Talk:Cyclopean masonry/Archive 1

Archive 1

Definition of cyclopean masonry

Odysses, thanks for supplying all the links and google results, but I'm afraid we're going to have to quarrel again. You've missed a key part of the definitions you supplied, the word "irregular" (or, in the infoplease definition, "undressed"). Cyclopean masonry (also "cyclopean walls", "cyclopean architecture") is a particular technical term used in the study of classical architecture. It refers to the use of large, irregularly worked boulders, fitted together without mortar. Sometimes smaller stones are inserted to help bind the larger ones together.

In contrast, the term ashlar masonry is used to describe courses of regularly worked stone laid in horizontal courses, without the use of mortar. The major contrast between cyclopean and ashlar is the shape of the stones. Ashlar blocks are square or rectangular, but in cyclopean masonry the stones are irregular and are different shapes and sizes from each other. Ashlar masonry is laid in regular horizontal courses, but because of the different shapes of the stones, there aren't regular courses in cyclopean construction. The contrast between the two types of masonry is shown in the bottom image in the article, where the area in the blue rectangle is of cyclopean masonry, but the rest is ashlar masonry. The first two images on the page, of the "Treasury of Atreus" and the Lion Gate, show ashlar masonry, not cyclopean. The images you've supplied on the talk page are also ashlar masonry. Also, Macchu Picchu was built in ashlar masonry and there's a very good image of an ashlar wall in that article.

These are standard terms in classical archaeology; a good place to look for definitions is William Biers, The Archaeology of Greece, pp. 67-68. It's exactly what the definitions you give from encarta, merriam-webster, and infoplease say. Now, the google links you've supplied show that people use "cyclopean" in a wider sense, which apparently just means "big". For instance, some modern constructions are referred to as "cyclopean structures", for instance a concrete building at Baikonur, the Russian space center, the Pathfinder dam in Wyoming, and the Boonton resevoir dam in New Jersey. All of these structures utilize concrete, and the dams also use courses of regularly worked stones. Clearly they don't meet our definition of cyclopean masonry--the term indicates that these are huge structures, or structures that use huge stones. It would be appropriate to mention this sense of "cyclopean", but we should make it clear that no architectural expert would call the Lion Gate, the Treasury of Atreus, Macchu Picchu, or the Egyptian (or Greek) pyramids "cyclopean structures".

Furthermore, because the use of "cyclopean structure(s)" is so imprecise, it's not a good title for an encylopedic article. "Cyclopean masonry" is a better title, because it is a term commonly used by experts, and because it refers to a architectural technique rather than a building. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I've edited the article to reflect a more precise definition of "Cyclopean" in ancient Greek architecture. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Cyclopean walls of Mycenae

The image in the article is somewhat inaccurate: not only is the area in the blue rectangle Cyclopean masonry, so is the wall on the left side of the photo. I'm not equipped to modify images, so I can't make a change to this, but someone else may wish to do so. I may try to find a better image at some point, since a closer view of a Cyclopean wall seems desirable. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Now that I've seen a better image of the bastion to the left of the Lion Gate, I see that it's actually ashlar masonry as well. So the image is accurate. I think, however, that it might be helpful to have more images in the article that show more detail, and perhaps have better contrast, since the image in the article is a bit washed out. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Tholos of Atreus and the Lion Gate not Cyclopean structure/masonry?

Akhilleus, is this a bad joke?

Well done, you have just revoked what Pausanias described as the "work of the Cyclopes"--Odysses (☜) 11:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I must admit I tend to agree with Akhilleus. As far as I recall, cyclopaean masonry is by definition not Ashlar, when the term cyclopaean is being used technically. Cyclopaean masonry can be ashlar, when the term cyclopaean is being used as a synonym to "Gigantic" or "Very Large". However, I am not happy with the definition of Ashlar as currently presented by Wikipaedia either.

