"UserLevel","Icon","dc-description","dc-subject","Type","dc-date","dc-creator","Collection","Chronology","dc-title","Id","dc-publisher","Name","Redirect"
"","","Anna Belza, PhD Candidate University of Cincinnati ASCSA Corinth Museum Project Volunteer; Fall 2020–Spring 2021; Project: Alice Leslie Walker Kosmopoulos, repatriation of Prehistoric material from the National Archaeological Museum in Athens; ; INTRODUCTION; ; Alice Leslie Walker Kosmopoulos was a student of the ASCSA 1909–1914, and associated with the School until 1937. She was assigned the study and publication of the pottery from the Corinth excavations (ca. 1896–1935); later the scope was narrowed to the pre- Byzantine pottery, and eventually to only the Prehistoric period material. The material she included in her study were from her own excavations at Corinth (1911, 1914, 1920, 1930, 1935); and those of other excavators (1904, 1905, 1908, 1916, 1926, 1931, 1932).; ; Kosmopoulos conducted her study at Corinth before relocating to Athens ca. 1935. Her reasons for moving were twofold: her poor health which was worsened by conditions at Corinth (e.g., dampness, mosquitos—she had previously contracted malaria at Corinth); her expulsion from the Corinth excavations due to her falling out with the ASCSA. Kosmopoulos writes about her interactions with the school in the preface to her published work: The Prehistoric Pottery of Corinth (1948). In sum, conflict between Kosmopoulos and the ASCSA regarded her poor/nonexistent publication record. Kosmopoulos responded by relocating some Prehistoric material from Corinth to Athens.; The Prehistoric pottery from Corinth was stored at the National Archaeological Museum (NAM) at Athens in order to facilitate Kosmopoulos’s study and publication process. When the ASCSA severed ties with Kosmospoulous (ca. 1937) they demanded the material be returned to Corinth. Some material was returned to Corinth and is referred to in the Corinth storage system as the Kosmopoulos series or K- series. A large quantity of pottery remained at the NAM following Kosmopoulos’s death in 1954.; Kosmopoulos published one volume on Prehistoric Corinth in 1948. The introductory volume provides basic insight into her ceramic classes and chronological scheme (see Appendix 1). She did not publish all the material that was removed from Corinth to Athens. Attempts were made to return the material to the Corinth Museum1 (viz., Lavezzi in the 1970s–1980s). Robert Bridges visited the NAM in the 1980s and did a basic inventory of the Corinth material. In September 2020 the material was returned to Corinth. The quantity and quality of the material was unknown.; My museum project involved: the unboxing and processing of the Prehistoric Corinth material returned from the NAM; separating the material into lots; and entering all the material into the Corinth records. The prime objective was to process material quickly in order to learn what Kosmopoulos had taken from Corinth and glean evidence of Prehistoric activity otherwise unknown. The quick processing benefited positively PhD candidates Jeffrey Banks (University of Cincinnati) and Katie Fine (Florida State University) who are writing dissertations about Early Bronze Age and Neolithic Corinth, respectively.2; After all the material was sorted, it became clear that it was possible to lot the pottery (more on this below, Phases 2 and 3). I also transcribed the Kosmopoulos label notebooks (Appendix 2) which were given to Ioulia Tzonou to eventually be incorporated into and assigned Corinth Notebook numbers. We do not have Komospoulos’ excavation notebooks from Corinth (the ASCSA archives have her Halae notebooks). Their exact whereabouts is unknown. At one point, decedents from her husband’s side of the family living in Peiraeus attempted to sell a trunk that belonged to her to Henry Robinson. Robinson declined to purchase the trunk blindly (i.e., without knowing the contents) at their high price: without knowing whether the notebooks were there, the trunk and its contents would have been a waste. Jeffrey Banks has attempted to reach out to the family members with no success as of yet (May 2021). Banks believes that the Corinth notebooks went to California with Kosmopoulos in the late 1930s. Kosmopoulos finalized the publication of her book in California and was then in the process of a planned second and third volume. It is almost certain that she had them with her as she continued her work in California because the second volume was meant to be a large presentation of the prehistoric material from Corinth. Problematically, the Halae books did make it to the ASCSA archives which was meant; to form part of the third volume of her study, but that body of material is much smaller and there are indications she was finished with it.; ; Phase 1: Processing the Kosmopoulos Material Returned to Corinth from the National Archaeological Museum, Athens, in 2020; Kosmopoulos used cardboard shoeboxes to store and transport her material. The material placed inside the shoeboxes was grouped in smaller packages of paper tyropita bags, reused envelopes, and, in some cases, loose in the box. Material occasionally was found grouped in clear plastic bags, likely a solution by the NAM to replace old paper bags that had decayed. The storage shoeboxes were transported to the basement of the Corinth Museum in thirty-three wooden storage trays. Processing occurred in the basement of the Corinth Museum.3; The system for processing material involved using iDig on an iPad and recording various information in Microsoft Excel on a Corinth project laptop. James Herbst and Manolis Papadakis set up a context labeled Kosmopoulos in the iDig database. Every “shoebox” was photographed: before opening to record all markings on the exterior of the box; when opened with the contents left in situ, showing the storage of the bags and interior markings; and unboxed with objects strewed. Shoeboxes often had writing on their exterior in one or more crayon colors. The writing was often illegible, written over/crossed out and remarked multiple times, and/or contained a series of undeciphered abbreviations. All but one shoebox were discarded after being photographed and all such marking recorded. In large part, these marking could not be deciphered. It is clear that some of the marking referred to the one time contents; but with the multiple reuses of the boxes and multiple packing and re-strewing of her material in Corinth and Athens over a twenty year period, these marking did not seem to correlate in any meaningful or useful way for what was stored within when they were opened in 2020.; The contents of the shoeboxes, mainly ceramics, were strewn on three tables in the Corinth Museum basement for processing. Contents from each shoebox were kept and photographed together so that any given object could possibly be associated/reassociated to the markings on the box if they are ever deciphered (i.e., everything from one shoebox was laid out together on a table). Sherds stored together in bags or envelopes were laid out atop the bags from which they came. The bags and envelopes also often had illegible and/or abbreviated handwriting in crayon. A few times, typewritten text was used instead. In some instances, these markings were clearly a count of sherds of various types (her classes or the colloquial classes of pottery at that time) stored within: e.g., “5–Urf[irnish], 2–B[lack]B[burnished], 3–Myc[enaean]”, etc.; It was often not possible to discern why Kosmopoulos separated sherds into individual bags, if not by diagnostic features or grouping of decorations. For example, all material of a single class is not conveniently grouped together nor are groups associated based upon their excavation context. The divisions of bags seem to reflect the process by which Kosmopoulos read the objects, recorded them, and stored them, probably working in small batches of pottery because of space issues at the NAM and in light of the considerable amount of material she was working with.; Kosmopoulos seems to have generally followed Wace and Blegen’s classification system for the Early Bronze Age and Wace and Thompson’s system for the Neolithic, though she did not use the same terminology/abbreviations as far as we can tell from the markings on bags and boxes (e.g., she often prefers German terms, likely from her work with Dörpfeld and study of the prehistorics at Leukas). Sherds contained inconsistent markings (discussed further in Phase 2 and Phase 3) that reveal various information: their find spot, their depth, and year excavated. The markings played a large part in our ability to re-lot the material and for Banks to recreate the original contexts for his dissertation (described in Phase 2 below).; Objects of note were removed to receive inventory numbers (CP or MF), discussed below; all those not selected for inventory numbers were stored together with other objects from the same bag (i.e., the Kosmopoulos bagging system was the organizing principle of recording individual “units” in the initial sorting and identifying of material). Some, such as Neolithic gray wares, were often boxed together even if sherds came from different envelopes in one shoebox. There was no clear reason to distinguish the Neolithic graywares and there were no sherd markings or envelope markings that would give a reason why they should not be combined and the storage units pared down. The original envelope context was recorded in the processing photos.; Once material had been processed, they were stored in Corinth Excavation cardboard boxes (open top) which were placed into wooden storage trays. Each box received two numbers: a “K-NAM” number and “box” number. K-NAM numbers represent the shoebox in which items were found: these numbers were not from the original boxes, but were assigned based on the order in which they were processed; they simply help identify all the material that was originally boxed together in the NAM (i.e., to retain an association of the material with the marking on the original shoeboxes). Box numbers identify subdivisions of storage within the shoe boxes: most often, this was simply the paper bags or envelopes within which items were stored. Again, the box numbers only reflect the order in which the material was processed, they were not derived from information on these bags. Box identifies items grouped together in Kosmopoulos bags; K- NAM identifies the shoebox in which larger groups of these bag/box objects were stored.; The individual cardboard boxes were then placed in a wooden tray in the basement of the museum. During the sorting and recording of these items, many objects were assigned inventory numbers: 530 objects were assigned Corinth Pottery (CP) numbers; 45 were assigned Miscellaneous Find (MF) numbers. Their original Box and K-NAM numbers were recorded with these inventoried pieces, but the objects were disassociated from the box/tray system described above.4 Inventoried objects were recorded in iDig as “Objects” and photographed individually. Later, each inventoried object was fully measured and described according to the Corinth Excavations recording system. A running list of the CP and MF numbers were printed out and left with the crates. Inventoried objects were set aside in their own trays in the Museum basement for conservation and photography to eventually process (as of June 2021, the objects have not been conserved or photographed). Eventually these will enter the study collection. A Neolithic expert in particular should go through the objects and vet whether all of these specimen are worth retaining as CPs/MFs, particularly in light of the greater number of objects selected.; K-NAM and box numbers and CP and MF numbers were recorded in three excel sheets. At the beginning of the processing system, before the use of iDig (about a 1-week period), we; were not recording shoebox/K-NAM numbers, as we were still attempting to discern Kosmopoulos’ recording and storage system. In order to record what processed objects/tyropita bags were found together in one shoebox, we recorded that information as “Packed in K-NAM Shoebox with K-NAM Museum Box #”. Using context numbers in iDig rectified this problem; however, we continued to record boxes found together and this was superseded by the K-NAM number system which was retroactively applied to all of the individual box units that had been sorted prior to the advent of this system.; For example, this is the format used to record processed material:; ; Other fields used in excel are:; ; Bag or card info to signify if there was any written information found with pottery on their bag or card:; Contents: sherd count, general chronology, shape, fabric.; CP assigned to objects: CP number(s) given to something from that box. MF assigned to objects: MF number(s) given to something from that box.; Other notes: includes comparanda or publication information in cases where these objects were published in Kosmopoulos’ book (book, page number, etc.), notes to Jeffrey Banks, Katie Fine, or Ioulia Tzonou about specific items from the box that may be of interest to their EBA, Neolithic, and Mycenaean studies, respectively.; Recorded in iDig: whether or not it was recorded in iDig (Yes = yes; Blank = no). Notations on sherds: markings in pen or pencil that were legible, originally made by; Kosmopoulos to preserve excavation context information.; ; ; In total 173 KNAM shoeboxes were processed into 267 cardboard boxes. Two boxes were found in the NAM material that need to be returned to Athens. The first is an orange box with pottery ranging in date from EBA–Classical, obsidian, and a loom weight. Pottery find spots were recorded on the sherds (e.g., Thera). A notecard was found inside the box stating that the material was seized from the German Archaeological Institute (DAI). It seems to be a study collection and seems to have nothing to do with Kosmopoulos or Corinth, returned to Corinth with the Kosmopoulos material by accident. The second box contained numerous tags from various sites (not Corinth), all placed within a foam mold for a bronze spearhead or knife. Banks believes that the latter box might have been the commercial packaging for a knife that was used to hold a bronze dagger found by Komopoulos at Corinth, which she dated to the Middle Neolithic (it was not, but almost certainly EBA); the whereabouts of the dagger are unknown, and it is likely to have eroded away or remains in Athens.; ; Phase 2: Establishing Original Contexts for the Kosmopoulos Material from the National Archaeological Museum; Kosmopoulos abbreviated original excavation context information (e.g., trench and/or year, depths) in pencil or pen on many sherds, almost certainly whenever she removed material from its original context-tagged pottery storage tin.5 Sherds determined to be insignificant were grouped in tins, labeled, and stored at Corinth in the Old Museum.6 All this material was originally taken to the NAM by Kosmopoulos but returned when ASCSA demanded the return of all Corinth material and severed ties with Kosmopoulos in ca. 1937. “Insignificant” material was returned, while the “significant” material remained at the NAM (i.e., highly diagnostic objects that seemingly would have been published in the Kosmopoulos planned—but never finished— volumes on prehistoric Corinth).; Jeffrey Banks and I sorted sherds back into their original contexts. Pottery was separated into trays based on the markings on them that designated their findspots. The EBA and Neolithic pottery were kept separate within their context units to facilitate future study. The process took place in the Museum basement and courtyard.; Two additional columns were added to the KNAM excel sheet to keep track of markings on sherds and where items were being combined/lotted: Kosmopoulos Area Notations on Sherds and Re-lotted. The former recorded markings found on sherds (e.g., “E35”). If notations; were illegible or difficult to distinguish, they were returned to their box and placed in a tray for future revisiting (highlighted in the excel sheet in orange so that we could return and reprocess these after an initial sorting). The latter column (“Re-lotted”) recorded whether items were re- lotted (yes or no) and, if so, into what trays they were combined (e.g., E35, 2TH, 11 Heer 7, etc.). In some cases, all the material from boxes were inventoried (i.e., received CP numbers) and thus did not get lotted (e.g., see table below—“No context pottery to sort”). In many cases, all material from a box was lotted by context, and that box number no longer exists as a discreet storage unit, other than as a recording unit for objects’ original location.; ; Banks partook in the process in order to better understand where the Early Bronze Age material was found and to see if it was possible to rectify stratigraphy based on elevation markings on some sherds. He was able to use the sherd markings and Kosmopoulos trench system and depths to reconstruct a number of contexts across the site and combine this information with her publication, various excavators notebooks, and archival material to get a full understanding of what most of the sherd markings mean.; ; Kosmopoulos Series in New Apotheke and Old Museum: Preparing it for Lotting with the K- NAM material; After processing all of the K-NAM material (i.e., the Kosmopoulos material that was returned to Corinth in 2020), Banks and I  went to the ASCSA Apotheke7 to examine the “Kosmopoulos Series”8 material had never left Corinth, or which was returned to Corinth by Kosmopoulos in the 1930s. This was around Christmas break (Dec. 25, 2020–Jan 15, 2021) when the Italian conservation team vacated the facility for the holidays. At the end of this period, when the conservators returned, this “Kosmopoulos series” material was moved to the Old Museum so we could continue our work.9; The Kosmopoulos series material stored in the New Apotheke was sorted and examined previously by John Lavezzi and Katie Fine. Lavezzi had sorted the EBA and Neolithic material based on chronological periods and distinct wares (e.g., red slipped rims) to facilitate an eventual attempt to combine the NAM material and look for joins. Katie