The reciprocity between architecture and man: Power representation in the Mycenaean megaron-palaces

Master thesis Classical and Mediterranean archaeology

The reciprocity between architecture and man:

Power representation in the Mycenaean megaron palaces

Heleen Ellen Duinker

University of Groningen

Faculty of Arts

Groninger Instituut der Archeologie

January 2014

Groningen

PREFACE

In archaeology, we want to reconstruct human activity that took place on an archaeological site that

was accompanied by human experiences and social activity. The latter two are most difficult to

comprehend for the reason we have to enter the mind of others: even more difficult without ancient

literary sources, as is the case for the Late Helladic IIIB society of the Mycenaean mainland.

Architecture is a great source for this aim, as it is the built-environment in which the social activity

took place. The relationship between architecture and humans contains a certain reciprocity as

architecture is created by man, but also forms the activities and experiences a visitor obtains. There

exists non-verbal communication within a built-environment that create movement, control and

representation. Space syntax is a method to be able to quantify these values. I have combined this

method with an anthropological perspective on power architecture – the representation of power

through architecture – of which the Mycenaean megaron-palaces are an example. In this manner,

the questionnaire can be deepened to gain more information about the social activities within the

ruling order of this society.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Motivation ................................................................................................................................................................ 1

1.2 Research method in brief and scope of the study ................................................................................... 2

1.3 Thesis outline and Research questions ....................................................................................................... 3

2. Historiographical context for the research of the Mycenaean megaron ............................... 4

2.1 Discovery of the Mycenaeans and Homeric ideals ................................................................................... 4

2.2 Ethnological perspective on origin ................................................................................................................. 6

2.3 Architectural development ................................................................................................................................ 7

2. 4 Assigning a meaning. Cultural interpretations ..................................................................................... 10

2.4.1 Socio-political landscape and state formation .............................................................................. 10

2.4.2 Monumental architecture ...................................................................................................................... 11

2.4.3 Kingship......................................................................................................................................................... 11

2.4.4 Wanax............................................................................................................................................................. 12

2.4.5 Wanax-ideology ......................................................................................................................................... 13

3. THEORY FRAMEWORK ................................................................................................................................ 14

3.1 General theories on the relation between power, social organization and architecture..... 14

3.1.1 Elaborating structures ...................................................................................................................... 14

3.1.2 Role of monumentality ....................................................................................................................... 15

3.1.3 Power architecture and monumentality ..................................................................................... 15

3.1.4 Built environment ................................................................................................................................ 16

4. Methodology ............................................................................................................................................. 17

4.1 Integrative approach ........................................................................................................................................ 17

4.2 Space syntax ......................................................................................................................................................... 17

4.3 Parameters to be derived from cells .......................................................................................................... 18

4.4 Beyond the analysis of boundaries ............................................................................................................. 19

4.5 Where my approach differs from the one used by other authors ................................................. 19

5. Case study .................................................................................................................................................. 22

The core of the palaces ................................................................................................................................... 22

The built environment of the core ............................................................................................................. 22

5.1 Pylos: Site description ................................................................................................................................... 23

5.1.2 Discovery ..................................................................................................................................................... 23

5.1.3 Landscape .................................................................................................................................................... 26

5.1.4 Surrounding settlement ........................................................................................................................ 26

5.1.5 Fortification wall ...................................................................................................................................... 27

5.2 The architectural complex of Pylos .......................................................................................................... 29

5.2.1 Introducing a visit to the palatial complex: How would the human experience be in

approaching and entering the palatial domain? ....................................................................................... 30

5.3 Space syntax analyses. Introducing the overall maps. ..................................................................... 30

5.3.1 Axial lines and continuation (axial map) ........................................................................................ 31

5.3.2 Accessibility, connectivity and integration (justified graph) ................................................. 33

Parameters measured for Pylos ................................................................................................................. 34

5.4 Entering the main building (Rooms 1 – 2, the main gateway / propylon) ............................... 35

5.4.1 Description of the material context: What did it look like? What notable finds have

been found? What elements of embellishment were applied to influence the perceivers? ... 35

5.4.2 Viewshed analysis ..................................................................................................................................... 36

5.5 A place of gathering (cells 2 & 3, The inner propylon and the outdoor inner courtyard) . 37

5.5.1 Description of the material context: What did the built environment look like? .......... 38

5.5.2 Spatially, how many people could attend a gathering? ............................................................ 39

5.5.3 What kind of gatherings can be distinguished in a power context of an hierarchical

society? ...................................................................................................................................................................... 40

5.5.4 How can we define the connection between feasting and power structure? .................. 41

5.6 What supplies do we need for these gatherings? The pottery from the pantries ............. 42

5.6.1 Quantities of ceramics (what kinds, how much) ..................................................................... 42

5.6.2 Spatial distribution of ceramics (differentiation between the pantries) ...................... 42

5.6.3 Conclusions on the pottery inventory.......................................................................................... 43

5.7 From courtyard to megaron complex ...................................................................................................... 45

5.7.1 Portico of the megaron (cell 4) ............................................................................................................ 45

Description of the material context: What did it look like?............................................................. 45

Viewsheld analysis ........................................................................................................................................... 45

5.7.1 Vestibule (ROOM 5) ................................................................................................................................. 47

Description of the material context: What did it look like?............................................................. 47

Viewsheld analysis ........................................................................................................................................... 47

5.8 Entering the core of the centripetal plan: the main hall of the megaron ................................... 49

Description of the material context: What did it look like? What notable finds have been

found? .................................................................................................................................................................... 49

5.8.2 Fixed feature elements ............................................................................................................................ 49

5.8.3 Throne placement ..................................................................................................................................... 50

5.8.4 How many people could gather in the main hall of the megaron?........................................ 50

5.8.5 What elements of embellishment were applied to influence the perceivers? ................ 51

Decorative program ......................................................................................................................................... 51

5.8.6 Social activity in the built environment of the main hall .......................................................... 51

6. Discussion ................................................................................................................................................. 53

7. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................. 56

Appendix Table 1: Parameters Pylos

Table 2: Parameters Tiryns

Filmpstrip snapshot 3D model (including shadows UTC +2:00, 14.30h)

Bibliography

LIST OF FIGURES

Fig. 1: Geographical map Greece. Castleden 2005, fig.2.1,2.2 ............................................................................................. 5

Fig. 2: Part of the typology of Greek temples, based on Vitrivius book 4.4 ................................................................... 7

Fig. 3: Part of Müller’s classification. After Müllaer 1944, fig.1. ......................................................................................... 8

Fig. 4: House continuity in (periods IV-VA). ............................................................................................................................... 8

Fig. 5: Concepts of the space syntax method. Hillier and Hanson, 1984 ..................................................................... 21

Fig. 6: Ancient geography Elis. Smith, W,. 1854. Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography, London .......... 23

Fig. 7: Pylos in the regional landscape. In Davis 1998, fig.5 .............................................................................................. 24

Fig. 8: Geographical boundaries Pylian state Hither and Further provinces, Davis 1998, fig.61 ..................... 25

Fig. 9: Site plan Pylos. Ioannis Travlos 1960 ........................................................................................................................... 28

Fig. 10: Reconstruction wall construction technique, by Nelson 2001, fig. 52 .......................................................... 28

Fig. 11: Axial map adapted from Ioannis Travlos 1964, author ...................................................................................... 32

Fig. 12: Justified graph palatial structures of Pylos. Author .............................................................................................. 33

Fig. 13: Control value map Pylos, author .................................................................................................................................... 34

Fig. 14: Part of the plan by Tsountas with applied viewshed fields with an individual marked as a pink

square in front of the propylon (1) looking at the exterior, adapted from Tsountas, author ............................. 36

Fig. 15: Reconstruction human experience with Sketch up software, perspective 3D in front of the outer

propylon 1. Author ................................................................................................................................................................................ 37

Fig. 16: Reconstruction human experience, perspective 3D in front of the inner propylon 2. Author ......... 38

Fig. 17: Attendees graph, adapted from floor plan Tsountas 1964. Author .............................................................. 40

Fig. 18: Pottery inventory within the palace. Whitelaw 2001, fig.2 .............................................................................. 44

Fig. 19: Viewshed analysis. Viewshed fields from the doorway into the inner propylon (2). Adapted from

Tsountas 1964. Author ........................................................................................................................................................................ 46

Fig. 20: Reconstruction human experience, perspective 3D on the inner court looking at the portico.

Author ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 46

Fig. 21: Viewshed analysis. Isovist fields from the doorway into the vestibule (5) and main hall (6).

Adapted from Tsountas 1964. Author .......................................................................................................................................... 48

Fig. 22: Reconstruction human experience, perspective 3D with Sketch up software from the portico (4)

into the vestibule (5). Author ........................................................................................................................................................... 48

Fig. 23: Attendees graph of the vestibule and main hall of the megaron. Author .................................................. 50

Fig. 24: Reconstruction by Mabel Lang fresco cell 46. Lang 1966 ................................................................................. 51

Fig. 25: Human experience of entering the main hall. Perspective 3D. Author ....................................................... 52

Fig. 26: Reconstruction Mabel Lang of main hall megaron frieze right of the base for an alleged throne. . 52

Fig. 27: Reconstruction main hall frieze, adapted by the author for usage in the Sketch up reconstruction.

........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 52

Fig. 28: Axial map of Tiryns, after Schliemann 1958. Author ........................................................................................... 53

Fig. 29: Justified graph palatial structures of Tiryns. Author ........................................................................................... 54

Fig. 30: Control value map of Tiryns. Author .......................................................................................................................... 55

file:///C:/Users/Heleen/Desktop/Doc1.docx%23_Toc378522105





































I

1

1. INTRODUCTION

In this thesis, I want to explore the manner in which power is represented through architecture and

how we can deduce from the archaeological record a possible architectural reconstruction of the

centre of power. The aim of this research is: to find indications of power representation through the

architecture of the megaron-complex in the Late Helladic IIIB megaron-palaces of Mycenaean

Greece. By using an integrative approach of topological, material and theoretical methods two case

studies, Pylos and Tiryns, will be analysed on this matter. In pursuing this aim, the theoretical

principles used in this study are based on how we can interpret and reconstruct architecture

together with social sciences, that is ‘social archaeology’. Accordingly, this is a search for social

patterns related to Mycenaean authority.

1.1 MOTIVATION

The cultural landscape of rural Peloponnese progressed and socially stratified communities emerged

during the Middle and Late Helladic period.1 This was accompanied by the construction of several

palatial structures in the Late Helladic IIIA into the IIIB period. These resulted in the megaron-palaces

of the heyday of this society in the LHIIIB period (c.1300-1200 BCE). These structures suggest that the

communities had a certain hegemony over their territory.

Since the first excavations of these Mycenaean premises on the mainland of Bronze Age Greece,

extensive studies have provided many hypothetical interpretations, both about this society and

about what authority operated from these centres.2 The social organization in these centres is still a

progressing study. The lack of material from the Middle Helladic period (in order to understand the

development) in combination with a lack of ruler iconography and written narratives does not give

evidence to ascertain the social political character of the Mycenaean megaron-palaces.

In studies on the LH III megaron-palaces, it is generally accepted that its tripartite core - the megaron

- served as a throne room for a king, the wanax.3 Despite the lack of tangible evidence, this

assumption is in practice in most studies included in the general reconstruction. It is therefore

necessary to explore the development of the historiographical context regarding the applicability of

this reconstruction.

The main reason for assigning this architectural element to a throne is a possible equivalent example

at the site of Minoan Knossos. There, on the island of Crete, an alabaster throne was found inside the

palatial building. This seat was placed against the northern wall of the so-called throne room. As this

room dates from a period after the fall of the Minoan civilization in 1450 BCE, we may assume that

the room was inhabited at the same time when Mycenaean power might have had control over

Knossos. Linking the site of Knossos to the Mycenaean culture, the Minoan palace at Knossos became

the main analogy to the megaron-palaces of the Late Helladic mainland regarding its reconstruction

and function.4 The ruler within the Minoan palace was named ´priest-king´, due to the connection

between the throne and the lustral basin which are both so far identified as part of ritual practices.

1 Davis, J, & J. Bennet, 1998. Aegaeum 19 106-122

2 This will be clear when the historiographical context of the research is discussed in chapter 2.

3 Rehak 1995, 95;

4 Wolf-Dietrich Niemeier, “On the function of the ‘throne room’ in the palace at Knossos.” The function of the

Minoan palaces. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, 10-16 June, 1984. 163-168

I

2

Inside the mainland palace structures, the megaron is, however, not comparable to the throne room

of Knossos.

The megaron complex, comprising of the aithousa, prodomos and domos, appears to have been the

centre of a hierarchical society. In that case the activities taken place there in particularly would have

represented the power that was exercised from that location. Such a representation of Mycenaean

authority would give us an indication on how the architecture functioned in this social context and

what kind of social activities occurred in the ruling class. The megaron is the core architectural

element of the main palatial building, but what feature elements can ascertain us this structure

represented the power structure of Mycenaean society?

1.2 RESEARCH METHOD IN BRIEF AND SCOPE OF THE STUDY

The ancient structures found during the excavations of the 19th century, were developed into their

final stage in the Late Helladic IIIB period. 5 The palatial structures consisted roughly of a chief

building and several secondary structures that were surrounded by a fortification wall. The Late

Helladic IIIB period was the heyday of Mycenaean society and, in this way, provided for a type of

‘power architecture’ by an established elite. So far there have been three ‘megaron-palaces’

discovered, being Mycenae, Tiryns and Pylos, disregarding other smaller fortified constructions (such

as Midea or Thebes). These so-called palaces were built in a centripetal manner with a megaron

located at its core.6 Mycenae, known for its rich amount of burial remains, is however poorly

preserved and therefore I have chosen not to include this site in any analyses. So, I will analyze the

remains of the sites Pylos and will discuss a comparison with spatial features from Tiryns.

Leading up to the case study, it is wise to consider the history of the study on Mycenaean socio-

political structure and the megaron. Also for the reason that present interpretations have

occasionally kept older explorations in mind. Nevertheless, in my research I will try not to focus on

culture-historical viewpoints, but on rather neutral anthropological viewpoints on social interaction

and power representation in general. With this method, hopefully, my examination of the material

will provide for some innovative perspectives on the context.

5 The excavations of Mycenae and Tiryns by Heinrich Schliemann and Wilhem Dörpfeld (1885)

6 Wright 1994, 49; Cavanagh 2001, 119

I

3

1.3 THESIS OUTLINE AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS

To achieve the goal of reconstructing the role of the Late Helladic main megaron, I want to bring

together all types of archaeological data from the palatial megaron. I will try to extend the work of

other contemporary researchers with similar consideration, whose ideas often were not fully put into

practice or covered only separate aspects (for example iconography or mobility).7

As the material is perceived as power architecture, an attempt can be made to answer the following

main question: How is power expressed through the architecture of the megaron in the LH IIIB

megaron-palaces of Mycenaean Greece?

The subject regarding the megaron-palaces of the Mycenaean Peloponnesus is one already widely

studied. So, first a discussion of the work from other researchers will be used to set a context of ideas

about authority in Mycenaean society and the megaron (chapter 2) and give answer to the first sub

question: How have scholars in Aegean Bronze Age studies been approaching the subject of the

Mycenaean palatial megaron?

An overview of general theories on the relation between power, social organization and architecture

forms the basis for the concept of ‘power architecture’ and the approach to its interpretation

(chapter 3), so answering the question: How does one detect the gaining and remaining of power in

the archaeological material?

The concept of the ‘built environment’ has a key role here. The material found inside the megaron

will be used to analyze the built environment by means of an integrative approach (chapter 4): How

do we interpret a built environment in general and in power architecture? It will not only include

fixed installations with space syntax analyses, but also the inventory of objects as well as imagery and

decorations of the interior wil be discussed, with reference to Amos Rapoport’s concept of fixed-,

semi-fixed- feature elements.8 This will be followed by detailed analysis of the case-studies (chapter

5).

