Metamorphism in culture and housing desing: Turkey as an example

ARTICLE IN PRESS

0360-1323/$ - se

doi:10.1016/j.bu

�CorrespondE-mail addr

Building and Environment 42 (2007) 1445–1452

www.elsevier.com/locate/buildenv

Metamorphism in culture and housing desing: Turkey as an example

Ilkay Masat Ozdemirb,�, Asu Besgen Gencosmanoglua

aDepartment of Interior Architecture, Faculty of Architecture, Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon 61080, TurkeybDepartment of Architecture, Faculty of Architecture, Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon, Turkey

Received 19 September 2005; accepted 2 December 2005

Abstract

Lawrence maintains about all architectural environments and housing that, they are both in a relationship with culture and they are a total

configuration of social, demographical, psychological, human behavioral and environmental structure. Moreover, in analyzing this complex

structure, he emphasizes to examine it within two perspectives: design-meaning and use. Consequently, the basic components, which affect

housing design, are classified in three main topics: cultural, social, and psychological. In the light of Lawrence’s ideas, under the topic of the

role of culture and tradition in the development of housing, this paper aims to define the basic Turkish traditional housing principles with

slogans and important examples. In this content, cultural, social and psychological components in traditional Turkish houses are held under

the heading of the development of traditional Turkish house. The organization rules, the effects of the basic psycho-social componentsyetc.,

and the presence of these principles are criticized with Turkish housing examples before and after 1980. The chosen period in this study is not

coincidental. The aim of choosing the periods before and after 1980 has a special meaning in Turkey’s economic, politic and social life.

Choosing these two basic periods, will not only point out the changes—like a metamorphism—in cultural life, but in architectural needs in

Turkish houses. Therefore, in the aim of analyzing cultural changes and their effects on housing design, the architectural meanings in the

elements of Turkish houses are put forward in details, in order to make some estimation for the future of changing Turkish architectural life.

r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Turkish house; Tradition; Metamorphism; Culture; Spatial elements; Housing types1

1. Introduction

The Turkish house, which can be shortly named as‘‘Anatolian’’, has undergone many stages of development inthe course of five centuries. For this reason, different typeswere produced in the different regions of Turkey where theTurkish style penetrated and took root. The study on‘‘Metamorphism in Culture and Housing Design: Turkey asan Example’’ aims to show the similarities and thedifferences of the housing principles before and after1980s. Secondly, it aims to put forward the basic principlesand their meaningful and formal changes in usage that canbe used in the housing designs of the future, with a newlanguage. In this context, the study consists of three mainparts. In the first part, under the heading of ‘‘TheDevelopment of Traditional Turkish House’’, an introduc-tion to the origins of the concepts of the Turkish house, the

e front matter r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

ildenv.2005.12.007

ing author. Tel.: +90 462 377 20 35; fax: +90 462 32574 99.

ess: [email protected] (I.M. Ozdemir).

concepts and the forms of the traditional houses arepresented. ‘‘The Organization of the Spatial Elements inTraditional Turkish Houses’’ and ‘‘The Basic Psycho-socialComponents That Affect the Organization of the Tradi-tional Turkish House’’ are put forward under the secondand third subsidiary headings. The traditional and modernexamples are given in general to express the ideas. Anintroduction to the development of the housing problembefore and after 1980 is put forward under the lastsubsidiary heading. The development of the housingproblem in Turkey is discussed under six stages, throughouta continual period of 1900–1980. In conclusion, 11 housingtypes, which are common and accepted around the world,are exemplified with housing designs, made after 1980.

2. The development of traditional Turkish house

The concept and the form of the Turkish traditionalhouse, which can be shortly named as ‘‘Anatolian’’, firstly,came into being in accordance with a number of factors;

ARTICLE IN PRESSI.M. Ozdemir, A.B. Gencosmanoglu / Building and Environment 42 (2007) 1445–14521446

tradition, economic conditions, regional, physical influ-ences and practical application [1]. The buildings havevariations and are described in the following. And also it isobserved that social structures in Anatolia have had theireffects on the formation of the houses. According toKucukerman, the variations of traditional housing build-ings in Anatolia are: Nomadic tents and houses, villagehouses, urban houses, other types of Anatolian houses [2].

