In the preceding discussion concerning the use of space it was suggested that some of the spaces may have been used for storage based on their size, limited potential for co- presence, lack of built features, and a lack of ground level doorways. If these spaces were used for such purposes, the next step is to assess their potential storage capacities based on the assumptions outlined in sections 3.3.3-3.3.4. No features usually associated with storage, such as bins, pits and silos, were found in the levels discussed in this chapter, although impression of textiles and basketry made of reeds on clay and bitumen have been found (Adovasio 1975, 1983) indicating that organic containers were used. The storage calculations were made based on floor area and the assumption that grain and fodder were stored directly on the floor up to a height of 0.50 m and 1 m (Table 5.5). As cultivation of wheat, and possibly barley, occurred at Jarmo (section 5.2) the calculation of stored food for human consumption was based on the annual requirement for grains50, which differs from Ganj Dareh where these calculations were based on legumes (section 3.3.3).
These calculations show that the various spaces may have held enough grain to supply the annual requirement of between three and sixteen individuals (depending on the height of the stored grain). If these calculations are combined and compared with the number of potential co-residents (number of co-resident Size A adults in living spaces) in each individual level then it becomes clear that there may have been enough storage space to supply each of the co-residents with grain for a year (Table 5.6). There are a number of factors to keep in mind, however, as these numbers are meant to illustrate the potential quantity of stored grain and size of co-resident groups. For example, some of the structures have not been fully excavated with parts of the buildings remaining outside the trench, and it may be that not all storage and/or living spaces have been found. Additionally, it is possible that some of the spaces listed as living and/or storages spaces could have been used for other purposes. Storage spaces may have been work spaces used for specific tasks, or may have been used for both storage and work, whereas the potential living spaces may not have been used for such purposes at all, but rather as activity areas for food processing, and/or craft activities
50
131 Trench Level Space
Potential capacity for storage (m3) if 0.50 m height Number of people that could be supplied by potential storage (0.5 m height) Potential capacity for storage (m3) if 1 m height Number of people that could be supplied by potential storage (1 m height) I 7 S1 1.300 3.94 2.600 7.88 S3 1.320 4.00 2.640 8.00 6d-b S2 2.640 8.00 5.280 16.00 6a S1 2.000 6.06 4.000 12.12 S2 1.760 5.33 3.520 10.67 II 5 S1a* 2.100 6.36 4.200 12.73 S3 2.188 6.63 4.375 13.26 S3a* 1.006 3.05 2.013 6.10 S3b* 1.006 3.05 2.013 6.10 S4 1.150 3.48 2.300 6.97 * Later phase
Table 5.5: Potential on-floor storage capacities for small spaces.
Trench Level Space with potential for co- residency Number of potential co- residents per space Total potential number of co- residents (all spaces occupied) Number of spaces with potential for storage Total potential storage capacity I 7 S2 4 12 2 15.5 S8 8 6d-b S5 7 15 1 16 S6 8 6a S3 6 16 2 22.5 S5 10 II 5 early phase S1 13 18 1 or 2 7 or 20 S3 5 5 late phase S1a 4 11 3 or 4 19 or 32 S1b 7
Table 5.6: Modelled co-residency and storage potential.
There is also the issue of whether the structural remains in levels 7, 6d-b and 6a (trench I) constitute separate buildings (sections 5.5.1, 5.5.2 and 5.5.3), in which case the combined number of potential co-residents may not be accurate. If S7 and S8 in level 7 were part of
132 another structural unit than S1-S6, then the combined storage capacity of S1 and S3 (eight to fifteen people) far exceeds the need of the potential co-resident group (four individuals). Similarly, S6 and S7 in level 6d-b may have been part of another structural unit than S1-S5, in which case the potential storage capacity of S2 may have supplied twice the annual grain requirement for the people residing in S5 (seven individuals). In both cases the storage potential of the possible second structural unit (S7-S8 in level 7 and S6-S7 in level 6d-b) is not known. With regards to level 6a, if S2 is excluded from the calculations, S1 had the capacity to supply twelve individuals, which is enough for the co-resident unit in S3 (six adults) or S5 (ten adults), but not both. However, if S3 was a courtyard and was only used for sleeping in the summer, then the potential storage capacity would be enough for the co- resident unit in S5.
