On the Lions Gate at Mycenae: its Geometry and Roots.

Abstract

The paper analyzes the design principles involved in the construction of the 13th century BC Lions Gate at Mycenae. It is shown that this design involves Basic Geometry, namely three circles, an isosceles (quite possibly meant to be equilateral) triangle, and a trapezoid containing a square. Moreover, the paper shows that a modulus of the monument was put in place and the 3-d (cubic) dimensions of the modulus (about 3.80 meters on each side) is derived. Issues related to the monument’s morphology are addressed (it resembles a spear), a feature shown to be shared by all Mycenaean Era tombs’ entrance. The topic or corbelling, a construction feature encountered in the monument, is somewhat extensively elaborated. In addition, the roots of the Mycenaean Lions Gate are traced to the Lions Gate at Hattusa. The Elementary Geometry and more primitive in construction Architecture of the Hittite monument are also examined. The paper concludes with a reference to the broader historical context within which the Lions Gate at Mycenae and that at Hattusa appeared. The 2-century long aftermath, following the collapse of both the Mycenaean and Hittite Civilizations at the end of the 13th century BC, is very briefly reviewed.

Full text

1
On the Lions Gate at Mycenae: its
Geometry and Roots
Dimitrios S. Dendrinos
Emeritus Professor, School of Architecture and Urban Design, University of
Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, USA.
In Residence at Ormond Beach, Florida, USA.
Contact: cbf-jf@earthlink.net
April 19, 2017
The Lions Gate at Mycenae

2
Table of Contents
Abstract
Introduction
Description and the Geometry of the Gate
A brief description of the Citadel
Description of the Lions Gate
The complete Geometry of the Lions Gate, its morphology and modulus
Possible Roots of the Mycenaean Lions Gate
Brief Historical Context
Conclusions
References
Acknowledgments
Legal Notice on Copyright

3
Abstract
The paper analyzes the design principles involved in the construction of the 13th century BC Lions
Gate at Mycenae. It is shown that this design involves Basic Geometry, namely three circles, an
isosceles (quite possibly meant to be equilateral) triangle, and a trapezoid containing a square.
Moreover, the paper shows that a modulus of the monument was put in place and the 3-d (cubic)
dimensions of the modulus (about 3.80 meters on each side) is derived. Issues related to the
monument’s morphology are addressed (it resembles a spear), a feature shown to be shared by
all Mycenaean Era tombs’ entrance. The topic or corbelling, a construction feature encountered
in the monument, is somewhat extensively elaborated. In addition, the roots of the Mycenaean
Lions Gate are traced to the Lions Gate at Hattusa. The Elementary Geometry and more primitive
in construction Architecture of the Hittite monument are also examined. The paper concludes
with a reference to the broader historical context within which the Lions Gate at Mycenae and
that at Hattusa appeared. The 2-century long aftermath, following the collapse of both the
Mycenaean and Hittite Civilizations at the end of the 13th century BC, is very briefly reviewed.
Introduction
The work reported here started on the author’s Facebook page on February 20th 2017, ref. [1.1],
as a research note on the subject, see ref. [1.2]. This paper is an expansion, elaboration,
amendment and continuation of that original post.
It has been an ongoing preoccupation of both History of Science and Archeology to be able to
identify the type of mathematical and astronomical knowledge possessed by various cultures at
different points in space-time in the past. In effect, analysts and students of various ancient
settings have speculated as to “what did their makers know, and when did they know it, as well
as how did they get to know it”?
In that quest, Architecture and Engineering may have a role to play. The structures the various
cultures created were based on the mathematical and astronomical knowledge they possessed
at the time. Studying these structures, and by identifying the geometrical patterns in them, one
may be able to derive some conclusions as to their underlying mathematical foundations and
astronomical knowledge – thus obtain some insight into the analytical knowledge and capabilities
of their makers. Architectural and Engineering construction thus offer avenues into the ancients
mathematical (geometric and algebraic) as well as astronomical knowledge base.
Hence, within this framework, this study is carried out. Its main objective is to identify the
Geometry behind the Lions Gate at Mycenae, and to further compare it to the Geometry,
Architecture and Engineering of the Lions Gate at Hattusa. In so doing, a possible evolutionary
development is drawn, and the potential root linkages between the two are laid out. The reader
will recognize points of the study, in need of further examination, expansion and research. This
study is meant to be the springboard of an on-going research effort.

4

5
Description and the Complete Geometry of the Gate
A brief description of the Citadel
One of the signature monuments of the Mycenaean Civilization is the main Gate of the Citadel at
Mycenae, at the Northwestern side of the Cyclopean Walls that surround the Mycenaean
Acropolis, see Figure 1. The Citadel housed the main Mycenaean Palace and other ceremonial,
administrative, social elite residential, commodities storage facilities and other buildings of
various uses and vintages, along with a necropolis for the rulers (wanax or king) family tombs.
Figure 1. The Citadel of Mycenae; the Lions Gate is at the Northwest. The earthquake of circa
1100 BC caused the landslide which demolished the Southeastern corner of the Citadel, and
destroyed a good portion of the Palace. Source of site plan: [2.1].

6
Linear B Tablets found in situ describe in detail a rich variety of people (types of labor) and a host
of commodities moving and flowing in and out of the Citadel, defining an extraordinary
abundance of socio-economic, political and cultural activity within the Citadel’s walls at the time
of construction of the Mycenaean Acropolis during the Post-Palatial Minoan and Middle
Mycenaean period (circa 1300 – 1250 BC). This is approximately the time period that the
Cyclopean walls were built, along with the Lions Gate [2.2]. But their use would not last very long.
The Acropolis was struck by a severe earthquake in around 1100 BC, see [2.3]. Whether this was
a key cause, or one among many other social and natural factors that contributed to the collapse
of the Mycenaean Civilization and the abandonment of the Citadel by the ruling class of Mycenae
is not yet fully ascertained. Abandonment could have preceded the earthquake(s), of course.
What is known however is that whatever the earthquake destroyed was not rebuilt. Thus, the
earthquake event (whenever it happened) must be considered a terminus post quem to the major
and extensive (although partial) abandonment of the Mycenaean Acropolis. At most, this major
large in scale abandonment of the Mycenaean seat of power could not have taken place too long
after the earthquake event and the destruction of the Palace. In fact, as we shall see in more
detail later, it happened a bit earlier, about a century before the 1100 BC Enceladus struck.
It was a turbulent, fast in its dynamics, period in the History of the immediate area and the
Eastern Mediterranean Region, when the Lions Gate (middle 13th century BC) appeared. Sections
of the Cyclopean walls were already in place by the middle of the 14th century BC at the
Mycenaean Acropolis. Conflicts within the Aegean basin were at a crescendo – it was the period
of the legendary Trojan Wars, an angle we shall further explore at the last section of the paper.
Conflicts with the invading Dorians from the North and the Danube Balkan cultures; conflicts with
the Minoans of the Southern Aegean; conflicts with the Asia Minor vassal states to the Hittite
Empire, and conflicts with the Hittite imperium proper; inter-city conflicts within the Helladic
space (both on the Greek mainland and its periphery, extending all the way to the Northern
shores of the Black Sea); all these socio-cultural and military conflicts were fueled by the new
social, economic and technological conditions that ensued, spillover effects and the fallout from
the Great Transition, as the Bronze Age was gradually giving way to the emerging Iron Age.
These were unprecedented challenges for the Mycenaeans, as a new reality was dawning on
them. The thickness of the Cyclopean walls and the iconography of the Lions Gate itself, were to
convey intimidating and repelling capabilities proportional to the magnitude of these new
threats. The morphology implanted onto the Lions Gate was to carry an overwhelming repelling
capacity, fully intending to live up to the task of confronting the potentially considerable in
strength enemies of and possible invaders to the core city of the Mycenaean World’ ruling elites.
The Gate, although well known in antiquity, and well described by Pausanias, entered the
modern-day Archeology’s radar in the early 18th century. Since then, it has received numerous
human interventions, and although its main morphology hasn’t been severely impacted, it has
certainly been altered to an extent, at the margins, by both human and natural causes. To what
extent, we shall be able to deduce in the subsection that follows.