Fine sorted four trays of the material Lavezzi had not managed to sort while a regular member as museum project. Fine’s sorting grouped material based on features of sherds: (e.g., Prehistoric–Roman rims or bases) regardless of chronology or context. Both these sorting methods were no longer relevant in light of our greater understanding of the original excavation contexts which had become the primary lotting principle of the Kosmopoulos material.; Banks and I applied the same sorting technique described above to the material in the Kosmopoulos Series: sherds were separated into boxes based on the notations about original excavations. In total we sorted through twenty trays. The contents included: ceramics, figurine fragments, stone tools (various), and shells. Four trays were unsorted/unstudied material ranging in date from the Neolithic–Roman periods.; In January 2021, Banks and I began to work in the Old Museum courtyard with (ca. 48) trays of Kosmopoulos Series material.10 Mostly, this material lacked individual sherd markings, and the impression is that this was the “insignificant material” Kosmopoulos left behind in Corinth or sent back. Based on Banks’ understanding of the history of the Kosmopoulos material and its various storage and papsing processes it received while in Corinth, these were almost certainly stored in tins that distinguished original context and depth; at some point this information was lost when the material was combined into trays and the original storage tin units lost. Some tags were included in boxes within trays, making it possible to glean, at times, where some material originated from, although almost all of these tags identified that the sherds within had come from more than one context.; Material that could be assigned to a specific context were combined with the proper excavation context/lot units that had been assigned for the KNAM material and the Kosmopoulos Series material from the New Apotheke.11; ; Phase 3: Assigning Lot Numbers to Context Pottery; ; Once all of the K-NAM material was sorted by context, Ioulia Tzontou, Jeff Banks and I agreed that lot numbers could be assigned to the pottery based on original excavation units (for the most part, these refer to identifiable/spatially known trenches). The lotting could not have taken place if sherds had not been marked with excavation data (e.g., trench abbreviation, depth). Banks provides full detail about the lots and contexts in the study for his dissertation and is in the process of generating lot descriptions. The lotting process is ongoing as of June 2021: the final quantities of material that cannot be assigned to a specific context will have to be considered (e.g., combine all Kosmopoulos unidentified location material to a single lot, lots based upon possible locations, toss some material, etc.).; ; Topographical Reconstruction of Prehistoric Habitation at Corinth; ; The K-NAM material attests a larger spatial and chronological use of the site than known previously. The quantity of material returned doubled the amount of known Prehistoric ceramics found in excavations. For more information the topographical reconstruction of the site with deposit information, see Banks’ dissertation.; Chronological Implications; ; Weinberg’s publication of Neolithic–EBA material from his excavations remain an important source for understanding Prehistoric activity at Corinth.12 The K-NAM material offers a more nuanced understanding of chronological periods because of the quantity and quality of material and the fact that they derive from deposits across the site. See above and Banks’ dissertation for a thorough discussion of the relevance of the Kosmopoulos material.; It is unclear whether Kosmopoulos saved all the Prehistoric material from her excavations. It seems likely when one considers the amount of Final Neolithic grayware body sherds she saved. It remains possible that Kosmopoulos intended to papse material at a later date but never finished with the material or had the time to do so. This is especially true of the later material excavated in the 1930’s were the extreme volumes of material and particularly the inclusion of what would normally be termed “insignificant” sherds suggested a near to 100% retention of excavated material, at least until they had been studied.; Below is a rough count of the pottery from the K-NAM processing. It is meant to give an idea of quantities representing chronological periods. The number will surely change after specialists complete their studies. The numbers represent the Kosmopoulos material returned to Corinth from the NAM in 2020 (i.e., they do not include the Kosmopoulos material that had already been in Corinth since the later 1930’s).; EN: ~16 sherds, including 1 mendable variegated bowl (CP 3967) MN: ~70 sherds; LN: ~3,536 sherds EH: ~1,433 sherds; MH: ~2 sherds (CP 3970: Gray Minyan goblet; CP 3977:1 possible Standard matt painted figure 8 around handle); LH: ~10 LH III (CP 3974–3976); ; A few of the LH sherds were marked with “Zyg”, or “Zyg dump”. From Kosmopoulos’ publication, these almost certainly refer to a pile of pottery that had been dumped outside of the Old Museum: it included Bronze Age Zygouries and Neolithic Lechaeion Road East material and excavation unit tags and seems to have been thrown out after Blegen and Hill fell out with ASCSA and were no longer working at Corinth. Kosmopoulos recovered the material. These sherds were placed in the Zygouries study collection drawers in a small bag with a printed explanation included.;         ;         Endnotes; 1 For the sake of posterity: Corinth Museum refers to what is often referred to as the “New Museum”; more clearly, this is the contemporary Museum function currently (2020–2021). There are plans to build a new New Museum, so this may cause confusion in the future.; 2 For a detailed biographical/archival analysis of Kosmopoulos and her work on Corinth and Prehistoric Greece, see Banks’s dissertation (forthecoming).; 3 The basement provided poor light, and in many cases information and notations gleamed from Kosmopoulos were more apparent when viewed in the sunlight at, e.g., the ASCSA Apotheke on Asklepius Street. An additional reading of all the sherds in a more suitable location may reveal additional details of Kosmopoulos’ work and methodology, particularly since her notebooks are missing and the seriation of her excavation units could only be recreated by Banks based on the depth markings on sherds.; 4 Ioulia Tzontou (Assistant Director) selected sherds and objects to receive CP and MF numbers, particularly for the Neolithic. Jeffrey Banks selected Early Helladic sherds to receive CP numbers based on their relevance of specifically for inclusion in his study of the EH period for his dissertation and later publication.; 5 Kosmopoulos 1948, p. 8, fn. 19.; 6 For the sake of posterity: since there is a new museum being planned, “Old Museum” might refer to one of two structures. Old Museum is the original/first Museum, which currently functions solely as a storage space and makes due as a study space, located on the south side of Apollo Street, just west of the village plateia, along the northern edge of the archaeological site—west of the exit gate and east of the Roman North Market.; 7 For the sake of posterity: this storage facility if currently (2020–2021) referred to as the New Apotheke. There is currently plans to create another Apotheke and either also create a fresco lab or retain the New Apotheke as a frescolab as it is currently functioning as such. For sake of clarity, this apotheke is on the north side of Asklepius street, east of Cheliotomylos, northwest of the main archaeological site and current Museum.; 8 The Kosmopoulos Series is a term used to refer to the Kosmopoulos material stored in Corinth in tins (later in trays) that were assigned “K” numbers for storage recording (K-1, K-2, etc.); 9 See fn. 5 for more on the Old Museum.; 10 See fn. 5 for more on the Old Museum.; 11 See fn. 6 for more on the New Apotheke.; 12 Weinberg, S. S. 1937. “Remains from Prehistoric Corinth,” Hesperia 6, pp. 487–524.","Corinthia | Ancient Corinth | Central Area | | Kosmopoulos Trenches","Report","","","Corinth","","Kosmopoulos Material From the National Archaeological Museum at Athens Returned to Ancient Corinth Museum","Corinth:Report:Kosmopoulos Trenches 2020 by Belza, Anna (2020-09-28 to 2020-11-20)","","Kosmopoulos Trenches 2020 by Belza, Anna (2020-09-28 to 2020-11-20)",""
"","","INTRODUCTION; ; For three weeks, I, Heidi Broome-Raines, worked in the area designated “North of Nezi,” conducting cleaning operations and new excavation.  The baskets for which I am responsible are B 5001-5082.  This area is located between 282.7 E to the east and 266.2 E to the west; 1023.2 N to the north and 1016.1 N to the south; it is immediately north of the “Nezi Field.”  My team consisted of myself as trenchmaster, Panagiotis Kakouros as pickman, Konstantinos Arberoris as shovelman, and Dimitris Papaioannou as barrowman and dry sieve operator.  Alicia Carter was my supervisor.  The excavations were directed by Dr. G.D.R. Sanders.  ; ; The objectives of our work in this area were to clean the area, to clarify the situation as left by the 1961 excavators (see NB228); to create a relative (and, as much as possible, absolute) chronology for the walls and features; and to eliminate the possibility of Late Medieval levels in the area.; ; The area was partially excavated in 1961, but the records (NB 228) left by the excavators are paltry and difficult to associate with the state of the area when we began working here.  We have reused some of their terminology in order to simplify the differentiation of rooms, walls, and features, and I have added only descriptive names, pending further excavation and interpretation in later years.; ; Work began in “Room E,” (1021.2 – 1016.38 N, 278.16 – 282.63 E) so designated by the 1961 excavators, where we concentrated on a pit in the northwest corner of the room, and a drain feature running along the west side of the room from north to south.  We were testing for the presence of medieval material in this room.  With the same objective, we then moved to neighboring Room F, which is a large rectangular area nominally divided by the “potatostone wall” and a large pit, “Bothros 6.”  We started in the east half of the room, excavating stratographically an area which had been left as if it were a wall by the previous excavators.  Then we shifted our focus to the west half of Room F (to which I refer here as FW, located at 1015.3 – 1020 N, 266.53 – 271.13 E), where completed the excavation of a large pit, “Bothros 7,” which had been partially excavated in 1961, and nearby deposits.  When our contexts seemed to continue under the north wall of Room F, we removed the last phase of the wall and continued excavating under and on the north side of it, in an area I refer to (in the notebooks) as “the room north of Room F, west half,” but in this report, NFW (1020 – 1023 N, 266.2 – 271 E).; ; Excavation in these areas was complicated by the 1961 excavations, both because the recording of those excavations does not shed much light on the work done at that time, and because the techniques used are not compatible with ours (such as a deep wall-chasing trench in NFW); we were rewarded by the appearance in a small area of sixty coins, the majority of Imperial Roman date (fourth to sixth centuries AC) but also including a remarkably well-preserved Trajanic dupondius which has been added to the Corinth Study Collection.  I have been able to phase a number of the walls, as well as to establish a relative chronology for the excavated area.  ; ; MIDDLE ROMAN; ; In Room E, there is at least one (although possibly two) Middle Roman phases.  The installation of the drain feature (B 5008 – 5010, 5014, 5035; at 1016.34 – 1021.51 N, 278.21 – 279.25 E) has been dated based on pottery and small finds to the second half of the third century AC.  Although we did not excavate outside the room itself, I believe that doing so would show that the drain leads either to the well south of the room and practically in line with the drain, or the large street sewer that lies under the sidewalk of the north/south road only a few meters east of Room E.  Associating this drain with one of those features is a possible objective for future excavation in the area south of Room E.  ; ; The drain is cut by a rubbish pit, measuring 1.07m on its longest axis, and containing mostly cookware fragments but no bones (B 5004 – 5005, 5012; at 1019.69 – 1020.56 N, 279.19 – 280.13 E); the drain is also cut by a section of the north wall of the room, which, although not securely dated based on its own pottery, is cut by the pit.  Therefore, the north wall was built after the drain but before the pit.  I cannot assign the date of the wall securely either to the Middle or Late Roman period, however.; ; To the west of Room E, the destruction context in NFW (B 5069, 5082) has been dated on pottery evidence to the Middle Roman period. It underlies several other contexts which were also dated to later years of the Middle Roman period. This context appears to continue under the north wall of FW, which suggests to me that further excavation in the northern end of FW, in line with this destruction context, will reveal the extent of this destruction to the south.  At present, based on a very small area, it is difficult to speculate about the destruction that caused a fall of rooftiles (all broken but in large pieces), burned mudbrick, charred potsherds, and carbon jumbled together and strewn across the surface of the east-central area of NFW.  ; ; The crosswall which runs north/south through NFW forms a boundary to the west for the destruction context.  Although this is not a decisive interpretation, it seems likely that the crosswall predates the destruction that caused the rooftile fall, because while soil from the west half of the room continues over the crosswall where it has been destroyed, the destruction context stops abruptly at the east face of the crosswall.  If the crosswall had already been destroyed when the destruction took place, or if they were contemporaneous, I would expect some of the destruction context to be present over the destroyed part of the wall.  Since I did not find any, I am tentatively giving a relative chronology of the events:  the crosswall was built before the Middle Roman destruction in the east half of NFW; followed by that destruction; followed by the demolition of the crosswall and the deposition of the soil in the west half of the room which continues over the destroyed wall (B 5078).  The wall is in situ and I did not find any foundation trenches for it, so it has produced no datable material to compare with the Middle Roman pottery in the destruction level.  ; ; LATE ROMAN; A substantial clay layer (B 5011, 5013) in Room E has been dated on pottery and coins to the second half of the sixth century, AC.  Although this layer could be a floor, the fact that it pools in one corner and stretches “fingers” into the room suggests to me that it is rather an accumulation of clay building material which has decomposed and settled.  ; ; In the east half of Room F (“FE,” at 1016.14 – 1020.29 N, 271.71 – 277.67 E), we limited our activity to excavating stratographically a wall-shaped area left in situ by the 1961 excavators.  In a series of baskets (B 5015 – 5026) we removed successive layers:  all except the cleaning basket were Late Roman.  The lowermost datable stratum (B 5022) was dated to the middle of the sixth century AC.  ; ; Our goal in excavating this area, in addition to establishing the stratigraphy in the only place where it has survived at such high elevations, was to phase three walls in the area:  the north wall of FE, the east wall of Room F, and the west wall of Room E.  The north wall of FE appeared under seven layers of deposited soils.  The east wall of Room F runs over and postdates the north wall of Room F.  However, none of this wall masonry has been dated securely.  I was not able to establish a chronological relationship between the west wall of Room E and the other two walls.; ; The north wall of FW has been shown to have at least three phases.  The first of these phases, discussed above, involves the blocks associated with the Middle Roman or earlier crosswall which runs perpendicular to this wall and is included within it; the second, and now Late Roman, is the greater part of the wall itself, which appears to have been built up on either side of the block of the crosswall.  This block juts out to the north several centimeters further than the rest of the north wall of Room F, suggesting that it was not part of the construction of the wall, but rather was already there.  Further supporting this is the fact that the destruction context runs under the second phase of the wall but stops short at the crosswall.  The wall has been interrupted at the very east end of FW, in a way which suggests a doorway.  The third and final phase of this wall is the filling in of the doorway with blocks and rubble (B 5051), in a markedly lesser quality of construction, which I have not left in situ.  This phase also belongs to the Late Roman period.; ; The foundation trench (B 5060, 5061) for the west wall of FW has also been dated to Late Roman by a coin dating securely to 367-375 AC.  It appears to have been built after the north wall of FW, but further excavation should clarify this hypothesis.; ; The potatostone wall, which is only preserved in the north quarter of Room F, serving as the dividing line between the east and west halves, may belong to this period.  A large orthostate block is visible in the matrix of this wall, but in line with the north wall of Room FW.  Because it is the only such block visible in the wall, and because of its position, I have related the two as follows:  the orthostate block remained in place from the second phase of the N wall of Room F (see above) and was built up to on both sides in the form of the potatostone wall.  I have not excavated the pit called “Bothros 6,” and cannot make any statement about the relationship between the two; but it should be noted that the potatostone wall breaks off just at the north extent of the pit.  ; ; MIDDLE BYZANTINE; Bothros 7, the large pit which had already been partially excavated in part in 1961, has been convincingly dated on pottery to the Middle Byzantine period, which can perhaps be dated as specifically as 1080 – 1100 AC.; ; No material culture excavated in any of my eighty-two contexts can be dated later than Middle Byzantine.; ; CONCLUSION; ; The excavation of North of Nezi has raised several new questions:  What was the extent of the Middle Roman destruction context in NFW?  Further excavation would also be repaid by clarifying the relationship between the walls and pits.  The next logical step would be to remove the potatostone wall, which we have identified as significantly later in date than the surrounding contexts.  I would suggest excavation of Bothros 6 and of the pit into which the large pithos is sunk, as well as the clay floor in FE.  Eventually it should be possible to identify uses for the area at periods as late as Late Roman.; ; We have settled several questions as well.  Any levels later than Middle Byzantine have been removed by the 1961 excavators, and we should not expect to find anything dating to later periods anywhere in the excavated areas.  However, Bothros 6 and the robbing trench at the southern extremity of FW may yet reveal medieval levels.; ; Further study of the finds, perhaps in combination with additional excavation in the area, may reveal the significance of the large concentration of Late Roman coins in NFW.  When the samples I collected have been water sieved, there may be additional information about use of space and structure, especially in areas with a great deal of ash and other evidence of burning.  The perimeter of the excavation can still be widened, perhaps not to the north, but with assuredly better stratigraphy immediately to the south in Nezi Field, currently excavated down to Frankish levels, should excavation in that area continue down to elevations like my own.  Widening the excavated area would contribute to our understanding of the history of occupation and function of the space, which at present is limited by our narrow perimeter.","Corinthia | Ancient Corinth | Central Area | Nezi Field","Report","","","Corinth","","Middle Roman to Middle Byzantine Contexts in the Area North of Nezi Field","Corinth:Report:Nezi Field 2007 by Heidi Broome-Raines (2007-04-30 to 2007-05-18)","","Nezi Field 2007 by Heidi Broome-Raines (2007-04-30 to 2007-05-18)",""
