Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T08:02:41.507Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Social Dimensions of Domestic Architecture

A comment from Mediterranean archaeology1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 January 2009

Margriet J. Haagsma
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The study of architecture in relation to the social organization of space is a popular field of research within the discipline of anthropology and other social sciences. In archaeology, it has not played a significant role, although in recent years a number of publications have appeared and clearly the interest of archaeologists in this area of research is growing (Kent 1990; Samson 1990; Richards and Parker Pearson 1994).

Type
Discussion
Information
Archaeological Dialogues , Volume 2 , Issue 1 , January 1995 , pp. 51 - 56
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alavi, H., 1988 (1971): Peasantry and capitalism: a marxist discourse, in Shanin, T. (ed.), Peasants and peasant societies, Oxford, 185–196.Google Scholar
Beaumont, P., Blake, G. and Wagstaff, J., 1988 (2nd edition): The Middle East, Londen.Google Scholar
van Beek, A.G., 1990: Het huis als object en als subject; vorm en ideologic van het Bedamuni langhuis (P.N.G.), in Bedaux, R.M.A., van Beek, A.G., Constandse-Westermann, T.S., van 't Lindenhout, E. and Papousek, D.A. (eds), Ruimtelijke analyse: een ethno-archeologisch perspectief, Utrecht, 90–117.Google Scholar
Boratov, K., 1990: Inter-class and intra-class relations of distribution under ‘structural adjustment’: Turkey during the 1980s, in Arincali, T. and Rodrik, D. (eds), The political economy of Turkey, London, 199–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourdieu, P., 1977: Outline of a theory of practice, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourdieu, P., 1984: Distinction. A social critique of taste, London.Google Scholar
David, N., 1971: The Fulani compound and the archaeologist, World archaeology 3, 111–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delaney, C., 1991: The seed and the soil. Gender and cosmology in Turkish village society, Berkeley.Google Scholar
D.I.E. (Devlet Istatistik Enstitütüsü), 1988: 1985 Genel nüfus sayimi (46–K.Maraş), Ankara.Google Scholar
Foss, P., 1994: Function and meaning: cooking and eating in the Roman Household, American journal of archaeology 98, 337.Google Scholar
Giddens, A., 1979: Central problems in social theory: action, structure and contradiction in social analysis, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goody, J. (ed.), 1971: The developmental cycle in domestic groups, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Graham, J. W., 1966: Origins and interrelation of the Greek house and the Roman house, Phoenix 20, 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haagsma, M.J., 1990: The use of space in three Hellenistic houses in Halos, Greece. A consideration of the social organization of space in relation to Classical and Hellenistic housing, Cambridge (unpublished M.Phil thesis).Google Scholar
Haagsma, M.J., 1994: Domestic activities in private and public spheres: a case study from New Halos, American journal of archaeology 98, 336–337.Google Scholar
Hall, G., McBride, S. and Riddell, A., 1973: Architectural study, Anatolian studies 23, 245–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hillier, W. and Hanson, J., 1984: The social logic of space, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoepfner, W. and Schwandner, E.-L., 1986: Haus und Stadt im klassischen Griechenland (Wohnen in der klassischen Polis 1), München.Google Scholar
Hütteroth, W.-D., 1982: Türkei, Darmstadt.Google Scholar
Jameson, M. H., 1969: Excavations at Porto Cheli and vicinity, preliminary report, I: Halieis 1962–1968, Hesperia 38, 311–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jameson, M. H., 1990: Domestic space in the Greek city-state, in Kent, S. (ed.) Domestic architecture and the use of space. An interdisciplinary cross-cultural study (New directions in archaeology), Cambridge, 92–114.Google Scholar
Kehl-Bodrogi, K., 1988: Die Kizilbaş/Aleviten, Berlin.Google Scholar
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. An interdisciplinary cross-cultural study (New directions in archaeology), Cambridge, 127–152.Google Scholar
Kent, S., (ed.) 1990: Domestic architecture and the use of space. An interdisciplinary cross-cultural study (New directions in archaeology), Cambridge.Google Scholar
Kolars, J., 1963: Tradition, season and change in a Turkish village, Chicago.Google Scholar
Krause, C., 1977: Grundformen des Griechischen Pastashauses, Archaeologischer Anzeiger 92, 164–179.Google Scholar
Kuran, A. (ed.), 1965: Yassihöyük, a village study, Ankara.Google Scholar
Laslett, P., 1972: Introduction: the history of the family, in Laslett, P. and Wall, R. (eds), Household and family in past time, Cambridge, 1–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leemhuis, F., 1987 (2nd edition): Soenna, in Waardenburg, J. (ed.), Islam. Norm, ideaal en werkelijkheid, Houten, 94–100.Google Scholar
Lerner, D., 1958: The passing of traditional society, New York.Google Scholar
Moore, H., 1986: Space, text and gender, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Moore, H., 1988: Feminism and anthropology, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Mylonas, G., 1946: Excursus on the oecus unit, in Robinson, D.M. (ed.), Olynthos 12: Domestic and public architecture, Baltimore, 369–398.Google Scholar
Narrol, R., 1962: Floor area and settlement population, American antiquity 27 (4), 587–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nevitt, 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 Richards, C. and Parker Pearson, M. (eds), Architecture and order. Approaches to social space, Cambridge, 98–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pesando, F., 1987: Oikos e Ktesis. La casa greca in età classica, Perugia.Google Scholar
Reinders, H.R., 1988: New Halos, Utrecht.Google Scholar
Richards, C. and Parker Pearson, M., (eds) 1994: Architecture and order. Approaches to social space, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Robben, A.C.G.M., 1989: Habits of the home: spatial hegemony and the structuration of house and society in Brazil, American anthropologist 91 (3), 570–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samson, R., (ed) 1990: The social archaeology of houses, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Sirman, A., 1988: Peasants and family farms: the position of the households in cotton production in a village of western Turkey, London (PhD thesis, Department of Anthropology, University College London).Google Scholar
Stirling, P., 1965: Turkish village, London.Google Scholar
Wallace Hadrill, A., 1988: The social structure of the Roman house, Papers of the British School at Rome 43, 43–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitelaw, T., 1994: Order without architecture: functional, social and symbolic dimensions in hunter-gatherer settlement organization, in Richards, C. and Parker Pearson, M. (eds), Architecture and order. Approaches to social space, Cambridge, 217–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilk, R.R., and McC Netting, R., 1984: Households: changing forms and functions, in McC Netting, R., Wilk, R.R. and Arnould, E.J. (eds), Households, Berkeley, 1–28.Google Scholar
Winter, M., 1976: The archeological household cluster in the valley of Oaxaca, in Flannery, K.V. (ed.), The early Mesoamerican village, New York, 25–31.Google Scholar
Yaşa, I., 1957: Hasanoglan, Ankara.Google Scholar
Yellen, J.E., 1977: Archaeological approaches to the present, New York.Google Scholar