MARION CUTTING

THE USE OF SPATIAL ANALYSIS TO STUDY PREHISTORIC SETTLEMENT ARCHITECTURE

Summary. Archaeologists have applied the quantitative access analysis techniques of space syntax to archaeological material with varying degrees of success. This article makes a distinction between access analysis as a quantitative methodology and as a non-quantitative tool to think with and suggests the level of architectural denition needed for the quantitative approach. The paper begins with a brief description of access analysis and discusses ve studies that illustrate its application to archaeological material. It then presents original research, applying the method to three plans from two prehistoric Anatolian sites, atalhyk and Haclar. The results are discussed in qualitative rather than quantitative terms. A number of problems are identied even when applying access analysis to late Chalcolithic Haclar, a small settlement with well-preserved buildings, clear entrances and a boundary wall. These include a difculty in identifying discrete household spaces, a lack of information about the upper storeys, and uncertainty about access arrangements between communal spaces and individual household units. The paper concludes that access analysis as a quantitative technique is of limited use in studying prehistoric constructed space unless the archaeological record already provides information about the denition of individual spaces and unambiguous evidence as to how those spaces were accessed. On the other hand, if one limits the use of access analysis to a visually-rich tool to think with, it can provide useful insights into settlement life. The paper suggests a number of implications for both research and eld archaeologists.

introduction
The quantitative techniques of space syntax were developed by architects for architects as a means of improving the design of buildings and open spaces by incorporating within their construction an understanding of the relationship between spatial conguration and purposeful movement. Architects use space syntax together with shape, size and architectural decoration to ensure that rooms, outdoor areas, passageways and the like are private or public places, or places where people can be alone or meet together. However, despite the fact that architects,
OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 22(1) 121 2003
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2003, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street Malden, MA 02148, USA.

THE USE OF SPATIAL ANALYSIS TO STUDY PREHISTORIC SETTLEMENT ARCHITECTURE

like archaeologists, work with building plans, it is a far cry from the design of modern architecture to the reconstruction from incomplete excavations of the lifestyles of prehistoric societies. It is hardly surprising that archaeologists experience difculties when trying to use these quantitative techniques (Brown 1990; Fairclough 1992; Leach 1978). This paper discusses some of these difculties and seeks to establish the level of archaeological architectural data that is required for quantitative access analysis to work. It is not concerned so much with the merits or otherwise of space syntax theory or with the interpretation of quantitative results. Instead, it investigates the nuts and bolts of the technique itself when it can and cannot be applied to different types of architectural data. The paper is divided into four sections. Section 1 sets space syntax within the framework of theoretical approaches to the use of space and explains (in conceptual rather than quantitative terms) the principles behind convex spatial analysis (the technique most often used, and often modied, in archaeological research where it is usually described as access analysis). Section 2 briey reviews the application to date of quantitative access analysis on archaeological material by citing, briey, ve published studies and concluding with a more detailed discussion, based on original research, of atalhyk Level VIB. Section 3 presents the results of original research on Haclar Levels VI and IIA. It shows the difculties in applying quantitative access analysis techniques to two archaeological plans that present two different levels of architectural denition: incomplete ground-oor access buildings within an incompletely excavated settlement (Haclar VI); and ground-oor access buildings with complete ground plans within a completely excavated settlement (Haclar IIA). The concluding section (Section 4) denes the minimum level of architectural denition required to justify the use of quantitative access analysis. In so doing, it re-emphasizes the two underlying themes of this paper. Firstly, access analysis can be considered as both a quantitative technique and a visually-rich tool to think with. Secondly, given the ambiguous nature of so much archaeological material, it is in the latter respect rather than the former that the technique is of most use to prehistoric archaeologists. The implications of these ndings both for research and for eld archaeologists are noted.
1.

theory and technique: space syntax and the use of space

1.1. Theoretical approaches to the use of built space The architecture of past societies the rooms, houses and settlements unearthed by archaeologists provides material evidence of the way people, individually and collectively, constructed their built environment in ways to suit their biological and social needs. How best to analyse and interpret that material evidence remains a matter of both theoretical and pragmatic debate. The debate about the nature of the relationship between people, their environment and the spaces they occupy has attracted contributions from sociologists, anthropologists, architects, environmental scientists and archaeologists (key texts include Binford 1990; Bordieu 1973 and 1977; Banning and Byrd 1987; Deetz 1977; Giddens 1995; Hall 1966; Hall 2002; Kent 1984; Levi-Strauss 1963; Mithen 1989; Pearson 1994; Rapoport 1969; Whitelaw 1994). Contributors to that debate have assigned varying degrees of importance to the role of the individual actor vis vis the wider social order, drawing on explanations ranging from environmental determinism to social evolution in order either to describe or to explain how and why people
OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY

Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2003

MARION CUTTING

live as they do today or lived as they did in the past. Despite their differences, most theories about the relationship of human beings to their constructed environment share the idea that there is something to be learnt about individuals or groups from the way people construct, organize and furnish their physical living spaces. The theoretical basis for space syntax falls generally within a structuralist approach that, in its broadest sense, can be dened as the belief that there exist underlying rules or laws that, though unspoken, give meaning to peoples myths, concepts and cultural behaviour, rather in the way that the unspoken rules of grammar bring meaning to strings of individual words. Space syntax takes as its starting point the existence of human beings as physical objects occupying a nite area of space. As such, they have no choice but to occupy a particular piece of space and to move from one point in space to another in order to do anything. Space syntax is based on three assumptions: that people use space both consciously and reexively; that the way spaces are linked together affects how people move through and use those spaces; and that such movement and use in turn in some way affect the behaviour of the people living within those spaces (Hillier 1996). 1.2. How space syntax works Space syntax is the collective name given to an analytical approach, a set of computer software programmes and a conceptual framework that together identify, compare and interpret patterns of spatial conguration. The techniques were rst developed through the study of small settlement plans, using data from rst-hand anthropological accounts, and later extended to the study of individual household units (Hillier and Hanson 1984; Hillier 1996; Hanson 1998). Space syntax quantitative techniques include axial line analysis, convex isovist analysis and convex spatial analysis. Convex spatial analysis (access analysis) is of interest to archaeologists because it is particularly useful in studying the social use of domestic and small settlement spaces (Hanson 1998). In methodological terms, access analysis works in two stages. The rst uses computer software to produce quantitative descriptions of the connective properties of dened spaces derived from the way they are linked together. The second interprets the results of the rst stage using an interpretative framework developed from the direct observation of how people move through and use space (a framework which has both its supporters and detractors see, for example, Leach 1978). It is with the rst methodological stage, rather than the second, that this paper is most concerned. Access analysis records patterns of potential movement and non-movement in order to identify the interfaces between the two. It uses as its basic unit of analysis the convex space, dened as a space within which all parts are visible to all other parts. One convex space will inevitably be linked to another and it is the way these links are arranged that produces the [C]ongurational descriptions . . . [which] . . . deal with the way in which a system of spaces is related together to form a pattern, rather than with the more localised properties of any particular space (Hanson 1998, 223). The congurational description is reached in four stages: the identication of convex spaces; the insertion of the links joining those spaces; the representation of the linked spaces visually through a justied access graph; and the calculation of the numerical relationship (usually expressed in terms of integration values) between those spaces. The visual representation of a buildings internal congurational pattern is shown in Figure 1.
OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2003

THE USE OF SPATIAL ANALYSIS TO STUDY PREHISTORIC SETTLEMENT ARCHITECTURE

2 2 2 2 4 1 3 1

Figure 1 The ground plan of a building with walls and entrances is shown on the left. A circle marks each convex space and the dotted lines show how each space is linked to the rest. On the right, these spaces and their links are shown as a justied access graph (adapted from the diagram produced in Hillier 1996, 318).

Figure 1 shows a building with eight internal spaces and a justied graph which visually represents the way those spaces are congured. This schematic representation allows spatial properties to be attributed to an individual space according to the number of links it has with its neighbour(s). Thus in Figure 1, number-4 space is a dead-end space and therefore topologically an occupation-only space (Hillier 1996, 319). A number-3 type space increases the isolation of the dead-end space. Number-2 spaces are likely to attract movement while number-1 spaces, joining up more than one circulation path, are central to the circulation system of the whole. In addition, in order to allow a quantitative analysis, each space is given an integration value that reects its connectivity the extent to which it is connected up to all the other spaces within the network. In the relatively simple graph in Figure 1, the integration values (not shown) conrm what is already visually apparent from the simple graph: taking the entrance area as the starting point, dead-end space number-4 is the least integrated, and the two number-1 spaces the most. Using integration values, the accessibility of individual spaces from the entrance of the building, from selected spaces within the building, and from outside the building can be calculated. Representing linked spaces within a building schematically highlights similarities and differences in the spatial conguration of individual buildings (Fig. 2). Figure 2 shows justied access graphs for two buildings which, despite both having eight convex spaces, are very differently congured. Building A has a deep and impermeable conguration with low rates of integration: it contains one number-1 type space but that is situated ve spaces away from the entrance. By contrast, Building B is shallow and permeable, with three number-1 type spaces close to the entrance. Building A, unlike Building B, is a structure closed to the outside world within which movement is difcult. By identifying similarities and differences in the internal conguration of buildings it is possible to identify spatial genotypes (dened as a numerical consistency in spatial patterning (Hanson 1998, 32)). These genotypes provide . . . one of the most general means by which culture is built into housing layout (ibid., 35). A repeated pattern for example of
OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY

Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2003

MARION CUTTING

outside

outside

Building A

Building B

Figure 2 Justied access graphs for two very different kinds of buildings. Building A has a deep and impermeable spatial conguration; Building B has a shallow one that encourages easy movement between the spaces. A clear example of different access patterns within houses with apparently similar ground plans is provided in Hanson 1998, 256.

ovens situated within the deepest spaces of similarly congured buildings suggests a cultural genotype resulting from the encoding of social meaning within the architecture. 1.3. Some conclusions about the use of access analysis Three general points emerge from the above summary. Firstly, access analysis relies on the use of two spatial units the convex space and the link between convex spaces. These, translating broadly into rooms and entrances, have to be clearly identiable in order for the technique to be applied. Secondly, in quantitative access analysis, the numerical integrational values attached to each space are calculated on the basis of the relationship of that space to all other spaces within the conguration. It therefore follows that all the spaces within a network of spaces matter to the calculation. Incomplete networks without clear starting and nishing points will yield meaningless calculations. Finally, access graphs have a visual as well as a quantitative use the justied graphs in Figures 1 and 2 provide a way of describing the layout of a building in a way that has nothing to do with room size or furnishings but nevertheless says something about privacy and movement, and about differences between the two buildings.
2.