The other types of Anatolian houses are different fromthe commonest types of all. These are usually carefullyconstructed on an imposing scale and display extremes bothin their environmental elements and their interior arrange-ments. They may be listed as follows: Large multi-purposeimposing mansions, summer residence villas set in opencountry, gardens and with picturesque views, waterfronthouses; ‘‘yali’’, well-protected large mansions; ‘‘kasir’’,palaces; ‘‘saray’’, serving as residences for senior officialsbuilt on a larger scale and with great elaboration [2].

There are many variations among these buildings but theyhave one common characteristic in that they are all large,imposing and carefully built, and differ from region to region.Among them the most characteristically Turkish are to befound in the towns and cities, and, the official residences,being large and ornate, hold a very special position in thecommunity [1]. According to Eldem, these variations aregrouped into seven main regions in Turkey, and consist of themain details and specifications [3], (Table 1).

3. The organization of the spatial elements in traditional

Turkish house

The traditional Turkish house has three spatial funda-mental elements which form the structure. These importantelements are the ‘‘oda’’ (room), the ‘‘sofa’’ (space between

Table 1

Traditional Turkish houses due to the seven regions in Turkey

The Blacksea shore

and Hinterland

region

The Istanbul and

Marmara region

The Aegean

Hinterland region

The Mediter

region

Trabzon Istanbul Izmir Antalya

Safranbolu Bursa Aydin Mugla

rooms) and the ‘‘eyvan’’ (space between the groups ofrooms). The ‘‘room’’ is accepted as the main element,which does not show any difference in usage. It is a spacewith many functions having inside for many purposes [4].The ‘‘sofa’’ is the space, between the ‘‘rooms’’, to providethe inner communication. The ‘‘sofa’’, shortly means thecommon area between the rooms, provides access betweenopen and closed areas. The sofa has a various technicalterminology in Turkish, as; ‘‘sergah, sergi, sayvan, cardak,divanhane, hayat,’’...etc. The ‘‘eyvan’’, is the passageway infront of the ‘‘rooms’’, which permits a common life inside.Its relation with the external open areas is very important,(Table 2).As well as providing a passageway inside the house,

‘‘sofa’’ also serves as a meeting ground and the spacearound the circulation area was adapted for seating. Intime, sofa became the most important element of the wholeform of the Turkish house and influenced its whole shape.The traditional Turkish house is classified according to

the position of the sofa in the plan organization. Thisclassification gives four types of houses: ‘‘Without a Sofa’’,‘‘With an Outer Sofa’’, ‘‘With an Inner Sofa’’, ‘‘With aCentral Sofa’’ [3].The first one is the primitive state of a house plan and

consists of merely one or more rooms placed in a row. Thesecond one is the first step in the development of the plan.This form of plan was used in the Hellenic houses inAnatolia before the arrival of the Turks. The type of plan‘‘with an inner sofa’’ is the one, which is most common inAnatolia. This plan was developed by the addition ofanother row of rooms onto the outer side of the ‘‘sofa’’.The last type presents a ‘‘central sofa’’ surrounded by therooms on four sides. The origin of this type is Byzantine’shouse with a central atrium.

ranean The Central

Anatolia region

The Eastern

Anatolia region

The South-East

Anatolia region

Nevsehir Malatya Urfa

Sivas Erzurum Maras

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 2

‘‘Oda’’, ‘‘Sofa’’ and ‘‘Eyvan’’ in traditional Turkish house

‘‘Oda’’ ‘‘Sofa’’ ‘‘Eyvan’’

I.M. Ozdemir, A.B. Gencosmanoglu / Building and Environment 42 (2007) 1445–1452 1447

Besides this general information about Turkish house,there are some basic components that affect the organiza-tion of the house and can be seen in all cultures, in differentscales, in different levels.

4. The basic psycho-social components that affect the

organization of the traditional Turkish house

As it was mentioned before, the structure of the families,life styles, customs, traditions, habits and religions takegreat roles in the spatial organization of the house.Rapoport pointed out that the life style was one of theimportant link in turning the culture into action [5]. Landdepended life style and the religion of Islam had broughtup some psycho-social components that also affect theorganization of Turkish house. The concepts of ‘‘privacy’’,‘‘bas oda’’, ‘‘personal space’’ and ‘‘territoriality’’ are themain elements of these components.

