Unnumbered pageScan 1 of 8
Observations on the chronology of Dikaios' compound. ------------------
(Written after re-reading Dr. Schaeffer's analysis and Dikaios' notes thereon).
Room XIV, the hearth (your p.2). I agree with you that this is not necessarily contemporary with the original building, but I find correct Dikaios' conclusion that it antedates the rearrangements. From its position at the centre of Room XIV (before its subdivision) I feel it must relate to the use of this room in its original form - whether first use or re-utilization in the same original form.
Room XIV, material in and below floor V (your p.3). I feel there is not yet enough of this to justify conclusions as to the date of the floor. When you come we should decide on an area or areas for further trials. If we find indisputable LCIII pottery it will confirm Dikaios' date for the floor. But if it is all 14th century or earlier it will lend support to your interpretation.
Room XIV, material from first layer above floor V. I agree with you (p.23) that it is preferable to associate this (exclusive of the material/which followed the fire, and not with the first use of floor V, which seems to have been cleared before the alterations and repairs were carried out (particularly since it is consistent with Dikaios' interpretation of the material in the corresponding position in Room VI). But of course if this material accumulated on floor V in the 12th century the earlier sherds it contained cannot be cited as evidence that the floor was used in the 14th or 13th century.
Room X. Dikaios explains that the remains under floor IV were not co-terminous with Room X but are associated with a wall, the top of which was concealed by floor IV. The pottery there found /thus
Figure: vertical marginal note in typescript, rotated; labels: "/below the hearth) with the re-use of the building after the alterations"
65 figures hard to readstruck struck outadded written in above” jug ditto, and what it repeatsword reading not certain