292 Primitive Greece: Mycenian Art. nature of the ruins. In the end Mr. Penrose accepted the invitation of MM. Schliemann and Dorpfeld to settle the question at issue on the spot. It was not hard to convince him that the masonry of the inner and external walls was identical ; though in the one case rubble and in the other colossal stones had been used — a natural distinction between the walls of a house and of a stronghold intended to withstand the assaults of the enemy. Dorpfeld pointed out that the early walls of the Hellenes, both in Asia Minor and Greece, were invariably composed, as at Tiryns, of irregular stones with or without mortar. Potsherds of glazed pottery, kiln-burnt bricks, and lime mortar had all come from the church and adjacent graves, whilst in the palace itself sun-dried bricks alone had been found ; that appearances which had been attributed to the presence of baked bricks and lime mortar were due to the fire which had destroyed the palace. The objections were withdrawn, and Mr. Penrose declared his change of front in a straightforward letter which appeared in the Times and was reproduced in the AthetuBum} We know not what Stillmann's views may be to- day, but among archaeologists whose opinion counts for anything, there is not one who has not come round to the interpretation advanced by the excavators, supported as it is by cumulative and well-established facts. ^ It is needless to insist on the theory of a poor critic such as Stillmann has shown himself to be ; nor is it possible to take seriously one who can leap at a bound from the Macedonian epoch on to full mediaeval times, as if it were one and the same thing. All we can say is, that he cannot know much of the subject he is treating. On the other hand, the perfect correspond- ence of the Tirynthian palace to the similar buildings at Troy and in Greece proper, cannot be sufficiently emphasized ; be it in the plan of the edifice, with its propylaea, its courts, and halls supported by columns, or its megaron with central hearth, or the timber beams embedded between the stone courses of the lower portions of the walls, with the mistaken idea of making them 1 Athenauniy Nov. 12, 1887. Schliemann himself sent Penrose^s letter to the TimeSy where he had been attacked. 2 Relating to this controversy, are two letters addressed by Stillmann and Dorpfeld respectively to S. Reinach, June 20 and Nov. 26, 1887. They were reproduced in the Revue archkologique. In the same volume is an excellent summary of the whole controversy, from beginning to end.
