edited by Elizabeth C.

Robertson,

Jeffrey D. Seibert, Deepika C. Fernandez, and

Marc U. Zender

S p a c e and S p a t i a l A n a l y s i s
in A rch a eology

 2006 Elizabeth C. Robertson, Jeffrey D. Seibert, Deepika C.

Fernandez, and Marc U. Zender
Published by the University of Calgary Press
2500 University Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
T2N 1N4 www.uofcpress.com
Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publication
University of Calgary. Archaeological Association. Conference
(34th : 2002 : University of Calgary)
Space and spatial analysis in archaeology / edited by Elizabeth
C. Robertson ... [et al.].
Co-published by the University of New Mexico Press.
Papers originally presented at the Conference: Space and spatial
analysis in Archaeology held at the University of Calgary, Nov.
18th., 2002.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 10: 1-55238-168-4 (University of Calgary Press)
ISBN 13: 978-1-55238-168-7 (University of Calgary Press)
ISBN 10: 0-8263-4022-9 (University of New Mexico Press)
ISBN 13: 978-0-8263-4022-1 (University of New Mexico Press)
1. Social archaeologyCongresses. 2. Spatial systems
Congresses. 3. Archaeological geologyCongresses. 4.
Landscape archaeologyCongresses. 5. Archaeoastronomy
Congresses. I. Robertson, Elizabeth C., 1971- II. Title.
CC72.4.U56 2005

930.1

C2005-902763-0

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval

system or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without
the prior written consent of the publisher or a licence from The
Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (Access Copyright). For
an Access Copyright licence, visit www.accesscopyright.ca or call
toll free to 1-800-893-5777.
We acknowledge the financial support of the Government of
Canada through the Book Publishing Industry Development
Program (BPIDP), the Alberta Foundation for the Arts and the
Canada Council for the Arts for our publishing program.
Printed and bound in Canada by
This book is printed on 55 lb. Eco book Natural.
Cover design by Mieka West.

I n d ivi d u a l , H o u s e h o l d , a n d C o m m u n it y Spa c e i n E a r ly
B r o n z e A g e W e s t e r n A n at o l i a a n d t h e N e a r b y I s l a n d s

Carolyn Aslan
Carolyn Aslan, Ko University, History Department, Rumeli Feneri Yolu, Sariyer, Istanbul 34450, Turkey.

A b s t r a ct

Societies exhibit variation in how they conceptualize

and ascribe importance to social categories such as
the individual, the household and the community. One
way that archaeologists can begin to investigate ancient
concepts about social categories is through a study
of the arrangement of space. The placement of walls
within houses and settlements provides a framework
for interactions and negotiations, and the allotment of
space should correspond in some degree to social divisions and relationships, or at least ones that the builders chose to mark in a material form. An examination
of architectural remains from Early Bronze Age sites
in western Anatolia and the nearby island of Lesbos
demonstrates how physical boundaries and spatial arrangements can express ideas about the relationship of
the individual to larger social categories of an ancient
community.
The research behind this study began with the
question of how archaeologists might investigate ancient concepts about the individual. Not all presentday societies attribute the same meaning to the individual as a separate social category, and it is likely that
significant variation existed in how ancient societies
thought about the individual and individual action.
Archaeologists are only beginning to investigate how
ancient people may have differed in their expression of the individual in comparison with larger social
groups. This paper argues that since the category of
the individual is socially constructed and variable,
both in present and past societies, one needs to be
careful about simply transferring present-day ideas of
the individual to ancient societies without considering the ancient evidence. One way archaeologists can
begin to extract ideas about the individuals relation to

larger social categories from ancient material evidence

is through an analysis of the spatial arrangements of
houses and communities, especially focusing on factors of privacy and segmentation. The architectural remains of two early third millennium sites, namely the
site of Troy in Western Anatolia and the site of Thermi
on the island of Lesbos, serve as a case study.