7
Located at a Northwestern spot of the Mycenae’s Cyclopean walls, it is well beyond the azimuth
of the Summer Solstice sunset (at about 310). Its exact orientation must be more carefully
examined, as to its potential orientation towards some specific star rising on the celestial sphere
at some specific (possibly quite significant) date then. The Gate was also to enjoy the shadows of
its Southern flank wall throughout the day, in the course of the entire year. It was to receive the
minimum daylight possible. It was to be found, and was intentionally placed, at the overall
optimal location of the entire site’s perimeter. It optimality traded off accessibility for its own
residents to and from the Citadel’s hinterland, and minimum light during the day to inhibit (to
the extent possible) the potential invading forces. It was not to be very welcoming to the
unwelcomed visitor. It balanced out ease of mobility for its own residents with inaccessibility to
the potential enemy. Hence, many factors entered the optimal choice of location calculus.
Description of the Lions Gate
The Mycenaean Citadel, about 200 meters along its East-West axis, and about 100 meters at its
widest North-South axis, see Figure 1, has a number of gates. However, the main gate was the
Lions Gate, a nodal monument in Mycenaean Architecture, and an extraordinary artifact that has
captured human imagination since Antiquity. For an excellent discussion of the monument, one
can resort to the classical reference on it, that by G. E. Mylonas, ref. [2.4]. On how it was
constructed and its Engineering, see [2.11].
Two types of masonry blocks are encountered at the Lions Gate: the sedimentary conglomerate
type rock, with which the so-called “Cyclopean walls” are constructed in dry ashlar form, from
roughly and not particularly well dressed (we shall see the reasons why momentarily) blocks; and
the limestone type rock that the triangular in shape relief, crowning the Gate and bearing the
figures of the two Lions (or Lionesses, or possibly a mix of both), was made. The arguments for
the two figures in the limestone relief pattern, being two lionesses, was put forward in early 20th
century. The issue is discussed in [2.5]. On the Minoan origin of the two Lions or Lionesses
standing as guards at the gate and its symbolism see J. C. Wright, ref. [2.6]. Wright suggests that
the pillar represents the Palace, which in turn represents the State. Since symbolism will not be
the focus of this paper, not much will be added here on this topic.
However, it must be noted that a careful examination of the two standing animal figures, reveals
some slight differences between the two. In Figure 1.a, a close up of the relief is shown. In [1.2]
the author found slight but enough differences between the two headless animal figures
depicted in the relief to possibly suggest that a Lion (to the right) and a Lioness (to the left) stand
guards at the Gate. The animal figure on the right, has a slightly more wide, muscular and robust
body and a somewhat longer tail than that on the left – leading to this hypothesis, suggested by
the author. At some unknown time the heads were removed. They were initially positioned on
the animals’ body, as indicated by the cuts at the level of their necks. Differences in these cuts
(the one to the right being more pronounced than that on the left), might also indicate different
genders, in an otherwise genderless ensemble of the two lions or lionesses (or one of each).

8
Figure 1.1. A close-up photo of the megalithic monolith limestone relief at the Lions Gate at
Mycenae. Strong hints exist, from geometrical analysis, suggesting that this relief was intended
to have its three arcs’ chords (of about 3.80 meters each) forming an equilateral triangle.
Evidence of a mane at the animal figure at right, and absence of similar characteristic feature of
the lion at left, may also render credence to the argument of a male-female combination.
Although in a 1966 publication, see [2.7], Mylonas argues that the iconography depicts two lions,
the issue of gender remains open. Since much weathering from natural erosion has occurred
since the three millennia that have elapsed, possibly more evidentiary material on body
distinctions may have disappeared. A close look, nonetheless, at an 1805 sketch by William Gell
(found on page 52, Figure 5 in [2.2]) may add some validity to this hypothesis. For reasons of
simplicity and brevity, however, in the rest of the paper, the term “Lions Gate” will be employed.
Details of the Lions Gate Geometry are laid out in the next section of the paper. The striking
feature of that Geometry is of course its symmetry, together with an artful combination of
archetypal geometric shapes, and the simplicity and aesthetics found at its basic ratios built into
the Geometry of the structure and governing its design. This Basic Geometry can be used as a

9
marker of the level of mathematical knowledge characteristic of that period, the tail end of the
Mediterranean Bronze Age in the Helladic space. In a later section of the paper, the possible roots
of the Gate’s iconography, and the broader environment within which it appeared, will be further
explored, after the main topic of this paper, the Geometry of the Gate, will be exposed.
The complete Geometry of the Lions Gate, its morphology and modulus
In this subsection, a complete description of the Geometry on the basis of which the Lions Gate
was designed will be supplied. The Gate itself consists of four megaliths: two megalithic
orthostats standing on a megalithic threshold (step-stone), and supporting an arched megalithic
lintel, which in turn bears the vertical load of the similarly arced, triangular in shape, relief
limestone megalithic slab, and the corbelled side walls. These elements will be analyzed in turn,
and their modulus will be identified. The flanking Cyclopean wall’s construction and morphology
will cap the analysis of this section of the paper.
The triangularly shaped limestone slab and its relief
The complete description of the triangularly shaped relief megalithic monolith slab’s
representation is as follows. In a 4-part (as well) iconography, the relief depicts two animals
(considered to be two lions “heraldically disposed”, see p. 4, in [2.8], and possibly facing
outwardly towards the Mycenaean lands – according to this author), their front two feet standing
on a base supporting a Minoan column which is flanked by the two lions. The Minoan (bearing
strong similarities in that regard to the contemporaneous Egyptian lotus type columns) has a
wider base at the top, forming an inverse truncated cone, decreasing in diameter as one moves
towards the bottom of the pillar. The differential is very likely an intentional correction due to
perspective, offering the visual impression that the pillar is of equal thickness along the extent of
its height. The ratio of (base) diameter to height is about 1:5.
The column at the very top supports an apparent 3-layer structure: what is purporting to be a
square based rectangular cuboid (or parallelepiped) with a façade of proportional dimensions
(height to length) of 1:4. This ratio is shown by the four cylinders on top of the rectangular cuboid
which protrude, as if they form a frieze. These four cylinders are capped by another rectangular
cuboid with a façade under a 1:5 ratio (height to length). It is not known what crowned the entire
ensemble and the Lions’ heads, as that part of the Gate’s structure didn’t survive the millennia
of destruction. Undoubtedly, some form of acroterion (ΑΚΡΩΤΗΡΙΟΝ) must had been in place
there (flanked by the two lions’ heads).
At the pillar’s top end, two double-ring moldings appear, the lower about a third in thickness of
the top one. Its diameter is about two thirds of the top mold at its maximum. The pillar rests on
a 4-layer pedestal, which has the form of a Minoan altar. All layers have approximately equal
heights. The top layer is a rectangular cuboid with three in egress and two in regress rectangles,
and an overall ratio of 1:9 in height over length. The bottom three layers are two blocks forming

