Household, Space and Spatial Analysis in Archaeology: Theoretical and Practical Approaches

Yıl 2019, Cilt: 2 Sayı: 1, 28 - 49, 30.06.2019

Abdulkadir Özdemir , Ayşe Özdemir

Öz

The aim of this study
is to present the recent theoretical and practical aspects of household
archeology, and spatial analysis methods in archaeology. In this respect,
firstly, the concept of household archeology is defined, and its theoretical
approaches are examined. After that, the current theoretical approaches to the
common and different points of the concepts such as, “space”, “house”,
“household”, “housing” in terms of space and spatial use were evaluated. This
evaluation is followed by a general discussion of the theoretical and practical
studies on the spatial analysis, which constitute the essence of this study. In
addition, the methods used in the spatial analysis in archeology are widely
introduced. Among the spatial analysis methods in archeology;
ethnoarchaeological researches, space syntax analysis, the analysis of house
floor assemblages (spatial distribution of house floor assemblages findings),
microarchaeology and micromorphology, soil chemistry analysis, phytolite
analysis are known to be applied. In the excavations attributed to the
prehistoric period, the introduction of the methods used in the spatial
analysis in the recent times has contributed to the understanding of the
spatial uses of architectural remains in the context of the human-space
relationship.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Household Archeology, Space, House, Spatial Analysis, Spatial Use

Arkeolojide Hane, Mekân ve Mekân Analizi: Teorik ve Pratik Yaklaşımlar

Öz

Bu çalışma Arkeolojide,
hane arkeolojisi ve mekân analiz yöntemlerinin teorik ve pratik yönlerini
ortaya koymaktadır. Bu bakımdan öncelikle hane arkeolojisi kavramı tanımlanarak
bu konuya yapılan teorik yaklaşımlar irdelenmektedir. Bunun ardından, mekân ve
mekânsal kullanım başlığı altında “mekân”, “ev”, “hane”, “konut” gibi
kavramların anlam yönünden ortak ve farklı noktaları konusunda mevcut teorik
yaklaşımlar değerlendirilmektedir. Bu değerlendirmeyi bu çalışmanın da özünü oluşturan
mekân analizi konusunda yapılan teorik ve uygulamalı çalışmalar üzerine genel
bir irdeleme takip etmektedir. Ayrıca arkeoloji dünyasında mekân analizi
çalışmalarında benimsenen yöntemler tanıtılmaktadır. Arkeolojide mekân analizi
yöntemleri arasında; etnoarkeolojik araştırmalar, mekân dizim analizi, taban
dizim analizi (taban buluntularının mekânsal dağılımı), mikroarkeoloji ve
mikromorfoloji, toprak kimyası analizi, fitolit analizi gibi yöntemlerin
uygulandığı bilinmektedir. Prehistorik
döneme atfedilen kazılarda mekân analizinde kullanılan yöntemlerin son
zamanlarda oldukça yoğun uygulanmaya başlanması, insan-mekân ilişkisi
bağlamında, mimari kalıntıların mekânsal kullanımlarının anlaşılmasına katkı
sağlamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Hane Arkeolojisi, Mekân, Ev, Mekân Analizi, Mekânsal Kullanım