From the dartmouth site, we have: "The walls are usually founded in extremely shallow beddings carved out of the bedrock. "{Cyclopean}", the term normally applied to the masonry style characteristic of Mycenaean fortification systems, describes walls built of huge, unworked limestone boulders which are roughly fitted together. Between these boulders, smaller hunks of limestone fill the interstices. The exterior faces of the large boulders may be roughly hammer-dressed, but the boulders themselves are never carefully cut blocks. Very large boulders are typical of the Mycenaean walls at Mycenae, Tiryns, Argos, Krisa (in Phocis), and the Athenian Acropolis. Somewhat smaller boulders occur in the walls of Midea, whereas large limestone slabs are characteristic of the walls at Gla. Cut stone masonry is used only in and around gateways, conglomerate at Mycenae and Tiryns and perhaps both conglomerate and limestone at Argos." - note undressed. The text came from: [1]. The emphasis on undressed limestone supports Akhilleus' decision to remove the treasury of Atreus and the Lion Gate and should also support removal of all the kooky pyramid references, regardless of everybody's feelings on their prehistoric (or not) status, solely on the incontestable grounds of their method of construction. --5telios 12:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. The definition of Cyclopean masonry is clear. It's a particular type of stonework which is very recognizable--just pay attention to the shape of the rocks. The fortification walls of Mycenae and Tiryns are the most famous instances of Cyclopean walls, but that does not mean that every part of Mycenae is Cyclopean. Pay attention to what Pausanias says about the walls of Tiryns: "The wall, which is the only part of the ruins still remaining, is a work of the Cyclopes made of unwrought stones..." The word "unwrought" means the same thing as "undressed" or "unworked"--the rocks are used in their natural state, all different shapes from each other. Now Pausanias does later say that the Lion Gate was built by Cyclopes, but it is very clear that archaeologists and architectural historians would not describe the Lion Gate as "Cyclopean". The quote that 5telios gives above makes this clear, where it says "Cut stone masonry is used only in and around gateways, conglomerate at Mycenae and Tiryns..." Cut stone is quite different from "unwrought" or "undressed" or "unworked". Here's a nice image of Cyclopean masonry in the walls of Mycenae and a contrasting image of ashlar masonry in the NW bastion. The contrast in styles is very clear, and it's also clear that the term "Cyclopean" is only used for one of them. The images come from the same site where 5telios got the quote above; it was created by the archaeologist Jeremy Rutter at Dartmouth University, so it's one we can rely upon for expert knowledge.

Please don't revert the article unless you can find an expert source that tells us the Lion Gate, the Treasury of Atreus, and the Pyramids were constructed using the standard architectural definition of "Cyclopean", with emphasis on the irregular shape of the stones. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Cyclopean structure/masonry outside Aegean area of influence removed

I have removed references to cyclopaean structures which are outside the Aegean sphere of influence. I am afraid that this may upset the pyramid fans, but it is necessary. --5telios 17:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Some of the structures mentioned were clearly not Cyclopean (except in the sense of "huge") but the technique is not exclusively Greek. It's used in bronze age Anatolia and Italy, and in other regions as well. I don't know the non-Greek material enough to say which particular sites we should mention, but if we can get verifiable sources for non-Greek material the article should mention it. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Hattusa springs to mind. I'll dig around. --5telios 07:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

A definition

Here's another definition to add to the ones already cited on this talk page. It's from N. Claire Loader, Building in Cyclopean Masonry: With Special Reference to the Mycenaean Fortifications on Mainland Greece (Jonsered: Paul Astroms Forlag, 1998), p. 5:

"Wright (1978) and Iakovidis (1983) present the best studies of the masonry, moving away from the more traditional and simplified definition of Cyclopean as a stonework of large, irregular-shaped blocks assembled with the aid of interstice stones, and examine the overall building technique and variations between major Mycenaean fortified centres... Cyclopean masonry is specific to mainland Greece, being a stonework composed of two distinct wall faces of large, unhewn blocks, generally of local limestone and assembled without mortar, but where openings existed they were filled with small stones...The two faces are separated by an inner fill of earth and small stones which is unbroken throughout the circuit length."

Loader's definition is more restrictive than most of those given on this page, and I don't think we need to follow it. I've quoted her in order to show that the traditional definition of Cyclopean masonry is "a stonework of large, irregular-shaped blocks assembled with the aid of interstice stones"; this is, in other words, the definition in most scholarly sources on Greek architecture. The works that Loader cites are J.C. Wright's unpublished Ph.D. dissertation at Bryn Mawr College, and S. Iakovidis, Late Helladic Citadels on Mainland Greece (Brill, 1983). --Akhilleus (talk) 04:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The four styles of Cyclopean Architecture

Akhilleus, I don't normally have all my sources readily available, so it takes a while to relocate and organize them. And finally, here they are:

The four styles of Cyclopean Architecture in a detailed and comprehensive description at the Perseus Project.

I hope you consider the Perseus Project as a reliable source of information.

Besides the first style, which you have described as "made of unwrought stones", there are three more styles. I have added all four eras or styles in the main article, together with the relevant references.

The Hellenic Ministry of Culture in their website of Mycenae describe the city surrounded by massive "cyclopean" walls which were built in three stages (ca.1350, 1250 and 1225 BC).

When Pausanias said that "each stone being so big that a pair of mules could not move the smallest from its place to the slightest degree", it's more likely that he didn't mean these stones, some of which could be moved by a pair of mules, but these stones instead some of which weigh over 50 tons.

Also, the wall in the accompanying image of the article indicated in blue square is not cyclopean at all. It's a later addition. It consists of small stones, each stone weighing probably under 100 kilos each and its very similar to this one as opposed to the several tones of cyclopean walls.

5telios, I'm afraid that there are reliable sources available on Cyclopean Pyramids, so I have taken the liberty to put Cyclopean Pyramids back in the article.--Odysses (☜) 15:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The Perseus website is a valuable resource, but it contains many different sources. The page you've linked to is from Peck's Dictionary of Classical Antiquities, a work of 1898. The drawing of the "Cyclopean pyramid" looks like it's also from the late 19th century. At that time, very little was known about the bronze age; note that Peck's entry says nothing about the Mycenaeans, and instead attributes "cyclopean" construction to the Pelasgians. Once more was learned about Mycenaean architecture, definitions became more precise, and what Peck called "cyclopean" was split into cyclopean masonry, polygonal masonry, and ashlar masonry. In other words, Peck's definition is out of date. It also conflicts with the infoplease, encarta, and merriam-webster definitions you supplied above.