10
a couple of sideways laying H-shaped configurations. This “H” configuration resembles the
manner in which it appears in a Gobekli Tepe pillar, see [1.3] Figure 3.2, p. 25.
Although the bottom part of the pedestal (the curved base layer’ bottom) has been damaged,
especially the righthand side block’s base, the proportions (height to length) of the bottom three
layers of the pedestal can be inferred from the location of the (arced) left hand side edge to be
at a ratio of 1:1.8. At its highest point (at the very center) the ratio decreases to 1:2.25. The 4-
layer pedestal has a height in a ratio of about 1:2.5 to the total height of the column and the
ensemble it supports on top of it.
What is made clear from the above ratios is this: the limestone slab’s relief was built on
proportions involving rational fractions and not irrational numbers. It is an interesting and novel
finding to suggest that the Geometry used to construct the ensemble involved rational numbers.
Especially, when this type of Geometry (as it will be confirmed in a bit) is shown to have governed
the design of the broader Gate’s key proportions. This Basic Geometry, so labeled to distinguish
it from Classical Geometry – which involved irrational numbers, and in specific the Golden and
Silver Ratios (that were used to build Temples during the end of the Archaic and especially during
the period of Classical Greece) – it is established by this research paper, to have been the modus
operandi of the period at which the Lions Gate was installed at Mycenae.
The Gate’s doorway
Examination of the Lions Gate opening (its doorway) reveals that it forms a trapezoid. Certain
key measurements of the Gate are well known, see [2.4]. At the level of the threshold (the
doorway’s doorstep, formed by the partly buried in the ground megalithic monolith upon which
the two orthostats framing the doorway are placed) the doorway’s width is 3.10 meters. The
width narrows to 2.95 meters at the level of the arced lintel (the megalithic monolith resting on
the two orthostats). This reduction in width (15 centimeters) represents a 5% inward tilt of the
two orthostats. The height of the doorway is also about 2.95 meters from the threshold to the
lintel. These measurements are used to calibrate all other measurements obtained here and
which are based on the photo of Figure 2.
Thus, a key shape of the Gate is a square with 2.95-meter sides, fitting inside the doorway’s
trapezoid. This is a key feature in the Basic Geometry of the Gate. Considering the trapezoid’s
base, the ratio of that base to the trapezoid’s height is about .95. We shall see that the Basic
Geometry of the Gate’s design involved a square, an isosceles (possibly, equilateral) triangle, and
three circles, three of Geometry’s archetypal shapes.
Since the two orthostats framing the doorway are leaning inwardly, they can’t be perfectly
orthogonal in their frontal two dimensions (width and height). Their frontal height to width ratio
is about 4.0, and consequently their width is close to 74 centimeters. This is approximately the
frontal height of the lintel, where the arc commences. Half of that count (about 37 centimeters)
is the exposed height of the megalithic threshold (doorstep). It is of note that, the 4:1 ratio of the

11
orthostats’ frontal dimensions, is lower by one unit than the 5:1 of the triangular relief’s pillar
height to width (at the base) ratio.
At close inspection, the lintel reveals that it has a total length of about 4.60 meters. This is
approximately the total height of the Gate from the ground level to the top point of the arced
lintel, thus forming another key square in the Gate’s morphology. We now turn to the Basic
Geometry linking the triangular limestone relief to the Gate’s doorway.
The Gate’s overall Basic Geometry and symmetry: the three founding circles
The diagram which shows the Basic Geometry and the symmetry built into the design of the Gate
to the Citadel at Mycenae, Figure 2, is drawn based on the photo from source [2.9]. This particular
source is utilized, because its photo was apparently taken from the perspective of an observer at
the level of a key height (as it will become clear from the exposition that follows) and very close
to the center of the Gate, and from a long enough distance minimizing photographic distortion.
It thus contains the least possible photographic distortion from all photos available in the public
domain. The author has no access to any architectural drawings (published or unpublished) of
the Gate (if they exist). It is highly desirable that a digitized design of this extraordinary
monument becomes available for the benefit of analysts and researchers alike. If and when such
a digital reconstruction of the Lions Gate does become available, the present work can be of
course refined and extended. In absence of such drawings however, this becomes the second-
best alternative.
A basic symmetry axis of the monument is the CC’-axis of Figure 2. It is noted that the symmetry
axis BB’ (located slightly to the right of the CC”-axis) crosses the pillar of the limestone triangular
relief at its central spine. Possible slight shifts of the relief (due to natural causes, and possible
human intervention) may have to a small degree altered the exact location of the limestone slab
on top of the lintel by a miniscule amount through a slide to the right – responsible for the minor
discrepancy detected between the two axes. For the purposes of the analysis here, the CC’-axis
will be considered as the originally intended symmetry axis of the monument.
Similarly, a minor discrepancy is detected in the inward leaning of the two orthostats, framing
the Gate’s doorway: the leaning of the left-hand side orthostat (depicted by the D1D1’ line) is
slightly less than the leaning of the right-hand side one (depicted by the D2D2’ line). This fact
implies that a possible overall ground cave-in at the righthand side of the monument has taken
place, possibly the result of the earthquake which demolished part of the Citadel’ Southeastern
section circa 1100 BC (as discussed in an earlier part of the paper). If this wasn’t the case, then
this discrepancy must be attributed to construction imperfections.
Key in the Lions Gate design is the lintel’s arc. That arc, Figure 2, is part of a circle, which has its
center at point O on the symmetry axis CC’. Obviously, this arc is also the arc at the base of the
triangular relief bearing limestone slab. Three circles are the founding elements in the Gate’s
design, along with the isosceles (possibly equilateral) triangle of the relief and the doorway’s
trapezoid, that in effect approximates a square.

12
Figure 2. The Lions Gate of the Citadel at Mycenae. Source of the photo [2.9]. The final schema
with dimensions, lines drawn, circles and scale are the product of the author’s analysis.
If one were to draw two tangents to this circle at points F1 and F2, on these lines and at points
M and N correspondingly lie the centers of two circles which contain the two equal-side arcs of
the triangular isosceles relief on top of the lintel at the Lions Gate. The radii of these two circles
are equal, and both greater than the radius of the lintel’s arc containing circle. This geometric
feature indicates that the triangular shape of the limestone relief bearing slab is probably an
isosceles triangle, with an outside chance that it was intended to be an equilateral one,
depending on the level the architect of the Gate designed its top to reach. In a bit, when we