The megaron will eventually be placed in a context of ‘power architecture’ to reconstruct the social

patterns related to Mycenaean power representation in the Late Helladic IIIB society and give

indications on the Mycenaean socio-political structure: in so doing answering the main question as

described above in the concluding chapter (chapter 6).

7 For example, on iconography: Immerwahr 1990; Younger 1995, on mobility: Parkinson 2010

8 Rapoport 1982

II

4

2. HISTORIOGRAPHICAL CONTEXT FOR THE RESEARCH OF THE MYCENAEAN MEGARON

Analyses from different subtopics should be combined to gain more information. We can however

not continue without understanding what has already been achieved on the following subtopics

connecting to the Peloponnesian palatial megaron; origin, state formation, monumental

architecture, kingship and thus what the current state of the study comprises. Therefore, the first sub

question is: How have scholars in Aegean Bronze Age studies been approaching the subject of the

Mycenaean palatial megaron?

The reconstruction of the megaron came about during a non-contemporary period of Aegean studies

in the 19th and 20th century. For that reason, Wright suggests that the potential function, form and

meaning of the megaron, have become outdated.9 In other words, the study on the megaron is still in

progress. Archaeological studies on the Mycenaean cultural context are the last decades extended

with many publications on many different subtopics. These subtopics, however, are derived from the

historiography of the study. Abundant research, from the excavations onwards, provided for many

ideas about an hierarchical society including the presence of a ruler, the wanax. Researchers such as

Michael Ventris, John Chadwick and Klaus Kilian contributed new perspectives on the Mycenaean

culture that created our paradigm from which we work today.

2.1 DISCOVERY OF THE MYCENAEANS AND HOMERIC IDEALS

The history of the study on the Mycenaean palatial megaron starts with the excavations of Tiryns and

Mycenae by the collaboration between Heinrich Schliemann and Wilhelm Dörpfeld at the end of the

19th century. Even though the first excavations at Tiryns took place in 1831, the more thorough

campaign by Schliemann and Dörpfeld provided the public look of a society with all-embracing

wealth.10 The material culture discovered at these excavations created a basis for the study on

Mycenaean culture. In this period the material was regarded in an ideological and chauvinistic

perspective that comprised of associations to Homeric stories from the time of Archaic Greece a

thousand years later then the archaeological remains.11 When the first palatial structure at Tiryns

was uncovered in 1884/1885, Wilhelm Dörpfeld gave the ‘megaron’ its name for the reason that it

reminded him of the description of the Homeric megaron.12 The presence of the word

‘megaron’(μέγαρον) in ancient literature has been translated in multiple different ways. While

Homer (8th century) described with the word part of a residence,13 Herodotus (484 – 425 BCE) refers

with word to a sanctuary or shrine.14 It seems that the interpretation by Dörpfeld was rather from

general descriptions of the setting, such as the following example from Homer’s Odyssey.15

9 Wright 2006, 9

10 Schliemann and Dörpfeld 1885, 1ff.

11 Homer lived around 850 BCE according to Herodotus (Hdt. 2.53), but nowadays attested to a century later;

Crowley 2008, 258 12

The Homer Encyclopedia – Houses: “In one passage Penelope is sitting opposite Telemachos, who is presumably sitting in the middle of the main chamber, “by the stathmos of the megaron”(Od. 17.96)” 13

Od. 17.604;18.198;17.569;19.30;11.374. IL.. I. 396;I.418 14

Hist. 1.47,65; 2.143; 6.134 15

Schliemann and Dörpfeld 1885, 223

II

5

In book 6, Nausicaa - daughter of king Alcinous (or Alkinoös) from Phaeacia - advises Odysseus to

request an audience at the palace with the queen, Arete, before entering the city.

Homer, Odyssey, VI: “[295] Sit thou down there, and wait for a time, until we come to the city and

reach the house of my father. But when thou thinkest that we have reached the house, then do

thou go to the city of the Phaeacians and ask for the house of my father, great-hearted Alcinous.

[300] Easily may it be known, and a child could guide thee, a mere babe; for the houses of the

Phaeacians are no wise built of such sort as is the palace of the lord Alcinous. But when the house

and the court enclose thee, pass quickly through the great hall, till thou comest [305] to my

mother, who sits at the hearth in the light of the fire, spinning the purple yarn, a wonder to

behold, leaning against a pillar, and her handmaids sit behind her. There, too, leaning against the

selfsame pillar, is set the throne of my father, whereon he sits and quaffs his wine, like unto an

immortal.”16

The description refers to the great hall containing a fire, pillars and throne and appears to be the

core of the palace where the nobles resided and received their guests. It seems that Dörpfeld

referred to citations like the one above when he described the megaron as the principal living

quarters of a palace, and hence he assigned it to be part of the residence for a noble man such as

Alcinous in Homer’s narrative.17

Also, scholars have referred to later poets and philosophers who would have referred to the

megaron as the center of the house, such as Vitruvius (c.80-15 BCE).18 Yet again, the word ‘megaron’

does not appear in his writings ‘de Architectura’. In comparing the Greek house to a Roman house,

Vitruvius only refers to the oecus, which is slightly similar defined as what we now consider the

concept of the Greek megaron (Vitr. Arch. VI.7).

16

English Translation by A.T. Murray, PH.D. in two volumes. Cambridge, MA., Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann, Ltd. 1919; http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0136%3Abook%3D6%3Acard%3D288 17

Schliemann and Dörpfeld 1885, 215, 253; Maran 2006, 76; 18

Winckler, Die Wohnhäuser der Hellenen, 120 ff; Robinson & Graham 1938, Excavations at Olynthos part VIII: The Hellenic House. Baltimore.

Fig. 1: Geographical map Greece. Castleden 2005, fig.2.1,2.2

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0136%3Abook%3D6%3Acard%3D288

II

6

While Homeric enthusiasts would pursue the search for proof of the settings as mentioned in the

Odyssey, research on Mycenaean culture developed in other directions as well.

2.2 ETHNOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE ON ORIGIN

While studies on ‘the Mycenaean megaron’ continued into the 20th century, the cultural historical

approach, in which the aim was also to delineate cultures (chauvinism), was woven into the

discussion about and search for the roots of Aegean civilization. In these analyses the question was

asked how the predecessors of Ancient Greece continued to develop using various influences from

abroad.19 The answer to the ethnological question of where the Mycenaeans came from was then

divided into the ‘Indo-European hypothesis’ (migration from the north), the ‘Carian hypothesis’

(eastern migration) and the ‘Cretan hypothesis’ (southern migration).

The first refers to the relatively unknown migrated population from the north (perhaps the Balkans)

who would have introduced the parent language of the Indo-European languages around 2000 BCE.20

In the Carian hypothesis, the originators of the Aegean civilizations were Carians from southwest

Anatolia. For example, the speculations by Ulrich Köhler (1838-1903) connect the origins of

Mycenaean civilization with the Carian thalassocracy.21 Further excavations in Anatolia, however,

would criticize Köhler’s theory as the chronology of the Carians seems to have succeeded that of the

Mycenaeans.22 Lastly, the southern migration would then refer to the migration bands of people who

were by ancient writers named Pelasgians, and were cited as the ancestors or predecessors of the

Greek people.23

The ‘Cretan hypothesis’ gained most attention after Arthur Evans’ excavations on Crete, in spite of

advocates for either of the other hypotheses. In the light of the Cretan hypothesis, Arthur Evans

argued for a Minoan colonization that would have resulted in the Mycenaean palaces. The

connection with the Minoan civilization reappears in archaeological research up till today. There is an

overall acceptance that cultural traces of the Mycenaean architecture lead back to the preceding

period of the Minoan civilization. This is particularly true for the decorative program of the interior

that will be described in a later chapter. Yet, we will see that the isolation of the Mycenaean

megaron complex is in contrast with the Egypto-Cretan hall and could be of northern ethnological

origins. 24 There is still a lack of clarity in the results from the search for the origin of the megaron

concept. In order to summarize the ethnological origin of the concept of the megaron, I argue for

seeing it as the result of several fluid influences from all three directions.

Already since the earliest excavations scholars tried to define how this building unit, the megaron,

came about. To contribute to the search for a definition of the building unit, the architectural origin

of the unit was verified. Where lies the architectural origin of the megaron and how can it contribute

to a reconstruction?

19

Mackenzie, D. 1905 – 1906, 216 20

More on the problems of the ‘Indo-Europeans’ in Crossland 1967, 826 ff. 21

Among other reasons due to the reference in Homer and Hittite tablets to ‘the Achaeans’. 22

Mackenzie, D. 1905 – 1906, 216-217 23

Mackenzie, D. 1905 – 1906, 250 24

Egypt and Minoan cultures were much connected to each other in the period previous to the Mycenaean era; MacKenzie 1905, 230

II

7

2.3 ARCHITECTURAL DEVELOPMENT

Whereas before the finds of the palatial structures the

cultural migrations of the earlier Mediterranean were

ascertained on the basis of linguistic evidence and the

typology of pottery, after the earliest excavations scholars

could also try to define the development of this building

unit, through the architectural remains.25 Where lies its

origin, and based on its origin, how can it be reconstructed?

The shape of the mainland megaron would become a

commonly used term in much archaeological literature to

refer to this shape and it would also become the prototype

for the characteristics of the Classical Greek temple (Gr. naos,

ναός; Lt. cella).26(fig.2)

In describing the development of the megaron, Smith does not limit his description to a rectangular

shape but also includes a possible apsidal ending of the isolated room based on, for example, Middle

Helladic domestic dwellings in Lerna.27 (fig.4)

Baldwin Smith (1942):

“A megaron was an isolated, rectangular or apsidal structure used as a dwelling, at first for men

and much later for divinities. It consisted of a main hall, entered usually, but perhaps not

necessarily, at one end, and commonly, in its developed stage, through an open porch with antae.

It may or may not have been large enough to require interior supports, which when present, were

set in several different ways, in order to carry the roof. It originally had an interior hearth,

frequently circular, associated with it, and was covered by a sloping roof”.28

The development of its design can even be traced back to characteristics derived from round-shaped

huts further back in time, yet that would lead to the wandering from one’s subject. Even so, Valentin

Müller attempted to create a classification for the house-types that preceded the palatial megaron

and would have been introduced by a wave of immigrants.29

In tracing back prototypes of the megara in the architectural tradition he shows a typology that starts

with the simple ‘long room’ including the entrance on one of the shorter sides and would continue in

attributions of partition walls, anterooms, porches and supporting posts. The latter would support

the ceiling or roof when the size of the space would increase.30

According to Müller the design of the long room is a traditional form that can be traced back to

Neolithic Sesklo in Thessaly and even earlier examples would exist towards northern Asia.31 It means

that these early papers in Aegean studies show that the shape of the isolated megaron prototype is

definitely influenced by the immigrants from the North (in multiple phases or one), and thereby

25

Blegen; Schliemann; Müller; Smith 26

Berve, H. & G. Gruben, M. Hirmer, 1963. Greek Temples Theatres and Shrines. NY 27

Worsham, R., 2010. Before Mycenae: Middle Helladic domestic architecture and the foundations of Mycenaean culture. Fig.1.2 & 1.6. Unpublished; Wright 2008, 237 28

Smith 1942: 101 29

Müller 1944, 342 30

Müller 1944, 343 - 345 31

Müller 1944, 342

Fig. 2: Part of the typology of Greek

temples, based on Vitrivius book 4.4

II

8

seems to also be generated from the domestic dwellings in the Middle Helladic period, such as in

Lerna. (fig.3)

All features that do not correspond to the traditional dwelling, Müller declares to be the result of

foreign influences. For example, the aim to clarify civilization’s development into Ancient Greece is

reflected in the assumption that the symmetrical layout of the long room prototype would demand

the placement of the throne at the back wall similar to later Greek temples. The probable placement

of the throne along one of the long sides, as you will see in the case studies, would according to

Müller for that reason be influenced by the Minoan palaces.32 Yet, this assumption will become an

issue of debate when later studies date the context of the Minoan megaron on Knossos to the

Mycenaean period of Crete, and remains a questionable analogy of which a further clarification is

often avoided.

Carl Blegen has argued that Smith’s definition of the megaron is a build-up of many unrelated

structures from different cultures with different dating. Structures that are geographically dispersed

over a great area. He states that Smith would have combined these incorrectly into a single

hypothetical group.33 Nevertheless, Blegen confirms the recognizable features of Minoan palatial

architecture and even concludes that the Mycenaean palaces must have been built under the direct

supervision of someone with a great knowledge of Knossian traditions in craftsmanship.34 Apart from

his determination on the connection to Minoan palatial architecture, Blegen still states that the

comparative material that Smith uses is “incompetent and irrelevant”.35 He goes on to explain that

the megaron cannot be interpreted as an independent unity. It can be useful to contribute

comparable cases of Mycenaean buildings, but “should be kept in the light of their own milieu”.36

32

Müller 1944, 347 33

Blegen 1945, 42 34

Ibid.; and still not an unusual opinion for modern scholars, see Nelson 2007, 153-159. 35

Blegen 1945, 44 36

Blegen 1945, 43

Fig. 4: House continuity in (periods IV-VA).

Wright 2008, fig. 10.3. After J.L.Caskey, 1966.

“Houses of the fourth settlement at lerna”.

Fig. 3: Part of Müller’s classification.

After Müllaer 1944, fig.1.

II

9

Alongside Blegen, Alan Wace also contradicted the previous statement of Arthur Evans on a Minoan

colonization. Wace felt that Mycenaean Greece, although influenced by Crete, was still an

independent culture which developed on its own.

Furthermore, Mackenzie (1905/1906), in discussing the continuity of Aegean culture, proposed an

environmental necessity of a fixed hearth in the centre of the megaron when the architectural form

moved to the colder mainland.37

One could argue that a standardization of the LH IIIB megaron should be criticized or at least

questioned if a standardization if even possible. There are only three known LH IIIB megaron so far. It

seems a standardization of architectural elements are only reserved for building projects of later

eras, such as Classical Greek temples or Roman Imperial building programs.

The field of research was split, with two divided parties being the followers of Minoan culture or

Mycenaean culture. This led to focus research, from then onwards, on questioning the contrasts

between both cultures. The demarcation of cultures was part of the cultural historical approach in

archaeology at the time until the processual approach in 1960s.

Although – as mentioned before – it is not clear where the word came from, the term ‘megaron’ has

become a conventional term since the excavations, to describe a type of architectural structure.38

Werner is correct in saying that the early link made with Homer’s narratives has allowed for the

usage of the term to be easily acknowledged, whether justifiable or not. The rooted term in

archaeology knows multiple definitions. The definitions used in Classical archaeology differ from

those in prehistoric archaeology. Also, they differ between authors, as part of a building or the

building as a whole might be called a megaron.39 In the palace structure, it is a building unit

incorporated in the palatial complex. In the overall layout, the traditional isolation of the megaron

can still be recognized even though it now joins the neighbouring rooms.

The buildings should be studied in their proper context, like Blegen argued for. For that reason we

now focus on the Mycenaean palace type megaron. So far, the Mycenaean megaron is defined as a

large communal hall with both Minoan and Northern influences and with a fixed fire in the centre of

the main hall. These three rooms are situated along a central axis as well as the entrance; the

aithousa, prodomos and domos.

According to Müller, the megaron is connected to the surrounding rooms, yet it distinguishes itself by

its larger size, greater height and central location. Developed from the traditional large narrow type,

this layout gained a monarchical form by increasing the width, adding two supporting pillars in two

rows. It is typified as the ‘palace type’, which ought to have been developed for the purpose of

representation.40

37

Mackenzie, D., 1905/1906. Cretan palaces and the Aegean civilization II. In: The annual of the British school at Athens, Vol.12. 250 38

Werner 1993, 4 39

Ibid., 3-5 40

Müller 1944: 347

II

10

2. 4 ASSIGNING A MEANING. CULTURAL INTERPRETATIONS

Into the processual way of thinking, studies proceeded with a more interpretive approach. Now, the

cultural context was approached in a more scientific manner and thereby Homeric tradition was let

go. More attention was paid in this paradigm to the subtopics within the study on Mycenaean

society: state formation, monumental architecture and kingship, as mentioned above.

