You can look at D9 in two important ways. First, it contains evidence for features of the site that have not yet been excavated. Second, D9 shows the development of the temple complex during the Byzantine period of habitation.

D9 is located within the interior of the temple complex. We started digging with a tip line that extended from SE to NW with an elevation of 0.91 meters. Outside the NW corner of the square is a 2x3 meter area of limestone chips that are exposed on the surface. These chips continued along our west balk and made it utterly unstable. We excavated D9 in two phases. First, we dug a 2x2 meter probe trench along the south balk during weeks one and two. Second, when we no longer had enough room to work in this trench, we removed the north balk and worked in the 4x4 meter area.

Our beginning of the season goals for D9 centered on finding the cella of the temple complex. We figured that if we could find the cella, we had a good chance of uncovering and inscription that would help us date the temple and determine more precisely how the temple was used in a worship context. We did not find an inscription or any evidence for an early phase of the cella nor did we find any stones in situ from the Roman period.

[L.D9.001], [L.D9.003], and [L.D9.008] contain the same material, which is fill. They were designated different loci as the result of digging the probe trench separately from the square as a whole and the desire to keep clean pottery buckets. These loci contain fill. I argue that D9 was repeatedly mined and dumped, during several different phases. The best evidence for this comes from these three loci. We uncovered a large number of cut and chipped pieces of limestone in the soil. This, along with the burn layer in D7, indicates that there was a kiln present in the temple complex. The temple complex may have been used as a quarry for the rebuilding of Banias by the crusaders in the 12th and 13th centuries. The limestone from our site would have been crushed and burned in order to make mortar for their building projects. Many of the limestone pieces that we recovered from these loci were architectural fragments. We have 87 fragments, including 12 boulder sized pieces from the lower cornice (one of which had been burned at a low temperature), 4 pieces of capital that had been chipped off, 2 pieces of the upper cornice decorated with rosetta and 37 pieces that were originally a face of a cut stone. Many of these fragments were found in the north 2x2 meter area of the square, which is evidence that these loci are fill since the heavier fragments would have sunk further in the soil and further down the hill.

These loci show potential aspects of the site that have not yet been excavated. We found a tessera, still connected by plaster, which is the most solid evidence that we have for a mosaic at the site. We found finely colored and polished plaster that may have been part of the cella wall or a fresco in the temple. This evidence is in our square because later users of the site used earlier features as fill in D9. We can not use much of what we found to date anything, but it lets us know that it is nearby.

[L.D9.002] contains a hard packed caliche layer on top of layer of boulder-sized, cut limestone tumble. These blocks may have originally been part of a wall and are the highest elevation architectural features to be excavated so far. This locus contains the remains of modern campfires and small animal bones. The pottery from this locus ranges from the 5th to 13th centuries, which is a problem for the theory of a kiln. It is a problem because it raises the question of why those removing limestone for a kiln would have left such easily removable stones.

Below [L.D9.002] in [L.D9.004] we uncovered a large header-stretcher stone (110 cm by 30 cm elevation: 183.96m). This stone has a hole cut into the top (10 cm from the front of the stone and half way across it) and a niche carved into the bottom of its west face. When this stone was uncovered it allowed for theories that ranged from it being a threshold for a door to the cella to it being the back wall to the cella. None of these theories were feasible after we found out that the stone was in secondary usage. Below the stone there is a layer of Byzantine schmooze concrete, some of which remains on the face of the stone where it runs into the south balk.

The usage of this stone in a later stage of the temple complex is unclear. It is more than four meters of the line of the back wall to the temple as Arro draws it. It may have been a podium, since it is at the same elevation as the highest series of pavers and the stylobate in D8. However, the orientation of our header-stretcher construction is oriented along a line running from SW to NE and if we follow that line we miss the east probe trench in D8 completely. [L.D9.004] contains mixed medium with transitory sections of burn (including burnt limestone) and caliche. The pottery we removed indicates that this locus is also fill. We dug [L.D9.009] as an attempt to date the construction of the architectural features in [L.D9.002] and [L.D9.004] with pottery. We were unsuccessful. This locus contains a 5cm thick layer of concrete above a layer of limestone chips. We did not dig to the bottom of these chips because we ran out of time for the season. The pottery from this locus did not help us date the foundation because all we recovered were undistinguishable body-sherds. However, the structure can be dated roughly to the Byzantine period due to the characteristic construction techniques. The limestone chips from this locus are not the same as the limestone chips in our west balk. They were used specifically for the foundation of this structure and were not chipped in the same manner as those which were meant to be burnt in a kiln.

