TEXT: Fortress 
  OSPREY 
  PUBLISHING 
  Mycenaean Citadels 
  c. 1350-1200 BC 
  Nic Fields • Illustrated by Donato Spedaliere 
  
  DR N I C FIELDS started his 
  career as a biochemist before 
  joining the Royal Marines 
  for eight years. Having left 
  the military he went back to 
  university and completed a 
  BA and PhD in Ancient History 
  at the University of Newcastle. 
  He was Assistant Director at the 
  British School of Archaeology, 
  Athens, and is now a lecturer 
  in Ancient History at the 
  University of Edinburgh. 
  D O N A T O SPEDALIERE was 
  born in 1967 in Lausanne, 
  Switzerland, and moved to 
  Tuscany at the age of 10, where 
  he still lives. Having studied at 
  the Instituto Nazionale di Belle 
  Arti in Florence he served in the 
  Italian A r m y as a paratrooper. 
  He is the chief illustrator of Alina 
  lllustrazioni, the company he 
  founded in 1998 with his wife 
  the architect and painter Sarah 
  Sulemsohn. They have created 
  illustrations for books, museums 
  and magazines throughout 
  Europe, working for companies 
  including Osprey and the BBC. 
  
  Fortress • 22 
  OSPREY 
  PUBLISHING 
  Mycenaean Citadels 
  c. 1350-1200 BC 
  Nic Fields • Illustrated by Donato Spedaliere 
  Series editors Marcus Cowper and Nikolai Bogdanovic 
  
  First published in Great Britain in 2004 by Osprey Publishing, Elms Court, 
  Chapel Way, Botley, Oxford O X 2 9LP, United Kingdom. 
  Email: 
  info@ospreypublishing.com 
  © 2004 Osprey Publishing Ltd. 
  All rights reserved. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study, 
  research, criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents 
  Act, 1988, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, 
  or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, electrical, chemical, mechanical, 
  optical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written permission 
  of the copyright owner. Enquiries should be addressed to the Publishers. 
  ISBN 1 84176 762 X 
  Editorial by llios Publishing, Oxford, UK (www.iliospublishing.com) 
  Maps by The Map Studio, Romsey, UK 
  Index by Alison Worthington 
  Design: Ken Vail Graphic Design, Cambridge, UK 
  Originated by The Electronic Page Company, Cwmbran, UK 
  Printed in China through L-Rex Printing Company Ltd. 
  04 05 06 07 08 
  10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 
  I 
  A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. 
  FOR A CATALOGUE OF ALL BOOKS PUBLISHED BY OSPREY MILITARY 
  A N D AVIATION PLEASE CONTACT: 
  Osprey Direct UK, PO Box 140,Wellingborough, 
  Northants, N N 8 2FA, United Kingdom. 
  Email: 
  info@ospreydirect.co.uk 
  Osprey Direct USA, c/o MBI Publishing, PO Box I, 
  729 Prospect Ave, Osceola, Wl 54020, USA. 
  Email: 
  info@ospreydirectusa.com 
  www.ospreypublishing.com 
  Artist's note 
  Our sincere thanks to all who have helped in the preparation of 
  this book. We would like to dedicate this book to our dearest 
  daughter Alina. 
  Readers may care to note that the original paintings from which 
  the colour plates in this book were prepared are available for 
  private sale. All reproduction copyright whatsoever is retained by 
  the Publishers. AII enquiries should be addressed to: 
  Sarah Sulemsohn 
  Tel-Fax: 00 39 0575 692210 
  info@alinaillustrazioni.com 
  alina@alinaillustrazioni.com 
  www.alinaillustrazioni.com 
  The Publishers regret that they can enter into no correspondence 
  upon this matter. 
  Editor's note 
  When classical authors are referred to throughout the text the 
  standard form of reference has been adopted. The formula used is 
  'author', 'title' (if the author wrote more than one work) followed 
  by a one-, two- or three-figure reference. If the work is a play or 
  poem, the figure reference indicates either'line' or'book' and 
  'line'. Thus 'Homer (Odyssey 8.512)' refers to line 512 of the eighth 
  book of the Odyssey. Alternatively, if the work is a treatise, the 
  figure reference indicates'book' and 'chapter' or'book','chapter' 
  and 'paragraph'. Thus 'Strabo (13.1.32)' refers to paragraph 32 of 
  chapter 1 of the 13th book of the only surviving work by Strabo. 
  When modern authors are referred to throughout the text the 
  Harvard system of referencing has been adopted. The formula 
  used is 'author', 'publication date' followed by page number(s). 
  Thus 'Drews (1993: 106)' refers to page 106 of his 1993 
  publication, that is, The End of the bronze Age: Changes in Warfare 
  and the Catastrophe c. 1200 BC. 
  
  Contents 
  Introduction 
  4 
  Terminology and chronology 
  6 
  Aegean Bronze Age chronology • Chronology of major Bronze Age events 
  Mycenaean fortification systems 
  10 
  Location • Method of construction • Building programmes • Entrances 
  Distribution • Sources of inspiration 
  Mycenaean palace complexes 
  19 
  Distribution • Megaron • Court • Function 
  The sites 
  22 
  The Catalogue of Ships • Mycenae • Tiryns • Midea • Gla 
  Pylos • Other citadels 
  The Mycenaeans 
  53 
  'Bronze-armoured Achaians' • Mycenaean society • Collapse 
  Ancient authors 
  60 
  Apollodoros of Athens (fl. 140 BC) • Homer (c. 750-700 BC) 
  Pausanias (fl. AD I 15-176) • Strabo (b. c. 63 BC) 
  The sites today 
  61 
  Glossary 
  62 
  Bibliography 
  63 
  Index 
  64 
  
  Introduction 
  Fortification systems are pre-eminently the materialised expression of the 
  human fear of being attacked, and of losing life, freedom or property. Thus for 
  as long as humankind has required protection it has built fortifications. Put 
  simply, the art of fortification consists of the combination of terrain with 
  available materials to form defences. Conversely, siegecraft concerns the attack 
  of these fortifications. Throughout history there has been a changing balance 
  between attack and defence as technology and tactics swing the advantage first 
  one way and then the other. The prehistoric period is no different in this respect. 
  The earliest extant representation of siegecraft is a Dynasty V 
  (c. 2498-2345 BC) limestone bas-relief from the rock-cut tomb of Inti at 
  Deshaheh, Middle Egypt. It shows Egyptian warriors storming a fortified city by 
  a combination of scaling and breaching. Some are climbing the walls under 
  covering fire from archers, while others are busy prising at the mud-bricks, of 
  which the walls are evidently built, with picks. The walls, viewed from above, 
  are studded with well-built semicircular towers. 
  One of the primary purposes of the prehistoric development of permanent 
  habitation sites was defence, as illustrated by the preponderance of settlements 
  upon naturally defensible terrain. This purpose would evolve further, and the 
  first major urban centres, complete with elaborate fortification systems, were 
  flourishing in southern Mesopotamia by the second half of the 4th millennium 
  BC. A favourable geographical and ecological setting, namely the fertile valley of 
  the Tigris-Euphrates, and complex technological innovations, like the plough 
  and the irrigation canal, had enabled the production of a substantial food surplus 
  with relative ease. This led to the concentration of wealth and the need for walls 
  to defend it, as at Uruk (biblical Erech), where the enceinte was approximately 
  9.5km in length and studded by 900 or more semicircular bastions. 
  Although the oak-covered hills to the east and north of the Tigris-Euphrates 
  valley were home to a number of the earliest settled sites, the world's first 
  discernible fortified settlement was Jericho (Tell es-Sultan). The fortifications at 
  this oasis in the Jordan valley, which may have first attracted settlers as a hunting 
  site, have been dated to the early 7th millennium BC, although the most recent 
  opinion suggests they date back to the beginning of the 8th millennium BC. The 
  most impressive component of this Neolithic fortification system was a circular 
  stone tower standing 8.5m high and 10m in diameter. Associated with a 
  stone-built curtain-wall, 7m high and 3m thick, and a continuous V-shaped fosse 
  cut into bedrock, the tower was a solid stone structure with an internal staircase 
  of 22 steps that gave access to a fighting-platform. To these three defensive 
  elements - fosse, circuit-wall, tower - fortification architects were to add little 
  until the advent of gunpowder. Within the enceinte the settlement of 
  roundhouses covered an area of 3ha and contained some 1,500 people, of which 
  one-third were probably capable of bearing arms. Jericho should be viewed not 
  simply as a refuge but also as a stronghold, that is, a place not merely of 
  short-term safety but also of active defence. 
  Modern scholars have hypothesised that there were two major reasons that 
  lay behind the construction of walls around settlements. First, walls were 
  developed as a defence from handheld projectile weapons, that is, the self-bow 
  and the sling, two products of the recent revolution in weapons technology. 
  Second, the development of a sedentary lifestyle based upon agriculture and 
  animal husbandry. The two are intrinsically linked, since protection against 
  projectile weapons was possible only once humans had settled and began to live 
  4 
  
  in a fixed place, thus giving them the opportunity to construct permanent 
  defensive works. Behind their new walls Neolithic communities could store 
  surpluses of food and, because they could fall back behind the walls for 
  protection, they could exploit the land outside them with some sense of security. 
  The development of fortified settlements in Europe began towards the end 
  of the Neolithic period, and there is evidence of the enclosure of habitation 
  sites with ditches and/or timber palisades. Such enclosing features later 
  developed into genuine fortifications, their strength reflecting not only the 
  need to protect a settlement and its contents, but also a desire to display power 
  and wealth as a sign of rank at a time of emerging social differentiation. Some 
  of the earliest examples are to be found in Greece. They include Sesklo and 
  Dimini in Thessaly, two earlier unfortified settlements that were enclosed by 
  stone walls sometime in the 4th millennium BC. The strength of the 
  fortifications at Dimini, and probably at Sesklo too, was not so much in the 
  walls itself, as in their number and placement. 
  The hill site was surrounded by at least six circuit-walls, one within the other 
  and 1 to 15m apart. They vary in thickness from 0.6 to 1.4m, were possibly 2 to 
  3m in height, and were made of rough slate set in clay. The walls followed the 
  natural contours of the oval-shaped hill and had no corners or bastions. Many 
  narrow entranceways provided access to the centre, and the passageways 
  between each circuit-wall had cross-wall partitions, which further strengthened 
  the defences by creating a challenging maze for any attacker trying to reach the 
  central point of the enclosure. This example of a Late Neolithic fortification 
  nicely illustrates the simplicity of offensive weapons and the means that 
  attackers had for assaulting an enclosed settlement. 
  The Argive plain, looking north 
  towards Mycenae from the Larissa 
  of Argos, the citadel crouches 
  between the two conical-shaped 
  mountains just right of centre. 
  Watered by the Inachos, the 
  Charadros and other seasonal 
  streams, this plain was the 
  powerhouse of the Mycenaean 
  world. Its dryness was attributed in 
  antiquity to the wrath of Poseidon 
  because Inachos, the chief river of 
  Argos and its god, allotted the 
  country to Hera. Hence Argos is 
  'very thirsty' in Homer (Iliad 4.171). 
  Close to the sea, however, the land 
  is marshy, and between the marshes 
  and the upper part of the plain is 
  the fertile tract of land, which was 
  celebrated in Homer (Iliad 2.287) 
  for the horses bred in its pastures. 
  (Author's collection) 
  5 
  
  Terminology and 
  chronology 
  The splendid vista, looking 
  south-west from the palace of 
  Mycenae, takes in the Argive plain 
  with the Larissa of Argos prominent 
  just left of centre. A Mycenaean 
  citadel was a fortification and 
  residence rather than a mere 
  fortress, and the placement of the 
  palace at Mycenae on the summit of 
  a rocky outcrop could be taken as 
  evidence that a view was a common 
  concern of Mycenaean architects. 
  However, it is far more likely that 
  the occupant of this palace simply 
  wanted his residence to be located 
  physically above any other structure 
  within his capital as a symbol of his 
  own elevated social status. 
  (Author's collection) 
  Humankind knew metal as early as the Neolithic period, but the terms 'Stone', 
  'Bronze' and 'Iron' ages have their roots in Christian Jiirgensen Thomsen's 
  Three-Age System (1819). For sake of convenience this three-part system for the 
  chronological classification of prehistoric artefacts is still employed as reference 
  points to this day. The main characteristics of the Aegean Bronze Age - apart 
  from the wider use and distribution of metals - are as follows: 
  • Technical specialisation and the division of labour 
  • Increase in population 
  • Long-distance trade and contact with the Near East 
  • The emergence of social complexity and hierarchy 
  • The emergence of hilltop citadels 
  • Monumental building programmes 
  • Urban planning 
  • High quality art and metalwork 
  • The administrative use of seals and writing 
  Lacking written records, we rely upon stratification and the comparison of 
  objects from other sites to establish a relative chronology for the Aegean 
  Bronze Age. Absolute dating may be approached through proven Aegean 
  relationships with Egypt and Mesopotamia, but its use is less than reliable. 
  6 
  
  This problem is well illustrated by the fierce debate, which has been raging 
  since 1987, over the absolute date for the eruption of the Cycladic island of Thera 
  (Santorini). The caldera created by the volcanic eruption measures some 83km2 
  in area, the largest to date. It presently extends down as much as 480m below sea 
  level inside the wall of cliffs that surrounds it, which themselves rise as much as 
  300m above sea level. Unsurprisingly, its impact upon the cultural history of the 
  Aegean and eastern Mediterranean worlds has been widely discussed. According 
  to S. Marinatos, the first excavator of the Bronze Age settlement of Akrotiri on 
  the southern tip of Thera (1967-74), there is an intimate connection between the 
  Theran eruption and the collapse of the Minoan palatial civilisation on Crete 
  and the subsequent arrival of the Mycenaeans there. 
  Traditionally this cataclysmic event was placed around 1500 BC, but in 
  recent years this date has been questioned and pushed back to circa 1628 BC. If 
  this date is correct, which is based on radiocarbon dating with further 
  confirmation from ice-core dates from Greenland and dendrochronological 
  evidence from Northern Ireland, then the whole chronological system of the 
  eastern Mediterranean needs to be changed. 
  It is, therefore, always best to describe an archaeological assemblage in terms 
  of a relative chronological label (e.g. Early Cycladic, Middle Minoan, Late 
  Helladic) rather than in terms of its supposed duration in calendar years BC. 
  Historical phasing in Aegean archaeology is primarily based upon a regional 
  classification system derived from common traits in material culture, 
  socio-political organisation and religious beliefs. For the Aegean Bronze Age 
  four regional cultures can be distinguished: mainland Greece, Cyclades, Crete, 
  and Western Anatolia. 
  Classification has its roots in the archaeological discoveries of the 19th 
  century when Heinrich Schliemann and his excavation at Mycenae (1874-76) 
  established Aegean prehistory, the term 'Mycenaean' being applied to similar 
  material found in other Aegean sites. However, Schliemann was only seeking 
  The legendary citadel of Mycenae, 
  as seen from the Treasury of Atreus 
  looking north-east. Directly behind 
  the citadel rock rises Profltis llias 
  (750m), one of the two peaks that 
  overlook Mycenae, and to the right 
  runs the winter torrent known as 
  the Khavos. Access to the citadel, 
  therefore, is made difficult by these 
  physical features and, as a 
  consequence, the hill (278m) is a 
  splendid natural strongpoint, despite 
  it being lower than the surrounding 
  peaks. (Author's collection) 
  7 
  
  sites that featured in the Homeric epics, excavating Troy, Mycenae, Tiryns and 
  Orchomenos with the primary aim of verifying the legends. The excavations of 
  C. Tsountas, however, at Early Bronze Age cemeteries in the Cyclades 
  (1898-99) and Neolithic sites in Thessaly (1901-03), provided evidence for the 
  existence of a pre-Mycenaean culture. He was also responsible for the 
  methodical excavation of the fortified hilltop settlement at Kastri on Syros, one 
  of the important examples that serve as possible forerunners to Mycenaean 
  military architecture. 
  The first scientific excavation at Phylakopi on Melos (1896-99), under the 
  British School at Athens, set out to investigate the relationships of Tsountas' 
  'Cycladic Civilisation'. Soon after, Sir Arthur Evans devised a tripartite system 
  of classification for Aegean prehistory based upon his excavation at the Minoan 
  palace of Knossos, with the assumption that all civilisations have a period of 
  rise, maturity and decay. Accordingly, he divided the Cretan material into three 
  phases, namely Early, Middle and Late Minoan, paralleling the tripartite 
  division of Egyptian history into Old, Middle and New Kingdoms. He saw 
  Minoan civilisation (named after the legendary king Minos) as ordered, with a 
  highly centralised bureaucracy analogous to contemporary Near Eastern states. 
  The terminology used for the Aegean Bronze Age was firmly based on 
  discoveries in the Near East, that is, palace, town, state, king and military elite. 
  As a result, attention was now focused upon Late Bronze Age palaces, and the 
  discovery of elaborate architecture, fortification systems and rich burials. 
  Bucking the trend, C. W. Blegen and A. J. B. Wace conducted excavations at 
  Korakou in Corinthia and Eutresis in Boiotia (1920) and established a 
  pre-Mycenaean phase that they named 'Helladic', thereby stressing the 
  individuality of the Greek mainland past. This was in direct conflict with Evans 
  and his acolytes, who assumed that Helladic culture was Minoan and not Greek. 
  The Bronze Age culture of the mainland is labelled 'Helladic' after Hellas, the 
  Greek term for Greece. The Early Helladic (EH) was a time of prosperity, with 
  the use of metals and a growth in technology, economy and social 
  organisation. By comparison the Middle Helladic (MH) period was a backwater 
  period, developing at a much slower pace with the evolution of megaron-type 
  cist (or box-shaped) graves, use of wheel-made pottery and contacts with the 
  Cyclades and Minoan Crete. However, towards the end of the Middle Helladic 
  period a number of centres of power arose, sites of considerable wealth 
  dominated by a small military elite (cf. the Shaft Graves in Grave Circle A at 
  Mycenae with their vast quantities of gold, weapons and exotic imports). The 
  Late Helladic (LH) or Mycenaean period (c. 1650-1050 BC) represents the first 
  advanced civilisation with its palace and urban organisation, fortification 
  systems, works of art and writing system. Needless to say Minoan culture 
  played a major role in the shaping and development of Mycenaean culture. 
  After the eruption of Thera and the series of catastrophes that swept Crete, 
  the centre of gravity shifted from the Aegean to mainland Greece. The 
  Mycenaeans superseded the Minoans and spread their influence throughout 
  the Aegean. Around the mid-15th century BC they established themselves at 
  Knossos. The earliest palace structures are likely to be the megaron-type 
  buildings, such as the Menelaion in Lakonia. Palaces proper are datable to the 
  LH IIIA period when the Cyclopean fortifications were built at Mycenae and 
  Tiryns. During the LH IIIB period Mycenaean Greece reached its apogee. This 
  was the time of the Mycenaean commonwealth (koine) throughout the Aegean 
  (cf. 'The Trojan War'). 
  Aegean Bronze Age chronology 
  All dates are approximate, not absolute, and come almost entirely from two 
  sources, namely, radiocarbon dates and artefacts. The artefacts are those foreign 
  objects of reasonably secure date found in archaeologically sound Aegean 
  contexts, and Aegean objects (whose relative date in Aegean contexts is secure) 
  8 
  
  found as imports in foreign (mainly Egyptian) contexts whose date does not 
  depend entirely on a relative cultural sequence. 
  Near East 
  Mainland Greece 
  Dates 
  Early Bronze Age (EBA) 
  Middle Bronze Age (MBA) 
  Late Bronze Age (LBA) 
  Early Helladic (EH) 
  Middle Helladic (MH) 
  Late Helladic (LH) 
  c. 2900-2000 BC 
  c. 2000-1650 BC 
  c. 1650-1050 BC 
  PROTO-PALATIAL PERIOD 
  LH I, IIA & IIB 
  Grave Circles A & B, Mycenae 
  c. 1650-1425 BC 
  PALATIAL PERIOD 
  LH IIlA&lllB 
  LH IIIB/C 
  Mycenaean palace complexes 
  Palace destruction levels 
  c. 1425-1200 BC 
  c. 1200 BC 
  POST-PALATIAL PERIOD 
  LH lllc 
  Sub-Mycenaean 
  Transition to Iron Age 
  c. 1190-1050 BC 
  c. 1050-1000 BC 
  Chronology of major Bronze Age events 
  All chronological dates must be taken as circa not absolute, as the latter are not 
  yet very reliable and many different sets of dates are often in use for one and 
  the same phase or period. 
  3100 
  Start of Bronze Age culture on mainland Greece, Cyclades and Crete 
  3100-1900 
  Minoan Pre-Palatial period on Crete (EM l-lll & MM IA) 
  2900 
  Hisarlik is settled and soon fortified (Troy I) 
  2600 
  Start of Cycladic culture in the Cyclades 
  2450 
  Troy Ik destroyed but soon rebuilt (Troy HA) 
  1900-1700 
  Minoan Proto-Palatial period on Crete (MM IB-IIB) 
  1700-1450 
  Minoan Neo-Palatial period on Crete (MM III-LM IB) 
  1700-1250 
  Troy VI, established by Neo-Trojans, major trade centre and 
  maritime power 
  1650-1 550 
  Grave Circle B at Mycenae (LH I) 
  1650 
  Foundation of Hattusas-Bogazkoy by Hattusili I 
  1628 
  Cataclysmic eruption of T h e r a (Santorini) according to scientists 
  1600 
  Cyclades under Minoan influence 
  1550-1425 
  Grave Circle A at Mycenae (LH I-IIB) 
  1500 
  Cataclysmic eruption of T h e r a according to archaeologists 
  1457 
  Battle of Meggido 
  1450 
  Mycenaeans at Knossos on Crete (Linear B) and in Cyclades 
  1400 
  Dendra Panoply (LH IIIA) 
  1380 
  Destruction of Knossos 
  1300 
  Treasury of Atreus at Mycenae (LH IIIB) 
  1275 
  Battle of Kadesh 
  1260/50 
  Destruction of Troy Vlh (Homer's Troy?) 
  1250 
  Lion Gate and North-East Postern, Mycenae (mid LH IIIB) 
  1200 
  North-East extension, Mycenae (end LH IIIB) 
  Warrior Vase from Mycenae (LH IIIB/C) 
  1200/1180 
  Widespread destruction of Mycenaean citadels (LH IIIB/C) 
  1190/80 
  Destruction of Hattusas-Bogazkoy 
  1185 
  Destruction of Ugarit 
  1184 
  Traditional date for destruction of Homer's Troy according to Herodotos 
  1180 
  Destruction of Troy VIIA 
  1179 
  Rameses III defeats the'Peoples of the Sea' in the Nile Delta 
  1100 
  So-called invasion of Dorian Greeks from north-west Greece 
  1050 
  Migration of mainland Greeks to Aegean islands and Anatolia 
  9 
  
