University of Virginia Library

V.2.1

LITERARY EVIDENCE

THE NORTH GERMANIC HOUSE OF THE
SAGA PERIOD

In 1889 the Icelandic literary historian and philogist
Valtyr Gudmundsson[50] was able to demonstrate, on the
basis of a careful and painstaking analysis of words and
passages in the Nordic Sagas referring to the layout and
construction of houses, that the Germanic standard house
of the Saga Period (ninth to thirteenth centuries) in Norway,
Sweden, Denmark, and Iceland was a three-aisled
timber structure with an open fireplace (eldr, "fire" or
arinn, "hearth") in the middle of its center aisle (golf);
that this house received its light through an opening in
the roof (ljóri, "light inlet"), which also served as a smoke
outlet (hence also referred to as reykháfr or reykberi, "smoke
hole,") and which could be closed and opened by means of
ropes or poles; that the roof (ráf or ræfr) of this house
was supported by a free-standing inner frame of timber,
composed of two longitudinal rows of uprights (súlur,
stafir, stođir, stolpar, and sometimes more specifically referred
to as innstafir or innstolpar, "inner posts," in contradistinction
to the útstafir, the corresponding "outer" or
"wall posts"), which were connected lengthwise by means
of roof plates (ásar or langvidir, "long beams") and crosswise
by means of tie beams (vagl, vaglbiti or þvertrè,
"crosstree"). Gudmundsson summarized his findings
visually in a plan and a perspective view of the interior of
the Saga house, drawn up for him by E. Rondahl (figs. 284
A-B).[51] He demonstrated that this house type could be used
for a variety of purposes, without changing any of its basic
dispositions. It served, as circumstances demanded, as a
general living house (stofa or stufa), as a dining or festal
hall (drykkjuskáli, veizluskáli), as kitchen or fire house
(elda skáli), as sleeping hall (skáli or hviluskáli), even, as a
hay or cattle barn (hlađa or fjóshlađa). In the early days—
and subsequently in the lower social strata—all these functions
were performed simultaneously under one roof; later,
as increasing wealth and social prestige permitted, they
were progressively relegated to separate buildings.

Gudmundsson could establish that in the general living
house as well as in the festal or banqueting hall the floors
of the aisles (langpallar) and of the cross bay at the upper end
of the house were, in general, raised above the level of the
center floor and covered with wooden planks. Long benches
(langbekkir) and tables (borđ) were set up in the aisles
parallel to the two long walls of the house and also crosswise
along the gable wall at the rear of the house. This raised
section at the innermost part of the house was referred to as
the crossbench (þverpallr).

The chieftain or owner of the house sat on his high seat
(œdra öndvegi, "first seat of honor") in the middle of one
of the two long benches (i miđju bekk) while his principal
guest of honor occupied the second best high seat (úœdra
öndvegi) in the middle of the opposite bench. The women sat
on the crossbench at the rear of the house. The fire
crackled in the middle of the center floor. The entrance lay,
in general, in the center of one of the two gable sides of the
house, and was often separated from the rest of the house by
an entrance hall (forstofa, forskáli) which occupied the foremost
bay of the house, forming a counterpart to the women's
cross bench at the opposite gable. Often this entrance bay
was separated from the main space by a cross partition
(þverpili), which had in its center a second or inner door.
The walls of the Saga house (veggir, or, more specifically,
langveggir, "long wall," and gaflveggir, "gable walls") were,
as a rule, constructed of earth or turf (torfi), and insulated
inside with a wooden paneling (veggþili). The rafters rose
from wall plates (syllr or staflægjur) and converged at the
top in a ridge beam (mœniáss) which was carried by short
king posts (dvergr, "dwarf post") rising from the center of
the tie beams.

From numerous incidental references to the house, made
in the dramatic accounts of battles waged when a householder
and his family were attacked in their sleep and
forced to rise to defend themselves, Gudmundsson could
infer that the sleeping house (skáli) was divided lengthwise,
like the stofa, into a center aisle and two lateral
aisles and received its warmth from an open fire that burned
in the middle of the center floor. As in the stofa, the floors
of the lateral aisles were raised above the level of the center
aisle and covered with wooden planks. But instead of
supporting tables, the aisle floors of the skáli (called set)
were covered with a bedding of straw and subdivided
crosswise into individual sleeping compartments by means
of rugs or "hangings" (sængarklæđi) suspended from cross
beams. Each compartment was sufficiently large to accommodate
two people (sengefeller, "bedfellows") lying parallel
to the walls of the building, one outside (fyrir ofan) or near

[ILLUSTRATION]

284.A THE NORTH GERMANIC HOUSE
OF THE SAGA PERIOD, 9TH-13TH CENTURIES

[after Rosenberg, 1894, 257, fig. 9]

The house is entered through one of its gable walls. Its center floor
(a,a) is made of stamped clay; b,b,b are open fireplaces framed by
stones. The aisles are slightly raised (c,c) and covered with wooden
boards. They accommodate the benches and tables for the men (f,g).
The terminal bay, with the benches and tables for the women (e.g)
is treated in the same manner; h is a table from which food and
drinks are served; i,i are footstools in front of the high seats; j is a
secret door for escape through an underground channel should the
principal entrance be blocked by enemies. The walls are built in a
mixture of earth, rubble and turves.

the wall paneling (vid þili), the other inside (fyrir framan)
or near the sleeper beam (vid stokk, i.e., the floor beam that
forms the edge of the slightly raised level of the aisles). The
bedsteads of the master and his wife were often separated
from the adjoining bedsteads by means of a wooden wall
partition, so as to form a bed closet (rekkja) that could be
locked and was then called a lokhvílu (lockable closet). One
or two further closets of this type were frequently installed
for persons next in rank or for guests of honor.

In like manner the aisles of the cattle barns were subdivided
into individual cross compartments for the stabling
of the livestock.

As one reviews this evidence one cannot fail to be struck
by the amazing similarity of the North-Germanic Saga
house, spatially and functionally, with that of the guest and
service structures of the Plan of St. Gall. Both have as
nucleus an open center space accessible to all, which gives
admittance to a peripheral suite of outer spaces surrounding
the center space on three or all four sides. In both, the
hearth lies in the middle of the center space and has in
the roof above it a shielded opening that serves as a smoke
outlet. In both this layout is used, either separately or
combined, without requiring the slightest alterations of its
basic dispositions, as shelter for the people, as shelter for
their livestock, and as shelter for the harvest.

There are, to be sure, some distinctive differences. The
Saga house has its entrance, in general, in the middle of one
of its gable walls; that of the St. Gall House is, in the
majority of cases, in the middle of one of its long walls. Yet
three of the St. Gall houses belong to the former type.[52]
Another difference is to be found in the fact that in such
buildings as the House for Distinguished Guests and the
Hospice for Pilgrims and Paupers, the tables and benches
are ranged around the periphery of the center space (figs.
392 and 396). In the Saga house they are set up in the
aisles and on the cross bench. Only on extraordinary
occasions, namely, when the throng of visitors was so
great that they could not all be accommodated in the aisles
and on the cross bench, were special rows of chairs set up
in the nave of the hall. A typical case in point is the fateful
wedding banquet given in the winter of 1253 in Gizur
Thorvaldsson's home at Flugumyr (figs. 328A-B). The
number of guests attending this party amounted to well
over a hundred men (á œdra hundradi). Since Gizur's dining
hall was only 26 ells long and 12 ells broad (stofan var
sex álna ok tottugu löng, en tólf alna breiđ), the host gave
orders that in addition to all the seats that could be placed
in the aisles (the seating capacity of the aisles and of the
cross bench had already been doubled by the setting up of
an outer row of forechairs), two further rows of stools
should be set up in the center aisle. The latter were borrowed
from the church. "And lengthwise all along the
two benches there were forechairs and all along the center
aisle church stools were set up on which people sat in two
rows."[53] Finally, the outer spaces of the St. Gall house
appear to have been more rigidly separated from the center
space than was the case in the house of the Sagas. But of
this there will be more to say in a later chapter.

