The Construction of the Aegisthus Tholos Tomb at Mycenae and the 'Helladic Heresy'

The Construction of the Aegisthus Tholos Tomb at Mycenae and the 'Helladic Heresy' Author(s): Yannis Galanakis Source: The Annual of the British School at Athens, Vol. 102 (2007), pp. 239-256 Published by: British School at Athens Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30245251 . Accessed: 08/02/2011 11:33 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bsa. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

British School at Athens is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Annual of the British School at Athens.

http://www.jstor.org

THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE AEGISTHUS THOLOS TOMB AT MYCENAE AND THE 'HELLADIC HERESY" 'The clear facthere [in the tombof Aegisthus]thatthefacade of ashlarworkin poros is laterin date thehistoryof thedevelopmentofthetholoi thantherubblemasonryis ofgreatimportancein studying

and of their construction.' (Wace 1921-3, 300oo) THE

AEGISTHUS

TOMB

AT MYCENAE

THE SO-CALLED tholos tomb of Aegisthus is one of the nine tholoi at Mycenae. It was discovered in November 1892 and partiallyinvestigatedby Christos Tsountas in 1893.2 A concrete pier was built at the stomion of the tomb in 1915 by the Greek Archaeological Service to provide support for the cracked innermost lintel block. The tomb was furtherexplored in 1922 and 1953-4 by the BritishSchool at Athens and subsequentlyby the Greek Archaeological Service in 1955 and 1958. The most recent work was carried out in 1997-8, again by the Greek Archaeological Service, in order to reinforcethe structuralequilibrium of the monument.3 ' I should like to thank John Bennet and Sue Sherratt for commenting on various drafts of the paper and making important corrections. I should also like to extend mythankstoJimCoulton, Lisa French,David Gill, Robert Koehl, Clairy Palyvou, Kim Shelton, and Stella Skaltsa for comments,suggestionsand help throughout the writingof this article, and to Michael Vickers and Amalia Kakissis for their help in the archives of the Ashmolean Museum and the BSA at Athens respectively. Lastly, thanks to the two referees for their useful suggestions and comments. I remain solely responsible for the viewsexpressed here. Special abbreviations: Droop 1926 = J. P. Droop, 'Mycenae, 1921-1923: legitimateand illegitimatecriticism',Annals ofArchaeology Instituteof Archaeology,Universityof and Anthropology, Liverpool, 13 (1926), 43-8. Evans 1925 = A.J. Evans, 'The ringof Nestor:a glimpse

into the Minoan after-world, and a sepulchral treasureof gold signet-ringsand bead seals from Thisb&, Boiotia',

JHS45

(1925),

1-75.

Gasche and Servais 1971 = H. Gasche and J. Servais, 'Les fouillessur le haut du Velatouri',in H. F. Mussche,J. Bingen,J. Servais,R. Paepe, H. Bussers, and H. Gasche, Thorikos 1968: Rapportpreliminaire sur la 5e campagnede V, fouilles (Brussels, 1971), 17-1o02. lakovidis 2001oo = Sp. Iakovidis,'Entlastungsdreieckam Agisthos-Grab',in St. Bohm and KI.-V. von Eickstedt zum 75. Geburtstag (eds), IOAKH: FestschriftfiirJfirg Schiifer am 25. April 200oo1 (Wiarzburg, 2001), 17-21. Kamm 2000oo = W. Kamm, 'Mykenische KuppelgriTber:

die Entschlfisselung der Bauentwfirfe', AM 115 (200ooo), 19-71.

Koehl 1i99o = R. Koehl, 'A letterfromEvans to Droop on the "problem" of Wace', ClassicalJournal,86 (g199go), 45-52-

Pelon 1976 = O. Pelon, Tholoi,Tumulietcercles funeraires

(BEFAR 229; Athens, 1976).

TLS = TimesLiterarySupplement Wace 1921-3 = A. J.B. Wace, 'Excavationsat Mycenae.

IX: the tholos tombs', BSA 25 (1921-3), 283-402. Wace 1922 = A. J. B. Wace, 'Excavations at Mycenae', TLS 26 Oct. 1922, 684.

Wace 1931 a = A. J. B. Wace, 'Introduction', in W. Ridgeway, The Early Age of Greece,vol. ii (Cambridge, 1931), xvii-xxviii.

Wace 1931b = A.J. B. Wace, 'Appendix IV. The Tholos tombs at Mycenae: StructuralAnalysis',in A. W. Persson, The Royal TombsatDendra near Midea (Lund, 1931), 140-5.

Wace 1949 = A. J. B. Wace, Mycenae:An Archaeological Historyand Guide(Princeton, 1949). SSp. Iakovidisand E. French, TheMycenaeArchaeological Atlas (The Archaeological Societyat Athens Library,229; Athens,200oo3),52, no. D4D (witha shortdescriptionand references). For the discovery see Chr. Tsountas, 'Mykenai', PAE 1892, 56-7; id., Mv

i

Kal Mviclvalo;

FHoxltop6; (Athens, 1893), 129; however, the Aegisthus tomb mighthave already been noted in 1842 by Welcker (lakovidis and French 52). 3 C. Palyvouand E. S. Kapokakis, 'Deformationsof the Mycenaean tholos tomb of Aigisthos, Greece', in P. Marinos, G. Koukis, G. Tsiambaos, and G. Stournaras and theEnvironment: Proceedings of (eds), Engineering Geology on Engineering theInternationalSymposium Geologyand the Environment,Athens 23-27 June 1997 (Rotterdam, 1997), 3223-7.

GALANAKIS

240

The Aegisthus tomb is located just to the SSW of the Citadel walls and Grave Circle A. It lies within the limits of the Middle Helladic ('Prehistoric') cemetery. Based on the most recent published measurements,4its lined dromos is about 22.45 m long x 4.60 m wide. The stomion, including the facade, is 5.47 m long x 2.36 m wide at floor level (it is a bit narrower on top, c. 2.og m) and 4.72 m high. The tomb of Aegisthus, with a diameter of 13.96

m,5

is

the fourthlargest tholos tomb in the Aegean, surpassed only by the tomb of Atreus and the Lion tomb (both at Mycenae) and the tomb of 'Minyas' at Boeotian Orchomenos. Its preserved height is slightlymore than 8 m.6 The Aegisthus tomb is dated in LH II A (FIG. 1) .7 Soon afterthe excavation of the tomb in 1922, Alan Wace sent a report to the TimesLiterary Supplement,in which, among other things, he suggested that the Aegisthus tomb was constructed in two phases. His suggestion was based on the poros ashlar facade, which he considered a later addition to a monument predominantly built in limestone rubble. This observation found support in some technical details which are discussed below. The reexamination, and in most cases re-excavation,of the tholos tombs at Mycenae was perhaps the most ambitious and also the most fruitfulproject of Wace's early campaigns at the site.9 I should like to argue that the excavation of the Aegisthus tomb proved crucial in providing further (and perhaps the strongest) evidence for establishing the structuraldevelopment of the Mycenae tholos tombs, one of the most influentialschemes in Mycenaean architecture. Furthermore, I should like to re-examine the two-phaseconstruction of the Aegisthus tomb, a key element in clarifyingand consolidating our understanding of the progressivestructural development of the Mycenae tholos tombs. THE 'HELLADIC DEVELOPMENT

AND THE STRUCTURAL HERETICS' OF THE MYCENAE THOLOS TOMBS

At this point and before venturing on any reconsideration of the two-phase construction of the Aegisthus tomb, it is worth setting in context the formation of the tripartitescheme concerning the progressivestructuraldevelopment of the tholos tombs at Mycenae. Sir ArthurEvans urged Wace to begin excavations at Mycenae in 192o. Evans also helped the British School at Athens to acquire permission from Christos Tsountas to begin excavations at the site.10Evans was eager that this should happen because he believed (or at least hoped) that the new excavations would furthersupport (and consequently expand) his theory of 'Minoan domination' over the Bronze Age Aegean." However, already in 1918 Blegen and Wace had published an article in which they stated that Mycenaean civilization

4 For the measurementsof the Mycenae tholos tombsI

have used Kamm 2000ooo.

