4

Terra Incognita
Annual Review of Archaeological Master
Research in Flanders (Belgium)
academiejaar 2007 - 2008
Redactie:
Maarten Berkers
Cateline Clment
Jonas DanCkers
Pieterjan DeCkers
Johan Hoorne
Sofe sCHeltjens
Ann Van Baelen
2010
2010 (eerste druk)
De individuele auteurs
Niets uit deze uitgave mag worden verveelvoudigd en/of
openbaar gemaakt door middel van druk, fotokopie,
microflm of op welke andere wijze ook, zonder
voorafgaande toestemming van de uitgevers
Voorwoord

Het vierde volume van Terra I ncognit a bevat 14 bij dragen van j onge afgest udeer den, die hiervoor
gefelicit eerd mogen worden. I n de inleidingen op de voorgaande volumes vest igden mij n voor-
gangers, Marc De Bie en Dries Tys, de aandacht op de overgang van de vorige universit aire
opleidingsst ruct uur de vierj arige Kandidat uurs- en Licent iecyclus naar het nieuwe Bachelor-
Mast er- syst eem, die uit eraard ook gevolgen heeft voor de omvang en de st ruct uur van de eind-
script ie. Het effect van de voormalige opleidingsst ruct uur blij kt echt er nog niet volledig uit gewerkt ,
vermit s de lij st van st udies nog st eeds een reeks t hesissen oude st ij l bevat . Zoals st eeds is er een
ruime spreiding van onderwerpen op chronologisch, geografisch, cult ureel en inhoudelij k vlak en zien
we een mix van de onderzoekst hemas en int eresses van respect ievelij k de docent en en hun
st udent en. Hoewel een aant al afgest udeer den hun st udie al present eerden op een van de j aarlij kse
t hemat ische cont act dagen is het t och vreemd dat bij de reeks van 14 samenvat t ende art ikels de
prehist orie helemaal ont breekt . Vreemd is dit inderdaad, omdat in volume 2 ( 2008) deze richt ing nog
zeer st erk ( over- ) vert egenwoordigd was. I k wil dan ook graag de oproep van Philippe Cromb in
dat zelfde volume herhalen om meer gebruik t e maken van het medium Ter ra I ncognit a om zich als
j ong afgest udeer d archeoloog bij een ruimer gent eresseer d n professioneel publiek voor t e st ellen.

Zonder afbreuk t e willen doen aan de waarde van de diverse bij dragen, viel mij n oog op een t it el in
de uit gebreide lij st van t hesissen en mast er papers. De script ie handelt over de rol van de archeoloog
en van forensisch onderzoek bij het onderzoek van recent e massagraven. De inhoud van de script ie is
mij verder onbekend. Een heikel onderwerp is dit zeker, dat al een aant al j aren geleden in zeer
beperkt e kring t er sprake kwam in de schoot indien ik mij niet vergis van wat t oen nog het I AP
heet t e. Naar aanleiding van de emot ioneel geladen polemieken rond de massagraven die t ij dens de
oorlog in de Balkan aangelegd werden, kregen we signalen dat men mogelij k beroep zou kunnen
doen op de expert ise van archeologen bij het veldwerk. Geen pret t ig vooruit zicht weliswaar, maar
t och ont st ond t ussen enkele collegas een ernst ige gedacht ewisseling over de vraag of archeologen
zich konden of mocht en ont t rekken aan zulke opdracht , in de veronder st elling dat ze ooit zou
gegeven worden, of dat ze int egendeel een int ernat ionale burger plicht en een uit erst delicat e
verant woordelij kheid zouden moet en opnemen. Hoewel de eerst e signalen, voor zover ik mij
herinner, niet verder geconcret iseerd werden, werd de laat st e opt ie op et hische en morele gronden
t och als onafwendbaar aangevoeld.

Nog enkele j aren eerder was er commot ie ont st aan naar aanleiding van Tv- beelden van de
graafwerken naar de st offelij ke rest en van enkele verdwenen meisj es in de zaak die het land op zij n
grondvest en deed daver en. De krit iek van de archeologische wereld sloeg t oen op de chaot ische
werkwij ze in de bodem t ij dens het gerecht elij k onderzoek. Lat er wer den t ussen gerecht en
archeologische dienst en een aant al sessies over het veldwerk georganiseerd, maar dit init iat ief lij kt
naderhand doodgebloed.

De bet rokkenheid van het archeologische bedrij f bij het onderzoek van ons eigen oorlogsverleden
werd ook opgedr even naar aanleiding van de int ernat ionale polemiek over de manier van werken en
graven en over geplande infrast ruct uurwerken op de WO I - slagvelden in de West hoek. Diverse
inst it ut en zij n zich sindsdien int ensief met dit onderwerp, dat voorheen helemaal niet t ot het domein
van de archeologie gerekend werd, gaan bezighouden. Vooral het ant ropologisch onderzoek en de
ident ificat ie van de st offelij ke rest en van gesneuvelde soldat en t oont t elkens opnieuw aan dat het
wet enschappelij k archeologisch onderzoek meer dan vroeger let t erlij k een menswet enschap is een
hist orische discipline van en voor mensen - en nooit vrij zal zij n van emot ie.

De reden waarom ik de t it el van de script ie als aanleiding heb gebruikt voor de gecit eerde
voorbeelden ligt in de vast st elling dat archeologie niet meer, zoals in het verleden, zelf haar
st udieonderwerpen onbeperkt kan uit kiezen noch een vrij blij vende aangelegenheid is. Sinds enkele
decennia st elt men vast dat het de maat schappij is die de grenzen van het archeologisch onderzoek
bepaalt . Ver mit s de archeologie beroep doet op een ongelimit eerd gamma aan wet enschappelij ke
disciplines, compet ent ies en t echnieken, die elk op zich blij ven st reven naar verfij ning en hogere
nauwkeurigheid, is het niet t e verwonderen dat de maat schappij op haar beurt deze unieke expert ise
voor een hoger belang vordert . Sinds de invoering van het Decreet houdende bescherming van het
Archeologisch Pat rimonium ( 1993) werd al snel duidelij k dat archeologen de cont role over de eigen
agenda verloren en dat deze door der den bepaald werd. Zeker is dit gebeur d op het domein van de
Ruimt elij ke Ordening, ook al was de archeologie in deze vragende part ij . Bij de aangehaalde
voorbeelden is het echt er de maat schappij die vragende part ij is en de hulp en verant woordelij kheid
van de archeologen inroept . De keer zij de van de medaille, nl. de kost van die bij drage, blij kt bij
diezelfde maat schappij dan wel eens op de maag t e blij ven liggen. Maar de algemene t rend zal er
zeker t oe bij dragen dat de archeologie als een essent ile kwalit eit binnen het maat schappelij k
gebeuren zal blij ven groeien.

