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

Continued from scan 16

… compound and the evidence of these must be taken into account.

Conclusion. The above remarks represent my first reaction to Dr. Schaeffer's analysis of my report. I must confess that there are many points made by him which I have not answered but these can best be dealt with by discussion on the spot and in the Cyprus Museum where the material is stored. I therefore suggest that further discussion should be postponed until Dr. Schaeffer's arrival here. Meanwhile I suggest that my report should not be sent to the press. It can wait and if Dr. Schaeffer proves to me by evidence collected by himself or otherwise that I am mistaken in my chronology regarding the construction and first floor of the compound, I will gladly acknowledge my indebtedness to him for his correction when revising my report.

But I must once more assure Dr. Schaeffer that I never intended to undermine his conclusions or otherwise "destroy" his work. Such intentions are unscientific and never pay. The reality is that in my excavations at Enkomi I found evidence which I thought it was my first duty to present objectively and my second to interpret to the best of my ability. If in my interpretation I have said things which conflict with my first impression and with Dr. Schaeffer's views under the influence of which those first impressions were formed, it is because I could not conscientiously do otherwise at the time. We are none of us bound by our first impressions.

After all originally (Missions, p.84) Dr. Schaeffer thought that in the 12th century the dwellings encroached upon the area of the cemetery with the result that the tombs in that area were disused. He later (Stratigraphie, 584) revised his first impression and thought that town and cemetery topographically formed one single unit.

/I for … continues