Kaynakça

• Allison, P. M. (1999). The Archaeology of Household Activities. Routledge, New York.
• Ashmore, W. ve Wilk, R. R. (1988). House and Household in the Mesoamerican Past: An Introduction. R.R. Wilk, W. Ashmore (eds.), Household and Community in the Mesoamerican Past içinde (1-28. ss.). Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
• Bender, D. R. (1967). A Redefinement of the Concept of Household: Families Co¬residence and Domestic Functions. Amer. Anthropologist 69.5, 493-504.
• Bender, B. (1978). From Hunter-Gatherer to Farmer, a Social Perspective. World Archaeology 10, 204-222.
• Byrd, B. F. (1994). Public and Private, Domestic and Corporate: the Emergence of the Southwest Asian village. American Antiquity 49, 639-666.
• Chang, K.C. (1968). Settlement Archaeology. National Press Books.
• Cutting, M. (2003). The Use of Spatial Analysis to the Study Prehistoric Settlement Architecture. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 22, 1-21.
• Çevik, A. (1995). Social Meaning of Household Spaces. Archaeological Dialogues 1, 39-50.
• Çevik, Ö. (2014). Türkiye Arkeolojisi’nde Mekan Analizi: Sorun ve Yöntemler. Ö. Çevik, B. Erdoğu (eds.), Yerleşim Sistemleri ve Mekan Analizi içinde (109-122. ss.). Ege Yayınları, İstanbul.
• Çınar, A. D. Enkomi Yerleşmesinde Geç Kıbrıs IIIA Tabakasına Tarihlenen 'Ashlar Building' İncelemesi (Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi), 2018, Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart Üniversitesi, Çanakkale.
• Duru, G. Tarihöncesinde İnsan-Mekan, Topluluk-Yerleşme İlişkisi: M.Ö. 9. Bin Sonu-7. Bin Başı, Aşıklı ve Akarçay Tepe (Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi), 2013, İstanbul Üniversitesi, İstanbul.
• Duru, G. ve Özbaşaran, M. (2014). Mekan Bağlam ve Arkeolog. Ö. Çevik, B. Erdoğu (eds.), Yerleşim Sistemleri ve Mekan Analizi içinde (123-136. ss.). Ege Yayınları, İstanbul.
• Düring, B. S. (2006). Constructing communities: clustered neighbourhood settlements of the Central Anatolian Neolithic ca. 8500-5500 cal. BC. Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten.
• Efstratiou, N. (2007). Neolithic households in Greece: The contribution of ethnoarchaeology. R. Wastgate, N. Fischer, J. Whitley (eds.), Building Communities. House, Settlement and Society in the Aegean and Beyond, British School at Athens Studies 15 içinde (29-35. ss.). London.
• Flannery, K. V. ve Winter, M. C. (1976). Analyzing Household Activities. K.V. Flannery (ed.), The Early Mesoamerican Village içinde (34-47. ss.). Academic Press, New York.
• Flannery, K. V. ve Winter, M. C. (2002). The Origins of the Village Revisited: From Nuclear to Extended Households. American Antiquity, Vol. 67/3, 417-433.
• Gerritsen, F. (1999). To Build and To Abandon: A Cultural Biography of Late Prehistoric Houses and Farmsteads in the Southern Netherlands. Archaeological Dialogues 6 (2), 78-114.
• Glowacki, K. T. ve Vogeikoff-Brogan, N. (2011). Stega: The Archaeology of Houses and Household in Ancient Crete. Hesperia Supplement 44, The American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Princeton, New Jersey.
• Goody, J. (1973). Strategies of heirship. Comparative Studies in Society and History 15, 3-30.
• Guyer, J. (1981). Household and Community in African Studies. African Studies Review 24 (2), 87-137.
• Gündoğdu, M. (2014). Mekan Dizimi Analiz Yöntemi ve Araştırma Konuları. Art-Sanat Dergisi, Sayı 2, 251-275.
• Halstead, P. (2006). What’s Ours in Mine? Village and Household in Early Farming Society in Greece. Amsterdam: Joh. Enschedé Amsterdam BV.
• Hammel, E. A. ve Laslett, P. (1974). Comparing Household Structure over Time and between Cultures. Comparative Studies in Society and History 16, 73–109.
• Hendon, J. A. (1996). Archaeological Approaches to the Organization of Domestic Labor: Household Practice and Domestic Relations. Annual Review of Anthropology 25, 45-61.
• Hillier, B ve Hanson, J. (1984). The Social Logic of Space. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Hiller, B. (1996). Space is the Machine: a configurational theory of architecture. Cambridge.
