| Entry: | First a few words on archaeopolitics, after that a brief review on today's excavation. NB that from now on I will be using our cryptic three-letter initials in order to protect our identities from nine-eyed intergalactic government spies.
Today, a rather special find was unearthed. We were to keep a low profile because some feared that that find would be immediately appropriated into some museum collection if the word spread. I'm not sure how well warranted the fears were, but what happened today certainly was a reminder of the conflicts that surround issues of ownership: who gets to dig what (e.g. Roman archaeology favoured by Italian legislation) and who gets to study and keep the stuff (data protection/monopolisation, copyrights, interpersonal and -institutional competition, heritage ownership and all that). Heritage, good heritage at least, is a limited resource, and limited resources spark conflicts. I suppose that the so-called world heritage, supposedly common to all humankind, is even more prone to such conflicts over ownership due to its economic and political potential. I love the irony here.
We also got to hear our directors debate their hypotheses about the buildings. Their conflicting interpretations about the floors/fills - erosion deposits or refills? - and disagreement on excavation priorities remind me of issues of feedback and multivocality. Decisions on what to dig in what order are obviously based on the current understanding of the site. But clearly excavation decisions are also issues of authority and (sometimes incompatible) research foci. The impact of all this is felt on the ground, as excavators are left uncertain about the priorities. So despite all the facilities we have at hand, excavation decisions are much more complicated than simply adjustments to the information feedback.
Enough theoretical musings and onto today's archaeology! We've got exciting things happening in building 105. TSK took over the wall 2424 from me, quickly uncovering the find that was to be kept low profile. I, in turn, got the orders to move my bones to a new unit (31141) in space 342. (If I was paranoid, I might think this was because my gentle care of wall 2424 was slowing the project down. But I prefer to think that I'm moving on the virtues of my diary entries and trowel technique.)
Unit 31141 consists of a brick and mortar layer c. 30 cm thick. The goal is to figure out whether the layer resulted from erosional deposition of building materials from the walls, or whether it is an intentional floor or refill. We're also interested in finding the base of the wall.
In the northern half of the unit there seems to be a brick and mortar structure. The bricks are laid out in a pattern that looks too deliberate to be simply the result of erosional deposition. I'm now removing the mortar around the bricks, supposedly to get a better idea of the formation process. The two beads (X1 and X2) and the sherd of incised black pottery (X3) I uncovered from near the top layer of 31141 are definitely distinct from the bone and sherds I was getting from the wall 2424. This contrast suggests that space 342 has been used as a floor at some point of its life, during which the beads and pottery were incorporated into the unit. I wonder how the thin phytolith lense (S1) underlying the mortar in the southern, less bricky end fits into this pattern. It's possible that the northern half of the space is a structure whereas the southern end has accumulated through erosion.
Already my expectations and interpretations are changing, and there’s no reason to doubt that this will continue to be the case tomorrow as I go further down. |
