Oxford Ayan Et Alli 2003

7/29/2019 Oxford Ayan Et Alli 2003

1/22

ArchaeotectureArchaeology of Architecture

Edited by

Xurxo M. Ayn VilaRebeca Blanco Rotea

Patricia Maana Borrazs

BAR International Series 11752003


2/22

This title published by

ArchaeopressPublishers of British Archaeological ReportsGordon House

276 Banbury RoadOxford OX2 7EDEngland

[email protected]

BAR S1175

Archaeotecture: Archaeology of Architecture

the individual authors 2003

ISBN 1 84171 543 3

Printed in England by The Basingstoke Press

All BAR titles are available from:

Hadrian Books Ltd122 Banbury RoadOxfordOX2 7BP

[email protected]

The current BAR catalogue with details of all titles in print, prices and means of payment is available

free from Hadrian Books or may be downloaded from www.archaeopress.com


3/22

i

Contents

List of contributors

iii

Prefacev

Chapter 1Archaeotecture: seeking a new archaeological vision of Architecture

Xurxo M. Ayn Vila, Rebeca Blanco Rotea & Patricia Maana Borrazs1

Chapter 2 Archaeology of Architecture: theory, methodology and analysis from Landscape

Archaeology

Rebeca Blanco Rotea, Patricia Maana Borrazs & Xurxo M. Ayn Vila17

Chapter 3

Archaeological analysis and intervention in historical buildingsLuis Caballero Zoreda

41

Chapter 4Methodology and systems of analysis: The Chteau at Mayenne

Rob Early61

Chapter 5 House Ethnoarchaeology in Ethiopia. Some elements for the analysis of domestic

space in Benishangul

Alfredo Gonzlez Ruibal & Vctor M. Fernndez Martnez83

Chapter 6 On Architecture & Archaeology. Reading Norberg-Schulz in a prehistoric context

Curry Heimann99

Chapter 7 The Architect in Classical Architecture

Nick Eiteljorg107

Chapter 8 Presenting the Roman Villa:The Villa di Orazio, Licenza, and the Villa del

Discobolo, Capocotta

Martin Goalen & Diane Fortenberry113

Chapter 9

The Baths of Odessos as a Space Providing Employment for its CitizesAnna Haralambieva

121

Chapter 10Excavations in the County Gaol of Chaves

Srgio Carniro125

Chapter 11The Archaeology of Space

Robina McNeil143

Chapter 12 An Estate House at the 15th Excavation Area of the Selitrennoie Site

Emma Zilivinskaya155


4/22

ii

Chapter 13An Archaeological Vision of A Medieval Town

Mindaugas Bertaius167

Chapter 14A practical example of the Archaeology of Architecture: Its application within the

chronological discussion about the Early-Medieval Hispanic churches

M ngeles Utrero Agudo, Luis Caballero Zoreda & Fernando Arce Sainz173

Chapter 15The medieval monastery of San Andrs de Astigarribia, Mutriku (Gipuzkoa,

Spain)

Jess Manuel Prez Centeno & Amagoia Pa Aranguren189

Chapter 16The archaeological study of San Esteban de Atn (Lugo-Spain). A Pre-Romanesque, Romanesque or Modern church?

Fernando Arce Sainz & M ngeles Utrero Agudo 197

Chapter 17Rethoric and design in premodern buildings

Dragos Gheorghiu

205

Chapter 18The Propylaea project

Harrison Eiteljorg, II213

Chapter 19Conservation plans and Private Sector Development

Gerald A. Wait219


5/22

iii

List of contributors

Fernando Arce Sainz([email protected])

Instituto de Historia,Departamento de Historia Antigua yArqueologa,Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientficas(CSIC)Madrid, Spain

Xurxo M. Ayn Vila([email protected])

Laboratorio de ArqueoloxaInstituto de Estudios Galegos Padre SarmientoConsejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientficas

(CSIC) Xunta de Galicia (XuGA)Galicia, Spain

http://www-gtarpa.usc.es/

Mindaugas Bertaius([email protected])

Department History of ArtsVytautas Magnus UniversityKaunas, Lithuania

Rebeca Blanco Rotea

([email protected])Laboratorio de ArqueoloxaInstituto de Estudios Galegos Padre SarmientoConsejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientficas(CSIC) Xunta de Galicia (XuGA)Galicia, Spain


Luis Caballero Zoreda([email protected])

Centro de Estudios Histricos,Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientficas(CSIC)Madrid, Spain

Srgio Carniro([email protected])

Cmara Municipal de ChavesChaves, Portugal

Rob Early([email protected])

Oxford Archaeological Unit

Orford, United Kingdom

Harrison Eiteljorg, II([email protected])

CSA, Bryn Mawr, PAUSA

http://csanet.org/

Nick Eiteljorg([email protected])

CSA, Bryn Mawr, PAUSAhttp://csanet.org/

Vctor M. Fernndez Martnez

([email protected])Universidad Complutense de MadridMadrid, Spain

Diane Fortenberry([email protected])

Academy Projects (Archaeology Architecture)LLPLondon, United Kingdom

http://www.academyprojects.com

Dragos Gheorghiu([email protected])

University of Arts Bucharest, Romania /University of Missouri-Columbia, USA

Martin Goalen([email protected])

Academy Projects (Archaeology Architecture)LLPLondon, United Kingdom

http://www.academyprojects.com

Alfredo Gonzlez Ruibal([email protected])

Universidad Complutense de MadridMadrid, Spain

Anna Haralambieva([email protected])

Cultural and Historical Heritage BoardVarna, Bulgaria


6/22

iv

Curry Heimann([email protected])

Department of ArchaeologyGteborg University,Box 200, SE - 405 30Gteborg, Sweden.

Patricia Maana Borrazs([email protected])

Laboratorio de ArqueoloxaInstituto de Estudios Galegos Padre SarmientoConsejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientficas(CSIC) Xunta de Galicia (XuGA)Galicia, Spain


Robina McNeil([email protected])

Greater Marchester Arch UnitThe University of ManchesterManchester, United Kingdom

Jess Manuel Prez Centeno([email protected])

Department of Historical Archaeology,Society of Sciences AranzadiDonostia-San Sebastian, Euskadi, Spain

Amagoia Pa Aranguren

Department of Historical Archaeology,Society of Sciences AranzadiDonostia-San Sebastian, Euskadi, Spain

M Angeles Utrero Agudo([email protected])

Instituto de Historia,Departamento de Historia Antigua yArqueologa,Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientficas(CSIC)Madrid, Spain

Dr Gerald A. Wait([email protected])

Associate, Gifford and Partners LtdCarlton House, Ringwood RdWoodland, SouthamptonSO40 7HTUnited Kingdom

Emma Zilivinskaya([email protected])

Institute of Archaeology, Russian Academy ofScienceMoscow State UniversityMoscow, Russia


7/22

v

Preface

This volume has been produced by the European Association of Archaeologists (EAA) as a resultof the contributions presented by different authors during the sessions held under the generalheading of Architectural Archaeology in Lisbon (Portugal) in 2000, and in Esslingen (Germany)

in 2001, both of which were co-ordinated by the editors of this volume. Archaeotecture:Archaeology of Architecture is a compilation of the majority of the papers presented during thesesessions, organised according to their subjects or the chronological periods they cover. All of themshare a common factor: the study of constructions and architectonic spaces, analysed from anarchaeological perspective.

The interest shown in the communications presented during these EAA sessions with acommon epigraph and complementary focus, together with the need to publicise the studies carriedout within the framework of Architectural Archaeology, has led the organisers to promote the

publication of the details of these different investigations. Its introduction contains texts with anessentially theoretical and methodological content that make it possible to establish anapproximation towards architecture from archaeological perspectives, and then offers a series ofexamples in which these or other methodologies have been put into practice. Most of these studiesfocus on constructions from historical periods, essentially motivated by the fact that an important

part of our remaining architectonic heritage belongs to these periods, meaning that this is the fieldin which Architectural Archaeology has developed to its fullest extent. In fact, its appearance was

partly motivated by the need to adopt new methodologies that made it possible to study post-classical constructions from an archaeological perspective, as the objects of study were no longersubterranean sites, but instead buildings that were still standing, in many cases still in use, andapplying construction techniques using non-perishable materials. This fact excluded its applicationto other constructions, generally from pre- and proto-historic periods, that were often built using

perishable materials, and concentrated on the study of monumental architecture.One of the aims of this volume was to gather together the different analyses that have been

carried out into all types of architecture, regardless of their chronology or type, thereforeovercoming the above-mentioned situations. The studies gathered in this volume cover achronological period that starts with Prehistory and continues to the present day, concentrating

equally on the analysis of wooden archaeological structures and monumental architecture built instone.Another of the objectives of these sessions (as explained in Chapter 1) was to demonstrate

that investigation and management are two inseparable elements within the study of heritageconstructions, as demonstrated by some of the studies included that discuss the application ofArchitectural Archaeology in Heritage Management. Since holding these sessions, it is now heldthat this is the path the discipline should follow, as the disassociation between basic and appliedinvestigation reduces its potential, and poses a hurdle to making the best use of the results obtainedfrom basic investigation. In this sense, the possibilities for application offered by ArchitecturalArchaeology in designing plans for the direction of old towns, the creation of maps detailingregional techniques, carrying out architectonic restoration projects, the conservation of heritageconstructions or the interpretation of vanished architectonic spaces, should be taken into accountwhen dealing with architectonic studies from this discipline, which are often reduced to merely

using their methodological instruments.Although this volume is not a compendium of all of the theoretical and methodologicalapproximations, perspectives and proposals in use today in Architectural Archaeology, it doesoffer a detailed description of the different types of projects that have been carried out in Europe inrecent years.

