Richard Bott

A Mycenaean Tale of Two Cities:

A Chronological Exploration of the Fortification Development at Tiryns and
Mycenae in the Late Helladic III A1-B2 Period (c.1400-1200 BCE) as Evidence
of a Relationship Between the Two Centres.

Richard Bott
Victoria University Wellington

Richard Bott

It was during the Late Helladic III period that Mycenaean culture in Greece reached
its zenith. The continual architectural development of the fortifications at the two Mycenaean
citadels, Tiryns and Mycenae, during this period can be seen as evidence of this peak. It has
long been accepted that the Mycenaean culture was that of an independent warrior-people,
and this was reflected in their fortifications.1 However, while the monumental Cyclopean
fortifications of Tiryns and Mycenae might leave one with the opinion that the two centres
were secluded and wary of others, the shared features of the fortifications between the two
sites suggests otherwise. This essay examines the chronological evolution of the fortifications
at Tiryns and Mycenae during the 14th and 13th centuries BCE, and argues that despite the
monumental fortifications, the two centres shared a relationship that had a continual influence
in the evolving design of the citadels fortifications.
During the early portion of the 14th century BCE the upper level of the citadel at Tiryns was
fortified with monumental Cyclopean walls.2 These walls were the first stage of the
monumental building program at Tiryns that would eventually see the entirety of the citadel
encircled within the large Cyclopean defensive walls that still remain, in part, today (fig.1 &
5). This first stage of monumental building followed the basic layout of the walls established
during the MH period although they covered a greater area and were larger in size. Contained
within these first walls were the palatial buildings, such as the megaron and royal residences.
3

The entrance way to the citadel at this time was placed further south, although still on the

eastern side, than the main entrance of the final stage of fortification and was a simple-entry
gate.4 This early entrance way into the citadel was originally fortified via a simple thickening
of the walls that terminated either side of the entrance. Shortly after these first monumental
1 Kelder 2010, 1
2 Schofield 2007, 86
3 Thomatos 2006, 189; see also Scoufopoulos 1984,62-3

Richard Bott

walls were built, the entrance way to the citadel was again reinforced with two towers either
side of the entrance, turning what was a simple-entry gate into a single-gate entrance.5 This
type of gate construction was the preferred form of monumental entrance ways during the LH
IIIA2-B periods with examples also being found at Gla and Mycenae.6 With examples also
being found at other contemporary sites this does suggest that there was some sharing of
defensive architectural building techniques between these Mycenaean settlements.
At Mycenae, as at Tiryns, the monumental Cyclopean fortifications that encircle the citadel
were constructed in three distinct phases. The result of these phases saw the fortifications at
Mycenae become expansive, as the fortification circuit was lengthened each time to make
room for an ever expanding population. The first stage of the monumental fortifications at
Mycenae began in the early half of the 14th century BCE, roughly 30 years after the first
Cyclopean walls were erected at Tiryns.7 Just as at Tiryns, the walls from the first stage of
building at Mycenae were constructed in the Cyclopean style, with the stones used in the
building taken from the surrounding bedrock.8 These first fortification walls only encircled
the highest portion of the citadel which housed the palatial buildings.9 From this first stage
only the fortification walls along the north side, and the eastern portion of the south wall
remained untouched during the subsequent developments.10 Due to the vast amount of
4A simple-entry gate is a gate the offers access via a passage way cut through
the wall: Loader 1998: 76,83; see also Iakovidis 1983, 3-4
5 A single-gate entrance has a depth larger than the width of the entrance way:
Loader 1998, 83
6 Loader 1998, 77
7 Schofield 2007, 78; see also Iakovidis 1983: 27
8 Loader 1998, 44
9 Spathari 2010, 75
10 Iakovidis 1983, 27