2.4.1 SOCIO-POLITICAL LANDSCAPE AND STATE FORMATION

The palace and its inner megaron can be placed in a socio-political landscape that has been a

subtopic on its own. This subtopic perceives the palace structure from the regional landscape, which

is in contrast to the aim of this paper to perceive the structure from its interior.

The phases previous to the Late Helladic III period show development up to the creation of separate

fortified realms by means of political centralization. The palaces in Mycenaean heyday seem to have

basically been the spindle of a state that included an adjacent Hither province in the surrounding

country with smaller villages engaged in agriculture and additional farmers.41

In trying to understand the progression from a rural populated mainland of Greece to a hierarchical

socio-political landscape of developed palace states, again, attention was paid to the social

stratification of these formed states. Questions were raised on how the palace structure was used

and by whom, when either looking at its interior or positioning the palace in the regional landscape.

Enter into the 21st century the theme of developments prior to the established structures remains a

popular subtopic for scholars. Rodney Fitzsimons among others,42 focuses on the question how the

Mycenaean palatial civilization came about, either describing this as questioning its origin, rise or

formation. Most scholars agree hereby that a transformation of the socio-political landscape had

taken place from an indigenous rural population who inhabited the mainland, resulting in palatial

centres by means of peer polity interaction.43 As described by Fitzsimons,44 local elite groups derived

from the indigenous population progressed into several polities with some degree of political

hegemony over its territory.

By the LH IIIA2 – LHIIIB period the palatial societies had established its predominance . The related

material finds of these societies being the subject of analysis in the case study of this thesis. In

analysing the material, we are thus dealing with a government of elites.

The last two decades, survey has enhanced information on the process of this state formation. Proof

being the success of analyzing mortuary remains in which the emergence of social stratification and

centralized political systems towards the Late Helladic period has been determined.45

As the state formation is connected to the governing elite, also the question arises on how social

hierarchy came about and additionally how power is gained within a society. Much research,46

41

Cosmopoulos 2006, 222 42

Wright 2006. The formation of the Mycenaean palace; Maran 2007. Reflections on the ideology of Mycenaean kingship; Davis & Bennet 1999. Making Mycenaeans: warfare, territorial expansion, and representations of the other in the Pylian kingdom. 43

Colin Renfrew: Introduction: Peer Polity Interaction and Socio-Political Change. In: Colin Renfrew, John F. Cherry. 1986. Peer Polity Interaction and Socio-Political Change. Cambridge University Press 1-46. 44

Fitzsimons 2007, 93-94 45

Ibid. 46

Hodder, 1982. Symbolic and structural archaeology; Voutsaki, 1995. Social and political processes in the Mycenaean Argolid; Shanks & Tilley, 1982. Ideology, symbolic power and ritual communication. A reinterpretation of Neolithic mortuary practices.

II

11

therefore, focuses on how people distinguished themselves by means of wealth and its display. I

would like to add that in general the foundation of someone’s status within an hierarchy might

originate from another prime, such as wisdom, religion or lineage. Nevertheless, the display of

wealth - by any type of affluence - is essential for maintaining the position of power and authority

held by the elite of a particular society.47

How does one detect the gaining and remaining of power in the archaeological material? A question

that can be applied in many different contexts which deal with power structure in stratified societies.

2.4.2 MONUMENTAL ARCHITECTURE

Klaus Kilian urged for the analysis of the megaron’s monumentality. He described the megaron as the

core of the palace and seat of power that continued architecturally from the Middle Helladic long

room, but was elaborated in size, architectural details, decorations, and furnishings in order to reflect

daily life in economics, religion, administration and politics.48

As the result of state formation, Fitzsimons, as well as Wright, recently focused their study on the

monumentalisation in the architectural tradition. Fitzsimons states that in studies with the focus on

the origin of the megaron, the role played by other architectural manifestations of elite authority

within the vicinity had been excluded.49 Also, he argues that these studies reflect an underlying belief

that the Mycenaean palace was “an inevitable, evolutionary result of the development of mainland

architecture, i.e., a natural by-product of the processes that contributed to state formation.” He

extends the architectural remains of the process towards the construction of palaces, in order to

eventually conclude that the monumentalisation was indeed a product of state formation.

The practice of elaborating structures and innovative construction techniques, for example ashlar

masonry, cyclopean masonry, plaster etc., are elements that show the progression that took place in

society. In doing so, the structures gain monumental features up to the developed palaces in the

LHIIIA2-B period. Concluding his analyses, Fitzsimons states that in the phase of the developed

palace: “It is now the world of the living, represented the physical embodiment of this new state

authority, rather than the realm of the dead, which is monumentalised.”50 This is an interesting

observation within the reasoning of the people of that society. Not only the power of the ruling elite,

or society as a whole, is expressed through the palatial structures, also the impression or collective

memory of the inhabitants of the mainland is shaped via power architecture.

2.4.3 KINGSHIP

Already during the 1890s excavations of the sites Tiryns and Mycenae, its excavator Christos

Tsountas acknowledged that a monarchical form of government can be recognized clearly by means

of the fortified citadels together with a main building in its centre.51

The beginning of the study on specifically Mycenaean kingship, focused on the contrast between

cultural spheres of Minoan and Mycenaean civilization, causing for pioneers sir Arthur Evans and

Alan Wace to stand opposite each other.52

47

Hodder 1982, 1-16 48

Kilian 1987, 203-205; Wright 2006, the formation of the palaces, 7 49

Fitzsimons 2007a; 2007b 50

Fitzsimons 2007a, 115 51

Tsountas and Mannat, 1897. The Mycenaean Age. Boston and New York, 336. In Thomas 1995, 94

II

12

Firstly, within the search of unravelling this society, the Homeric epic inferred the line of reasoning

and attributed to a possible Mycenaean monarchy. In Homer’s Iliad the power of the kings was

legitimized on a secular basis, in contrast to a religious basis as was the case for the alleged ‘priest-

king’ on Minoan Crete.53 Secondly, the deciphering of the Linear b script in the 1950s with its fixation

on economic transactions, amplified the focus on a secular basis of kingship in Mycenaean society.54

The economic features are factually supporting this hypothesis, together with the minimal sacral

features that are present in the material of the palaces.55

2.4.4 WANAX

The idea of a king as a human figure in this society is encouraged by the term wanax. This term is

provided for us by the Linear B script, which is a syllabic script deciphered by Michael Ventris and

John Chadwick in the 1950s.56 The Linear B clay tablets were found in all Mycenaean palaces, but are

dominated by the finds in Pylos, which provided 108777 fragments, being 89 percent of the total

amount. Even though this seems a lot, the type of material should be considered to understand the

context. We are not dealing with an actual story-line or descriptive narrative. The tablets were not

meant to be preserved per se. They were only baked due to the fire that destroyed the palace in its

final stage. For that reason, the tablets only contain administration of one year, that year, and are

notes for economic transactions,57 which gives us something similar as grocery lists and therefore are

very difficult to put in context. Including these lists, seems to have been supplies for large banquets

or feasts.58

Most important for this study, the tablets concern the mentioning of wanaka. After the

decipherment of the tablets the script was defined as a Greek dialect and therefore the wanaka was

associated with the Classical Greek term wanax (ᾄvαξ).59 The wanax as referred by Homer was now

used as the analogy to argue for the presence of a king in Mycenaean society. This in consequence of

the fact that in the Classical period the meaning of the term was lord or master. Yet, the Classical

term was also applied to Homeric heroes and gods. Use of the word is still under discussion, because

it is not clear to what extent this term specifies a title or function.60

The presence of the word wanax is not the sole reason for the hypothesis of a king. The quantities

from Pylos added tablets with notes on landholding, temenos. Here a ranking is showed and the

wanaka came out on top having three times as much land as the second.61 It seems that only this

assemblage of tablets shows the hierarchical political structure society contained. However, the

tablets give few indications with regard to the character of the wanax.

52

Maran 2007, 285 53

Palaima 1995, 126-127; Maran 2007, 285; among others. 54

Maran, 2007 55

Carlier, P. 1984. La royauté en Grèce avant Alexandre. Strasbourg: AECR. Referred by Maran 2007, 286 56

Chadwick 1987, 12 - 21 57

Ibid., 33 58

Whittaker 1997; Killen 1996; Palaima 1995, 132 59

Chadwick 1987; Killen 2006 60

Thomas 1995, 96 61

Chadwick 1987; Thomas 1995, 97; Nakassis 2012, 6 - 9; Tablets Er 312 and Er 388.

II

13

2.4.5 WANAX-IDEOLOGY

Klaus Kilian’s prominent examination of the role of the wanax in establishing a vision on the

Mycenaean power structure introduced the ‘wanax-ideology’, in which he suggested a process of

social stratification that resulted in a royal family headed by the wanax with authority over his

oikos.62 In this case, Kilian’s perspective on the oikos was the result of a stratification process in the

emergence of the Mycenaean centres by means of “a redistributive economy established through

landholdings and the exploitation of labour.”63 He contributed a theoretical model consisting of a

‘wanax-system’ which over time would be adopted within Aegean studies.

The theory seems to be in line with the analogy on Indo-European communities, in which kingship is

derived from the need of effective leadership in war within a tribal society, making way for warrior

aristocrats.64 Here in reference to the same migrated population from the north as mentioned in the

ethnological perspective above.65 The main focus in the theory is, of course, the establishment of the

citadels or otherwise referred to as fortresses. To accept the analogy there should be more display of

militarism within the archaeological record. With these uncertainties it remains difficult to choose a

relevant analogy. If specific features show similarities, how easily would you make a comparison

between different communities while there is a lack of material?

As the majority of researchers after the 1950s stuck with the secular basis of kingship, there is a

minority of scholars who still insisted on sacral aspects of Mycenaean kingship. For example, Bernard

Clive Dietrich held on Evans’ sense on Minoan colonization. Mycenaean and Minoan religion would

not have differ as much, because elements from Crete were handed down to the mainland. Also,

Leonard Robert Palmer is an advocate of a Mycenaean sacral king, concluding that the wanax was

regarded as the earthy embodiment of a divine and the male companion of the goddess potnia,

based on the Linear B tablets from Pylos.66

To sum up, the historiography shows the extensive research done on this scope. However, Wright

might be right in stating that the hypothesis about the Mycenaean megaron have become outdated.

Elements have stayed within the research findings as if stuck by being glued to it. For example, the

literary references to Homer’s Iliad on naming the megaron, that seem to not exist. What else has

stuck that could use revision? I argue that it is definitely useful to release new perspectives on and

revise the material of the megaron.

62

Kilian 1988; Wright 1995. I assume Kilian in this case refers to oikos as his immediate subordinates, family and workers within the fortification wall. 63

Wright 1995, 63 64

Thomas 1995, 97 65

Crossland 1967, Immigrants from the North, Cambridge University press. 826 ff. 66

Palmer, L.R., 1955. “Mycenaean Greek texts from Pylos”, Transactions of Philological Society 1954, 18-53b; Thomas 1995, 105-106; Maran 2007, 286

III

14

3. THEORY FRAMEWORK

Before examining the data from the Late Helladic IIIB palatial megara, I will outline the theoretical

framework from which I will approach the archaeological record. This chapter will comprise an

overview of some general theoretical aspects of the relationships between architecture, social

practices, social organization and power. I am interested in considering the relation between

monumental architecture and social science, and especially how architecture can create perceptions

for its receivers and expressions from its creators.

3.1 GENERAL THEORIES ON THE RELATION BETWEEN POWER, SOCIAL ORGANIZATION AND

ARCHITECTURE.

3.1.1 Elaborating structures

Architecture does not only embody practical functions, but the structure of architecture also

contains symbolism as a form of non-verbal communication.67 This can be any type the actor wants

to signal to its receiver: in this study it would refer to power. Symbolism is intensified by the

elaboration of the architecture, either perceived from the outside or inside. In addition, the

elaboration of the architectural features in size, complexity and embellishment, as well as the

location and visibility of the whole structure. These features are covered by the monumentalisation

of architecture.

The practice of elaborating structures itself and innovative construction techniques are elements that

show the progression that took place in the community. This for the reason that the degree of

elaboration often goes together with the increase of civilization. New constructional adjustments can

be recognized as a way to emphasize architecture or architectural features, cultural developments

and, display power. Also, the degree of complexity in its manufacture can be included in this

perception.

In this thesis the focus lies on society and architecture, where they are correlated with each other.

There exists dependency between the two, for they arise and are created from one another.68 The

architecture is made by men, but in return either discourages or encourages men to move in certain

ways. The fact is that there exists much reciprocity between many components within the multiple

networks that occur in a society. The various elements interact with each other: food products with

people, people with space, space with architecture, and architecture with people, among other

reflexive connections.

Here we are dealing with power architecture that was developed by the rulers of a society. I prefer to

use the term ‘power architecture’ instead of monumental architecture, because of the emphasis on

the expression of power. In line with ‘monumentality’, the general definition of ‘power architecture’

is architecture that is used as a medium to express certain qualities of their society, such as

prosperity or technical ability, but also cultural diversity and references to foreign trading contacts.

According to Fitzsimons, the Mycenaean palatial architecture is the embodiment of political, social,

religious and economic power, and therefore expresses the domination of the ruling order of a

society.69

67

Hillier and Hanson 1984, 143 ff.; Preziosi 1979, 47 ff. 68

Giddens 1984, 24; Maran 2006, 75 69

Fitzsimons 2006, 2007

III

15

3.1.2 Role of monumentality

Analysis of architecture show that monumentality can be recognized by its distinct largeness,

complexity, embellishment, as well as location and visibility. The location and visibility determine the

dominance of the structure within the urban landscape. A prominent location within this landscape

provides for an immediate recognition by beholders and visitors.

The architecture either creates a sense of group identity or might do the exact opposite: create a

sense of distinct identities within a group. For example, when citizens worked on behalf of the

residents in the monumental construction. Knapp states, that monumental structures can be seen as

physical manifestations of the social order and collective will.70 However, it should be considered

that hierarchical societies contain power inequality. Therefore, I think it is also likely to assume that

the manifestation illustrated the collective will of just the ruling order, which was rather assigned to

the populace.

Part of what monumentality reflects is the existence of a centralized authority that was able to

manage the increased amount of labor (skilled and non-skilled). The presence of monumental

architectural techniques corresponds to the socio-political system that produced the architecture.71

Thereby, it also serves as an advertisement of superior resources and power, emphasizing the ruler’s

role in the social-political circumstances. Alongside these encoded messages in power architecture

about control, it is also a way to communicate nonverbal, or even verbal, messages referring to

cultural identity. On the whole, these messages are meant to instruct to a desired behaviour in

specific contexts of social interaction.72

3.1.3 Power architecture and monumentality

Power architecture and monumental architecture are terms along the same line, as both are

architecture that is affiliated with dominant expressions. A building is designed in a way that it

creates a collective recognition of the residents of the building itself as well as the people in its

surroundings. Its monumentality contributes to this collective recognition.

Monumental architecture is therefore subject to symbolism. Symbolism, however, is a concept in the

study of archaeological sources that is the most difficult to interpret. The reason being, that its form

might not seem logical to us compared to our norms and values. Power architecture has, however,

specific “logical” ways of perceiving. The perception of power architecture has evolved in a way that

people think ‘the bigger and more material, the better’. It can be perceived as common knowledge

and thereby becomes a factor in shaping a collective recognition, so part of the cultural unity within a

society. The attention on power architecture or monumental architecture within archaeology, as well

as in general, makes scholars deal with the question of how to certify monumentality.73

70

Knapp 2009, 47 71

Fitzsimmons 2007, 97-98 72

Fisher 2009, 443; Hillier & Hanson 1984, 145 73

Wright 1994; 2006; Albers 2001; Cavanagh 2001; Fitzsimons 2007 ; 2011; Bretschneider 2007; Laffineur 2007 ; among others

III

16

3.1.4 Built environment

When evaluating the social role of architecture, the term ‘built environment’ is used in the

discussion. This term describes the man-made atmosphere which provides for the setting of human

activity.74 Anything man-made includes the human agency, which is behind the creation of the built

environment. Therefore we are dealing with a socio-cultural concept.

