.bk A12
.fl J626gb
.fd strategy for A12: beginning
.ei gb
.ed J626

.rd J616
.ri gb
-lb JO gives item numbers to what may be tannurs because it is uncertain whether they are in fact tannurs or jars. If tannurs, technically they would be features, as JO points our correctly, but for brevity sake we agree to keep them as items. He does however establish aggregates which include accumulation around them and content inside them.
-sr There is no obvious floor surface associated with the tannurs (I checked next to one). It would be interesting to recover full layout of this example of scattered occupation, but given our time constraints and their objectively limited substantive significance we will rely on sections to establish connections. This is also supported by the fact that the excavation area is limited in size, hence sections are quite plausible.

.rd J625
.ri gb

-sr During a general strategy meeting, it is decided that A12 will be opened to explore the area immediately outside the South-eastern corner of the AK building. Until now, this area has been excavated as A10. The rationale was that, if the corner of AK was found and no possible extension of the AK building existed, then we would no longer excavate in this area. As it happened, we did find the corner of AK, but we are not certain that the structure to the Southeast is not connected with AK. The reasons for such possible connections are as follows. (1) The new wall (f45)  leans against the AK wall (f16), and thus is posterior to it, but it seems to be of the same construction, even though the stone courses are lower. (2) The foundations of both wall seem to rest at the same level, and they are linked by a sort of paving, of which 4 stones have been found so far in the sounding k18. (3) The new wall is monumental in nature, and may represent a different sector of the same building, structurally later in actual construction, but possibly built at the same general point in time. The new structure may of course have nothing to do with AK, but even a remote possibility of a connection makes it incumbent upon us to test this further.

f 89 
ds paving at the base of k11
M1 The nature of the paving is uncertain. (1) A walking pavement seems unlikely because it appears that both walls A12f45 and A12f16 reach their lowest level at a common elevation which coincides with the elevation of the paving (this is based on a probing with a metal stake below the level of the exposed stone courses: such probing has indicated that there are no more stones)/ If we are at the bottom of the foundations, one can hardly consider this a pavement linked with them. (2) In terms of absolute elevation, a preliminary test indicates that we are about 70 cms below the first floors of AK: while it is not inconceivable that the outside flloor is lower thanb the inside one, it does not in and of itself seems plausible. (3) The paving could be a link anong the two foundations: but why is it so level as to look exactly like a paving, and what is its function since it does not tie the foundations by underlying them? (4) The paving could also be an earlier floor surface: but why does it match so exactly the base of the stone foundations?