A documentation by Thomas M. Waldmann

Part 1            Part 2            News            News01            News02             News03                                                          Update: 09.01.2017

© The copyright of all pictures and texts is owned by Thomas M. Waldmann, if not mentioned otherwise. Pictures, maps aso. in a word all kind of illustrations may only be used with the permission of the author.

Chapter 2   The maps

The year behind the name indicates the year, when the author of the map visited the cave. The years in parenthesis indicate the year of publishing.

Abb. 2a-1 Plan Buondelmonti Original

a) Buondelmonti 1415 (1417)

The most ancient known map, which isn't really a map but a drawing, was published by Christoforo Buondelmonti, who visited the cave in the year 1415. The drawing has got on the lower right side the inscription "lamberintus". Below this inscription we can read "meridies", what means "noon". On this drawing it means "south", because on the right side "oriens" is written (the "s" was cut), what means "east". Until now, Buondelmonti is the only one, who writes, in addition to a source, about a small marsh and reeds too, which he saw himself: "In viam principalem per M. C. passus fons cernitur juxta quem palus parvula harundinibus cooperta reperitur cum lapide pleno aquarum." (lat. fons = source; palus = marsh; harundo = reeds; translation: "1100 steps away from the entrance there is a source and near to it there is a small marsh covered by reeds and a stone full of water." Unfortunately it is impossible to find out where this is neither by his text nor by his drawing. Besides it isn't clear, if he speaks about living reeds or a product made of reeds.
Source: Christoforo Buondelmonti: "Descriptio Insulae Cretae", 1417, quoted in Eλευθέριου Κωνστ. Πλατάκης: "Σπήλαια και άλλαι καρστικαί μορφαί της Κρήτης", Τόμος Β, Ηράκλειον Κρήτης 1975, pages 211 und 315 (not yet published in the internet)

b) Dumas 1783 (1839)

Abb. 2b-2 Inschrift Dumas indirekt beleuchtetThe second most ancient map from Mathieu Dumas was made in the year 1783 and published in 1839 by his son (see source 1). The inscription of Dumas in the „Trapeza“-room (you will find more about the different parts of the Labyrinth in the next chapter 3, which is the photo-documentation) is the proof, that he was there. The facsimile of the map, which is accessible in the internet, is of an minor quality (see the smallest map on the right). The probably original map of Dumas is in a french archive without any informations about the author (see the map on the left). It has got on top of the left side the archive no. "A 1604" and is accessible in the internet (see source 2). According to the informations from the archive, the map comes from the "house of the king". The numbers and the comments, which Dumas wrote on the map, are completely listed at the end of this chapter, where we will compare them with the comments of the other authors.

Plan Dumas Original 1783 und Abdruck bei Nikolaou und Peponakis

Philippe de Bonneval and Mathieu Dumas were - allegedly - in Crete 1783 on a secret mission for France. Giorgos B. Nikolaou and Manolis G. Peponakis, two greek historians, found the allegedly unpublished reports of the two french agents in french archives and published them 1999 (see source 3). A comparison of the texts of 1839 (source 1) and 1999 shows, that the descriptions of the visit of the Labyrinth Cave are more or less the same (I just can compare Dumas' original french text with the german translation from Burkhard Traeger (see source 4) of the greek translation from Nikolaou and Peponakis, which has very probably many differences to the original text). At any rate the claim is wrong, that the texts from Dumas were unpublished until 1999. Nikolaou and Peponakis published Dumas' map - out of unknown reasons - turned from the vertical to the horizontal position (see the map on top of the right). This can produce missunderstandings, because so north is on the left side and the entrance on the right side on the border of this map. But with the original map everything is clear: the main entrance on the bottom of the map has got the inscription "Première Entrée à my-côte de la Montagne" (première entrée, french = the first entrance = the entrance, by which you first enter the Labyrinth = main entrance). And direction north is indicated by a single arrow on the left side. In the horizontal version, this arrow changed into a cross. The numbers and the comments, which Dumas wrote on the map, can also be a reason for missunderstandings. The No. 1, which you can see several times in the map, has the comment "issue fermée" (french = "closed exit" or "closed entrance") - just a speculation from Dumas' - and the No. 6 "Entrée du Grand Labyrinthe" (french = "entrance into the big Labyrinth"). All the short galleries with the No. 1 - exept one - really could have been entrances to the cave, because they all go direction south and their ends are very near to the outside. But on this map it is drawn false. The part of the Labyrinth, which Dumas called "big Labyrinth", seems to be the same, what Sieber in his map called "isle grande" ("big island", see further below). So the "entrance into the big Labyrinth" means a gate inside the cave.

Sources: 1) "Souvenirs du lieutenant général comte Mathieu Dumas de 1770 à 1836, publiés par son fils", Paris 1839, Vol. 1, p. 247-256; map p. 524:
2) Dumas' original map:
3) Philippe de Bonneval - Mathieu Dumas: "Reconnaissance de l'Ile de Crete", Un rapport secret inédit de 1783; Edition - Traduction - Introduction - Commentaires: Georgios V. Nikolaou - Manolis G. Peponakis; Editions Mitos (1999) (not yet published in the internet; parts in Paragamian & Vasilakis, p. 78-83, Greek; translated in German see source 4
4) Burkhard Traeger: "Das Kretische Labyrinth", Mitos 2005, p. 53-60 (see literature in part 2)

c) Cockerell 1811 (1820)