Xurxo Ayn Vila

Rebeca Blanco RoteaPatricia Maana Borrazs


8/22

1

1

Archaeotecture:

seeking a new archaeological vision of Architecture

Xurxo M. Ayn Vila; Rebeca Blanco Rotea & Patricia Maana Borrazs

Laboratorio de Arqueoloxa - Instituto de Estudios Gallegos Padre Sarmiento (CSIC-XuGa), Santiago de Compostela, Spain

Abstract

On last decades Architecture gave rise to interesting approaches about new themes. A lot of these subjects were hardlystudied from traditional Archaeology. In this way, for example, architectural remains only were analysed starting from aformalist and typological approach, although its importance as material reflection of social processes.

Today the need has been imposed to widen the perspectives of investigation, assimilating new lines which make itpossible to maximise the information which comes from the constructed space. This need is justified by questions suchas the inconsistency of studying the architectonic record, and overcoming the investigative tradition which evendefended the impossibility of dealing with a social and integral interpretation of this record.

Despite these conditioning factors, alternative studies and analytical instruments were developed recently in a new field

of research, designed Architectural Archaeology. This discipline embrace different methodologies: Formal analysis orprimitive architecture; the study of vertical stratigraphy, particularly used in the study of Mediaeval sites; the functionaland symbolic analysis which recognises the social factors and symbolic aspects of architecture; the study of thesymbolic use of space with non-verbal communication are all aspects which are dealt with in the study of thearchitecture of past societies.

Therefore, Archaeology of Architecture offers new methodologies of analysis for new visions about built record.However, actually it is necessary a theoretical and methodological systematisation which let to carry out a definition ofArchaeology of Architecture like a specific work line within Archaeology. This is the main objective of this chapter.

Introduction

The lengthy predominance of an atheoretical Archaeologymarginalised the creation of new proposals or ways ofarchaeologically rethinking the concept of architecture andarchitectonic space as an object of study within ourdiscipline. This lack of critical consideration lead to the useof a traditional concept of space within Prehistory andArchaeology that had become reduced to a natural andgeographical problem, somewhere to occupy or exploit.From the nineteenth century onwards, in line withbourgeois rationality, space was considered as nature to beexploited, reducing it to its territorial dimension to adominated space, to be divided up, measured and sold.Within a modern system of knowledge, space has beendiscredited in relation to time (Criado 1993b): as Foucault

indicated, the first is seen as immobile and dead, whereastime is rich and productive, leaving space in thebackground, following times instructions (Foucault 1979).

Only the new theoretical concepts of space and theirinterpretation in the field of Philosophy and Architecture(Van de Ven 1981; Rapoport 1982; Giedion 1988; Baker 1994,1998; Ching 1995; Hillier 1996) would form the foundationsmaking it possible for archaeologists to interpret the socialactions reflected in the architectonic register of pastsocieties. Within the field of Architectonic space investigationhas moved between two different approaches (Norberg-Schulz 1980: 9-13):

Those based on three-dimensional, Euclidean space,which study its grammar: they are based on thedevelopment of geometric models in two or three

dimensions, forming part of the syntax of architectonicspace;

Those that attempt to develop a theory about the

foundations of psychology of perception, particularly theimpressions and sensations of viewers and studies of theeffects which they are offered.

Both of these types of study are deficient in part. Thefirst is so because it has excluded humanity from theequation, and discusses abstract geometry. The second isbecause it has reduced space and architecture toimpressions, ignoring space as an existential dimension andas a relationship between man and his surroundings. Aspatial study of an architectonic construction which is notintegrated within the rationality which created it thereforeends up as distorted and meaningless. The concept of spacehas become a notion with a single meaning (place, three

dimensional space, etcetera), to be evaluatedmultidimensionally, considering both its concept as aphysical matrix, and the perception mankind has of it, aswell as its implicit cultural significance. Thismultidimensional space is directly related to the pattern ofrationality, which Lvi-Strauss calls thought (Lvi-Strauss1964) of the society which creates it and lives it out;architecture is also the most evident way of giving aphysical aspect to the spatial concepts of this rationality.Perhaps the study of the spatiality of a past society may bethe best way of understanding their rationality, as language,the essential communicator of thought, does not endure.

These two movements have been precisely the

itineraries followed by archaeological practice when dealingwith the architectonic form of the object being studied,conditioning the appearance and development of so-called


9/22

Archaeotecture: seeking a new archaeological vision of Architecture

2

Archaeology of Architecture (Steadman 1996; Snchez 1998).The following text is a brief summary of the processfollowed.

Archaeology of Architecture: thecurrent situation

Unlike other tendencies which have arisen from within ourdiscipline in recent decades (such as Spatial Archaeology orLandscape Archaeology), in the case of Archaeology ofArchitecture there is still present not only a conceptual andterminological imprecision of the idea, but also of the actualhistorigraphic field within which it is contained.Archaeology of Architecture here would be yet anotherdemonstration of the fragmentation suffered by the archaeo-historical discourse in the crisis of Post-modernism, theresult of assuming an interdisciplinary perspective and asubsequent approximation to other social sciences.

Although this movement has been defined within the

last three decades in this context, the architectonic recordhas been dealt with previously by Archaeology using otherparameters, as we shall now see.

The starting point. Traditional approaches

Historical-cultural Archaeology

Despite its importance, architecture has been traditionallystudied in Archaeology from a formal and typologicalperspective, more fitting of Art History. Although it is truethat in other fields in recent decades there has been adevelopment in theoretical and methodological alternativesfor studying the architectonic record, this enormously

limited vision prevails in the context of archaeologicalinvestigation.. If we are to suggest magnifying theinformation which this part of the record may offer towards

the comprehension of a past social formation, thenarchaeology has to develop a technique which uses spatialand methodological analysis together with social theory asan interpretative framework (Samson 1990).

This social Archaeology of Architecture has yet toappear, as the problem has only been dealt with to date

from five theoretical-methodological positions, which wereoriginally developed in the European context by theethnographic discipline:

- Formalist and aesthetic interpretation: constructions areconceived as objects studied from a merelydescriptive angle, emphasising their mostoutstanding morphological features.

- Typological study: there is a systemisation of theformal variations which appear in the architectureunder study; types of floor plan, constructiontechnique, etcetera.

- Evolutionist interpretations: changes in constructioncorrespond to a historical process marked by a

tendency towards the increasing complexity of anoriginal architectonic type.

- Social and geographic diffusion: changes in constructiondo not correspond to an endogenous evolution, butinstead to the arrival of new architectonic concepts.This transformation may, in turn, be the consequenceof social contact between different communities orthe appearance of members of foreign populations.

- Geographic determinism: everything related toarchitecture is basically determined byenvironmental factors: the availability of rawmaterials, meteorological conditions, characteristicsof the landscape, etcetera.

TRADITIONAL

ARCHAEOLOGYARCHITECTURE AS THE OBJECT OF STUDY

Denomination Archaeography /

Pretheoretical Archaeology

Theory Art History

Ontology Objects/forms

Method Chronotypological series

Stratigraphic readingTechnique Excavation (Wheeler method)

Objective Periodisation

Interpretative framework Evolutionism

Diffusionism

Historicism-cultural

Historic Particularism

Epistemology Pretheoretical Positivism

Secondary role of the architectonic record in the investigation

Conception of the building as an object in itself.

Formalist and typological focus of Art History.

The study of architectonic remains is limited to formal descriptionand the analysis of building techniques.

Lack of interpretative models: investigation focuses on

architectonic form, without exploring its possible function ormeaning.

Geographic determinism: an architecture is fundamentallydetermined by environmental factors.

Social or geographical diffusionism: constructive changes do notcorrespond with an endogenous evolution, but are instead theconsequence of the arrival of new, foreign architectonic concepts.

Built space is not conceived as a social space = methodologies ofspatial analysis are not proposed, only descriptions of artefacts.

Table 1. Resume of archaeotectonic analysis of built space in Traditional Archaeology

Functionalist Archaeology

The concept of space in archaeological investigation hasbecome more firmly established thanks to Spatial

Archaeology. Previously, space was identified as merelysomething which contained the archaeological record, theunchanging backdrop to human activity throughout time. Itwas with the appearance of Spatial or Ecological


10/22

Archaeotecture: Archaeologyof Architecture

3

Archaeology in the 1960s 1970s that investigations werestarted into the relationship between man and his spatialenvironment. This investigative strategy was foundedwithin the field of New Archaeology, basically aimed atgiving a scientific explanation (objective and of universalvalue) of the phenomena which may be observed

empirically, concentrating on the discovery of their practicalfunctions. This functionalist archaeology,, both empiricaland processual, has gradually moved away from the field ofHistory, inclining more towards the Sciences.

This process, which started in both the United States andGreat Britain, is exemplified in the work of D. L. Clarke,particularly in his book Analytical Archaeology (1977) which

displays the great interest of the New Archaeologists inusing more sophisticated quantitative techniques, in whichit was possible to use computer technology and conceptsfrom other disciplines, particularly Geography. As well aschampioning the need to recognise the importance of spatialinformation in the archaeological record, they called for the

classification of its concepts, elements, models, methods andproblems through a new theory of spatial archaeologywhich would be the result of interconnection with otherSocial Sciences (1977: 7-8). This means the application ofmethodological techniques used by other disciplinesinterested in the study of spatial reality (regional ecology,geographical studies, etcetera).

