An aspect that also needs some consideration is that of access into and movement between spaces. The previous discussion of potential activities and storage, especially if they occurred in the smaller spaces in the eastern part of the trench, necessitate availability and access. Some of the larger spaces in the western part of the trench may have had ground level or raised entrances; the original extent of S12, S26, S27 and S28 has not been preserved and/or fully excavated, and thus it remains possible that there were ground level entranceways. Alternatively, it is possible that these spaces were accessed through the roof as has been attested at Neolithic sites elsewhere in the Near East, such as Çatalhöyük in central Anatolia (Cessford 1998; Cutting 2003: 6; Düring 2001: 4; Twiss et al 2008: 43).
The portholes that have been found in some of the walls present another means of access (section 4.3). Smith (1990: 330) was not sure that they were used as conventional entrances, although he is uncertain about their function due to the variability in size and shape and their presence in walls of both the larger and the smaller spaces, as well as in the ‘burial cubicles’. It may be, as he has suggested (Smith 1990: 330-331), that they served a variety of functions; they may have provided ventilation, access to contents kept in the smaller spaces, and/or so-called ‘peep-holes’. If it is assumed that some of these portholes may have been used as cursory entrances, the question would then be what size a porthole would have had to be for a person to crawl through it. A person that is similar in height and width of shoulders, but with slightly wider hips than the Size A individual used for the scenario modelling can crawl through a hole with a diameter of about 0.33 m (personal observation), and it may be suggested that the portholes that measured ~0.30 m or more in diameter may have provided a means of entering a space for a Size A (or smaller) adult or child. Table 4.8 lists the size of the portholes shown on the plan (Figure 4.2) (there is no further information available concerning any of the other portholes found).
In wall between spaces S4- S12 S8-S9 S9- S13 S19 * S21- 30 S22- S24 S24- S25 S25- S26 S31- S33 Diameter (m) 0.20 0.39 0.25 0.16 0.24 0.13 0.30 0.48 0.29 * The porthole is located in a plastered feature by the southern wall, but there is no indication whether it extended through the wall into S31 or not.
Table 4.8: Approximate sizes of portholes.
Assuming that the portholes measuring 0.30 m or more may have been cursory entrances, there are three, or perhaps four, portholes that may have provided enough space for a Size A, or smaller, person to crawl through, i.e. between S8 and S9; S24 and S25; S25 and S26; and S31 and S33. The porthole between S8 and S9, however, is located above the plastered
90 depression in S9 and opens up onto the western wall of the niche containing the sheep skulls in S8, and it is thus doubtful whether it would have been used for movement between the two spaces. Instead it is possible that it was there mainly to enable people in S9 to look into S8. The porthole at the other end of S9, which opened up into S13, appears not to have been blocked by any structural features, and may have provided some form of access between these two spaces (perhaps for retrieving goods stored in S13). It may even have been enough space for a small individual (e.g. a child) to have crawled through it if required.
The porthole between S25 and S26, which is the largest one recorded here, presents the most convincing candidate for a possible entrance based on size. Similarly, the porthole between S25 and S24 may have provided access into S24, and if so, possibly also the contents of the clay vessel in S23. There was only a buttress separating S24 from S23, leaving a gap of about 0.16 m between it and the wall through which it would have been possible for an individual to reach. Alternatively, if the buttress did not go all the way up to the ceiling, the content of the vessel may have been reached more easily. The porthole between S22 and S24 may have provided access to contents stored in S22 as it may have been wide enough for an arm to reach through, although this may have necessitated the stored goods to be placed directly by the porthole in S22. If the portholes between S25 and S26, and S24 and S25 were used as entranceways, and the porthole between S22 and S24 provided some form of access into S22 then it is possible that all of these spaces (S22-S26) were part of the same structural unit. If this was the case, then it may have provided living and working spaces for a co-resident unit. S25 and S26 could accommodate up to five adults sleeping each, and eleven and six adults sitting cross-legged respectively. Additionally, activities taking place within S25 and S26 may have involved use of the foods, materials, and/or tools that were stored in S23, S24, and S22.
There are other examples of spaces that may have been functionally linked. For example, it may have been possible for a small person, such as a child, to crawl through the porthole between S21 and S30. The three large bins in the eastern part of S30, combined with the mortar in S21, may suggest that food-related activities taking place in S21 required access to the goods stored in S30. Additionally, the porthole between S31 and S33 may have provided access for a small person, which may indicate that it was possible to enter S31 from S28 through S32-S33. It is also possible that various materials and items may have been passed between these spaces, from one person to another, through the portholes without necessitating someone crawling through them.
All of the portholes listed in Table 4.8 may have provided some form of access between spaces, either as cursory entrances (or ‘crawl holes’), openings that people could reach their arm through to retrieve goods stored in that space, or openings that people passed materials between one another. They may also have allowed people in different spaces to communicate verbally, provided ventilation or lighting (if there was a source of light in one of the connected spaces), or they may have been there only for people to look into certain
91 spaces (e.g. in the case of S8 and S9). Without further evidence, however, these are only suggestions. Nevertheless, it remains clear that even if portholes were points of access, the majority of spaces have no obvious entryways. The larger spaces may have been entered from the roof or through doorways that have not been preserved or are located outside the excavated area. With regards to the small spaces, it is possible that they were accessed from above – through the floor of the spaces above if these were part of a two storey structure or from the roof if they were not. If the former was the case, then the floors of the spaces on the upper floor would have had a considerable number of openings in them. Their placement would, therefore, have had to be considered during construction so as not to be in the way of activities taking place in the upper storey, or reduce the amount of ‘usable’ or available floor space. If access to the smaller spaces was gained through openings through the above floors, it is possible that these were capped by ‘plugs’ or covers made of wood or clay when not in use. It is also possible that access into and movement between the smaller spaces were achieved through a combination of openings in the floors (for spaces with no other obvious entrances, e.g. S5, S15 and S20) and the portholes. If there was no upper floor, then the placement of roof entrances may not have been of great concern.