Richard Bott

building and rebuilding that occurred at Mycenae during the 14th and 13th centuries BCE the
location of the original entrance to the 14th century citadel cannot accurately be determined.
However, excavations around the Lion Gate, and the ramp that leads up to this entrance have
shown that an earlier ramp existed beneath the later ramp. This earlier ramp was built in the
opposite direction to the later ramp, climbing east to west. Excavation also found a small
section of bedrock that had been deliberately flattened suggesting that this was the site of the
original entrance. If so, this puts the original main entrance slightly further south than the
later Lion Gate.11 Although this is only speculation it does account for all the data provided
via the excavations.
There is a general consensus within the literature that the first stage of building at Tiryns
occurred roughly 30 years earlier than the first stage at Mycenae.12 This suggests that, at least
for the first period of fortification building, Tiryns served as the prototype on which the
fortifications at Mycenae was based. Further evidence for Tiryns acting as this prototype may
be taken from the gate development. As mentioned earlier the citadel at Tiryns originally had
a simple-entry gate which was soon replaced by a single-entry gate during the 14th century
BCE (LH IIIA1/2).13 The single-entry gate then went on to become the preferred form of
monumental gate design at other Mycenaean citadels, including Mycenae, during the LH
IIIA2-B1 period.14 However, very little of the fortifications from this first phase of building
remain at either site. This makes further comparison difficult as there is limited physical
evidence to go by. This disparity in comparable evidence from the first phase of fortification

11 Ibid., 28-9
12 Mylonas 1966, 236; see also Iakovidis 1983: 27 & Schofield 2007, 78
13 Loader 1998, 83; see also Scoufopoulos 1984, 64 & Mylonas 1966, 12
14 Loader 1998, 77

Richard Bott

construction could however be interpreted as evidence of a limited relationship between the

two sites. But without evidence this is only unfounded speculation.
Despite the lack of physical evidence from this first period, the likelihood of a relationship
already existing between the two citadels is quite high. As mentioned earlier, it is generally
accepted that the walls at Tiryns were completed roughly 30 years before Mycenaes. There
has also been no substantial evidence found to suggest that Mycenae had any fortifications
prior to the 14th century.15 If Tiryns and Mycenae were competing powers on the Argolid
plain, this period of 30 years during which Mycenae was unfortified, would have presented
Tiryns with ample opportunity to attack and wipe out an unprotected enemy who was in
relative close proximity. However, Mycenae was allowed to survive and later thrive during
the 13th century. This suggests that there was already a relationship established between the
two powers.16
The next phase of the fortification building at Tiryns occurred midway through the 13th
century BCE.17 This second phase of building was responsible for two key developments to
the citadel. The first of these developments saw the expansion of the walls, and as a result the
expansion of the living area inside. During this second phase the walls of Tiryns were
extended to the north, south, and east. The south wall was built thicker and had several
storerooms constructed within it, along with a small passageway out of the citadel that could
be easily blocked off if the inhabitants found themselves under attack.18 While the wall on the
north side of the citadel was moved further north and enlarged, the resulting wall became the

15 Mylonas 1966, 15-6

16 Ibid., 33-5
17 Iakovidis 1983, 5
18 Ibid., 6

Richard Bott

large Cyclopean divider that would later define the boundary between the upper and middle
citadels, from the lower (fig.1).19 This movement of the northern wall added roughly 3000
square metres of extra space inside the citadel. This expansion of the citadel walls suggests a
growth in population size, and as such an increase in prosperity and power for those at Tiryns.
The Lower Citadel was also fortified for the first time during this period. The fortification
walls around the Lower Citadel at this point were not the large Cyclopean walls that are
currently seen, which were built during the third phase of building at Tiryns, but rather were
constructed from mud-brick and rubble.20
During the second phase of fortification development at Tiryns, there was also a
redevelopment of the main gate of the citadel. The main gate when constructed in the 14th
century ended up as a single-gate entry, which allowed possible invaders to attack the citadel
en masse.21 To counteract this possible threat an artificial terrace was constructed in front of
the old gate-way running north to south. This terrace was then walled off on both the east and
west ends creating a long corridor. The earlier terrace to the north of the original entrance was
converted into a ramp and like the newly constructed terrace was walled on both the east and
west sides. With the western side of the new ramp being fortified this in turn strengthened the
original east wall of the citadel.22 The construction of the walls along the ramp and terrace
served to narrow the entrance to the citadel. This restricted the numbers of possible attackers
that could move through at any one time, and made any attack on the citadel more daunting.
Within this corridor a two-entrance gate was constructed.23 This two-entrance gate again
would have made any attack more difficult as any attackers would have now had to negotiate
19 Scoufopoulos 1984, 67-8
20 Maran 2010, 725; see also Schofield 2007, 87
21 Loader 1998, 83; see also Iakovidis 1983, 5-6
22 Iakovidis 1983, 5-6