the application of quantitative access analysis: completely excavated buildings and settlements

2.1. Quantitative access analysis applied to archaeological material Given the conclusions in Section 1.3, it seems likely that not all archaeological material will be equally suited to quantitative access analysis. That this is so is conrmed by ve previously published studies of access analysis on archaeological material from a number of different times and places: Bulgarian Chalcolithic tell sites (Chapman 1990); Saxon and medieval monasteries and nunneries in England (Gilchrist 1994); ninth to twelfth century houses
OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2003

THE USE OF SPATIAL ANALYSIS TO STUDY PREHISTORIC SETTLEMENT ARCHITECTURE

from the Chaco Canyon area of the American South-west (Bustard 1997); the twelfth to fourteenth century house blocks of the Arroyo Hondo Pueblo in the American South-west (Shapiro 1997); Neolithic atalhyk in Central Anatolia (During 2001). These studies applied some form of quantitative access analysis to the architectural plans of archaeological sites. They used access analysis to establish possible patterns of movement and non-movement in order to investigate the relationship between buildings, functional activities, ease of access and privacy. These patterns were used to develop the social theories that were of particular interest to the researchers: social organization (Bustard and Shapiro); gender domains (Gilchrist); and social complexity (Chapman and During). What is of interest here, however, is the dynamic between the technique and the data the relationship between the successful application of the technique and the kind of architectural material surviving within the archaeological record. 2.2. Complete buildings with unambiguous bounded spaces Chapman (1990) and Gilchrist (1994) applied quantitative analysis to architecture with clear ground-level plans and plenty of unambiguously differentiated spaces. They did so to considerable effect because their architectural material was sufciently detailed so as to allow access analysis to be applied without modication. Chapman studied the ground-level plans of four tell sites bounded by defensive walls and excavated in their entirety across one complete level. Many of his buildings were remarkably large and remarkably complex and had clear ground-oor entrances (Chapman 1990, 60). Gilchrist produced particularly pleasing results because she not only had complete ground plans of complex buildings but knew the function of individual spaces (from written records and iconography) and the spatial conguration and use of the upper oors (large dormitories). She was therefore able to support her access analysis with something approaching direct observation. 2.3. Difculties with roof-top access sites 2.3.1. Questionable assumptions about access and movement The remaining three studies (Bustard 1997; Shapiro 1997; During 2001) applied quantitative access analysis to large samples of completely excavated buildings that used roof-top entrances in addition to, or instead of, ground-oor ones. In each case, the presence of roof-top rather than ground-oor entrances required the researcher to make a number of assumptions in order to compensate for the fact that the spatial conguration of the roof-top levels had disappeared from the archaeological record. This made the quantitative use of access analysis a somewhat less convincing tool than in the rst two cases cited (Chapman 1990; Gilchrist 1994) where no assumptions were required. Bustards sample consisted of 20 small houses containing six or more, sometimes interconnecting, ground-oor rooms that were grouped around an open space and storage pit. In the absence of direct evidence about access routes from open spaces to the roof-tops, Bustard developed a pattern of linked spaces by assuming a system of multiple entries from the open spaces to the roof-tops above individual rooms combined with some interconnections between the rooms. Shapiros sample, consisting of more than a hundred pairs of interconnecting rooms grouped, sometimes six deep, around large open squares, was even more difcult to break down into the linked spaces required by quantitative access analysis. In order to answer the which
OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY

Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2003

MARION CUTTING

roof to cross (Shapiro 1997, 21.4) question Shapiro devised an ingenious set of rules based on three assumptions: the pattern of rst-oor roof-top movement mirrored ground-oor room connections; access to the plazas from the interior rooms was via the shortest direct route across the roof-tops at rst-oor level; and the plazas could be treated as single unied convex spaces that were frequently and regularly used by the inhabitants of the room blocks. Unfortunately, given that each of these assumptions can be challenged, the resulting quantitative access analysis inevitably remains questionable. Durings application of a modied form of quantied access analysis to the roof-top access site of atalhyk had also to be based upon assumptions about roof-top patterns of access (During 2001). During devised a set of rules with which to measure and compare the level of accessibility of individual buildings to open spaces. He treated each open space and each building as a single unit and measured building depth by the number of spaces that had to be crossed at roof-top level in order to pass from a building to an open space by the most direct route (During 2001, 12). However, his analysis rests on too many untestable assumptions, as will be shown below. 2.3.2. atalhyk Figure 3 shows a simplied plan of the extensively excavated architecture of Level VIB of atalhyk, a Neolithic tell site in central Anatolia excavated by Mellaart in the 1960s (Mellaart 1962, 1963, 1964, 1966, 1967) and Hodder from the early 1990s (Hodder 1996). Level VIB consists of a large number of adjoining structures with some areas of incompletely dened open space (shaded in grey) around the edges of the excavation area and two open spaces (black, in Figure 3) surrounded by buildings. Two problems in applying quantitative access analysis become immediately apparent. The rst is the lack of clearly dened settlement boundaries or open spaces. The eastern edge of the settlement remained unknown and a complete block of buildings was never excavated (Mellaart 1967, 32 and 64). The two bounded open spaces (black, in Figure 3) were rubbish and human waste dumps (Mellaart 1978, 16) rather than plaza-like access amenities. The remaining incompletely excavated open spaces (grey, in Figure 3) may have been bounded by additional buildings whose existence would have changed access arrangements between built and non-built space. Without clear starting and nishing points, access patterns between built and non-built space remain incomplete and unreconstructable. The second problem that arises is the difculty in reconstructing roof-top conguration and patterns of movement. The precise point at which the (presumed) ladder from the inside of a building reached roof level is unknown. The exact nature of roof-top activities is a matter for conjecture. Distinct spatial roof-top areas may have been dened by small variations in roof levels for it is impossible to know whether or not all interior walls were built to a standard height. Many of the larger buildings may have had an upper storey covering at least part of their often cramped and dark ground-oor area the walls were strong enough to have taken the weight of additional quite substantial structures. In short, it is possible that a whole layer of architecture producing intricate patterns of activity and movement has disappeared from the archaeological record. In the presence of so many uncertainties about both open space and settlement boundaries, and roof-top activity, it seems unproductive even to attempt to apply the techniques of quantitative access analysis to sites without ground-oor access (such as the Anatolian sites of As klhyk Esin and Harmankaya 1999, Vol. 2, 90); or Can Hasan (Yakar 1991, 197)).
OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2003

THE USE OF SPATIAL ANALYSIS TO STUDY PREHISTORIC SETTLEMENT ARCHITECTURE

Figure 3 atalhyk Level VIB showing the walls of buildings and open spaces. Redrawn by the author from Mellaart 1967, 58; Ritchey 1996, 17.

3.

hacilar levels vi and iia: space and movement, buildings and settlement

3.1. The choice of Haclar Many Neolithic and Chalcolithic site plans with ground-oor entrances do not share the same level of architectural denition found in the material used by Chapman 1990 and Gilchrist 1994. Instead, they record buildings with no more than one or two rooms, unclear entrances and access arrangements to non-surviving upper storeys, fragmented areas of built and unbuilt spaces, and incomplete settlements. It was therefore decided to investigate the extent to which quantitative access analysis could be applied to prehistoric material by applying the technique to the site plans of two levels (VI and IIA) of the Neolithic/Chalcolithic Anatolian site of Haclar. These plans were selected for two reasons. Firstly, Haclar is typical of many prehistoric sites in that it has been subject to all the normal taphonomic processes affecting an abandoned tell site. Secondly, the level of architectural preservation and published plans are far
OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY

Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2003

MARION CUTTING

better than those usually found. It therefore makes an ideal test case: if access analysis cannot be used at Haclar it is unlikely to be useful at other early sites. The site of Haclar is a tell site with substantial mud brick architecture that was excavated by Mellaart in the late 1950s to the early 1960s (Mellaart 1970). It was chosen for this study because detailed plans exist for two of its levels showing two different stages of architectural preservation. The rst plan (Neolithic Level VI) shows a few fully or partially excavated two-storey buildings within a settlement of unknown size. The second (early Chalcolithic Level IIA) records, unusually for such an early period, a fully excavated bounded settlement area within which about 80 per cent of the architecture has been well preserved (due to destruction by re). 3.2. Haclar Level VI 3.2.1. The architecture of Level VI The excavated Level VI consists of a number of buildings (perhaps seven in number) grouped around what appear to be two distinct areas of open space. A simplied plan is shown in Figure 4. The buildings, thought to be two-storey, all (with the exception of 603 and, possibly, 605) have clear entrances; the main ground-oor structure of four (601, 602, 606 and 607) appears to be complete. However, the spaces immediately outside the main entrance to each building remain poorly dened with the exception of Building 606. In that building, a cooking area adjoins the outside wall of the building to each side of the main entrance. Traces around the entrance to Buildings 607 and 601 suggest that this is a pattern that repeats itself. Buildings 601, 602, 606 and 607 appear to have a similar internal ground-oor plan: an entrance leading directly into a large room that contains one small partitioned area and an oven and hearth alongside the wall facing the entrance. 3.2.2. The identication of spaces within buildings An access analysis graph for the most complete building, Building 606, was constructed, which shows a simple conguration with a high degree of permeability (Fig. 5). However, this conguration is based entirely upon convex spaces as dened by constructed boundaries (walls or partitions marked by post-holes). As a result, it treats the largest ground-oor space (measuring about 5 by 6 m) as just one convex space. However, a closer look at the number of features (an oven, six storage facilities and several large post-holes) suggests that the space would, in reality, have been divided in terms of activity areas and movement between those areas into more than one space. This discovery raises a fundamental question about the value of applying the traditional denition of a convex space to such buildings. In quantitative access analysis, convex spaces (the basic building block in convex spatial analysis) are dened by the presence of physical barriers (such as walls or screens). One square or rectangular room with four walls is treated as a single convex space. However, any one space often contains within it a number of distinct areas distinguished by features, furnishings or custom and practice (Bordieu 1989; Chapman 1955; Hall 1966). Where this is so, patterns of activity and movement within the room will reect the existence of these areas the most frequented area may contain the hearth, the least frequented corner a cupboard with special ornaments. The denition of a space as one within which all parts are visible to all other parts no longer has any relevance with regard to how real people use real space.
OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2003

THE USE OF SPATIAL ANALYSIS TO STUDY PREHISTORIC SETTLEMENT ARCHITECTURE

Figure 4 A simplied ground plan of Haclar VI showing walls, hearths and ovens. Redrawn by the author from Mellaart 1970, 589.

