I'm trying to get some idea of when the earliest rectilinear domestic
buildings with walls and pitched roofs appeared (but not
I assume the emergence of pitched roofs would tie-in the development of
agriculture/settlements/tools capable of cutting timber - but roughly when
I don't pretend to be an expert in this...but I have both taught and
studied architectural history and anthropology. Here is what I know
....and what I think I know:
1. The original motivation for building a pitched roof was probably to
shed rain and/or snow. A flat roof allows rain and/or snow to build up
to the point of collapse. That is why the flat roof was so common in
the dry hot Mesopotamian cities which are the first of what we often
call the "historical world".
2. I would welcome the input of more serious historians....but I
believe that in many cases the most ancient wood-framed pitched roofs
have left little physical evidence due to rot and fire. Somewhere in
the back of my over-crowded brain I think I have heard of
pre-agricultural construction like this in Europe.
3. While there is clearly a certain appeal to the idea that the form
you described is the result of agriculture, I don't know that it is
completely true. For instance, humans did not develop agriculture
before around 10,000 BC....and I believe there is evidence of the
pitched roof over straight walls in older cultures....at least during
the mesolithic cultures from roughly 32,000 to 10,000 BC. This would
make sense since we know that these people had tools dating all the way
back to the Paleolithic that were perfectly capable of this type of
construction....and the form is useful even before farming.
I could probably dig up some examples....but no doubt others have some
specific examples. Hopefully this helps move the conversation forward.
Thanks for the question and Good luck!
San Antonio, Texas y Mexico City
I'd also go with it being an easier, more natural, construction. Starting
with the lean-to. Then any of the essentially lean-to buildings, even fancy
ones with two columns and a central ridge. Walls would be a luxury "Wouldn't
it be neat to have more vertical space at the edges?"
Before anything as dramatic as collapse, you'd get puddling and penetration.
Before anything as dramatic as puddling, you'd get simple failure to run off
along the branches/leaves and dripping.
Gotta call you on this. That's a total failure of expression. "Flat roofs
collapse under rain. That's why they are common in a hot dry place." What
you've said is that Mesopotamians want their roofs to collapse under
water/snow loading. That seems very unlikely.
My understanding is that we tend to know from ceramic grave goods. Clay
models of evidently/clearly timber prototypes. Some also from holes in the
mud - "Look, lots of small holes in a circle. They must have stuck saplings
in the ground and tied them together at the top." And, of course, presuming
that various contemporary (or documented near contemporary) Groups of
Anthropological Interest around the world are building in
I kinda bailed on the OP, but the idea that agriculture caused the
growth/invention of many things is common.
My mind is being a blank.
You assume too much and your assumptions will lead you to the wrong answer.
The first pitched roof was a couple branches leaned up against a fallen log
There is no correlation between pitched roof and rectangular plan.
I wouldn't consider a lean-to with two supports and a ridge as fancy.
The elevated crosspiece, regardless of how it was supported, was almost
certainly linear and there's no jump at all to realizing that the roof
sloping down in both directions provides far more protection. Central
ridge > rectangular plan. I agree that it has nothing at all to do
with agriculture. It's the simplest and fastest structure to build and
suited for a nomadic life.
Disagree. Stick a single pole in the ground and lean things against that -
gives you a round dwelling, requires fewer large members, avoids needing to
make structure out of those large members. Others have found that working
without a major structural member(s) works perfectly well (heavy == not
suited to nomadic). A number of these solutions that come to mind are also
round. Interestingly, I do seem to recall a building formed by two parallel
walls of bundles of reeds pulled in to a center line - Egyptian.
A lean-to crosspiece need not be heavy. It's also most plausible that
the earliest structures with a ridge weren't free-standing. A
crosspiece resting in the crotches of two trees is about as simple as
Of course there were many variations, and there's no doubt that the
earliest cover was simply leaned against a tree or rock, or covered a
pit. But the OP is asking about ridges.
If you have the material to make the roof and ridge, you've got
sufficient trees nearby. Nomadic doesn't mean that they would pack
everything up and move. It didn't matter how heavy the structures were
since they didn't take them with them.
The builders weren't even Homo Sapiens. The earliest manmade
structures I've read about are half a million years old. The fact that
the structure had post holes was the primary evidence of its existence.
Earlier structures, requiring less building skills, would leave no
traces at all.
There can be no definitive answer to when the earliest structure with a
ridge appeared, and probably never will be - it's all supposition...I
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.