Richard Bott

two well defended gateways while opening themselves to attack from defenders on the wall.
Interestingly the first of the two gates into the Upper Citadel is similar to the Lion Gate at
Mycenae. There are similarities in appearance, construction, and building materials used.24
At Mycenae the second phase of fortification building took place during the height of
Mycenaes power and prosperity. As such, the second building phase reflects this increase in
power and prosperity with large extensions of the fortification walls and the construction of a
new monumental entrance way. The second phase at Mycenae was monumental in scale and
the wall extensions saw that the area inside the citadel increase by almost 40 percent.25 The
western fortification wall was moved 50 to 60 metres down the hill, and meant that the
fortification walls now encompassed Grave Circle A and the Cult Centre.26 This extension of
the western fortification wall was a monumental task that would have required a great amount
of resources.27 It has been suggested that this extension of the western wall was primarily
done to protect Grave Circle A.28 If true, this again indicates the wealth available to those at
Mycenae at this time, and suggests that the extension of the walls was not simply a defensive
precaution but also a display of wealth and power. In further support for the argument that the
western wall extension was not motivated primarily by defence is the inclusion of the Cult
Centre within the walls. Evidence has shown that the buildings of the Cult Centre predate the
23 A two-entrance gate is a long passage or corridor that has two separate and
distinct thresholds separated by a chamber or court: Loader 1998, 79
24 Loader 1998, 83-4; see also Scoufopoulos 1984, 68, Mylonas 1966, 12 &
Iakovidis 1983, 7. Iakovidis attributes this gate to the third phase of building at
Tiryns, however the majority of other sources attribute it to the second phase of
development, and acknowledge that it was still in use during the third phase.
25 Iakovidis 1983, 29
26 Maran 2010, 675
27 Ibid.
28 Simpson 1981, 12

Richard Bott

construction of the western wall.29 This suggests that when the first defensive walls were
being constructed the Cult Centre was not seen as important enough to include within the
fortifications, unlike the megaron and other palatial buildings. But now as Mycenae had
ample resources the Cult Centre could be included.
One of the more striking features from the second building phase at Mycenae is the
Lion Gate (fig.6). The Lion Gate, measuring just over ten feet high and 10 feet wide, was
constructed as the new main gateway into the citadel.30 This monumental entranceway was
built to help secure and defend one of the most vulnerable points in the fortifications at
Mycenae.31 Unlike the rest of the walls, which were constructed using Cyclopean masonry,
the Lion Gate was built using Ashlar masonry. Scholars have suggested several reasons as to
why Ashlar masonry was used in the construction of the Lion Gate. First, Ashlar masonry
was used to give greater strength to the entrance way, as the Ashlar masonry could not be torn
down easily and presented no foot or hand holds which would assist any potential attackers
attempting to scale the gate. The second suggested use of Ashlar masonry is simply to make
the Lion Gate look more impressive in appearance.32 Above the four monolithic slabs of
conglomerate stone that make up the gate-way is the limestone relief from which the Lion
Gates name is taken.33
Unlike the gate-way from the second phase at Tiryns which had walls on both sides
from which defenders could attack invaders, the ramp up to the Lion Gate only allowed
29 Maran 2010, 675
30 Lawrence 1996, 48
31 Simpson 1981 , 12
32 Mylonas 1957, 22
33 Scoufopoulos 1984, 29-31; see also Iakovidis 1983, 30-1 & Lawrence 1996,
48-50