"","","Katie Rask, Marty Wells; ASCSA Corinth Excavations; End of Season Report; Blue Team; North of Nezi; ; The following is a summary of the excavations carried out in the area north of Nezi field during the 2009 season. Three teams worked in this area over the three sessions. In the first session, 29 March – 24 April, Ryan Boehm and Joanna Potenza were supervisors. They focused on four areas: the westernmost room bounded by walls 5631 and W54; the room bounded by walls 10080, 10076, 10077, 10087 and W55, both east of the central courtyard of a Byzantine house (E: 274.70 – 281.69; N: 1026.30 – 1032.55 including the southern walls); the room bounded by walls 10081, 10082, 10083, 10086, and 10079, an addition built outside of the eastern edge of the house (E: 282.15 – 284.95; N: 1027.15 – 1030.25); and a series of roads running N-S east of this addition (E: 285.4 – 286.65; N: 1029.30 – 1032.40). In the second session, 27 April - 22 May, Katie Rask, Dreya Mihaloew and Martin Wells were supervisors. They focused on the room between walls W55 on the north (N 1034.30), 6267 on the south (N 1026.97), 10086 on the east (E 282.15) and W54 on the west (E 273.95). Rask and Wells continued supervising in the same room during the third session, 25 May -12 June. This report provides a summary and interpretation based on the season as a whole.; ; Our objective this season was to expose the 11th century levels for the purpose of opening up this house for public display. The director was Guy Sanders, the field director Alicia Carter, the pickman Thanasis Notis, the shovelman Tasos Kakouros and the barrowman Vasilis Kollias. The dry sieve was operated primarily by Sula Anastasopoulou, Kollias, Rask, Mihaloew, and Wells.; ; Previous Activity: 1961; ; Under the directorship of Henry Robinson, Section F of the Byzantine house was explored by William Berg III in the spring of 1961. At some time after the completion of excavation (either in 1961 or later in the 60s when excavation in the Agora Southwest was closed) portions of the room were back-filled, while other areas were left exposed. Following his work, no archaeological activity was undertaken in the area except for a cleaning in 2007, when it was weeded, covered with plastic, and back-filled.; ; In the room which was the focus of our excavation throughout all three 2009 sessions, Berg had exposed walls W54, W55, 10080, 10083, 10086, 10088,10094, 5631,  an E-W drain (5938), and well 6288. Additionally, he sunk trenches in all four corners of the room; these may have been further excavated while searching for the Roman road. The combination of back-filled and exposed areas, as well as the recording practices in the 1960s, had an effect on our ability to interpret the pre-60s stratigraphy. For this reason, extensive study of Berg’s photographs and excavation notebooks was undertaken in order to determine how his activity impacted the space of the room prior to our renewed excavations. A detailed discussion of the four corner trenches is attached as Appendix B of this report. More general references to Berg’s results are included in the pertinent discussions below.; ; ; Frankish (1210-1458); ; The Frankish period seems to have witnessed a great deal of activity and renovation in our space, with the most active period being the second half of the 13th century. Of the features dated to this period, most can be placed either in the third quarter or in the later part of the century. During this time span, the form and use of the room changed on several occasions. A wide variety of new or changed elements in the room indicate this, including the addition of rooms, walls, a drain, thresholds, floors and fills. ; ; Well 6288; ; One of the main actions pointing to the changing use of space was the closing of well 6288, which was filled sometime in the third quarter of the 13th century. Because the excavation and processing of the well was a significant part of the season’s work, and because its contents will be the subject of considerable further study, in what follows we will provide a detailed description of our results from the well’s excavation. Afterwards, the discussion will return to the other 13th century activity. ; ; The well had originally been examined on May 13, 1961 (NB 229, p. 109) and designated Well OA-107 (coordinate designation) at that time. Berg excavated it for less than a meter and recorded no finds. He postulated that it belonged to the Turkish period and did not excavate deeper because of its narrowness. Our own investigation began by removing 0.45 m of backfill and debris before excavation. Initially we attempted to determine context changes based on differences in soil composition and inclusions; however, after approximately 2.0 meters of excavation, the Director advised that we should change contexts approximately every 0.30 m. This was our primary method of excavation, but we also changed contexts when stratigraphically necessary.  All the material from the well was dry sieved with 7mm screens and 3mm starting with context 6420. Water flotation samples (15 L) were also collected from every context. 32 contexts were removed in total, but the bottom of the well was not reached nor was the structure (6288) itself excavated.; ; The material removed from the well indicates three discernible dumping actions dating to the Frankish period, between 1270-1290 C.E. The character of these deposits, however, suggests that the well was filled over a short time. The latest dumping layer (6286, 6291, 6297, 6360, 6361, 6365, 6368) fills the top 2.75 meters of the well. The contexts comprising the layer included a large amount of pottery, bone material, and various smaller finds such as iron nails, glass, and bronze objects. The proceeding (and underlying) dumping action revealed a dramatic decrease in the number of inclusions, with a very small amount of pottery and bone, and a significant increase in the ash and charcoal content of the soil (6369, 6371, 6374, 6378, 6383, 6386). Below and proceeding the ash deposit was another dumping action (6394, 6400, 6405, 6412, 6416, 6420, 6430, 6438, 6447); this deposit was characterized by soil with a high clay content and very little ash, extremely large amounts of pottery (with a high proportion of fine ware) and a very large amount of animal bone. ; ; At a depth of 11.70 m (elev. 73.40 m) we reached the water table (context 6518). The pottery and bones were still present at their normal high amounts so we continued excavating for another 37 cm, to a depth of 11.88 (elev. 73.03 m), at which point we felt that it was unsafe to continue. The last context was 6524.  ; ; The latest pottery found in the well dates to a twenty-year span (1270-1290), but the three dumping actions apparent amongst the contexts are not chronologically separate, despite their stratigraphic relationships.  In addition, the presence of complete vessels suggests primary deposition, but the occurrence of incomplete and fragmentary body sherds also indicates the secondary deposition of pottery. This interpretation is supported by the bone material. The excellent preservation of delicate and small bones (e.g., of fish, cats, birds), as well of the articulation of some bones, can be indicative of primary deposition; on the other hand, a large amount of weathered and fragmentary bones suggests the secondary deposition of animal remains.; Personal communication with Thanos Webb, the excavation’s zooarchaeologist, emphasized the distinct nature of the bone material that had been removed from the well. The preservation was very good, with little weathering and the presence of smaller and more fragile elements. There was an abundance of different anatomical elements, representing parts from the entire skeleton. The surface modification of the bones was also distinctive, with the butchery marks on multiple elements being far more extensive than that on bones from areas outside the well. Finally, the species representation from the well was also conspicuous, ranging from common domesticates to large birds and fish, and with an age distribution ranging from fetal to mature.  Additionally, large amounts of microfaunal remains and fish scales were collected from the dry sieve.  These have yet to be analyzed.; ; In addition to the pottery and bones, we recovered small finds of both a utilitarian and luxury nature. These included stone and bone tools, iron nails, bronze lumps, worked bone artifacts, spindle hooks and whorls, and glass. Twenty-seven coins were recovered. Nearly half of these were illegible, and of those which we could date, most were Late Byzantine and Frankish. None need to be later than the 3rd quarter of the 13th century, chronology in agreement with our pottery. A complete list of the contexts and coin dates can be found in Appendix A of this summary.; ; The well structure itself was not excavated, so our only evidence for the construction date of the well comes from our limited excavation of the fill (6536) inside the construction cut (6535). The pottery from this context dated to the 10th/11th centuries. Given the large amount of dumped 10/11th century fill in other parts of the room which stratigraphically date to the 12th century (see below), the small sample provided by the construction trench cannot assuredly date the well’s first use phase. Still, if one considers the dating of the contexts surrounding the well (see below), we can speculate that well was in use from the 10th/11th centuries until it was closed at the third quarter of the 13th century.; Other 13th century activity; ; The character of the other 13th century actions in the room also reflects an alteration of the space. In the 3rd quarter of the century, sometime around the closing of the well, a long drain (5938) was laid running E-W and extending eastward out of the room. In order to extend the drain completely to the road, a small portion of wall 10083 had to be removed. The pebble/cement floor associated with the drain (5934) suggests that the room continued to act as an outdoor space, as it had previously in the 12th century. Two piers (5957, 10077) set up at the room’s south east boundary and a threshold (5919) placed between served to monumentalize the passageway between our room and the one to the south. At the same time, another pier (6148) was placed to the north on an axis with the eastern pier; it was placed against the west end of wall 10087 and can be dated by the fill which it cuts to the south (6141). Together the three piers must have served a supporting function for an upper level or arch.  By the end of the century the threshold had been walled up and two connecting N-S walls (10094, 10080) were added at the western pier to slice the entire room in half, separating the well and staircase from the room’s eastern portion. ; ; In order to build wall 10094 it seems that digging activity of some sort was undertaken, probably to clear the space for construction. We have not settled on a firm interpretation of the activity here, however. Originally we believed we had found a robbing trench for another pier foundation (6273), located on an axis with the other three. Further excavation revealed that the pier foundation cut was part of a longer N-S cut (6254/5, 6240, 6565, 6569) truncated by Berg’s corner trench (6570). The lower portion of the cut contains fill with 12th century dates (6274, 6581); the robbing of the upper portion, evidently begun at the southern end, can be associated with the 13th century (6225, 6240). Conclusions about the history of activity in this region are tenuous, but may include, for example: a) an earlier wall was robbed out in the 12th century, another placed in the same cut at a higher layer, and that robbed out in the 13th century, b) a wall was removed at some point and a pier foundation was sunk in its place to coincide with the other three, then removed for 10094. ; The removal of other features was also necessary to reshape the space. For example, an E-W wall (6052) ending at 10086 must have been removed to accommodate the threshold placed just at its south. The robbing trench left behind by the wall’s removal was later cut by pit 5935. This pit may have been dug to remove a large pithos, evidenced at the south end of the pit by its deeper circular depression, perhaps located at the corner of  walls 6052 and 6424 and therefore outside the boundary of our room and adjacent to its south (see Appendix B).; ; 12th century; ; Whereas the 13th century activity in the room involved the movement and construction of numerous built features, at present it seems that the 12th century activity, while extensive, cannot be linked to any extant architectural elements within the room. Instead, the 12th century activity is marked by a series of leveling and dumping activities that can be situated in two general time periods, the early 12th century and the second half of the century.; The most dramatic of these is a deep layer of multiple dumping actions in the southern part of the room. In the early part of the century, an extensive cut was made that truncated a grey clay floor in the west and extended to the eastern edge of the space. The cut was filled with many deposits of a mixed nature; in particular, several lenses of fill contained pottery of multiple periods and included large dumps of roof tiles (e.g., 6191: 21.4kg, 6186: 24.9kg). The mixed nature of the pottery deposit suggests that it was removed from another context before deposition in the room. In fact, the majority of the lenses were dated by pottery to the 10th/11th century (6629, 6626, 6622, 6194, 6196, 6198, 6225), while the dumping activity can be securely dated to the 12th century by the lowest fill level (6662). ; ; Redeposited 10th/11th century material was also used to make up the matrix of a series of pebble floors in the room’s NE corner (6593, 6592, 6591). The floors were truncated on all sides, but can be dated by a deep fill beneath (6605) containing early 12th century pottery and very well-preserved bones (with nearly complete and fragile examples, suggesting primary deposition).  