5Piet de Jong'splansuggests a diameterof c. 13 m. It shouldbe notedthatabouttwo-thirds of the tombwere excavatedin 1922 accountingforde Jong'ssomewhat inaccurate plan; the remaining one-third was not

excavateduntilthe 1950s. m.

Originally the dome would have stood at c.13-13.50

7 For earlyLate Bronze Age Mycenae see E. Frenchand K. Shelton, 'Early Palatial Mycenae', in A. Dakouri-Hild and S. Sherratt (eds), Autochthon:Papers presentedto O. T P K. Dickinson on the Occasion of his Retirement(BAR S1432; Oxford, 2oo5), 175-84.

8 Wace 1922. 9 Koehl 1990o, 49-

0oArthurEvans contributed aioo (around a4,000 in today's prices) towards the cost of excavation of the Aegisthustomb (lettersfromWace to Evans: 24 Feb. and 20 Mar. 1922, Evans Archive, the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford). From the letters we learn that R. B. Seager contributedthe same amount and thatLord Abercromby had promised a50 on his part. " J. A. MacGillivray, Minotaur: Sir ArthurEvans and the Archaeologyof theMinoan Myth (London,

200ooo), 273.

THE CONSTRUCTION

THOLOS

OF THE AEGISTHUS

TOMB AT MYCENAE

241

kM CONCLOMERATE LZ LIMLfTONE M JECTION LIME/TONE .ELVATION"

=POROJ

~~ROCK

J-ECTION CDO

N . ..BOTTOM'O"'DA _/'ECTION

A.B

fHOWING

:..: INTERIOR

ELEVATION

DOOR

OPENING.,., 00.f. N

uC

A

'...:a

-/-CALE OF

,

,o METREf

so

o

FALL&N MATtkIAL' INDICATED ON

PLAN "

,

cnoN

..

FIG. 1. Piet de Jong's plan and section of the Aegisthus tholos tomb at Mycenae.

Courtesy of the BSA Archive.

was not merelytransplantedfromCrete but was rather 'the fruitof the cultivatedCretan graft set on the wild stock of the Mainland'.1 According to them, not only was there continuity between Middle Helladic and Late Helladic but the mainland element had also influenced the otherwisedominant Minoan art and not viceversa.This view,of course, ran counter to the dogma of Minoan domination over the mainland, stronglyadvocated by the authorityof Sir ArthurEvans.'3 Just three weeks after Wace published his first Mycenae report in the TLS,'4 Evans responded with a verycareful note.'5 His article came in response to Wace's claims that the renewed excavations at Mycenae had produced evidence suggesting a later date for the construction of the Atreus tomb, namely between 14oo and 120oo0 Bc, not 16oo00-1500Bc as Evans would have wanted. The note, briefthough it was, caught the nature and extent of the 12 C. W. Blegen and A.J. B. Wace, 'The pre-Mycenaean potteryof the Mainland', BSA 22 (1916-18), 188-9. See near Settlement also C. W. Blegen, Korakou:A Prehistoric Corinth(New York, 1921), where the differencesbetween 'Helladic' and 'Minoan' during the LBA are further emphasized. '13One can perhaps trace the roots of the problem in W. Ridgeway'scritique of the role of the 'Mycenaeans', in relationto the originof the 'Greeks': 'What particularly people produced the objects called Mycenaean?',JHS 16 (1896), 77-119. Wace, who was one of Ridgeway's students,in the introductionto the second volume of The Early Age of Greececriticized the metamorphosisof the 'Mycenaean' civilization into 'Minoan' in scholarly

traditionafter the discoveriesby Evans in Crete (Wace 193 a). It is a well-knownfact,for example, that Evans used the term 'Mycenaean' to describe the finds from Knossos forthe firsttwoexcavationseasons, but gradually replaced it by his preferred term, 'Minoan'; see N. Karadimas and N. Momigliano, 'On the term "Minoan" beforeEvans'sworkin Crete (1894)', SMEA 46. 2 (200oo4), 243-58. 4 A. J.B. Wace, 'Excavationsat Mycenae', TLS 24June 1920, 398. 15 Evans did not have to waitforWace's TLS report;he was informed about the new developments by Wace himselfthrough a polite personal letter (12 May 1920, Evans Archive,Ashmolean Museum, Oxford).

GALANAKIS

242

epistemological debate thatwas to tantalizeAegean archaeology for decades.'6 The main issue was to define the nature of the relationship between Mainland Greece and Crete. Evans was of the opinion that the earlier phase at Mycenae (and Mainland Greece in general) represented the result of actual conquest and 'the abrupt wholesale displacement of a lower by an incomparably higher form of culture'.'7 For Evans, the shaft graves and the tholoi at Mycenae represented the 'Minoan dynasts'. Furthermore,he believed that the Shaft Graves might have been contemporarywith the tholos tombs and that the actual remains from the latterwere at some point transferredto the former.'8But if the shaftgraves were to be dated around 16oo00-1500BC, a time that for him represented the peak of Neopalatial Crete, so should Mycenae's greatest constructional achievements, the tholos tombs of Atreus and Clytemnestra.On the other hand, Wace tried to show that the differentburial typesactually stood for differentdynasties,that he named 'Tholos tomb' and 'Shaft-Grave' respectively.As for their date, Tsountas had long concluded that the shaftgraves were earlier than the tholos and chamber tombs at Mycenae.'9 But Evans considered preposterous and perverse any deviation from his views,and the gradual 'Minoanization' of the native 'Helladic' community (not to mention continuitybetween earlier and later Helladic phases), as envisaged by Wace and Blegen,2owas for him a real heresy. Evans posed a challenge to Wace in his TLS report. He claimed that 'it surely needs evidence strongerthan thisto separate the "Treasuryof Atreus" from the other beehive tombs of the same class, about which we possess some clear and quite consistent chronological data'.'- Among other things,Evans compared the tombs of Atreus and Clytemnestrato the Royal tomb at Isopata near Knossos, suggesting a decline (diminuendo) in the structural sequence of the tholos tombs, as against the crescendo22 supported by Wace. For Evans, as already noted, the likes of the Atreus and Clytemnestratombs were best explained as products of the highest peak of the Minoan culture. Wace accepted the challenge. The formulation of a scheme that established the chronological sequence of the tholos tombs at Mycenae was designed to form a powerful answer to Evans's criticisms.23Within this framework, the discovery of two phases of

A.

J.Evans, 'The New Excavationsat Mycenae', TLS

15July 1920o, 454.17 Evans 1925, 45, n.

1;id., PMiv

(London,

1935), 293.