13
address measurements and length of the Gate’s geometric features (and we set the monument’s
modulus) the exact relationships between the two radii types will be presented.
Tracing of the two circles, responsible for the two arcs at the triangular relief bearing limestone
slab, reveals that the match of the left-hand side arc (traced by the circle at right) is far better
than that of the right-hand side (traced by the circle at left). Again, this is due to the sight shift in
position of the slab to the right (identified and discussed earlier). This shift could also be due to
the gradual erosion seen on the lintel’s upper right-hand side corner.
Another element of Figure 2 that needs some attention has to do with the doorway’s trapezoid.
Line XX’ is of course delineating the lintel’s level and the height of the Gate’s doorway, whereas
line AA’ depicts the top of the threshold (doorstep) of the Gate. Line MN (linking the isosceles
triangle circles’ centers) approximately bisects the symmetry CC’-axis at point P, located between
the point where the symmetry axis intersects the XX’ line, and the barycentric center of the
doorway (found at the point of intersection of the doorway’s trapezoid diagonals).
One of the reasons why this photo was chosen by the author (from source [2.9]) to carry out the
geometrical analysis of this paper, is that it produces the least possible photographic distortion
precisely because it was taken from (a) long enough distance from the Gate; and (b) from a
perspective corresponding to an observer’s optical angle from a point very close to this critical
point P. This rationale does not mean to imply that the photo used is distortions-free, of course.
The Lions Gate’s modulus
We now turn to a detail accounting of the various key measurements of the monument, which
will lead to deriving its modulus. The radius of the smaller circle, which is responsible for the
lintel’s arc, is about 6.17 meters. This radius corresponds to a diameter’s length about equal to
the width of the corridor leading to the Lions Gate at about the Gate’s level. The radius of the
two circles containing the sides of the isosceles triangular configuration of the relief bearing
limestone slab is approximately 7.92 meters. Thus, the ratio of the two radii types is extremely
close to 1.3; stated differently, the two radii are in about a 4:3 relationship.
If the top of the triangular relief was at about where its two constituent circles intersect, which
is at a height about where the block to the left reaches in Figure 2, then the triangular relief could
be close to an equilateral triangle of sides (measured by the length of their arcs’ chords) close to
3.80 meters (slightly less, by almost 2%, than one half of their circles’ radius of 7.92 meters). The
length between the top of the relief (assuming that it reached the level of the top layer of blocks
to the left, that is the top of the ninth layer) and point S of Figure 2 is equal to the chord’s length
of about 3.80 meters. Furthermore, it corresponds to about half the height of the entire
ensemble from the top of the door’s threshold. i.e., the total height of the Gate could stand at
about eight meters from the ground level.
Let’s revisit the notion of what a “modulus” is in Architecture, before we derive this monument’s
modulus. In Architecture, a modulus is the greatest (maximum in size) square (or, less desirably,

14
rectangular) forming grid, that in both 2-d (that is, in floor plans) and also in 3-d (that is, in
longitudinal and latitudinal cross-sections and elevations) can account at its nodes and lines for
the location of the structure’s load bearing (both columns, lintels – or cross bars - and weight
carrying walls) elements. The grid pattern usually cuts at the very core (and middle line) of these
carrying components of the structure. In effect, the modulus-based grid pattern is the building
block of the architectonic scheme and design which underlie and dictate construction.
Modulus, as a unit of length (width and height), is a replicating, repeating, reproductive unit that
ties all components of a structure together. The modulus constitutes a basic tenet of great
architectonic construction, where all the edifice’s components are meant to obey the structure’s
modulus. Identifying a structure’s modulus, and the resulting grid pattern, is a fundamental
component of architectural analysis. In view of this definition of a modulus, one can ponder the
question: was the Lions Gate at Mycenae built on a modulus? And if so, what is the modular
length, and the grid pattern of the monument? We shall address this set of questions next.
Since the Basic Geometry used to construct the Lions Gate involved three basic elements of
Geometry, a square (the constituent element of the doorway’s trapezoid), an isosceles (or
equilateral) triangle, and three circles, and all of these geometric forms contain the length 3.80
meters in them, it is suggested that this was the modulus of the Gate. Let’s see why.
Length 3.80 meters seems to be directly linked to the doorways dimensions. As we discussed, the
doorway’s net width, in-between orthostats, is on the average 3.00 meters, thus from the center
of the two orthostats it is precisely 3.80 meters. Furthermore, as we saw already, the height of
the doorway is 2.90 meters; including in it the width of the lintel from its bottom to point S is
very close to 3.80 meters as well. The isosceles (possibly equilateral) relief triangle (in its arcs’
chords length) has dimensions close to 3.80 meters. Finally, the two radii of the three circles (two
of these circles have identical radius) are linked by a 4:3 ratio. The larger two circles’ diameter
(2x7.92=15.84) is about 4 times the 3.80-meter length. On the other hand, the diameter of the
smaller circle (the one responsible for the lintel’s arc) is about 3 times the length of 3.80 meters.
It is concluded thus, that the 3-d modulus of the monument had a length of about 3.80 meters.
A note on the side walls to the Gate: intentional roughness and the form of a spear
We now turn our attention to the Cyclopean walls which frame the Lions Gate. The conglomerate
blocks forming these walls were laid in dry ashlar somewhat regular layers, nine to the left of the
Gate, with their central (fifth) layer at the lintel’s level; and nine to the right side of the Gate, with
the fifth layer also at the lintel’s level but somewhat not perfectly aligned with those layers to
the left. One might attribute this misalignment to either partial ground erosion (a factor which
we already discussed) as well as to intentional design, aiming at some “roughness” (rather than
refinement) to be projected by the Gate and walls’ construction.
It is well established that by the time these Cyclopean walls were put in place, circa 1300 BC, the
Mycenaeans were masters in the dressing of stones in masonry construction. This is abundantly
clear from the refined dressing in the corbelling structure of the tomb referred to as the “Treasury

15
of Atreus”, see [2.10], and Figure 3, a circa 1250 BC tomb. Both the interior and, especially, the
exterior of this monument show the degree of sophistication involved in the construction of
megalithic monuments, and their detailed dressing of its blocks. One is led then to accept the
proposition that the rough dressing of the blocks in the construction of the Lions Gate flanking
Cyclopean walls was intentional. It was meant to intimidate the potential invading enemies of
the Citadel’s resident and threats to the social Mycenaean elites.
But there’s an additional component of ‘roughness” involved in the design of the entire
“Entrance” space at the Main Gate of the Mycenaean Acropolis. It had to do with a perspective,
the intended (and so built to convey) the visual impression of an arrow head. The corridor leading
to the Gate of the Lions was constructed as an upwardly sloping and narrowing path. This “arrow”
type visual impression, due to perspective, was additionally enhanced by a set of inward leaning
orthostats framing the Gate’s doorway. Further, this arrowlike perspective was accentuated by
the triangular formation of the relief bearing limestone slab, gleaming in daylight as the head of
the spear. The entire corridor-Gate composition was nothing but an ensemble resembling a
grand-in-scale spear, quite likely symbolic of the fighting spirit of the Citadel’s residents.
This spear design is also evident in the entrance at the Treasury of Atreus. It can be easily
discerned by even a casual glance onto the corridor of the tomb, in Figure 3. An examination of
the Treasury of Atreus Basic Geometry might be a fruitful way to extend the analysis here on the
Lions Gate. In reviewing the architectonic elements of the tholos (ΘΟΛΟΣ) containing Treasury
of Atreus monument (the tomb will not be analyzed here as to geometric details) one concludes
that the architect of the two monuments (the Lions Gate and the Treasury of Atreus) must had
been the same architect, or belong to the same School. It is noted, that this spear-looking
morphology in 3-d, involving various proportions of width to length to height, as an entrance to
tholos-containing tombs is shared by many currently surviving and excavated Mycenaean-Era
tombs, see for example the case of the recently discovered tomb in Amfissa, ref. [2.25].
Corbelling of course is what the Treasury of Atreus is known for in Mycenaean Architecture, at
the Entrance to the tomb as well as in the tomb’s tholos (ΘΟΛΩΤΟΣ ΤΑΦΟΣ). As corbelling is also
encountered in the Cyclopean walls flanking the isosceles triangle of the relief, crowning the Lions
Gate at the Mycenaean Citadel, it is appropriate that some more extensive commentary on
corbelling accompany the exposition here.
Of course, corbelling is a construction technique with a deep pedigree. The particular corbelling
seen inside the Great Pyramid of Khufu, ca 2500 BC, at the Giza Plateau is a very fine example of
this architectonic feature. However, the technique didn’t originate in Egypt. It migrated to Egypt
from the British Isles, see the author’s work in [1.4], having been initially applied at the passage
tombs of River Boyne in present day Ireland (especially at Newgrange, circa 3200 BC) and
masterfully developed at the site of the Orkneys’ Meashowe passage tomb (circa 2800 BC). Proto
corbelling attempts are also encountered in the Maltese Archipelago Hagar Qim Temples of 3600
to 3200 BC. More on this topic under subsection on the Hattusa Lions Gate next.

