A14-argument

Processed on 2024-10-01

	Date	Author	Record
	2003-08-14	jl	Although it may have been a retaining wall associated with the api, as was our previous theory, it could also have been the foundation of a wall associated with the palace wall to the east, since it is aligned with the palace wall (for which we never found the stone foundations, presumably because they were too deep). If another, parallel course of stone is concealed underneath f124, then a5 would likely be associated with the palace, perhaps as an extended foundation of sorts for the eastern wall, because the thickness of the palace wall is approximately two foundation stones thick. In the trench to the north of A14, the stone foundations of the wall are visible, but more than two meters below our level. gb pointed out that it was unlikely that a wall meant to retain the packing on which the palace rested would have such a low foundation, and therefore the stones could be a part of an extended stone retaining wall. We will only find this out by uncovering the area north of a5, and we cannot perhaps accomplish that in time if we try to follow the levels of the pathway across the two loci. In defense of cutting the "layers" of the pathway, it must be pointed out that they are not really layers, not in the sense that they are visibly distinct from each other. We know of their existence only as we find the white matting layers, often layered one on top of the other. If we were to dig the "layers," we would remove a white surface and any accumulation of the same elevation at the same time. Therefore, by cutting into the southern end of the accumulation (which is without white layers), we will not be disrupting the stratigraphical sequence. We will also try to remove the k13 baulks, in order to better understand a11, and to excavate k89, with the possibility of viewing more stones there, as well. [Input: N817JL.j]