Abb. 2c-7 Plan Cockerell Original und Internet

Abb. 2c-6 Inschrift CockerellIn 1820, Charles Robert Cockerell published one more map (see source No. 1). Cockerell also left an inscription with his name in the room "Trapeza“ (room of the table). Unfortunately it is really difficult to recognize it. The Hellenic Institute Of Speleological Research published under the leadingship of Kaloust Paragamian a small booklet with more than thousand inscriptions in the Salle Trapeza. Obviously they didn't see the inscription of Cockerell, because it is missing in this booklet. A companion of Cockerell, Frederick Sylvester North Douglas, published in 1813 a report (see source No. 2), which also contains a brief description of the Labyrinth. According to this report, they visited the Labyrinth between april 1811 (p. 9) and july 1812 (p. 29). According to Cockerell's journal (see source No. 3), it was in december (p. 103 and 124) - so it must have been in december 1811. The letters and the comments, which Cockerell wrote on the map - they are not readable here -, are completely listed at the end of this chapter, where we will compare them with the comments of the other authors. The map shown on the left side comes from the book Burkhard Traeger: "Das Kretische Labyrinth", Mitos 2005, p. 94. The map shown on the right side is to be seen in the internet (source No. 1, between p. 404 and 405).

Sources: 1) The Rev. Robert Walpole, M.A.: "Travels in various Countries of the East; Being a continuation of Memoirs relating to European and Asiatic Turkey, &c.", Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme and Brown, London 1820; S. 402-409: The Labyrinth of Crete (communicated by Mr. Cockerell); 
2) Frederick Sylvester North Douglas: "An Essay on certain Points of Resemblance between the Ancient and Modern Greeks", John Murray, London 1813, p. 25-28;
3) "Travels In Southern Europe and the Levante 1810-1817"; The Journal of C. R. Cockerell R.A.; edited by his son Samuel Pepys Cockerell 1903; New York, Longmans, Greene & Co, p. 122/123;

d) Copies of Cockerell's map: Bertuch (1821), Charton (1854), Amé (1857) and Kern (1982)

Bertuch 18211) Friedrich Justin Bertuch published 1821 the tenth volume of his "Bilderbuch für Kinder" (ger. = picture book for children). In the chapter "Vermischte Gegenstände CCLXIII" he writes about the Labyrinth of Crete (see source No. 1). He mentiones that the news are from Cockerell. On the next page you can see Cockerell's map without the comments and without the legend (see the map on the left) and below his painting of the entrance (see part 2, ch. 8). The colours are more beautiful and the text in the map better readable than in the original maps, which I have (see above). So maybe there exists a more beautiful original map from Cockerell?

2) There was an article about the Labyrinth published in the french "Magasin Pittoresque" in the year 1854 (see source No. 2). In this article the map of Cockerell was printed too (see map on the left below this text). Unfortunately the author is not mentioned. But it follows from the footnote, that it must have been the publisher of the magazin, M. Edouard Charton. The outline of the cave was taken from Cockerell without any changes and with the same letters (exept "x", which was replaced by "4") and the same comments, which were translated in french, sometimes word by word, sometimes by the gist of it. The 4 comments, which Cockerell put directly to some rooms and galleries, got the additional letters F, G, H and J. The comments belonging to these letters were written into the legend (but the comment belonging to F was forgotten). 

3) In the year 1857 and 1859 Emile Amé published a great book (see source No. 3). On page 32 of this book, Amé shows the map from the Magasin Pittoresque, which is the map from Cockerell (see map on the right). Amé copied the map by drawing it himself and leaving away the letters and the legend. This map as you can see it here was published in the book of Hermann Kern, "Labyrinthe", on page 58 (see source No. 4).

Abb. 2d-8 Plan Amé Original von 1854     Abb. 2d-8a Plan Amé Original von 1859

Sources: 1) Friedrich Justin Bertuch: "Bilderbuch für Kinder: enthaltend eine angenehme Sammlung von Thieren, Pflanzen, Früchten, Mineralien ... alle nach den besten Originalen gewählt, gestochen und mit einer ... den Verstandes-Kräften eines Kindes angemessenen Erklärung begleitet", Band 10, Weimar 1821: (on the following pages you will find the text, first in German, afterwards in French)
2) "Le Magasin Pittoresque", publié par M. Édouard Charton, 1854; pages 15-16: Le Labyrinthe de Crète;
3) Émile Amé: "Les carrelages émaillés du Moyen Âge et de la Renaissance, précédés de l'histoire des anciens pavages: mosaïque, labyrinthe, dalles incrustées", A. Morel, Paris 1857 and 1859, pages 30-53 (not yet published in the internet)
4) Hermann Kern: "Labyrinthe", Prestel-Verlag 1982/1999, pages 43-67: Ch. 2: "Das Kretische Labyrinth" (not yet published in the internet)

e) Completed copy of Cockerell's map: Prokesch von Osten 1825 (1836)

Vergleich der Pläne von Cockerell und Prokesch

Anton Prokesch von Osten visited the Labyrinth Cave in january 1825 and published 1836 in a thick book a report about it (see source No. 1). Prokesch also created a map, based on the map from Cockerell, which he completed with additional corridors and rooms! In the comparison of the maps, the new parts in the map of Prokesch are marked red. Prokesch don't mention Sieber (siehe below), although Sieber's map was already published at that time. But his supplements down on the left and in the middle match stunning well with Sieber's map. All in all, Prokesch's map is more detailed than Cockerell's map and about as detailed as Sieber's map (this one contains rooms too, which are missing in the maps from Cockerell and Prokesch). The rooms above in the middle with the letter "I" for example are missing as well in Prokesch's as in Sieber's map, the rooms K and N are missing in Sieber's map. On the other side, Sieber put a small room("P") on the right side of the branching "k" ("C" at Prokesch) and his room the most in the west, "La pugnée", is missing in Prokesch's map. The letter "G" in Prokesch's map is marked wrong, according to his own writings: it should be more to the right, near the two rooms, of which the lower one is marked red (room of the battle).
Quelle: Ritter Anton Prokesch von Osten: "Denkwürdigkeiten und Erinnerungen aus dem Orient", Stuttgart 1836, first volume, p. 606-619:

f) Sieber 1817 (1823)