In order to solve this problem about spatial denition, it may be possible to use features and activities, instead of physical boundaries, to differentiate individual spaces. This may work when discretely distinct areas of activity and the links between them can be mapped out by observing how people actually move around a space inside or outside a building. However, it is difcult, if not impossible, to know how to do this once the furnishings, and the people, have disappeared as they have from the archaeological record. Without the ability to observe directly peoples behaviour, the large room has to be treated as just one convex space for the purposes of access analysis, even though it may contain hearths, ovens, storage bins, post-holes or in situ artefact assemblages. In short, the effectiveness of access analysis is severely limited when buildings contain only one or two physically demarcated internal spaces. Before leaving Building 606, it is worth noting that no information survives within the archaeological record as to how its upper storey was reached from ground level. This affects the accuracy of quantitative access analysis (see Section 3.3.4 below).
OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY

10

Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2003

MARION CUTTING

Figure 5 Haclar VI Building 606. A shows an outline of the ground-oor plan with suggested convex spaces which are represented by the access graph in B. C shows the details (ovens, hearths, storage facilities, a bench, platform, post-holes and groundstone tools) found in situ on the ground oor during excavation.

3.2.3. Building entrances, open spaces and settlement boundaries It is impossible to reconstruct settlement access patterns because of the lack of information about Haclar VIs settlement plan. Individual building entrances each open onto some sort of open space but the extent and form of this open space is not evident from the excavated area (the northern courtyard may have measured at least 35 by 16 m (Mellaart 1970, 10)). Building 607 and perhaps Building 601 appear to have a back entrance and architecture at the southern end of Building 605 is unclear. The relationship between this group of excavated houses and the settlement as a whole is unknown. In short, the clear starting and nishing congurational points required by quantitative access analysis are missing. 3.3. Haclar Level IIA 3.3.1. The architecture of Level IIA Haclar Level IIA appears at rst sight to be a much more suitable candidate for access analysis than Level VI because it is a bounded settlement with buildings which have clearly marked ground-oor entrances (Fig. 6). Haclar Level IIA had at least four open areas and three entrances to the settlement (arrowed, Fig. 6). The best preserved structures in the western part of the settlement were
OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2003

11

THE USE OF SPATIAL ANALYSIS TO STUDY PREHISTORIC SETTLEMENT ARCHITECTURE

Figure 6 A simplied plan of Haclar IIA showing walls, hearths, ovens and storage bins. Redrawn by the author from Mellaart 1970, 723.

thick-walled mud brick buildings that contained xed ground features (such as storage bins, hearths, ovens, benches and platforms) in addition to gurines, pottery and some seals. Buildings 2, 3, 5, 8 and 9 were thought to have had an upper storey, with traces of ladder supports possibly found in the north space of Building 3 and the south space of Building 8 (Mellaart 1970, Vol. 1, 2830, Vol. 2, 75). The foundations of a staircase leading to an upper storey were found on the outer south-western wall of Building 5. This section discusses the architecture within the western area as the eastern area was too poorly preserved to allow access analysis to be used.
OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY

12

Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2003

MARION CUTTING

Figure 7 Building 8 of Haclar IIA. A shows the walls, hearths, ovens and post-holes and a tentative arrangement of convex spaces that are displayed diagrammatically in B, and as a justied access graph in C.

Looking at the plans in terms of a person walking around and using the buildings and open spaces suggested that not all features are likely to have been used simultaneously (the storage bins nearly blocking the entrance to Building 1, for example, and the ovens and hearths in Building 8). In terms of applying access analysis, four problems were identied to do with the identication of spaces within buildings, the denition of individual buildings, the conguration of the upper storeys, and the identication of spatial units within open spaces. 3.3.2. The identication of spaces within buildings The difculty in distinguishing spaces within buildings without xed partitions has already been discussed (Section 3.2.1) and is demonstrated again in Building 8. This building contained two ovens, three hearths and a platform behind a partition which, taken together with the numerous post-holes recorded, suggested that movement around the ground oor would have been difcult had all the features been present at the same time (Fig. 7A). A justied access graph (Fig. 7B and C) was constructed using both physical boundaries (walls) and xed features to dene spatial units. Spaces with a length of less than 75 cm were excluded as being too small to warrant inclusion and Building 8 was treated as being separate from Building 9. Descriptive labels were added to the spaces. However, the access graph resulting from this process remains conjectural rather than denitive. In reality, there remains some confusion about the arrangement of xed features at the southern end of the building where the plans suggest an opening in the partition just by the oven but also show that opening almost blocked by the presence of a large post-hole. A more practical northern access point to the platform area has consequently been represented in the access graph in preference to the oven entrance. In one sense it matters very little just where the entrance point to the platform area was located. However, its exact location alters the form of the access graph and so will matter
OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2003