[ILLUSTRATION]

284.B THE NORTH GERMANIC HOUSE OF THE SAGA PERIOD, 9TH-13TH CENTURIES

PERSPECTIVE VIEW OF INTERIOR, MADE FOR V. GUDMUNDSSON by E. RONDAHL [after Rosenberg, 1894, 257, fig. 10]

The hall was warmed by a fire burning in the middle of the center floor. An opening in the roof above the hearth served as smoke escape and
admitted light and air to the interior. In the aisles on either side of the fire: to the left the high seat of the owner, to the right the seat for his
most distinguished guest. Between them: the high seat pillars, part of the roof-supporting frame of timbers, but decoratively carved and sacred
to the gods.

THE EARLY MEDIEVAL HOUSE IN THE TERRITORY
OF THE ALAMANNI, THE BAJUVARIANS, AND
THE FRANKS, IN THE
LIGHT OF CONTEMPORARY LEGAL CODES

Gudmundsson's findings are restricted to the Germanic
territories of Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and Iceland,[54]
and cannot, of course, be automatically applied to continental

[ILLUSTRATION]

THE NORTH GERMAN HOUSE OF
THE SAGA PERIOD, 9th-13th CENT.

285.B EXTERIOR VIEW

285.A INTERIOR VIEW

[author's interpretation modified from Walter Schultz]

These sketches attempt to render the appearance of a typical house
of the Saga Period and to demonstrate in particular that the house
received its air and light not through windows in the walls (which
would have made the dwelling too vulnerable to hostile intrusion)
but through an opening in the roof, which also served as smoke
escape and was itself surmounted by a small roof raised slightly above
the level of the main roof. The walls were built of turves and often
even the roof itself was covered with them (cf. fig. 292), blending
house and landscape in a continuous carpeting of grass.

Europe where conditions may have been more
complex. Fortunately the information that Gudmundsson
could extract from the Sagas can be supplemented by some
extremely informative Continental sources. Significant documentary
evidence concerning house construction in the
territory of the Alamanni, the Bajuvarians, and the Franks
is scattered through a number of early medieval legal codes
that regulate, among other matters, the compensation to
be adjudged for damage wrought upon a dwelling and its
sundry appendages.[55]

LEX ALAMANNORUM

The earliest document of this nature is the so-called Lex
Alamannorum, an Alamannic code of law laid down between
716 and 719 by an assembly of thirty-four dukes, thirty-three
bishops, and sixty-five counts, under the presidency
of Duke Lantfrid I (d. 730).[56] Article 82 of this code, which
fixes the compensation for arson, bears out what Tacitus
had stated some seven centuries earlier about the loosely
scattered character of Germanic settlements. This article
establishes the following sanctions:[57] If at night a man sets
somebody's house (domus) or hall (sala) on fire and is
caught and found guilty, he is bound not only to restore
whatever he has destroyed by fire but, in addition, to pay a
fine of 40 shillings. If he lays fire to any other houses in the
yard (in curte), viz., the barn (scuria or granica) or the
storehouse (cellarium), he must likewise compensate for the
inflicted damage and settle with an additional fine of 21
shillings.

Fines are specified in the same manner for damage and
destruction to all the other service structures, the bathhouse
(stuba), the sheepfold (ovilis), and the pigsty (porcaricia),
as well as the houses and barns for the serfs (servi
domus, scura servi, spicaria servi). From this it follows that

the Alamannic farmstead of the beginning of the eighth
century consisted of a group of separate buildings in a
common yard (curtis); its principal structures were the
house (domus) and the hall (sala). Whether domus and sala
are synonymous or indicate a separation of the principal
unit into a living house (domus) and an eating hall (sala)
remains uncertain.

From another passage in the same Lex Alamannorum
we gather incidentally some insight into the inner architectural
layout of such a dwelling. Article 94 states that if a
mother dies in childbirth, leaving a child who expires
after having lived for one hour and opened his eyes during
this time so that he could see the ridge (culmen) and the
four walls (iv parietes) of the house, the maternal inheritance
will fall to the father.[58] This stipulation presupposes a
building open to the roof with internal subdivisions, whatever
they might have been, that did not obstruct the
simultaneous visibility, from the mother's bedstead, of the
four walls of the house and of the ridge of its roof.[59]

LEX BAJUVARIORUM

Information of a considerably more specific nature can be
obtained from the Lex Bajuvariorum. This code of law,
which is slightly later than the Alamannic Law, on which
it draws in part, was compiled between 740 and 748 at a
time when the territory of the Bajuvarians was already
under the firm control of the Franks.[60] Article 10 deals with
arson and the compensation imposed for the destruction of
buildings or their component structural parts by fire or any
other means. The information contained in this article is
so vital to the history of early medieval house construction
that it deserves to be quoted in full:

[ILLUSTRATION]

BRONZE SCANDANAVIAN ORNAMENT. LATE IRON AGE (6TH CENTURY)
UPPLAND. Length 10cm. Redrawn from Marten Stenberger.

ARTICLE 10

De incendio domorum et eorum conpositione.

1. Si quis super aliquem in nocte ignem inposuerit et incenderit
liberi [vel servi] domum, inprimis secundum qualitatem personae omnia
aedificia conponat atque restituat, et quicquid ibi arserit, restituat
unaquaeque subiectilia. Et quanti liberi nudi evaserint de ipso incendio,
unumquemque cum sua hrevevunti conponat; de feminis vero
dupletur. Tunc domui culmen cum XL solidis conponat.

2. De scoria vero liberis, si conclusa parietibus et pessulis cum clave
munita fuerit, cum XII solidis culmen conponat; si autem septa non
fuerit, sed talis quod Baiuvarii scof dicunt, absque parietibus, cum VI
solidis conponat.

De illo granario, quod parc appellant, cum IV solidis conponant.

De mita vero, si illam detegerit vel incenderit, cum III solidis
conponat.

De minore vero, quod scopar appellant, cum I solido conponat.

Et universa parilia restituatur.

3. De minorum aedificiorum, si quis desertaverit aut culmen eiecerit,
quod saepe contingit, aut incendio tradiderit, uniuscuiusque quod firstfalli
dicunt, quae per se constructi sunt, id est balnearius, pistoria, coquina
vel cetera huiusmodi, cum III solidis conponat et restituat dissipata vel
incensa.

4. Si autem ignem posuerit in domum, ita ut flamma eructuat, et non
perarserit et a familiis liberata fuerit, unumquemque de liberis cum sua
hrevavunti conponat, eo quod illos inunwan, quod dicunt, in disperationem
vitae fecerit, et non conponat amplius nisi tantum quantum
ignis consumpserit.

