| Entry: | Work during the past days continued on wall F.5058, especially in the area around buttress F.3301 and toward the south. Here a substantial amount of earth remains above the layer exposed in the northern part of the wall. The mud-brick material belonging to U.17276 was removed with the goal of exposing the same level of brick reached in wall F.2408. This work proved difficult because the section in the wall face does not show many distinct mortar lines that could be used as a reference point, nor are the brick courses easily traceable when excavating these large amount of soil that are usually comprised of more than two layers of brick. This uncertainty, especially regarding the depth of excavations, caused the strategy to be changed and work proceeded in the north again where the situation was clearer. This step allowed for a small side-objective to also be realised.
A singular brick slab (U.17291), measuring ca. 80x40x10cm was, lying in the most northern part of the inner course of wall F.5058 was removed as a single unit for several methodological purposes. First, it was interesting to see whether a brick with those dimensions could easily be lifted by two persons, unfortunately this could not be tested because the brick broke apart. The weight of the rubble, which was completely collected for flotation, exceeded 30kg making this slab of hardened brick extremely heavy for an individual, also proving that they were carried by more than one person. The second objective of this operation was to gather an entire single brick for flotation as previously mentioned. When this processing has taken place it will be possible to compare the amount of natural and ‘cultural’ temper with the volume of the brick establishing a density diagram. Possibly this brick can then be used as an example for the measurement of such artefact densities in other features of B.106 that have the same brick type.
The same flotation procedure will be done with the mortar lying below this brick (U.17292). The exact amount of mortar under the surface area of the brick was collected, which may not be representative of mortar areas in general, mainly because mortar thicknesses can very quite drastically, but will still allow the distinction of artefacts and other temper within this specific construction element, a topic previously mention in regard to the insertion of pottery and other things into the mortar (see Diary 09.08.2012).
After the removal of this singular brick there was another nice surprise in store. The brick below U.17291, which lies in the course exposed in wall F.2408 that is also the desired course for the rest of B.106, bonds walls F.2408 and F.5058. Its position in the interior row of the double-wall proved the walls were built in continuous event, at least regarding the northwest corner of the building. This also proves that the technique of bonding not only courses of brick above one another using the offset method but also corners of walls was known and practiced. The only bonding technique not yet identified is between the two rows of brick, which is a technique restricted to buildings with double walls, as is the case in B.106.
During excavations that took place in the area around buttress F.3301 a tricky situation in the courses of brick was encountered. In this part the wall seems to slump downward somewhat. Initially it was anticipated that the wall continued to slope downward to the south although this proved wrong. The method of leaving a small section of brick sticking to wall F.2424 of B.105 in the west allow a view into the section of the bricks previously excavated. This can help to determine the direction of a course of bricks and has shown that wall F.5058 does not slope to the south but rather slopes from both the north and the south towards the centre of the wall behind the buttress. This has lead to the idea that the wall was possibly built from two directions and was then connected in the centre. Some indicators for this, for example different brick types or overlapping mortar lines, have been found although this still remains unclarified. Still, the complicated situation in the centre of wall F.5058 has slowed work substantially. Only small amounts of soil in the south have been exposed, also revealing a puzzling situation. Possibly this area may contain a brick placed at right angles to those running parallel to the wall, although this must also be clarified in the next days. Some mud-brick material (U.16994) of buttress F.3301 was also removed to the level reached in wall F.5058. Here a brick bonding the buttress with the wall was exposed in plan-view further substantiating the fact that these features are contemporaneous.
Jack, a student from the Southampton Team, joined the work in B.106 today and began with the removal of wall F.3351 in the south of B.106. This was a great addition to the team and has meant that work sped up a little. |
