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

"as far as the Cypriot wares are concerned", in other words is LC II (=XIVth c.B.C.), but, he continues, "at the same time it (=floor IV) yielded a fragmentary bowl of Late Levanto- Helladic ware (653, pl.XXXIX,1). Now, Dikaios knows well, or should that Late Levanto-Helladic ware is typical not of LC III, but of the preceding LC II period, that is the XIVth- XIIIth c.B.C.

It is true that he does not say here that the Levanto- Helladic fragment from floor IV is LC III (p.124); this idea could only occur in the reader's mind by the curious "but" at the beginning of his phrase.

Dikaios' embarrassement grows with the floors V not extending into rooms IX-X (p.125); the explanation given by him (p.127 ss) does not satisfy him: "... has however one weak point" (p.129). Yes indeed, everything now goes wrong as shown above. How far he goes astray here can be gauged by the curious reasoning pp.125,126: here, between floors IV and III, he reports the presence of a filling containing pottery of Middle Cypriote + LC II wares mixed with a few Myc.III C fragments (= end XIIIth-XIIth c. according to Furumark, OA XII, p.262). This is quite normal as these floors according to the observation of room XIV are of postmycenaean = Cypriote Fer I (= LC III or Myc.III C) period. From the same filling he extracted: one scarab of Thotmes III and one domed seal with the picture of a philistine warrior. He concludes: "This seal and the fragment of Myc. III C 1 wares give the date of the fill: somewhere in the twelfth century B.C." And he adds: "This is in perfect agreement with the dates indicated for the erection of the building by the material on the earliest floor (V) in rooms XIII and XIV."

Now, I ask him: 1) what connection has the date of a fill between floors IV and III of a reused building on the date of the original floor V below and the erection of the building? 2) where can here be the perfect agreement between the XIIth c. date of this fill and his date of floor V underneath?

The fact is, it seems to me, that throughout the whole paragraph dedicated to the ceramic and chronology of room X (pages 121-135), Dikaios is struggling against the accumulating evidence opposing his dating of floor V and the building to which it belongs: a) floors VII-V are as he admits (p.123) LC I; b) even the layer between floors V and IV is still LC II and not yet LC III (p.124); c) floor IV shows similar evidence and (not "but") contained one fragment of levanto-helladic ware (late Myc. III B or III C he admits p.134) which is probably also LC II and not LC III (p.124); d) the behavior