LAND HABITATIONS
Our history of Paleolithic times is drawn very largely from the
successive strata of remains found in rock-shelters and near the mouths
of caves, where the succession of epochs is clear and indubitable. We
naturally look for similar reliable testimony concerning the
chronological succession of Neolithic utensils, pottery and other
remains. Here, however, we have been disappointed to a large degree.
Paleolithic layers were generally or frequently overlaid by beds of
stalagmite or fallen rocks, which have saved them from disturbance. But
the Neolithic and Bronze layers are superficial, usually of no great
thickness; they have been less solidified and protected, and far more
exposed to the disturbing work of burrowing mammals and of men digging
for buried treasures. These circumstances, combined with far less
continuity of occupation, have greatly diminished the chronological
value of their study.
Neolithic cave remains occur in somewhat limited areas scattered all
over Europe.[37] They have been studied in England, France, Spain,
Austria, and Germany in at least fairly large numbers. In Austria the
cave province extends through Galicia, Moravia, and Bohemia. Here we
find primitive pottery; rude stone and numerous bone implements;
domesticated cattle, goats, and pigs. Game was evidently very abundant.
The cave-dwellers, apparently, were pioneers in the less habitable
regions, living mostly by hunting and fishing, from the increase and
products of their herds, and from agriculture to a far less degree. The
pottery and implements remind us somewhat of those of the earliest
lake-dwellings. But we often find bits of copper and bronze, suggesting
a later date or a series of inhabitants whose relics have become much
mixed. It would not be at all surprising if primitive manufactures had
remained here longer in use than in less isolated regions. A deposit of
quite similar general character has been found at Duino, near
Monfalcone, at the head of the Gulf of Trieste.
A second province lies in Bavaria, between Bamberg and Baireuth. Hoernes
considers its remains as also of the same age as the oldest
lake-dwellings, but with peculiarities due to the different geographical
conditions. The cave provinces of other countries are equally
interesting. Every one has its own features and problems. We would
naturally expect that these cave-dwellers would represent the least
progressive and prosperous members of the population of any country. In
our general survey we can afford to give them only a hasty glance. We
can easily understand that where chalk or other soft rock occurred
artificial grottos were often excavated.[38]
Remains of dwellings are common all over Europe, and are likely to be
uncovered wherever excavations are made in grading or for the
foundations of buildings. They are of two forms: the rectangular house
and the round hut. The rectangular form is the rule in the
lake-dwellings, though with exceptions; on the land the reverse is true.
The pit-dwelling at Campigny was elliptical in form with a longest
diameter of 4.30 metres. We remember that the settlement at Campigny is
probably little, if at all, younger than the shell-heaps. But by far the
commoner form of pit-dwelling is circular, with a diameter rarely
exceeding two metres. Such small circular pits are exceedingly common.
At the bottom we find ashes, bones of animals, implements, and fragments
of clay once forming a part of the superstructure, baked hard when the
hut was burned, and still having marks of the twigs and branches over
which the clay had been plastered. We picture to ourselves the hut as
mostly underground, with a diameter usually not exceeding one and
one-half to two metres, excavated to a depth of one or two metres, the
pit often surrounded by a rude wall of field stones. In the centre was
the hearth. The superstructure was merely a cone composed of a framework
of poles interlaced with branches and twigs plastered with clay. In the
primitive hut there was no perpendicular side wall above ground, though
in some the roof may have been raised somewhat on the earth thrown out
from the pit. Such differences of detail are of slight importance. The
huts are of all ages. They were probably erected far back in Paleolithic
time. They seem to be figured in Magdalenian cave-frescoes.[39] Even the
Chellean hunters could hardly have erected more primitive shelters. But
equally rude huts are still inhabited in the Balkan Peninsula,[40] and
are described by classical writers as inhabited by the Germans.
Says Tacitus (_Germania_, XLVI) of the Finns of his day: "They lead a
vagrant life: their food the common herbage; the skins of beasts their
only clothing; and the bare earth their resting-place.... To protect
their infants from the fury of wild beasts and the inclemency of the
weather, they make a kind of cradle amidst the branches of trees
interwoven together, and they know no other expedient. The youth of the
country have the same habitation, and amidst the trees old age is rocked
to rest. Savage as this way of life may seem, they prefer it to the
drudgery of the field, the labor of building, and the painful
vicissitudes of hope and fear, which always attend the defense and the
acquisition of property. Secure against the passions of men, and fearing
nothing from the anger of the gods, they have attained that uncommon
state of felicity, in which there is no craving left to form a single
wish. The rest of what I have been able to collect is too much involved
in fable...."
Let us hope that the reports which Tacitus had been able to collect
concerning the dwellings, as well as the ferocity, filth, and poverty of
the Finns, were somewhat exaggerated. Evidently conical, largely
subterranean huts have been common in Europe down to far later than
Neolithic times. The age of any pit-dwelling can be determined only by
its contents.