We can divide the relations between architecture and social practices into direct and indirect

connections: Indirect would consist of symbolism and direct would be the structuring. Symbolism can

be traced in architecture itself and its features. The structuring covers the lay-out and patterns of

access and mobility in the building.

In archaeology we try to place the people from the past in their space in their time. As Wright

reassess, it is not simply space we examine, but rather a “place”, and so a place would be “an existing

plenary presence permeated with culturally constituted institutions and practices”.75

We try to reconstruct their practices and movements, based on the archaeological data that is

exactly the residue of the activity, but continuity and dynamics creates limitations of our ability to

understand the intentions from the past.76

74

Maran 2006, 76 75

Wright 2006 in Maran, 49 76

Ibid.

IV

17

4. METHODOLOGY

4.1 INTEGRATIVE APPROACH

From a methodological point, an attempt will be made in two case studies to examine the built

environment by means of an integrative approach. This approach will combine visible perception and

movement with space syntax, interior features, and examining the decorative program of the

megaron complex.

The aim of this study is to determine what kind of social role the megaron played in the prestige of

the rulers. Thus, I want to place the social interactions in the archaeological remains of ancient

architecture. This should lead to answers on my research questions about the meaning and

expression of the built environment as the context of social interactions of the ruling elite. The

integrative approach will be used to gain a comprehensive description of the Mycenaean megaron

complex.

4.2 SPACE SYNTAX

The first method that this integrative approach contains is space syntax. This is an analytic method

often used by present-day scholars and was created by Bill Hillier and Julienne Hanson.77 The

constructed spatial configuration provides for preconditions, inside the built environment, for the

sequences of access, movement, visibility, encounter and avoidance. For that reason, the

configuration of chambers in the premises can order social interaction.78

As mentioned in the theoretical framework, the social organization is connected to the architecture

and ‘spatial configuration’ is one of the contents set within the architecture. For example, chambers

that are highly accessible are more likely to stimulate social encounters.

There is fortunately enough material available for the case studies of this thesis to provide results, of

which the floor plan is the basic source. By analyzing firstly the space by means of space syntax to the

floor plan, a representation of the built environment is made in the form of graphs leading to

measurements of the space in a chart. The space syntax will be applied to the megaron complex and

will approximately include the surrounding chambers inside the main building.

Although general assumptions have been made about social patterns inside the megaron-palaces,

the method has not yet been applied to this extent.79 For example, Fisher’s study on a Bronze Age

building on the site of Enkomi in Cyprus, proves space syntax to be useful to analyze an

archaeological building context.80

77

Hillier and Hanson 1984. Relevant studies for this thesis that also use space syntax are for example Maran 2006, Fisher 2009 and Thaler 2009. 78

Magnum 2009, 11; Fisher 2010, 183 79

As Maran (2006) and Thaler (2006) have made studies in approaching the sites of Pylos and Tiryns in a similar manner, they have not gone into detail or finished a space syntax analysis. 80

Fisher, 2009

IV

18

The analytic method of space syntax in my research provides four separate methods:

1. An axial map that show the lines of access between chambers and therefore show which

chambers are the most prominent within the structure,

2. A justified graph which shows the connections between the cells and the depth of the

separate cells in relation to each other,

3. The calculations of various parameters, being mean depth (MD), relative asymmetry (RA) and

control value (CV).

4. A viewshed analysis from different point within the arrangement in order to create a

perception of the attendees

4.3 PARAMETERS TO BE DERIVED FROM CELLS

The axial map is simply an outline of straight lines between cells, in order to show the shortest routes

within the premises and represent the available continuity for in the layout.81 The assemblage of

chambers is subdivided in ‘cells’, instead of simply ‘chambers’. This distinction is used to provide for

areas that might be connected as one chamber, but can be experienced separately by an individual.

For example, the areas may be disconnected by a boundary such as pillars or a sharp corner inside

the chamber. Yet for the axial map at first, the lines crossing multiple cells display the continuity and

mobility for the attendees to proceed?

The accessibility and the so-called permeability within the premises can be calculated for each cell

and represented in an access graph/justified map as enacted by Hillier and Hanson.82 It is a method

to reconstruct how each cell was integrated in the overall premises. Hopefully, this can be

interpreted as a measure for the significance or social role of the specific cell as part of the megaron

complex. The measurements are relative to surrounding cells or specifically to the entrance of the

premises. Secondly, it will be possible to distinguish patterns of movements within the interior. The

justified graph itself consists of small circles representing each cell, which are connected by each

other with straight lines. Its starting point is a circle with a cross representing outdoors as a single

unit, even thought there might be multiple entrances to the premises.

There are several measurements to calculate within the access map. The control value calculates the

amount of control a cell exercises over the adjoining cells. The calculation would comprise of a

variable divided by the amount of adjoining cells. If this is applied to all cells with the same variable,

it will result in measurements that show the degree of control of each cell in relation to each other.

The Relative asymmetry calculates how accessible a cell is from any other cell within the premises.

Secondly, a circumference of the cells will be created which measure the chamber capacity. In this

way the limitations of social occasions and the maximum amount of attendees possible can be

estimated. According to Fisher, the density of people seated on benches or chairs would be 1.9

persons per square meter, and the density of people standing in the space would be 3.4 persons per

square meter.83 I will attempt to apply these quantities to the cells in the megaron complex. An

assessment should then be made whether adjustments of these parameters are necessary to come

to a realistic interpretation.

81

Hillier and Hanson 1984, 90 – 142; Desyllas and Duxbury 2001 82

Hillier and Hanson 1984, 147 - 155 83

Fisher 2009, 444

IV

19

The third aspect of space syntax is the calculation of visibility within the cells. By means of a

calculation of measuring viewsheds, it is possible to reconstruct the lines sight of the attendees

within the main cells to the extent relevant for this study.

4.4 BEYOND THE ANALYSIS OF BOUNDARIES

Spatial analysis by itself is not sufficient to gather all information on the many possible indications of

the dynamics in ancient times. The built environment does not only consist of walls, but it also

comprises other features. Martina Löw calls these ‘social goods’ for the reason that they are chosen

and placed by people at specific points.84 Within the studies of social science and social archaeology

these architectural features are called after terminology defined by Edward Hall (1966) and rewritten

by Amos Rapoport (1982).85

Their conception of space comprises of a threefold division of fixed-feature, semifixed-feature and

nonfixed-feature elements of the built environment. This concept is very useful, because of its

simplicity. In this manner, the fixed-feature elements cover the walls and thus the layout of the

premises. The semifixed-feature elements cover the social goods. These are every moveable items,

such as the inventory of pottery, furniture, but also the decorative framework of frescoes. Ulrich

Thaler considers these to be ‘unstable-fixed features’, because these are part of the walls in the

layout86. I will discuss them under ‘semifixed-feature elements’, because I think their (significant)

influences are in line with ‘social goods’. The distinction between the feature elements provides a

clearer overview, and the examination of the feature elements can indicate links between cells and

specific social practices.

Finally, the decorative program of the megara will be analyzed and the placement of the frescoes will

hopefully complement the other data to reach to a comprehensive reconstruction. I will sort the

frescoes by subject and placement. Then I consider a link between the two to give indications on a

significant representation.

The combination of the spatial analytical methods previously discussed with the feature elements

will provide for comprehensive data and a thorough analysis would gain indications about the social

role of the megaron and its connection to Mycenaean authority.

4.5 WHERE MY APPROACH DIFFERS FROM THE ONE USED BY OTHER AUTHORS

As mentioned in the introduction, the subject I have chosen is one of much interest over the last

centuries and therefore the course I have taken while demarcating my topic some recent authors

have crossed my path. The methodology/theoretical framework from Amos Rapoport have by many

archaeologists already been incorporated in their works on the Mediterranean world. More recently,

space syntax is also a popular subject for archaeologists now who are engaged in all periods and

regions. This is naturally the result of efforts to expand the boundaries of the archaeological material.

For this reason I could not escape from Kevin Fisher (2009) who used a similar integrative approach

on mansions in Bronze Age Cyprus. His viewshed fields made me persuaded me to apply it in the

incorporation of the fresco program of the megaron complex.

84

Löw 2001, 158-161 85

Hall 1966, 95-105; Rapoport 1982, 87-101; referenced by Maran 2006, 76 86

Thaler 2009, 95 ff.

IV

20

Besides Fisher, Joseph Maran and his colleague Ulrich Thaler have been working on similar attempts

and considerations of combining social science with the architecture of Mycenaean mainland

palaces. I was inspired by Maran’s article on performative space that lead me to pursue that course

in applying anthropological methods used in present day spatial analyses, not knowing at the time

that Thaler was practicing the ideas on the same case study of Mycenaean Pylos.

Even so, my approach is different in analyzes and elaboration of the amount of material. Most of all,

we differ in overall aim of the research, as his is to gain an alternative for accepted narrative of why

the changes took place within the palaces between LH IIIA to LHIIIC.

Furthermore, I have extended the research in the consideration of previous studies as well as

historical development of the research (which is often forgotten) and most of all the material, which

by the latter seems to lack in detail and as yet been adjusted based on compilations created by

previous authors instead of looking at the excavated material itself.

The aim I as well try to achieve here, of interpreting social practices from archaeological remnants

from an architectural context, makes this subject still open to discussion and further evaluation

relevant.

Space syntax, the primary method applied in the following figures, originates in the concept from the

research by Hillier and Hanson, and from which it was further developed. The basics of Hillier’s

spatial analyses had mainly been applied to settlement layouts, modern and ancient, or even on a

larger scale regarding cultural landscapes or landscape archaeology. Still, the method is at times used

for the internal spatial analyses of architecture as well, like I am doing in this thesis.87

In this study, methods (of space syntax) are applied to actually quantify specific (architectural)

properties in order to examine the material context to relate to social interactions,, In the words of

Tim Stoner, “to measure the efficiency of spatial layout.”88

Like Fisher observed as well, in the ‘logic of space’ Hillier and Hanson (1984) do however ignore the

significant factor of cultural context. Their methods discards architectural properties that were

created by the social actors.89 While two different cultural contexts can show similarities in the axial

maps or justified graphs drawn from the layout, it is the material that lies at the site that is significant

to the meaning of the map and might argue for complete different explanations at that. Therefore,

the charts regarding Pylos in the subsequent chapter are examined in combination with the

archaeological material and descriptions of the excavation site from the publications by Carl Blegen

and Mabel Lang in the 1960s.90 In this way the method of Amos Rappoport is also included in the

methodology of this thesis, just as in the analyses the fixed- and semi- features will be discussed as

well. This in order for the study comes full circle.

The spatial analyses should be combined with the presence of monumentality with which I began in

the introduction. These are the monumental architectural features that attribute to the symbolism

and symbolic messages the visitor ought to receive. Besides the manner of perceiving, architectural

features are created in order to screen, control and observe the surroundings. The specific spots

from where attendees were observed can be regarded as ‘passages of screening’. In this way, a gate

87

Fisher in his research on Cyprus, Maran and Thaler 2009 88

Stoner 2011. Spatial layout efficiency: Its important influence on the social, economic & environmental performance of cities. 89

Fischer 2009, 186 90

Blegen 1966. The Palace of Nestor at Pylos in Western Messenia, Vol. I – III

IV

21

regulates and commands the approach towards the next depth in the interior.91 Here, in order to

examine the material context to relate to social interactions, manners (of space syntax) are (actually)

applied to quantify specific (architectural) properties. The sequence I follow show different steps that

result in different types of charts which will be described in the following chapter.

The charts regarding Pylos are examined in combination with material and descriptions of the

excavation site from the publications by Carl Blegen, Marion Rawson and Mabel Lang in the 1960s.

Analyzing the existing environment, in other words the quantitative statistics regarding to symmetry,

size, patterns of movement and amount of integration of specific chambers, is significant to how the

previous attendees were engage with the properties. Just as all architectural structures, this

archaeological context was a place of human contacts either social, political, economic, or any of

these combined.

91

Cavanagh 2001, 122

Fig. 5: Concepts of the space syntax method. Hillier and Hanson, 1984

V

22

5. CASE STUDY

At first sight the megaron palace is a premises that seems to have a puzzling layout. Still, part of the

premises functioned as a main building where power was exercised and for that reason it was

constructed in a conscious way. How would the officials have moved themselves inside this place and

through this labyrinth, while pursuing their office?

The core of the palaces

The megaron complex plays a key role in this architectural expression through the monumentalized

structure used by the ruling elite. The core of these structures appears to be a set of three chambers;

the aithousa, prodomos and domos. The palace was built around these chambers in a centripetal

manner. The chambers were also part of an axial floor plan, where in the case of the palaces in Tiryns

and Pylos they were positioned in front of a court and a propylon.

It was most likely their place of assembly in the palace and therefore it might give us a better

understanding of the Mycenaean power structure. For that reason a further study of the architecture

can give an answer to the question: what can we figure out about the nature of Mycenaean power

and the organization of Mycenaean society through the megaron complex of the palace structure?

The built environment of the core

If we consider the megaron as the place of assembly or presence chamber for the ruling elite, we

should examine the built environment of this architectural structure as a context of social

interaction. In previous studies attempts were made to reconstruct the palatial megara.92 Yet, many

studies have restricted themselves to the use of (culture-historical) assumptions from the time of the

excavations.93 In this study I want to proceed away from the more traditional assumptions, and

dismantle the built environment in pieces to understand a perhaps more significant social role of the

megaron complex. It will, however, not be possible to achieve a complete reconstruction of the

specific human actions that have taken place inside the megaron.

Indirectly, the data as a created arrangement were produced within the cultural ideology of

Mycenaean society. This cultural tradition was most likely used in a political manner by the elite to

be accepted by the populace. In this way it was a supporting way to maintain their ruling position of

Mycenaean political elite.

I do think that the built environment can give us clear indications about the practices which

represented Mycenaean ideologies on authority and power. These practices are connected by

human agency. We need to decipher the encoded meanings in the power architecture. These

meanings would have influenced the social practices inside the chief building, containing the main

megaron complex.

I have chosen the site of Pylos as the Mycenaean megaron palace I will analyze in detail. Additionally,

I will make a comparison with the site of Tiryns. The methods used are ways to reduce a complex

network into a set of components, in order to gain more understanding about this particular

archaeological context. The analyses are described step by step, in order to create a structured

92

Davis (1998) of Pylos; Maran (2006) of Tiryns; among others 93

Schliemann 1878 in Mycenae and 1885 in Tiryns; Blegen 1952 in Pylos

V

23

description. Further, in order to limit the amount of bias in the measurements taken from the site

plans, I used the data from the original excavation publications.94

5.1 PYLOS: SITE DESCRIPTION

5.1.2 DISCOVERY

The discovery of the Mycenaean site Pylos was actually the result of a century’s long search for a

historically known location. As is true for more Bronze Age societies in the Aegean, Homer’s Iliad and

Odyssey interested many descendants to localize the landscape of these historical figures in

Messenia. In their interpretation of Homer’s writings and in complying with his stories, modern

Homerikoteroi assigned the specific location of the palace of Nestor to three possible regions that

would have had a town carrying the name Pylos; in the ancient regions Koile Elis, Triphylia and in

Messenia. (fig. 5) Within modern scholarly, Heinrich Schliemann was the first to explore the area.

Yet, he reported back in 1889 that he couldn’t find any remnants of Nestor’s Pylos which he was so

eager to find.95 This would remain so until a few decades later.

April 21, 1939 Carl Blegen;

(From the first excavations at the Pylos a telegram to a friend in Athens)

“Suggest you come straight here visiting Olympia afterward Kalamata road now practicable Found

Mycenaean palace with column bases remains fresco over fifty inscribed clay tablets Love Carl”

When two Middle Helladic tholoi north of the Bay of Navarino were excavated (in 1912 and 1926),

the explorers aimed for a nearby premises occupied by those who were so richly buried in these

tholoi.96 An expedition was set up with the

collaboration between dr. K. Kourouniotis (Greek

Archaeological Service) and prof. C.W. Blegen

(University of Cincinnati), to survey the immediate

vicinity. From 1938 the regions to the east and the

north were explored systematically with the help of

locals to eventually find masses of stone debris on

top of the prominent located hill Epano Englianos.

