Trench Summary

91

Excavation in the T9 area this season was a difficult and often confusing task due to the fact that it had previously been excavated in a less-than-careful method 30 years ago.  We had hoped to return to the area in order to learn more about the nature and dating of the wall discovered durring these previous excavations.  However, neither of htese goals were reached.  All pottery and tile pulled from Loci 1-3 is useless as it was backfill soil.  Virtually no other material was removed from the trench adjoining hte wall, 10.5-12.5N, 215-218E, except for an impasto rochetto removed from the Locus 5 stone packing.  More interesting was the stone packing level itself.  Although not useful in datin ghte wall, if offers an insight into the construction of the north terrace.  The presence of the rochetto fragment tells us that this stratum is not a natural stratum.  And the stratum ended on bedrock.  Therefore, we know thazt these stones and red clay were packed onto the bedrock, and then the wall was constructed on this packing level.

The trench in meters 5.5-7.5, 216.5-219.5 was equally uninformative for the T9 purpose.  Being the only unexcavated portion of the areas encompassed by the 1969-1971 excavations, we hoped ot discover something that might aid in the dating of the wall.  Luck was not on our side, and nothing related to the wall was discovered until the establishment of locus

92

93

9, which was a tile spread that could possibly have been an archaic floor level.  And resting underneath this level was yet another terrace packing, with the same soil type and stone type found in Locus 5.  And this packing layer was more lucrative than Locus 5, thus reaffirming that the level is not a natural level.  But the wall itself still remains unidentified.  We discovered two unknown architectural framgnets that may be associated with the building (pg. 35, 39, 43) and 8 of the 9 terracotta panther head antefixes were found in tihs area 30 years ago.  Unfortunately we cannot prove that they are in fact associated with this wall.  In fact, we still have no building to attribute the wall to.  Therefore, the area must be returned to, and will in the 2002 season, for the purpose of fully explaining the anture of this wall and the other unattributed finds in the area.