More recent sources, such as the Biers I quote above, the definitions supplied above by Odysses, and Jeremy Rutter's website at Dartmouth, limit the term "cyclopean" to masonry using irregularly shaped, unworked stones (or lightly worked stones), fitted together with no mortar, with small stones sometimes filling the gaps between the large ones. This is the standard definition used by any classical archaeologist you'd care to name; it's what you'd learn in any basic course in Greek art, archaeology, and architecture. Under this definition, the Lion Gate is not cyclopean masonry; it's ashlar. The difference between cyclopean and ashlar, that is, between the irregularly shaped stones of the fortification wall and the regular stones of the Lion Gate, should be apparent to the eye. But if it is still unclear, here is a good image showing the contrast between ashlar and cyclopean, with a Hellenistic patch thrown in the middle.

One of the big problems here, Odysses, is that you're putting too much weight on the Pausanias quote. The modern use of "cyclopean" doesn't include everything that Pausanias said was built by the Cyclopes. He says that the Lion Gate was built by the Cyclopes, but that doesn't mean it's cyclopean masonry.

Similarly, the walls of Tiryns and Mycenae are the most famous examples of cyclopean walls, but that does not mean that all the walls at Mycenae and Tiryns are cyclopean masonry. (I said this already, but it seems to bear repeating.) Note that Rutter identifies part of the fortification wall as ashlar masonry. Most of the wall is cyclopean, but not all of it is.

I'm reverting Odysses' changes. Please take a look at any standard work on Greek architecture--Biers (already cited), Lawrence's Greek Architecture, or any other text that's normally used in classes on Greek architecture or archaeology. They should all contain a definition of cyclopean masonry, as well as ashlar masonry, that make it clear how the term is normally used by specialists. The article needs to conform to current usage, instead of relying on outdated sources from 1898.

Now, if we want to say that the current definition of the term doesn't include everything Pausanias thought was built by the Cyclopes, and differs from how people used the term in the 19th century, I think that's fine--we should also note that "cyclopean" is used in a non-technical sense to mean "big", and that the term "cyclopean dam" in modern construction is different from cyclopean masonry in classical architecture. But we shouldn't spread misinformation. If a student read here that the Lion Gate was cyclopean masonry, and then identified it as such on an exam, s/he would get marked down. At the very least WP should give reliable definitions. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree with the use of Peck - if Odysses does not wish it removed completely, it will have to sit in a section titled "outdated views on cyclopean structures" and should dovetail into the current views. Perhaps if the pyramids are to be mentioned they too can sit in a section on "structures erroneously considered cyclopean" (to include the foundations for the temple of delphi from Peck's quoted article and the retaining wall from the argive heraion, why not?). --5telios 12:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Definitions of Cyclopean masonry

Let's review the definitions of Cyclopean masonry given on this page.

Encarta: Cyclopean. architecture: made of big stones: constructed of massive irregular stone blocks without mortar [2]

That's right. However "irregular" stone blocks doesn't mean raw or undressed stone blocks, it means stone blocks not of uniform appearance, not even, uniform, or symmetrical in appearance. [3]
Also in Compact Oxford English Dictionary: not regular in shape, arrangement, or occurrence [4]
In other words, massive stone blocks of different size from each other.
In this photo the illustrated wall was constructed of massive irregular stone blocks without mortar.--Odysses (☜) 17:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The blocks in the picture you link to look pretty "regular" to me. Aside from the central block in the base, the blocks of each course are roughly the same size. All the blocks have been worked, and are cut into regular, rectangular shapes. This picture is an instance of ashlar masonry, not Cyclopean.

Furthermore, you're cherrypicking definitions here. The definitions drawn from specialist literature, Rutter's and Loader's, clearly state that in Cyclopean masonry the stone is either unworked or lightly worked. Same deal with the infoplease definition; "undressed" is synonymous with "unworked". These definitions indicate that when the encarta and merriam-webster definitions say "irregular", they refer to the difference between dressed stone (regular shpaes) and undressed stone (irregular shapes).

