Annual Report 2007
(Draft)
The third season of the Moroccan-American Project at Aghmat took place from June 3 through June
21, 2007. The professional staff consisted of archaeologists Ronald Messier, Elarbi Erbati, Abdallah
Fili, ceramicist Claire Delery, and remote sensing specialist Aaron Fogel. We were assisted by 6-12 workers from Jemaa Rhmat. The team had established four very specific goals for the 2007 season:
•
Define the annexes.
• Define the water system.
•
Determine the date of construction.
•
Remote sensing (ground penetrating radar and magnetometry).
Defining the Annexes.
Before strategraphic excavations began on June 3, a crew of six workers spent seven days removing approximately one meter of dirt from an area four meters wide, extending from the south edge of the 2006 excavation on the south side of the hammam, designated as Trench 400. This one meter of dirt had been deposited there during the previous season’s excavation. This work brought us back to the original surface level before excavations began in 2005.
The extension of Trench 400 is designated as Trench 700. It extends 4 meters further south from the south balk of Trench 400 and runs the full length of 15.2 meters east to west. Overall, we observe the same three levels of occupation that we observed in Trench 400, for example, a level at approximately 20 cm below the surface containing a crudely made brick (D702)wall at the east end of the trench and a pit (D703) dug into a hard packed level or red clay (probably potters’ clay) is at the same level as fire pits at the east end of Trench 400 and dated 18 th-19th centuries. Below this upper level is a layer of fill, approximately 75 cm thick that contains not only evidence of the potters’ industry (red potters clay) but also contains several iron fragments and ash giving rise to the idea that not only potters were installed here, but metallurgy industries as well.
Below the destruction level of industrial occupation is yet another desctruction level: D715 a fallen brick wall; D718 a round assemblage of bricks and large stone which is a destruction level of a wall D730; and several deposits (D721, D725, D727, D728, D731, D734, D736, D738, and D742) of fill containing artifacts (ceramics dating largely in the 14 th century). Deposits D721, D727 and D742 are especially informative as it contained significant quantities of lime, brick and roof tiles. This destruction level seems to confirm the date of abandonment of the hammam qua hammam to be the late
14 th century. The quantity of roof tiles suggests that these annexes south of the three main rooms of the hammam were covered by a tiled roof.
The architectural features of the hammam that have survived are a series of brick floors, walls and pillar bases. The largest room is 5 meters N-S(exposed so far) by 7.5 meters E-W (see Figure 1).
This room had a floor (D737) in chevron patterned bricks (much of it intact). Within this room is a large octagon shaped basin (exterior dimension = 4 meters across; interior dimension = 2 meters across). The floor of the basin itself is made of brick arranged in an uneven pattern having most likely been covered by another material. There is a drainage canal on the east side of the basin and an opening for drainage on the west side (although the canal on the west is no longer there).

Figure 1 – Room with Octagonal Basin south side of Hammam.
To the east of this room is another room (D724), 3 x 3.5 meters, at a higher level reached by steps that are now eroded, also with a brick floor arranged in an uneven pattern (see Figure 2). At the east side of this room are more brick stairs that seem to be leading to a level where there are are two rooms (only partially excavated and separated by an adobe wall D 733). At least one of the rooms has a lime plaster floor (D729). These two rooms are separated from room D724 by an adobe wall (D226) at least half of which, the portion at the top of the steps(this part is not covered with plaster as the other part is), must have been added later, cutting these rooms off from the other annexes to the west. At the far east end of 700 along the east baulk is a very deep pit D723 eith a considerable amount of ash; this pit was dug by the later occupation of industrialists.

Figure 2 – Upper Room, southeast corner of the Hamman.
To the west of the large room with the octagonal basin is another room 2 x 4 meters (excavated so far) with a brick floor in parallel pattern. There is a narrow drainage canal that runs along the east wall of this room. A section of this room was excavated beneath the brick floor (D747) where a very large number of ceramics dating to the 12 th century were retrieved.
The question to raise at this point in the discussion of the annexes is what is the relationship between what we have excavated here in T700 during the 2007 season and what we had excavated in
T400 during the 2006 season? The two excavations are in fact separated the entire length by a brick wall, albeit that appears to have been built is different sections/time periods, with only one opening between them located almost directly opposite the main entrance to the frigidarium. It is clear that
T400 was divided into sections by two brick walls that were built after the initial construction. But the brick patterns of the floors in T400 and T700 are totally different from each other suggesting that the two parts, although contemporary, were never united as one.

