July–December 1936

-10-

destruction of Mycenae; I feel that to leave it out would be a serious omission. Neither have I any reason to doubt Blegen's statement that Granary Style was found in Troy VII. If you still feel that my stand is too strong, the last sentence of my first paragraph might be changed to read:"It is now generally believed that it is to be associated with the final disaster of the Mycenaean civilization". That at least shifts the blame from my shoulders onto those of Wace and Blegen.

If I were to make a change in my paper it would be to cut out most of my last page. The subject of the wanderings comes more in your domain than mine, and it may be too soon to reach a definite conclusion anyway. In my last paragraph I certainly dealt too loosely with the chronological significance of the bullae. What I really meant to say was that the bulla night give us a new date post quem, and that since this is the first time that possibly datable material has been found with such late pottery as this, a late date on the bullae would narrow down the range of time in which the end of Mycenae can be placed, and might even be so late that we would be forced to bring the date of the Granary Style into direct connection with it. It may sound to you as if I wished to deny the bulla much importance for dating. I certainly feel that it is important. Merely by showing that everything found with or above it must be at least as late as it is decidedly important. It was already obvious that the Granary Style must be more recent, but it was not so certain with the panel style bowl. This gives us another and valuable standard by which to judge the date of the Lion Gate deposit and the later Mycenaean period generally.

I hope that you will not tell anybody about my ideas of terminology or about the general chronological questions. I am very anxious to keep the information as much as possible to myself until it is ready for publication. It is my hope and belief that I will have this material worked out at just about the same time that we are ready for the final Tarsus pottery publication, so that we can use each one with the other. I am just vein enough to think that the publication of the Tarsus Lyceacen will be quite spectacular if we can combine our new Tarsus material for dating etc. with a new consideration of the question of Mycenaean chronology in general. I should like to divide the material of in such a way that the general foundations and the treatment of the earlier periods would be in my general book on L.H. III whereas the detailed development of my new late Helladic III period would be in the Tarsus publication. This would of course mean a certain amount of overlapping, but nothing would be lost by that.

I will wait anxiously to hear from you again and hear your comments on all of this, hoping that I have convinced you about the specifically Tarsian problems and Heurtley's Close Style theory.

Yours truly, Cyprus, where I will leave instructions for forwarding my mail.

Right page

You questioned my saying in § 4 that there were certain pieces of pottery, and mentioned a piece found the 1st year. I remember your alluding to one piece, which might have been from a Vi-ya that which I did not see. I am also certain this is report deals only with the stratified deposit in Tr. 4, Ex. 4, so I may remark this to add other.