C r o s s - C u ltu r a l Stu d i e s o f
I n d ivi d u a l i s m a n d C o l l e ctivi s m

Cross-cultural research reveals that the category of the

individual is culturally constructed and variable (Chen
et al. 1997; Hofstede 1980; Hui and Triandis 1986;
Kagitibasi 1987, 1989; Kagitibasi and Berry 1989;
Kashima 1987, 1989; Sinha and Verma 1987; Triandis
1987, 1993, 1995; Triandis et al. 1998). Some societies may not think of the individual as a separate social
entity that is detached from larger social units such as
a family or community. Others may think of society
as formed of autonomous individuals, each with a free
will and the potential to cause social change through
their actions or resistance.
Scholars in cross-cultural psychology employ specific definitions of the terms individualistic and
collectivistic to describe opposing sets of ideas
about the individual in society and the corresponding patterns of behaviour (Hui and Triandis 1986;
Triandis 1987, 1993). Individualism is defined as a
social pattern in which individuals see themselves as
independent and place their personal priorities above
those of a larger group. Collectivism is a social pattern in which individuals see themselves as interdependent parts of a larger group and their decisions
133

are primarily motivated by group priorities. It should

also be noted that individualistic and collectivistic
patterns of behaviour can co-exist within a society
(Kagitibasi 1987:9697; Triandis 1993:162). Any one
society is never completely individualistic or collectivistic. There also may be differences based on factors
such as age, gender, or class. Nonetheless, when societies are compared cross-culturally, behavior patterns
can be grouped according to these general categories.
Researchers have also found that individualism and
collectivism can be further subdivided into vertical individualism, vertical collectivism, horizontal individualism and horizontal collectivism (Chen et al. 1997;
Singelis et al. 1995; Triandis 1995:4445). Horizontal
collectivism stresses sameness, equality, interdependence and cohesion of the in-group. Vertical collectivism has a hierarchical arrangement of interdependent
people who have different obligations to the in-group
on the basis of their rank. Horizontal individualism is a
system of independent and equal individuals. Vertical
individualism also includes the idea of individual independence, but with competition and inequality.
These distinctions could be useful in archaeological considerations of social complexity. It may be possible to differentiate between a society that has a hierarchical system of vertical individualism, in which
individuals compete for a position on a hierarchical
ladder, from a society with a hierarchical system of vertical collectivism, in which social positions are fixed by
hereditary laws and people are encouraged to follow
sets of community rules and obligations that serve to
maintain the existing vertical structure. It would also
be interesting to study how and why societies might
change from one pattern to another over time, perhaps
as hierarchical structures become more established or
even perhaps when threatened.
Some of the attention that the topic of individualism and collectivism has received within cross-cultural psychology can be understood as a response to
the globalization and the influence of Western culture (Halman 1996; Kagitibasi 1987:98100, 1989:68;
Triandis 1993:155, 1995:145187). Western societies
are perceived as highly individualistic (Lukes 1973;
Macfarlane 1978, 1979). Mass media and globalization
are often seen as spreading individualistic Western
values and behaviour to societies with more collectivistic behaviour patterns. Furthermore, ideas of the
individual and individualism are embedded deeply in
current thinking about political, economic and social
134

organization, and thus are often discussed with a political or moralistic slant. For these reasons, archaeologists need to be especially cautious in inadvertently
transferring modern concepts of the individual to interpretations of ancient societies. Yet, since current
ideas about the shifting balance between individual
and group priorities form a central part of explanations
of present-day social change and cultural difference,
a consideration of the material expression of the individual can broaden the understanding of ancient social
change and cultural difference.

Spati a l A n a ly s i s : P r iva c y a n d
S e g m e n tati o n

Since one cannot assume the individual as an important social category, it is necessary to work from the
ground up to try to discern the most recognizable
social categories in the remains of an ancient culture.
Only then can one begin to explore how the material
expression of those categories may have operated in
the society or changed over time. A study of the placement and position of physical boundaries and the division of space within houses and settlements can lead
to an understanding of the social categories operating
in ancient communities.
One good reason to focus on houses and the placement of houses within a community is that the home
is a primary location where ideas about the individuals relation to larger social units are learned, reinforced and negotiated. For this idea, I am working
from Bourdieus theory (1973, 1977) that the house is
an active setting for the formation and maintenance
of social structure. The physical features of a house
can encourage specific types of behaviour within the
setting that conform to expectations of proper social
action. The boundaries and spaces formed by walls
and furniture transform ideas about social relationships into a material form. In turn, the physical form
of the house reinforces the social ideas. The divisions
and arrangements within a house can set up hierarchical or other relationships between people, objects, and
activities. The daily use or practice within the space
helps to maintain and reinforce the social organization.
The house is especially important in establishing and teaching ideas about the relationship of the