Because the patchy pebble floors exhibited wear patterns compatible with the pooling of water, during the early part of the century we suspect the room to have been an outdoor space. ; The evidence for architectural adaption in the courtyard during the twelfth century is scanty. A feature running N-S east of the well may have been removed (see above). An E-W wall (6426) may also have been removed, since a series of robbing trenches were found (6042, 6046), but since the wall has not been fully excavated, we cannot be certain of its chronology. ; ; 10th/11th century; ; Our understanding of the 10th and 11th century phases of the room is currently incomplete, since our efforts have focused primarily on removing 12th and 13th century remains. As mentioned, many of the dumped fills that we have encountered were dated by pottery to the 10th/11th century, but belong stratigraphically to later periods. We also have 10th/11th century dates for the patchy floors and some of the fills below them in the NE part of the room, but these are stratigraphically dated to the 12th century as well. ; ; A large drain was located outside the room, east of wall 10086 under the later additions to the Byzantine house, curving from the southwest (10079) north and west to 10083. Situated under what was once the wider Medieval road, the drain was covered by squared limestone slabs probably removed from the nearby Roman road. The fill and surface above the drain contained pottery of the 10th and 11th century, but as the cut and fill excavated seems to have been related to a later repair, we are not able to establish a firm chronology for the drain’s construction. Moreover, given the stratigraphically later 10th/11th century fills common in the room, the date should probably remain speculative for the time being.; Otherwise, we have no structures that can be assuredly dated to the 10th and 11th centuries. In the western portion of the room, a grey clay floor has been uncovered through which the well was cut. The fill inside the well construction cut was dated to the 10th/11th century, as were the fills above this floor and the cut. However, as stated above, given the limited excavation of the construction cut, the unexcavated well structure, and the disturbed nature of this part of the room, we only tentatively date the well construction to this period. ; ; Suggestions for further excavation; ; One area of particular interest for future research is the architectural phasing of the area. This is especially relevant since the room appears to have served as a courtyard in the 12th century and its boundaries seem to have shifted on several occasions. For this reason, it might be worth considering the room’s relationship to the other external courtyards. It is also a possibility that the space’s form and function changed as the larger building was broken into smaller units. ; ; In keeping with the premises of open-area excavation, we have endeavored to extract all 13th century and later levels from the room (the exception being the unexcavated well deposits below the water table). Nearly all 12th century levels have been removed. We recommend that the following steps be taken to clear any remaining 12th century evidence before proceeding to the earlier Byzantine periods. ; ; 1)Any remaining fill from the unfinished portion of 6662 should be removed, particularly the dumped fill in the area north of 5935 and west of 6556/7. The relationship between that fill and the eastern area of the room should be further clarified (particularly in the region of wall 10086 and cut 5935). ; 2)If permission to remove wall 6426 has been acquired, then it should be taken out and the area beneath it examined in more detail. It may have been partly robbed out in the 12th century, but its construction date has not yet been identified.; 3)The staircase (6324, 6325, 6333) can be further examined by excavating the space between the lower and upper steps. It is probable that the staircase was added after the well was closed, since it partly overlies the well packing, but a more precise date for its construction would be helpful.; 4)The triangular area 6648 laid against walls 10086 and 10087 should be excavated. We believed that it may have been outside cut 6678, but its stratigraphic make-up should be determined more precisely, since its last level to be removed was part of the larger context 6648.; 5)The grey floor south of the well should be examined in an effort to understand its use phases, the date and function of wall 6422 and the collection of rocks visible in the 1960s sondage section.; 6)The uneven fills in the northeast part of the room should be removed to explore their make-up and to determine if they actually date to the 10th/11th century or if they are part of the 12th century leveling action. Their removal will also allow the investigation of the floors beneath them that had been cut by 6678. ; 7) If the lower levels of the room are reached, three particular questions that have been created by earlier excavation might be addressed:; A. What were the circumstances of the skeleton’s deposition in the NE corner? (See Appendix B) Why was the body haphazardly laid out and why was its skull covered by 10087?; B. What is identification of the line of stones at the bottom of the N-S cut (6273)? The soil south of the stones seemed to be full of hollows. Might it be an earlier well, as Thanasis has suggested, or another type of open space?; C. A N-S wall was uncovered by Berg in the NW trench (6570) and re-found in 2009. It appears to be a finely constructed wall abutting the earlier phase of W55, forming a precise corner. How does this change the plan of the building and the understanding of the long entrance alley to the north? Does the wall have any relation to the Byzantine house at all or is it entirely pre-Medieval?; ; ; Appendix A: Well coin dates; ; Context   Coin # and date; 6286; #123 Corinth medieval 1245-1250; 6291; 6297; 6360; 6361; 6365; 6368; 6369; 6371; 6374; 6378; 6383; 6386; 6394; 6400; 6405; #99 medieval illeg.; #102 Manuel I 1167-1183; 6412; #103 medieval illeg. 1092-1399; #104 Villehardouin 1250-1260; #107 illeg.; 6416; #114 illeg. 1092-1261; #115 Roman Imperial; 6420; 6430; #119 Manuel I 1143-1180; #120 medieval illeg. 1092-1261; #121 illeg 324-599; #122 Greek – Corinth 400-146 BC; 6438; 6447; #126 illeg. 1092-1261; #127 illeg. 1092-1399; #128 illeg. 1250-1330; #161 illeg.; 6455; 6469; #137 Alexius I 1085-1092; #139 illeg.; #140 illeg. 1204-1261; 6474; #142 Manuel 1 1143-1180; 6483; #149 illeg.; 6486; #146 medieval illeg.; #150 illeg.; #151 Byzantine illeg.; 6492; 6497; #153 medieval; #154 Byzantine; #155 Byzantine; 6515; 6518; 6524; ; Appendix B; NB = Berg’s notebook, #229.; PV = Photograph volume 18, 1960 II; ; Berg included a number of plans of Section F, which he updated throughout the season as new information came to light. His drawings have been useful for reconstructing his activity at the time, although his plans do often focus on architecture to the expense of other important features (e.g., he never depicts well 6288). His adherence to the overall grid is often inexact. It appears that his elevations, in contrast, are quite accurate; they can be tested both at the 13th century drain (5938) and at the bottom of 6173.; ; Two of the corner trenches were cleaned during 2009’s Session1 by Potenza and Boehm, that in the southwest (5935) and southeast (6223).; ; 5935: This area was originally excavated by Berg on June 10th, 1961 (NB: 192, 195). He mentions working in the area between his walls #33 (10080/10094), #27 (10086/10087), and #23 (10076/10077). Although Berg does not describe the excavation of a deep pit or bothros, a figure-eight-shaped pit is visible in the end-of-excavation photographs (PV: p 32, 61-24-4); it was cleaned, defined and recorded by Potenza and Boehm as cut 5935. Berg’s silence on the issue of the pit may be due to the fact that its excavation was done on the last day of the season, with work ending at noon. The material was saved as Lot 662. Because the stratigraphy was so disturbed by both Berg’s excavation and by later weathering, 5935’s original digging cannot be placed securely in the room’s sequence of events. It clearly occurred after the filling of 6042/6046 (RT for 6052), which it truncates, but otherwise we can not exactly place it on the Harris Matrix and have thus left it floating.; ; 6623: Berg refers to this area, excavated on June 6th, 1961 (NB: p. 182), as the space between his walls #34 (W54), #33 (10080/10094), and #25. No photographs of the specific area were taken, but it is depicted in the post-season views found in PV. The photos indicate that in this area, Berg excavated everything to the level of the top of the well, with two specific features down to a lower level. The first is the sondage taken at the corners of W54 and 6267/5361; it was cleaned by Potenza and Boehm but not given a number. According to the photos, Berg’s excavation of the sondage revealed the northern face of 6267/5361, the wall located about a meter or so north of Berg's Wall #25 and the southwest boundary of our own trench. Berg did not include wall 6267/5361 on his plans, but it does seem to have been drawn on the 2009 Nezi field plan. The pit that he excavated at this time has a large number of jumbled rocks on its east face (under wall 6422). It is unclear if 6422 was excavated by Berg, but on his final plan (p. 188) he draws a small structure that jogs east and then south from W54 in a similar way to how we originally interpreted 6422; this may be a reference to his sondage and the jumbled rocks therein, or to 6422. Also likely, however, is that the structure drawn by Berg refers to a pile of larger rocks possibly visible north of the sondage and south of the staircase in photo 61-26-5 (p35); again, this interpretation is based on a general photograph of the area as there was no detailed description in Berg’s notebook. ; ; The second delineated feature visible in the photographs is a circular pit to the east of the sondage and up against Berg's wall #33 (our 10080). This is probably what Berg refers to on p. 182 as a circular pit just west of his wall #33 and north of his wall #25. He indicates that the pit had a plastered southern face and was filled with fine white ash. The pottery was saved as Lot 683. He excavated the pit to an elevation of 84.16m. Our season’s closing elevation was 84.18m, a difference of only .02m, and was taken approximately under the pit’s location as visible in the photographs (at the bottom of 6662). ; ; The placement of Berg’s corner sondage had some bearing in our interpretation of contexts 6620 and 6338. 6620 was made of an extremely soft and ashy fill that was exposed by Potenza and Boehm’s cleaning at the beginning of the season, and was partly removed by 6338 and further sweeping. Its softness and the its straight northern boundary suggested that it might be back-fill. In the 1961 photographs, the sondage does not appear to be located so far north, leaving the possibility that the softness of the soil was a result of exposure to the elements, foot traffic and other 2009 excavation activity. Nevertheless, it is still possible that the area was excavated further after the 1961 end-of-season photos were taken and that 6620 was composed of re-deposited earth - if so, the excavation activity must have been completed after Berg's 1961 efforts. See PV: p. 34, 61-26-4; p. 35, 61-27-1, 61-27-2, 61-26-5.; ; The two corners in the northwest (6570) and northeast (6173) were cleaned by Rask and Wells in 2009’s Session 2 and 3: ; ; 6173: This northeast corner was originally excavated by Berg on June 9th, 1961 (NB: p. 192) and continued on June 10th, the final day of the season. Berg stopped digging at a hard surface found at 84.20m, at which point the wall foundation trenches for W55 (#34) and 10086 (#27) were visible. At this level he also uncovered a skeleton lying in a disheveled E-W position with its head beneath10087 (PV: p. 25: 61-15-3). Berg makes clear in his notebook that the area would not be excavated any further beyond their stopping point at 84.20m, the level of the skeleton. Our excavation has shown, however, that some time later digging must have taken place, as an irregular pit cuts through the hard surface at which Berg stopped (our measurement shows the disturbed hard surface to be 84.10m, slightly lower than Berg’s stopping point at 84.20m). The later digging cut through the wall foundation trench noted by Berg and continued to a presently undetermined depth. It is unclear when this digging happened and by whom it was undertaken.; ; 6570: The northwest area was originally exposed on May 26, 1961 (PV: p. 35, 61-27-7). It began as a soft fill that was excavated to a hard level at 84.06m. He speculated that the soft fill was W54/55's foundation trench (p.151). The hard soil was then removed from W54 eastward towards Berg's wall #33 (10094/10080). Berg originally drew #33 as extending from our room northward beyond W55 (plan, p. 101); if the wall truly extended that far north than its northern portion must have been removed by Berg. Unfortunately, the end-of-excavation photographs do not clarify the matter, although they do seem to indicate that Berg excavated a N-S trench possibly crossing over W55 that terminated in a large round pit to the north (PV: p. 36, 61-27-3). It is not possible to say much more from the photographs nor to determine if that cut/pit had any relation to the activity in our room. Moreover, no mention is made in Berg's notebook of the wall we designate 10095 and which seems to have been the easternmost point of their trench here. It is drawn on two of his plans, although it seems to be indicated in the wrong spot on his last plan (p. 157 and 188).   The area of 6570 was excavated down “to levels of obviously Roman or Classical date"" (p. 167) and was presumably closed on May 30th, 1961. The pottery from Berg's exploration was saved as Lots 672, 673, 675.; ; Our interpretation of the N-S cut 6273 was affected by 6570, since Berg’s excavations truncated the cut. It is also unclear if Berg partially exposed the line of rocks at the preserved northern end of 6273.","Corinthia | Ancient Corinth | Central Area | Nezi Field","Report","","","Corinth","","2009 Excavation summary","Corinth:Report:Nezi Field 2009 by Martin Wells, Katie Rask (2009-06-17 to 2009-06-18)","","Nezi Field 2009 by Martin Wells, Katie Rask (2009-06-17 to 2009-06-18)",""
"","","Corinth Excavations 2010 Session II; North of Nezi Room A; We, Cameron Pearson and Lincoln Nemetz Carlson, continued the excavation in the area north of Nezi opened by Rob Nichols and Martin Wells in the first excavation session of 2010. During the first week of the second session of the 2010 Corinth excavation season, May 4 – May 7 we excavated primarily in the northwest room of the Byzantine house—the ‘well room’ (6288)—bounded by walls 54, 5631, 6426, 10086, 10081, 10087, 55 and 6333 (E. 273.95-283.00; N. 1026.9-1034.78). Generally, current excavation in this area continues the work carried out during the 1960s by Henry Robinson (director) and William Berg III (supervisor).  Our objectives were to continue the work of the previous session and expose the drain structure 6727 in order to see if there was any evidence of a Roman north-south road in the area.; The following is a summary and interpretation of the first part of the second session of excavations. The director was Guy Sanders, the field director was Marty Wells, the pickmen were Thanasis Notis and Panos Stamatis, the shovelman and barrowman Sotiris Raftopoulos, and the dry sieve was operated by Iannis Senis ; Late Roman/Early Byzantine (300-801 CE); These layers are concentrated primarily in the center of the room in and around drain (structure 6827). In the Late Roman period, a sewer drain (structure 6827) was in existence, which has been dated to the late 4rd- 5th c. B.C.E. on pottery (6931, 6939, 6943) found between it and the cut for the drain (6737). It is oriented NW-SE, under the phases of the later Byzantine room and continued under wall 10086 to the east. It is unclear if it continued to the west. It is possible that it connected to the north-south drain associated with the Roman road east of room. The drain consisted of a combination of building materials: worked fieldstones, marble pavers and a collection of weathered and/or badly carved architectural members: two geison blocks, three half-columns cut lengthwise, and two unfluted (so far as is visible) cylindrical blocks, one with an offset empolium.  At some point the drain went out of use, and an extensive fill of re-deposited 8th c. material (6788) was deposited over it, followed by subsequent Middle Byzantine activity 6686 and 6682 in later periods.; Excavation west of the built part of the sewer revealed that there were no more covering slabs despite the walls of the drain curving southwest. The cylindrical rough-hewn block (not a column) with the offset empolium to the south was fully uncovered along with a badly carved half column and some worked fieldstones to the north.  They all lined the drain. It is unclear whether this part of the drain was ever covered or if it was robbed out at some point. One of the half columns was revealed lying near the bottom of the drain (cf.6867).; Based on the contexts (6931, 6939, 6943), between the drain (6827) and the cut (6737) the date of the drain’s construction is 4th-5th c. AD. It is unclear which roads or other drains it was connected to but it is likely linked with the unexcavated sewer next to the Roman road just above it to the east. It then goes out of use in the middle 6th -7th c. The top layer (6856) of the small mound that formed the western end of where the covering slabs had lain over the drain dates to the 7th c. but it could have fallen in from above as the slabs were not sealed by any means (the drain continued to the west but with no covering slabs). The rest of the fill  (6854, 6860, 6861), which was clearly from the wash inside the covered portion of dates to the middle of the 6th c.; One explanation for the different layers and types of soil inside the area where the drain was covered is that it was plugged up some time in the 7th c. The small mound toward the west of the covered area would have been created by the blocking. The half column found during the removal of the bottom fill (6867) for the drain (6827) could have served this purpose. The covering slabs to the west and any evidence of the dark silt (6854, 6861) not found outside of where the drain was covered (6832) would have been removed during this stopping up operation. The problem with this explanation is that there is no clear evidence that the soil (6867) at the bottom of the covered eastern section of the drain is earlier than the fill that hypothetically would have been used to fill up the western part (6832). Furthermore, in order for the stopping up theory to be validated, there would have be a good explanation as to why a century or two after its construction such trouble would be taken to plug it up.; A second idea is that the drain simply went out of use. However, this explanation has to account for why the soil in the covered portion of the drain contained layers of dark silt and wetter soil (6854, 6860, 6861), which were not found outside to the west (6832).  If it clogged up on its own there should be traces of this silt to the west as well. It is possible that the silt was removed while the covering slabs to the west were robbed out, perhaps in connection with the building of wall 6421 or its repair.; A third solution would have the drain simply never containing covering slabs to the west. James Herbst has suggested that there would have been a need for such drains to funnel out water before it flooded the forum to the south but it is doubtful that the drain would have been able to function without covering slabs. ; Of important note is that during a cleanup defining the edge of one of the Frankish piers (6841), a piece of Roman sculpture, most likely from a relief, was found. It consists of the right side of the face (S 2010).  ;  Conclusion; We have dated the drains (6827) construction (4th-5th c.) and the end of its use (7th c.) Notably, we did not find evidence for a Roman north-south road in or around the drain. It remains to be explained why the drain was built at such a late date. It if is associated with the road’s construction to the east it should be early (ca. 1st c.). For a clearer picture of why and for what purpose the drain was built at this time, comparanda from other Roman drains in Corinth will need to be studied. ; ; ; ; Corinth Excavations 2010 Room B; North of Nezi; We, Cameron Pearson and Lincoln Nemetz Carlson, continued the excavation in the area north of Nezi opened by Sarah Lima, Mark Hammond, and Kiersten Spongberg in session II 2009.  ; During the second week of the second session of the 2010 Corinth excavation season, May 10 – May 19 we excavated primarily in what we are calling Room B (the second room we dug this session which was called the East Room by the previous excavators) south of the courtyard in the Byzantine house— Bounded by walls 5403  to the south, 6300, 6027,  (threshold) 6285 to the east, 5483 to the west, and to the north 6267,  (threshold) 5671, and (foundation) 6245. Our objectives were to continue the work of the previous session and to search for any trace of a North-South Roman road. ; The following is a summary and interpretation of the second part of the second session of excavations. The director was Guy Sanders, the field director was Marty Wells, the pickmen were Thanasis Notis and Panos Stamatis, the shovelman and barrowman Sotiris Raftopoulos, and the dry sieve was operated by Iannis Senis.; Hellenistic 3rd Century; A series of ash pits were found in the southwest (6901, 6906, 6917) and one in the north (6924). All of these dated to the Hellenistic period with one late Roman contaminant in 6906 and three in 6926. Despite the contaminants, which probably entered these ash contexts because we mistakenly dug them before later contexts or due to overdigging, it seems most likely that in the Hellenistic period the whole area covered by Room B was an ash dump for some sort of industry. ; Late Roman 3rd C.; A large cut, as of yet undated, appears to run east-west through the center of the room. It could have been for a Roman wall along the south side of the east-west road. There is evidence for this cut in the rooms to the east and west of Room B. A small wall bit, most likely a foundation, (6968) might be what is left of the robbing out of this Roman east-west wall. The pottery on top of this wall bit (6968) dates to the 3rd c. AD (6966). Another possible small foundation for a wall (6937) runs north-south under wall 5403. The relationship between these two hypothetical wall foundations is unclear as they have not been excavated. We are also unsure if the tile dump 6916 is a structure at all (whether a furnace or another wall foundation?).  However, we can postulate that sometime from the 6th-8th c., the Roman wall was robbed out and filled with deposits 6967, and possibly 6982 and 6888 as well. Another problem left for future excavation is the relationship if any of wall 6933 to wall 6120. We had originally thought that wall 6120 was associated with paving stones 6190, which reached the wall. But since the Hellenistic ash is visible just below wall 6120 it is possible that this wall is earlier than the paving stones which are associated with threshold 5285 to the east, which the previous excavators had concluded was earlier than threshold 6261 on the north side of the room but has no precise date.   ; Conclusions; In Room B we hypothesize that a Hellenistic ash layer was probably cut for a wall of an east-west Roman road.  We exposed the cut which should be explored by the next team.  They should begin at the north west of the cut and try to decide what the relationship is between the cut and walls 6968 and 6933. We could not see evidence for the cut continuing on the area just east of wall 6933. There was a clear greenish layer passing form the western to the northern scarp of 6967, implying that the cut does not continue between walls 6933 and 6968. However, the paving stones at the bottom of fill 6967 appear to end at the northern edge of the cut, indicating that it does indeed continue along the lines of wall 6968 to the west. Other questions to answer are what is 6915. Is it a structure of a dump? Also it could be that wall foundations 6937 and 6968 formed a corner where the north south road met. What is their relationship?  ; Room C ; ; In the third week of Session II, we turned out attention to the room directly to the South of Room B, referred to here as “Room C.”  Room C was last investigated by Anne Feltovich, Catherine Persona and Emily Rush during the 2008 season. Room C, referred to as Room E by Feltovich, Person and Rush during the 2008 excavation, is bounded by walls 5403 to the north (formerly W 32), Wall 5435 to the west (formerly W 22), Wall 5435 to the South (formerly W 23) and 5346 to the east.  ; We were interested in looking into the relationship between the Room B and Room C, which appeared to be terraced above Room B, and for looking of signs of the N-S Roman road that may have ran through both rooms.  ; During the 2008 session, the previous excavators established that the wall dividing the room, Wall 5446, was the first wall in the room and the other walls in the room were built in this order.; ; a) Wall 5446 ; b) Wall 5403; c) Wall 5435; d) Wall 5434; e) Wall 5346.; Early on in the excavation, we discovered a wall (Wall 7001) running parallel with 5446 to the west of 5446.  Wall 7001 also seems to have been cut by the foundation trench for wall 5403 and thus is one of the earliest features of the room.  At this time, however, it is hard to say whether wall 7001 predates, postdates or is contemporary with wall 5446.  Two overlying early Roman Contexts (6997 and 7003) deposited between Walls 7001 and 6997 would seem to indicate that both walls predate the 2nd century AD.  Walls 7001 and 5446 also seem to be aligned with Structure 6916 (the furnace or tile dump) and Wall 6937 in Room B, but this might be coincidental.  Further investigation of Structure 6916 is recommended in order to establish its relationship, if any, to Wall 7001.; ; It seems that during the late 1st/early 2nd century AD, the area between Walls 7001 and 5446 and the area to the east of Wall 5446 (between 5446 and wall 5346) were filled with leveling deposits (6997/7031 and 7010/7021) which brought the surface of the room to the current extant height of the two walls (7001 and 5446).  At the present time, however, we do not have enough information to understand the intentions behind this action.; ; In the late 3rd/early 4th century AD, a pit (Cut 7020) was cut into the 1st/early 2nd century deposit (7010/7021) up against and to the east of Wall 5446 and a large amount of charcoal and ash was deposited (Deposit 7019).  The top of this pit of charcoal was cut by the construction of another pit above it during the 6th century AD (Cut 5380).  Fill to the west of wall 5435 (7003)  dates to the same period (3rd/early 4th century AD) as the charcoal and ash deposit, though it is unclear if the two deposits are related.  ; ; Excavations and cleaning also revealed a partial Greek inscription on the southern face of a block in Wall 5446.  Although we were able to make out and transcribe a couple of letters (as documented on Structure 5446 Context Sheet), the fragmentary nature of the inscription inhibits any further conclusions as to the nature of the writing.","Corinthia | Ancient Corinth | Central Area | Nezi Field","Report","","","Corinth","","2010 Session II Blue Final Report: Well Room (A), Room south of Courtyard (B), and Room South of the Byzantine House ( C )","Corinth:Report:Nezi Field 2010 by Cameron Pearson and Lincoln Nemetz Carlson (2010-05-27 to 2010-05-28)","","Nezi Field 2010 by Cameron Pearson and Lincoln Nemetz Carlson (2010-05-27 to 2010-05-28)",""
"","","Luke Madson and Jesse James, Session III 2022 (May 30 - June 24); ; Excavation Summary:; ; This excavation took place from May 30 to June 17, 2022, during the third excavation session of the season. It continued work done in the same trench in the second session (May 2022) recorded by Kaia Brose and David Picker-Kille, for which see [prior field report]. Jesse James and Luke Madson worked as trench recorders under the supervision of Chris Pfaff (Director) and Manolis Papadakis (Assistant to the Associate Director). James Herbst (Architect) and Ioulia Tzonou (Associate Director) also offered guidance on our complex and sometimes bizarre stratigraphy and Michael Ierardi assisted with the identification of our coins. In our trench, Argyris Tsirikis was our Pickman (newly appointed) and worked hard in consultation and collaboration with Athanasios Notis (Foreman); Argyris was supported by our Shovelman Agamemnon Karbouniaris, our good-natured Barrowman Sotiris Raftopoulos, and our eagle-eyed Sieve Operator Ilias Soli (Hekuran Coli), who also picked occasionally.; ; Area Description:; ; The excavation area consisted of a rectangular trench and was designated NET 16C, that is north east of the Theater, Trench 16C. The coordinates for the area when initially opened were: 35.0 E to 41.0 E and 1387.5 N to 1385.0 N. At the time we began our rotation, the trench had three main architectural features: Wall 27 which runs slightly off N-S axis; Wall 28 running east from Wall 27 and partially embedded in the southern scarp; and Water Pipe 3, running N-S and dividing NET 16 C from NET 16 B. The excavations were carried out largely in relation to Wall 27; from May 30th to June 2nd we worked E of the wall, moving west of the wall from June 2nd to June 16th. On June 10th the architectural features of the Vaulted Drain began to emerge and on June 16th  the Amphora Deposit and Branch Drain were excavated.; ; Phases:; ; Hellenistic: ; ; We found no evidence of activities in this area during the Hellenistic period (but note that two Hellenistic Sikyonian coins were found in contexts that are dated by pottery to the 1st century CE).; ; Early Roman: ; ; We uncovered two apparent drain structures that we have dated preliminarily to the 1st century BCE: a “Vaulted Drain” (Structure 96 in iDig) and a “Branch Drain” (Structure 97), the latter containing the amphora deposit below, with significant remains of approximately ten amphoras. The Vaulted Drain, and possibly the Branch Drain, was likely built shortly after foundation of the Roman colony in 44 BCE and its centuriation at approximately the same time. The Vaulted Drain aligns with a major N/S road of the Roman era uncovered in Trench 16 B (directly adjacent to the W), a road whose width may originally have extended into our trench, although we found no direct, independent evidence of it. ; ; Vaulted Drain; The most significant structure excavated in Trench 16C during the June session was the Vaulted Drain (Structure 96), a stone structure running N-S at the west end of Trench 16C, below Water Pipe 3. As so far exposed in the trench, it consists of a wall, partial arched ceiling, and apparent floor layer. 1.74m of the drain’s N-S length has been excavated. The floor’s elevation is approximately 57.89masi (ca. 3.4m below current topsoil), and the arch’s highest interior point is ca. 1.25m above the floor. The wall of the drain (which is the western wall of the visible structure) consists of a main lower course of large, moderately worked rectangular poros stones (the largest stone is 0.79m tall and 1.22m wide) topped with a course of smaller worked poros stones (ca. 0.2m tall), possibly with mortar between them. At its top this wall curves into the arch of the ceiling consisting of smaller unworked stones (rounded, hard limestone and conglomerate, ca. 0.12–0.35m in length) and bonded into a vault structure with a rough pinkish mortar embedded with small pebbles (0.001 to 0.008m dia.). There is an apparent floor layer consisting partly of worked rectangular stones and partly of soil. The stones run beneath the bottom course of wall stones, indicating that they were set there deliberately, as part of the construction of the Vaulted Drain. Further investigation of these stones and what lies beneath them is needed. They are of different sizes and their top surfaces are now set at slightly oblique angles and elevations, making an irregular floor surface. The larger floor stone measures approximately 0.7m N-S by 0.8m E-W (visible exposed surface); the smaller stone, directly to the N, is 0.31 by 0.33m. The soil around the stones was not compacted to a hard surface, possibly indicating that other floor stones were previously in place and were subsequently removed. An alternative interpretation is that the “floor” stones are not a floor at all but served another function. ; ; The existing arch of the ceiling of the Vaulted Drain appears to peak ca. 0.25m east of the wall surface. Assuming a symmetrical arch, and that we have the highest point of the arch (which seems correct), we would expect an eastern wall to the Vaulted Drain ca. 0.5m from the existing wall. But we found no direct evidence of such an eastern wall: no large worked rectangular stones (no worked stones at all), no other large stones that appeared part of the same structure as the western wall and arch, and no inclusions of mortar matching the mortar of the arch. This evidence suggests one of two possibilities: either the eastern half of the Vaulted Drain was fully disassembled in antiquity (see dating discussion below), removing all traces of the disassembly within the area of our trench; or the drain is significantly wider than appears to be indicated by the remains of the arched ceiling. ; ; The outside top of the Vaulted Drain’s arched ceiling is covered with a reddish, perhaps clayey soil, and Water Pipe 3 sits ca. 0.4m above the top of that ceiling, also in reddish soil. During excavation, that 0.4m depth of soil appeared to be in two layers, which suggests that the pipe may have been laid some time after the Vaulted Drain was built. But the pipe appears to be centered directly over the Vaulted Drain, which could indicate that it was laid at the same time. If that is the case, it may be that this 0.4m of reddish soil was placed deliberately both as a kind of sealing layer over the Vaulted Drain and as a bedding layer for Water Pipe 3.; ; Branch Drain; Slightly to the east of the Vaulted Drain, at the north side of the trench, we discovered what we have called the “Branch Drain” (Structure 97) running roughly SE to NW. It becomes visible in its path from the E (at 36.95m in the easting in our trench, elevation 58.3masl) at a height of ca. 0.5m above the floor level of the Vaulted Drain. At this point the Branch Drain is 0.25m wide, and widens to ca. 0.4m by the time it exits the trench to the N (at 35.25m in the easting, elevation 57.95masl), with a total exposed length of 1.7m and drop of 0.25m. At its westernmost  visible point the Branch Drain is less than 1.0m from the floor of the Vaulted Drain. Some stones still in situ between the SW curve of the Branch Drain and the Vaulted Drain may originally have been part of the Branch Drain walls.; ; We only partially excavated the Branch Drain, even within the boundaries of our trench. We excavated as far E as the west side of Wall 27 (which is a much later wall, for which see below, under “Byzantine”), and have not uncovered the north or south sides of the stones that form its walls. We have also not found a point at which the Branch Drain joins the Vaulted Drain, although we presume such a joint slightly north of the boundary of our trench. Hence the description and interpretation here are highly provisional. ; ; The Branch Drain appears to consist of two walls or sides built of unworked, dry-stacked stones. At the moment of writing there appear to be three or four courses of stones in these walls, but more excavation is needed to confirm what remains of the entire structure. This Branch Drain also has a partial tile floor. At its eastern visible limit the drain is oriented mostly E-W, but curves more toward the northwest as it proceeds west toward the Vaulted Drain. The tile floor slopes down visibly, and the tiles give way to soil after two visible overlapping tile courses. The top tile shows 0.4m of visible length and 0.33m of visible width, and is 0.03m thick. The Branch Drain’s stone sides also slope downward. (Some of this slope of the sides of the drain could be a result of inadvertently removing structural stones during the excavation process. We attempted not to remove any stones that were parts of an obvious structure, but some large stones were excavated in this context and they might originally have been built into the drain sides).; ; Amphora Deposit; One of the major breathtaking finds from the trench occurred on the final day of excavation. A deposit of perhaps eleven amphoras and one mortar, mixed with non-amphora potsherds, some large stones (ca. 0.2 to 0.4m long), and soil, was found in and above the Branch Drain. This deposit, roughly in the shape of a steep wedge, was approximately 0.7m wide (N-S), 1.6m long (E-W), and 1.7m deep at its highest, easternmost point. We were not able to determine definitively whether this deposit was placed into a man-made trench, but its position directly above the Branch Drain indicates that the deposit was made into and onto that man-made drain (the soil within and around the amphoras and stones may have been deposited by natural erosion). All the amphoras appeared to have been lying on their sides (none deliberately placed upright). We did not collect elevation points on individual amphoras in situ, but the highest was found at approximately 59.35masl. All of the amphoras were broken, but the completeness of the remains suggests that none had been moved more than once or twice between the end of its functional