16
Figure 3. Exterior view of the Treasury of Atreus, circa 1300 -1250 BC. Source of photo [2.12].

17
Possible Roots of the Mycenaean Lions Gate’s Morphology
In this section, a very brief reference to the possible roots of the Lions Gate at Mycenae will be
offered. It ties the Gate’s morphology, in the broadest of terms, to the Lions Gate at Hattusa, the
seat of the Hittite’s empire, see Figure 4. The gate is located at the Southwestern section of the
surrounding walls of the city’s acropolis, see [2.18]. Broadly, and in general temporal proximity,
the walls of the citadel, the acropolis, and the city of Hattusa proper (although all of these
elements were built in phases, and succeeding prior construction by prior cultures), attained their
greatest extent and spatial influences at the time the Hittite empire was at its peak, circa 1350
BC. This is a critical period in Eastern Mediterranean History, as we shall see shortly.
Of course, there is an obvious thematic similarity between the Lions Gate at Mycenae and the
corresponding one in Hattusa. The question to be addressed more in detail at this point is
whether (beyond archeological and historical evidence) is there architectonic evidence to
indicate that the Hattusa gate with the two lions preceded or succeeded, or whether it was built
contemporaneously, with the Lions Gate at Mycenae. Furthermore, the question will be explored
as to the substantive in Engineering and Architecture similarities that exist between the two
gates’ walls in their megalithic ashlar construction.
Figure 4. Lions Gate at Hattusa, the capital of the Hittite empire, circa 1340 – 1320 BC. The
Cyclopean walls of Hattusa need further analysis as to their possible linkages to the Mycenaean
Cyclopean walls. Source of photo: [2.13].

18
Historical and archeological evidence indicate that Hattusa was built at various time periods, and
its acropolis was also constructed at different phases, see Figure 4.a. It is generally accepted that
the Hattusa Lions Gate was constructed during the reign of King Suppiluliuma I. However, when
exactly did he reign (let alone when was he born and died) is at least historically fuzzy. In some
sources, he is mentioned as having reigned from circa 1344 to 1322 BC, see narrative in [2.17],
citing tablets [2.14] and [2.15]. In [2.16] the reign of Suppiluliuma I is listed as 1380 – 1346 BC.
The period 1344 to 1322 is interesting, as it coincides with the reigns of both Akhenaten (circa
1353 or 1351 to 1336 or 1334 BC) and Tutankhamun (circa 1332 to 1323 BC). We shall revisit this
broad historical context in the next section of the paper and state the reasons why it is relevant.
As it was mentioned in the first section of this paper, the Lions Gate at Mycenae was built in the
first half of the 13th century BC. Thus, no matter how fuzzy the reign of Suppiluliuma was (in terms
of exact dates he reigned) there is little doubt that the Hattusa Lions Gate was built earlier,
possibly half a century earlier than the Mycenaean Lions Gate. Let’s look at the impressive
thematic and morphological similarities of the two gates and the walls, to extract possible
additional documentation as to which one was built before and which one followed based on
their Architecture and Engineering. Both Gates share the obvious thematic fact that two lions
guard the main entrance to their respective citadels. They also share the fact that the lions are
associated with arced masonry structures. Finally, they also share the common characteristic that
both gates are flanked by megalithic walls. And this is where similarities in their morphology end.
The dissimilarities are also as pronounced between the Gates of the two citadels. The lions do
not share either design or posture. The arcs do not frame them, instead the lions of Hattusa are
part of the arced vaulted frame. Finally, regarding the masonry walls, the Hattusa walls are much
less dressed than the Mycenaean walls flanking the entrance to the acropolis there. In summary,
the construction is far more primitive and the Geometry far more Elementary in the case of
Hattusa, than in the more Advanced yet still Basic Geometry of the Mycenaean Lions Gate case.
Morphologically, along possibly with archeological and historical evidence, it must be concluded
that, the construction of the Lions Gate at Mycenae succeeded that of the Hattusa citadel. But
the entire thematic iconography of the Gates in both instances, and in general terms, share some
basic similarities and this is essential. The suggestion advancing the argument that the Hattusa
design in principle did conceptually affect the design at Mycenae can’t be dismissed out of hand
and a priori. Consequently, it is proposed that the bare roots of the Mycenaean Lions Gate do
lie at the Lions Gate at Hattusa, albeit in part. The construction methods and processes outlined
in [2.11], demonstrate a far more advanced building methodology and sophistication in design
at Mycenae than those encountered at Hattusa. The Hattusa – Mycenaean basic albeit scant
resemblance in their respective citadels’ Gates (and walls) brings about the distinct possibility
that the Architecture School responsible for their construction may be the same, and likely
located along the Aegean Coastal line of Asia Minor. If so, it is also likely that considerable cultural
exchange was in place between the Mycenaeans and Hittites. Troy may have been just one of
the numerous points were these two civilizations were in contact, at periods of peace and war.

19
Figure 4.a. The citadel at Hattusa. Oldest section at top center. Source of photo: ref. [2.23].
Of interest in the case of Hattusa is the corbelling type encountered at the vaulted linear tunnel
type passages, which are constructed under pyramid-like (but from natural hill formed)
structures at the site. For an example, see Figure 4.b. Of course, these passages have not been
adequately dated yet, but their corbelling arcs are in any case later than the Egyptian pyramids
of the Giza Plateau. Nonetheless, they are indicative of a flow of architectonic influences between
Egypt and the Hittites. What is of added interest is the relatively fine irregular polygonal rock
structure of the Hittites citadel’s walls, something which doesn’t rise to similar but much finer
angular connections encountered in the case of the polygonal shapes of the Inca (pre-Columbian)
Peruvian Architecture. The Hittite Architecture of megalithic walls is obviously an elaboration on
and evolution of dry non-regularly shaped ashlar construction. Layered dry ashlar construction is
what one encounters in the case of the Mycenaean Cyclopean megalithic walls.

20
Figure 4.b. Hattusa corbelling vaulted construction; dry ashlar layered massive blocks bearing
hieroglyphics are seen. This certainly must belong to a subsequent construction phase to the dry
no-regular ashlar construction of the Hattusa Lions Gate. Source of photo: [2.26].
We now turn to the broader historical context, not only of the two gates at Hattusa and Mycenae,
but to the great events underway in Eastern Mediterranean at the middle 14th to middle 13th
centuries BC. A great deal of upheaval was taking place then, and the aftermath of that upheaval
proved critical in the evolution of various cultures and locations there. It was the time a major
phase transition was underway, the Bronze Age was giving way to the Iron Age, in the Eastern
Mediterranean Basin, where three major civilizations interacted: the Hittites, the Mycenaeans,
and the Egyptians. Out of that interaction, major historical events were about to unfold.
Brief Historical Context
The Mycenaean Lions Gate was constructed in the first half of the 13th century BC, close to the
peak of the Mycenaean Civilization. The Lions Gate at Hattusa was constructed about half a
century earlier at the peak of the Hittite Civilization. These two settings shared a few
characteristics during their dominance in their respective spatial and temporal contexts, worthy
our careful examination.
Both civilizations were involved in fierce internal as well as external conflicts as they pursued
conquest and expansion. The Mycenaeans were just coming out of having conquered Minoan
lands in the Aegean and Crete, completely dominating the Minoans by the middle of the 14th
century BC, albeit having been culturally significantly influenced by them. They were also to
endure continuous resistance from other city states in the lower part of the Balkan Peninsula, in
the Ionian and Aegean Seas, and on the Western Coast of Asia Minor. Externally, and throughout
the 13th century, the Mycenaeans were challenging the Hittite empire by attempting to dominate
their client states in the Aegean Coast of Asia Minor. In that phase of the conflict, it seems that
the Mycenaeans enjoyed the upper hand, and the balance of power in the Aegean favored them.