13

THE USE OF SPATIAL ANALYSIS TO STUDY PREHISTORIC SETTLEMENT ARCHITECTURE

Figure 8 Buildings in the north-west corner of the settlement of Haclar IIA showing walls and the position of the staircase in relation to the settlement entrance. Redrawn by the author from Mellaart 1970, 723.

if that graph is used to produce numerical integrational values that in turn give rise to interpretation. 3.3.3. Separating individual buildings Given that access analysis requires clear starting and nishing points for its congurational patterns it is important that the unit being analysed, whether it be a building, an open space or a settlement, is completely dened. At Haclar Level IIA, there are a number of ambiguities about where one building ends and another begins. For example, Buildings 8 and 9 may together have formed one building sharing one entrance or have been two distinct buildings with adjoining entrances. The relationship between Buildings 2, 3 and 4 in the north of the settlement is also unclear (Fig. 8). The internal spatial arrangements of Buildings 2, 5 and 6 appear to be reasonably straightforward: a ground-oor entrance leading to an elongated two-roomed area. In Building 3, however, no break was found in the wall connecting the two internal spaces (a link by ladder between the northern room and the oor above was suggested (Mellaart 1970, Vol. 1, 289). Buildings 2, 3 and 5 were thought to have shared an upper storey that covered the passageway shown running from the northern entrance to the settlement to the west court (ibid., 28ff.). It is, however, equally feasible that Buildings 2 and 3 shared one upper storey, and Buildings 5 and 6 another. Without knowing which was the case, it is impossible to conduct a reliable access analysis of the buildings, for the conguration of the upper part of a building is linked to the conguration of the lower part and thus determines the shape of
OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY

14

Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2003

MARION CUTTING

Figure 9 Building 8 of Haclar IIA. A shows a tentative congurational scheme for an upper oor with four interconnecting spaces, and a justied access graph for the ground oor and this upper oor. B shows an alternative upper oor congurational scheme with four sequentially connecting spaces, and a justied access graph for the ground oor and this upper oor.

the graph and the numerical integration values that are given to the ground-oor rooms (see Section 3.3.4). 3.3.4. The upper storeys Excavations sometimes reveal traces of the remains of upper storeys construction materials or artefacts buried within the lower level room lls but seldom if ever provide evidence about their spatial conguration. This means that any quantitative access analysis that is applied only to the ground-oor level of buildings that have two storeys will inevitably be incomplete because the conguration of the upper storey affects the form of the justied access graph and therefore any quantication attached to it (Fig. 9). Figure 9 demonstrates how the access graph for Building 8 would change according to two different upper storey congurations. In Figure 9A, the four spaces in the upper storey are all interconnected and in 9B they are not. Given that the upper storey conguration cannot be
OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2003

15

THE USE OF SPATIAL ANALYSIS TO STUDY PREHISTORIC SETTLEMENT ARCHITECTURE

retrieved from the archaeological record, any access analysis can only be localized to include the ground oor only but its usefulness is maximized if at the very least location of the connecting link (staircase/ladder, etc.) is known. 3.3.5. Open spaces and settlement patterns Although the bounded settlement of Haclar IIA appears to be well dened with clear entrances through a thick boundary wall, the plans nevertheless lack some of the detailed information required to apply access analysis at the settlement level. For example, the direction of the staircase between Buildings 3 and 5 is relevant in terms of access analysis but is unknown. North-facing stairs would show that the upper storeys of Building 5 (and possibly of Buildings 2 and 3 as well) were used by people more concerned with activities outside than inside the settlement, suggesting perhaps that these buildings were associated with defensive/offensive activities. South-facing stairs would integrate the same upper storeys more closely into the activities of the west court and daily life within the settlement. It is also difcult from the plans alone to determine the relationship between the west court, the buildings surrounding it and the staircase between Buildings 3 and 5, and whether the court functioned as one large convex space or as a number of smaller spaces all details that affect access analysis. Wall alignments suggest that its western part (where the way the entrances of Buildings 1, 2, 8 and 9 appeared angled towards the large open-air oven adjoining the west settlement wall) might have been distinguished from one or more areas in its central and eastern parts. 3.3.6. Applying the principles of access analysis to Haclar IIA So far, this section has highlighted the difculties in applying quantitative access analysis to Haclar IIA because many of the details essential to a full and accurate quantitative access analysis are unclear from the archaeological record. The uncertainties about distinct spaces and the way those spaces are linked are sufciently important so as not only to undermine the results of any quantitative access analysis but also to render the results of such an analysis unhelpful. Quantitative access analysis attributes precise numerical values to individual spaces and encourages an interpretation based on those values. It is all too easy to create an access graph that produces spurious values that imbue ambiguous archaeological material with misleadingly objective properties. However, approaching the plan of Haclar IIA in an access analysis way has also demonstrated that access analysis can be used as a tool to think with rather than as a quantitative analytical technique. Used in this way, it can provide useful insights into settlement layout (Fig. 10). The system of spaces and links shown in Figure 10 treats the central area as four spaces (differentiated by following the lines of building walls) and the staircase between Buildings 3 and 5 as facing the courtyard. Despite the fact that the resulting graph is incomplete it excludes the damaged eastern part of the settlement and the upper storeys of the buildings it clearly shows just how impenetrable the settlement was from the outside. This graphically conrms the initial impression that this was a defensive settlement. Furthermore, the access pattern shows just how deeply embedded the buildings are within the settlement. Whether entering from the south or the north, it was necessary to cross at least seven, and usually more, spaces in order to reach the entrance to any of the buildings. In addition, the internal conguration of the individual buildings is invariably deep in that the space furthest from the entrance (marked + in Figure 10) can be reached only via a number of other spaces. The justied access graphs for Building 8 (Figs. 7C and 9A and B), no matter how they are ne-tuned, suggest a deep building with a number of spaces that are reached only after passing through other spaces. Permeability is
OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY

