Square D8 shows the efforts of builders to increase the level of the floor in the temple's inner cella. But first, how do we know that this is the inner cella? We located a small column base, 51 cm in diameter, which is consistent with the size of columns often used on the inside of temples. This column base is surrounded by pavers which consist of cut stones in secondary use. One of these stones has a bossed edge. All of the stones are of irregular size and shape, they are fit together like pieces of a puzzle. The column base is partly subsumed by the pavers, there is a considerable amount of the piece which was exposed when the pavers were removed - 35cm or so. This column base sits upon a concrete surface. I do not believe that this represents the original floor of the cella. Rather, the floor probably consisted of nice pavers which were robbed out. The concrete is probably the bottom layer of what was a multi-layer floor structure. During the robbing process, it seems that big holes were punched in the concrete. I think that the hard lime ash which covers the concrete was an effort to patch the holes up. If so, it's a kind of sloppy job. Pottery from beneath these surfaces can be considered to be from semi-sealed loci. LD8004 is the upper layer of fill from between the concrete/ash layer and the current level of pavers. This pottery is in bucket I.D8.4, and dates to somewhere between the 1st and 5th centuries. LD8005 is fill from below the ash and concrete. It is in bucket I.D8.5, and dates to somewhere between the 1st and 4th centuries. It would be nice to narrow these ranges up somehow. There is the possibility of contamination in both loci, resulting from the fact that there were holes in the ash/concrete layer, and stones missing from the upper paver surface. The stones missing from this surface indicate a second phase of robbing. I think that there is a possibility that the column base is not in-situ. Although interior columns were purely decorative, they were heavy and probably would have been founded on some sort of supportive surface, unlike concrete covered rubble. Perhaps a large block of stone would have been used by the Romans, who seem to have overbuilt things. Sort of like Vitruvius' insistence on the use of rammed earth when loose rubble works just as well. Although the concrete obviously worked, I think the Romans would have originally chosen something sturdier.

Some of the decoration on the column base has been filled in with plaster, why?

I would like to stand by most of the hypotheses concerning D7 which I mentioned in the final report for that square. However, there are a few things suggested by a comparison with D8.

The pavers in D7, unlike the pavers in D8, are regularly shaped and appear to have been originally intended for use as pavers. This indicates that the two surfaces may have been part of two separate phases of the temple.

Further, the character of the rubble under these two surfaces is different. Rubble from under the pavers in D7 consists of roundish boulders, about 15-20 cm in diameter. This is dissimilar to the rubble from beneath the pavers in D8, which consists of flat chips of limestone. However, the rubble from beneath the ash/concrete layer in D8 does consist of boulders like the ones found in D7. Further, the ash/concrete layer falls within ten centimeters of the pavers in D7. These facts seem to indicate that the ash/concrete layer and the paver surface in D7 are related. The paver surface in D8 was built later.

I would like to revise my interpretation of locus LD7003. I agree with Jack, it seems to be rubble which fell into a robber trench.

I would like to further investigate the relationship between the wall loci WD7006, WD7010, and the rubble core LD7011. Was the substantial structure formed by WD7010 and LD7011 part of the original temple or was it added to the wall WD7006 as part of the temple expansion? Does the rubble filled structure continue for the entire length of the wall? Why don't we see any evidence for it in square C6? In fact, why is WD7006 so different from the wall in the other square, which it appears to correspond to by elevation and direction, but is made of such dissimilar stones? What's going on with that weird raised surface on the stones of WD7006? I want to expose more of the length of that wall in order to answer some of these questions. That involves digging to the East and West of the trench we dug, going into C7 and E7.

Sample Size - our sample size for ceramics seems too small. Can a locus be accurately dated with only a few diagnostic sherds? It seems that some sort of statistical analysis, based on a larger sample size, would more accurately date loci. This could eliminate the effects of contamination.