152Sobre el Subsistema Vial

The remainder of this chapter examines the structuring of built space in levels 7, 6d-b and 6a in trench I, and level 5 in trench II. Due to the nature of preservation of some of the structural remains found in these levels parts of some of the walls were reconstructed during the digitising process (see Appendix B, Figure 3.2 for conventions). These reconstructions were made in cases where walls were only partially preserved but their original extent (thickness and length) could be reasonably reconstructed based on the parts of the walls that had been preserved, the nature of complete walls (e.g. thickness, direction, angle of corners and so on) within the same structural unit, as well as the extent of internal floor surfaces (i.e. reed matting). A consideration of possible structural configurations is discussed in cases where the original extent of walls or other structural remains could not be reconstructed based on the available evidence.

Each level will be discussed separately focusing on the potential size of co-resident groups, the types of activities and interactions that may have taken place within the various spaces, the affordance of space for animals, and the potential storage capacities of internal spaces. For the purpose of modelling, the individual spaces in each level were assigned separate numbers (referred to as S followed a number), which is outlined at the start of each relevant

108 section together with an assessment of access into, and movement between, the various spaces (sections 5.5.1, 5.5.2, 5.5.3, and 5.5.4). Following this, the potential scale of co- residency and co-presence is assessed for each space through the modelling of contextualised maximum capacities of Size A and Size B adults sleeping and sitting cross- legged (sections 5.5.1.1, 5.5.2.1, 5.5.3.1, and 5.5.4.1). This provides the basis for the subsequent discussion concerning possible activity areas and the potential use of the various spaces (sections 5.5.1.2, 5.5.2.2, 5.5.3.2, and 5.5.4.2). As discussed in section 5.2, there was little or no in situ artefacts found, and the discussions concerning the spatial patterning of activities therefore rely primarily on the presence of built features and the affordance of space for co-presence. This general scarcity of in situ artefacts may be partly due to buildings being kept clean, but perhaps to some degree also the excavation methods (section 5.2). The discussion of the use of space also assesses whether the built environment accommodated the co-presence of animals. The final part of this chapter considers the potential storage capacities of the various internal spaces, which will be assessed for both grains for human consumption and animal fodder (section 5.6).

5.5.1: Trench I, Level 7

The various spaces in level 7 were assigned separate numbers from 1 through 8, which are as follows: the three smaller spaces aligned north-south in the southwest part of the trench are, from south to north, S1, S2 and S3; S4 is the external space in the southeast part of the trench; S5 is the possible courtyard immediately north of S4; S6 is the central space containing an oven; S7 is the northeast space; and S8 is the northwest space containing an oven (Figure 5.2). It is possible that S1 was a southward extension of S2, but due to the poor preservation of the walls this cannot be verified and they were given separate numbers.

It is difficult to assess the movement between the spaces due to the restricted horizontal exposure and the level of preservation. Due to the fragmentary nature of most walls and the fact that their original heights have not been preserved, the possibility of raised doorways, portholes, or access from the roof into some of the spaces cannot be excluded. There was a possible doorway into S3 from the west and a potential entrance into a narrow corridor that may have provided access into S6 from the west (between S3 and S8). It is also possible that there was an opening in the southern part of the eastern wall of S6 as only a small portion of it was excavated in the trench. S2 may have been accessed from S1 and/or S4, although due to the poor preservation it is not possible to assess whether access may have been through a ground level or raised entrance. Parts of S4, S5, and S7 are located outside the trench and most of S8 has been eroded, which makes it possible that access were at ground level from the east into S4, S5 and S7, and from either south, west, or north into S8. It is possible that direct access between most of the spaces in level 7 was not required, although it is equally possible that movement between S5, S6, and S7 occurred in the area

109 to the east of the trench. If S8 was originally entered from the south, then it is possible that access into S3 and S6 was required by individuals also utilising S8. Additionally, it is possible that the architectural remains constituted at least two structural units, perhaps centring on one or more shared spaces, if S1-S3 were part of a different structural unit, possibly extending further west, than S8 and that S5-S7 were connected in the area east of the trench.

Figure 5.2: Plan of level 7 with space numbers.

5.5.1.1: Contextualised maximum capacity

The maximum number of Size A and Size B adults that can sit cross-legged and sleep in each of the spaces is summarised in Table 5.1 (Figure 5.3). Maximum capacity was not modelled for S6 as the presence of the oven and the space left around it may have precluded it from being a suitable space for people to gather or sleep in, although it is wide enough for one adult (Size A or Size B) to sit cross-legged or lie between the walls and the oven if required. Since only the eastern and western walls of S1 have been preserved, and the extent and form of this space is not known, the number listed in Table 5.1 is the number of adults that could fit in the area between the preserved walls.

S5 was the largest space as it could have accommodated at least fourteen Size A or eleven Size B adults sitting cross-legged and may thus have been used for larger social gatherings if required. Additionally, there was enough room for thirteen Size A or ten Size B adults to sleep, which indicates that it may have provided sleeping space for a number of people during the warmer months since it appears that this space was an at least partially walled courtyard (section 5.3). The smaller spaces, S1, S2 and S3, could accommodate between three and four seated adults, though there would not have been much room left over for any kind of movement, such as that required for sitting down or getting up again. It may be that these spaces were better suited for storage and/or activities involving one or two individuals.