FUNCTIONALIST ARCHAEOLOGY ARCHITECTURE AS THE OBJECT OF STUDY

Denomination New Archaeology

Theory Social anthropology

Ontology Archaeological record

Method Hypothetical-Deductive

Technique Excavation in area(Harris method)

Objective Social Process

Interpretativeframework

Neoevolutionism

Cultural Materialism

Systemic theory

Ecological anthropology

Epistemology Neopositivism

Architecture is a basic technology and instrument for social reproduction.

The architectonic units found within the settlements (micro level) are the keyto understanding the pattern of subsistence and the social structure.

Identification of areas of activity, which make it possible to define differentspaces, suggest the functionality and approximate a global interpretation ofsettlements.

The analysis of the distribution and associations of artefacts withinarchitectonic structures gives data for a social interpretation of the record.

Artefacts (buildings and objects), activities and functions of spaces are thebasis for a sociological interpretation of architectonic space.

SPATIAL ANALYSES OBJECTIVES

Tests of spatial randomness

Analysis of nearest neighbour

Regression analysis

Dimensional analyses of variance

Analysis of tendency surface

Definition of spatial patterns via a quantitative and/or statistical focus applied

to distributions of sites and artefacts.

Table 2. Resume of archaeotectonic analysis of built space in Funcionalist Archaeology

The main objective of spatial archaeology wouldtherefore be the study of spatial relationships betweenobjects, or spatial structure, within which it is possible todefine three levels or steps (Clarke 1977: 11-5), each ofwhich is subjected to its own methods and models whichmake it possible to see differently the factors of individual,

economic or social order which characterise all cultures:- Macro level: between-sites system. At Macro level,

the most widely used theoretical technique has beeneconomic spatial theory, based on the concept thathuman communities carry out their economicactivities according to three principles: maximisingresources, minimising costs, and the law of leasteffort. Initially conceived in monetary and economicterms, this theory is really a subtheory whichdeveloped from the general ecological theory ofexploiting resources. In this field locational modelswere developed taken from Geography (VonThnen, Weber, Christaller and Chisholm) using

quantitative techniques and analytical methods from

other disciplines (Hodder 1977; Hodder and Orton1990).

- Micro level: within the structures (small unitsgrouping together human activities and theirconsequences: houses, rooms, silos etcetera); at thisspatial level, personal and social, individual and

cultural factors predominate over economic factors.In this level relationships appear between artefactsand other artefacts, between artefacts and spaceswith resources, and between spaces with resourcesand other spaces with resources.

- Semi-Micro level: within the sites, at this level ofcommunal space social and cultural factors are ofgreater importance than economic factors. The site isconceived as a geographical space which contains agroup of human activities (or their consequences)and a group of structures: industrial complexes,domestic settlements, etcetera. At this levelrelationships appear between artefacts and other

artefacts, between structures and other structures,structures and spaces with resources, and between


11/22


4

spaces with resources and other spaces withresources.

This Spatial Archaeology dealt with, at micro and semi-micro scale, the architecture, urbanism and settlementmodels based on the proposals (Ucko et al. 1972)1: reflectedin Table 2.

To analyse and deal with this spatial data,methodological tools were applied to the archaeologicaldata which came from other disciplines also interested inthe study of spatial reality. For example, Clarkesinvestigation into the lake peoples of Glastonbury (Clarke1972) is a good practical example of this interdisciplinaryidea, as it applied new techniques which came fromarchitecture, and others from geography and ecologicalstudies at site scale, which offered a new archaeologicalperspective of the site being studied.

Although there is no doubt about the fundamentalcontribution2 which this processual Spatial Archaeology hasmeant for prehistoric investigation and archaeologicalinvestigation in general, its governing deterministic matrixlimited its projection enormously.

Postprocessual theoretical proposals

The theoretical proposals used by processual investigatorsare enclosed within a perspective which belongs to afunctionalism which is architectonic, mechanistic andoverly-simplistic, which sees the shape of a construction as aresponse to only physical causes (mainly constructionmaterials, landscape and climate). Postprocessualism wouldnot wish to invalidate the model which has been proposed,but was merely commenting on an implicit deficiencywithin it: the lack of emphasis given to the socialconventions which give shape to built space, a space whichalso obeys cultural demands (Rapoport 1972). It wastherefore necessary to widen this perspective with thecreation of a new interpretation which considers thesefactors inherent within architecture as activities which arehuman, and consequently cultural.

The multidimensionality of the architectonic record

The first step forward of postprocessualism in its dealingwith the architectonic record would be the recognition of itsmultidimensional character, conceiving architecture as atool for constructing a social reality. Here the discipline

1 Here the functionalist perspective may be fully appreciated. Itcontains the papers presented at the following the theoretical-methodological line marked in the preceding meeting about theDomestication and Exploitation of Plants and Animals. It analyses,from a cross-cultural perspective, non-urban settlements as well asthe phenomenon of urbanisation, dealing with differentconditioning factors such as the subsistence pattern, the presence ofresources and environment, etcetera.2 The main contributions of this movement have been the fosteringof space as an important theme within the field of archaeologicalinvestigation, the methodological renovation of the discipline,entering into the problems of population in primitive humansettlements, and the need to develop a settlement study within a

dual system of relationships: the ecological surroundings, and thesocial surroundings as a whole.

opened itself up to the Cultural and Symbolic Anthropologyunder the growing influence of contributions fromstructuralism (Lvi-Strauss and M. Foucault). Thisanthropological and subjectivist turn-around called for anarchaeology which deals with the relationships betweenconscious and unconscious data about ancient social life,

through the analysis of the archaeological record. Itsapplication to the study of prehistoric architecture (Hodder1990, 1994) and historic architecture (Glassie 1975; Johnson1993) was first made in an Anglo-Saxon context.

Architecture as an instrument for social action

Starting from sociological investigation (Bourdieu 1977;Giddens 1979) and using a social archaeology of inhabitedspaces, Postprocessual Archaeology proposes thehypothesis that dwellings, like the other elements ofmaterial culture, are a cultural product aimed atcommunicating information which was dealt with,consciously and unconsciously, by the collective which

lived in the settlement; it is a physical space in whichprehistoric social action takes place and is reproduced(Shanks and Tilley 1987). Dwelling domestic space offers alasting means of imposing schemes of social organisation; itis as much a reflection as an active generator of socialconduct, and should not therefore be only interpreted infunctional terms, but also in social terms (Locock 1994). Thehome exists on numerous levels of perception, and mayhave different meanings, which vary according to gender,age, status, daily activity, etcetera (Bailey 1990).

In the same way, architectonic space is essentially asocial space which is constructed culturally, a culturallandscape which fully participates in the construction of

symbolic apparatus, of the collective imagination and theritual practices of the community which builds it andinhabits it. Here, for example, architectonic forms appear tobe interrelated with sociological variables such as thefamily, lifestyle, intergroup solidarity or the system ofpower. Architectonic form may be defined as a humanproduct which uses a given reality (or physical space) tocreate a new reality: inhabited space, which is thereforesocial, which is given a symbolic meaning.

In this respect, buildings are not reduced to merelyarchitectonic objects, conditioned by a material context: onthe contrary, they should be analysed as a living entitywhich carried out an active role in the social constitution ofthe archaeological reality. From this perspective it ispossible to explore the social and symbolic undercurrentsbeneath the model of spatiality reflected in the interior ofsites (Hodder 1990; 1994).

Architecture as a technology of coercion

As a tool for the social construction of reality, architecturefunctions as yet another method of the governing system ofknowledge-power in each historical context, to maintainand reproduce social order (Foucault 1984). Architecture asa substantial element of material culture defines, restrictsand reproduces spaces of daily activity, (Miller and Tilley

1984; McGuire and Paynter 1991; Markus 1993; Parker andRichards 1994a, 1994b).


12/22


5

Architecture as a sign of non-verbalcommunication.

The influence of the semiotic proposals withinpostprocessualism (Barthes 1986; Eco 1968, 1986 and 1987)has made it possible for archaeological investigation toconsider a previously unseen face of Architecture, that of itscharacter as a sign of communication. Built space does notonly present a pragmatic functionality but is also a symbolic

object, as it transmits a message which is assimilatedunconsciously within the spatial framework of daily life(Rapoport 1982; Monks 1992). This perspective has beenapplied to the study of domestic and monumentalprehistoric architecture, revealing the existence of realarchitectonic and iconographic programmes in these

societies. Architectonic form is definitively a significantelement which transmits cultural meaning (Hodder 1994).

POST PROCESSUAL ARCHAEOLOGY

SYMBOLIC ARCHAEOLOGYARCHITECTURE AS THE OBJECT OF STUDY

Denomination Post Procesual Archaeology

Theory Cultural anthropology

Ontology Material Culture

Method Hermeneutic

Semiotic

Social theoryMarxism

Techniques Ethnoarchaeological

Historic Archaeology

Objective Interpretation of the past

Interpretativeframework

Structuralism

Post-structuralism

Epistemology Neo-rationalism

Built space does not only respond to social conventions, but also to culturaland symbolic demands.

Architecture is both a catalyst and product of social action, a technology forconstructing the social landscape. It participates in the construction of thesymbolic apparatus, the collective imaginarium, and ritual practices.

Architecture reproduces the pattern of rationality of a society, creating aspatial structure, spatial relationships which reflect a particular social logic.

A building is not reduced to a merely architectonic object; it is a materialentity which plays an active role in the social constitution of thearchaeological reality.

Investigation opts for interdisciplinary techniques, using elements fromAnthropology, Sociology and Ethnoarchaeology.

A notable methodological development; the design of new techniques ofspatial analysis.