[L.D9.005] is a Byzantine schmooze structure that is located in the SW corner of our square. This structure was made quickly and is composed of large boulders, mostly basalt, but with some limestone, held together with concrete. The function of this structure is unclear. I am not convinced that it was a kiln wall, unless it is the outside of the back wall. We found very little evidence for high temperature burning. I think that it may have been either a foundation for a new entrance into the temple complex constructed during the Byzantine period. C9 needs to be excavated for this theory to be proven correct. I suggest this because the topography of the area around our square suggest that this structure runs into the back wall of the temple (i.e. a hill extends from the top of this structure and ends where the back wall of the temple is). The relationship between the header-stretcher construction in [L.D9.002] and [L.D9.004] and the schmooze structure in [L.D9.005] is unclear, since we don't have precise dating for either structure.

[L.D9.007] and [L.D9.010] are essentially one locus. They contain the foundation of the structure in [L.D9.005]. The foundation is three courses high (top elevation: 183.38 // bottom elevation: 182.19). The courses we were able to uncover extend in a stair pattern away from the top course. The top course is made of two cut blocks of limestone, set upright on their narrow end. They are placed perpendicular to the header-stretcher construction in [L.D9.004]. The stones in [L.D9.007] and [L.D9.010] are in secondary use. We found plaster facing on the east side of the top course of stones, which allowed us to hope that they were in situ. However, on the third course of stones there is also plaster facing that faces the opposite direction straight into a repaired limestone block. We hoped to date this construction by finding the foundation trench, but on the last day of excavation we found animal remains and pottery from the 12th century and were unable to reach the founding elevation.

The relationship between the structure and the header-stretcher construction is debatable. The fact that there isn't a second course of stones below the header-stretcher feature and the difference in elevation (1.58 meters) makes it difficult to connect the two structures in terms of function. Again, we don't have a foundation date for either structure. I venture that the construction in [L.D9.007] and [L.D9.010] had a specialized function and that it was used as a foundation at a later period. I say this because the structure is only one course wide and the schmooze structure extended past this single course. All of the stones are in secondary use and we need to dig the west part of D8 to see how far south the structure runs. [WL.D9.006] was part of the Syrian fortifications that run around the crown of the hill. This wall was constructed with highly weathered basalt that was likely already lying on the surface. There were several limestone rocks in the wall, but no architectural fragments. We took the wall down and excavated at its foundation, but found no evidence that suggests that the wall is any earlier than a modern construction.

The fact that we were unable to find evidence for the early phases of the temple complex doesn't bother me at all. I think that it is more important to understand how people used this structure throughout a large number of phases that extend into the 13th century. D9 shows how the interior of the temple complex developed during the Byzantine period and was used during the early Islamic and Crusader periods. An understanding of the temple complex should not be isolated to one specific era of construction and original use. This type of understanding doesn't mesh with most of the evidence that we have from the site as a whole, since most of the information that we have comes from the third century and later. People were using this building, during those periods and D9 can help us understand how the building was used.

Since the material in D9 is either fill or in secondary use, we get little glimpses of other features that exist elsewhere in the site. People were using the materials of Omrit to modify it to their needs. This shows us two things. It shows us what type of features existed in the Roman period and it shows us a little bit of what later users thought of that material (Not much if they broke it up and put it in a wall or broke it up and burned it).

I have several goals for next season. First, we will attempt to date our main architectural features by continuing [L.D9.009] and [L.D9.010]. Second, I think that we need to excavate the rest of D8 in order to understand the relationship between D8 and D9. Third, I think that C9 also needs to be excavated. C9 is important because it can answer questions about the function of L.D9.005]. It will give us more evidence for the question of whether or not there was a kiln. It will show us the back wall of the cella/temple.