2005 TRENCH PC 20 Ivo van der Graaff, Field Supervisor Ben Luley, Assistant Field Supervisor  Field Students Rachel Baretto Hilary Cornell Chelsea Kuiper Angela Trentacoste Field Supervisor Ivo van der Graaff. Assistant Field Supervisor Ben Luley. Opening Report - Week 2: Trench PC 20 was originally initiated in the summer of 2000 by my predecessor Justin Winkler. Since then the unit has enjoyed four years of relative peace until it was decided last year to reopen the area in an attempt to retrieve some more useful information concerning the early development of the site. The period of inactivity entailed that some initial confusion arose concerning the stratigraphical matrix of the trench, as I had not witnessed any of the evidence it contained as it was being excavated. However, the startup problems were quickly solved and soon we were able to start answering some important questions we had set out at the beginning of the season. The trench is located on the northwestern side of the hill, partially including the defensive wall system built in the last phase of occupation on the site. Furthermore, the unit also contains architectural elements, pertaining to the earliest activity in the area. More specifically, we are dealing with the remnants of the foundation blocks and the related retaining terracing wall erected during the first phase of building activity on the arx. These features were consolidated through the addition of a thick fill layer which was formed by the destruction of what we now think is a period of earlier activity on the hill. The stratum involved is primarily found in the southern portion of the trench and was already partially dug down to bedrock last season. The remainder of the deep black layer will receive much of our attention this season, as we proceed to develop secure answers to the questions surrounding the precise genesis order of the architecture in the trench. View of Trench PC 20 from the southeast at the end of the 2004 field season. The unit also contains, as I have stated above, part of a cross-walled defensive system running east-west along the ridge of the hill. The area between this northern feature and the southern terracing wall also received much of our attention last season. More importantly we discovered what seem to be the traces of a trash midden which was used as fill in an effort to equalize the hill in the earliest phase of occupation. The presence of large pieces of bone and ceramics and the absence of significant fire traces, such as those giving the black stratum its color, seem to confirm this hypothesis further. Bucchero finds excavated in Trench PC 20 in 2004 and 2005. The excavations of the 2000 and 2004 seasons concentrated mainly on the eastern side of the trench. As this portion was almost completely cleared last year, our efforts will consequently focus on the remaining unexcavated western area. The questions I hope to answer here specifically pertain to the large Phase One blocks present in the southern side of the unit, their relationship to the adjacent terracing wall and the earliest history of the site. Furthermore, I aim to concentrate on solving the questions surrounding the exact relation between the two walls running in the trench, by excavating the relatively unexplored strata between the two. If we are not limited by time constraints, I also intend to move our efforts toward the northern side of the trench, which, due to its complex architectural and engineering nature was somewhat neglected in the past season. This area could reveal important information concerning the last occupation phase present on the hill, but our focus will have to remain on the southern portions of the trench, as it is here that we can expect to answer most our questions about the earliest occupation events witnessed by our site. Now that the excavation is entering its full swing, I am confident that my crew will be able to develop the necessary skills to affront the tasks set out to them in the coming weeks, as they are already showing some very promising and encouraging signs in these early stages of the project. Left: south locus of PC 20 viewed from the east. Right: north locus of PC 20 viewed from the east. Week 2.   Rachel Baretto, Ben Luley, Hilary Cornell, Chelsea Kuiper, and Angela Trentacoste in PC 20 during Week 3.   View of Trench PC 20 from the east during Week 3.   Assistant Field Supervisor Ben Luley.   Chelsea Kuiper.   Angela Trentacoste.   Hilary Cornell.   Rachel Baretto.   Chelsea Kuiper bailing water from tarps covering Trench PC 20 after a hard rain on Poggio Colla.   View of Trench PC 20 from the east during Week 4. Final Report: This season has proven to be a fruitful one in terms of the information we have managed to gather out of our trench. First of all I would like to thank my crew for performing very well in face of what sometimes seemed impossible odds. Even though we probably encountered the highest workload associated with any trench this season, I could always count on the readiness of everyone to deal with the masses of material produced by our section, so that we could move quickly in the field to further our investigations. PC 20 Trench Team, left to right, back to front: Ben Luley, Ivo van der Graaff, Hilary Cornell, Angela Trentacoste, Rachel Baretto and Chelsea Kuiper. Most of our efforts this season were directed to solving the exact depositional matrix pertaining to the actual genesis of our trench, and were therefore focused on the areas south of the northern fortification wall located in our trench. More specifically, we were looking at the area associated with the construction of our Phase I building and the southern terracing wall, where we were able to investigate strata deposited during the earliest occupation events witnessed by our site. It was here that we probably made the most important discovery this season, namely, a line of stones aligned east-west in between the two major walls running through our section. This feature was apparently deliberately placed in a fill which is possibly associated with an Agger like structure characteristic of Orientalizing Italy. The main idea behind these constructions was to create a simple defensive barrier, consisting of an embankment of earth located on the fringes of the settlement. These structures were often outlined with a simple line of stones which acted as boundary markers between the settlement and the outside world. The fact that we are dealing with a thick deposit of earth intentionally laid down to broaden the limits of the site, together with the discovery of the feature, makes me think that we are dealing with such an element in our trench. Furthermore, the discovery of postholes in PC 23 this season, probably related to a structure associated with this deposition, seems to further confirm this hypothesis. View from the west of Trench PC 20 at the end of the 2005 season. Left to right: rubble, major wall with inverted podium blocks, line of boundary stones, major wall, large block.   