  Mycenaean fortification 
  systems 
  A general view of Mycenae, looking 
  north-east from Grave Circle B, 
  showing the west curtain-wall. Almost 
  the whole of the enceinte is built in 
  the Cyclopean style of large blocks of 
  limestone, quarried from the rock of 
  the citadel itself, and either 
  completely unworked or dressed in 
  only rudimentary fashion. On the 
  summit of the citadel, the extant 
  ruins of the palace complex can be 
  made out. (Author's collection) 
  The initial Mycenaean fortification systems were intimately linked with the 
  establishment of major palace complexes on mainland Greece. As such they 
  may also reflect a consolidation of control and expression of power more than 
  any perceived need for active defence. On the other hand, the final fortification 
  systems were laid out with considerable care, and incorporated technical 
  refinements such as secret cisterns, galleries, sally ports and projecting bastions 
  to protect gateways. 
  Mycenaean citadels depended for their strength not only on planning but 
  also on size and adaptation to the terrain. They were normally defensive, aimed 
  at providing lasting protection against current siege techniques. Yet despite 
  being impressive examples of military architecture, they were not solely 
  utilitarian. The message of power, dignity and awe constitutes the metaphysics 
  of fortification systems, and Mycenaean circuit-walls, bastions and gateways 
  were designed for visual impressiveness as well as functional efficiency. The 
  Mycenaeans fully appreciated the symbolism of war expressed in architecture. 
  Just as architectural devices could represent the dangers of defeat, so a feeling 
  of strength could be imparted to deter an attacker. Protection without resort 
  to force, achieved by deterrence alone, has always been a major feature 
  of fortification. 
  Location 
  Mycenaean fortification walls tended to be built along the edge of a sharp 
  change in elevation in the local topography so that the masonry of the 
  circuit-wall combined with the natural contours of the site to create an even 
  more formidable obstacle for attackers. The citadel itself was also accompanied 
  by 'hamlets' of associated non-fortified agrarian settlements. 
  In choosing a site to fortify, therefore, the prerequisites were few, simple and 
  logical. The Mycenaean architects looked for a hill, ideally flat-topped and not 
  too high, but rocky and adapted to fortification. There had to be sufficient space 
  for a palace complex on the flat summit. The citadel had to be in the immediate 
  vicinity of a fertile area and a constant supply of water. The nearness of rock 
  quarries to provide large amounts of building material without the additional 
  expense, effort and delay of long-distance 
  transportation was also highly desirable. 
  The locations of actual or possible citadel sites 
  fall into three main groupings, all of which fulfil 
  the above-mentioned requirements. First, the 
  'island' acropolis type, which rises in a plain 
  enclosed by mountains and the sea (Tiryns, 
  Athens, Gla). This group is further characterised 
  by a location at the head of a bay and probably 
  derives importance from controlling land-to-sea 
  movements (Argos, Iolkos, Lamia). Second, the 
  'recess' type, which nestle in one corner of a 
  plain hard up against the mountains and 
  controls the land routes passing through them 
  from one plain to the next (Mycenae, Midea, 
  Krisa). Third, the 'promontory' acropolis type, 
  which directly overlooks the sea and protects a 
  good harbour, thereby owing their importance 
  10 
  
  to overseas contacts (Aulis, Asine). It should be noted, however, that the majority 
  of Mycenaean sites are located at least several kilometres inland at a safe distance 
  from any direct and sudden impulse from the sea. Thucydides refers to this 
  situation, explaining that 'ancient cities, both on the islands and on the mainland, 
  were built at some distance from the sea on account of the piracy that long 
  prevailed' (1.7). 
  Method of construction 
  'Cyclopean' is the term normally applied to the masonry style characteristic of 
  Mycenaean fortification systems, and describes walls built of huge, unworked 
  limestone boulders weighing several metric tonnes. These were roughly fitted 
  together without the use of mortar or clay to bind them, though smaller hunks 
  of limestone fill the interstices. The exterior faces of the boulders may have 
  been roughly hammer-dressed, but the boulders themselves were never 
  carefully cut blocks. Thus their placement formed a polygonal pattern, thereby 
  giving the curtain-wall an irregular but imposing appearance. The major 
  determining factor here was the nature and slope of the bedrock. In many 
  places the curtain-wall was built over steep rock continuing the natural defence 
  provided by it. Elsewhere, the bedrock was levelled to form a base for a high 
  and protective superstructure. In both situations, however, the curtain-wall was 
  usually founded in extremely shallow beddings carved out of the bedrock. 
  The curtain-wall as a whole was composite in construction, being built as 
  two megalithic 'skins' with a fill of smaller rubble and earth, which is typical of 
  Cyclopean masonry. This building method forms strong bulwarks and near 
  impregnable defences, which may reach a thickness of 8m or more. At the top 
  it would have been quite wide enough for a walkway with a narrow protective 
  parapet on the outer edge, possibly of sun-dried mud-brick and having 
  hoop-like crenellations. 
  The term 'Cyclopean' came about because the later Greeks believed only the 
  one-eyed Cyclopes could have constructed walls built of boulders so gigantic 
  (Bacchylides 10.77, Euripides Iphigeneia at Aulis 1500, Apollodoros Bibliotheca 
  2.2.1, Strabo 8.6.11, Pausanias 2.16.5, 25.8, 7.25.3). Enormous boulders are 
  typical of the Mycenaean walls at Mycenae, Tiryns, Argos, Krisa and Athens. 
  Somewhat smaller boulders occur in the walls of Midea, whereas large 
  limestone slabs are characteristic of the walls at Gla. Cut stone masonry is used 
  only in and around gateways, conglomerate at Mycenae and Tiryns and 
  perhaps both conglomerate and limestone at Argos. 
  Mycenaean megalithic construction is also characterised by corbel vaulting, 
  or the projection of each successive course of stones slightly beyond the course 
  below, so that the wall is stepped upward and outward. As the centre of gravity 
  of the whole tended to move beyond its base 
  as each course was added, counterbalance 
  was provided by piling an increasing 
  thickness of masonry around the exterior. 
  This technique was used to span both 
  circular spaces, such as tholos tombs, and 
  rectangular ones, such as stairways and 
  passageways. Another conspicuous feature of 
  Mycenaean megalithic construction is the 
  use of a relieving triangle above a lintel 
  block. This is an opening, often triangular, 
  designed to reduce the weight over the lintel. 
  The space was filled with some lighter stone. 
  Yet another defining characteristic was 
  the system of constructing artificial terraces 
  both to extend the area available for building 
  and to strengthen the foundations of major 
  The junction of the north and the 
  west curtain-walls of Mycenae, 
  which forms the distinctive 
  north-west salient of the enceinte. 
  Mycenaean curtain-walls were built 
  as two megalithic 'skins' with a fill of 
  smaller rubble and earth, which is 
  typical of Cyclopean masonry. This 
  building method forms strong 
  bulwarks and near impregnable 
  defences, which may reach a 
  thickness of 8m or more. At the top 
  it would have been quite wide 
  enough for a walkway with a 
  narrow protective parapet on the 
  outer edge, possibly of sun-dried 
  mud-brick and having hoop-like 
  crenellations. (Author's collection) 
  11 
  
  structures. These terraces were usually built in compartments for strength and 
  filled with relatively small stones mixed with soil and domestic rubbish, largely 
  pottery. Such terraces required advances in drainage; water was allowed to seep 
  through to be channelled out by built drains through the outer terrace walling. 
  In the case of curtain-walls the drains were carefully built narrowing at the 
  outlet so that the press of water would keep the exit clear. 
  Tools available to Mycenaean builders included the pendulum-saw and the 
  bow-drill, as well as bronze axe and adze blades. However, hard labour was 
  more important than elaborate equipment. The massive Cyclopean boulders 
  would apparently have needed, with the aid of earth ramps and wooden rollers, 
  at least four men to manoeuvre them. As most of the citadels were built on 
  craggy hilltops from which the limestone could be prised with levers, the 
  boulders were probably moved only a short distance to their place on the 
  fortification walls. It seems highly likely that the Mycenaeans used a corvee 
  system of labour. 
  Building programmes 
  Tripartite building programmes have been detected at both Mycenae and 
  Tiryns, although it is unclear whether the various stages of building at the two 
  sites are contemporary. At both sites, the earliest fortification systems are dated 
  to the late LH IIIA period, while the final fortification systems (including 
  hidden water-supply systems at both sites) are dated to the advanced LH IIIB 
  period. The Mycenaean fortifications of the Athenian Acropolis are said to be 
  of LH IIIB date, although the evidence for such a dating is not very abundant. 
  The water-supply system at Athens can, however, be dated quite confidently to 
  the end of the LH IIIB period, this system being in all probability an imitation 
  of the functionally similar arrangements at Mycenae and Tiryns. Gla's 
  fortifications were apparently built all at once in the early LH IIIB period. The 
  circuit-walls at Midea, Argos and Krisa have yet to be dated accurately. 
  The major extension of the fortification system to the north in Tiryns' third 
  phase of fortification building used to be considered as the enclosure of a large 
  open space in which herds of animals might be kept during times of siege. 
  However, the German excavations directed by K. Kilian in the late 1970s and 
  early 1980s within this Unterburg (Lower Citadel) have demonstrated that the 
  space in question was fairly densely occupied by domestic structures. Both at 
  Mycenae and at Tiryns, a major feature of the extensions built in the third 
  phase of fortification at these sites was the inclusion of tunnels leading from 
  within the walls of these extensions to underground water sources outside the 
  walls. In both cases, the water sources in question lay at relatively low levels 
  beneath the hilltops, which were enclosed within the walls. The builders of 
  these fortifications evidently rejected the option of weakening the fortification 
  circuit as a whole by including the water sources within the enceinte. Sally ports 
  were located fairly close to the tunnels leading to the water sources in order to 
  provide defence of these water-supply systems in case a besieging enemy tried 
  to foul the water or destroy the tunnels themselves. The tunnels leading to the 
  water sources were cunningly camouflaged where they extended beyond the 
  area actually enclosed within the enceinte. 
  The water-supply systems at Mycenae, Tiryns and Athens are clear evidence 
  for a concern with siegecraft never before attested during the Aegean Bronze 
  Age, except in the form of an apparently earlier LH II or IIIA underground water 
  source just outside the enceinte at Ayia Irini on Keos. The construction of the 
  large galleries at Tiryns, presumably facilities for the storage in quantity of 
  surplus agricultural produce, can be viewed as reflecting the same concern on 
  the part of their builders. A feature peculiar to Mycenae and Tiryns is the 
  construction of a number of small, corbel-vaulted chambers within the 
  thickness of their circuit-walls. At Mycenae, these are located in a stretch of the 
  north curtain-wall, while at Tiryns they occur frequently in the fortification 
  12 
  
  walls of the Unterburg. The function of these 
  chambers is not always clear, nor need it have 
  been one and the same for all. Some were 
  simply storage spaces like the somewhat 
  similar but much 
  larger 
  chambers 
  that 
  comprise the galleries at Tiryns. Others may 
  have functioned as guard-posts. Yet others, 
  furnished with arrow slits, seemingly served as 
  firing positions for archers. 
  Entrances 
  The main approach to the citadel was always 
  from the lowest and most gently sloping side, 
  which afforded easy access for both foot and 
  vehicular traffic. Because the entrance at the 
  terminal point of the approach route was 
  precisely at the most accessible, and thus weakest, point of the defences, extra 
  protective measures had to be incorporated in the plan and construction of the 
  gateways there. As a whole, Mycenaean gateways embody the principal 
  functions of a gateway as both a recipient and repeller. 
  At Tiryns and Gla, access to major gateways in the fortifications is by way of 
  a long, fairly steep and artificially constructed ramp. At Mycenae, such a ramp 
  leading up to the Lion Gate is a natural feature of the local topography at the 
  site. In general Mycenaean gateways were so designed that an attacker would 
  have to present the side on which he would normally carry his offensive 
  weapons (shieldless or right side) toward the defenders in approaching the 
  entranceway. This was achieved through one of two methods. Either by placing 
  the main approach route along the curtain-wall length (Tiryns, Midea), or by 
  projecting a massive bastion to the right of someone entering (Mycenae, Gla). 
  Indeed, the bastion threatening the exposed right side of the enemy was a 
  Mycenaean development and became a regular feature of gateway architecture 
  on the Greek mainland, and was later employed in the Near East. 
  The second, or middle, gateway leading to the palace complex at Tiryns in 
  that site's third phase of fortification is virtually identical in its plan and 
  elevation to the Lion Gate at Mycenae. Most modern commentators view one 
  as a conscious imitation of the other, although it is impossible to state with any 
  degree of certainty which was the first to be built. Both Mycenae and Tiryns 
  have one principle entrance and one minor (or postern) gateway, as well as one 
  or more sally ports in the extensions representing their third phase of 
  fortification construction. Gla is unusual in having four major gateways located 
  at roughly the cardinal points of the compass. This peculiarity is a further 
  indication of a specialised function for this citadel that distinguishes it from 
  the standard Mycenaean citadel. Athens and Midea appear to have been typical 
  in having one major gateway and a postern. 
  Distribution 
  The distribution of Mycenaean citadels in the late Mycenaean period is a 
  peculiar one. Such fortresses are common in the Argolid (Mycenae, Tiryns, 
  Midea, Argos, Asine) and in Boiotia (Gla, Eutresis, possibly Thebes and 
  Orchomenos). In Attica there is only the Athenian Acropolis, while in Messenia 
  and Lakonia there are no known LH IIIB fortification systems of any 
  importance. One question which immediately arises is, against whom were 
  such fortifications intended as a form of protection? At least two possible 
  varieties of responses suggest themselves: 
  The Lion Gate at Mycenae, made 
  famous by the heraldically opposed 
  felines above it, is in fact carefully 
  arranged so that any potential 
  attacker can be attacked from the 
  salient of the fortification walls that 
  flanks the left-hand (north-east) side 
  of the approach route. The situation 
  was made even more lethal for the 
  attackers by the presence of the 
  rectangular bastion immediately to 
  the right (south-west) of the 
  entrance passage. (Author's 
  collection) 
  • Against attackers from other Mycenaean political entities 
  • Against attackers from outside the Mycenaean cultural sphere 
  13 
  
  14 
  Lion Gate, Mycenae 
  Mycenaean fortification 
  systems were designed 
  for visual impressiveness 
  as well as functional 
  efficiency. This 
  reconstruction depicts 
  the principle entranceway 
  of Mycenae, as a visitor 
  entering the citadel 
  would have seen it. Above 
  the massive lintel sits the 
  famous limestone relief of 
  'heraldic' lionesses 
  flanking a column.The 
  heads, which are of a 
  softer stone such as 
  steatite, face the visitor. 
  To the visitor's right 
  stands the projecting 
  bastion covering the 
  approach route. In times 
  of war this would 
  function as an elevated-
  fighting platform, thus 
  enabling defenders to 
  pour missile fire into the 
  unshielded right sides of 
  those attempting to force 
  the gate. 
  
  Since the Argolid has most often been considered by scholars to be ruled by a 
  single Mycenaean ruler in the LH III period, the second answer has normally 
  been the preferred one. 
  Support for the notion of an external, non-Mycenaean threat to the Argolid 
  has been seen in the trans-Isthmian fortification wall discovered and partially 
  cleared by O. B. Broneer (1957). Its course was traced for 1km westward from 
  the Saronic gulf, at a location just south-east of the Isthmus at the east end of 
  the Corinth canal. The construction is Cyclopean, that is, a double 'skin' of 
  large rough stones in horizontal courses with an earth and rubble fill. Along a 
  section 45.4m long the wall reaches a thickness of 4m. In another section some 
  22m long it is preserved to a height of 2.5m. Along the north face of the wall 
  four towers are placed at a distance 7.9 to 9.5m apart. They project 0.7m from 
  the wall and vary between 2.1 to 2.6m wide. Mycenaean pottery shards found 
  in the wall are dated to the latter years of the LH IIIB period. Its construction 
  would then correspond in date to the extension of the fortification walls at 
  Bronze Age sites of mainland 
  Greece. (© Osprey Publishing Ltd.) 
  15 
  
  ABOVE The Lion Gate, the principal 
  gateway of Mycenae, showing the 
  projecting bastion covering the 
  entranceway. This elevated fighting-
  platform enabled the defenders to 
  pour fire into the unshielded right 
  sides of those attempting to force 
  the gate. The bastion was built in 
  pseudo-ashlar style of enormous 
  blocks of conglomerate. This stone 
  comes from natural deposits in the 
  area of Mycenae and, in its natural 
  state, occurs in fairly regularly 
  shaped blocks. These were sawn 
  into shape and laid in regular 
  courses of stretchers and headers. 
  (Author's collection) 
  RIGHT Perched on a sheer and 
  isolated hill above the sea, the EC IIIA 
  fortified settlement of Kastri on 
  Syros is one of the possible sources 
  of inspiration for Mycenaean 
  defensive architecture. The site 
  consists of domestic structures 
  crammed inside a double-walled 
  circuit equipped with 
  horseshoe-shaped towers. 
  Constructed of small fieldstones, in 
  the vestigial form of mud-brick 
  construction, the fortification walls 
  were built directly on the bedrock 
  without any preparation or levelling 
  of it. Here we are standing within the 
  settlement looking north towards the 
  fortifications. (Author's collection) 
  Mycenae and Tiryns, and perhaps indicate that there was a threat to the 
  Peloponnese from the north. However, it is by no means impossible that the 
  major Mycenaean centres in the Argolid were each ruled by independent 
  warlords. Therefore these citadels could be viewed as a product of small or 
  divided sovereignties, proliferating at a time when central authority had not 
  been established or is struggling to establish itself. 
  Greek tradition suggests that there were at one time independent kingdoms 
  based on Thebes and Orchomenos in Boiotia, while in the Argolid we know of 
  legendary kings at Mycenae (Atreus, Agamemnon), Tiryns (Herakles, 
  Diomedes), and Argos (Akrisios). The paramount importance of Agamemnon as 
  leader of a confederacy in Homer's Iliad, leading by force of his own character 
  and because of his resources, has led most commentators to assume that the 
  ruler of Mycenae dominated the Argolid. This view has received support from 
  the wealth of the Shaft Graves and the large number of tholos tombs (e.g. 
  16 
  
  Treasury of Atreus) at that site. Nevertheless, few scholars are now willing to 
  consider Homer a reliable historical source for the Mycenaean period, and the 
  Shaft Graves and most of the tholos tombs are in any case features of the early 
  Mycenaean era and not of the LH III period. It must be remembered that the 
  Iliad and the Odyssey were composed as epic tales and not historical texts. To 
  use Shakespeare's Macbeth as a source for 11th-century Scottish history would 
  rather miss the point of the play, and the same is true of the Homeric epics. 
  The fortifications and palatial architecture of Tiryns are at least as impressive 
  as those of Mycenae in the later Mycenaean period. Now that Linear B tablets 
  have been discovered at both sites, a fact suggesting that the two may well have 
  maintained independent administrative archives, there seems to be no 
  compelling reason to assume that Tiryns was controlled by Mycenae at this 
  time. If the two were in competition, their similarities in defensive architecture 
  may even be viewed as evidence for an LH III period 'arms race'. At the same 
  time, in Messenia where the Linear B tablets from Pylos suggest that a single 
  ruler controlled the entire region, there is no evidence at all for LH IIIB citadels. 
  Presumably, the ruler of Messenia was confident of his ability to protect his 
  capital by keeping his enemies, whether Mycenaean or non-Mycenaean, far 
  from Pylos itself. On the other hand the rulers at Tiryns, Mycenae, Midea, 
  Argos, Asine, Eutresis, Thebes and Orchomenos, controlling significantly 
  smaller kingdoms and lacking significant buffer zones with which to protect 
  their capitals, felt forced to invest in defensive architecture on a grand scale. 
  Sources of inspiration 
  Mycenaean fortification architecture clearly owes nothing to Minoan 
  inspiration. Not only are Minoan fortifications virtually unknown after the end 
  of the Proto-palatial period but all Mycenaean fortification systems date from 
  a period well after the collapse of Minoan power. It is possible that the idea of 
  fortification programmes on a grand scale was adopted from the Hittite sphere 
  of influence in central Anatolia. However, in terms both of scale and of 
  architectural details, Hittite fortifications are quite different from those of the 
  Mycenaean citadels. 
  Perhaps the most likely sources of inspiration for Mycenaean defensive 
  circuits are the fortification systems at such Cycladic sites as Kastri and 
  Phylakopi. Perched on a sheer and isolated hill above the sea, the EC IIIA 
  fortified settlement of Kastri (near Khalandriani on Syros) consists of small 
  houses 
  crammed 
  inside 
  a 
  double-walled 
  circuit 
  equipped 
  with 
  horseshoe-shaped towers. The outer wall was built directly on the bedrock 
  without any preparation or levelling of 
  it. 
  The 
  construction 
  is 
  of 
  small 
  fieldstones, in the vestigial form of 
  mud-brick construction, forming a 
  thickness of 1 to 1.1m. At a distance 
  ranging from 4.5 to 6.5m stands the 
  inner wall. Although it too is built of 
  small, unworked stones without any 
  clay binding, it is thicker than the outer 
  strip, varying from 1.4 to 1.6m. It is also 
  built with better defences, as the five 
  towers that are preserved are placed at 
  intervals of 4.5 to 8m apart along its 
  course. Pebbles of various sizes were 
  found in great numbers between the 
  walls and inside the towers. They may 
  have been used as missiles. 
  On the other hand, much of what is 
  most distinctive 
  about Mycenaean 
  Like the outer circuit, the inner 
  circuit-wall of Kastri is built of small, 
  unworked stones without any clay 
  binding. However, it is thicker than 
  the outer strip, varying from 1.4 to 
  1.6m, and has five towers placed at 
  intervals of 4.5 to 8m apart along its 
  course. Of significance is the fact 
  that pebbles of various sizes were 
  found in great numbers between the 
  walls and inside the towers. They 
  may have been used as missiles. 
  Here we see Tower Gamma, looking 
  south. (Author's collection) 
  17 
  
