Recent research in the archaeology of architecture: Beyond the foundations

Journal of Archaeological Research, VoL 4, No. 1, 1996

Recent Research in the Archaeology of Architecture: Beyond the Foundations

Sharon R. Steadman 1

Although architectural remains have always been a principal focus of archaeological investigation, research on such remains, particularly small-scale structures, has taken on new importance because of the information they can offer on human behavior. This article provides a review of recent trends in the archaeology of architecture (mainly domestic in nature), including current work in household archaeology and spatial patterning analysis of architectural remains, and discusses the new models and methodologies being generated to interpret these remains. The main areas covered in this review include the New World, Mesoamerica in particular, Europe, and general focus on recent work in the Near East.

KEY WORDS: architecture; household archaeology; spatial analysis; New World; Old World; Near East.

INTRODUCTION

Recent years have seen the publication of a number of insightful and original studies focusing on architecture, particularly domestic architecture, from an archaeological perspective. As a consequence, a rapidly growing corpus of literature concerning the topic of human culture and the built environment now exists; this general area of investigation falls under the rubric of what may be termed the "archaeology of architecture." The time has come for such work to be incorporated into the "mainstream" body of scholarly literature on which anthropologists rely for the interpretation of past human societies. Providing a complete survey of New and Old World

1Department of Anthropology, Hamilton College, Clinton, New York 13323, and Department of Near Eastern Studies, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853.

51

1059-0161/96/0300-0051509.50/0 © 1996 Plenum Publishing Corporation

52 Steadman

research in the archaeology of architecture is beyond the capacity of a single review article such as this one [see Matney and Steadman (1996), for a literature review with a slightly different emphasis]. Instead, I present a survey of recent literature concerning microscale, i.e., intrasite and intras- tructure models focusing primarily on domestic architecture. The emphasis here falls on those works that have presented new research on spatial analysis, social structure, and aspects of economic structure as seen through household archaeology.

This remarkably diverse literature concerns the use of space, household economy, social structure, gender relationships, and many other aspects of sociocultural interaction and relationships within and between settlements. Yet, these recent studies do not represent the first attempts to investigate settlements and architectural remains in the archaeological record. Scholars working in the field of "settlement archaeology," initially in the New World (Steward, 1937; Willey, 1953) and then in the Old World (Adams, 1965, 1972; Braidwood, 1974; Butzer, 1976; Chang, 1968), were partially responsible for "setting the stage" for more recent attempts to examine the built environment for the economic, ecological, and social information it clearly holds. Interest in such topics reached even beyond the archaeological discipline; Amos Rapoport has had an interest in topics that address architecture and its relationship to human culture, past and present, for over 25 years (Rapoport, 1969, 1976, 1982, 1990a). Early ethnoarchaeological work by researchers such as Carol Kramer and Patty Jo Watson used architecture to address issues such as social organization, economic rank (Kramer, 1979, 1982), and subsistence patterns (Watson, 1979).

Lately, revolutionary approaches by numerous archaeologists have produced a significant concentration of work in these areas, drawing on the seminal research noted above, and employing elements of the processualist approach (Binford, 1962, 1965; Caldwell, 1959). Such research incorporates work done by cultural anthropologists and those investigating symbolic and psychological meaning in the built environment [literature on such topics was recently summarized by Lawrence and Low (1990), and a review of theoretical concepts from a more European perspective is given by Egenter (1992)]. These recent works have taken myriad approaches in order to address issues related to economic and political structure (Cheal, 1989; Ham- mel, 1984; Wilk, 1989b), social structure and spatial patterning (Brown and Steadman, 1987), and even employing epistemological approaches (Cart, 1991). Others have begun to investigate the symbolic value of the architectural remains from which authors have extracted the belief structure, traditions, and psychological attitudes in areas such as Africa (Blier, 1987; Bourdieu, 1973; Donley, 1982; Kus and Raharijaona, 1996; Lane, 1994) and beyond (Pearson and Richards, 1994a; Rapoport, 1982, 1988).

Recent Research in the Archaeology of Architecture 53

Perhaps the most common approach among archaeologists investigates architectural remains from a single case study in order to extrapolate a range of data (Ashmore, 1988; Ciolek-ToreUo, 1986, 1989; Donley, 1987; Donley-Reid, 1990; Gilman, 1987) or explores remains cross-culturally in order to construct models of sufficient flexibility for almost any application (Blanton, 1994; Kent, 1990; Oliver, 1987; Steadman and Matney, 1996; Waterson, 1990). All of these cited studies have their specific shortcomings, but the information generated and, more importantly, the stimulus toward even more innovative thinking that such work inspires, far outweigh any flaws or inaccuracies in what can, in many respects, be considered pioneer- ing studies.

The following sections both summarize important early research and integrate more recent findings by scholars who have drawn on their prede- cessors. It is the author's observation, as well as personal experience, that many of those who are entering the world of the archaeology of architecture do so through the doorway provided by household archaeology. Also of significant importance were initial stages of research into spatial analysis, which are vital for understanding the meaning underlying a given architectural layout. Accordingly, the section on household archaeology is followed by a discussion of spatial analysis. The final section details current research on the archaeology of architecture in Near East, particularly as it pertains to the human-generated mounds known as tells that are characteristic of this region.

Throughout the following sections, particular stress is placed on recent research taking place in Near Eastern contexts. Many of the works cited here are those deemed by the author to be preeminently useful to investigators working in areas of the world that are rich in architectural remains but have not yet benefited from concentrated research on those remains. In part due to the author's "area of expertise," the underlying focus of this review is Near Eastern archaeology and architecture, but more importantly because the Near East is an area ripe for the analysis of prehistoric domestic architectural remains, due to the building materials and techniques, and preservation conditions. In over 15 decades of investigation in this region, most interest in Near Eastern architecture centered on monumental, nondomestic remains that could yield information on the secular and religious elites in prehistoric and early historic Near Eastern contexts (e.g., Delougaz, 1940; Heinrich, 1982; Layard, 1850; Mattiae, 1980; Russell, 1991). Only in the last few years have researchers begun to concentrate on nonmonumental architectural remains and thus delve into more microscale issues (e.g., Banning, 1996; Banning and Byrd, 1989; Gnivecki, 1987; Mat- ney, 1993, 1996; Steadman, 1990, 1996). Researchers working at the residential level in Near Eastern archaeology have been fortunate in being

54 Steadman

able to draw on a rapidly growing compendium of archaeological and architectural databases. The following sections, organized thematically, high- light the studies that enabled the author to go "beyond the foundations" of traditional archaeological research in her own area of expertise and, thus, best represent the "archaeology of architecture" as envisioned here.

HOUSEHOLD ARCHAEOLOGY IN RECENT YEARS

Household archaeology is a fairly recent field, with the majority of literature produced in the last two decades. This field can best be described as having grown out of a marriage between settlement analysis and activity area research. Settlement archaeology, as noted above, ranges from the macroscale study of regional settlement patterns to the microscale investigation of activities and spatial organization in a single room. The latter discipline embodies household archaeology, using the organization of the structure, and associated material remains, to focus on the economic aspects of the household unit, such as production and consumption of food and basic commodities, division of labor, and social stratification. House- hold archaeology can be more narrowly defined as a field that addresses the most elemental unit within the socioeconomic structure where the "most primary functions of society" take place (Sharer and Ashmore, 1987, p. 439).

Much of the earliest research on archaeology at the household level and intrasite spatial organization occurred in the New World (Bawden, 1982; Rathje, 1983; Wilk and Rathje, 1982), though there are some notable Old World exceptions (e.g., Clarke, 1972; Kent, 1984; Rapoport, 1982). It was, perhaps, D. L. Clarke's study (1972) of Iron Age houses in Glaston- bury that defined, if not originated, the field of household archaeology. Clarke's study was a multifaceted attempt to define various components of Iron Age society, including the gendered dMsion of labor, social status, and the symbolic representation of ideological concepts embodied in the household structure. While the primary goal of household archaeology has been economic reconstruction, recent research has also addressed social issues such as social change and increasingly complex society (Feldman, 1987; Hendon, 1991; Hirth, 1993a; Sheehy, 1991), gender relations (Tring- ham, 1991a, 1994; Wall, 1994), class stratification, and wealth distribution (Blanton, 1994; Chavalas, 1996; Samson, 1990). Archaeological research on social structure, much of it at the "household" level, has employed models from disciplines outside of archaeology (Bourdieu, 1973, 1977; Bourdier and Atsayyad, 1989; Giddons, 1984; Glassie, 1990; Oliver, 1987; Pred, 1984; Rapoport, 1976, 1980), as well as those proposed by archaeologists.


As stated previously, household archaeology has emerged as the study of the primary unit within the socioeconomic structure, which may in turn provide a basis for extrapolations concerning the entire community structure. Ways of approaching the study of household archaeology range from a focus on activity production areas in the archaeological record (Flannery and Winter, 1976; Hietala, 1984) to the ethnoarchaeological approach. Ar- chaeologists working in the Old World have long employed ethnoarchaeology to understand better the mechanisms at work in a village household, particularly in Africa (Donley, 1982, 1987; Kent, 1984, 1987; Kus and Ra- harijaona, 1990) and the Middle East (Home, 1983, 1994; Kamp, 1987; Kramer, 1979, 1982; Layne, 1987; Seeden, 1985; Watson, 1979). Ethnoar- chaeology and ethnographic studies are useful for discovering the nature of social relations within the domestic unit and other hidden symbolic elements that are not usually evident in the archaeological record. These types of studies are invaluable for their broad framework and the variety of perspectives through which they view prehistoric household structures.

Households, Economics, and Space

Initially, researchers focused on the household as the basic unit of production and as the economic and social center of the settlement. Ground- breaking work in this field was done by Richard Wilk, William Rathje, and Wendy Ashmore. The direction of their research is perhaps best defined in the following opening paragraph in Wilk and Ashmore's (1988) edited volume on Mesoamerican households:

Households are fundamental elements of human society, and their main physical manifestations are the houses their members occupy. Households embody and underlie the organization of a society at its most basic level; they can therefore serve as sensitive indicators of evolutionary change in social organization. The remains of houses are among the most common and obtrusive of archaeological sites. It is for these reasons, we believe, that something called household archaeology has begun to emerge as an area of research in various parts of the world. (p. 1)

The majority of their work focuses on Mesoamerica (e.g., Rathje, 1983; Wilk, 1983, 1988, 1989b, 1990; Wilk and Ashmore, 1988; Wilk and Rathje, 1982), with an added cross-cultural dimension that also draws upon ethnographic research (Netting et al., 1984). In their archaeological approach to the study of the household, these scholars consider economic factors to be the most important determinants in shaping the household. Since the nature and intensity of household economic production vary greatly from one society to another, Wilk and Rathje propose four categories of household functions that they contend are particularly useful in defining the role of the household within the community. These categories are production,

56 Steadman

distribution, transmission, and reproduction (1982, pp. 618-620). The first two categories are related to domestic economy and therefore have greater potential to be recognized in the archaeological record. The latter two, having to do with property inheritance and the rearing of children, respectively, are much more elusive to the archaeologist and are more often approached through the ethnographic record.

One of the most enduring aspects of Wilk and Rathje's (1982) work is found in the production category, where one of the defined variables is as the "scheduling of productive behavior" (p. 622), or task performance. Their well-constructed analyses of task performance and space are the building blocks upon which many of the more recent studies concerning household archaeology and use of space have been carried out. Task performance, in their conception, can be linear or simultaneous. Linear tasks are done by one individual performing one activity after another; simultaneous tasks are performed by a number of people at the same time, and these simultaneous tasks can be further defined as either simple or complex. Simple tasks are those that require a number of people, all working on the same assignment, to complete one overall task; complex tasks are more specialized, with a number of individuals working simultaneously but performing different parts of the same task (Wilk and Rathje, 1982, p. 622-623).

Using this model Wilk and Rathje (1982) offer some general observations: in societies where complex task simultaneity exists, large households are needed since they are better able to exploit various economic opportunities and establish a greater power base; small households tend to be more mobile and seem better suited to subsistence strategies and single, linear task production (pp. 631-633). This study also draws a correlation between the socioeconomic structure and the time/labor investment in the household dwelling unit; larger households with more complex task performance tend toward permanency, rather than mobility, in their residential structures (pp. 635-637). Further correlations between task performance and household size (and thus greater social complexity) and house size may also be possible and, in fact, are the subject of several studies discussed more fully below. The basic concepts involved in this model have been employed in historical archaeological studies and sociocultural anthropological approaches to the household, ranging from theoretical and cross- cultural efforts (Hirth, 1993a; Ringstedt, 1992) to regional case studies (Netting, 1989; Whalen, 1988). Clearly, this type of model, if refined and used in combination with other data, can be extremely valuable for researchers in the field of prehistoric archaeology.

In response to work by Wilk and others, a number of recent studies have focused on household-level archaeology in the Americas (Btanton, 1994; Evans, 1991; MacEachern et aL, 1989; Maclachlan, 1987; Santley and


Hirth, 1993; Upton and Vlach, 1986). In fact, a brief survey of the archaeology of the household in Mesoamerican archaeology appeared in a previous issue of the Journal of Archaeological Research (Smith, 1993). Most of these household-level studies focus on the socioeconomic aspects of the household in the agrarian-based communities of past Mesoamerican complex societies. Some of these studies address the issue of social and economic organization within the household (Bawden, 1982, 1990; Beaudry, 1984; Deetz, 1982; Gilman, 1987; Kellogg, 1993; Lowell, 1989; Stanish, 1989), while others concentrate on wealth differentiation and class stratification as seen within and between households and houses (Abrams, 1989; Feldman, 1987; Hirth, 1989, 1993b; Huelsbeck, 1989; Sanders, 1989; Smith, 1987; Webster and Gonlin, 1988; Wilk, 1990).

Richard Blanton's recent book Houses and Households, a Comparative Study (1994) is explicitly a study that addresses household archaeology. Though the majority of Blanton's past work has been in New World archaeology (1978, 1985, 1989), as the title indicates, his book is comparative in nature, drawing on materials from contexts around the world, including case studies from all over Asia and Mesoamerica (1994, pp. 42-50). Blan- ton's overall intention is "to contribute to an understanding of how social and cultural factors influence the way households make decisions about the houses they live in" (1994, p. 7). Blanton is interested in developing models to measure wealth differentiation in societies that do not function according to monetarily based incomes, and thus his data are derived mainly from examples of contemporary architecture and ethnographic ac- counts of "peasant" housing (1994, p. 4). He accomplishes his goals through a comparative study of households and variation in housing from complex agrarian or industrializing societies. Beginning with a graphical analysis of house floor plans, Blanton draws on previous work offered by Hillier and Hrnson (1984, discussed below) to chart the architectural layout, which in turn "illustrates ret tionships among cost, connectivity, accessibility and privacy in floor plans" (1994, p. 28). Using graphical analysis as a base point, he goes on to explore what he terms "canonical communication," by which he means cosmological or symbolic principles represented in the structure's layout, a topic pursued vigorously by a number of researchers working in Asia (Blier, 1987; Bourdieu, 1973; Goody, 1990; Tjahjono, 1989; Waterson, 1990; Wheatley, 1976). Blanton's analysis relies on the examination of the presence of liminal space and the links it may suggest to beliefs concerning supernatural or cosmological forces, spatial differentiation regarding gender, age, or perceptual dualities (i.e., sacred/profane, dangerous/safe), and evidence of household ritual items or shrines (1994, pp. 79-80). Blanton also focuses on elements such as material display, complexity of structure, cost of building materials, and other attributes that are indicators of wealth

58 Steadman

differentiation expressed though the social and economic organization of houses and households (1994, pp. 117-119).