SPATIAL ANALYSES OBJECTIVES

Functional and symbolic analysis (Blanton,

Hodder, Rapoport, Kent)Formal analysis (Ching, Baker, Criado)

Syntactic analysis of space (Hillier and Hanson,Steadman)

The study of the social and symbolic significance which underlies the patterns

of spatial organisation.The study of the symbolic use of space, non-verbal communication andprocesses of social construction of reality

SPECIFIC METHODOLOGIES OBJECTIVES

Analysis of accesses, gamma analysis, analysis ofcirculatory movement

Analysis of visibility

Analysis of visibility conditions

To study the permeability of spaces, of the control of accesses andmovement; identification of areas of private and public use, of a hierarchicalsystem and spatial organisation.

Dimensional analysis

Built: Unbuilt space ratios. (BUB ratios)

Dimension of dwellings (HD)

Analysis of space between dwellings (IHSA)

Alpha analysis

Analysis of the level of convex spatial articulation

Analysis of the level of axial spatial articulation

Analysis of the index of built space

Analysis of relative real asymmetry

The study of the size of domestic units, of demographic pressure insettlements, of the degree of interaction and/or division and socialcompetition. Identification of a symbolic undercurrent in the duration ofinhabited structures.

Table 3. Resume of archaeotectonic analysis of built space in Post-Procesual Archaeology


13/22


6

Architecture as a cultural landscape

A new conceptual framework is taken as a starting point,which overcomes the formalist concept of space assomething which is just there, as a static reality of physicaland environmental nature. Space is a social construct,imaginary, in continuous movement and deeply rooted inculture, with a close structural relationship in the strategiesof appropriating space between thought, socialorganisation, subsistence and conception-utilisation of theenvironment. Landscape, conceived as the objectivisation ofmaterial and imaginary social practises, is formed by threedifferent dimensions or levels: landscape as physical, socialand symbolic surroundings (Criado 1993a, 1993b, 1993c and1999).

This product is made up of different formal entitieswhich are spatially projected, forming a spatial structurewhich responds to a certain social logic. This spatialstructure is the product of a specific society which by way ofcertain spatial and architectonic technologies is able toreproduce the prevailing pattern of rationality.

Another theoretical and methodological frameworkused to overcome the deterministic spatial perspective isLandscape Archaeology (Criado 1999). Within thishistoriographical context (Bernardi 1992; Rossignol andWandsnider 1992); this orientation was created by way of aparticular perspective about archaeological practice and itsobjects of study, choosing to use the term landscape toovercome the formalist concept of space as somethingwhich is just there, like a static reality of physical andenvironmental order3. This is a new notion which, unlike

the former, makes it possible to consider spatial reality as aneminently social reality which is constructed culturally.(Criado 1993c, 1996b and 1996c). Space, therefore, is a socialand imaginary construction, in continuous movement anddeeply rooted within culture, with a close structuralrelationship within the strategies of appropriating spacebetween thought, social organisation, subsistence and theconcept-utilisation of the environment, with landscapeperceived as the objectification of material and imaginarysocial practices (Criado 1991 and 1993c).

According to this conceptual and theoretical framework,Landscape Archaeology is defined (Criado 1995: 8 and1996b: 17) as the inclusion of archaeological practice within

spatial co-ordinates: it aims to consider the record andMaterial Culture in a spatial matrix, and to simultaneouslyconvert space into the main object of archaeologicalinvestigation, although with the object of overcoming thelimitations of Environmental Spatial Archaeology. It doesnot stop with the reconstruction of primitive environments,but instead attempts to create models of theinterrelationships between imagined space, the use of spaceand social organisation in prehistoric communities.

This investigation starts with the theoretical proposal ofthe multidimensionality of landscape, meaning

3 For a criticism of the functionalist, empirical and modern conceptof space used in Archaeology, see Criado (1993a: 9-55).

archaeological analysis concentrates on its differentdimensions: economic (subsistence, exploitation ofresources), social (emplacement, monuments, territory), andsymbolic, seen in each of the material products from a socialgroup (habitats, architecture, art, ceramics). Each of thesefields is determined by spatial codes which are similar and

compatible with each other, and which offer relationships ofcompatibility and give spatial regularity, as they follow thesame strategy of social space and pattern of rationality..

Similarly, architectonic space, like the other formalelements of the record, is essentially a social space which isculturally constructed (Blanco et al. 2000; Maana et al.,2002; Ayn 2001). It is offered as the product or effect ofsocial action. Architecture may be defined as a technology forbuilding a social landscape, which by using artificial objects,tames the physical world, not only by introducing architectonicelements into natural space to organise it according to culturalreferences, but also by controlling and imposing the way thesurroundings are perceived by the individuals who use it (Criado

1999: 35). Architectonic space is a cultural landscape in thewidest possible sense, which fully participates in theconstruction of symbolic apparatus, the collectiveimagination and ritual practices of the community whichbuilds it and lives in it.

Archaeology of Architecture as amethodological instrument

Apart from and/or alongside the previously mentionedtheoretical proposals, in recent decades a compendium ofanalytical techniques and instruments has been developedwhich form a methodological body identified with the field

of Archaeology of Architecture. Of particular interest withinthis field is the study of wall stratigraphy (particularly inthe field of post-classic archaeology), and the analysesapplied to the study of domestic space.

Archaeology of Architecture and the study ofhistorical constructions

As we have mentioned, there are various types of analysesapplied to the study of historical constructions. Archaeologyof Architecture is the application of archaeologicalmethodology to the analysis of the material remains ofconstructed historical buildings. Human urban activity hascreated throughout time different material manifestations of

cultural material which we refer to as archaeological sites.We should therefore use the same system of analysis forelements which are the consequence of the same historicalgenesis, buildings and sites, whether these are raised aboveground or buried beneath it. Sites are the final expression ofhuman urbanising activity, when habitational groupsdefinitively lose sight of their function. The elements andremains of human activities conserved in these sites aremainly concerned with constructions, undoubtedlycontemporary and associable with the elements andactivities which gave rise to the standing buildings, andwhose remains are conserved within them. These elementsand activities which result from constructing buildings are

subjected to the same genesis as an underground site, andaccordingly we must use the same analytical technique asthat used when studying a site.


14/22


7

We will give a brief description of the analyticalmethodologies used by Archaeology of Architecture instudying historical buildings. They are denominatedchronological indicators for the type of chronology they giverise to. These types of strategy will depend on thecharacteristics of the object being analysed, or of the

problem we are trying to solve:- Reading of elevations or wall stratigraphy: thismethodology is based on the consideration of abuilding as a multi-stratified object, built throughouttime according to constructive-deconstructive anddiachronic processes. This methodology containsmicrostratigraphy, dedicated to the interpretation ofcoverings. Its working instruments are based on theso-called Harris Method.

- Chronotypology of tools and singular elements. Thisincludes the mensiochronology of modular elements.

- Analysis of materials: radiocarbon, analysis of plasterand mortar, dendochronology

- Written documentation: plans, documentary sources,epigraphs, etc.Archaeology of Architecture and the stratigraphicanalysis of elevations

Stratigraphic analysis or reading of elevation is an analyticalmethodology which belongs to Archaeology ofArchitecture. However, in the study of historic architecture,in particular from the Mediaeval period, we often committhe error of considering that Archaeology of Architecture isexclusively the reading of elevations, and we should thereforesituate it in its correct place, as a methodology for thestratigraphic analysis of historical constructions, which together

with other types of analyses form Archaeology ofArchitecture. We will concentrate on this methodology, as ithas been the most developed within the study of historicalarchitecture from an archaeological viewpoint.Nevertheless, it is important to point out that thismethodology would not be valid unless it has the support ofother types of complementary analysis.

We know that this is a very recent branch ofarchaeology, which started to be used in the 1970s and 80s,for different reasons: on one hand, the consideration ofbuildings as historical documents of an archaeologicalnature a historical value which Riegl had indicated in1903, or Torres Balbs in the 1920s (Latorre and Caballero

1995: 6-8), and which should therefore be studied with anarchaeological methodology (Caballero 1992; 1-2); on theother hand, the development of Mediaeval and post-Mediaeval archaeology, or post-Classic archaeology,according to Parenti (1995: 20). The better conservation ofthe remains of buildings, with regard to other older periodsimmersed within conventional archaeology, demanded theneed to develop a methodology of archaeological studywhich was fitted to this need, with the aim of elaborating amore exhaustive and rigorous analysis of constructionsfrom these periods.

All this explains why the greatest development inmethodologies for the archaeological study of architectures

integrated as an element of material culture, belonging to thestratification of the site(Quirs 1994: 141) has appearedprecisely within the field of Mediaeval archaeology.

According to Quirs (1994: 14), this methodology is one ofthe main contributions of Mediaeval Archaeology toArchaeology as a whole. He continues saying that in theshort experience of Mediaeval and post-Mediaevalarchaeology in Spain, and the arguments which still arisefrom it, have lead to a lack of more unitary proposals about

the application of Archaeology of Architecture. Followingthis line of development of post-classic archaeology, andcorroborating our comments, Mannoni (1994: 65) states thatthe conservation of a greater wealth of archaeologicalremains from Mediaeval and post-Mediaeval civilisations,with regard to ancient civilisations, contributed to theincreased interest of archaeologists in raised constructions,with increased transfer of methodologies and workinginstruments from different disciplines to one sector oranother. In summary, Archaeology of Architecture began todevelop fully starting out from the consideration ofmonuments as historical objects with an archaeological aswell as architectonic character, and an increased interest bypost-classic archaeology, which by varying thecharacteristics of the objects it studied, made necessary thedevelopment of a new methodology adapted to itsrequirements.