Figure 3 – T 400, Annexes exposed during 2006 season.
Water System.
Our goal in researching the water system was to establish how the intake of water in the SW corner of the hammam that was observed during the 2006 season is connected to the medieval seguia and/or the khetara that run parallel to the road along the west side of the hammam. In order to do this, we extended T400 westward for 5 meters. Eventually, we also extend T700 5 meters westward giving us a trench 5 x 8 meters square. An adobe wall (D803) running EW was reached at a level of -37 cm.
Running parallel to that, at a level of 162 cm, is concrete covering of a water evacuation duct that apparently emptied into the road. At a level of 1142 cm, we achieved a level of very hard packed earth containing some flat stone which we are interpreting as being the road that ran along the west side of the hammam in medieval times. The evacuation duct runs directly on top of the intake duct which runs beneath the road apparently toward the seguia (see Figure 4).

.
Figure 4 - Waste Water Evacuation Duct.
We did evacuate the fill of the intake duct that we observed in the SW corner of T400 during the
2006 season. We moved approximately 4 meters in a westward direction toward the medieval road.
The ceramic contents of the duct confirm that it was in use through the 14 th
century.
We revisited the question posed at the end of the 2006 season regarding trench 600. One of the hypotheses was that the stone structure that was examined in that sounding was the old seguia that ran parallel to the current concrete seguia that runs parallel to the road. We extended T600 for a length of 7 meters to observe that we had a canal 62 cm wide, lined with stones on both sides at least 1 meter high, running this 7 meter length. It appears to be the medieval seguia that ran along the east side of the new road and the new seguia , but along the west side of the medieval road (see Figure 5).

Figure 5 – Seguia section and cross-section.
Date of Construction.
We had already established the date of abandonment of the hammam by the end of the 2005 season on the basis of the most recent material found in the lowest sealed level within the hammam itself. We established that date to be the end of the 14 th century. That date of abandonment was confirmed by material in the levels of destruction excavated during this 2007 season.
We used two different techniques to examine the question of date of construction. First, we looked at elements of comparison. We compared the floor of the Aghmat hammam to floor plans of other hammams of know dates of construction. The floor plan of the Aghmat hammam was quite different from the floor plans of two 14 th
century hammams in Morocco, that of the Chella in Rabat and that of Qsar es-Seghir excavated by Charles Redman. On the other hand, the floor plan of the Aghmat hammam resembled much more closely two floor plans of 11 th
century Andalusian hammams, those of
Jaen and Valencia.
The second technique was to establish a terminus post quem on the basis of datable material found in deposits that clearly precede the construction of the hammam. The 12 th
century ceramics retrieved from below the brick floor (D747) of the annex established a terminus post quem of the 12 th century for that part of the hammam. But what of the main part of the hammam itself? We decided to dig a small 1 x 1.5 meter trench (900) through the lime plaster floor of the frigidarium. Below the current floor at a level of -7 cm is a level of bricks that cover 50 x 100 cm of the sounding. At -38 cm is another solid lime concrete floor. And at -51 cm is yet another solid lime concrete floor. We continued to excavate another 10 cm below the lowest floor. This is what we found. Ceramics below this lowest floor appeared to be earlier than any found to date in a stratigraphic context, i.e., late 10 th
or early 11 th century. We were able to collect and analyse C-14 samples. One sample was taken from within the construction material for the uppermost floor. There were two data intercepts for that sample, with 95% probability, AD 1270 to 1330 and AD 1340 to 1400. That means that the floor had to be constructed sometime between 1270 and 1400, more likely between 1270 and 1340. that confirms our 14 th
century date for the latest occupation of the hammam qua hammam. The second sample was taken from beneath the lowest floor level. Its data intercept with 95% probability is AD
890 to 1030. That establishes a terminus post quem of late 10 th
or early 11 th
century for the construction of the hammam.
Remote Sensing.
Between June 5 and 13, 2007 archaeological geophysical investigations were conducted at
Aghmat, Morocco by Aaron Fogel (University of Arkansas). Fieldwork was initiated with the creation of a local site grid. An arbitrary datum of 1000 North and 1000 East was placed in the northeast corner of the mounded area surrounding the hammam. Two grid corners (1000 N, 1000 E) and (980 N, 1000
E) were left in place on-site. The geophysical grid was oriented 45 degrees west of north to facilitate alignment of geophysical grids with the local agricultural field boundaries. This resulted in fewer partial grids and made data collection more efficient. The results below are categorized into three general survey areas. Area 1 includes those resistivity and magnetic data collected immediately adjacent to the hammam. Area 2 is across the road from the hammam and includes both resistivity and magnetic data sets. Area 3 is located north of Area 2 across the field boundary wall. Only magnetic data were collected in this area.