s pac e a n d s paT i a l a n a ly s i s i n a rc h a e o lo g y

individual to the family and between the family and

the rest of the community (Munro and Madigan 1999;
Putnam 1999). The form of the house is related to
the way that people think about their individual autonomy, their vertical power relationships with other
people in the house, and their horizontal relationships.
Furthermore, the arrangement of houses within a community should also be an important indication of social
boundaries and social categories.
The placement of physical boundaries in houses
and settlements should correspond in some way to
conceptual divisions that the builders chose to mark
in a material form. Some conceptual divisions may
not be manifested in a physical form, or the physical boundaries established may be somewhat flexible
or permeable in terms of the actual use of the space.
Archaeologists can usually only analyze the most formally expressed divisions within a house. More perishable dividers such as mats or cloth certainly may have
been important in partitioning space, but it is usually
difficult to retrieve such kinds of evidence from archaeological contexts. Even so, it may be the formalization of divisions through the construction of solid
boundary walls that marks an especially significant delineation of spatial organization. Although the placement of walls provides merely a framework for a diversity of social interactions and negotiations, a study of
the division of space can begin to describe and define
social categories and social boundaries within an ancient community.
There are two aspects of the arrangement of space
that emerge as key factors concerning how the individual and other social categories are expressed. These
are privacy controls and segmentation. Privacy and
segmentation within houses and communities can
both be studied with archaeological remains and are
thought to relate to the divisions and social categories
within a society.
Scholars recognize that privacy mechanisms help
control interactions between people, and that privacy
varies across cultures (Altman 1977; Lawrence 1990;
Moore 1984:1213; Roberts and Gregor 1971; Sciama
1993). Some scholars interpret increasing privacy as
evidence for greater individualism. This interpretation results from the assertion that privacy is necessary
for individual self-awareness and development, and
to foster a sense of self (Flaherty 1972:viii; Sanders
1990:50; Westin 1968:3234). Privacy is thought to
contribute to feelings of autonomy, self-evaluation,

and the development of self-identity. Privacy mechanisms can control interactions at an individual level as
well as at the level of the family or community (Sciama
1993:9097). In some situations, the family may have
a great deal of privacy from the rest of the community,
but the individual members of the family may have
little privacy from each other.
A study of privacy mechanisms within architectural arrangements can help to discern important social
categories within the community that are kept private
or separate from one another. Donald Sanders (1990)
has developed some methods for studying privacy in
architectural remains. He defines certain measurable
privacy controls, such as walls, the position of doorways and other fixed features, which he used to determine the circulation path through the house and the
permeability of a house to the outside. Many divisions
in a house may provide a greater opportunity for privacy within the rooms. A house with many rooms has
the potential for more privacy for individuals, while a
house with only one large room gives little opportunity for privacy.
Doorways and circulation paths are another important indicator of privacy levels. Doorways that lead to
the outside of a house are places of access control as
well as a point of information leakage between the
house and the outside. Doorways inside the house are
an indication of the circulation path through the house
and the degree of privacy possible within rooms. If
the circulation paths in the house mean that one must
pass through one room to get to another, only the innermost room will be private. The creation of passage
spaces, such as hallways, indicates a greater desire for
privacy within each room along the hallway.
Segmentation is another factor that is related to
privacy. Susan Kents (1990, 1991) study of segmentation has shown how societies differ in the degree to
which they divide the space within their houses. She
also demonstrates that societies with a higher level
of social complexity tend to have a greater degree of
segmentation. The basic measure of the segmentation of a house is the number of separate rooms. The
act of dividing up the space within a house comes out
of a much deeper understanding of how the world is
ordered and organized. Humans create boundaries in
undivided space by building physical features such as
walls to enclose or to separate different areas. Space is
not segmented arbitrarily; rather it is usually divided
in order to separate activities, stored objects or people.