In the earlier phase of Structure A (level 5, trench II) the combined potential storage capacity of S3 and S4 (twenty people) may have supplied those living in S1 (up to thirteen people). If, on the other hand, both S1 and S3 were living spaces (up to eighteen individuals) the storage capacity of S4 could not have supplied both social units residing in the building. In the later phase, if both S1a and S1b were living spaces (up to eleven individuals) and only two of S3a, S3b and S4 were storage spaces, there was still enough storage capacity (between twelve and nineteen people) to hold the annual requirement for both social units residing in the building. If only S1b was a living space (up to seven individuals) then either of the smaller spaces would have sufficed as a storage space.
Trench Level Space
Potential capacity for storage (m3) if 0.50 m height Number of goats that could be supplied by potential storage (0.5 m height) Potential capacity for storage (m3) if 1 m height Number of goats that could be supplied by potential storage (1 m height) I 7 S1 1.300 6.19 2.600 12.38 S3 1.320 6.29 2.640 12.57 6d-b S2 2.640 12.57 5.280 25.14 6a S1 2.000 9.52 4.000 19.05 S2 1.760 8.38 3.520 16.76 II 5 S1a 2.100 10.00 4.200 20.00 S3 2.188 10.42 4.375 20.83 S3a 1.006 4.79 2.013 9.58 S3b 1.006 4.79 2.013 9.58 S4 1.150 5.48 2.300 10.95
133 If the animal management strategy included storage of fodder for feeding the animals during the winter when temperatures were low and snow or cold rain may have prevented the herd from being taken out on pasture, or to supplement the pasturage, then it is possible that fodder was kept in the small spaces instead of food for human consumption. Table 5.7 lists the potential storage capacities for the small spaces if they were used for storing enough fodder to feed a goat for 90 days.51 These calculations indicate that each space may have held enough fodder to feed between five and twenty-five goats, and if fodder was stored to a height of 1 m then there would be enough fodder to feed between twenty-five and forty-nine goats per level. It is also possible that if these spaces were all designated storage spaces, they may have been used to store a range of items and materials, including food for human consumption, animal fodder, raw materials, and various tools.
Level
Co-resident unit
Storage capacity; grain for human
consumption Storage capacity; animal fodder Space Size of co- resident group Space Number of people supplied by potential storage Space Number of goats supplied by potential storage 7 S2 4 S1 7.5 S3 13 6d-b S5 7 S2 16 S4 11 6a S5 10 S1 12 S2 17 5 early phase S1 13 S3 13 S4 11.5 5 late phase S1a and S1b 11 S3a and S3b 12 S4 11.5
Table 5.8: Size of potential co-resident unit and the potential storage capacities for storing food and fodder in each level.
If we consider the potential affordance of space for storing both grain for human consumption and fodder for feeding animals through the winter (Table 5.8) it becomes clear that the individual structural units identified in each level (i.e. excluding S7-S8 in level 7, S6- S7 in level 6d-b, but including S2 in level 6a) had the facilities to store enough food for the potential co-resident unit and fodder for between eleven and seventeen goats. The structure in level 6d-b had the capacity to store twice the annual requirement of the co-resident unit, and it may be that if foods and fodder were stored in various containers (e.g. sacks, baskets) instead of directly on the floor, then there may have been enough room for the storage for both. Alternatively, fodder may have been stored in containers in S4; the modelled on-floor
51 90 days (0.20 m2 per goat) were chosen as Jarmo is at a lower altitude than Ganj Dareh and may therefore have
134 storage of fodder in S4 (see Figure 5.5) indicates that the space afforded storage of fodder for eleven goats.
