Document·34 CDF art. 168-4·1950

Notes by P. Dikaios on Dr. Schaeffer's analysis of P. Dikaios' report on his "compound" at EnkomiPorphyrios Dikaios

·

Typed in English. Every line is transcribed, and the text sits beside the scan.

Scan 11 of document 34 CDF art. 168-4 (Notes by P. Dikaios on Dr. Schaeffer's analysis of P. Dikaios' report on his "compound" at Enkomi), typed in English. The transcription follows.

Scan: Collège de France, Paris, 34 CDF art. 168-4, CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.

Unnumbered pageScan 11 of 20

Continued from scan 10

… that the earlier deposit antedates and the first floor (V) of our compound postdates the use of the tomb, the period of which is given by the pottery.

Room X. Reading through what Dr.Schaeffer writes on p. 5 of his analysis, I came to the conclusion that he does not realise that the rubble wall uncovered under floor IV and all the floors associated with that wall have no connection with the compound. They belong to an earlier building which was abandoned before the erection of the compound. I made this clear on p.123 of my report when I said that the topmost of these early floors (V) (with those below it) was cut by the foundation trench in which the south wall of Room X rests. This means that all these remains have no connection with the compound and that all the ceramic material found in them cannot serve as dating evidence for the erection of the compound, except that it must have been later than the latest of that material.

As to the fragmentary bowl from floor IV, the first associated with the compound (653 Pl.XXXIX, 1) Professor Wace to whom I showed it in Alexandria was of the opinion that it was of the "granary" class. I preferred to compare it with late Levanto-Helladic pottery dated to the end of the 13th century which is not far from the beginning of the 12th century.

Room VI. In Dr. Schaeffer's chart for the stratification in this room, I find with pleasure that he considers that down to floor V i.e. the earliest floor of the building he accepts a LCIII date. Of course,according to Dr. Schaeffer, floor V has a double chronological meaning. It relates first to the original erection of the building (14th century) before the conflagration (=earthquake of 1365) and secondly to the time of re-use and the rearrangements (12th century). But here we come up against the same difficulty as in the case of floor V of Room XIV. Is it possible that the people who re-used the floor after an interval of nearly two

/centuries … continues

65 figures hard to readstruck struck outadded written in above” jug ditto, and what it repeatsword reading not certain

Spotted a wrong reading? Write to us or use alexis@ancientcyprus.com