All of these definitions are similar, and all clearly indicate that many of the structures you'd like to identify as Cyclopean are not built with the technique that experts call "Cyclopean masonry". --Akhilleus (talk) 19:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, the photo you've linked to is of the dromos of the Treasury of Atreus. The Greek Ministry of Culture says that the dromos is built of "conglomerate ashlar blocks". To repeat a simple point, ashlar masonry is not Cyclopean masonry. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary: of or relating to a style of stone construction marked typically by the use of large irregular blocks without mortar [5]

infoplease: Archit., Building Trades.formed with or containing large, undressed stones fitted closely together without the use of mortar: a cyclopean wall. [6]

Jeremy Rutter's website on the Bronze Age Aegean: "The walls are usually founded in extremely shallow beddings carved out of the bedrock. "{Cyclopean}", the term normally applied to the masonry style characteristic of Mycenaean fortification systems, describes walls built of huge, unworked limestone boulders which are roughly fitted together. Between these boulders, smaller hunks of limestone fill the interstices. The exterior faces of the large boulders may be roughly hammer-dressed, but the boulders themselves are never carefully cut blocks. Very large boulders are typical of the Mycenaean walls at Mycenae, Tiryns, Argos, Krisa (in Phocis), and the Athenian Acropolis. Somewhat smaller boulders occur in the walls of Midea, whereas large limestone slabs are characteristic of the walls at Gla. Cut stone masonry is used only in and around gateways, conglomerate at Mycenae and Tiryns and perhaps both conglomerate and limestone at Argos." [7]

William Biers, The Archaeology of Greece: unfortunately not accessible to me at the moment, but his definition agrees with the ones just given. Biers' text is used in Greek archaeology courses in many universities in the U.S.; it conveys standard, uncontroversial positions.

Then there's Loader's definition in the section above, which shows that there's a standard definition of Cyclopean masonry used by Greek archaeologists.

These definitions show how the term is currently used. Instead, though, we have an editor who prefers the definition given in a text from 1898, by an author who didn't even know there were Mycenaean Greeks. It would be nice to have an explanation of why Peck's definition is preferable to those given by current dictionaries and by Rutter, Biers, and Loader, who are all still active in the field. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

---

More definitions of "Cyclopean" from recent works (all accessible on Google print):

Charles Gates, Ancient Cities (Routledge, 2003), p. 137: (this is a discussion of Mycenae) "The citadel walls contain different types of masonry, easily distinguished by the visitor today. These include coursed conglomerate ashlar, used at the Lion Gate; Cyclopean masonry, that is, huge blocks crudely fitted with tiny stones filling the interstices; and a rusticated limestone polygonal masonry, employed much later in Hellenistic times..." Gates clearly differentiates the ashlar masonry of the Lion Gate from the Cyclopean masonry used elsewhere in the fortifications, and the later polygonal masonry used in Hellenistic construction at Mycenae.

Nic Fields, Mycenaean Citadels c. 1350-1250 BC (Osprey, 2004), p. 11: "'Cyclopean' is the term normally applied to the masonry style characteristic of Mycenaean fortification systems, and describes walls built of huge, unworked limestone boulders weighing several metric tonnes. These were roughly fitted together without the use of mortar or clay to bind them, though smaller hunks of limestone fill the interstices. The exterior faces of the boulders may have been roughly hammer-dressed, but the boulders themselves were never carefully cut blocks. Thus their placement formed a polygonal pattern, ... Cut stone masonry is only used in and around gateways, conglomerate at Mycenae and Tiryns..." Fields' definition is very similar to Rutter's, and we find the same distinction between uncut/unworked stone (cyclopean) used in most of the wall's course, with cut stone (i.e., ashlar), used at the gateways (for instance, the Lion Gate).

Gwendolyn Leick, A Dictionary of Ancient Near Eastern Architecture (Routledge 1988), p. 58: "cyclopean masonry. Composed of very large, irregular, and only roughly dressed stone blocks. It was used mainly in Anatolia and West Iran for fortifications." A nice picture of Boghazkoy accompanies this definition. Leick's work is about the Near East, and therefore doesn't discuss any Greek sites, but her definition is similar to those discussing Mycenaean architecture.

Hopefully these examples are enough to show that Peck's categorization of four styles of Cyclopean masonry isn't used in current scholarship, and to demonstrate that the Lion Gate, the Treasury of Atreus, and any other structure using ashlar masonry shouldn't be called a "Cyclopean structure". --Akhilleus (talk) 04:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Definition of Cyclopean

We have disagreement about the definition of Cyclopean. Should we use a definition from 1898, or the definition found in current scholarship? --Akhilleus (talk) 16:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

• Examples of current definitions of Cyclopean masonry are given above. These are the standard definitions used in modern scholarship. The article currently reflects an outdated definition, from an 1898 text by Harry Thurston Peck, Harper's Dictionary of Classical Antiquities. When Peck was writing, very little was known about the Mycenaean Greeks. Since Peck's time, we've learned a lot more about Bronze Age Greece, our understanding of its architecture has grown, and our terminology has become more precise. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• Some considerations on Cyclopean:

First, by the term "Cyclopean" no one today would ever think that "one-eyed giants" built them. This was just a convention or a metaphor, indicating some intelligent method employed to build these huge structures, that even with today's standards, to say the least, wouldn't be cost effective.

It was humans, probably Myceneans, with special engineering skills who built all four types of structures or masonry. The exact building method is still unknown to us and one can only speculate about it.

This term "Cyclopean" has been employed for almost three millennia, not from 1898. Peck merely made a further classification based on style and chronology.

