Nezi 2013 Season
Session 3 Final Report
Grace Erny and Emily Joy
N 1005.89 – 1022.92; E 255.66 – 271.22
27 May – 21 June 2013

This is the final report for the third session of excavation at Nezi, 2013. Guy Sanders (director) and Rossana Valente (field director) supervised. The Pink excavation team for this session consisted of Grace Erny and Emily Joy (recorders) and Panos Kakouros (pickman). The first ten days of excavation focused briefly on the area south of wall w35 and east of wall 5218, then moved north and east into the area south of wall 5484 and east of wall 1154. Previous excavation in this area was undertaken during the 2007 season. Our excavation goals for this area included clarifying the relationships between the various walls and surfaces present there. In the final six days of excavation, we moved south in Nezi field to work in the area west of Wall 1222. This area is bounded to the north by a foundation trench for the Late Byzantine Wall 1087 (C809), and to the south and the west by unexcavated scarps. As we excavated the deposits west of 1222, the Blue team continued to work to the east of the wall. By digging in this area, we hoped to determine the extent and possible construction date of wall 1222, to compare the finds from the area west of the wall to the finds from the area east of it, and to ascertain whether the pebble mosaic floor uncovered in situ by the Blue team roughly 0.5 m east of the north end of wall 1222 continued below this wall to the west. It was also suggested that excavations in this area might encounter a continuation of the tile-rich dump deposit 1080 excavated during Session 1 of the 2013 season, which yielded much Late Roman pottery, including several rare forms, and many coins.

The two areas in which we excavated in this session are far apart, and since we did not dig the contexts in between them we will present the two areas separately in this report.

Area 1: 27 May – 7 June (N 1015.44 – 1022.92; E 266.44 – 271.22)

The number of walls, floor-like surfaces of hard-packed earth, and fill deposits in this area suggests that it was an interior space, likely residential. It appears to have served this function from the Early Roman period through the Late Roman period and to have undergone a destruction and several fill operations and reconfigurations within that time.

Early Roman, ca. 1st c. BCE – early 2nd c. CE

In the Early or Middle Roman period, probably in the second century BCE or earlier (based on the pottery dates from the fill dumped on top of it), a floor of hard-packed, grayish, clay-rich earth (structure 1191) was in use in the area. Two walls, wall 1154 (N 1020.04-1020.43, E 268.32-268.89, orientation NW-SE, constructed with a mixture of roughly hewn and squared limestone blocks bonded with mud) and wall 1213 (N 1020.07-1020.64, E 270.14-271.09, orientation E-W, constructed similarly to 1154 with the addition of roof tiles) were in use at the same time as this floor, which extends directly up to them with no cuts for foundation trenches visible. These two walls may have formed part of a room at this point, with a space left for an entryway between the east face of 1154 and the western end of 1213. Wall 5435 and wall 5218 prevented us from digging further to the north and east, confirming the extent of the floor. Floor 1191 probably continued south through the putative entryway between 1154 and 1213, possibly into another room to the south, although the presence of the later Roman wall 1155 makes this difficult to determine. Excavations directly south of wall 1155 and 1213 in the western part of deposit 1199 descended upon a hard-packed surface with a similar composition and elevation to 1191. The hypothesis that this surface is a continuation of floor 1191 is supported by the presence of patches of charcoal and ash directly above both surfaces. These ash and charcoal deposits do not have clear edges and do not contain enough material to constitute hearths. Rather, they seem to be the remains of small, localized, one-time events, perhaps related to cooking. At some point during the floor’s use, pockets of tiny (approximately 0.001 m) greenish-brown seeds collected on top of it (at the bottom of deposit 1199). This material may also indicate food preparation activities in this area, although an identification of the seeds by an archaeobotanist would be helpful for interpretation here.

One squared limestone block of wall 1213 has a rectangular groove (length 0.08 m, width 0.02 m, depth 0.04 m) incised on its upper surface. The block appears to be in secondary use here, and it is possible that the groove was originally used to support a stele with a tongue at its base. The presence of such a block is consistent with evidence for Hellenistic cult activity in the vicinity.

Middle Roman, ca. 2nd - 4th c. CE

In the Middle Roman period, this area saw much activity, including multiple fill operations and a destruction. In the potential room bounded by wall 1154 to the west and wall 1213 to the south, floor 1191 went out of use as material was dumped on top of it. This material was deposited in two discrete events. The deposit laying directly against wall 1154 in the western half of the area (context 1151) was rich in crushed mudbrick and large broken pieces of roof tile mixed together. The soil here was quite red, a common effect of mudbrick being exposed to heat, and contained inclusions of charcoal. These observations suggest that a destruction occurred here, possibly involving the partial burning of a building. Similar deposits containing high proportions of mudbrick and rooftiles were excavated directly above context 1151 in 2007 (B5069, B5082) and reportedly did not extend further west than the east face of wall 1154, which implies that the putative destruction postdates wall 1154.