The word ‘‘privacy’’ is defined as the behavioral period,which controls the interactions of the people or the groupswith each other, and arranges different behavioral mechan-isms. In other words, it has a meaning of the optimum levelof approaching conditions of the others to a person or agroup, as well as, the level of suitable social relations. Thisgreat role in organizing social relations constitutes themain characteristics of human behaviors. For example, bythe effects of the patriarchal structure, the space; ‘‘basoda’’, especially occupied for the head of the family, menor guests could be seen in every house. Moreover,‘‘selamlik’’ (spaces for men) and ‘‘haremlik’’ (spaces forwomen) in houses show that the concept of ‘‘privacy’’ hadreally a great role in space organization [6,7].

The ‘‘personal spaces’’ are the rows of spaces todetermine the limits in mind, between the others andoneself [8]. This concept has become identical with the fixedfurniture as ‘‘sedir’’ in rooms, which stated parallel throughthe windows, having movable cushions to arrange thedistances between people.

The concept ‘‘territoriality’’ is a special part of the space,which a person or a group uses, possesses or checks. Itreflected the house as security, possession and the controlmechanism.

5. The development of Turkish house during republican

period

5.1. The development of Turkish house before 1980

In 1923, the declaration of the republic was the beginningof the new life style in Turkey. Lots of different economic,political, social and cultural extensions took breath at thesame time. The rights which were given to women, and in thismanner, women’s experiencing the working life has, more-over, affected the family structure. The patriarchal familystructure has turned to the basic family structure. The house,which was a ‘‘breeding module’’ because of the women’sintroverted life, has also turned to ‘‘exhausting module’’ withwomen’s role outside the house. Much breeding which hadbeen occurred in the house, in the past were began to beformed with the developments in technology and industry bythe experted commercial foundations. For this reason, theusage of the house has changed, the large spaces, which canbe exemplified as kitchens, storages, pantries in tradition,were not only used less but reduced as well, and the spaceshave gained different identities. In short, the life style of theTurkish family has changed, and this change has reflected theforming of the house.Between the years of 1900 and 1930, during the period of

the ‘‘First National Architecture’’ movement, which wasstated by the architects Mr. Vedat and Mr. Kemalettin, itseems that there was affection from traditional houses inhousing designs.Between the years of 1930 and 1940, there was a trend of

extravert. The foreign architects like Egli, Holzmeister, etc.understood and studied the Turkish architecture awayfrom being national. Just in the same period, the plansketches were held in the lights of western effects, anddesigned in a way of harmonizing without social traditions,in other words; simple, economic and functional. Westernlife style started to became widespread. The housingconcept began to take place in the targets of thegovernment in 1930s, and, in this way, the 1930s pointedout the years of constructing the first social housings inTurkey [9–12], (Table 3).Between the years of 1940 and 1950, by the help of the

‘‘Second National Architecture’’ movement, there appeared

ARTICLE IN PRESSI.M. Ozdemir, A.B. Gencosmanoglu / Building and Environment 42 (2007) 1445–14521448

a connection with traditional architecture, but the principlesof the ‘‘Rational and Functional’’ movement did not losetheir importance. By the help of the studies of architectSedat Hakki Eldem, the principles of Turkish plan typeswere used. The social traditions were wanted to be preservedin housing designs till 1950s. In some of the neighborhoodas; Saracoglu neighborhood in Ankara in 1944–1947, andthe 1st, 2nd, 3rd Levent neighborhood in Istanbul in 1947,the concepts from Turkish social traditions like ‘‘privacy,personal spaces,yetc.’’ were used. In contrast, after 1950,the plan types which were copied from ‘‘west’’ were startedto be applicated in the houses [11]. Until the year of 1950,dominantly, detached or semidetached housing types,generally houses with gardens, having less stories and adecrease in rant structure seemed. However, the socialhouses were the houses, built for the homeless people foraccommodation after great disasters. Furthermore, theblocks/apartments were the types, which could be rarelyseen outside Istanbul, Ankara and Izmir [13].

The years after the Second World War and 1960s,pointed out the increasing housing problems, risingpopulation, social and economic difficulties, migrationsto cities. In this period, the problems in squattersettlements had great dimensions, and besides this, thereappeared many blocks/apartments in cities in great deals ofnumbers. The Turkish architects designed houses bysearching local and regional characteristics, depending on

Table 3

Housing examples between 1900 and 1940

1900–1930

Harikzedegan Apartment, Arch:

Kemalettin Bey, Istanbul.