Already on the first day of executing trial trenches

in 1939 stone walls, stucco floors, frescoes and

Linear tablets were found. After the discovery of

Tiryns and Mycenae, the debris appeared to be an

extensive Mycenaean architectural complex, Pylos

(Pu-ro), which was the third known ‘megaron-

palace’.97

94

In the case of Pylos: Blegen 1966 95

Davis 1998, 70 96

Blegen 1962. A guide to the palace of Nestor, 3 97

Ibid., 3-4

Fig. 6: Ancient geography Elis. Smith, W,.

1854. Dictionary of Greek and Roman

Geography, London

V

24

Fig. 7: Pylos in the regional landscape. In Davis 1998, fig.5

V

25

Fig. 8: Geographical boundaries Pylian state Hither and Further provinces, Davis 1998, fig.61

V

26

5.1.3 LANDSCAPE

In the Middle Bronze Age when inhabitants began to establish themselves on the hill, the slopes

were cut abruptly into a steep section and the summit was flattened. Rising between 4 and 7 metres,

the surface of the hill reaches a length of roughly 170 metres in an east-west direction and a width of

90 metres. 98 The likely choice for this location to settle in prehistoric times must have been the

dominant position the hill occupies in the landscape. The hilltop had a clear overview of all sides into

the countryside; hence it was possible to monitor approaching outsiders from either the Bay of

Navarino to the south, the Ionian Sea to the west, or the mountainous area to the north including

Mount Aigaleon, and additional rough mountain areas to the east.99 (fig.6)

Excessive geological processes, due to the collision between the African and European tectonic

plates, created in Messenia mountainous areas like the Englianos ridge and in doing so shaped the

location for the settlement of Pylos on a part of the ridge, the hill Epano Englianos.

Together with its visibility, the location contains further advantages. At a distance of about 9

kilometres to the nearest point of Bay Navarino and 5.7 kilometres to the Ionian Sea in the west, its

position seems to be safe enough and yet practical enough for transportation from and to the coast.

Alongside the Englianos ridge ran one of the largest rivers in the area, the Selas river, which ends in

the Bay of Navarino. On the map in figure 6 the river is shown immediately north of the palace,100

another convenience for transportation to the coast.101

The landscape shows the site of Pylos was strategically located. We can state that the palatial

structures were at a place where the centre of a kingdom could be assembled with adequate

protection against unwanted outsiders, functionality in trade and visual dominance in the landscape

to articulate a political position in Mycenaean society.

5.1.4 SURROUNDING SETTLEMENT

As the Pylians established a power centre, they were able to finish in LHIIIB with a rather extended

territory of the Pylian state. Based on ancient literary sources (Linear B as well as Classical writings)

together with survey data, figure 7 shows the possible geographical demarcation of the territory that

depended on the palatial centre. According to the Linear B tablet database, the polity contained two

districts referred to as “This-side-of-Aigolaion” and “Beyond-Aigolaion,”102 nowadays commonly

known as Hither province and Further province. The tablets also refer to 240 sites within this territory

and part of the economic system of taxation commodities in LH IIIB. Survey confirmed 150 sites with

archaeological finds of which 80 are smaller than 1 hectare.

Since the polity contained such territory, what can we say about Pylos’ settlement? Both ploughing

and erosion thus caused the loss of archaeological strata.103 This is especially the case for the slopes

of the Epano Englianos. Because of the erosive conditions of the landscape, it would seem likely that

terraces were built on the slopes of Epano Englianos to stop erosion, and also even out the transition

between the summit and the settlement down the hill on the plains. Yet, no clear arguments for

98

Bennet, J., 1998. The PRAP survey’s contribution. In Davis, Sandy Pylos. 135 ff. 99

Blegen 1966, Davis 1998, xxxi-xxxv, 2 100

Davis 1998, 4 101

Davis 1998, xxxi - xxxiv 102

For example tablets Ng 319 & Ng 332; Bennet 1998. In Davis, 113 103

Zangger, Eberhard, 1998. The environmental setting. In Davis ed. 8

V

27

supporting terraces were found.104 Even so, finds do show there was a lower town for the populace

on the northwest-, southwest-, and southeast side, hence confining the constructions on top to

residences for elites and their subordinates.105

At the time Blegen’s team executed test trenches on the adjoining slopes of the hill. It was only until

the more recent explorations of the PRAP (including geophysical investigation) that indications of a

larger settlement surrounding the fortified hilltop have been detected.106 Against the north-western

slope, to the southeast of the hill and a 100 metres from the fortification wall on the west and

southwest side, walls of the buildings in a well-stratified manner were found to indicate habitation

preceding the period as well as habitation contemporary to the palace-building. 107

Considering the remnants and, besides that, the likelihood of constructions adjacent to the fortified

hilltop, there is enough reason to believe that a possible settlement with stone built houses that

surrounded the megaron-palace of Pylos was up to 20 hectare in extension.

5.1.5 FORTIFICATION WALL

In the case of the two other known megaron-palaces, Mycenae and Tiryns, the palace structures are

surrounded by a fortification wall of cyclopean masonry. At Pylos’ discovery, however, the hilltop did

not seem to be enclosed by this type of large stone blocks. Still, there was a circuit wall dating from

the MH period and remained throughout the LH IIIB period.

As the Mycenaean palatial sites are often incorrectly referred to as ‘citadels’, the settlement

surrounds the wall and not vice versa. Blegen’s team at the time already suggested for a prepalatial

circuit wall of the palatial structures at the north side which would continue from a gateway, yet this

was based on a limited amount of finds. Modern survey data from the PRAP complemented the

information for the suggested original circuit wall.108 The wall is partially recovered on the north-

eastern slope. It was constructed of soft marly blocks, which have also been found in its reuse for

field houses by farmers in the vicinity. Probably, the removal of building material accelerated the

erosion processes wherefore the remnants of the circuit wall are hardly visible today.

What is left shows there was an entrance, perhaps single entrance, through this part of the wall.

From the entrance, traces show a path running up to the summit and oppositely running down the

slope. It measures in width around 3.5 metres and shows in some places remnants of steps. Downhill

the path runs in north-eastern direction precisely towards Tholos Thomb IV (c.17th century BCE). This

link between both locations was immediately associated with a potential procession route between

the palace and the tomb, for honouring the ancestors of elite residents.109

The passageway through the gateway consisted of 5 metre long walls right-angled to the circuit wall,

on each side and may have been roofed. The west part of the gateway still continues into the circuit

wall that is partly recovered. The wall was constructed on rather smaller blocks and was 1.4 metres

thick, which is slimmer than any other Mycenaean counterpart.

104

Zangger, Eberhard, 1998. The environmental setting. In Davis 1998, 6 105

Blegen, 1962. 4; 1966 106

Bennet, J., 1998. The PRAP survey’s contribution. In Davis ed. 134 ff.; Bennet, 2007. Pylos. The expansion of a Mycenaean palatial center. 107

Davis 1998, 58 108

Data attributed by the Pylos Regional Archaeological Project completed in 1996 (from now on PRAP) 109

Davis 1998, 58

V

28

The circuit wall might not have been as imposing as the cyclopean masonry of the equivalent sites,

yet the wall created an enclosure and separated the structures within the wall from those outside of

it. For that reason the inner complex was more exclusive, more controllable and more defensible. It

consequently prioritizes the complex and its location within the settlement structure and was

obviously of greater importance.

Fig. 9: Site plan Pylos. Ioannis Travlos 1960

Fig. 10: Reconstruction wall construction technique, by Nelson 2001, fig. 52

V

29

5.2 THE ARCHITECTURAL COMPLEX OF PYLOS

Now that the surrounding situation has been covered, the focus can be placed on the primary

context, the palatial complex. The structures of the ‘megaron-palace’ are located on top of the hill

Epano Englianos of which the mountain ridge was cut off to create a flat surface.110 These buildings

on the summit occupy roughly half of the hill, similar to the plane of the contemporary structures at

Tiryns. The excavations do not show remains that indicate any construction activity on the other half

of the summit, which seems to have been left bare.111 The structures were erected on the eastern

side of the elevation in a northwest-southeast orientation, of which the main building roughly

measures up to 50 by 32 metres.

Apart from a supplementary wooden framework, the palatial architectural complex of Pylos was

constructed with porous limestone. A total of 94 per cent of the walls of Pylos (fixed-feature

elements) were built up by means of rubble masonry with a considerable variety in size of the stones:

dimensions from 0.05 to 0.65m. The remainder stone elements are ashlar masonry blocks, anta

blocks, thresholds, and doorpost- and column bases: all made of porous limestone as well, which was

easy to shape with the bronze tools at the time. The quarries for the structures at this site are not yet

identified but were probably in the vicinity.112

So, the walls of the buildings had an inner rubble backing and were additionally covered with plaster

or ashlar limestone blocks. This would, however, only rise up to a height of circa 1 metre above

which a wooden horizontal beam would separate this section from the mudbrick113 upright with

wooden vertical beams in between for reinforcement. A possible reconstruction can be made of

these sundried mudbrick blocks, based on an kiln excavated by Blegen and Rawson in the lower

town, which was preserved underground. These bricks measure a size of approximately 0.50 by 0.40

by 0.10 m, and are, according to Michael Nelson, of a potential size for the wall construction of the

palatial complex.114 So, the general appearance of the walls of the structure would have looked like

the reconstruction in figure 9 According to Scoufopoulos, the walls measure up to a thickness of 1.85

metres thick.115 Even though the height of the circuit wall of the site is unknown, it is noticeable that

then the circuit wall was slimmer than the exterior walls of the premises itself.

The palace was destroyed by fire around 1200 BCE which left the limestone blocks calcined. The

buildings were thus found in a destructed phase. As mentioned above, the disadvantage of the

mount is that it fairly quickly was confronted with erosion simply by force of gravity. The erosion

present caused for part of the floor plan to have fallen from the southeast slope, as is the case for

Tiryns at the northeast slope. The predecessor of the LH IIIB premises is still visible underneath by

means of its layout.116

110

Blegen 1966 111

Blegen 1962, 4 112

Nelson 2001 doctorate, 48-50 113

Mixture of loam, mud, sand and water that was also a building material often used in Mediterranean architecture in the Bronze age and knows many modern analogies in the area, but usually too organic to nowadays be preserved. 114

Nelson 2001 doctorate, 58-60 115

Scoufopoulous 1971, 23 116

Shelmerdine, Cynthia W., 1998. The palace and its operations. In Davis 1998, 88

V

30

While the inventory of finds are now presented at the National museum of Athens, the Greek

Archaeological Service have provided for a metal roof over the entire main building of the premises

in the winter of 1960 to preserve the foundation walls, most of the floors and the hearths.

5.2.1 INTRODUCING A VISIT TO THE PALATIAL COMPLEX: HOW WOULD THE HUMAN EXPERIENCE BE IN

APPROACHING AND ENTERING THE PALATIAL DOMAIN?

Continuing from the circuit wall through the gate on the north-eastern site of the summit, a visitor

approaches the palatial structures after passing through the open field of approximately 7650 square

metres. At that moment the architecture is visible from the north-eastern side, where they had to

continue through an open air passageway between the ‘North-eastern building’ and the structure

including room 103. This passageway goes on for about 24 metres in which halfway it makes a right

angle to the southwest. Subsequently, the visitor enters again a large open area (the outer court 58).

As they enter the paved court-like area, it gives a panoramic view over the southwest plain.

Alongside the exterior wall, the remnants of the stucco pavement extend across a distance of 44.90

metres. The individual has to turn around to have a front view of the chief building, as that is the

position in front of its largest entrance. The plans with which the methodology will be applied in the

subsequent paragraphs of Pylos are accordingly shown in a northeast to southwest perspective.

5.3 SPACE SYNTAX ANALYSES. INTRODUCING THE OVERALL MAPS.

In examining how the material context relates to social interactions, methods will be applied to

actually quantify specific (architectural) properties, in other words, to measure the efficiency of the

spatial layout.117 The sequence I follow show different steps that result in different types of charts.

The spatial analyses concern the interior of architectural properties. Hillier and Hanson argue the

difference between settlement structure analysis and building structure analysis as they create

different human experiences. Regarding the internal structure of buildings, they state: “We enter a

domain which is related to others not by virtue of spatial continuity, but of structural comparability.

[…] The relations between interiors are experienced as conceptual rather than as spatial entities.” I

disagree with these statements. Obviously the two contexts differ, yet architectural structures in its

totality do in fact involve spatial principles on any scale. Even in a smaller domestic residence, the

most private rooms are not next to the main entrance where visitors would walk through, but rather

placed further back in the building. These structures also involve the movement of individuals, where

boundaries influence occupants to walk in certain patterns. Except that the different rooms are more

charged with specific meanings and the activities taken place there, more than in the case of the

exterior context of a settlement. The spatial configuration of the interior consists not simply of

patterns of movements (perceived as if a group of sheep are let loose). On the contrary, each area is

reached by an individual with a more evident purpose. In fact, this increases the capability for

archaeologists to ascertain functions to areas within the domain. Yes, we experience buildings based

on analogy and difference between rooms, more aware of our social knowledge - but also based on

continuity and proximity, even if that is with a certain unawareness. Regarding the latter omissions,

this study contains therefore an integrative approach to prevent an unambiguous research of solely

spatial analyses.

117

Stoner, 2011. Spatial layout efficiency: Its important influence on the social, economic & environmental performance of cities.

V

31

5.3.1 AXIAL LINES AND CONTINUATION (AXIAL MAP)

Figure 10 illustrates the axial map I have created from the plan of the megaron-palace of Pylos. The

North-eastern building and so-called wine magazine with secondary structures south of it, are not

included in this map, because these do not seem to be in connection to the ‘main building’ which will

be my main focus.

The following observations can be made about this map. After entering the premises from the open

air passage way, a visitor’s route would start from the open paved court (58). The lines in the map

show a reasonable connection to the South-western building (64 to 81) and most of all in good

connection with the megaron-complex consisting of rooms 4, 5, 6. However, the straight line from 1

to 6 is not in symmetry to the building. It is striking that the excavation publication wrongly proposes

that the asymmetry is “probably of no special significance.”118 On the contrary, symmetry of walls

and doorways regard the permeability of sight. Following the latter line, it can be suggested that -

while passing through the main propylon - it was the intention that the main hall was not

simultaneously visible. Nevertheless, the visitor was still led to these rooms in forward direction. The

axial map indicates accordingly this axis to be the main walking pattern to the megaron from the

outside, especially in comparison to other options of this sequence.

Apart from indoor variations, the only other option to reach the megaron would be towards the

South-western building, but halfway turning to the right through room 12. Additionally, a visitor

would be following from 58 (outdoors) the sequence 63, 12, 11, 3, 4, 5, 6. This route comprises a lack

of visibility, lack of logic and the small size of passageways 12 and 11 would keep people from

following this route to the megaron.

A second observation is the fact that the map clarifies how one pathway surrounds the main hall of

the megaron. This creates a reversed u-shape, without an entrance to room 6. As a result the main

hall of the megaron (6) is secluded from the adjacent cells. It is Room 3 and 5 that seem to provide

for the best intersection and connecting different “clusters” of rooms. Proposed clusters will be

revealed in the subsequent justified graph.

A final remark to be made regards the South-western building. The map shows the building has no

indoor passage way to the chief building and is only accessible by the frontcourt (58) and/or via area

63 (which is also connected by the side entrance into 12). So, based on the axial map, the South-

western building was separate and most likely served a different purpose than the main building.

