spatial_analysis

The Cultural Allocation of Space:

A Pedagogical Exercise in Archaeology

Donald C. Wood
Department of Social Medicine
Akita University School of Medicine

Abstract

Archaeologists are often faced with the task of interpreting human behaviors through studying architectural remains in the archaeological record. Their conclusions will partly depend on the assumptions they make about the cultural uses of space and by which methods they analyze the remains. As a sample exercise in this endeavor, a special analysis of a section of a building on the campus of Texas A&M University is presented. This analysis uses a simple mathematical formula to predict the hypothetical relationships within the offices, which is shown to be very effective in this task when put to an empirical test. This study proposes some helpful heuristic devices and guidelines which should be applicable to analyses of other structures as well, and the exercise itself could be useful in teaching archaeology to students at all levels.

Introduction

As an exercise in the archaeological interpretation of structures, a spatial analysis of a section of the Systems Administration Building on the campus of Texas A&M University was conducted. In order to develop an objective analysis, every attempt was made to study the structure as removed from its true cultural context: text was considered glyphic, previous knowledge of the meanings of images was disregarded, and the functions of some very familiar objects were considered unknown. In other words, I tried to take the position of a naive observer to every degree possible.

This study is presented in two primary sections. First, the building itself and the central area of the ground floor is analyzed in order to determine the general type of functions the building may have served in its original systemic context (c.f. Schiffer 1987:3). Second, the layout of an office complex on the first floor is analyzed in order to make inferences about the use of, and social relations within, the environment. A simple mathematical formula is applied to the office space in order to make sound assumptions about human behavior within the space, and these are then tested by reanalyzing the office complex with the furniture and other fixtures intact. Finally, a second test of the conclusions is conducted by checking the actual titles of the office occupants. It will be shown that this mathematical formula will predict the status and responsibility hierarchy within the office to a high degree of accuracy. Finally, the formula itself gives rise to several heuristics concerning space and human behavior, which should help in designing similar formulas to be applied to different architectural structures.

The Building

The structure commands the main east entrance to the complex. It stands at the head of a long, rectangular section of buildings and is flanked by two large paved areas (Figure 1). The main facade is fairly imposing, with a row of smooth ionic columns at the top of the stone steps, filling the space between the uppermost and the ground floors, with alternating male and female human faces at the tops of the columns (Figure 2).

Figure 1

Figure 2

Entering from the east, one must walk up 24 ash-gray stone steps divided into two levels. At the top, one is met by three pairs of metal double doors. The doors are very heavy, requiring a good deal of force to open. The middle door will only open from the inside, but the right-hand door of the left and right pairs will give way from the exterior. Red plastic rectangular signs with glyphic inscriptions and symbols, which seem to indicate that an activity involving combustion is prohibited, have been affixed next to the doors. One of these has been melted and burned. The top of each door features the image of a man using a scythe, wearing a hat and boots, depicted in metal. Above each of the two side doors is an image of a man etched in the stone, with glyphic letters beneath. One appears to be a hunter or frontiersman, and holds a rifle and what may be a script. The other appears to be a statesman and holds what looks like a scroll. Above the middle doors is the image of a man who seems to be a farmer and a man who seems to be a rancher kneeling face to face before a seated female figure, which appears serene but stern (Figure 3). A star graces her head, and she holds a staff in her right hand and what seems to be fruit in her left, resting on her lap. Perhaps the female figure represents justice in a union between farmers and ranchers. Above the windows, along the facade behind the columns, are cow skull images surrounded by agricultural products, with stars and geometric forms. These various agricultural images on the building’s exterior suggest that some agricultural administrative function is carried on inside.

Figure 3

Entering the building, one finds oneself in an antechamber, with three arched doorways leading into the main center area of the structure, the heaviness of its architecture enhanced by the dim lighting and notable echo (Figure 4). The center area is roughly cross-shaped. Several signs, one with a map of the entire complex, may be directories of some sort. Whether these indicate rooms and people in this building only, or in other buildings as well, remains unknown. On one wall to the southeast, a rectangular metal box is affixed, with the heavy door, locking mechanism extended, swinging freely on its hinges. Perhaps this is no longer in use, but the function is unknown. Across from this is a metal box, approximately one meter high, in an alcove. From the metal pipes connecting the back of the box to the wall and from the spout-like apparatus on the top, it is assumed that the box is a fountain for some type of liquid – perhaps drinking water. Next to the box is a metal door that seems to slide, probably operated by the buttons beside it. A large, imposing staircase leads up to the balcony, providing access to the second floor (Figure 5).

