No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

This research uses quantitative and qualitative data collected from ten Neolithic and Early Chalcolithic sites in Central and Southwest Anatolia (Asikli Hoyuk, Catalhoyuk, Canhasan III, Canhasan I, Guvercinkayasi, Hoyucek, Badamagaci, Erbaba, Hacilar and Kuru9ay) to investigate the relationship between the use of household and community space and chronological, regional and subsistence changes. This relationship was explored using data about buildings, the distribution of subsistence activities, upper storeys, building entry, open spaces and inter-household arrangements. It was concluded that inter-site differences in building size, configuration and design were marked, suggesting local rather than global trajectories of the kind associated with chronology, region or subsistence. Nevertheless, three trends were identified. Firstly, buildings became larger over time on many sites. Secondly, building density was higher in Central Anatolia due largely to the agglomerated architecture found only in that region. Thirdly, throughout the Neolithic, buildings typically housed single nuclear households but building differentiation, absent at Asikli Hoyuk, increased over time and was present at Catalhoyuk. During the Early Chalcolithic, buildings became more differentiated. These changes mirrored those found in the Levant and Northern Iraq but their use by some writers to construct a three-stage socio-political model (collaborative small households, corporate kinship and simple hierarchical systems) was rejected. A relationship was found between changes in household configuration and animal domestication in Central Anatolia where three sites had documented faunal evidence. It was concluded that further research in Near Eastem and eastern Mediterranean contexts was needed to test the strength of this relationship, particularly the correlation between settlement size, architectural configuration, subsistence strategies and demography. The research also evaluated the qualitative and quantitative methodologies (including space syntax) used to study household space and concluded that an approach combining ethnographic analogy, systematic description and statistical analysis was most effective.