118

Blegen 1966, 54

V

32

Fig. 11: Axial map adapted from Ioannis Travlos 1964, author

V

33

5.3.2 ACCESSIBILITY, CONNECTIVITY AND INTEGRATION (JUSTIFIED GRAPH)

The second figure I introduce here shows a justified graph of Pylos including rooms 1 to 80 and 89,

90. This means the wine magazine with secondary structures, the North-eastern building and remote

structures north of the main building, as shown on the general map, are again not included in the

analyses.

There are multiple observations to make about this graph previous to the relation with the material

context. Even though this graph looks nothing like the original plan, the graph is able to abstract the

layout. Also, we are able to see a subdivision into clusters of rooms.

In the graph the first bifurcation presents itself at depth 1. However, this is the “outside” and shows

simply the amount of doorways through the exterior walls. Once inside, the main bifurcations take

place in rooms 63, 3 and 44 (in order of depth value). Marked with a blue dotted line, you see

branches of clustered rooms (again in order of depth value) from 63 to 80, 11 to 19/88/21, from 44

to 23/27/32/34, and from 44 to 50. As a result, it seems that these clusters exclude the rooms 1 to 8

(including 57) as part of a formed cluster itself.

Since the latter “formed cluster” is our main focus in the analyses, we should continue from here. At

first sight, it seems a logical interpretation, based on the previous axial map as well as the justified

graph, that the megaron would have been reached from the outside (58) cell 1 and additionally

following 2,3,4,5, to main hall of the megaron, 6. Firstly, the step from the outside to the inside of

the convex spaces 1 and 2. It is already mentioned that this is the first passageway as part of the

main walking pattern towards the megaron and through the exterior wall of the main building at

that.

Fig. 12: Justified graph palatial structures of Pylos. Author

V

34

Parameters measured for Pylos

I have calculated the mean depth values (MD), the Relative Asymmetry values (RA) and control

values (CV) for the floor plan of Pylos, as seen in table 1 (appendix). I have marked the main walking

pattern identified from the axial map and justified graph. The RA value is calculated by means of the

mean depth and measures the integration of the cells. It is an equation - RA=2(MD-1) / (k-2) - that

counts the numbers and depth that a visitor needs to pass in order to enter the specific cell. A higher

RA value indicates the space is more integrated in the premises and less accessible from the carrier,

the outside. The first observation to be made is that – according to the table – the inner court is less

accessible than the megaron. However, as subsequent graphs will show, the megaron is only

accessible from one doorway and the court through different doorways. This might be an

explanation for this result. Furthermore, the control value is also higher, which means a space has

more control over its surrounding cells by means of doorways. The discussion should therefore be

complemented with an additional figure that visualizes the control value of cells in more clear way.

Figure 12 shows by means of colouring in the different cells its control value. In this case, the control

value refers to the amount of doorways through which a cell could be entered. This means the darker

colours are spaces that are: better accessible and more public. In contrast, control can be interpreted

as being able to control a space. In that way, there would be less passage of screening to remain

control over a more private space, and is the case for the main hall of the megaron.

Fig. 13: Control value map Pylos, author

V

35

How these parameters relate to social activity becomes more clear when moving on to the

description of the different areas within the building. A more controlled, accessible, and low depth

value indicates public occasions, as – in contrast – less control, less accessibility, and high depth

within the interior indicates more private occasions within the premises.

5.4 ENTERING THE MAIN BUILDING (ROOMS 1 – 2, THE MAIN GATEWAY / PROPYLON)

Looking at the overall layout, which is from southwest to northeast approximately 87/90 meters,

shows the megaron to be placed (almost) along the centreline of the premises measuring

approximately 78 metres. Roughly along the same axis, the main entrance is located on the

southeast side of the main building’s layout. Even so, subtle asymmetrical lines will display the

difference experience for a visitor as will be described later.

As yet we look at the manner of approaching the gateway. The south-eastern wall of the main

building shows a notable irregularity. As the outside visitor enters the premises from a north-eastern

direction towards the chief building, the exterior wall of the rooms to the right (NE) of the propylon

(rooms 57/52/53/49/50; left-to-right) are 2 metres projected further in south-eastern direction,

which causes a lack of visibility of the entrance when approaching it from the overall north-eastern

direction.

In the case of a gateway from the exterior (in contrast to internal structures), I think it is obvious we

can consider the last note a manner of protection by means of screening or shielding the main

gateway without a decrease of its appearance.

5.4.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE MATERIAL CONTEXT: WHAT DID IT LOOK LIKE? WHAT NOTABLE FINDS HAVE

BEEN FOUND? WHAT ELEMENTS OF EMBELLISHMENT WERE APPLIED TO INFLUENCE THE PERCEIVERS?

The entrance, from now on referred as propylon, consist of two convex spaces combined form a

H-shaped structure with two axial columns. The shape form two mirrored antae, which like a

predecessor of the Classical Greek type temple. This Mycenaean propylon consists of an outer

section (cell 1) and inner section (cell 2), both measuring 4 by 6.50 meters in a square shape. In both

the inner and the outer section of the unit, one column stands in the middle of the antae standing

symmetrical to each other. Although building material (especially the south-western wall of cells 1

and 2) has been removed by seekers in succeeding eras, the lines of either foundation blocks or

pavement are still visible to determine the layout of the architecture.

The “antae walls”(in length) has a thickness between 1 – 1.05 metre and the wall right angled

between the two is a little thinner measuring a thickness of 0.80 metres. In the centre of this wall a

2.40 metre wide opening is the entrance to the complex. The opening of the gate contains two bases

of doorposts and a slightly lowered threshold (itself being 1.40). This opening can most likely be

reconstructed with heavy timber doorposts along the sides and along the top. On the side of the

inner propylon, the threshold shows a rectangular hole with few carbon remains, in which a post

stood that probably made the wooden (obviously lost) door swung on its side. This argues for a

doorway closing off the entrance when necessary. An (less likely) alternative suggested by Blegen is

the possibility of a placement for a socket or pivot.119 Both can be argued against, since both missing

part are more likely to be round to turn on its own axis and this hole shows to be rectangular.

119

Blegen 1966, 59

V

36

Similar to later Greek architectural features, the endings of the antae were highlighted. The endings

of each wall were slightly thicker in width, so that these, and its overall profile, were highlighted in

display. The floor of the outer as well as the inner propylon was covered with stucco and as the olive

tree roots have wriggled their way through the floor, in its latest stage it would have had a blue-grey

surface. Carbon remains and wooden splinters state the timber columns. They were almost

identically according to the material remains. Roughly the description consists of a timber pillar with

64 irregular flutings and a stucco decorative ring of roughly 10 centimetres was placed at the bottom

that refers to continued refreshing now containing between 3 to 7 layers of plaster with different

colours although dominant a red finish. Finally, notable is the sunken rectangular in the pavement

placed left in front of the antablock of that wall. It measures approximately 1 by 0.85/0.90 m and is

suggested to be a base for a standing place of a guard of some kind. (fig.14)

5.4.2 VIEWSHED ANALYSIS

A viewshed analysis on this part of the structure should complement the information for the human

experience when entering the main building through the propylon. Figure 13 shows the isovist fields

for entering the main building through the propylon. Even though the complete ornamental and

monumental display can be seen from standing in front of it, the column prevents the visitor from

looking into the interior. This indicates a privacy for the interior and exclusive for those who are

privileged to enter the domain. The base for a possible sentry is however visible, creating a passage

of screening for the inhabitants. As accounts for all propylaea, it is a barrier that commands and

regulates the approach to the next depth.120

The exterior does not seem to have contained any frescoes apart from a dado course, which is in

some parts of the north-eastern wall is still visible. The reconstruction in figure 14 shows the likely

reconstruction of the overall appearance of the propylon when visitors entered the main building.

120

Cavanagh 2001, 122

Fig. 14: Part of the plan by Tsountas with applied isovists fields with an individual marked as a pink square

in front of the propylon (1) looking at the exterior, adapted from Tsountas, author

V

37

Fig. 15: Reconstruction human experience with Sketch up software, perspective 3D in front of the outer

propylon 1. Author

5.5 A PLACE OF GATHERING (CELLS 2 & 3, THE INNER PROPYLON AND THE OUTDOOR INNER

COURTYARD)

Passing the guarded door, the visitor stands in the inner propylon, the second half of the H-shaped

form and inside the enclosed premises. In contrast to the more plain exterior, the elaborate

decorative program of this side of the propylon shows someone has entered the domain of high

Pylian value. Apart from the dado decorations - ornamental abstract shapes painted on the lower

band of the wall beneath the wooden beam - the fresco reconstruction analyses by Mabel Lang

provided for multiple narrative representations.

The important aspects of the decorative program of frescoes are: the placement in specific rooms,

the subject(s) that is depicted and coherent themes, the size of the subject, and the orientation it has

within the location chosen for it. Additionally you might interpret certain colours as significant, but

that is rather a detail within the subject of the depiction.

The plaster fragments are not in situ, but have fallen down during the destructive fire, of which most

have been found in front of the north-eastern wall. There has been no consideration that these

fragments might have been fallen from a hypothetical upper floor above the propylon.

The decorative program, as reconstructed by Mabel Lang, shows figures of horses in a natural

environment, as well as two women seated across each other. The decorative themes almost show a

quite peaceful – not an intimidating – setting that might suggest its setting the inhabitant wanted to

create. (fig.15)

V

38

5.5.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE MATERIAL CONTEXT: WHAT DID THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT LOOK LIKE?

The propylon continues in a large rectangular area that measures approximately 12.90 meters in

north-eastern direction and 7.30 meters in south-western direction. Based firstly on the lack of tiles

and wall remains, it was an open court. The entire court was finished with a stucco layer and was

given a slight tilt in order for the rain to flow to the southern corner. Here the water ran off through a

well that was made from a stone slab with three holes into the main drainage system southwest of

this.121

The wall surrounding the court consisted of porous blocks of various sizes. The construction

technique indicated that the walls displayed beams of the wooden framework and plaster of which

part of the dado course remains on the north-eastern side of the enclosure. Also, one preserved

fragment of an architectural facade was found near the propylon, indicating that the upright of the

court also had narrative representations. Missing parts are the result of the removal of material in

subsequent periods for other usages. In these areas only migma that had been melted together by

the destructive fire remains, but still makes the outline of the court visible today.

Despite of the decorative wall treatment, the floor does not seem to have been decorated. There

are, however, multiple layers of stucco visible (yet only four). Upper finishing of stucco from the floor

is only slightly visible in the easterly corner. A break in the pavement near the southern corner,

allowed for the exploration of its structure and thus shows that the thickness of the floor containing

four successive coats and varying in thickness between 0.065 m to 0.12 m. Possible situations for

these contents are: 1) different construction phases, 2) all four layers constructed at ones, 3) other

layers were removed but the last four were kept for whatever reason of laxity. Therefore, I would still

consider the court to be place of gathering for rather large groups.

The remaining features show the area to function as an open court. In the case of Pylos, it is difficult

to examine the actual archaeological remains. The plan used in the excavation reports made by

121

Blegen 1966, 63

Fig. 16: Reconstruction human experience, perspective 3D in front of the inner propylon 2. Author

V

39

Ioannis Travlos (1960) sufficiently consists of reconstructed wall structures. In the detailed

descriptions by Blegen’s publications you will read that much of the material is gone. One can only

assume that the plan was based on the contour lines of migma and foundations.

The absence of the roof, as well as human activity on its surface, of course would give the necessary

wear over time. The context shows four layers in site. Considering the extent of LHIIIA2 to LHIIIB to

be a rounded 200 years, the four layers seem to be rather limited for an abundance of human

activity. However, I do like to consider this as a place for gatherings and feasting.

5.5.2 SPATIALLY, HOW MANY PEOPLE COULD ATTEND A GATHERING?

Main requirements for feasting are the topological properties of the space. For that reason, I created

an ‘attendees graph’. This is actually simply an outline of the proxemics distances. For this I used

Fisher’s references to Neufert and Neufert 2000.122

For the open court, it is not only applied to cell 3, but also to the adjacent cells that were within the

enclosure, but demarcated by columns. These are 2, 4 and 44. The maximum density of activities on

the court should include the adjacent cells, because individuals standing there were also able to

experience what happened on the court. As mentioned in the methodology the proxemic distances

to calculate the density of people is: 1.9 individuals per square metre for those seated and 3.4

individuals per square metre for those standing.123 I have chosen to apply 1.9 per square metre for

the reason that I calculate a maximum amount of attendees. In that case, the result will be a group of

people that can either stand or sit. Figure 16 thus shows a grid of 1,06 mm2 based on the following

formula:

1.9 person per 1,0 m2

1/1.9 = 0.53 m2 for one person which means 530 mm2

We are dealing with a scale of 2 : 1000

(2 x 530) / 1000 = 1.06 mm, which results in a grid of 1.06 mm2

Based on the measurements in figure 16, it is possible to calculate the following maximum density:

cell max. density

3 322

2 82

4 67

44 138

Total 609

122

Fisher 2009, 444: Neufert and Neufert 2000, 16-17 123

Fisher 2009, 444

V

40

In theory there could stand a maximum of 609 people in the court together with the enjoining open

areas. Yet, there are more considerations to be made for the social activities taken place in this area

within the architectural complex.

5.5.3 WHAT KIND OF GATHERINGS CAN BE DISTINGUISHED IN A POWER CONTEXT OF AN HIERARCHICAL

SOCIETY?

We can’t help studying the material with contemporary assumptions. One of which is that great

amounts pottery are associated with feasting. The presence of feasting is complemented in the

context presence here by means of iconography, grave goods, and records in the Linear B tablets.124

Especially the Linear B tablets, the tablets from Pylos made scholars conclude these administrate the

provision of state-organized banquets that is large-scale feasting.125 Nevertheless, the evidence does

not suggest either a secular or religious character.

Deposits of bones examined from at least 10 cattle in one deposit argue for one episode of burned

animal sacrifice in a context of feasting. The remains are suggested to be placed in cell 7,126 which I

would agree upon, as it is obviously a practice to be done in open air instead of this 4 by 4 metre cell.

Based on the justified graph, I would suggest this might have taken place on the open court 58, some

metres south-eastern of the gateway where the court might not have been paved. The outer court is

124

For linear B analyses on feasting see Nakassis 2012. Hesperia 81, 1-30; Palaima, 2004. Hesperia 73, 97 - 126 125

Stocker and Davis 2004. Hesperia 73, 59; in reference to Killen 1994. "Thebes Sealings, Knossos tablets, and Mycenaean State Banquets," BICS 39, 70; Palaima, 2004. Hesperia 73, 98 - 101 126

Stocker and Davis 2004. Hesperia 73, 59 - 73

Fig. 17: Attendees graph, adapted from floor plan Tsountas 1964. Author

V

41

practically adjacent to cell 7, and this would explain the doorway to the exterior rather than the

interior of the building.

However, the practice of feasting by means of consuming does not necessarily has to be at the same

enclosed areas as burned sacrifice, and I like to argue in the forthcoming paragraphs the potential

areas inside the chief building for feasting activities related to power, argued by means of spatial

analysis as well as the established built environment.

From my view, feasting is either public or private, which can be considered as communal versus

exclusive feasting. The latter meaning smaller groups and of a more prestige degree. Firstly, public

occasions would be highly controlled, but at the same time highly accessible, so having a high control

value. The topological measurements should be higher than other areas (depending of course on the

degree of transparency of the occasion), in other words, a larger area. The space should be shallow

and close to the exterior, which means having a low (mean) depth value. Finally, wider doorways can

indicate the large passageways for more people to get through. An alternative for the latter would be

many smaller doorways.

On the contrary, private occasions should be on the one hand controlled, yet not intruded by

outsiders. The control value goes together with the degree of accessibility. For that reason it would

be related to a low control value. The size is an indication for the maximum amount of attendees, yet

not a minimum amount. The size of the space is therefore not of the most importance, however, a

smaller room for feasting is either way more private.

The inner court would therefore be a suitable place for more communal feasts, for example banquets

as referred to in the Linear B tablets. It has a high control value (fig.11), low (mean) dept value, and

although the main entranceway is only 1,40 metres in width, the area if accessible from multiple

passageways, from the exterior trough cell 12 into 11 and from the interior through cell 44.