Vedat Tek house, Arch: V. Tek,

Istanbul.

Table 4

Housing examples between 1940 and 1960

1940–1950

Apartment in Nisantasi, Arch: E.

N. Uzman, Istanbul.

2nd Levent Neighborhood, Arch:

K. A. Aru, R. Gorbon, Istanbul.

tradition [12]. The period of constructing blocks/apart-ments in cities, which began in 1950s and lasted till the endof 1960s, began to develop, firstly as many flats in oneblock, and then continued as housings in large scales, in1970s [9], (Table 4).Until 1970, many styles began to be dominant in Turkish

architecture, consequently, in housing architecture. Some ofthese understandings were; ‘‘rational-purist’’, ‘‘brutalist’’,‘‘independent formal understandings’’, ‘‘new interpretationson traditional architectural values’’yetc. [12].Postmodernism began to show its effects only after 1970.

The years of 1980s were the years which postmoderniststyle, especially, reflected the houses, (Table 5).

5.2. The development of Turkish house after 1980

After 1980, modification in ‘‘protection and constructionact’’ resulted in clear differences and development inTurkish building forms (increase in flat length, roof flatusageyetc.). The period in which popular trends andwestern origin materials were used heavily in Turkey,continued on a very colorful and dynamic way.According to Kandil, the years of 1980s were the lively

period of discussing ‘‘2nd Republican Concept’’ and livingcultures together at the same time [14]. By the help of thegovernment and private banks, there seemed a great increase,especially in housing estates, to obtain the needs and

1930–1940

Ceylan apartments, Arch: S.H.

Eldem, Istanbul.

Sonmez apartments, Arch: B.I.

Unsal, Ankara.

1950–1960

Pegasus apartment, Arch: H.

Baysal, Istanbul.

Sedef houses, Arch: K. Erogan,

Sedef Island.

ARTICLE IN PRESSI.M. Ozdemir, A.B. Gencosmanoglu / Building and Environment 42 (2007) 1445–1452 1449

necessities in housing. At first, the housing estates, whichaimed to serve for the groups of middle-income, began toaddress the groups of high-income by the great capital ofinvestments of private sectors later on. These units, likeNaciye Sultan-Istanbul, Bahcesehir-Istanbul, Eryaman-

Table 5

Housing examples between 1960 and 1980

1960–1970

Yali Kirac, Arch: S. H. Eldem,

Istanbul.

Apartment, Arch: R. Zipci, A.

Akin, Istanbul.

Table 6

Housing types after 1980—Part 1

Detached houses

Villa Yavuz, Arch : D. Ciper,

Mersin.

House in Hekimkoy, Arch: K.

Guvenc, Ankara.

Duplex houses

Saffet Kanpak house, Arch: I.S.

Kural, Cesme, Izmir.

Bogazici houses, Arch:

D.Tekeli&S.Sisa, Istanbul.

Row houses

Row houses, Arch: UC MIM,

Bahcesehir, Istanbul.

Row houses, Arch: UC MIM,

Bahcesehir, Istanbul.

Ankara, began to show their existence with their shoppingcenters, education buildings, parks...etc. as a whole, in thevacant areas or near the closer regions of the cities [9].In the recent years, it can be said that, there was also an

increase in the ‘‘summer resorts’’ which were mostly in

1970–1980

Mesa Gunes houses, Arch: MESA,

Ankara.

Yuksel houses, Arch: Y. Okan,

Yalova.

Semi-detached houses

Nur-Tur houses, Arch: G.

Kabakcioglu, Bodrum.

Tuzla houses, Arch: N. Arolat,

Tuzla, Istanbul.

Patio houses

Gurel house, Arch: S. Gurel,

Canakkale.

House in Bogazici, Arch: E. Bolak,

Istanbul.

Teras houses

Suruculer Teras houses, Arch: M.

Karaarslan, Ankara.

Teras houses, rch: M. Karaarslan,

Ankara.

ARTICLE IN PRESSI.M. Ozdemir, A.B. Gencosmanoglu / Building and Environment 42 (2007) 1445–14521450

detached and duplex type, settled outside the cities or onresorts, built especially by the rich people in longing for thenature.