Blanton's self-professed goal is "to develop a consumer-behavior theory that serves as a backdrop to comparative studies of wealth and wealth variation" (1994, p. 189). In many ways his analysis goes far beyond the standard definition of household archaeology as the study of the smallest unit of economic production. He exceeds his goal and ultimately produces a compendium of cross-cultural comparative research with new insights concerning, among other things, socioeconomic factors that determine household decision-making, cosmological components, wealth distribution, style, and organization, and gender and age-based patterning within households. In sum, Blanton's book is a rich resource that takes household archaeology in a new, more holistic, direction in terms of the wealth of information that can be derived from the analysis of "houses and households."

Houses as Symbolic Containers

Although Blanton's volume addresses the cosmological and symbolic meaning embodied in the domestic structure, domestic economy remains his principal focus. Others have approached the study of the household and its built environment from a more explicitly perceptual, nonmaterial perspective. Though this section may fit more comfortably in the "spatial analysis" section below, the several researchers discussed here keep as a goal, at the heart of their more symbolic approach, the interpretation of the socioeconomic structure of the household, and thus their innovative analyses re- tain a link to household archaeology. In their research on prehistoric Europe several scholars, including Ruth Tringham and Ian Hodder, have stressed the household as one of the keys to understanding the European Neolithic sociocultural organization in a post-processual fashion. In a recent book, The Domestication of Europe, Hodder (1990) begins with a discussion of the symbolism of various features at the Anatolian site of ~atal Hiiyiik. He uses the symbolism he sees reflected in ~atal Hiiyiik's architectural remains, in conjunction with ethnoarchaeological research in Africa, as a springboard for a "conceptual," symbolically oriented examination of Neolithic material remains from the structures of various sites in southeastern Europe. His aim is not to derive form and function from artifactual analysis; Hodder seeks to "read" evidence based on internal relationships and to understand underlying "internal symbolic relations" instead of relying on "externally derived concepts of rationality" (1990, p. 21).

Recent Research in the ArchaeologyofArchitecture 59

Hodder concludes that in southeastern Europe the household, or "domus," plays a central role in the transition to an agricultural subsistence base (1990; see also Hodder, 1994). Nevertheless, in Hodder's reckoning, the domus is more than the architectural structure and associated material remains; it also encompasses more veiled aspects such as the attitudes and relationships present in a sedentary lifestyle. He describes it thusly:

The domus involves practical activities carried out in the house, food preparation and the sustaining of life. But it is also an abstract term. Secondary, symbolic connotations are given to the practical activities, leading to the house as a focus for symbolic elaboration and to the use of the house as a metaphor for social and economic strategies and relations of power. Practical acts such as the preparation and provision of food, the placing of female figurines in the house, and the burial of women and children in and around the house associate the house with the more general idea of nurturing. The provision of shelter and the storage of food associate the house with caring. (1990, pp. 44--45)

The domus is similar to Blanton's holistic approach to households, but with a more heavy-handed concentration on the symbolic aspects embodied in a residential structure. Hodder's conceptual approach leads him to assert that the inhabitants of these early communities, through the symbolic meaning they attached to certain objects, were able to triumph over, and therefore manipulate, previously uncontrollable factors such as death and the wildness of nature. By controlling the placement of personal objects, preparing domesticated food, and placing the dead in chosen resting places, the inhabitants within the domus keep the unpredictable and untamed world at bay, outside the safety of the domus walls. Thus Hodder considers not only the socioeconomic organization within the household but also the power of symbolism as important factors in framing interpretive models for household archaeology.

The response to Hodder's work has been varied and has included some strong criticism. While several cautiously applaud Hodder for a fresh and provocative study that is bound to prompt stimulating discussion (Bogucki, 1992, p. 736; see also Bogucki, 1996; Sherratt, 1991, p. 743), many are con- cerned that Hodder concentrates on some areas of Europe to the exclusion of others (Chapman, 1992). Others object to Hodder's experimental, postprocessual approach that attempts to "read" archaeological material remains as if they were a text (O'Shea, 1991). Many of the recent criticisms of The Domestication of Europe are well founded, particularly those that find the book lacking in substantial data for regions beyond central and southeastern Europe. However, though somewhat controversial, Hodder's work is an interesting and thought-provoking analysis of the architectural and associated remains of Neolithic Europe and offers researchers a valuable alternative approach to the interpretation of such data.

60 Steadman

Tringham's work at sites such as Selevac and Opovo in former Yugo- slavia is more materially based than Hodder's. Tringham (1991a, 1994) is interested in the symbolic value of objects, as well as in the specific actions of prehistoric inhabitants such as intentional house burning, but she constructs her models mainly on the face value of the material culture, including the architectural remains. One of Tringham's interests is the process of sedentism and the postsedentary lifestyle in prehistoric European settlements. She suggests that sedentism is usually brought about when the level of social complexity within the contact group begins to increase (Tringham et al., 1985, p. 427; Tringham and Krstic, 1990, p. 579; see also Kaiser and Voytek, 1983).

Tringham's model is based on the premise that the household is the primary unit of socioeconomic organization and that a realignment of the social relations within the household will bring about a change in the economic (productive) processes within that settlement (Tringham and Krsti6, 1990, p. 578). In the postsedentary, expanding community, the need for increased production and more complex social organization may threaten to overwhelm the overburdened and more simplified societal infrastructure that had previously sufficed. Tringham notes that there are two responses to this management crisis: either a complete reorganization of the community so that the modes of production are no longer at the household level but in the hands of those outside the household, thus creating political stratification, or, alternatively, a reduction in the population size of the settlement, thus effectively eliminating the need for increased social complexity. The latter response is a process called "fissioning," and converts one community into several (Tringham and Krsti6, 1990, p. 581). However, though at first glance Tringham's research would appear to toe the line of "traditional" socioeconomically based household archaeology, such an interpretation tells only half the story. Tringham also separates herself from the processualist approach and uses a more interpretive one to create a "life history," using Pred's (1984, 1990) terminology, for the built environments she excavates (Tringham, 1991a, b, 1994). Thus the "burnt house" at her Opovo site in southeastern Europe (Tringham et al., 1992) is not simply attributed to internal or external forces of destruction, but rather a "face" is projected onto the house and household. Reasons for the house burning, though perhaps not demonstrable in the archaeological record, are speculated upon (e.g., the death in the "head of the household" ne- cessitates the corresponding "death" of the house), and the dry archaeological record is brought to life (Tringham, 1991a, pp. 117, 124). Such attempts to interpret the built environment from the symbolic point of view serve both to enliven and, in the case of much of Tringham's, work to engender the otherwise mute archaeological and architectural record.


In addressing the socioeconomic organization of prehistoric settlements and households, Tringham's work illustrates not only the construction of a theoretical framework that incorporates material culture, including (indeed focusing on) architectural remains, but also the successful application of such a model to several archaeological sites including Opovo and Selevac (also in southeastern Europe). Part of Tringham's success lies in the fact that the excavations were conducted with the models in place, so that the proper types of information were retrieved during excavation. A methodology that develops and applies models to previously excavated sites will certainly encounter problems; most significantly, pertinent data not considered important in the original excavation will be unavailable. Nevertheless, this type of obstacle should not hinder the pursuit of new information through the application of post-excavation models. It is because of suc- cesses such as Tringham's recent work in household archaeology that the application of new models to old sites represents a viable method for re- trieving data not explored previously.

Household Archaeology: Present and Future

Whether it is the impact of Tringham's research, the response to New World studies on household archaeology, or simply the outcome of an ob- viously interesting and rich field of analysis, the last few years have seen an explosion in research concerning household archaeology in the Old World. Many of these studies focus on European sites, addressing issues of socioeconomic organization (Ammerman et aL, 1988; Bogucki, 1993; Hodder, 1987a, b; Jameson, 1990; Ringstedt, 1992; Sanders, 1990; Scott, 1990), wealth distribution and social inequality represented through household assemblages and the physical structure of the house itself (Chapman, 1990; Hodder, 1990, Olsen, 1989; Samson, 1990), and gender relations (Bennett, 1987; Gilchrist, 1988; Hingley, 1990; Hodder, 1984; Lawrence, 1988; Nevett, 1994; Yentsch, 1991).

The topic of gender relations in archaeological contexts has found a secure home in the archaeology of architecture. Recent scholarship has shown a strong interest in using archaeological methodology to explore such issues as gender division in task performance and to address questions concerning who produced the tools and pottery and performed other crafts. Though resolving such matters through the archaeological record is difficult at best, a number of fascinating studies have made great strides in this regard (Duke, 1991; Gero, 1991; Hastorf, 1991; Rice, 1991; Spector, 1983; Wright, 1991). Because clues to gender relations, the use of space, and gender-based socioeconomic organization can indeed frequently be uncov-

62 Steadman

ered using architectural remains, this avenue of research has become a mainstay of archaeological investigation in all areas of the world.

Much of the groundbreaking work focusing on gender and archaeology has been produced by Conkey, Gero, and Spector (Conkey and Spector, 1984; Gero and Conkey, 1991; Spector, 1983). Although the number of studies devoted to gender issues in the archaeological record is growing at an impressive rate [Claassen (1992); Conkey and Tringham (1995); Ehren- berg (1989); Kent (1996); Walde and Willows (1991); and Wall (1994) are just a few of the most recent examples, with Gero and Conkey (1991) standing out as the best current study on archaeology and gender], the researchers who explicitly explore the architectural record for information on gender roles, relations, and gender-based divisions of space in prehistoric contexts are still few in number. Tringham (1991a, b, 1994) has offered much of the original and most intensive work on methodologies addressing gender studies through architecture. Tringham's (1994, pp. 173-178) approach, as noted above, is expressly postprocessual, going beyond traditional methodologies in its attempt to engender architectural remains using more interpretive, and imaginative, techniques. Her most recent publications on the subject (1994, 1996) not only offer an excellent summary of the background research and critical studies that led her to her current methodology, but also provide avenues for future research.

In recent years, still others working in Europe (noted above), the New World (Blanton, 1994, pp. 101-114; Larson, 1991; Oyuela-Caycedo, 1991), the Near East, and Africa (Campo, 1991; Chase, 1991; Donley-Reid, 1990; Lyons, 1991; Moore, 1986, 1988, 1992; Prussin, 1995), as well as those en- gaged in cross-cultural studies (Duncan, 1982; Spain, 1992), have begun to pursue this subject, some using architectural remains as their mainstay and others taking a more holistic approach to deducing gender roles from the archaeological record. These studies, many of them ethnoarchaeological in nature, will certainly yield numerous insights into the social structure of past societies.

SPATIAL ANALYSIS AND THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF ARCHITECTURE

It is becoming increasingly difficult to separate the more integrative approach of recent studies in household archaeology (as illustrated by Blan- ton, 1994) from what is meant here by "spatial analysis." Such a turn of events is desirable, since it indicates that the incorporation of architectural remains into all fields of analysis is becoming part of the "mainstream" of archaeological methodology. In fact, many of the citations listed in the sections dealing with "household archaeology" also appear here. However, for


the purpose of presenting a thematic review of literature, household archaeology may be regarded as the attempt to define socioeconomic relationships using the artifactual record as the main database, while spatial analysis in the archaeology of architecture seeks more specifically to address the "hidden dimensions" embodied in the architecture itself, using the portable material record as supportive rather than primary evidence. Secondarily, though this is open to interpretation, household archaeology is more applicable to synchronic levels of analysis, while diachronic approaches are more successful using a "spatial" level of analysis (perhaps because it is easier to document architectural changes through time). Thus from the symbolic to the functional use of space, this section discusses many of the studies that led to the current incamation of spatial analysis and the archaeology of architecture.

Settlement archaeology, already described above as one of the "par- ents" of household archaeology, also spawned, in many respects, the archaeological approach to spatial analysis. The field of spatial analysis is part of a much longer-standing tradition in archaeological research than household archaeology. Strongly rooted in traditional modes of scholarship, spatial analysis has only recently experienced a genuine revolution in the methodology used in its application to archaeological and, in particular, architectural data. This field, originating from a larger-scale, more geo- graphically oriented approach to the "economic and political interpretation of site distributions" (Trigger, 1989, p. 386), is very much an all-encom- passing one that allows a number of interpretive approaches, from macro- to (somewhat recently) microscale. Hodder, originally working at the macroscale level (Hodder and Orton, 1976), offers a definition of interpreting the "spatial dimension" on a smaller scale:

The concern is to derive meanings from objects because they have similar spatial relationships (e.g. clustered, regularly spaced). Again, a battery of techniques already exists for such analysis. It can be claimed that many of these spatial techniques involve imposing externally derived hypotheses without adequate consideration of context; however, new analytical procedures are now emerging which allow greater sensitivity to archaeological data. (Hodder, 1991, p. 134)

Examining the spatial relationship of objects is perhaps best described as activity area analysis, which, while discussed above as an aspect of household archaeology, can also be considered a facet of spatial analysis on the microscale. Thus, investigations on the smaller scale involve analyses of various room uses within a structure (King, 1988; Reid and Wittlesey, 1982; Whallon, 1973). Such analyses have been based mainly on the distribution and association of artifacts, with architecture running a distant second in importance since the objects rather than their container have traditionally yielded the information. It was this persistent adherence to the "traditional

64 Steadman

approach" in spatial analysis that prompted D. L. Clarke's (1977, pp. 6-7) commentary in his book Spatial Archaeology:

To summarize, then, at the present time it is widely realised that there is archaeological information embedded in spatial relationships and there is much scattered individual work on settlement patterns and settlement archaeology, site systems and activity patterns, catchments and locations, exchange and marketing fields and population areas and territories. But with honourable exceptions, these projects still tend to be static, disaggregated studies involved in typologies of sites, patterns, distribution, as things; we get bits of individual clocks but no account of working systems and their structural principles.

Over 15 years ago Clarke recognized the need for a broadening of the horizons of spatial analysis and attempted precisely this in his last work (published posthumously). Clarke (1977, p. 28) called for archaeologists to begin to construct new models that could be applied cross-culturally and thus yield a three-dimensional picture of the past, rather than the flat, static information generated by the more "traditional" models.