5.5.4 HOW CAN WE DEFINE THE CONNECTION BETWEEN FEASTING AND POWER STRUCTURE?

Wright refers to the ethnographical study of feasting and states three elements we learn from this:

“Feasts occur throughout the year; They are performed by every social group – from family to an

entire society – by kin, moiety and sodality, and individuals acting through all kinds of personae; and,

the occasions include any event from birth to death that people choose to elaborate.”127 Feasting

itself is for that reason difficult (if not impossible) to give a precise definition. A definition, however,

is not necessary here. Feasting does, however, has general characteristics of different contexts. Since

this is a study of a power context and examination of the built environment, I like to focus on the

practical relations between feasting and power structure. Social interactions by means of feasting

cause for alliances as well as differentiations between people: it is a manner of social reciprocity.

Brian Hayden list the practical interests from an ethnographical perspective why feasting would

occur in social life, which I borrowed and consider relevant to be discussed here.128 Practical benefits

that are the result of feasting and relevant in this context are the following: “(1) To mobilize labour;

(2) To create cooperative relationships within groups, or, in contrast, exclude other groups; (3) To

create alliances between different social groups; (4) To invest surpluses and generate profits; (5) To

127

Wright 2004, Hesperia 73. 125 128

Hayden, B. 2001. "Fabulous Feasts: A Prolegomenon to the importance of feasting,” in Dietler and Hayden 2001, 28 – 35; He lists nine benefits of which I have made a selection.

V

42

attract desirable mates, labour, allies, or wealth exchanges by advertising the success of the group;

(6) To create political power (control over resources and labour) through an established network of

reciprocal debts; (7) To extract surplus produce from the general populace for elite use; (8) To solicit

favours; (9) To compensate for transgressions.”129

The state would accommodate communal feasts for these beneficial reasons. The first on creating

cooperative relations within a group can also refer to cultural identity and “keeping society satisfied”.

The leading elite as well as its subordinates want a society that runs successfully. However, most of

the reasons described above refer to that argument.

Only 5 and 6 emphasize maintenance of the ruler’s role. The ruling elite would advertise its success

also towards the inhabitants of the settlements, besides its ruling position in the regional landscape.

It is reasonable to consider that the seat of power stabilizes its society, whether this is based on

social reciprocity (inside or outside the community) or stimulating the economy by means of

delegating production and consumption of the provision.

5.6 WHAT SUPPLIES DO WE NEED FOR THESE GATHERINGS? THE POTTERY FROM THE PANTRIES

5.6.1 Quantities of ceramics (what kinds, how much)

Pottery is a product of human agency, as these were produced and consumed.130 As mentioned

above, research shows that the large quantities indicate the presence for large banquets, based on

Linear B supply lists.131 The vessels stored inside the palace were used for activities inside the palace,

not for trade or other kinds of distribution.132 I have shown the quantities of ceramics in the table 1, a

clever table I have borrowed from Whitelaw who has perfectly clear presented the situation, in

which is shown both the quantities as well as the distribution of the finds inside the main building.

Here, you see of the totality of 8540 vessels, most (94.8 %) have been found in the now commonly

known pantries/pantry rooms (9, 18-22, 60, 67 and 68).133

5.6.2 Spatial distribution of ceramics (differentiation between the pantries)

The distinction between the different assemblages from different pantries can indicate different

functions, consumers, and contexts. Indeed, the representation of different types of vessels in each

pantry suggests that they had quite different roles, and served different functions and/or clientele.

(fig.17)

Whitelaw suggests the following hypothetical situation for room 60. Based on the types of forms

found - wider range of vessels: incl. bowls, cups, kylikes, tankards, jugs, amphorae, small jars, kraters,

large bowls, dippers and ladles, among others - the assemblage of drinking ware in room 60 would

complement the coarse ware assemblages of room 67-68. This would create a link to assign the

inventory to activities in this part of the premises for example on area 63, as Shelmerdine suggests.134

129

Wright 2004, 126 130

Ibid., 122 131

Nakassis 2012 132

Whitelaw, 2001, 74 133

Ibid., 2001. 52-62 134

Shelmerdine 1998, 84, 88

V

43

5.6.3 Conclusions on the pottery inventory

I understand the considerations for assigning the pantries to social public activities taking place in

court 63. Is it, however, true that the pantries had to be closest to the presenting areas? I don’t agree

with this argument. Yes, in a domestic setting the choice for having the kitchen in a close range to the

dining area is convenient. However, there are other possibilities that would lead to other

conclusions. It is also possible to choose to have pantries out of sight, at a lesser proximity.

In consideration of both potential consequent breakage and overall lifetime of the small vessels

related to food consumption (in contrast to storage vessels which have a longer lifetime), it suggests

they used up this volume of inventory on an annual basis, being in total (including thousands of

stirrup jars and “for scented oil production”) circa 12.000 vessels.135

By some the palatial complex has been regarded as having a monopolizing role for the polity in the

production of ceramics. The data summarized by Whitelaw, however, rejects this hypothesis about

the structure’s function.

Pottery analyses show that within the regional scope, the palace did not have a significant role as a

ceramic distributer and this annual inventory rather was brought in from external production

centres. This is in relation to the economic role of the palatial centre, contributing to social

reciprocity and contributing to the economic sustainability of the surrounding settlement and/or

province.136 The inventory of ceramics are therefore assigned to be used in occasions within the

palace. In that case, an annual usage of 12.000 vessels offers enough possibilities to accommodate

many and large feasts commissioned by the inhabitants of the palatial structures.

135

Whitelaw 2001, 62 136

Wright 2004

V

44

Fig. 18: Pottery inventory within the palace. Whitelaw 2001, fig.2

V

45

5.7 FROM COURTYARD TO MEGARON COMPLEX

In approaching the megaron complex, the inner court emphasises the second monumental gateway,

the portico of the megaron (4).137 It creates a new starting point after entering the main building

through the propylon. Stoa 44 would be the secondary focus, yet this is a covered pathway where no

central doorway encourages people to enter a next depth, as is the case for the portico.

5.7.1 PORTICO OF THE MEGARON (CELL 4)

Description of the material context: What did it look like?

The portico has a rectangular size of 4.34 metres in depth and 11.27 metres width. It is similar in

shape to the outer propylon, as the u-shape plan shows a convergent direction towards the central

doorway.

Again, there are anta blocks at the end of each antae, in order to embellish and emphasize the

monumentality of the gateway. Yet, the antae are here even more present than those in front of the

outer propylon (1). The antae of the portico contain a stone anta base on each end corresponding to

the dado course that continues into the interior of this cell, and, like the dado course, it was covered

with plaster and traces of paint show arcs and vertical lines.138 The stone base suggests the antae

ended with vertical wooden beams or columns.

The remains of the limestone dado course, rising up to approximately 1.0 metre on each side, show

the holes for the attachment of the wooden beams for the reinforcing framework. Above the dado

course a wooden beam of circa 0.20 metre thick, would – again – separate the dado course from the

upright.

The construction method for the internal walls of the complex are extensively examined by Michael

Küpper and Michael Nelson.139 They come to the conclusion that the internal walls were constructed

with ashlar masonry dado courses continuing in a upright of rubble masonry, which was covered with

a coat of plaster and subsequently decorated with frescoes. Vertical beams were consistently placed

0.80 to 1 metre apart creating a reconstruction of the wall construction technique as seen in figure

19. The internal walls of the megaron complex show a stronger technique of monumental

construction than the walls of the propylon and the adjacent inner court. It emphasizes its strength

and the desire of maintaining sustainability.

Viewsheld analysis

Instead of the inner and outer propylon (1 - 2), two wooden columns – of similar design – are placed

on the southeast side of the cell. Along the columns, a painted stucco floor was carefully laid.

Together with the decorative program, the portico show an embellished façade to suggest the

importance of what was present in the next depth level.

Against the north-eastern antablock of the portico’s doorway, a platform of 0.08/0.09 metre in

height, projects 0.90 metre in south-western direction facing the court. Like the one inside the outer

propylon, it has been interpreted as a spot for a guard or sentry. If this is correct, this would be a

significant passage of screening. Whether this is correct or not, it is a significant factor of

137

The portico gained its name after the analogue structure in a Greek temple design, similar to the ‘propylon’, and ‘vestibule’. 138

Blegen 1966, 65 139

Küpper 1996, Nelson 2001

V

46

non-verbal communication. It indicated a specific pathway, a route attendees had to take or were

able to distinguish at least.

When continuing through the propylon, most of the inter court was within the viewshed field

together with a prominent view on the portico of the megaron. It was in fact the first element to be

seen. The portico with its embellished display was therefore the magnet towards the visitor what led.

Fig. 19: Viewshed analysis. Isovist fields from the doorway into the inner propylon (2).

Adapted from Tsountas 1964. Author

Fig. 20: Reconstruction human experience, perspective 3D on the inner court looking at the

portico. Author

V

47

5.7.1 VESTIBULE (ROOM 5)

Description of the material context: What did it look like?

Room 5 (the vestibule) has measurements of 4.54 by 11.62 metres. In the middle of both walls in the

length of the layout are doorways placed exactly opposite of each other. The first connects to the

Portico and the second enters – equal in size - the main hall. With the exception of the south-western

wall, all others are preserved up to circa 1 to 1.20 metre in height.

The vestibule was entered through the portico (4) by means of a large stone threshold with two anta

blocks on either end. This is also the case for the counter doorway entering the main hall of the

megaron. According to Blegen: “Abundant remains of charred wood and ashes were found on the

south-western block.”140 These indicates again the wooden doorposts along the sides of the

doorway. Even though Blegen suggests there must have been a doorway, the stone blocks have not

been shaped precise enough to show a possible socket.

As seen in the axial map (fig.10) and emphasized by its high control value, the vestibule is an

intersection in the floor plan. The line passing through the portico (4) and the main hall (6) crosses

the line between corridors 13 and 35 (with an obvious high CV value as well). A central doorway on

both the north-eastern and south-western side lead to other clusters beyond the corridors. It creates

an intersection – close to the main hall – to reach the surrounding rooms, including the storage areas

and pantries 18 to 22. The supplying pantries might not be immediate adjacent to the main hall, but

these cells are close by and through a corridor adjacent to the megaron complex by means of the

vestibule.

The doorway on the south-western and the one on the north-eastern side can be considered

secondary, for the reason the first two described are emphasized with anta blocks. Also, a platform,

like the one in the portico, is placed in front of the north-eastern anta block, signing towards the

main hall. The secondary doorways are more difficult to reach from the south-eastern door, as you

would had to turn and are placed at a further distance, the doors are might even by overlooked

passing through the vestibule as it is more like an annex before entering the prominent hall.

Viewsheld analysis

The decorative program shows a procession. This fresco reconstruction by Mabel Lang suggest

attendees were led the narrative representation towards the main hall. As will be discussed later, the

visitor cannot yet see much of the interior of the main hall. It is from within the doorpost of the

entrance of the main hall, that all of the interior is visible. (fig.20)

140

Blegen 1966, 54 - 57

V

48

Fig. 21: Viewshed analysis. Isovist fields from the doorway into the vestibule

(5) and main hall (6). Adapted from Tsountas 1964. Author

Fig. 22: Reconstruction human experience, perspective 3D with Sketch up software from the portico (4) into

the vestibule (5). Author

V

49

5.8 ENTERING THE CORE OF THE CENTRIPETAL PLAN: THE MAIN HALL OF THE MEGARON

Description of the material context: What did it look like? What notable finds have been

found?

The main hall of the megaron has a unique design within the overall plan. Not only does it have a

notable size, it is secluded, symmetrical and contains specific features.

5.8.2 FIXED FEATURE ELEMENTS

The doorway from the vestibule along the centreline at the south-eastern end, opens up in a hall

measuring 12.90 metres in length and 11.20 metres in width. In the centre of the room was the

placement of the hearth marked off with four wooden columns. The floor was covered with a stucco

floor that was painted with a red linear pattern. The walls were constructed with the general

technique of the internal walls. A horizontal beam was placed 0.70 to 0.80 metres above the dado

course. Then, the upright contained 13 vertical beams on all sides, with spacing in between varying

from 0.55 to 0.80 metres.

The ornamental hall was focused on the great circular hearth in the middle of the room. The

diameter of the circle was inside the edges 3,94 metre with an outer edge that rises up to 0,17 metre

and was covered with stucco. There is still an ongoing discussion about the hearth in this room and

its function. The painted decoration along the edges contained a spiral pattern in red, yellow and

black. suggests a ceremonial function.141 Also, carbon remains argues for a fire, but was it also a place

of sacrifice? If a place of sacrifice and ritual, can it be considered a place of feasting?

The heart is a Mycenaean architectural feature and not exclusive in the main hall. Similar examples

are visible in the other two palatial megara of Mycenae and Tiryns. Also, contemporary cult centres

show smaller examples but often in the corner of a room. These smaller examples show a thicker

ash layer containing remains of animal bones.142 According to Blegen, the hearth was large enough to

burn an ox for the communal banquets, and the “great fire blazing on the heart” would have given a

“bright and cheerful apartment.” 143 However, if there would be a fire inside the hall corresponding

to the hearth, I think it would be impossible to stand alongside it because of the heat.

There must have been some type of ventilation. The general reconstruction suggests for a balcony

running along the sides and supported by the four columns marking the circular hearth. Additionally,

there would have been an airshaft for ventilation. Even so, a blazing fire on which sacrifices were

burned would still provide for a extensive heat with only 3 to 4 metres on either side of the fire. Most

of all, no one could seat the alleged throne if standing circa 2 metres in front of a fire.

For that reason, I like to suggest an alternative of multiple small lights of fire to create the effect of

light as well as symbolic fire. I think burned sacrifices are more likely to have taken place outside –

perhaps the inner court – or rooms especially reserved for such an occasion. The decorative program

of the main hall would have been damaged if sacrifices often had taken place.

141

Blegen, 78 - 81 142

Konsolaki-yannopoulou, Eleni 2001, 213-215 143

Blegen 1966, 78

V

50

Fig. 23: Attendees graph of the vestibule and main hall of the

megaron. Author

5.8.3 THRONE PLACEMENT

Along the discussion of the hearth, the significant platform on the north-eastern side complements

hypotheses for a throne room. In front of the median of the north-eastern wall. On the left side of

the throne, the floor shows a depression forming two circle with a line connecting the two. This

element is always considered to be part of libation offerings.

Whether a throne or a divine statue of the sort, a platform suggests a spot for an object perceivers

were obliged to notice. In proceeding into the main hall it would seem likely the throne was placed at

the outer end in line with the walking route. However, the attendee can only see the throne after

entering the doorway. The platform still has a central presence in the room, but only the people

entering the room could see who was sitting there or what was standing there. It offers much

protection for that spot, which argues for its importance.

5.8.4 HOW MANY PEOPLE COULD GATHER IN THE MAIN HALL OF THE MEGARON?

Based on the topological properties of the space, I made another attendees graph to calculate the

maximum density in this hall. Figure 22 shows a density of 394 people.

This number doesn’t suggest a private gathering per se. The control value on the contrary does

suggest private feasting because of the low control value and higher depth value, especially in

comparison to the inner court. By limiting the passageways with only one doorway, the main hall

was carefully monitored by guarding observers which were only necessary at one doorway.

Even though the pantry rooms 18-22 are not adjacent to the main hall, the passageway from the

pantry rooms through the vestibule into the main hall, can likewise be considered a manner of

protection, in order to verify who enters this main hall. It adds a barrier to cross for approaching

people and simultaneously screening those even if they were workers serving from the pantries.

V

51

Fig. 24: Reconstruction by Mabel Lang fresco cell 46. Lang 1966

5.8.5 WHAT ELEMENTS OF EMBELLISHMENT WERE APPLIED TO INFLUENCE THE PERCEIVERS?

Decorative program

The scenery of the frescoes contain an obvious procession theme from the vestibule onwards.