Luc Van I mpe
Ere- Wet enschappelij k At t ach VI OE


I nhoud

Voorwoord
3


I nhoud
5


Crossing t he t hreshold: a crit ical analysis of Levant ine domest ic archit ect ure
Tom BRUGHMANS
7- 26


De eerst e st enen st adsmuur van Leuven
Tom COENGRACHTS
27- 42


Hist orisch dominant en archeologisch r ecessief? De Romeinse lagune van Venet i en de kracht van
een ideologie
Jonas DANCKERS
43- 64


Het gebruik van product ie- en dist ribut iemo- dellen binnen de middeleeuwse ( 10
e
- 15
e
- eeuwse)
keramologie van het Maas- en Rij nland: doordringen t ot het menselij k gedrag acht er de scherf
Yvonne DE RUE
65- 76


Het Gallo- Romeins brandr est engraf in het zandige deel van Civit as Menapiorum: een vergelij kend
onderzoek naar 13 grafvelden
Jasper DECONYNCK
77- 90


De laat ant ieke en vroegmiddeleeuwse st adsont wikkeling van Cart hago
Krist of KEPPENS
91- 100


De hermen op Delos. Het verband t ussen cont ext , vorm en funct ie
Karmen MI DDERNACHT
101- 109


Vroeg- Romeinse horizont en in de civit as Menapiorum. Mat eriaalst udie van de hoogt esit es
Kooigembos en Aart rij ke- Oliemeulen
Sibrecht RENI ERE
111- 129


Onderzoek naar Gallo- Romeinse phalerae in Vlaanderen als onderdeel van Romeinse milit aire
paardenuit rust ing
Sofie SCHELTJENS
131- 147


De Meden in West I ran. Een lit erat uurst udie met een krit ische st and van zaken bet reffende het
onderzoek over de Meden
Cat herina THI JS
149- 156


De fabriek als landschapselement . Casus: Les Cokeries du Brabant t e Grimbergen
Florence VAN DRI EL
157- 172


De int egrat ie van archeologische obj ect en in een museale cont ext
Eline VAN HEYMBEEK
173- 189


Bit umenhandel in het Oude Nabij e Oost en
Thomas VANDEVELDE
191- 201


De problemat iek van de ident ificat ie en de int erpr et at ie van scheepsvondst en van S. S. Leerdam,
W. A. Scholt en, S. M. S. Prangenhof, S.S. Kilmore en Queen of t he Channel
Valent ine VERRI JKEN
203- 213


Overzicht licent iaat s- en mast erverhandelingen 2007- 2008
215- 223


1. Introduction
Scholarsstudyingancientdomesticarchit-
ecture are often confronted with highly
fragmentary remains, which only refect
a selection of the past environments
in which humans lived, cooked, slept,
interacted and died. These remains have
been used by archaeologists as primary
sourcesinordertoformulatehypotheses
on household sizes (Naroll 1962), the
function of specifc dwellings and rooms
(KeNt1990),theexchangeofculturaltraits
(McclellaN199:3),socialdifferentiation
within past societies (Faust 1999), and
even the identifcation of ethnic groups
(YeiviN & avi-YoNah1955).Whileonecould
argueaboutthedegreetowhichsomeof
these aspects are refected in architectural
remains, no archaeologist will deny that
these sources allow a glance on the
everyday lives of their inhabitants. Yet
sometimes the available archaeological
evidence is deemed so fragmentary, that
no meaningful conclusions can be drawn
fromit.Insuchacasearchaeologistsmight
evenbetemptedtodrawdirectanalogies
between poorly preserved structures and
well-known domestic architecture from
different regions or time-periods. If not
done critically, this can lead to an inter-
pretation of the structures based on
featurestheydonotpossess.Inthisway
archaeologists might actually be flling
up the gaps in our knowledge of ancient
houses to better ft their research aims,
Crossing the threshold: a critical analysis of
Levantine domestic architecture
TomBrughMaNs
Archeologen die onderzoek verrichten naar huisarchitectuur uit het verleden
worden vaak geconfronteerd met zeer slecht bewaarde architecturale resten.
Een dergelijk gebrek aan data leidt gewoonlijk tot een focus op de visuele vergelijking van
grondplannen (die vaak als de meest betrouwbare en toegankelijke informatiebronnen
worden beschouwd) of men bant de fragmentaire structuren volledig uit het onderzoek.
Hier wordt echter gesteld dat alle architecturale resten een brede waaier aan mogelijk
betekenisvolle informatie dragen, die op een al even gevarieerde wijze kan worden benaderd.
Als voorbeeld wordt een dataset van zeer fragmentaire IJzertijd I-huizen uit de Noordelijke
Levant onderworpen aan een kwantitatieve, vormelijke, technologische, contextuele en
stedelijke analyse, wat leidt tot een zeer divers beeld van de architectuur en haar bewoners.


Archaeologists studying ancient domestic architecture are often confronted with
highly fragmentary architectural remains. This lack of data could lead to a focus on
the visual comparison of foor plans as the most reliable and accessible source of information, or
the exclusion of fragmentary structures altogether. It is argued, however, that all architectural
remains carry a wide range of possibly meaningful information, which can be analyzed using
an equally wide range of approaches. As an example, a set of highly fragmentary houses from
the Northern Levantine region, dated to the Iron Age I period, was subjected to a quantitative,
formal, technological, contextual and urban analysis, offering a diverse picture of the ancient
architecture and its inhabitants.
[Ned]
[Eng]