Evans's ideas about the shaftgraves and the tholos tombswere presented in a paper delivered at the British Association in Oxford in 6 Aug. 1926, twice published independently in 1926

and 1929,

the latter time with

wide distribution:A.J. Evans, TheShaftGravesand Bee-Hive TombsofMycenaeand theirInter-Relations (London, 1929). These reiteratedan old theoryfirstput forwardby Percy Gardnerin 1877: P. Gardner,NewChapters in Greek History (London, 1892), 77. See also Evans's most fervent exponent: J. L. Myres, Who werethe Greeks?(Berkeley, 1930); id., 'The Cretan Labyrinth:a retrospectiveof Aegean research', Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute,63 (1933), 298-9. 9 Tsountas, MvKaival (n.

2),

143. Karo

had long

expressed his disagreement with Evans's views (letter

from Karo

to Evans,

27

Aug.

192o,

Evans Archive,

Ashmolean Museum, Oxford); also G. Karo, Die

(Munich, Schachtgrdber von Mykenai MacGillivray, Minotaur (n. 1), 274-52o

1930)

and

A. J.Evans, 'Introduction', in E. Ludwig, Schliemann

of Troy(London,

1931),

15. It is interesting to note that

the old term 'Mycenaean' had now acquired a different meaning 'admirably suited to express the mainland civilizationunder dominating Cretan influence' (Droop 1926, 44); thus Evans 1925, 45, n. i observes with great

disappointment that 'the name Mycenaean, which was already to hand and is generallyintelligibleshould thus be discarded' in favour of 'Helladic'. For the early receptionof 'Helladic' see also Koehl 1990o,48-9. Evans (n. 16). A.J. B. Wace, 'The Treasuryof Atreus',Antiquity, 14 (1940), 236. 2a For which see Evans 1925; id., Shaft Graves (n. 18); id., 'Knossos and id., 'Introduction' (n. 20), 9-21;

Mycenae: the greatcleavage of LM II and evidences of the continued reaction of Minoan Crete on the "Mycenaean" world afterthe fall of the Palace', Proceedings of theFirst

THE CONSTRUCTION

OF THE AEGISTHUS

THOLOS

TOMB

AT MYCENAE

243

construction in the tomb of Aegisthus gave furthersupport to Wace's sequence, not least because it confirmed the transition from rubble masonry to ashlar. It thus comes as no surprise that, in the same report and just afterthe reference to the tomb of Aegisthus,Wace presents the 'three stages of domed tombs'.24This idea was later elaborated in detail in the 1921-3 report in the Annual of theBritishSchoolat Athens,where Wace also rebutted the idea of a Minoan origin for the tholos tomb type in Mainland Greece, attributingit to the mainlanders' creative individuality.25 Wace formulated the scheme on the basis of the architectural appearance (particularlyas regards the masonry) and overall constructionof the tholos tombs, in an attempt to discern some kind of chronological sequence (TABLE1).26 According to this scheme, the Mycenae tholos tombs could be classified into three groups (each group neatly containing three tholoi). It was believed that the groups reflected 'a progressive architectural development'27 which proved to be the best criterionfor the dating of the tholos tombs,28particularlysince theywere severelydisturbed or looted. However, it immediately became apparent that the groups had little,if any,chronological value and could not be employed outside Mycenae. Wace suggested caution and even pointed out that it was inadvisable to argue from constructional peculiarities of tholos tombs outside Mycenae, as a result of considerable regional variations. This was, of course, an important remark since regional variations included Crete,29and it was aimed directlyat Evans's claims about the dating of the tholos tombs at Mycenae, which were to a large extent based on Cretan evidence.3o Despite the discrepancies in Wace's scheme3' and its propounder's pleas forcaution (especially since it was the product of a particular piece of research in the context of a rather idiosyncraticdebate), the classificationstill remains influential.32 International Sciences and Protohistoric CongressofPrehistoric (London, 1934), 192-4; also in brief letters published in The Times (e.g. 8 Apr. 1924, 10; 7 Aug. 1926, 6; 10oNov. 1926, 9; 24 Nov. 1932). For Wace's views: A. J. B. Wace,

'Early Aegean Civilization', CAH i (Cambridge, 1923), 589-615; id., 'Crete and Mycenae', CAHii. 2 (Cambridge,

1924), 431-72; id., 'The date of the Treasury of Atreus', JHS 46 (1926), 11o-20o; id. 1931a; 1931b; id., 'Mycenae id., 'The Treasury of 210-12; 1939', JHS 59 (1939), Atreus', Antiquity, 14 (1940), 233-49; id. 1949. Evans's

interestin the subject continued to the lastyears of his life:A. J. Evans, 'The chronological place of the vaulted tombs at Knossos, in relation to those of Ras Shamra', Man, 37 (1937),

187-8.

The discovery of the Kephala

tholos in 1939 and Hutchinson's dating of the tomb to the Neopalatial period sparked one last debate, though less intenseand witha differentsignificancethistime:see L. Preston,'The Kephala Tholos at Knossos: a studyin the reuse of the past', BSA 100 (200oo5), 67-8. 24 Wace 1922. 25 Wace 1921-3, 393-6.

26 Ibid. 387-93, 396-7; note the change in the position of the 'Genii' tholos in Group III as between the 1921-3 report and Wace 1949, 16-18, on which see also Wace

1931b, 141-2. 27 Wace 1949, 16. 28 Wace 1921-3, 320; similar comments throughout his report,e.g. ibid. 292: 'the styleof its constructionis far

more important as a criterion'. McDonald describes Wace's reasoning as 'almost Euclidean': W. A. McDonald and C. G. Thomas, Progress intothePast: TheRediscovery of Mycenaean Civilization(Bloomington and Indianapolis, 1990), 262. 29 Wace 1921-3,

285:

'Still more

so should

the

architecturalparallels of Crete be used withgreatcaution, since the whole environmentof the Minoan civilizationin that island was differentfrom thatprevailingat Mycenae and on the mainland.' 30oWace 1931b, 143; A. W. Persson, The RoyalTombsat

Dendra near Midea (Lund, 1931), 23-6.

31 Pelon 1976, 380-91, assessingWace's groupingsand stressing the difficultyin establishing the date of the tholos tombs based solelyon typologicalconsiderations. 32 For example see the discussion on the recently discovered tholos tombs at Galatas near Poros: E. r Konsolaki-Yannopoulou, 'H rg Myo6a,a c-ov tap(OvtKO', in Tpotqvitg: vu vho ME-YE Kcvcpo E. Konsolaki-Yannopoulou, Apyoaapcovuc6g.Hpaicracd rov AtOvo3g Zvve6piov IcrropiagKat Apxatooytiag roy Apyocrapcovtco6,FI6pog, 26-29 Iovviov 1998, r6'og A (Athens, 200oo3),159-228.

The most thorough attempt to

classifyall known tholoi according to Wace's scheme was made by J. Wiesner in Grab undJenseits(Berlin, 1938). However,Wiesner was aware of the difficultiesof such a task and questioned the chronological validityof the scheme outside Mycenae (ibid. 77).

GALANAKIS

244

The structuraldevelopment of the Mycenae tholos tombs according to Wace, based on Wace 1949, 17 and H. Wace and C. K. Williams,MycenaeGuide(London, 1961), 7, pl. b; adapted byY. Galanakis.

TABLE i.

