, this must have made their construction even more demanding. It may be no accident that the dimensions of the Neolithic halls were so similar to one another. Because of the constraints imposed by sourcing and transporting the raw material they might have approached the limit of what could be built at the time. Similar constraints may have influenced the scale of their early medieval counterparts, although they were undoubtedly more sophisticated structures, and by that time woodland was carefully managed. Even so there was an obvious emphasis on display. It is unfortunate that little can be said about the external appearance of both groups of buildings. Their walls could have been lavishly decorated and the posts might well have been carved. That much is suggested by pictorial evidence and surviving church buildings in Scandinavia.

The external dimensions of prehistoric and medieval halls may have been strikingly similar, but their interiors were organised in distinctive ways. The earlier architectural tradition was characterised by structures with massive gables and a number of internal partitions which divided them into separate compartments. They would have impeded movement within the structure and their existence has never been explained (Debert 2016). The Great Halls of the first millennium AD had a very different character. The internal space remained largely open, although small rooms might be provided towards the ends of these buildings. External annexes could be added in order to lengthen the structure. In contrast to some of their counterparts in Northern Europe, they did not include a byre.

There were other contrasts between them. Most of the Neolithic examples were isolated, although there were two halls of different sizes at Carnoustie and the successive buildings on Doon Hill appear to have been enclosed by a polygonal palisade. There were very few features around them. By contrast, early medieval Great Halls were usually part of a larger complex in which the structures shared common alignments and were organised in relation to one another. That is evident at the most extensively excavated sites – Yeavering, Cowdery’s Down and Lyminge – and a similar configuration can be recognised on air photographs (McBride 2020). Of the sites considered here only the successive halls at Lockerbie did not conform to this pattern.

There are still further differences between the histories of individual sites. The Neolithic structures show signs of piecemeal repair but only at Doon Hill was one of them demolished and replaced in the same position. Despite their enormous sizes, these buildings may have been used for short periods and one result of fieldwork has been to show that at least some examples were destroyed by fire. The evidence from Crathes is a little ambiguous as the wood may have been ignited after the hall was taken down, but this seems unlikely as so many other monuments were set alight during the same period. It was equally common with the houses in Ireland. There is little to indicate a similar practice in early medieval Britain, although burnt structures were identified during two of the main phases at Yeavering and were also found at Cowdery’s Down. On the other hand, it was usual for halls to be replaced. Either the new construction was in exactly the same position as its predecessor, or it was erected nearby and conformed to the same alignment. This was clearly documented by excavations at Yeavering and Lyminge. Despite their monumental aspect, the structures may not have been intended for a long period of use, and in this respect they share an important feature with their Neolithic counterparts.

A characteristic of some of these buildings is the paucity of artefacts. The Neolithic structures are found with fine pottery and deposits of burnt grain, but the stone tools that would usually be associated with settlements are extremely rare. In the same way, not all the Great Halls of the early medieval period have produced many finds, despite the number and quality of artefacts buried in graves during the same period. In this case there is regional patterning, so that elaborate objects are comparatively unusual at sites in the north and west of Britain, but are commonly associated with those in lowland England. Yeavering is a case in point. In contrast to many projects in which the site is stripped by machine. Hope-Taylor (1977, 32) says that the top...

Table of contents

• Front Cover
• Half-Title Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Preface and acknowledgements
• List of figures
• Part One. A problem shared
• Part Two. Dream houses
• Part Three. Setting the house in order
• Bibliography