D. Fales, Kourion Complex (Palace) II Nov.–Dec. 1938De C. Fales

92 date

There is a period of destruction P's X X 9-10, VIII 109-10, IX 16-17. XXII 5+7

These larger squ rectangular stones particularly in the southern part must have fallen from the pilasters on either side of the building. However there are ^other stones than those from the pilasters and these must come from walls. More must have fallen been preserved here ^{than elsewhere} because they were covered with earth and fill by means of the east wall of room. Had this wall not been there, the fill covering the stones would not have been deep enough to hide them and they would have been carted away. Perhaps as part of the original destruction, the large stone which was part of the north cross wall fell out of place to the west. VIII p. 110 IX p. 16

None of the stones in the room can be in their original position nor there is no evidence for any support of the roof of this room other than that of the pilasters by the walls.

Right page

93 date

There should have been windows in the east wall but there is no trace of them. If there were no windows in the east wall the interior of the room must have presented a very dark appearance, for on all three other sides, the room is surrounded by other rooms, and any light which came through must have been neglible.

The door to the room must in all periods have been in the south west cancel{e} in the west wall near the south corner. It would not seem that the room was entered from Pete's Room K for the stones in that room beside its north wall (south wall of room K large room) may represent a wall which extended across or nearly across this room. This must be checked on spot. From the photographs a door seems unlikely. It is to be noted that these stones are in the line of the wall of an earlier and the constructing architect may have ^{in part} utilized these older foundations as he did so may have done south of panel 1, X p. 197-8 and generally elsewhere, \cancel{v. p. 96}