Page 345

Conclusion

T90 was re-opened in 2022 for the following reasons:

● To clarify EPOC4’s chronology. Specifically, to recover chronologically diagnostic materials from deposits predating EPOC4’s construction, which would provide a terminus post quem for the construction and occupation of EPOC4.

● To determine if a structure underlies EPOC4. If evidence for such a structure is found, then to determine its approximate form, size, chronology, and function.

Excavations in 2022 were somewhat successful in meeting these research goals, but also raised new questions.

Chronology:

Earlier excavations in T90 and in other trenches situated in EPOC4 suggest that EPOC4 was constructed in the early 7^th century BCE; materials recovered from atop EPOC4’s floor surface consistently date to the mid-7^th century, while those recovered from deposits underlying EPOC4’s floor surface all seem to date to the early 7 ^th century or even the late 8^th century BCE (see Pottery Summary and Conclusion for T90, 2019). This season, no securely datable ceramics or other forms of material culture were recovered, but artifact assemblages continue to suggest an early date for the construction and occupation of EPOC4; evidence suggests that the structure was constructed at the start of the 7^th century BCE and was abandoned by the mid-7^th century.

A number of coil-made and hand-made ceramic fragments were recovered from deposits both overlying and underlying EPOC4’s plaster-rich floor. Specifically, a large coil-made impasto sherd (20220018), a hand-made ridged impasto rim (20220024), and an additional fragment of hand-made impasto (20220028) all were recovered from a deposit identified as EPOC4’s southern wall collapse, and therefore from a deposit associated with the abandonment and destruction of the building itself. While not datable to a specific year or period, these pottery fragments resemble ceramics produced in the 8^th century BCE; their presence in a deposit identified as debris from EPOC4 suggests an early date for the abandonment of this structure. Similarly, a bronze navicella fibula fragment (20220019) was recovered from this same deposit. Such fibulae most often are dated to the first half of the 7^th century BCE,

Page 346

Page 347

further indicating that EPOC4 was abandoned by the mid-7^th century. Moreover, slipped pottery sherds (20220090) were found embedded in a portion of EPOC4’s plaster-rich floor, in Locus 37. While these ceramic sherds are not securely datable, they are suggestive of habitation of EPOC4 through the mid-7^th century, but no later.

More coil-made and hand-made ceramic fragments were recovered from deposits identified with the construction of EPOC4, including its subfloor (Locus 36) and from deposits predating the construction of EPOC4 (Loci 38, 39). Specifically, in a charcoal-rich deposit underlying EPOC4’s subfloor, and therefore predating the construction of EPOC4 (Locus 38), we recovered a hand-made fragment of ridged impasto (20220055). Ceramics such as this frequently are dated to the late 8^th century and the presence of such ceramics in a deposit beneath EPOC4 suggests occupation in this area in the 8^th century BCE. Moreover, this ceramic find accords with other material culture recovered in prior excavation seasons from deposits underlying EPOC4 (see T90 2019 Pottery Summary and Conclusion).

We also recovered a number of charcoal samples from deposits both overlying and underlying EPOC4’s floor; these samples will be sent for Carbon-14 dating and could help to provide chronological clarity for EPOC4’s construction, occupation, and abandonment. Specifically, three charcoal samples (Charcoal Samples #1, 2, 3) were recovered from Locus 33, EPOC4’s southern wall collapse, one was recovered from directly atop EPOC4’s floor (Charcoal Sample #4), one from within EPOC4’s plaster-rich floor (Charcoal Sample #7), one from EPOC4’s subfloor (Charcoal Sample #5), and one from a deposit beneath EPOC4’s subfloor (Charcoal Sample #6).

Two ceramic fragments that appear to be mid-7^th century in date were recovered from a deposit of EPOC4’s subfloor (Locus 36) and from the charcoal-rich deposit underlying EPOC4’s subfloor (Locus 38). These include a bucchero bowl fragment with a fluted carination (20220038) and a fine impasto carinated bowl fragment (20220047). At first glance, both finds seem to contradict our dating of EPOC4 to the start of the 7^th century BCE, as both were found in deposits that are associated with the first phase of EPOC4’s construction and with prior activity, respectively. However, both finds likely are intrusive. Both were found next to a series of large stones (maximum dimension 50cm) that have been

Page 348

Page 349

associated with a small rectilinear hut built atop the remains of EPOC4 in the late 7^th century. Originally, six of these stones were arranged linearly, running from NNE to SSW and were situated in a deposit positioned stratigraphically above EPOC4’s floor surface. Four of these stones were removed in 2019, during the excavations of Locus 28, while two were left in situ; the two stones left in situ are the ones that were next to the ceramics recovered in 2022 in Loci 36 and 38. These two stones were laid as part of a linear stone feature in the late 7^th century but intruded into earlier deposits, causing contamination and explaining the presence of these two examples of later ceramics in deposits that underlie EPOC4’s floor.