Franz Wilhelm Sieber explored the Labyrinth Cave in the year 1817 with some assistants. He also made a map, using a compass. At home in Prague, he drew the map in the year 1821 (as you can see the figures in his map) and published it in the year 1823 (see the source). From then on, his map was known to be the best one, and people travelling in Crete, who wanted to visit the Labyrinth, used his map.

Abb. 2e-9 Plan Sieber Original

Sieber writes a lot about his walk through the Labyrinth. Whereas some other authors tell us about a source and even reeds, you won't find any such remarks by Sieber! Besides it is astonishing, that Sieber made mistakes with the directions, although he used a compass. Some of the rooms are turned up to 180 degrees! For example, the part far on the right of the top with the two rooms, which are the farthest from the entry, one of them is called "Trapezi", should be turned about 90 degrees to the right. On the other side, the upper left rooms (which contain the "grotte humide") should be turned about 90 degrees to the left (see also part 2, ch. 5b "Comparison of the map details").


The letters and the comments, which Sieber wrote on the map, are completely listed at the end of this chapter, where we will compare them with the comments of the other authors.
Source: F. W. Sieber: "Reise nach der Insel Kreta im griechischen Archipelagus im Jahre 1817", Erster Band, Leipzig und Sorau, Friedrich Fleischer 1823, pages 510-520;,M1 (unfortunately the map is missing in the internet)

g) Copy of Sieber's map: Spratt 1843 (1865)          Update: 05.01.2011

Abb. 2f-12 Plan Spratt OriginalIn the year 1865, Captain Thomas Abel Brimage Spratt published a book, which contains a chapter about the Labyrinth (see source No. 2). As other visitors of the Labyrinth cave, Spratt claimed, that Sieber didn't find all corridors. Nevertheless he didn't create a map of his own, but he published a copy of Sieber's map. Spratt was travelling around Crete as captain of  the H.M.S. Spitfire (H.M.S. = Her/His Majesty's Ship) in the years 1851-1853 and visited the Labyrinth Cave during these travels, as we can read in the second volume of his book (source No. 2, p. 43-56). In the first volume of his book we read, that some years before he was already climbing the summit of mount Ida (source No. 1, p. 5). This was his first journey on Crete (source No. 1, p. 23). Climbing on mount Ida, he was accompanied by Colonel Henry Maurice Drummond, who was a guest of Captain Graves (source No. 1, p. 11/12). A visit of the Labyrinth Cave is not mentioned in volume 1. But the inscriptions in the room "Trapeza" and the following facts show, that they visited the Cave in 1943:


1) Both inscriptions, "T. Spratt" (it looks like a "J" but must be a "T") as well as "H. M. Drummond" show "1843" below the names. 2) The most important detail, which proves, that the inscription is really from "our" Spratt is the line with "H.M.S. Beacon" below the name of Spratt. First I thought this to be the name of a companion - but it is the name of the ship, on which Spratt was an officer since 1836 under Captain Graves (source No. 3). 3) The ship "H.M.S. Beacon" was sailing from Malta to Crete in 1843. Graves had written a letter to Sir Francis Beaufort, dated on 29th june 1843, in which he mentioned, that he had invited Drummond onto his ship "Beacon" to travel from Malta to Crete (source No. 4). Drummond was a scottish ornithologist, who studied birds and plants during his military voyages in the eastern mediterranean region, und after his marriage in 1859 his name was Hay or Drummond Hay (Drummond-Hay), because he took the family name of his wife (source No. 5).
On the bottom of the map of Spratt, there are some interesting comments. To A and B he writes: "Entrances to the quarry, now filled up". The point A could have been an entrance, but the point B is situated in the middle of the hill, so it should be impossible, that B was an entrance! Above the Labyrinth cave there are rock layers of a thickness of about 30m, and the distance to the outside of the hill in the south is also large, I think it's about 50 or 100m - or all the maps are completely wrong! The corridor leading to the point B is really turning to the left as the outline shows in the map. So B can't be near to the outside. So I don't understand, why Spratt made such a comment. The same is with the point C (on top to the right): Spratt writes: "The corridor here is obstructed by blocks of stone and chips; an entrance must have existed in the vicinity." - that's also impossible because of the situation: C is the room called "Trapeza", which is even more inside the hill than B. The same with D, where he writes about "a communication with the exterior" - this is also very improbable, because D is deep inside the mountain. E is the cave, which I called "Labyrinth cave No. 4".
Sources: 1) T. A. B. Spratt, R.N., C.B., F.R.S.: "Travels and Researches in Crete", in two volumes, London, John van Voorst, Paternoster Row., 1865, Vol. I:
2) T. A. B. Spratt, R.N., C.B., F.R.S.: "Travels and Researches in Crete", in two volumes, London, John van Voorst, Paternoster Row., 1865, Vol. II, p. 43-56:
3) The National Archives, ADM 196/1 (informations und sources 3, 4 and 5 from Dudley Moore)
4) Graves to Beaufort, letter, 29th June 1843, Miscellaneous Papers, 27c, Hydrographic Office, Taunton