life and its final deposition here, and that therefore their deposition was intentional and expected to be final. At least two amphoras (C-2022-7 and C-2022-20) appear to have been deposited as complete vessels, although parts of them (the mouth of C-2022-7 and one longitudinal half of C-2022-20) remain in situ in the trench scarp as of the time of writing. Preliminary analysis indicates that the amphoras date to between the 1st century BCE and the 1st century CE.; ; As study and cataloging of the amphora remains is ongoing, and additional ceramic material remains underneath Wall 27, this is a preliminary catalog of the approximately ten amphoras from this location: ; ; C-2022-7 (Amphora 1); Dressel 2-4 with dipinto, 1st cent BC to 1st cent CE; ; C-2022-8 (Amphora 2): Dressel 21-22 (resinous substance on interior), 1st cent. CE (cf. C-80-180) ; C-2022-9 (Amphora 3): Spanish Dressel 2-4, 1st cent BC to 1st cent. CE (fragments originally labeled C11 [Amphora 5] and C16 [Amphora 9] have been determined to be part of C-22-09); C-2022-10 (Amphora 4); Dressel 6A(?), 1st cent. BCE to 1st cent. CE; C11 (Amphora 5); see C-2022-09; C-2022-12 (Amphora 6): pompeii vii amphora, end of 1st cent. BCE to 1st cent. CE; C-2022-13 (Amphora 7): thin-walled sandy fabric amphora toe; C-2022-14 (Amphora 8); pompeii vii amphora; C-2022-15 (spouted mortar): late 1st cent. BC to early 1st cent CE (cf. C-2004-12); C16 (Amphora 9); see C-2022-09; C-2022-17 (Amphora 10): Pompeii vii; C-2022-18 (Amphora 11): Pseudo-Coan; C19 (Amphora 12); see C-2022-15; C-2022-20 (Amphora 13 = C19 [fragments originally labeled C19 (Amphora 12) have been determined to be part of C-2022-20) ; ; Water Pipe 3; Water Pipe 3 (Structure 95) runs N-S directly above the Vaulted Drain, centered at 34.645m east, with a top elevation of approximately 59.96m above sea level. Within Trench 16C the pipe slopes slightly from N to S, with a drop of 0.023m over a length of 1.585m (this is surprising because the general slope of the landscape here is gradual from S to N). Its diameter varies from 0.107m to 0.127m (the greater width is at the junctions) with approximately 3 segments (ca. 1.6m) currently exposed in situ. As noted above, the apparent continuity of red clayey soil from the top of the Vaulted Drain up to the bottom of Water Pipe 3, along with the similar orientation of the two structures and Water Pipe 3’s position approximately centered over the Vaulted Drain, suggest that Water Pipe 3 was laid down close in time to the construction of the Vaulted Drain. As explained in detail below, that was likely between 44 BCE and the mid-1st century CE.; ; ; Dating; The Vaulted Drain, Water Pipe 3, and the Branch Drain were likely constructed between 44 BCE and the middle of the 1st century CE. The founding of the Roman colony in 44 BCE provides the terminus post quem. Two separate sets of evidence provide the same terminus ante quem: the dating of the amphora deposit in the Branch Drain, and the pottery deposited around Water Pipe 3.; ; The manufacture and use of the amphoras and the mortar have been preliminarily dated to the period from the 1st century BCE to the 1st century CE. A single coin was found in the amphora deposit (Coin 2022-440) and dates to between 40 and 30 BCE, shortly after the founding of the colony. The non-amphora pottery within the amphora deposit dates to the second half of the 1st century CE. These dates provide a terminus post quem for when the Branch Drain went out of use (although not a precise date as the amphoras were likely used for a significant duration after their manufacture). It is unclear how the amphoras came to be in the Branch Drain (deliberate human action? Mudslide?); it is also unclear whether they were all placed there at one time or over a long period of time. Because no material in the amphora deposit dates after the end of the 1st century CE, we conclude that the deposit was in the Branch Drain by that time, and therefore that the Branch Drain was out of use by ca. 100 CE (although the Vaulted Drain may have continued to function). Because it was defunct by the end of the 1st century CE, the Branch Drain was likely built somewhat earlier, probably at or before the mid-1st century CE.; ; Pottery found in the soil directly surrounding Water Pipe 3 (in both Trench 16C, Context 68 and Trench 16B, Context 111), indicates that the pipe was laid in the 1st century CE.; ; As discussed above, stratigraphy indicates that the Vaulted Drain was built either before or at the same time as Water Pipe 3. And because the Branch Drain is apparently ancillary to the Vaulted Drain, it is likely that the Vaulted Drain was built before or at the same time as the Branch Drain (this hypothesis should be clarified in next year’s campaign, when the conjectured meeting point slightly to the north can be explored). These two structures therefore converge on a terminus ante quem for the Vaulted Drain of the mid-1st century CE.  ; ; On present evidence it is difficult to settle on a date for the Vaulted Drain more specific than between 44 BCE and ca. 50 CE. On one hand, the Vaulted Drain appears to be a major infrastructure and planning project aligned with the Roman road. This suggests that it was part of the original centuriation of the colony and therefore was built soon after 44 BCE. On the other hand, Water Pipe 3 may have been laid at the same time that the Vaulted Drain was built. But this points to a 1st century CE date, decades after the founding of the colony.  ; ; ;  ; Late Roman (4th to 6th cent.):; ; Disassembly of the Vaulted Drain; The Vaulted Drain’s fragmentary state within trench 16C--no eastern wall and incomplete arched ceiling--and the lack of remains from the eastern wall and the eastern part of the arch, suggest that at some point the Vaulted Drain stopped being used and that part of it was deliberately removed, i.e., robbed out. The deep deposit of loose sandy fill within the Vaulted Drain (in particular from Contexts 84, 91, and 92) appears to date to the Late Roman period from both pottery and coins (e.g. Coin 2022-403 dates to 347–48 CE). The entire deposit was of similar texture and soil type, with no apparent stratigraphy between layers, suggesting that it was deposited within a short period of time. Because we failed to number the buckets of pottery as they were excavated from Context 84 (a fill whose height was 0.84m containing 34 kg of pottery), we cannot now distinguish between pottery from the top of 84 and that from the bottom, to determine if there is in fact any discernible chronological distinction between the top and bottom layers. Yet Contexts 91 and 92, both beneath Context 84 and just above the Vaulted Drain’s floor layer, also contain a mixture of early Roman and late Roman pottery and therefore indicate that they were part of the same deposit as Context 84. Hence it appears that the Vaulted Drain was partially disassembled, and filled, in the Late Roman period.; ; Bronze ring: One find of particular note was a bronze finger ring (MF 2022-39), located quite close to the Vaulted Drain’s floor in Context 91; while this ring has yet to be conserved, its basic form is that of Type 1A finger ring with a setting (Davidson 1952: 228). It is most similar to Davidson No. 1819 (Plate 102/MF 7176; cf. Davidson No. 1818). As this ring form seems to be common in Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantine contexts (see Davidson 1952: 232, indicating a gap from the 5th to 10th centuries CE), it is consistent with a late Roman dating for the deposit.; ; Domitian coin: Another noteworthy find from the fill in the Vaulted Drain was Coin 395, a bronze assarion of Domitian, minted in Corinth between 85 and 87 CE. On the reverse is depicted a tetrastyle temple on Acrocorinth, seen in perspective from the left corner. This coin, with the obverse head of Domitian facing right, is an example of a hitherto unknown die combination (all published examples with this reverse pair it with an obverse head facing left). This coin, found in Context 84, is chronologically consistent with the wide chronological variety of the pottery found in that deposit.;  ; Road; Unlike in Context trench 16B, immediately adjacent to the west, we found no definite road surfaces dating as early as the Late Roman period. To the west of Wall 27 the lowest clear road surface was Context 71 or 72, both of which still contained Byzantine green glazed monochrome and other Byzantine pottery dating to the 12th century. Similar layers of road may lay east of Wall 27 but remain to be excavated. ; ; The disassembly of the Vaulted Drain and the lack of Late Roman road surfaces suggest that the area between Water Pipe 3 and Wall 27 was not used as a road surface during the Late Roman period. There may have been a Late Roman road which was either intentionally removed or naturally washed out. Perhaps a flash flood or a partial collapse of the Vaulted Drain caused the east side of the Roman Road to subside in the Late Roman period. Then inhabitants may have taken the opportunity to partly disassemble the Vaulted Drain, fill it in, and then use the disturbed area as something other than a road. ;  ; Byzantine:; ; We have found no features or objects datable to the roughly 600 years from Late Roman to the 12th century CE. 12th century features include Walls 27 and 28, apparent road surfaces to the W of Wall 27, and levels of fill to the E of Wall 27.; ; Road; In the Byzantine Period a road ran N to S along the western side of the trench, to the W of Wall 27. The width of this road may continue East of Wall 27 but this remains to be seen. While the earliest apparent layer or fill of the road contained some 6th Century CE Late Roman pottery, no layer appears to date earlier than the 12th cent. CE. The manner of road construction appears informal: rather than any sort of paved surfaces, the stratigraphy revealed a series of hard packed earth surfaces with occasional inclusions and/or potholes, though since there was no formal construction we cannot say how many road layers there were or the thickness of a given layer. The precise width of the road is similarly not yet secure. At some point in the 12th Century, a cut was made for a foundation trench for Wall 27 (below). ; ; Wall 27 ; Wall 27 appears to be continuous with a wall segment in Trench 18C to the south (although the two segments may not be in perfect alignment with each other). Its construction dates to the 12th Century CE based on pottery in the foundation trench (context no. 48). This wall (length 2.25 m running the entire width of the trench; width varies from .60 to .66 m; height 1.09 m at maximum surviving height)  is characterized by 2 large worked blocks (block (1) width .71 m; height .44 meters; thickness .36 m; block (2) width .62 m; height .70 m; width .32 m; apparent spolia from another structure) in the east face which sit on 2 or 3 courses of at least partly worked stone blocks. There are a few worked smaller square blocks in the wall placed irregularly. The west face is mostly made of irregular unworked cobbles and larger stones 6 or 7 courses high. The fill that went up and over the remaining portion of Wall 27 also dates to the Byzantine Period (Pottery NPD), suggesting the wall went out of use later in the Byzantine or Post Byzantine Periods. Notably, in the fill directly beneath the lowest course of stones on the west side of Wall 27, an intact Roman unguentarium was found (C 2022 6); when dated, this object will establish a terminus post quem for the construction of the foundation trench and wall. Wall 27 provides a 12th century eastern limit for the width of the road after it was constructed. Whether the wall was cut into the middle of an existing Byzantine road, or built against the side of that road remains to be seen.; ; Wall 28 ; Wall 28 runs along the south edge of the eastern side of the trench (length 0.41 m; exposed thickness 0.35 m in W to 0.23 m in E; height 0.15 - 0.20 m). The stones and tile on top are 0.10 to 0.15 m in width forming a sort of capping cours. Wall 28 is an enigma and remains only partially exposed as the scarp encloses the south-facing side. There does not appear to be a foundation trench on the north facing side but the soil level that is at the level abutting the wall and that was in use with the wall with the first course of stones dates to the 12 century CE (pottery). The date of this fill and the construction of the wall probably date to the 12th or later. Wall 28 appears later than Wall 27 based on two features: (i) its base is at a higher elevation than the base of Wall 28 (suggesting deposition of earth after the construction of Wall 27 and before that of Wall 28), and (ii) Wall 28 butts to the E face of Wall 27 rather than being bonded or integrated into the larger wall’s stonework. Wall 28, as it remains now, consists of three or four courses of irregular cobbles and small flat stones and tile pieces. As with Wall 27, the fill which covered the wall dates to the Byzantine Period (Pottery NPD), suggesting this wall went out of use later on in Byzantine or Post Byzantine Period.; ; Suggestions For Future Excavators:; ; A great deal of further excavation is needed to clarify this trench. A parallel trench to our south might be opened to better account for the south-facing side of Wall 28 and any possible foundation trench. Such southern exploration would clarify the purpose of Wall 28 as it relates to Wall 27 and whether it functions as an internal wall to a larger structure. Similarly, such investigation would continue to clarify the courses of Wall 27, Water Pipe 3, and the Vaulted Drain, and the course of the Branch Drain as it lies in relation to its possible source to the (south?) east. A similar parallel trench might be opened to the north as well, in order to better clarify the relationship between the Branch Drain and Vaulted Drain which may join just beyond our north scarp. Digging both north and south would also clarify the disassembly of the Vaulted Drain, and whether this occurred throughout the Vaulted Drain structure. The Amphora Deposit may continue to the NE as evidenced by the remains of Amphora 1 still in the scarp to the north and Amphora 13 underneath Wall 27 to the east. Additional amphora finds from next year’s campaign will need to be collected in relation to the amphoras we excavated to complete their conservation and show us their level of preservation. The road layers and deposits underneath, like the Amphora Deposit, may be better clarified with the removal of Wall 27.","Corinthia | Ancient Corinth | Northeast of Theater","Report","","","Corinth","","Northeast of Theater 16C Excavation Summary","Corinth:Report:Northeast of Theater 2022, Trench 16C,  by Madson, Luke and James, Jesse (2022-05-30 to 2022-06-24)","","Northeast of Theater 2022, Trench 16C,  by Madson, Luke and James, Jesse (2022-05-30 to 2022-06-24)",""
"","","Wesley Bennett and Lucas Stephens; Session II; Temple E Southeast Excavations; Corridor North of Church: 1075-1078.5 N, 121.5-129.5 E; Room 6: 1077-1085 N, 116.85-120.7 E; 04-22.05.2015; ; This is the summary of the second session of excavations in the Corridor North of the Church (hereafter, “Corridor”) and Room 6 in Unit II in the area of Temple E SE. The corridor was excavated from the 4th to the 13th of May by Wesley Bennett and Lucas Stephens (Area Supervisors), Thanassis Notis (pick-man), Kostas Arberoris (pick-man/shovel-man), and Vassilis Kollias (shovel-man/barrow-man), as part of Session II. This same area was excavated previously in Session I by Wesley Bennett and by two different groups during the 2014 season: Jennifer Swalec and Emily Wilson during Session 3, and Dylan Rodgers and Maggie Burr during Session 2. Before the 2014 season, the Corridor was excavated in 1993 under Charles K. Williams II (NB 863). Grave 2015-07 in the Corridor was documented and excavated by Elina Salminen during excavation of Room 6. Room 6 was excavated from the 13th to the 22nd of May by Lucas Stephens (Area Supervisor), Thanassis Notis (pick-man), Kostas Arberoris (pick-man/shovel-man), and Vassilis Kollias (shovel-man/barrow-man). Room 6 was excavated in Session I by Emilio Rodriguez-Alvarez and in Session I of 2014 by Sarah Rous and Rebecca Worsham. ; The southern boundary of the Corridor is formed wholly by the northern wall of the church (Wall 20: 1074.5-1076.1 N, 122.06-130.1 E) and its associated robbing trench (NB 835, pp. 35-44, 65-66; 1074.3-1076.1 N, 122.00-130.30 E), while its northern boundary is formed in part by the southern wall of Unit 2, Rooms 8 and 9 (Wall 156: 1077.5-1079.3 N, 123.5-129.7 E, NB 864, pp. 43-44). The latter wall (Wall 156) encloses only the eastern two-thirds of the Corridor, except for the far eastern portion which is the earlier Wall 729 (1078.48-1079.62 N, 128.35-132.11 E), before turning the corner to the north and changing into Wall 157, which forms the eastern side of Room 7. At the junction of this corner, Wall 156 continues slightly westwards to form a stub wall. During Session I, Bennett decided to establish an arbitrary line at 1078 N in order to define better the northern boundary of the trench vis-à-vis Unit 2, Room 7. An artificial line also delineated the eastern boundary of the trench (1076.12-1078.50 N, 129.00-129.60 E), while Wall 59 - the eastern limit of Room 6 (1076.00-1077.40 N, 120.90-121.78 E), extended to the south by another artificial line to Wall 20, defined the western boundary. During excavation of Grave 2015-07, it was found that the eastern end of this grave extended under the east scarp, and a 1 x 1 m extension was made to the east along Wall 20 to facilitate documentation and removal. The material from this extension was not sieved or kept for study until the grave cut was reached.; Excavation in Room 6 was bounded on the west by Wall 58 (1077-1083.3 N, 116.9-118.8 E) and on the east by Wall 59 (1082.3-1084.65 N, 119.25-120.2 E) and its associated robbing trench. The southern boundary was an arbitrary line running west-east from the southern end of Wall 58 (1077 N). The northern boundary was formed by the northern edge of Pit 8 (NB 864, B 38, 41, 69, 70; 1082.9-1084.7 N, 116.85-118.3 E, associated with the building of the museum) and an arbitrary line running southwest-northeast from the northeastern corner of Pit 8 to the western face of Wall 11 (NB 877 pp. 159; 1084.3-1085.45 N, 118.25-119.15 E). ; The goals of excavation in the Corridor were to better understand the use of the space and to provide dating criteria for the construction of the church by excavating a foundation trench for Wall 20. During session II, a one meter wide area running north-south was sectioned off near the center of the Corridor (1078.2-1075.6 N, 126-127 E) in order to better define the boundaries and stratigraphy of the foundation trench of Wall 20. Once the dimensions of the cut for the trench were clear, we decided to continue excavation east of the section in order to collect more datable material associated with the foundations of the church. Goals for the excavation of Room 6 were to clarify the function and phasing of the room and to prepare it for consolidation. ; ; Middle Byzantine (AD 802-1058); Corridor; In its earliest phase this area seems to have been open and little used. Neither Wall 156 to the north (dated by Bennett in Session I to the late third quarter of the 13th century), nor Wall 20 to the south had yet been constructed. The presence of faunal remains and construction material in several fill layers (Contexts 682, 702, 705, 707, 710, 718, 722, 723, 724, 725), the earliest of which (725) is dated by pottery to the early 12th century, attests to mixed activities in this area, although relative to later, Frankish contexts these were fairly sterile of finds. ; ; ; Frankish 1210-1458; Corridor; In the middle of the 13th century (dated by coin 2015-151 from context 743, and pottery from context 714) a foundation trench for Wall 20 was dug .56 m into the soil (Cut 745, 5.5 x 1.2 m, 1076.6-1075.4 N, 124.8-130.3 E, filled by contexts 714, 728, 731, 734, 735, 739, 742, 743). This was likely one of the first steps in the construction of the church to the south of the Corridor and seems to have changed the use of this area. The foundation trench was likely filled with the same soil into which it was dug, and contained predominantly 12th century material including Coin 2015-131 from context 714.  