Richard Bott

defenders to attack the left side of invaders.34 This meant that it was harder for the defenders
to inflict damage as they were only able to attack the shielded side. To counteract this a
bastion projecting out from the other side of the Lion Gate was constructed. This rectangular
bastion also served to narrow the approach to the Lion Gate meaning fewer people would
have been able to attack at any one time.35
Shortly after the construction of the Lion Gate, the North Gate (or Postern Gate) was
built. Although being of a slightly later construction date, it is still viewed as part of the
second phase at Mycenae.36 The North Gate is similar to the Lion Gate in design although
built without a relieving triangle or decorative relief carving. Like the Lion Gate, the North
Gate was constructed from four blocks of conglomerate stone and even had a small tower or
bastion to narrow the approach and expose both sides of any potential attackers.37 The
similarities between the two gates has led some scholars to suggest that the North Gate was a
replica of the Lion Gate on a smaller scale.38
A prevailing focus through the second phase of fortification development at both
Tiryns and Mycenae was the increased circuit length of the fortification walls and the
redevelopment of the main entrances. It was during this period (early portion of the 13th
century) that Mycenaean power reached it pinnacle.39 This prosperity is reflected in the
buildings from this stage and in particular the monumental entrances. One of the most
34 In Mycenaean warfare the shield was carried on the left : French 2002, 77
35 Iakovidis 1983, 30
36 Ibid., 33-4
37 Scoufopoulos 1984, 34
38 Iakovidis 1983, 33; see also Loader 1998, 78
39 Iakovidis 1983, 29

Richard Bott

10

striking similarities that arises from this period is between the Lion Gate at Mycenae and the
first of the gateways (or sister gate) into the Upper Citadel at Tiryns. These two gates are
similar in size, shape, design, and appear to have been a conscious copy of one another.40
However, it is the material used in construction that suggests a relationship between Mycenae
and Tiryns, and this relationship influenced the design of the gates. Both gates make use of
conglomerate rock which was found in the area surrounding Mycenae but not Tiryns.41
Mylonas argues that the gateway at Tiryns was a conscious copy of the Lion Gate.42 This is
supported through the use of conglomerate in the gate construction at Tiryns as conglomerate
was a readily available resource at Mycenae, so was likely used there first. The use of
conglomerate at Tiryns also supports the idea that there was an exchange of information and
resources between Mycenae and Tiryns. As those in power at Mycenae are allowing the
builders at Tiryns to make use of a local resource. Unsurprisingly, both gates also appear to
have been secured the same way. Sockets appear in both gateways which would have allowed
wooden beams to be placed across, securing the doors.43
The third and final stage of the monumental fortification construction at Tiryns occurred
during the latter portion of the 13th century BCE and resulted in some of the most notable
architectural features at the citadel. 44 It was during this phase that the citadel at Tiryns took
on its final form, this included the final stage of redevelopment for the main entranceway.
The main gate to the citadel evolved to an L-shaped entry during this period.45 This was
achieved with the building of another large fortification wall down the eastern side of the
40 Mylonas 1966, 27
41 Wace 1949, 135-6; see also Loader 1998, 85 & Mylonas 1966, 27
42 Mylonas 1966, 27
43 Taylour 1983, 103
44 Iakovidis 1983, 6

Richard Bott

11

citadel, with a Cyclopean ramp constructed down the outside of the wall (fig.4). This forced
attackers to climb up the ramp before having to make a sharp 90 degree turn at the top. They
were then confronted with a gate.46 This gateway and ramp construction meant that attacker
unshielded right side was exposed to defenders atop the wall.47 Once inside this main gate
there were two directions one might travel. To the left (south) was the Upper Citadel, while to
the right (north) was the Lower Citadel. In order to get to the Upper Citadel one must first
pass through the two gates established during the second phase of building. This left any
potential attackers in a long narrow corridor within which they were vulnerable to defender
atop the walls either side. However the passage to the Lower Citadel was clear.48 On the
southwest side of the citadel a monumental bastion was built around the western staircase (or
postern gate).49 This bastion allowed the defenders to attack the enemy from all sides should
they attempt to enter the citadel through this secondary entrance (fig.3). Should the enemy be
able to reach the top of this narrow flight of stairs they were met with a large pit which
appears to have required a bridge to cross. The exact reason for this postern gates existence
is unknown.50
During the final phase of fortification development the mud-brick walls of the Lower Citadel
were replaced with large Cyclopean ones that joined the Lower Citadel with the previously
established Upper and Middle Citadels (fig.1). This almost doubled the area inside the citadel
45 An L-shaped entry way is an entry that has a 90 degree turn. For further
discussion see Loader 1998, 82-3
46 Iakovidis 1983, 4-6; see also Loader 1998, 82-3
47 Mylonas 1966, 12
48 Iakovidis 1983, 7
49 Ibid., 8
50 Ibid., 10

