http://hdl.handle.net/11615/3198 Wed, 11 Mar 2026 23:04:16 GMT 2026-03-11T23:04:16Z http://hdl.handle.net/11615/3519 Προσθήκη In Plate 33a and β I offer a series of consecutive photographs made into a panorama that illustrate the condition of the East Wall of the Outer Court of the Lion Gate (i. e. the screen of ashlar conglomerate) before (a) and after (β) restoration. In the drawing of Plate 337 are indicated by hatching the blocks which are preserved in their original position. The others were added by the restorers. We believe that these documents will prove of service in the future to those who may wish to study the walls of Mycenae. Plates 35-37 offer aerial photographs of the citadel made, at my request, by the Royal Hellenic Airforce in the spring of 1964. To the officers and men who with their skill and effort contributed these unique documents to the stud}^ of the citadel of Agamemnon I want to express my deep gratitude. Sat, 01 Jan 1966 00:00:00 GMT http://hdl.handle.net/11615/3519 1966-01-01T00:00:00Z http://hdl.handle.net/11615/3517 Η βορειοανατολική επέκτασις That the extreme northeast section of the citadel of Mycenae was a later addition was pointed out by Tsountas in 1895, but the date of that addition and the purpose it served remained uncertain. The extension became the subject of our investigation for 1964 and then the method of its construction was especially studied. Its south wall, left in its original state (it is nowhere restored), stands to a height of 8 m. (Fig. 87) and was built of large stones leaving wide interstices between them. Often these spaces are too large and are filled by rectangular blocks set on edge (Fig. 88). The stones of the inner face around the so-called «Sally Port» are smaller, better worked, and present very narrow interstices (Fig. 87); this difference is due to the fact that the inner face was constructed with blocks taken from the demolished Northeast Cyclopean Wall of the first citadel. The removal of the fill of the core of the walls in three areas (Fig. 89) and the investigation of the interstices yielded a number of painted sherds (Fig. 97) sufficient to prove that the Northeast Extension was constructed towards the end of the LH III B period, perhaps at its very end. The foundation courses of the outer southeast corner of the Extension (Fig. 90), some blocks remaining in situ beyond it to the south (PI. 27), and the formation of the rocks beyond the east corner of the extension (Pis. 28 and 30) indicate the existence towards the ravine of an outer platform along the southeast side of the Extension. The so-called «Sally Port» (Fig. 87) was but a passage to that platform and should therefore be called the «Southeast Passage». On the north wall of the Extension and some 4.50 m. from the opening of the subterranean cistern (Fig. 91) exists another passage (Plan B) running diagonally through the wall. This was believed to have been a drain. The clearing of the area proved it to be a real «Sally Port», to be known as the «North Sally Port» constructed most strategically (Fig. 92). A ramp from the interior of the Extension led to its entrance (Fig. 93). Further clearing of the area proved that the foundations revealed by Tsountas and believed to belong to the Hellenistic period belonged in the main to Mycenaean times and to a large structure( Building B, Plan B, composed of a number of rooms on the floors of which were found crushed a number of vases and vessels of lead proving its date (Fig. 94). Building B occupies almost half of the area of the extension, while on the south side stood another structure, Building A,, of the same Mycenaean period. Of Building A survive a basement room, actually found below the so-called Cyclopean retaining wall (Fig. ι,α. β), containing the remnants of 6 pithoi and a quantity of shattered pottery, and part of another room in which were found in situ threefourths of a bath tub (Plan B and Fig. 95). Apparently the rest of the tub was destroyed by Schliemann’s laborers in 1874 when they dug a trench across the area. The study of the buildings and the pottery will appear at a later time. We can conclude here that these buildings prove that the area of the extension was not an open court where people and animals took refuge in times of war, as it was assumed until today, but that it was occupied by public buildings. This proves that the main reason for the building of the Northeast Bxtension was to secure an adequate supply of water in times of war or siege. This was attained by the construction of the subterranean cistern with its approach and opening in the citadel. Sherds found in the fill of the ramp to