C h a p t e r F o u r t e e n i n d ivi d u a l , h o u s e h o l d , a n d c o m m u n it y s p a c e

135

Figure 1.

Plan of Thermi I (Lamb 1936:Plan 1, reprinted with permission of Cambridge University Press).

Segmentation is another way to study how different

social categories such as the individual are allotted
separate space.
Segmentation and privacy controls are factors that
can reasonably be studied by archaeologists through
examination of house and settlement remains. The
way that space is divided and arranged may correspond
to how people think about and define the most important social units within the community and how these
units are seen in relation to one another. The remains
of houses and communities can then inform us about
how people who built and lived in the houses thought
about and structured their social relations.

C a s e Stu dy

In the following section, I explain the case study of

two communities; the site of Thermi on Lesbos (Lamb
1936) and the site of Troy on the Western coast of
Anatolia (Blegen et al. 1950; Drpfeld 1902; Korfmann
1991, 1992, 1993, 1994). Both of these sites date to the
first part of the third millennium B.C. and they share
136

certain cultural features, namely architecture and pottery types that are widely found in Western Anatolia
and the nearby islands during this time period. This
period in Anatolia is especially interesting to study
because different sites exhibit varying patterns of
emerging social complexity as they change from rather
simple village communities to ones with increasing
indications of hierarchy. Some of these experiments
are more successful and long-lived than others, while
some sites exhibit almost no changes in social complexity during this period.
The two sites I chose for this case study show how
two settlements, which are quite similar at the beginning of the third millennium, have very different histories as time progresses. While Thermi shows little
change throughout the phases of its occupation, Troy
shows a large jump in the level of social complexity
between phases I and II. In the earliest phase of both
settlements (Thermi phase I, Troy phase I), the two
sites share similar features (Figures 1 and 3). The settlements are compact with long houses sharing adjoining walls. It should be noted that both sites are either
incompletely preserved or parts of the site are unexcavated in this period, so some of the empty spaces on

s pac e a n d s paT i a l a n a ly s i s i n a rc h a e o lo g y

Figure 2.

Plan of Thermi V (Lamb 1936:Plan 6, reprinted with permission of Cambridge University Press).

the plans would probably have been occupied by additional houses. The houses show only a small degree
of segmentation, with most of the space in the house
occupied by one central, large room. Occasionally
there are smaller rooms at the front or back of the
house. There is little evidence for any differentiation
between the houses in terms of size or quality of the
finds. Most of the houses in both Thermi and Troy I
have an average size of 5060 m2.
The settlement at Thermi was rebuilt several times,
but the plan remains fairly constant (Lamb 1936). An
examination of the settlement plan of the last phase of
Thermi (phase V; Figure 2) shows a similar arrangement as before, with long houses sharing party walls.
The settlement appears to have a larger number of
houses in this level, although this may also be a result
of better preservation and more complete excavation
of the upper levels of the site. This phase does have
evidence for a fortification wall, while the previous
levels were probably unfortified.
In contrast to Thermi, Troy exhibits a much larger
change between phase I and II . In the Troy II period,
the original house form of a long house with one main
central room is transformed into a monumental version

(Figure 4) (Drpfeld 1902; Korfmann 1993, Mellaart

1959). In comparison with the average house size in
phase I, which was around 60 m2, the largest building in phase IIc is almost 300 m2. At the same time
as these buildings, there is an increase in trade and
luxury goods, including the gold, silver and lapis lazuli
objects that were found in the so-called Trojan treasures from this period (Tolstikov and Treister 1996).
There is also evidence for the adoption of new feasting practices shown by sets of specialized eating and
drinking vessels. During the Troy II period, these
monumental buildings show numerous evidence of
burning followed by rebuilding, usually along approximately the same lines. These repeated destructions
may attest to the instability of this time period, which
may also be evidenced by the thick fortification walls
found both at Troy, Thermi and at other sites during
this period.
A study of the division and arrangement of space
within these settlements shows how the inhabitants
used spatial arrangements and physical boundaries to
express the most important social categories within
the community. In the communities within my case
study, the category of the individual does not receive

C h a p t e r F o u r t e e n i n d ivi d u a l , h o u s e h o l d , a n d c o m m u n it y s p a c e

137

Figure 3.

