DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.12762#0017
PREFACE
xi
would have been even more striking. The comparative evidence to which I
have alluded below tends to show that these circular vaults themselves must be
regarded as an importation from that quarter.
My own observations, made on the spot, of the remains of a series of these
monuments, including those excavated by the Italian Mission, corroborate
Dr. Xanthoudides' views as to their structural character. They were true
' beehive ' tombs, with an inward slope, built of rough stones bonded with
clay on the principle of the horizontal arch, and surmounted, as is shown by
the smaller tholos at Platanos, with a removable cap-stone. The mass of
fallen stones, amounting to 23 cubic metres, found in the case of this ossuary,
which was a little over 10 metres in the inner diameter of its base, is the best
proof of the solid construction of the vaults. The inner diameter of the
larger tholos at this place—the largest of those explored by Dr. Xanthoudides,
was 13-10 metres, only slightly less than that of the ' tomb of Clytemnestra '
at Mycenae (13-80 m.), so that, if the same equality between height and diameter
was observed, the vault here would have been about 421 feet high. The doors
were proportionally less, one only, at Christos, being 2 metres high, and were
blocked by a large slab, sockets for a wooden bar being sometimes visible in
the orthostatic jambs. These side-blocks supported a massive lintel, giving
the doorways a truly megalithic appearance. The entrance was regularly
to the East. One salient feature of these lintels—to the structural importance
of which I have elsewhere called attention1—is that they are somewhat humped
or roughly galled at top, a particularity which recurs in the analogous lintels at
Mycenae. It represents an effort at relief from central pressure, later effected
by the tympanum.
The beehive tombs of Mesara differ from the later class found in mainland
Greece in the character of their approach. In place of the dromos we here
find in all cases a kind of walled pit in front of the entrance. The floor of this
is approximately on a level with that of the base of the vault itself, and the
height of the walling—a little more than that of the doorway—may well have
corresponded with that of the earth layer that seems to have been mounded round
the base of the tholos. It is apparently as a bonding for this that stones project
from the lower courses. As a method of approach to the sepulchral chamber
these walled pits present analogies with widely distributed types of troglodytic
dwellings as well as of certain primitive graves of which the ' pit caves ' of
Knossos supply later examples.2 We must assume in the case of these beehive
tombs that this form of entrance actually reproduces that of a class of circular
dwellings.
A remarkable feature of the interior of these vaults was the traces of great
fires, usually in the middle of the rock floor, so that the smoke might have
1 Palace, Vol. II, § 34. with this. It is a regular dromos with two side
2 The approach to the L.M. Ill cupola tomb at niches in front of the entrance, thus resembling
Praesos, cited in the text, p. C, has no analogy the lloyal Tomb of Isopata.
xi
would have been even more striking. The comparative evidence to which I
have alluded below tends to show that these circular vaults themselves must be
regarded as an importation from that quarter.
My own observations, made on the spot, of the remains of a series of these
monuments, including those excavated by the Italian Mission, corroborate
Dr. Xanthoudides' views as to their structural character. They were true
' beehive ' tombs, with an inward slope, built of rough stones bonded with
clay on the principle of the horizontal arch, and surmounted, as is shown by
the smaller tholos at Platanos, with a removable cap-stone. The mass of
fallen stones, amounting to 23 cubic metres, found in the case of this ossuary,
which was a little over 10 metres in the inner diameter of its base, is the best
proof of the solid construction of the vaults. The inner diameter of the
larger tholos at this place—the largest of those explored by Dr. Xanthoudides,
was 13-10 metres, only slightly less than that of the ' tomb of Clytemnestra '
at Mycenae (13-80 m.), so that, if the same equality between height and diameter
was observed, the vault here would have been about 421 feet high. The doors
were proportionally less, one only, at Christos, being 2 metres high, and were
blocked by a large slab, sockets for a wooden bar being sometimes visible in
the orthostatic jambs. These side-blocks supported a massive lintel, giving
the doorways a truly megalithic appearance. The entrance was regularly
to the East. One salient feature of these lintels—to the structural importance
of which I have elsewhere called attention1—is that they are somewhat humped
or roughly galled at top, a particularity which recurs in the analogous lintels at
Mycenae. It represents an effort at relief from central pressure, later effected
by the tympanum.
The beehive tombs of Mesara differ from the later class found in mainland
Greece in the character of their approach. In place of the dromos we here
find in all cases a kind of walled pit in front of the entrance. The floor of this
is approximately on a level with that of the base of the vault itself, and the
height of the walling—a little more than that of the doorway—may well have
corresponded with that of the earth layer that seems to have been mounded round
the base of the tholos. It is apparently as a bonding for this that stones project
from the lower courses. As a method of approach to the sepulchral chamber
these walled pits present analogies with widely distributed types of troglodytic
dwellings as well as of certain primitive graves of which the ' pit caves ' of
Knossos supply later examples.2 We must assume in the case of these beehive
tombs that this form of entrance actually reproduces that of a class of circular
dwellings.
A remarkable feature of the interior of these vaults was the traces of great
fires, usually in the middle of the rock floor, so that the smoke might have
1 Palace, Vol. II, § 34. with this. It is a regular dromos with two side
2 The approach to the L.M. Ill cupola tomb at niches in front of the entrance, thus resembling
Praesos, cited in the text, p. C, has no analogy the lloyal Tomb of Isopata.