Sarah Lima
Session 3
End of Season Report
15 June, 2009

Between the dates of May 25, 2009 and June 15, 2009 (Session III), our excavation team comprised of Sarah Lima (recorder), Panos Kakouros (pickman), Panos Stamatis (barrow man), and Agamemnon (siever) continued investigating several rooms south of the courtyard of the Byzantine house previously excavated by Lattimore (NB 229) and Berg (NB 229) in the 1960s. In 2008, Panos Kakouros excavated in the same area with Anne Feltovich, Emily Rush, and Catherine Person recording; in 2009 session I, Dan Leon and Ben Sullivan recorded there; and in 2009 session II, excavations were conducted by Mark Hammond, Kierston Spongberg, and Sarah Lima. The aim for Session III was to understand the phasing of the three rooms where our team had worked - how the space had been manipulated to serve the needs of the people inhabiting and using the area, and how people would have moved from room to room at different times. In particular, we were interested in reaching 10th century levels in order to understand the earliest phases of the rooms south of the courtyard area, which once served as the hub of the house.

During Sessions II and III, we worked in three rooms: the “Central Room” (in Session II summary, the “East Room”) bounded by walls 5483, 5403, 6027/6284/6300, and 6267/5631/5671 with foundations 6245 (271.10-277.70 E, 1027.70-1023.67 N); the “West Room” bounded by walls 5483, 5484, 5284, and 5519 (265.90-270.70 E, 1028.00-1023.65N); and the “East Room” bounded by walls 10078/10085, 6624, 6027/6285/6300, and 5341 (1027.24-1022.98 N, 281.50-277.62 E).

East Room

We began our work in the East Room by excavating a surface exposed by DB and BS during Session I 2009. A majority of the room, primarily the central and western portion, was excavated during the 1960s. Several deep pits cut most of the southern half of the room, and on the northern edge of the room, two deep pier cuttings cut the remaining surfaces from higher elevations, leaving just a thin balk available for excavation. Joanna Potenza and Ryan Boehm had recorded the removal of a threshold of the Frankish period on the northern boundary of the room [5919], which may have been in use along with walls 10077 and 10076 to the east and with walls 5552 and its superstructure 5922 to the west. While JP and RB did uncover a floor surface in contemporary use with the threshold on the northern side of the room’s boundary (5290), only floor surfaces predating the installation of the threshold were uncovered by BL and DB to the south, the final of which was 6080; the room was then left for future excavation.

The first surface that we excavated was surface 6445, which was contemporary with the use of wall segment 6426. Excavation of 6445 revealed what may be the foundation trench for that wall. The closeness of the wall to the numerous pier cuts made excavation impossible without toppling the entire balk, so the foundation trench was not further explored; we made every effort not to include fill from near the wall in our subsequent deposits.
Several subsequent surfaces, 6468 and 6488, were excavated, prior to uncovering a large built storage pit (cut 6557, fills 6495, 6466, and 6452 built components 6594 and 6558), which would have occupied the room during its 12th century phase. We decided to cease excavation of the balk at this point because the east-west wall segment 6624 had become pedestalled, and permission has not yet been obtained for its removal.

We turned our attention to the eastern boundary of the room, removing wall and threshold 10085 and its underlying foundations (6475 and 6476). At the time that we excavated these contexts, we believed that 10085 was a separate construction from wall 10078, based both on the appearance of the foundations and on the style of the wall itself. We envisioned wall 10085 as installed especially to accommodate a much later threshold construction, as a part of already-existent wall 10078. However, upon excavating the section and seeing how deeply subfoundations 6476 lay (at an equal depth to the foundations of wall 10078’s), we concluded the opposite: that 10078 and 10085 were probably of contemporary construction. Further support for this idea is the fact that there were two surfaces (6451 and 6445 ) running against foundations, suggesting that the foundations predated those deposits. However, this was unclear at the time, since those surfaces were at significantly lower elevations than the wall sections in situ. The pottery from foundations 6676 dated to the late 12th or early 13th century.