Ducalis vero disciplina integer permaneat. Et si negare voluerit de
istis, cum campione se defendat aut cum XII sacramentales iuret.

De servorum vero firstfalli uniuscuiusque ut manus recisa conponat.

5. Modo qui [de] domorum incensione sermo perfinitum censemus,
incongruum non est, ut de dissipatione domui aedificiorum conpositione
non edisseremus.

6. Si quis relicti vel quolibet causa, per presumptionem vel inimicitiam
nec et incurie aut certe ebitione, liberi culmen eiecerit, domini domui XL
solidos conponat.

7. Si eam columnam a qua culmen sustentatur, quam firstsul vocant,
cum XII solidis conponat.

8. Si interioris aedificii illam columnam eiecerit quam winchilsul
vocant, cum VI solidis conponat.

9. Ceterae vero huius ordinis conponantur cum III solidis.

10. Exterioris vero ordinis columna angularis cum III solidis
conponat.

11. Illas alias columnas huius ordinis singulas cum singulis solidis
conponat.

12. Trabes vero singuli cum III solidis conponat.

13. Exteriores vero quas spanga vocamus eo, quod ordinem continent
parietum, cum III solidis conponat.

14. Cetera vero, id est asseres, laterculi, axes ve quicquid in aedificio
construitur, singula cum singulis solidis conponat.

Et si una persona haec omnia commiserit in alterius aedificio,
amplius non cogatur solvere quam culminis deiectione vel ea quae
maiora huius commiserit criminis; minora huius personae non secuntur,
nisi tantum restituendi secundem legum.[61]

[ILLUSTRATION]

286. HOUSE OF THE LEX BAJUVARIORUM

8th CENTURY

RECONSTRUCTION BY KARL GUSTAV STEPHANI

[I, 1902, 326; redrawn]

Stephani correctly interpreted WINCHILSUL ("columna angularis")
and "caterae columnae huius ordinis" as, respectively, cornerpost
(A-A) and posts standing in the walls connecting them (B-B). Not
mentioned in the text and therefore purely arbitrary are entrances
to porch and main house (D, E), hearth (F), and porch itself (L-L).

The "columna a qua culmen sustentatur quam firstsul vocant"
Stephani correctly interpreted as ridge post (C), but incorrectly
presumed that it referred to a single massive timber erected in the
center of the living space. He also overlooked the reference in the
text to an inner order of posts ("ordo interioris aedificii").

The scale of Stephani's plan as it is drawn seems illogical. Evidence
from site excavations supports the contention that a ridge post such
as he postulates could not have been larger than ca. 18″ × 18″.

This dimension, applied to his drawing as a scale indicator, would
make his proposed living space about 14 feet square, or drastically
less than that needed to accommodate a Bajuvarian freeman's
family and servants. As a diagram, the plan is wholly deceptive with
little of constructive value.

ARTICLE 10

On arson and the compensation payable therefor.[62]

1. If someone sets fire at night to somebody's property, and
ignites the house of a free man (or of a serf) he is bound, first of all,
to pay a fine according to the rank of the person and make restitution
for all of the buildings; and whatever he sets on fire there,
furnishings and equipment, he will have to restore. And with all
free men who have escaped from said fire without their clothes on,
he will have to settle according to their wound money; in the case of
women, however, this will have to be doubled. Moreover, for the
roof of the house, he will have to settle with a fine of 40 shillings.

2. And in the case of the barn[63] of a free man, if it is enclosed
with walls and provided with a lockable bar, he will have to settle
for the roof with a fine of 12 shillings; if, however, it is unenclosed,
what the Bajuvarians call a scof,[64] i.e., a shed without any walls, he
will have to settle with a fine of 6 shillings.

In the case of such a granary, however, as they call a parc,[65] he
will have to settle with a fine of 4 shillings.

But in the case of a mita,[66] if he un-roofs it or sets it on fire, he
will have to settle with a fine of 3 shillings.

But in the case of a smaller one, which they call a scopar,[67] he
will have to settle with a payment of 1 shilling.

And everything he will have to restore in like.

3. In the case of smaller buildings, if someone devastates them,
or tears their roofs down, as often happens, or surrenders them to
fire, which they call firstfalli,[68] he will have to settle for every one
which is separately built, such as a bathhouse, a bakehouse, a
kitchen house, or any other structure of this sort, with a fine of 3
shillings and will have to restore whatever is destroyed or burned
down.

4. However, if he sets fire to a house so that it bursts into flame
yet the house does not burn down and is saved by the members of
the household, he will have to settle the wound money for each of
the free people, because he inunwan[69] them, as they say, i.e., put
them in fear of their life, and beyond that he will not have to make
any further compensations in excess of that which has been consumed
by the fire.

The fines forfeited to the duke, however, remain unaffected.
And if he wishes to contest any of these he will have to defend
himself with a champion or must take an oath supported by 12
oath helpers.

As far as the serfs are concerned the destruction of a house
(firstfalli) will have to be settled in like manner as the cutting off of
a hand.

5. And now, since we deem our ruling on the burning of buildings
completed, it is not inappropriate that we explore in greater
detail the fines imposed upon the destruction of the living quarters
of a household.

6. If someone with criminal or any other intent, through arrogance
or hostility, through negligence or a certain lack of understanding,
tears down the roof of a free man, he will have to settle
with a fine of 40 shillings.

7. If [he tears down] that post by which the ridge is held in place
and which they call firstsul ("ridge post"), he will have to settle
with a fine of 12 shillings.

8. If he tears down in the interior of the building that post which
they call winchilsul ("corner post"),[70] he will have to settle with a
fine of 6 shillings.

9. For the other posts of this order, however, he will have to
settle with a fine of 3 shillings.

10. But for the corner posts of the outer order he will have to
settle with a fine of 3 shillings.

11. For all the other posts of this order he will have to settle, for
each individually, with 1 shilling.

12. For the tie beams,[71] however, he will have to settle each with
a fine of 3 shillings.

13. For the outer beams, however, which we call spanga[72] [literally,
"clamp"] because they hold together the order of the walls,
he will have to settle with a fine of 3 shillings.

14. For everything else, however, that is the boards,[73] the
shingles,[74] and the bracing-struts,[75] or whatever else is used in the
construction of a building, he will have to settle with 1 shilling each.

And if a person has inflicted all of this damage to the building
of another person, he shall not be compelled to pay more than what
is due for the destruction of the roof and whatever crimes he has
committed greater than this. Minor infractions of this person are
not to be prosecuted with the exception of those for which restitution
has to be made according to law.

*

The article then goes on to define the compensation set
for damage to the yard, the braided wattle enclosures, the
pastures, roads, and pathways.

Of all surviving literary sources on early medieval architecture
this article of the Lex Bajuvariorum offers the
fullest and most detailed information on the nature of
contemporary domestic building. In the first place it
confirms what had already been demonstrated by the Lex
Alamannorum, namely, the fact that the West Germanic
farmhouse of the eighth century consisted of an aggregate
of separate structures, which included a living house (domus),
a bathhouse (balnearius), a bakehouse (pistoria), and a
kitchen house (coquina), plus an entire group of agricultural
service structures, such as the various barns and stables
(scoria, granarium quod parc appellant, etc.). But more
importantly, in paragraphs 6-14 we are furnished with an
item by item account of the component members of the
roof-supporting frame of timber. Their functions are defined
by their names, listed often both in Latin and in their
vernacular Old High German form; and their varying
size and structural importance are reflected in the weight
of the fine that is placed upon their damage or destruction.
Listed in the sequence of their constructional importance
they are:

1. Culmen or first: the "ridge" or "ridge beam" to
which the head of the rafters is fastened. Its demolition
entails the collapse of the entire roof; hence, the largest
fine is set for its destruction (40 shillings). In the Lex
Bajuvariorum the term is alternatingly used in the specific
sense of "ridge" or "ridge pole" or as pars pro toto for the
entire roof of the house.