Richard Bott

12

walls.51 Built into the Cyclopean walls of the Lower Citadel were two gates. One through the
north wall, and one through the west wall. These passages provided a direct path between the
lower citadel and the outside, and were possibly use to allow the people of the lower town to
move into the lower citadel in times of danger.52
One interesting building technique that appears to become quite prominent during the
third stage of fortification building at Tiryns is the use of corbel vaulting in construction.
Besides the North Gate, there are four clear examples of the use of corbel vaulting in
passageways at Tiryns. The two galleries located on the southeast wall and south wall in the
Upper Citadel are two such examples (fig.2). Here corbel vaulting has been used to construct
the galleries within the citadel walls without weakening the wall or reducing that amount of
space that could be used atop the wall.53 Corbel vaulting was also used to secure a water
supply for those inside the citadel. In 1962 two passageways leading to underground cisterns
in the Lower Citadel were discovered.54 These passageways passed through the western wall
of the Lower Citadel and run parallel in a downwards direction for roughly 20 metres outside
the walls.55 The ceilings of these passage ways were constructed using corbel vaulting, while
the steps were cut into the rock or possibly made of wood.56 The construction of these
passageways provided the inhabitants of the citadel access to fresh water should they find
themselves under siege. Corbel vaulting was also used in the construction of the niches found

51 Lawrence 1996, 46; see also Maran 2010, 726

52 Mylonas 1966, 13-4; see also Iakovidis 1983, 10 & Thomson 1978, 374
53 Iakovidis 1983, 12
54 Ibid.
55 Mylonas 1966, 15
56 Iakovidis 1983, 12

Richard Bott

13

within the Cyclopean walls. These niches were possibly used for storage, or for archers to fire
out from (as some have slits that would allow one to fire through).57
In contrast to the third phase at Tiryns, the third phase at Mycenae was very localised and
changed very little of the final shape of the citadel (fig.8). The third phase at Mycenae is
often simply referred to as the northeast extension and while it added very little space within
the walls it did serve to improve the chances of survival should the inhabitants come under
siege. Prior to this extension there was no guaranteed water supply within the citadel. To
rectify this an underground cistern was constructed (also referred to as the secret cistern).58
Evidence suggests that the cistern was originally located outside the walls of the citadel and
that the northeast extension was constructed solely to secure the water supply inside the
citadel walls.59 The path to the underground cistern went through the walls of the citadel and
down a stepped passageway with three flights of stairs to an underground reservoir outside
the walls.60 Like the galleries and underground passageways at Tiryns, the underground
passage at Mycenae was constructed using corbelled vaulting (fig.9).61 Water was supplied to
this reservoir via terracotta piping from a spring further up the hill.62 Also included in the
northeast extension were two Sally Ports which may have acted as emergency exits or
openings through which troops could pass to protect the water supply further up the hill or
attack enemies from behind at the main gate.63
57 Maran 2010, 726-8
58 Mylonas 1966, 31
59 French 2002, 101; see also Lawrence 1996, 52
60 Mylonas 1957, 30-1
61 French 2002, 101
62 Mylonas 1957, 32
63 French 2002, 102