FEATURES Dromos

FirstGroup LH HA early 1.Cyclopean Tomb 2. Epano Phournos Tomb 3. Tomb of Aegisthus

SecondGroup LH IIA late 4. Panagia Tomb 5. Kato Phournos Tomb 6. Lion Tomb [ArgiveHeraion Tholos]

ThirdGroup LH II B-II A 7. Tomb of Genii 8. Treasuryof Atreus 9. Tomb of Clytemnestra

Cut directlyfromrock,unlined; in no. 3 partlylined rubble

Lined rubble,some poros ashlar (in no. 4); poros ashlar (in nos. 5 and 6) Conglomerate,poros ashlar (in nos. 4 and 6 ashlar facade in frontof conglomeratestomion) Solidlybuilt of large blocks of dressed conglomerate In the Lion tomb

Conglomerate ashlar (rubble conglomerate and ashlar in no. 7)

Facade

Rubble; in no. 3, poros ashlar

Doorwaysand Jambs Threshold and door

Large blocks but not solid

Lintels

Short,not curved inside

None

Long or verylong curved inside

None (exists in the tomb of Relieving Triangle Aegisthus) TholosMasonry Rubble Side Chamber None

Conglomerate ashlar (in nos. 8 and 9 withcolumns) Solid conglomerateashlar In all three examples (middoorway) Verylong, curved inside

Yes

Yes

Rubble, well built (in nos. 5 and 6 withconglomeratebase) None

Conglomerate ashlar Atreus

of the Aegisthustomband itsimportance Beforeconsideringthe two-phaseconstruction in establishingthe sequence, it is worthmentioninghereJohn Droop's criticaland satirical approachto the debate. It is perhapsone ofthemostgraphicaccountsof the eventsafterthe publicationof the Annualwhichcontainedthe reportof the excavationsat Mycenae,and it offerssome insightsinto the natureand extentof the debate. His reviewarticlewas entitled 'Mycenae, 1921-1923: Legitimate and Illegitimate Criticism'.33Droop identifiestwo 'heresies'in Wace's reportaccordingtoEvans'sstandpoint.The firstis relatedto theviewthat the Mycenaeancivilizationwas a continuationof an older Helladic culture.He considersthis morea matterofjudgementthana heresy.In a highlyironictone Droop notes: view,however, in the eyesof those to whom it is heresythe sheep are being led astray:Messrs.Wace and Blegen are a scandal, and it were betterthata millstonehad been tied about theirnecks.'34 As forthesecond 'heresy',the datingof the Mycenaetholostombs,thatwas no heresyat all accordingto Droop, since the elementofchoicewas absent.It was not a matterofjudgement thiswork'is a crimenot onlyagainstcommon buta matterofscientific work,and discrediting sense,butagainstgood manners... There are morethroatsto be cut beforewe can feelsure thatthe guiltysecretis safe.'35Droop concludeshis criticalreviewby pointingout that'Mr 33 Droop 1926; see also C. W. Blegen and A.J. B. Wace,

'Potteryas evidence for trade and colonization in the

Aegean Bronze Age', Klio, 32 (1939),

131-47; J. D. S.

Pendlebury,TheArchaeology ofCrete(London, 1939). For other, more recent, reviews of the debate see S. L. Horwitz, The Find of a Lifetime:Sir ArthurEvans and the

DiscoveryofKnossos (London, 1981), 215-19; Koehl 1i99o; McDonald and Thomas (n. 28), 258-72, 280-91.

34

Droop

1926, 44, where he also comments that 'we

need not doubt thatin the long run truth-on whichever side it lies-will prevail.' 35 Ibid. 46. Cf. D. G. Hogarth, 'Knossos. Reviewof The Palace of Minos, vol. 1', TLS 29 Dec. 1921, 809: 'the explorer of Knossos carries far more guns' than his Mycenae counterpart; also Evans's comment that Wace writeslike 'a pettifogginglawyer':Koehl 1990, 50.

THE CONSTRUCTION

OF THE AEGISTHUS

THOLOS

TOMB AT MYCENAE

245

Wace may be a heretic in his views on the Late Helladic Civilization,but as regards the dating of the great buildings of Mycenae he would seem to have the right to be regarded as a reformer.'36 THE

TWO-PHASE

CONSTRUCTION

OF THE

AEGISTHUS

TOMB

REVISITED

In the notebooks kept by WinifredLamb for the Mycenae excavations (now deposited in the Archive of the BritishSchool at Athens under 'Mycenae notebooks i and 2') there are some drawings of the Aegisthus tomb in the early stages of excavation, especially in notebook 2, which provides interestinginformationconcerning her excavation of the tomb from 15 June to 8 July 1922.37 An early table (FIG. 2) showing the tripartitestructuraldevelopment of the Mycenae tholos tombs, probably dating from 24 May 1922, is also included in Lamb's 'Mycenae Notebook i' (p. 1o9), suggesting that the scheme had already been conceived shortlybefore the excavation of the Aegisthus tomb. In Lamb's table the criteria used to determine the sequence of the tombs are mainlytwo: the use of conglomerate and the lining of the sides of the dromos. Since the idea of a progressivedevelopment of the Mycenae tholos tombs was already there by late May 1922, just before the excavation of the Aegisthus tomb, it is reasonable to suggest that the excavation of thistomb and the identificationof the two-phase constructionprovided firmsupport to the sequence of the Mycenae tholos tombs. The addition of the poros ashlar facade demonstrated the transition from the 'age of rubble' to the 'age of ashlar'.s8 in establishing the date of the other Furthermore, the Aegisthus tomb became fmundamental Mycenae tombs (and even those furtherafield), since it yielded a considerable amount of diagnostic pottery.But even withinWace's scheme the Aegisthus tomb was idiosyncratic:the tomb has features of Group II (lined dromos, poros facade) and Group I (e.g. the rubble masonry and the fact that it lacked at the time the evidence of a relieving triangle).39 Wace deduced that the poros facade was an addition since '... it supports nothing, and had no apparent connection to the vault. It is purely ornamental.'40 Furthermore, the poros ashlar4' did not bond with the rubble masonry and was set on a foundation of conglomerate, which in turn stood on a layer of small stones with the intersticesclosely packed with yellow clay.The conglomerate base of the ashlar facade and its stone foundation are set deeper than 3`6 Droop 1926, 48. 37 Lamb's notes, perhaps a tidycopy of somethingelse, mayhave been the resultof a dinner-tablediscussionearly in the excavation season just before work started on Aegisthus. Lamb acted as second-in-commandin the 1922 season at Mycenae. See D. W. J. Gill, 'Winifred Lamb: her firstyear as a studentat the BritishSchool at Athens', in S. Hamilton, R. D. Whitehouse, and K. I. and Women:ancientand modern Wright (eds), Archaeology issues(Walnut Creek (C4), 200oo7), 55-75; R. Hood, Faces in Greece:Caricatures ofArchaeology ofPiet deJong(Oxford, 1998), 72. I should like to thankAmalia Kakissisforher help in the BSA Archives, Lisa French for discussing Lamb's chart with me, and David Gill for sending me a copy of his articleprior to publication. 38 See Wace's comment at the beginnning of the article; also Wace 1921-3, 388. - Wace 1921-3, 393-4.

40 Wace

1921-3,

300,

388;

id.,

'Mycenae

in

Tutankhamen's time: British excavations', Illustrated London News, 31 Mar. 1923, 525; id. 1949, 16, 38-9; G. E.

Mylonas,AncientMycenae:The Capital CityofAgamemnon (London, 320.