  Another possible forerunner to 
  Mycenaean defensive architecture is 
  Lerna, an EH II fortified settlement 
  situated on a low artificial mound 
  on the western shores of the 
  Argolid gulf. One of the most 
  important prehistoric sites in 
  Greece, Lerna lies not far from the 
  marshy lake where, according to 
  legend, Herakles slew the Hydra 
  (Hesiod Theogony 313-18, Strabo 
  8.6.2, Pausanias 2.37.4). The 
  fortification (Lerna III) consists of a 
  double ring of walls with gateways 
  and towers. Here we see Tower U, a 
  horse-shaped tower with its 
  distinctive masonry in a herringbone 
  pattern. This in fact is the socle, as it 
  supported a superstructure of 
  sun-dried mud-bricks. (Author's 
  collection) 
  This shot shows one of the 
  cross-walls than ran between the 
  outer and inner rings of Lerna's EH 
  II fortification system (Lerna I I I ) . The 
  socle of the wall consists of small 
  limestone blocks set in a 
  herringbone pattern and bonded 
  with clay. This supports a 
  superstructure of sun-dried 
  mud-brick. The fire that destroyed 
  the site (Lerna IV) towards the end 
  of the EH III period preserved the 
  bricks, which were hardened and 
  are now protected by the 
  terracotta tiles. (Author's collection) 
  military architecture may in the end prove to be the product of purely 
  indigenous developments from humble Middle Helladic antecedents. In the 
  thriving palatial societies of Mycenaean Greece, military architecture is best 
  understood as serving both practical and ideological functions. Thus 
  monumental fortifications physically protected a citadel, and by extension its 
  territory, but were at the same time a compelling and enduring statement of 
  centralised power, a public display of the conspicuous consumption of wealth 
  and energy, often far exceeding any practical needs. 
  18 
  
  Mycenaean palace 
  complexes 
  A Mycenaean citadel was a fortification and residence rather than a mere fortress. 
  The placement of the palace complexes at Mycenae, Tiryns and Pylos on the 
  summits of hills or rocky outcrops could be taken as evidence that having a 
  picturesque view was a common concern of Mycenaean architects. However, it is 
  far more likely that the occupants of these palaces simply wanted their residences 
  to be located physically above any other structure within their capitals as symbols 
  of their own elevated social status. That is, the Mycenaean palace dominates its 
  immediate physical environment in much the same fashion as one imagines that 
  a Mycenaean ruler (the wanax of the Linear B tablets) dominated his social one. 
  Distribution 
  The architectural focus of the Mycenaean palace complex was its central hall, 
  known as a megaron after the Homeric term for the king's hall, rather than a 
  central courtyard as on Minoan Crete, and a visitor to the palace was inevitably 
  steered directly towards it. Mycenaean palatial structures have thus been 
  identified in the following regions of mainland Greece: 
  • Argolid (Mycenae, Tiryns, probably Midea and Argos) 
  • Messenia (Pylos) 
  • Lakonia (the Menelaion) 
  • Attica (Athens) 
  • Boiotia (Thebes, probably Orchomenos) 
  The best-preserved palaces, fully cleared, are those at Pylos and Tiryns. 
  Those at Mycenae and the Menelaion are only partially preserved, while those 
  at Thebes and Orchomenos have been only partially exposed. The palace at 
  Athens has been almost totally destroyed, to the extent that we can say little 
  more than that a palace almost certainly once existed on the Acropolis. A 
  substantial building at Iolkos is claimed to be a palace by its excavator, but the 
  only part of it to have been exposed does not prove it to have been one. 
  Megaron 
  The focal point of the socio-political aspect of a Mycenaean citadel was the 
  megaron. The megaron appears at Pylos, Tiryns, Mycenae, and probably at 
  Built at different levels on the 
  uneven bedrock, the main element 
  of the palace complex at Mycenae 
  was the megaron, with its throne 
  room (seen left) - complete with 
  large circular fixed hearth -
  anteroom (seen centre) and porch 
  (seen right), and the court (right of 
  shot). Two entrances led to the 
  court, the propylon and west 
  passage to the north-west, and the 
  Grand Staircase to the south. 
  (Author's collection) 
  19 
  
  Orchomenos. Two smaller, less elaborately furbished megara occur in the 
  so-called palace at Gla. The characteristic features of this architectural unit are: 
  Tripartite division into porch, anteroom and throne room, all 
  constructed on a rigid axis 
  Large circular fixed hearth, centrally located in the throne room 
  Four columns arranged in a square around the hearth 
  A throne against the middle of the right-hand wall in the throne room 
  (Pylos, Tiryns, probably Mycenae) 
  Plastered floors decorated with painted patterns throughout the unit 
  (Pylos, Mycenae, Tiryns) 
  Access to the throne room only from the anteroom, through an axially 
  placed doorway 
  Two columns between antae in the porch 
  Rich decorative embellishment of the walls throughout the unit by 
  means of frescoes 
  Because of the summit's sheer sides 
  to the south and east, the megaron 
  at Mycenae was partly erected on a 
  massive artificial terrace. Looking 
  east from the court, this view takes 
  in the three characteristic elements 
  of the megaron unit: the porch 
  (seen front); anteroom (seen 
  centre); and the throne room (seen 
  rear). (Author's collection) 
  This unit seems likely to have been the place where the ruling authority 
  resident in the palace held court. There is a megaron at the Menelaion, but this 
  lacks a central hearth, columns, and most of the other features listed above. 
  However, the palatial building there is closely comparable in its overall design 
  to the architectural layout of the palace at Pylos. If indeed it is a palace, then 
  the Menelaion ranks as one of the earliest examples. 
  Court 
  A large court lies directly in front of the megaron at Mycenae, Tiryns and Pylos. 
  Colonnades surround this court on three and a half sides at Tiryns, on two and 
  a half sides at Pylos, and probably on just one and a half sides at Mycenae. The 
  court is entered at both Tiryns and Pylos from a propylon placed slightly off 
  the short axis of this rectangular feature. At Mycenae the court is entered either 
  by means of a corridor or from the top of the Grand Staircase, a monumental 
  stairway of two flights, which provided access from the terrace below to the 
  south. 
  20 
  
  Function 
  Many scholars have argued that the Mycenaean palace complexes were centres 
  of massive redistributive operations for subsistence commodities. The fact that 
  the Linear B tablets show large amounts of agricultural products and goods, 
  including luxury items, entering into and exiting from the palaces certainly 
  strengthens this view. However, the theory remains questionable and one 
  recent study (Halstead 1992) distinguishes between the highly specialised 
  economies of the palaces, which concentrated on large-scale cultivation of a 
  few crops and the production of perfumed olive oil, fine textiles, and other 
  craftwork, and the mixed economies of the ordinary settlements. These were 
  not directly controlled from the palaces but interacted with them, providing 
  some foodstuffs in taxes and others, like pulses, on an irregular basis. To judge 
  from the Pylos tablets, which provide most of the documentary information, 
  the palace directly maintained a workforce of many hundreds, and controlled 
  most of the distribution and working of bronze. Despite the lack of mineral 
  resources in most of Greece, the Mycenaeans used metal in astonishing 
  quantities and the search for copper and tin, as well as gold, was one of the 
  factors underlying the extensive pattern of maritime trade. 
  We should never underestimate the symbolism of power expressed in 
  Mycenaean palaces, however, especially 
  with regards to the basic scheme upon 
  which these residences were built. The 
  overall plan was based upon the principle 
  of ascent towards the ruler, beginning at 
  the point of entry through a well-fortified 
  gateway and leading along narrow streets 
  and up stairways before the summit of 
  the citadel is reached. There the visitor 
  finally entered the sizeable megaron, 
  with its central hearth and throne 
  positioned to one side. The impression 
  gained by the visitor called to the ruler's 
  presence was further heightened by the 
  lavishly 
  decorated 
  interior, 
  which 
  flaunted images designed intentionally to 
  demonstrate the political and religious 
  power of the ruler. 
  The megaron at Mycenae, looking 
  north-east from the anteroom into 
  the throne room. In the centre is 
  visible the elevated central hearth, 
  which was once surrounded by four 
  stuccoed wooden columns. These 
  columns rested on stone bases, 
  three of which are still preserved. 
  The throne probably stood in the 
  middle of the south wall, to the 
  right as the visitor entered. 
  (Author's collection) 
  Beyond Mycenae's fortification walls 
  three buildings with extensive 
  basements stood on a Cyclopean 
  terrace at the foot of the west 
  slope. Archaeological evidence 
  suggests these once belonged to 
  wealthy merchants of the LH IIIB 
  period. Here we see the foundations 
  of the House of the Shields, which 
  yielded carved ivories, many in the 
  shape of the figure-of-eight shield. 
  The building conforms to the usual 
  Mycenaean technique: rubble packed 
  with clay supporting a timber frame 
  filled in with sun-dried mud-brick. 
  (Author's collection) 
  21 
  
  The Sites 
  The Catalogue of Ships 
  The Catalogue of Ships forms part of the second book of the Iliad (lines 
  494-759), and is a muster list of the leaders of the Achaian army encamped 
  outside Troy, the places from which their men came, and the number of the 
  warships they commanded. 
  This roll call (of 29 contingents, 44 warlords, 175 cities and other localities, 
  1,186 warships, and some 100,000 men) was not created for its present place in 
  the Iliad. The evidence for this is threefold: 
  1. Contingents that are important here have no specific part to play in the 
  rest of the Iliad. In particular the Boiotians head the list in the Catalogue, 
  and are given the largest number of named leaders and cities, but their 
  significance in the Iliad is not great. 
  2. The imperfect tense throughout and the insistence on the number of 
  ships would better suit the assembly of the whole force at Aulis than the 
  situation found in the Iliad, that is, the 10th year of the war. 
  3. In three cases the poet has inserted lines to assimilate the Catalogue to 
  the Iliad situation. He had to do this because three of the original leaders 
  are not appearing on the field of battle this day, namely Achilles (refuses 
  to fight), Protesilaos (dead), and Philoktetes (exiled). 
  These considerations lead to the belief that a separately existing catalogue has 
  been inserted into the Iliad, with a few modifications, which we can see, and 
  perhaps others, which we cannot. 
  If this is so, where did the Catalogue come from? There is evidence 
  associating 'catalogue poetry' with Boiotia and the school of Hesiod (e.g. The 
  Catalogue of Women). Our Catalogue begins with the Boiotian 'contingent, and 
  puts more emphasis on it than could be justified by the Boiotians' insignificant 
  part in the Iliad or in any other version of the Trojan War known to us, such as 
  the Kypria, the Ilias parva and the Iliupersis. 
  More importantly, what about the geopolitical information in the 
  Catalogue? All shades of opinion are held, ranging from those who argue that 
  the Catalogue is a poor invention interpolated into the Iliad by a late and 
  decadent poet, to those who see in it a miraculously preserved record of the 
  historical army of Agamemnon in descriptions preserved through oral 
  tradition. While the latter is certainly an overstatement, it is probably nearer to 
  the truth. Because of the general conformity with our knowledge of the 
  Mycenaean world, and because of a number of descriptive epithets for cities 
  whose very existence has been forgotten in historical times, we may accept that 
  the Catalogue contains (preserved down the centuries in verse) invaluable 
  evidence about Bronze Age Greece in the late Mycenaean period. 
  The Catalogue divides the Achaian world into five major geographical 
  areas: 
  1. Mainland Greece north of the Isthmus (Iliad 2.494-558) 
  2. The Peloponnese (Iliad 2.559-624) 
  3. The western islands and western Greece (Iliad 2.625-44) 
  4. Crete and south-eastern Aegean islands (Iliad 2.646-80) 
  5. Northern Greece (Iliad 2.681-759) 
  22 
  
  If we look at the map of the whole area, we see that this is a spiral, clockwise 
  description by groups of contingents, with the south-eastern islands inserted 
  out of order. It is of great interest that the other islands of the Aegean and the 
  cities of Anatolia (both of considerable importance in historical times) are not 
  mentioned at all. Whatever its origins and its relationship to the rest of the 
  Iliad, it all adds to the impression that this Catalogue reflects the state of the 
  Greek world at a particular time in history, namely Mycenaean Greece. 
  A number of clues suggest that the Catalogue does indeed reflect the 
  political geography of Mycenaean Greece. Many of the named heroic 
  kingdoms do equate to the later historical geo-political groupings. Nestor's 
  Pylos, for instance, resembles the area prior to Spartan domination. 
  Agamemnon, on the other hand, is not only the ruler of Mycenae but also 'lord 
  of many islands and over all Argos' (Iliad 2.108) and of 'wealthy Corinth' (Iliad 
  2.570). Unfortunately, however, no geopolitical arrangement corresponds to 
  Agamemnon's kingdom in historical Greece; Mycenae naturally fell under the 
  control of Argos, while Corinth was independent. Furthermore, the Arcadians 
  were normally regarded by Homer as a single, unified race (ethnos), but during 
  historical times found it natural enough to squabble amongst themselves. 
  Above all, certain locations are not even mentioned in Homer at all: Phleious, 
  Megara, Tanagra, Chaironeia, Pharsalos, and Larissa are examples of important 
  historical centres not listed in the Catalogue. 
  On the other hand, of the 175 names contained in the Catalogue only some 
  40 were unknown in historical Greece, and perhaps more significantly 90 of 
  the remaining 135 can be shown to have been inhabited in the Mycenaean 
  period. Indeed, of those that have been excavated, none has so far failed to 
  produce evidence of Mycenaean occupation, and of these, roughly one-third 
  have so far failed to produce evidence of subsequent Iron Age occupation. 
  Caution must be practised, however. Even though archaeology seems to prove 
  a Mycenaean origin for at least a part of the Catalogue, finding evidence can be 
  a hit-and-miss affair that relies on seeking pottery shards, the most abundant 
  and durable of Mycenaean artefacts, through surface exploration. 
  Two possibilities exist for why 40 sites appear not to exist. Either they are 
  fictitious, or are real places that are lost to time through some natural or man-made 
  disaster. Strabo sums it all up very nicely when he remarks that 'three of the cities 
  mentioned by the poet, "Rhipe and Stratia and windy Enispe", are not only hard 
  to find, but are no use to any who find them, because they are deserted' (8.8.2). 
  One such example from the Catalogue seemingly lost to time was 'sacred 
  Krisa' (Iliad 2.520). A Homeric hymn dedicated to Pythian Apollo describes the 
  archer-god passing Krisa, which is perched upon a rocky spur of Mount 
  Parnassos that overhangs a deep and rugged plain, on his way to Delphi (Hymn 
  to Apollo 282-85, cf. Pindar Pythian Odes 5.34-35). The literary tradition led 
  scholars to believe that Krisa was located somewhere near Delphi, and French 
  excavators subsequently confirmed this when they discovered, on the acropolis 
  site at Khrisso, a Mycenaean citadel that had been destroyed by fire during the 
  LH III period. 
  Mycenae 
  The building of Mycenae is attributed by the legends to the Gorgon-slaying 
  Perseus, the son of Zeus and of Danae, daughter of Akrisios king of Argos 
  (Apollodoros Bibliotheca 2.4.4, Strabo 8.6.19, Pausanias 2.15.4, 16.3). Although 
  inhabited since the Neolithic period, Mycenae is a citadel known to 
  archaeology as the seat of the great Helladic civilisation and to tradition as the 
  capital of Agamemnon. There is some debate about how much power Mycenae 
  had over the other citadels (and, indeed, whether it was the 'main' capital of 
  Mycenaean Greece), but whether it ruled over or merely had a trading 
  partnership with Pylos, Knossos and the other citadels, the material culture was 
  essentially the same. 
  23 
  
  The inner facade of the North-East 
  Postern, Mycenae's secondary 
  gateway, which served as a ready 
  access to the copious spring just 
  beyond the walls to the north-east. 
  Although much smaller, this gateway 
  seems in style of building to be 
  contemporary with the Lion Gate, 
  that is, it was part of the second 
  building phase (mid LH IIIB). 
  (Author's collection) 
  Armed with a copy of Pausanias' Periegesis, 
  Schliemann (1874-76) initiated the earliest 
  systematic excavations at Mycenae, which 
  uncovered the Lion Gate and five of the six 
  Shaft Graves of Grave Circle A. He was 
  succeeded by P. Stamatakis (1876-77), and 
  digging 
  was 
  continued 
  by 
  the 
  Greek 
  Archaeological Service under C. Tsountas 
  (1884-02). British involvement with Mycenae 
  begins with the excavations of A. J. B. Wace 
  (1920-23), then director of the British School 
  at Athens. The impetus to excavate at Mycenae 
  came largely from Sir Arthur Evans, who at 
  that time was interested in the relationship 
  between the mainland Bronze Age culture 
  contemporary with the Minoan remains he 
  was excavating at Knossos. The second period 
  of British School excavations was again carried 
  out under the direction of Wace and was 
  begun in 1939, but because of the interruption 
  of World War II the subsequent seasons were 
  1950 to 1955. Lord William D. Taylour 
  directed the third period of British School 
  excavations in cooperation with his colleague 
  G. E. Mylonas of the Archaeological Society of 
  Athens (1959-60, 1962, 1964, 1966, 1968-69). 
  In recent years a joint project directed by E. B. 
  French (British School) and S. E. Iakovidis 
  (Archaeological Society of Athens) has sought 
  to map out in great detail the antiquities of 
  Mycenae and its immediate surroundings. 
  Topography 
  Mycenae was built for command and control. 
  Crouching on top of a fairly steep triangular-shaped hill (278m), the citadel lies 
  some 15km from the sea, half-hidden in a mountain recess between two 
  triangular peaks, Profitis Ilias (750m) on the north and Mount Zara (600m) on the 
  south. Mycenae, in the words of Homer, was 'at ease deep in the recess (Homeric 
  Greek mychos) of horse-pasturing Argos' (Odyssey 3.263), which is supposed by 
  some modern commentators to be the origins of the name. Its retired position, 
  therefore, was one of great importance. In the first place it oversaw the fertile 
  Argive plain, and secondly it controlled the communications north through the 
  mountains to Corinth and the Isthmus. The citadel, which Homer calls 'rich in 
  gold' (Iliad 7.180, 11.46), 'well-built' (Iliad 2.569) and 'broad-streeted' (Iliad 4.52), 
  was proverbial in Classical times for its wealth. At its zenith Mycenae consisted of 
  a heavily fortified administrative centre with further settlements scattered beyond 
  the enceinte. 
  The enceinte 
  The Cyclopean circuit-wall is preserved for its whole extent. There is a gap 
  along the precipitous south-east slope where there is no need of fortification. 
  Built of the dark-coloured limestone of the surrounding mountains, the 900m 
  circuit follows the contours of the rock and encompasses an area of some 
  30,000m2 (c. 3ha). In general it varies in height between 4.5 and 10.5m, 
  reaching some 12m on the south-west side. The thickness mostly varies from 3 
  to 7m but in places on the north and south-east sides the circuit-wall is as 
  much as 10 to 14m in width. There are two gateways, the Lion Gate at the 
  24 
  
  north-western angle and the North-East Postern on the north side, and two 
  sally ports in the north-east extension. 
  Gateways 
  The Lion Gate was built during the second building phase (mid LH IIIB) when 
  the circuit-wall was extended so as to include the rich and elaborate burials of 
  Grave Circle A. Presumably the later rulers of Mycenae promoted themselves as 
  the direct descendants of those interned here. The plan of the Lion Gate ideally 
  illustrates the Mycenaean principle of mural defence, 
  namely the throwing out of a strong bastion on the 
  shieldless or right side of attackers. On the left side a 
  salient of the circuit-wall covers the approach to the 
  gateway, while a terrace wall inside and left of the 
  entrance allowed defenders to hurl down missiles on 
  attackers who managed to funnel through the 
  gateway. 
  The entranceway is composed of four massive slabs 
  of local conglomerate stone, which had been sawn in 
  rectangular blocks and squarely cut at the corners. 
  These blocks make up a threshold, two vertical 
  doorjambs (3.2 by 1.7 by 0.54m) and a lintel (4.5 by 
  1.9m by 0.8m). Above the latter the wall was corbelled 
  to leave a relieving triangle, in which is set the famous 
  limestone relief of lions (more properly, lionesses) 
  flanking a column. The heads, set separately, probably 
  of a softer stone such as steatite, are missing but would 
  have faced the approaching visitor. In the lintel and 
  threshold are pivot-holes for a double-leafed gate. The 
  doorjambs slope inwards to provide an opening that 
  narrows from 3.1m at the bottom to 2.95m at the top. 
  In the doorjambs are rectangular sockets to hold a 
  sliding wooden crossbar, which could keep the gate 
  (wood reinforced with bronze plates) securely shut. 
  There are also oblong sockets into which the 
  gate-handles would sink when the gate was kept wide 
  open. The threshold was scored to give foothold and 
  rutted either side for chariot-wheels. 
  LEFT Grave Circle A lies directly 
  inside and to the right of the Lion 
  Gate, Mycenae. It contains six shaft 
  graves, which held 19 inhumations: 
  nine men, eight women and two 
  infants. The enceinte was extended 
  inc. 1250BC (mid LH IIIB) to 
  incorporate the circle within the 
  confines of the citadel; earlier it had 
  stood outside. The incorporation of 
  the burial site, which was now 
  replanned as a monument, was 
  probably an attempt by later rulers 
  to appropriate the 'heroic past' as 
  their own. (Author's collection) 
  BELOW Cut perpendicularly in the 
  bedrock to a depth of 7.5m, the 
  shaft graves of Grave Circle A date 
  to circa 1550-1450 BC (LH I-IIB) 
  and reveal that extensive trading 
  practices and impressive wealth -
  the gold artefacts alone weigh 
  around 18kg- existed even in the 
  early Mycenaean period. Found in 
  these six graves were objects 
  representing, or at least inspired by, 
  Mycenaean, Minoan, Cycladic, Hittite 
  and Egyptian cultures. This is Shaft 
  Grave V from which Heinrich 
  Schliemann recovered the Mask of 
  Agamemnon. (Author's collection) 
  25 
  
  North-east extension 
  North-East Postern 
  House of columns 
  Lion Gate 
  26 
  
  27 
  Grave Circle A 
  Palace complex 
  'Well-built Mycenae' 
  At its zenith Mycenae consisted of a heavily fortified administrative centre with further settlements scattered 
  beyond the ence/nte.This reconstruction panorama, looking from the north-west, ideally shows how Mycenae 
  was built for command and control. Crouching on top of a fairly steep triangular-shaped hill, which rises 278m 
  above sea level, the citadel lies some 15km from the Argolid gulf, half-hidden in a mountain recess between two 
  triangular peaks, Profitis llias (750m) on the north and Mount Zara (600m) on the south. South-east of the 
  citadel, and immediately below it, runs the winter torrent, the Khavos. In the words of Homer, the citadel was 
  'at ease in the recess of horse-pasturing Argos' (Odyssey 3.263). Its retired position, therefore, was one of great 
  importance. In the first place it oversaw the fertile Argive plain, the powerhouse of the Mycenaean world, and 
  secondly it controlled the communications north through the mountains to Corinth and the Isthmus. 
  