In order to be able to carry out a study of historicalconstructions within Archaeology of Architecture, weshould start out with the idea that an architectonic buildingis an archaeological site, which belongs to Material Culture,and as such is susceptible to study using archaeologicalmethods4.

We should also remember that architectonic structuresare not the abandoned remnants of material culture whichare no longer used, but instead living structures, dynamic,

which change and evolve throughout time5

, as well ashaving an urbanistic, social and functional value asimportant as their role as a historical document andarchaeological object. This means that we must seek out asuitable methodology for study, characterised by being non-destructive, as is the case with Archaeology of Architecture,compared to archaeology of the site buried away(Caballero 1996b: 2). Buildings are above ground level,meaning it is easy to examine them without dismantlingthem, being able to easily observe all of the constructedparts. When this is not the case, due to the existence ofelements covering others, such as plaster, we do then moveon to a destructive process; here the documental andanalytical stage comes before any intervention, and must beparticularly rigorous, as in this way all the useful

4 We would add some words by Azkarate (1995: 65) which perfectlyillustrate this idea: this working methodology considers the building asa vertical extension of the subsoil, as the elements which form it in bothcases are the product of an archaeological stratification (although in verydifferent states of conservation) and as such, the product of constructiveand destructive activity and transformations brought about by man, aswell as actions due to natural agents.5 According to Parenti, the greater attention paid to constructiontechniques based on the development of post-classic archaeology,

have lead to the observation that fabrication is the result of a seriesof constructive activities which occur throughout time (1995: 20).


15/22


8

information that could be lost or altered during work isgathered together.

Unfortunately, many of Italys palaces and churches areonly studied by historians of art and architecture who, only onrare occasions, are experts in stratigraphy (Carandini 1997:115). This statement perfectly illustrates the gaps that exist

in the study of architecture, limited until now to analysisfrom a stylistic-artistic viewpoint, or structural-functional,and now, from stratigraphic readings. Although these typesof studies obviously give us new data about the building,they are still only partial studies, which need to becompleted by analyses which deal with a widerunderstanding of the buildings history. According toCaballero (1996b: 1) Our method is better prepared for datingand understanding the building as a historical document including in its historical facets from the chronological aspect tosocial and aesthetic interpretation, yet this should not lead to usinvalidating other methods. Logically these will fall into disuse(...), if they are indeed less useful than the new instruments,although it is possible that in some cases their abilities are stillvalid. Furthermore, these methods are our predecessors, and weshould see our beginnings reflected in their historiography 6. Webelieve that these studies may lend very useful data to ourmethodology, and accordingly we should bear them inmind and not reject them as out-of-date. Neither shouldArchaeology of Architecture be limited to a simple readingof its elevations, in the same way that conventionalarchitecture should not be limited to the excavation andrecovery of remains of material culture. Archaeology ofArchitecture should administer, study and conserve part of theMaterial Culture of past societies. We should point out,however, that there are some authors who do not agree withthe priority nature of the stratigraphic methodology of

elevation readings, as is the case with Bonelli, whoconsiders that stratigraphic archaeology is no more than atechnique at the service of Architectural History (1986: 5),although it would help with obtaining a deeperunderstanding and enrichment.Neither should we see Archaeology of Architecture as aradical innovation in constructive analysis (Caballero 1996b:1). Historians of art and architecture, and evenarchaeologists, have already used analytical processes usedfor dating and comprehension, using formal typologies orthose with chronological value (Gmez 1970: 361-90).

Elsewhere, as Quirs states (1994: 141), despite the factthat there are quite regular references to wall stratigraphy

and Archaeology of Architecture, although to a lesserdegree, there is no full theoretical or methodological debateabout the problems related to it, constantly referring toexperiences in Italy. We should not forget that thisdiscipline, in particular the study of historical buildingswith an archaeological method, has its roots in Italy, whereArchaeology of Architecture appeared as a consequence of

6 The validity of stratigraphic analysis lies in the fact that thereading of elevations, and, by extrapolation, Archaeology of Architecture,make it possible to recover, for the history of architecture, architectonicobjects which, in any other case, either would not have been considered as

architecture, or would not have become a source for our understandingbecause of their apparent difficulty (Caballero 1996b: 2).

the development of post-classical Archaeology and as anapplication of the stratigraphic method referred to as theHarris method [Caballero 2001: 19]. Carandini started todevelop this methodology in the 1970s, although it wasdefined and perfected in the 1980s through the proposals ofTiziano Mannoni in the University of Genova, mainly

developed by Roberto Parenti in the University of Sienna,and later by Gian Pietro Brogiolo in the University of Padua,and Francesco Doglioni in the University of Venice.

However, there are four centres of investigation in Spainwhich apply an archaeological methodology to historicalconstructions, from two viewpoints (which have animportant historiographic tradition in our country, withGmez Moreno, Vicente Lamprez or Torres Balbs, amongothers; see Caballero 1996c: 1): one archaeological, andanother restorative. These are the Servei de Catalogaci iConservaci de Monuments of the Diputaci de Barcelona; theCentro de estudios Histricos of the CSIC, the Departamento deArqueologa de la Universidad de Vitoria, in the Basque

Country (with these last two working in close collaboration)and the Laboratorio de Arqueologa y Formas Culturales, fromthe University of Santiago de Compostela.

- El Servei de Catalogaci i Conservaci de Monuments hascarried out an approximation to the building from arestorative viewpoint (Gonzlez et al., 1990). Itsworking system is aimed at extracting the maximumamount of information, both structural and social,using three basic proposals:- Scientific precision in the recognition and analysis of

the building, calling for a documental andarchaeological investigation using among thesea stratigraphic reading in order to understand the

historical stages of the building previous orparallel to architectonic intervention. Thishistorical-archaeological documentation isconsidered by its members as an essentialprevious stage before carrying out anarchitectonic restoration7.

- The exact diagnosis of the problems surroundingthe buildingK, of its technical aspects, its value ofuse and its expectations from a historical andaesthetic point of view.

-An answer adapted to the particular problems of eachbuilding considering, on one hand, the functionalrole of the building, and on the other the

restorers creative liberty: the license to act on amonument giving it new architecture, is born ofthe monuments historical essence. If this is theresult of adding architecture from differentperiods, then why deny it the testimony of ourown architecture? (Gonzlez 1990: 12). Analysis

7 considering the monument as a historical document demands givingpriority to it deserving a scientific historical investigation, within whicharchaeological excavation is an essential and undeniable aspect. There isless unanimity with regard to the role which historical investigation playswithin the restorative process. In our opinion, this role is essentiallyinformative: obtaining all of the useful information, especially that which

is given by material remains which may be lost or irreversibly altered byarchitectonic intervention (Gonzlez 1990: 12).


16/22


9

of mural stratigraphy is not considered an end initself, but instead the starting point for recoveringthe volumetry of different stages of the building,and then to propose a restoration project inwhich these volumes may be recovered.

The following two investigative groups (Centro de

Estudios Histricos del CSIC and rea de Arqueologa de laUniversidad de Vitoria) have carried out stratigraphicanalyses, using a historical-archaeological evaluation(although in some cases these analyses would have servedas the basis for restoration projects in some of the buildingsstudied).

- Centro de Estudios Histricos del CSIC, directed byCaballero Zoreda, whose work is based on themethodological discussion of the analysis ofelevations and its application to restorativediagnosis. Their basic methodological proposals arecontained in these four points:- the proposal of an investigative project of a

scientific nature, for the study of historicalbuildings

- the detailed examination of buildings using themethodology of elevation readings, in a state ofcontinual reflection and with the advancement ofboth its techniques and documentation methods,as well as the analysis of historical buildings,particularly with reference to the documentationof the building through stratigraphic readings,and computerised analytical photogrametry(Caballero and Fernndez 1996d: 6)

- perfect graphic documentation, particularly ifrestoration is underway

- the need to carry out a social projection of theseinvestigations, both with regard to the restorationof buildings and their reassessment and socialpromotion (Caballero and Fernndez 1996d: 7)

- rea de Arqueologa de la Universidad de Vitoria, leadby Agustn Azkrate. Its investigations payparticular attention to information from writtendocumentation, leaving space for it prior to anyintervention, as it may offer a precise chronologyabout work which has taken place within thebuilding. Thanks to these studies, the constructivepanorama of some of the churches of the province ofAlava has been enriched, as until recently these had

been considered as belonging to a single period(Caballero and Fernndez 1996d: 8; Azkrate 1996).

We should also mention that in the University of Sevillethere is a group currently taking shape under the leadershipof Miguel A. Tabales Rodrguez.

Finally, and bearing in mind the comments of Quirs(1994: 142), we would say that historical constructions, bothbecause of their volume, significance and social role, as wellas their functional continuity, are one of the mostnoteworthy inherited heritage objects. This complexityobliges us to discover a methodology of study which ischaracterised by analytical systematisation and scientific

order, as well as being adaptable to different situations: itmust be both scientific and flexible. The starting point is

stratigraphic analysis, which makes it possible to interpretmaterial remains historically.

Household Archaeology

Despite its importance, the study of domestic architecturehas traditionally been carried out from a formalist and

typological viewpoint more befitting Art History. Tomaximise the amount of information which may be givenby a dwelling in order to understand a past socialformation, some archaeologists developed a way of dealingwith it which uses spatial analysis as a methodology andsocial theory as an interpretative framework.

