Unnumbered pageScan 72 of 101
147 date
west wall, it is probable that this indeed almost certain that this west wall goes with an earlier building. In this respect the evidence would check with that of trench under mosaic SW3 west of SW3. v. p. 142. The small fragment of wall remaining in this trench must belong to a still earlier. Thiese three periods check with the evidence from Pete's Room K, is v VIII p. 97.
The problem is with the west wall of Pete's Room K. This wall is cut on east in second layer. If this is so, the cutting can have two meanings 1. It was cut to lay foundations of wall In which case, second layer goes with earliest earlier period and there was no layer placed on top it, in connection with trench for the second period. 2. The second layer was cut not to build the wall but merely to check the foundations. V. P. 148-9
Right page
date. 148
As none some of the layers on the east side of trench on of west of large room are cut, one the first proposition seems
The layers below the second in the south trench west of large room are not cut for east wall. If this is so then, the layers on in this trench below the second are connected with the second period when the east wall of south trench of room west of large. The difficulty arises that in the north trench of same room, these layers are cut for swall.
If this so, some place north of south trench of room west of large, the east wall of room west of large was added following the line of the older wall to south.
As however in the south west corner of large the layer below which a coin of Honorius was found is cut for west wall, this trench would seem only to be an inspection trench. v. p. infra.
Rather the explanation to be sough is that in the south trench the cutting does not appear
65 figures hard to readstruck struck outadded written in above” jug ditto, and what it repeatsword reading not certain