1957), 97, 163; Pelon 1976, 161, 304-5

according

to Wace

n. 1,

4~' Apartfromthe poros facade, large rectangularporos ashlar blocks were also found against the chamber walls;

1921-3,

302

n. 1, 'these may have

been the remains of a bench runninground the base of the wall of the tholos'. Pelon 1976, 344 nn. 5-6 compares them with those from Kato Englianos tomb III, while Blegen envisaged a 'ring' similar to that in the Clytemnestra tholos: C. W. Blegen, M. Rawson, W. Taylour,and W. P. Donovan, ThePalace ofNestor,vol. III: Acropolisand LowerTown. Tholoiand GraveCircle.Chamber Tombs.Discoveries outside the Citadel (Princeton, 1973), 78.

GALANAKIS

246

a!'!ai

'a:-

!a a a i! !:;a:'a{i_________________

(

... . .. . .... .

.".'":.:i:.,:!.:

%' @

I

:,a:!s

a.

}a+ii

aiaaa~i@ ::;i;a !a

;;::ai!;a@ a;.a,;::aa~ iii.a. aaiai! !a!ia~ ~ii:a4.!;!:; ia. !:iiii .i:.-::;:a~

}::: . .:: .. iK ::ii:a! iiiaik J.':;iaiaiaa!a iia:i.!a::i:,ik

, : ::: ; ii :: -: a a.. i:x~aaii::a. ..V

..../

.........

iiii':% aa1K :i~a ,2 ,Sa!!~iiiii:a~a.. i~i!ia@iii:.~;;a: ".i'.:::

!i-:.;:N i!;i:!i:~:iiaa.:!!P.iH !ii!iaai;:iia ":S:!{; ~ia!i !.i!aiii:a::a ::a iiz~ :iaaa ..'a:S+::,::iia,7i, !a,' ;,::

a.-. ::. : ;aa:i aaiai:: a%a: !. .aIi :,@$ ai .i. . :aaaaa, .: i. ::i.-.< >a!; ii .::'!;i:i. ii:'i!.Sa:. .i - !.:,; il! ,i;i

.~ .;

a

:i

i il;ai' i:a% 9ii; :! {'5 % ,a,a:.,.. .. :!:!:i..a.. ...a ...!a..: .a:' :.i::i..

ai a a : i :ii+!;:a i;!a :,:i:: ;::;i: :aa:;a. .. ... a : ~ai::: ia:.

:

.

{!ii!!!@~!

aaa:: "aa

!!'aaa % !i ik~i!!~ :a i:Y{ii;iiiiij :i-!. :ia ::.aa:aaaa.ii:.::iaaa

:i! i

!i~aaa! a! iaa:a..aaa~aaiaa;.+ ii!.ii.iia!;;!!~aaa!@

......................................... 9i!i a!.i!!iiiiiaa~ iai aiaiaaa a, ' !aiiii,aI~l~aa ~iia i !iiiiaii! :. a i!'!iii!i

FIG.2. WinifredLamb's notes on the structuraldevelopmentof the Mycenae tholos tombs (Mycenae Notebook 1, page 109, probably24 May 1922). Courtesyof the BSA Archive.

THE CONSTRUCTION

OF THE AEGISTHUS THOLOS

TOMB AT MYCENAE

247

the base of the rubble stomion. Unfortunately,the stratigraphyat this point of the tomb is not veryclear.42 The absence of a relieving triangle and the exclusive use of rubble masonry for the first phase showed that the tomb belonged to Group I, while the lined dromos and the poros ashlar facade connected it with the tombs in Group II. Whilst the lined dromos was considered, and certainlyis, part of the original construction (the rubble dromos bonds with the rubble stomion), the ashlar facade was considered a later addition.43 Having established the date of construction of the Aegisthus tomb in LH II A,44Wace was able to build on his progressive development of the Mycenae tholos tombs. In short, the identificationof the second phase depends on the fact that the poros ashlar facade does not bond with the limestone rubble but appears to be independent. In reconsidering the Aegisthus tomb, I should like to look at the stomion in the light of the recent discoveryof the relieving triangle and its possible implications for the suggested twophase construction. 1. THE

STOMION

AND ITS

SUPERSTRUCTURE

The facade of the Aegisthus tomb has deteriorated through time. While the east ashlar pier of the facade is still relativelywell preserved, the ashlar blocks of the west pier have almost completely disappeared (FIG. 3). The deterioration of the tomb's facade is in no way exceptional (cf. the facade of the ArgiveHeraion tholos tomb). Wace believed that the ashlar facade was a later addition on the grounds that it has no connection to the vault and appears to be more or less independent, as already mentioned. In those (very few) cases where the association of the ashlar facade withits superstructurecan be determined, it appears that the formerconstitutedan integral part of the latter,since in all cases the ashlar facade bonds with the stomion and/or the dromos wall and the outermost lintel block sits both on the facade and on the stomion jambs (e.g. the Argive Heraion and the Lion tombs and most likely Peristeria tholos 1). However, in the case of the Aegisthus tomb nothing of this sort can be 42 The foundation of small stones is not limitedto the piers but extends to the area in frontof the facade and the stomion. It appears to be limited to the area of the ashlar fac;ade, though furtherexploration is needed to clarifyits original extent.Wace noted that the anastylosis pier, built by the Greek Archaeological Service in 1915 against the east side of the rubble stomion, rested on loose earth (as did the rubble stomion) and on stones (Wace, n. 8). Could the stones suggest that the rubble foundation may have covered the entire length of the stomion? Furthermore, the rubble masonry of the dromos, the dromos floor,and the rubble stomionwere mortared with tough yellow clay as were the rubble foundation and the ashlar facade (1921-3, 297-8). To complicate things furthera depression is shown in de Jong's section runningfromthe paved areajust in frontof the ashlar faiade to about 4 m inside the chamber.Pelon 1976, 325-6 compared it with the depression channels found in some LH I-II A tholos tombs in Messenia. The relationship between the depression and the ashlar facade is unclear. Wace discussed the depression at the stomion,where the stone foundationis, in relationto the constructionof the ashlar facade. He considered the part

of the depression, inside the chamber, a funerarycist 'lined with big blocks of stone packed tightwithyellow clay' (Wace 1921-3, 301; see also Wace 1949, 39). 43 Wace 1921-3, 300: 'It has been suggested that the successor of the King who built this tomb, instead of erectinganother for himself,was content to improvethe tholos of his father.' Similar comments in Wace 1922, arguing that the construction of Aegisthus should be dated in LH II ('the beginning of the 15th c. B.C.') and the facade, although added at some later date, 'was decided either by the King who had built this tomb for himselfor by his successors in his honour'; so in theory, even iftwo phases were to be discerned,theybelonged to the same period and were attached to the same ruler in Wace's view. 44 Evans dated the Aegisthustombin LM Ib and LM Ic according to his dating and terminology,although some 'MM III and a fewLM Ia' sherds were also found (PM iv. 244 n. 1). Droop provided Evans withextensivenotes and sketchesof the potteryfound in theAegisthustomb.They are now stored in the Evans Archive,Ashmolean Museum, Oxford.

GALANAKIS

248

At

VV

"Z

FIG. 3. The excavationof the Aegisthustholos tomb,summer 1922 (C 728).

