antechamber agrees with that of VI A, it is likely that the whole building also was similar to it. As the proportions of VI A were 11.55 × 9.10 m., we can infer that the length of the hall VI B, which had a breadth of 11.85 m., must have had a length of about 15 m. Its walls are stronger and constructed of larger blocks of stone than are the walls of VI A. The length of these blocks (f in fig. 23) is over one meter, while the thickness of the foundation wall is 2.10 m. Small stones were used for filling up the interstices. The slope of the hill necessitated a greater length for the northwest wall, in order that it might be made to conform to that of the opposite side. Consequently the antechamber exhibits the irregularity of two side walls of unequal length. This building also shows no trace of pillars, since the base of porous limestone, resembling those of Tiryns and Mycenae, which was found in this vicinity, cannot with any certainty be assigned to VI B or to VI A, or even to the VI Stratum at all.
The building VI B faces the citadel wall in such a way as to form in front of its antechamber a triangular space shut in by the citadel wall and the rear wall of VI A, thus making an open court. The whole arrangement corresponds closely to the house of Paris (Ζ, 316), which consisted of an aule (court), doma (antechamber), and thalamos (hall).
24. VI M.[1]The building VI M, which lies south of those previously mentioned, differs both in situation and ground plan from the other edifices. It is built on a terrace over 4 m. high, which was ap-
- ↑ Dörpfeld, Troja und Ilion, pp. 155–161.