The cement pointing on the exterior of Wall 20 identified by Bennett in Session I (dated to the mid-13th century by its relationship to context 640) likely represents the earliest phase of decoration for this side of the church, soon after but not contemporary with its initial construction. ; Soon thereafter but also in the mid-13th century the area started to be used as a burial ground. Grave 2015-07 (contexts 741, 757, 767, 804) was dug into the foundation trench itself (cf. Salminen, Session II summary). Burial continued next to the church (as attested by Graves 2015-01, 2014-08, 2014-09 and 2014-11) throughout the subsequent filling and leveling operations which defined the use of the area until the third quarter of the 13th century when Wall 156 was built. The burials are generally oriented east-west immediately adjacent to Wall 20 with the head at the east, the body supine, and the legs extended to the west. Many of the graves have covering tiles over the skull and torso and stones or tiles propping up the skull. The density of burial in this area was such that later graves occasionally disturbed earlier ones (as with graves 2014-09 and 2014-01, both dated to the mid-13th century; cf. Swalec and Wilson, pp. 1-3). The skeletons represent both sexes and a range of ages including a child (Grave 2014-08, Bone Lot 2014-17), a male adolescent 17-21 years of age (Grave 2014-11, Bone Lot 2014-20), and a female adult likely over 50 years of age (Grave 2014-09, Bone Lot 2014-18). ; Simultaneously to the use of the area as a burial ground, several layers of mixed fill (contexts 645, 646, 655, 658, 662, 669, 671, 680, 686, 687) containing faunal remains, charcoal, and building materials were deposited across the area. These filling operations raised the ground level of the area more than 30 cm in some places. Coins from these layers (nos. 2015-50 – context 645, 2015-55 – context 646, 2015-61 – context 658, 2015-71 – context 662, 2015-74 – context 662, 2015-76 – context 662, 2015-77 – context 662, 2015-99 – context 691) date to the 12th and 13th centuries and attest to economic activity involving both contemporary and earlier money. These fill layers are all below Wall 156 (dated by Bennett in Session I to the late third quarter of the 13th century) whose construction formed the area into a passageway linking two specific spaces: Unit 2, Room 7, and the Paved Court to the east of the church nave. ; Room 6; Over the course of the 13th and 14th centuries this area underwent several phases of use as a burial site with intermediary floor layers and deep fills separating the graves. ; Grave 2015-10 (cut context 803; preserved coordinates: 1079.2-1079.85 N, 118.8-119.3 E; fill context 801) was the earliest burial excavated this session in Room 6 (dated by pottery to the second quarter of the 13th century). The cut for this grave was truncated by Grave 1996-02 at the north and east and by Grave 1996-01 at the south, leaving us in doubt as to its exact dimensions (preserved L .65 m, W .5 m, Depth .14 m) and which surface it was cut into. The burial was oriented roughly north-south almost in the center of the room. It contained the skeleton (context 802, Bone Lot 2015-11) of a subadult laid supine, missing its skull and most of the left side of its body. The absent skull would have been at the north. ; Grave 2015-09 (cut context 800; preserved coordinates 1079-1080.5 N, 118.15-119 E; fill context 795) was cut into Floor 6, oriented north-south along the eastern face of Wall 58 late in the 13th or early in the 14th century (NB 864 B 62; dated by Rous and Worsham for stratigraphic reasons to the late 13th – early 14th century). The grave was a simple, narrow pit preserved to a length of 1.5 m, a width of .85 m, and a depth of .64 m. It contained the skeleton of a young adult male in excellent condition (context 797, Bone Lot 2015-10) laid supine with its head at the south propped up by several stones, arms crossed over the torso, and legs and feet extended to the south. The head was covered by half of a roof tile (context 798; preserved L .28 m, complete W .38 m). The grave was later disturbed at its northern and southern ends by Graves 2015-08 and 1996-01 respectively. ; These graves were sealed by Floor 5 (context 789; NB 864 B 56, dated by the excavators to the 1260s – 1270s) dated by pottery to the third quarter of the 13th century. Rous and Worsham place Floor 5 slightly later due to stratigraphic reasons. Floor 5 was excavated in 1996 in the southern half of Room 6, but left unexcavated in the northern half. Graves 2014-01, 2014-05, 1996-01, and 1996-02 were cut into it in the southern half of the room. In the northern half, Graves 2015-05, 2015-06, and 2015-08 also cut into this surface. ; Grave 2015-05 (cut context 765; 1082-1083.15 N, 119.05-119.6; fill context 756) was dug 30 cm below Floor 5, against the western face of Wall 59. The grave was oriented roughly north-south and measured 115 x 55 cm. It contained a well preserved juvenile skeleton (context 761, Bone Lot 2015-05) laid supine with its head at the south, arms crossed over its torso, and feet outstretched to the north. The skull was propped up by stones and along with the torso was covered by a single tile broken into two pieces (context 758; complete L .42 m, W .17 m). Pottery in the fill dated this burial to last quarter of the 13th century. ; Grave 2015-06 (cut context 766; 1082.75-1083.15 N, 117.45-118.05 E; fill contexts 762, 759) was almost completely robbed out by Pit 8 from the 1931 excavations. It was dug 42 cm into Floor 5 near the eastern face of Wall 58 in the early 14th century (dated by pottery of context 759). The grave was oriented N-S and contained the top half of an adult skull (context 764, Bone Lot 2015-06) propped up by stones and covered by a broken tile (context 760; preserved L .18 m, complete W .30 m). The head was therefore at the southern end of the grave. ; Grave 2015-08 contained two burials. The earlier burial (cut context 788; 1080.55-1081.95 N, 118.05-118.6 E; fill context 784) contained a well-preserved juvenile skeleton (context 783, Bone Lot 2015-09) laid supine with its torso at a slight angle to its legs, arms crossed over its torso, and head at the south. This grave was disturbed by the later burial in Grave 2015-08 (cut context 781; 1080.2-1081.95 N, 117.65-118.85 E; fill context 770) which was dug almost immediately on top of the earlier burial. The diggers of the second burial must have encountered and disturbed the skull (context 779, Bone Lot 2015-08A) of the first skeleton which was found disarticulated and placed to the side of the later skeleton (context 775, Bone Lot 2015-08B) underneath the later skeleton’s associated covering tile (context 774; complete L .61 m, W .36 m). This disturbance truncated the top of the earlier grave cut and made it impossible to associate the earlier burial with the stratigraphy of the rest of Room 6. The later burial contained the well-preserved skeleton of a juvenile, laid supine with its head at the south propped up by stones, its arms crossed over its torso, and it legs extended to the south. Both the skull and torso were covered by tiles (context 774) – a larger one (.36 x .61 m) covered the torso and was partially overlaid on the smaller (preserved .30 x .29 m) which covered the skull. The earlier burial was dated by pottery to the first quarter of the 14th century, the later to the late 13th-early 14th century, but their fills were likely mixed. The western side of Grave 2015-08 was later disturbed by Grave 1996-04. These graves were then sealed by Floor 4 (NB 864, B 52, 53, 54), dated by the excavators to the last quarter of the 13th century. ; If we follow Rous and Worsham’s date for Floor 6 in the late 13th – early 14th century, then all of this burial activity (as well as the laying down of Floors 5 and 4) must take place in a short period of time at the end of the 13th or beginning of the 14th century. ; Both burial activity and the deep fill layers seem to end in the early 14th century, when the stratigraphy give way to much thinner layers (contexts 753, 752, 751, 749, 748) above Floor 4 which may be my context 754 (dated by pottery to the first quarter of the 14th century). ; ; Conclusion; Corridor; We met the goal of finding a foundation trench for Wall 20, and it currently dates the construction of the church to the middle of the 13th century (based on coin 2015-151 from context 743). There seems to have been a gap in activity in the area between the 12th (latest context 702) and the mid-13th centuries. Further excavation could address this apparent gap and better define the use of the space in pre-Frankish levels. Following the construction of the church, the area immediately adjacent to its north wall became a popular location for inhumation. Burial practice continued while the level of soil in the area was raised by several filling operations until, in the third quarter of the 13th century, Wall 156 was built, which seems to have again changed the use of the space. Osteological analyses will provide further information regarding those individuals buried in this area, and their relationship to contemporary populations. The stratigraphy towards the western end of the trench became very difficult for the workmen to read during excavation of contexts 682, 698, and 701. Context 682 (which should predate the construction of the church) was left partially unexcavated for this reason. ; Room 6; Figuring out the phasing of Room 6 is made difficult by the patchy state of excavation. The northern half of the room needs to be further excavated and put better into line with the stratigraphy of the previously excavated southern portion. This is made difficult by the high density of burial in the room - an unexcavated skeleton was found beneath Grave 1996-02 and needs to be removed.","Corinthia | Ancient Corinth | Central Area | Temple E, Temenos | Temple E, Southeast","Report","","","Corinth","","2015 Session II, Corridor N of Church and Room 6","Corinth:Report:Temple E, Southeast 2015 by Wesley Bennett, Lucas Stephens (2015-05-04 to 2015-05-22)","","Temple E, Southeast 2015 by Wesley Bennett, Lucas Stephens (2015-05-04 to 2015-05-22)",""
"","","Nezi 2013 Season; Session 2 Final Report; Kyle Jazwa; Hilary Lehmann; N 1011.50-1017.49; E 259.60-269.70; 23 May 2013; ; This is the final report for the second session of excavation at Nezi, 2013. Guy Sanders (director) and Rossana Valente (field director) supervised. The excavation team of this session consisted of Kyle Jazwa and Hilary Lehmann (recorders), Panos Kakouros and Tasos Tsogas (pickmen), and Vassilis Kollias (shovelman). Our excavation area encompassed the area between walls 1007, 918, 945 and pit 870 in the first half of the session (hereafter referred to as “South Section”). During the third week, our efforts focused on the quadrant north of 918 and west of W5218 (bounded by the Turkish building) (hereafter referred to as “Northwestern Quadrant”). Our excavation goals are to elucidate the stratigraphy of these areas and the function of the architectural features. With this, we hoped to find uncontaminated habitation levels that would help us to determine the chronology of human interaction in this area.  ; ; Previous excavation in this area was undertaken predominantly by Session 1, Mohammed Bhatti and Dan Diffendale, and some contexts by Session 1, Jana Mokrisova and Katherine Harrington. During Session 1, a series of surfaces, cut and fills were uncovered that can be dated from the Late Roman (4th-6th c. CE) to the Byzantine period (8th-12th c. CE). The state of the trench at the beginning of Session 2 included a possible cut (filled by context 1009) in the SE, the partial exposure of the top surface of walls 1007 and 866, and pit 870. The eastern half of the trench was relatively level though not homogenous. The western half retained the mortar foundation of a hearth 1065, a lower level under 1078, an ashy surface under 1083 and a slightly raised area under 1084. In the Northwestern Quadrant, there was heavy disturbance by 1960s and 1970s excavation, the results and details of which are not preserved. Session one fully revealed the tile drain 1026 and a series of partial surfaces and uneven contexts under 1050, 1060, and 1061.; ; Because of the nature of the depositional material and the heavy pitting and dumping, we were unable to identify discrete chronological phases in this section. Significantly, there was not a single continuous or uncontaminated surface. Instead, our excavation revealed a series of dump fills of destruction and non-destruction debris and several pits and robbing trenches. Due to the notable absence of distinct chronological phases, we will present our material in relative chronological order. The South Section and the Northwestern Quadrant are separated by architectural feature W918 and we, therefore, cannot to discern the precise relationship between the contexts in each area. For this reason, we will present each material separately. Furthermore, excavation of the South Section was begun with a clear distinction in soil and contexts between the east and western side. Thus, the exact relative chronology between the two sides cannot be determined, despite appearing to be roughly contemporary (Late Roman). As a result, we will present each “side” with a separate subsection.   ; ; South Section – April 29-May 10 (259.80; 269.70 E | 1011.50; 1014.30 N); ; East Side; The earliest deposit excavated in the East Side is 1100. Although we originally believed 1101 cut the fill of 1100, excavation of 1101 revealed the deposit associated with context 1100 continuing under 1101. 1100 was a tile-rich and clayey deposit. It contained a dense mix of pottery, fragments of painted plaster, early roman lamps, pebble pavement and some bronze and iron. The mixed content of the deposit suggests 1100 was a dump fill. 1101 was dumped in the western portion of the fill. This context is relatively better sorted than 1100. It has fewer cobbles and tiles and is more compact and light than 1101. Despite the ostensibly different quality of soil, the ceramics found within the context point to a similar approximate 1st c. CE date as 1101. In spite of this low ceramic date (we must stress that neither context provides a precise date), these two contexts must date to the fifth c CE date because they partially overly C1106-1108 – three layers firmly dated to the Late Roman period. The appearance of Early Bronze burnished pottery and other earlier sherds, suggest a thorough mixing of the deposit.; ; Immediately superimposed over 1100 and 1101 was a dump fill, context 1099. This fill was a dark reddish brown color and very loose. It contained a moderate amount of pebbles, small cobbles and other finds. The finds are very mixed and include assorted painted plasters, iron nails, glass fragments, a lamp and a fragment of a terracotta animal figurine (as MF 10733). Further suggestive of a mixed debris deposit, the pottery was very mixed (Neolithic? bowl, Geometric skyphos) and contained little to no joins. ; ; There were three cuts into the deposit of 1099. C1098 initially appeared to be the foundation trench for wall 1007. Upon completion of the excavation of the fill of this cut (1097), it became apparent that the wall continued beneath the soil. 1097 was a dark and clayey soil with a few fragments of wall plaster, a terracotta draped female figurine, pebbles and tiles. The pottery consists of a varied collection of Roman and pre-Roman sherds; there is nothing of significance to provide a fixed date of the context, but stratigraphically it can be dated to the fifth c CE. C1096 and C1094 were two roughly rectangular cuts appx. 15 cm deep in the N portion of 1099. Too little pottery was recovered to provide any information relevant to the dating of the cuts. In the fill of 1094 (1093) was a large piece of wall plaster and a terracotta figurine with a high hair-bun (similar to MF 9001?). The fill of 1096 (1095) contained only two pre-Roman sherds. 