Unnumbered pageScan 34 of 38
- 16 -
He is publishing a long study (85 pages of text) entitled "Essai de classification de la céramique mycénienne d'Enkomi campagne 1946-47." entirely based on my finds of this pottery, study which is already in the hand of the printer and will appear simultaneously with Dikaios' report in Enkomi I.
P.176-7. I would advise Dikaios not to go to war against debated about the question if or not the connection of Cyprus with Mycenae were severed at the end of LC II (=late Bronze Age) about 1200 B.C. Neither debated nor Dikaios nor myself, can as yet decide that with the material available. Besides the whole question rests on a rather subjective evaluation of how much mycenean inheritance really is left in the LC III or Myc.III C ware; and secondly, on the dates given to this ware not with the help of stratigraphical data, but purely after typological and stylistic examination by Furumark, the latest date of which are now generally thought to be slightly too late. A phrase like: "the discovery of these late Mycenean wares shows that Cyprus maintained relations with the Mycenean world all through the XIIth century and even in the early eleventh." (p.176-7) is definitely out of proportion with the available evidence and with the character of a preliminary report.
P.177: For an eventual prototype to amphora pl.III.5, see Relations en Chypre, pl.XXIII (4) and fig. 27.
P.178. The real impact of new pottery types at the beginning of LC III has been previously observed by Stoyvist and myself and reference to this would be useful, to underline the solidarity of the observations in Dikaios' mantlet with that elsewhere in the city. But his "supposed influx of a strong wave of Achaean colonists" here again is out of proportion with what new pottery arrival can presently tell us. All these attempts to bring strong waves of Achaeans = Greeks, into the picture are [handwritten: blue annotation] as yet premature in a first report of a first dig in a site, the excavations of which has only started. I do not like to fix in advance important issues, which have first to be demonstrated.
P.179: same remark concerning the so-called Mycenean stratum which is not proved.
P. 181. Dikaios' reservations come here unfortunately too late. He says he wishes "to abstain from entering in a detailed discussion of the absolute chronology of the building and of the bearing which this may have on the whole problem of the chronology of LC III (Early Iron Age). A full discussion on this subject ... Does he think he can again fill 60 pages with another discussion of what he already said at length in his present report. Paper and printing are expensive and he should do as we all must, be economical in words. What is vital: the chronology of compound with floor V and its bearing on the chronology of the LC III (=early Iron) period has been fixed in his report and in such a determined and lengthy form that it would not be easy for Dikaios … continues
65 figures hard to readstruck struck outadded written in above” jug ditto, and what it repeatsword reading not certain