• Hodder, I. (1982). Symbols in Action: Ethnoarchaeological Studies of Material Culture. Cambridge University Press.
• Hodder, I. (1985). Postprocessual Archaeology. M. Schiffer (ed.), Advanced in Archaeolgical Method and Theory 8: 1-26. Academic Press, New York.
• Hodder, I. (1990). The Domestication of Europe: Structure and Contingency in Neolithic Societies. Oxford.
• Kent, S. (1993). Sharing in an Egalitarian Kalahari Community. Man, Vol: 28/3, 479-514.
• Kleindienst, M. R. ve Watson, P. J. (1956). Action Archaeology: The Archaeological Inventory of a Living Community. Anthropology Tomorrow, Vol: 5, 75-78.
• Longacre, W. A. ve Ayers, J. A. (1968). Archaeological Lessons from an Apache Wickiup. S.R. Binford, L.R. Binford (eds.), New Perspectives in Archaeology içinde (151-159. ss.). Aldine Press, Chicago.
• Luke, C., Roosevelt, C. H. ve Scott, C. B. (2017). Yörük Legacies: Space, Scent, and Sediment Geochemistry. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 21, 152-177.
• Manum, B., Rusten, E. ve Benze P. (2006). Software for Drawing and Calculating Space Syntax Graphs. Norway: Oslo School of Architecture, 97-101.
• Murdock, G. P. (1949). Social Structure. New York, Macmillan.
• Müller, M. (2015). Introduction: Household Studies in Complex Socities: (Micro) Archaeological and Textual Approaches. M. Müller (ed.), Household Studies in Complex Socities içinde, The Oriental Institute of Chicago Oriental Institute Seminars, Number 10, Chicago, Illinois.
• Özbal, R. (2004). Tell Kurdu’da Mikro Arkeolojik Çalışmalar. Arkeometri Sonuçları Toplantısı 19, 85-92.
• Özbal, R. (2014). Hane Arkeolojisinde Haneyi Tanımlamanın Zorlukları. Ö. Çevik, B. Erdoğu (eds.), Yerleşim Sistemleri ve Mekan Analizi içinde (157-174. ss.). Ege Yayınları, İstanbul.
• Özdemir, A. Prehistorik Gülpınar (Smintheion) Yerleşimi Mimarisi ve Mekansal Kullanımı (Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi), 2017, Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart Üniversitesi, Çanakkale. Özdoğan, M. (1996). Tarihten günümüze Anadolu’da Konut ve Yerleşme. Kulübeden Konuta: Mimarlıkta İlkler, HABITAT II, 19-30.
• Parker, B. J. ve Foster, C. P. (2012). New Perspectives on Household Archaology. Winona Lake (ed.), Indiana, Eisenbrauns.
• Rapoport, A. (1969). House Form and Culture. New Jersey, Prentice-Hall.
• Rapoport, A. (1990). The Meaning of the Built Environment: A Nonverbal Communication Approach. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
• Runnels, C. (2005). Ethnoarchaeology, as a sub-discipline of Archaeology. T. Takaoğlu (ed.), Ethnoarchaeological Investigations in Rural Anatolia 2 içinde (7-14. ss.). Ege Yayınları, İstanbul.
• Shapiro, J. (1997). Fingerprints in the Landscape. Cultural Evolution in the North Rio Grande. Space Syntax First International Symposium, M. D. Major, L. Amorim, F. Dufaux (eds.), 21.01-21.21.
• Souvatzi, S. (2008). A Social Archaeology of housholds in Neolithic Greece: An Anthropological Approach. Cambridge and New York: University Press.
• Tringham, R. (2001). Household Archaeology. N.J. Smelser, P.B. Baltes (eds.), International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences içinde (6925-6928. ss.). Oxford, Pergamon.
• Tringham, R. (2012). Households through a Digital Lenses. B. Parker, C. P. Foster (eds.), New Perspectives on Household Archaeology içinde (81-120. ss.). Winona Lake, Indiana.
• Watkins, T. (2004). Building houses, framing concepts, constructing worlds. Paléorient, Vol. 30/1, 5-23.
• Wilk, R. R. ve Rathje, W. L. (1982). Household Archaeology. American Behavioral Scientist 25, 617-639.
• Wilk, R. R. ve Netting, R. (1984). Household: Comparative and Historical Studies of the Domestic Group. Berkeley, University of California Press.
• Yalman, N. (2005). Ethnoarchaeology, Analogy, and Problems. T. Takaoğlu (ed.), Ethnoarchaeological Investigations in Rural Anatolia 2 içinde (15-26. ss.). Ege Yayınları, İstanbul.