Richard Bott

14

Although the extensiveness of the final stage of fortification building differs at both sites, it is
perhaps during this period that there is the most evidence for a relationship between Tiryns
and Mycenae. While it has been suggested that some of the additions made to the citadels
during this period were inspired by older Anatolian citadels, the building techniques and
frequency that the features appear at both Mycenae and Tiryns suggest that each site was
influenced by the other.64 A common technique seen at both sites during this period is the use
of corbel vaulting. The use of corbel vaulting can be found in almost all the additions to both
citadels, with the exception of the Cyclopean wall extensions, during the third period. At
Tiryns corbel vaulting is especially prominent and was used in the niches in the walls of the
Lower Citadel, the galleries of the Upper Citadel, the North Gate in the Lower Citadel, and in
both of the passageways to the underground cisterns. While at Mycenae corbel vaulting was
used in the construction of the sally ports, the passageway to the underground cistern, and in
the corridors of the north wall.65
While these structures appear to be contemporary, one may posit that the securing of a
water supply and the use of corbel vaulting appeared first at Mycenae, and was then
replicated at Tiryns. This is because the galleries found around northeast extension at
Mycenae appear to have been added after the extension was built and are modelled on the
galleries at Tiryns.66 This staggered construction time-line at Mycenae suggests that the
northeast extension was built first and then Tiryns replicated the securing of a water supply
within the citadel wall and the use of corbel vaulting in the construction of the afore
mentioned galleries of the Upper Citadel and the niches seen in the Lower Citadel walls.
These galleries and niches were then replicated at Mycenae but to a less successful degree as
64 Kelder 2010, 28; see also Vermeule 1972, 264
65 Mylonas 1966, 28-9, 32, Lawrence 1996, 52
66 1966, 29

Richard Bott

15

the walls had already been constructed. This is further evidence of a relationship between the
two sites.
The citadel fortifications at Tiryns and Mycenae underwent three stages of
development and redevelopment during the 14th and 13th centuries BCE. These fortifications

began in the early to middle portion of the 14th century with building at Tiryns
beginning roughly 30 years before Mycenae. These first fortifications were limited, at both
sites, to the top portion of the citadels which housed the palatial buildings. There is very little
remaining of the first phases of development at either side as subsequent rebuilding has
destroyed many of these early structures. However, despite the lack of physical evidence it
does appear that there was a functioning relationship between the sites. The second phase of
development at Mycenae was the largest and saw the expansion of the area inside the walls
increase by roughly 40 percent. During this phase the Lion Gate was constructed. It appears
that the Lion Gate was replicated at Tiryns due to the use of conglomerate rock in both gates
which was only found at Mycenae. This is further evidence of the relationship between both
sites. The third and final stage of building occurred in the latter portion of the 13th century.
This phase saw the fortification of the Lower Citadel at Tiryns and the addition of the
galleries in the Upper Citadel, along with securing of a water supply through two
underground passageways. While at Mycenae there was a small addition in the shape of the
northeast extension. This included the addition of two sally ports and, like at Tiryns, the
securing of a water supply via an underground passage. It is likely that during this period
Mycenae first secured a water supply, which was then replicated at Tiryns along with the
addition of the galleries. It then appears that Mycenae added its own galleries to replicate

Richard Bott

16

Tiryns. Mycenae and Tiryns appear to have shared a relationship that saw developments in
the fortifications at one site influence the design of the fortifications at the other. This appears
to have been ongoing throughout the peak of Mycenaean power during the 14th and 13th
centuries BCE.

Richard Bott

Figure 1: The three stages of

development at Tiryns. Citadel 1- First
stage, early 14th century BCE; Citadel 2Second stage, early 13th century BCE;
Citadel 3- Third stage, late 13th century

17

Figure 2: One of the galleries from

Tiryns with corbel vaulting.

Figure 3: View of Cyclopean walls and west staircase from

the third phase at Tiryns.

Richard Bott

Figure 4: The outer Cyclopean wall and main

entrance ramp. Constructed in third phase of
building at Tiryns. Latter half of the 13th century
BCE.

Figure 5: Aerial view of the ruins of Tiryns. Lower Citadel is at the top.

18

Richard Bott

Figure 6: Lion Gate at Mycenae with

Ashlar blocks. Wall to left of gate, and
bastion to the right.

19

Figure 7: View of Cyclopean walls

at Mycenae.

Figure 8: Map of Mycenae after third period of building. Top right corner
contains the northeast extension.

Richard Bott

Figure 9: Entrance to underground

cistern at Mycenae. Showing corbel
vaulting.