In addition to these circular pits, long or short trenches occur. Forrer
found at Stutzheim one cellar more than ten metres long, and varying
from one to three metres in width, with several lateral enlargements as
pantries and storehouses.[41] Forrer considers this as the home of the
chief man, the "manor-house" of the settlement. Around it he found
remains of huts such as we have already described. Frequently space for
storage as well as dwelling was gained by clustering small huts. This
plan would have had the advantage of protection against loss of
everything by fires, which must have been frequent. Such cramped
dwellings, with the garbage scattered over the bottom of the hut, or in
the huts of the most highly cultured deposited in a special hole in one
corner, could hardly have been attractive, clean, or sanitary. But they
were cool in summer and warm in winter, and afforded protection against
wind and weather. People asked and expected no more. Housekeeping was
simple, if not easy. But we can imagine that the return of spring,
allowing them to emerge from their burrows, must have been hailed with
delight.
We have still much to learn concerning these Neolithic dwellings. They
have been discovered by chance, and usually studied only hastily and
superficially. A pit discovered and examined may have been only one of a
large cluster or village, of which the rest remained undiscovered.
Wooden houses of logs, or with a strong frame of poles seem to have
existed in Bronze, or even late Neolithic times. Sophus Müller[42]
describes settlements in Denmark where the abundance of ashes and
utensils prove long-continued habitation, and yet no pits seem to have
been found--this may be due to insufficient investigation--strongly
suggesting, at least, houses entirely above ground built of perishable
materials. It is very hard to believe that even a Neolithic family could
have lived through the winter in one, mainly subterranean, dwelling only
two metres in diameter, with a fireplace in the middle. They would have
been compelled to sleep sitting or standing! Probably Stutzheim and
other similar settlements which have been discovered, represent the real
general average of pit-dwellings, while besides these there were many of
far superior style and comfort. The development of the Greek house is
still a problem, much more that of a North German dwelling.
As an example of late Neolithic settlement of the better or best class,
we may take Grosgartach, near Heilbronn, in the Neckar valley.[43] Here,
where now are low meadows, was once a lake connected with the Neckar.
The Neolithic village was carefully and skilfully explored by Hofrath
Schliz, whose report is a model of careful observation and clear
description.
The situation was very favorable, with loess-clad hills sloping to rich
meadows, and the lake furnishing fish and a line of communication. The
areas occupied by the houses and stalls were clearly marked by the dark
"culture-earth" contrasting sharply with the yellow loess. The principal
house was rectangular. The outer wall was composed of posts with a
wattling of twigs. This was plastered with clay, mixed with chaff and
straw. The inner face of the wall was smoothly finished, and then
"kalsomined" reddish yellow, and still further decorated with fresco in
geometrical designs. The house--5.80 metres by 5.35 metres--was divided
into two rooms. The larger part of the house was occupied by the
kitchen, with its floor about one metre below the surface of the ground,
and entered by an inclined plane or ramp. The other chamber, the
sleeping-room, was nearly a metre above the kitchen and separated from
it by a partition. Benches cut out of the loess were found in both
kitchen and sleeping-room. Stalls for cattle and barns or granaries were
also found. Virchow, in his review of Schliz's monograph, emphasizes
the fact that apparently Grosgartach was deserted by its inhabitants and
fell into decay without leaving any signs of destruction by fire or
violence.
The villages of Butmir, Lengyel, Jablanica, and others in southeastern
Europe show us a condition of advanced culture here also.[44]
Déchelette, speaking of the culture of this region, notices "the
striking analogies between these old walled villages of the Balkans and
the Danube valley, and those of the Ægean villages of the Troad and
Phrygia." Primitive idols, painted pottery, frequent use of the spiral
in decorative art, all these reappear here and there in the Neolithic
stations of southeastern Europe, and in the eastern basin of the
Mediterranean in pre-Mycenæan and Mycenæan days. Evidently houses,
settlements, modes of life, and stages of culture differ greatly during
the same epoch of the Neolithic period in different parts of Europe.
Italy was always far in advance of Europe north of the Alps. But even in
northern Europe there was great diversity. Shell-heap dwellers still
remained long after a much higher culture prevailed throughout most of
Denmark. The life and thought of the pioneer hunters of northern
Germany, and still more of northern Russia, were very different from
those of the agriculturists along the valley of the Danube and in the
Balkan Peninsula. In Greece little city-states began to arise early.
Even in northern Europe density of population and size of settlements
varied greatly. One illustration of these differences can be seen in the
occurrence of fortified villages and refuges.[45] The age of these
fortifications is as great a problem as that of the remains found in a
pit-dwelling. The village may be, probably usually is, much older than
the surrounding wall, and an earthen wall may contain Neolithic or even
perhaps Paleolithic implements. The custom of fortifying villages
evidently spread rapidly during the Bronze and Iron periods. Sophus
Müller tells us that all walled settlements north of the Alps are far
younger than the Neolithic period.[46] This statement, often disputed or
neglected, is probably an exaggeration, but may well be true of the
region surrounding the Baltic. The sparse and scattered hunting and
pioneer population of Scandinavia and Germany had no need of building
permanent walls around their single houses or small villages. They had
very little wealth to protect.