Abb. 2g-13 Plan Sigalas Original h) Sigalas (1842)

The Greek Antonius Sigalas from Santorini made a map looking really strange in the year 1842. His map ist interesting, but the relations and the directions are not correct. He just gives geometric correspondances: a circle with junctions. At least, this kind of junctions can help us to find the correlations between the different maps. But this map can't help us for this comparison of all maps, because it is too ambiguous. Anna Petrocheilou (see below) mention this map on page 158 in her book "The Greek Caves".

i) Romanas & co. 1982

Abb. 2h-14 Inschrift Romanas et al. 1982A group of the "Greek Cave Research Association" (Σπηλαιολογικός Ελληνικός Εξερευνητικός Ομίλος) with the abbreviation "SPELEO" (ΣΠΕΛΕΟ) with the four members Nizam Dauacher (N. Δαούαχερ), Petros Romanas (Π. Ρωμανάς), Eleni Koniari (Ε. Κόνιαρη) and Kostas Zoupis (Κ. Ζούπης) made a map of the Labyrinth in the year 1982. They left an inscription of their prenames on the ceiling of the left corridor. At several places they put their sign "ΣΠΕΛΕΟ 1982“ (Speleo 1982). One of this signs can be found - almost a tradition - in the room "Trapeza“.
The map was not yet published. I took a photograph of the original handmade map (in private ownership). The following picture shows a version of this photograph reworked by me.

Abb. 2h-16 Plan Romanas et al. 1982 Original

j) Petrocheilou 1985

Another group, members of the "Greek Speleological Society" (Ελληνική Σπηλαιολογική Εταιρεία) with the abbreviation "E.S.E." (Ε.Σ.Ε.), with the four participants Anna Petrocheilou (Άννα Πετροχείλου), Vassilis Kalogerakis (Β. Καλογεράκης), Nikolaos Leloudas (Ν. Λελούδας) and Charalampos Nikolau (Χ. Νικολάου) also made a map of the Labyrinth in the year 1985 under the leadingship of Anna Petrocheilou. Anna Petrocheilou was married with Ioannis Petrocheilos, a pioneering geologist and speleologist and contemporary of Arthur Evans. Together they took part in the founding of the E.S.E. After her husband died, she was the president of this society for 20 years and then a president of honour until her own death in february 2001. You can find some details in each of the two maps, which are missing in the other one, but all in all the two maps are more or less identical. Today, the map of Petrocheilou is the base for the researchings in the cave.

Abb. 2i-17 Plan Petrocheilou Original

k) Revised and completed copy of Petrocheilou's map: Waldmann 1998-2010

Abb. 2j-18 Inschrift TMW 1998-2010When I was in the Labyrinth in the year 2000, I felt obliged to the tradition and I created an inscription in the room "Trapeza" with enough place to be completed with more figures in later years. When I put the letters and the first figures, I didn't think about, where to put them exactly. So today you will find them all across the inscription without any order.

I made a lot of investigations in the Labyrinth cave from 1998 up to 2010. I found that the map of Petrocheilou is good enough to orientate by inside the cave. But it has got some details, which are not quite correct, some details are missing and there are even some mistakes. Everytime, when I was inside the cave, I put a lot of comments in this map, I corrected many details and I completed the map with missing rooms and corridors. I also put the black numbers (from 6 up to 67), which were written on the walls and sometimes on the ceiling by earlier visitors, into the map. The map, which you see here, is the newest version (january 2010) without any comments. It contains my corrections and in the middle of the map the corridor shown by the maps of Sieber, Cockerell rsp. Dumas, which isn't accessible anymore today because of caving-ins.

Abb. 2j-19 map Waldmann 2009

In a special map I marked with red colour all the changes, that means all the new rooms, corridors and other connections. The red arrow means, that this part of the cave had to be moved in the direction of the arrow. The black arrows show passable passages. But these passages are different to the usual corridors with flat ground. Mostly you have to climb over stones. Sometimes it is possible to walk erect, but often you have to bend, to sneak and rarely to crawl.

In a list, I put all the names and the comments, which the authors wrote in their maps:

l) Comparison of the names and comments in the maps of Petrocheilou, Dumas, Cockerell, Charton, Prokesch von Osten and Sieber

Update: 26.01.2010
Abb. 00a Bezeichnung von Räumen, Gängen usw.

The names in the map of Sieber were not given by himself, but by the french consul De Vasse. He explored and measured the Labyrinth together with him - that's probably why his map is written in French and not in German, Sieber's original language. Some rooms are called according to the mythology. Petrocheilou took these names from Sieber - as she said herself - and completed them. But if we compare the names, we will find just four names corresponding (marked red). Four more names are to be found at both authors, but used for different rooms (marked blue). Besides there are two maps by Petrocheilou, which do not exactly correspond with the names. One of the maps, the more detailed one, which you can see it in chap. 2, contains 27 names, the other one only 15. If there were differences in these two maps, I put them in parenthesis. The names by Sieber are taken from his original map, as you can see it in chap. 2. If we Abb. Ausschnitt Plan Sieber: P.Pokoke 1709Abb. Ausschnitt Plan Sieber: 1407look at the names by Sieber, we will find only a few names according to the mythology - most of the names are trivial. Besides, Sieber put some special comments on his map: "R.Pokoke 1739" and the year "1407" refer to some inscriptions - Richard Pococke (Sieber didn't write this name correctly) visited the Labyrinth 1739 and published 1743-45 a book, where he wrote about this. The names by Dumas and Cockerell are taken from their original maps, as you can see them in chap. 2.