2. Firstsul: "the post by which the ridge is carried" (eam
columnam a qua culmen sustentatur). The structural importance
of this column finds recognition in the fact that the fine
imposed upon its demolition is set at 12 shillings, almost a
third of the fine imposed for the destruction of the whole
house.

[ILLUSTRATION]

HOUSE OF THE LEX BAJUVARIORUM. 8TH CENTURY

287.B

287.A

287.D

287.C

RECONSTRUCTION BY OTTO GRUBER (1926, 24, fig. 13)

The principal characteristic of the house type on which Gruber modeled his reconstruction of the Bajuvarian standard house is that its roof is supported
by three parallel rows of posts, the center row carrying a ridge beam, the outer rows roof plates or purlins. Gruber calls this a "ground floor house for man
and livestock" (ebenerdiges Wohnstallhaus). The earliest extant examples date from the end of the 15th century. They are found on both the Swiss and
German sides of Lake Constance, the Aargau, the Kanton of Bern in the southern parts of the Black Forest, and less frequently in the Saar river basin
and the Eifel Mountains.

In late and post-medieval times the interior of this house was divided, in accordance with the transverse alignment of its posts, into a series of compartments
used for hay or harvest storage (Schopf), usually under a hipped portion of the roof; for livestock (Stall); as central access area to other compartments
(Tenne) and in winter also for wagon storage; as kitchen (Küch); and as a withdrawal area often subdivided by an axial wall into two private rooms
(Stuben), under the roof at the end of the house opposite the Schopf.

In general structural organization this house may well derive from that of the Lex Bajuvariorum, but whether the latter may have been divided into
compartments cannot be decided on textual evidence. (For extant examples see O. Gruber, 1926, and a posthumous study by him, Bauernhäuser am
Bodensee, edited by K. Gruber, Lindau and Konstanz, 1961.)

3. Winchilsul: this member is explicitly said to stand in
the interior of the building (interioris aedificii). It is part of
a columnar order whose individual posts (assessed at 3
shillings) rate only half of its own value (6 shillings).
The context leaves no doubt that winchilsul was the Old
High German designation for the four corner posts of the
freestanding inner frame of timbers which carried the roof
plates and separated the house internally into a center
space and a peripheral suite of aisles. The corner posts
were obviously of a heavier make than "the remaining
posts of this order" (ceterae huius ordinis), since they were
rated twice their value. But rising only midway up to the
roof, they rate in turn only half the value of the ridge-supporting
firstsul.

4. Columna angularis exterioris ordinis: "the corner
column of the outer order of posts." Its penal value amounts
to 3 shillings, in contradistinction to the "other members
of this order" (aliae columnae huius ordinis) which are
assessed at 1 shilling each.

The relative value assessed to all of these members
suggests that the outer wall posts had only half the strength
of the posts of the inner frame.

5. Trabes: the horizontal long and cross pieces ("tie
beams" and "roof plates"), which frame the principal
uprights together. The relation of paragraph 12 to paragraph
13 leaves no doubt that trabes is used as a generic
designation for all those horizontal timbers which connect
the uprights lengthwise and crosswise. Paragraph 12 deals
with the trabes of the inner order, i.e., the "tie beams"
and "roof plates" which connect the principal inner posts
that separate the nave from the aisles of the hall. Their
penal value (3 shillings) is identical with that of the supports
on which they rest, save for the heavier corner posts
(winchilsul) which rate twice that value. Paragraph 13
deals with the trabes of the outer order (exterioris vero) and
refers to them with the Old High German designation:

6. Spanga, "clamp," so-called "because they hold the
walls together." The fine assessed for the destruction of
these timbers, in modern architectural terminology referred
to as "wall plates," is identical with that of the corresponding
pieces of the inner order (3 shillings).

7. Asseres, laterculi, and axes, the "rafters," the "shingles,"
and the "bracing struts". Their penal value is 1
shilling each.

We are not the first, of course, to try our hand at a
reconstruction of the Bajuvarian standard house based on
this meticulous enumeration of its component structural
members. A first attempt of this kind, consisting of a plan
only, was made in 1902 by Karl Gustav Stephani (fig.
286);[76] a second, consisting of a plan and various sections
and elevations, in 1926 by Otto Gruber (fig. 287);[77] and a
third, in the form of an isometric perspective, in 1951 by
Torsten Gebhard (fig. 288).[78]

Stephani's interpretation (fig. 286) of the house as a one-room
structure with a porch on one of its narrow ends
misses the basic message of the text, which makes a clear
distinction between an "inner" and an "outer order of
posts" and within each of these between their "regular
members" and their "corner posts." This suggests a house
that is composed of a center space and a peripheral belt of
outer spaces. Even more untenable is Stephani's explanation
of firstsul as a ridge-supporting center post. I presume
that it was the fact that this term is used in the singular
which induced Stephani to interpret the passage to mean
that the ridge of the Bajuvarian house was supported by a
single post that stood in the very center of the building.
Such an arrangement is constructively incongruous and
must be refuted on both linguistic and architectural
grounds. Linguistically, one finds, the singular form appears
again in the very next paragraph, and there it refers
to a structural member (winchilsul, "corner post") which
by definition cannot have possibly existed in a singular
form, since a house with one corner post would be a logical
absurdity. Constructionally, a ridge beam may be supported
by a center post, but a center post alone could not
possibly hold it in place; its stability required additional
supports at each end of the beam. It must have been
Stephani's faulty exegesis of the text that induced Dehio
to remark with regard to the Lex Bajuvariorum that "the
attempt to reconstruct the Bajuvarian standard house is
unconvincing."[79] The criticism is fully justified when
applied to Stephani, but it would be wrong if it implied, as
the context suggests, that the source did not lend itself to a
convincing reconstruction.

Gruber's reconstruction (fig. 287) comes considerably
closer to the truth; but his internal subdivision of the house
into areas used as stables, barns, and living quarters are derived
from post-medieval house forms (Old Upper Suebian
farmhouse and Hotzen house) and are, therefore, purely
conjectural. Decidedly wrong in Gruber's reconstruction
is the application of the term winchilsul to all the members
of the "inner order" (designated with the Arabic figure 2
in his plan), because the text distinguishes clearly between
the "corner posts" (winchilsul) and the "other columns
of this order" (ceterae vero huius ordinis).