rather than focusing on the information

inherentintheremains.
In this article we will demonstrate that
even the most fragmentary architectural
remains carry meaningful information
about people, events and environments
in the past. By pointing out the diverse
nature of the archaeological evidence
andthewidevarietyofmethods,onecan
approachandvaluethisevidence.Someof
thesemethodswillbeappliedtoNorthern
Levantine architecture from the Iron Age
I period, a highly fragmentary dataset,
forwhichithasbeenarguedthatitwould
notallowathorougharchitecturalanalysis
(BraeMer 192; BraeMer 199: 61; luNd
196:1-1).
2. An archaeology of domestic archi-
tecture?
In reports of archaeological excavations
the architectural structures are often
visualized on plans and grouped per
chronological or archaeological phase.
These representations follow conventions
that are easily understood by most
archaeologists and are therefore highly
successfulincommunicatingtheexcavation
results. The way ancient architecture is
represented,however,alsodeterminesthe
wayweanalyzeit,whichoftenleadstoa
focusontheformofdwellings.
However, a house is and was not limited
to its foor plan: the dimensions (length,
width,surface,roomvolume),orientation,
constructiontechniques,buildingmaterials
andtheinternalrelationshipoftherooms
are all aspects that often survive in the
archaeological record, and might aid any
attempt at understanding a construction.
Furthermore, we are informed on the
evolvingactivitiesthattookplacewithina
house or room thanks to stratigraphic or
foor levels and their associated material
culture, decorations and fxed or moveable
furniture. The location of a house within
the urban network, its topographical
locationandtherelationshipbetweenbuilt
andnon-builtspacemightbeanindication
ofthesocialpositionofitsinhabitantsina
community,aswellasfortheurbanization
ofthesiteingeneral.Ithasbeenargued
byCutting(2006:225)andKamp(1993:
293)that,althoughthebuiltenvironment
isextremelyimportantforbothexpressing
and structuring social interactions, there
exists no single methodology for the
study and interpretation of architecture.
The variety of information on domestic
architecturelistedabovecanbeanalyzed
throughbothdescriptiveandquantitative
approaches. These approaches are often
applied individually, making use of only
a limited number of attributes of ancient
architecture. We believe, however, that
any attempt at interpreting domestic
architecture, how it was built, by whom
and how the created spaces were used,
shouldincludeasmanyaspectsaspossible
ofthealreadyfragmentaryarchaeological
record, thus combining a variety of both
qualitativeandquantitativemethods.
We shall briefy discuss the following
approachesfortheanalysisofdomesticar-
chitecture:architecturalform,dimensions,
technological analysis, access analysis,
contextual analysis, urban analysis and
ethnographicanalogies.
2.1. architectural ForM
The most widely used approach for
the analysis of Near Eastern domestic
architecture is a descriptive study of its
form (e.g. BeN-dov 1992; BraeMer 192;
castel 1992; Foucault-Forest 199;
McclellaN199;Netzer1992;shiloh193;
YoN & callot 1995). The composition of
foor plans are compared, which often
leads to a typology classifed according
to those principles the researchers
deem signifcant. Although this method
allows archaeologists a clear view over
a structured mass of data, the results
will be dependent on and infuenced
by the classifcation principles used.
In addition, the form of the structures
will dominate other meaningful aspects
of the architecture (BraeMer 199: 61-
62; castel 1992: XI; Weippert 19). By
limitingresearchofdomesticarchitecture
toaformaltypology,weprojectahighly
diverse volumetric past onto a two-
dimensionalCartesianplan,thusaccepting
a reconstruction of the past through a
modern worldview. It is argued in this
paper that in order for any classifcation
tobesuccessfulorevenuseful,itshould
include as many meaningful aspects of
thearchitectureaspossible.
Tom BRUGHMANS
9
2.2. diMeNsioNs
InhisstudyofNorthSyrianhousesfrom
the Late Bronze Age, McClellan (199:
33-36)indicatesastrongcorrelationbe-
tween a houses design and its size, as
well as between the sizes of houses on
a single site. He stresses that, although
therelativewealthofanindividualmight
have infuenced the size of his house,
there is no direct relationship between
size and wealth, as considerable parts
of a dwelling might have been used for
artisanal activities (McclellaN 199: 36-
4).Sothetotalroomsurfaceofahouse
and the space it occupies in the urban
network might hold some interesting
clues about their former inhabitants and
should defnitely not be considered simple
consequences of assumed function or
social standing (KeNt 1990). These and
other dimensions (e.g. wall thickness,
door openings) are often available for
the most poorly preserved structures
and therefore provide the ideal data for
statisticalanalysis.
2.3. techNological aNalYsis
The building materials and construction
methodsusedareoftenclearlyvisiblein
the architectural remains and therefore
provideuswithanunambiguousprimary
source of information. Although these
dataareusuallymentionedinanalysesof
ancientLevantinehouses,theyareoften
assumed to carry very straightforward
information:whererockswereavailable,
people would build stone houses and
wheretherewasgoodclay,mudbrickwalls
might be preferred. Although we do not
contradictsuchsimpleinterpretations,we
wouldliketostressthatitalsogeneralizes
the meaningful variation in the available
evidence and does not explain unique
differingsituations.Archaeologistsshould
realize that the building materials and
construction methods we are confronted
with refect intentional choices of indi-
vidualsinthepast(KaMp1993:305-306;
KaMp2000:-9).Apreferenceforstone
ortheuseofacertainmasonrytechnique
couldbeeconomically,functionally,social-
ly, climatically, culturally, individually or
technologically motivated and should
thereforebediscussed.
2.4. access aNalYsis
Although the form, size and construction
methodsarethemostcommonlystudied
aspectsofancientarchitecture,theytellus
verylittleonhowitwasperceivedbypeople
in the past. The relationships between
these elements and more specifcally the
way the available space was structured
into rooms, halls and courtyards might
giveusanindicationofhowpeopleused
space,howtheywalkedthroughahouse
and experienced it. Access analysis or
spacesyntaxwasoriginallydevelopedas
a way of determining the connectivity of
spaces in modern architecture and the
way people use and move through them
(hillier & haNsoN194;hillier1996;haNsoN
199). It also provides archaeologists
with a method to identify, compare and
interpretcirculationpatternswithinhouses
(cuttiNg2003:3).Accessanalysishasbeen
appliedtoarchaeologicaldatawithvarying
success(e.g.Brusasco2004;cuttiNg2003;
Fairclough1992;Foster199),forexample
todeterminetheprivateorpublicnatureof
roomsinaRomanhouse(grahaMe199).
As was noted by Cutting (2003; 2006:
233), however, this method is of limited
value where structures are incompletely
preservedandnosupplementarydata(such
as literary sources) are available. There-
fore,sheconcludes,archaeologistsshould
consider access analysis as a qualitative
tooltothinkwithratherthananobjective
quantitative method. Nevertheless, for
someancientarchitectureaccessanalysis
does provide an innovative and highly
informative way of thinking about the
use of space. The author believes that a
combination of this method with other
descriptive or quantitative approaches,
suchasanalyzingthehumanperceptionof
architecture(letessoN & vaNsteeNhuYse2006;
Moore1996;tilleY1994),and3Dmodelling
techniques using viewshed analysis and
agent-based simulations (paliou 200),
mightmarkanewchapterinourquestfor
anarchaeologyofarchitecture.
2.5. coNtextual aNalYsis
The frst three approaches focus on the
reconstruction of the architecture as it