  A close-up view of the Lion Gate, 
  showing the 'heraldic' lions (in truth, 
  lionesses). Dated to c. 1250 BC (mid 
  LH IIIB), the gateway belongs to the 
  second building phase when the 
  circuit-wall was extended so as to 
  include the rich and elaborate 
  burials of Grave Circle A. Carved on 
  a thin slab of limestone and set in 
  the relieving triangle above the lintel, 
  the composition has been variously 
  interpreted: as purely decorative; as 
  cultic, the column between the 
  rampant felines being an aniconic 
  representation of the Great Mother 
  Goddess; and finally as heraldic, 
  representing either the unification of 
  two powerful kingdoms, or the 
  palace, the ruler and his family 
  flanked by the guardian lionesses. 
  (Author's collection) 
  The North-East Postern served as a ready access to 
  the copious spring just beyond the walls to the 
  north-east, the Peresia (named after the founding-hero 
  Perseus), and, although much smaller, seems in style 
  of building to be contemporary with the Lion Gate. 
  The plan is similar in having a projecting bastion on 
  the right of an approaching attacker, but there is no 
  relieving triangle. The entranceway, like that of the 
  Lion Gate, consists of four great slabs of conglomerate 
  - lintel, threshold and two doorjambs. In the lintel 
  (2.99 by 1.41 by 0.64m) and the threshold are 
  pivot-holes for a double-leafed gate and a drain runs 
  beneath it. Both doorjambs taper slightly inward at the 
  top and there are sockets for a wooden crossbar to 
  fasten the gate within. 
  Interior 
  The palace complex on the summit of the citadel would 
  certainly have been conspicuous; part of it was built on 
  an artificial terrace supported by the east curtain-wall. 
  From the entrance on the west side a corridor runs south 
  and then east to a court paved with stucco and divided 
  off into squares painted with geometric patterns. The 
  monumental stairway (Grand Staircase) south of the 
  court may have been the official entrance. To the west of 
  the court lies a suite of rooms thought to be a guest suite, 
  while to its east stands the megaron. Measuring 
  externally 23 by 11.5m, this unit consists of the 
  characteristic porch, which had two wooden columns, an anteroom and the 
  throne room. A circular hearth surrounded by four stuccoed wooden columns 
  dominated the latter. On analogy with Pylos and Tiryns a throne would have stood 
  in the middle of the right-hand wall. There would have been hunting and battle 
  scenes painted on the walls and gypsum slabs on the floor. 
  On a lower terrace at the east end of the citadel is the so-called House of the 
  Columns, a building of unusual plan but apparently a residence of high status 
  and quality. The house is entered from the north through an imposing 
  doorway into a long corridor leading to an open court with the columns from 
  which the house is named. Opening onto the court is a pair of large rooms, 
  from one of which there is access to a stair and at least one small room. The 
  south part of the house is on three levels of which the basement was devoted 
  to storage. This is demonstrated by some of the few examples of the Linear B 
  script from within the citadel - two transport stirrup jars, vessels that usually 
  held olive oil, and a clay tablet listing 'cloths of KO-U-RA type' (the exact 
  meaning is still unknown). Next-door stood the so-called Artisans' Quarters, a 
  structure of unusually large rectangular plan in which a very considerable 
  amount of raw materials and workshop debris was found. 
  The extension 
  The extension of the citadel to the north-east belongs to the final building 
  phase (end LH IIIB). It includes two sally ports, one near the south-east angle of 
  the new wall, the other on the north, and the 'Secret Cistern' to the north-west, 
  all three paralleled in style of building by the Tiryns galleries. 
  The South Sally Port pierces the curtain-wall at right angles via a long, 
  narrow and unobtrusive passage through its thickness. The passage roof has 
  corbel vaulting. At either end the passage was probably guarded by reinforced 
  wooden doors, which, when opened, would allow the defenders to slide 
  through singly if the need arose. The North Sally Port runs obliquely through 
  28 
  
  LEFT The inner facade of the Lion 
  Gate, showing the conglomerate 
  lintel estimated to weigh in excess 
  of 20 tonnes. Above the lintel block, 
  so as to reduce the load resting 
  upon it, the wall was corbelled to 
  leave a relieving triangle, in which is 
  set the famous limestone relief of 
  lions (more properly, lionesses) 
  flanking a column, the back of which 
  is seen here. (Author's collection) 
  the curtain-wall and is low and pretty narrow. It 
  was originally thought to have been a man-size 
  drain but is more likely to have been an exit, as 
  demonstrated by the wear and tear on the inner 
  and outer thresholds. 
  The Secret Cistern is approached by an 
  oblique passage through the curtain-wall, 
  descending 18 steps north-west followed by a 
  horizontal passage of 2.5m, which in turn leads 
  to 20 steps west, three steps north-west and, 
  finally, 60 steps north-east, all of which were 
  cut through the bedrock. At the bottom is a 
  rectangular shaft, which once served as a 
  cistern. Water flowed via gravity-fed pipes from 
  springs in the hills to the east, thereby bringing 
  fresh water supplies within the citadel. The 
  cistern itself is not large, but the capacity was 
  enormously increased when the water was allowed to flood the whole of the 
  lower flight of steps where the rock vault rises to a height of over 3.6m. To 
  prevent seepage this part of the staircase was covered with waterproof cement. 
  Invisible from the outside, the Secret Cistern was obviously designed and built 
  so that the citadel could better withstand the rigours of a siege, which strongly 
  suggests the Mycenaeans of this period were anticipating troubled times ahead. 
  Tiryns 
  According to legends, Tiryns was the oldest of the Mycenaean citadels of the 
  Peloponnese. In one legend it is Tiryns, and not Thebes, that is recorded as the 
  birthplace of Herakles, later serving as the base for his labours (Apollodoros 
  Bibliotheca 2.4.12). Systematic excavation of the site began when Schliemann, 
  with his collaborator Wilhelm Dorpfeld, turned his attention to Tiryns 
  (1884-86). The German Archaeological Institute in a number of prolonged 
  campaigns (1905-14, 1926-29, 1967-86) has lain bare much more of the site. 
  Topography 
  Tiryns squats menacingly on a long, low, rocky height (27m) to the south of the 
  Argive plain near the innermost cove of the Argolid gulf. The hill rises like an 
  ABOVE When the inhabitants 
  realised that Mycenae lacked an 
  adequate supply of water to 
  withstand a prolonged siege, they 
  remedied the problem by extending 
  the fortifications to the north-east, 
  the third and final building phase of 
  the citadel (end LH IIIB). Fresh 
  water was then transported via 
  gravity-fed pipes from springs in the 
  hills to the east to a subterranean 
  cistern. Known as the Secret 
  Cistern, this was excavated just 
  outside the new fortification walls, 
  and was accessed via an elaborate 
  descending stepped passage with a 
  concealed entrance, seen here, just 
  inside the curtain-wall. (Author's 
  collection) 
  29 
  
  ABOVE The citadel of Mycenae and 
  the surrounding area. (© Copyright 
  Osprey Publishing Ltd.) 
  RIGHT Of the two sally ports that 
  pierce Mycenae's north-east 
  extension, this, the South Sally Port, 
  is the more monumental. Once 
  thought to be a secret, or at least 
  concealed entrance, it is, in truth, 
  anything but hidden, as the area it 
  leads to is unsuitable for tactical 
  manoeuvring. A systematic 
  investigation of this area 
  demonstrated that there was a low 
  terrace covering the uneven surface 
  of the bedrock in front of the 
  curtain-wall. This afforded a view 
  over the ravine of the Khavos and 
  served the ends of both security 
  and relaxation. (Author's collection) 
  island out of the plain and the geoarchaeological work of E. Zangger has 
  demonstrated that the coastline in the Mycenaean period was less than 1km 
  from Tiryns. Always famous for its great walls, Homer speaks of 'wall-girt Tiryns' 
  (Iliad 2.559), while Pindar stands in awe of the 'Cyclopean doorways' (fr. 169.6 
  30 
  
  31 
  The Secret Cistern, Mycenae 
  A major feature of the north-east extension, built in Mycenae's 
  third and final phase of fortification building, was the inclusion of a 
  tunnel leading from within the enceinte to an underground water 
  source outside the walls. As this cutaway reconstruction shows, the 
  Secret Cistern is approached by an oblique passage through the 
  north curtain-wall.The tunnel then descends 18 steps north-west 
  followed by a short horizontal passage, which in turn leads to 20 
  steps west, three steps north-west and, finally, 60 steps north-east. 
  At the bottom is a rectangular shaft, which serves as a cistern. 
  Water flows via gravity-fed pipes from springs in the hills to the 
  east of the citadel, thereby bringing fresh water supplies within the 
  fortification walls.The cistern itself is not large, but the capacity is 
  enormously increased when the water is allowed to flood the 
  whole of the- lower flight of steps where the rock vault rises to a 
  height of over 3.6m.To prevent seepage this part of the staircase is 
  covered with waterproof cement. 
  
  RIGHT The entrance to the Secret 
  Cistern ideally demonstrates the 
  principles of the corbelled arch, one 
  of the main characteristics of 
  Mycenaean megalithic construction. 
  Corbel vaulting is the projection of 
  each successive course of stones 
  slightly beyond the course below, so 
  that the wall is stepped upward and 
  outward. As the centre of gravity of 
  the whole tended to move beyond 
  its base as each course was added, 
  counterbalance was provided by 
  piling increasing thicknesses of 
  masonry around the exterior. 
  (Author's collection) 
  TOP RIGHT The staircase down to 
  the Secret Cistern starts inside the 
  enceinte and goes down below the 
  north curtain-wall, constantly 
  changing direction. This shot shows 
  the first of three sections that make 
  up the staircase. This section begins 
  with a corbelled entrance, which 
  allows access to the corbelled 
  tunnel seen here. The 16 irregular 
  stone steps lead obliquely down 
  through the curtain-wall to a door, 
  built in the Cyclopean style, which 
  gives onto a narrow landing roofed 
  with horizontal slabs. At this point 
  the second section starts. 
  (Author's collection) 
  BOTTOM RIGHT The South Sally Port 
  pierces the south curtain-wall at 
  right angles via a long, narrow and 
  unobtrusive passage through its 
  thickness. The passage roof has 
  corbel vaulting. At either end the 
  passage was probably secured by 
  reinforced wooden doors, which, 
  when opened, allowed the defenders 
  to slide through singly as the need 
  arose. (Photograph Esther Carre) 
  Sandys). Pausanias (9.36.3) considers 
  the fortification walls are no less 
  deserving 
  of 
  respect 
  than 
  the 
  pyramids of Egypt. Elsewhere, he 
  describes the walls as consisting of 
  natural rocks 'so huge that a pair of 
  mules would not even begin to shift 
  the smallest' (2.25.7). And despite the 
  ravages of time, Tiryns' Cyclopean 
  walls remain the finest specimens of 
  the 
  military architecture 
  of the 
  Mycenaeans. 
  The enceinte 
  After piecemeal fortification of the 
  higher southern part of the hill and 
  the founding of a palace during the 
  earliest palatial period (LH IIIA), the 
  entire summit was encircled by the 
  splendid Cyclopean walls still visible 
  today (LH IIIB). Built of red and grey 
  limestone, which is abundant on the hillock itself and on the hill of Profitis 
  Ilias just east of the site, the circuit-wall of the third and final building phase 
  (Citadel III) represents the apogee of Mycenaean military architecture. 
  Encompassing an area of 23,000m2 (2.3ha) the circuit-wall runs for some 725m 
  around the brow of the hill. It is composed of irregular boulders of varying 
  dimensions, laid as far as possible in horizontal courses. The stones, the largest 
  of which are estimated to weigh over 14,000kg, are partially hammer-dressed. 
  Smaller stones bonded with clay mortar fill the interstices. Round the Unterburg 
  the walls are 7 to 8m thick and stand directly on the bedrock. Those round the 
  irregular Upper Citadel, where towers, salients and re-entrant angles break their 
  line, vary in thickness from 4.5 to 17m, in many places they average 7.5m, and 
  stand to about half their original height of around 10m. 
  In two locations the fortification walls of the Upper Citadel contain galleries 
  (East Gallery, South Gallery). The East Gallery is a long narrow passage (29.1 by 
  32 
  
  The earliest of all the Mycenaean 
  citadels,Tiryns served as the 
  archetype on which the others 
  were modelled. The citadel is most 
  impressive from below, and here we 
  see the conspicuous remains of the 
  west curtain-wall looking from the 
  south-east. (Author's collection) 
  1.65m) with a corbel-vaulted roof. Six square 
  chambers open at regular intervals along its 
  eastern length, which are entered through 
  openings varying from 1.5 to 1.7m wide. The 
  chambers themselves measure 4.9 to 5.05m by 
  3 to 3.1m. The South Gallery is shorter (21.9 by 
  2.58m) and five chambers open off it. The 
  doorways vary in width from 1.2 to 1.5m, 
  while the chambers here measure 4.25 to 5.4m 
  to 3.25 to 3.35m. Set within the thickness of 
  the circuit-wall, these chambers may well have 
  been magazines. 
  Gateways 
  The principal entrance was in the middle of the 
  east curtain-wall, while a postern pierced the 
  great semicircular bastion that projects on the 
  west flank of the Upper Citadel. In addition, 
  there were two posterns in the Unterburg. 
  The East Gate opened in the outer wall, here 
  7.5m thick, and was approached via a 47m 
  long and 4.7m wide steep ramp that was 
  suitable for chariots. Its disposition exposed 
  the attacker's unshielded side to the defenders 
  and necessitated a sharp turn at the top. 
  Beyond the gate itself, of which there is no 
  trace but was probably double-leafed and 
  reinforced with bronze plates, runs a long 
  narrow passage running north and south 
  between the inner and outer walls. Turning 
  right the passage leads down to the Unterburg, 
  while some 50m to the left stands another entrance, the middle gateway, which 
  is almost equal in dimensions to the Lion Gate at Mycenae and built of the 
  same material. Here the monolithic threshold has pivot-holes for the 
  double-leafed gate that closed the entranceway, and in the rebated doorjambs 
  are the boltholes, 15cm in diameter, allowing a wooden crossbar to be shot 
  home into the wall. Beyond the passage widens to form a roofed corridor (or 
  barbican), narrowing again to a point where a third entrance, the inner 
  gateway, stood, which gave access to the palace complex. 
  This is the most elaborate of Mycenaean entrance systems, combining three 
  gateways, outer, middle and inner, and two long narrow passages or 'killing 
  boxes'. The latter, which formed a no-man's land between outer and middle 
  The impressive remains of the ramp 
  leading up to the East Gate, the 
  principal gateway of Tiryns, looking 
  from the north-east. Some 4.7m 
  wide, this ramp formed an approach 
  practicable for chariots, while its 
  disposition exposed the attacker's 
  right, or unshielded side, to the 
  defenders on the east curtain-wall 
  and necessitated a sharp turn to the 
  right at the summit. (Author's 
  collection) 
  33 
  
  34 
  'Wall-girt Tiryns' 
  Tiryns squats menacingly on a long, low, rocky 
  limestone height, which rises like an island out 
  of the Argive plain near the innermost cove of 
  the Argolid gulf. This reconstruction takes the 
  form of an oblique aerial shot from the south-
  west, thereby emphasising Tiryn's impressive 
  west curtain-wall. Composite in construction, 
  the curtain-wall was built as two megalithic 
  'skins' with a fill of smaller rubble and earth. 
  Typical of Cyclopean masonry, this building 
  method forms strong bulwarks and near 
  impregnable defences, which, along this stretch 
  of Tiryns' enceinte, average some 7.5m in 
  thickness. Crowning the curtain-wall is a 
  walkway with a narrow protective parapet on 
  the outer edge of sun-dried mud-brick. 
  
  35 
  East Gate.Tiryns 
  This cutaway reconstruction 
  shows the gateway complex 
  that forms the principle 
  entranceway of Tiryns.The 
  East Gate is the most 
  elaborate of Mycenaean 
  entrance systems, combining 
  three gateways, outer, 
  middle and inner, and two 
  long narrow, open passages 
  or 'killing boxes' running 
  north and south between 
  the inner and outer walls. 
  Attackers could have been 
  trapped in these confined 
  spaces and picked off by the 
  defenders above. With little 
  room for movement, each 
  one was a trap difficult to 
  escape. Note that the 
  disposition of the outer 
  gateway exposed the 
  attacker's unshielded side to 
  the defenders and 
  necessitated at the top of 
  the ramp a sharp turn. 
  Beyond the gate itself runs 
  the first of the two 'killing 
  boxes'. 
  
  BOTTOM LEFT Homer-speaks of 
  'wall-girt Tiryns' (Iliad 2.559) and 
  the Cyclopean enceinte is built of 
  two kinds of local limestone, red 
  and grey, in irregular blocks of 
  different sizes, laid as far as possible 
  in horizontal courses. These massive 
  stones, the largest of which are in 
  truth boulders weighing over 
  14,000kg, are partially 
  hammer-dressed; smaller stones 
  bonded with clay mortar fill the 
  interstices. In this shot we are 
  looking at the inner facade of the 
  East Gate. (Author's collection) 
  BOTTOM RIGHT The middle gateway 
  of Tiryns, looking back towards the 
  East Gate (right of centre) with the 
  continuation of the passage down 
  to the Unterburg, is almost equal in 
  dimensions to the Lion Gate at 
  Mycenae and built of the same 
  material - conglomerate. Here the 
  monolithic threshold has holes for 
  the pivots of the double-leafed gate 
  that once closed the entrance, and 
  in the rebated doorjambs are the 
  bolt-holes allowing a wooden 
  crossbar to be shot home into the 
  wall. (Author's collection) 
  gateways, and middle and inner gateways, recall the parallel walls that fortified 
  earlier sites as Dimini and Kastri. Attackers could have been trapped in these 
  confined spaces and picked off by the defenders. With little room for 
  movement, each one was a trap difficult to escape. 
  The West Gate, in truth a postern and added onto the existing circuit-wall 
  during the third building phase (Citadel III), is a splendid example of 
  Mycenaean fortification engineering. A massive bastion (West Bastion), which 
  forms a sickle-shaped extension of the second-phase west curtain-wall (Citadel 
  II), fully contains and protects this entrance system. On the outside the 
  entranceway is small and unobtrusive, 2.5m high with corbelled exterior and 
  no trace of a door. Inside however, it quickly opens up both in height and 
  width as it proceeds through the thickness of Cyclopean curtain-wall to a 
  stairway than runs along the line of the circuit-wall. Opposite the postern and 
  roughly parallel to the stairway stands the original west curtain-wall. From its 
  parapet the defenders could have easily compromised the attackers, who, 
  because of the curving course of the stairway, were left completely exposed to 
  missiles hurled from above. Finally, at the top of the flight of 65 steps stands a 
  tower, which obviously served to guard this section of the entrance system. 
  Interior 
  Having negotiated the three gateways that make up the principal entrance to 
  the citadel the visitor passes through the Great Propylon, a monumental 
  gateway to the palace complex, and reaches a forecourt. Of regular plan, this 
  unit occupies the entire southern section of the Upper Citadel. A smaller 
  colonnaded propylon at the north end of the forecourt takes the visitor into 
  the core of the palace complex. 
  First comes a court with porticoes on three sides, which would have 
  supported balconies at first-floor level. Here is a circular altar on the axis of the 
  megaron, and it was certainly likely that ceremonies were held in the court. 
  Facing south along the axis of the court stands the megaron, the principal 
  element in the palace complex, forming a rectangle measuring externally 25 by 
  12.5m. Having entered by a porch, the visitor then passes through the 
  anteroom to finally reach the large throne room (11.8 by 9.80m) dominated by 
  its circular hearth, some 3m in diameter, enclosed by four stuccoed wooden 
  columns. A throne sat on the right side of the room, opposite the hearth. The 
  36 
  