By far the most convincing of all the existing reconstructions
is that of Thorsten Gebhard (fig. 288). As a point of
minor criticism it might be noted that there is nothing in
the Lex Bajuvariorum which would suggest that the center
space was boarded off against the outer space by the solid
wooden paneling shown in Gebhard's reconstruction;
while, conversely, this reconstruction fails to show a feature
that is explicitly mentioned in the text, namely, the "remaining
posts of the inner order" (ceterae huius ordinis
[columnae]). Gebhard is probably right when he assumes
that the Bajuvarian standard house had its principal
entrance in the middle of one of its long sides, but again

[ILLUSTRATION]

HOUSE OF THE LEX BAJUVARIORUM

288. AXONOMETRIC VIEW

8TH CENTURY

[reconstruction by Thorsten Gebhard, 1951, 234, fig. 3]

In overall appearance this reconstruction of the house of the Lex Bajuvariorum
is fairly convincing. But like Stephani, Gebhard fails to account
for the inner order of posts ("columnae interioris aedificii") which, the text
states, stood between the cornerposts (winchilsul).

The horizontal timbers connecting the heads of these posts could not have
carried the roof load over very wide spans without additional posting as
described in the text; unsupported, they would surely have sagged or broken.
The same holds true for the ridge purlin. Nor is there any indication in the
text that the center space of the house was separated from the peripheral
spaces by a solid wall partition, as Gebhard shows.

*

The orientation of the large group of buildings at Zwenkau-Harth (fig. 288.X.a) is
conspicuous in the treatment to be found in Quitta, 1958, and was possibly to gain advantageous
solar exposure, or protection from the wind.

[ILLUSTRATION]

ZWENKAU-HARTH NEAR LEIPZIG, GERMANY

288.X.b SECTION

3RD MILLENNIUM B.C.

[after Quitta, Neue Ausgrabungen in Deutchland, 1958, 69 and 75]

Houses divided lengthwise into four aisles by three axial rows of posts,
carrying ridge beam and purlins, were among main characteristics of the
architecture of the Banded Pottery People (Bandkeramiker) who introduced
agriculture and animal husbandry into Central Europe between 50003000
B.C., and who, owing to their sedentary life of seeding and harvesting,
became the first European village builders.

A distinctive construction feature of their houses is the transverse alignment
of the roof-supporting posts that divide the house crosswise internally
into a sequence of compartments—a trait perplexingly similar to the partitioning
of the late and post-medieval houses studied by Gruber (fig. 287).
The house of the Lex Bajuvariorum, as well as its late medieval derivatives,
may have its first roots in this Neolithic house tradition, but the precise
manner in which these concepts might have been transmitted over three
milennia is not known. (For possible Bronze and Iron Age links, see fig.
289.A)

this is a purely conjectural feature. In my reconstruction
(fig. 289) I have limited myself to showing only those members
which are explicitly mentioned in the Lex. The Lex
does not tell us anything about the position of the hearth,
but the location of the hearth is not in question. In structures
of this type the hearth was always in the middle, or
somewhere else along the axis of the center space, at
maximal distance from the incendiary timbers of the walls
and the roof.

Dehio, then, greatly underrated the importance of the
Lex Bajuvariorum for the history of early medieval house
construction. This code not only lends itself to a structural
reconstruction of the Bajuvarian standard house, but it does
so with singular explicitness, and from the information thus
obtained we can draw general conclusions that are of
importance for the broader issues of our study. Foremost
among these is the recognition that during the eighth
century a European house type existed with a general
design that closely resembled the North Germanic house of
the Saga period. Like the latter, it is a skeletal timber
structure and is covered by a large pitched roof, whose
rafters converge in a ridge pole.

There are some distinctive differences, to be sure. In the
Saga house, as has been pointed out, the ridge pole was carried
by short king posts (dvergr) that rose from the center of
the cross beams. In the house of the Bajuvarians the ridge
was supported by posts that rose from the ground. The
Saga house was three-aisled like the Germanic all-purpose
house discussed below, pp. 45ff. The house of the Lex
Bajuvariorum is four aisled, bearing striking, yet so far
inexplicable, resemblance to a house type common in
Central Europe in the 3rd millenium B.C. (see caption,
288X).

CAROLINGIAN CROWN ESTATES AND THEIR
HOUSES, IN THE LIGHT OF
CONTEMPORARY ADMINISTRATIVE ORDINANCES
AND PROPERTY DESCRIPTIONS

In contradistinction to the Alammanic and Bajuvarian law,
the law of the Franks (Lex Salica)[80] is a disappointingly
unrewarding source of architectural information. It does
not include a special chapter on arson, nor does it otherwise
define the fines imposed upon the demolition of the whole
or any part of the Frankish house. But this deficiency is
compensated for, to some extent, by the survival of two
administrative ordinances of the Frankish court which give
us some insight into the architectural layout of a royal
crown estate, the Capitulare de villis and the so-called
Brevium exempla.

CAPITULARE DE VILLIS

The Capitulare de villis,[81] an ordinance formerly assumed
to have been drawn up in 794 or 795 by the young Louis
the Pious in order to correct certain abuses that had
arisen in the administration of the royal estates of Aquitania,
is now believed to have been issued by Charlemagne
shortly before 800 as a directive to the entire empire
(except Italy) in part to curtail mismanagement, in part to
set a program for the future. Among the seventy-odd
articles of which it is comprised, there are some that refer
to architecture. They read like a description of some of the
guest and service structures of the Plan of St. Gall, and
exhibit with vivid distinctness the basic similarity of the
architectural layout of a secular and a monastic Carolingian
manor. In fact, being laid down for the specific purpose of
defining what buildings are considered to be indispensable
components of a royal estate, they form literary counterparts
to the agricultural service structures of the Plan of
St. Gall. While providing us with a comprehensive picture
of the diversity of buildings associated with Carolingian
crown estates, they unfortunately do not tell us anything
about their design or construction.

I am extracting from these articles whatever appears to
have a bearing on architecture, without regard to the order
in which this material appears in the original.

Article 27 prescribes: "At all times our houses [casae
nostrae] shall be provided with fireplaces and fire[?]guards
[foca et wactas habeant] so that they do not suffer any
damage."[82]

Article 42 specifies the household equipment of the
royal supply room (camera). It stipulates that it be provided
at all times with its full complement of bedding,
tableware, cutlery, cooking equipment, and all other kind
of utensils, so that one will never be in need of sending for
them or borrowing them from outside. It contains nothing
further that would shed any light on the layout of the
royal mansion itself.[83]

Article 41 provides, "that the buildings in our estates
[intra curtes nostras], and the surrounding fences [sepes] be
well guarded and that the stables [stabulae], the kitchens
[coquinae], the bakehouse [pistrina], and the presses [torcularia]
be planned with care, so that our men [ministeriales
nostri] can perform their functions properly and with
cleanliness."[84]

[ILLUSTRATION]

289.A HOUSE OF THE LEX BAJUVARIORUM. 8TH CENTURY

PERSPECTIVE WITH ROOFING REMOVED, SHOWING STRUCTURAL SCHEME

AUTHOR'S INTERPRETATION

The relative severity of the penalties imposed by the Lex Bajuvariorum to compensate a householder for willful damage done to his dwelling
(see fig. 289.B) is clearly related to the size and structural importance of the particular timber involved. The preoccupation of the text with
penalties for "pulling down" house timbers presumes that in general the overall framework of the typical house was sufficiently light, and its
key timbers sufficiently accessible, to make this mode of revenge an attractive nuisance.