Plan of Troy I (Mellaart 1959:Figure 2, reprinted with permission of James Mellaart).

formalized material expression in the architectural

remains. Instead other social categories appear to be
the primary divisions and probably also primary social
forces within those communities.
Starting from the outermost boundary, at both sites
the community as a whole is one social category that is
delineated by the inhabitants. Troy has recognizable
fortification or enclosure walls in all phases (Blegen et
al. 1950:3839; Mellaart 1959). Thermi has an enclosure wall in phase V of the settlement, although, in
all phases, Thermi has a dense, compact form that indicates a conceptual boundary, even if not physically
marked by a wall in the earlier phases. Although these
walls probably had a primarily protective function,
they probably aided in fostering a concept of a distinct,
enclosed community of inhabitants. The boundary
walls may have defined a distinction between habitation and non-habitation areas, and also between members and non-members of the community. Gates control access to the interior of the settlements, and, from
there, any strangers could be immediately noticed and
monitored.
A second important boundary is around the house
units. Each site has segmented units that can be
identified as houses. At Thermi (Lamb 1936) and in
the Troy I phase (Blegen et al. 1950:36171; Drpfeld
1902:4247, Figure 7; Korfmann 1991:610), the houses
are fairly equal units in terms of their size and number
of rooms. Thermi V has houses that are so similar in
138

Figure 4.

Plan of Troy IIc (Mellaart 1959:Figure 6, reprinted with permission of James Mellaart).

size that it is almost as though the inhabitants were deliberately assigning the same amount of space to each
house when they rebuilt the settlement (Figure 2). It
is likely that this segmentation of the settlement into
separate, but equally sized units corresponds to a conceptual division of the community into equal household social groups.
Furthermore, there are privacy controls between
the houses, but little privacy within the houses. Often
the houses have additional small rooms or a porch near
the entrance of the house. These rooms help to shield
the main central room. Even though there are privacy
mechanisms between the houses of the settlement, the
houses are still quite close together, which does reduce
the privacy in the settlement. Once one is inside the
main central room, however, there was probably little
privacy within this room.
In Troy II, the houses represent a different communicative intent in which the buildings are used to display the size and possibly the wealth of the household.
At Troy, the equality between the houses that appears
in the Early Troy I period is not maintained. Possibly
as early as the late Troy I period and certainly in the
Troy II period, the house form is transformed into
a monumental building (Drpfeld 1902; Korfmann
1993; Mellaart 1959). Evidence from the finds in these
buildings makes it is likely that they would have still
served for habitation, although they may have taken

s pac e a n d s paT i a l a n a ly s i s i n a rc h a e o lo g y

on additional functions as places for feasting, storage

and other activities of the elites of the community.
In these examples, the individual does not emerge
as a significant social category in terms of the allocation of separate space. A consideration of the potential
privacy and segmentation levels within the houses and
settlements supports the above observation. Privacy
levels and segmentation are low. Space was not formally divided to provide separate areas for individuals within the family. There was probably little privacy
within houses, which increases the cohesive quality
of the group within the house. The settlements are
small, and often the houses are so close together that
there would have been little privacy within the settlement. Within the houses, there is little space that is
physically separated for private use.
This spatial analysis may help us to better understand the nature of the increasing social complexity
shown in the Troy II period. James Mellaart (1959),
in discussing the Troy II monumental buildings, considers it to be unusual that the ruler of Troy did not
receive separate private space, but instead lived in a
large, undivided building. Most interpretations of the
Troy II period assume an individual in power over a hierarchical arrangement of followers. If this is the case,
the separateness of one individual and the hierarchical
ordering is not formalized in terms of physical divisions within the building. The inside of the buildings
may have expressed the hierarchy through patterns
of repeated use, such as reserved areas or hierarchical seating arrangements, yet these arrangements were
not formalized through physical walls. This pattern
also needs to be considered in light of Susan Kents
cross-cultural study that suggests that more socially
complex societies have greater segmentation of architecture. The Troy II buildings may represent either a
beginning stage of social stratification when the social
forms or hierarchical systems are not cemented into
place, or a social system in which the collective unity
of a larger group such as a family is an important social
force, perhaps more so than one individual leader. The
architectural evidence suggests that the elite groups at
Troy may have developed as certain families gained
power chose to express it through an elaboration of
their houses.
As was discussed in the introduction, not all cultures conceptualize or formalize the category of the
individual in the same way. At the sites in this study,
a separate category of the individual is not expressed