21
Similar internal and external conflicts, as those characterizing the Mycenaean environ, were also
in progress in the Hittite dominion and determined its fortunes over a century and a half in that
same time range, from the middle of the 14th to the end of the 13th century BC. On-going external
conflicts centered around the centrally located region of Mittanni, (a region in Northern Syria,
see Figure 5), a region which was contested by both the two dominant superpowers of that
Region of the Fertile Crescent, the Hittites and the Egyptians. The balance of power for a period
till the middle of the 14th century BC, the period Akhenaten was in power in Egypt and
Suppiluliuma I was in power in Hattusa, favored the Hittites. Second tier major powers, at the
time in that region of Southwestern Eurasia, were the civilizations of Early Babylon, the Hurrians,
the Assyrians, and the short-lived culture of the Mittanni domain, see [2.24].
Initially, the Hittites were successful in conquering part of the Mittanni region, the rest falling to
the Assyrians by the middle of the 13th century BC. The Hittite-Egyptian conflict intensified by the
time the Battle of Kadesh took place ca 1274 BC (between Ramses II and Muwatalli II, near the
Orontes River in present day Northern Lebanon and Northwestern Syria) and continued till the
Treaty of Kadesh was signed (ca 1258 BC), by Ramses II (the longest reigned Pharaoh in Dynastic
Egypt – he reigned from ca 1279 to 1213 BC), and the king of the Hittites, Hattusili III. It proved
to be the kiss of death for the Hittite empire. Somewhere in that time period, the legendary
Trojan Wars were taking place, and the two relevant to this discussion Phases of Troy are Troy VI
(destroyed probably by an earthquake at around 1250 BC) and Troy VII (Homer’s Troy). Numerous
Hittite references to Troy VI is found, according to ref. [2.22], indicative of the importance Troy
played at that time period, when the three superpowers of the Eastern Mediterranean Basin (the
Mycenaeans, Hittite and Egyptians) were vying for dominance.
But eventually, both the Egyptians and the Hittites paid the price of that conflict over Mittanni,
especially since the Hittites had a double (and major) exposure, a Western (with the Mycenaeans)
and a Southern (with the Egyptians, and eventually with the Assyrians) front. Undoubtedly, there
were minor fronts for the Hittites as well, where external enemies loomed in the horizon - the
Northern and Eastern fronts, although History hasn’t recorded them (yet). Continuous
archeological evidence might reveal them eventually.
Whether the Western front, which also contained internal descent from the Hittite’s client states
on the Aegean and where the Mycenaeans were making inroads, was a more threatening front
for the Hittites than the Southern front with the Egyptians can’t be yet fully ascertained at
present, given the archeological evidence in hand. But what is quite remarkable is the fact that
much more is known through both Egyptian and Hittite records (thousands of clay tablets have
been and are currently uncovered of Hittite origin, detailing much of the social, economic,
political and cultural life of that space-time) about the Egyptians and the Hittites and their rulers,
than the Mycenaeans and their rulers. It is noteworthy that we do not know from historically
documented sources the names of rulers at Mycenae, as we do not know those of the Minoans.
For a scant reference to the possible rulers and for locational references to the Helladic space
kingdoms, and the Assuwa region of Figure 5, see [2.20].

22
Figure 5. The region of Mittanni, lands of Northern present day Syria, contested by both the
Hittites and the Egyptians during the 14th century BC. The area designated as belonging to or
under the influence of the Hittites (Hatti) must have been significantly larger in spatial extent.
Source: [2.19].
By 1200 BC the Mycenaean Civilization had collapsed, and so had the Hittites’ empire. Obviously,
natural disasters (major earthquakes) played some role in their demise, as we concretely
documented in the case of Mycenae’s acropolis. Widespread evidence does also exist that
earthquakes significantly and negatively impacted Hattusa as well, as they did Troy, in Asia Minor.
But, by and large, the collapse of both Mycenae and Hattusa was due to human socio-economic-
political and cultural factors, and the result of the weakening effect upon both their conflicts had.
The later part of the 13th century BC was the time that two major military confrontations occurred
in the theater of the Eastern Mediterranean Basin. One was associated with considerable military
conflicts in the Aegean at the Western part of Asia Minor, a direct conflict between the
Mycenaeans and the Hittites. It was the era immortalized as already mentioned by the Homeric

23
Epics and the myths of the Trojan Wars, masking harsh realities and conflicts between the two
dominant civilizations of that region, possibly the major cause of their mutual collapse. The other
and concurrent theater of military operations was of course that between the Hittites and the
Egyptians, as we also chronicled briefly earlier.
The end of the 13th century and by the beginning of the 12th century, both the Hittites and the
Mycenaeans were no longer in existence, as distinct ethnologically identifiable entities in charge
of their previously occupied and ruled territory. They were absorbed by other ethnic groups that
invaded their lands and substituted them in residence there: the Mycenaeans were succeeded
by the invading Dorians from the North; the Hittites’ lands were taken over by the Assyrians and
the Hurrians, see Figure 5, who invaded their territories from the South and East, and from the
Dorians to the West, along the Aegean Coast of Asia Minor.
Meantime, the Pharaoh who signed the peace treaty of Kadesh (the first treaty among
combatants on record) between the Hittites and the Egyptians, by the end of his reign had a
different (but apparently related) preoccupation as well. By the time of the collapse of both the
Mycenaean and the Hittite dominions, and by the last few years of Ramses II’s reign, close to and
within the closing decade of the 13th Century BC, the so-called “Sea People” appear in Egypt, see
[2.21]. They would remain in the radar screen of Archeology and History for almost a century,
the entire 12th century BC. They preoccupied, apparently, the Pharaohs of both the XIX and XX
Dynasties.
This paper is not intended to be the forum to survey the extensive literature on the Sea People,
their possibly various origins, ethnographic backgrounds, and different time periods of their
launching their raids, under multiple objectives and enjoying different success levels. Their intent
ranged from either to raid and loot, or to settle, with all shades in between. Their many invasions
(in the form of either isolated raids or involving waves of migration and/or raids) at various parts
of the Eastern Mediterranean, emanating from different origins, entail many hypotheses
(currently floating in the literature on the broad subjects of “Sea Peoples”) and they cover a
period of about a century, possibly the entire 12th century BC.
Since population movements involve factors applicable at the origin of the movement (push
factors) and at the destination (pull factors) causes at both ends could be multiple, and some of
them are accounted for in the current literature on the Sea Peoples. Undoubtedly, religious
factors (more broadly, cultural forces) must had played a major role in these movements.
Avoidance of religious prosecution, and attempts to force religious conversions can’t be
excluded. New gods were making their way into the Pantheon of various Religions. These new
gods were no longer exclusively tied to Agriculture and Fertility, as the Pantheon of the Olympian
Greek gods clearly imply. For example, Olympian god Hephaestus, god or fire, volcanos,
metallurgy and sculpture, is an Iron Age god of metallurgical productivity.
But such subjects will not be extensively covered here. Only some summary statements will be
made, acceptable to almost all of these theories on the “Sea Peoples”, representing common

