As with the other levels discussed in this chapter, there is little evidence pertaining to the specific activities that took place in the various spaces in Structure A. The exception is S6 where numerous fragments of ground stones were found, which, combined with the fact that the oven in S5 opens up into it, indicates that S6 may have been a focal point for food- related activities within the structure. S6 afforded space for a range of activities to have taken place concurrently, and it is possible that the space was multi-functional. Four or five adults could easily have knelt, sat or squatted along the walls without blocking movement through S6 or into S2. There is also space for at least two adults to use the oven while other individuals were engaged in the preparation or processing of food (e.g. grinding grains). Alternatively, at least eight adults may be seated in a circle during food consumption or while co-operating on a specific task. The walls may have provided some shelter from the sun and wind if needed, and it is possible that many domestic activities (e.g. food preparation, cooking, manufacturing, and mending of personal and/or household items) took place in S6 as long as the weather permitted. It is also possible that S6 may have provided a space for animals to be kept if required during the night, in the lambing season, and/or in adverse weather (section 3.3.4); the space had room for at least ten goats (Figure 5.8). Two goats (or more if kids) may also have been brought into the transitional space S2 if needed. It is also possible that herded animals were kept elsewhere in the settlement, away from domestic structures; certain areas of the built environment may have consisted of larger, open spaces that could have been used for penning purposes as suggested in section 5.2.
128 Figure 5.9: Modelled maximum capacities of Size A (top) and Size B (middle) adults sitting cross-legged and sleeping (left and right respectively) for Structure A in the
latest phase of level 5.
The presence of ground stones in S6 may indicate that these and other tools were kept in this space when not in use, although it is equally possible that implements used in the activities taking place in S6 were kept in the northern part of S5. The placement of the oven in the southern part of S5 left almost 1 m of space north of it, and it is possible that the remaining space served some other purpose, e.g. storage of equipment and/or as a work space. If S5 was used for storage of materials and equipment utilised in the activities taking place in S6, it may be that there was a raised entrance from S6 into S5. Alternatively, S5 may have provided a space for one or two individuals to work, or its main function may have been to provide access to S4 and S3/S3a. Both of these scenarios may have provided space for some storage, depending on the positioning of the person(s) working there, the location of the entrances, and the quantity and placement of the stored goods. If the only access into S4 and S3/S3b was from S5, and food stuffs were stored in S4 and S3/S3b, then it may indicate that the processing of this food took place in S6, or possibly S5, rather than in any of the other spaces. This would indicate that the ease of access was a concern in the structuring of space.
129 The use of S4 was restricted to between one and four working adults. However, there were no obvious light sources in the space that would have provided for good working conditions in terms of vision; there was no hearth, and although any opening in the wall may have allowed some light to penetrate, this was most likely very limited. There may have been a hole in the roof for such purposes, and/or for access, but as there is limited information available on the superstructure this cannot be ascertained. It is possible that the space was better suited for storage purposes, or possibly a combination of storage (in the part furthest from the entrance so as not to block access) and work space (closest to the entrance to take advantage of potential light coming in).
S3 may have accommodated smaller gatherings of people, although perhaps no more than four adults rather than the maximum capacity of eight, as well as provided sleeping space for two to four individuals. It is also possible that S3 was used for storage, and/or provided space for some food-related or manufacturing activities similar to the situation suggested for S2 in level 7 (trench I). If it was a work space the issue of lighting may have been a factor, as was discussed for S4. The later sub-division into two more or less equally sized spaces, S3a and S3b, may indicate that it was used for storage at least in this later phase; one or two adults could have undertaken some work in S3a and S3b, although it appears more likely that activities occurred in spaces that afforded more room for movement, and perhaps interaction with others, such as S1, S1b and S6. If the sub-division of S3 was the result of a need for spatially separate storage facilities it may have been to keep different stored goods separately (e.g. food and fodder). Alternatively, less storage space and/or more internal, spatially separate work spaces were needed.
S7 may have been similar in size to S3, although narrower, and the fragments of reed matting found in it may suggest that it was an internal, or at least partially roofed, space. The fact that it was narrower than S3 may have limited its use for social gatherings not associated with work (e.g. eating or holding meetings), as such interactions are assumed to have required a certain degree of face-to-face interaction (sections 3.3.2-3.3.3). It may be suggested that S7 was more suited for storage and/or work-related activities, perhaps involving between one and three individuals seated along the southern wall. The space may also have provided a place to keep animal as four goats could fit into the space, although perhaps only periodically and the space may have served other purposes most of the time.
The largest internal space, S1, may have accommodated a range of domestic activities, as well as sleeping, eating and socialising, and it may be suggested that it was a multi- functional living space. It is also possible that parts of the space were used for storage of various tools, person items, bedding, and so on. Possible storage is likely to have occurred in those parts of the space where the stored goods would not obstruct movement, such as along the walls or in the northern part of the space (away from the entrance). The later sub- division of S1 into a smaller space at the northern end, S1a, and a larger one in the south, S1b, indicates a functional or social need to restructure space. An alternative explanation for
130 this change to the aforementioned changes in the composition of co-resident groups and/or privacy concerns is that it may be that a greater need for the separation of storage from everyday activities had arisen, or that some activities needed to be separated from other everyday tasks.