110 S1 and S3 could only accommodate two adults (Size A and Size B) sleeping, which may support the assumption that they may not have been used as living spaces.

Space Sitting cross-legged Sleeping

Size A Size B Size A Size B

S1 4 3 2 2 S2 4 3 4 4 S3 4 3 2 2 S4 7 5 6 6 S5 14 11 13 10 S6 - - - - S7 8 5 6 5 S8 10 8 8 6

Table 5.1: Modelled contextualised maximum capacities for level 7.

S2 had room for up to four adults (Size A and Size B) sleeping, which may indicate its potential use as a living space. However, the scatter of bone, horns, antler, stone objects and flint blades found in S2 may suggest that it was, at some point at least, used for manufacturing purposes and/or storage of, for example, raw materials. Based on the assumption that this space was, at least partly, a work space, the modelling took into account two different scenarios. In the first scenario, people were seated facing each other oriented north-south. This would accommodate more space in front of the individuals if they were working, or, alternatively, provide room for storage in the inner part of the space. If two Size B adults were working in S2 while seated opposite each other, this would leave 0.30- 0.35 m on either side of each person and up to 1 m between them. There is enough space for another person between them, but this positioning may not have been conducive to work (or social interaction). Alternatively, four Size A adults could fit into S2 if seated two and two opposite each other at a distance of up to 1.40 m. This would, however, only leave a few centimetres between the people sitting next to each other and between them and the walls. Another two Size A adults could have been seated in S2, but, as was the case with the Size B scenario, this would have resulted in awkward working positions. In the second scenario, people were seated along the eastern wall facing the opposite wall, which may have accommodated work that did not require too much elbow room while still allowing movement along the western wall. Four Size A adults could be seated in this manner (spaced about 0.09 m apart), which would leave 0.45-0.61 m between their knees and the western wall provided they sat with their back against the wall. Alternatively, three Size B adults could sit along the western wall (with about 0.20 m between them), which would leave 0.40-0.47 m between their knees and the opposing wall. These two scenarios indicate that activities occurring in S2 were perhaps restricted to between one and four adults.

111 The spatial configuration of S3 was not as regular as S2 as the southern wall was wider (c

1.53 m) than the northern wall (c 0.98 m). If people were sat facing each other, then three Size A adults (two by the southern wall and one by the northern wall) could fit. This arrangement may have allowed the performance of tasks requiring some movement while at the same time not blocking access into and out of the space. Alternatively, four Size A adults could fit seated in various locations: two by the southern wall and two by the eastern wall; three along the eastern wall and one in the southwest corner; or two by the southern wall, one by the eastern wall, and one by the northern wall. In the latter scenario the person seated in the southeast corner would not be able to leave the space without inconveniencing the people sitting next to her/him, whereas the former two scenarios would allow for all four individuals to enter and leave S3. Three Size B adults could also fit into S3, either along the eastern wall, or two by the southern wall and one by the northern wall. The former scenario would have allowed some space between the individuals and movement into and out of the space, whereas the latter would have meant that the two individuals seated by the southern wall would have to sit with their knees pressed against the walls and each other.

The original maximum capacities for S4, S7 and S8 are difficult to ascertain since they were not fully excavated, and thus the numbers listed in the table are those that can fit into the space within the excavation area. S4 appears to have been an external space (section 5.3) that may have accommodated at least seven Size A or five Size B adults sitting cross- legged, or six adults (Size A and Size B) sleeping. As it is possible that S4 extended further south and east, this may indicate that activities that took place in this area (e.g. associated with the use of the hearth) may have involved a number of people. It may also have provided a place for people to sleep during the summer, as was the case with S5. The nature of S7 and S8 are more ambiguous, although it is possible that S8 was an internal space as the later structural phases of this space (i.e. levels 6d-b and 6a) were (section 5.3). It could accommodate at least ten Size A or eight Size B adults sitting cross-legged, or eight Size A or six Size B adults sleeping, which indicates that it may have been a living space. S7 may have been an at least partially enclosed, possibly unroofed space, as it appears to have been an external space in the subsequent structural phase (i.e. level 6d-b). It may be that the opening for the oven located in the eastern part of S8 was through the wall into S7, which, if Braidwood (1983a: 157) is correct in assuming that ovens generally opened up into external spaces, may support the suggestion that S7 was an outdoor area. There was room for at least eight Size A or five Size B adults sitting cross-legged, or six Size A or five Size B adults lying down, and it is possible that it accommodated a range of interactions involving a number of people. It may also have provided a place for people to sleep during the summer, assuming that it was an external space.

112 Figure 5.3: Modelled maximum

capacities of Size A (top) and Size B (middle) adults sitting cross-legged and sleeping (left and right respectively), and modelled capacity for goats (left) in level 7.