Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T00:23:10.699Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Structural Mechanics of the Mycenaean Tholos Tomb

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 September 2013

W. G. Cavanagh  and
R. R. Laxton
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The method of spanning or roofing spaces by means of corbelling has recommended itself quite widely to primitive peoples. It has been recognized in a number of prehistoric cultures: the megalithic tombs of Copper Age Iberia, tombs such as Maes Howe, Orkney and Newgrange, Co. Meath, in the British Isles, as well as several tombs in Brittany, employ the method. The Sacred Wells of the Nuragic Culture in Sardinia were also roofed with corbelled domes. In these west European examples the gap spanned by corbelling tends to be relatively small, two or three metres, and the slope of the corbelling conservative. The point is demonstrated clearly by the ‘tholos tombs’ of Iberia; the greatest distance of their chambers is covered by a single slab, and their walls are corbelled out only a relatively short distance. The technique was by no means limited to the illiterate communities of prehistoric Europe. Relatively modern examples have been reported from the south of France and from Italy, where the technique is used for roofing buildings which are not covered by the earthen mounds found over the megalithic tombs. The Egyptians of the Old Kingdom used a steep and narrow corbelling to roof the passages and chambers of, for example, the Bent Pyramid of Sneferu, and the Great Pyramid of Kheops at Giza. However the skill and daring of the Mycenaean engineers who commonly spanned distances of eight metres, and in the largest tombs over fourteen, is unmatched in the history of the technique. Indeed only the invention of the true dome enabled larger spaces to be bridged without internal supports. As the Mycenaean tholos tombs illustrate the technique at its most perfect, they provide an especially appropriate example from which to examine the principles of corbelled structures.

Type
Research Article
Information
Annual of the British School at Athens , Volume 76 , November 1981 , pp. 109 - 140
Copyright
Copyright © The Council, British School at Athens 1981

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

1 Leisner, G. and Leisner, V., Die Megalithgräber der Iberischen Halbinsel (1943).Google Scholar

2 Henshall, A. S., Chambered Tombs of Scotland i (1963) 123 ff.Google Scholar

3 O'Kelly, C., Guide to Newgrange (1967).Google Scholar

4 Daniel, G., The Prehistoric Chamber Tombs of France (1960) 80 ff.Google Scholar

5 Guido, M., Sardinia (1963) 128 ff. and 224 for bibliography.Google Scholar

6 G. and V. Leisner, op. cit. pl. 85.

7 Antiquity 52 (1978) 89 f.

8 Antiquity 53 (1979) 152.

9 Aldred, C., Egypt to the End of the Old Kingdom (1965) ills. 75, 79Google Scholar; Edwards, I. E. S., The Pyramids (1961).Google Scholar

10 Larger spans were achieved in timber-roofed buildings during the Hellenistic period: the Arsinoeion, Samothrace, see Coulton, J.J., Greek Architects at Work (1977) 158–9Google Scholar, The Architectural Development of the Greek Stoa 295–6; rooms M1 and M2 in the palace at Vergina, see M. Andronikos Τὸ Ανάκτορο τῆς Βεργίνας and R. A. Tomlinson in Ἀρχαία Μακεδονία i 308–15. We are much indebted to Dr. Coulton for drawing our attention to this point and for supplying the references.

11 Pelon, O., Tholoi, tumuli et cercles funéraires (1976).Google Scholar

12 BSA 25 (1923–5) pl. 56.

13 e.g. Gell, Wm., ‘Argolis’—The Itinerary of Greece (1810) 30.Google Scholar

14 Stuart, J. and Revett, N., Antiquities of Athens iv (Suppl.) (1830) 30Google Scholar; cf. Leake, , Travels in the Morea ii (1830) 377 n. a.Google Scholar

15 Lolling, H. et al. , Das Kuppelgrab bei Menidi (1880) 45–7.Google Scholar

16 Schliemann, H., Tiryns (1886) xi.Google Scholar

17 AM 33 (1908) 299 esp. 302–3.

18 Wace states that the blocks of the Treasury of Atreus are in fact counterweighted by a heavy mass of rough stones: BSA 25 (1921–3) 350.