Finally, for background and continuity reasons, I would agree with 5telios to leave Peck's description and rename the title "Theories of the past", or something similar. I hope someone will add a few lines outlining the current theories of archaeology.

This topic is so fascinating that it could easily be expanded 2-3 times of its current size. I hope everyone will contribute on this direction, instead of reducing it to 2-3 lines. --Odysses (☜) 16:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Insofar as this is about the definition itself: The OED (1989, but probably earlier) uses:

Antiq. Applied to an ancient style of masonry in which the stones are of immense size and more or less irregular shape; found in Greece, Italy, and elsewhere, and anciently fabled to be the work of a gigantic Thracian race called Cyclopes from their king Cyclops. Now applied also to similar ancient work in other regions.

From the present text, and so from Peck:

Cyclopean structures (Greek: Κυκλώπειες κατασκευές) were constructed using huge stones or boulders as the building elements, with minimal clearance between adjacent stones and no use of mortar.

From Loader:

Cyclopean as a stonework of large, irregular-shaped blocks assembled with the aid of interstice stones.

Frankly, I don't see much difference between these, unless Mycenean mortarwork has been discovered. If you two would comment?

This diff shows some other differences, which seem to be equally debated.

My tentative counsel on these would be

• We should represent Greek by characters as Odysses does, rather than unicode cyphers.
• We should of course mention Mycenaean, and when the modern classification is sourced, it should replace Peck's (as it has outside WP; we know more than we did in 1898).
  • But until then it should stay, faute de mieux
• ashlar is clearer than "contemporary stone wall", especially since not all modern walls are made of ashlars.
• I do not understand the dispute about the Pyramid of Cenchreae.

The "pyramid" at Kenchreai is often cited along with the "pyramid" of Hellenikon to claim a Greek origin for Egyptian pyramid building. The two buildings in question are not pyramids, they are not old (only 3rd CBC) and they are certainly not cyclopean. --5telios 13:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

If it's Hellenistic, it certainly doesn't belong here. Septentrionalis 15:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Even though Peck is out of copyright, we should not just say what he said. It is out-of-date; and it is a discourtesy to his memory to use his words as they stand.

Comments? Septentrionalis 18:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The definitions drawn from Peck are in the section "Styles of Cyclopean architecture". Peck's style (1) corresponds to the current definition of Cyclopean masonry; style (2) is generally called polygonal masonry; styles (3) and (4) are ashlar masonry.

I agree that Greek should be represented by polytonic characters; any suggestion that I prefered html entities was unintentional.

there are several sourced defintions of "Cyclopean" on this page, shouldn't we use those?

part of the dispute here seems to be whether we can distinguish between ashlar masonry and Cyclopean masonry, or whether it's all Cyclopean. Odysses seems to prefer Peck's definition because Peck's styles 3 & 4 include ashlar masonry, and therefore include the Lion Gate, Treasury of Atreus, etc. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Darmouth University seems to at least use the term "Cyclopean Masonry" in their Classics Department,[8], and the Encyclopedia Britannica has an article on it. [9]. Blavatsky chimed in on it. [10] --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 18:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Masonry for constructions without mortar is potentially misleading. Septentrionalis 15:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Generally agreed, Paul. Oddly enough, in an architecture course I took many years ago, a kind of "dry" masonry was elaborated wherein perfectly cut stones were fitted to another without mortar. This is considered a "perfect bond" and is very, very expensive, prohibitively so to do anymore. On an architectural field trip, the professor pointed out the Morgan Library in New York City [11] as a last example of this technique. Only Mr. J.P. Morgan could afford it. But I agree with you in principle. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 12:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Note dry-stone wall --Akhilleus (talk) 16:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Akhilleus. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 16:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

---

I think we can all agree that a definition like "a stonework of large, irregular-shaped blocks assembled with the aid of interstice stones, without mortar" is workable. The problem is interpreting this definition and identifying particular structures as using Cyclopean masonry.

For instance, Odysses clearly believes that the Lion Gate at Mycenae is a "Cyclopean structure", but no classical archaeologist would say that the Lion Gate is in Cyclopean masonry. For instance, Rutter's definition, quoted twice on this page already, distinguishes between the uncut stones of the Cyclopean walls and cut masonry, used around entrances such as the Lion Gate. Any picture, including the picture in the article, shows that the Lion Gate is ashlar masonry. Its blocks are dressed stone, cut into regular, rectangular shapes and laid in horizontal courses. These features mean that it cannot be classified as Cyclopean masonry.

It's hard to find a quote that plainly states the Lion Gate is ashlar, because the point is obvious to anyone who understands the definitions. However, the nomination to include Mycenae on the list of World Heritage sites discusses the different styles of stonework used in construction of Mycenae's walls. The report states, on page 13 of the .pdf version (p. 11 of the print document): "- Second style: ashlar work in conglomerate of large blocks well dressed with the hammer and more or less regularly coursed (‘Lion’s Gate with the adjoining sections of wall and at the Postern Gate, the tower at the angle toward the eastern end of the southern wall by the terrace on which stands the ‘House of Columns’)". Presumably the Greek Ministry of Culture, who created this document, knows what it's talking about, and the quote clearly says that the Lion Gate and adjoining sections are ashlar masonry.