But an agricultural population inhabiting a fertile region open to
attack might well surround their villages with a wall, or provide a
burg, or fortified place or "refuge," whither they might drive their
cattle or transport their grain. Examples of this are Stutzheim and
Urmitz, in the Rhine valley, always a great thoroughfare, and in
Switzerland and along the maritime Alps villages of this sort seem to
have been fairly frequent. Apparently they were still more numerous in
the valley of the Danube and in the Balkan Peninsula. It is not at all
surprising to find them in Thessaly, so near to the advanced
civilization of Greece.
Another class of settlements usually well protected were the workshops
(ateliers) and manufacturing villages, especially those where flint
was mined, or where flint implements were made in large quantities and
distributed by trade over wide areas.[47] During the Neolithic period
these settlements would have held much the same place and importance
as our centres of coal, iron, manufacturing, and business have with us
to-day. Grand Pressigny and Camp de Chassey, in France, and Cissbury,
in England, are single examples of a great number of such fortified
mining and manufacturing villages. For a further study of these very
interesting remains the reader is referred to the manuals of
Déchelette and Hoernes.
Even before the close of the Paleolithic period tundra and steppe were
giving place to forests, which were advancing even into Scandinavia. The
forest looms large and terrible in the works of classical writers and
German antiquarians. Says Tacitus: "Who would leave the softer climes of
Asia, Africa, or Italy to fix his abode in Germany, where Nature offers
nothing but scenes of ugliness, where the inclemency of the seasons
never relents?... The face of the country, though in some parts varied,
presents a cheerless scene, covered with the gloom of forests, or
deformed with wide-extended marshes." He says that the soil produces
grain and is well stocked with cattle, though of small size. But grain
does not grow in primeval forests, and herds of cattle need at least
open glades for pasturage. It is an extreme picture tinged by the
homesickness of a citizen of sunny Italy. Northern Europe was generally
heavily forested until long after Tacitus's time. The Romans began in
earnest the work of deforesting France, and the work was carried on all
over Europe in mediæval times. The Neolithic immigrants probably made
small clearings with the aid of fire, especially where the trees were
low and not too thick, as on many light-soiled areas. They could make
but little impression on the heavy forest growth, though they could
limit its spread. They probably did not need to make wide clearings of
dense forest. There were many open stretches of country of greater or
less extent awaiting occupants and culture. This was true especially of
districts occupied by the loess, whose origin from dust drifted by
Paleolithic wind-storms we have already noticed.
Geikie describes loess as typically a "fine-grained, yellowish,
calcareous, sandy loam, consisting very largely of minute grains of
quartz with some admixture of argillaceous and calcareous matter."[48]
It is for the most part a wind-blown deposit. It is widely developed
over low-lying regions, but sweeps up to heights of 200 to 300 feet and
more above the bottoms of the great river valleys. Again, in many places
we find it heaped up under the lee of hills, the exposed windward slopes
of which bear no trace of it. Wherever there is loess we are likely to
find the remains of steppe plants and animals. The ancient steppe area
which generally covers, and probably extends considerably beyond, the
loess district, is the region occupied by most of the primitive
settlements. Even to-day it is less wooded than the rest of northern
Europe. Such steppe regions in the North German plain are the great
diluvial river terraces, especially the terraces of the Saale and Elbe
and the eastern edge of the Harz Mountains; in South Germany the lower
Alpine "Vorland" from Switzerland to lower Austria, the uplands of
Suabia and Franconia, the valleys of the Main and Neckar, and much of
northern Bohemia. These steppe regions of Germany, northern Austria, and
Switzerland extended southeastward in a zone following the Danube,
widening out in the great Hungarian plain into the vast steppe region
extending eastward from the Black Sea or Pontus. From this Pontic steppe
a band of more or less open country extended northward along the
Carpathians until it almost or quite joined the open regions of the Elbe
and along the Harz. A farther extension of this same band seems to have
opened the way from the Harz region through northwest Germany into
Belgium and northern France, and very probably into Brittany. We see at
once the importance of these long lines of open or thinly forested
country to the immigrations and settlement of Neolithic peoples.
Periodical floods or other conditions kept open many river valleys,
whose importance we shall estimate in a later chapter. All this land,
except the uplands of Suabia and Franconia, and some similar areas, was
comparatively fertile, the loess areas particularly so, and suited to a
primitive agriculture.
In England the valleys of the Thames and other rivers were heavily
wooded and not populated until much later. But the long lines of
chalk-downs and oolitic uplands were far less favorable to forest
growth. In Norfolk and Suffolk there were apparently open spaces.
Yorkshire and Derbyshire had very similar landscapes. The forest was
held back wherever the porous chalk formation made a large outcrop. In
these places man could settle and find pasturage for his flocks and
attempt a poor sort of agriculture, even in Neolithic days. Hence we
find these regions dotted with Neolithic settlements. The immigrants who
came in during the Bronze period settled in the same regions. Here again
clearing of the forest on any large scale was apparently not attempted
until Roman times, but along its boundaries, where the forest growth was
not too heavy, these primitive agriculturists may well have cut off the
lighter growth for fuel and buildings, and thus have gradually
appreciably extended the arable area.