Letter from Schaeffer to Dikaios and Megaw on the joint mission, with analysis of Dikaios's excavation resultsClaude Frédéric-Armand Schaeffer

- 17 -

in this report in its present form is published, to correct it later.

And it is clear to the reader of his memory that he is far from prepared for an eventual change of mind and of his conclusions, when he says, p.181: "In the meantime having stated that the building excavated by me belongs to the LC III period (early Iron) covering the XIIth c. B.C. and the early part of the 11th etc. Here is no doubt left, no reservation expressed, no margin of error envisaged: Dikaios states (as in French: affirmer): I sincerely sorry and disturbed to encounter such a determined attitude in a newcomer in a field, where we have previously published the opposite view and which he shared, according to his letters, throughout his own dig. Dikaios even goes further and without delay, in a first as he says provisional report. lays down the main lines of Enkomi-Alasia's history (see end of p.181 and follow.)

First period of main building : Achaean colonists of the literary traditions after the fall of Troy, i.e. at the beginning of the XIIth c. are regarded as the builders of the compound in its original form." (p.185).

Second stage, after burning followed by a reconstruction by people of the same civilisation, appearance of ware showing strong Syro-Palestinian and weak Heladic ties implying appearance of temporary predominance "of Syro-Palestinian people. This statement according to Dikaios "would be in perfect agreement with Dr Schaeffer's previous conclusions (Strat.Comp. p.588). well, Dikaios knows French and has made his studies in Paris, how can he find in my text a confirmation of his syro-palestinian invasion or colonisation in his second stage posterior to the destruction of the mainbuilding (earlier masonry) fixed by him after the beginning of the XIIth c.? I am sorry to have to repudiate formally this assertion. It is clear from my text: a) that there is no mention whatsoever of an influx of syropalestinian [illegible] people into Cyprus at that stage.

b) that I place the end of Bronze Age and beginning of early Iron age towards the middle of the XIIth c. not in the XIIIth c. as Dikaios does, and that the destruction of the late Bronze Age and Myceneen Enkomi with the fine ashlar architecture (to which belongs the compound excavated by Dikaios) occured in LC II, not in the Early Iron Age (~LC III or XIIth c.) as Dikaios attempts now to prove.

c) that I consider the so-called traditional (literary) date for the fall of Troy (1180) as too late, as it is the opinion of many other scholars and would consider its going back to the XIIIth c.

Third stage of Dikaios' historical scheme for Enkomi (p.188) characterised by influx of Mycenean IIIC I or of III C.2 pottery