The aim of the present thesis is to investigate the way in which space, in particular "bounded" space, such as dwellings, was conceptualised, divided and used in the Neolithic Eastern Mediterranean, and from a methodological point of view, to examine the degree up to which current archaeological research and the information it provides, is sufficient to deal with these kind of issues. In order to understand better the evolution of spatial studies in archaeology, one needs to turn to the history of the discipline itself. This calls for an examination of the ways in which the archaeological record has been perceived by different schools of thought in archaeology, as well as the questions that it has been called upon to answer in each particular period. Chapter 1 attempts to do precisely that. Additionally, it outlines the position that is taken up by the present thesis, and emphasises the importance of both a contextual and crosscultural approach to the material. Chapter 2 investigates in more detail developments in spatial studies, and discusses the difficulties of dealing with the fragmentary nature of the archaeological record, while at the same time stresses their potential for further research. Chapter 3 outlines the nature of the analysis undertaken in the present thesis, and the methodological approach to the material under investigation. It reviews in brief the ways in which spatial issues have been approached in Neolithic East Mediterranean, sets the parameters of the present research and describes the methodological process that is to follow. Chapters 4 and 5 deal with the archaeological material and examine the 'quality' of the contextual information available, along with the implications that this information has on the identification of domestic space. In chapter 4 the analysis focuses on the material from Cyprus, which, due to its nature and state of publication, provides a valuable insight on the advantages that a detailed analysis of contextual information has to offer. In Chapter 5, on the other hand, analysis focuses on three different areas (Greece, Anatolia and Levant) with more limited information, in an attempt to explore the potential of a cross-cultural approach to the material. Both chapters review Neolithic period research that has been conducted in each area, in order to distinguish between limits set by the nature of the archaeological record, and those which result from archaeological practices and preconceptions. Finally, chapter 6 is a synthesis of what has been learned in the course of the present research about the identification of domestic space in the Neolithic Eastern Mediterranean, and the ways in which archaeological practice needs to alter if substantive progress is to be made in this field.