Legend (original english) down on the right on Cockerell's map, as you can see it in chap. 2:
(in parenthesis the french translation by Charton ("Magasin Pittoresque" 1854), who took the map from Cockerell)

A to CDEEE to C     the greatest length of ark (?) being about 921 paces  (Charton: "environ 921 pas")
x     Passages where we were unable to penetrate (Charton: "passages dans lesquels il a été impossible de pénétrer")
o    Chambers described by Tournefort (Charton: "chambres décrites par Tournefort")
B    Passages & Chambers which do not appear to have been seen by Tournefort (Charton: "passages et chambres qui probablement n'avaient pas été explorés par Tournefort")

Notes (4 notes) written directly by some galleries and rooms on Cockerell's map:
(Charton wrote in place of the notes the additional letters F, G, H and J into the map. He put the notes belonging to the letters into the legend, exept the note belonging to F.)

Note 1 (N1, Charton: G): very narrow (Charton: "galerie très-étroite")
Note 2 (N2, Charton: J): Passage generally about 8 ft wide & 8 ft high (Charton: "galerie large et haute de plus de huit pieds")
Note 3 (N3, Charton: H): very narrow & encumbered with fallen fragments (Charton: "étroite galerie encombrée de débris")
Note 4 (N4, Charton: F): Chamber called by the Greeks Trapezi (Charton: The legend belonging to F is missing)

map Petrocheilou Dumas Cockerell / Charton /
(Prokesch von Osten) 
(first entrance / entrance A)
(missing on the map) (missing on the map) (missing on the map)
a ΠΡΩΤΟΣ ΘΑΛΑΜΟΣ (first room) (missing on the map) (missing on the map) (missing on the map)
b ΑΙΘΟΥΣΑ ΑΡΙΑΔΝΗΣ (Ariadne's room) (missing on the map) (missing on the map) (missing on the map)
c ΚΕΝΤΡΙΚΟΣ ΔΙΑΔΡΟΜΟΣ (A') (main gallery (A)) (missing on the map) (missing on the map) (missing on the map)
(room of the table stones)
(6) Entrée du Grand Labyrinthe
(entrance to the big Labyrinth)
 - (-)  -
e ΚΡΥΦΙ ΠΟΡΤΟΥΛΑ (small secret door) (1) Issue fermée (closed entrance) (missing on the map) (missing on the map)
f  - (7) (missing on the map) (p) Chambre d’Ariadne (Ariadne's room)
g  - pierres taillées et soigneusement arrangées (worked and carefullly arranged stones)  - (-) (o?) Roche pendente
(hanging rock)
h  -  - E (-) La petite porte (the small gate)
i  - Branche la plus proprement taillée
(the most tidy worked gallery)
 - (-) La tabl oblique
(the big table)
1 ΑΙΘΟΥΣΑ ΠΑΛΗΣ (battle room) (8) E (G)

(n) Salle du Combat (battle room)

1a ΚΡΥΦΟΣ ΘΑΛΑΜΙΣΚΟΣ (small secret chamber) (9) Sopha (sofa ?) x (-)
1b ΚΑΤΗΦΟΡΙΚΟΣ ΘΑΛΑΜΟΣ (descending room)  -  - (-)  -
j1  -  - E (-) Trou du Chat (hole of the cat)
j2  - (10) Partie pleine de décombres
(part full of fragments)
o (-) L’escalier (stairway)
(room of the ceremonies)
 - x (-) chambre des chauves souris
(room of the bats)
1.V. ΠΡΩΤΟ ΤΡΙΣΤΡΑΤΟ (first branching) (11) E (-) (m)
k  - (12) Chiffre de Tournefort / pilier de la Végétation des pierres
([number of the] year of Tournefort / pillar with stone vegetation [what means the phenomenon, that engraved inscriptions get filled up with white cristals, called "végétation des pierres" by Tournefort])
 - (-) L’oreille du Dominique
(Domenico's ear)
2.V. ΔΕΥΤΕΡΟ ΤΡΙΣΤΡΑΤΟ (second branching)  -  -  -
(resting room)
(13) Salle des pilastres
(room with pillars)
o (E) salle du repos
(resting room)
(room of the table)
(14) Grande salle (big room), Sieges (seats), Décombres (fragments) o, N4 (F) Trapezi (table)
m (east)  - Route Condamnée Comme dangereuse (dangerous way) E (-) Corridor de l’union (gallery of the union)
(room of the bats)
(15) Salle Encombrée par les Tremblements de Terre (room encumbered by earthquakes) o (H) Salle du Festin
(room for banquets)
l  -  -  - (-) Les deux pilliers (the two pillars)
3.V. ΤΡΙΤΟ ΤΡΙΣΤΡΑΤΟ (third branching)  - E (-)  -
6 ΑΝΤΡΟ ΘΗΣΕΑ (Theseus’ home) (16) Salle de dôme (room of the dome)
(missing on the map)
(missing on the map)
x (-)


Les chambres des trois amis
(the rooms of the three friends)
7 ΣΠΗΛΑΙΟΓΑΛΑ ((room of the) cavemilk) x (-)