The upper blocks used in the construction of remaining wall section 10078 are very substantial in size and appear to be reused Roman road blocks of the Late Roman period; one interesting feature of these eastern sections of wall is that one block that remains in situ appears to have been cut to corner westward about 4 m from the southern terrace wall 5341, dividing the room nearly in half (we assigned this wall the number 6522). We began excavating strata that were positioned around the place where the wall projected from the section, and the excavation of fill 6521 revealed the line of a long east-west robbing or foundation trench cut running nearly the lengh of the room (cut 6523). The reason that the foundation versus robbing cut identification remains ambiguous is that pit cuts have truncated that part of the room badly, so all that we can understand is that the wall existed, and that based on the foundations that were uncovered, it was a substantial, load-bearing wall. I propose that wall 6522 functioned as a terrace wall and was the earlier Roman terrace wall that existed before wall 5341 was constructed immediately to the south in the medieval period for the same purpose. The evidence for this is that it is set into reddish-colored colluvium above bedrock and rests at a lower level than the foundation trench 6509 for wall section 6027, which bounds the room to the west (foundation trench fills 6530 and 6506, covered by fill 6504). Further, the first medieval floor in the room immediately to the west is constructed right atop the red colluvium (this is a course pebble floor that is only partially visible under paving stones 6190 and would have been in use with threshold 6285); there was no earlier phase of use of this space. This changes our impression of the construction of threshold 6285, excavated during Session II; we had envisioned the entire wall section comprised of 6300/6285/6027 to be earlier than the features of the East Room, but if the east-west wall 6522 once existed at an early period, holding back red colluvium on its south-facing side, there is no way that threshold 6285, given its physical position, could have been in use during that period for purposes of communicating with the East Room. However, after the east-west wall was robbed out (at whatever elevation and time that that event occurred), the East room would have received a new terrace wall to the south (i.e., the wall 5341, now in situ), and the space would have been expanded to the south(and therefore open for communication with the east room via threshold 6285). The best guess for when this event may have occurred is Late Byzantine, based on the scant amount of ceramic material available from foundation trench fill from 6530 and 6506 and overlying 6504; additionally, if the cut indicating the course of early east-west terrace wall 6522 is a robbing event, then the date of that event can be further narrowed to the 10th/11th century. Therefore the earliest medieval phase of this part of the house began with a massive reorganization of space and great effort spent at expanding the usable space by moving the Roman terrace wall 4 m to the south.

Future Considerations

The balk cannot be explored further until wall 6624 is documented and removed, since the wall is pedestalled as it currently lies. The relationship between the wall sections 6300, 6285, and 6027 is not yet fully understood, as foundation trenches have not yet been revealed for 6300 and 6285; recovery of foundation events for those sections could confirm or refute our speculations about how the East and Central Room construction sequences work. Another question worthy of further attention is whether wall 10078 truly represented the easternmost extent of the East Room or not; while the blocks that comprise the wall as it stands are extremely large, there does appear to be another wall running behind it; are there multiple eastern wall phases for this room? Finally, the section of 10078 immediately to the north of the cut for excavated foundations 6476 and 6475 for wall/threshold 10085 should be considered together with those construction events if and when it is removed.
Western Room

The Western Room was excavated in 1960s excavations by Lattimore and Berg (NB 229, p. 180). As was the case in the East Room, this room featured several deep Frankish-period storage pits (labeled as “bothroi” in the 1960s notebooks) that truncated many of the earlier features within the room. In the case of the Western Room, those two storage pits (cuts 6380 and 6363 which terminated on bedrock) were confined in the southern half of the room. The space was further restricted by two large Frankish north-south wall sections, 5485 and 5490, which lay against north-south wall 5284. In 2008, AF and ER excavated within the Western Room, reaching levels that ran beneath wall 5490. Because permission had not been obtained from the Byzantine Ephoria to remove the two later wall sections, they were pedistalled so that excavation could continue east of them. Our efforts during Session II were focused on cleaning and investigating the previously-excavated storage pits, and on excavating contexts preserved in the balk under the walls once they were removed. We wanted to reveal and excavate the floor revealed by 6428 (=5887), which represented the same stopping point that AF and ER reached in 2008. Additionally, a Frankish period cooking pot was excavated from one of the surfaces that we excavated (surface: 6393, cook pot: 6397).
Our excavations of the surfaces to the north had, in turn, left a balk of higher elevation on the southern side of the room, since it was difficult to reach and excavate the thin deposits surrounding the two storage pits and running up against walls 5284, 5484, and 5483. In Session III, we began our excavations of the southern strata with fill 6439, uncovering the remaining fill of foundation trench 6427 (fill 6552) for wall 5284. 6439 was assigned a date of the 2nd or 3rd quarter of the 12th century on the basis of its ceramics, while the surface that was cut was 2nd quarter of the 12th century, dating the construction of wall 5284 to that period. This does not match the date of the foundation trench found on the other side of the wall by JC and NA in 2008; their foundation trench was dated to the 13th century by stratigraphic relationships. This situation is worthy of further consideration in light of the potential shifting of dates posed by lower fills from this room (explained in more detail below).

