Unnumbered pageScan 4 of 12
On the main issue of the date of the construction of the original building and the first floor (V) I am really puzzled. For I feel that neither view can be wholly wrong. The salient fact is that the lack of finds on floor V at present robs both interpretations of proof. I cannot help feeling the layout of the earlier walls below floor V may hold the clue to the riddle. They are not all "jumble" and they are not orientated in the same directions as those of the compound. Some of the latter are directly over the earlier walls. Is it not possible that there was a major building on the same site of 14th-15th century date and that the LCIII newcomers were responsible not for a re-utilization but for a general reconstruction on new lines using old as well as new materials?
On particular points raised in your analysis I enclose some brief observations which I have written in the light of Dikaios' notes. I thought it might be useful to record how these matters now look to a third party.
I agree with Dikaios that finality cannot be reached now. There are points in dispute on which no more should be said until they can be reexamined with you on the site or (for the pottery) in the Museum. And perhaps it would be foolish to spend more time now wrestling with problems to which further excavations may provide undisputable answers.
Publication. I welcome your suggestion that Dikaios' first report should be published, separately from yours. This will give time for the necessary revision to be done in the light of this year's excavations without delaying your publication. It would also perhaps make it possible for Dikaios to make reference to proofs of Enkomi I and II and give more attention to the interrelationship between
/hia … continues
65 figures hard to readstruck struck outadded written in above” jug ditto, and what it repeatsword reading not certain