Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-m9kch Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-19T14:08:15.002Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A possible east sally-port in the North-east Extension at Mycenae? A brief note1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 September 2013

N. Claire Loader
N. Claire Loader
Affiliation:
University of Durham
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In order to explain the different masonry between the E wall of the NE Extension and that used elsewhere in the circuit at Mycenae, a study of the construction between the north and south sally-ports and the E wall of the NE Extension is presented. This suggests the possibility that a similar east sally-port once existed, being sealed either when the structure became unsafe or as a result of a security measure taken at the end of the LBA or in the 5th century BC.

Type
Articles
Information
Annual of the British School at Athens , Volume 91 , November 1996 , pp. 191 - 196
Copyright
Copyright © The Council, British School at Athens 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

2 Karo, G., ‘Die Perseia von Mykenai’, AJA 38 (1934), 123–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Simpson, R. Hope, Mycenaean Greece (Park Ridge, NJ, 1981), 12Google Scholar; G. Mylonas, Mycenae and the Mycenaean Age (Princeton, 1981), 31.

3 Iakovidis, S., Late Helladic Citadels of Mainland Greece (Leiden, 1983), 35.Google Scholar

4 Ibid.

5 Ibid.

6 Iakovidis suggests that the purpose of the terrace was to provide a lookout over the Chavos ravine ‘and served the ends of both security and relaxation’ (Ibid.). Its commanding position over the ravine and Road 1 cannot be disputed.

7 Located S of the collapsed section noted by Dr E. French in 1994 (pers. comm.) and by the author in 1995.

8 Iakovidis, Late Helladic Citadels of Mainland Greece, 35.

9 Strabo viii. 6. 10; viii. 6. 9; Paus. ii. 16; v. 23; vii. 25; viii. 27. Diod. xi. 65 places the event in 468/7 BC, when Sparta was unable to assist her allies, having suffered an earthquake and being still occupied with the ensuing Helot revolt. Forrest has convincingly argued that Diodoros has placed the Spartan earthquake too early, and it would seem that by 464 BC Mycenae and Tiryns were under Argive control. See Forrest, W. G., ‘Themistokles and Argos’, CQ NS 10 (1960), 228–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Tomlinson agrees that the earthquake should be dated later, and suggests 465 BC, while the date of 468/7 BC may indeed mark the beginning of an Argive expedition against the Mycenaeans and not the end of a campaign. See Tomlinson, R. A., Argos and the Argolid (London, 1972), 104.Google Scholar For the most recent discussion see Pierart, M., ‘Deux notes sur l'histoire de Mycènes’, Serta Leodiensia secunda: mélanges publiés par les classiques de Liège à l'occasion du 175e anniversaire de l'Université (Leiden, 1992), 377–87.Google Scholar

10 Boethius, C. A., ‘Hellenistic Mycenae’, BSA 25 (1921–1923), 423.Google Scholar

11 Tomlinson, Argos and the Argolid, 104.