8 (no name) (missing on the map)


m (west)  -  -  - (-) Corridor de l’union (gallery of the union)
(missing on the map) (missing on the map) (missing on the map) (missing on the map) (I) (missing on the map)
9 ΘΑΛΑΜΟΣ ΒΩΜΟΥ (room of the altar)
(today not accessible because of caving-in 1)
 -  - (-)  -
10 ΘΑΛΑΜΟΣ (ΑΙΘΟΥΣΑ) ΝΕΡΟΥ (water room) (17)
 - (-) Sallon fourchée
(splitted room)
10a ΜΥΣΤΙΚΟ ΑΝΤΡΟ (secret chamber)  - (-)
caving-in 1 ΚΕΝΤΡΙΚΟΣ ΘΑΛΑΜΟΣ (central room)
(today not accessible)
(18) D (D) (l)
n (missing on the map, today not accessible) (21) Branche où se trouvent des orniers (gallery with traces of vehicles) N3 (-) La grande porte
(the big gate)
caving-in 2 (missing on the map, today not accessible) (6) Point Captieux (deceptive point) C (C) (k)
o (missing on the map, found and inserted by me)  -  - (-) (i) / Corridor des Comunications
(gallery of comunications)
o1 (missing on the map, found and inserted by me) (missing on the map) (missing on the map) (r) Corridor du Labyrinth petit (?)
(gallery of the small Labyrinth)
o2 (built or cleaned up in modern times) (missing on the map) (missing on the map)
p  -  -  - (-) Chemin de Gortyne (way to Gortys)
q  -  -  - (-) La première grotte (main cave)
r  -  -  - (-) La petite grotte (small cave)
(second entrance / entrance B)
Première Entrée à my-côte de la Montagne (main entrance at half way of the hill) A (A)  -
4.V.  - (fourth branching)  -  - (-) (a/b)
11 ΑΝΤΡΟ ΜΙΝΩΤΑΥΡΟΥ (Minotaurus' home) (missing on the map) (missing on the map) (R) (s) Les grandes Salles (the big rooms)
11a ΠΡΟΣΧΩΜΕΝΟΣ ΘΑΛΑΜΟΣ (anteroom) (missing on the map) x (-) La Salle d’Abord (anteroom)
s  -  -  - (-) Les Cavernes (the caverns)
(deceptive branching)
Vray passage à travers des Roches Entassées (true way through the heaps of rocks)  - (-) (h)
t3  - (5) Passage Etroit (narrow gallery) N1 (-)  -
t2  -  - N2 (-)  -
t1  - (3)  - (-)  -
t (missing on the map, found and inserted by me) (4) Issue comblée (?)
(entrance filled up)
x (-) (missing on the map)
12 ΑΝΗΦΟΡΙΚΟΣ ΘΑΛΑΜΟΣ (ascending room) (20) Salle Recreusée du Minotaure
(room digged out of the Minotaurus)
 - (ev. N)  -
12a  - (19) (pilliers) isolés (single pillars)  - (Q) Retranchement (reduction ?)
 -  -  -  - (L)  -
12b  - (19) pilliers (isolés) (single pillars)  - (M) La Caverne de Thesée (Theseus' cavern)
12c  -  - (-) Les raffrechissements
(place of the refreshments (?))
12d  - (missing on the map) B (O)  -
12e (missing on the map, found and inserted by me) (missing on the map)  - (-) La pugnée (the fist) / R. Pokoke 1739
12f (missing on the map, found and inserted by me) (missing on the map)  - (P) La grotte humide (humid cave)
12g  - (missing on the map)  -  -
(missing on the map) (missing on the map) (missing on the map) 2 short galleries to the
west with "x" at the end
(1 of them with room N)
(missing on the map)
(missing on the map) (missing on the map) (missing on the map) - (K) (missing on the map)
13  - Partie Vaste et très Elevée
(high, spacious part)
B (-) La Fosse (the hollow)
u  - (1) Issue fermée (closed entrance)  - (B) (c/d) Cul du sac (bottom of the sack)
u1  - (1) Issue fermée (closed entrance) x (-) (e)
u2  - (1) Issue fermée (closed entrance) x (-) (missing on the map)
u3  - (missing on the map) x (-) (missing on the map)
v  - (1) Issue fermée (closed entrance) x (-) 1497
w  - (1) Issue fermée (closed entrance) x (-) Les deux bras (the two arms)
x  -  -  - (-) (g)
y  - (2) x (-) (f)
G  -  -  - (-) L’ISLE GRANDE (the big island)
P  - (missing on the map) (missing on the map) L’ISLE PETITE (the small island)
T ΚΕΝΤΡΙΚΟΣ ΔΙΑΔΡΟΜΟΣ B' (central gallery B) fausse Route (wrong way)  - (-) ALLEE TROMPEUSE (deceptive way)

m) Ein Vergleich der Pläne - Gesamtvergleich

Ich vergleiche die 4 wichtigsten Pläne mit einander. Dies sind die drei historischen Originale von Dumas, Cockerell (Version Charton) und Sieber (Version Spratt) sowie der aktuelle von Petrochilou (durch mich korrigierte und ergänzte Version). Buondelmonti schuf zwar keinen Plan, sondern mehr eine Skizze. Da die Übereinstimmung mit den anderen Plänen aber doch einigermassen erkennbar ist, habe ich ihn dazu genommen - als den ältesten gleich am Anfang. Die Pläne von Buondelmonti und von Dumas musste ich um 90 Grad drehen, damit bei ihnen wie bei den andern Plänen und wie sonst üblich Norden oben ist. Alle Pläne habe ich für den Vergleich so bearbeitet, dass nur das Gerippe vor weissem Hintergrund übrigbleibt. Übereinstimmende Teile habe ich mit denselben Farben eingefärbt sowie Nummern von 1 bis 22 eingefügt. Es handelt sich dabei um eine andere Nummerierung als beim obigen Vergleich der Notizen in den Plänen. Diese Nummerierung begann beim heutigen Haupteingang und zählte an sich die Räume. Die jetzige Nummerierung beginnt beim historischen Eingang im Westen und richtet sich nicht nur nach den Räumen, sondern nach besonderen Merkmalen. Wir finden eine weitgehende Übereinstimmung. Im aktuellen Plan gibt es aufgrund der Zerstörungen am Ende des Zweiten Weltkrieges einige Unsicherheiten und Fragen.

