Spatial Configuration and Social Organization in Shahr-i-Sokhta Architecture Based on the Space Syntax Approach (Case Study: Building 1 from II and III Periods and Building 20 from IV Period)

Space Syntax is a structuralist research approach to architecture that makes it possible to understand and interpret the social organization in built environments by studying the phenotype (structure) and understanding the genotype (function). The architectural remains from the past are important indicators in archaeological sites and the most significant findings in applying the space syntax approach. There is little information on the extent to which prehistoric buildings are capable of providing spatial configuration and social organization or the extent to which the space syntax approach can identify, perceive and interpret them in prehistoric and early historic structures and sites. Previous studies, with a few exceptions, have considered the use of the space syntax approach not in prehistoric houses or population areas but the later and contemporary eras. The present paper aims to use the space syntax method, along with observation tools, field studies, documentary investigations, and A-GRAPH and Depth Map software to perform an analytical comparison of spatial configuration and social organization in buildings1 (II and III periods) and 20 (IV period) of Shahr-i-Sokhta. The study examines the indicators of Depth, Relative Asymmetry, Integration, Control Value, and Space Type in terms of communication, access, privacy, and publicity to answer the following two questions: 1. what are the differences in the pattern of spatial configuration in buildings 1 and 20 of Shahr-i-Sokhta? 2. What is the relationship between their spatial configuration and social organization? The analytical-comparative study of buildings 1 and 20 of Shahr-i-Sokhta clearly shows that building 1 has more depth and consequently a higher degree of privacy, which can belong to the aristocrats or a person with high social status. However, building 20 has more movement, integration, and connectivity; thus, it cannot be considered only a completely private building, and it may have been a more public building.