DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.809#0124
MINOAN VIADUCT SOUTH OF THE PALACE 99
1-40111. by 0-75 m.; a corner slab 30 cm. thick was 1-15 m. by i-io m.
Many of these large blocks were too big for convenient transport by later
plunderers of building material and the tops of the piers were largely
strewn with chips produced in the process of breaking up blocks for
removal—a phenomenon often repeated on the Palace site itself. Opposite the
second pier, indeed, two rows of superposed blocks are seen below, evidently
in the position in which they had been projected by some shock, possibly of
a seismic character, from the fabric above (see Fig. 47). But in view of
the above evidence we may conclude that the disappearance of the upper
part of the Viaduct was not so much due to the destructive forces of Nature
as to the deliberate action of those who used it for a quarry. That the
destruction stopped where it did was doubtless owing to the circumstance
that the diluvial earth washed down from the hill-side, which had reached
this level, had itself become to such an extent petrified by the gypsum in
the water as to render the task of demolition too laborious.
Judging by the fact that the width of pier 4 from its exterior line Con-
inwards, as well as that of the ascending pavement between it and pier 3, breadth
is 5-25 metres, we must assign at least this width, or about 16 feet, to the of road"
surface of the road. It is true that blocks belonging to the filling between
the inner edge of the piers and the natural slope of the rock extended
2 metres beyond this line, but this cannot be taken as a proof of
a greater width for the roadway. The width of about 5f metres—which
must be taken as a minimum—is itself roughly a metre and a half more than
the average width of the Minoan built way across the Island, of which the
traces have been described above. It must be borne in mind, however, Trun]£
that, as there pointed out, the terminal section of this transit road as it Transit
approaches Knossos forms in fact a trunk line representing the junction of outes'
the Great South Road with another important line leading East to Lasithi
and the country beyond it. As regards the width of the Viaduct an
interesting parallel is presented by the abutment of the ' Cyclopean bridge'
at Mycenae which is about 6 metres in width (see Fig. 43, above). Here
again we have to do with a main artery of communication, which, besides
its direct continuation to the Gulf of Nauplia, would have received a branch
leading through Argos to the interior of the Morea.
The fourth pier of the Viaduct abuts abruptly on a spur of the natural Traces of
1 r t • • • r -I'll 1 continua-
rock, and from this point the remains of the construction, which here started tion of
on a higher level, break off. Some blocks that had been used as a filling r^\iai '
on the inner side were, however, visible at intervals along the high bank duct.
that here overlooks a little level plot used for gardens, bordering the
h 2
1-40111. by 0-75 m.; a corner slab 30 cm. thick was 1-15 m. by i-io m.
Many of these large blocks were too big for convenient transport by later
plunderers of building material and the tops of the piers were largely
strewn with chips produced in the process of breaking up blocks for
removal—a phenomenon often repeated on the Palace site itself. Opposite the
second pier, indeed, two rows of superposed blocks are seen below, evidently
in the position in which they had been projected by some shock, possibly of
a seismic character, from the fabric above (see Fig. 47). But in view of
the above evidence we may conclude that the disappearance of the upper
part of the Viaduct was not so much due to the destructive forces of Nature
as to the deliberate action of those who used it for a quarry. That the
destruction stopped where it did was doubtless owing to the circumstance
that the diluvial earth washed down from the hill-side, which had reached
this level, had itself become to such an extent petrified by the gypsum in
the water as to render the task of demolition too laborious.
Judging by the fact that the width of pier 4 from its exterior line Con-
inwards, as well as that of the ascending pavement between it and pier 3, breadth
is 5-25 metres, we must assign at least this width, or about 16 feet, to the of road"
surface of the road. It is true that blocks belonging to the filling between
the inner edge of the piers and the natural slope of the rock extended
2 metres beyond this line, but this cannot be taken as a proof of
a greater width for the roadway. The width of about 5f metres—which
must be taken as a minimum—is itself roughly a metre and a half more than
the average width of the Minoan built way across the Island, of which the
traces have been described above. It must be borne in mind, however, Trun]£
that, as there pointed out, the terminal section of this transit road as it Transit
approaches Knossos forms in fact a trunk line representing the junction of outes'
the Great South Road with another important line leading East to Lasithi
and the country beyond it. As regards the width of the Viaduct an
interesting parallel is presented by the abutment of the ' Cyclopean bridge'
at Mycenae which is about 6 metres in width (see Fig. 43, above). Here
again we have to do with a main artery of communication, which, besides
its direct continuation to the Gulf of Nauplia, would have received a branch
leading through Argos to the interior of the Morea.
The fourth pier of the Viaduct abuts abruptly on a spur of the natural Traces of
1 r t • • • r -I'll 1 continua-
rock, and from this point the remains of the construction, which here started tion of
on a higher level, break off. Some blocks that had been used as a filling r^\iai '
on the inner side were, however, visible at intervals along the high bank duct.
that here overlooks a little level plot used for gardens, bordering the
h 2