Courtesyof the BSA Archive.

observed.45Furthermore,the ashlar facade of the Aegisthus tomb is exceptional in accounting formore than 30% of the total stomion length; in all other tholos tombs withan ashlar fa4ade it accounts for less than io%. At firstsight the lack of any bonding between the ashlar facade and the rest of the tomb appears to suggest that the ashlar facade may after all be a later addition to an original rubble phase of construction. But did the ashlar facade in the Aegisthus tomb carrya lintel block? And ifyes,what are its implications for the construction of the tomb, particularlyin the light of the recentlydiscovered relieving triangle? Wace was convinced that the short size of the lintel blocks, spanning the doorwaywithonly small bearing surfaces at each end, provided enough evidence against the possible existence of a relieving triangle. Furthermore, according to Wace enough remained of the superstructure(both frominside and outside) to indicate that there was no relievingtriangle in this tomb. 45 The outermostlintel block, now missing,sat on the ashlar faiade. However,it is unclear whetherthe missing block carried the opening of the triangle or not (thus

linkingthe otherlintelblocks and subsequentlythe vault withthe missingblock).

THE CONSTRUCTION

OF THE AEGISTHUS

THOLOS

TOMB AT MYCENAE

249

I have recently discovered, in the Evans Archive in the Ashmolean Museum, a hitherto unpublished drawing by Arthur Evans.46The drawing accompanies his commentary on his visit to Mycenae with Duncan Mackenzie in 1924. It was Mackenzie who observed 'lines of tympanum in blocking wall' above the innermost lintel block in the tomb of Aegisthus. Evans's drawing illustratesMackenzie's observation,clearly showing a relievingtriangle in the tomb of Aegisthus (FIG.4). Although Mackenzie's observation and Evans's drawingwere never properly published, they constitute the earliest witness as to the possible existence of a trianglein this tomb. However, thisobservationwas soon forgotten,and the lack of a relieving triangle in the tomb of Aegisthus was unanimously acknowledged for almost fifty years until In relation when Servais made a similar to the observation.47 discovered 1971, Jean newly relieving triangle at Thorikos tomb III, which, as in the case of the Aegisthus tomb, was invisible prior to proper investigation,he suggested that the same device might have once existed in the Aegisthus tomb.48 It was not until November 1997 thatMackenzie and Servais were to be proved right.During consolidation work on the monument the area above the lintel blocks was cleared49 and the triangle revealed.50Afterthe clearing of the area above the lintel blocks it was found that the interiorof the triangle has a simple and rather thin blocking wall fillingthe space and that it did not bond with the chamber walls.5' Furthermore, from inside the triangle one can distinguishthe top of the chamber wall followed by a layer of a water resistingyellowishclay (today locally known as 'plesia') and then a thin blocking wall.52 What are the implications of the triangle's discovery? Is it significantin discerning the phases of construction in the tomb of Aegisthus? The discovery of the triangle added one more peculiarityto the tomb of Aegisthus.Not only does this tomb have a rubble dromos (in contrast to the other two tholos tombs of Group I, the Epano Phournos and the Cyclopean tombs which do not have a lined dromos), but it also has a relieving triangle (which is now impossible to prove for the other two tholos tombs of Group I). Iakovidis, in a recent discussion of the newly discovered triangle in the tomb of Aegisthus, rightlypoints out that this finding makes clear that the narrow overlap of the lintel blocks over the jambs of the stomion cannot any longer be used as a criterionfor determining whether a tholos has or has not a relieving triangle.53 'Evans Knossos 1924' notebook (no. 44), 9 (Evans Archive,Ashmolean Museum, Oxford). 47 Gasche and Servais 1971, 47-8. Parenthetically, it is interestingto note that the absence of a trianglebecame part of a folk traditionaccording to which the tomb of Aegisthusdid not have an 'opening' in order to keep the wicked spiritof Aegisthusimprisoned: F. J.Tritsch,'False doors on tombs',JHS 63 (1943), 114. 48 See also Pelon 1976, 161 n. 3; 313 nn. 4-5; 389 n. 4. Once you know that the triangleexists,it is easy to trace its outline fromthe inside as well (both at the Thorikos and Aegisthustombs). 49 Iakovidis20oo01, 20-1 mentionssome Late Mycenaean sherds found in the trianglealong with a fragmentof a bronze knife,an ivorypin, and a clay bull figurine.He considers the material intrusiveand agrees withWace in dating the constructionof the tomb to LH I/II early. According to Kim Shelton, the potteryfromthe triangle

dates to late in LH III B and is probably a result of the earthquake at that time (which might have caused the collapse of the tomb). Along withthe ceramic material,a female figurinewas found rightabove the exteriorlintel block, which Shelton considerspart of later dump on top of the destructiondebris. I should like to thank her for sharing thisinformationwithme. 50

For the Aegisthus triangle see lakovidis 20oo01; also E.

French, Mycenae.Agamemnon's Capital(Stroud, 2oo2), fig. 22.

51 Aegisthustriangle (according to lakovidis 20oo01): L. (pres.) 3.90 m; L. (top) 1.75 m; W. (lintel block level) 2 m; H. 1.8o m. 52 this I should like to thankKim Shelton forclarifying point forme. 53 Iakovidis 20oo01; similarcommentsin French (n. 50),

41.

GALANAKIS

250

..

....

!a

V,"'7/4i'TT I '.

FIG. 4. Sketch by Sir Arthur Evans showing the relieving triangle on the Aegisthus tholos tomb, 1924 (Evans Notebook no. 44, page 9). Courtesy of the Evans Archive, Ashmolean Museum, Oxford.

The most crucial question concerning the constructionof the Aegisthus tomb raised by the discovery of the triangle is, unfortunately,much more difficultto answer: whether the outermost lintel block, now missing, acted as a load-bearing beam or not (i.e. whether it carried the opening of the relievingtriangle,as the other three blocks stillin place do). That the ashlar facade was originallyspanned by a lintel block is certain. The fact that no faiade is known withfree-standingjambs54 and the existence of the fascia55on the poros ashlar blocks (cf. the Argive Heraion and Lion tombs) appear to suggest that at least one (if not two) now missing lintel blocks once spanned the ashlar fagade; I assign the letter A to the missing block(s)56 forclarity(FIG. 5).57 The currentoutermostlintel block (to which I assign the letter B) is not as squared (i.e. dressed smooth and vertical) and canonical as presented in deJong's Note that the projection of the facade of Ano Englianos tholos IV and Peristeria1is due to the modern reconstructionof the dome. 55 The fascia is not, however,a conclusivecriterionfor the existence of an outermost,now missing,lintelblock. There are a few instances in rock-cutchamber tombs where the fascia does not continue to the level of the lintel. 56 It is difficultto determine the number of missing lintel blocks on the basis of the widthof the uncovered part of the stomion. In the Argive Heraion tholos, for example, the outermostlintelblock carryingthe fascia is verywide, while in the Lion tholos at Mycenae, the same block is much narrowerin relation to the other lintel blocks of the stomion. In those cases where such a lintel block has survived,it coversalmost entirelythe lengthof 54

the facade (see e.g. theArgiveHeraion). What appears to be ratherunusual in the case of the Aegisthustomb is the qualityof workmanshipin the lintelblocks. Usuallythisis more or less the same in all lintel blocks, with the outermostblock receivingperhaps the best treatment.If we accept that the outermostblock A in the Aegisthus tombwas a well-finished block, then the differencein the treatmentbetween thisblock and the other three would be somewhat exceptional, emphasizing furtheron the experimental character of the architecture of the Aegisthustomb. 57 Wace 1921-3, 298; id. 1949, 39 and Pelon 1976, 161, 482-3 have hinted at the existence of a possible fourth (outermost) lintel block, without, however, assessingthe implicationsfurther.