  floor was decorated with squares 
  separated by zones of rosettes, 
  enclosing alternately an octopus 
  and a pair of dolphins framed by 
  a net pattern. Three zones of 
  rosettes surrounded the base of 
  the throne. The walls of this 
  room 
  were 
  decorated 
  with 
  frescoes. 
  A long corridor around most 
  of the megaron connects a series 
  of smaller apartments and also 
  gives admittance to a second 
  megaron and court on the east. 
  Similar apartments to its west 
  included a bathroom. Here the 
  extant floor consists of a single 
  block of grey limestone, gently 
  tilted so that wastewater drains 
  away. Panels, possibly of wood 
  that had been plastered, were 
  fixed in the drilled dowel holes 
  around the edge of the block. 
  Having negotiated the East Gate 
  (left of centre), the visitor then 
  entered a long narrow passage 
  running north and south between 
  the inner and outer walls of Tiryns. 
  Turning right (towards the camera) 
  the passage leads down to the 
  Unterburg, while some 50m to the 
  left stands another entrance, the 
  middle gateway, seen here in the 
  distance. As this picture perfectly 
  illustrates, would-be attackers could 
  have been trapped in this confined 
  space and picked off by the 
  defenders positioned on the 
  curtain-walls. (Author's collection) 
  The 
  Unterburg 
  The Unterburg is connected to the Upper Citadel via the north 
  extension of the passage immediately beyond the outer gateway 
  of the East Gate. It also has two approaches of its own, the North 
  Postern and the West Postern. The Unterburg is arranged on a 
  terrace and built to a single plan. The structures within were 
  aligned along the length of the circuit-wall and separated by 
  alleyways orientated north to south. A central street runs south 
  from the North Postern to link up with the passage leading to 
  the Upper Citadel. Ten building complexes have been identified. 
  They seem to have been residences and workshops, the latter for 
  working metal and precious materials such as ivory. Similar uses 
  are also attested in the galleries of the circuit-wall. 
  Two openings in the north-west section of the circuit-wall 
  provide access to passages that lead diagonally through the 
  Cyclopean curtain-wall. They continue outside, underground, 
  sloping down to the west where there is a natural spring with its 
  waters seeping through the rock. The openings inside the 
  curtain-wall are some 9m apart, but they gradually converge 
  beyond the wall. The northern passage is 28.9m long and 
  terminates in a small, shallow reservoir hollowed out of the 
  bedrock. The southern passage also terminates in a rock-cut 
  basin after a length of 30.7m through the wall and out beyond 
  it. The walls of both passages are built with Cyclopean masonry, and evidence 
  of clay is preserved at the joints between the boulders. The roofs of the passages 
  are corbel-vaulted. The average height in each passage is 3.5m, while the width 
  at the base is 1.4m. Since the water supply was plentiful and in demand, two 
  passages better fulfilled the function of supplying the needs of those seeking 
  protection behind the fortification walls in time of siege. 
  Midea 
  Apollodoros (Bibliotheca 2.4.4) associates Midea with the hero Perseus, who, as 
  with Mycenae, was its founder. Certainly Midea's prominent position amongst 
  The East Gallery was built into the 
  thickness of the south-eastern 
  corner of Tiryn's east curtain-wall. 
  The gallery, a long narrow passage 
  with a corbel-vaulted roof, gives 
  access to six square chambers 
  placed at regular intervals along its 
  eastern length (seen right). The 
  chambers may well have been 
  magazines for the storage of 
  foodstuffs. (Author's collection) 
  37 
  
  the Mycenaean centres of the Argolid has been emphasised by scholars. It is 
  considered the third Mycenaean citadel after Mycenae and Tiryns, thanks 
  chiefly to the rich finds, which include the Dendra Panoply from the LH IIIA 
  cemetery in the neighbouring area of Dendra, just a kilometre to the west. It 
  has been assumed that the acropolis of Midea and the necropolis at Dendra 
  were connected because of the close proximity of the two sites. 
  Excavations at the site began in 1907 under the auspices of the German 
  Archaeological Institute, and were continued in 1939 by the Swedish 
  archaeologist A. W. Persson, who opened a number of trenches on the lower 
  terraces and brought to light a few architectural remains on the summit of the 
  hill. These he attributed to a palace. In 1963 the current Greek-Swedish 
  collaboration began in Midea with a small trial excavation near the East Gate. 
  Excavations within the enceinte were resumed in 1983 and have continued 
  systematically since then under the joint direction of K. Demakopoulou (Greek 
  Archaeological Service) and, until 1999, P. Astrom (Swedish Institute at 
  Athens). Since 2000 A-L. Schallin has directed the Swedish side of the project. 
  Topography 
  Although not listed by Homer in the Catalogue of Ships, Strabo describes Midea 
  as near Tiryns (8.6.11). Pausanias is a little more precise, and says that, 
  returning from Tiryns on the road leading from Argos to Epidauros, 'you will 
  reach Midea on the left' (2.25.9). Dominating the eastern edge of the Argive 
  plain, the citadel sits atop a conical hill (270m) and is located about halfway 
  between Mycenae and Tiryns. 
  The enceinte 
  The circuit-wall encloses an area of about 24,000m2 (c. 2.4ha) protecting the 
  upper citadel and the lower terraces. Covering a circuit over a kilometre long, 
  it follows the natural contours of the rock in sweeping curves. However, the 
  south-west slope is precipitous enough to have remained unfortified. In length 
  it is third only to Gla and Eutresis. 
  The construction of the circuit-wall is of medium-sized (not Cyclopean) flat 
  blocks, placed roughly in courses but having a polygonal effect due to their 
  irregular shapes. An interesting feature of this circuit-wall is that these blocks 
  form the entire thickness of the wall; there is no trace of the rubble and earth fill 
  found in Cyclopean walls. This is also true of the circuit-wall at Gla and, along 
  with the use at both sites of medium-sized flat blocks, suggests a second type of 
  Mycenaean fortification construction. This may be partly due to the great length 
  of the circuits at both sites, and to the building stone available locally. 
  Gateways 
  The two gateways of the citadel are opposite to each other on the east and west 
  sides of the fortification. 
  The East Gate opens inwards, from a width of 1.55m at its outer entrance to 
  2.25m in the interior. This is probably a characteristic feature of Mycenaean 
  gateways. The pavement consists of thick, irregular stone slabs over a bed of 
  earth and rubble fill. The approach leading up to the entranceway cannot be 
  traced, but it was probably a steep ramp leading up from the north-west. The 
  enemy who ventured along it would thus leave his right flank exposed to the 
  defenders on the curtain-wall. Just inside the gateway, facing the entranceway, 
  the bedrock rises vertically, obliging the visitor to turn at right angles and 
  proceed southward to the top of the citadel. A corridor some 4.5m wide is thus 
  formed similar to the one that forms part of the entrance system at Tiryns. The 
  defenders of the gateway could stand at the top of this eminence and rain 
  down missiles on anyone attempting to force an entrance. 
  The West Gate lies between the end of the south-west part of the 
  circuit-wall, which at this point was extended to form a bastion projecting 
  38 
  
  5.25m from the wall, and a retaining wall covering a vertical cliff. The opening 
  between them is 4.56m on the outside, and narrows down to 4.1m where the 
  bastion ends and the thickening of the wall begins. The location of this 
  gateway was carefully chosen for the natural advantages it offered for the 
  protection of the citadel as a whole. The ramp used as an approach was cut out 
  of the bedrock. It extends 70m southward and is limited to a width of 3m by a 
  precipice on its west side and the wall of the citadel rock on the east. 
  Interior 
  The summit consists of the bare citadel rock. At about the centre of the 
  acropolis, which also happens to be its highest point, a 50m area was levelled 
  presumably for the palace. In outline it is L-shaped and reminiscent of the 
  'palace' at Gla. The longer section runs north to south and a wing on the south 
  side runs east to west. A large amount of coarse ware for domestic use and fine 
  decorated pottery was found, all of which is dated to the middle years of the 
  LH IIIB period. Other finds include jewellery, sealstones, fresco fragments, 
  terracotta roof tiles and numerous clay figurines, all similar to that from 
  Mycenae and Tiryns. 
  In the area inside the West Gate recent excavations (1996-2000) have 
  brought to light a complex of rooms built on successive terraces parallel to the 
  fortification wall. The evidence to date suggests that it was a large building 
  complex with two wings separated by a central corridor with a built drain 
  running through it. The best-preserved rooms, which were basement rooms, 
  are those built against the circuit-wall. The finds, such as stirrup jars; 
  millstones; whetstones; stone mortars; stone, bronze and bone tools; raw 
  materials such as ochre, fluorite and mother-of-pearl; and a steatite mould for 
  casting beads, show that most of these rooms were magazines and workshops, 
  some of the latter for the manufacture of jewellery. With regards to storage, of 
  special interest are four clay sealings with Linear B inscriptions and three 
  stirrup jars also bearing Linear B inscriptions, which show that Midea was an 
  administrative centre like Mycenae and Tiryns. 
  Gla 
  Gla attracted the interests of travellers and antiquarians from as early as the 
  beginning of the 19th century. Visitors to the site included E. Dodwell (1805), 
  W. M. Leake (1806), and L. Ross (1834). All noted it as a fortified hill or island 
  (depending on the season at which they saw it). Schliemann made an 
  excursion on horseback to here from nearby Orchomenos (1881), but did not 
  consider it worth investigating. 
  F. Noack was the first scholar to survey the site (May 1893), and drew plans 
  of the rock, the enceinte and the visible remains. A month later A. de Ridder, 
  who was to excavate the buildings within the enceinte and study the 
  fortifications, came to the site. He dated the entire site to the late Mycenaean 
  period. The following year, Noack completed his survey and produced a 
  topographical plan of the hill and the structures on it. Thereafter, the Greek 
  Archaeological Service conducted extensive excavations, first by I. Threpsiades 
  (1955-61), and more recently by S. E. Iakovidis (1981-91). 
  A citadel without a name 
  The modern inhabitants of the area know the citadel as Paliokastro (literally 
  'ancient fortress'), while in archaeological literature it appears as Gla, the 
  Albanian equivalent of its Greek name. Noack (1894: 463-74) equated Gla with 
  Homer's 'Arne, rich in grapes' (Iliad 2.507), whereas an earlier visitor to the site, 
  K. Bursian (1862), had previously identified it with Kopai (Iliad 2.502), the town 
  from which the name lake Kopais derived in antiquity. Hope Simpson and 
  Lazenby (1970: 31), on the other hand, argue that if Gla was a citadel rather 
  than a settlement, the epithet 'rich in grapes' would be somewhat 
  39 
  
  The Kopaic basin, looking south-west 
  from the South Gate of Gla towards 
  Mount Helikon, the legendary home 
  of the Nine Muses. Throughout the 
  centuries, the basin was annually 
  flooded and transformed into a 
  marsh or lake, depending on the time 
  of the year, and on these occasions 
  the citadel rock became an island. 
  While the Mycenaean drainage 
  system was functioning, however, Gla 
  was surrounded by a fertile plain and 
  could be approached by dry land, as it 
  can today, now that the lake has been 
  drained again. (Author's collection) 
  inappropriate. Although attractive, the case for linking Gla with Homer's Kopai, 
  which means 'oars' and thus possibly reflects a time when the normal method 
  of transport to the place was by boat, no longer stands. Kopai has almost 
  certainly been located at the modern village of Topolia near Levadia. Sadly, like 
  Midea, Gla appears to have been omitted from the Catalogue of Ships. 
  Topography 
  Located in the north-east corner of the Kopaic basin, Gla squats upon a low, 
  rocky eminence that rises sharply from 9.5 to 38m above the surrounding 
  plain. The hill is pear-shaped, almost 900m long from east to west and a 
  maximum of 575m across from north to south. The total surface area covered 
  is some 200,000m2 (c. 20ha), and has a comparatively even summit, though the 
  sides are very steep, especially on the north. Throughout the centuries, the 
  Kopais was annually flooded and transformed into a swamp or lake, depending 
  on the time of year, and on these occasions the citadel rock became an island. 
  This 
  condition 
  arose 
  when 
  the 
  Mycenaean 
  drainage 
  system 
  of 
  Cyclopean-walled dykes and canals was neglected and the sinkholes 
  (katavothroi) became choked up by refuse in antiquity (Strabo 9.2.40, Pausanias 
  9.38.7). While the drainage system was functioning, however, the rock was 
  surrounded by a fertile plain and could be approached by dry land. 
  The enceinte 
  Enclosing the entire summit-plateau - an area ten times greater than at Tiryns 
  and Athens, and seven times greater than Mycenae - the enceinte circles the hill 
  in a continuous unbroken circuit along the brow of the rock, and is some 
  2.8km in length. Built as a single unit, the preserved height ranges between 3 
  and 5m. It exhibits a uniform thickness of 5.4 to 5.8m, but has no galleries or 
  drains. Uniquely, at intervals of 6 to 12m, the outer face of the circuit-wall is 
  broken by vertical offsets that project 10 to 60cm, giving the wall a serrated 
  appearance. This configuration of the outer face is duplicated on the inner, 
  where the row of offsets is repeated in reverse. This was devised as a means of 
  breaking up the curved line of the circuit-wall into short, straight sections. 
  According to Iakovidis (2001: 12) the local limestone is veined in a manner that 
  when quarried it breaks into regular blocks unsuitable for curved surfaces. 
  40 
  
  Like Midea, the circuit-wall was thus constructed using medium-sized slab-like 
  blocks, roughly dressed at their sides and corners, with small stone wedges 
  between. The bedrock was first dressed, and an irregular layer of flat stones was 
  then laid on top so as to create a more or less level surface. On top of this the flat 
  blocks were laid in almost horizontal courses, which make up the whole thickness 
  of the wall rather than rubble and earth fill found in Cyclopean walls. 
  Gateways 
  In total, four gateways (South Gate, West Gate, North Gate, South-East Gate) 
  pierce the circuit-wall. All were built with carefully selected and assembled 
  blocks - long square blocks (almost ashlar) in fairly horizontal courses. A 
  Mycenaean road encircles the site, which ascends to all four gateways via ramps 
  made of packed earth and small stones, except that leading up to the South 
  Gate, which has a stone-paved ramp 100m long and 6m wide. 
  This gateway is the largest and strongest, protected by two massive bastions 
  built at an angle to the circuit-wall and projecting beyond and behind it. The 
  diagonal position of the entranceway in relation to the line of the circuit-wall 
  is because the slope of the ground requires it. The outer projections are solid 
  (packed fill), while the interior ones are chambered and probably served as two 
  guardrooms. The bastions are built of rectangular blocks in courses, and larger 
  headers and stretchers strengthen the corners. The blocks are not placed tightly 
  together, but the interstices are filled with smaller stones (as at Tiryns). 
  The west bastion projects 5.9m forward from the threshold, and the east 
  11.64m, thus the difference in lengths offered the opportunity of enfilading 
  attackers both flank and rear. Moreover, the entranceway has an approach 
  requiring a turn, and whether the enemy approached from the east or west 
  side, the east bastion, projecting a little further than the west bastion, was 
  always to the right of the attacker. A 3.5m-wide ramp led up to the summit of 
  the east bastion and the entire gateway complex. Evidence of brick hardened 
  by fire indicates that the superstructure was of sun-dried mud-brick reinforced 
  by a timber framework. Further burnt remains, namely charcoal, white ash, 
  pieces of bronze and broken nails, indicate that the double-leafed gate was 
  made of wood reinforced with bronze plates. As there is no evidence for 
  stone-built or monolithic lintel and doorjambs (as at Mycenae and Tiryns), the 
  frame was probably wooden also. 
  The West Gate is approached by several steps cut out of the rock or formed 
  by two blocks alongside one another, which lead up the short, steep slope on 
  this side of the hill. The steps end before the entranceway (5.25m wide). This 
  is protected on either side by a projecting bastion, some 5.6m wide, thrown out 
  from the regular line of the circuit-wall, which forms an obtuse angle with the 
  north bastion and an acute angle with the south one. The entranceway then 
  was inserted at a diagonal line through the wall, and the bastions were added 
  onto the thickness of the wall itself. The bastions are built of flat-cut blocks, 
  and larger headers and stretchers strengthen the corners. Small stones are 
  wedged in between the corners to fill the interstices. 
  The North Gate is approached from the north-west along a gently sloping 
  pathway coming from the direction of Orchomenos and leading into the 
  citadel. The only indication of an opening along this rather straight section of 
  the circuit-wall is the slight projection of the bastions on either side of the 
  entranceway (5.5m wide). The bastions project 0.6 and 0.7m respectively from 
  the outer face of the circuit-wall. The north-west bastion is 5.9m wide, the 
  north-east one 6.28m. The large size and construction of the bastions here, 
  similar to those of the West Gate, provide the defences for this gateway. 
  The South-East Gate differs from the others in that it has a double entrance, 
  each with its own guardroom placed on the right as you enter. There is a very 
  slight projection of the bastions, whose extensions line the entranceways on 
  either side and include the guardrooms within their thickness. The east bastion 
  41 
  
  42 
  Gla 
  A reconstruction panorama, looking from the south-east, illustrating Gla. Its fortifications circle the 
  low, rocky eminence in a continuous unbroken circuit along the brow of the summit-plateau. 
  Within lies a large enclosure divided in two by a cross-wall, the north section housing the 'palace', 
  and the south section the 'agora'. Four gateways, located at roughly the cardinal points of the 
  compass, pierce the enceinte. At the foot of the rock is the Mycenaean road that circumnavigates 
  the citadel and beyond lies arable land.Throughout the centuries, the Kopa'i's was annually flooded 
  and transformed into a swamp or lake, depending on the time of year, and on these occasions the 
  citadel-rock became an island. While the Mycenaean drainage-system of dykes and canals was 
  functioning, however, Gla was surrounded by a fertile plain and could be approached by dry land. 
  
  is 3.9m wide, the west one 4.9m. As a wall running roughly north from the 
  South-East Gate divides the citadel into two unequal parts, this gateway serves 
  the walled-off 'lower town' area with its eastern opening and the main citadel 
  with its western one. 
  Interior 
  The western section covers nine-tenths of the summit plateau, and contains a 
  centrally placed large enclosure divided into two by a cross-wall, the north section 
  housing the 'palace' and the south section the 'agora'. Abutting the circuit-wall, 
  the perimeter wall of this enclosure is preserved for its entire length and 
  encompasses an area of about 66,000m2 (c. 6.6ha). The main entrance to the 
  enclosure was situated in the middle of the south perimeter wall, opposite the 
  South Gate. 
  The palace is an L-shaped building, consisting of two long narrow wings, one 
  orientated east-west (North Wing), and the other north-south (East Wing). The 
  whole complex perches on an artificial Cyclopean terrace, with the north wing 
  incorporated in the circuit-wall. Each wing is made up of multifarious and 
  abnormally small apartments, two to three rooms each, connected by corridors. 
  There is an entrance and main corridor to each wing. However, there is no throne, 
  hearth, or bath: the typical attributes of a Mycenaean palace. The two wings are 
  a mirror image of each other, and Iakovidis (2001: 40) argues that this structure 
  was the residence of two high administrative officials of equal rank. 
  The agora contains two long, narrow, parallel building-complexes running 
  north south, with two oblong rectangular buildings to the south that are identical 
  in size and plan: a central north-south passage divides each building into two 
  equal parts, which are subdivided in two large rooms. The west building complex 
  is a continuous long structure, with three narrow pillared halls (south) and a row 
  of small apartments (north). The east building complex exhibits a narrower, 
  simpler plan. De Ridder (1894: 297-301) postulated that the 'agora' could have 
  been the barracks for the garrison while Iakovidis (2001: 83), on the other hand, 
  argues for magazines and workshops. 
  Function 
  Gla is too bare, rocky and waterless to be a suitable location for a 'great 
  Mycenaean city' (Threpsiades 1962: 47-48). On the other hand, the remains 
  unearthed at Gla strongly suggest that the site was a sort of military stronghold. 
  The 'palace' is made up of a number of unusually small apartments, and the 
  'agora' could easily be interpreted as military quarters, the warriors perhaps 
  occupying the row of small apartments in the west building complex, with stables 
  (i.e. chariots) in the east building complex. Besides, the rectangularity of the 
  ground plan is rather unlike what we should have expected in a Mycenaean urban 
  settlement, and conjures up a picture of something much more like a Roman fort. 
  Moreover, the distinct lack of pottery shards also seems inconsistent with Gla 
  being an urban settlement. In fact, the most likely explanation for the 
  surrounding of such a barren site with a circuit-wall some 2.8km long is surely a 
  military one. 
  Gla is best seen as the headquarters for the maintenance of all the forts in the 
  north-west bay of the Kopais and the look-out posts on Mount Ptoon to the east. 
  Nearby stands Orchomenos, one of the major Mycenaean centres whose heyday 
  was probably the LH IIIB period, as was that of Gla. It can be reasoned, therefore, 
  that during this period Orchomenos, the wealth of which became proverbial (Iliad 
  9.381), controlled the citadel of Gla and the outposts and drainage system 
  associated with it. 
  Pylos 
  Strabo best sums up the controversies about the location of Nestor's Pylos when 
  he says 'there is a Pylos in front of Pylos and indeed there is still another Pylos' 
  43 
  
