OpenArch-Project 2014 – Stone Age Park Dithmarschen, Albersdorf
Report: The Building of mesolithic huts in the Stone Age Park Dithmarschen in 2014
by Werner Pfeifer,
Stone Age Park Dithmarschen, D – 25767 Albersdorf, Germany, info@aoeza.de
The two new huts in the Stone Age Park Dithmarschen in Albersdorf (Germany) had been build in
spring 2014 by the Experimental Archeologist and Educator Werner Pfeifer with the support of
some friends helping as they could and with the financial support of the Stone Age Park
Dihmarschen and the EU-cofinanced project „OpenArch“.
The construction:
The reconstructions and measures of the two huts are based on and inspired by the findings of some
recently discovered mesolithic structures in Middle and Northern Europe (see J. Müller, ).
The basic outline of the big hut is a rectangular with rounded corners with a total length of 8 m and
a width of 4 m.
The outline of the small hut is a circle with a diameter of 4 m.
Both huts are about 4 m high at their highest point and the walls are conical shaped, tapered to a
point on the small hut and oval on the big hut. A smoke hole on the top is leading the smoke out of
the hut.
The roof, starting from ground level, had been constructed by digging arm thick, long, green birch
(Betula spec., Germ: Birke) stems vertically in holes on the outline. Then they had been bent on the
tips to join each other at roof top. We then bound them onto each other. Then added horizontal
thumb thick sticks from buckthorn (Frangula alnus, Germ: Faulbaum) all around in a grid fashion.
This gave the construction a very stable design.
The thatching material for the one side of the big house was gigant miscanthus (Miscanthus
gigantheus, Germ: Chinagras), which we got for free from a neighbour. The rest of thatching was
done with common reed (Phragmites australis, Germ: Reet, Schilf), which we bought from a reed
thatching company in the vicinity.
The thatching was bound with professional, natural fibre thatching rope, which we got from
Denmark.
We thatched the roofes in visible steps, to demonstrate a different technique, in oposition to the
nowadays normal smooth roof style.
In order to keep the inner space dry, we designed an averlapping entrance. The smoke hole as well
has an overlap, to prevent rain entering the inner room.
We build the big hut with the door part and the smoke hole opposite the main wind direction, to
have the wind pull out smoke.
We had to build the entrance of the small hut into the main wind, to have it facing the activity area.
The reet of the roof was resting on an about 20 cm high ground wall, in order to keep it dry.
During september we took away this ground wall to have the reet beeing about 20 cm above
ground, as it started moulding. To prevent cold air and water flowing in, we build a ground wall
inside the hut, all along the roof.
Usage and results during summer 2014:
1. The big hut:
We used the big hut five days a week from around mid of May until end of September. We had a
fire going there nearly every day, burning for about 5 hours each day.
We found, that the relative much drier environment and the smoke prevented any moulding in the
inner. We had mould on the part where reed and ground touched. Thus moved the ground wall
inside the hut, creating a very wellcoming sitting bench.
Sparks of the fire don't ignite the reed at all. So there was never a need of creating a raw hide spark
catch, as one sees in some other museum's.
The birch poles became very dry (and brittle) by end of this first season, and three of them cracked
where they bend most. We think, that the weight of the thatching is a bit too much here. We
replaced these poles with fresh ones and added wooden pillars to support the poles.
As the ground floor stayed moist in parts of the inside, we added a shallow trench under the roof
line. In combination with moving the roof ground wall to the inside of the hut, we could observe
that the ground floor became dry.
The miscanthus thatching is leaking where too thin. So we had to fill some thinner parts with
common reed. The common reed thatching is water proof.
2. The small hut:
The roof is completely made from common reed.
We moved the ground wall under the thatching into the inside of the hut as well, as the roof started
getting moldy too.
This hut was dry from the start, as we never used miscanthus here.
As the entrance faces the main wind direction, the wind stirs up the smoke of a fire inside in such a
way, that we never use the hut with a fire inside.
The birch poles did not crack in this hut. The roof angle is steeper than in the big hut, so the poles
are not bent so strong.
Conclusions:
1. Reet is very waterproof, when build in a steep angle and thick enough (about 20 cm thick).
2. Miscanthus for thatching a roof needs a much thicker layer, about 30 cm, to be waterproof.
3. As a reed thatch roof is very heavy, due to the huge amount of material needed, I think that
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
in prehistoric times reed was probably not used for this type of construction, but rather bark
from big trees, which could be harvested in big sheets. (Unfortunately we have no access to
financially affordable bark sheets here.)
Birch poles seem to dry out very quickly, resulting in cracking where bent, when a roof is
too heavy.
Sparks of the fire inside the hut does not ignite the reet at all!
Fire in the big hut warms up the inside so much, that although wet, cold and windy weather
outside, one needs no much clothing inside.
The construction creates a very cosy environment inside the huts. Many visitors mentioned
this.
The overlapping entrance makes the inside of the hut much bigger than it would have been
without, leaving much more space for visitors, and it prevents rain entering the inside room.
The big entrances of both huts ensures enough light to enter the inner hut, so that no
additional lighting is needed, even for making crafts.
Future constructions:
Should there develop a need for another hut in the future, I highly reccommend a tree bark roof in
order to compare it with the features of our thatched roofes.