Polish Archaeology in the Mediterranean (13.2001(2002))

ALEXANDRIA

EGYPT

SECTOR E - THEATER PORTICO

Small areas of the portico paving were
cleared. Both of the two superimposed
levels of flagstones have been damaged
seriously by medieval burials. Each of these
levels corresponds to subsequent building
phases of the portico. Portico rebuilding is
also evidenced by signs of restructuring
that are clearly discernible in the stylobate.
In the initial phase, the columns were
standing on low pedestals lined with
marble tiles. In the next phase, the
intercolumnar spaces were filled with two
additional courses of large blocks cor-
responding to the raised paving. One
broken column shaft was excavated last
year near tomb M 299- Hopefully, more
columns will be found sub situ.


Fig. 4- Sector H. Fragment of a Late Roman
auditorium. View from the north
(Photo W. Jerke)

The massive back wall of the portico,
c. 1.55 m wide, was exposed along the
eastern face of the excavation trench. Its
core was structured of irregular stones set
in a thick layer of ashy-lime mortar, while
the facing was made of regular courses of
smaller dressed stones and conspicuous
brick lacing laid every seventh course.
Contrary to the southern section
excavated last year and still rising in
places to a height of some 2.50—3.00 m
above the pavement, the section further to
the north is much lower. The wall was
found to be deteriorated and severely
damaged by stone robbing. The damages
apparently predate the Upper Necropolis,
and might be related to the initial phase
of the cemetery (Lower and Middle
graveyards).
At the northern end of the trench
(western edge of the sector G), close to the
monumental gateway of the bath complex,
the portico back wall is better preserved
and rises considerably, meeting another
huge and similarly structured wall
(c. 1.25 m wide) that runs to the east,
forming the corner of a large structure.
Surprisingly enough, the eastern faces of
both wall sections still retained their
ancient facing and plastering. This
fragment of the wall must have been
substantially rebuilt as evidenced by the
employment of two different structural
techniques: isodomic courses of large
blocks in the lower section and much
smaller stones in the upper parts. It is still
unclear whether this should be construed
as proof of substantial rebuilding following
major destruction or simply local repairs.
The available dating evidence is inconclu-
sive, and it remains to be seen whether it
coincides with the re-designing of the
colonnade.

36