These analyses appear within the framework of so-calledSettlement Archaeology (Ucko 1972) and HouseholdArchaeology (Wilcj and Rathje 1982; Allison 1999) which tracetheir origins back to New Archaeology. Here are containedsuccessive investigations which analyse the interactionbetween architecture and environment, the structure ofparentage, domestic space and the spatial articulation of

domestic units, using the ethnoarchaeological analogy andcross-cultural studies as a working strategy (Kent 1990;Blanton 1994).

With the aim of shedding light on these spatialrelationships and defining the areas of activity withindomestic space, various methodological instruments havebeen designed, including the syntactic analysis of spacewhich contemplates methodologies which use analyses ofaccess, visibility and circulatory movement (Hillier andHanson. 1984; Blanton 1994; Foster 1989; Steadman 1996)Analysis of the significant spatial relationships betweenobjects contained in the record makes it possible tominimally reconstruct their context, and part of their

original significance. The study of these spatial relationshipsbetween elements, their spatial structure, makes it possibleto not only see the spatial logic of a particular community,in this case the collection of interspatial relationships whichhelped build a society, but also the actual social logic of thatspace.

Purpose and applications of Archaeology ofArchitecture

Archaeology of Architecture, as a development withinArchaeology, forms part of Historys full rights. Its purpose is toinfer historical conclusions from the flow of data achieved from itsapplication to a construction, from its chronological sequence to

its meaning (Caballero 1996a: 1). Although this is the mainpurpose of architecture as a discipline of historicalknowledge, it is not the only one, as we will now see.

As we have already said, built heritage is a disorderedfinal product (Azkarate 1998: 105), a site in which numerouspast remains are gathered, making it a historical document,which we have to decode and read using analyticaltechniques from the field of archaeology. Starting with thispremise, Archaeology of Architecture becomes aninstrument related to other fields apart from history,enriching and widening its perspectives (we refer toAzkarate 1998, from whom we have selected the followingpurposes and applications of Archaeology of Architecture).

- An instrument of historical knowledge. The traditionalpostures of History of Architecture and Art tend tovalue constructed heritage based on aesthetic


17/22


10

criteria, creating constructive models which tie downthe structures in time. They are classified asexclusively belonging to a single artistic style,forgetting that they are often a disordered productwhich is not the result of one but several styles. Thereading of elevations when identifying,

individualising and dating the constructive stages ofthe building makes it possible for us to recover thefinal product, although without forgetting the marksof time and all of the buildings historical stages.

- An instrument for restorative diagnosis. thearcheologia delledilizia storica has a future, as it isbeneficial for the projects and objectives of architectsthemselves (Azkarate 1998: 106). The production ofdetailed documentation, including the reading ofelevations, comes before the undertaking of therestoration project, may help architects in takingcertain decisions, such as the solution of pathologiesidentified thanks to this examination. Frequently, therestoration projects of some buildings have passedover some constructive stages because of the lack ofinformation about them, and given more attention toother styles. This problem would be solved by adetailed analysis of the building8.

- An instrument for conservation. Stratigraphic analysis,thanks to the lack of historical documentation, thedetailed study of all built elements, and differenttypes of graphic representation (such asphotogrametric reconstructions) of the buildings,contributes to the creation of documents aboutconstructed heritage which help with itsconservation when there has been destruction oraggressive restoration, thus becoming a first-rateinstrument for conservation.

- Acquisition of new study instruments. Byindividualising the constructive units of the buildingand articulating them in a chronological sequence,we are able to characterise constructive techniques.Thanks to this, atlases of building techniques arenow being produced, together withmensiochronological studies and tipochronologicaltables, instruments which support stratigraphicanalysis and archaeology and architecture in general.

- An instrument for the diachronic analysis of urbanstructure. As we have seen, stratigraphic analysishelps us to establish the diachronic sequence of abuilding, although if we extrapolate it to widerenvironments, applying it to urban nuclei, it ispossible to establish the evolution of an inhabitedcentre, and graphically represent its temporalsequence.

In summary, considering all that has gone before, theapplications of a reading of elevations would be thefollowing:

8 As previously mentioned, and in order to illustrate archaeology asan instrument for restorative diagnosis, we have the example of theRestoration Projects carried out for the Servei de Catalogaci i

Conservaci de Monuments by Antoni Gonzlez and his team(Gonzlez 1999a).

- Reaching a wider understanding of the building inall its constructive aspects

- Deconstructing previous reconstructions with theaim of establishing the different constructive stagesof the monument

- Documenting appraisal work, such as restoration orconservation

- Creating 3-D models allowing the virtualvisualisation of cultural elements

Finally, creating documentary archives which contributeto the conservation of constructed heritage.

The need for Archaeotecture

What is Archaeology of Architecture? Is it a new territory ofarchaeology, or a new way of dealing with an area of thearchaeological record which is the result of the breakdownof the archaeological discourse which has taken place inpost-modern times? The answer is difficult. Its field of study

appears vague, diffuse and fragmented, with no specificdomain of its own, but instead is defined as a way ofexploring subjects which belong to other sectors of thearchaeohistorical discipline: the study of the reflection inarchitecture of structures of parentage, the symbolicundercurrent of architectonic form, the social logic inherentwhen ordering built space, or the building techniquesthemselves are all themes which fit within the framework ofstudy of other tendencies, such as Symbolic Archaeology,Social Archaeology or Historical Archaeology.

In principle, Archaeology of Architecture attempts tomaximise all of the information which architectonic remainsgive about past societies, from their pattern of subsistence to

their symbolic universe. However, this ambiguous,imprecise and general objective converts it into a pot-pourriwhich absorbs methodological innovations of any kind,from other disciplines. Perhaps it corresponds more to amoment than to a sector of archaeological investigation:today it is attracting new methods towards it, and newproblems, as occurred with New Archaeology in its day.

Therefore, Archaeology of Architecture offers newmethodologies of analysis for new visions about builtrecord. However, actually it is necessary a theoretical andmethodological systematisation which let to carry out adefinition of Archaeology of Architecture like a specificwork line within Archaeology.

This need is justified by questions we have alreadycovered, such as the inconsistency of studying thearchitectonic record, and overcoming the investigativetradition which has commented on and even defended theimpossibility of dealing with a social and integralinterpretation of this record. Despite the enormous limitsand conditioning factors which go hand in hand with thisproblem, we believe that it is essential to propose anddevelop new techniques which attempt to widen ourcurrent knowledge of the subject. We need new proposalsand basic principles which may be applied to an alternativestudy method which, although not necessarily the mostsuitable or conclusive, at least makes it possible to shape anarchaeological vision which prompts new and necessaryquestions about built space.


18/22


11

Here we opt for a third way, a symbiotic perspectivebetween Archaeology and Architecture, an Archaeotecturewhich maximises its potential as a discipline integratedwithin archaeological practice, and which guarantees a trulyinterdisciplinary character which is of enormous use ininvestigation, as shown by the group of studies outlined in

this paper.It is also essential that this movement is integratedwithin investigative strategies which, taking basicinvestigation as a foundation, demystify archaeologicalruins and facilitate an understanding and interpretation ofthe past, responding to the demands made by both marketand society (public works, reconstruction and restoration ofhistorical constructions, the appraisal of archaeological sites,etcetera). We proposed thatArchaeotecture has to answer thedemands of a new socio-political context in which the fieldof Heritage Protection and Management has gone fromstrength to strength in the present day.

The cost-effectiveness involved in projecting

investigation programmes about prehistoric and historicarchitecture is remarkable, programmes in whicharchaeological investigation has had a clearly patrimonialbias. The objective is therefore involved in integral projectsof Architectonic Heritage Management, in which basicinvestigation is the starting point for a process whichculminates in the appraisal and popularising ofArchaeological Heritage. In these projects, Archaeotecture isnot reduced to being a merely interpretative practice, butinstead acts as a technique which on one hand adapts andresponds to the problems presented by the existence ofArchaeological Heritage, and on the other is a source ofinformation which ends up in the hands of society at large.

Now, the aim is to also include Archaeology of Architecturewithin these projects of applied investigation, thuscontributing to the evaluation of the archaeological recordand widening its prospects for appraisal. Here, the work ofArchaeology of Architecture forms part of the techniquedeveloped within the current debate about the problems ofdividing archaeological practice between InvestigativeArchaeology and Management9 Archaeology.In order to reach these objectives it is necessary to define atheoretical-methodological basis which makes it possible todefine the character, contents and objectives of thistendency.

ReferencesAllison, P. M. 1999. The Archaeology of Household Activities.

London: Routledge.

Aparicio Bastardo, J. A. 1991. Anlisis de formasconstructivas: aproximacin al caso burgals. II

9 Here we share a particular investigative strategy which defendsthe final defeat of this false dichotomy, through the appearance ofinvestigation projects proposed as Integral Heritage Managementprogrammes, where information obtained through archaeologicalwork is handed back to society to be publicised and appraised

(Criado 1996a, 1996b and 1996c; Criado and Gonzlez 1994;Gonzlez 1996 and 2000).

Jornadas Burgalesas de Historia, Burgos en la Alta EdadMedia (Burgos,1990), 443-456. Burgos.

Aparicio Bastardo, J. A. and de la Fuente, A. 1993-1994.Estudio arqueolgico e intervencin arquitectnica enla iglesia de la Asuncin de San Vicente del Valle(Burgos). Numantia, 6: 153-171. Zamora.

Ayn Vila, X. M. 2001. Arqueotectura 3: La vivienda castrea.Propuesta de reconstruccin en el castro de Elvia . TAPA(Trabajos en Arqueologa del Paisaje), 23. Santiago: USC.

