|
|
|
The structure labeled B2 was recognized as a ruined dry-stone wall. At first, the remains appeared on the fringe of a sub-terrace riser, and measured about 10m in length (Fig. 7). The location of B2, about 10m from the center of B1, could indicate that this wall is in relationship with the underground structure. To get a better overview of the remains, we started to uncover and clean them. We had to dig the surrounding soil about 50cm to find the bottom level on which the wall had been built. As soon as the initial location was cleaned, we recognized that the wall had been dismantled in its height, but that it was extending further in both northwestern and southeastern directions. We considered it worth to continue the excavation in both directions and to clear as much of the wall remains as the short campaign enabled us. Extending the wall excavation
After 5 days, we discovered a wall corner at the northwestern end of the excavated area. Collapsed stones found as well inside as outside of the wall precisely showed that the initial wall was higher than its actual remains. From this corner, the wall is running at approximate right angle in northeastern direction (Fig. 27) under a thick layer of sediment. Future excavations in this direction will certainly be fruitful. At its other end, approximately 27m from the discovered corner, the remains were scattered to a few stones and the wall finally disappeared. We ultimately tried to find another corner near this location, but failed. The yard rubble heap, accumulated on the eastern side of the southern end of the wall, possibly recovers further remains of yet another wall section. After 10 days, the excavation work stopped and the visible remains were measured and documented graphically with photographs taken every meter. The length of the uncovered remains
is about 26.5m from south to the northwestern corner, and about 3m from this
corner in northeastern direction (Fig. 28). Its width is averaging 120cm and
its maximum height is about 60cm. The wall shows a slight convex curvature
(about 50cm at its apex). It seems the wall was built on a sloping ground; the
sloping angle averages 6 degrees from northeastern to southwestern direction,
and 1.75° along the wall length. At the spot were B1 and B2 are the nearest, we
could measure that the wall was standing about 30cm below the summit of the
stones covering the underground passageway of B1. We can thus consider both
structure as built at about the same altitude, but the amount of piled sediment
is thicker over B1. Shape, features and relationship to
B1
The stones used to build the wall are averaging 20cm in length, but stones up to 40cm are appearing too. We observed as well angular and rounded stones. The provenience of the angular material is yet to be determined. No trace of mortar and no special filling could be observed between the stones. The appearance of the wall is clearly that of a dry-stone construction. Due to its width, the wall cannot
have been very high. We think that 2.5-3m could have been a possible figure. It
is quite certain, that such a thick construction was not meant to be much
lower. It is impossible to say if a wood construction eventually completed the
wall top. We could not localize any clear
opening (door or portal) among the excavated remains. Such features are yet to
be discovered in uncovered portions of the wall. Archaeological material was almost
absent along the excavated area of the wall. We found one single potsherd of
light brown clay at 6m from the uncovered corner. The artifact was buried 20cm
below the grassy surface and at 30cm from the inner side of the wall. No sufficient datable material could
be sampled to provide a specific dating for the wall remains. Nevertheless, the
connection of B1 and B2 was investigated briefly by the mean of stratigraphical
analysis. A relative dating of structure B2 is thus possible through the
radiocarbon age range obtained for B1. Two profiles were documented near B2:
one over the wall itself (Fig. 29, left), and the second near the inner side of
the wall (Fig. 29, center). Both are undoubtedly connected with the profile
from B1 (Fig. 16 or Fig. 29, right) The stratigraphic relationship between the wall remains B2 and the underground structure B1 enable us to state that both structures have very probably been built together to form a compound site with common and complementary functional aims.
|
|
Copyright 2000 by Blumer R. and Vial F.
|