What all of these calculations illustrate is that these structures have the potential to provide facilities for long-term storage of food items (which is most likely to have included plant foods, meat and other animal products) consumed by the people residing in them, as well as providing fodder for domestic herds. It is possible that individual co-resident units may have stored and consumed their own resources and were responsible for the welfare of their own animals. However, it is also possible that any storage was short-term and that many of the small internal spaces were used as work spaces, or for the storage of equipment, fuel, and/on raw materials instead or in addition to food and fodder.
5.7: Summary
This chapter has examined the built environment at Jarmo, focusing on the potential size of co-resident units, the affordance of space for social interaction, human-animal interaction, activity areas and the use of space, and possible storage capacities. Even though there is a lack of in situ artefacts (section 5.2), it is possible to make certain general observations based on the presence or absence of fire installations, the nature of floor surfaces, and the affordance of space for co-presence and co-residency. It is possible that the structural remains in levels 7 and 6d-b, and possibly level 6a (all in trench I), constituted different structural units based on the configuration of the architectural remains, movement between individual spaces, and structural continuity. If this was the case then it is possible that multiple structures were grouped together in certain parts of the site, perhaps according to family ties, and that the buildings may have had shared walls (e.g. between S4-S5 and S6, and S3 and S7 in level 6d-b). Similarly, Structure A in level 5 (trench II) was also located in close spatial proximity to other structural units, although they do not appear to have shared walls. Structure A was larger, contained more internal spaces, and appears to have had a more regular layout than the buildings in levels 7-6a (trench I). It is possible that levels 7-6a (trench I) were earlier than level 5 (trench II), which may explain the increased structuring in the layout of the buildings. This suggestion is made based on three observed differences in the archaeological data, although it should be noted that the excavators were not able to correlate the stratigraphy in the two trenches (section 5.2). Firstly, the remains in trench I are at a lower elevation than the remains in trench II; level 6 in trench II is at ~795.40 m and level 6a in trench I is at ~ 793.40 m. Secondly, there appears to be a difference in the stone bowl assemblages in levels 6-9 in trench I, and that collected from levels 1-5 in trench I and levels 1-6 in trench II with changes observed in the size (decreased over time), form (shift from flat base with flaring sides to rounded with vertical sides), material used (shift from marble to sandstone and limestone), and manufacturing techniques (increased thickness, variation in thickness and irregularities in form, and less final polishing of vessels) (McCormick Adams 1983: 211-213). Thirdly, pottery is only present in the upper 2-2.5 m of
135 the site, appearing in level 5 in trench II and level 3 in trench I (McCormick Adams 1983: 215-221, table 2; Matson 1960). It is therefore possible that level 5 (trench II) constitutes a later phase of occupation at Jarmo than levels 7-6a (trench I), which saw an increase in the regularity in the layout of structures as well as certain technological changes, although these changes do not appear to have been accompanied by any major changes in social structures.
The modelled affordance of space for co-residency and co-presence indicate that there were larger internal spaces in levels 7-6a that may have accommodated co-resident groups that were similar in size to the size of the co-resident group suggested for Structure A in level 5. All structural units appear to contain larger living spaces, smaller work and/or storage spaces, and courtyards, with the main difference being the way that the spaces were organised. There is also a similar patterning in the use of space with no internal fire installations; hearths are located in external spaces and ovens, even though they are located in internal spaces, open up into possible courtyards. It is possible that the majority of food processing and cooking occurred in external spaces, although certain food-related activities may also have taken place in internal spaces – either on a daily basis or according to season. The lack of internal fire installations suggests that the cooking took place outside, and it may be that parts of the possible courtyards were roofed to provide shelter when the weather was not favourable (e.g. raining). Some of the ovens were located in potential living spaces (S8 in level 7 and S6 in level 6d-b), or in the space adjacent to the potential living space (S4 in level 6d-b), and may have provided a source of heating during the winter. This differs from the situation at Ganj Dareh, where there appears to be a lack of internal fire installations that could provide heating during the winter.