wasbuilt,whileaccessanalysisallowsus
to think about the structuring of spaces.
Thesemethodswillnotsucceed,however,
in critically addressing the question most
Terra Incognita (2010): 7-26
10
studies in ancient Levantine architecture
arebentonanswering:whatactivitiestook
placewithineachroomorbuilding?(e.g.
FiNKelsteiN 19; JaMiesoN 2000; McclellaN
199; MeiJer 199; YoN & callot 1995;
YoN & callot 199). A direct correlation
between architectural form and function
isnolongeracceptable(KaMp1993:30-
309; McclellaN 199; MeiJer 199: 221),
giventheenormousrangeofcomplicating
factors:thefunctionaswellastheowners
ofroomsandbuildingscanchangethrough
time (KaMp 1993: 309-310), rooms can
be multifunctional (cuttiNg 2006: 230;
KaMp 1993: 306-30), the archaeological
evidence only informs us on the last
activitiesthattookplaceinahouse,which
does not necessarily correspond with
its overall use (cuttiNg 2006: 22-230;
putzeYs200:43-45,39-399).Moreover,
a distinction can be made between
utilitarianandsymbolicfunctionofaroom
or house and both functions might have
infuenced the activities performed (KaMp
1993: 310-311; MeiJer 199). Bearing
theserestrictionsinmind,Putzeys(200:
5-11) proposed a method for contextual
analysis of ancient architecture based on
the study of architectural space (through
accessanalysis),site-formationprocesses
andtheanalysisofartefactassemblages.
Thismethodcanbeconsideredareaction
on and refnement of the contextual
approaches by Ciolek-Torrello (194;
195), Nevett (1999), Cahill (2002) and
Allison(2004)(putzeYs200:5-11).Such
a contextual analysis (putzeYs 200) will
deliver the best results when performed
on a dataset containing well-preserved
structures, micro-stratigraphic knowledge
and a complete documentation of the
artefact assemblages. We would like to
stress, however, that for sites for which
such data are not available a contextual
analysis is not impossible (as we will
demonstrateinthecasestudybelow).As
wasnotedbyPapaconstantinou(2006:95-
9), archaeologists should not condemn
old excavations because of their archaic
excavation, selection and publication
techniques, but should include these in
theirresearchinaconstructivebutcritical
way. Old and new excavations with both
good and poorly preserved structures
should complement one another in a
reconstruction of past activities (putzeYs
200:39-399).
2.6. urBaN aNalYsis
Thelifeofpeopleinancienttimeswasnot
restrictedtointeriorspaces.Manyactivities
such as cooking, sleeping or entertaining
wereandarestillperformedoutdoors,on
roofsorincourtyards(KaMp1993:305).The
locationofahouseintheurbannetwork,its
orientation,theavailableexteriorspaceand
therelationshiptootherhousesorpublic
buildings infuenced everyday choices of
the inhabitants, including the distribution
of activities (KeNt 1990). In his analysis
of domestic architecture from Hazor,
Faust (1999) even used these aspects to
determine the socioeconomic position of
its inhabitants. Other approaches include
the estimation of the average foor space
requiredbyindividualstopeopleancient
settlements (Naroll 1962; discussion
summarizedinBYrd2000),andcomparing
cities areas of roofed or built space to
unroofedorunbuiltareasinanattemptto
understandthesocioeconomicandcultural
diversity of its population (FiNKelsteiN &
zilBerMaN1995).Althoughtheuseofsuch
studies is dependent on the degree of
preservationofitsdata,wemayconclude
that it is worth crossing the threshold to
theexteriortoconfrontindividualdomestic
unitswiththeirurbancontext.
2.7. ethNographic aNalogies
Ethnographic research in Near Eastern
rural communities (e.g. aureNche 199;
horNe1994;KaMp1993;KaMp2000;KraMer
192)allowsarchaeologiststoassesshow
socioeconomic factors can infuence and
be refected in architecture. Moreover, it
forcesustorecognizethefactthatdifferent
societies organize their lives differently
(cuttiNg2006:233).Inadditiontogeneral
insights into the construction and design
ofhouses,Cutting(2006:234-239,241)
identifed three areas of archaeological
investigation that could beneft from
ethnographicanalogies:thefunctionaluse
ofspaceandseasonalvariation,patterns
of movement, and social organization.
Although it is tempting to draw direct
analogies between modern ethnographic
research and ancient architecture, these
modern observations should be used
cautiously as to not force the past into
a mould derived from knowledge of the
present(WatsoN199:6).Webelievethat
thepurposeofethnographicobservations
Tom BRUGHMANS
11
Terra Incognita (2010): 7-26
toarchaeologyliesinconfrontinguswith
theexistenceofawidevarietyofpossible
interpretations, rather than providing us
withtherightanswer.
To summarize, architectural remains
consistofadiverserangeoffeatureswhich
can inform us about the construction of
ancient houses, the activities that took
placewithinthem,andthesocioeconomic
position of their inhabitants. A variety
of, sometimes overlapping, approaches
can be applied to analyze these data.
An analysis of the architectural form,
dimensions and construction methods
allow a reconstruction of the building
processofancienthouses,andthechoices
madeduringthisprocess.Accessanalysis,
contextual and urban approaches study
thewayroomsandhouseswereusedand
perceived, while ethnographic analogies
canbeusedcautiouslytoindicateavariety
ofpossibleinterpretations.
Inthefollowingpartofthearticlesomeof
thesemethodswillbeappliedtoasetof
Northern Levantine houses from the Iron
AgeIperiod,consistingofveryfragmentary
structures on which the validity of said
methodswillbetested.
3. Northern Levantine domestic ar-
chitecture in the Iron Age I period
While browsing through the published
literature on Northern Levantine
architecturefromtheIronAgeIperiod,our
scarce knowledge of the nature of these
structuresbecomesimmediatelyapparent.
Asmallnumberofexcavatedandpublished
sites, and the limited information on
architecturalremainsandtheircontextsin
theavailableliteratureresultsinameagre
set of data. In addition, the degree of
preservationofthesestructuresisalmost
invariably poor, which makes it diffcult
to defne individual houses. The only
attempt at an analysis of these houses
was performed by Braemer (192: 155-
15;199:0),whohadtoconcludethat
the available data were just insuffcient to
drawanyconclusionsaboutthenatureof
Northern Levantine domestic architecture
in this period (luNd 196: 1-1). We
can,however,expresstworemarksabout
Braemers work. Firstly, in both studies
Braemer omitted a considerable number
of Northern Levantine structures, only
focusing on the best preserved houses.
In his 192 work, he did not include the
structures from Ras el Bassit, Tell Sukas,
SareptaandTyre.Possiblybecauseitwas
hardtodividetheseintoindividualhouses
andbecausetheexcavatorsbelievedthatin
somelevelstheyhousedproductioncentres
for beads (Tyre) or pottery (Sarepta). In
his 199 article, limited reference was
madetostructuresinSarepta,TellKazel,
TellSukas,RasIbnHani,Rasel-Bassit,Tell
Mardikh, Tell Afs, Tell Mastuma and Tille
Hyk,butonlywheretheyconformtohis
192typology.Secondly,theoverwhelming
majority of his sources are from the
Southern Levantine region. In his 192
work,thisresultedinatypologybasedon
Southern Levantine house forms, which
wasprojectedontotheNorthernLevantine
architecture. This approach does not
succeedinunderstandingtheuniquenature
of the Northern Levantine architecture,
and resulted in Braemer (192: 9-92)
classifying nearly all Northern Levantine
structures in his alternative category.
Although Braemers 199 article was not
concernedwithSouthernLevantinehouses,
hestillapproachedtheNorthernstructures
throughanalogieswiththeSouth.
We can therefore conclude that the
Northern Levantine domestic architecture
intheIronAgeIperiodhasscarcelybeen
examined,duetothefragmentarynature
ofthestructuresandalimiteduseofthe
available data. The following analysis is
anattemptatunderstandingfragmentary
architecturalremainsontheirownterms,
