Paper short abstract:

Why do Linearbandkeramik houses suddenly become far more varied? If we see building ‘traditions’ in terms of reverential repetition, this seems indeed puzzling. I argue that domestic buildings reference a past ideal community, but were also actively used to argue for very different possible futures.

Paper long abstract:

It is hard to come up with something genuinely new, and for the LBK culture of central Europe (c. 5600-4900 cal BC) it doesn't look like people even tried that hard. LBK building tradition is therefore often conceived as rather static. Andrew Jones (in Memory and Material Culture; CUP 2007) has - convincingly - argued that longhouses are so similar over vast regions and long time spans because they referenced the same 'idealised village' of the mythical past. Building and living in each new longhouse is hence a long-term perpetuation of the (idealised) past, reverentially re-created to structure daily life in the present. Yet, while remaining recognisably 'Danubian' in style, the later LBK house became somewhat more exciting: building enormous houses, freeing up the space inside, trying odd post settings - most things you can do to an LBK house have in fact been done. Is this a period of 'innovation' after the long stasis of 'tradition'? Perhaps the problem rather lies in our insistence to pit these terms against each other. This paper explores the micro-histories of specific dwellings, sites and regions to show that the 'ideal past' LBK people referenced was more versatile than pure repetition. While remaining true to their idea of wanting to create the ideal community, longhouse builders used the 'immutable traditions of time immemorial' to argue for very different futures.