Figure 4

Figure 5

From the balcony, a good view of the image in the floor tiles of the main chamber can be had. It seems to be a geographic entity with sites indicated by different symbols (Figure 6). Perhaps this is the administrative area of the offices within the building. In addition to the agricultural and frontier clues on the building’s exterior, others are found on the doors leading into the office complexes to the northwest and southeast. Some doors have images of men, or “cowboys,” (CB) with western hats in the glass, while others have wagon or star motifs (Figure 7).

Figure 6

Figure 7

At the southeast side of the building, another set of three double doors allow passage in and out of the structure, and like the front doors, they are heavy and many are kept locked. It seems that access to the building itself is being limited, and therefore much traffic flow in and out of the offices within is either not needed or not desired. Certainly, this is not a place designed for accommodating many visitors. When stepping through the door over the threshold of either of the two office complexes, the atmosphere immediately changes from one of solemn darkness and open bounded space to one of brightness and segregation. The office complexes are clean, carpeted, and furnished with very effective lighting. In fact, the imposing exterior and cloistered main central internal foyer of the building leave one quite unprepared for the appearance of the much lighter office complexes inside.

The Office Complexes

The first floor of the building is divided into two nearly identical halves, both identified here as “office complexes,” to distinguish from the term “office,” which is used in reference to individual rooms, where one or more people perform duties. In this educational institution, two types of room complexes dominate the structural space: office complexes and classroom complexes. The room complexes in question here are identified as office complexes rather than classroom complexes in: the commanding position of the building at the northeast head of the entire building complex, the general inaccessibility of the building itself, with its notable lack of benches or bicycle racks nearby and large amount of adjacent motorized vehicle parking space, and the assumption that classrooms will nearly always be designed for maximum accessibility, running off of a hallway or central open area, and not so that one must pass through various rooms to reach the one of their destination. For the sake of simplicity, this paper will consider only the northwest office complex of the first floor (Figure 8).

Figure 8 (areas in square meters)

The Status / Responsibility Index

An overview of the office complex layout reveals a number of possible socio-functional interpretations of the space in question. Assuming that positions of status and responsibility will be associated with factors such as personal office floor space, number of windows per office, and a balance between accessibility and inaccessibility, a numerical value, henceforth referred to as the status/responsibility (S/R) index was derived. The figure is achieved by taking the aforementioned variables into consideration and generating a value for each terminal office in the complex. Non-terminal offices, rooms numbered 1, 6, 7, 10, 18, 21, 27, and 28, are considered to be secretarial or other clerical offices. Room 18 could be considered to be a terminal office because the door leading to room 16 is a heavy metal door with a built-in combination lock and extending bolts within the door itself for secure locking, much like the door of a bank vault, and room 16 is obviously not a personal office, but a room for storage. However, the ambiguity surrounding rooms 17 and 19, which remain inaccessible, prevents identification of room 18 as a terminal office, as does the lack of a door in the passage leading into the room. To generate the S/R index for each terminal office, the floor surface in square meters for the individual rooms is calculated and recorded (Figure 8). Second, a window value (W) for each terminal office is generated by assigning the number one for no windows, two for one window, three for two windows, and so on. (This is to avoid factoring in a zero in the case of no windows, which would result in a S/R index of zero, and it sets the case of having no windows as the standard from which to begin counting.) Third, an accessibility value (A) for each terminal office is generated. This is done by counting the number of doors and secretarial offices which one must pass through in order to reach each terminal office. Doorways with no moveable doors are not considered to be effective barriers in this case, and so are not factored into the S/R index. To reach this value, doors count as one and secretarial offices count as two. This is based on the assumption that secretaries are generally more effective in screening access to rooms than doors only. These numbers are then added to arrive at A for each terminal office. Finally, the floor area, the window values, and the accessibility values are multiplied by each other to arrive at the S/R index for each terminal office. The final results are divided by 100 in order to move the decimal place and make the numbers easier to compare (Figure 9). The formula is as follows:

