.bk J1
.fl T407gB.J
.fd comments
.ed T407
.ei gB
.rd T407
.ri gB

f 288
ar A. The interpretation of these stones as the fourth millennium revetment wall is based on the following considerations.<br>1. The stones are typologically similar to those of the third millennium wall revetment wall ^w2. <br>2. The general alignment is parallel to that of the third millennium revetment wall. This assumption is weakened by the fact that we do not have either the northern or the southern face of this presumed wall. However, the exposure is sufficient to warrant our assumption at least hypothetically. <br>The assumption of a wall in this position accounts well for the finding of Late Chalcolithic material immediately below the early Ninevite V material (see the reconstruction of the <a href="/MZ/A/J01/texts/A2/dep-hist.htm">depositional sequence</a>): it would have marked the base of what appears to be a Late Chalcolithc glacis located immediately below the third millennium glacis.
ar B.  The assumption that the stones as we see them are near the <i>bottom</i> of the wall is more tenuous. There are two arguments in its favor.<br>1. The third millennium wall is too thin to be considered a retaining wall, such as would be required to withstand the pressure of a newly built glacis. For this reason we consider it a "revetment" (rather tan "retaining") wall. <br>2. The assumption that the glacis behind the third millennium wall is early explains better the presence of late Chalcolithic III material at a very high elevation in J3.<br> The alternative possibility, that the stones as we see them are near the <i>top</i> of the wall, would be suggested by the difficulty deriving from the fact that, were this the base of the earlier wall, most of this earlier wall would have had to be torn down when the escarpment of the third millennium was built.