After the ‘‘Modern Architecture’’, the tendencies ofeclecticism, populism, new classicism, kitsch and decon-structivism has also effected the housing.

As a result of these, it can be pointed out three mainstyles in Turkish architecture in recent years. The first oneis; to adopt the architectural ideas in developed countries,the second one is; to tend local, regional and Islamicorigins in Anatolia, and final one is; to aim producing thelasting values by dealing with the international develop-ment of architecture, with the original conditions ofTurkey as a whole.

The architects, who prefer to study under these stylesare; Merih Karaarslan, Semra Uygur Ozcan, Sezer Aygen,Turgut Cansever, Mehmet Konuralpyetc.

As a conclusion, if to take a look at the types and thedevelopment of the present houses in Turkey, it is possibleto find many different housing types which were held dueto the users’ needs and necessities, social and economic

Table 7

Housing types after 1980—Part 2

Yalis

Yali in Beylerbeyi, Arch: U. Izgi,

Istanbul.

Yali in Uskudar, Arch: D. Hasol,

Istanbul.

Squatters

Squatters, ???, Istanbul. Squatters, ???, Ankara.

Social houses

Egekent-2, Kent Koop., Izmir. Social houses in Sanliurfa, Arch: E.

Elmas, Sanliurfa.

levels, and life styles. These, all point out the metamor-phosis of the existence and the development of presentTurkish houses. According to Dulgeroglu, the presenthousing types in Turkey are grouped into 11 types:Detached, semi-detached, duplex patio, row, ‘‘teras’’,‘‘yali’’, ‘‘villa’’, squatter, blocks/apartments, social houses[13], (Tables 6 and 7).

6. Results

In this paper, from tradition to present, metamorphismin housing is tried to be expressed by the examples withtheir frontal levels. As it is understood from the examples,traditional aspects were not left, but even there areimplications of them. Besides this, it appeared that, thedevelopments in the world’s architectural environments arefollowed in Turkey.The traditional behaviors, consequently, the meaning,

existence and the elements of ‘‘space’’, in Turkish house hasalso had metamorphoses, because of the appearingacculturation within the time. The life styles and the

Villas

Villa Gul, Arch: M. Karaarslan,

Ankara.

Villa in Ankara, Arch: K. Guvenc,

B. Bardak, Ankara.

Blocks/apartments

Mercan&Platin houses, Arch: B.

Cinici, Ulus, Istanbul.

Sinanoba houses, Arch: EMLAK

A.S., Istanbul.

ARTICLE IN PRESSI.M. Ozdemir, A.B. Gencosmanoglu / Building and Environment 42 (2007) 1445–1452 1451

behaviors, the variations in needs and wishes, and the mostimportance is, the metamorphose in patriarchal structureto the nucleus family structure are effective in formingpresent houses [6], (Table 8).

In traditional house, the concept of ‘‘room’’, which couldbe used for multi-purposes, and had included lots offunctions inside, like; eating, sitting, sleeping, bathingyetc., has also had metamorphoses in present houses.Moreover, it was identified and classified according to themain functions appeared inside, like; kitchen, bathroom,bedroomy. etc.

If to make a comparison between a traditional house anda present housing unit, by taking today’s social relationsinto consideration, an analogy can be made on the conceptof ‘‘room’’ in traditional house, with the concept of ‘‘house’’in today. Another analogy can be put forward on theconcept of ‘‘sofa’’, which was used as a common space intraditional house, with the concept of ‘‘street’’, because ofexperiencing extravert life style, in present. Furthermore, theanalogy can be pointed out on the relations between the ‘‘allrooms’’ in tradition, and the relations between the ‘‘allhouses’’ as neighborhood scale in present [15].

The ‘‘privacy threshold’’ has also had metamorphoses[16], in present housing. The concept of the ‘‘privacy’’,which depended on the secrecy of the men and women intradition, formed spaces like ‘‘haremlik/selamlik’’, ‘‘basoda’’, the usage of first floor/upper flooryetc. and show

Table 8

The acculturation in spatial organization

Traditional environment Acculturation

Traditional elements c Metamorphism in c

.

Traditional behavior c Metamorphism in

behavior

.

