7/15/06 Another very busy day today, and with Adam's visit, there are many thoughts and impressions to record. I will begin with these conversations, and then move on the trench-by-trench activities. Adam and I spent a good deal of time talking about options for Elizabeth's arrival on Monday. We basically laid out three options. Option 1 is simply to continue the large exposure with trenches in rooms C and D. The advantage of this approach is that we continue to understand the relationships between adjacent rooms and possibly expose another doorway. The other advantage is that opening more rooms will likely yield more small finds, which have been very helpful this year in defining the function of the various rooms. The disadvantage of this strategy is that I come away from 2006 having learned nothing new about other areas of the settlement. A second option is to pursue more medium-sized trenches, like last year, in various rooms across the settlement, including northward, towards the citadel. The advantage of this strategy is the greater spatial diversity it will offer, but the disadvantage is that with exposures of this size, we really learn fairly little about architecture and room function, as I discovered from the probes last year. The other disadvantage is that the question of room K will remain unresolved. I'm quite certain I will not pursue option 2. Finally, Adam and I discussed the possibility of several small, 50 x 50 cm probes across room K and J, a technique he learned while doing CRM. This method will allow me to say something about room K and its possible public function, and the sampling strategy is new and random, unlike the sampling of last year. So, with this option, I will have tried a range of excavation strategies at the site. These 50 x 50 cm probes can be laid out at 5 m intervals on an east to west axis. Can be excavated quite quickly, leaving enough time for Elizabeth to excavate one more full room, either C or D. Ruben is behind the idea. Will try it on Monday. Back to the trenches. Adam and I also discussed the matter of the floor in WSH. He suggested that I eventually collapse locus 18 and locus 28, since they both represent the floor surface, or at least the clay prep surface just beneath the living surface. Locus 22 should also be regarded as an integral part of the floor, since it includes the silty clay level resting just above the clay prep, i.e. the probable living surface. He suggested that I take macrobot. samples in the areas where this living surface is still preserved, and not worry so much about gridding for the macrobot. I can lay out a grid when I'm finished troweling the floor, for the pollen sampling. So this is what I did. I took 4 macrobot. samples from various points in the room, whose proveniences are marked in my notebook. In general, the floor in room H continues to present the same challenges discussed in previous days. Very difficult in places to distinguish the underlying clay prep from the actual living surface. The surface is very mottled and irregular, in some aras a packed orange clay, in some areas a packed white clay, and in several areas depressions with a very dark brown silt. I decided to take down the southwest and northeast strips on either side of locus 22 towards the northwest, which means expanding the dimensions of locus 22. In the north, I know that there is a floor surface in the area of the oven, which means the floor must slope up here. Either that, or locus 22 is cutting through the living surface. Fortunately, C14 samples were collected today from locus 22 and locus 28. In other WSH matters, Adam feels the cluster of rocks on the northeast side of the trench could be a burial. Would be very interesting if this is correct. Will excavate after finishing with the floor in which the possible burial is embedded. As for locus 24 and locus 5, the areas above the room's walls, we agreed, also with Ruben, that it is not necessary to take out the entire wash behind the walls, and that the channel already dug is sufficient for Hasmik to be able to draw the architecture. Moving on to WSG, Adam and I discussed the area of the probable doorway. Adam and Ruben both think there was a second building activity at the site, which entailed closing off rooms and redefining and restricting spaces and inter-room access. The only problem with this theory is that there is no evidence from the ceramics of a separate occupation, although this may be a limitation of our ceramic knowledge for the mid-1st millennium, especially if the time between the two occupations was very short. But there is also no evidence for a 'grander' occupation in an earlier period. Also, how would the later occupants have entered the rooms? The only possibility would be from above. Aside from the issue of the blocked doorway, in WSG we continued to excavate locus 12. Also, I found a charcoal sample in the screen bag. Finally, in WSI, in addition to continuing in locus 12, where we found a wonderful iron fibula today, attention was focused on the doorway. We finished excavating locus 10 and started locus 13. It's clear that there are worked stones that align the doorway, but once again, when we reached room K, the doorway was closed. Still not clear if this is a wall or a blockage. Need to continue cleaning the area on Monday.