THE CONSTRUCTION

OF THE AEGISTHUS THOLOS

0

1

TOMB AT MYCENAE

2

3

4

251

5m

FIG.5. SectionoftheAegisthus tholostombafterthediscovery oftherelieving triangle. of Drawingcourtesy Dr ClairyPalyvou;adaptedbyY. Galanakis. plan.58 Furthermore,the fact that it is set some distance back from the rubble part of the stomion would make lintel block B a rather exceptional candidate for the outermost lintel block of a conjectural Phase i. What is less clear is whetherthe missinglintel block(s) A would have carried the opening of the triangle. Lintel block A may or may not have had any load to bear. If it had (and it is impossible to prove given the deterioration of the tomb's facade59) then it would confirm that the poros facade was part of the original planning of the tomb since it would show not only that it carried a lintel block but also thatit was connected to the vault through the relievingtriangle. If it had no load to bear (as it now stands), it does not conclusivelyprove that the poros facade was a later addition (cf. the relievingtrianglesin the two tholos tombs at Thorikos, where the length of the triangle accounts for only 40-45% of the stomion length). Furthermore, it should be noted that not everybodyconsiders the poros ashlar facade as 'purely ornamental', as is the currentview.Claire Loader has recentlysuggested that the ashlar facade might have acted as a buttress'providing an additional area over which the weight of the stone could be distributed' in response to a noticeable weakening of the structureeither during or afterthe completion of the tomb.60Although this is a tempting suggestion, it cannot stand close scrutinysince the lack of bonding between the rubble and ashlar part of the stomion would 58 It should be noted thatPiet de Jong had a tendency to produce 'enhanced' architecturalplans not always accuratelyfollowingthe actual architecturalcondition of the Mycenae tombs.This tendencyis also notable in his plans of the tomb of Aegisthus. 59 Accordingto Kim Shelton (pers.comm.)the stoneson the currentexteriorlintel block are probablypart of the collapse debris and not a blockingwall because theyare not in line and there is no yellowishclay (pace lakovidis

2001, 20-1, FIG. 3). Iakovidis 2001, 18 maintains the twophase constructionof the Aegisthustomb.For thisreason he places the end of the triangleover lintelblock B, the outermostsurvivingblock (ibid., FIG. 3). However,there appears to be no evidence suggestingthat the triangle actuallyended there.I should like to thankClairyPalyvou forthisinformation. 6o N. C. Loader, Building in Cyclopean Masonry

(Jonsered, 1998), 158.

252

GALANAKIS

have considerably weakened its function as a buttress.We can only wonder how a massive lintel block A might have been placed in front of lintel block B without being connected either to the dromos walls or the relieving triangle; it would have been a very delicate operation that could have placed the structuralequilibrium of the tomb at risk. At thispoint, I should like to turn myattentionto a somewhat neglected aspect of funerary architecture: the tomb's proportions, particularly the relationship between the tomb's diameter and the stomion length. It is argued here that on these grounds the tomb of Aegisthus would be an exceptional case in comparison to the other Mycenae tholos tombs, if we accept two phases of construction. It is thus suggested that a single construction phase cannot altogether be dismissed. However, even if one accepts the two-phase construction suggested for the Aegisthus tomb it is worth considering the possibilitythat the addition of the ashlar facade may not have been an afterthought,as is largelymaintained, but a pre-planned action and part of the original design of the tomb which was perhaps executed at a later (but not much later) period of time. If this proposition is correct,it would offerrare evidence for the design and constructionof a tholos tomb in the Late Bronze Age Aegean. 2.

PROPORTIONS

6 plots the tholos diameter against the stomion length of seventyLate Bronze Age tholos tombs witha diameter over 5 m and adequate informationconcerning their stomion length. It is verystrikinghow abruptlythe tholos tombs fall into two groups. The smaller ones, witha diameter between 5 and 9 m, fall in group A witha stomion 2-4 m long (45 tombs or 63% of the surveyedsample);61'bigger ones, witha diameter 9-15 m, fall in 'group B' with a stomion 4-6 m long (16 tombs or 2 2% of the sample). In total, 85% of the plotted tombs fall within the two large groups. The relationship between the stomrnion length62and diameter appears to be consistent,something furtheremphasized in FIG. 7. Inconsistencies are mainly related to tombs witha funnel-shaped stomion (FIG. 6). The Kato Phournos tomb, which appears out of line in this graph, falls comfortablywithinthe ratio range in FIG. 7. Thus, the only tomb with an abnormal relationship between diameter and stomion length is the conjectural Phase i in the tomb of Aegisthus. If, however, we consider the rubble stomion and the ashlar faiade a single unit, or at least as part of an original plan that was executed in two phases, then the Aegisthus tomb fitswell within the tombs of Group B (FIG. 6). FIG.7 is equally telling. I have plotted the ratio of the diameter against the stomion length and marked the tombs with a symbol according to their possible date of construction (their placement in the chart is random). There is no significantvariation in either ratio or range between the three periods, a remarkable consistencywhich is too good to be accidental. The ratio in most tombs (52 out of 70 or 74% of the surveyed tombs) falls between 2 and 3 (if x is the stomion length, then the diameter should be between 2x and 3x). The ratio of almost all the surveyedtombs falls around 1.5 and 3. Although this differencein the ratio may seem FIG.

6, Anothertendencycan also be observed in Group A: most of the tombswitha diameter between 5 and 6.5 m have a stomionlengthbetween 2 and 3 m and mostof the tombswitha diameterbetween 6.5 and 9 m tend to have a stomionlengthbetween 3 and 4 m. 62For the sake of consistencyI have used the stomion

length at ground level. Occasionally it increases (but never decreases) at lintel level; this would account for even smallerratios.But even in thiscase, the ratioforthe conjectural Phase i in the tomb of Aegisthus remains exceptionallyhigh (c. 3-4) and well out of line in relation to the surveyedtombs.

THE

OF THE AEGISTHUS

CONSTRUCTION

THOLOS

TOMB

AT MYCENAE

253

Stomion Length (in meters) 11 * Georgiko

10 9 8

Aegisthus:SingleConstruction

7 Tombs with a funnel-shaped stornionMila

*Mila

6-Kapakli

1

5-Psari

.............. Tns I ...................... ................ ...........................................................

Tiryns1 :+ ' ".................. ......... a.... a.................. a........................ * +

Ae i t us Phase1 Aegisthus:

Kato Phournos

* * " *"* 2 +GROUPAi . -.r....-.............. ........................................................... * ......

