Letter from Schaeffer to Megaw on Dikaios's workClaude Frédéric-Armand Schaeffer

Handwritten page marking at top: "X - 3 -" area

Handwritten: Y-3 with circled mark

Handwritten: Copie / envoyé W. Megaw? signature

Le Castel Blanc, 14 Rue Turgot, St.Germain-en-Laye, (Seine et Oise) Le 22 juin 1950.

Dear Megaw,

I am sorry that I could not send you my analysis of Dikaios' reports quicker. But it did cost me several days of work at a moment when I am overburdened with more positive and important work than to oppose wrong interpretations and an incredible obstination in erronous deductions.

Dikaios I dare say, is here on a gross road of his career. If I took all this trouble, it is to provide Dikaios with all evidence to correct his grave initial mistake and to correct all the wrong conclusions which he has derived from the wrong date of floor V and date of erection of the original compound.

I must confess that I am very much disturbed by the unscientific spirit of many pages of his report from chapter V onward. Chapters I to IV with the architectural analysis are good and could stand as they are, but here I feel he had your advice to help him.

After that he goes astray and terribly. I am now very sorry that I consented to his digging in the first season in my absence. And still, perhaps a simultaneous campaign would not have prevented him. I don't know under which influence, he is to reverse his main opinions with which I agreed from his letters, and to come to such statements.

I very much hope the long exposition of the contrary evidence I am sending you and him will call him back on the safe path of direct and unbiased interpretation of the available stratigraphical data. If not, I will not yet decide, what should be done.

Pending Dikaios' reply, I am sure you will prevent any digging in the compound below level of the top floor I. We will, when I come in autumn open together these floors and all three observe their contents.

But still I hope Dikaios will convince himself of his misinterpretation and renounce dating the ashlar compound with floor V in the early Iron Age. His analysis after reuse floor V and through floors IV to I can stand. But of course all those sweeping historical conclusions included in his summary (p.166 ss.) have to be left out until we come to safer foundations after further exploration of the site.

His article on the Statue also can stand as it is.