.bk J02
.fl T922mKB4.j
.fd Depositional history of some features on the basis of the ceramic evidence
.ei mKB
.ed T922
.rd T922
.ri mKB

-ph Many of the brickfall features in k110, k15 and k5/k4 are only mixed between some Mittani sherds and many Phase 3s and Phase 4c (see especially f341, f334, f351. This is not the case for f338 where there are many large Mittani sherds even though here too there are some Phase 3s and 4c ceramics. It appears then that the brickfall had a differential impact at the moment of collapse depending on whether it collapsed onto earlier Mittani contexts (as was the case of f338) or onto ED III A and B contexts on the surface of the mound. It is interesting to note that while some of the ED III sherds are weathered, the majority are not impacted. In many cases the ED III sherds are highly fired and therefore not as subject to weathering action but this is not the case for all the ED III sherds. However the heavy sod layer on the surface of the site may have protected all the surface ceramics from damage. Further confirmation of this fact can be found in areas where there is a long gap between Mittani and earlier periods, in J1 for instance; there too the sherds are not weathered also because they were protected by the sod layer. The protective role of the sod would have been destroyed if there was heavy foot or vehicular traffic and this does not appear to have been the case. Therefore it can be suggested on the basis of this evidence that this part of the mound was little used in the time periods of the major gaps in our evidence - in J2 from the late ED III period until the early (or middle) Mittani period. This corroborates evidence from the stratigraphy and contributes to an overview of the ED III mound topography in this area.