Space Matters: A Reflection on Archaeological Theory and Method for Interpreting the Materiality of Space

,Monika Baumanová

doi:10.24916/iansa.2016.2.6

Abstract

Every paradigm in the history of archaeological theory has in some way dealt with space in interpreting the archaeological record; either bringing it into the spotlight or using it to assist descri ...

Highlights

Spatial analyses in archaeology have so far been more widely applied and developed than discussed as theory-laden
The popularity of the built environment in archaeological research has changed through the history of the discipline, which may have more to do with its perceived suitability for the specific nature of some archaeological enquiry, rather than theavailability of data
Structural approaches as a school of thought in archaeology have been developed as a theory as well as a set of analytical tools for studying space, yet often they have been subject to misconceptions about their applicability

Summary

Introduction

Spatial analyses in archaeology have so far been more widely applied and developed than discussed as theory-laden. Primarily not focused on developing new analytical tools for spatial analyses, the post-processual paradigm brought us countless case studies demonstrating that space is not just a setting, and a reference to social phenomena, a tool of social change and contextual interpretation Constructed space needs to be contextualized in terms of temporality and the way people understand their production of built space in relation to the passage of time (Simonetti 2013; Zubrow 2013) This stream of thought has been elaborated upon in archaeological studies of architecture (e.g. Johnson 1993; Parker Pearson, Richards 1994; Steadman 2015) that in turn greatly influenced the way archaeologists conceptualize space, having moved from seeing it as a reflection of culture towards a “habit of mind” (Gurevich, Howlett 1992, 4) and an active agent in social negotiations (Laurence 1996). If we consider the origin and nature of these shortcomings in more detail, we may begin to disentangle how the two main perspectives on space may be used to complement each other and begin to remedy some of their respective disadvantages

Analyses of constructed spatial features

Structuralism and structural analyses of space

Swahili house power model

Conclusion