Figure 6
Figure 1 displays two types of magnetic anomalies. Large areas with a magnetic contrast have been highlighted using a polygon with a filled in center. These could represent the floors of structures or open areas between structures. The other anomaly type is linear which may represent the remnants of subsurface architectural walls.
The three areas surveyed with the gradiometer all provide very different anomaly patterns. Area
1 is adjacent to the hammam. It contains many small and magnetically weak wall features in the southern section. Two of these rectangular features (northwest corner of grid 7) have a magnetically high monopole near the center. This could represent a central hearth. The northern grids contain three larger and more magnetically significant anomalies. Near the center of Area 1 (grids 2 and 9) is an even larger linear anomaly with the north and east walls most clearly defined. Just inside the north wall is a very large magnetic area anomaly. This anomaly is very strong and is either very near the surface or a sizeable object at depth.
Area 2 is located across the road west of Area 1. This area was surveyed after it was discovered through local folklore that a mosque had once stood west a large palm in the center of the field. The author conducted a quick pedestrian survey of Area 2 the next day and identified what appeared to be two terraces. On the upper terrace was a large and shallow depression directly beyond the above mentioned palm. As a result 16 grids of gradiometer data were collected in Area 2. There appears to be corroboration between these magnetic data and the location of the depression on the upper terrace.
Unfortunately we do not have topographic data to directly confirm any correlation. The magnetic anomaly appears in the northeast corner of Area 2. Unfortunately the north wall is not discernable.
The long axis of the building appears to be in the north-south direction. A similar anomaly is located to the southeast of this larger one. The north wall of this structure is also not discernable. In addition to their spatial similarities these two structures are also both surrounded by areas that are fairly magnetically quiet. That is, there are not many magnetic objects around these two structures. The two large semi-circular lines demarcate the boundaries of the quiet areas adjacent to the large buildings and the more noisy background which is prevalent in most other areas surveyed. There are also two linear anomalies along the northern extent of Area 2 and a square area of magnetic change in the southeast corner. Throughout this area the modern agricultural practices can be seen as the regularly spaced high

magnetic (black) linear anomalies.
Area 3 is located north of Area 2. It is a very noisy area making the identification of weak archaeological signals difficult. The modern agricultural practices can be seen in the regular pattern of high magnetic linear anomalies. I have identified one anomaly of interest extending through these five grids. It is difficult to assess exactly what is buried here but it may represent a subsurface drainage feature of some kind or a large and very long wall.
Ground penetrating radar data were collected using a Geophysical Survey Systems Inc. (GSSI)
Sir-3000 with a 400 MHz antenna. The system was set up to record 16 bit data with a 50 nS time window, 512 samples per scan, and 50 scans per meter. Survey transects were spaced 0.5 meters apart.
Data were collected in zigzag fashion. These data were downloaded to a personal computer and processed using the GSSI manufactured software Radan 6.5. All radar data were processed as follows.
First, distance normalization was used to correct for uneven length in survey transects. With all transects for each respective grid the same length the individual transects were
Figure 7 -GPR Data and Grids