It's important, I think, to use definitions as they are given in scholarly and expert literature. If we don't use a precise definition of Cyclopean masonry, and we don't distinguish carefully between the different types of masonry in use at Mycenaean sites like Mycenae and Tiryns, the article will end up being a discussion of prehistoric buildings constructed with big stones. I can't really see why that would be useful for anyone. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Article title

Are we happy with Cyclopean Structures? I realise it has been discussed before, but I would prefer to have the article titled Cyclopean masonry and have both the Cyclopean structures and Cyclopean Architechture redirect towards it. Masonry is what the adjective cyclopean modifies - there is nothing in the architecture which is more cyclopean than polygonal or ashlar, and there is nothing in the structure that is more cyclopean than polygonal or ashlar - in fact the same structures have been found built in other types of masonry (tholos tombs, fortifications, etc). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 5telios (talk • contribs) .

"Cyclopean masonry" is the best title, in my opinion. When you look up "Cyclopean" in the index or glossary of a text on Greek archaeology, the entry you get is usually "Cyclopean masonry", less often "Cyclopean walls", and much more rarely "Cyclopean architecture". (See examples in "definitions" section above.) I've never seen "Cyclopean structure(s)" as the preferred term.

Per the concern expressed above by Septentronialis that "Masonry for constructions without mortar is potentially misleading", we should make it clear that in this definition "masonry" refers to any type of stonework or brickwork 'with or without mortar. I see that this conflicts with the definition at masonry, but the definitions of Cyclopean masonry on this page make it clear that masonry need not involve mortar. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

When I started it, there was already an article "Cyclopean Architecture", the one to be merged.
Anyway, changing to "Cyclopean Architecture" or "Cyclopean Masonry" is okay with me.--Odysses (☜) 09:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

we need the help of an administrator to move the page, so we need to do the following request to move the page. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Cyclopean structures → Cyclopean masonry – The article is about a masonry technique, not about a type of architecture or particular buildings; in specialist literature, "Cyclopean masonry" is a more common term than "Cyclopean structures"; a rough consensus already exists to move the page --Akhilleus (talk) 05:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. Please correct the naming in the article, where appropriate, and organize it with a lead section/introduction; see Wikipedia:Guide to layout. —Centrx→talk • 04:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Aftermath

I started this article unaware of the latest developments in archaeology.

What I considered as Peck's third and fourth styles have now been renamed during the last 10 years or so into "ashlar masonry".

Apologies if I caused any Epic arguments.

If this is the case however, instead of deleting all descriptions relevant to Peck's third and fourth styles, such as the Lion Gate, the Treasury of Atreus, the pyramid of Cenchreae etc. they could well be moved to the ashlar article. --Odysses (☜) 11:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Extra image?

Hi there. I don't want to mess up this article, seeing that his has quite a history of discussion, but I think I might have useful image to offer from a recent visit to the site of Mycenae. I have uploaded it as Image:Mycenae walls w of lion gate.JPG. I think it is considerably clearer than the image currently in use and could be added to the article? Any opinions?

. athinaios 13:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

That's a nice picture, and might be good for Mycenae; thing is, it's ashlar masonry, and so is useful for this article only as an example of what Cyclopean masonry isn't. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. I think I see what you mean, although I'm not sure do I entirely agree. It's from the corner West of Lion's Gate, and contrasts considerably from the true ashlar near the gate itself. Perhaps it's ultra-regular Cyclopean? Never mind, it clearly doesn't illustrate all that well what the article describes. How about this one, immediately South of Grave Circle A? athinaios 17:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The second photograph would be very useful, in my opinion. (On the first, note this image at the Dartmouth website, which is a different angle of the same piece of wall, clearly called "ashlar".) --Akhilleus (talk) 17:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Point taken. Let's see if anyone objects and otherwise insert the image into the article. As regards the other one, have you ever noticed how the middle bit (very clear on the Dartmouth image) appears to somewhat interrupt the more regular walling on both sides of it, and to somewhat differ in terms of the size and shape of its stones? I wonder could it be a first-phase leftover... athinaios 17:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I added the image. I hope it's acceptable. athinaios 18:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I like the second photo very much. The first one could go into the Ashlar article with a paragraph about Aegean Bronze Age Ashlar ashlar masonry - I have a stubby sentence in there already which could be expanded. --5telios 06:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! As regards the first image, I'm personally quite fond of it, but a quick google search shows that about 10 million other people have taken the very same photo )no wonder, it's the first thing you see when approaching the Citadel. I think if we want to illustrate Mycenaean ashlar, we better use the Lion Gate iitself, or maybe the South gate at Gla. Next step, if we mention Mycenaean ashlar, we should also refer to Minoan ashlar... athinaios 07:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Word popularized by H.P. Lovecraft?