16

Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2003

MARION CUTTING

Figure 10 A tentative access analysis scheme for the western part of Haclar IIA showing, on the left, the relationship between the linked spaces and the architecture and, on the right, the position of the large inner building spaces and narrow entrances in relation to this scheme.

low. When an upper storey is added (Fig. 9), the main back area appears secluded from the outside but integral to the internal spatial arrangements. Finally, using access analysis as a tool to think with draws attention to the extremely narrow entrances (between around 50 and 100 cm in width marked with an X in Figure 10 and that are dotted around the site). Such small entrances would have effectively deterred easy movement at these points.
4.

some conclusions: the use of spatial analysis to study prehistoric buildings and settlements

4.1. Studying the use of architectural space Archaeologists want to understand more about the use of architectural space on excavated sites. In order to do so, they frequently rely upon qualitative or quantitative
OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2003

17

THE USE OF SPATIAL ANALYSIS TO STUDY PREHISTORIC SETTLEMENT ARCHITECTURE

descriptions of the spatial distribution of features and artefacts in order to establish the function of individual rooms. Verhoeven (1999) provides an excellent example of the use of such methods in his detailed study of artefact distribution patterns at the Neolithic site of Tell Sabi Abyad, in northern Syria. Such approaches, however, overlook the signicance of the relationship between activity and purposeful movement which access analysis was designed to investigate and measure. This is a pity because access analysis can be used not only as a quantitative technique but also as a tool to think with. 4.2. Access analysis as a quantitative technique Typical prehistoric archaeological data are unlikely to provide sufcient material to justify the use of access analysis as a quantitative methodology. Applying access analysis to incomplete buildings and settlements where little or no information survives about the use of upper storeys or roof spaces rests upon so many assumptions that the quantitative values thereby produced will be spurious, no matter how beguiling they may at rst appear. 4.3. Guidelines for the use of quantitative access analysis Taken together, the methodology of space syntax described in Section 1, the published case studies discussed in Section 2, and the original research presented in Sections 2.3.2 and 3, suggest ve general rules about the use of quantitative access analysis on archaeological material. Firstly, such an analysis is most effectively used where inside or outside spaces are differentiated by walls and partitions rather than by screens, furnishings, changes in oor levels or repeated patterns of behaviour. Secondly, the technique requires a minimum level of information about connected spaces both inside and outside buildings, with clear entrances, complete buildings and open spaces, and complete settlements or at least blocks of buildings. Thirdly, the more such spaces the better the two-roomed building yields less informative numerical results than the building with ve or more rooms. Fourthly, given that the conguration of the upper storey affects the values of the ground-oor spaces, and that upper storeys seldom if ever survive archaeologically, it is important at least to know the location of the connecting link between the ground oor and upper levels. Finally, it is not worth attempting to use access analysis as a quantitative technique when too much information for example, roof-top activity and movement patterns on roof-top entrance sites is missing. Access analysis cannot be used to create data that no longer exist within the archaeological record. 4.4. Using access analysis as a tool to think with Access analysis can be used as a tool to think with even when it may be rejected as a quantitative research method because the architectural data are insufcient. Using access analysis in this non-quantitative way enables the internal layout of individual buildings and the relationship between groups of buildings to be studied and compared in ways that are overlooked by descriptions of room sizes, the distribution of features and the proportion of built to nonbuilt space for example by highlighting just how impenetrable the settlement of Haclar IIA was to those outside its walls. Where the archaeological data are sufciently informative about room functions, thinking in terms of access analysis can highlight repeated associations between certain activities, access and privacy.
OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY

18

Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2003

MARION CUTTING

4.5. Lessons for research and eld archaeologists Studying archaeological plans from an access analysis perspective suggests that both research and eld archaeologists pay more attention to how real people would have carried out their daily lives using the excavated buildings and settlements. Field archaeologists, in particular, need at the time of excavation to look for evidence of upper storeys, ladder and stair arrangements, and distinctions between covered and open space. While still on site, they must try to establish exactly how people would have entered each and every bounded space. Using access analysis as a tool to think with highlights the fact that people do not just live inside buildings they use the spaces outside, relate to their neighbours and move between buildings and across open spaces. Individual buildings do not exist in a vacuum and they cannot be studied without reference to the wider settlement framework. In short, the attempt to think spatially reiterates once again the need for excavation strategies that produce not only negrained individual building proles, but also large horizontal settlement areas.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank: Shahina Farid at the atalhyk project; Professor James Mellaart for his comments about both Haclar and atalhyk; Dr. Mark Lake; Geoffrey Killick; and, particularly, Dr. Julienne Hanson for helping me to understand the application of space syntax to household studies and Dr. James Conolly for reading this paper and encouraging me to write it. Any mistakes and the views expressed here, are of course my own. This paper was produced as part of a doctoral thesis on the architecture of Neolithic central Anatolia and I would like to acknowledge the Arts and Humanities Research Board funding support.

