| Roster |
Date |
Author |
Record |
| Daily notes about recovery of elements |
2009-08-10 |
lC |
Today we uncovered other stones of this wall running to the west. The stones are big in size, and what we assume is the face (the southern) doesn't appear very regular. Between the junctures of the stones there is a really brown and clayish material, coming perhaps from water seepage, or maybe it was a sort of packing, like for the revetment wall f72. [Input: T808LC.j] |
| Argument |
2006-10-04 |
lC |
The band of baqaya f 342 and the deeper one (f353) show that probably the water flowing was an important problem for the structure a8. They show a later attempt to protect a8 and most of all wall f288, that probably originally didn't have any type of protection from the water, as also shown from its coarse construction and from the damage f344 (v432). [Input: V114LC.j] |
| 2009-04-07 |
gB |
A. The interpretation of these stones as the fourth millennium revetment wall is based on the following considerations.
1. The stones are typologically similar to those of the third millennium wall revetment wall ^w2.
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.
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 depositional sequence): it would have marked the base of what appears to be a Late Chalcolithc glacis located immediately below the third millennium glacis. [Input: T407GB.j] |
| 2009-04-07 |
gB |
B. The assumption that the stones as we see them are near the bottom of the wall is more tenuous. There are two arguments in its favor.
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.
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.
The alternative possibility, that the stones as we see them are near the top 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. [Input: T407GB.j] |
| Roster |
Date |
Author |
Record |
| Stratum (to which element belongs) |
2011-02-10 |
lC |
s850J1A [Input: V211LC.j] |
| Phase (to which element belongs) |
2011-02-10 |
!! |
h2mJ1A [Input: V211LC.j] |
| Stratigraphic reasons of assignment |
2011-02-11 |
lC |
Very deep elevation (deepest 8475), and position at the base of the Late Chalcolithic Mound, that, as shown mainly in J3, reaches a very hign elevation. The base of the wall is abutted by two features (f350 and ff355) intepreted as Late Chalcolithic on the bases of few pottery sherds. [Input: V212LC.j] |
| Other reasons, reservations, qualifications |
2012-10-15 |
lC |
As for f259 the date is uncertain, first assigned to late Chalcolithic on the base of the few sherds found at the bottom of it, then has been suggested a Ninevite 5 date, on the basis of stratigraphic relationship with the nearby units. Following a conservative intepretation we assign it to phase 3f-JPD, waiting for new excavation for a final assignement. For a more detailed discussion see topic "LC or Ninevite structure?" [Input: V928LC.j] |