Detail of PC 20, showing inverted podium blocks in wall, and line of stones south of the wall. In the chronology of the site, it is with the destruction of this structure that we can now associate the creation of the black layer present in the southernmost loci of our trench. This stratum was intentionally used to create a continuous flat level needed to construct our Phase I building. The large blocks present in the southern portion of our trench are the last remnants of this building and clearly exhibit the flexibility employed by Etruscan architects in their construction methods. Last season we had discovered a foundation trench in the southeastern section of our area, which had been intentionally dug into the bedrock to accommodate two courses of blocks belonging to this building and, as the season progressed, we also encountered a third block belonging to the structure, located in the southwestern area of the trench. When this season opened, I was curious to find out whether the same technique had been applied to this feature, but as we started digging in the area, it quickly dawned on me that we were looking at a very different solution to the construction method applied to the building here. In fact, a rubble foundation of sandstone rocks had been placed underneath this third feature, apparently acting as a rudimentary support for the building here. Only after reaching bedrock, running further down underneath the block, did I realize why they had employed such a different construction technique for the two features. In fact, the bedrock here displayed a relatively natural plain which could easily accommodate the weight of the building without causing too much danger to its structural integrity. In the former case, the builders had encountered a highly irregular contour in the bedrock and probably thought it necessary to level it out by means of a trench and placing two blocks in it to reinforce the precarious nature of such a slope. Both methods show the ingenuity and cost effectiveness employed by the architects of the building, as the former case ensured a cheap foundation to the building in terms of building materials and manpower employment while the latter was used only when necessity required the creation of a stable foundation for the structure. 2005 photo of PC 20 from the east. Large block (left), and line of boundary stones between major walls.   Photo from the west of PC 20 at 2004 season's end, showing large block in foundation trench on east edge of trench, and partially excavated large block on west side of trench. Another area of interest this season has been, as I have mentioned above, the relatively unexplored region located in between the two walls running through our trench. We spent most of our time chasing and excavating the large foundation trench associated to the southern terracing wall, as this was one of our main goals this season. Interestingly, albeit time consuming and laborious for us, thick deposits of fill containing vast amounts of material had been deposited on top of it in later eras. The trench had been clearly dug into our Agger deposition and was filled in with a highly modeled deposit containing large amounts of material. A close look at the soil led me to believe that this fill was actually constituted by a mixture of our black stratum and the deposition laid down for our earth embankment. The many mixed dates ascribable to the finds coming out of this section seemingly validates this hypothesis further and therefore places the construction date of this wall to after the erection of our Phase I building. Bucchero sherd with inscription from Trench PC 20. This area I have just described also revealed other exciting finds related to the northern fortification wall. Once we reached the bottom of the fortification complex, we discovered that three podium blocks belonging to the Phase I building had been flipped over and reused as an integral structural element of the wall. The need for these architectural blocks in the complex implies some kind of urgency was involved when the building of these fortifications was commenced. Furthermore, in the western scarp of our trench we uncovered the remains of another major buttress running parallel to the one uncovered in previous seasons in the eastern portion of the trench. At first I thought they were part of a different construction event, in which the buttresses had been forcefully added to stabilize a somewhat precarious construction. I had mainly based this idea on the observation that the individual blocks of the two features were not interlocking in any way with the main wall. The discovery, this season, of a single foundation trench related to both structures, convinced me that we were actually dealing with one single construction event for the entire complex. I then realized that there was a sound architectural reason for this arrangement, especially when we consider the defensive purposes of the structure. In fact, the independent masonry described above ensured a greater structural flexibility in the face of offensive enemy action. This is especially true when we consider that in case of collapse of a section of wall, this construction technique would ensure that only a small portion of the wall would be taken down with it. Had the masonry been interlocked, (as one might assume might occur in a single construction event), then, in the scenario of a failure, much larger sections of the wall could have simultaneously been pulled down with it. In this case it seems that the architects of the wall deliberately employed this construction method to further strengthen the fortifications being built at the time. Three inverted podium blocks in a wall in Trench PC 20, viewed from the south in Week 5.   View of Trench PC 20 from the east during Week 5. The discovery of a second buttress in the trench might also suggest that we are looking at a tower of some sort being built in our area. Certainly, the presence of the two features together with the thick stone fill located within their midst might imply the presence of such a larger construction. However, much of this hypothesis must remain open to discussion and questions, which probably can only be answered by further investigations on the remainder of the fortification complex continuing slightly north of our trench. West side of the north end of PC 20, viewed from the north at season's end.   View of Trench PC 20 from the southeast during Week 5.   Chelsea Kuiper excavating around a large Phase I block in PC 20 in Week 5.   Assistant Field Supervisor Ben Luley directs a student lower in the trench.   View of Trenches PC 15 (foreground) and PC 20 at the end of the 2005 field season.   Final photo of Trench PC 20 from the south in 2005.   Ivo van der Graaff, Angela Trentacoste, and Ben Luley making final drawings of Trench PC 20.   Co-Directors: Gregory Warden gwarden@mail.smu.edu and Michael Thomas mlthomas@mail.utexas.edu Excavation house phone during the field season: (011-39) 055-844-9834