Clarke's recommendation appears to have been well heeded. Increas- ingly, research in spatial analysis has attempted to use approaches that lead to new information and alternative views of intrasite sociocultural relationships. Spatial analysis in the archaeology of architecture still addresses the objects (artifacts, ecofacts, etc.) but emphasizes their container as the factor of primary importance. The spatial relationship of built-in features within rooms (i.e., furniture), the relationships of the rooms to one another and the relation of the entire domestic unit to others in the settlement are the elements that serve as the focus in this type of spatial analysis. A by-product of this type of approach is the latitude to address architectural remains with an eye toward interpreting the meaning of the structure, i.e., its symbolic value.

The Symbolic Organization of Space

Although the majority of research designed to elicit information concerning the symbolic organization of space within a dwelling, from an archaeological perspective, is fairly recent (Kus and Raharijaona, 1996; Pearson and Richards, 1994b; Prussin, 1995; Waterson, 1990; Whitelaw, 1994), a number of scholars began to address such "hidden" issues somewhat earlier [(e.g., Blier, 1987; Carsten, 1987; Douglas, 1972; Giddons, 1984; Kent, 1982; Kostof, 1985; Upton, 1983, pp. 274-277); see Lawrence and Low (1990) for an excellent summary of "postmodern" architectural thought, social production, and symbolism and Pearson and Richards (1994c) for a review of additional literature]. In this respect, over the last two decades (1968, 1975) Henry Glassie's work on American folk housing


has become one of the standard models for understanding the cognitive processes that affect the structure of the built environment, and subsequent changes to that environment. Using the interplay among material culture, architectural patterning, and changes through time, and employing a theoretical framework derived from linguistic theory and cultural geography, Gtassie was able to illuminate the character of folk culture and the symbolic meaning of the buildings (Glassie, 1973; Upton, 1983, pp. 270-275). Glas- sie's work provides a set of tools that enable the researcher to understand, and even recreate, the builders of the built environment.

Another of the better-known early approaches to such issues was proposed by Pierre Bourdieu in his ethnographic study of North African houses and his structural interpretation of the symbolic organization of space within a dwelling (1973), a topic on which he has since expanded (1977). Several important elements characterize Bourdieu's work on North African houses. In addition to his premise that the organization of space within a household reveals information on social relationships and activities, Bourdieu also believes that this same organization produces social structure. Thus the spatial organization within the house acts as a mnemonic aid through time and structures the social relationships (1977). This interpretation gives the "house" a specific meaning and attributes to it an active role in the symbolic formation of social structure, a concept also advanced by other scholars (Donley-Reid, 1990; Headley, 1987; Kent, 1982; Moore, 1982, 1986; Robben, 1989; Tjahjono, 1989; Waterson, 1990).

Another important aspect of Bourdieu's work is his application of a variety of analytical perspectives to the same space, on any number of levels. In his examination of the Kabyle House, Bourdieu (1973, p. 99) advances the idea of "parallel oppositions." Within the house he sees the opposition of dark and light, female and male, and internal vs. external. These multivariate interpretations, based on architectural characteristics, the placement of material goods, and the ethnographic record, are applied to the same space; the space is thus interpreted on several different levels, instead of according to only one function derived from the material remains. In other words, a single space can possess a number of functions and symbolic meanings. Bourdieu's work is of vital importance for its alternative approach to the interpretation of spatial organization. Its primary limitation with respect to archaeological investigation is that Bourdieu's model, unrevised, is difficult if not impossible to apply to archaeological remains; most of the recent works utilizing elements of Bourdieu's model, including those referenced above, deal with extant societies. However, with suitable modification, it is clear that these types of models, minus the ethnographic record and with some attempt at imaginative speculation on the

66 Steadman

part of the investigator, can be applied to the archaeological remains at prehistoric sites.

As already noted, many studies have begun to appear, mostly in the last half decade, that have cautiously attempted a more symbolic approach to the interpretation of architectural and artifactual remains (Bailey, 1990, 1996; Hodder, 1987a, 1994; Kent, 1992; Knights, 1994; Saunders, 1990; Stevanovic, 1996). Archaeologists and other scholars have used the ethnoarchaeological record to interpret social, and gender, relationships within societal groups and households (Blier, 1987, I989; Gargett and Hayden, 1991; Gregg et al., 1991; Kus, 1982; Shami, 1989; Yates, 1989). Drawing on the gathered data, they have constructed multivariate models that can then be applied directly to the archaeological record (Banning and Byrd, 1989; Binford, 1983; Fletcher, 1986; Chapman, 1989; Rigaud and Simek, 1991). A recent edited volume treats many of these topics, including gender issues, social status, and the use of space, from a social/symbolic perspective (Pear- son and Richards, t994a).

Architecture as a Mode of C o m m u n i c a t i o n

A burgeoning area of research that is becoming increasingly important for understanding the interaction between human behavior, architecture, and spatial order, particularly in prehistory, is that of semiotics (Borb6, 1983; Eco, 1980; Gardin, 1992; Herzfeld and Melazzo, 1988; Munro, 1987; Preziosi, 1979). The basic concept underlying the use of semiotics in architectural analysis is that buildings represent a system of communication through culturally (and sometimes cross-culturally) recognized signs and symbols. This system of meanings, interpreted in an architectural context, prompts the appropriate behavior for that particular space; in other words, codified or symbolic messages in the built environment serve as the underlying guides to behavioral responses and requirements in that built environment. Much of the research in this type of spatial analysis stems from the investigation of the techniques of nonverbal communication (Fletcher, 1981, 1984, 1989; Lentini, 1988; Rapoport, 1982, 1988) and syntactical analyses of space (Chippendale, 1992; Hillier and Hanson, 1984; Hillier et al., 1976, 1987; Stiny, 1980). Space syntax analysis focuses on the relationship of space within the built shell, including aspects of accessibility, inter- relat ionships between spaces, and the social meanings behind the organization of that space (Hillier and Hanson, 1984); such analysis encompasses all aspects of spatial patterning within and between architectural structures.


Recent work in the field of semiotics and space syntax has led to further investigation of the use of space in domestic contexts in separate but related fields that have been derived from studies by E. Hall (1966, 1968; see also, Hillier and Hanson, 1984, pp. 6-7), who strove to construct models based on what he regarded as cultural universals: the desire for personal space, the need to define boundaries, and the need for privacy. One of these fields, access analysis, addresses the spatial, and consequently social, patterning and relationships reflected in the structure of architectural boundaries and entrances (Boast and Yiannouli, 1986; Brown, 1990; Foster, 198%, b; Hillier and Hanson, 1984; Lawrence, 1984, 1990). Access analysis may be thought of as the examination of "boundary controls" (Sanders, 1990, pp. 47-51). Some boundaries are "invisible" in the archaeological/architectural record, composed of perishable items or simply indicated by the placement of furniture and other portable items. Others, such as doorways and gates, serve to divide and control space, allowing access to some (resi- dents), and denying it to others (visitors and outsiders), thereby permitting inhabitants to control their level of privacy and access to public versus private areas (Altman, 1975; Portnoy, 1981; Rapoport, 1977). These types of more permanent boundary controls are eminently detectable in the archaeological record (Steadman, 1996).

Another research area is that of proxemics, which studies individual territoriality and the need for interpersonal space within and between architectural structures (Ciolek, 1983; Deaver, 1989; Hall, 1968, 1974; Wood- man, 1987). An excellent survey of the literature on these and related topics was recently provided by Sanders (1990); he outlines various behavior-environment issues concerning domestic space, such as personal space and the desire for privacy, that can be approached through these types of investigative models (1990, pp. 47-50). Many of the theoretical frameworks devised to understand human behavioral mechanisms as expressed through architectural constructions are drawn from research on access analysis and proxemics.

These types of analysis that attempt to "read" the nonverbal communication represented in the layout of architectural remains are perfect examples of how architecture can yield information far beyond the mere building materials available to a culture. It is clear that such analyses can be of great use in understanding architectural remains and the relationship of spaces preserved in the archaeological record. New fields of inquiry such as semiotics, proxemics, access analysis, and the investigation of space syntax possess the potential to enable modern researchers to expand significantly their understanding of prehistoric human behavior, a potential being realized by researchers all over the world, including the Near East (Ban-

68 Steadman

ning, 1996; Byrd, 1994; Matney, 1996; Steadman, 1996), Europe (Foster, 1989a, b; Lawrence, 1990; Sanders, 1990, 1996), and Africa (Horton, 1994).

Environment, Behavior, and Cultural Process

The subheading for this section is glaringly general for the reason that the research discussed here, primarily by Amos Rapoport and Susan Kent, combines elements from all the various fields discussed above. Once again, it is difficult to distinguish the symbolic from the object-oriented approach (if the former is "spatial" and the latter is "household") when describing studies that incorporate all of these elements into their frameworks. If previous sections have discussed the underlying disciplines that eventually produced the "archaeology of architecture," then the work of scholars such as Rapoport and Kent personifies this new field; their research simultaneously incorporates data retrieved through research based on household archaeology and spatial analysis while serving to shape archaeological approaches to architecture with their own multifaceted, broad-spectrum models. Al- though the discussion of Kent's and Rapoport's research could justifiably commence this type of literature review, since it is regarded (at least by some) as substantially responsible for defining the field now becoming known as the archaeology of architecture, it appears in this penultimate section for two main reasons: such research not only features the "innovative" approaches referred to in the Introduction, but also builds on the works discussed above. The models discussed below, presented in the most generalized fashion, deal with human behavior in all its aspects, including economic production, symbolic use of space, nonverbal communication, and facets of increasing social complexity in the domestic structure.

Amos Rapoport's main interest through the years has been humans' interaction with their "built environment," a phrase that has become a buzz- word in recent archaeological and architectural studies. Ever since his first major publication (1969), Rapoport has shown an interest in the anthropological and sociocultural aspects of architectural studies and has consis- tently endeavored to explore these aspects in much of his own work (1969, 1976, 1980, 1989). In recent years he has also considered the implications of humans and their built environment for archaeological research (1982, 1988, 1992, and particularly 1990a, 1996). One of his most recent works (1996) addresses "environment-behavior studies" (EBS) and archaeology, in which he defends the processuatist approach as an appropriate method for examining EBS and environment-behavior relations (EBR). He summarizes his view on EBS and how it is relevant to archaeology by delin- eating three basic questions of EBS (1996):


• Which characteristics of people as members of a species and of various groups, or as individuals, affect how built environments are shaped (and, in design, how they should be shaped)?

* What effects do different aspects of the environment have on individuals and groups, under what sets of conditions and under what circumstances, and why?

,* Given this mutual interaction between people and environments, there must be mechanisms that link them. What are these mechanisms?

The first and third questions, he points out, are the most relevant with respect to archaeological endeavors. In some of his earlier work on EBS and archaeology he addresses these issues in a specific fashion.

Rapoport's 1990 article, "Systems of Activities and Systems of Set- tings," is a summary of much of his life's work on culture and the built environment. Based on his decades of research he makes several assump- tions about humans and their built environment: (a) there is a link between human behavior (i.e., culture) and its built environment, and (b) architecture encloses that behavior (1990a, p. 9). Rapoport observes that architecture is a manifestation of cultural activities and, therefore, only one of many "subsets" in the myriad elements that make up culture (1990a, p. 10). Therefore, it is not possible to recognize a culture by its architecture, or built environment, but certain aspects of that culture, such as family structure, social networks, or status, may be inferred from the architectural forms.

In his work on architecture and archaeological research, Rapoport deals specifically with a component of culture he terms activity systems. His investigation of activity systems is based on the second assumption noted above, that architecture encloses behavior. Built environments are designed "to support desired behavior" as well as to provide a feedback mechanism that functions as a mnemonic device for behavior in that space; consequently the architecture that encloses that behavior will necessarily be shaped by it (1990a, p. 11). These activity systems are, in some ways, similar to Wilk and Rathje's complex tasks, but have even wider ramifica- tions, including the meaning of the activity and how it is combined with other tasks to create "systems" of activities (1990a, pp. 11-12).

Rapoport (1990a, p. 12) explains that these activity systems take place in a system of settings, an environment that "reminds occupants of the appropriate rules and hence of the ongoing behaviors appropriate to the situation defined by the setting." Often located within these settings are "props" that stimulate this appropriate behavior; "props" may take the form of furniture, or perhaps will be identifiable in the shape of the room.

70 Steadman

In addition, these cues to appropriate activity may be changed by the addition or subtraction of props, which Rapoport (1990a, p. 13) refers to as "semi-fixed feature elements," in contrast to "fixed" elements, i.e., the architecture. Though the actual location may remain the same, such as a room in a building, activities that take place in that room may change with furniture or tool replacement. In less complex, in particular mobile, societies, the members are able to perform their tasks in an appropriate manner with a minimum of cues (Rapoport, 1969, 1982, t990a, p. 17). As a society reaches increasingly high levels of social and economic complexity, more cues to the rising number of activity systems are necessary. These cues may come in the form of additional architectural or "fixed" features, as well as through elements of furniture and other items that are movable, "semifixed" features. Both features, particularly the first, are recognizable in the archaeological record.

Rapoport's ideas suggest several interesting correlates, particularly with respect to fixed and semifixed elements and culture specificity. Settings can be culture specific, since what appears as a cue to appropriate behavior to a member of one culture may be meaningless to the member of another (1990a, p.13). While this is certainly a useful piece of information for sociocultural anthropology, it has limited application in archaeology, in which cross-cultural correlates, more generalized and less culture specific, might be of greater use. It is perhaps Kent's work that helps fill in the archaeological gaps with respect to forming models to address, architecturally, human behavior in the archaeological record.

Susan Kent's work on African (and other) societies incorporates aspects of household archaeology and spatial patterning analysis and employs an overall interpretive framework based on ethnoarchaeology (1984, 1987, 1991a, 1993, 1995, 1996). Kent's approach uses cross-cultural analysis in an effort to construct a general model applicable to a variety of data assemblages for both hunter-gatherer groups (1991a, 1992, 1993) and more sedentary societies (1989, 1990, 1991b). In her work on architecture in sedentary societies, Kent's interest centers on the segmentation and partitioning of domestic architecture (1987, 1990, 1991b). Her analytical model rests on two basic postulates: first, the organization of space and the degree of partitioning and segmentation within a settlement are commensurate with that society's level of complexity; and second, increased social complexity produces increased segmentation and partitioning (1990, p. 127, 1991b, pp. 439-445). Thus, the amount of segmentation within a settlement, particularly within a dwelling, reflects the level of sociopolitical complexity within that society.

Kent tests her model by examining architecture in numerous societies around the world. She organizes them into five categories based on their


level of sociopolitical complexity, ranging from "least complex societies," which are often nomadic, to the most complex societies such as Europeans or Saudi-Arabians (1990, pp. 130-141, 1991b, pp. 455-460). Increasing complexity is defined by such factors as increasing sociopolitical stratification, economic specialization and division of labor, and rigidly enforced gender differentiation.