the North Sally Port (Fig. 98) prove that it as well as the Extension and its subterranean cistern were constructed in the closing years of the LH III B period. Sat, 01 Jan 1966 00:00:00 GMT http://hdl.handle.net/11615/3517 1966-01-01T00:00:00Z http://hdl.handle.net/11615/3516 Ο κύκλος Α και η επικλινής ανάβασις (ramp) The clearing of the inner face of the West Cyclopean Wall revealed again the foundation existing below the retaining wall of the parapet of slabs of Grave Circle A (PI. 23). Its complete clearance proved that it is a segment of a circular wall that originally limited the area of the shaft graves. The investigation of its fill, under the supervision of Miss Olga Alexandri, yielded 22 small sherds dating the wall. Of these 4 were Gray Minyan, 11 Yellow Minyan, 7 mattpainted, one with a geometric decoration painted in dull white color. These sherds prove that the circular wall is contemporary with the earlier shaft graves of Circle A and place it to the second half and towards the end of the MH period. The clearance, by the late Dr. John Papadimitriou, of a cist grave under the slabs of the parapet some 1.30 m. from the entrance of the Circle enabled him to point out that at places the foundation stones of the Ramp rest over a layer of chips formed when the slabs of the parapet were worked and to conclude that the Ramp was not contemporary with the rearrangement of the Circle as maintained by Wace. The further investigation of the area confirmed that observation (Figs. 68 and 69) and proved that the stones of that foundation in places overlap the base of the broken slabs (Figs. 71, 72, and 73). This proves definitely that the retaining wall of the Ramp was built sometime after the rearrangement of the Circle. The examination of the interstices of the block of that wall (Fig. 74) failed to yield sherds that would determine its date, but brought to light a drain which had remained undetected (Figs. 75, 76, and 77). Its opening was found closed with small stones and this seems to have occurred at the beginning of LH III C, as the latest sherds found in its fill indicate (Figs. 73, 78, and 79). The drain and its relation to the area immediately to the west of the Grave Circle — to the Little Ramp, the Ramp House, etc.— remain problematical and will be investigated at a later date. The effort to determine the date of the Great Ramp culminated in a trench some 5.50 m. in length from north to south and 3.45 m. in width from east to west. The present-day cobblestone pavement was considered as Stratum No. 1. Below it a layer of earth containing some small stones was found, Stratum 2, averaging 45-50 cm. in depth; it yielded 54 sherds, 4 of which were painted (Fig. 80, Nos. 6- 14). Stratum 3 was composed of a fill of Cyclopean blocks in three superposed rows (Figs. 81, 82, and PI. 24, Γ) loosely piled. The earth between the stones yielded 42 sherds, 14 of which were painted (Fig. 84 Nos. 11 - 25). Incidentally, on this fill of stones were based the blocks which form the lateral wall of the Ramp (Fig. 83, ji - π). The conglomerate blocks ««», of the same figure, form but a single row and not another wall as was assumed heretofore, meant to retain the fill to the rocky formation beyond. Below the fill of stones, Stratum 4 was formed of a well - packed layer of earth 10-15 cm. in depth, evidently the surface of an earlier ramp that ascended from north to south (Fig. 81 and PL 74); this ramp had an average width of 2.50 m., leaving a free passage to Grave Circle A of ca. 3.50 m. 18 sherds were found in Stratum 4, of which 5 were painted (Fig. 84, Nos. 6 - 10). Stratum 5 consisted of another hard - surfaced layer, 5-17 cm. in depth, made up of hard reddish earth and pebbles (Fig. 81 and PI. 24). Bvidently it was another ramp which, however, ascended from south to north. It yielded 5 MH and 20 Mycenaean sherds, of which 9 were painted (Fig. 80, Nos. 15-23). Stratum 6 also contained a hard - surfaced ramp ascending from south to north laid over a packing of stones (Fig. 81 and PI. 24). All the sherds from this stratum belong to the MH period. The lowermost Stratum (No. 7) below the fill of stones of Stratum 6, extended to the rock, was made up of brownish earth, and contained MH sherds; its lowermost 10 cm. yielded also some BH plain sherds. It is . evident from the description of the layers that we have 4 different, superimposed ramps. Ramp No 1 is the existing cobble - covered Ramp that apparently was made towards the end of LH III B. Ramp 2 of Stratum 4 an earlier construction, belongs to the middle of LH III B and evidently was constructed when the Lion Gate was built. Ramp 3, in Stratum 