One goal in excavating the Western Room was to understand the nature of the robbing event that took place on wall 5519. The east-west wall 5519, which bounds the northern side of the Western Room, features a significant gap of approximately 1.5 m on its eastern side, near its junction with north-south wall 5519, bounding the eastern side of the room. It was our intention to compare the surfaces that we uncovered within the western room with the surfaces recorded to the north of 5519 by Scott Gallimore and Will Bruce during Session II of 2009. The last surface that they excavated to the north of 5519 revealed the edge of a cut that appeared to be part of the robbing event of the wall, and they expected that we would find a similar cut on our side beneath floor surface 6540 (84.54 MASL). We did not find a cut on our side of the wall, but other pieces of evidence suggest how the robbing event may have taken place, and how the use of the space may have changed after the removal of the wall section. Our investigations revealed that not only were our surface deposits below 6540 (i.e., surfaces 6572, and 6589) different in composition from those revealed to the north of the wall (beaten earth in the western room, pebbled and tiled surfaces in the courtyard), but their elevations were different as well, by approximately 0.50 m (surface deposit 6572, 84.49 MASL, and surface deposit 6589, 84.41 MASL). One possible explanation for this difference is that perhaps it was a threshold that was robbed from wall 5519, mediating between the space in the courtyard and the space within the Western Room. In that scenario, differences in elevations and in composition could be accounted for because the spaces were bounded by a wall, with communication between the two rooms offered by a door and possibly a step downward into the Western Room. After the section of 5519 (putatively a threshold) had been robbed, the space where the door had been would have still remained, allowing access into and out of the room, but the floor levels would have had to be brought to the same level to allow movement in and out. Fill 6628, underlying 6540, demonstrates how this would have been done; its location near the missing section of wall suggests that the threshold blocks were removed, and that the resulting hole was filled with tile and debris as a means of raising the floor level to accommodate the resulting height differences between the surfaces to the north and to the south. 6540, then, would represent the first surface in the Western Room after the putative threshold was removed. The pottery of 6540 dates to the 12th century, and its overlying fill deposits 5887 and 6428 are from the first half of the 12th century.

The foundation trenches for walls 5483 and 5519/foundations 6575 were uncovered at lower elevations, below the level of both surface deposit 6572 and surface deposit 6589; these surfaces may be considered to have been in use with 5483 and 5519 wall sections after they were founded. Ceramics from all three surfaces date to the 12th century. As far as the sequencing of the walls of the room go, wall 5483 is stratigraphically the earliest, although the elevation of its foundation trench is almost identical to the lowest foundation trench of wall 5519 [cut 6677 at elevation 83.98 versus cut 6646 at 84.00 MASL]; since the upper courses of the walls appear to bond, it would make sense for their foundation events to have occurred at the same time. Wall 5519 does show evidence for at least two foundation events, indicating that it had an earlier phase on its eastern side (cut 6677, fill 6646) and a second phase to the west of that, cutting the earlier foundation (cut 6616, fill 6611, revealed by late Byzantine fill 6578). Finally, the foundation trench 6427 cut the foundation fill 6616 for wall 5519, indicating that that 12th century foundation event is a terminus ante quem for the other two sections.