24
threads in them for the sole purpose to link the collapse of the Mycenaean and Hittite civilizations
with the emergence of the Greek, Etruscan and Phoenician languages, and to a migration flow
out of the Western shores of Asia Minor to both the Eastern shores of the Mediterranean Sea
and to the Apennine Peninsula.
At the outset, it must be noted that the three East Mediterranean superpowers of the 14th and
13th centuries BC, the Mycenaeans, the Hittites and the Egyptians enjoyed considerable naval
capabilities and superiority over all other coastal Mediterranean settings. The Minoans and the
Egyptians, prior to the 14th century BC, dominated the commodities trade routes, and human
maritime and riverine flows at that specific Western Region of Eurasia and Northern Africa (and
quite possibly beyond it).
The collapse of two of these three superpowers, possibly by the end of the 13th century BC and
very likely by the beginning of the 12th century BC, saw the emergence and rise of numerous
second tier in maritime capabilities settings, see [2.27]. The dawn of the century, which would
mark the beginning of the so called “Greek Dark Age” (that lasted till the recordings of the
Homer’s Epics at about the 9th century BC, and sparked the beginning of the Greek Archaic
Period), saw a shift in military conflict from land based to sea based conflict. Aegean islands based
states (like Rhodes, Samos, etc.) as well as coastal city states (like Miletus) entered the scene of
economic, political and military competition, as conflicts spilled over from lands to seas, and the
power vacuum from the collapse of the two Northeastern Mediterranean superpowers
(Mycenae and the Hittite empire) was gradually filled by these second-tier naval powers.
The 12th century BC saw the rise of the Phoenician commercial thalassocracy. It commenced
around the middle part of the 12th century BC, although the origins proper of the Phoenicians
themselves remains clouded in mystery. What is historically documented is the presence of the
Philistines at the eastern shores of the Mediterranean, and that they were a constituent element
of the “Sea Peoples” set of entities. The extent to which the Philistine connections to the
Phoenicians are concerned, it is a topic in need of further study. It is now well established that
the Philistines migrated to the Eastern Coast of the Mediterranean from the Aegean, see [2.28].
They were skilled in ironworks, something which was acquired by them in the lands of both the
Mycenaeans and the Dorians. Their pottery was a variant of the Mycenaean style pottery. The
degree to which the Philistines influenced the Phoenician culture is discussed in [2.29].
A point of interest is that by the middle of the 12th century BC, the Egyptians (having been
weakened too) were not able to counter the maritime domination of the Phoenicians, as the
emergence of a powerful new language was making inroads into the Mediterranean Basin: Greek.
What are the links between the Greek, Phoenician and Etruscan languages of course will not be
a subject of analysis in this paper. And neither will be the linkages between the ethnological
backgrounds of Etruscans, Mycenaeans and Dorian Greeks, and Phoenicians. Having clarified that
angle of the work here, it would be a great disservice to the reader if the author were to fail
noting that a very recent DNA analysis (see reference in [2.30] which reports on an
announcement by a research team headed by Alberto Piazza of the University of Turin, as well as

25
the author’s Facebook research post of 10 December 2015), is able to trace the origins of the
Etruscans to circa 1200 BC and the island of Lemnos in the Central-Eastern Aegean.
Out of this upheaval on both the lands and seas of Eastern Mediterranean, under the migration
flows by Philistines and Etruscans from the Aegean, while the Dorians were advancing on the
Greek Mainland and on the Aegean islands as well as at the Western Coast of Asia Minor, while
the Bronze Age was giving way to the Iron Age, and Linear B was being transformed into Greek,
the Greek, Etruscan and Phoenician languages appeared. Through Greek, and in Homer’s Iliad,
the Mycenaean military advances against the Hittites were to be chronicled, and give rise to an
Epic Tale that marked the History of World Literature. In his Odyssey, Homer described an Era of
uncertainty and chaos that followed the collapse of Troy, and the enduring legacy of a search for
and a return to the old homeland that had vanished forever.
Out of the chaos that followed the fall of the Mycenaean and Hittite civilizations by the end of
the 13th century BC; a century under the ensued flows of the “Sea Peoples”; with very little
undertaking in Northeastern Mediterranean of monumental new construction past the burning
and destruction of the old citadels of power; and at the dawn of the 9th century BC, a higher-level
order in Language, Literature and Geometry were to emerge, built on memories of a legendary
past. Four centuries later, this higher order was to be stamped onto the Architecture, Art and
Science, Religion, Politics and Philosophy of Classical Greece.
Conclusions
Numerous issues related to the Lions Gate at Mycenae were addressed by this research paper.
They ranged from the very nature of the Gate’s iconography (whether two lions or lionesses are
depicted in the Gate’s relief, or a combination of both genders); to the Basic Geometry of the
Gate’s design and its module, these being the main subjects of analysis; to the architectonic and
engineering roots of the structure, and its relationship to the Lions Gate at Hattusa; and the
overall historical milieu of the monument.
A number of different conclusions have been reached in this paper. They relate mainly to the
Lions Gate at Mycenae, which was the central focus of this work, but they also relate to its
companion monument, the Lions Gate at Hattusa. The paper analyzed the geometric structure
and design of the Mycenaean citadel’s Main Entrance. It found that the Geometry of the Gate
involved three basic geometrical forms, a square, an isosceles (possibly equilateral) triangle and
three circles (actually two types since two circles have identical radii). Moreover, the modulus of
the monument was derived, it has a length of approximately 3.80 meters. It was concluded that
the Lions Gate at Mycenae was constructed employing Basic Geometry, involving rational
numbers.
The subject of the corbelling construction technique, encountered at the Lions Gate at Mycenae,
was to an extent also elaborated. A brief history of corbelling construction was outlined, and its

26
roots traced to the 4th Millennium BC Irish passage tombs of River Boyne. It was further
discovered and established that a morphological feature of the Mycenaean Lions Gate and its
Entrance corridor as an ensemble constitute the form of a spear, a morphology also shared by
the nearby tomb referred to as “the Treasury of Atreus” and many other Mycenaean Era tholos
containing tombs. Moreover, it was also established that the rough morphology of the Lions Gate
flanking Cyclopean Walls was intentional. This conclusion was based on juxtaposition with the
refined, regularly layered, dray ashlar masonry construction at the nearby Treasury of Atreus
tomb.
It was also concluded that the Lions Gate at Mycenae bears similarities to the Lions Gate at
Hattusa, which was constructed about half a century prior to that at Mycenae. The paper found
that the Lions Gate at Hattusa employed Elementary Geometry, and it was more primitive than
that at Mycenae. The geometric analysis of the Lions Gate at Hattusa is subject to future work.
However, the strong thematic and construction similarities lead to the preliminary conclusion
that the two Lion Gates were possibly the product of two architects of the same school, a school
which quite likely was founded someplace along the Western Coast of Asia Minor. The dry
polygonal megalithic wall construction at Hattusa requires further study to explore the links it
may bear to the Architecture and Engineering of the Cyclopean walls at Mycenae.
The paper also noted that the Hattusa’s citadel contains corbelling structures as well. Quite likely
thus, corbelling was, Engineering-wise, a technological and construction innovation, that possibly
diffused into the Mycenaean and Hittite worlds by way of Egypt, where it migrated at the middle
of the 3rd millennium BC from the British Isles.
In the last section, the paper dealt with issues of broader History at the time before and
immediately after the collapse of both the Mycenaean and Hittite Civilizations at the end of the
13th century BC. This was a turbulent period of conflict in the Eastern Mediterranean, involving
the clash of the local superpowers, the Mycenaeans, Hittites and Egyptians. Their struggles for
imperial expansion resulted in both land and sea based warfare. It ended with the collapse of
both the Mycenaean and Hittite civilizations and the weakening of the Egyptian civilization. The
role that an increased naval presence by many second-tier powers in the region played in the
numerous and continuous raiding and migration flows of the so called “Sea Peoples” during the
12th century BC was briefly mentioned. That century witnessed the arrival at the World’s stage of
the Etruscans, Phoenicians, and Dorians, and the onset of the Greek Dark Age.
Out of this contentious environment of many newly formed power centers vying for dominance
in the broader Eastern Mediterranean Region, the Dorians ended up dominating in the Helladic
space of the Greek mainland, the Aegean islands and the Western Coast of Asia Minor. The
emergence of the Greek language out of the Minoan and Mycenaean Linear B, allowed the
appearance and recording of Homer’s Epics. In the form of an enduring, powerful, transcending
cultures, engaging narrative-mythology, the Iliad and the Odyssey transmitted over the millennia
to countless generations the long Wars between the Mycenaeans and the Hittites (the Iliad), and
their aftermath (the Odyssey) of a New Era, where both were no longer to play any role.