The deposit to the east of this destruction (context 1169), by contrast, contained almost no mudbrick, and the roof tile pieces present were less numerous and smaller. One notable find from context 1169 was a fragment of furnace brick with some bronze adhering to it, which suggests that bronze production was occurring in this area during or before the Middle Roman period. The deposit directly above 1169 was also excavated in 2007 (B5070) and consisted of a clayey surface identified by the excavators as a possible floor and dated by them to the second half of the 3rd century, presumably based on pottery. 1169 is likely leveling fill which was dumped into the area as a preparation for this surface. The pottery from this context, which was dated to the 2nd c. npd, supports this interpretation.

It is difficult to reconstruct whether the leveling operation or the destruction event occurred first. Both of them were dumped directly on top of floor 1191. The large fragments of tile, however, became somewhat scarcer towards the bottom of the destruction deposit 1151, although the change was not dramatic enough to warrant a change of context. Neither we nor the previous excavators noticed an extension of the putative floor 5070 into the western half of the area, which seems odd given that there is no evidence for a wall or other boundary that might curtail its westward extent. One possibility is that the surface 5070 originally extended as far west as wall 1154, and then the destruction occurred sometime after the floor’s construction in the late 3rd century. This event then destroyed the western part of this surface, which would mean that deposit 1151 would postdate both 5070 and the leveling fill 1169 below it. Ceramic evidence support this interpretation, as the pottery recovered from the destruction (1151) was dated to the Middle to Late Roman period, is later than the 2nd century pottery date assigned to the leveling fill (1169). A carved gemstone depicting Aphrodite Hoplismeni (MF 2013-13) was also recovered from 1151. Although we dated it on the basis of comparanda to the Early Roman period (1st-2nd c. CE), a valuable or heirloom item such as this may have been kept for a long time and does not necessarily imply a date this early for the entire context.

This destruction event seems to have prompted a reconfiguration of space in the area in the later part of the Middle Roman period. To the south of wall 1213, at least two pebble-rich, hard packed, slightly uneven surfaces were in use sometime before the 4th century CE, but after floor 1191 went out of use. One overlays the other, but their similar compositions and elevations suggest that they may have been used at roughly the same time and perhaps represent repairs to the same surface. Time constraints prevented us from excavating these putative floors and gaining a better understanding of their stratigraphic relationships to each other and the surrounding walls, but they are shown on the bottom plan for context 1199 and are labeled as Floors 1 and 2.

In the 4th century, these two surfaces went out of use as more fill (deposit 1199) was dumped on top of them, possibly as preparation for a later floor. Wall 1213 also went out of use at this time as it was covered by the same fill. This fill contained much redeposited earlier material, including Early Roman redwares and relief lamps (all Broneer type 22; see in particular L 2013-5), Hellenistic and 4th century BCE loomweights, and several earlier figurines (MF 2013-22, probably Early Roman, and MF 2013-15, possibly 4th century BCE). Stone tesserae and large quantities of painted wall plaster were also present in this fill, probably from earlier Roman domestic or semi-public spaces in the area.

After this fill operation was performed, wall 1155 (N 1020.24-1020.56, E 268.90-270.09, orientation E-W, constructed with limestone, roof tiles and pebble conglomerate bonded with mud) was constructed along the same line as but at a higher elevation than the earlier wall 1213. Wall 1155 abuts wall 1154 at its western end but stops at the east with a large squared limestone block (height 0.90 m, top surface 0.50 m x 0.40 m). This block possibly delineated the western edge of a point of entrance into an interior space bounded by wall 1154 to the west and wall 1155 to the south.

The area south of wall w35 and east of wall 5218 also appears to have been in use in the Middle Roman period, when a series of floors was constructed in the area. Deposit 1148 was comprised of areas of looser, sandier soil alternating with compact, flat layers of more clayey soil, which we interpreted as several layers of flooring with patches of crushed mudbrick fill in between. Pottery from this deposit supports a Middle Roman date. The boundaries between these successive floors were difficult to distinguish, and they were likely laid down roughly contemporaneously as part of repair operations in an interior space. A shallow carbon and ash-rich deposit (1147) was laid on top of this series of surfaces and was probably in use at roughly the same time, but it did not appear to be a proper hearth, and the area was probably only sporadically used for burning.

Late Roman, ca. 5th c. CE

A new floor (1142) was laid over the series of Middle Roman floors sometime in the 5th century (based on pottery dates). Both this floor and 1199 were cut by a robbing trench, which was cut by a pit. The fill of the trench and pit were dug in 2007 (B5151 and B5152 for the trench and B5148 and B5150 for the pit) and yielded very mixed pottery dates, ranging from Hellenistic to 5th century CE. This may indicate that there were few pieces of definitive pottery from these fills and that stratigraphic dating would be more useful in establishing a chronology for this area. Based on our current stratigraphy, both the trench and the pit should date to the 5th century or later.