19 AM 33 (1908) 302 n. 3.

20 Even in modern cemented brick walls the value of the mortar is not so much as a bond as in bedding the bricks so that all their joints are even: Gordon, J. E., Structures (1978) 175.Google ScholarPubMed

21 BSA 25 (1921–3) 294, 301.

22 Mussche, H., Thorikos v 53.Google Scholar

23 Op. cit. 62.

24 Pelon, op. cit. 332–6.

25 Op. cit.

26 AM 33 (1908) 303 ‘Bei unserem Kuppelgewölbe ist dagegen jeder Stein in verticaler und zugleich auch in horizontaler Richtung in einem Ring eingespannt’ (our emphasis).

27 Stuart and Revett, op. cit. 30.

28 The bottom course of the tomb at Vagenas, Englianos, is laid according to the opposite principle, that which applies more generally in drystone walls, whereby the narrow, pointed end is placed away from the surface: Blegen, C. W., Palace of Nestor iii (1973) fig. 327.Google Scholar

29 The survey used direct measurement by tapes. Two guide tapes were placed equidistant and at the same level either side of the diameter, so as to ensure that a true vertical section was measured. A third tape, whose height and position in relation to the others was known, enabled each point on the section to be calculated. In the cases of the Tomb of the Genii, Marathon, and Karditsa the measurements were cross-checked by plumb line and found to be correct and accurate within the limitations of the scale. W.G.C. owes much useful advice to Dr. J. Coulton, who discussed the problem with him.

30 Pelon, op. cit. 346 f. gives a more circumstantial account; the ratio varies greatly from tomb to tomb.

31 Heyman, J.: for example, ‘The Stone Skeleton’, Inst. J. Solids Structures 2 (1966) 249CrossRefGoogle Scholar, ‘The Safety of Masonry Arches’, Int. J. mech. Sci. ii (1969) 363 and ‘The Strengthening of the West Tower of Ely Cathedral’, Proc. Instn. Civ. Engrs, pt. 1 60 (1976) 123.

32 Heyman, J., Equilibrium of Shell Structures (1977).Google Scholar

33 See our discussion above.

34 J. Heyman (1969) 635.

35 J. Heyman, op. cit.

36 Experiments carried out by W.G.C. suggest that this is reasonable.

37 Morgan, W. and Williams, O. T., Structural Mechanics (1963), p. 373Google Scholar gives a simple statement of the principle; cf. Heyman (1969) 365 for a comment.

38 We are grateful to Professor Heyman for pointing out this aspect of the problem to us.

39 Eschbach, O. W., Handbook for Engineering Fundamentals, 3rd edn. (1975) 480.Google Scholar

40 Again an up-to-date and thorough survey can be found in Pelon op. cit. 442 f.; cf. also Hood, 's important article in Antiquity 34 (1960) 166–76.Google Scholar

41 Pelon, op. cit. 53 and Table I, pp. 474–5.

42 Ibid. 377 f.

43 Ibid. 300 and n. 1.

44 Antiquity 34 (1960) 168, 174.

45 Pelon, op. cit. 449.

46 The Royal Tomb at Isopata, , Archeologia 52 ii (1905) 526–62Google Scholar; the Kephala tholos tomb Pelon, op. cit. 422 f.; Tomb 1 at Isopata, , Archaeologia 65 (1913–1914) 1–14.Google Scholar All three date to LM II.

47 See Shaw, J. W. in Annuario 49 (N.S. 33) (1971) 83 ff.Google Scholar; on the Temple Tomb at Knossos see P. of M. iv 2, 967–8.

48 It is this Minoan feature of Tomb I at Peristeria which carries the Minoan mason's marks: Ergon 1960 154 fig. 168.

49 Graham, J. W., The Palaces of Crete (1967) 222–9Google Scholar, cf. also Shaw, in Annuario 49 (N.S. 33) (1971) 74 n. 4.Google Scholar

50 A. Delt. 22 (1967) chron. 482 and pl. 357. The photograph does not reveal the nature of the relieving triangle.

51 It will be apparent that we cannot go along with Branigan's explanation, The Tombs of Mesara 35, that the reason for the triangular elevation of the lintel was to disperse the pressure.

52 P. of M. ii 93 ff.

53 Morgan and Williams, op. cit.