27
References
Author’s work
[1.1] https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100006919804554
[1.2] Dimitrios S. Dendrinos, 20 February 2017, “A Study on the Mycenaean Citadel’s Lions (or
Lionesses) Gate Geometry and Morphology”; see post at:
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1699157133658264&id=100006919804
554&pnref=story
[1.3] Dimitrios S. Dendrinos, 25 November 2016, “Gobekli Tepe: a 6th Millennium BC Monument”,
in academia.edu. The paper is found here:
https://www.academia.edu/30163462/Gobekli_Tepe_a_6_th_millennium_BC_monument
[1.4] Dimitrios S. Dendrinos, 10 September 2016 (earlier versions of the paper go back to
September 2015), “From Newgrange to Stonehenge: monuments to a Bull Cult and origins of
innovation”, academia.edu. The final version of the paper is found here:
https://www.academia.edu/28393947/From_Newgrange_to_Stonehenge_Monuments_to_a_B
ull_Cult_and_Origins_of_Innovation
[1.5] Dimitrios S. Dendrinos, 10 December 2015 Facebook research post on “The Origins of the
Etruscans”.
Other sources
[2.1] The plan of the Mycenae Citadel is found here, with a brief description:
http://rolfgross.dreamhosters.com/The-Stones-of-
Greece/2012StonesofGreeceEnglish/Peleponnisos/Argolis/Argolis.html
[2.2] Fritz Blokolmer, 2010, “Images and perceptions of the Lion Gate Relief of Mycenae during
the 19th century”, in F. Buscemi, The Representation of ancient Architecture in the XIX Century,
Cogitata, pp: 49-66. The paper is found here:
https://www.academia.edu/12812593/Images_and_perceptions_of_the_Lion_Gate_relief_at_
Mycenae_during_the_19th_century_in_F._Buscemi_ed._Cogitata_tradere_posteris._The_Repr
esentation_of_Ancient_Architecture_in_the_XIXth_Century_Catania_Rom_2010_49_66
[2.3] Thomas F. Tartaron, 2013, Maritime Networks in the Mycenaean World, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge. The book can be accessed here:
https://books.google.gr/books?id=sZbqAAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summ
ary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

28
[2.4] George Emmanuel Mylonas, 1957, Ancient Mycenae: the Capital City of Agamemnon,
Princeton University Press, Princeton.
[2.5] W. K. C. Guthrie, 1975 The Cambridge Ancient History, Volume I, Part II, p. 864.
[2.6] James C. Wright, 1996, "The Spatial Configuration of Belief: The Archaeology of Mycenaean
Religion" in S.E. Alcock and Robin Osborne (eds.), Placing the Gods, Oxford University Press,
Oxford, pp. 37–78.
[2.7] G. E. Mylonas, 1966, Mycenae and the Mycenaean Age, Princeton University Press,
Princeton.
[2.8] D. Moore, E. Rowlands, N. Karadimas, 2014, In Search of Agamemnon: early travelers to
Mycenae, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle Upon Tyne.
[2.9] http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Mycenae
[2.10] https://structurae.net/structures/treasury-of-atreus
[2.11] http://www.ascsa.edu.gr/index.php/news/eventDetails/how-the-mycenae-lion-gate-
relief-was-made-new-evidence-and-implications/
[2.12] http://www.thehistoryhub.com/treasury-of-atreus-facts-pictures.htm
[2.13] https://www.roughguides.com/photo/148357920_10/
[2.14]
https://web.archive.org/web/20120204170027/http://www.hittites.info/translations.aspx?text
=translations/historical%2fDeeds_of_Suppiluliuma.html
[2.15] https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/suppiluliumas-
i?showCookiePolicy=true
[2.16]
https://web.archive.org/web/20120204170027/http://www.hittites.info/translations.aspx?text
=translations/historical%2fDeeds_of_Suppiluliuma.html
[2.17] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hattusa
[2.18] https://www.britannica.com/place/Bogazkoy
[2.19] By User:Javierfv1212 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Near_East_1400_BCE.png, CC BY-
SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=10790889
[2.20] G. Beckman, T. Bryce, E. Cline, 2012, The Ahhiyawa Texts, Society of Biblical Literature,
Atlanta. The book is available here:
https://www.sbl-site.org/assets/pdfs/pubs/061528P.front.pdf

29
[2.21] https://www.britannica.com/topic/Sea-People
[2.22] J. Burr Carter, S. P. Morris, eds., 1995 The Ages of Homer, University of Texas Press, Austin.
[2.23] https://ancientarchives.wordpress.com/new-latest-discoveries/hattusha-in-corum-city-
of-turkey-2/#main
[2.24] http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/ancient-cultures/ancient-near-eastern-
world/the-last-days-of-hattusa/
[2.25] http://www.newhistorian.com/rare-mycenaean-tomb-discovered/2923/
[2.26] http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Corbel_arch
[2.27]
https://books.google.gr/books?id=sZbqAAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summ
ary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
[2.28] https://www.britannica.com/topic/Philistine-people
[2.29] http://www.phoenician.org/sea_peoples.htm
[2.30] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/jun/18/italy.johnhooper
Note: all Figures without attribution are photos in the public domain.
Acknowledgments
The author wishes to acknowledge the contributions made to his work by all his Facebook friends,
and especially by the members of his eight groups the author has created and is administering.
Their posts and comments have inspired him in his research over the past two and one half years.
The author also wishes to thank his good friend ΑΡΧΑΙΟΓΝΩΜΩΝ for helpful comments and
suggestions and for offering some literature background.
But most important and dear to this author has been the more than 21 and one half years of
encouragement and support he has received from his wife Catherine and their daughters
Daphne-Iris and Alexia-Artemis. For their continuing support, assistance, encouragement and
understanding for all those long hours he allotted doing research, when he could have shared his
time with them, this author will always be deeply appreciative.
Legal Notice on Copyright
© The author, Dimitrios S. Dendrinos retains full legal copyrights to the contents
of this paper. Reproduction in any form, of parts or the whole of this paper, is
prohibited without the explicit and written permission and consent by the author,
Dimitrios S. Dendrinos.

30