Institute of Archaeology University College London 3134 Gordon Square London WC1H 0PY

references
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, 30925. binford, l. 1990: Mobility, housing and environment: A comparative study. Journal of Anthropological Research 46, 11952. bordieu, p. 1973: The Berber House. In Douglas, M. (ed.), Rules and Meanings (Harmondsworth). bordieu, p. 1977: Outline of a Theory of Practice (Cambridge). bordieu, p. 1989: Distinction (London). 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), 93 110. bustard, w. 1997: Space, Evolution and Function in the Houses of Chaco Canyon. In Major, M.D., Amorim, L. and Dufaux, F. (eds.), Space Syntax: First International Symposium (London: Space Syntax Laboratory), 23.119. chapman, d. 1955: The Family and Social Status (London).
OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2003

19

THE USE OF SPATIAL ANALYSIS TO STUDY PREHISTORIC SETTLEMENT ARCHITECTURE

chapman, j. 1990: Social Inequality on Bulgarian Tells and the Varna Problem. In Samson, R. (ed.), The Social Archaeology of Houses (Edinburgh), 4992. deetz, j. 1977: In Small Things Forgotten (New York). dring, b. 2001: Social dimensions in the architecture of Neolithic atalhyk. Anatolian Studies 51, 118. esin, u. and harmankaya, s. 1999: As kl. In zdog an, M. and Bas gelen, N. (eds.), The Neolithic in Turkey: the Cradle of Civilization Vol. 2. (Istanbul: AVSY), 89100. fairclough, g. 1992: Meaningful constructions spatial and functional analysis of medieval buildings. Antiquity 66, 34866. giddens, a. 1995: The constitution of society: outline of the theory of structuration (Cambridge). gilchrist, r. 1994: Gender and Material Culture: the Archaeology of Religious Women (London and New York). hall, e.t. 1966: The Anthropology of Space. Architectural Review 140. hall, p.g. 2002: Cities of tomorrow: an intellectual history of urban planning and design in the twentieth century (3rd edition) (Malden). hanson, j. 1998: Decoding Homes and Houses (Cambridge). hillier, b. 1996: Space is the Machine: a congurational theory of architecture (Cambridge). hillier, b. and hanson, j. 1984: The Social Logic of Space (Cambridge). hodder, i. 1996: On the surface: atalhyk 199395 (Cambridge and London: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research and British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara). kent, s. 1984: Analyzing Activity Areas: An Ethnoarchaeological Study of the Use of Space (Albuquerque). leach, e.r. 1978: Does space really constitute the social? In Green, D. Haselgrove, C. and Spriggs, C. (eds.), Social Organisation and Settlement: Contributions from Anthropology (Oxford: British Archaeological Reports), 3872. levi-strauss, c. 1963: Structural Anthropology (London). mellaart, j. 1962: Excavations at atal Hyk: First Preliminary Report, 1961. Anatolian Studies 12, 4265. mellaart, j. 1963: Excavations at atal Hyk: Second Preliminary Report. Anatolian Studies 13, 43103. mellaart, j. 1964: Excavations at atal Hyk, 1963: Third Preliminary Report. Anatolian Studies 14, 39117. mellaart, j. 1966: Excavations at atal Hyk, 1965: Fourth Preliminary Report. Anatolian Studies 16, 16591. mellaart, j. 1967: atal Hyk (London). mellaart, j. 1970: Excavations at Haclar Vols. 1 and 2 (Edinburgh). mellaart, j. 1978: The Archaeology of Ancient Turkey (London, Sydney and Toronto). mithen, s. 1989: Evolutionary theory and post-processual archaeology. Antiquity 63, 48394. pearson, m.p. and richards, c. 1994: Ordering the World: Perceptions of Architecture, Space and Time. In Pearson, M.P. and Richards, C. (eds.), Architecture and Order: Approaches to Social Space (London and New York), 137. rapoport, a. 1969: House form and culture (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.). ritchey, t. 1996: Note: building complexity. In Hodder, I. (ed.), On the surface: atalhyk 199395 (Cambridge and London: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research and British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara), 718.
OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY

20

Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2003

MARION CUTTING

shapiro, j. 1997: Fingerprints in the Landscape. In Major, M.D., Amorim, L. and Dufaux, F. (eds.), Space Syntax: First International Symposium (London: Space Syntax Laboratory), 21.121. verhoeven, m. 1999: An Archaeological Ethnography of a Neolithic Community: Space, Place and Social Relations in the Burnt Village at Tell Sabi Abyad, Syria (Leiden: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul). 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: Approaches to Social Space (London and New York). yakar, j. 1991: Prehistoric Anatolia: the Neolithic Transformation and the Early Chalcolithic Period (Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University).

OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY

Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2003

21