3 2

Routsi 2

Mykonos

1

4

5..2

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

ChamberDiameter (in meters)

6. Scatterplot of tholos diameteragainst stomion length. Each dot representsa tholos tomb. Drawn byY. Galanakis.

FIG.

quite large, it is importantto note that the smaller the ratio the longer the stomion in relation to the tomb's chamber. The only really low ratio is that of the Georgiko tomb in Thessaly, which is the result of a disproportionately longer stomion in relation to the chamber's diameter (cf. low ratios, c. 1.5, also associated with tombs equipped with a funnel-shaped stomion, e.g. the Aitoloakarnania tholos tombs). If we accept two phases of constructionfor the tomb of Aegisthus, then the firstphase, as this graph clearly demonstrates,would be well out of line, especially if one compares the ratio of the other Mycenae tholos tombs. It is also the most abnormal ratio in this graph, being over 3.5 (exceptionally short stomion for a very large chamber: 13.96/3.82 = 3.65). Certainly'abnormal' situations are to be expected, as can be observed at the lower end of the scale in the tombs with funnel-shaped stomia. Yet the consistency shown in the ratio of the other tholos tombs at Mycenae and in the Argolid appears to highlighteven more the abnormal position of Aegisthus Phase 1, not least because it is well above 3 (FIG. 7). Furthermore, the only inconsistency in both graphs is the conjectural Phase 1 in the tomb of Aegisthus, namely the rubble stomion. However, if we consider this stomion, including the ashlar facade, as part of a single construction,the ratio falls comfortablywithin the observed limits (13.96/5.57 = 2.51). The latter figureis not only

GALANAKIS

254 Ratio 4-

O-Aegisthus:

3.5

S

3

*

*

Aegisthus: Single Construction Kato

Phournos

2.5"* 2"

Phase 1

U

I

At A

L\

Sm

*

:Atreus

WE]

U

2

Clytemnestra

.

:

A

A

a

A

A

A

A.

1.5i Tombswith a fiunnel-shaped stomion

1

Georgiko

0.5

0"

LH I tholos tombs

El LH [ I

II tholos tombs(Mycenae& ArgiveHeraion)

LH II tholos tombs (Argolid) LH II tholos tombs (Rest of the Aegean)

LH III tholostombs(Mycenae)

A LH A LH

III tholos tomb (Tiryns 1?) III tholos tombs (Rest of the Aegean)

FI(;. 7. Ratio (diameter : stomion length) plottedagainstthe possible date of constructionof the surveyed tombs.Each dot representsa tholos tomb. Drawn byY. Galanakis.

in agreement with the ratios of tombs of similar size and date but more importantly with those of the other Mycenae and Argolid tholos tombs.6 Dobiat in his study on the proportions of tholos tombs pointed out some time ago that the dimensions of the stomion and those of the chamber are interrelated. The ratios presented here are very close to those proposed by Dobiat,64 who also emphasized that the relationship between chamber diameter and stomion length is not simply an issue of architectural design but is also of structural importance for the monument.(5 '3 The average ratio for the Mycenae tholos tombs is 2.47 (including the ArgiveHeraion tomb but excluding the Aegisthustholos); for the other tholos tombs in the Argolid witha diameter over 5m the ratio is somewhat smaller (2.22).

If x is the length of the stomion, then the diameter of the chamber is 2X or 2.5x according to C. Dobiat, 'Zu

den MaBverhiltnissenin mykenischenTholosgrabern', 11 (1982), 7-8, Abb. 3; see zurdgdischen Bronzezeit, Beitrdge also R. Stupperich, 'Uberlegungen zum FutmaB mykenischerBauten', Thetis,2 (1995), 21-3. 65 Dobiat (n. 64), 6, 9; I should like to thank Clairy Palyvoufordiscussingthispoint withme.

THE CONSTRUCTION

OF THE AEGISTHUS

THOLOS

TOMB AT MYCENAE

255

Further to that, a recent studyby Walter Kamm66 has shown the complete harmony that underpins Phase 1 (rubble stomion) and Phase 2 (ashlar facade), particularly in the relationship between mass and proportion. Kamm concludes that the architect of the second phase must have mastered the plan of the firstand would have known exceptionally well the design and construction of the tomb in it.67This important point is in agreement with the graphs and the analysis presented here. To sum up: there is a remarkable consistency in the relationship between diameter and stomion length. What this consistencyappears to suggest is that the architectsor builders had at least some relative notion of proportions (how short or long the stomion should be in relation to the size of the chamber). This notion might have developed as a result of improvingthe structureof the tomb's most sensitivearea, the stomion. An examination of the proportions of the surveyed tombs appears to suggest that, despite the lack of bonding between the ashlar facade and the rubble stomion in the Aegisthus tomb, these two parts might have actually been planned together.Whether the ashlar facade was added at a later stage (perhaps a few years later) is impossible to tell based on the current condition of the monument and of the relieving trianglein particular. CONCLUSIONS

The aim of the paper has been twofold: to show the role of the Aegisthus tomb in the formulation and establishment of a progressive structural development for the Mycenae tholos tombs and to re-examine itstwo-phaseconstruction,especially in the lightof the recent discoveryof the relieving triangle. I have tried to argue that the tomb of Aegisthus played a fundamental role in the classificationof the Mycenae tholos tombs.68This classificationwas the most fruitfuloutcome of the Mycenae 1920-3 campaigns and provided the most important criteriafor the dating of the tholos tombs. Subsequently, the progressivestructural crescendo proposed in Wace's scheme became the best tool in refutingEvans's diminuendo theory.69 A re-examination of the Aegisthus tomb has shown that a one-phase construction should not altogether be dismissed in favourof a two-phaseconstruction for the rubble stomion and the ashlar facade. The masonry,the lintel blocks, and the relieving triangle,when discussed along with the proportions of the tomb and its affinitieswith other contemporary tholos tombs, appear to suggest that the design and construction of the tomb's stomion may have been preplanned. Whether its construction was executed in two stages, plausible as it may sound, is almost impossible at present to prove. 66 Kamm 2000.

Ibid. 42-3: 'Die Abmessungen der ersten und zweiten Bauphase sind durch einen zauberhaften Einklang der MaBe und Proportionen miteinander verbunden ... Der Architektder Fassade des AigisthosGrab (zweite Bauphase) mul die Planung der ersten Phase genau gekannt haben. Der gezeigte Einklang der Mate und Proportionen konnte sonst kaum entstanden sein.' 6" The tomb of Aegisthus was the only tholos at Mycenaeexcavated,even ifsomewhatpartially, duringthe 1920-3 campaigns. The other tholos tombs were only 67

'...carefully re-examined and for the first time scientifically planned': A. J. B. Wace, 'Mycenae: prehistoricpalace, shaft-gravearea, and beehive tombs.

2800-1 150 Bc', in BritishArchaeologicalDiscoveries in Greece

and Crete,1886-z936 ( London, 1936), 47. 69 Cf. n. 18. It can be argued that the overall debate concerningthe nature of the relationsbetween 'Minoans' the emphasisplaced and 'Mycenaeans' had as a side-effect by Evans on LM I-II, and the undervaluationof LM III material.A defensivetone can be discerned in PM ii-iv, although the foundationswere laid in vol. i.

256

GALANAKIS

Whatever the process of construction of the Aegisthus tomb might have been, its idiosyncraticcharacter withinWace's groupings is best explained as a result of architectural experimentation within a local crafttraditionin tholos tomb construction70at Mycenae and the nearby Argive Heraion. Wace's notes of caution regarding his tholos tomb groupings should always be kept in mind, along with the context of the epistemological debate within which the tripartitescheme took shape. KebleCollege,Oxford

YANNISGALANAKIS

SJ. Wright,'The social production of space and the architecturalproduction of society in the Bronze Age Aegean during the 2nd millenniumBCE', in J.Maran, C.

H. Schwengel, and U. Thaler (eds), Juwig,

Constructing

Power: Architecture, Ideology and Social Practice / Konstruktion der Macht: Architektur, Ideologie und soziales Handeln

(Geschichte: Forschung und Wissenschaft,19; Miinster, 2oo6), 58-9.