DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.811#0245
202 DISCOVERY OF LINTEL-BLOCK IN 'ATREUS' DROMOS
ported here at the time when the North Wall of the dromos was re built,
and re-used to span a gap in the rock—a Late Mycenaean sherd and a con-
temporary terra-cotta ' idol'. Most of the pottery found under the South
wall was also of the same age of Mycenaean decadence, far remote from
the great days when the mighty vault and its facade themselves were
executed.1 It must, indeed, be regarded as archaeologically proven that
the dromos walls in their existing form do not represent the original
construction.
Professor J. L. Myres has also been independently led on structural
and other grounds to the conclusion that the facade of the Tomb as origin-
ally visible was somewhat wider than it is at present, and that it has been
encroached on by the abutment of a later dromos wall on either side. It is
not of course necessary to suppose, judging by other Minoan analogies, that
an abutting wall would have been bonded in.
Re-used The re-used lintel-block lay about 5 metres from the entrance of the
block— existing dromos at a point where the original rock of the hill dropped away
perhaps sharply to the East to the depth of 1-35 metres and marks the beginning of a
trance to distinct outer section of the avenue where the ground had to be made up.
ore- a . jg jt pOSS;^]e tjlaj- j^g Hntel-block itself had been actually in use at some
point nearer the entrance of the Tomb and had once stood over the door-
way of an inner fore-hall in front of it ? It would in that case—though its
central space was certainly not roofed over—find an analogy with the fore-
hall of the Royal Tomb of Isopata near Knossos.2
Such a fore-hall, corresponding, as already observed, with the porches
of Middle Empire tombs, might have supplied ample space on either side
for the sculptured friezes.
originally intended for a lintel-block, since no nished and otherwise perfect, why should it
builder would saw a surface and then build have been discarded ?
it where it could not be seen, but was for ' See A. E., The Shaft Graves and Bee-hive
some reason or other discarded.' If, how- Tombs of Mycenae and their Interrelation
ever, the block was placed in its position at (Macmillans, 1929), p. 67 seqq.
the date indicated by the associated pottery, it 2 See A. E., Prehistoric Tombs of Knossos,
might well have been taken from a ruined (Archaeo/ogia, lix), p. 137 seqq., and the Plan,
structure and re-used as abridgeof supportwhen PI. XCIII.
the dromos wall was rebuilt. If so well fur-
ported here at the time when the North Wall of the dromos was re built,
and re-used to span a gap in the rock—a Late Mycenaean sherd and a con-
temporary terra-cotta ' idol'. Most of the pottery found under the South
wall was also of the same age of Mycenaean decadence, far remote from
the great days when the mighty vault and its facade themselves were
executed.1 It must, indeed, be regarded as archaeologically proven that
the dromos walls in their existing form do not represent the original
construction.
Professor J. L. Myres has also been independently led on structural
and other grounds to the conclusion that the facade of the Tomb as origin-
ally visible was somewhat wider than it is at present, and that it has been
encroached on by the abutment of a later dromos wall on either side. It is
not of course necessary to suppose, judging by other Minoan analogies, that
an abutting wall would have been bonded in.
Re-used The re-used lintel-block lay about 5 metres from the entrance of the
block— existing dromos at a point where the original rock of the hill dropped away
perhaps sharply to the East to the depth of 1-35 metres and marks the beginning of a
trance to distinct outer section of the avenue where the ground had to be made up.
ore- a . jg jt pOSS;^]e tjlaj- j^g Hntel-block itself had been actually in use at some
point nearer the entrance of the Tomb and had once stood over the door-
way of an inner fore-hall in front of it ? It would in that case—though its
central space was certainly not roofed over—find an analogy with the fore-
hall of the Royal Tomb of Isopata near Knossos.2
Such a fore-hall, corresponding, as already observed, with the porches
of Middle Empire tombs, might have supplied ample space on either side
for the sculptured friezes.
originally intended for a lintel-block, since no nished and otherwise perfect, why should it
builder would saw a surface and then build have been discarded ?
it where it could not be seen, but was for ' See A. E., The Shaft Graves and Bee-hive
some reason or other discarded.' If, how- Tombs of Mycenae and their Interrelation
ever, the block was placed in its position at (Macmillans, 1929), p. 67 seqq.
the date indicated by the associated pottery, it 2 See A. E., Prehistoric Tombs of Knossos,
might well have been taken from a ruined (Archaeo/ogia, lix), p. 137 seqq., and the Plan,
structure and re-used as abridgeof supportwhen PI. XCIII.
the dromos wall was rebuilt. If so well fur-