byapproachingitthroughdifferentmethods
using a variety of data. Where relevant,
referenceshallbemadetoKamps(1993;
2000) ethnographic work in the Syrian
villageofDarnaj.
3.1. the dataset
We will discuss architecture from the
NorthernLevantineregion,corresponding
to the Turkish province of Hatay (the
Amuq valley where the Orontes river fows
intotheMediterranean),theSyriancoastal
stripandOrontesvalley,andtheLebanon
(fgure 2). In recent archaeological and
historical research (MazzoNi 2000), the
IronAgeIperioddatesfrom1200BCto
900 BC. Taking these geographical and
chronological demarcations into account,
12
tensitescanbeincludedinthisanalysis:Tell
Afs (MazzoNi 2005; veNturi 2000), Chatal
Hyk(BraidWood&BraidWood1960;haiNes
191),Hama(FugMaNN195),RasIbnHani
(BouNNiet al.199;BouNNiet al.191),Tell
alJudaidah (BraidWood & BraidWood 1960;
haiNes191),TellKazel(capet2003;capet
& guBel 2000), Sarepta (aNdersoN 19),
Tell Sukas (luNd 196; riis 190) and
Tyre(BiKai196).Althoughtheexcavation
reportmentionsalsothepresenceofIron
Age I structures at Ras el-Bassit (courBiN
196),noplanwaspublishedandthelimi-
tedinformationinthepublicationsmakesa
reconstructionofthesephasesimpossible.
Therefore, the architecture of Ras el-
Bassit will not be included in the current
analysis(foranoverviewoftheavailable
evidence, see BrughMaNs 200: appendix
1: 11-12). Following McClellans example
(199), the functional interpretations of
theexcavatorsdidnotleadtoaselection
ofstrictlydomesticstructures.Theexca-
vators chronological interpretations were
notquestionedandallconstructionlevels
datedtotheIronAgeIperiodwereincluded
in the analysis (fgure 1).
3.2. QuaNtitative aNalYsis
The dimensions best represented in the
fragmentary architecture of the dataset
are the wall widths (n = 2 + 62
uncertain),asthelimitsofbuildingswere
often unknown (n = 1 + 1 uncertain)
andboundedroomsweresmallinnumber
(n = 46 + 36 uncertain). A brief look at
theroomsurfacesallowstwoconclusions
(fgures 9-10): the largest rooms within
thedatasetoftenbelongtosingle-roomed
free-standing buildings (fgures 3bcIV,
5pI,5qI,5yII)andaveryhighfrequency
ofsmallroomsisobvious.Ananalysisof
the wall widths shows a clear coherency
betweentheaveragesonallsites:medians
andmodesaround0and60,andslightly
higher means due to some outliers (fgures
-).However,theseaveragestellusvery
little about the things we are interested
in, namely the individual walls and their
relationtootherstructures.Sowhatabout
thevariationwithinthesites?
Thevarianceofallsitesisalmostuniformly
high,indicatingagreatspreadinwallwidths
foreachsite.InHamaaconsiderablenum-
berofwallsareametreormorethick,and
thesemainlybelongtothelargebuildings
near the highest point of the tell (fgure
4mn). Conversely, a signifcant amount of
thin walls (ca. 40 cm) was unearthed in
Tell al-Judaidah, corresponding to small
rectangularstructuresontheeasternside
of the site (fgure 5vw). For Tell Afs, Tell
Kazel and Tell Sukas the great spread of
widthsseemstobecausedbydifferences
withinindividualbuildings.
Four interpretations can be provided for
thesevariations.Themostobviousoneis
Tom BRUGHMANS
Figure 1: Architectural levels and published dates. Grey levels are
included in this study.
13
the direct correlation between
the wall width and the weight
of the superstructure it had
to support. This correlation
allows us to make inferences
concerning the existence of
possible storeys, but more
importantly, the identifcation of
load-bearingwalls(mainlyex-
teriorandcommunalwalls).As
such,somepossibleindividual
buildings can be identifed
in Chatal Hyk (fgures 3iI,
4oII), Hama (fgure 4mI-II-III),
Tell Kazel (fgure 6zI) and Tell
Sukas (fgure 6aeI). Secondly,
the utilitarian and symbolical
function of a room or building
can infuence wall thickness
(KaMp 1993: 312-315; MeiJer
199;trigger1990:121-122).
This can explain the extreme
thickness of city walls which
servedadefensivepurposebut
might also have functioned as
symbols of a citys power and
prestige. The thin-walled small buildings
of Tell al-Judaidah, on the other hand,
mighthavefunctionedasstoragerooms.
Thirdly, wall thickness can be dependent
on the building materials used, which
is itself infuenced by the availability of
resources, the architectural tradition of a
builder or community, and the personal
preferenceoftheowner(KaMp1993:305-
306; KaMp 2000: ). This brings us to
ourlastinterpretation,whichstressesthe
infuence of an individual (builder, owner
or inhabitant) in the construction of a
house (BaiNes & YoFFee 199; richards &
vaN BureN2000;trigger1990).Theselast
twointerpretationsmightprovecrucialto
understand the variation that manifests
itselfinthisandthefollowinganalyses.
3.3. architectural ForM
A visual inspection of the foor plans (fgures
3-6),withouttakinganyexistingtypologies
into account, reveals some formal
similarities. Rooms with a comparable
surfaceareoftengroupedtogether.Some
oftheseroomsliewiththeirlongsidesnext
to each other, and will be referred to as
parallel buildings (fgures 3bcII, 3gI, 5sI,
5tII, 5uII, 6aeI). Others are in line with
one another, connecting on the narrow
side (fgures 3bcd, 5tII, 5uII, 6ag-aj). We
can also discern buildings consisting of a
single exceptionally large room (as was
notedinthequantitativeanalysis),which
will be referred to as one-room buildings
(fgures 3bcIV, 5pI, 5qI, 5yII).
Some rooms with a large surface are
related to clusters of smaller rooms. We
can distinguish three groups depending
on the side on which the clusters are
arranged,andthenumberofsmallrooms:
alargeroomwithasinglesmallroomon
its narrow side (fgures 3iI, 6zII ?, 6afV),
alargeroomwithtwosmallroomsonits
length (fgures 3iII, 4oI), a large room with
multiple small rooms on its length (fgures
6zI,4mII?).Suchacombinationofsmall
roomswithalargerroomallowsahigher
degree of functional differentiation within
thehouse,butalsowithinthelargeroom
itself (KaMp 1993: 306-309; KaMp 2000:
4).
Astheexactlocationofthedoorways,the
limits of individual buildings and possible
upper storeys are unknown, an access
analysis will be impossible. We can,
however,studythecirculationpatternsof
those buildings for which the limits and
doorsarewell-known.Theparallelbuilding
in fgure 3bcII has a door on the north side
leading from the street to a frst room, and
Terra Incognita (2010): 7-26
Figure 2: sites included in this study, and spread in building
materials used.
14
anotherdoorleadingtothesecondroom.
The frst room might have been used for
morepublicactivitiesasitwasaccessible
from the street, while the second room
had a more private character. In the
buildings consisting of a combination of
largeandsmallerrooms,thelargerooms
oftenprovideaccesstothesmallerrooms
(fgures 4mIII, 4oI, 6zI). These large
roomsthereforehadacontrollingfunction
inthecirculation,andmusthaveplayeda
centralroleinthelivesoftheinhabitants.
3.4. techNological aNalYsis
A study of the building materials and
construction methods used shows some
patterns.Nearlyallstonestructureswere
built using the same masonry technique,
consisting of a facade of large feldstones
andacoreofsmallerstones.Somewell-
formedashlarswereincludedinthewalls
of Ras Ibn Hani and Sarepta, but only in
Hama were they used on a large scale
(exclusively for the buildings
near the acropolis; fgure
4mn). Moreover, the latter
site contains the only use
of basalt as a building and
decorative material. The
architecture of area I level
of Chatal Hyk provides us
with another extraordinary
situation (fgure 4k). These
were the only structures on
thesitebelongingtoastone
building,thethresholdswere
made out of mudbrick and
the courtyards as well as
the rooms were paved with
stones (both unique features
within the dataset). A clear
distinctionbetweensiteswith
stone architecture and sites
with a combination of stone
and mudbrick in walls could
be discerned (fgure 2). There even seems
to be a geographical pattern linked to