through the architecture by setting aside private space

for individuals. Instead the most important social categories in the communities that are marked by physical boundaries are the household group and the community as a whole. Within the houses, the space is
relatively undivided. There is almost no formalized
private space for specific individuals within a house.
Thermi and Troy I have a strong emphasis on the collective unit of the community with equal household
units. Troy II shows more vertical tendencies, but they
seem to be acted out within the realm of collective
household or kin units.

R e f e r e n c e s C it e d
Altman, I.
|1977| Privacy Regulation: Culturally Universal or
Culturally Specific? Journal of Social Issues 33:6684.
Blegen, C. W., J. L. Caskey, M. Rawson, and J. Sperling
|1950| Troy: The First and Second Settlements. Princeton
University Press, Princeton.
Bourdieu, P.
|1973| The Berber House: Swahili Space and Symbolic
Markers. In Rules and Meanings, edited by M. Douglas,
pp. 98110. Penguin, Harmondsworth.
|1977| Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Chen, C. E., J. R. Meindl, and R. G. Hunt
|1997| Testing the Effects of Vertical and Horizontal
Collectivism: A Study of Reward Allocation Preferences
in China. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 28:4470.
Drpfeld, W.
|1902| Troja und Ilion. Beck and Barth, Athens.
Flaherty, D. H.
|1972| Privacy in Colonial New England. University Press
of Virginia, Charlottesville.
Halman, L.
|1996| Individualism in Individualized Society? Results
from the European Values Survey. International Journal
of Comparative Sociology 37:195314.
Hodder, I.
|1982| The Present Past: An Introduction to Anthropology for
Archaeologists. Batsford, London.
|1991| Reading the Past. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Hofstede, G.
|1980| Cultures Consequences: International Differences in
Work-Related Values. Sage, London.
Hui, C. H., and H. C. Triandis
|1986| Individualism-Collectivism: A Study of CrossCultural Researchers. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology
17:225248.

C h a p t e r F o u r t e e n i n d ivi d u a l , h o u s e h o l d , a n d c o m m u n it y s p a c e