  Pylos as a whole was not fortified 
  during the LH IIIB period, although it 
  appears to been in an earlier LH IIIA 
  phase. The flat-topped ridge, upon 
  which the palace complex sits, rises 
  abruptly on all sides in a steep, 
  almost precipitous bank. It is only 
  towards the easternmost angle that 
  a relatively narrow terrace descends 
  somewhat lower. In this shot we see 
  the remains of what once was the 
  East Gate, either side of which are 
  traces of the corresponding 
  circuit-wall. (Author's collection) 
  (8.3.7). Strabo's preferred candidate for Nestor's capital was the Triphylian 
  Pylos, although it was well inland (8.3.14), whereas references by Homer 
  (Odyssey 3.4-5, 386-87, 423-24, 15.215-16) imply a site close to the sea. But 
  the discovery of the magnificent Mycenaean palace on the low but abrupt hill 
  of Epano Englianos, and the decipherment of the Linear B tablets, in which the 
  name PU-RO frequently occurs, have at least made it virtually certain that this 
  was the original 'sandy Pylos' of Homeric fame. 
  The palace on Epano Englianos ranks among the best preserved of Bronze 
  Age monuments in Greece. Beginning in 1939, excavations by C. W. Blegen 
  revealed the complete floor plan of a large palace complex with decorated walls 
  and floors, Linear B tablets and sealings, pottery and a variety of artefacts. In 
  the course of Blegen's campaigns at Pylos (1939, 1952-69), Piet de Jong, a 
  visiting architect, plotted walls as they appeared during excavation. 
  A citadel without walls 
  Strictly speaking Pylos is a palace not a citadel - Mycenae, Tiryns and Athens 
  are both palaces and citadels, whereas Gla is a citadel but arguably not a palace. 
  The hilltop site was not fortified during the LH IIIB period, although it appears 
  to have been in an earlier LH IIIA phase. The puzzling question, therefore, is 
  why was the Mycenaean palace not protected, as was the norm, by Cyclopean 
  walls? The gentle north-eastern approach was certainly fortified by a gateway 
  and curtain-walls before the period of the last palace. The large number of 
  administrative records surviving on the clay tablets (about 1,200 fragments) 
  demonstrates Pylos was a centre of government in the LH IIIB period, 
  comparable to Mycenae or Tiryns. It is certainly hard to believe that in the 
  period when the walls of Mycenae, Tiryns and Athens were being strengthened 
  and the area within them enlarged, a new palace complex in the south-western 
  Peloponnese was built without renewing or replacing the fortifications that 
  protected its predecessor. 
  One possible solution to this conundrum is to believe that Pylos was the 
  unchallenged power in Messenia, with no powerful neighbours to threaten it, as 
  was probably the case with Mycenae and Tiryns, and Thebes and Orchomenos). 
  With regards to possible external threats it probably relied upon its seapower for 
  security. Over 600 oarsmen are listed on two Linear B tablets (An 1, An 610), 
  while another (An 724) deals with those who are missing from the muster. All in 
  all these tablets suggest preparation for a naval operation. Another group of texts 
  44 
  
  contains lists of men who are assigned guard duty along the coast. The heading 
  of one tablet (An 657) reads: 'Thus the watchers are guarding the coast'. 
  Alternatively, it has been suggested that the Mycenaean economies were 
  overstrained by the construction of elaborate fortifications, and their absence, as 
  at Pylos, may reflect prudence or recognition of limits to their resources on the 
  part of local rulers. 
  Topography 
  The palace complex is set, within sight of the bay of Navarino, in a broken but 
  fertile landscape on a ridge between two ravines. The flat-topped ridge (150m) 
  has a maximum length of about 170m from south-west to north-east and a 
  width not exceeding 90m. It rises abruptly on all sides in a steep, almost 
  precipitous bank, some 4 to 7m high. It is only towards the north-easternmost 
  angle that a relatively narrow terrace descends somewhat lower. The palace 
  itself occupies only a little more than the south-western half of the hill. Its 
  position, however, commands an extensive view. From here a great part of the 
  coast to the west is clearly visible as well as the hinterland rising to the 
  mountain barrier of Aigaleon to the east. 
  The palace 
  In its last and most splendid phase, dated to the LH IIIB period, the palace 
  complex consisted of two-storeyed half-timbered buildings in three main 
  blocks. The exterior walls were faced in squared slabs of soft limestone (poros) 
  bonded with clay, the inner walls were of rubble coated in mud plaster with a 
  lime plaster surface decorated with frescoes, and had wooden wainscots. The 
  upper storey had mud-brick walls between the vertical timbers. Columns, 
  door-casings, wainscoting, ceiling and roofs were all constructed mainly of 
  wood, and this abundance of combustible material accounts for the 
  devastating effect of the fire that destroyed the palace complex. 
  The Main Building contained the megaron, propylon, palace archives, 
  magazines and private chambers. Its most conspicuous feature was the 
  megaron, two storeys high, the idiosyncratic Mycenaean architectural unit was 
  composed of a porch with two wooden columns, an anteroom and the 
  rectangular throne room (12.9 by 11.2m) decorated in bright frescoes. One of 
  the preserved frescoes depicts a couchant lion and a couchant griffin, while 
  another shows a male figure seated on a rock and playing a lyre. The main 
  feature of the throne room was its circular fixed hearth. Fashioned of richly 
  decorated 
  stuccoed 
  clay, 
  even 
  today it forms an impressive 4m 
  diameter circle raised some 20cm 
  above the floor. Dominating the 
  throne room, this must have been 
  symbolic and not simply a source 
  of heat. The floor was divided 
  into patterned squares, all abstract 
  in design except for one with 
  an image of an octopus. This is 
  directly in front of a depression in 
  the floor against the right-hand 
  wall where a throne stood. Beside it 
  in the floor is a hollow from which 
  a narrow V-shaped channel leads to 
  a second slightly lower hollow 
  some 1.8m away. These may have 
  been 
  used 
  in 
  some 
  libation 
  ceremony performed 
  from 
  the 
  throne. 
  The highlight of any visit to the 
  Palace of Nestor (Pylos) must be 
  the throne room of the megaron. In 
  the centre of the throne room is a 
  great ceremonial hearth, made of 
  clay coated with stucco. The latter 
  was lavishly adorned with painted 
  patterns, such as symbolic flames 
  (some of which are still visible) and 
  spirals. The hearth itself was framed 
  by four stuccoed wooden columns, 
  which stood on stone bases - two 
  of which are visible here - and 
  supported a surrounding balcony 
  and a high clerestory. The throne 
  once stood to the right, facing the 
  hearth. (Author's collection) 
  45 
  
  The bathroom at the Palace of 
  Nestor, the only one of its kind yet 
  found in a Mycenaean palace with 
  its equipment still fairly well 
  preserved. Here we see the 
  terracotta larnax, or tub, decorated 
  with painted patterns, set into a 
  stucco-coated base made of clay. 
  The larnax is of the type that has a 
  slightly pinched-in waist. The bather 
  presumably sat in it while an 
  attendant poured water over him 
  or her. A convenient step of clay, 
  coated with stucco, made it easy to 
  step from the floor into the bath. 
  (Author's collection) 
  The hearth was surrounded by four stuccoed wooden columns, which held 
  up the ceiling leaving an open space at its centre. A balcony surrounded the 
  hearth on the second floor, which ended in a lantern above the roof to draw 
  off the smoke. Presumably there were private quarters on the first floor for the 
  ruler and his family. On the ground floor, besides the megaron, there were 
  archive rooms, olive-oil magazines and a pantry where hundreds of wine cups 
  (kylikes) were discovered. There is also a smaller megaron and bathroom with 
  its fixed terracotta tub (larnax) still in situ, which probably belonged to the 
  ruler's consort. 
  The South-West Building and North-East Building housed workshops, 
  magazines and private chambers. The extensive magazines have indicated to 
  some that the palace was playing an active economic role, mainly that of a 
  redistributor of agricultural products (Renfrew 1972: 296), and a large 
  settlement, covering some 200,000m2 (c, 20ha), has been located around the 
  palace hill but has not yet been fully explored. The functions of the various 
  workshops have been identified from fragments found in them and tablet lists. 
  They included a chariot repair shop and an armoury. Further to the north is a 
  separate building, the Wine Magazine, in which a large room contains some 35 
  large storage jars (pithoi) still in situ. Clay sealings were found marked in Linear 
  B with the ideogram interpreted as 'wine'. The impressions had been stamped 
  on lumps of clay wrapped around cords that tied on the lids or stoppers of the 
  wineskins or other containers that were brought here. In this way the senders 
  had certified the kind or vintage or source of each skin or jar. 
  Other citadels 
  Argos (Argolid) 
  The two heights in Argos, which lies some 7km inland at the head of the 
  Argolid gulf, are the lofty acropolis of Larissa (literally 'citadel'), and a lower 
  rounded hill called Aspis (literally 'round shield'). The Larissa (276m) is an 
  insulated conical rocky hill and one of the strongest fortresses in Greece, hence 
  its long and continuous history of occupation. The summit of the Aspis (100m) 
  is crowned with the remains of a Middle Helladic enceinte running about 150m 
  and approximates half the circumference of the circuit. Another Cyclopean 
  wall with a much larger circumference is evident in the north-east section of 
  the summit. Its thickness is 2.6m. The method of construction used here is the 
  46 
  
  Nestor's Palace 
  This reconstruction shows a cutaway view of the palace at Pylos. Its most conspicuous feature 
  is the megaron, which is the idiosyncratic Mycenaean architectural unit composed of a porch 
  with two wooden columns between antae, an anteroom and the throne room sumptuously 
  decorated by means of frescoes. Although the throne of the wanax stands against the middle of 
  the right-hand wall, the main feature of the throne room is its circular fixed hearth. Symbolic 
  and not simply a source of heat, this enormous hearth is surrounded by four stuccoed wooden 
  columns that support the ceiling leaving an open space at its centre. A balcony surrounds the 
  hearth on the second floor, which ends in a lantern above the roof to draw off the smoke. 
  There are private quarters on the first floor for the ruler and his family. On the ground floor, 
  besides the megaron, there are archive rooms, olive-oil magazines and a wine-pantry. 
  47 
  
  The Larissa of Argos, one of the 
  strongest fortresses in Greece, has 
  a long and continuous history of 
  occupation. Sections of antique 
  masonry can be traced in the 
  medieval kastro, which was built 
  largely on the old foundations by 
  the Byzantines and Franks, and 
  enlarged by the Venetians and 
  Ottoman Turks. Archaeology has 
  revealed that the medieval inner 
  keep incorporates traces of a 
  Cyclopean wall, which once 
  protected the Mycenaean citadel, 
  and Euripides refers to Argos as 'the 
  city built by the Cyclopes' 
  (Herakles 15). Looking south-east 
  towards Nauplion from the summit 
  of the Larissa, here we see part of 
  the medieval fortifications, with the 
  modern agricultural town of 
  Argos immediately below. 
  (Author's collection) 
  same as that of the smaller wall, though the later blocks are much larger. Along 
  its internal face domestic structures were built up against it. 
  It may be that the early settlement fortified by the circular wall was followed 
  by a Mycenaean one that was not sufficiently protected by its fortifications, so 
  the citadel was moved up to the Larissa. Unfortunately later fortifications here, 
  dominated by the imposing Frankish castle, have obscured the earlier remains. 
  Asine (Argolid) 
  Homer notes Asine's location in the Catalogue of Ships, unusual for Mycenaean 
  sites, as 'lying down the deep gulf (Iliad 2.560), that is, the Hermionic gulf 
  some 8km south-east of Navplio. The acropolis (51m) overlooks an excellent 
  deep-water harbour with wide beaches, suitable for the drawing up of ancient 
  ships, and sheltering islands. 
  The citadel sits on a triangular rocky hill, which is steep and naturally fortified 
  on the west side, excepting a few narrow ravines. On the east, it slopes gently 
  towards the sea (to the south-east) and sand dunes (to the north-east), and is 
  protected by the later Hellenistic and Venetian fortifications. The principal 
  entrance into the citadel is on the north-east while a triangular, terraced area on 
  the north-west and lower down forms the so-called Lower Town, where the 
  remains of a large Mycenaean building complex are still visible. Of the scanty 
  remains of the Mycenaean circuit-wall of Cyclopean construction, the best 
  preserved is the section running south-east to north-west and on the seaward side. 
  Athens (Attica) 
  In mythology we hear of the early kings of Athens who dwelt on the Acropolis, 
  kings such as Erechtheus in whose palace the goddess Athena was a frequent 
  visitor (Iliad 2.546-49, Odyssey 7.78-81), or Theseus of the many exploits, the 
  most celebrated of which was his slaying of the Minotaur (Apollodoros Epitome 
  1.7-9, Plutarch Theseus 15-19). 
  The Acropolis is a flat-topped rock (156m) rising from the centre of an enclosed 
  plain about 10km from the sea. Although the Acropolis owes its widespread fame 
  to the 5th-century BC buildings now visible, its history goes back at least to the 
  early Mycenaean period, when it was already the centre of a small settlement 
  nestled around its base. The level summit above was the site of a palace complex, 
  which reached its zenith in the LH IIIB period when a Cyclopean circuit-wall was 
  erected along the edge of the rock. Near the south-east corner of the south wing 
  48 
  
  of the Propylaia a section of curtain-wall is still 
  visible. Preserved in a continuous line - the outer 
  and inner faces are complete - the limestone 
  blocks are large and massive. It is some 6m thick. 
  The south-west corner of the Acropolis forms 
  a natural bulwark at a point where the rock 
  slopes down to form a convenient approach. 
  The natural advantages of this area were 
  recognised by the Mycenaean architects and 
  incorporated in the building of a projecting 
  bastion to protect the approach and principal 
  entranceway, which is now covered by the Nike 
  temple. However, excavations have shown that 
  this bastion was aligned east to west. The 
  construction of the faces consists of larger and 
  smaller unworked limestone blocks with a fill of 
  small stones and earth. The blocks were placed 
  directly on the bedrock, which was levelled and 
  dressed to receive them. The bastion itself is 
  considered as typical Mycenaean in form with 
  the formation of a long approach route along 
  the curtain-wall, which also could be defended 
  from the projecting bastion. A left turn was 
  then required to enter the citadel, thereby 
  hindering the enemy further in his attempt to 
  reach the entranceway itself. 
  For greater security, a second fortification 
  wall or outwork protected the bastion and the 
  whole western part of the Acropolis. This was 
  erected at the foot of the rock, enclosing the 
  west side and a little of the adjoining sections of 
  the north and south slopes. This outwork also 
  enclosed two sources of potable water. 
  In the course of fortifying the Acropolis the 
  Mycenaeans discovered a natural spring on the 
  north slope below where the Erechtheion now 
  stands. Deep within a cave an interior rock-cut 
  stairway of seven flights was constructed so that the spring could be reached from 
  the Acropolis above for supplies of fresh water. A little to the west of this secret 
  passage stood the North Postern, the second entranceway to the citadel. 
  Aulis (Boiotia) 
  Known to us from mythology as the gathering place of the Achaian fleet prior to 
  its departure for Troy, Aulis is a coastal site overlooking two bays some 5km south 
  of the Euripus strait. Here Iphigeneia, the daughter of Agamemnon, was fated to 
  be sacrificed for the safe voyage of the fleet, a theme developed by Euripides in his 
  tragedy Iphigeneia at Aulis. Trial excavations have revealed sections of a circuit-wall 
  built of very large blocks along the western slopes of the rocky promontory, 
  known locally as Nisi, which divides the bay of Aulis (Megalo Vathy) on the south 
  from the smaller bay (Mikro Vathy) on the north. The walls date to the LH III 
  period, and thus were part of the Mycenaean fortifications of Homer's 'rocky 
  Aulis' (Mad 2.496). 
  Eutresis (Boiotia) 
  Eutresis is situated in southern Boiotia and lies on a low, flat-topped hill at the 
  northern end of the plain of Leuktra not far from the Corinthian gulf. Homer 
  (Iliad 2.506) and Strabo, who calls it a 'small village' (9.2.28), both refer to it. The 
  Asine is mentioned by Homer (Iliad 
  2.560) as one of the places subject 
  to Diomedes, the king of Argos and 
  one of the most famous of the 
  heroes who fought at Troy. The site 
  includes the acropolis, built upon a 
  triangular rocky hill hard by the sea, 
  the surrounding area and Mount 
  Barbouna to the west. The Swedish 
  excavations have brought to light a 
  Mycenaean settlement (Lower Town) 
  with a corresponding necropolis on 
  Mount Barbouna. The extant 
  fortification walls of the acropolis, 
  seen here, include the large 
  projecting Hellenistic tower (c. 300 
  BC), named after Crown Prince (later 
  King) Gustaf Adolf, who came here 
  in 1920 on a private tour of Greece 
  and was the initiator of the Asine 
  excavations. (Author's collection) 
  49 
  
  The remains of a pillbox, built by 
  Italian soldiers during World War II, 
  on the acropolis of Asine. In his 
  Catalogue of Ships, Homer has 
  Asine 'lying down the deep gulf 
  (Iliad 2.560), that is, the Hermionic 
  gulf some 8km south-east of 
  Nauplion. As the view through the 
  gun-port of the pillbox indicates, the 
  acropolis overlooks and commands 
  a sheltered, deep-water harbour. 
  (Author's collection) 
  extensive circuit-wall of Cyclopean masonry, which encloses an area of 
  213,000m2 (21.3ha), bear out the tradition that the citadel was important in the 
  LH IIIB period. In sheer size it is the equal of Gla, but unlike Gla only a small 
  proportion of the area enclosed by the circuit-wall, some 35,000m2 (c. 3.5ha), was 
  inhabited. Perhaps the topography of the site determined the layout of the 
  fortification walls at Eutresis, which probably served as a refuge for all the nearby 
  settlements. 
  Iolkos (Thessaly) 
  Although rarely mentioned in historical times, lolkos is celebrated in the heroic 
  age as the residence of Jason, and the place where the Argonauts assembled 
  before setting out for the distant shores of the Black Sea in quest of the Golden 
  Fleece. Homer, who gives it the epithets of 'strong-founded' (Iliad 2.712) and 
  'broad-streeted' (Odyssey 11.256), certainly makes mention of it. 
  lolkos is situated on the northern shore of the bay of Volos, sheltered by 
  Mount Pelion from whose forest, as legend has it, the timber for the Argo was 
  hewn. Evidence points to the fact that it was a significant Mycenaean 
  settlement, though its history remains obscure and the main area of habitation 
  for much of the period may have been inland at Dimini, where there are two 
  tholos tombs. Nevertheless, the large area covered by the ruins (some 400 by 
  700m over the surface of the hill, crowned with the impressive remains of the 
  Ottoman fortifications and overlooking the modem port of Volos) makes it 
  perhaps the largest prehistoric settlement in Greece. Moreover, a Mycenaean 
  palace is located on the northward side of the site, which makes it, if indeed it 
  is a palace, the northernmost one in Greece. Excavations have shown that 
  lolkos was inhabited continuously from the EH II period until the destruction 
  of the LH IIIB palace at the beginning of the LH IIIC period. 
  Krisa (Phokis) 
  Occupying the tip of a long rocky spur projecting southwards from Mount 
  Parnassos, the citadel of 'sacred Krisa' (Iliad 2.520) completely dominates the 
  Krisaean gulf and the inland routes up the Pleistos valley, namely, the upper 
  one via Delphi and the lower one along the valley bottom. A Homeric hymn 
  to Pythian Apollo describes its situation perfectly: it stands on a rocky spur 
  looking westward, overhanging a deep and rugged plain, at the foot of snowy 
  Parnassos (Hymn to Apollo 269, 282-85, 438). 
  Krisa combines natural with man-made defences. Fortifications were 
  unnecessary on the southern and eastern sides, but on the north and west there 
  are remains of extensive Cyclopean walls, which date to the LH III period only. 
  50 
  
  Running a length of some 1,500m, several courses reach a height of over 3m 
  and are composed of large blocks with smaller stones filling the interstices. 
  Each 'skin' of the curtain-walls is between 0.7 and 0.9m thick, and the distance 
  of about 2m between them is packed hard with rubble and earth. A gap, some 
  3.75m wide, in the eastern end of the wall suggests the existence of a gateway 
  here. It is flanked by a semicircular tower, 6.2m in diameter and preserved to 
  2m height. The defences, both natural and man-made, thus enclosed an area 
  350 by 300m, large in comparison with other Mycenaean citadels. 
  Lamia (Thessaly) 
  This great stronghold dominates the lower valley of the Spercheios and the 
  plain adjacent to the head of the Maliac gulf, thereby controlling the route 
  linking Thessaly with central Greece. It seems probable, therefore, that the 
  castle-hill of Lamia was previously occupied in Mycenaean times. Still visible 
  are the late 6th-century walls and the Frankish castle of Zitouni, all of which 
  hide any possible earlier remains. 
  Orchomenos (Boiotia) 
  Pausanias claims that Orchomenos was 'as famous and glorious as any city in 
  Greece' (9.34.5). Certainly the wealth of Orchomenos was proverbial, at least 
  amongst the Achaians outside Troy. Not even 'all that is brought in to 
  Orchomenos' (Iliad 9.381) was enough to placate the wrath of Achilles. This 
  reputation for affluence was linked with Minyas, a legendary ruler of the city 
  (Iliad 2.511), who gave his name to the Minyans, the clan to which the 
  Argonauts were said to belong (Strabo 9.2.40, Apollonios Argonautica 
  1.229-33). 
  Orchomenos is situated in the north-west corner of the Kopai'c basin, on the 
  east end of a ridge of Mount Akontion. The location is a naturally strong one. 
  The north and south flanks of the ridge are steep and protected by rivers on 
  both sides. Although the early occupation levels have been disturbed, it is clear 
  that Orchomenos was a major Helladic site. There is a distinctive type of 
  Middle Helladic pottery that is known as Minyan Ware because Schliemann 
  first discovered it at Orchomenos during his excavations of the site (1880-86). 
  The so-called Treasury of Minyas, one of the finest Mycenaean tholos tombs 
  and comparable with the Treasury of Atreus at Mycenae, was constructed in the 
  early LH IIIB period. Pausanias calls it 'one of the greatest wonders of Greece 
  and of the world' (9.38.2), and only a powerful dynast could have afforded 
  such a lavish tomb. It may be no coincidence that the Mycenaeans fortified Gla 
  at around this time and drained lake Kopai's. If Orchomenos led this project, as 
  seems likely, it was undoubtedly vying with Thebes for Boiotian supremacy. 
  Moreover, unlike the Mycenaeans of the Argolid and Messenia, the tholos 
  The modern town of Volos, looking 
  south-west from Makrinitsa, a village 
  on the western slopes of Mount 
  Pelion. The site of lolkos is situated 
  on the northern shore of the bay of 
  Volos, sheltered by Mount Pelion 
  from whose forest, as legend has it, 
  the timber for the Jason's Argo was 
  hewn. Although the hill upon which 
  it once stood is now crowned with 
  the impressive remains of the 
  Ottoman fortifications overlooking 
  the port of Volos, archaeological 
  evidence points to the fact that 
  lolkos was a significant Mycenaean 
  settlement. (Author's collection) 
  51 
  
  tomb was never popular with the Mycenaeans of Boiotia, and the Treasury of 
  Minyas could be seen as an ostentatious assertion of independence. 
  Fit for a king, the Mycenaean tholos consists of a circular, subterranean 
  tomb chamber roofed by a corbelled vault and approached by an entrance 
  passage (dromos). The entire chamber, which resembles the classic beehive 
  (hence the term 'beehive tomb'), is built of stone rather than simply being 
  hewn out of bedrock. Tholos tombs of this kind are usually, though not 
  invariably, set into slopes or hillsides. Burials were either laid out on the floor 
  of the tomb chamber or were placed in cists or shafts cut into this floor. The 
  whole structure was then deliberately covered with earth, thereby forming a 
  visible tumulus. 
  Thebes (Boiotia) 
  Supposedly founded by Kadmos, the son of Agenor of Tyre, legendary Thebes 
  was the birthplace of Herakles (Iliad 14.323-24), who, as its champion, threw 
  off the tribute imposed upon it by the king of Orchomenos (Pausanias 9.5.1, 
  37.2). Oedipus, a descendant of Kadmos, became ruler after he had murdered 
  his father, Laios, outwitted the riddling Sphinx, and married his mother, 
  Jocasta. When he abdicated his sons Eteokles and Polyneikes quarrelled over 
  the throne. Polyneikes led the Seven against Thebes and the brothers ended up 
  killing each other. Small wonder, then, that Thebes serves as the macabre 
  setting for a number of ancient tragedies (Aischylos' Seven against Thebes, 
  Sophokles' Oedipus Tyrannus, Statius' Thebaid). 
  The modern centre of Thebes stands on the ancient acropolis, or Kadmeia, 
  a large pear-shaped plateau 800m long and 400m at its widest point with steep 
  slopes on all sides except to the south. Rising 60m above the surrounding plain, 
  the Kadmeia is bounded on either side by rocky gullies. Thebes is well placed, 
  at the meeting point of five main routes, and controlling the fertile 
  grain-bearing Aonian plain. 
  Thebes is frequently mentioned in Homer, who speaks of its celebrated 
  seven gates (Iliad 4.406, Odyssey 9.263). However, its name does not appear in 
  the Catalogue of Ships as it was supposed not to have recovered from its recent 
  sacking at the hands of the Epigonoi, the sons of the Seven who, ten years prior, 
  had unsuccessfully waged war on Thebes. As with other places in Greece that 
  have been inhabited continuously, most of the evidence for Mycenaean 
  occupation has long disappeared. But nowhere has this taken place more 
  completely than at Thebes. This is hardly surprising, as Thebes was mercilessly 
  razed to the ground on three separate occasions. First by the Macedonians 
  under their warrior-king, Alexander the Great (335 BC), second by the Normans 
  of Sicily under their admiral, George of Antioch (1147), and finally by the 
  'gung-ho' Catalan Company (la Companya Catalana) after they fell out with 
  their employer Gautier de Brienne, the Duke of Athens (1311). 
  Yet despite the repeated destruction of Thebes, beneath the modern streets 
  lie two superposed Mycenaean palaces, the extent and positions of which have 
  been tentatively plotted, and sections of the Cyclopean circuit-wall have been 
  securely identified. Mycenaean pottery shards found on the western slope of 
  the Kadmeia dated to the LH IIIB period and indicate the date of the building 
  of the fortification walls. Quite recently (1993-95) some 250 Linear B tablets 
  were unearthed in the area of the so-called Armoury belonging to the first 
  palace (The House of Kadmos'), which was destroyed by fire in the LH IIIA 
  period. Further finds include frescoes; ornaments of gold; lapis lazuli; onyx and 
  ivory, all of which indicate a level of refinement normally associated with a 
  Mycenaean palace complex. More remarkable is the discovery of 42 exotic 
  cylinder seals from the Near East, some of which were already antiques when 
  the building went up in flames. Thebes presumably controlled the whole of 
  southern Boiotia at this time, but Orchomenos was also a major Mycenaean 
  centre and it is likely that the two citadels were already rivals. 
  52 
  