Kent's data assist significantly in validating her model of the relationship between architecture and societal complexity, namely, that "as groups become socially and politically more segmented (complex), their use of space and architecture also becomes more segmented" (1990, p. 150). This architectural partitioning can be physical, with actual architectural features such as walls, or conceptual, with inhabitants being aware of differing areas of specialization, or perhaps of taboo areas that may not be physically marked off (Kent, 1990, p. 148). From an archaeological point of view, physically segmented architecture is more easily understood, but conceptual division may also be evident in the location and context of artifactual remains and features. An examination of spatial analysis, using Kent's model, could further the understanding of physical and conceptual segmentation within a society.

For .instance, based on Rapoport's work, and incorporating elements from Wilk, Rathje, Kent, and others (Bawden, 1990; Hitchcock, 1987; Tring- ham et al., 1985, 1992), one could devise an analytical framework to test the hypothesis that a relationship exists between the increase in social, or at least economic, complexity and the higher demand for more differenti- ated and varied activities and corresponding settings. If the social and economic lifestyle of a community has become more complex, then a greater number of activities, and activity systems, will result. This in turn generates more systems of settings, which become increasingly specialized, with settings that are appropriate to a single activity only. Therefore, in less complex societies, there are fewer areas, that is, systems of settings, in which various activities might be performed. In a society that is experiencing growing complexity, not only are there more activities, but also there are more areas in which to perform them, and these areas become more and more specialized until they are appropriate for only a few activities or perhaps only one. This type of model could be used in a diachronic fashion to examine changes in culture, specifically increasing socioeconomic structures, particularly in a prehistoric context (Steadman, 1996).

Scholars' work on the built environment has been a vital building block in the burgeoning field of archaeological investigations into architecture. Their research has provided insights into the type of information on human behavior that can be derived from the organization of the built environment and has inspired countless scholars in every field of anthropology, from

72 Steadman

ethnography to archaeology. Much credit is due to groundbreaking researchers such as Rapoport, Kent, and the others discussed above for their contributions to the expanding field of architecture and spatial patterning analysis.

One can always find some fault with a model or line of investigation, particularly when the research area entails new approaches to an age-old subject such as architectural analysis. However, whether such analysis comes at the household level or through spatial patterning, current researchers should be applauded for tackling a new line of investigation and taking up the frequently "hit-or-miss" challenge of innovating thinking instead of following the traditional models embedded in archaeological research methodology. There was little in the way of harsh criticism allotted to the works discussed above for this very reason. In addition, as outlined in the Introduction, the shape of this review article is one of a "road map," used by the author, to reach a personal (and, it is hoped, universally applicable) destination ending in an understanding of the major trends that embody the archaeology of architecture. The import of the works discussed and referenced lies not only in their original models and fresh avenues of investigation into past (and present) human behavior, but also in the research they have stimulated beyond traditional confines. These studies, en- compassing economic, sociopolitical, and symbolic aspects that can be derived from architectural remains are the map which guided this author, as well as numerous other researchers, toward the production of the types of studies that are now emerging in Near Eastern archaeology, an area of the world that is often underrepresented when the discussion turns to "new approaches." It is, therefore, gratifying, to be able to present the next section, which outlines some of the recent research in the Near East; though its breadth is perhaps still limited when compared to the amount of work done in the New World, Europe, or even Asia, its presence here, nonethe- less, is a monumental step in the right direction and a testament to the bounty of information that can be derived when original and innovative models are incorporated into the research methodology.

AVENUES OF CURRENT AND FUTURE ~ S E A R C H IN THE NEAR EAST

The initial organizational premise defined the foregoing studies as those embodying the archaeology of architecture in such a way so that those working in "pristine" areas, like the Near East, can use as them tools for the initial stages of research. It is now appropriate to outline some of the researchers who are doing just that. The following briefly summarizes many


of the recent attempts to go "beyond the foundations" in Near Eastern architectural analysis, in both prehistoric and early historic contexts.

Several studies, some dating to over a decade ago, have focused on architecture in the Middle East, but a majority of these concern modern examples and ethnoarchaeological research. It is only in the last five years or so that the investigation of architectural remains in the archaeological record, using the types of analytical methods discussed above, has truly begun. This is not to say that architectural studies have n e v e r been of concern to Near Eastern archaeologists. Indeed, in a century and a half of Near Eastern archaeology the excavation and elucidation of monumental architecture and what it reveals about the elite structure of ancient Near Eastern cities has been a veritable investigative mainstay. But in the last fifteen years or so researchers have begun to initiate architectural analyses that focus on smaller-scale architectural remains (e.g., Aurenche, 1981; Redman, 1983; Roar, 1984, 1989; Voigt, 1983, 1985), some continuing the use of more conventional methodology (Braemer, 1982; Crawford, 1977; Jasim, 1989; Kubba, 1987; Warner, 1979) and others developing more innovative techniques that begin to use models similar to those discussed above (Aurenche, 1986; Gnivecki, 1987; Eslick, 1988). However, in-depth architectural analyses employing techniques that use methodology such as spatial analysis (including semiotics and space syntax), as well as aspects of household archaeology, are even more recent.

For example, Ted Banning and Brian Byrd have produced several important studies that deal with house structures in the Neolithic Levant (Ban- ning and Byrd, 1987, 1989; Byrd, 1994, 1995; Byrd and Banning, 1988). In their earlier work on Aceramic Neolithic Levantine houses, Banning and Byrd analyzed architectural renovations at the Jordanian site of '/kin Ghazal (1987). With an eye toward explaining the social implications of remodeling the physical housing structure, they suggested that architectural modifica- tions are "common responses to changes in domestic social relations" and may be hypothesized as part of the developmental cycle of a co-residential group, a concept often employed in New World archaeology (Banning and Byrd, 1987, pp. 321-322; McGuire and Schiffer, 1983). These scholars followed up their work in an article on "pier houses" (which are elsewhere described as "megarons") at 'Ain Ghazal and Jericho (Byrd and Banning, 1988, p. 65). Banning and Byrd also discuss the sociocultural implications of these types of housing structures, addressing issues such as family size, economic relationships between households, an "increased demand for privacy," and other attitudes toward the organization of domestic space (1988, pp. 69-70; Banning, 1996). Their most recent work explores the use of space syntax in Near Eastern prehistoric architecture (Banning and Byrd, 1989). They have drawn on research by Hillier and others to construct models de-

74 Steadman

signed to explain Neolithic Levantine organization of space in domestic structures, an undertaking that will no doubt prove immensely valuable in the understanding of the socioeconomic organization in households and villages of the prehistoric Near East.

In a recent study focusing on literate ancient Near Eastern societies, Timothy Matney integrated aspects of semiotic theory to construct a semantic model to explain the communication of meaning in third-millennium B.C. Mesopotamian architecture (1993, 1996). In his model, Matney uses a combination of contextual architectural references in Akkadian texts and modern anthropological linguistic theory to probe the meaning of culture beyond the architectural material remains. In a similar use of texts and archaeology, Mark Chavalas (1996) draws on textual evidence from the second millennium B.C. site of Terqa in Syria to interpret aspects of social stratification. Through a combination of textual sources, artifactual evidence, and domestic architecture, Chavalas constructs a social classifi- cation of the inhabitants at Terqa, a model that can also be applied to contemporary sites in the region. Matney and Chavalas take advantage of the diachronic architectural continuities at Near Eastern sites, and the early occurrence of textual evidence, to offer an ethnohistorical approach that may be invaluable for interpreting prehistoric architectural remains. Re- cently, others have begun to utilize this attractive combination of factors in Near Eastern contexts; works have appeared that focus on texts and their application to prehistoric architecture (Aurenche, 1992).

The Near East is a fascinating region for archaeological research not only because of its phenomenally preservation-oriented climate, and early incidence of textual data, but because of its artificial transformation of the landscape. One of the most recognizable features in the Near East is the human-generated mounds on which villages, towns, and cities have existed for sometimes thousands of years; these features are commonly known as "tells" in Semitic languages, "hiiytiks" in Turkish, and "tepes" in Persian (such mounds are also found in southeastern Europe). Though the Near Eastern mounds themselves have long been a source of interest (Lloyd, 1963), and scientifically based research has yielded vital data on the formation of tells and the erosional processes that deplete them (Davidson, 1976; Rosen, 1986), the unresolved questions concerning the relationship between mounds and humans are numerous.

Besides the obvious issue of the changed landscape, a topic well beyond the confines of this review essay, the architectural remains o n Near Eastern tell sites also offer new avenues of research. Recent work by John Chapman (1989, 1990; see also Bailey, 1990, 1996) has delved precisely into this area of investigation, one that is vital to the understanding of architecture in many Near Eastern contexts. Although Chapman's work fo-


cuses on southeastern European mounds, many of his data are applicable to Near Eastern contexts. It seems clear that the spatial configurations of tell sites would have a monumental impact on the organization of space within a settlement. Chapman (1990, p. 52) notes that the use of space and the built unbuilt space ratios on flat settlements, compared with tells, are very different. He goes on to consider the re-use of space over time and the relationship among architecture, ideological power, and social inequality (analyzed through the use of burial evidence) (1990, pp. 55-72). Implicit in his work is the postulate that models generated for flat settlements are not always appropriate for the architectural configurations found on tell settlements.

In a similar vein, the author's work in this area (1990, 1996) proposes alternative models to understand the spatial organization of domestic architecture on prehistoric tell sites in Anatolia (central Turkey). Of particular interest is the observable diachronic metamorphosis in the spatial patterning of domestic architecture, concomitant with the stages of increasingly complex society. Although recent research contains numerous models applicable to prehistoric domestic architectural remains, including models treating greater societal complexity, the data used to generate these models have generally been derived from flat settlements. Therefore, current theoretical frameworks should be reevaluated and restructured to render them effective in the analysis of architectural remains from tell sites.

The types of spatial patterning analyses that have been applied to architectural remains at flat sites must be refined for use on the types of human-generated mounds that dot the Near Eastern landscape. Topics that might be addressed in a reworking of presently available models include access analysis, proxemics, and the attempt to increase privacy and maintain territorial boundaries when faced with a limited amount of space. Another approach would assess increasingly complex task performance and the associated partitioning and segmentation of structures that offer little or no room for significant areal expansion. Such analyses are possible in Near Eastern contexts due to the longevity and consistency of occupation and the often quite extraordinary preservation of the architectural remains. Therefore, studies of architectural change over time, such as the author's examination of Neolithic through Bronze Age occupation in central Ana- tolia, can shed light on such issues as changing spatial needs and architectural manipulation to suit those needs as communities undergo socioeconomic metamorphosis.

The recent interest in the "archaeology of architecture" will no doubt stimulate additional research on Middle Eastern architectural remains. The work offered by the scholars noted above exemplifies well the original research that can be accomplished in this region. The availability of early

76 Steadman

textual materials offers unique opportunities to access not only the archaeologist's interpretation but also the inhabitants' interpretation of the built environment. Such early, readable, textual materials can offer unimagined insights into factors shaping the design and nature of early historic and even prehistoric dwellings, as well as providing information on issues such as land ownership, inheritance, and land/house values, evidence that is by and large unavailable through archaeological excavation of architectural remains. In addition, the circumstances of climate and other factors of preservation, provide a rich material culture, stretching back to the earliest millennia of sedentary human settlement, capable of supporting decades of both diachronic and synchronic analysis of human behavioral processes that are illustrated by their welt-preserved built environment. The initial investigations employing semiotic analysis of architecture and exploring issues of class stratification have also proved valuable avenues of research, and continued work will undoubtedly offer further insights along these lines. The opportunity for continued research in this area of the world is without limits given the array of investigative directions the landscape, climate, and extensive occupational history provide. The available levels of analysis are as myriad as the number of strata in a 7000-year-old tell. Future research in this area of the world will no doubt yield a new generation of studies that expand the ever growing database on the archaeology of architecture.

CONCLUSION

It is hoped that each researcher interested in using architectural remains as a primary factor in interpreting prehistoric lifeways, can extract several "avenues of future research" for their area of expertise from the foregoing survey of research and investigative models. The overall goal has been to illustrate how, in the last few years, enormous strides have been made in the types of methodology employed in the analysis of architectural remains in archaeological contexts. Yet many further opportunities exist for research at both the fieldwork stage and the data analysis stage. Naturally the first step is the careful excavation of architecture and associated remains. In the past, too many potentially valuable data have been lost through inadequate excavation and record-keeping techniques. Present excavation techniques, properly employed, allow the investigator the freedom of undertaking architectural analysis within the framework of the current research strategy or at a later date on the basis of records and data, a luxury not always available to investigators interested in previously excavated sites. This first step, though basic, is of monumental importance.


The opportunities at the data analysis stage are infinite. While the value of culture-specific research should be underscored, the need for broad-reaching cross-cultural comparisons is becoming ever clearer. Some scholars, perceiving this need, have already responded (Blanton, 1994; Bourdier and Alsayyad, 1989; Kent, 1990; Waterson, 1990). A dialogue between scholars from different geographical regions and ideological orien- tations is vital to the successful growth of a newly developing field. The archaeology of architecture is a truly multidisciplinary endeavor, requiring the attention of such diverse researchers as anthropologists, geographers, architects, and linguists, to mention only a few. The interaction of scholars from these divergent fields will no doubt make richer a field already rich with possibilities.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am indebted to Sue Kent, Susan Kus, Timothy Matney, Jennifer Ross, and Girish Bhat, all of whom read an early version of the manuscript and offered valuable comments and editorial advice. I would like to thank the many archaeologists who offered suggestions, shared their prepublica- tion manuscripts with me, and provided references; foremost among these are Ted Banning, Peter Bogucki, Sue Kent, Nancy Gonlin, and particularly Tim Matney, who always knows what I want to express and unerringly guides me to the right words and organization. Though I received invaluable help from friends and colleagues, I remain solely responsible for any inaccuracies or omissions. I would also like to extend a note of gratitude to the anonYmous reviewers whose comments substantially improved the manuscript and to Gary Feinman for his patience and calming reassurances; I thank both Gary and T Douglas Price for the opportunity to contribute this review essay. Finally, heartfelt thanks go to Ruth Tringham, who not only read and commented on several preliminary versions of the manuscript, but also has encouraged me in this area of research for many years.

REFERENCES CITED

Abrams, E. M. (1989). Architecture and energy: An evolutionary perspective. In Schiffer, M. B. (ed.), Archaeolo~cat Method and Theory, VoL 1, University of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 47-86.

Adams, R. M. (1965). Land Behind Baghdad, University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Adams, R. M. (1972). Patterns of urbanization in early southern Mesopotamia. In Ucko, P.

J., Tringham, R. E., and Dimbleby, G. W. (eds.), Man, Settlement, and Urbanism, Duckworth, London, pp. 735-749.

