Page:History of Art in Primitive Greece - Mycenian Art Vol 2.djvu/143

 no Primitive Greece: Mvcenian Art. bay, and take him, as he neared the foot of the wall, between what we now should call two fires. What most resembles a tower at Mycenae is a kind of spur, having a bold projection beyond the rampart in front of the Lions Gate, towards the right (Fig. 90 and PI. X.). Here the building of the masonry, arranged in horizontal courses, is more regular than on any other spot of the enclosure, and must have been constructed at the same time as the monumental entrance whose approaches it covers. We think that both wall and gate are coeval with the final re-building and enlargement of the slab-circle, when this part of the fortress was endowed with the appearance which it retained to the last. A less salient spur of the same nature protected the north-eastern postern (Fig. 90, B, and PL X.). There were certainly platforms on the top of the pair of projections, which served as places of arms ; we have supposed that they were provided with a roof like those on the corresponding plateaux of the Tirynthian wall. The Mycenian enclosure exhibits no other saliences but these ; flanking does not seem to have been made use of here, if exception be made for such points as are near the gates ; whereas its principle seems to have been dimly perceived at Troy and Tiryns. This might not unreasonably be taken as denoting that, despite certain appearances, the body of the Mycenian circuit is not much younger than the wall of Tiryns. The fact that the Tirynthian fortifications never underwent any rehandlings, that they are constructed with materials of great size, and belong to the first system of Cyclopcean masonry, is apt to give a false impression. If the stones composing the Mycenian rampart are smaller, that may have been due to the greater distance which separated the quarry from the works. If the parts of the rampart at Mycence which attract the attention of the visitor have a less archaic appearance than the Tirynthian walls, it is because the Mycenian citadel was enlarged and rebuilt several times. These differ- ences in the style of building are shown with absolute exact- ness in our Pis. IX. and X., made up from photographs and information furnished by Steffen.^ They are too distinct to be explained otherwise than by successive reconstructions. Under this denomination should be noticed a well-jointed polygonal masonry extending over a large surface, seen in PI. IX., ^ Steffen, Karten.