these construction methods: stone walls
canbefoundincoastalsites(RasIbnHani,
Sarepta, Tell Sukas, Tyre), and mudbrick
walls in inland sites (Tell Afs, Chatal
Hyk,Hama,TellAl-Judaidah).Theonly
sitestrayingfromthisoverallpatternisTell
Kazel,acoastalsitewithacombinationof
stone and mudbrick walls. Although this
patterncouldbeeasilyexplainedasbeing
a result of the geographical position of a
site, the local climate and the available
resources, the evidence in Tell Kazel
suggests caution with such generalising
statements.
3.5. coNtextual aNalYsis
Aswehadtorelyonpublishedinformation
for the current study, our knowledge on
site-formation processes and artefact
assemblages is limited to the degree
of detail of the excavation reports. We
Tom BRUGHMANS
Figure 7: Box plot for wall width (cm) of structures from 9 sites.
Tell Afis Chatal Hyk Hama Ras Ibn Hani Tell Al-Judaidah Tell Kazel Sarepta Tell Sukas Tyre
Number 44 56 26 28 23 55 14 13 63
Mean 62,7 70,4 82,5 65,4 57 83,6 65 71,6 56,1
Median 60 70 70 70 60 80 65 70 50
Mode 60 70 60 70 40.00a 80 60a 70 50
Std. Deviation 19,69 16,26 27,28 5,01 14,03 17,78 5,03 11,17 7,23
Variance 387,59 264,48 744,19 25,09 196,97 316,20 25,25 124,69 52,31
Minimum 30 50 60 60 40 60 60 60 50
Maximum 140 120 180 70 80 120 70 100 70
a. Multiple modes exist. The smallest value is shown
Figure 8: Statistics for wall width (cm) of structures from 9 sites.
15
Terra Incognita (2010): 7-26
shall therefore limit our
contextual analysis to a cri-
tical re-evaluation of the
functions and activities that
the excavators attached to
the structures, based on
the evidence they refer to.
For the structures in Chatal
Hyk and Tell al-Judaidah
nofunctionalstatementscan
bemade,duetoacomplete
lack of contextual evidence.
Strong post-depositional
disturbances in Tell Sukas
make interpretations about
past activities diffcult,
although the presence of
silos, waste pits, grinding
stones and a mortar and
pestle seem to indicate
a domestic function. An
exclusivelydomesticfunction
isalsoassumedforbuildings
IandIIinRasIbnHani.
For Tell Afs the published
evidence provides us with
a more specifc picture of
past activities. Given the
numerous waste pits, pla-
stered silos, small ovens
andaplasteredbasin,levels
9a-8 of feld E North (fgure
3a) probably consisted of
waste disposal, storage and
cooking areas (veNturi 2000:
50-509). The transition to
architectural levels -6 also
signifed a functional shift towards a more
domestic area, with possible weaving
activities in building I (fgure 3b-c). Venturi
(2000: 512, 529) interpreted building IV
as a public or religious building, based
on the absence of domestic installations,
a formal resemblance to later religious
buildings in Sarepta (pritchard 195: 14-
15, fgure 2) and Tell Sukas (riis 190:
59, fgure 19), and the presence of a
polishedtile.Theexistenceofasmalloven
near the northern wall, its location in a
domesticquarterandthechangingofthe
entrancefromthelongsidetothenarrow
side throughout this phase (which must
have had a signifcant impact on possible
religiousactivities),indicatesthatacultic
interpretation based on meagre evidence
canbequestioned.Weprefertointerpret
this one-room building as a domestic
structurewitharelativelylargelivingroom
(ca. 22 m; fgures 9-10) and a very limited
functionaldifferentiation(giventhelackof
permanent internal divisions; KaMp 1993:
306-309;KaMp2000:4).Inlevels5-3the
area consisted of domestic units ordered
around a large paved courtyard (fgure
3d).Anotherlarge(ca.4m)one-room
building was excavated in Hama (fgure
5q). The three foor levels and multiple
repairsindicatealongperiodofoccupation
forthisstructure.Asmallpodiumagainst
the south-western wall in foor level 2 and
the size of the building might indicate a
religiousfunction,althoughsuchapodium
could serve for a variety of activities.
AnotherimpressivestructureisbuildingIII
in Hamas sectors N16-01 (ca. 15 m;
fgure 4m). Although the sheer number
ofroomsmightindicatealargefunctional
Figure 9: Box plot for room surface (m2) of structures from 9 sites.
Rooms
Rooms
(including
uncertainties)
Number 46 82
Mean 13,4 15,5
Median 8 13
Mode 5 5
a
Std. Deviation 17,09 14,41
Variance 292,07 207,66
Minimum 1 1
Maximum 93 93
a. Multiple modes exist. The smallest value is shown
Figure 10: Statistics for room surface (m2) of structures from 9
sites.
16
Tom BRUGHMANS
differentiation, the lack of clear evidence
fortheseactivitiesandaseriousplundering
ofthisleveldonotallowamoredetailed
reconstruction.
InSareptaapotterykiln,unprocessedclay
andlargeamountsofkilnrefuseleaveno
doubtthatthisareawasapottersworkshop
inlevelE,withpossibleaccommodationfor
the potters in the western room 38 (fgures
6aa-ab).Althoughthesmallpotterykilnin
levelD2possiblysuggestscontinuitywith
these earlier levels, the absence of any
other evidence of industrial activities and
the massive amounts of fne ware bowls,
storagejarsandcookingwaresindicatea
functionalevolutionoftheareainlevelD
towardspredominantlydomesticactivities.
For Tyre, the production of beads and
weavingactivitiesareassumed,aswellas
somecookingareas(BiKai196:25-36).
Thanks to a destruction layer on feld II of
TellKazelthatsealedtheIronAgeIlevel,
thearchitecturalphasesandtheircontexts
arewelldocumentedandallowafunctional
analysis (fgure 6z). The presence of small
ovens, storage jars, fne wares and grinding
stones in nearly all rooms of feld II suggest
a domestic function for the entire sector.
We can, however, identify some specifc
activity areas. Large amounts of storage
jars in rooms I and A might indicate
that these were used as depots. Rooms
W, D and C were probably used for the
preparationoffood,giventhepresenceof
domestic ovens, grinding stones, pestles,
cooking pots and animal bones. A more
intriguingsituationisprovidedinroomsO,
S, R and Q, which were considered as a
separatebuildingbasedonthethicknessof
thesurroundingwalls.Someofthesewalls
werepossiblydecoratedandthedoorway
to room S shows monumental features
(capet2003:10).Anelaboratesetoftable
wareswasfoundinthisbuilding,unlikeany
other assemblages encountered on feld
II. Rooms R and Q might be interpreted
as storerooms due to the presence of
storagejarsandgoblets,whileinroomSa
workbenchandastonepossiblybelonging
to a press installation, might be remains
oftheartisanalactivitiesperformedhere.
Anotherpossiblymeaningfulaspectisthe
absenceofadomesticoveninthisbuilding
and their presence in nearly all other
roomsandcourtyardsofthesite,although
thesmallovensinareaMmighthavebeen
used by the inhabitants of the building.
Wemightinterpretthislargebuilding(ca.
10m)asadomesticunitconsistingof
storage rooms, activity areas, a possible
vestibule (M) and courtyard (L), and a
largecentrallivingroominwhichfoodwas
prepared, goods were stored and meals
wereheld.Butwhatdotheseresultstellus
abouttheinhabitants?Wasthisthehouse
ofanotablecitizen?Orcouldithavebeen
acommunalstoreroomandpublicbuilding
in which feasts were held? Or were the
dinnerpartyremainstheresultofreuse
after the original inhabitants had gone?
However, size does not always correlate
withwealth(KaMp1993:296-299),sothe
buildingmighthavejustbeenthehomeof
a large or composite household. On feld
IV near the religious centre of Tell Kazel
a female fgurine, a terracotta plaque and
some metal artefacts were found in and
roundthelargeroomoflevel4(ca.30m;
fgure 5x). In level 3 the same location
wasoccupiedbyalargeone-roombuilding
(ca. 137 m; fgure 5y). The position near
the religious centre, the unique fnds and
the sheer size of these structures might
indicateareligiousfunction.
3.6. urBaN aNalYsis
Although for all sites only small areas
were excavated, we can still draw some
conclusions about the urbanization and
the position of a house in the urban
network. We can distinguish between
sites with a low density (Chatal Hyk,
Hama, Tell al-Judaidah, Tell Sukas) and
siteswithahighdensityofbuilt-upspace