The earliest surface excavated was 6624, revealing a hard, light pinkish brown surface that appeared to be composed of the colluvium that has been observed to rest above bedrock levels throughout the North of Nezi area. This unnumbered and as yet unexcavated surface appears to have been cut by numerous features, including the earliest foundation trench for wall 5519 (trench cut 6647, fill 6646) and the foundation trench for wall 5483 (trench cut 6677, fill 6675), which came down onto bedrock. Additionally, the unnumbered pinkish brown surface was cut by a large ashy pit that was revealed in the northeastern corner of the room (pit cut 6645, fill 6639, overlying fill 6639), truncating both early foundation trenches in addition to cutting a much larger robbing trench cut 6665 (putative), to the south. Overlying surface 6624 has pottery from the 11th century, which would potentially provide a terminus ante quem for these earliest foundation events- but there is an inconsistency with the pottery from fills from the truncated east-west robbing trench 6665. Two fills from robbing trench 6665 (6649 and 6663) yielded joining coarse incised sherds of the mid-13th century, potentially shifting the dates of all of the previously discussed contexts (and other contexts from the room) two centuries later. This warrants a more detailed discussion of how the putative robbing trench was discovered, how we approached its excavation, and the potential scenarios by which these inconsistencies may be interpreted.

The cut of the putative robbing trench 6665 was first noticed in the section of storage pit cuts 6380 and 6353 as a straight line appearing to run the length of the room from east to west. We noticed the cut before it was exposed in plan on either its northern or southern sides, and speculated variously about its length, suggesting at times that it ran all the way across the southern side of the room, and at other times that it was thinner in width, perhaps in connection with robbing cuts 6381 (for north-south wall 6157 visible below wall 5411) and with robbing cut 6674 (east-west cut, visible below wall 5284). In context 6587, the difference in strata to the north versus south of the cut line became more visible (but the cut was not revealed in plan), and immediately after, surface 6589 was excavated with knowledge that the strata south of the line of excavation were different from the surface that was excavated. In these contexts, the line of the cut may have been visible, but its full extent was not yet defined in plan, so it was left unexcavated. It was only visible as a straight line in the south-facing section of the two storage pit cuts, making it impossible to use the sections to try to determine its extent and shape; however, since virgin red colluvium had been cut for the construction of the two storage pits and had preserved their round shapes on all sides, it is certain that the cut could not have stretched completely across the southern half of the room at the levels we were excavating. What’s more, we were steered away from thinking that the cut related to cuts 6381 and 6674 by the fact that the cut continued further east past the point where it would have cornered to rob wall 6157.

The cut became clearly exposed in plan after the excavation of surface 6624, cutting into the hard pinkish brown surface truncated by numerous earlier pits. The excavation of 6619 was an effort to find the southern line of the cut, but was unsuccessful, as was the excavation of fill 6631, which revealed the southern edge of pit 6645, making it stratigraphically later than the robbing trench cut 6665. Pit 6645 cut into fill 6649 to the south, which was one of the aforementioned contexts in which one of two joining 13th century coarse incised sherds was collected. Three more fills south of the cut line, 6657, 6660, and 6663 (the other context from which a joining coarse incised ware was collected) were then excavated before the southern extent of the robbing event 6665 appeared clearly in plan, along with the foundation trench for wall 5483 (foundation cut 6677, fill 6675, overlying fill 6663). The excavation of lowest fill 6676 within cut 6665 revealed a hard, brownish yellow surface, likely the floor associated with an earlier architectural phase of which wall 6157 is part prior to the foundation of wall 5483, while the excavation of lowest fill 6675 within foundation trench 6677 revealed bedrock.
There are at least three possible conclusions to draw from the stratigraphy as we have defined it and the ceramics that have come from these contexts, in light of the discrepancies we have discovered:

Scenario 1) The stratigraphy was excavated correctly and the dates of the ceramics from stratigraphically later contexts need to have their dates bumped up to account for their stratigraphic relationships. In support of this are findings from Jody Cundy and Nate Andrade’s 2008 records of the room directly west of the Western Room. While many of their upper strata were found to be 12th century, a Frankish strap handle was found at the bottom of a pit cutting lower strata in the room, thus altering the date of all overlying contexts. There is further support for this idea in the pottery from fill 6676, the bottommost fill of cut 6665; it dates to the 12th/13th century. Finally, the fact that the 13th century levels were found in lowest stratified levels of the room, and were all excavated on the same day in a limited amount of time makes the possibility of contamination (e.g., through tumble or long-term exposure) less likely.