Traditional organization c Metamorphism In s

Table 9

Some examples from duplex and apartment types

Duplex type

differences in our time. These spaces, which we meet noware used as ‘‘night halls’’, which occurred by the conceptsof halls or corridors, in separating the night and dayactivities, and, as ‘‘personal spaces’’ in ‘‘identified spaces’’.Therefore, it can be said that, the individual activities havegreat roles in today’s housings. Because of this, the spaces,which gain names according to the activities appearedinside, and which can be defined as ‘‘personal spaces’’ in‘‘identified spaces’’ like living rooms, bedroomsyetc., areseemed as ‘‘sub-spaces’’, chosen for the special activities tostudy, read or listenyetc, (Table 9).In present, the concept of the ‘‘bas oda’’ changes its form

and usage, and becomes identical with the concept of the‘‘quest room’’ or ‘‘sitting room’’, with a new usage ofentertaining both women and men, at the same time, andclosed for the daily usage for the family members.In conclusion, there appeared many changes for Turkish

people, in life styles, behaviors, living standards, wishes forthe housing, in the lasting period. By the effects of social,economic, and technologic developments, many concepts,which had great importance in traditional life styles andhouses, have lost their validity in present or began to beinterpreted in different forms by different manners.Parallel to this, within a period in which a developing

country lives in her ordinary production and consumptionrelations, Turkey lives her metamorphose in combinationtradition and modernity.

Present environment

ulture c Traditional elements

Modern elements

c Acculturative behavior

pace c Traditional organization half

Traditional organization modern

organization

Apartment type

ARTICLE IN PRESSI.M. Ozdemir, A.B. Gencosmanoglu / Building and Environment 42 (2007) 1445–14521452

References

[1] Besgen A, A General Investigation About the Architectural

Characteristics of Traditional Houses in Anatolia and Eastern Black

Sea Region. Small Towns Housing and Identity. IFHP Urban

Planning Summer School Papers; 1997; p. 110–118.

[2] Kucukerman O, Turkish House, Istanbul, 1985.

[3] Eldem S H, Turk Evi I, Istanbul, 1984.

[4] Ozdemir IM. Space organization of Turkish house since traditional

till today. IAHS Conference. Portugal 1998(2):522–30.

[5] Rapoport A. Human Aspects of Urban Form. New York, 1977.

[6] Ozdemir IM. Mimari Mekanin Degerlendirilmesinde Mekan Orgu-

tlenmesi Kavrami. Konutta Yasama Mekanlari. PhD Thesis.

Karadeniz Technical University, Turkiye, 1994.

[7] Ozdemir IM. Konut Tasariminda Otorite. Ideoloji Erk ve Mimarlik.

Dokuz Eylul Universitesi, Izmir, 1996, p. 222–8

[8] Turgut H, Unugur M. Gelenekten Gelecege Evimiz Proje Yarismasi. T.C.

Kultur Bakanligi Guzel Sanatlar Mudurlugu, Istanbul, 1992, p. 146–87.

[9] Sey Y. Cumhuriyet Doneminde Konut. 75 Yilda Degisen Kent ve

Mimarlik. Bilanco 98, Istanbul, 1998.

[10] Alsac U. Turk Kent Duzenlemesi ve Konut Mimarligi, Istanbul,

1993.

[11] Keles G. Konut Plan Semalarinda Degisimin Grafik Tekniklerle

Incelenmesi. Master Thesis. Karadeniz Technical University, Turkiye,

1988.

[12] Sozen M. Cumhuriyet Donemi Turk Mimarligi. Ankara, 1984.

[13] Dulgeroglu YY. Konut Mekani Kavraminin Tipolojik Temelleri.

Istanbul, 1995.

[14] Kandil M. 70 Yillik Cumhuriyet Mimarligi Uzerine Dusunceler.

Kimlik-Mesrutiyet-Etik. Turkiye Mimarligi Sempozyumu, Ankara,

1993, p. 188–90.

[15] Atunay AS. Gelenekten Gelecege Evimiz Proje Yarismasi. T.C.

Kultur Bakanligi Guzel Sanatlar Mudurlugu, Istanbul, 1992,

p. 52–84.

[16] Gur SO. House preferences of user’s at different stages of

acculturation. Ekistics 1997;61(366/67):176–83.