THE
CRETAN LABYRINTH CAVE
www.labyrinthos.ch/Plaene.english.html
A documentation by Thomas M.
Waldmann
Part
1
Part
2
News
News01
News02
News03
Update:
28.08.2020
©
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.
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)
The
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.
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.
In
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);
http://books.google.ch/books?id=7jIPAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=&f=false
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;
http://books.google.ch/books?id=R3c2AAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=&f=false
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;
http://www.archive.org/stream/travelsinsouther00cockiala
1)
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).
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:
http://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/diglit/bertuch1821bd10/0090
(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;
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k314378/f19
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)
14
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:
http://books.google.com/books?id=kD8pAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=de&source=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=&f=false
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.
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;
http://books.google.ch/books?id=frMaAAAAYAAJ&printsec=titlepage#PRA1-PA510,M1
(unfortunately the map is missing in the internet)
In
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:
http://books.google.de/books?id=AY7YWowgqksC&printsec=titlepage&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=&f=false
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:
http://books.google.de/books?id=GlpJAAAAMAAJ&printsec=titlepage&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=&f=false
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
5)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Maurice_Drummond-Hay
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".
A
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.
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.
When
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.
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
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 look
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) |
Sieber |
1.E. |
ΠΡΩΤΗ
ΕΙΣΟΔΟΣ
/
ΕΙΣΟΔΟΣ
A'
(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) |
d |
ΑΙΘΟΥΣΑ
ΠΛΑKΩΝ
(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)
(q) |
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) |
2 |
ΑΙΘΟΥΣΑ ΤΕΛΕΤΩΝ
(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) |
- |
- |
- |
3 |
ΑΙΘΟΥΣΑ
ΑΝΑΠΑΥΣΕΩΣ
(resting room) |
(13)
Salle des pilastres
(room with pillars) |
o (E) |
salle du repos
(resting room) |
4 |
ΑΙΘΟΥΣΑ
ΤΡΑΠΕΖΑΣ
(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) |
5 |
ΘΑΛΑΜΟΣ
ΝYΧΤΕΡΙΔΩΝ
(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 (-) |
C
|
Les
chambres des trois amis
(the rooms of the three friends) |
|
7 |
ΣΠΗΛΑΙΟΓΑΛΑ
((room of the) cavemilk) |
x (-) |
B
|
|
8 |
(no name) |
(missing
on the map) |
A
|
|
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) |
2.E. |
ΔΕΥΤΕΡΗ ΕΙΣΟΔΟΣ
/
EΙΣΟΔΟΣ
B'
(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) |
5.V. |
ΑΠΑΤΗΛΟ
ΤΡΙΣΤΡΑΤΟ
(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) |
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)
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).
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:
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):
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.
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...
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)
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: