Five letters from Dikaios to Schaeffer about the excavations at EnkomiPorphyrios Dikaios

COPY.

Enkomi, Monastery of St.Barnabas, 30 May 1949.

Dear friend,

... The question of the earthquakes: I am more and more convinced that it took place in LCIII. Since my letter of the 6th we have touched Mycenaean floors which show no stratigraphic sign relating to a catastrophe. The demolition layer is observed only between level (or floor) I and II, after which the floors succeed one another in a natural manner and without an intermediate demolition layer. Furumark's opinion (cited in your letter of 19 May) supports my observation. I should like everywhere to reach the bottom of my stratigraphic layers before declaring myself definitively. That there was a catastrophe of seismic origin in LCIII seems certain to me. But I should like to reach the bottom of the layers examined by me before excluding such a catastrophe in the 14th century. I agree with you that even an earthquake of the 5th century may have shaken the walls of Enkomi, but the demolition layer is conclusive.

As I have already said, I have touched purely Mycenaean floors with Mycenaean and Cypriot pottery on them. Very interesting, as it will date our palace. Each floor contains, besides the pottery, objects of a domestic nature etc. etc. So far I have touched the V or VI° successive floor and the first four are LCIII. Obviously I must study the pottery in detail before giving the chronological limits.

The plan of the palace is becoming clearer and clearer, but a great deal more clearing is still needed before it can be made entirely clear, and above all to uncover the original plan. I hope that by the end of the campaign I shall be able to give you more details.

As regards the relations of the houses with the tombs, here is what I have been able to establish: just outside the northern limit of the palace I found a tomb. The northern "façade" of the palace is built in such a way that the wall is aligned with one of the sides of the dromos: here is a sketch: This indicates that the architect took the dromos into account. Unfortunately the tomb is looted, but it contains much LCII pottery, including Mycenaean pottery in fragments. This indicates that the tomb had been used during the period of the palace. Elsewhere we found Middle Bronze tombs (one intact), in one of which a formidable Mycenaean wall had been built.

Figure: sketch of a tomb plan with dromos and wall alignment; labels: none legible

The southern part of the palace lies in the hollow of the original ground. But in Mycenaean times (probably the 13th century) the level had deliberately been raised in order to reach the level of the floors of the northern part of the palace, which is built on an area where the rock is higher. Is the northern part slightly later than the southern part? This is what I am asking myself and what I am trying to clarify.