(Tell Afs, Ras Ibn Hani, Tell Kazel, Tyre
and possibly Sarepta). For Tell Kazel and
Tell Afs the density of urbanization can
beexplainedbythegeographicallocation
of the excavation trenches: districts near
the political or religious centre, often
situated at the highest point of a tell,
might have been desired building land.
ThesmalltotalsizeoftellSukasmightbe
anindicationthatthiswasneveradensely
occupied settlement. The political role of
the town might also infuence the degree
of urbanization: Hama was the centre of
an Aramean city-state in the Iron Age II
period, which explains the freestanding
monumental buildings with predecessors
in the Iron Age I period (fgures 4m-n).
But what were the structuring elements
that infuenced the builders and made
1
Terra Incognita (2010): 7-26
the houses as we see them today? An
indicationmightbethesimilarorientation
of the architecture in each site, which
always seems to correspond with the
orientation of streets (fgures 3b-d, 5t-
u, 6ac-ad, 6ah-ak), courtyards (fgures
3d, 5t-u, 6ac-ad, 6ag-ak) and communal
walls (fgures 5s, 6z). These boundaries
wereevenrespectedthroughoutdifferent
architectural phases. Another structuring
element is the clusters of small rooms
whichareoftengroupedaroundcourtyards
(fgures 5t-u, 6z, 6ag-ak). These rooms
havedoorstothecourtyardbutnottothe
surroundingstreets,whichisanindication
ofthecontrollingfunctionthesecourtyards
exercised in the urban circulation, and
theymighthavefunctionedastransitions
betweenpublicandprivatespaces.Lastly,
the evidence from Tell Kazel provides us
with an example of structures oriented
on a monumental (possibly religious)
building (fgures 5x-y). We can therefore
concludethattheformanddimensionsof
a house were not always determined by
theculturaltraditionandindividualwillof
thebuilder,butalsobytheavailablespace
andtheurbancontext,asisstillthecase
inmoderncities.Inaddition,thephysical
location of a house and its relationship
to public spaces and buildings through
doorways should also be considered as
a meaningful factor. A strong variation in
foor plans thus becomes obvious.
4. Conclusion
Quantitative, formal, technological, con-
textual and urban analyses were per-
formed in an attempt to understand the
unique nature of Northern Levantine
domestic architecture in the Iron Age I
period. It proved very hard to formulate
any generalising statements about these
highly fragmentary structures, indicating
thattheonlyuniversalfeatureisthesheer
structural variation between sites and
houses.Roomsandbuildingswererather
small and their form was strongly infuenced
by their position in the urban network.
In Hama and Tell Kazel, however, some
unusuallylargebuildingswereexcavated,
whichwereinterpretedinthelightofthe
historical,religiousandsocialcomposition
ofthesite.Adivision,basedonthetype
of building material used, was obvious,
withstonearchitectureatcoastalsitesand
stonesandmudbricksfortheinlandsites.
Yetagain,HamaandTellKazelcatchour
attention. The frst with its architectural and
decorative use of ashlars and basalt, the
latter by its unique architectural tradition
as a coastal site, which combines some
mudbricks and plaster in predominantly
stone structures. With the exception of
theartisanalactivitiesinSareptaandTyre,
the monumental complexes in Hama,
and the possible temple in Tell Kazel, all
of the structures should be assigned a
predominantly domestic function. The
high frequency of smaller rooms in most
buildings, however, indicates a high
diversity of activities within the house.
So, referring to the main question of
this article, should old excavations and
fragmentary structures be excluded from
anarchitecturalanalysis?Wehopethatthe
analysisofNorthernLevantinearchitecture
showed that even the most incomplete
architectural remains (e.g. Sarepta) and
even the least documented sites (e.g.
Chatal Hyk) can help us understand
ancient architecture and its inhabitants,
if done critically. Archaeologists should
recognizethediversityofthearchaeological
record, and should address this variety
of information using a combination of
analytical methods. This review identifed
architectural methods to tackle the
limitationsofthearchaeologicalevidence,
andacknowledgedthenecessityofcrossing
this threshold towards a new and more
integratedarchaeologyofarchitecture.
1
Tom BRUGHMANS
Bibliografe
allisoN p. 2004. Pompeian Households. An Analysis of the Material Culture(Cotsen
InstituteofArchaeologyMonograph,42).LosAngeles.
aNdersoN W.p. 1988. Sarepta I, The Late Bronze and Iron Age Strata of Area II,Y.
(Publications de lUniversit Libanaise, Section des tudes archologiques, II).
Beyrout.
aureNche o. 1998. Villages dt, villages dhiver: un modle peu connu doccupation
de lspace dans la valle de lEuphrate (20ime sicle aprs J.-C.). In FortiN &
aureNche199:35-42.
BaiNes J. & YoFFee N. 1998. Order, Legitimacy, and Wealth in Ancient Egypt and
Mesopotamia.InFeiNMaN & Marcus19:199260.
BeN-dov M. 1992. Middle and Late Bronze Age Dwellings.InKeMpiNsKi & reich1992:
99-104.
BiKai p.M. 1976. Tyre: Report of an Excavation, 1973-1974.AnnArbor.
BouNNi a., lagarce J., lagarce e., saliBY N. & Badre l. 1979. Rapportprliminairesurla
troisimecampagnedefouillesIbnHani(Syrie).Syria 56:21-291.
BouNNi a., lagarce J., lagarce e., saliBY N., Badre l., leriche p. & touMa M. 1981. Rapport
prliminaire sur la quatrime campagne de fouilles (1978) Ibn Hani (Syrie).Syria
5.
BraeMer F. 1982. Larchitecture domestique du Levant lAge du Fer(Protohistoiredu
Levant.ditionsrecherchesurlescivilisations,).Paris.
BraeMer F. 1997. Architecture domestique de lAge du Fer en Syrie du Nord.Incastel
et al.199:61-0.
BraidWood r.J. & BraidWood l.s. 1960. Excavations in the Plain of Antioch I, The Earlier
Assemblages Phases A-J(UniversityofChicagoOrientalInstitutePublications,61).
Chicago.
BrughMaNs t. 2008. Over de drempel: een kritische analyse van Noord-Levantijnse
domestieke architectuur in de IJzertijd 1 periode. Unpublished master paper,
K.U.Leuven.(http://www.ethesis.net/noord_levantijnse/noord_levantijnse.htm)
Brusasco p. 2004. TheoryandPracticeintheStudyofMesopotamianDomesticSpace.
Antiquity:142-15.
BuNNeNs g. (ed.) 2000. Essays on Syria in the Iron Age.(AncientNearEasternStudies
Supplement,).Louvain.
BYrd B.F. 2000. Households in Transition: Neolithic Social Organization within
Southwest Asia.InKuiJt2000:63-9.
cahill N. 2002. Household and City Organization at Olynthus.Yale.
capet e. 2003. TellKazel(Syrie),rapportprliminairesurles9e-1ecampagnede
fouilles(1993-2001)duMusedelUniversitAmricainedeBeyrouth,chantierII.
Berytus 47:63-121.
19
capet e. & guBel e. 2000. Tell Kazel: Six Centuries of Iron Age Occupation (c.1200-
612 B.C.).InBuNNeNs2000:425-45.
castel c. 1992. Habitat Urbain No-Assyrien et No-Babylonien, De lespace Bti... A
lespace Vcu.Paris.
castel c., al-MaQdissi M. & villeNeuve F. (eds.) 1997. Les maisons dans la Syrie antique
du IIIe millnaire aux dbuts de lIslam, Pratiques et reprsentations de lespace
domestique, Actes du colloque international, Damas 27-30 juin 1992.Beyrut.
cioleK-torrello r. 1984. An alternative model of room function at Grasshopper Pueblo,
Arizona.Inhietala194:12-153.
cioleK-torrello r. 1985. AtypologyofroomfunctionatGrasshopperPueblo,Arizona.
Journal of Field Archaeology 12:41-63.
courBiN p. 1986. Bassit.Syria 63:15-219.
cuttiNg M. 2003. The use of spatial analysis to study prehistoric settlement
architecture.Oxford Journal of Archaeology 22:1-21.
cuttiNg M. 2006. Morethanonewaytostudyabuilding:Approachestoprehistoric
householdanssettlementspace.Oxford Journal of Archaeology 25:225-246.
Fairclough g. 1992. Meaningful Constructions Spatial and Functional Analysis of
MedievalBuildings.Antiquity 66:34-366.
Faust a. 1999. Socioeconomic Stratifcation in an Israelite City: Hazor VI as a Test
Case.Levant 31:19-190.
FeiNMaN g.M. & Marcus J. (eds.) 1988. Archaic States.SantaFe.