Activity and architecture predating EPOC4:

Ever since we began sectioning beneath EPOC4’s floor in 2017, we have recovered strong evidence for occupation and activity in the area of EPOC4 that predates the construction and occupation of the building; we consistently have identified charcoal-rich deposits that are stratigraphically beneath EPOC4’s floor and subfloor (Loci 10, 13, 23, 26, 27, 29) and that have contained exceptionally high quantities of materials associated with metallurgy (see Pottery and Slag Summaries from T90 in 2017, 2018, and 2019). This evidence has indicated that metallic ores were processed and refined in the area of EPOC4’s porch, prior to the construction of EPOC4. At the end of 2019, two deposits were discovered stratigraphically beneath EPOC4; Locus 30 was a small rise of compacted soil with material culture embedded into its surface while Locus 31 was a compacted deposit of olive-brown colored, mottled soil with a concentration of charcoal in its western extent that seemed to form a surface. Only small portions of these deposits were revealed in 2019 and so we could not determine with any certainty whether these deposits were associated with architectural features. However, at the end of 2019, we hypothesized that Locus 31 may have been the compacted earthen surface of a hut underlying EPOC4 and that Locus 30 was a berm or wall of this hut; this structure then would have been a locus of metallurgy.

We returned to T90 in 2022 in part to clarify whether Loci 30 and 31 comprised architectural elements. Work this season indicates that the compacted rise of Locus 30 is not a hut wall or berm, but also suggests that the compacted deposit of Locus 31 may be a beaten earth surface,

Page 350

Page 351

associated with activity and occupation prior to the construction of EPOC4.

In 2022, we concentrated our efforts on the eastern meters of T90, in order to determine whether the compacted rise of Locus 30 or the compacted surface of Locus 31 extended to the east. Excavations in 2022 revealed that neither feature extended eastward; in the eastern meters of the trench, we came down upon what seems to be a natural, geological deposit (Locus 35). This deposit is highly compacted, is yellow in color, contains limestone inclusions, is devoid of material culture, and resembles similar deposits found across Poggio Civitate that overlie bedrock. Given the frequent presence of bedrock in T90, it is likely that Locus 35 is a natural deposit that overlies a bedrock outcropping. However, the natural deposit of Locus 35 does not preclude the presence of architecture underlying EPOC4. The natural deposit of Locus 35 was cut into by Locus 40 and the cutting was infilled by the compacted, olive-colored, mottled deposit of Locus 31. The cut of Locus 40 runs linearly, from NNE to SSW. There also is an interruption in the Locus 40 cut, where the natural deposit of Locus 35 extends further westward. Here, where Locus 35 bumps outward to the west, we discovered a circular depression, approximately 20cm in diameter, that was infilled with charcoal. It is possible that this charcoal-filled depression is the remnants of a post-hole. If so, the Locus 40 cutting into Locus 35 could be the remains of a countersunk wall, potentially indicating that a rectilinear hut predated EPOC4 and was situated in the same location. Locus 31 then would have formed the earthen surface of this hut. Additionally, in exposing more of the Locus 31 surface, we discovered a large concentration of charcoal in its western extent that seems to extend further west, underneath the southern foundation wall of EPOC4. This could be the remnants of a hearth. Therefore, excavations in 2022 once again are suggestive of architecture predating EPOC4, but also are inconclusive. This year’s findings likely will merit further investigation in 2023.

Post-EPOC4 deposits and activities:

While most work in T90 this year focused on deposits predating EPOC4, we did excavate one deposit associated with the re-occupation of EPOC4’s front porch in the late 7^th century BCE (Locus 32). This deposit is associated with the small, rectilinear hut that was built atop EPOC4s porch, following the abandonment and destruction of the

Page 352

Page 353

building. Within this deposit, we recovered a human neonatal right humerus fragment (20220003). This bone fragment was recovered approximately 5 meters to the east of where the later rectilinear hut once was situated, in an equivalent deposit. The discovery of neonatal remains on the periphery of a structure dating to the second half of the 7^th century accords with prior discoveries of neonatal remains at Poggio Civitate.

Page 354