S3 in level 6a may be the clearest evidence of a fully enclosed courtyard; it is possible that it was an unroofed space due to the presence of a hearth and the lack of reed matting on the floor. If this assessment is correct it would indicate that food preparation and cooking were activities associated with a higher degree of privacy than in the earlier levels. The extent of the other possible courtyards – S5 and S7 in level 7, S3 and S7 in level 6d-b, and S6 in level 5 – could not be established, but it is possible that they were only partially enclosed. If this was the case then the food-related activities that took place in them were associated with a lesser degree of privacy than S3 in level 6a, although they would still have been more secluded and less inclusive that activities taking place in open areas. The size of some of the possible courtyards (S5 in level 7 and S3 in level 6d-b) indicate that they may have provided spaces for activities that involved a larger group of people than the co-resident group. This may suggest that there was a difference in the scale of interactions that took place in internal spaces compared to courtyards. The latter may have provided a space for the co-resident group to interact with individuals from other co-resident units within the community (or potentially visitors). It is also possible that the size of the co-resident units (averaging eight individuals) is over-estimations, and that the co-resident groups consisted of perhaps no
136 more than six individuals. As most of the possible living spaces could afford the co-presence of ten or more adults, they may have accommodated social interactions that included visitors, in which case both internal and external spaces were designed to accommodate social interaction between different social units. It is also possible that there were additional spaces located at the opposite end of the courtyard, i.e. outside the trench. If this was the case then perhaps the courtyards were used by one social unit residing and utilising all spaces centred on the courtyard, perhaps similar to the Iranian villages studied by Kramer (1982) and Watson (1979). Alternatively, there may have been different social units (possibly closely related) residing and using the different clusters of internal spaces, but shared the courtyards and may have co-operated on domestic tasks. Either of these scenarios suggests a less inclusive pattern of domestic activities than at Ganj Dareh, even though certain spaces may have been designed to accommodate interaction between co- resident groups.
The precise nature of the functions of the smaller spaces is not clear. It is possible that some of them provided smaller work areas and other were used for storage, in which case some may have had raised entrances to prevent rodents accessing the stored food, especially if the storage occurred directly on the floor. The calculated potential storage capacities indicate that each structure may have had the capacity to store the annual food requirement for the co-resident group. This suggests that the co-resident groups may have been more economically independent than was the case at Ganj Dareh. It also appears that each building may have had the capacity to supply a herd of between eleven and seventeen goats in addition to food for the co-resident groups. Interestingly, this is within the range of the number of goats that could fit into the possible courtyards. If goats were kept within the courtyards during nights and bad weather, this may suggests closer human-animal interaction within the settlement, and the courtyards may be a result of a herding strategy where individual co-resident groups were responsible for segments of a herd or their own herd. However, the location of hearths within courtyards, some of which may have been located towards the centre of these spaces (e.g. S3 in level 6d-b), may have precluded their use as pens. If this was the case then it is possible that goats – and other domestic animals (possibly sheep, and pig in the later phase of the occupation) – were kept elsewhere within, or outside of the settlement. There are indications that parts of the settlement did not contain any buildings, and it is possible that animals were penned there.
Structure A is often cited as an example of a ‘typical’ Jarmo building (Banning 2004: 6; Braidwood 1983a: 158; Flannery 1972: 41-42). However, the modelling has provided indications that there may have been some degree of variability in the configuration of structural units, especially in the earlier occupational phases in trench I. Buildings were located in close proximity to each other, sometimes sharing walls, and it is possible that structural units were grouped together in different parts of the site, possibly sharing access to and use of courtyard spaces. The spatial closeness of buildings is reminiscent of the
137 situation at Ganj Dareh (although at Ganj Dareh there may have been only one structure), but the spatial patterning of domestic activities at Jarmo suggests that a range of tasks were less inclusive than at Ganj Dareh. There is also evidence that some cooking-related activities may have occurred in more open spaces outside courtyards which afforded space for several social units to interact, though these interactions may have taken place on a less