Scenario 2) We missed the line of the robbing trench cut 6665 at a higher elevation and needed to treat the fills within it as fills lying on each other within a cut, rather than relating them variously to surfaces to the north, potentially across the putative cut line. This would also mean that the final cut line that we identified after excavation of 6663 relates to another cutting event, and not to the line of the robbing event. Further supporting this scenario is the fact that a boundary was defined for the northern side of the cut as early as context 5343/5345 during session II; however, it remains that the entirety of the cut was not exposed until the excavation of context 6663.

Scenario 3) The area was significantly disturbed by 1960s excavation events, in ways that we did not fully perceive while excavating during both Session II and Session III. In this scenario, the stratigraphy could have been cut in order to accommodate the excavation of pits 6353 and 6380. The cutting events involved could have been anything from half-sectioning, to creating steps out from the storage pit cuts during excavation to facilitate getting in and out of them, and to prevent the walls from collapsing. In this scenario, the fills we dug south of cut 6665 were actually backfill from the 1960s. In support of this scenario are two facts: A) 1960s records (NB 229, p. 180) mention that the southern portions of north-south walls 5490 and 5485 were removed in order to accommodate the excavation of the storage pit cut 6353; additional disturbance could have occurred at the same time. B) Contexts 6343 and 6345, excavated during Session II, uncovered a cut in the same place that the cut 6665 begins to the west, and at the time that we were recording it, it was speculated that the cut might have been for a half-section created to facilitate 1960s excavations within the Western Room; if that small cut represents the beginning of cut 6665, we would be able to place it significantly later in our stratigraphic understanding of the room.

Future Considerations

Pit 6645, cut 6665, and foundation trench cut 6677 which were the last contexts recorded cut the unnamed pink surface revealed by 6624 to the north, but 6665 and 6677 also cut a smaller level of fill revealed by 6660 in the southeastern corner of the room. Provided that these fills are not found to belong to very early levels truncated by an erroneously defined cut, the fill in the southeastern corner should be prioritized for removal in 2010. Likewise, the fill of robbing event 6381, heretofore only visible in the northern and southern facing sections of pit 6380, but revealed by the excavation of fill 6676 and cut 6665, should be exposed in plan and removed. After those contexts are excavated, it will be possible to consider exploring beneath the pink surface.

Conclusions

The way that the discrepancy between the Frankish lower fills and the Byzantine upper fills is interpreted has implications for the way that the courtyard area is phased, since one of the questions that this excavation addresses is how the area changes through time, and when those changes take place. One scenario is that construction activities occurred in two phases: the 10th/11th century, and the 13th century, with less activity in the 12th century. A second possibility is that development was steady and gradual, occurring from the early Byantine through the Frankish period.
Until the lower Frankish fills were uncovered in the West Room, that space showed strong evidence for some early activity (evidenced by the robbing events 6381 and 6674 visible below walls 5411 and 5284, as well as the early surface uncovered below pit cut 6665, predating wall 5483), a great deal of construction activity in the 12th century, and subsequent Frankish building activity as well.

The levels in the East Room are early and definitely reflect “phase one” constructions of the 10th and 11th centuries, prior to a subsequent restructuring of the room that involved relocating the southern terrace wall to open the East Room for communication with the Central Room via threshold 6285. There is little evidence for 12th century activity in the East Room as it currently survives, but the eastern wall section that we removed, 10085, featured foundations (6575, 6576) that contained 12th/13th century pottery, supporting the idea of Frankish period reuse of the space.

The Central Room, like the West Room, features up to three phases of development. The earliest floor surfaces there are directly on top of the red colluvium soil, meaning that they are quite early and probably date to the 10th century, and the east-west wall 6120 would have divided the room. The walls 5483 and 5631/6425 date to the 10th/11th century as well, and would have represented part of the room’s expansion, since 5631 lies further north. Then, the Central Room opened up to the East Room via the construction of 11th century threshold 6285, expanding movement still further; subsequently, the threshold was blocked off by fills 6278 and 6277, and Frankish constructions such as walls 5552 and 5553 would have constricted the Central Room again.