1955

Printed: THE UNIVERSITY MUSEUM

Printed: UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA

Printed: 33RD & SPRUCE STREETS, PHILADELPHIA 4

April 20, 1955Dear Saul,

I hope this letter reaches you before you leave Cyprus. Since the preliminary work on the stratification of Area E has just now been completed-that is, co-ordinating the results of the 1948 and 1954 campaigns with earlier results(copy enclosed)-you may have a chance perhaps to look over this work on the spot and indicate points which you think need more attention. To be perfectly frank, I am not happy about Area A, which doubled the difficulties, cords were in much less good condition than those of Area A, or rather compounded the uncertainties, in those parts needing major revisions which you undertook concerning Houses I, II and VII come out all right in the stratification. Principally it involved shifting 21:12 (21) from D's House II to his House I and there was both internal support for this and hints in D's mss. that it should be done. As for the relative chronology of D's HOuses IV-VI, however, I do not see that the sherd material as I have it really supports your order, although the following factors may have considerable weight: (a) The period of use of all walls not only within the LCIIIA period but also-at least in the cases of D's V-VII falls so nearly together that they may be considered virtually contemporary. (b) D's VI-VII did not yield material from wall trenches or floor filling as a means of dating construction as did his IV-V and therefore may only seem relatively later than IV-V. Note, however, (Street of Tombs, 1948) that in a cutting for a wall of VI he got corresponding later sherds. It seems strange to me that the sherds from the foundation trenches and gritty fill of podium (phase 1a-c) which must have immediately preceded use of D's IV should look so much earlier than sherds from use of the house (phase 2). These are scanty, to be sure, and perhaps not entirely representative, but they do not contain any Bl.slip bucchero or hand-made bucchero, noreven a high proportion of LC III Dec., which are not lacking in the other houses. The sherds from foundation trenches of D's V (2) are about what one might have expected from VI-VII.

I think D's V-VII (and your VII) may be considered sufficiently contemporary that they might have been built in another relative order than that suggested by him if there are compelling architectural reasons. But from the point of view of the sherds I do not see how it is possible to place his House IV anywhere on the relative scale but where he had it. Since this involves not only a point of interpretation but also presents a practical problem as to how to refer to the houses in the sherd analysis, I should like to know your reaction to this. My compromise suggestion is the following order;

Daniel I II III IV V VI VII Benson I-II VII* III IV VIII* V * VI* Weinberg I-II VII III VI VVIII IV V

Those starred keep your relative sequence.

This is a most unsatisfactory thing to do by letter, especially since you may not even have a copy of the sherd analysis with you. It is with trepidation that I suggest this because keeping House correspondences straight is already pretty rough mental gymnastics. I have not done percentage analyses yet but hardly expect them to alter matters much.