It seems to me that the word "cyclopean" was vastly popularized by horror writer H.P. Lovecraft, who used it a lot in his stories. Nowadays I meet the word relatively often in fiction, and always in a context that is clearly Lovecraftian (with the word "cyclopean" appearing almost as a tribute).

Does anyone agree? If a source can be found documenting this, I feel it should be in the article. SpectrumDT (talk) 21:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it; the word was used before Lovecraft published, in a variety of non-fictional contexts, and most of the instances of the word that I've encountered have nothing to do with him. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Jesse Hartley and the docks of Liverpool, UK

Hartley was a prolific user of cyclopean masonry in his Liverpool docks. The dock walls must form some of the largest cyclopean structures still standing, yet this article does not mention them. Would it be agreeable to add at least a passing reference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.28.2 (talk) 08:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

They do not represent anywhere near the largest still standing and are too insignificant to mention.

Sites showing Cyclopean Masonry section

Does anyone else have a problem with the mention of Egyptian pyramids and Jericho in the article - what about the mention of Greek "Pyramids"? I do not like this section at all. Should it be removed or replaced with a list of archaeologica sites showing cyclopean masonry?

--5telios 11:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd take it out, unless someone can supply sources. Cyclopean masonry is a term that's only used for Greek architecture, as far as I know.

I think the title of this article really ought to be Cyclopean masonry, not "Cyclopean structures". I've never seen the phrase "Cyclopean structures" before this article, whereas you get "Cyclopean masonry" quite a bit. A google search for the exact phrase "Cyclopean masonry" gets 11,200 results; the exact phrase "Cyclopean structures" gets 949. It looks like someone directly translated the Greek phrase Κυκλώπειες κατασκευές without knowledge of the English term. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The cyclopian structures of Macchu Piccu etc stuff was written by someone in the paranoid Greek far right who believes in a mythical age pre-columbian crossing of the Atlantic. Keep the Greek pyramid stuff but take out the rest, or better yet rewrite it to appear as claimsIkokki 21:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The pyramids stuff is iffy to say the least - scholarly consensus is on the side of bases for watchtowers of the hellenistic period for all of the so called pyramids. --5telios 08:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

More or lss on the side of watchtowers. The jury is still out until there is more evidence. Gingermint (talk) 11:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Back to basics

From the above comments it is obvious that those who wrote them, scanned briefly this article and didn't really pay any attention to its most important passage which is the definition of Cyclopean structures.

The definition given for Cyclopean structures in the article is: Structures constructed during the prehistoric times (i.e. before 1000 BC.) using huge stones as the building elements, minimal clearance between adjacent stones or boulders and no use of mortar.

Similar definitions are given by:

• Encarta

Cyclopean. architecture: made of big stones: constructed of massive irregular stone blocks without mortar [12]

• Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

of or relating to a style of stone construction marked typically by the use of large irregular blocks without mortar [13]

• infoplease

Archit., Building Trades.formed with or containing large, undressed stones fitted closely together without the use of mortar: a cyclopean wall. [14]

If the above editors have an alternative definition they might care to share it with us.

The three great pyramids of Egypt & the pyramids in Greece

By adding the link to the Pyramid of Hellinikon Ikokki saved me from searching my own reference.

According to this article and based on the Optical Thermoluminescence dating method the pyramid of Hellinikon was erected at about 2720 B.C.± 580 years.

No - this is incorrect, according to this method, the stones which were tested were quarried or otherwise exposed to sunlight at about 2720 B.C.± 580 years. My source is the very sensible (ie not sensational) article on the pyramids published in the Greek Magazine Archaiologia kai Texnes ~1996 / 1997. --5telios 12:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Dating measurements were performed by the Laboratory of Archaeometry at Democritus Research Institute in Athens and by the Nuclear Dating Laboratory of the department of Physics at the University of Edinbourgh in Scotland. The method of Optical Thermoluminescence was employed to date samples taken from the pyramid. It was determined that the pyramid was erected at about 2720 B.C.± 580 years. It must be noted that, according to these results, the median date of the Hellenikon pyramid predates, by at least 100 years, the oldest Egyptian pyramid (Djoser - 2620 B.C.) and by 170 years the Great Pyramid of Cheops (Khufu - 2550 B.C.).

More info on the Greek Pyramids: From late 18th century accounts, there were more than 30 pre-historic pyramids reported in Greece. Today, only a few survive, with the most well preserved one, the Pyramid of Hellinikon. This pyramid is located 10-15 km SW of Mycenae and its construction resembles that of the Mycenaean walls.

Only to the extent that a fig tree resembles an olive tree. Can you tell the difference between the cyclopean walls of Asine and the hellenistic rebuilding? It seems the travellers also had the same problem with these pyramids. --5telios 12:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Unless someone can prove otherwise, I cannot see why the pyramids don't fit into the above definition.

These pyramids were constructed during the prehistoric times using huge stones, minimal clearance between adjacent stones or boulders and no mortar was used.

