grouna to the South. Thus our hope to complete the fieldwork in
the house this year has not been fulfilled.
We have continued the study of the excavated parts by means
of limited trenching and a reappraisal of evidence obtained so far.
In its original form, the house consisted of two areas on the ground
level without direct communication between them (Fig. 1). The
domestic quarters around the courtyard loc. 13 were accessible
only through a narrow door under the staircase loc. 16, while the
large entrance to the reception suite around the court loc. 22 led
there through loci 17 and 18, both aligned with the the same street
wall as the staircase. Both entrances shared a common monolithic
step leading out into the street.
This feature, and the clearly distinct functions of the two
areas, led us to consider both of them as belonging to the same
house and having presumably some sort of connection on the level
of the first floor. Indeed, the existence of a second storey is
assured by the presence of stairs in loc. 16 and probably in loc. 3
as well. The room plan must have been repeated upstairs, while the
roof over the porticoes served as a connecting terrace, in spite of
a slight difference in height between the columns in the two wings
of the domestic area and a more important one (c. 1.70 m) between
these and the columns of the reception suite.
It is clear that the family wing of the house fomied three
distinct apartments, each including two or three rooms connected
by one of the porticoes, even if not distinguished very sharply.
Upper rooms should have belonged to the corresponding ground
floor apartments and were presumably used as winter quarters. The
guest rooms around the other courtyard were not suitable for
residence, except perhaps on the upper storey.
There is no trace of a water supply pipe from the outside, but
there are three wells, of which at least two should be considered
original. All three served as late as the house itself, collecting
ground water from a remarkably high table, two at about 5 m
69
the house this year has not been fulfilled.
We have continued the study of the excavated parts by means
of limited trenching and a reappraisal of evidence obtained so far.
In its original form, the house consisted of two areas on the ground
level without direct communication between them (Fig. 1). The
domestic quarters around the courtyard loc. 13 were accessible
only through a narrow door under the staircase loc. 16, while the
large entrance to the reception suite around the court loc. 22 led
there through loci 17 and 18, both aligned with the the same street
wall as the staircase. Both entrances shared a common monolithic
step leading out into the street.
This feature, and the clearly distinct functions of the two
areas, led us to consider both of them as belonging to the same
house and having presumably some sort of connection on the level
of the first floor. Indeed, the existence of a second storey is
assured by the presence of stairs in loc. 16 and probably in loc. 3
as well. The room plan must have been repeated upstairs, while the
roof over the porticoes served as a connecting terrace, in spite of
a slight difference in height between the columns in the two wings
of the domestic area and a more important one (c. 1.70 m) between
these and the columns of the reception suite.
It is clear that the family wing of the house fomied three
distinct apartments, each including two or three rooms connected
by one of the porticoes, even if not distinguished very sharply.
Upper rooms should have belonged to the corresponding ground
floor apartments and were presumably used as winter quarters. The
guest rooms around the other courtyard were not suitable for
residence, except perhaps on the upper storey.
There is no trace of a water supply pipe from the outside, but
there are three wells, of which at least two should be considered
original. All three served as late as the house itself, collecting
ground water from a remarkably high table, two at about 5 m
69