Timbered early medieval houses with a central row of posts supporting the ridge parlins have, since this chapter was written, appeared in
excavations in Manching and Kirchheim, near Munich (see Schubert, Germania, L (1972), 110ff, and Dannheimer, IBID., L1 (1973), 168ff.
For sporadic Bronze and Iron Age antecedents see Zippelius, 1953, 19, fig. 2; Reinerth, I, 1940, 16, fig. 4b; Pl. 6 opposite p. 26; 28, fig. 7;
139, figs. 60-62; 198, fig. 85.)

I am not aware of the existence of any Central European Bronze and Iron Age houses with three parallel rows of roof-supporting posts. The
connection of the house of the Lex Bajuvariorum with those of the Banded Pottery People suggested in fig. 289.X must therefore be treated
with caution.

In West and North Germanic territory, houses with a row of center posts for carrying ridge purlins are a great rarity. Notable exceptions are
the two Iron Age houses of Wijchen, shown below, figs. 300 and 301.

[ILLUSTRATION]

289.B HOUSE OF THE LEX BAJUVARIORUM. 8TH CENTURY

PLAN. STRUCTURAL MEMBERS IDENTIFIED, WITH FINES LEVIED TO COMPENSATE DAMAGE

AUTHOR'S INTERPRETATION

Article 23 prescribes: "Our superintendents shall see to
it that each of our estates be provided with its dairy
[vaccaritia], its piggery [porcaritia], its facilities for raising
sheep [berbicaritia], its facilities for raising goats [capraritias],
and its facilities for raising billy goats [hircaritias];
and of all this they shall have as much as they can handle;
and none of our estates shall be without these installations."[85]

Article 46 prescribes, "that the enclosures for animals
commonly referred to as brogli lucos nostros, quos vulgus
brogilos vocat be well guarded, and always kept in good
repair, and that one should not wait until it is necessary to
rebuild them anew; and the same applies to all of the buildings."[86]

Article 50 prescribes, that each superintendent determine
the number of chickens that should be kept in each stable
(stabulo) and the number of caretakers to be stationed with
them. (In Article 19 it had already been established "that
not less than 100 chickens and 30 geese shall be kept in the
barns of our main estates [ad scuras nostras in villis capitaneis]
and not less than 50 chickens and 12 chickens and
12 geese in our outlying settlements [ad mansioles].")[87]

Article 45 prescribes, "that each of our superintendents
see to it that he have skillful craftsmen [artifices] in his
district [in suo ministerio], that is: blacksmiths [fabros ferrarios],
goldsmiths [aurifices], silversmiths [argentarios], shoemakers
[sutores], lathe workers [tornatores], carpenters [carpentarios],
shieldmakers [scutarios], fishermen [piscatores],

[ILLUSTRATION]

KÄNNE (STAVGARD), PARISH OF BURS, GOTLAND,
SWEDEN

GERMANIC LONGHOUSE, 3RD-5TH CENTURY

PLAN [after Stenberger, II, 1955, iii, fig. 357]

The house was built in two stages. Its northern half (the original dwelling) had
a floor of stamped clay. The inner walls were lined with heavy granite boulders.
The roof was covered with turves that fell into the house as its supporting
timber frame collapsed, smothering the fire that destroyed it.

The floor of the southern half of the house was paved with fine gravel. Its roof
was of lighter construction and its walls less solidly built than the northern half.
Entrances were in the gable walls.

falconers [aucipites id est ancellatores], soapmakers [saponarios],
brewers [siceratores], that is, those who know how to
make beer [cerevisam], apple cider [pomatium], pear cider
[piratium], and any other kind of drink; the bakers [pistores],
who make pastry for our table, the netmakers
[retiatores] who know the art of making nets for the hunt,
as well as for fishing and for the catching of birds; and all
such other craftsmen [reliquos ministeriales] which it would
be too long to enumerate."[88]

BREVIUM EXEMPLA

The Brevium exempla ad describendas res ecclesiasticas et
fiscules consist of three specimen descriptions of property,
more or less fiscal in character, and were presumably
drawn up for the guidance of the royal agents who assessed
the produce of the domain.[89] The first description is of the
possessions of the see of Augsburg on an island in Staffelsee
in Bavaria, the second is part of a register of the possessions
of the Abbey of Weissenburg in Alsace, and the third is
the survey of five royal fiscs directly belonging to the crown.
Two of these are listed by name, viz., the estates of
Asnapium (Anappes in France, dép. Nord, arr. Lille,
cant. Lannoy), and the estate of Treola (no longer identifiable,
probably in Alamannia); three others are left anonymous
(perhaps the hamlets of Vitry, Cysoing, and the
Soumain near Anappes). The date of the Brevium exempla
is uncertain, but the prevailing view is that they were
written about 812.

Considerably less interesting from a general historical
point of view than the Capitulare de villis, the Brevium
exempla have the virtue of being more detailed and factual
in their reference to architectural conditions. Here we are
given a precise account not only of the number and type of
buildings found on each of the five aforementioned
estates, but also of the construction materials, and in the
case of the royal mansions, even the number and type of
rooms. The following passages from the Brevium exempla
describe portions of the crown estates of Anappes and its
outlying settlements, Treola, and three holdings ("anonymous
estates") not cited by name.

The crown estate of Anappes and its outlying
settlements

Invenimus in Asnapio fisco dominico salam regalem ex lapide factam
optime, cameras III; solariis totam casam circumdatam, cum pisilibus
XI; infra cellarium I; porticus II, alias casas infra curtem ex ligno
factas XVII cum totidem cameris et ceteris appendiciis bene compositis;
stabolum I, coquinam I, pistrinum I, spicaria II, scuras III. Curtem
tunimo strenue munitam, cum porta lapidea, et desuper solarium ad
dispensandum. Curticulam silimiter tunimo interclausam, ordinabiliter
dispositam, diversique generis plantatum arborum.[90]

[ILLUSTRATION]

LOJSTA, GOTLAND, SWEDEN

291.C

291.B

291.A

GERMANIC HOUSE

3RD-5TH CENTURY

RECONSTRUCTION BY G. BOETHIUS
AND J. NIHLEN

[photos: Statens Historiska Museet, Stockholm]

A. Foundation of house after excavation.

A magnificent and one of the first excavated
examples of an aisled Germanic house of the
Migration Period. Its walls were made of
earth carefully lined with stones. The roof
was supported by two rows of wooden posts
rising from flat stones all of which were still
in place. These supports must have been
framed at their heads into stable trusses by
means of cross beams and long beams. The
entrance was in the western gable wall; the
hearth in the middle of the center floor
toward the inner end of the hall.

B and C. Reconstruction of the dwelling.

Reconstructed at full scale on the original
site in 1932, the dwelling follows drawings
submitted by the excavators. Although now
questioned in the rendering of certain
details, this reconstruction nevertheless
gives a very accurate impression of the
unitary quality of the interior space
unmarred by the fact that its roof-supporting
frame divides into a multiplicity
of bays. The roof may not have been
covered with thatch but with turves. The
walls were originally a little higher, and
the entrance wall was probably not straight
but hipped at the eastern end of the roof.