78 Steadman

Adams, R. M., and Nissen, H. J. (1972). The Uruk Countryside, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Altman, I. (1975). The Environment and Social Behavior. Privacy, Personal Space, Tercitory, Crowding, Brooks/Cole, Monterey.

Ammerman, A. J., Shaffer, G. D., and Hartman, N. (1988). A Neolithic household at Piana de Curinga, Italy. Journal of Field Archaeology 15: 121-130.

Ashmore, W. (1988). Household and community at Classic Quirigua. In Wilk, R. R., and Ashmore, W. (eds.), Household and Community in the Mesoamerican Past, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, pp. 153-169.

Ashmore, W., and Wilk, R. R. (1988). Household and community in the Mesoamerican past. In Wilk, R. R., and Ashmore, W. (eds.), Household and Community in the Mesoamerican Past, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, pp. 1-27.

Aurenche, O. (1981). La Maison Orientale. L'architecture du Proche-Orient Ancien, des origines au milieu au QuatriOme Millgnaire, Geuthner, Paris.

Aurenche, O. (1986). Mesopotamian architecture from the 7th to the 4th millennia. Summer 42: 71-80.

Aurenche, O. (1992). Theoretical archaeology and rhetorical archaeology: Toward a "history" of architecture in the Ancient Near East. In Gardin, J.-C., and Peebles, C. S. (eds.), Representations in Archaeology, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, pp. 196--204.

Bailey, D. W. (1990). The living house: Signifying continuity. In Samson, R. (ed.), The Social Archaeology' of Houses, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, pp. 19-48.

Bailey, D. W. (1996). The plurality of meaning and function: Houses in fifth millennium BC Bulgarian tells. In Steadman, S. R., and Matney, T. (eds.), The Archaeology of Architecture: Perspectives in Domestic Architecture in the Old World (in press).

Banning, E. B. (1996). The spatial organization of southern Levantine settlement in the early and middle holocene. In Steadman, S. R., and Matney, T. (eds.), The Archaeology of Architecture: Perspectives in Domestic Architecture in the Old World (in press).

Banning, E. B, and Byrd, B. F. (1987). Houses and the changing residential unit: Domestic architecture at PPNB 'Ain Ghazal, Jordan. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 53: 309-325.

Banning, E. B., and Byrd, B. F. (1989). Alternative approaches for exploring Levantine Neolithic architecture. Pal~orient 15: 154-160.

Bawden, G. (1982). Community organization reflected by the household: A study of Precolumbian social dynamics. Journal of FieM Archaeology 9: 165-182.

Bawden, G. (1990). Domestic space and social structure in pre-Columbian northern Peru. In Kent, S. (ed.), Domestic Architecture and the Use of Space, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 153-186.

Beaudry, M. C. (1984). Archaeology and the historical household. Man in the Northeast 28: 27-38.

Bennett, J. M. (1987). Women in the Medieval English Countryside: Gender and Household in Brigstock Before the Plague, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Binford, L. R. (1962). Archaeology as anthropology. American Antiquity 28: 217-225. Binford, L. R. (1965). Archaeological systematics and the study of culture process. American

Antiquity 31: 203-210. Binford, L. R. (1983). In Pursuit of the Past, Thames and Hudson, London. Blanton, R. E. (1978). Monte Alb(m: Settlement Patterns at the Ancient Zapotec Capital,

Academic Press, New York. Blanton, R. E. (1985)i A comparison of early market systems. In Plattner, S. (ed.), Markets

and Marketing, University Press of America, Lanham, MD, pp. 399-416. Blanton, R. E. (1989). Continuity and change in public architecture: Periods I through V of

the Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico. In Kowalewski, S. A., Feinman, G. M., Finstein, L., Blanton, R. E., and Nicholas, L. M. Monte Alb~in's Hinterland, Part II: Prehispanic Settlement Patterns in Tlacolula, Etla, and Ocotldn, the Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico, University of Michigan, Museum of Anthropology, Memoir 23, Ann Arbor, pp. 409--447.

Blanton, R. E. (1994). Houses and Households, a Comparative Study, Plenum Press, New York.


Blier, S. P. (1987). The Anatomy of Architecture: Ontology and Metaphor in Batammaliba Architectural Expression, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Blier, S. P. (1989). Moral architecture: Beauty and ethics in Batammaliba building design. In Bourdier, J-P., and Alsayyad, N. (eds.), Dwellings, Settlements, and Tradition, University Press of America, Lanham, MD, pp. 335-356.

Boast, R., and Yiannouli, E. (eds.) (1986). Creating space. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 5: 136-205.

Bogucki, P. (1992). Review of The Domestication of Europe, by I. Hodder. American Antiquity 57: 734-736.

Bogucki, P. (1993). Animal traction and household economies in Neolithic Europe. Antiquity 67: 492-503.

Bogucki, P. (1996). The social landscape of Neolithic settlements in Central Europe. In Steadman, S. R., and Matney, T. (eds.), The Archaeology of Architecture: Perspectives in Domestic Architecture in the Old World (in press).

Borb6, T. (ed.) (1983). Semiotics Unfolding, Second Congress of the International Association for Semiotic Studies, Vienna, 1979, Approaches to Semiotics 68, Mouton, Berlin.

Bourdier, J.-P., and Alsayyad, N. (eds.) (1989). Dwellings, Settlements, and Tradition, University Press of America, Lanham, MD.

Bourdieu, P. (1973). The Berber House. In Douglas, M. (ed.), Rules and Meanings, Penguin Books, Hammondsworth, pp. 98-110.

Bourdieu, P. (i977). Outline of a Theory of Practice, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Braemer, F. (1982). L'Architecture Domestique du Levant gt l'Age du Fer, Cahier No. 8, Editions

Recherche sur les Civilisations, Paris. Braidwood, R. (1974). The Iraq Jarmo project. In Willey, G. R. (ed.), Archaeological

Researches in Retrospect, Winthrop, Cambridge, pp. 59-83. Brown, F. E. (1990). Comment on Chapman: Some cautionary notes on the application of

spatial measures to prehistoric settlements. In Samson, R. (ed.), The Social Archaeology of Houses, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, pp. 93-109.

Brown, F. E., and Steadman, J. P. (1987). The analysis and interpretation of small house plans: Some contemporary examples. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 14: 407--438.

Butzer, K. (1976). Early Hydraulic Civilization in Egypt, Chicago University Press, Chicago. Byrd, B. F. (1994). Public and private, domestic and corporate: The emergence of the

southwest Asian village. American Antiquity 59: 639-666. Byrd, B. F. (1995). The Neolithic Village of Beidha: Architecture, Occupation, History and Spatial

Organization. Jutland Archaeological Society Publications, Vol. 23, No. 2. Aarhus, Denmark (in press).

Byrd, B. F., and Banning, E. B. (1988). Southern Levantine pier houses: Intersite architectural patterning during the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B. Palgorient 14: 65-72.

Caldwell, J. R. (1959). The new American archaeology. Science 129: 303-307. Campo, J. E. (1991). The Other Side of Paradise: Explorations into the Religious Meanings of

Domestic Space in 1slam, University of South Carolina Press, Columbia. Carr, C. (1991). Left in the dust: Contextual information in model-focused archaeology. In

Kroll, E. M., and Price, T. D. (eds.), The Interpretation of Archaeological Spatial Patterning, Plenum Press, New York, pp. 221-256.

Carsten, J. (I987). Analogues or opposites: Household and community in Putau Langkawi, Malaysia. In MacDonald, C. (ed), de la Hutte au Patais: Soci~tds "?l Maison" en Asie du Sud-Est Insutaire, l~ditions du Centre National de ta Recherche Scientifique, Paris, pp. 153-170.

Chang, K.C. (ed.) (1968). Settlement Archaeology, National Press Books, Palo Alto, CA. Chapman, J. C. (1989). The Early Balkan village. Varia Archaeotogica Hungarica I1, pp. 33-47. Chapman, L C. (1990). Social inequality on Bulgarian tells and the Varna problem. In Samson,

R. (ed.), The Social Archaeology of Houses, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, pp. 49-92.

Chapman, J. C. (1992). Review of The Domestication of Europe, by I. Hodder. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 58: 420-423.

80 Steadman

Chase, S. M. (1991). Potygyny, architecture and meaning. In Walde, D., and Willows, N. D. (eds.), The Archaeology of Gender, Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary, Calgary, pp. 150-158.

Chavalas, M. (1996). Defining social status from domestic architecture: The case from Khana period Terqa. In Steadman, S. R., and Matney, T. (eds.), The Archaeology of Architecture: Perspectives in Domestic Architecture in the Old World (in press).

Cheal, D. (1989). Strategies of resource management in household economies: Moral economy or political economy? In Wilk, R. R. (ed.), The Household Economy. Reconsidering the Domestic Mode of Production, Westview Press, Boulder, pp. 11-22.

Chippendale, C. R. (1992). Grammars of archaeological design. In Gardin, J.-C., and Peebles, C. S. (eds.), Representations in Archaeology, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, pp. 251-276.

Chisholm, M. (1968). Rural Settlement and Land Use, Hutchinson, London. Ciolek, T. M. (1983). The proxemics lexicon: A first approximation. Journal of Nonverbal

Behavior 8: 55-79. Ciolek-Torrello, R. (1986). Room function and household at Grasshopper Pueblo. In Benson,

C., and Upham, S. (eds.), Mogollon Variability, University Museum Occasional Paper 15, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, pp. 107-119.

Ciolek-Torrello, R. (1989). Household, floor assemblages and the "Pompei premise" at Grasshopper Pueblo. In MacEachern, S., Archer, D., and Garvin, R. (eds.), Households and Communities, Proceedings of the 21st Annual Chacmool Conference, Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary, Calgary, pp. 201-208.

Claassen, C. (1992). Exploring Gender Through Archaeology: Selected Papers of the 1991 Boone Conference, Monographs in World Archaeology, No. 11, Prehistory Press, Madison, WI.

Clarke, D. L. (1972). A provisional model of an Iron Age society and its settlement system. In Clarke, D. L. (ed.), Models in Archaeology, Methuen, London, pp. 801-869.

Clarke, D. L. (1977). Spatial information in archaeology. In Clarke, D. L. (ed.), Spatial Archaeology, Academic Press, London, pp. 1-32.

Conkey, M., and Spector, J. D. (1984). Archaeology and the study of gender. In Schiffer, M. (ed.), Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Vot. 7, Academic Press, New York, pp. 1-38.

Conkey, M., and Tringham, R. (1995). Archaeology and the goddess: Exploring the contours of feminist archaeology. In Stewart, A., and Stanton, D. (eds.), Feminisms in the Academy: Rethinking the Disciplines, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor (in press).

Crawford, H. E. W. (t977). The Architecture of Iraq in the Third Millennium B.C., Mesopotamia Copenhagen Studies in Assyriology 5, Akademisk Forlage, Copenhagen.

Davidson, D. A. (1976). Processes of tell formation and erosion. In Davidson, D. A., and Shackley, M. L. (eds.), Geoarchaeology: Earth Science and the Past, Duckworth, London, pp. 255-266.

Deaver, S. (1989). Space, world view and architectural form. In MacEachern, S., Archer, D., and Garvin, R. (eds.), Households and Communities, Proceedings of the 21st Annual Chacmool Conference, Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary, Calgary, pp. 243-255.

Deetz, J. (1982). Households: A structural key to archaeological explanation. In Wilk, R., and Rathje, W. (eds.), Archaeology of the Household: Building a Prehistory of Domestic Life. American Behavioral Scientist 25(6), 71%724.

Delougaz, P. (1940). The Temple Oval at Khafaje, Oriental Institute Publications, No. 53, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Donley, L. (1982). House Power: Swahili space and symbolic markers. In Hodder, I. (ed.), Symbolic and Structural Archaeology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 63-73.

Donley, L. (1987). Life in the Swahili town house reveals the symbolic meaning of spaces and artifact assemblages. The African Archaeological Review 5: 181-192.

Donley-Reid, L. (1990). A structuring structure: The Swahili house. In Kent, S. (ed.), Domestic Architecture and the Use of Space, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 114-126.


Douglas, M. (1972). Symbolic orders in the use of domestic space. In Ucko, P. J., Tringham, R. E., and Dimbleby, G. W. (eds.), Man, Settlement and Urbanism, Duckworth, London, pp. 513-521.

Duke, P. (1991). Recognizing gender in Plains hunting groups: Is it possible or even necessary. In Walde, D., and Willows, N. D. (eds.), The Archaeology of Gender, Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary, Calgary, pp. 280-283.

Duncan, J. S. (1982). From container of women to status symbol: The impact of social structure on the meaning of the house. In Duncan, J. S. (ed.), Housing and Identity: Cross-Cultural Perspectives, Holmes and Meier, New York, pp. 36-59.

Eco, U. (1980). Function and sign: The semiotics of architecture. In Broadbent, G., Bunt, R., and Jencks, C. (eds.), Signs, Symbols, and Architecture, John Wiley and Sons, New York, pp. 11-69.

Egenter, N. (1992). Architectural Anthropology: The Present Relevance of the Primitive in Architecture, Structura Mundi I, Presses Centrales, Lausanne.

Ehrenberg, M. (1989). Women in Prehistory, University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. Eslick, C. (1988). Hacilar to Karatas: Social organization in south-western Anatolia.

Mediterranean Archaeology 1: 10-40. Evans, S. T. (1991). Architecture and authority in an Aztec village: Form and function of the

Tecpan. In Harvey, H. H. (ed.), Land and Politics in the Valley of Mexico, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, pp. 63-92.

Feldman, R. A. (1987). Architectural evidence for the development of nonegalitarian social systems in coastal Peru. In Haas, J., Pozorski, S., and Pozorski, T. (eds.), The Origins and Development of the Andean State, Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 9-14.

Flannery, K., and Winter, M. (1976). Analyzing household activities. In Flannery, K. (ed.), The Early Mesoamerican Village, Academic Press, New York, pp. 34-47.

Fletcher, R. J. (1981). Space and community behavior: Spatial order in settlements, tn Lloyd, B., and Gay, J. (eds.), Universals of Human Thought, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 97-128.

Fletcher, R. J. (1984). Identifying spatial disorder: A case study of a Mongol fort. In Hietala, H. (ed.), Intrasite Spatial Analysis in Archaeology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 196-223.

Fletcher, R. J. (1986). Settlement archaeology: World-wide comparisons. World Archaeology 18: 59-83.

Fletcher, R. J. (1989). The messages of material behaviour: A preliminary discussion of non-verbal meaning. In Hodder, I. (ed.), The Meaning of Things, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 33-40.

Foster, S. M. (1989a). Analysis of spatial patterns in buildings (access analysis) as an insight into social structure: Examples from the Scottish Atlantic Iron Age. Antiquity 63: 40-50.