5, with a different direction of ascent (from south to north), also belongs to LH III times, but it preceded the construction of the Lion Gate and led to the entrance of the first citadel (Fig. 85). Ramp 4, in Stratum 6, was the original ascent to the northwest slope and through it to the top of the hill used from MH to LH III A times. Ramp No i covered completely the area to the Grave Circle and thus blocked the passage to the houses and buildings to the west of that Circle. To make access possible the Little Ramp was then built, which thus is indicated to be contemporary with Ramp i, and should be placed towards the end of LH III B. Sat, 01 Jan 1966 00:00:00 GMT http://hdl.handle.net/11615/3516 1966-01-01T00:00:00Z http://hdl.handle.net/11615/3518 Οι περίβολοι της ακροπόλεως των Μυκηνών Architectural and ceramic evidence obtained through our investigations proves that the existing remains of the fortification walls are not contemporary, but were built in three different periods of the Mycenaean Age (LH III period). No remains of earlier fortification walls, antedating LH III A, have been found thus far. The First Citadel, dating from LH III A-2, contained the existing North Cyclopean Wall, the older part of the existing South Cyclopean Wall to the beginning of the Extension, the original Northeast Cyclopean Wall, a few stones and the two ends of which survive, part of the West Wall behind the conglomerate curtain from the northwest corner of the citadel to the Lion Gate area. That West Wall, as Tsountas suggested long ago, continued, originally, to the south and to Chavos; but that part of its length was demolished at a later time. I think I demonstrated that it is possible to equate its line with the Cyclopean retaining wall which I call TW in honor of Tsountas and Wace. The 3 lowermost courses of the- existing north end of Wall TW are the original courses of the West Cyclopean Wall of the first enceinte. Wall TW proceeds in a series of set-backs to the edge of the ravine where the South Cyclopean Wall stood and thus closed the citadel on the west side. The entrance to the First Citadel is not preserved, but it is suggested that it was to be found above and to the southeast of the area where later the Lion Gate was constructed; it had the form suggested by the conjectured plan of figure 85. The sketch plan of the First Citadel is given in Figure 102 No. 1. The second citadel included a larger area to the southwest of the first, and to it belongs the Lion Gate and the existing West Cyclopean Wall, Figure 102, No 2. When the Northwest Extension was added to the Second, resulted the Third and latest Citadel of Mycenae, Figure 102, No. 3. In a general summary I offer the sequence of construction at Mycenae as indicated by the architectural and the ceramic evidence obtained from 1958 to 1964. 1. The first peribolos was built, i. e. the North, the Northeast, the South and the original West Cyclopean Walls. Ramp No 3 was constructed leading to the entrance as indicated in Figure 85. Date: LH III A-2. 2. The Re-arrangement of Grave Circle A, the building of the Lion Gate and the existing West Cyclopean Wall followed. The bastion and the conglomerate screen in front of the Cyclopean Wall were constructed at the same time. Ramp No 2 from the Lion Gate to the Palace on the summit was made. Date: About the middle of LH III B. 3. The Building of the Postern Gate and of its bastion occurred. Date: After the middle of LH III B. 4. The Construction of the monumental Ramp No 1, of the Little Ramp, of the East Platform and its retaining Wall No 9, followed. The transformation of the remnants of the West Wall of the Peribolos into the retaining wall TW to the Southwest Staircase was completed. Date: After the middle of LH III B and perhaps in its last quarter. 5. The Northeast Extension with its subterranean cistern, its North Sally Port and its South Passage to an outside platform was constructed. Buildings A and B were erected. Date: Towards the end of LH III B. It is possible to assume that works No 4 and 5 were carried out concurrentl} r and that the construction of the Northeast Extension followed immediately that of the Postern Gate. This gradual expansion of the citadel is in agreement with Mycenaean practices and corresponds to the stages in development of the citadel of Tiryns. On purpose in this listing I give periods and not dates, because the chronological limits of LH III B have not been established to the satisfaction of all. I believe that the period should be dated from ca. 1300 B. C. to ca. 1190 B. C. Sat, 01 Jan 1966 00:00:00 GMT http://hdl.handle.net/11615/3518 1966-01-01T00:00:00Z