|
Chapter 2 (part 3)
The castle wall of the 2nd period of Layer II. (p.61).
There
is no doubt that this castle was destroyed by fire, according to the
remains of burnt rubble found between the walls of the first and second
periods. The reconstruction involved an expansion of the castle plateau
by 6 to 7m in the south and east. The substructure for a new ring wall
was erected in front of the old wall. The porous limestone served as
the material. The individual stones are slightly larger than those of
the older wall and again not worked at all or only very little. The
slope on the outside is 0.65m at a height of 1.0m, so it was probably
2:3. At its upper edge, the wall in square D 6, where it can be easily
measured, is 2.80 m thick. The brick superstructure must have been of
the same strength, which can safely be added to the stone substructure,
although nothing of it has been found.
Fig.14: The castle wall of the 2nd period of the layer II between the gates FL and FN.
The
best-preserved piece of Wall II-2 is located between the FN and FL
gates. Its current condition can be seen on Photo 8, where
its sloping substructure occupies the entire lower half of the picture.
The regularly executed horizontal horizontal joints of the facade stand
out very well. In the middle of the picture one notices the castle wall
of the older period built of smaller stones on the left and on the
right behind the man the large cone of earth that has remained standing
in E 6. In the background on the left are the remains of the walls of
Megaron II A and behind them the lower Skamander gate.
Photo 8: The south castle wall of the 2nd period of the layer II.
In
order to make the regular ground plan of the wall easier to see (on the
large plan III and IV its image is obscured by the later changes and
younger walls), I have repeated the ground plan of the section between
the gates FL and FN in fig.14. The whole piece, about 52 m long, is
divided into two almost equal parts by a whole tower and two half
towers, the latter leaning against the gate structures.
This
striking regularity suggests that the entire (p.62) wall circle in this
period consisted of approximately equal wall sections, i.e. it might
have formed a polygon with a side length of around 26m. It is
noteworthy that this measure is about twice the axis width of the
towers in the older period, and that it corresponds perhaps to just 50
ancient cubits of 0.52 m (cf. p.39). Unfortunately, however, we were
not able to check the correctness of this assumption on the other sides
of the castle hill, because nowhere was a longer piece of our ring wall
found. We don't even know if the wall had any towers on the other sides
of the hill. Of course, I think this is very likely. The whole ring of
walls, then, has perhaps formed a fairly regular polygon, with a tower
at each corner. Further excavations, namely in B 3 and G 6, will
probably determine this later.
Our fig.14 further teaches that
the two gates FL and FN still existed at that time and were certainly
also used as gates, because the two half towers in the corners
presuppose the presence of the large gate towers. At that time FN was
surrounded by a new wall and thus rebuilt into a mighty tower about 18m
wide and almost the same depth. The front end of the gate, as we have
already gotten to know from above, and also the inner development
of the gate way with vertical wooden posts, can probably be attributed
to this period. Some facts, however, indicate that two other gates (FO
and EM), which we ascribe to the third period, arose already at the end
of the second period, and consequently also belong to the ring of walls
of the latter period.
 In order to make these facts more
intelligible, two figures 15 and 16 are drawn, in which the castle wall
of the second period is shown with the gate FL and with the gate FN. In
the former figure, the castle wall and the Thor FL have been
cross-hatched. The associated inner building (m p q), which is
certainly older than the rear part of the gate FM, is drawn in the same
way. The latter gate, on the other hand, as not yet existing at that
time, is left white.
Fig.15: The gate FL in the 2nd period of layer II.
On the other hand, in fig.16, the gate FL is
drawn closed and the gate FM is assumed to have already been built. But
only its anterior part can have existed in the 2nd period and is
accordingly hatched. Its posterior part is characterized by stippling
as a younger building, as is the inner building belonging to it, which
we also assign to the 3rd period of stratum II.
 Fig.16: The gate FM in the 2nd period of layer II.
If
one observes in fig.16 that the gate FM lies exactly in the middle of
the piece of wall be between the towers ba and fe, one is inclined to
assume that it was built at the same time as this section of the wall
and was not laid out later. But this assumption is untenable. First of
all, the wall actually goes under the gate FM without a break, as I
found out from a small excavation in the middle of the gate (p.63). The
part of the sloped wall found there is indicated on the large plans III
and IV.
Secondly, neither the large paved ramp in front of the
gate with its retaining walls, nor the pillars c and d enclosing the
gate up to the wall embankment are fundamen tirt, but stand on rubble
that covers the lower part of the wall. The lowest point of the wall is
23.11 m above sea level, while the lower edge of the pillar d has the
ordinate 26.40 m. When this pillar and with it the Thor FM was built,
the wall was already at least 3m (p.64) high covered with rubble.
Thirdly,
at most the front part of the gate, insofar as it is cross-hatched in
fig.16, should belong to the 2nd period, because the rear part cannot
be reconciled with the building m p q, but according to its
construction (it has stone Bases for the wooden parastades) must be
contemporaneous with the inner structures of the 3rd period. Of course,
such a separation of the gate into two parts of different ages is not
justified by the condition of the building itself; rather, the side
walls appear to be of a uniform construction and show no trace of a
later addition at the relevant point (p.65). We can therefore only
assume that the gate was rebuilt in such a way that the front part,
which was built first, was completely demolished and then the gate was
completely rebuilt in its changed shape. How the front part was
designed in detail must remain doubtful under these circumstances. In
figures 15 and 18 I have adopted two somewhat different solutions, both
of which seem possible to me.