Foster, S. M. (1989b). Transformations in social space: The Iron Age of Orkney and Caithness. Scottish Archaeological Review 6: 34-55.

Gardin, J.-C. (1992). Semiotic trends in archaeology. In Gardin, J. C., and Peebles, C. S. (eds), Representations in Archaeology, Indiana University Press, Bloomington.

Gargett, R., and Hayden, B. (1991). Site structure, kinship, and sharing in Aboriginal Australia: Implications for archaeology. In K_roll, E. M., and Price, T. D. (eds.), The Interpretation of Archaeological Spatial Patterning, Plenum Press, New York, pp. 11-32.

Gero, J. M. (1991). Genderlithics: Women's roles in stone tool production. In Gero, J. M., and Conkey, M. W. (eds.), Engendering Archaeology. Women and Prehistory, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 163-193.

Gero, J., and Conkey, M. (eds.) (1991). Engendering Archaeology, Basil Blackwell, Oxford. Giddons, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration,

University of California Press, Berkeley. Gilchrist, R. (1988). The spatial archaeology of gender: A case study of medieval English

nunneries. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 7: 21-28. Gilman, P. (1987). Architecture as artifact: Pit structures and pueblos in the American

Southwest. American Antiquity 52: 538-564.

82 Steadman

Glassie, H. (1968). Pattern in the Material Folk Culture of the Eastern United States, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.

Glassie, H. (1973). Structure and function, folklore and the artifact. Semiotica 7: 313-351. Glassie, H. (1975). Folk Housing in Middle Virginia: A Structural Analysis of Historic Artifacts,

University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville. Glassie, H. (1990). Architects, vernacular traditions, and society. Traditional Dwellings and

Settlements Review 1: 9-21. Gniveckl, P. (1987). On the quantitative derivation of household spatial organization from

archaeological residues in Ancient Mesopotamia. In Kent, S. (ed.), Method and Theory for Activity Area Research: An Ethnoarchaeological Approach, Columbia University Press, New York.

Goody, J. (1990). The Oriental, the Ancient, and the Primitive: Systems of Marriage and the Family in the Pre-Industrial Societies of Eurasia, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Gregg, S. A., Kintigh, K. W., and Whallon, R. (1991). Linking ethnoarchaeological interpretation and archaeological data: The sensitivity of spatial analytical methods to postdepositional disturbance. In Kroll, E. M., and Price, T. D. (eds.), The Interpretation of Archaeological Spatial Patterning, Plenum Press, New York, pp. 149-198.

Hall, E. T. (1968). Proxemics. Current Anthropology 9: 83-108. Hall, E. T. (1974). Handbook for Proxemic Research, Society for the Anthropology of Visual

Communication, Washington, D.C. Hammel, E. A. (1984). On the * * * of studying household form and function. In Netting,

R. M,, Wilk, R. R , and Arnould, E. J. (eds.), Households. Comparative and Historical Studies on the Domestic Group, University of California Press, Berkeley, pp. 29-43.

Hastorf, C. A. (1991). Gender, space, and food in prehistory. In Gero, J. M., and Conkey, M. W. (eds.), Engendering Archaeology. Women and Prehistory, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 132-159.

Headley, S. C. (1987). The body as a house in Javanese society. In MacDonald, C. (ed), de la Hutte au Palais: Socigtds "d Maison" en Asie du Sud-Est Insulaire, t~ditions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris, pp. 133-151.

Heinrich, E. (1982). Tempel und HetTigtiimer im alten Mesopotamien: Typologie, Morphologie und Geschichte, de Gruyter, Berlin.

Hendon, J. A. (1991). Status and power in Classic Maya society: An archaeological study. American Anthropologist 93: 894-918.

Herzfeld, M., and Melazzo, L. (eds.) (1988). Semiotic Theory and Practice, Third Congress of the International Association for Semiotic Studies, Palermo, 1984, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.

Hietala, H. (ed.) (1984). Intrasite Spatial Analysis, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Hillier, B., and Hanson, J. (1984). The Social Logic of Space, Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge. Hillier, B., Leaman, A., Stansall, P., and Bedford, M. (1976). Space syntax. Environment and

Planning B: Planning and Design 3: 147-185. Hillier, B., Hanson, J., and Graham, H. (1987). Ideas are in things: An application of the

space syntax method to discovering house genotypes. Environment and Planning t3." Planning and Design 14: 363-385.

Hingley, R. (1990). Domestic organisation and gender relations in Iron Age and Romano- British households. In Samson, R. (ed.), The Social Archaeology of Houses, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, pp. 125-147.

Hirth, K. G. (1989). Domestic architecture and social rank in a Mesoamerican urban center. In MacEachern, S., Archer, D., and Garvin, R. (eds.), Households and Communities, Proceedings of the 21st Annual Chacmool Conference, The University of Calgary Archae- ological Association, Calgary, pp. 416-429.

Hirth, K. G. (1993a). The household as an analytical unit: Problems in method and theory. In Santley, R. S., and Hirth, K. G. (eds.), Prehispanic Domestic Units in Western Mesoamerica, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 21-36.


Hirth, K. G. (1993b). Identifying rank and socioeconomic status in domestic contexts: An example from Central Mexico. In Santley, R. S., and Hirth, K. G. (eds.), Prehispan& Domestic Units in Western Mesoamerica, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 121-145.

Hitchcock, R. (1987). Sedentism and site structure: Organizational changes in Kalahari Basarwa residential locations. In Kent, S. (ed.), Methods and Theory for ActivitY Area Research: An Ethnoarchaeological Approach, Columbia University Press, New York, pp. 374-423.

Hodder, I. (1984). Burials, houses, women and men in the European Neolithic. In Miller, D., and Tilley, C. (eds.), Ideology, Power and Prehistory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 51-68.

Hodder, t. (1987a). Converging traditions: The search for symbolic meanings in archaeology and geography. In Wagstaff, J. M. (ed.), Landscape and Culture. Geographical and Archaeological Perspectives, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 134-145.

Hodder, I. (ed.) (1987b). The Archaeology of Contextual Meanings, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Hodder, I. (1990). The Domestication of Europe, Basil Blackwell, Oxford. Hodder, t. (1991). Reading the Past, 2nd ed., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Hodder, I. (1994). Architecture and meaning: The example of Neolithic houses and tombs.

In Pearson, M. P., and Richards, C. (eds.), Architecture and Order, Routledge, New York, pp. 73-86.

Hodder, I., and Orton, C. R. (1976). Spatial Analysis in Archaeology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Horne, L. (1983). Recycling an Iranian village: Ethnoarchaeology in Baghestan. Archaeology 36: 16-20.

Horne, L. (1994). Village Spaces: Settlement and Society in Northeastern Iran, Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, DC.

Horton, M. (1994). Swahili architecture, space and social structure. In Pearson, M. P., and Richards, C. (eds.), Architecture and Order, Routledge, New York, pp. 147-169.

Huelsbeck, D. (1989). Food consumption, resource exploitation and relationships within and between households at Ozette. In MacEachern, S., Archer, D., and Garvin, R. (eds.), Households and Communities, Proceedings of the 21st Annual Chacmool Conference, Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary, Calgary, pp. 157-167.

Jameson, M. H. (I990). Domestic space in the Greek city-state. In Kent, S. (ed.), Domestic Architecture and the Use of Space, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 92-113.

Jasim, S. A. (1989). Structure and function in an 'Ubaid village. In Henrickson, E. F., and Thuesen, I. (eds.), Upon this Foundation--The "Ubaid Reconsidered, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, pp. 79-90.

Kaiser, T., and Voytek, B. (1983). Sedentism and economic change in the Balkan Neolithic. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 2: 323-353.

Kamp, K. A. (1987). Affluence and image: Ethnoarchaeology in a Syrian village. Journal of Field Archaeology 14: 238-296.

Kellogg, S. (1993). The social organization of households among the Tenochca Mexica before and after Conquest. In Santley, R. S., and Hirth, K. G. (eds.), Prehispanic Domestic Units in Western Mesoamerica, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 207-225.

Kent, S. (1982). Hogans, sacred circles, and symbols--The Navajo use of space. In Brugge, D., and Frisbie, C. (eds.), Navajo Religion and Culture: Selected I, Tews--Papers in Honor of Leland Wyman, Museum of New Mexico Press, Santa Fe, pp. 128-137.

Kent, S. (1984). Analyzing ActivitY Areas: An Ethnoarehaeological Study of the Use of Space, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Kent, S. (1987). Understanding the use of space: An ethnoarchaeologicat approach. In Kent, S. (ed.), Method and Theory for Activity Area Research: An Ethnoarchaeological Approach, Columbia University Press, New York, pp. 1-62.

Kent, S. (ed.) (1989). Farmers as Hunters: The Implications of Sedentism, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

84 Steadman

Kent, S. (1990). A cross-cultural study of segmentation, architecture, and the use of space. In Kent, S. (ed.), Domestic Architecture and the Use of Space, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 127-152.

Kent, S. (1991a). The relationship between mobility strategies and site structure. In Kroll, E. M., and Price, T. D. (eds.), The Interpretation of Archaeological Spatial Patterning, Plenum Press, New York, pp. 33-59.

Kent, S. (1991b). Partitioning space: Cross-cultural factors influencing domestic spatial segmentation. Environment and Behavior 23: 438-473.

Kent, S. (1992). Studying variability in the archaeological record: An ethnoarchaeological model for distinguishing mobility patterns. American Antiquity 57: 635-660.

Kent, S. (1993). Models of abandonment and material culture frequencies. In Cameron, C. M., and Tomka, S. A. (eds.), Abandonment of Settlements and Regions, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 54-73.

Kent, S. (1995). Unstable households in a stable Kalahari community in Botswana. American Anthropologist 97: 297-312.

Kent, S. (1996). Which came first: Residential sedentism or residential segregation? In Steadman, S. R., and Matney, T. (eds.), The Archaeology of Architecture: Perspectives in Domestic Architecture in the Old World (in press).

King, J. A. (1988). A comparative midden analysis of a household and inn in St. Mary's city, Maryland. Historical Archaeology 22: 17-39.

Knights, C. (1994). The spatiality of the Roman domestic setting: An interpretation of symbolic content. In Pearson, M. P., and Richards, C. (eds.), Architecture and Order, Routledge, New York, pp. 113-146.

Kostof, S. (1985). A History of Architecture: Settings and Rituals, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Kramer, C. (1979). An archaeological view of a contemporary Kurdish village: Domestic architecture, household size and wealth. In Kramer, C. (ed.), Ethnoarchaeology Implications of Ethnography for Archaeology, Columbia University Press, New York, pp. 139-163.

Kramer, C. (1982). Village Ethnoarchaeology: Rural Iran in Archaeological Perspective, Academic Press, New York.

Kubba, S. A. A. (1987). Mesopotamian Architecture and Town Planning from the Mesolithic to the End of the Proto-historic Period, c. 10000-3500 BC., BAR, International Series 367, BAR International, Oxford.

Kus, S. (1982). Matters material and ideal, tn Hodder, I. (ed.), The Archaeology of Contextual Meanings, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 47-62.

Kus, S., and Raharijaona, V. (1990). Domestic space and the tenacity of tradition among some Betsileo of Madagascar. In Kent, S. (ed.), Domestic Architecture and the Use of Space, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 21-33.

Kus, S., and Raharijaona, V. (1996). House to palace, village to state: Scaling up architecture and ideology. In Steadman, S. R., and Matney, T. (eds.), The Archaeology of Architecture: Perspectives in Domestic Architecture in the Old World (in press).

Lane, P. J. (1994). The temporal structuring of settlement space among the Dogon of Mali: An ethnoarchaeological study. In Pearson, M. P., and Richards, C. (eds.), Architecture and Order, Routledge, New York, pp. 196-216.

Larson, M. A. (1991). Determining the function of a "men's house." In Walde, D., and Willows, N. D. (eds.), The Archaeology of Gender, The Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary, Calgary, pp. 165-175.

Lawrence, D. (1988). Suburbanization of house form and gender relations in a rural Portuguese agro-town. Architectural Behavior 4: 197-212.

Lawrence, D. L,, and Low, S. M. (1990). The built environment and spatial form. Annual Review of Anthropology 19: 453-505.

Lawrence, R. J. (1984). Transition spaces and dwelling design. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research l: 261-272.


Lawrence, R. J. (1990). Public collective and private space: A study of urban housing in Switzerland. In Kent, S. (ed.), Domestic Architecture and the Use of Space, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 73-91.

Layard, A. H. (1850). Nineveh and Its Remains, John Murray, London. Layne, L. (1987). Village-Bedouin: Patterns of change from mobility to sedentism in Jordan.

In Kent, S. (ed.), Method and Theory in Activity Area Research: An Ethnoarchaeological Approach, Columbia University Press, New York, pp. 345-373.

Lentini, L. (1988). An experience in non verbal language and architecture. In Herzfeld, M., and Melazzo, L. (eds.), Semiotic Theory and Practice, Third Congress of the International Association for Semiotic Studies 2, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 631-640.

Lloyd, S. (1963). Mounds of the Near East, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh. Lowell, J. (1989). Flexible social units in the changing communities of Point of Pines, Arizona.

In MacEachern, S., Archer, D., and Garvin, R. (eds.), Households and Communities, Proceedings of the 21st Annual Chacmool Conference, The Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary, Calgary, pp. 186-195.

Lyons, D. (1991). The construction of gender, time and space. In Watde, D., and Willows, N. D. (eds.), Archaeology of Gender, The Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary, Calgary', pp. 108-114.

MacEachern, S., Archer, D., and Garvin, R. (eds.) (1989). Households and Communities: Proceedings of the 21st Annual Chacmool Conference, Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary, Calgary.

Maclachlan, M. D. (ed.) (1987). Household Economies and Their Transformations, University Press of America, Lanham, MD.

Matney, T. (I993). A Semantic Model for the Analysis of Architecture from Late 3rd Millennium B.C. Mesopotamia, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, MI.

Matney, T. (1996). A linguistic perspective on meaning and architecture in archaeology. In Steadman, S. R., and Matney, T. (eds.), The Archaeology of Architecture: Perspectives in Domestic Architecture in the Old World (in press).

Matney, T., and Steadman, S. R. (1996). Introduction: Archaeological perspectives on domestic architecture. In Steadman, S. R., and Matney, T. (eds.), The Archaeology of Architecture: Perspectives in Domestic Architecture in the Old World (in press).

Mattiae, P. (1980). Ebla: An Empire Rediscovered, Hodder and Stoughton, London. McGuire, R., and Schiffer, M. (1983). A theory of architectural design. Journal of

Anthropological Archaeology 2: 277-303. Moore, H. (1982). The interpretation of spatial patterning in settlement residues. In Hodder,

I. (ed.), Symbolic and Structural Archaeology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 74-79.

Moore, H. (1986). Space, Text, and Gender, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Moore, H. (1988). Feminism and Anthropology, Polity Press, Cambridge. Moore, H. (1992). Households and gender relations: The modelling of the economy. In Ortiz,

S., and Lees, S. (eds.), Understanding Economic Process, University Press of America, Lanham, MD, pp. 131-148.