FiNKelsteiN i. 1988. The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement.Jerusalem.
FiNKelsteiN i. & zilBerMaN Y. 1995. Site Planning and Subsistence Economy: Negev
Settlements as a Case Study.InholloWaY & haNdY 1995:213-226.
FortiN M. & aureNche o. (eds.) 1998. Espace Naturel, Espace Habite en Syrie du Nord,
10e2e millenaires av. J-C.Lyon.
Foster s.M. 1989. Analysis of Spatial Patterns in Buildings (Access Analysis) as an
InsightIntoSocialStructure:ExamplesfromtheScottishAtlanticIronAge.Antiquity
63:40-50.
Foucault-Forest c. 1997. Modles dorganisation de lespace dans lhabitat du Bronze
Moyen et de Bronze Rcent en Palestine.Incastelet al.199:151-160.
FugMaNN e. 1958. Hama, fouilles et recherches de la Fondation Carlsberg, 1931-1938,
II, 1, Larchitecture des priodes pr-hellniques.Copenhagen.
grahaMe M. 1997. Public and Private in the Roman House: The Spatial Order of the
Casa Del Fauno.InlaureNce & Wallace-hadrill 199:13-164.
haex o.M.c., curvers h.h. & aKKerMaNs p.M.M.g. (eds.) 1989. To the Euphrates and
Beyond, Archaeological Studies in Honour of Maurits N. van Loon.Rotterdam.
haiNes r.c. 1971.Excavations in the Plain of Antioch II, the Structural Remains of
the Later Phases, Chatal Hyk, Tell al-Judaidah, Tell Tayinat(UniversityofChicago
Terra Incognita (2010): 7-26
20
Tom BRUGHMANS
OrientalInstitutePublications,95).Chicago.
haNsoN J. 1998. Decoding Homes and Houses.Cambridge.
hietala h.J. (ed.) 1984. Intrasite Spatial Analysis in Archaeology.Cambridge.
hillier B. & haNsoN J. 1984.The Social Logic of Space.Cambridge.
hillier B. 1996. Space is the Machine.Cambridge.
hodder i. 1986. Reading the Past, Current Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeology.
Cambridge.
holloWaY s.W. & haNdY l. 1995. The Pitcher is Broken, Memorial Essays for Gsta
W. Ahlstrm.(JournalfortheStudyoftheOldTestamentSupplementSeries,190).
Sheffeld.
horNe l. 1994. Village spaces: Settlement and society in Northeastern Iran.
Washington.
JaMiesoN a.s. 2000. Identifying Room Use and Vessel Function. A case-study of Iron
Age Pottery from Building C2 at Tell Ahmar, North Syria.InBuNNeNs2000:259-303.
KaMp K. 1993. TowardsanArchaeologyofArchitecture:CluesfromaModernSyrian
Village. Journal of Anthropological Research 49:293-31.
KaMp K. 2000. From Village to Tell: Household Ethnoarchaeology in Syria. Near Eastern
Archaeology 63 (2):4-93.
KeMpiNsKi a. & reich r. (eds.) 1992. The Architecture of Ancient Israel, From Prehistoric
to the Persian Periods.Jerusalem.
KeNt s. (ed.) 1990. Domestic Architecture and the Use of Space. An Interdisciplinary
Crosscultural Study (New directions in Archaeology).Cambridge.
KraMer c. 1982. Village Ethnoarchaeology: Rural Iran in Archaeological Perspective.
NewYork.
KuiJt i. (ed.) 2000. Life in Neolithic Farming Communities: Social Organization, Identity
and Differentiation.NewYork-London.
laureNce r. & Wallace-hadrill a. (eds.) 1997. Domestic Space in the Roman World:
Pompeii and Beyond (Journal of Roman Archaeology, Supplementary Series, 22).
Portsmouth.
letessoN Q. & vaNsteeNhuYse K. 2006. TowardsanArchaeologyofPerception:Looking
attheMinoanPalaces.Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 19 (1):91-119.
luNd J. 1986. Sks 8: The Habitation Quarters (Publications of the Carlsberg
ExpeditiontoPhoenicia,10).Copenhagen.
MazzoNi s. 2000. Syria and the Periodization of the Iron Age, a Cross-Cultural
Perspective.InBuNNeNs2000:31-59.
MazzoNi s. (ed.) 2005. Tell Afs (Siria) 2002-2004 (Egito e Vicino Oriente, 28). Pisa.
McclellaN t. 1997. Houses and Households in North Syria, During the Late Bronze
Age.Incastelet al.199:29-49.
21
MeiJer d.J.W. 1989. Ground Plans and Archaeologists: On Similarities and Comparisons.
Inhaexet al. 199:221-236.
Moore J.d. 1996. Architecture and Power in the Ancient Andes: The Archaeology of
Public Buildings.Cambridge.
Naroll r. 1962. Floorareaandsettlementpopulation.American Antiquity 27:5-
5.
Netzer e. 1992. Domestic Architecture in the Iron Age. In KeMpiNsKi & reich 1992:
193-201.
Nevett l.c. 1999. House and Society in the Ancient Greek World.Cambridge.
paliou e. 2008. An autonomous agent approach to the investigation of intra-site
movement and visibility: The visual consumption of Theran Murals from the public
spaces of LBA Akrotiri (Thera, Greece).InposluschNYet al.200:32-335.
papacoNstaNtiNou d. 2006. Identifying Domestic Space in the Neolithic Eastern
Mediterranean(BARInternationalSeries,140).Oxford.
posluschNY, a. laMBers K. & herzog i. 2007. Layers of perception, Proceedings of the
35th conference on computer applications and quantitative methods in Archaeology,
CAA 2007, Berlin, 2-6 April 2007.Bonn.
pritchard J.B. 1975. Sarepta: a Preliminary Report of the Iron Age, Excavations of the
University Museum of the University of Pennsylvania, 1970-72 (MuseumMonographs).
Philadelphia.
putzeYs t. 2007. Contextual Analysis at Sagalassos: Developing a Methodology for
Classical Archaeology.Unpublisheddoctoralthesis,K.U.Leuven.
richards J. & vaN BureN M. (eds.) 2000. Order, Legitimacy and Wealth in Ancient
States.Cambridge.
riis p.J. 1970. Sks. 1: The north-east sanctuary and the frst settling of Greeks
in Syria and Palestine (Publications of the Carlsberg expedition to Phoenicia, 1).
Copenhagen.
shiloh Y. 1973. TheFour-RoomHouseTheIsraeliteType-House?EI 11:2-25.
tilleY c. 1994. A Phenomenology of Landscape: Places, Paths and Monuments.
Oxford.
trigger B.g. 1990. Monumental Architecture: a Thermodynamic Explanation of
SymbolicBehaviour.World Archaeology 22:119-132.
veNturi F. 2000. Le premier Age du Fer Tell Afs en Syrie Septentrionale.InBuNNeNs
2000:505-536.
WatsoN p.J. 1979. Archaeological ethnography in Western Iran.Tucson.
Weippert h. 1988. Review of Braemer 192. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palestina
Vereins 104:11-14.
YeiviN s. & avi-YoNah M. 1955. The Antiquities of Israel.TelAviv.
YoN M. & callot o. 1995. Urbanisme et Architecture.InYoNet al. 1995:155-16.
Terra Incognita (2010): 7-26
22
YoN M. & callot o. 1997. LhabitatOugarit.Incastelet al.199:15-2.
YoN M., szNYcer M. & Bordreuil p. (eds.) 1995.Le Pays dOugarit Autour de 1200 av.
J.-C., Histoire et Archologie, Actes du Colloque International Paris 28 juin-1er juillet
1993.(EditionsRecherchesurlesCivilisations).Paris.
Tom BRUGHMANS
23
Figure 3: a) Tell Afs feld E North levels 9a-8; b) Tell Afs feld E North level 7c; c) Tell Afs feld E North
levels 7ab-6; d) Tell Afs feld E North levels 5-3; e) Tell Afs feld E South levels 9a-8 (phase IV a); f)
Tell Afs feld E South levels 9a-8 (phase IVc); g) Chatal Hyk Area IV a level 5; h) Chatal Hyk Area
I level 10; i) Chatal Hyk Area II level 10. Possible individual buildings are marked on the plans with
Roman numbers.
Terra Incognita (2010): 7-26
24
Figure 4: j) Chatal Hyk Area V level 2; k) Chatal Hyk Area I level 7; l) Chatal Hyk Area I levels 8-
9; m) Hama sectors N16-O17 level F2; n) Hama sectors N16-O17 level F1; o) Chatal Hyk Area II level
9. Possible individual buildings are marked on the plans with Roman numbers.
Tom BRUGHMANS
25
Figure 5: p) Hama sector O12 level F2; q) Hama sector O12 level F1; r) Ras Ibn Hani level 1; s) Hama
sector F11 level F; t) Ras Ibn Hani level 2a; u) Ras Ibn Hani level 2b; v) Tell al-Judaidah level 10; w)
Tell al-Judaidah level 9; x) Tell Kazel feld IV level 4; y) Tell Kazel feld IV level 3. Possible individual
buildings are marked on the plans with Roman numbers.
Terra Incognita (2010): 7-26
26
Figure 6: z) Tell Kazel feld II level 5; aa) Sarepta sounding Y level E2; ab) Sarepta sounding Y level E1;
ac) Sarepta sounding Y level D2; ad) Sarepta sounding Y level D1; ae) Tell Sukas complexes I and VII;
af) Tell Sukas complex V; ag) Tyre stratum XIII; ah) Tyre stratum XII phase 1; ai) Tyre stratum XII
phase 2; aj) Tyre stratum XI; ak) Tyre stratum X. Possible individual buildings are marked on the plans
with Roman numbers.
Tom BRUGHMANS