1096 was roughly round in shape and was similar to a secondary depression in the SW corner of 1094 (and approximately level with each other). It was originally hypothesized that these were possible post holes. However, the shallow depth of the cut (ca. 15 cm) mitigates against this.; ; Immediately overlying context 1099 is deposit 1092, a relatively homogenous deposit of firm yellowish brown soil. In it were found plenty of plaster, ceramics, bones, carbonized wood, several iron nail fragments, worked obsidian and flint, and a figurine with a right hand preserved. Above 1092 were two distinct dump fills, 1091 and 1090. 1091 was a dense and dark tile and cobble filled area with sigillata and arretine pottery. Accompanying the pottery are nine pieces of iron, two pieces of glass slag, a fragment of a terracotta figurine of a child cradled in a disembodied arm (similar to MF-4106) and a black glaze lamp. 1090 was lighter and looser than 1091 and appears to have been deposited after 1090. Despite the soil difference relative to 1091, the inclusions within the fill are relatively similar. This includes several pieces of iron, glass, pebble flooring, wall plaster and a dark reddish-glazed lamp with raised cross-and-dot circle pattern (similar to Broneer XIX) (L2013-3). The pottery contains a Late Roman combed ware amphora with a wavy comb pattern.  This provides a terminus post quem for the deposit. Because neither deposit 1090 or 1091 can be precisely dated, they must be dated stratigraphically. Overlying 1092, they must post-date the Late Roman period - fifth c CE.; ; Immediately to the W of wall 1007, a hard rectangular surface was excavated. This context, 1088, contained a compact yellowish brown fill. Initially, we thought this context might be a pit, but it turned out to be a relatively shallow dump fill over 1092. There was relatively little pottery recovered.; ; In addition to the excavation area outlined in the first paragraph, a small context on top of the south portion of 1007 and between walls 1007 and 866 was excavated, 1089. This was done to reveal the southern extent of 1007. This fill appears to be mixed with some iron and plaster. The pottery was non-distinct and unable to provide a firm date. Of note, however, was the base of an Attic-type black gloss skyphos inscribed on the foot (C2013-10) and a lead “star” with a hole in the center. Through the excavation of this area, we could determine that W1007 was robbed in the south. This robbing was replaced by an E-W wall of small cobbles (W845), faced by slightly larger stones.; ; West Side; The earliest deposit excavated on the western part of our area (1111) was a dump fill consisting of dark, sandy soil filled with substantial pieces of tile and plaster, as well as other assorted debris such as charcoal, glass, iron, and part of a terra cotta figurine. At about the same time as this deposit, a smaller dump fill, deposit 1112, was deposited slightly to the west, which contained far fewer inclusions and consisted of a siltier soil than that of 1111. Beneath these two deposits, the entire area bounded by Pit 870 and Walls 945, 918, and 1007 was covered with a dense layer of dark-yellowish clayey soil which was, however, too irregular to be classified as a surface.; Into this layer was cut a pit, C1110, which contained deposit 1109. The pit was bounded to the south by Wall 945 and had a sheer vertical face to the East with more sloping faces to the north and west. Its dimensions were 1.7 x 1.4 x .86 m. and its depth was 0.65 m. The bottom of the pit sloped downwards to the south with a 0.20 m. difference between its highest and lowest points. Before this pit was filled, about 6-8 courses of Wall 945 were revealed: although this was not visible before the pit was originally cut, the wall is built up of alternating levels of roughly ashlar stones and tile leveling courses. The construction of the pit also revealed the NE corner of Wall 945—its finished face suggests that the wall may continue to the South. The SW wall of the pit cut through a surface of packed clayey soil, about 0.54 m. from the surface. Perhaps this surface represents a habitation level.; ; The fill of this pit consisted of dark red soil with a high percentage of tile, brick, and mortar inclusions, probably refuse from the destruction of a nearby architectural feature. Providing a terminus post quem for the fill is a coin of Constantius (337-361 c CE; 2013-168) and the pottery which yielded many interesting example of Late Roman (mid fifth c. CE) ceramics, including an LR C bowl, a type 77 Niederbieber, a bowl as Hesperia 2005 1-32 and a LR bowl as Hesperia 2005 242. The highest proportion of plaster inclusions was located in the deeper parts of the pit. The east face of the pit showed that this area was repeatedly spread with debris containing tile, pebbles, and other such inclusions. And this behavior continued: the interaction of people with this environment during the periods we are focusing on seem to have primarily consisted of depositing fill after fill of debris into this area. ; ; At some time after pit 1110 was filled, a series of discrete but related deposits were laid on top of it: these are deposits 1106, 1107, and 1108. The earliest of these is 1108, which is a small, shallow deposit just north of Wall 945 and west of deposit 1101. The chronological relationship between deposits 1108 and 1101 is unclear. Deposit 1108 consisted of dark, silty earth; although it had somewhat fewer ceramic and tile inclusions than other deposits at the same elevation, it did contain a great number of fragments of marble revetment in purple and white. Perhaps contemporary with deposit 1108, although the relative chronology is not understood exactly, is deposit 1107, a slightly larger context 0.5 meters to the west of 1108. The soil of this deposit is the same as that of 1108, but the types of items included in this fill are quite different. Notably, this deposit included several pieces of glass, including one waster which suggests that glass may have been manufactured nearby. A terracotta sima, decorated with a spiral pattern and painted red, was deposited with this context, as well as one coin possibly of Valentinian (337-361 CE; 2013-166).; ; After the deposition of 1107 and 1108, a darker, a debris layer was placed between and partially above them—this is deposit 1106. In this context was deposited a large amount of pottery, some nails, plaster, and glass, and, again, several pieces of marble revetment. One interesting item placed in this context is a fragment of a terracotta figurine of a person holding a baby (MF2013-11). A coin of Constantius II (346-350 CE) was also placed in this deposit (2013-165). ; ; To the west of deposits 1106-1108 and probably contemporaneous with them is a large deposit of debris, 1105. This deposit was bounded by pit 870 to the west (its chronological relationship to the pit is unknown) and by Walls 918 and 945 to the north and south. The soil in this area is much redder than that found in deposits 1106-1108 and resembles more closely the soil of deposit 1109, the fill of pit 1110. Deposit 1105 is very large and rich: there was a large number of ceramic and tile inclusions and a great quantity of glass fragments placed in this context. The pottery can be dated roughly to the fifth c. CE based on several fragments of Late Roman type 1 and 2 amphoras, As in the neighboring deposits, there is a good deal of painted wall plaster and marble revetment in this context, as well as a large (0.515 x 0.29 x 0.11 m) piece of pebble pavement. Also placed in this deposit were two loom weights, several iron nails, and 6 coins (2013-157, 159-164) all with a late fourth c CE date. These coins include a coin of Valentinian (388-392 CE; 2013-164) and a Constantius with Victory (337-361 CE; 2013-157). A good amount of plant matter was deposited in this context, including burned seeds and wood. The deposit overall is characterized by its ashiness in addition to the redness of its soil, which may be composed of disintegrated mudbrick.; ; Beneath 1106-1108 and to the east of 1105 is context 1103, which is made up of loose, yellowish, silty soil and debris similar to that found in 1105. A large quantity of pottery was placed in this layer, including a corrugated basin that joins a fragment in 1107, an Agora M234 amphora, an eastern Aegean cookpot as Hesperia 2005, 2-34.  In addition, there were several pieces of marble revetment and pebble pavement, a fair amount of glass, a loom weight, painted plaster, and iron nails. Also present in this deposit were three large pieces of plaster flooring and the base of a marble vessel. Only one coin (2013-155) was deposited in this context; interestingly, it was placed at the far western edge of the area, directly contiguous to the outline of deposit 1105. This coin has a head of an emperor on the obverse and with the legend VOTMULT on the reverse, a typical late fourth c CE design. Despite the similarities between 1103 and 1105, however, they should be considered as discrete because the ash that is found throughout 1105 is not present in 1103. The context, however, should be considered another dump fill similar to 1106-1108, due to the join with 1107 and the variegated mix of architectural elements.; ; On top of context 1105 and to the north was placed deposit 1104, a small and extremely ashy layer. ; Very few ceramics or other small items were included in this deposit, although one coin was placed among the debris (2013-156). However, a significant amount of charred plant matter is present in the context. Although both 1105 and 1104 contained a high percentage of ash, the evidence shows that neither was itself a destruction layer. To the south of 1104, a yellowish, silty deposit was placed on top of 1105. This deposit, 1102, contained some mid-fifth CE pottery, several pieces of glass, iron nails, a coin of emperor Arcadius ca. 383-392 CE (2013-151) and some wall plaster. On top of 1102, hearth 1065 was built, a structure associated with the surface 1093.; ; The final report of the 2013 session 1 Pink Team suggested that beneath 1083 and the adjacent dump fill 1084 a real destruction layer might be found. However, despite the presence of a great deal of ash in deposits 1104 and 1105, this destruction layer has not yet been identified. ; ; Northwest Quadrant – May 13-17 (259.60; 268.00 E | 1014.80; 1017.50 N); ; This area was brought to a roughly even level by Session 1 excavations, with a few raised contexts in the eastern portion. The northern portion of this area was heavily pitted and disturbed by the 1960/1970s excavation. In the west, a ca. 0.5 m wide extension protruded north on which a tile drain was built (1026; the cut for the drain is 1119, and it is filled with 1118). The leveling fill under this trench contained early Roman pottery of the 3rd-4th c CE date, thus providing a terminus post quem. Of note is the extremely dense concentration of painted wall plaster found herein. The debris from the destruction of a wall (or several) was clearly used for the fill of this leveling area. This extension still remains and is not fully excavated. Immediately to the west is a much later robbing trench.; ; The earliest deposit in this section is wall 1123. This wall was discovered at the bottom of robbing trench C1122. This wall is comprised of squared limestone blocks in ashlar masonry and appears to proceed under wall 918. A few blocks of this wall are found in pit 870: it appears that the corner of the wall is revealed, turning east. Directly under wall 918, a second course is preserved. We did not full excavate this wall or its foundation trench, so it is impossible to provide a firm date for this wall as of yet.  ; ; Wall 918 was constructed sometime thereafter (likely much later, in the Roman period). The foundation of the wall was revealed in the robbing trenches of C1122 and C1127 and is comprised of a heavy tile and ceramic inclusions. Wall 1123 was likely still above the surface at the time of the construction of wall 918. We know this because the walls of C1117 slope upwards to wall 918 and to the hypothetical face of wall 1123 and the hypothetical wall that was robbed in C1127. The robbing trench is equal in dimension and orientated the same way as C1122. Sometime thereafter, C1117 was filled with contexts 1115-1116 (1116 was a martyr left to make sure 1115 would not be contaminated from the accumulation in the 1960/1970s excavation pit immediately to the north).  1115 is a compact, clayey layer rife with pottery, metal fragments, several shards of glass, wall plaster and three coins. Although two of the three coins are illegible (2013-173; 2013-174), 2013-175 was a particularly well preserved silver coin of Mark Antony (ca. 32-31 BC). The coin has a galley steered by Victory on the obverse and three legionary standards (including the Aquila) with LEG II indicated on the reverse. The pottery in the fill suggests a 4th c CE date with several sherds of African Red Slip pottery and a Niederbieber. Two distinct strata were then superimposed on top of this: 1114 and 1113. Although there is a discernible soil change between these three layers, the nature of the finds is consistent between them.; ; The eastern portion of the quadrant is also covered by 1160/1161, but its deposition history cannot be defined in relation to the western portion with precision because C1127 separates it from the tile drain and C1117. However, the eastern portion under 1160/1161 (context 1129) is cut by C1127. Thus, we can say that the deposition of these layers pre-dates the cut and robbing of the hypothetical ashlar wall in C1127. ; ; 1135 represents the earliest level in the eastern portion of the northwest quadrant. It is a surface that was partially exposed and partially uncovered by the excavation of 1129-1134. Overlying 1135, 1133 and 1134 are possible pieces of earthen floor with flattened pottery (1133 has a broken amphora on surface) and some small pebbles. Although the deposit contains pottery suggestive of an early Roman 1-2nd c CE date, the contexts were so small that no precise date can be assigned to these floors. Similarly, 1132 was a raised triangular fill with a small assortment of Roman sherds overlaying the western portion of 1135. Because 1132 was such a small context, no diagnostic finds were able to help provide a date for the layer. A narrow trench along wall W5218 (similar and shape in form to C1098) cuts both 1132 and 1135 (and thus necessarily postdates both deposits). The fill of this (1130), is dated to Middle-Late Roman based on the pottery, including a Late Roman bowl (after Hesperia 2005, 243) and a late fourth c CE coin of Constantius (2013-182). 1133 and 134 were overlain by 1129, a dump fill of an imprecisely-dated Late Roman period. The layer contains fragments of marble revetment, a late second c. CE coin of Commodus (2013-181) and a fragment of a marble column.  ; ; Under 1060/1061, but necessarily postdating 1129 and 1113, are the cuts 1122 and 1127.  Although the relationship between the cuts cannot be precisely ascertained, it is likely that they were robbing trenches of two parallel ashlar walls. As stated explained above, these cuts postdate C1117. Because the foundation trench for W918 was not found within the cuts and because C1117’s wall of soil slopes up the face of W918 (and C1117 predates C1122 and C1127), wall 918 must necessarily have been in place at the time of the robbing of the two ashlar walls. The fill of these trenches appear to be of the mid-fifth c CE date. 1121 (fill of C1122) has one 11th c. CE sherd, but this is likely a contamination from the 1960/1970s excavations. Additional 5th c. CE pottery includes a Late Roman bowl, stewpot and a Niederbieber. The inclusions of the fill are rather heterogeneous and include a loomweight with a GLYK stamp (cf. Corinth XII no. 1153), a late 6th c. BCE loomweight (profile IV), much marble revetment, bronze, and an early coin. 1123-1125 were the fills of 1127 and is similarly heterogenous. It is filled mostly with pottery (mid fifth c CE), tile, and architectural revetments.; ; Conclusions and Future Study; ; Our excavations this session failed to produce any discernible or continuous floors or architectural features. Instead, we excavated a series of Late Roman dump fills and pits. Because of this, there is a distinct lack of evidence for definite habitation phases in the area. With the rampant pitting and looting of the area, however, we were able to catch a glimpse at the underlying layers via the profile of C1127 and pits 1110 and 870. Within both, we could see no distinct floor levels. For at least a meter in each instance, the deposition appears to be dump fill after dump fill. The only possible exception can be found in the pits south of W918 (C870 and C1110). In both pits, we were able to distinguish flat lying pebble flooring set in concrete. At some point, it was suggested that this might indicate a possible floor level that seals off pre-Roman material in the area. We took the elevation of both floor fragments, however, and there was a 14 cm discrepancy between the two pieces of flooring. Either there was a strong slope to the floor or the appearance of the two pieces of pebble flooring is merely coincidence.; ; Because of the dearth of clear floor levels or other habitation surfaces in the area, it might be wise to continue future excavations in the area to the east of wall 1007. Perhaps with luck, this area may yield distinct phasings or surfaces. In our immediate excavation area, however, one could test the possibility of the pebble floor ca. 0.5 m under the current excavation level. If such a surface does exist, it would provide a very useful starting point with which to examine early Roman and Hellenistic habitation in this area with it effectively sealing off these earlier layers from much of the later contamination and fills.","Corinthia | Ancient Corinth | Central Area | Nezi Field","Report","","","Corinth","","Sesssion 2, Nezi Field, Final Report","Corinth:Report:Nezi Field 2013 by Kyle Jazwa Hilary Lehmann (2013-04-29 to 2013-05-17)","","Nezi Field 2013 by Kyle Jazwa; Hilary Lehmann (2013-04-29 to 2013-05-17)",""