Munro, C. F. (1987). Semiotics, aesthetics, and architecture. British Journal of Aesthetics 27: 115-128.

Netting, R. M. (1989). Smallholders, householders, freeholders: Why the family farm works well worldwide. In Wilk, R. R. (ed.), The Household Economy: Reconsidering the Domestic Mode of Production, Westview Press, San Francisco, pp. 221-244.

Netting, R., Wilk, R., and Arnould, E. (eds.) (1984). Households: Comparative and Historical Studies of the Domestic Group, University of California Press, Berkeley.

Nevett, L. (1994). Separation or seclusion? Towards an archaeological approach to investigating women in the Greek household in the fifth to third centuries B.C. In Pearson, M. P., and Richards, C. (eds.), Architecture, and Order, Routledge, New York, pp. 98-112.

Oliver, P. (1987). Dwellings. The House Across the World, University of Texas Press, Austin.

86 Steadman

Olsen, M. K. G. (1989). Authority, and conflict in Slavonian households: The effect of social environment on intra-household processes. In Wilk, R. R. (ed.), The Household Economy. Reconsidering the Domestic Mode of Production, Westview Press, Boulder, CO, pp. 149-169.

O'Shea, J. (1992). Review of The Domestication of Europe, by I. Hodder . American Anthropologist 94: 752-753.

Oyuela-Caycedo, A. (1991). Ideology and structure of gender spaces: The case of the Kaggaba Indians. In Watde, D., and Willows, N. D. (eds.), Archaeology of Gender, The Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary, Calgary, pp. 327-335.

Pearson, M. P., and Richards, C. (eds.) (1994a). Architecture and Order, Routledge, New York. Pearson, M. P., and Richards, C. (1994b). Architecture and order: Spatial representation and

archaeology. In Pearson, M. P., and Richards, C. (eds.), Architecture and Order, Routledge, New York, pp. 38-72.

Pearson, M. P., and Richards, C. (1994c). Ordering the world: Perceptions of architecture, space and time. In Pearson, M. P., and Richards, C. (eds.), Architecture and Order, Routledge, New York, pp. 1-37.

Portnoy, A. W. (1981). A microarchaeological view of human settlement space and function. In Gould, R. A., and Schiffer, M. B. (eds.), Modem Material Culture. The Archaeology of Us, Academic Press, New York, pp. 213-224.

Pred, A. (1984). Place as historically contingent process: Structuration and the time-geography of becoming places. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 74: 279-297.

Pred, A. (1990). Making Histories and Constructing Human Geographies, Westview Press, Inc., Boulder, CO~

Preziosi, D. (1979). The Semiotics of the Built Enviornment: An Introduction to Architectonic Analysis, Indiana University Press, Bloomington.

Prussin, L. (1995). African Nomadic Architecture. Space, Place, and Gender, Smithsonian, Washington, DC.

Rapoport, A. (1969). House Form and Culture, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ Rapoport, A. (1976). The Mutual Interaction of People and Their Built Environment, Mouton,

The Hague. Rapoport, A. (1977). Human Aspects of Urban Form: Towards a Man-Environment Approach

to Urban Form and Design, Pergamon, Oxford. Rapoport, A. (1980). Cross-cultural aspects of environmental design. In Altman, I., Rapoport,

A., and Wohlwill, J. F. (eds.), Environment and Culture, Plenum Press, New York, pp. 7--46.

Rapoport, A. (1982). The Meaining of the Built Environment: A Nonverbal Communication Approach, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.

Rapoport, A. (1988). Levels of meaning in the built environment. In Poyatos, F. (ed.), Cross-Cultural Perspectives in Nonverbal Communication, C. J. Hogrefe, Toronto, pp. 317-336.

Rapoport, A. (1989). On the attributes of tradition. In Bourdier, J.-P., and Alsayyad, N. (eds.), Dwellings, Settlements, and Tradition, University Press of America, Lanham, MD, pp. 77-104.

Rapoport, A. (1990a). Systems of activities and systems of settings. In Kent, S. (ed.), Domestic Architecture and the Use of Space, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 9-20.

Rapoport, A. (1990b). History and Precedent in Environmental Design, Plenum Press, New York.

Rapoport, A. (1992). On cultural landscapes. Traditional Dwellings and Settlements Review 2: 33--47.

Rapoport, A. (1996). Archaeology and environment-behavior studies. In Steadman, S. R., and Matney, T. (eds.), The Archaeology of Architecture: Perspectives in Domestic Architecture in the Old World (in press).

Rathje, W. L. (1983). The salt of the Earth: Some comments on household archaeology among the Maya. In Vogt, E. Z., and Leventhal, R. M. (eds.), Prehistoric Settlement Patterns: Essays in Honor of Gordon R. 14qlley, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, pp. 23-34.


Redman, C. L. (1983). Regularity and change in the architecture of an early village. In Young, T. C., Smith, P. E. L., and Mortensen, P. (eds.), The Hilly Flanks and Beyond. Essays on the Prehistory of Southwestern Asia, Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization No. 36, Chicago University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 189-206.

Reid, J. J., and Whittlesley, S. M. (1982). Households at Grasshopper Pueblo. In Wilk, R., and Rathje, W. (eds.), Archaeology of the Household: Building a Prehistory of Domestic Life. American Behavioral Scientist 25: 705-716.

Rice, P. M. (1991). Women and prehistoric pottery production. In Watde, D., and Willows, N, D. (eds.), The Archaeology of Gender, Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary, Calgary, pp. 436-443.

Rigaud, J.-P., and Simek, J. F. (1991). Interpreting spatial patterns at the Grotte XV: A multiple-method approach. In Kroll, E. M., and Price, T. D. (eds.), The Interpretation of Archaeological Spatial Patterning, Plenum Press, New York, pp. 199-219.

Ringstedt, N. (1992). Household Economy and Archaeology: Some Aspects of Theory and Applications, University of Stockholm Studies in Archaeology, Stockholm.

Roaf, M. D. (1984). 'Ubaid houses and temples. Sumer 43: 80-90. Roaf, M. D. (1989). 'Ubaid social organization and social activities as seen from Tell Madhhur.

In Henrickson, E. F., and Thuesen, I. (eds.), Upon this Foundation--The 'Ubaid Reconsidered, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, pp. 91-145.

Robben, A. C. G. M. (1989). Habits of the home: Spatial hegemony and the structuration of house and society in Brazil. American Anthropologist 91: 570-588.

Rosen, A. (1986). The Geoarchaeology of Tells, University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Russell, J. M. (1991). Sennacherib's Palace Without Rival at Nineveh, University of Chicago

Press, Chicago. Samson, R. (1990). The rise and fall of tower-houses in post-reformation Scotland. In Samson,

R. (ed.), The Social Archaeology of Houses, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, pp. 197-243.

Sanders, D. (1990). Behavioral conventions and archaeology: Methods for the analysis of ancient architecture. In Kent, S. (ed.), Domestic Architecture and the Use of Space, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 43-72.

Sanders, D. (1996). Ancient spaces, ancient behavior--The dynamic duo. In Steadman, S. R., and Matney, T. (eds.), The Archaeology of Architecture: Perspectives in Domestic Architecture in the Old World (in press).

Sanders, W. T. (1989). Household, lineage, and state at eighth-century Copan, Honduras. In Webster, D. (ed.), The House of the Bacabs, Copan, Honduras, Studies in Pre-Columbian Art and Archaeology, No. 29, Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC, pp. 89-195.

Santley, R. S., and Hirth, K. G. (eds.) (1993). Household, Compound, and Residence: Studies of Prehispanic Domestic Units in Western Mesoamerica, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.

Saunders, T. (1990). The feudal construction of space: Power and domination in the nucleated village. In Samson, R. (ed.), The Social Archaeology of Houses, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, pp. 181-96.

Scott, E. (1990). Romano-British villas and the social construction of space. In Samson, R. (ed.), The Social Archaeology of Houses, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, pp. 149-172.

Seeden, H. (1985). Aspects of prehistory in the present world: Observations gathered in Syrian villages from 1980 to 1985. World Archaeology 17: 289-303.

Shami, S. (1989). Settlement and resettlement in Umm Qeis: Spatial organization of a Jordanian village. In Bourdier, J.-P., and Alsayyad, N. (eds.), Dwellings, Settlements, and Tradition, University Press of America, Lanham, MD, pp. 451--476.

Sharer, R. J., and Ashmore, W. (1987). Archaeology. Discovering Our Past, Mayfield, Mountain View, CA.

Sheehy, J. J. (1991). Structure and change in a Late Classic Maya domestic group at Copan, Honduras. Ancient Mesoamerica 2: 1-20.

Sherratt, A. (1991). Review of The Domestication of Europe, by I. Hodder. Antiquity 65: 742-743.

88 Steadman

Smith, M. E. (1987). Household possessions and wealth in agrarian states: Implications for archaeology. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 6: 297-335.

Smith, M. E. (1993). New World complex societies: Recent economic, social, and political studies. Journal of Archaeological Research 1: 5-41.

Spain, D. (1992). Gendered Spaces, University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. Spector, J. D. (1983). Male-female task differentiation among the Hidatsa: Toward the

development of an archaeological approach to the study of gender. In Albers, P., and Medicine, B. (eds.), The Hidden Half: Studies of" Plains Indian Women, University Press of America, Washington, pp. 77-99.

Stanish, C. (1989). Household archaeology: Testing models of zonal complementarity in the south central Andes. American Anthropologist 91: 7-24.

Steadman, S. R. (1990). Architecture in EBA Anatolia: Implications for the rise to complex society. Journal of the Association of Graduates in Near Eastern Studies 1: 13-26.

Steadman, S. R. (1996). Spatial patterning and social complexity on prehistoric Near Eastern tell sites: Models for mounds. In Steadman, S. R., and Matney, T. (eds.), The Archaeology of Architecture: Perspectives in Domestic Architecture in the Old World (in press).

Steadman, S. R., and Matney, T. (eds.) (1996). The Archaeology of Architecture: Perspectives' in Domestic Architecture in the Old World (in press).

Stevanovic, M. (1996). House destruction as a social practice in the southeast European Neolithic. In Steadman, S. R., and Matney, T. (eds.), The Archaeology of Architecture: Perspectives in Domestic Architecture in the Old World (in press).

Steward, J. H. (1937). Ecological aspects of southwestern society. Anthropos 32: 87-104. Stiny, G. (1980). Introduction to shape and shape grammars. Environment and Planning B 7:

343-351. Tjahjono, G. (1989). Center and duality in the Javanese dwelling. In Bourdier, J.-P., and

Alsayyad, N. (eds.), Dwellings, Settlements, and Tradition, University Press of America, Lanham, MD, pp. 213-236.

Trigger B. G. (1989). A History of Archaeological Thought, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Tringham, R. E. (1991a). Households with faces: The challenge of gender in prehistoric architectural remains. In Gero, J. M., and Conkey, M. W. (eds.), Engendering Archaeology, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 93-131.

Tringham, R. E. (1991b). Men and woman in prehistoric architecture. Traditional Dwellings and Settlements Review 3: 9-28.

Tringham, R. E. (1994). Engendered places in prehistory. Gender, Place and Culture I: 169-203.

Tringham, R. E. (1996). Epilogue. In Steadman, S. R., and Matney, T. (eds.), The Archaeology of Architecture: Perspectives in Domestic Architecture in the Old World (in press).

Tringham, R., and Krsti6, D. (eds.) (1990). Selevac: A Prehistoric Village in Yugoslavia, UCLA Institute of Archaeology Press, Los Angeles.

Tringham, R., Bogdan, B., and Voytek, B. (1985). The Opovo project: A study of socioeconomic change in the Balkan Neolithic. Journal of Field Archaeology 12: 425-435.

Tringham, R., Brukner, B., Kaiser, T., Brorjevic, K., Russell, N., Steti, P., Stevanovic, M., and Voytek, B. (1992). The Opovo project: A study of socio-economic change in the Balkan Neolithic, second preliminary report. Journal of Field Archaeology 19: 351-386.

Upton, D. (1983). The power of things: Recent studies in American vernacular architecture. American Quarterly 35: 262-279.

Upton, D., and Vlach, J. M. (eds.) (1986). Common Places: Readings in American Vernacular Architecture, University of Georgia Press, Athens.

Voigt, M. M. (1983). Hajji Firuz Tepe, Iran. The Neolithic Settlement. Hasanlu Excavation Reports I. University Museum Monography 50, University Museum, Philadelphia.

Voigt, M. M. (1985). Village on the Euphrates: Excavations at Neolithic Gritille in Turkey. Expedition 27: 10-24.

Walde, D., and Willows, N. D. (eds.) (1991). Archaeology of Gender, The Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary, Calgary,

Wall, D. D. (1994). The Archaeology of Gender, Plenum Press, New York.


Warner, J. (1979). The megaron and apsidal house in Early Bronze Age Western Anatolia: New evidence from Karatas. American Journal of Archaeology 83: 133-147.

Waterson, R. (t990). The Living House: The Anthropology of Architecture in South-East Asia, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Watson, P. J. (1979). Archaeological Ethnography in Western Iran, Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology 57, University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Webster, D., and Gonlin, N. (1988). Household remains of the humblest Maya. Journal of Field Archaeology 15: 169-190.

Whalen, M. E. (1988). House and household in formative Oaxaca. In Wilk, R. R., and Ashmore, W. (eds.), Household and Community in the Mesoamerican Past, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, pp. 249-272.

Whallon, R., Jr. (1973). Spatial analysis of occupation floors. American Antiquity 38: 266-278. Wheatley, P. (1976). Levels of space awareness in the traditional Islamic city. Ekistics 42:

354-366. Whitelaw, T. M. (1994). Order without architecture: Functional, social and symbolic

dimensions in hunter-gatherer settlement organization. In Pearson, M. P., and Richards, C. (eds.), Architecture and Order, Routledge, New York, pp. 217-243.

Wilk, R. R. (1983). Little house in the jungle: The causes of variation in house size among Kekchi Maya. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 2: 99-116.

Witk, R. R. (1988). Maya household organization: Evidence and analogies. In Wilk, R., and Ashmore, W. (eds.), HousehoM and Community in the Mesoamerican Past, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, pp. 135-153.

Wilk, R. R. (ed.) (1989a). The Household Economy: Reconsidering the Domestic Mode of Production, Westview Press, San Francisco.

Wilk, R. R. (1989b). Decision making and resource flows within the household: Beyond the black box. In Wilk, R. R. (ed.), The Household Economy: Reconsidering the Domestic Mode of Production, Westview Press, San Francisco, pp. 23-54.

