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

Continued from scan 5

… before the rearrangements which followed the fire. This is proved by the fact that at the time of the rearragements following the conflagration, before building the rubble wall which runs along the south edge of the hearth, the latter was cut out to enable the wall to be constructed on the floor. It will be possible for Dr. Schaeffer to inspect this on his next visit. Consequently, if the hearth belongs to a re-utilization of a 14th century building in the 12th, the re-utilization was in the original, pre-rearrangement form. Can a building of the 14th have served the needs of the 12th century without any alteration?

As regards my dating: is it wrong to date a floor from the latest pottery found on it? and is it wrong to date a building from the pottery found on its earliest floor? I cannot see that in doing so I have done anything unreasonable. The fact is that twelfth century pottery has been found not only under the hearth but also on other parts of the floor and in pits dug in it. Such earlier sherds as were found cannot carry the same weight since some of them were found above 12th century sherds; they do not therefore prove earlier construction and use of the building and re-utilization in the 12th century. That chronology if it is to stand must be established on other evidence. Even if all other material on floor V derives from re-use of that floor after the burning, clearance and repair of the building, the 12th century sherds under the hearth remain to date its earlier use.

If the pottery found on floor V of Room XIV is to be attributed to a re-utilisation of it in the early 12th century and if we must attribute the building to the fourteenth century or earlier then we must account for the period between the fourteenth to the beginning of the twelfth century. Either traces of utilisation must appear in the form of floors and objects used on them (as in the 12th century) especially if as Dr. Schaeffer believes (p.4 of his analysis) that my building was perhaps erected in LC1 which means a long utilisation until the time of the reuse, or, since no such traces exist and floor V rests partly on the rock, we must assume as Dr. Schaeffer suggests on p.12 of his analysis of my report, that the destruction in the fourteenth /century … continues