Update: 26.01.2010 (nach der Entdeckung des Planes von Prokesch von Osten, einer erweiterten Kopie von Cockerells Plan - mit Siebers Plan zusammen der ausführlichste Plan -, sollte dieser auch in den Vergleich mit einbezogen werden)

Pläne Buondelmonti, Dumas und Cockerell für Vergleich    
Pläne Sieber, Petrochilou/Waldmann für Vergleich
Bemerkungen zum Gesamtvergleich
(ohne Berücksichtigung des Planes von Buondelmonti)

- Die drei historischen Pläne stimmen recht gut überein. Allerdings sind nicht alle gleich detailliert und auch nicht gleich vollständig.
- Der Plan von Sieber enthält bei den Nr. 15 und 16 sowie 21 und 22 am meisten Details oder sogar Räume, die bei den anderen fehlen (22).
- Der Plan von Cockerell enthält am meisten kurze Seitengänge, die bei den andern teilweise fehlen, so unter anderem bei den Nr. 3, 17, 18c, 19 und 20.
- Der Plan von Petrochilou ist insofern einzigartig, als er auch Räume ausweist, die nicht begehbar sind, da sie (teilweise bis zur Decke) mit Steinen aufgefüllt sind (besonders deutlich bei 11 und 11a, aber fast das gesamte Labyrinth betreffend)
- Aus dem Plan von Petrochilou wird ersichtlich: Gänge und Räume sind eingestürzt (gestrichelt): die Verbindung von der Nr. 20 über die 19 zur 6 ist heute unterbrochen, weil sie teilweise eingestürzt ist (es gibt dort aber auch noch begehbare Gänge, die bei Petrochilou fehlten, und die ich einzeichnete). Der Gang von der Nr. 17 zur 19 ist beidseitig nicht mehr zugänglich wegen Einstürzen (der Einsturz bei der Nr. 17 blockiert alle drei Wege). Es wurden aber auch neue Gänge und Räume geschaffen (ohne Farbe): der gesamte heutige Eingangsbereich fehlt auf allen alten Plänen; die Verbindung von 5 nach 6; die Verbindung von 20 nach 18f (Kommentar im Text).

Wichtige Resultate:

- Früher hatte die Labyrinth-Höhle nur einen Eingang: jener, der heute weiter westlich liegt. Neben der Übereinstimmung der Pläne gibt es dafür auch 3 geografische Argumente. 1) Der Abhang über dem heutigen westlichen Eingang gleicht recht eindeutig dem Abhang über dem historischen EIngang. 2) Bei Sieber ist westlich des Einganges eine kleine Höhle eingezeichnet, die er "petite grotte" nennt. Diese Höhle gibt es auch heute noch. Ich habe sie gefunden und "Labyrinth-Höhle Nr. 4" genannt (siehe Kap. 7c). 3) Der bei Ankunft der Deutschen vorhandene einzige Eingang zum Labyrinth war vom Meer aus zu sehen, so wie das heute beim westlichen Eingang der Fall ist: von hier sehen wir das Meer! Heute ist der Eingang allerdings teilweise stark verändert gegenüber früheren Zeiten, so dass er nicht ohne weiteres sofort als der historische Eingang erkennbar ist. Mehr dazu in Kap. 8.
- Das historische Labyrinth ist offenbar trotz einigen Zerstörungen und Einstürzen heute noch weitgehend erhalten (entgegen anders lautenden Behauptungen).
- Der heutige Haupt-Eingang wurde durch die Deutschen neu erstellt (siehe auch Kap. 9).
- Die Räume im heutigen Eingangsbereich waren wahrscheinlich früher bis zur Decke mit Steinen gefüllt und vom Gang zwischen der Nr. 6 und 7 durch eine Mauer abgegrenzt. Sie waren dadurch nicht zugänglich, eventuell nicht einmal erkennbar (ähnlich wie die Räume um die Nr. 11 und 11a herum) und wurden darum auf den alten Plänen nicht eingezeichnet. Diese Räume wurden von den Deutschen ausgeräumt und ausgebaut (mehr dazu in Kap. 9). Letzteres wird bestätigt von Kretern, die während des 2. Weltkrieges im Labyrinth für die Deutschen arbeiten mussten.
- Die Verbindung zwischen den Nummern 5 und 6, die auf den alten Plänen fehlt, ist offenbar "neu", d.h. entweder neu entdeckt oder neu erstellt oder - wahrscheinlicher - auch leer geräumt, da früher mit Steinen angefüllt.
- Die Verzweigung bei der Nr. 17 muss zwischen 1982 und 1985 eingestürzt sein. Auf dem Plan von Petrochilou (1985) ist er nämlich eingezeichnet, während er auf dem Plan von Romanas et al. noch fehlt. Der Zugang zu dem legendären Raum mit dem weissen Schilf und den Wasserbecken könnte hier gelegen haben: ein tief liegender enger Tunnel, in dem man auf den Knien oder sogar auf dem Bauch hindurch kriechen musste, gemäss mehrerer überein stimmender Zeugen-Aussagen. Dieser Raum, zu dem ich einen neuen Zugang suche, fehlt auf allen Plänen. Buondelmonti ist der einzige der antiken Berichterstatter, der ihn selbst gesehen und beschrieben hat. Sein Plan und seine Angaben sind jedoch zu ungenau, um diesen Raum zu lokalisieren.
- Die bei Petrochilou fehlende Verbindung zwischen den Nr. 6 und 19 entspricht teilweise jenen Gängen, die ich im November 2000 entdeckte (siehe Kap. 3h Gang links bis zum Einsturz).

n) Ein Vergleich der Pläne - Detailvergleiche

Anhand des Vergleichs von Details aus den Plänen können wir ersehen, wie genau teilweise die historischen Pläne mit den aktuellen Plänen übereinstimmen. Im folgenden vergleiche ich Siebers Plan mit dem Originalplan vonr Petrochilou.

