J1 topic
Harmonization strata problem
The home for this page is J1
Back to Topics
General premises
Elements for a LC3 interpretation
Elements for a Ninevite 5 interpretation
General premises
The stone structure a8 was at first assigned to Late Chalcolithic 3 mainly on basis of stratigraphy. In fact in J3 and possibly in J5 there were important elements showing LC structures and LC occupations. The pottery found at the bottom of the J1 structure looks LC3 typologically but the pottery assemblage is really too small to assign it to LC without any doubts.
The new idea/Hypothesis (assignment to Ninevite 5 period) arose on the basis of few small elements pointing to another assignment (most of all in J1 and J5), and the final input were some elements that didn't fit perfectly in the whole stratigraphy of J5 the nearby excavation area, very close to J1 and even including an earlier portion of it.
Back to top
Elements for a LC3 interpretation
-1 The presence of a lot of Late Chalcolithic pottery, very often mixed with later EDIII sherds, has been explained with the EDIII cuts for the construction of the Terrace, Revetment wall, Escarpments etc..
-2 Moreover f350 and f355, i.e. the accumulations abutting the base of the structure in question, seem typologically LC3 according to the pottery found, even with very few sherds.
-3 Below the glacis on top of the terrace in J3 there are Late Chalcolithic structures. Their presence just some meters to the North of J1 and about 6-8 meters above J1 deepest (and interpreted as LC) level, pushed us to assume about the presence of a wide and articulated architectural complex already in the LC3. So all the pieces seemed to fit together showing this large LC3 architectural complex.
Back to top
Elements for a Ninevite 5 interpretation
-1 The material below stone escarpment and against stone structure a8 on the west they seem showing mainly Ninevite pottery with a smaller percentage of earlier (of course LC3) sherds. This could be explained by the natural depositional process of these natural accumulations (see a9).
-2 The presence of beautiful Ninevite 5 floors in the South portion of J1 (f268 and v289. As we explained at first they could show a reuse of this structure during Ninevite 5 period, but now it makes more sense they could go together with the original use of the structure, and since they look more than one layer of pavements, probably a use for a long period, but more excavation is required.
-3 The stratigraphy relationships with all the other excavation units in the Plaza and on the terrace. They all seem showing elements pointing to this interpretation. In particular:
a- in J5 (J5f41 + J5z1) the stone escarpment J5f41and the presence of a wall (J5z1), now not preserved, constitute together with the J1 stone structure a single wall complex, dating to Ninevite V
c- in J2 the earlier structure under the ED III staircase (f380) may then be Ninevite V
d- in B6 the glacis dated to Ninevite V would then belong with this system
On the basis of these hypothesis we can now assume a date to Ninevite 5 for our J1 structure. What is even more important it seems clear the presence of a large complex, apparently very similar to the EDIII Temple Terrace, dating back to Ninevite 5 period. More excavation is required, but the premises are very interesting.
Back to top