S/R index = area (WA)
100

Figure 9

The S/R Index Applied

The S/R index as applied to this office complex allows us to make predictions concerning the positions of the occupants in the office hierarchy, which should lead to inferences about social relations and job functions as well. There should be a positive correlation between the relative hierarchical position of the occupant and the S/R index for each terminal office, provided that all are in fact single occupant offices. According to the results, room 2 stands out, with an S/R index of 5.87, as the boss’s office, with room 4 being occupied by the second-ranking person. Room 26 would be the most likely candidate for the office of the number-three person. From this point, the hierarchy descends as follows: room 12, room 29, room 9, rooms 13 and 14, rooms 20 and 22, room 23, and rooms 24 and 25. Rooms 2, 9, and 14 have alternative lower indices due to the presence of alternative routes of entry/exit. Alternative routes, in most cases, should indicate higher positions of status; top administrators should find it convenient to be elusive at times, and this option would most likely not be made available to lower-level office staff. In this case, all alternative routes of entry can be effectively sealed by locking the doors from the inside, thus erasing the alternative S/R ratios. However, it would be important for the whereabouts of the highest administrators to be known by the secretaries, and thus the fact that, regardless of which route is utilized, the occupants of rooms two and nine must pass through at least one secretarial office when exiting or entering their offices. Perhaps the easy access/exit potential of room 14 indicates that the occupant is an agent who must come and go often, and who is not a person of much office authority.

A pattern concerning the distribution of the S/R indices in the office complex should be considered. With the exception of rooms 26 and 29, offices toward the back of the complex tend to have lower S/R indices, and therefore lower positions in the office hierarchy can be inferred for the occupants. It could also be assumed that the occupants of rooms 20, 22, and 23 are on a fairly equal level in the office: the low S/R index for room 23 being due to its lack of direct connection with a secretarial office 21 possibly because of building design. On the other hand, this could also indicate a lower position in the office hierarchy for the occupant of room 23. Offices 24 and 25 appear to house occupants of equal level. Rooms 26 and 29 both have exclusive secretarial space, but room 29 has a smaller S/R index with larger secretarial space. Perhaps the occupant of room 29 performs a function requiring a great amount of clerical support, or manages files and records. The fact that offices with lower S/R indices appear in the back of the office complex, with the exception of rooms 26 and 29, brings up the possibility that although a person might be extremely inaccessible, their status or importance might not be so high. One might imagine that being secluded in the bowels of an institution might result in making a person rather unknown and easily replaceable, as seen in the film entitled “Brazil.” Thus, there is assumed to be a balance between accessibility and inaccessibility at work.

A Test of the S/R Index

In order to evaluate the efficacy of the status/responsibility index as applied to this office complex, the previous predictions were compared with the actual conditions in each room concerning furniture and other fixtures, and the office complex was then further analyzed (Figure 10). Most of the predictions made in the preceding section based on the S/R indices hold true, but several new observations can be made. All terminal offices are, in fact, personal office spaces, with the exception of room 26, which is clearly a meeting room. Thus, room 12 becomes the most likely space for a person ranked third in the office hierarchy. Room 18 is clearly a general use, break room and storage space for information. Computers (C), office machines (M), a typewriter (T), and tables and files fill the room, along with a cabinet of pigeon holes which have individual names or titles on them, corresponding to the names or titles displayed on many desks. Along the north wall, an icebox (F) is flanked by a device for brewing coffee and a water fountain. The door to room 17 is locked, but the heavy metal door to room 16 is not kept closed and swings freely on its hinges, revealing room 16 to be a dark storage room with a locked safe inside among the files, boxes, tapes, and various small office machines. Perhaps the large door is locked at times to restrict access. The occupant of room nine might now be assumed to be involved in clerical support for the boss or both the boss and the second-in-command, judging from the existence of room eight, a small storage closet filled with files and papers.

