Wohnen im alten Orient: Eine Untersuchung zur Verwendung von Raumen.

• Author: POSTGATE, J. N.
• Position: Review

Wohnen im alten Orient: Eine Untersuchung zur Verwendung von Raumen in altorientalischen Wohnhausern. By MARIA KRAFELD-DAUGHERTY. Altertumskunde des Vorderen Orients, vol. 3. Munster Ugarit-Verlag, 1994. Pp. x + 401 + 41 plates.

This is a very straightforward book, which can easily be described. The author is interested in archaeological criteria for defining the use of space in ancient Mesopotamian houses. Her timespan is from the Uruk period down to the end of the Old Babylonian period, and the list of available (i.e., excavated and published) sites means that it is more or less confined to south Mesopotamia. The subject matter is broadly divided into: general (pp. 11-19); hearths and ovens (pp. 20-63); niches, benches and staircases (pp. 64-89); guest rooms (pp. 90-93); toilets and washrooms (pp. 94-124); storage (pp. 125-46); animal space (pp. 147-52); courtyards and roofs (pp. 153-73); cult of the dead (burials and chapels, pp. 174-235). For each section she has assiduously collected examples from the ethnographic literature on traditional domestic architecture in the Middle East, and placed them side-by-side with comparable archaeological discoveries. "Side by side" because she is under no illusions about the role of such comp arisons (see pp. 9-10: "Ethnoarchaologische Methoden ermoglichen keine Analogien, sie machen nur a priori bestehende wahrscheinlicher"). Hence in each case she does not attempt a detailed comparison of specific instances, but begins with a coherent account of recent observations, and follows this with an independent enumeration of the archaeological evidence. The back of the volume is richly endowed with plans and photographs of both archaeological and ethnographic data, greatly enhancing its usefulness.

Although the author has rightly avoided basing interpretations of ancient use of space on detailed comparisons with modern ethnographic evidence, the mere fact that she has juxtaposed the two establishes an expectation and implies that a comparison in general terms is appropriate. This is hard to deny, but it also tacitly invites the presumption that they are susceptible to direct comparison, and this can be rather treacherous. I have two serious qualms about the procedure. For one thing, the use of space in human settlements is, of course, largely prescribed by social structure and conventions, and archaeologists usually have to work in reverse, in that they will first attempt to determine the use of the space...