Page 181Scan 365 of 438
into two (1). I do not propose now to bring to bear on this discussion the evidence produced by this excavation for various reasons. In the first place the evidence is incomplete pending the examination of all the pottery found. Secondly, when studied in its entirety, this evidence should be correlated with that discovered by Dr. Schaeffer in the sectors of the site excavated by him. For the same reasons I intend to abstain from entering in a detailed discussion of
Handwritten: but that has already been done
the absolute chronology of the building excavated by me, and of the bearing which this may have on the
Handwritten: now also
whole problem of the chronology of the LCIII (2). A full discussion of this subject should embrace all the known evidence including that recently discovered by Dr. Furumark at Sinda but not yet published in detail. In the meantime, having stated that the building excavated by me belongs to the LCIII period, covering the twelfth century B.C. and the early part of the eleventh, a tentative survey of the history of the period in the light of the evidence discovered in our building must suffice.
Handwritten: here has gone on to explain this, very sub
/The
(1) Cf. Schaeffer, Stratigraphie; 402, 606. (2) For elaborate discussions on the chronology of the LCIII see Gjerstad OA III, 73 ff and Furumark, Ibid, 191 ff.
Figure: handwritten marginal annotations in the left margin ("but he / ..."), a bracket, and arrows linking annotations to the text; faint pencil notes visible at lower left and centre-left
65 figures hard to readstruck struck outadded written in above” jug ditto, and what it repeatsword reading not certain