Azkarate Garai-Olaun, A. 1994. Ermita del Santo Cristo.Arqueologa de urgencia en lava / 1989-1993: 95-102.lava: Diputacin Foral de lava, Museo deArqueologa de lava.

Azkarate Garai-Olaun, A. 1996. Iglesia de San Romn(Tobillas).Arkeoikusca, 95: 312-38. Vitoria.

Azkarate Garai-Olaun, A. and Garca Camino, I. 1998.Documentacin arqueolxica e contexto urbano naCominudade Autnoma Vasca. Curso Documento,

Espacio e Contorno (Santiago de Compostela, Xunta deGalicia, do 18 21 de setembro de1996): 101-20.Santiago de Compostela: Consellera de Cultura,Comunicacin Social e Turismo.

Azkarate Garai-Olaun, A., Fernndez de Juregui, A. andNez, M. 1995. Documentacin y anlisisarquitectnico en el Pas Vasco. Algunas experienciasllevadas a cabo en lava-Espaa. Informes de laConstruccin, 435: 65-78. Madrid.

Bailey, D. W. 1990. The Living House: SignifyingContinuity. In Samson, R. (ed.): The Archaeology ofhouses.: 19-48. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Baker, G.H. 1994. Le Corbusier: anlisis de la forma. Mxico:Gustavo Gili. (5 ed. amp., ed. or. 1985. Le Corbusier.An analysis of form. UK: Van Nostrand Reinhold).

Baker, G.H. 1998. Anlisis de la forma: urbanismo yarquitectura. Mxico: Gustavo Gili (2 ed. amp., ed. or.1989. Design Strategies in Architecture. An approach to theanalysis of form. Second edition. UK: Van NostrandReinhold).

Barthes, R. 1986. Semiology and the Urban. In Gottdiener M.and Lagopoulos, A. (eds.): The City and the Sign: 88-98.New York: Columbia Univ. Press.

Bernardi, M. (a cura di). 1992. Archeologia del Paesaggio.

Edizioni allinsegna del giglio. Firenze: ConsiglioNazionale delle Ricerche, Universit degli studi diSiena.

Blanco Rotea, R. 1997. Introduccin al estudio arqueolgico delpatrimonio construido: el anlisis estratigrfico deparamentos. (Tesis de licenciatura). Grupo deInvestigacin en Arqueologa del Paisaje Departamento de Historia 1, Universidad de Santiagode Compostela (Espaa). (Indita).

Blanco Rotea, R. 1998a. La arqueologa en el muro: lecturaestratigrfica de paramentos en San Fiz de Solovio.Gallaecia, 17: 481-500. Santiago de Compostela.

Blanco Rotea, R. 1998b. Las construcciones histricas desdeuna perspectiva arqueolgica. In Actas del SegundoCongreso Nacional de Historia de la Construccin (La


19/22


12

Corua, 22-24 de octubre de 1998): 49-56. Madrid:EFCA.

Blanco Rotea, R. (coord.) 2001. Metodologas deIntervencin en el Patrimonio Arqueolgico. Mdulo 5del Curso de especializacin en Gestin Arqueolgica delPatrimonio Construido. Santiago de Compostela:

Laboratorio de Arqueoloxa e Formas Culturais. USC.Blanco Rotea, R.; Maana Borrazs, P. and Ayn Vila, X. M.

2000. Archaeology of Architecture: theory,methodology and analysis from LandscapeArchaeology. 6th EAA Annual Meeting (Lisbon, 10-17september 2000). EEA. Unpublished.

Blanton, R. 1994. Houses and Households. New York: PlenumPress.

Boast, R. and Yiannouli, E. 1986. Creating Space.Archaeological Review from Cambridge, 5 (2): 136-40.Cambridge.

Bonelli, R. 1986. Archeologia stratigrafica e storia

dellarchitettura.Architettura, Storia e Documenti, 2: 5-10.

Bourdieu, P. 1977. Outline of a Theoy of Practice. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Brogiolo, G. P. 1987. Castello di S.Martino. Analisi stratigraficadelle murature :1 Parte.

Brogiolo, G. P. 1988a. Archeologia delledilizia storica. Como:Edizioni New Press.

Brogiolo, G. P. 1988b. Archeologia e restauro deimonumenti. In Francovich and Parenti (ed.).Campionatura e obiettivi nellanalisi stratigrafica deglielevati: 335-46. Firenze: Universit degli studi di Siena.

Brogiolo, G. P. 1991.Architetture medievali del Garda bresciano.Analisi stratigrafiche. Grafo.

Brogiolo, G. P. 1995. Arqueologa estratigrfica yrestauracin, Informes de la Construccin, 435: 31-6.Madrid.

Brogiolo, G. P.; Mannoni, T. and Parenti, R. (a cura di). 1996.Archeologia dellArchitettura, 1. Supplemento adArcheologia Medievale. Firenze: Edizioni AllInsegna delGiglio.

Caballero Zoreda, L. 1992. Sobre el anlisis arqueolgico deconstrucciones histricas. La experiencia llevada acabo en Santa Eulalia de Mrida, La Torre de Hrculesen La Corua y S. Pelayo de Arlanza. In III Encuentrossobre Arqueologa y Patrimonio de Salobrea. Arqueologadel monumento. Forthcoming.

Caballero Zoreda, L. 1995. Mtodo para el anlisisestratigrfico de construcciones histricas o lectura deparamentos. Informes de la Construccin, 453: 37-46.Madrid.

Caballero Zoreda, L. 1996a. El anlisis estratigrfico deconstrucciones histricas. In Curso de Arqueologa de laArquitectura (Burgos, Junta de Castilla y Len, 1996):55-74. Salamanca: Europa Artes Grficas, S.A.

Caballero Zoreda, L. 1996b. En torno a algunas experiencias

de lectura arqueolgica de edificios. Quaderns cientificsi tecnics, 8. Forthcoming.

Caballero Zoreda, L. 1997. Arqueoloxa e Arquitectura.Anlise arqueolxica e intervencin en edificiosHistricos. In As Actuacins no patrimonio construido: undilogo interdisciplinar (Santiago de Compostela, Xuntade Galicia, setembro de 1995): 129-58. Santiago deCompostela: Consellera de Cultura, Comunicacin

Social e Turismo.Caballero Zoreda, L. and Cmara Muoz, L. 1995. Un casode lectura de paramentos y argumentacin cientfica.S. Pedro el Viejo de Arlanza, Burgos-Espaa. Informesde la Construccin, 435: 79-89. Madrid.

Caballero Zoreda, L. and Escribano Velasco, C. (ed.) 1996e.El mtodo arqueolgico aplicado al proceso de estudioy de intervencin en edificios histricos. In Arqueologade la Arquitectura (Burgos, Junta de Castilla y Len,1996). Salamanca: Europa Artes Grficas.

Caballero Zoreda, L. and Feijoo Martnez, S. 1995. Anlisisde elementos constructivos en Santa Eulalia deMrida-Espaa. Informes de la Construccin, 435: 51-61.Madrid.

Caballero Zoreda, L. and Feijoo Martnez, S. 1998. La iglesiaaltomedieval de san Juan Bautista en Baos de Cerrato(Palencia). Archivo Espaol de Arqueologa, 71: 181-242.Madrid.

Caballero Zoreda and Fernndez Mier, M. 1996d. Anlisisarqueolgico de construcciones histricas en Espaa.Estado de la cuestin. Incontro en LArcheologiadellArchitettura (Genova, 1996). ArcheologiadellArchitettura, 2. Forthcoming.

Caballero Zoreda, L. and Latorre, P. (coords.) 1995a. Leer eldocumento construido. Informes de la Construccin, 435.

Madrid: CSIC.Caballero Zoreda, L. and Latorre , P. 1995b. La importancia

del anlisis estratigrfico de las construccioneshistricas en el debate sobre la restauracinmonumental. Informes de la Construccin, 435: 5-18.Madrid.

Caballero Zoreda, L. and Sez Lara, F. 1999. La IglesiaMozrabe de Santa Luca del Trampal. Alcuscar(Cceres). Arqueologa y Arquitectura. In Memorias deArqueologa Extremea, 2. Mrida: Junta deExtremadura, Consejera de Cultura.

Caballero Zoreda, L.; Arce, F. and Feijoo Martnez, S. 1996c.

Fotogrametra y anlisis arqueolgico. Revista deArqueologa, 186: 14-25. Madrid.

Caballero Zoreda, L.; Latorre Gonzlez-Moro, P. andMatesanz Vera, P. 1994. La iglesia prerromnica de SanPedro el Viejo (Hortigela, Burgos). Numantia, 5: 139-65. Zamora.

Cagnoni, G. 1996. La documentazione del degrado e deldissesto nellanalisi stratigrafica degli elevati.Archeologia dellArchitettura, 1: 65-70. Firenze.

Carandini, A., 1997. Historias en la tierra. Manual deexcavacin arqueolgica. Barcelona: Editorial Crtica.

Ching, F. 1995. Arquitectura: forma, espacio y orden. Mxico:

Gustavo Gili. (10 ed., ed. or. 1979. Architecture: Form,Space and Order. Nueva York: Van Nostrand Reinhold).


20/22


13

Clarke, D. L. 1972. A provisional model of an Iron AgeSociety and its settlements system. In Clarke, D. L.(ed.)Models in Archaeology: 801-869. London: Methuen.

Clarke, D. L.1977. Spatial Information in Archaeology. InClarke, D. L. (ed.): Spatial Archaeology: 1-32. London:Academic Press.

Clarke, D. L. 1978.Analytical Archaeology. London: Methuen.Criado Boado, F. 1993a. Lmites y posibilidades de la

arqueologa del paisaje. Spal, 2: 9-55. Sevilla.