1) Ruhe-Raum (Raum 12) und Trapeza-Raum (Raum 13). Die Grundrisse der beiden Räume stimmen nicht nur eindrücklich in vielen Details überein, es sind auch zwei der wenigen Räume, die bei beiden gleich heissen. In der Zusammenstellung "Vergleich der Namen und Notizen in den Plänen" haben die Räume übrigens andere Nummern bekommen (dort Nr. 3 und 4). Siebers Plan müssen wir zunächst um 90° nach rechts drehen:

Plan Sieber, Abschnitt oben rechts um 90 Grad drehen

Links sehen wir den Ausschnitt aus dem Plan von Sieber, rechts den entsprechenden Ausschnitt aus dem Plan von Petrochilou. Schon in diesem Ausschnitt ist die Übereinstimmung gut zu erkennen. Wir schauen uns die Räume aber noch genauer an (darunter):

Ausschnitt Pläne Sieber und Petrochilou mit Salle Trapeza     

1a Ruheraum (grün markiert). Hier sehen wir einmal mehr auch die Ungenauigkeiten in Siebers Plan. Mussten wir seinen Plan oben schon um 90° drehen, müssen wir den Ruheraum zusätzlich noch um 53° drehen, damit die Himmelsrichtung mit dem Plan von Petrochilou überein stimmt. Den überein stimmenden Verlauf der Wände markierte ich rot.

Planvergleich Ruheraum Sieber Petrochilou

1b Trapeza-Raum (rot markiert). Nun wollen wir die Grundrisse des Trapeza-Raumes mit einander vergleichen. Auch hier müssen wir Siebers Plan noch zusätzlich um 30° drehen (dieses Mal, weil Sieber in seinem Plan Norden nicht senkrecht nach oben eintrug, sondern etwa um 30 nach links verdreht). Ich bin der Meinung, dass die beiden Grundrisse so hervorragende Übereinstimmungen zeigen bis in Details (neben kleinen Unterschieden), dass an der Identität der bezeichneten Räume kein Zweifel bestehen kann. Den überein stimmenden Verlauf der Wände markierte ich rot (die Gänge markierte ich nicht extra, sie liegen auch an den selben Stellen). Beim Trapeza-Raum hat der Plan von Petrochilou eine kleine Ungenauigkeit. An der rot markierten Stelle ist eine Wandsäule zu sehen (siehe Fotos darunter). Der Plan weist hier aber nur eine Stufung auf - die zweite Ecke fehlt (diese weicht allerdings nicht so stark nach hinten wie bei Sieber eingetragen). Neben den Fotos die Korrektur des Planes. Der Grundriss folgt wohl der Wand am Boden, und die verläuft beinahe gerade, nur mit kleinem Absatz. Doch dann bleibt rätselhaft, wie der Verlauf der Wand auf dem Plan oben links rekonstruiert wurde (mit Fragezeichen markiert), denn dort ist der Boden unzugänglich, da der Raum fast bis unter die Decke mit Dreck gefüllt ist...

Detail-Vergleich Trapeza-Raum Sieber Petrochilou

Wandsäule im Trapeza-Raum

2) Der Teil des Labyrinths mit der Nr. 18 (den ich zuerst für verschollen hielt). Ein Vergleich der alten Pläne von Dumas, Cockerell und Sieber mit dem durch mich bearbeiteten Plan von Petrochilou ergibt, dass der Plan von Dumas am wenigsten und der Plan von Cockerell am meisten Details aufweist: 18a, b und c (gelb) finden wir in allen Plänen; 18d (blau, bearbeitete Säulen-Wände beidseits des Weges) sowie 18e und f (orange) finden wir überall ausser bei Dumas; 18y (rot) finden wir bei Cockerell und bei mir, 18x (pink) schliesslich nur bei Cockerell. Beim Plan von Cockerell gibt es einige Unsicherheiten, da er Raum 18a nicht korrekt einzeichnete. Der nicht pink markierte Ast mit der Nr. 18x könnte auch den Zugang zu 18a meinen.

Update: 24.01.2010 (nach der Entdeckung des Planes von Prokesch von Osten, einer erweiterten Kopie von Cockerells Plan - mit Siebers Plan zusammen der ausführlichste Plan -, sollte dieser auch in den Vergleich mit einbezogen werden)

Abschnitt 18 Detail-Vergleich

Die Grundrisse von Raum 18a (bei Sieber mit "Retranchement" beschriftet) wollen wir noch genauer mit einander vergleichen. Hier ziehen wir ausnahmsweise den Plan von Romanas (Mitte) heran, weil er dort - im Unterschied zum Plan von Petrochilou - gut erkennbar ist. Das war nämlich der Grund, dass mir die Übereinstimmung dieses Teils des modernen Plans mit den alten Plänen überhaupt erst auffiel. Links der Plan von Sieber (um 90° gedreht), rechts mein eigener:

Plan Sieber, Raum 18aPlan Romanas, Raum 18aPlan Waldmann, Raum 18a