combined into their respective grids. All subsequent processing was applied to the grid as a whole, though all grids were processed identically. Next, time-zero was identified and corrected for. This clips the upper portion of the data set which represents the time between the creation of the wave and the wave entering the ground. A background filter was applied to remove horizontal banding (noise) inherent in radar data. Then gain was applied to increase the strength of weak responses and responses at depth. Lastly, a stacking filter was utilized to smooth the data horizontally. Post-processing included extracting two-dimensional time slices for graphics preparation in ArcGIS 9.2. GPR data were only collected in Survey Areas 1 and 2.
Approximately 4400 m
2
were covered by GPR survey. Grids 1, 3, and 4 were vegetation free and constant contact between the antenna and the ground was maintained. The western half of grid 2 was similar while the eastern half of grid 2 and most of grid 5 were heavily vegetated. All of grid 6 was heavily vegetated and had numerous hay piles approximately 1-2 meters in diameter and approximately
0.5-1 meter in height. Areas that were heavily vegetated presented problems maintaining continuous contact between the GPR antenna and the ground surface. As a result the GPR data from these areas is much noisier. It should be expected that subtle or weak archaeological responses will be masked by this noise.
The east area of the GPR survey (Survey Area 1) had two types of surface cover. The area where most of the anomalies are highlighted was bare earth with a scatter of ceramic sherds. Most of these sherds were kicked aside in advance of the antenna. Good contact was maintained throughout this section. Within this area there is one large building immediately north of the hammam (GPR Grid
2), though the south wall is not visible. There is also a small circular anomaly just north of this structure.
There is also another significant anomaly north of this in GPR Grid 1 that contains a right angle in the northeast corner and a large area of similar response which may be the floor of the structure.
The south half of Survey Area 1 was covered in vegetation. The vegetation was relatively thin in the middle of this GPR survey area and it gradationally increased in thickness moving south. The southern third of the survey area had vegetation cover similar to the west area GPR survey. Only one small area in the far south appears to be of interest.
The west area of the GPR survey (Survey Area 2) was heavily vegetated. The antenna lost contact with the ground several times on each transect. As a result it is unlikely that weak anomalies will be recognizable with such noise introduced into the data set. Nevertheless, two large anomalies are evident in this area. One is a large rectangular feature and the other is another rectangle within the northern half of the larger rectangle.
Figure 8 displays both the GPR and Gradiometer vector overlays to facilitate comparison of the two survey techniques. In general, the large and more significant anomalies were detected by both instruments. In Survey Area 2 there are clear correlations between the two methods in the areas where both were collected. Because of time constraints only a small section of Area 2 was surveyed with
GPR. It seems likely that further GPR survey in this area could help elucidate anomalies identified through magnetic survey in adjacent areas.
The two largest anomalies in Survey Area 1 also were detected by both instruments. However, many of the magnetic anomalies in the southern part of this area do not appear in the GPR. This may be a demonstration of the ability to discern building material by using both geophysical methods.

These magnetic anomalies could be the ephemeral remnants of mud brick walls that have a weak magnetic signature but do not have a significant change in RDP to cause a reflection in the GPR.
Whereas, the more significant anomalies identified in both geophysical survey methods could represent more significant stone foundations.
Figure 8 - Map displaying both ground penetrating radar and gradiometer anomalies
Overall, the field season was successful. Over 1.6 hectares of area is included in the combined
GPR and magnetic data sets. Both methods were able to identify subsurface phenomenon most likely to be anthropogenic. In many cases, they verified the accuracy of each other by identifying the same structures. In areas were both methods were performed and only one instrument identified subsurface remains this may be an indication of particular architectural styles. These anomalies found in the gradiometer and not in the GPR may be ephemeral remnants of mud brick walls while anomalies appearing in both may be more significant buildings constructed with significant foundations of local magnetic stone. The survey has resulted in numerous geophysical anomalies worthy of further investigation with traditional archaeological excavation techniques