Criado Boado, F. 1993b. Espacio monumental y paisajesprehistricos en Galicia. In Asociacin Galega deHistoriadores (ed.): Concepcins espaciais e estratexiasterritoriais na Historia de Galicia: 23-54. Santiago:Trculo Edicins.

Criado Boado, F. 1993c. Visibilidad e interpretacin delregistro arqueolgico. Trabajos dePrehistoria, 50: 39-56.Madrid.

Criado Boado, F. 1996a. La Arqueologa del futuro, elFuturo de la Arqueologa?. Trabajos de Prehistoria, 53(1): 15-35. Madrid.

Criado Boado, F. 1996b. La arqueologa del paisaje comoprograma de gestin integral del patrimonioarqueolgico. Boletn del Instituto Andaluz del PatrimonioHistrico, 14: 15-9. Sevilla.

Criado Boado, F. 1996c. Hacia un modelo integrado deinvestigacin y gestin del Patrimonio Histrico: lacadena interpretativa como propuesta. Boletn delInstituto Andaluz del Patrimonio Histrico, 16: 73-9.Sevilla.

Criado Boado, F. 1999. Del Terreno al Espacio: Planteamientos

y Perspectivas para la Arqueologa del Paisaje . CAPA(Criterios y Convenciones en Arqueologa del Paisaje), 6.Santiago: Grupo de Investigacin en Arqueoloxa daPaisaxe, USC.

Criado Boado, F. and Gonzlez Mndez, M. 1994. La puestaen valor del patrimonio arqueolgico desde laperspectiva de la arqueologa del paisaje. In VV.AA.:Conservacin arqueolgica. Reflexin y debate sobre teora yprctica. Cuadernos del Instituto Andaluz del PatrimonioHistrico, III: 58-75. Sevilla: Junta de Andaluca.

Cristinelli, G. 1999. El proyecto de restauracin y elconcepto de monumento. In Congreso Internacional de

Restauracin Restaurar la Memoria (Valladolid, 1998):139-66. Valladolid: Diputacin Provincial deValladolid e Instituto Espaol de Arquitectura de laUniversidad de Valladolid.

Dallas, R. W. A.; Kerr, J. B.; Lunnon, S. and Bryan, P. G.1995. Windsor Castle: Photogrammetric andArchaeological recording after the fire. PhotogrammetricRecord, 15 (86): 225-40.

Doglioni, F. (a cura di) 1987. Ambiente di dimore medievala Verona. In Corso di Restauro Architettonico (Venezia,1987). Venezia: Cluva Editrice.

Doglioni, F. 1988. Archeologia e Restauro dei Monimenti. InFrancovich, R. and Parenti, R. (ed.). La ricerca nellestruttura edilizia tra Acheologia stratigrafica e restauro

Architettonico: 223-47. Florencia: Univercit degli Studidi Siena.

Doglioni, F., Moretti, A. and Petrini, V. (a cura di) 1994. Lachiese e il terremoto.Dalla vulnerabilit constatata nelterremoto del Friuli al miglioramento antisismico nelrestauro, verso una politica di prevencione. Trieste:

Edizioni LINT.Eco, U. 1968. La estructura ausente. Introduccin a la Semitica.

Barcelona: Lumen.

Eco, U. 1986. Functionalism and Sign: The Semiotics ofArchitecture. In Gottdiener M. and Lagopoulos, A.(eds.) The City and the Sign: 56-85. New York: ColumbiaUniv. Press

Eco, U. 1987. How an Exposition Exposes Itself. Travels inHyperreality: 296-9. London: Pan Books.

Feijoo Martnez, S. and Ra Carril, V. 1992. Documentacin delas estructuras medievales de las iglesias del Concello deLaln (Deza). (Proyecto de investigacin). Universidad

de Santiago de Compostela. Unpublished.Feijoo Martnez, S. and Ra Carril, V. 1995. La iglesia

prerromnica de San Martn de Prado en Laln,Pontevedra-Espaa. Informes de la Construccin, 435: 91-100. Madrid.

Flannery, K. V. (ed.) 1976. The Early Mesoamerican Village.New York: Academic Press.

Fontenla San Juan, C. (coord.) 1996: Monumento-documento: diferentes valoracins das aportacinsposteriores fbrica. In Congreso: Os profesionais dahistoria ante o Patrimonio Cultural: lias metodolxicas(Lugar y fecha). Santiago de Compostela: Direccin

Xeral do Patrimonio Cultural, Xunta de Galicia.Fontenla San Juan, C. (dir) 1998. Curso Documento, Espacio e

Contorno (Santiago de Compostela, Xunta de Galicia,do 18 21 de setembro de 1996). Santiago deCompostela: Consellera de Cultura, ComunicacinSocial e Turismo.

Fontenla San Juan, C. 1997. Curso As actuacins no patrimonioconstruido: un dilogo interdisciplinar (Santiago deComportela, Xunta de Galicia, setembro de 1995).Santiago de Compostela: Consellera de Cultura,Comunicacin Social e Turismo.

Foster, S. 1989. Analysis of spatial patterns in buildings

(acces analysis) as an insight into social structure:examples from the Scottish Atlantic Iron Age.Antiquity, 63: 40-50. Gloucester.

Foucault, M. 1979. La Arqueologa del Saber. Mxico: Siglo XXI(6 ed.).

Foucault, M. 1984. Vigilar y castigar: El nacimiento de laPrisin. Madrid: Siglo XXI (4 ed.)

Francovich, R. 1985. Archeologia e restauro: da contiguit aunitariet. Restauro &Citt, 2: 14-20. Venezia.

Francovich, R. and Parenti, R. (ed.) 1988. Archeologia erestauro dei monumenti. Firenze: Edizioni AllInsegnadel Giglio.

Giddens, A. 1979. Central Problems in Social Theory: ActionStructure and Contradiction in Social Analysis. London:Macmillan.


21/22


14

Giedion, S. 1988. El presente eterno: Los comienzos de laarquitectura. Madrid: Alianza Editorial.

Glassie, H. 1975. Folk housing in middle Virginia: a structuralanalysis of historic artifacts. Knoxville: University ofTennessee Press.

Gmez Moreno-Navarro, A. 1999. El uso sensato delpatrimonio arquitectnico, requisito de la restauracinobjetiva. In Congreso Internacional de RestauracinRestaurar la Memoria (Valladolid, 1998): 139-66.Valladolid: Diputacin Provincial de Valladolid eInstituto Espaol de Arquitectura de la Universidad deValladolid.

Gmez Moreno-Navarro, A. 1999. La restauracin objetiva(Mtodo SCCM de restauracin monumental). MemoriaSPAL 1993-1998. Servei de Patrimoni Arquitectnic,Diputaci de Barcelona. Barcelona: edita InstitutdEdicions de la Diputaci de Barcelona.

Gmez Moreno-Navarro, A.; Lacuesta, R. and Lpez, A.

1990. Com e per a qui restaurem. Objectius, mtodes idifusi de la restauraci monumental. Memria 1985-1989.Servei de Patrimoni Arquitectnic, Diputaci deBarcelona. Barcelona: edita Institut dEdicions de laDiputaci de Barcelona.

Gmez Moreno-Navarro, M. 1970. Retazos: Ideas sobreHistoria, Cultura y Arte. Madrid: CSIC.

Gonzlez Mndez, M. 1996. El ocio y el reciclado: laconversin del vestigio arqueolgico en producto deconsumo. Boletn del Instituto Andaluz del PatrimonioHistrico, 14: 24-7. Sevilla.

Gonzlez Mndez, M. 2000. Investigacin y Puesta en Valor delPatrimonio Histrico: Planteamientos y Propuestas desde laArqueologa del Paisaje. (Tesis doctoral). Departamentode Historia I, Facultade de Xeografa e Historia, USC.Santiago de Compostela. Unpublished.

Harris, E. C. 1991. Principios de estratigrafa arqueolgica.Barcelona: Editorial Crtica.

Harris, E. C. 1993. Practices of Archaeological Stratigraphy.London: Academic Press.

Hillier, B. 1996. Space is the Machine. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Hillier, B. and Hanson, J. 1984. The social logic of space.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hodder, I. 1977. Some New Directions in the SpatialAnalysis of Archaeological Data at the Regional Scale(Macro). In Clarke, D. L. (ed.) Spatial Archaeology: 233-351. London: Academic Press.

Hodder, I. 1994. Architecture and meaning: The Example ofNeolithic Houses and Tumbs. In Parker Pearson, M.and Richard, C. (eds). Architecture and Order.Approaches to Social Space: 73-86. London: Routledge.

Hodder, I. and Orton, C. 1990. Anlisis espacial enArqueologa. Barcelona: Crtica.

Johnson, M. 1993. Housing Culture. Traditional architecture inan English landscape. London: UCL Press.

Kent, S. 1984. Analyzing activity areas: an ethnoarchaeologicalstudy of the use of space. Alburquerque: University ofNew Mexico Press.

Kent, S. 1990. Domestic Architecture and the use of space. Aninterdisciplinary cross-cultural study. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Latorre Gonzlez-Moro, P. and Caballero Zoreda, L. 1995.Anlisis arqueolgico de los paramentos el faroromano llamado Torre de Hrcules (La Corua-Espaa). Informes de la Construccin, 435: 47-50. Madrid.

Lvi-Strauss, C. 1964. El pensamiento salvaje. Mxico: FCE.

Locock, M. 1994. Meaningful Architecture. In Locock

Documents

Oxford Ayan Et Alli 2003