This
should prove that the gate FM can by no means be erected at the
beginning, but rather at the end of the 2nd period of the 2nd layer at
the earliest. It essentially belongs to the 3rd period of the 2nd layer
and existed at the same time as the inner buildings and the castle wall
of this period. This result is further confirmed by the fact that the
sally gate FK, which had assumed the shape shown in fig.15 in the 2nd
period, presupposes the existence of the older gate FL. Originally just
a simple passage through the side walls of the gate FL (see fig.10),
the gate got an angular shape when in the 2nd period the wall i k (see
fig.15) was built in front of the older castle wall.
If we have
shown in this way that gate FL belongs not only to period 1 but also to
period 2 of layer II, the same applies to the similar gate FN. In this
case, the fact that it received its external reinforcement in the 2nd
period is added as a new proof. Accordingly, the younger gate FO, just
like what happened with FM, must be counted towards the end of the 2nd
period, but essentially towards the 3rd.
Before we turn to the
description of the younger gates FO and FM and thus to the description
of the 3rd period, we still have to follow the castle wall II-2, i.e.
the wall of the 2nd period of the II layer, around the hill. So far we
only got to know their two gates FN and FL and the piece of wall
between them.
 Northwest of FL, the wall of the second period was
erected immediately in front of the older one, which gave the FK gate a
front gate closure. In the ground plan of this gate (fig.17) the
vertical wooden posts (fghiklm) are drawn, which once supported the
side walls of the gate and could be recognized by the burnt remains
during the excavation.
Fig.17: The gate FK next to the gate FL of layer II.
Wooden gate wings blocked the 1.20 m
wide opening, and a horizontal beam, the holes of which (d and e) are
still preserved, served as a latch to close the wings. The drawing
published in the Report of 1890 (p. 47) shows how the gate and its
surroundings were designed during the excavation; photo 9 shows what it
looks like now.
 The castle wall, made of almost unworked
stones, can be seen in the left half of this picture. Its slope is
0.35m at 1m height, so probably 1 : 3. The side frame of the gate is
built of somewhat smaller stones, as the (p.66) photograph shows. The
roof seems to have consisted of a horizontal wooden beam. During the
excavation I had put in an iron beam as a lintel to protect the upper
wall, as far as it was still preserved, from falling in. Unfortunately
the iron was later stolen; the wall collapsed and the gate now looks
like our picture shows. We look into the gateway and recognize in the
background the older castle wall belonging to the 1st period (n o in
Figure 17) and above it the house walls of the 2nd and 3rd layers. The
wall of the gate tower FL (p in fig.17) can be seen in section on the
right-hand edge.
Photo 9: Southwest castle wall and gate FK of layer II.
If we follow the castle wall IP to the north, we soon come
across a large corner tower with a gate (FH). The embankment of the
tower, which is very well preserved in its lower part, is lower than
that of the castle wall, namely only 0.22 to 0.25 m in height. In order
to give it the greatest possible stability, flat and almost
right-angled stones, especially at the corners, have been selected. The
southern side of the tower and the castle wall adjoining to the right
can be seen on Photo 6 ( p. 40) at c.
The
upper end of the tower
in this picture corresponds to the embankment line of the rubble
masses, which in the 3rd period of the II layer covered the tower and
the lower part of the castle wall and made them invisible. In the 3rd
period, the castle wall ran along the upper edge of the embankment
without a tower and can be seen to some extent in the picture. Fig.18
gives a ground plan of the tower. Since its northern end has not yet
been revealed, we do not know the length of its northwestern side (ah).
But if it was only as long as the southwestern side, namely 12m, we get
a very stately tower that dominated the entire western part of the
castle.
Fig.17: The gate FK next to the gate FL of layer II.
 Inside
the tower is a small gate, the ground plan of which can be seen in
Figure 18. Behind the front closure b c, whose dimensions are
inscribed, the former presence of a wooden frame (mn) could be
ascertained. After a small gate chamber, whose side walls form broken
lines, there follows a second closure that has not yet (p.67) been
completely excavated. Since it was not possible to uncover it without
destroying the upper walls, we had to leave it undetermined how and
where the gateway reached the plateau of the II layer, which is about
8m higher.
Fig.18: The tower on the western corner of the level II castle with the gate FH.
Further
north, the castle wall IP is still underground, if it was not destroyed
in antiquity. On the northern slopes of the castle hill, on the other
hand, it certainly no longer exists. Even in the places that Schliemann
has not yet excavated, we have not been able to find any wall
corresponding to the southern castle wall. It has only been ascertained
with certainty on the east side, where its sloped substructure has come
to light in square G 6 below the wall of the 3rd period. It turns a
corner here and is probably heading towards the middle of the 3rd
period walls revealed between gates FO and FN. Whether there were
towers on the east side is questionable; given the poor state of
preservation and the small extent of the excavated sections of wall, no
definite judgment can yet be made.
(p.68)
The picture that we get from the castle wall II-2, which we get here,
differs only slightly from that of the 1st period of level II.
period. The wall has a somewhat better built base, and is furnished
with towers perhaps along its length, but certainly on the south side.
The latter have greater distances than the towers of the older ring
wall. The two main gates of the first period in the south and west have
initially remained the two castle gates. The larger of them (FN) is
reinforced by outer walls and has become even more impressive.
The
castle gets a completely different look at the end of the 2nd period
and in the following 3rd period of the II layer. The great gates, built
over with projecting towers, are completely abolished. Partly by
pushing out the ring wall (near gate FN), partly by removing the
remains protruding from the rubble (near gate FL) they disappear
completely. New gates of essentially different form are erected
immediately beside the older gates. In place of the high stone
substructure of the castle wall, there is also a low, slightly sloped
substructure, which on the east side has no slopes at all. Several
closely spaced towers are also present on the latter side, while none
appear to have existed on the other sides.
[Continue to Chapter 2, part 4]
[Return to Table of Contents]
|
|