20

Richard Bott

21

Figure List.
1. The three stages of development at Tiryns. Citadel 1- First stage, early 14th century
BCE; Citadel 2- Second stage, early 13th century BCE; Citadel 3- Third stage, late 13th
century BCE.
Mylonas 1966, 13
2. One of the galleries from Tiryns with corbel vaulting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiryns#mediaviewer/File:Tiryns,_a_passageway.jpg
accessed 8/02/2015
3. View of Cyclopean walls and west staircase from the third phase at Tiryns.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ea/Tiryns__Cyclopean_masonry.jpg accessed 8/02/2015
4. The outer Cyclopean wall and main entrance ramp. Constructed in third phase of
building at Tiryns. Latter half of the 13th century BCE.
http://www.brynmawr.edu/collections/nehinterns/AyiaSotira/region_tiryns.html
accessed 8/02/2015
5. Aerial view of the ruins of Tiryns. Lower Citadel is at the top.
http://www.brynmawr.edu/collections/nehinterns/AyiaSotira/region_tiryns.html
accessed 8/02/2015
6. Lion Gate at Mycenae with Ashlar blocks. Wall to left of gate, and bastion to the right.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/Lions-Gate-Mycenae.jpg
accessed 8/02/2015
7. View of Cyclopean walls at Mycenae.
https://weallstandforsomething.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/cy.jpg accessed
8/02/2015
8. Map of Mycenae after third period of building. Top right corner contains the northeast
extension.
http://pixgood.com/mycenae-map.html accessed 7/02/2015
9. Entrance to underground cistern at Mycenae. Showing corbel vaulting.
http://www.hikenow.net/Greece/pic-ancient-mycenae-cisteren-greece.html accessed
9/02/2015

Richard Bott

22

Bibliography.
French, Elizabeth. 2010. Mycenae in The Oxford Handbook of the Bronze Age Aegean, Cline,
Eric ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
French, Elizabeth. 2002. Mycenae: Agamemnon's Capital: The Site and its Setting. Stroud:
Tempus.
Iakovides, Spyros. 1983. Late Helladic Citadels on Mainland Greece. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
Kelder, Jorrit M. 2010. The Kingdom of Mycenae: A Great Kingdom in the Late Bronze Age
Aegean. Bethesda, Md: CDL Press.
Lawrence, A. W. 1900, and R. A. Tomlinson. 1996. Greek Architecture. New Haven: Yale
University Press.
Loader, N. Claire. 1998. Building in Cyclopean Masonry: With Special Reference to the
Mycenaean Fortifications on Mainland Greece. Jonsered, Sweden: Paul Astroms Forlag.
Maran, Joseph. 2010. Tiryns in The Oxford Handbook of the Bronze Age Aegean, Cline, Eric
ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
Mylonas, George E. 1966. Mycenae and the Mycenaean Age. Princeton, N.J: Princeton
University Press.
Mylonas, George E. 1957. Ancient Mycenae: The Capital City of Agamemnon. London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Schofield, Louise. 2007. The Mycenaeans. Los Angeles: J. Paul Getty Museum.

Richard Bott

23

Scoufopoulos, Niki C. 1984. Mycenaean Citadels on Mainland Greece. Michigan: University

Microfilms International.
Simpson, R. Hope. 1981. Mycenaean Greece. Park Ridge, N.J: Noyes Press.
Spathari, Elsi. 2010. Corinthia Argolida: Corinth- Mycenae- Epidavros- Nemea- ArgosTiryns- Navpilo: A Guide to the Museums and Archaeological Sites. Athens: Hesperos
Editions
Taylour, William, Lord, 1983. The Mycenaeans. London: Thames and Hudson.
Thomatos, Marina. 2006. The Final Revival of the Aegean Bronze Age: A case study of the
Argolid, Corinthia, Attica, Euboea, the Cyclades and the Dodecanese during LH IIIC middle.
Vol. 1498. Oxford: Archaeopress.
Thomson, George Derwent. 1978. Studies in Ancient Greek Society. London: Lawrence and
Wishart.
Vermeule, Emily. 1972. Greece in the Bronze Age. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Wace, A. J. B. 1949. Mycenae: An Archaeological History and Guide. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.