[ILLUSTRATION]

292.A ÞÓRSÁRDALUR VALLEY, ICELAND. HALL STÖNG

PLAN OF HOUSE [after A. Roussel in Stenberger, 1943, 78, fig. 137]

I. Fore room, Jorskáli

II. Sleeping house, skáli, divided by transverse partition into room for men,
karlskáli, and room for women, kvennaskáli

III. Living house, stofa

IV. Dairy, mjólkrbûr

V. Room for cold storage, kjátlari

The house had only one entrance and no windows; it received light and air through a lantern-surmounted opening in the roof. Its turf walls were raised on a stone
foundation two courses high; the roof likewise was covered with turves. The center floor of the main house (II) was of stamped clay and contained a fireplace. Two rows
of posts divided this space into three aisles, the two side aisles being raised and boarded, and partitioned transversely into men's and women's sleeping quarters. A
square area boarded off at the inner end of the south aisle probably formed a sleeping alcove for the farmer and his wife.

The living room (III) contained a hearth for cooking, a stone box 50cm deep. The dairy (IV) was accessible only from inside the house and contained three round
impressions in the floor, presumably from large vats. Its walls were lined with lava stones to a height of 1.1m. A room presumably for cold storage (V) was accessible
only from the fore room (I).

The photograph (fig. 292.B) taken from the door of the living room shows the excavation of the main hall, and reveals with great clarity how the aisles and floor of
the fore room were raised above the level of the center floor. The banked earth of these side aisles was retained by staked boards. Large flat stones at 2-meter intervals
provided footing for the roof posts. Smaller stones set along the walls, pieces of wood still attached, show the house was wainscotted. Absence of personal effects indicates
the residents were forewarned of the eruption of Mt. Hekla, in 1300, that destroyed the house and converted the fertile valley into a wasteland of lava and ash.

The reconstruction (fig. 291.C) portrays the ingenious simplicity with which man could, in a harsh Atlantic climate, make a dwelling not only secure against attack, but
warm and homely as well. The compact top-growth of Iceland terrain is well suited to turf-cutting. For timber the chieftains of the Saga Period relied on wood
imported from Norway, or on driftwood swept in by Atlantic storms from distant North American coasts. The only locally available building material was a dwarf
birch whose fine branches were used as matting for the roof turves.

[ILLUSTRATION]

292.C INTERIOR VIEW OF HOUSE. REDRAWN FROM ROUSSEL, 1943, 211, fig. 144

[ILLUSTRATION]

292.B FOUNDATIONS OF HALL AFTER EXCAVATION. PHOTO COURTESY OF A. ROUSSEL

[ILLUSTRATION]

293. EZINGE (GRONINGEN), THE NETHERLANDS

FOUNDATIONS,

HOUSE A OF WARF-LAYER VI, 4th CENTURY B.C.

[photo by courtesy of A. E. Van Giffen]

The remains of this flatland-level farmhouse show that its interior was divided into a broad center space and two aisles, each roughly half the
width of the nave, by two rows of roof-supporting wooden posts of young, unscantled oak. Their stumps, cut a few feet above the original floor
level when the house was dismantled to make a new settlement on higher ground, were well preserved to a depth of several feet. Braided
wattlework walls formed an enclosure slightly inside the perimeter of outer posts and independent of them. The corners of the house were rounded,
suggesting that the roof was hipped over its narrow ends. A cross partition divided the interior into a dwelling area containing a fireplace, and
a much larger byre for livestock. The building was entered on one of its long sides. In a rectangular yard extending to the north, nine rows of
posts formed supports for a wooden platform presumably used to store fodder and other produce.

This settlement was dismantled after about a hundred years, because the rising waters of the North Sea made it unsafe to live on this horizon.
As centuries passed and the inundation level continued to rise, the site developed as a dome-shaped mound on successively higher, broader levels,
formed by earth, turves, and manure thrown up by the dwellers. The growth of the settlement is traceable through six layers over seven
centuries. The mound attained a diameter of 450m and a center height of 5.5m. The terrain elevation seen at the right is an undisturbed
portion of the present surface of the mound, now occupied by the church and houses of modern Ezinge.

We found on the royal estate of Anappes the royal hall built in
stone, in the best manner, three chambers, the entire house surrounded
by solaria; with eleven heatable rooms[91] and below one cellar;
two porches; seventeen other houses within the main yard,[92] built
in timber, with the same number of chambers, and other appendices,
all well constructed; one stable, one kitchen, one bakehouse, two
grain barns, three other barns. The main yard well protected with
a fence,[93] with a masonry gate, and above this, a solarium. The
smaller yard likewise enclosed with a fence built in the usual
fashion and planted with various types of trees.

The document subsequently lists the dead and live stock
at Anappes down to the smallest detail, and then turns to
the inventory of the outlying settlements:

In the estate of Gruson[94] we came upon the outlying settlements.
There are three barns, and the yard is surrounded by a fence. . . .

On another estate we found the outlying settlements and the
yard protected with a fence, and inside three barns. . . .

On a third estate [literally, on "that estate"] we found the
outlying settlement to be comprised of two barns, one granary, one
garden and the yard well protected with a fence. . . .

The crown estate of Treola

Invenimus in Treola fisco dominico casam dominicatem ex lapide optime
factam cameras II cum totidem caminatis, porticum I, cellarium I, torcolarium
I, mansiones virorum ex ligno factas III, solarium cum pisile
I; alia tecta ex maceria III, spicarium I, scuras II, curtem muro
circumdatam cum porta ex lapide facta. . . .[95]

We found on the crown estate of Treola the royal mansion built
excellently in stone, two chambers with the same number of heatable
rooms, one porch, one cellar, one press-shed, three houses for
men, built in timber, a solar with one heatable room, three other
houses [literally, "roofs"] in masonry, one granary, two barns,
the yard surrounded with a wall and [provided] with a stone-built
gate. . . .

The first anonymous estate

Repperimus in illo fisco dominico domum regalem, exterius ex lapide et
interius ex ligno bene constructam; cameras II, solaria II. Alias casas,
infra curtem ex ligno factas VIII: pisile cum camera I, ordinabiliter
constructum; stabolum I. Coquina et pistrinum in unum tenentur.
Spicaria quinque, granecas III. Curtem tunimo circumdatam, desuperque
spinis munitam cum porta lignea. Habet desuper solarium. Curticulam
similiter tunimo interclusam. . . .[96]

We found on that crown estate the royal house, externally built in
stone and inside well constructed in timber; two chambers, two
solars. Within the main yard eight other houses built in timber; a
heatable room with one chamber built in the usual fashion, one
stable. Kitchen and bakehouse built together, five grain barns,
three granaries. The court surrounded with a fence, above provided
with spines, with a wooden gate. It has above a solar. The smaller
yard likewise enclosed by a fence. . . .

[ILLUSTRATION]

294. EZINGE (GRONINGEN), THE NETHERLANDS

PLAN [after Van Giffen, 1936, Beilage I, fig. 5]

HOUSE A OF WARF LAYER VI, 4th CENTURY B.C.

Plan of the house and storage platform, the remains of which are
shown in the preceding figure. The excavated area is identical with
that shown in figure 296, which shows the next stage of the
settlement.

[ILLUSTRATION]

295. EZINGE (GRONINGEN), THE NETHERLANDS

EXTERIOR VIEW OF SETTLEMENT, 4th CENTURY B.C.

[redrawn from reconstruction by H. Reinerth, 1940, 88, fig. 25]

The discovery of this Iron Age village in 1931-34 was a great landmark in the history of premedieval house construction in transalpine Europe.
The find showed that a house well portrayed by Albrecht Dürer (fig. 335) and Peter Bruegel the Elder (fig. 336) was already fully developed
and in common use for close to 2,000 years.

