TENENCIA DE LA TIERRA

The third question asks whether there is any observable spatial patterning in the location of domestic activities, and the scale of social interaction taking place in internal and external spaces. A range of domestic activities would have taken place on a daily basis within these built environments, although the precise nature of many of them may not be accurately reconstructed based on the fragmentary evidence that has been preserved. There are issues associated with the identification of particular activities and use of space based on in situ

artefact assemblages alone as the place where portable artefacts were deposited is likely not the same place as it was originally used (LaMotta and Schiffer 1999; also Kramer 1982; Wright 2000). The continued cleaning of interior floors is a common feature of Neolithic structures (e.g. Matthews 2005), and artefacts found within buildings may relate to activities that occurred immediately prior to the abandonment of a structure rather than being traces of activities repeatedly taking place over a long time. Alternatively, such artefacts may have been deposited as part of ritual behaviours associated with the abandonment of the building (Hodder and Cessford 2004: 32-35; Russell, Martin and Twiss 2009: 107; Watkins 1990: 342-343). It is also important to take into account potential taphonomic processes that may have affected the deposition of artefacts, as well as critically assess how such artefacts are reported in excavation reports and evaluate whether they were in fact deposited where they were used. Certain built features, i.e. features set into the floor, wall, and potentially the roof of structures, are more permanent indications of possible activities. These include bins, pits, various fire installations (e.g. hearths, oven, fire pits, or ‘earth ovens’), and ground stone implements fixed into the floor (e.g. mortars, querns) (e.g. Wright 2000). Bins and pits may, for example, have been used for storage and/or refuse disposal (perhaps towards the end of their use-life), whereas fire installations and ground stones are often associated with food processing and cooking. It is, of course, possible that certain features were only built and used during shorter periods of the use-life of the buildings within which they are located.

Manufacturing and craft activities may not leave any in situ evidence in the archaeological record as debris from the production of various items (e.g. chipped stone tools, bone objects, beads) may be discarded in secondary locations, e.g. middens and refuse pits. Food processing and cooking is one group of activities that would have taken place on a daily basis (usually occurring several times a day) and may have involved the use of particular

49 features commonly found in the archaeological record. Storage features, ground stone implements, and fire installations would have been used at various stages of food preparation, and these features are often found inside buildings, as well as in external spaces. The identification of such features and their location within the built environment are discussed in each case study. The frequent co-presence through repeated, daily interaction, such as during food preparation, cooking and eating, is important for structuring social relationships within co-resident groups, as well as between various co-resident units within the wider community (Yaeger and Canuto 2000). Identifying the location in which these activities took place therefore has both social and economic implications. It allows us to examine the scale of social interaction and possible number of participants, as well as reconstruct distribution and consumption patterns.

The configuration of built space in terms of the size and shape of internal and external spaces, and the movement within and around structures can provide insights into possible

uses of space, particularly when evidence of built features is either partial or non-existent. By modelling co-presence, it was possible to assess which activities may have taken place within each space (section 3.3.2). For example, small spaces that did not appear to accommodate social gatherings, i.e. where only between one and four individuals could sit tightly packed together without any room for movement, are assumed to have been used for other purposes, such as storage and/or as working areas. If these small spaces did not contain any built features, the next step was to model one or two people sitting, squatting or kneeling in order to assess whether it was possible for one or two individuals to undertake work in these spaces. This modelling highlighted whether smaller spaces could accommodate one, two, or possibly three individuals, as well as implements potentially used, such as baskets or other containers (e.g. with food), grinding equipment and so on. If spaces were too small for a person to comfortably undertake work in either of these positions (i.e. sitting cross-legged, squatting, kneeling) it may indicate that they were perhaps better suited for storage purposes (e.g. food stuffs, fuel, tools).

In some cases people were also modelled in various positions in larger spaces in order to assess whether the spaces were designed to structure activities and associated interactions in any particular way, e.g. to avoid certain parts of the space due to presence of built features or burials. If there were features associated with, for example, food processing and cooking (e.g. fire installations and ground stones) present then the modelling assessed whether their location would have impacted the access into the space and where people would position themselves not to restrict movement, take advantage of light, and so on. People were in these cases modelled in various positions (usually a combination of sitting cross-legged, squatting and kneeling) along walls, opposite each other, in circles, and/or by particular features as a way of exploring whether the larger spaces accommodated multiple individuals utilising the spaces simultaneously, and, if so, whether their positioning would have impacted the movement through or access into a space or a particular part of the

50 space. This part of the scenario modelling is not meant to represent specific activities, nor imply that the people using the spaces would position themselves exactly as modelled, but rather to provide a tool with which we can start to think about how these spaces may have been used and how this may have affected access into and movement within the spaces.

The use of external spaces may highlight differences in the use of space between internal and external areas, as well as potentially shed light on seasonal variation in the use of space. Activities associated with food processing, preparation and cooking may have taken place outside during the warmer months and inside during colder months (section 3.2). In such cases we would expect to see features such as fire installations and perhaps non- portable ground stone implements in both internal and external spaces. Multiple fire installations may also indicate functional differences (McQuitty 1984), especially if there were several types (e.g. hearths, ovens, fire pits, ‘earth ovens’) present within a settlement. In the village of Aşvan in eastern Anatolia Weinstein (1973: 272-274) recorded four different types of fire installations and their various uses. One of these types was small temporary hearths made by placing stones in a semi-circle and fuel (e.g. dung, twigs, brushes) in the middle. These hearths (constructed in the same general area according to need) were used for boiling large amounts of water for washing clothes and other tasks that could not be done in a closed oven (Weinstein 1973: 273). Another type of temporary fire installation was the slit trenches that measured 0.50 m in width, 2 m in length and 1.50 m in depth. These were used for the preparation of bulgur (boiled in cauldrons above the trenches), after which they were filled in without removing the large quantities of charcoal produced by this activity (Weinstein 1973: 272-273). Additionally, Kramer (1982: 119-123) has noted that at ‘Aliabad’, in western Iran, hearths located in living rooms were used for keeping warm during the winter, whereas the hearth and/or oven located in the kitchen were used for cooking. It is therefore possible that when there are different types of fire installations present this may relate to a difference in function or seasonal use (see also Seeden 1985).

The seasonal use of spaces highlights the fluid nature of built environments, as do the continuous maintenance of internal floors and walls and the changing configuration of space within a building’s use-life. Changes in the size and composition of co-resident groups as members age, leave and die, may also alter the needs and use of space. It is therefore important to keep in mind that the spatial layout of buildings and associated external spaces may only reflect one phase in the use of space (prior to abandonment).