Wilk, R. R. (1990). The built environment and consumer decisions. In Kent, S. (ed.), Domestic Architecture and the Use of Space, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 34-42.

Wilk, R., and Ashmore, W. (eds.) (1988). Household and Community in the Mesoamerican Past, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Wilk, R., and Rathje, W. (1982). Household archaeology. American Behavioral Scientist 25: 617-639.

Willey, G. R. (ed.) (1956). Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the New World, Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology, 23, Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research, New York.

Woodman, C. (1987). Proxemic analysis of pit house sites. American Archaeology 6: 170-173. Wright, R. (1991). Women's labor and pottery production in prehistory. In Gero, J. M., and

Conkey, M. W. (eds.), Engendering Archaeology. Women and Prehistory, Basil BlackwelI, Oxford, pp. 194-223.

Yanagisako, S. (1979). Family and household: The analysis of domestic groups. Annual Reviews of Anthropology 8: 161-205.

Yates, T. (1989). Habitus and social space: Some suggestions about meaning in the Saami (Lapp) tent ca. 1700-1900. In Hodder, I. (ed.), The Meanings of Things, Unwin Hyman, London, pp. 249-262.

Yentsch, A. (1991). Access and space, symbolic and material, in historical archaeology. In Walde, D., and Willows, N. D. (eds.), The Archaeology of Gender, Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary, Calgary, pp. 252-262.

B I B L I O G R A P H Y O F R E C E N T L I T E R A T U R E

Agnew, J., and Duncan, J. (eds.) (1989). The Power of Place, Unwin Hyman, London.

90 Steadman

Barrett, J. C. (1994). Defining domestic space in the Bronze Age of southern Britain. In Pearson, M. P., and Richards, C. (eds.), Architecture and Order, Routtedge, New York, pp. 87-97.

Bartlett, A. E. A. (1994). Spatial order and psychiatric disorder. In Pearson, M. P., and Richards, C. (eds.), Architecture and Order, Routledge, New York, pp. 178-195.

Beaudry, M. C. (1989). Household structure and the archaeological record: Examples from New World historical sites. In MacEachern, S., Archer, D., and Garvin, R. (eds.), Households and Communities, Proceedings of the 21st Annual Chacmool Conference, The Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary, Calgary, pp. 84-92.

Binford, L. (1990). Mobility, housing and environment: A comparative study. Journal of Anthropological Research 46: 119-152.

Bradley, R., and Chambers, R. (1988). A new study of the cursus complex at Dorchester on Thames. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 7: 271-289.

Brown, F. E. (1990). Analysing small building plans: A morphological approach. In Samson, R. (ed.), The Social Archaeology of Houses, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, pp. 259-276.

Burgess, C., Topping, P., Mordant, C., and Maddison, M. (eds.) (1988). Enclosures and Defences in the Neolithic of Western Europe, BAR 403, Bar International, Oxford.

Campo, J. E. (1991). Orientalist representations of Muslim domestic space in Egypt. Traditional Dwellings and Settlements Review 3: 29-42.

Cliff, M. B. (1988). Domestic architecture and origins of complex society at Cerros. In Wilk, R. R., and Ashmore, W. (eds.), HousehoM and Community in the Mesoamerican Past, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, pp. 199-225.

Dargyay, E. K. (1989). The house as sacred space in the folk-religion of Zanskar (West Himalayas). In MacEachern, S., Archer, D., and Garvin, R. (eds.), Households and Communities, Proceedings of the 21st Annual Chacmool Conference, Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary, Calgary, pp. 35-41.

Deal, M. (1987). Ritual space and architecture in the Highland Maya household. In Ingersoll, D. W. J., and Bronitsky, G. (eds.), Mirror and Metaphor: Material and Social Constructions of Reality, University Press of America, Lanham, MD, pp. 172-198.

Dohm, K. (1988). The Household in Transition: Spatial Organization of Early Anasazi Residential-Domestic Units, Southeastern Utah, Ph.D. dissertation, Washington State University, University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.

Doxtater, D. (1990). Socio-political change and symbolic space in Norwegian farm culture after the reformation. In Turan, M. (ed.), Vernacular Architecture: Paradigms of Environmental Response, Avebury Press, Aldershot.

Evans, S. T. (1989). House and household in the Aztec world: The village of Cihuatecpan. In MacEachern, S., Archer, D., and Garvin, R. (eds.), Households and Communities: Proceedings of the 21st Annual Chacmool Conference, Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary, Calgary, pp. 430-440.

Evans, S. T. (1993). Aztec household organization and village administration. In Santley, R. S., and Hirth, K. G. (eds.), Prehispanic Domestic Units in Western Mesoamerica, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 173-189.

Folbre, N. (1988). The black four of hearts: Toward a new paradigm of household economics. In Dwyer, D., and Bruce, J. (eds.), A Home Divided: Women and Income in the Third World, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA, pp. 248-289.

Fuchs, A. R., and Meyer-Brodnitz, M. (I989). The emergence of the central hall house-type in the context of nineteenth century Palestine. In Bourdier, J.-P., and Alsayyad, N. (eds.), Dwellings, Settlements, and Tradition, University Press of America, Lanham, MD, pp. 403-424.

Gallay, A. (1992). On the study of habitat structures: Reflections concerning the archaeology-anthropology-science transition. In Gardin, J.-C., and Peebles, C. S. (eds.), Representations in Archaeology, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, pp. 107-121.

Gonlin, N. (1994). Rural household diversity in Late Classic Copan, Honduras. In Schwartz, G. M., and Falconer, S. E. (eds.), Archaeological Views from the Countryside, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, pp. 177-297.


Graham, M. (1993). Settlement organization and residential variability among the Rarfimuri. In Cameron, C. M., and Tomka, S. A. (eds.), Abandonment of Settlements and Regions, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 25-53.

Guerreio, A. (1987). "Longue maison" et "grande maison": Considrrations sur l'ordre social dans le centre de Bornro. In MacDonald, C. (ed), de la Hutte au Palais: Socigtds "~ Maison" en Asie du Sud-Est Insulaire, l~ditions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris, pp. 45-66.

Hamilton, J. W. (1987). This old house: A Karen ideal. In Ingersoll, D. W. J., and Bronitsky, G. (eds.), Mirror and Metaphor: Material and Social Constructions of Reality, University Press of America, Lanham, MD, pp. 248-276.

Hart, G. (1992). Imagined unities: Constructions of "the household" in economic theory. In Ortiz, S., and Lees, S. (eds.), Understanding Economic Process, University Press of America, Lanham, MD, pp. 111-129.

Hasell, M. J., and Peatross, F. D. (1990). Exploring connections between women's changing roles and house forms. Environment and Behavior 22: 3-26.

Healan, D. M. (1989). House, household, and neighborhood in a Postclassic city. In MacEachern, S., Archer, D., and Garvin, R. (eds.), Households and Communities, Proceedings of the 21st Annual Chacmool Conference, Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary, Calgary, pp. 416-429.

Healan, D. M. (1993). Urbanism at Tula from the perspective of residential archaeology. In Santley, R. S., and Hirth, K. G. (eds.), Prehispanic Domestic Units in Western Mesoamerica, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 105-119.

Hegmon, M. (1989). Social integration and architecture. In Lipe, W., and Hegmon, M. (eds.), The Architecture of Social Integration in Prehistoric Pueblos, Occasional Papers No. 1, Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, CO, pp. 5-14.

Hodges, R. (1987). Spatial models, anthropology and archaeology. In Wagstaff, J. M. (ed.), Landscape and Culture: Geographical and Archaeological Perspectives, Basil Blackwetl, Oxford, pp. 118-133.

Horne, L. (1991). Reading village plans: Architecture and social change in Northeastern Iran. Lrpedition 33: 44-51.

Jameson, M. (1990). Private space and the Greek city. In Murray, O., and Price, S. (eds.), The Greek City from Homer to Alexander, Clarendon, Oxford, pp. 171-195.

Johnson, M. (1990). The Englishman's home and its study. In Samson, R. (ed.), The Social Archaeology of Houses, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, pp. 245-257.

Johnson, M. (1994). Ordering houses, creating narratives. In Pearson, M. P., and Richards, C. (eds.), Architecture and Order, Routledge, New York, pp. 170-177.

Kelly, B. (1988). The Politics of House and Home: Implications in the Built Environment of Levittown, Long Island, University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, MI.

Khambatta, I. (1989). The meaning of residence in traditional Hindu society. In Bourdier, J.-P., and Alsayyad, N. (eds.), Dwellings, Settlements, and Tradition, University Press of America, Lanham, MD, pp. 257-274.

Knapp, R. G. (1989). China's Vernacular Architecture: House Form and Culture, University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu.

Lekson, S. (1989). Kivas? In Lipe, W., and Hegmon, M. (eds.), The Architecture of Social Integration in Prehistoric Pueblos, Occasional Papers No. 1, Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, CO, pp. 161-167.

Lipe, W. D., and Hegmon, M. (eds.) (1989). The Architecture of Social Integration in Prehistoric Pueblos, Occasional Papers No. 1, Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, CO.

Loyrr, G. (1987). Les maisons de Mindanao. In MacDonald, C. (ed.), de la Hutte au Palais: SocWt~s "d Maison" en Asie du Sud-Est Insulaire, l~ditions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris, pp. 67-88.

Margueron, J.-C. (1989). Architecture et Socirt6 a rdpoque d'Obeid. In Henrickson, E. F., and Thuesen, I. (eds.), Upon this Foundation--The 'Ubaid Reconsidered, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, pp. 73-78.

Marshall, ¥. (1989). The house in northwest coast, Nuu-Chah-Nulth society: The material structure of political action. In MacEachern, S., Archer, D., and Garvin, R. (eds.),

92 Steadman

Households and Communities, Proceedings of the 21st Annual Chacmoot Conference, Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary, Calgary, pp. 15-21.

Marshall, Y. (1990). The excavation of N15/507: Towards a prehistory of the northern Maori semi-subterranean house form. In Sutton, D. (ed.), The Archaeology of the Kainga: A Study of Precontact Maori Undefended Settlements at Pouerua, Northland, New Zealand, Auckland University Press, Auckland, pp. 71-98.

Nabokov, P., and Easton, R. (1989). Native American Architecture, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Oliver, P. (1989). Handed down architecture: Tradition and transmission. In Bourdier, J.-P., and Alsayyad, N. (eds.), Dwellings, Settlements, and Tradition, University Press of America, Lanham, MD, pp. 53-76.

Oswald, D. (1987). The organization of space in residential buildings: A cross-cultural perspective. In Kent, S. (ed.), Method and Theory for Activity Area Research: An Ethnoarchaeological Perspective, Columbia University Press, New York, pp. 295-344.

Pader, E. J. (1988). Inside spatial relations. Architecture and Behavior 4: 251-267. Purser, M. (1989). All roads lead to Winnemucca: Local road systems and community material

culture in nineteenth-century Nevada. In Carter, T., and Herman, B. L. (eds.), Perspectives in Vernacular Architecture, III, University of Missouri Press, Columbia, pp. 120-134.

Reid, M. (I989). A room with a view: An examination of round-houses with particular reference to northern Britain. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 8: 1-39.

Rice, S. D. (1988). Classic to Postclassic Maya household transitions in the Central Peten, Guatemala. In Wilk, R. R., and Ashmore, W. (eds.), Household and Community in the Mesoamerican Past, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, pp. 227-249.

Richards, C. (1990). The Late Neolithic house in Orkney. In Samson, R. (ed.), The Social Archaeology of Houses, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, pp. 111-124.

Richards, C. (1993). Monument choreography: Architecture and spatial representation in Late Neolithic Orkney. In Tilley, C. (ed.), Interpretative Archaeology, Berg, Oxford/Providence.

Ringle, M. W., and Andrews, E. W. (1988). Formative residences at Komchen, Yucatan, Mexico. In Wilk, R. R., and Ashmore, W. (eds.), Household and Community in the Mesoamerican Past, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, pp. 171-199.

Rocek, T. R. (1994). Navajo Multi-Household Social Units, University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Rodman, M. (1992). Empowering place: Multilocality and multivocality. American Anthropologist 94: 640-656.

Samuels, S. (1989). Spatial patterns in Ozette longhouse floor middens. In MacEachern, S., Archer, D., and Garvin, R. (eds.), Households and Communities, Proceedings of the 21st Annual Chacmool Conference, Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary, Calgary, pp. 143-156.

Sellato, B. (1987). "Maisons" et organisation sociale en Asie du Sud-Est. In MacDonald, C. (ed.), de la Hutte au Palais: Socidtgs "d Maison" en Asie du Sud-Est Insulaire, t~ditions du Centre National de Ia Recherche Scientifique, Paris, pp. 195-208.

Shout, M. (1993). The spatial arrangements of ordinary English houses. Environment and Behavior 25: 22-69.

Smith, M. E. (1993). Houses and the settlement hierarchy in Late Postclassic Morelos: A comparison of archaeology and ethnohistory. In Santley, R. S., and Hirth, K. G. (eds.), Prehispanic Domestic Units in Western Mesoamerica, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. I91-206.

Snow, D. R. (1989). The evolution of Mohawk households, A.D. 1400-I800. In MacEachern, S., Archer, D., and Garvin, R. (eds.), Households and Communities, Proceedings of the 21st Annual Chacmool Conference, Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary, Calgary, pp. 293-300.

Soja, E. (1989). Postmodern Geographies: The Reassertaion of Space in Critical Social Theory, Verso, London.

Spencer-Wood, S. (1989). The community as household: Domestic reform, mid-range theory and the domestication of public space. In MacEachern, S., Archer, D., and Garvin, R.


(eds.), Households and Communities, Proceedings of the 21st Annual Chacmool Conference, Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary, Calgary, pp. 113-122.

Sutro, L. D., and Downing, T. E. (1988). A step toward a grammar of space: Domestic space use in Zapotec villages. In Wilk, R. R., and Ashmore, W. (eds.), Household and Community in the Mesoamerican Past, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, pp. 29-50.

Tobert, N. (1989). Domestic architecture and the occupant's life cycle: The case of a Sudanese province. Traditional Dwellings and Settlements Review 1: 19-37.

Tourtellot, G. (1988). Developmental cycles of households and houses at Seibal. In Wilk, R. R., and Ashmore, W. (eds.), Household and Community in the Mesoamerican Past, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, pp. 97-120.

Watts, C. M. (1989). Pattern language as a method for analysis: Case studies of Roman houses. Traditional Dwellings and Settlements, Working Paper Series 11: 29-47.

Widmer, R. J., and Storey, R. (1993). Social organization and household structure of a Teotihuac~in apartment compound: $3W1:33 of the Tlajinga Barrio. In Santley, R. S., and Hirth, IC G. (eds.), Prehispanic Domestic Units in Western Mesoamerica, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 87-104.

Wilson, P. J. (1988). The Domestication of the Human Species, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.

Documents

Recent research in the archaeology of architecture: Beyond the foundations