Figure 10

The occupant of room 23 no longer appears to be on a lower level than those of rooms 20 and 22, judging from the office layout and equally large chairs behind all three desks, and the separation from the secretary may be purely structural. However, the office does differ in contents and arrangement from rooms 20 and 22, so the S/R index has at least predicted a different social position for the occupant. This may mean that, in some cases, restriction of access by secretaries may not always indicate higher positions of status or responsibility. However, secretaries in room 28 may help to screen access to room 23. The occupants of rooms 24 and 25 do after all seem to have equal positions in the office hierarchy; the room furnishings and arrangements are indeed identical, reversed images of each other. Room 2 clearly stands out as the boss’s office, due to the large, soft furniture, numerous plaques and documents adorning the walls, and the plush, maroon leather sofa and chairs arranged for hosting guests, completely unlike any furniture elsewhere in the office complex. Room 4 is also clearly shown to be that of the second-ranking person, with fairly fine furniture, and many documents on the walls, but without the comfortable leather sofa and chairs. A revised scale of hierarchy from top to bottom for the office complex, taking the S/R indices and furnishings into consideration can now be offered: room 2, room 4, room 12, room 29, room 9, rooms 13 and 14, rooms 20, 22, and 23, followed by rooms 24 and 25.

Finally, a test of the revised results was conducted in order to fully evaluate the predictions made herein concerning the hierarchy in this office complex, which is actually the Texas A&M University branch of the Texas Agricultural Extension Service. Selected offices and titles of the occupants in general descending order are as follows: room 2 - director, room 4 - executive associate director, room 12 - associate director for agricultural sciences, room 14 - associate director for human sciences, room 20 - assistant director for family and consumer sciences, room 22 - assistant director for agriculture and natural resources, room 9 - assistant to the director, room 29 - assistant to the director, room 23 - assistant director for fiscal affairs, room 24 - personnel officer, room 25 - assistant manager for contracts and budgets.

Discussion and Conclusions

            It has been demonstrated here that controls on the access to a structure, and to the contents, as well as designs and motifs, can be used to infer much about human behavior associated with the structure, even in the absence of written texts, records, or informants. The building in question is, in fact, used for an agricultural administrative purpose within the particular geographic area depicted in the floor tiles (Figure 6). The S/R index has indeed been proven to be able to predict social positions in an office setting to a high degree of accuracy, even when only the layout itself is considered. Several variables, such as whether the offices are in fact private offices, must be accounted for, however. The S/R index could not identify room 26 as a meeting room without the furnishings, and so the proposed hierarchy was slightly off.

            Despite its limitations, the S/R index method does allow two major variables to be highlighted: the amount of floor space and the number of windows. These should be nearly universal in personal workspace allocation. It could be reasonably assumed that these variables would apply wherever cultural and structural limitations allow, and that there will be a positive correlation between greater values for these variables and higher status or responsibility for occupants within such social settings. For example, if an anthropology department moves into a new building, how do the faculty members decide who gets which offices? Do the senior professors take the innermost offices without windows or the corner spots with windows facing in two directions? Do the graduate assistants get the large offices along the main corridor or the small cubicles outside the break room? Does the department head claim the windowless closet behind the copy room or the big office with several windows? Of course, in many instances such as with laboratories, functional needs must be factored in. In some of these cases secretarial space may not be important.

            Finally, while the S/R index tends to be culturally specific in its variables and the relative importance of each, one of its merits is that it is flexible, and can easily be altered to fit a variety of situations, depending on different structural or cultural factors. Rather than being upheld as a rigid concrete theory on social positions in work - or even residential - settings, the S/R index method is supported here as a useful heuristic device that can help the archaeologist weigh various factors in determining the social use and allocation of space. Any factors may be considered, and the index can subsequently be altered to accommodate the new variables and their relative importance. I hope that anyone who tries to apply the S/R index method or a simlar method in another situation would report back on what variables were considered and the ultimate results. I can be contacted at: wood@med.akita-u.ac.jp.

The original version of this paper was submitted to Dr. Bruce Dickson of Texas A&M University in December 1997 as an assignment for ANTH 602, Archaeological Methods and Theory. I am grateful to Professor Dickson for the initial concept of the assignment and also for his continued guidance, and finally for his kindness toward my daughter, who often accompanied me to the department. I am also grateful to Drs. Sylvia Grider and Norbert Dannhaeuser, also of Texas A&M University, who provided valuable advice in the preparation of the final version of this paper.

Reference Cited

Schiffer, Michael B.
1987 Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.

HOME