  The Mycenaeans 
  By the mid-14th century BC Mycenae had assumed the hegemony of the 
  Aegean world, giving its name to the advanced civilisation in which it played 
  the predominant part. Not that impressive memorials of the period are lacking 
  in other parts of Greece: Messenia, Boiotia, Attica and Lakonia were all heavily 
  populated, and it is to Pylos in Messenia that we turn for the best preserved 
  palace on the mainland. The Linear B archives from there suggest that the 
  'warrior-king' (WA-NA-KA, wanax) of each region stood at the head of his own 
  highly organised 'feudal system'. 
  'Bronze-armoured Achaians' 
  In Homer's version of the tale of Troy, despite the anachronisms, one basic fact 
  is clear and consistent in his picture of the political geography of Greece. 
  Namely, Agamemnon of Mycenae was the most powerful warrior-king of 
  Achaia, and that he wielded some sort of loose overlordship over the other 
  independent warrior-kings of Achaia, of Crete, and some of the Aegean islands. 
  These local warlords, in their turn, were obliged to supply him 
  with contingents for foreign ventures like that mounted against 
  Troy. If we are to accept Homer's tale, this geopolitical unity is 
  basic to it. The Homeric conception of Achaia as a nation under 
  a single ruler may reflect Mycenaean reality. Here it should be 
  noted that for Homer the term 'Achaia' is the collective name 
  for mainland Greece, and 'Achaians' the Greeks and their allies 
  ranged against the Trojans. 
  Nearly a third of Homer's monumental epic, which is over 
  15,600 lines long, is devoted to graphic descriptions of battle. 
  Unfortunately for military historians the Homeric battlefield is 
  confused and contradictory, an apparent amalgam of military 
  customs and practices fashioned from some five centuries of 
  bardic improvisation. On the other hand, excavations over the 
  last century or so have produced a wealth of archaeological 
  evidence, which enables us to build up a tentative picture of the 
  Homeric warrior. Homer's warriors seem to be a jumble of 
  Mycenaean traditions padded out with details from the bard's 
  own day, that is, close to 750 BC. The Homeric hero rides to battle 
  in a two-horsed war-chariot but fights on foot. He is armed with 
  two throwing spears and a long slashing sword, which Homer 
  claims could sever an opponent's head, leg or arm, or cut him in 
  two. He wears bronze body armour, helmet and greaves. He also 
  has a large round shield hanging from a neck-strap, which can be 
  swung round to protect his back when he is in retreat. 
  Homer's warriors are often described as being heavily 
  armoured with bronze (Iliad 5.698, 13.372, 14.383), while the 
  epithet commonly used to describe them collectively is 
  'bronze-armoured Achaians' (Iliad 1.371, 3.131, 10.287). The 
  regimented figures depicted on the Warrior Vase (LH IIIB/C), found 
  by Schliemann at Mycenae are the best representations of warriors 
  from the Trojan War period. The bearded warriors wear plumed 
  horned helmets, body armour and greaves, and carry shields that 
  are round except for a scallop on the bottom; they are armed with 
  short spears. 
  Made of thick beaten sheet-bronze, 
  this extraordinary body armour was 
  discovered in a chamber tomb at 
  Dendra (LH IIIA) near Midea. It 
  exhibits many advanced features 
  such as the articulated shoulder 
  pieces and skirt. Such panoply would 
  not have required a shield and 
  seems rather rigid and cumbersome, 
  not to mention extremely heavy and 
  hot to wear, for a foot warrior. The 
  skirt of bronze around the thighs 
  must have prevented the wearer not 
  only from running, but even walking 
  at a normal pace and most probably 
  belonged to a chariot warrior. 
  (Author's collection) 
  53 
  
  Known as the 'Head of Odysseus', 
  this ivory inlay (LH IIIA) from 
  Mycenae depicts a warrior wearing a 
  boars'-tusk helmet. The cut slivers of 
  boar's tusk are clearly visible, as are 
  two layers of what appears to be 
  the leather thongs hanging down the 
  back of the helmet to form a flexible 
  neck guard. Boars' tusks, while 
  adding strength and impregnability 
  to the construction, were also 
  trophies of the hunt and thereby a 
  visible means of expressing 
  manhood. For a man to own such a 
  helmet he must have hunted a great 
  number of wild boars. Estimates 
  suggest 60 to 80 or as many as 150 
  tusks would be needed, implying that 
  30 to 40 or 75 boars must be 
  hunted and killed to provide a single 
  helmet. (Author's collection) 
  Helmets 
  Although the horned helmet was common in the eastern Mediterranean at this 
  time and Homer sings of such (Iliad 16.793-94), he does describe another type 
  of helmet, that worn by Odysseus. This was 'a helmet wrought of hide, with 
  many a tight stretched thong was it made stiff within'. On the outside cut 
  slivers of boars' tusks were 'set thick on this side and that, well and cunningly, 
  and within was fixed a lining of felt' (Iliad 10.261-65). Indeed, the boars'-tusk 
  helmet is the commonest form of helmet shown in Mycenaean art, and 
  examples of pierced boars' tusks have been recovered from Thebes, Mycenae 
  and Knossos. 
  As reconstructed, the hide thongs probably criss-crossed over the crown 
  making it thicker on the top where the force of a blow would be felt, and some 
  helmets appear to have the ends of the thongs hanging down at the back to 
  form a flexible neck-guard. The inside of the helmet was lined with felt, which 
  would have provided comfort and additional protection as well as keeping the 
  layers taut. The helmet's conical shape served to deflect missiles. 
  Body armour 
  Virtually no body armour from the late Mycenaean period has survived. Bronze 
  scales were found at Mycenae and Troy, and this, the oldest form of metal body 
  armour, was used widely throughout the eastern Mediterranean and the Near 
  East. Swedish archaeologists, however, discovered the earliest example of a 
  beaten bronze cuirass at Dendra. It forms part of the Dendra Panoply (LH IIIA), 
  which consists of 15 separate pieces of bronze 
  sheet held together with leather thongs, which 
  encased the wearer from neck to knees. The 
  panoply also includes both greaves and lower 
  arm-guards. The arm-guard is unique but 
  greaves, probably made of linen, are often 
  depicted in late Mycenaean art. A few bronze 
  examples have been found, and these only 
  covered the shins and may have been worn over 
  linen ones. Although we have only one complete 
  panoply to date, the Dendra Panoply appears 
  often as an ideogram on Linear B tablets from 
  Knossos (Sc series), Pylos (Sh series) and Tiryns 
  (Si series). 
  The panoply's cuirass consists of two pieces 
  for the chest and back. These are joined on the 
  left side by a hinge. There is a bronze loop on the 
  right side of the front-plate and a similar loop on 
  each shoulder. Large shoulder-guards fit over the 
  cuirass. Two triangular plates are attached to the 
  shoulder-guards and gave protection to the 
  wearer's armpits when his arms were in the raised 
  position. There is also a deep neck-guard. The 
  Linear B ideogram depicting armour of this type 
  makes the neck-guard clearly discernible, and 
  protection by a high bronze collar was a typical 
  feature of Near Eastern body armour. Three pairs 
  of curved plates hang from the waist to protect 
  the groin and the thighs. All these pieces are 
  made of beaten bronze sheet and are backed with 
  leather and loosely fastened by ox-hide thongs to 
  allow some degree of movement. The complete 
  panoply thus forms a cumbersome tubular suit of 
  armour, which not only fully protects the neck, 
  54 
  
  but also extends down to the knees. It appears that 
  lower arm-guards and a set of greaves further protected 
  the warrior, all made of bronze, as fragments of these 
  were also found in the grave at Dendra. Slivers of boars' 
  tusks were also discovered, which once made up a 
  boars'-tusk helmet. 
  As previously mentioned, the figures on the Warrior 
  Vase are wearing body armour. However this is an 
  embossed waist-length leather corselet with a fringed 
  leather apron that reaches to mid-thigh and possible 
  shoulder-guards, very much like that worn by the 
  'Peoples of the Sea' depicted on the mortuary temple of 
  Rameses III (d. c. 1155 BC) at Medinet Habu, Lower 
  Egypt. Alternatively, the body armour was a 'bell' 
  corselet of beaten bronze sheet, a type also found in 
  central Europe at this time. 
  Shields 
  In the Iliad, shields are usually described as round and 
  very large. Agamemnon's shield, for example, can 
  shelter a man on either side. Round shields are seldom 
  seen in Mycenaean art but all the 'Peoples of the Sea' 
  used them, and they were common in central Europe at 
  this time. Homer's description could possibly apply to 
  shields with curved rims such as those on the Warrior 
  Vase. In the dual between Ajax of Salamis and Hector, 
  however, both combatants use full-body shields. Homer 
  compares Ajax's shield to a tower (Iliad 11.485, 527) and 
  as Hector walked off after the duel Homer says 'the dark 
  leather of his bossed shield tapped him on the ankles 
  and the neck' (Iliad 6.117-18). 
  Two forms of full-body shield, namely the figure-of-eight and the tower 
  type, were used in the early Mycenaean period and both types hung from a 
  neck-strap and could be swung round onto the back when running away. The 
  weight of the shield would 
  clearly have been crucial in 
  allowing the warrior some 
  freedom of movement and 
  they 
  were 
  presumably 
  made 
  from 
  perishable 
  materials as none survive 
  in corpore. However, both 
  forms are represented on 
  the Lion Hunt Dagger and 
  the Silver Siege Rhyton 
  found in Shaft Grave IV at 
  Mycenae 
  (c. 
  1550-1450 
  BC), but disappear from 
  later 
  Mycenaean 
  art. 
  Homer's shields were made 
  of several layers of ox hide, 
  probably 
  stretched 
  and 
  then sewn over a wicker 
  frame. This stitching is 
  shown in a fresco from 
  Knossos, and the dappling 
  of the shields on the Lion 
  ABOVE Remains of a boars'-tusk 
  helmet recovered from one of the 
  Warrior Graves in the North 
  Cemetery at Knossos. Homer 
  describes this type of Mycenaean 
  helmet in great detail, using such 
  phases as 'thongs of leather','felt' 
  and, of course,'the white teeth of a 
  tusk-shining boar' (Iliad 10.261-65). 
  He even notes how the slivers of 
  boars' tusks are laid in rows with 
  the curves alternating. (Author's 
  collection) 
  LEFT Fresco fragment from Mycenae 
  depicting a figure-of-eight shield 
  (National Archaeological Museum 
  Athens, Inv. No. 11671). The frame 
  consists of two bow-shaped pieces 
  of heat-bent wood fastened to form 
  a cross. The shield is made of 
  several layers of toughened rawhide 
  glued and stitched to a wicker core. 
  It is finished off with a long boss, 
  probably made of bronze or 
  rawhide, and a rim of similar 
  material. (Author's collection) 
  55 
  
  Hunt Dagger suggests the use of ox hide. Both artistic depictions also indicate 
  that the shields had bosses and were edged with bronze. These shields would 
  have afforded good protection as they curved around the otherwise 
  unprotected body, although their size would undoubtedly have made them 
  somewhat cumbersome. 
  Spearhead (LH I-IIB) from Shaft 
  Grave IV, Grave Circle A, Mycenae 
  (National Archaeological Museum, 
  Athens, Inv. No. 446). It is 
  remarkable for its large size (c. 
  0.65m), and thus could only have 
  been attached to a long thrusting 
  weapon such as a lance. This is 
  probably the enchos of both Homer 
  and the Linear B tablets, the 
  weapon wielded by a chariot 
  warrior. (Author's collection) 
  War chariots 
  In battle the Homeric warrior normally dismounted from his war chariot and 
  advanced upon the enemy on foot (Iliad 8.320-22, 11.47-49, 16.426-27). He 
  carried either one or two spears, which he could throw against his opponent 
  (Iliad 3.346, 4.459, 14.461). If the enemy remained unscathed, he then 
  protected himself with his shield against the retaliatory shafts (Iliad 5.15-20, 
  13.159-68, 21.159-73). If the spears of both parties were hurled in vain, the 
  two warriors might set about each other with swords or, before resorting to 
  these weapons, they might throw heavy stones at each other (Iliad 3.361-63, 
  22.306-11 [swordplay], 4.518-22, 12.379-85 [stone throwing]). Homeric war 
  chariots, therefore, were not used for massed charges but merely for carrying 
  the warriors to the front line where they dismounted and fought on foot. 
  In the 'Chariot Kingdoms' of the Near East, on the other hand, war chariots 
  were not used as 'taxis' but were formidable close-quarter weapons. At the 
  battle of Kadesh (c. 1275 BC), for instance, the Hittite king is said to have 
  deployed no less than 3,500 chariots against his Egyptian opponents. No 
  recognisable parts of a Mycenaean chariot has been brought to light but an 
  inventory discovered in the 'armoury' at Knossos lists approximately 550 
  chariot bodies and at least as many pairs of wheels (Sc series). Similarly, at Pylos 
  Linear B tablets list at least 200 pairs of wheels as well as wood for the making 
  of 150 axles (Sa series), and two specifically mention chariot makers (En 421, 
  809). Requiring the services of a large number of specialists - besides chariot 
  warriors and charioteers, the privileged elite, horse trainers, grooms, 
  veterinarians, and carpenters were also a must - chariot forces were notoriously 
  expensive to maintain. The rulers of Knossos and Pylos devoted a fair 
  proportion of their resources to the maintenance of a chariotry of several 
  hundred vehicles. To find the two-horsed war chariot often depicted in 
  Mycenaean art need occasion no surprise. 
  56 
  
  Mycenaean society 
  Linear B tablets indicate that Mycenaean society conforms to the 
  anthropological model of a proto-state. The features of such include: 
  • Centralised socio-political organisation 
  • Social stratification 
  • Rulers dominate the socio-political elite 
  • Ruled must fulfil obligation to rulers 
  • Society is sustained by a common ideology 
  According to the evidence of the texts from Pylos and Knossos, social 
  organisation was clearly hierarchical. At the head of it was the wanax 
  ('warrior-king'), who was also the largest landholder. Under him was the 
  lawagetas ('leader of the people'), who also owned extensive estates but whose 
  role seems mainly religious. They stood at the head of a landed military 
  aristocracy known as the eqeta ('companions'). These men possessed estates, 
  wore a distinctive type of cloak and owned war chariots. In the Linear B tablets 
  eqeta are distinguished by the use of the patronymic following their names. 
  Forming the socio-political elite, they presided over communities that were 
  small in scale. Although most settlements ranged in size from a few households 
  to some hundreds, the exploitation of the land was being expanded, probably 
  to provide commodities for trade as well as to support an increasing 
  population. In the Pylos and Knossos tablets, the damos is an entity that can 
  allocate landholdings. It is perhaps best translated as 'village', which can refer 
  either to the people of the community or to the land held by that community. 
  The Linear B evidence strongly suggests that the damos is nothing more than a 
  group of individual landholders, that is, a collective landholding body. Land 
  could be leased from different owners and in various ways, but its tenure may 
  always have entailed payment to the palace in taxes or service. 
  The Linear B tablets also list doeros and doera. Such personnel are common 
  at both Pylos and Knossos. Although the later Greek cognates doulos and doule 
  The Lion Hunt Dagger (LH I-IIB) 
  from Shaft Grave IV, Grave Circle A, 
  Mycenae. The central rib of this 
  bronze ceremonial dagger is inlaid 
  with gold and silver on a 
  background of niello, an alloy of 
  copper, lead, borax and sulphur, 
  which produces a distinctive black 
  or blue-black colour. The craftsman 
  has graphically depicted the 
  figure-of-eight shield and the tower 
  shield in this hunting scene, even 
  making the effort to include the 
  strap that suspended the 
  body-length shield from the 
  warrior's neck. (Author's collection) 
  57 
  
  mean 'male slave' and 'female slave' respectively, the Mycenaean Greek forms 
  may have had a significance closer to 'bondsman/bondswoman'. Some doeros 
  are clearly the property of living individuals, while others are described as 
  being 'of a god/goddess'. The latter are the most common form at Pylos, but it 
  is possible that a 'god's slave' had a status quite different from that of other 
  slaves, since he or she could have leases on land and appears to have lived in 
  much the same fashion as ordinary free persons. 
  Collapse 
  The theories that attempt to explain the collapse of Mycenaean society 
  (LH IIIB/C) can be roughly categorised as follows: 
  A war chariot depicted on three 
  non-joining fragments of a Chariot 
  Krater (LH IIIB) fromTiryns (National 
  Archaeological Museum. Athens, Inv. 
  Nos. 1511, 10548, 10549). Although 
  the scene is highly stylised, the artist 
  has made some attempt to represent 
  both horses. Note, also, the two 
  armoured foot warriors preceding 
  the chariot, both of who are armed 
  with small round shields and short 
  spears. The dog beneath the horses 
  may be of the hunting or war variety. 
  (Author's collection) 
  • Economic factors: Vermeule (1960), Iakovidis (1974), Betancourt (1976) 
  • Climatic change: Carpenter (1966) 
  • Internal social upheaval: Andronikos (1954), Mylonas (1966) 
  • Foreign invasion: Desborough (1964), Rutter (1973), Winter (1977), 
  Deger-Jalkotzy (1983) 
  • Changes in the nature of warfare: Drews (1993) 
  In fact, the relatively sudden, extensive, and thorough eradication of 
  Mycenaean palatial civilisation is likely to have been caused by a combination 
  of factors. In any case, no one of the theories listed above addresses all of the 
  questions inherent in a reconstruction of the Mycenaean collapse. These 
  questions include, but are by no means limited to, the following: 
  • How stable was Mycenaean society in the first place? Was it flexible 
  enough to withstand substantial 'shocks'? 
  58 
  
  LEFT The 'Mask of Agamemnon', 
  recovered by Heinrich Schliemann 
  from Shaft Grave V of Grave Circle 
  A at Mycenae. Dated to the early 
  Mycenaean period (LH I-IIB), this 
  death mask is just one of an 
  impressive amount of gold objects 
  brought to light by Schfiemann's 
  spade, and justifies Homer's 
  description of Mycenae as 'rich in 
  gold' (Iliad 7.180, 11.46). 
  (Author's collection) 
  BELOW A Mycenaean chariot 
  depicted on the shelly sandstone 
  grave stela (LH I-IIB) that marked 
  Shaft Grave V, Grave Circle A, 
  Mycenae (National Archaeological 
  Museum, Athens, Inv. No. 1428). This 
  is the first known representation of 
  the war chariot in Bronze Age 
  Greece. Here an armed warrior in a 
  chariot pursues a second fleeing foot 
  warrior. The chariot warrior appears 
  to be levelling a long thrusting spear 
  or lance. Alternatively, he could be 
  holding reins of the horses harnessed 
  to his chariot. (Author's collection) 
  • Were there certain 'shocks' that affected Mycenaean 
  society as a whole? Were these in every case 
  ultimately responsible for the destruction of 
  individual citadels or were such upheavals often the 
  final links in highly localised chains of causation? 
  • Why were the palaces never rebuilt? 
  • Why were large areas of the Peloponnese, including 
  some of the richest agricultural zones in southern 
  Greece, so thoroughly depopulated during the 
  century following the destruction of the palaces? 
  What 
  percentages 
  of 
  the 
  population 
  that 
  disappeared died in Greece of famine and disease or 
  in battle, and what percentage migrated south to 
  Crete, east to Cyprus, or west to the Ionian islands? 
  What is indisputable, however, is that the continuity of 
  civic life was disrupted and material progress was set back 
  for several centuries. 
  59 
  