Suggestions for future excavators

Two future plans for excavation in this area spring to mind. The first of these would be to continue digging in the area exposed by the excavation of the fill deposit 1199, where four different contexts (three surfaces and one deposit) are now visible. We did not assign context numbers to these four contexts since we were unable to dig them at this time, but the bottom plan for context 1199 shows their elevations and locations. Excavating the later two surfaces would help to clarify their extent and exactly when they were in use. They could be compared to the series of Middle Roman surfaces (deposit 1148) that we excavated to the west of the robbing trench and might aid in an understanding of the relationship between the areas to the east and west of the robbing trench. Removing these two surfaces would also allow us to see more clearly if the Early Roman floor 1191 does indeed continue south below wall 1155. Another deposit, not a surface, was also exposed below the fill 1199. It is at a lower elevation than floor 1191 and may constitute leveling fill for the floor, so digging in this area could help give a more secure stratigraphic date for the surface 1191.

Another place where further excavation could be useful is in the area west of the robbing trench. Digging more here might clarify the relative construction dates of wall w35, which abuts and extends west of wall 1154, and wall 1155, which abuts and extends east of wall 1154. We could also see if an earlier floor similar to 1191 exists in this area as well, which would help link the areas east and west of the trench and determine if they formed two halves of the same interior space in the Early, Middle, and Late Roman periods.




Area 2: 10 June – 17 June (N 1005.89 -1010.04; E 255.66 – 258.13)

Late Roman, ca. 5th-6th century CE

In the fifth century, multiple dump fill operations took place in the area west of the Early to Middle Roman wall 1222 (for coordinates, construction, and dating of this wall, see the final report of the Session 3 Blue team, Kate Larson and Jon Meyer). The first of these dump operations (deposit 1247, N 1009.25-1010.04, E 255.71-257.79, pottery Late Roman 5th century) was deposited on top of two hard-packed earth surfaces (further excavation would be needed to determine their date and function). This dump was particularly rich in large pieces of broken roof tile. Although the tile-rich fill extended all the way up to the west face of wall 1222, the Blue team reported no continuation of this fill east of the wall, and so the deposit was probably dumped over the western edge of wall 1222. It may represent the southern edge of the tile-rich dump deposit 1080, which was excavated in Session 1 by Katherine Harrington and Jana Mokrišová. If this is the case, then this fill layer was cut in the Late Byzantine period by the foundation trench for wall 1087 (cut C809).

Later in the fifth century (dated by ceramic evidence), more than 0.4 m of fill was dumped to the west of wall 1222 (deposit 1233, likely equivalent to deposits 1227 and 1248 excavated by the Larson and Meyer this session, which were on the east side and overlaying the north end of wall 1222). This large dump operation probably took place in discrete smaller dump operations over a span of hours or days, which led to minor variations in color and composition throughout the deposit. Many of the finds recovered from these fills were architectural or construction-related, including many broken roof tiles, pieces of pebble conglomerate flooring, rectangular bricks, painted wall plaster, brown-coat plaster, marble revetment, and a diamond-shaped brick of a type commonly used for flooring. The presence of these materials may indicate that the fill operation was carried out in conjunction with other building projects in the area. Large pieces of slag, possibly from glass production or metal refinement, also imply that industrial activity was taking place in the environs in the Late Roman period or earlier.

At one point during the fill operation, a hard-packed earth surface (context 1236, N 1005.89-1007.44, E 256.85-257.61) was briefly in use in the southeastern part of this area. It seems unlikely that it was a proper floor, as it was quite irregularly shaped and did not extend up to the west face of wall 1222. Since the fill above and below it was very similar in composition and in date (Late Roman 5th century, based on pottery), this surface was probably a work surface that was used as a place from which to dump more material. It could have become compacted through heavy foot traffic or after being exposed to the elements during a hiatus in the fill operation. In any case, more fill was soon deposited on top of it (context 1226; see Larson and Meyer’s report for a description of the later 6th century fills in this area).

What could have prompted so many filling operations? There was clearly a need to raise the ground level in this area sometime during the 5th century. As Larson and Meyer have proposed in their report, the fills may have been related to the construction or reconstruction of feature 742, a well or manhole. We could find no evidence in previous notebooks of Late Roman surfaces constructed on top of these fills in our area, but this does not mean that such surfaces never existed – they may have been disturbed or disrupted by later Byzantine and medieval activity in the area.

Suggestions for future excavators

Time constraints prevented us from fully excavating all of the Late Roman dump fill in this area. However, removing more of this fill would allow future excavators to determine the extent of the packed earth surfaces that we began to expose below deposits 1233 and 1247 and to ascertain whether these represent work surfaces or more permanent and earlier structures. It would be interesting to see if the pebble and tile floors (probably of Early to Middle Roman date) that were exposed by Larson and Meyer on the east side of wall 1222 continue to the west of it. Such information could tell us more about the use of space in this area before the fifth century dump operation. Further excavation of the deposits laid against wall 1222 would also clarify the stratigraphy in this area and give a more precise idea of the date of the wall’s construction.