Later excavations brought the even more startling discovery that this same house type was a standard construction form as early as 1250 B.C.,
and perhaps even in the 14th century B.C. (fig. 323). In the lowlands of Holland and Northern Germany, the same house is used even today
with only minor modifications, for the same purposes for which it was originally conceived (Frisian Los-hus, Lower Saxon Wohnstallhaus).
Its life span is at least 3,300 years, and does not yet appear to have entered its terminal phase.

The most distinctive trait of this type of structure is that it offers, with only a minimum of materials, an ingeniously simple method of covering
large spaces beneath a vast roof carried by a frame of light timbers; these divide the interior of the house lengthwise into nave and two aisles
(figs. 297, 298) and crosswise into a multitude of separable yet transparent bays.

The building type owes its longevity to its ability simultaneously to offer spatial
unity and spatial divisibility. In pre- and protohistorical times almost exclusively
confined to dwelling, sheltering of animals, and harvest storage, the structure entered,
in response to growing complexities of medieval life and social organization, a
virtually explosive phase of functional variety, and came to fill many diverse needs.
On the highest of society, it appeared as residential and administrative seat for
feudal lords and their retainers (figs. 339, 340, and 344-348), including the king
himself. It was used as church (Horn, 1958, 4, figs. 3-8) and Horn, 1962); as
hospital for the sick and infirm (figs. 341-343); as meeting and council hall for the
guilds. And from the 12th century onward in response to the rise of international
trade it became, in Paris and countless smaller towns of France, the standard form
for urban market halls, under whose sheltering roofs the local peasants and traders
from distant places could rent stalls from which to sell produce and goods (Horn
1958, 15ff; Horn and Born, 1961, Horn, 1963).

The second anonymous estate

Invenimus in illo fisco dominico casam regalem cum cameris II totidemque
caminatis, cellarium I, porticus II, curticulam interclusam
cum tunimo strenue munitam; infra cameras II, cum totidem pisilibus,
mansiones feminarum III, capellam ex lapide bene constructam; alias
intra curtem casas ligneas II, spicaria IV, horrea II, stabolum I,
coquinam I, pistrinum I; curtem sepe munitam cum portis ligneis II et
desuper solaria.[97]

We found on that crown estate the royal house with two chambers
and the same number of heatable rooms, one cellar, two porches,
the smaller yard enclosed by a well-built fence; inside, two chambers
with the same number of heatable rooms, three houses for women,
a chapel well constructed in stone, two other timber houses in the
court, four grain barns, two hay barns, one stable, one kitchen, one
bakehouse. The main yard protected with a fence with two wooden
gates and solaria above.

The third anonymous estate

Repperimus in illo fisco dominico domum regalem ex ligno ordinabiliter
constructam, cameram I, cellarium I, stabolum I, mansiones III,
spicaria II, coqinam I, pistrinum I, scuras III, Curtem tunimo circumdatam
et desuper sepe munita. . . Portas ligneas II. . . .[98]

We found in that crown estate the royal house constructed in timber
in the usual fashion, one chamber, one cellar, one stable, three
dwellings, two grain barns, one kitchen, one bakehouse, three
barns. The yard surrounded with a wall, protected above by a
fence . . . two wooden gates. . . .

While failing to reveal anything about the architectural
design of the enumerated structures, the Brevium exempla
are of particular value because they offer concrete information
about the relative use of stone and timber in the architecture
of a Carolingian crown estate. The account of the
sala regalis at Anappes—as we had occasion to point out in
an earlier chapter—[99] with its open solariums, heatable
rooms, and two galleried porches reads like a description
of the Abbot's House on the Plan of St. Gall. Like the
latter, it was composed of several stories and built in
stone. The Brevium exempla, however, make it equally
clear that stone was not considered to be the ordinary
material. With the exception of the chapel of the second
anonymous estate and the two gate houses at Anappes and
Treola, stone appears to be the exclusive prerogative of the
royal mansion, and the superlative form of the epithets
associated with the use of this material (ex lapdie optime
factam) is indicative of the high esteem in which this
material was held. However, only two out of five royal
mansions recorded in the document were entirely stone
structures, those of Anappes and Treola. The domus regalis
of the first anonymous estate had its outer walls constructed
in stone, but everything else inside is in timber (exterius
ex lapide et interius ex ligno bene constructam.) The domus
regalis of the third anonymous estate was built entirely in
wood (ex ligno ordinabiliter constructam). Timber, we will
also have to assume, was used where no specific reference
to any material is made for the casa regalis of the second
anonymous estate. All the other structures of the five
estates either are explicitly said to be built in timber or

must be assumed to be built in timber because of the
absence of any statement to the contrary. And the timbered
buildings formed, of course, an overwhelming majority.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

If we review the evidence obtained from the analysis of the
legal and administrative documents discussed on the preceding
pages, we find ourselves confronted with results of a
widely varying nature. The most illuminating of the considered
sources is doubtlessly the Lex Bajuvariorum. It has
furnished us with a body of specific and detailed architectural
information that enables us to reconstruct the Bajuvarian
standard house of the beginning of the eighth
century. The Lex Alamannorum conveyed a clear idea of the

[ILLUSTRATION]

297. EZINGE (GRONINGEN), THE NETHERLANDS

INTERIOR, HOUSE B, CLUSTER SETTLEMENT, Warf-layer V, 4th-3rd centuries B.C.

[author's reconstruction redrawn by Walter Schwarz]

House B of Warf-layer V played a dominant role in our attempt to identify the constructional features of the guest and service buildings of
the Plan of St. Gall (see below, 77ff). Like the majority of the latter, it is entered broadside through a long wall, and in layout consists of a
spacious inner hall with open fireplace in the axis of the house, and a peripheral suite of outer spaces accessible only from the center floor and
used for more specialized functions such as sleeping, or the stabling of livestock.

This is a reconstruction of the interior of House B, which appears at the bottom right of the plan of Warf-layer V, fig. 296 (and at a larger
scale in fig. 327). The drawing first published in Horn, 1958, 7, fig. 13, was made before the excavator realized that the animals stood with
their heads not inward, but toward the outer walls of the dwelling (cf. below, p. 53 n. 64). The braided wattle mats running along the posts on
either side of the center aisle were found to be manure mats, not fodder mats as previously supposed. Since the artist is no longer alive, and
since his handsome drawing portrays quite persuasively the general character of the space in the dwelling, we decided against trying to retouch
the drawing; the animals remain incorrectly positioned.

general layout of a West-Germanic farmstead of this
period with its principal living unit, the domus or sala, and
its variety of special service structures scattered throughout
the yard and the fields. But they told us little, if anything,
about the architectural design of these structures. The
Capitulare de villis gave us an insight into the administrative
complexity of a Frankish crown estate. The Brevium
exempla, finally, provided us with a precise statistical
account of the number and type of buildings to be found
on five such Carolingian crown estates, and illustrated how
on this highest level of Frankish society a new material,
stone, began to intrude into the northern tradition of building
in timber. They told us a good deal about the number
and type of rooms of which the individual buildings were
composed—but they told nothing about the constructional
features of these rooms, or the houses of which they were a
part.

Thus we would still remain thoroughly ignorant about
the architectural layout and design of a Carolingian residence
and its agricultural service structures were it not for
the light that has recently been thrown on this question by
our colleagues in the field of archaeology.