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

I wish Dikaios may very carefully go into this matter and let me know as soon as possible if he can accept my dating of the material (p. 142 of Dikaios' report).

In the first case (room VI) the same mixture of Late Bronze and early Iron Age pottery of the same floor V is taken as contemporary of the period immediately posterior to the conflagration and the alterations of the original building which followed it (which is right). In the other case (room XIV) it is taken as contemporary of the time immediately after the erection of the building, that is to say, it is contemporary with this building and anterior to the same conflagration [handwritten: illegible].

Now, remember please, how the same stratigraphical position was interpreted in room XIV (discussed above) where, as I said Dikaios made his fateful mistake interpretation: here and immediately above the same earliest floor V, the earliest of the building resting on the bedrock (p.107), were found a hearth of LC III (or early Iron Age) with Late Bronze Age admixture and in its neighbourhood more Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age sherds. Here Dikaios concluded on the contrary that this pottery on and immediately above floor V "represents the current wares at the time following the erection of the building (p.108) and therefore are an "indication of the date of the main tripartite building the erection of which can hardly be placed earlier than 1200 B.C."

But from the layer above floor V, between floors V and IV, Dikaios reports a generous quantity of a mixture of Middle Bronze, Late Bronze and Early Iron Age sherds, which is quite normal in a layer posterior to the conflagration and contemporary to the time of the reuse of the building. Here Dikaios concludes quite logically: "All this pottery although not found actually on floor V is in immediate contact with it, and as this floor is the first actual one of the building, the pottery in question belongs to the period immediately after the conflagration and the alterations which followed it." Right.

On the other hand you will notice how clear and easy the position becomes when the interpretation submits to the facts as they are: P. 150, Dikaios reports that he observes in room VI above floors and fills number VI: On floor V which is according to Dikaios the "first actual floor of the building" on which have taken place the alterations and reconditionings which are caracteristic of the whole compound after the conflagration (p.150). Traces of fire are observable, but apparently no pottery was left: which can be explained by the systematic sweeping and removal of debris observed elsewhere after the disaster. [handwritten: illegible]

You observe here, how one mistake is need to oppose an evidence hostile to it and hostile to the whole structure of Dikaios' argument.