  Ancient authors 
  Myths were at the heart of ancient Greek life and 
  culture. They held a central place in poetry at public 
  and private festivals, and were told and retold by 
  professional taletellers; changing and developing as 
  time went by, and from the 6th century BC onwards 
  forming the subject of gripping dramas played out on 
  the tragic stage. But these myths were more than mere 
  stories. To the Greeks they were the stuff of history, 
  telling of real people in the real past. Myth explained 
  a man's genealogy, often originating from a divine 
  mythical ancestor, and thus showed his place in the 
  world and his relation to the great heroes of old. Other 
  uses included the foundation of social and political 
  order, thereby explaining how cities originated or how 
  tribal groupings arose. Naturally the question of how 
  far the myths are based on fact is a difficult one, and 
  there is no generally agreed answer, nor ever likely to 
  be. For some, myself included, the feeling is that many 
  of the myths have a core of truth. Pausanias himself 
  (8.8.3) obviously had doubts initially, yet on his travels 
  he came to realise otherwise and thus see a deeper 
  meaning in many myths: 
  When I began to write my history I thought these 
  Greek stories were rather silly, but now I have 
  reached Arcadia I have decided to treat them from 
  the point of view that the famous Greek wise men 
  told their stories in riddles and not out of stupidity. 
  As we have seen, myths are intimately associated 
  with 
  Mycenaean 
  citadels. 
  The 
  expansion 
  of 
  Mycenaean power coincides with the myths of the 
  foundation of Mycenae by Perseus and of Thebes by 
  Kadmos, while the legend of Herakles reflects the 
  essence of Boiotian politics, which were moulded by 
  rivalry between Thebes and Orchomenos. 
  Myth was originally the product of an oral society, 
  but the arrival of writing brought important changes. 
  In addition to the poets and the playwrights, the myths 
  were also told, re-told, collected or commented upon 
  by philosophers, historians, geographers and travellers. 
  Listed below, therefore, are the most frequently cited 
  ancient authors whose literary works contribute to the 
  myths in various forms, and are easily accessible in 
  translation (Penguin Classics and/or Loeb editions). 
  Apollodoros of Athens (fl. 140 BC) 
  Apollodoros, having studied in Alexandria, spent 
  much of his life in Athens where he wrote a number of 
  scholarly works on grammar, history and mythology. 
  His best-known works, only fragments of which 
  survive, are On the Gods, a prose treatise, and his verse 
  Chronicle, treating Greek history from the fall of Troy. 
  He was considered quite an authority and, hence, 
  various forgeries were written in his name, especially 
  the Bibliotheca. 
  Providing a grand summary of Greek myths and 
  heroic legends, the Bibliotheca is an essential account 
  of what the Greeks believed about the origin and early 
  history of the world and of the Hellenic people. This 
  treasury of narratives about gods and heroes has been 
  attributed to Apollodoros, but its author, judging from 
  the language used in the text, probably lived sometime 
  during the 1st or 2nd centuries AD. 
  Homer (c. 750-700 BC) 
  Homer is the name given to the author of two epic 
  poems, the Iliad and the Odyssey, but they may not be 
  by the same person. These epics, the 'bible' of the 
  Greeks, were the product of a long tradition of oral 
  poetry, and were only written down towards the end 
  of the 8th century BC. Both epics were meant to be 
  recited aloud, and deal with heroic exploits of 
  'mythical' men and gods. Their exact relationship to, 
  or reflection of, any particular historical period is a 
  matter for fierce debate. 
  Pausanias (fl. AD 115-176) 
  The noted antiquarian and traveller who lived during 
  the period of the Antonine emperors, Pausanias was 
  probably a Greek from Lydia. He was certainly familiar 
  with the western coast of Anatolia, but his travels 
  extended far beyond the limits of this region. 
  Writing for tourists, Pausanias produced the highly 
  competent Blue Guide of his day, the Periegesis 
  (Description of Greece). This takes the form of a tour in 
  the Peloponnese and parts of central Greece. For us his 
  work is extremely valuable for questions of topography, 
  architecture, mythology, derivations of names, and 
  anecdotal stories vis a vis culture and history. 
  Strabo (b. c. 63 BC) 
  We are fortunate in possessing all 17 books of the 
  Geographia by Strabo, written in Greek although he 
  himself was mixed Asiatic and Greek stock from 
  Amaseia in Bythnia-Pontus. Strabo was educated at Nysa 
  in Caria, and in 44 BC went to Rome, where he studied 
  philosophy. From about 25 BC to 20 BC he was in Egypt, 
  based at Alexandria. His Geographia was written between 
  9 BC and 5 BC and parts revised in AD 18/19. 
  60 
  
  Strabo claimed to have travelled widely to bring 
  together an enormous amount of geographical 
  knowledge. It is generally accepted, however, that he 
  must have compiled much of this information in the 
  library at Alexandria, where he had access to many 
  earlier texts now lost. The Geographia is of key 
  importance to our whole knowledge of the history of 
  Greek cartography. Many of the earlier treatises that 
  touch upon maps are known to us only through 
  Strabo, while the interest of his commentary on these 
  writers is in its critical handling of their theories. 
  The sites today 
  Navplio, an attractive seaside town, is the best centre for excursions in the 
  Argolid. With a hired car, it is possible to make a superficial tour of Tiryns, 
  Argos and Mycenae in one day. Nestor's Palace (Pylos) is the other 
  archaeological site of note, which is easily reached from Pilos some 16km away. 
  Dominated by the Turko-Venetian fortress of Neokastro, this charming little 
  town rises from the southern shore of the bay of Navarino, famed as the 
  location for the last naval engagement involving wooden sailing ships 
  (27 October 1827). 
  A major attraction well worth the visit is the Hall of the Mycenaean 
  Antiquities in the National Archaeological Museum, Athens. The unique 
  Mycenaean treasures, unearthed by Schliemann, include the Mask of 
  Agamemnon and the Warrior Vase. Other archaeological museums worth 
  visiting are those at Argos (Lerna finds), Navplio (Dendra Panoply), and Chora 
  (Pylos finds). 
  Useful contact information 
  National Archaeological Museum, Athens 
  Tel. 
  (+30) 210 821 7717, 7724 
  Fax 
  (+30) 210 821 3573 
  Email 
  protocoI@eam.culture.gr 
  Archaeological Museum, Argos 
  Tel. 
  (+30) 275 106 8819 
  Archaeological Museum, Navplio 
  Tel. 
  (+30) 275 202 7502 
  Fax 
  (+30) 275 202 4690 
  Archaeological Museum, Chora 
  Tel. 
  (+30) 276 303 1358 
  Mycenae 
  Tel. 
  (+30) 275 107 6585 
  Tiryns 
  Tel. 
  (+30) 275 202 2657 
  Fax 
  (+30) 275 202 4690 
  Pylos 
  Tel. 
  (+30) 276 303 1437 
  Greek National Tourist Organisation (EOT) 
  Tel. 
  (+30) 210 870 7000 
  Email 
  info@gnto.gr 
  61 
  
  Glossary 
  An unusually extensive and specialist vocabulary has developed in the field of 
  military architecture. A glossary has therefore been supplied to guide the reader 
  through the technical terms used in the literature of Mycenaean fortification 
  systems. Obviously many of the terms below are common to pre-gunpowder 
  fortifications in general. 
  Acropolis 
  Literally 'high city', but in a Mycenaean context the citadel rock 
  Ashlar 
  Worked stone with a flat surface, usually of regular shape and square 
  edges 
  Bastion 
  Projecting work either at the angle of two walls in a fortification or set 
  adjacent to a gateway; structural rather than inhabitable and generally 
  serving as a fighting-platform 
  Cistern 
  Storage place for potable water, invariably underground 
  Citadel 
  A Mycenaean site so identified as fortified but not necessarily the seat 
  of a ruler's residence 
  Corbel vault 
  System of roofing with each course projecting slightly further than the 
  last 
  Crenellation 
  Fortified parapet, complete with merlons and crenels, at the top of a 
  curtain-wall 
  Curtain 
  Main wall of a defensive work or the part of a rampart hung between 
  two contiguous bastions or towers 
  Cyclopean 
  Drystone masonry of huge blocks or boulders 
  Enceinte 
  Area enclosed within a citadel's main line of ramparts, but excluding its 
  outworks 
  Fosse 
  A ditch, either with or without water in it, in front of the rampart 
  Gallery 
  Long corbel-vaulted passage or chamber built into the circuit-wall 
  Header 
  A stone block laid across a wall so that its end is flush with the outer 
  surface (cf. stretcher) 
  Lintel 
  Horizontal stone block or wooden beam bridging an opening to carry 
  the weight of the wall above it 
  Megaron 
  Central hall of a Mycenaean palace with a fixed hearth surrounded by 
  four wooden columns and approached through a columned porch via 
  an anteroom; its basic configuration is a forerunner of later Greek 
  temple forms 
  Magazine 
  A storage place 
  Palace 
  Residential architecture reserved for a Mycenaean ruler (wanax) 
  Parapet 
  Low narrow defensive wall, usually with crenels (open part) and 
  merlons (closed part), along the upper outer edge of the curtain-walls 
  Polygonal 
  Drystone masonry of large roughly worked blocks 
  Postern 
  Small additional gateway 
  Propylon 
  Monumental gateway 
  Salient 
  Projection of the circuit-wall 
  Sally port 
  A concealed tunnel or passage providing access to outside the citadel; 
  may be intended as a means of escape, for sorties in a siege or as a 
  shortcut during peace 
  Scaling ladder A ladder for scaling or mounting curtain-walls or ramparts 
  Stretcher 
  A stone block laid horizontally with its length parallel to the length of a 
  wall (cf. header) 
  62 
  
  Bibliography 
  Aravantinos, V., 'New Archaeological and Archival 
  Discoveries at Mycenaean Thebes'. Bulletin 
  of the Institute of Classical Studies 41: 1996, 
  135-36 
  Blegen, C.W., A Guide to the Palace of Nestor: 
  Mycenaean Sites in its Environs and the Chora 
  Museum. Princeton: American School of Classical 
  Studies at Athens, 2001 
  Blegen, C. W., and Rawson, M., The Palace of Nestor at 
  Pylos in Western Messenia, vol. I. Princeton: 
  Princeton University Press, 1966 
  Blegen, C. W., Rawson, M., Taylour, W. D., and 
  Donovan, W. P., The Palace of Nestor at Pylos in 
  Western Messenia, vol. III. Princeton: Princeton 
  University Press, 1973 
  Broneer, O. B., 'The Cyclopaean Wall on the Isthmus 
  of Corinth and its Bearing on Late Bronze Age 
  Chronology'. Hesperia 35: 1966, 346-62 
  Broneer, O. B., 'The Cyclopaean Wall of the Isthmus 
  of Corinth, Addendum'. Hesperia 37: 1968, 
  25-35 
  Demakopoulou, K., 'Mycenaean Citadels: Recent 
  Excavations on the Acropolis of Midea in the 
  Argolid'. Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 
  40:1995, 151-76 
  Dickinson, O. T P. K., The Aegean Bronze Age. 
  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994 
  Fields, N., Fortress 17: Troy c. 1700-1250 BC. Oxford: 
  Osprey, 2004 
  Fitton, J. L., The Discovery of the Greek Bronze Age. 
  London: British Museum Press, 1995 
  French, E. B., Mycenae: Agamemnon's Capital. Stroud: 
  Tempus, 2002 
  Halstead, P., 'The Mycenaean Palatial Economy: 
  Making the Most of the Gaps in the Evidence'. 
  Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 38: 
  1992, 57-86 
  Hope Simpson, R., A Gazetteer and Atlas of Mycenaean 
  Sites. London: Institute of Classical Studies, 1965 
  Hope Simpson, R. and Lazenby, J. R, The Catalogue of 
  the Ships in Homer's Iliad. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 
  1970 
  Iakovidis, S. E., Gla and the Kopais in the 13th Century 
  BC. Athens: Archaeological Society at Athens, 2001 
  Jannoray, J., and van Effenterre, H., 'Fouilles de Krisa 
  (Phocide)'. Bulletin de correspondance hellenique 61: 
  1937, 299-353 
  Lang, M. L., The Palace of Nestor at Pylos in Western 
  Messenia, vol. II. Princeton: Princeton University 
  Press, 1969 
  Loader, N. C, Building in Cyclopean Masonry: With 
  Special Reference to the Mycenaean Fortifications on 
  Mainland Greece. Jonsered: Paul Astrom, 1998 
  Manning, S. W., 'The Bronze Age Eruption of Thera: 
  Absolute dating, Aegean Chronology and 
  Mediterranean Cultural Interrelations'. Journal of 
  Mediterranean Archaeology 1: 1988, 17-82 
  Manning, S. W., 'The Theran Eruption: The Third 
  Congress and the Problems of the Date'. 
  Archaeometry 32: 1990, 91-100 
  Manning, S. W., A Test of Time: The Volcano of Thera 
  and the Chronology and History of the Aegean and 
  East Mediterranean in the mid-Second Millennium 
  BC. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 1999 
  March, J., Dictionary of Classical Mythology. London: 
  Cassell, 1998 
  Mylonas, G. E., Mycenae and the Mycenaean Age. 
  Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1966 
  Mylonas, G. E., Mycenae Rich in Gold. Athens: 
  Ekdotike Athenon, 1983 
  Renfrew, C, The Emergence of Civilisation: The Cyclades 
  and the Aegean in the Third Millennium BC. 
  London: Methuen, 1972 
  de Ridder, A., 'Fouilles de Gla'. Bulletin de 
  correspondance hellenique 18: 1894, 271-310 
  Scoufopoulos, N. C, Mycenaean Citadels. Goteborg: 
  Paul Astrom, 1971 
  Symeonoglou, S., The Topography of Thebes from the 
  Bronze Age to Modern Times. Princeton: Princeton 
  University Press, 1985 
  Taylour, W. D., The Mycenaeans (2nd edition). 
  London: Thames and Hudson, 1983 
  Threpsiades, I., 'Kopais: Arne-Glas'. Ergon 1961: 1962, 
  39-48 
  Wace, A. J. B., Mycenae: An Archaeological History and 
  Guide. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1949 
  Wardle, K. A., and Wardle, D., Cities of Legend: The 
  Mycenaean World. Bristol: Bristol Classical 
  Press, 1997 
  Warren, P. W., The Aegean Civilizations (2nd edition). 
  London: Phaidon, 1990 
  Warren, P. M., and Hankey, V., Aegean Bronze Age 
  Chronology. Bristol: Bristol University Press, 1989 
  Wood, M., In Search of the Trojan War (2nd edition). 
  Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998 
  Zangger, E., The Geoarchaeology of the Argolid. Oxford: 
  Oxbow Books, 1994 
  63 
  
  Index 
  Figures in bold refer to illustrations 
  Agamemnon 16-17, 23, 53, 55 
  Mask of 25, 59 
  Alexander the Great 52 
  Apollodoros of Athens 37, 48, 60 
  Argive plain 5, 6, 27 
  Argos 5, 6, 46-48, 48 
  armour 53, 53, 54-55 
  Asine 48, 49, 50 
  Astrom, R 38 
  Athenian Acropolis 48-49 
  dating and water supply 
  12 
  entrances 
  13, 49 
  masonry 11 
  palace 19 
  Aulis 49 
  Blegen.C.W. 8,44 
  Broneer, O. B. 15 
  Bronze Age, characteristics and chronology 6-9 
  building programmes 
  12-13 
  Catalan Company 52 
  chariots 56, 58, 59 
  construction 
  11-12 
  corbel vaulting 11, 32 
  Corinth, trans-Isthmian wall 
  15-16 
  courts 20 
  Crete see Knossos 
  Cyclopean masonry 
  11,12 
  Tiryns 32, 34, 36 
  daggers 
  57 
  Demakopoulou, K. 38 
  Dendra, finds from 54, 55-56 
  Dimini 5 
  entrances 13 
  Athenian Acropolis 
  13, 49 
  Gla 13, 41-43 
  Midea 
  13,38-9 
  Mycenae: Lion Gate 13, 13, 14, 16, 25, 28, 29 
  Mycenae: North-East Postern 24, 28 
  Mycenae: South Sally Port 30, 32 
  Tiryns 13, 33-36, 33, 35, 37, 38 
  Euripides 48, 49 
  Eutresis 8, 49-50 
  Evans, Sir Arthur 8, 24 
  fortifications 
  distribution 13-17, 15 
  location 
  10-11 
  French, E. B. 24 
  George of Antioch 
  52 
  Gla 39-43, 40, 42 
  entrances 
  13, 41-43 
  masonry 11, 40-41 
  palace 20, 43 
  Helladic periods 8 
  helmets 54, 54, 55 
  Homer 60 
  on Argive plain 5 
  on Asine 49, 50 
  on Athens 48 
  Catalogue of Ships 22-23 
  on Eutresis 49 
  Iliad 53-56 
  on lolkos 50 
  on Mycenae 24, 27 
  on Orchomenos 51 
  on Pylos 44 
  reliability of 
  16-17 
  on Thebes 52 
  on Tiryns 31 
  lakovidis, S. E. 24, 39 
  Iliad see Homer 
  inspiration sources 
  17-18 
  Inti's tomb 4 
  lolkos 50, 51 
  Jason and the Argonauts 50, 51 
  Jericho 5 
  Jong, Piet de 44 
  Kastri 8, 16, 17, 17 
  Kilian.K. 12 
  Knossos 8, 55, 56 
  Korakou 8 
  Krisa 23, 50-51 
  Lamia 51 
  Lerna 
  18 
  Marinatos, S. 7 
  megara 
  19-20 
  see also palaces 
  Menelaion 
  19, 20 
  Mesopotamia 5 
  Midea 11, 13, 37-39 
  Minoan civilisation 7-8 
  Mycenae 6, 7, 23-29, 26-27, 30 
  dating 
  12-13 
  entrances: Lion Gate 13, 13, 14, 16, 25, 28, 29 
  entrances: North-East Postern 24, 28 
  entrances: South Sally Port 30, 32 
  finds from 53, 54, 55, 55, 59 
  fortifications 
  10, 11, 24-25 
  House of the Columns 28 
  House of the Shields 
  21 
  masonry 11 
  palace 19, 19, 20, 20, 2 1 , 28 
  power 
  16-17, 23 
  and Schliemann 7-8 
  Shaft Graves 8, 16-17, 25 
  tholos tombs 
  16-17 
  water supply 12-13, 28, 29, 29, 3 1 , 32 
  Mycenaean period 8-9 
  Mycenaean society 57-59 
  Mycenaean warriors 53-56 
  Mylonas, G. E. 24 
  National Archaeological Museum, Athens 61 
  Nestor 23 
  Noack, F. 39 
  Orchomenos 
  19, 20, 51-52 
  palaces 
  19-21 
  Athenian Acropolis 
  19 
  Gla 20,43 
  Mycenae 19, 19, 20, 20, 2 1 , 28 
  Pylos 
  19, 20, 45-46, 4 5 , 4 6 
  Tiryns 
  19, 20, 36-37 
  Pausanias 32, 38, 5 1 , 60 
  P e r s s o n . A . W . 3 8 
  Phylakopi 8, 17 
  Pilos 61 
  Pindar 30-32 
  Pylos 43-46, 44, 47 
  and chariotry 56 
  palace 
  19, 20, 45-46, 45, 46 
  power 23, 44-45 
  R i d d e r . A . d e 3 9 
  Santorini, eruption of 7 
  Schallin, A . - L 38 
  Schliemann, Heinrich 7-8, 24, 29, 39, 51 
  Sesklo 5 
  shields 55-56, 55, 57 
  spears 56, 56 
  Stamatakis, P. 24 
  Strabo 23, 38, 43-44, 49, 60-61 
  Taylour, Lord William D. 24 
  terracing 
  12-13 
  Thebes 
  19, 52 
  Thera, eruption of 7 
  Thomsen, Jiirgensen 6 
  Threpsiades, 1, 39, 43 
  Thucydides 11 
  Tiryns 29-37, 33, 34 
  dating and water supply 
  12 
  entrances 
  13, 33-36, 33, 35, 37, 38 
  finds from 58 
  masonry 11, 32, 34, 36 
  palace 19, 20, 36-37 
  power 
  17 
  Unterburg 
  12,37 
  tools 
  12 
  Tsountas, C. 8, 24 
  Uruk 5 
  Wace, A.J.B. 8, 24 
  war chariots 56, 58, 59 
  weapons 56, 56, 57 
  64 
  
  Fortress • 22 
  Design, technology and history of key fortresses, 
  strategic positions and defensive systems 
  Unrivalled detail 
  Cutaway artwork 
  Mycenaean 
  Citadels 
  c. 1350-1200 BC 
  Mycenaean society was constantly 
  geared for battle and invasion. 
  Their 'cities' were heavy fortresses 
  with unimaginably thick 
  perimeter walls. Legendary sites 
  such as Mycenae, Tiryns, Argos, 
  Krisa, the Athenian Acropolis 
  and Gla are all representative 
  of these fortified citadels that 
  dominated the Greek countryside 
  for some 300 years until 
  their sudden decline and 
  abandonment around 1100 BC. 
  This title describes the golden 
  age of these fortifications; 
  it details how these formidable 
  structures were constructed and 
  extended, as well as revealing the 
  elaborate palace complexes built 
  by the great Mycenaean warlords 
  immortalised in the verses 
  of Homer's Iliad. 
  OSPREY 
  PUBLISHING 
  www.ospreypublishing.com 
  Full colour artwork 
  Photographs 
  
SOURCE: textdata/thevault/Osprey System/Fortress (FOR)/FOR 022 - Mycenaean Citadels 1350-1200 BC.pdf