Atkinson, Thomas [Mitarb.]
Excavations at Phylakopi in Melos — London, 1904

Seite: 258
Zitierlink: 
https://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/diglit/atkinson1904/0278
Lizenz: Creative Commons - Namensnennung - Weitergabe unter gleichen Bedingungen Nutzung / Bestellung
0.5
1 cm
facsimile
258

DUNCAN MACKENZIE

changes affecting the plan of individual houses within that town. Thus
wo may be fairly certain that the fortifications and the arrangement of the
town, taken as a whole, belong to the original plan and to the earliest period
of the Second City. In the history of the Second City we are not able to
get back to a period when that settlement was unforfcified. No part of the
town can be made out to be older than the strong-wall.

On the other hand, as regards individual houses of the town there is no
cvidcnce so definite as would enable us to assign any of them to this
earliest period. It is usually impossible to gauge the evidence as to how
oftcn a house on a certain site may have been remodelled or rebuilt in the
course of the habitation by one kin of that site. And there is a further
complication of possible data. Both kin and site may be changed, the kin
may survive and the site change or the site may remain with new house and
new kin. Just as the data assignable to reconstruction get lost so the
dejoosit gets dispersed. There are no floor-deposits that can be definitely
assigned to the earliest period of the Second City.

With dispersed and waste deposit again we have now a difficulty that
was absent in the case of the corresponding deposit of the First City.
In that case it will be recollected that of deposit-fmds referable to the
earliest period a class of potsherds was found in the test-pit in J 1,
partially coincident with and super-imposcd upon the earliest class of wäre
in that pit, which again was found to be identical with the pottery of the
earliest Cyclaclic tombs. Similar pottery was, however, found elsewhere
next the rock all over the site. On the other hand, none of this fragmentary
pottery could be brought down to such a date as would make it con-
temporary with the potter)' found on the earliest house Moors of the First
City, and none of it was found on such floors. We thus had to refer it to
the intervening era, the earliest period of the First City, and to deposit that
had already got dispersed before the period to which the earliest floor-deposits
were assignable. On the other hand again, except in the region of J ],
there was no waste deposit on the site that was earlier than this.

With the earliest period of the Second City it is different. The earliest
stray deposit of this period does not, as was the case with that of the First
City, rest upon the virgin soil but as a rule on the debris of the whole First
City. Thus there is no part of the site on which the earliest stray deposit
of the Second City may not be coincident with the latest debris and waste
deposit of the First. How are we to separate the data ? Fortunate!)' in
the transition from one settlement to the other the general fact of continuity
in development is more apparent than any clearly definable distinetion in
the character of the deposit, such as would answer to the break in archi-
tectural continuity. Thus, while we may not be able to separate what
belongs to the latest deposit of the First City from what belongs to the
earliest deposit of the Second, we can arrive at sufficient certainty regarding
what is earlier as a whole than the earliest floor-deposits of the Second Citv.

As indicative of continuity in development the following facts have to
be observed. While none of the pottery PI, IV-IX is found to be charac-
loading ...