139

Kagitibasi, .
|1987| Individual and Group Loyalties: Are They
Compatible? In Growth and Progress in Cross-Cultural
Psychology, edited by . Kagitibasi, pp. 94103. Swets
North America, Berwyn.
|1989| Why Individualism/Collectivism? In Heterogeneity
in Cross-Cultural Psychology, edited by D. M. Keats, D.
Munro, and L. Mann, pp. 6674. Swets and Zeitlinger,
Berwyn.
Kagitibasi, ., and J. W. Berry
|1989| Cross-Cultural Psychology: Current Research and
Trends. Annual Review of Psychology 40:493532.
Kashima, Y.
|1987| Conceptions of Person: Implications in
Individualism/Collectivism. In Growth and Progress in
Cross-Cultural Psychology, edited by . Kagitibasi, pp.
104112. Swets North America, Berwyn.
|1989| Cultural Conceptions of the Person and
Individualism-Collectivism: A Semiotic Framework. In
Heterogeneity in Cross-Cultural Psychology, edited by D. M.
Keats, D. Munro, and L. Mann, pp. 7581. Swets and
Zeitlinger, Berwyn.
Kent, S.
|1990| A Cross-Cultural Study of Segmentation,
Architecture, and the Use of Space. In Domestic
Architecture and the Use of Space: An Interdisciplinary
Cross-Cultural Study, edited by S. Kent, pp. 127152.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
|1991| Partitioning Space: Cross-Cultural Factors
Influencing Domestic Spatial Segmentation.
Environment and Behavior 23:438473.
Korfmann, M.
|1991| Troia Reinigungs- und Dokumentations-arbeiten 1987, Ausgrabungen 1988 und 1989. Studia Troica
1:134.
|1992| Troia Ausgrabungen 1990 und 1991. Studia
Troica 2:141.
|1993| Troia Ausgrabungen 1992. Studia Troica 3:137.
|1994| Troia Ausgrabungen 1993. Studia Troica 4:150.
Lamb, W.
|1936| Excavations at Thermi in Lesbos. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Lawrence, R.
|1990| Public Collective and Private Space: A Study of
Urban Housing in Switzerland. In Domestic Architecture
and the Use of Space, edited by S. Kent, pp. 7391.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Lukes, S.
|1973| Individualism. Harper and Row, New York.
Macfarlane, A.
|1978| The Origins of English Individualism. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
|1979| The Group and the Individual in History. In
Space, Hierarchy and Society, edited by B. C. Burnham,
and J. Kingsbury, pp. 1722. British Archaeological
Reports International Series 59. British Archaeological
Reports, Oxford.
Mellaart, J.
|1959| Notes on the Architectural Remains of Troy I and
II. Anatolian Studies 9:131162.

140

Moore, B. J.
|1984| Privacy: Studies in Social and Cultural History. M.
E. Sharpe, New York.
Munro, M., and R. Madigan
|1999| Negotiating Space in the Family Home. In
At Home: An Anthropology of Domestic Space, edited by
I. Cieraad, pp. 107117. Syracuse University Press,
Syracuse.
Putnam, T.
|1999| Postmodern Home Life. In At Home: An
Anthropology of Domestic Space, edited by I. Cieraad, pp.
144153. Syracuse University Press, Syracuse.
Roberts, J., and T. Gregor
|1971| Privacy: A Cultural View. In Privacy, edited by J.
R. Pennock, and J. W. Chapman, pp. 199225. Atherton
Press, New York.
Sanders, D. H.
|1990| Behavioral Conventions and Archaeology:
Methods for the Analysis of Ancient Architecture.
In Domestic Architecture and the Use of Space, edited
by S. Kent, pp. 4372. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Sciama, L.
|1993| The Problem of Privacy in Mediterranean
Anthropology. In Women and Space: Ground Rules and
Social Maps, edited by S. Ardener, pp. 87111. Berg,
Oxford.
Shanks, M., and C. Tilley
|1987| Re-Constructing Archaeology. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Singelis, T. M., H. C. Triandis, D. P. S. Bhawuk, and M. J.
Gelfand
|1995| Horizontal and Vertical Dimensions of
Individualism and Collectivism: A Theoretical and
Measurement Refinement. Cross-Cultural Research 29:
240275.
Sinha, J. B. P., and J. Verma
|1987| Structure of Collectivism. In Growth and Progress
in Cross-Cultural Psychology, edited by . Kagitibasi, pp.
123129. Swets North America, Berwyn.
Triandis, H. C.
|1987| Individualism and Social Psychological Theory.
In Growth and Progress in Cross-Cultural Psychology, edited
by . Kagitibasi, pp. 7883. Swets North America,
Berwyn.
|1993| Collectivism and Individualism as Cultural
Syndromes. Cross-Cultural Research 27:155180.
|1995| Individualism and Collectivism. Westview Press,
San Francisco.
Triandis, H. C., X. P. Chen, and D. K. S. Chan
|1998| Scenarios for the Measurement of Collectivism
and Individualism. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology
29:275289.
Tolstikov, V., and M. Treister
|1996| The Gold of Troy: Searching for Homers Fabled City.
Harry N. Abrams, New York.
Westin, A. F.
|1968| Privacy and Freedom. Atheneum, New York.

s pac e a n d s paT i a l a n a ly s i s i n a rc h a e o lo g y