"Cyclopean structures" versus "Cyclopean masonry"

There was already an article "Cyclopean Architecture" which is a stub. First I thought I could contribute to it, but I decided that I'd rather start an alternative article.

Akhilleus, you say "a google search for the exact phrase "Cyclopean masonry" gets 11,200 results".

I propose you try "cyclopean structure. [15] Then you get 73,100 results, a striking difference, in which cyclopean structures prevail.

That's only true if you omit the inverted commas around "cyclopean structure", in other words, if you google for any page that contains both words, but not necessarily adjacent to each other. Indeed, by now, you get over 80,000 pages that way. If you google the phrase as you use it, that is with the inverted commas, you get 283 pages [16], which is not much. The reason is that, essentially, nobody uses that phrase (certainly no archaeologists do). athinaios 08:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Ps, Sorry, I just realised that I misread the dates of this discussion, I thought it was recent... Ignore the above comment. athinaios 08:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Jericho

Some quick reference from the WEB on Cyclopean structures of Jericho and surrounding areas.

Search results:

• Jericho Cyclopean: 608 results [17]
• "The dating," Reich goes on to say, "is consistent with similar finds at Gezer, Tel Balata (Shechem), and Hebron (Tell Rumeida). At each of these sites, cyclopean structures with huge stones and rock-cut foundations have been excavated and dated to Middle Bronze II. [18]

• the oldest city in the world is JERICHO !! 9000-10000 before jesus ... Also the cyclopean monuments in Mesopotamia [19]

• in this same period, an enormous cyclopean stone wall was built around the city, at least 15 feet in height and 12 to 14 feet in width, with as many as 25 defensive towers. On the west side, it is flanked by a citadel that is the "largest single-phase MB defense work known in Syria-Palestine" (ibid., p. 999). [20]

• Jericho: ...This revetment wall was composed of large Cyclopean stones... [[21], [22]

Cyclopean as adjective meaning large and cyclopean as adjective meaning a specific method of construction are being confused here, in my humble opinion. --5telios 12:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

South America

Regarding South America, many structures there also fall into the above definition. The term Cyclopean is also established for the South American pre-historic structures, as shown in the following links.

Search results:

• South America cyclopean: 51,100 results [23]

• Machu Picchu cyclopean: 799 results [24]

• Tiahuanaco cyclopean 560 results [25]

Some examples:

• Another way to get there is starting from Cuzco by train ... It is highly implausible that a civilization building Cyclopean monuments could develop in such a place. [26].

• cyclopean fortress at Sacsayhuaman, Cuzco [27]]

Finally, from the architectural point of view, there is a striking similarity between this:

this

and this

while their constructing method fits into the above definition on Cyclopean structures.

Any speculative, paranormal or otherwise POV theories on who, when and why built them is beyond the scope of this article. --Odysses (☜) 16:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

POV theories are, indeed, beyond the scope of this article. The other two are legitimate so long as there are sources for them. Let's not be foolish. Gingermint (talk) 11:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Technological explanation?

I am reading a book from the 19th century that talks about cyclopean masonry; it says that the Greeks had no idea, and could not figure out how to do the technology used to put the heavy boulders in their position, and thus attributed them to Cyclops; it also states that in the author's time (early 19th century) people still were incapable of this kind of technology, and so it remained a mystery and evidence of a 'forgotten technology'...

I came here hoping to find some kind of mechanical explanation of how the ancients accomplished this in prehistoric times, but did not learn anything new. Are there any theories on this in scholarship? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I doubt very much that in the 19th century this could not be done. There's a book that deals with this, Building in Cyclopean Masonry: With Special Reference to the Mycenaean Fortifications on Mainland Greece by N. Claire Loader. If you can see this page [[28] it does look as though there has been some technical material written on the subject.

This may help too [29]. Ramps were almost certainly used. Dougweller (talk) 17:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Raps were almost certainly nothing. If there is no evidence for it... and if there is no math to even back it up... it's just fantasy. Gingermint (talk) 11:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Non-archaeological references to "cyclopean masonry"

I have a book (Aird, W.V, (1961). The Water Supply, Sewerage and Drainage of Sydney. Sydney: M.W.S.&D.B.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)) that refers to the use of "cyclopean masonry" in dam construction in the early 20th century. Whilst there are no relevant photographs, there are diagrams that show the dam walls and indicate that these comprise a core of large (presumably unfaced) sandstone blocks with concrete facing. Associated text for one dam (p27) states that the blocks varied between 2 and 4½ tons. A quick search with Google doesn't turn up any relevant definitions. Has anyone else seen this usage of "cyclopean masonry"? PeterJeremy (talk) 00:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions (Week 3 Assignment)

1. Maybe add pictures to the different old definitions so to make it easier to understand 2. As an external source add the Lion Gate and other sites mentioned in the article so people can look at those pages as well. 3. Add more details on the Lion Gate and other sites as to what parts of the sites have cyclopean masonry and which definition this applies to. 4. The link to Krisa does not exist.

Nadiacritchley (talk) 22:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)Nadia