Observations on the chronology of Dikaios' compoundArthur Hubert Stanley Megaw

I do not think Dikaios can be blamed for not bringing his 12th century disasters into relation with the 14th century earthquake identified in your areas.

Handwritten: Hta

The two disasters. Dikaios, I understand, distinguishes them as fire and earthquake respectively owing to the lack of general evidence of burning in the latter and the lack of accumulated debris associated with the former. Since the debris of the former disaster was removed he assumes it must have been less voluminous than the 1 metre approximately of debris left by the second disaster (earthquake), and in the case of a fire which was not equally destructive everywhere this would probably have been the case.

Room VI. I agree with you that there is nothing in the fills under floor V of this room to conflict with a date for that floor considerably earlier than the 12th century. Also that those fills cannot safely be dated by analogy with material in the similar fills in room III since they are isolated from each other. But if, as Dikaios says, the fills were introduced at the same time and are similarly composed, his argument has some validity in spite of the prima facie lack of logic.

Room III. I must agree with you that taken in isolation the pottery on floor V does not warrant a dating later than the 13th century. But whatever is the meaning of the fills sealed by this floor their contents are relevant, and the latest pottery in them is a terminus post quem for the first use of floor V. I hope that it will be possible to fix the date of this pottery with certainty.

thus gives a terminus post quem for the erection of the sablar building, not its actual date. On the other hand the one Levanto-Helladic sherd found with earlier pottery on floor IV is slender evidence on which to date it.