Human figures and animals proceed along the enclosing walls of the hall. Besides the procession

theme, a feasting theme can be recognized by means of human figures sitting across each other in

pairs holding kylikes.

Finally, a “heraldic” scene of a lion and griffin of exceptional size is painted exactly right of the

(throne) platform against the north-eastern wall. These figures are discussed as either symbols of

heraldry or as part of the exchange of foreign artistic ideas, but its depiction has not yet been given a

precise meaning within this period.144 This scene is often considered to be half of a total depiction

showing a mirrored image of the two animals on the left side of the platform, in order to frame and

emphasize this spot within the main hall.145 The figures, however, could also continue in the same

direction as is the case for the dogs from cell 64. However, a replica of this scene is found in cell 46

would argue for a mirrored image. At the left bottom of figure 23 you see a lion foot that suggests a

mirrored lion having the front foot against the griffin.

As almost all plaster has fallen due to the fire, a likely reconstruction by Mabel Lang has been made.

Most important for this study is the themes that are recognized, processions and feasting. The

inventory and context should inform us on the potential for these social activities inside this main

hall of the megaron.

5.8.6 SOCIAL ACTIVITY IN THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT OF THE MAIN HALL

The ornamental display of the hall is obvious. Additionally, the low control value and depth values

emphasize the exclusive and prestige function of the room. The platform was solely visible from

inside the main hall so restricted for all attendees. The size of the hall, on the other hand, and

overwhelming number of kylikes inside the nearby pantries, show a great potential for larger

144

Lang 1966, 194-196, 209-211; Reed 1976, 374 145

On framing in the usage of symbolism: Renfrew 1998, Mind and Matter: Cognitive archaeology and external symbolic storage. Cambridge. 1-6

V

52

gatherings. I argue for definite feasts of the sort inside the main hall of the megaron, but privileged

by invitation of a higher degree than the inner court, where more public occasions would take place.

Following this, it shows a hierarchical division within the building.

The procession theme of the decorative program suggest a procession running into the main hall.

This argues for burned sacrifices in ritual taken place at the hearth. It explains the hypothesis

However, the frescoes do not show an ox actually being sacrificed and I still argue for the

environmental impossibilities. Meanwhile, ritual and feasting much likely have taken place.

Fig. 25: Human experience of entering the main hall. Perspective 3D. Author

Fig. 26: Reconstruction Mabel Lang of main hall megaron frieze right of the base for an alleged throne.

Fig. 27: Reconstruction main hall frieze, adapted by the author for usage in the Sketch up reconstruction.

VI

53

6. DISCUSSION

In order to complement the spatial analyses of Pylos, I applied the space syntax analyses to the floor

plan of the site Tiryns to compare the two megaron-palaces.

Tiryns is another example of the three known megaron-palaces located in the Argolid. (fig.1) The

palatial structures were located on the summit of a hill as well, but has a much stronger fortification

wall, constructed of cyclopean masonry. Furthermore, the structures are also placed on half of the

plane creating a large open area in the approach of the architecture. It does have an overall different

perspective: the centreline of the main building is orientated in a north-south direction. The palatial

structures do again have a slight northwest-southeast perspective, but the open plane is located to

the north of the structures instead of east in the case of Pylos.

As can be seen in the axial map in figure 27, a visitor – again – has to turn its orientation by

proceeding through the open passageway through the first propylon, into the outer court and

fronting the propylon of the main building in a different perspective. The lack of visibility of the outer

propylon of the main building is similarly present and, thus, shows a degree of protection by causing

a barrier for visitors in their approach.

It is a similar change of orientation as at the site of Pylos, but the route towards this spot is more

fortified and controlled by means of the thick exterior walls and an additional propylon that adds a

passage of screening and control for the inhabitants.

Fig. 28: Axial map of Tiryns, after Schliemann 1958. Author

VI

54

The justified graph I created of Tiryns shows a longer layout of the floor plan. (fig. 28) The division in

clusters is slightly different, as the megaron complex can only communicate with the right cluster 2 in

the map, which is – due to digital inconveniences - mirrored on the floor plan consisting of cells 22 to

31 on the left of the megaron-complex. Cluster 1 is mirrored on the floor plan, consisting of cells 8 to

45 in the map and is located on the right of the megaron complex. This cluster is accessible from the

“stoa”, cell 9. It suggest a lack of communication from the megaron with these areas of cluster 1

within the building.

Fig. 29: Justified graph palatial structures of Tiryns. Author

VI

55

The control values of the site show similarities with the site of Pylos as well. Even though the colours

slightly differ, the prominent cells within the power structure contain - relative to each other – a

similar division of control. (fig. 29)

The characteristics of the inner court (7) are low (mean) depth value, high control value and larger

size, indicating a similar functionality to provide for communal feasting. In relation to the main hall of

the megaron-complex, the hall has a similar size, a similar featured heart and orientation, and similar

characteristics as in the case of Pylos: a higher (mean) depth value, low control value, yet large size.

The calculations can be seen table 2 in the appendix of this paper.

Overall, the topological properties of both megaron-palaces are quite similar as can be concluded

from their respective justified graphs. The presence of a turning angle from the place of arrival to the

propylon and, next, into the “formed cluster” is one of the same elements - as in the case of Pylos -

to function as a seat of power. In both cases the layout is such that the centre can be easily

approached by outsiders – although secured - while the other clusters can support the centre. While

there are multiple functions in these clusters within the centre, the megaron has optimal control

from a structural perspective.

Fig. 30: Control value map of Tiryns. Author

VII

56

7. CONCLUSION

From this study, I conclude that the representation of power of the Late Helladic IIIB megaron

complex can be reconstructed by putting together all types of archaeological data from the palatial

megaron and its surrounding rooms. It gives further inside in the social context and how the

architecture was experienced. The results show the architecture was consciously created to

represents the power of the ruling elite who exercised their power in Mycenaean society from this

location.

Furthermore, the analyses in the case study of Pylos show aspects of a hierarchical structure within

the palatial architectural complex. A formed cluster of six rooms is identified as being the centre of

the entire premises, when analyzed from the aspects accessibility, depth, visibility, embellishment

and control. The comparison with Tiryns suggests a similar spatial analysis and argue for a

standardized architectural unit of the sort.

I have made a 3D reconstruction of the entire premises to complement our visual perception. This is

created from the data provided by the original excavation reports from 1966. Some elements,

however, were more interpretive. For example, the reports show that within the column bases stood

a wooden column as shown by remnants of charcoal. The placement of these columns together with

wearing lines, argue for a second storey. Nevertheless, I think it is unlikely that a wall structure

(either stone or mudbrick) could be supported by a single column, so I have reconstructed these

features as wooden balconies. For additional backing of the level, the column would firstly support

beams as part of the framework on top of which a wooden floor was laid. These balconies would also

provide for incoming light as well as visibility of the surroundings.

I have placed some likable windows on locations that are in need of light, and - where possible - on

the end of a hallway so that there is no loss of the privacy of the adjacent rooms. Most walls are

reconstructed by Nelson’s suggested wall construction technique and I have placed Lang’s fresco

reconstructions at the assigned locations.

Lastly, the heights of the ground floor walls are reconstructed based on the nearest stairway. The

significant stairway consisting of cells 14 and 15 indicates a height of 3,04 meter of the surrounding

walls. The remaining stair treads, of which there are eight, have an average height of 14 centimeters.

In consideration of “abrasion,” as Blegen notes, I added two centimeters to this average. When

reconstructing the steps with each a height of 16 centimeters, the stairway would end at a total

height of 3,04 meters in entering the second floor.

The topological properties and supplies from the pantries, indicate social activities involved in

feasting, both public and private. I would consider the suggested large banquets to have been held in

the inner court, as it exceeds in size and could still be screened being in an enclosure. More private

feastings and occasions of a higher elite degree would have taken place inside the main hall, as it was

secluded, had more prestige, and was close to pantries 18-22.

In addition, it has been shown that the methodology of an integrative approach is fruitful in the

sense that the three methods used: spatial analysis, viewshed analysis and material analysis

according to Rapoport’s concept, support each other in this study as shown in the case study. The

methodology also objectifies conclusions because of its factual and quantitative basis as can be seen

for example in the subtle asymmetrical properties of the layout. A fact which was originally during

the excavation seen as “probably of no special significance.”

VII

57

The features specifically show the human intentions of constructing power architecture for the ruling

elite of a society, in which attendees are lead into specific human experiences. Power is represented

with non-verbal communication as one enters their domain. The social actors who built this premises

show their importance by being protected through the architecture as they screen anyone entering

the pathway they assigned to the visitor; to show their success through design and embellishment,

and show their story of social activity through the narrative frescoes.

The main hall of the megaron represents, through its high degree of importance, to be the seat of

power regardless of a throne placement. The social activities taken place here were the spindle to

keep Mycenaean society stabilized, by means of feasting and ritual activities. The secondary location

within the premises for these types of activities would be the inner court as it would regard more

extensive occasions: both, in order to maintain cooperative relations both inside and outside the

community.

VIII

58

APPENDIX

Table 1: Parameters Pylos Cell Depth Total

D K-1 MD RA CV Cell Depth Total

D K-1 MD RA CV

1 1 3 3 1 0 1,33 53 8 333 61 5,459 0,149 0,5

2 2 11 7 1,571 0,19 0,58 54 5 95 27 3,519 0,194 0,75 3 3 26 12 2,167 0,212 1,58 55 6 161 38 4,237 0,175 1,5 4 4 50 18 2,778 0,209 0,5 56 7 245 50 4,9 0,159 0,5 5 5 95 27 3,519 0,194 2,08 57 1 3 3 1 0 0,33 6 6 161 38 4,237 0,175 0,25 63 1 3 3 1 0 1,49 7 2 11 7 1,571 0,19 1,33 64 2 11 7 1,571 0,19 1,5 8 3 26 12 2,167 0,212 0,5 65 3 26 12 2,167 0,212 0,33 9 6 161 38 4,237 0,175 0,5 66 3 26 12 2,167 0,212 2,41 10 5 95 27 3,519 0,194 1,33 67 4 50 18 2,778 0,209 1,25 11 4 50 18 2,778 0,209 1,08 68 5 95 27 3,519 0,194 0,5 12 5 95 27 3,519 0,194 0,88 69 4 50 18 2,778 0,209 0,25 13 6 161 38 4,237 0,175 1,41 70 4 50 18 2,778 0,209 1,08 14 7 245 50 4,9 0,159 1,25 71 5 95 27 3,519 0,194 1,33 15 8 333 61 5,459 0,149 0,5 72 6 161 38 4,237 0,175 0,5 16 7 245 50 4,9 0,159 1,58 73 5 95 27 3,519 0,194 1,83 17 8 333 61 5,459 0,149 0,33 74 6 161 38 4,237 0,175 0,33 18 8 333 61 5,459 0,149 0,99 75 6 161 38 4,237 0,175 0,66 19 10 484 77 6,286 0,139 0,33 77 7 245 50 4,9 0,159 1,5 20 9 414 70 5,914 0,142 1,83 78 8 333 61 5,459 0,149 0,33 21 10 484 77 6,286 0,139 0,83 79 8 333 61 5,459 0,149 1,33 22 9 414 70 5,914 0,142 1,33 80 9 414 70 5,914 0,142 0,5 23 10 484 77 6,286 0,139 0,83 88 10 484 77 6,286 0,139 0,83 24 9 414 70 5,914 0,142 0,83 89 3 26 12 2,167 0,212 0,5 25 8 333 61 5,459 0,149 1,33 90 2 11 7 1,517 0,19 1,25 26 9 414 70 5,914 0,142 1,33 27 10 484 77 6,286 0,139 0,5 28 7 245 50 4,9 0,159 0,91 29 8 333 61 5,459 0,149 2,33 30 9 414 70 5,914 0,142 1,25 31 9 414 70 5,914 0,142 1,25 32 10 484 77 6,286 0,139 0,5 33 9 414 70 5,914 0,142 1,25 34 10 484 77 6,286 0,139 0,5 35 6 161 38 4,237 0,175 1,66 36 7 245 50 4,9 0,159 0,33 37 5 95 27 3,519 0,194 0,83 38 6 161 38 4,237 0,175 1,33 39 7 245 50 4,9 0,159 1,25 40 8 333 61 5,459 0,149 0,5 41 7 245 50 4,9 0,159 1,25 42 8 333 61 5,459 0,149 0,5 43 7 245 50 4,9 0,159 0,25 44 4 50 18 2,778 0,209 1,41 45 5 95 27 3,519 0,194 0,91 46 6 161 38 4,237 0,175 1,66 47 7 245 50 4,9 0,159 0,33 48 7 245 50 4,9 0,159 1,16 49 8 333 61 5,459 0,149 1,33 50 9 414 70 5,914 0,142 0,5 51 6 161 38 4,237 0,175 1,16 52 7 245 50 4,9 0,159 1,33

VIII

59

Table 2: Parameters Tiryns Cell Depth Total

D K-1 MD RA CV Cell Depth Total

D K-1 MD RA CV

1 1 1 1 1 0 0,83 46 14 477 54 8,833 0,296 0,2

2 2 3 2 1,5 0 0,95 47 9 174 29 6 0,357 0,53 3 3 6 3 2 1 2,16 48 8 120 23 5,217 0,383 3,33 4 4 18 6 3 1 0,25 49 9 174 29 6 0,357 0,7 5 4 18 6 3 1 0,75 50 10 214 33 6,485 0,343 1,5 6 5 23 9 2,556 0,389 0,83 51 11 269 38 7,079 0,329 0,5 7 6 53 14 3,786 0,429 1,5 52 9 174 29 6 0,357 0,2 8 6 53 14 3,786 0,429 0,58 53 9 174 29 6 0,357 0,2 9 5 23 9 2,556 0,389 2,33 54 7 88 19 4,632 0,404 1,4 10 7 88 19 4,632 0,404 0,66 55 8 120 23 5,217 0,383 0,33 11 8 120 23 5,217 0,383 1,83 12 9 174 29 6 0,357 0,33 13 4 18 6 3 1 1 14 6 53 14 3,786 0,429 0,25 15 6 53 14 3,786 0,429 1,25 16 7 88 19 4,632 0,404 0,5 17 5 23 9 2,556 0,389 0,53 18 6 53 14 3,786 0,429 2,16 19 7 88 19 4,632 0,404 0,7 20 7 88 19 4,632 0,404 0,7 21 8 120 23 5,217 0,383 1 22 9 174 29 6 0,357 1,66 23 10 214 33 6,485 0,343 0,33 24 10 214 33 6,485 0,343 1,66 25 11 269 38 7,079 0,329 0,33 26 11 269 38 7,079 0,329 1,83 27 12 329 43 7,651 0,317 0,33 28 12 329 43 7,651 0,317 0,66 29 13 407 49 8,306 0,304 2 30 14 477 54 8,833 0,296 0,33 31 14 477 54 8,833 0,296 0,66 32 13 407 49 8,306 0,304 0,95 33 12 329 43 7,651 0,317 2,03 34 13 407 49 8,306 0,304 0,25 35 11 269 38 7,079 0,329 1,57 36 11 269 38 7,079 0,329 0,58 37 10 214 33 6,485 0,343 1,2 38 13 407 49 8,306 0,304 0,33 39 12 329 43 7,651 0,317 1,4 40 12 329 43 7,651 0,317 1,4 41 13 407 49 8,306 0,304 0,33 42 13 407 49 8,306 0,304 3,16 43 14 477 54 8,833 0,296 0,2 44 14 477 54 8,833 0,296 1,2 45 15 492 55 8,945 0,294 0,5

FILMPSTRIP SNAPSHOT 3D MODEL (INCLUDING SHADOWS UTC +2:00, 14.30H)

VIII

VIII

VIII

IX

70

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Albers, Gabriele. 2001. “Rethinking Mycenaean sanctuaries”. Aegaeum 22 (POTNIA. Deities and Religion in the Aegean Bronze Age): 131.

———. 1999. “Re-evaluating Mycenaean sanctuaries”. Paper presented at Celebrations: Sanctuaries and the vestiges of cult activity: Selected papers and discussions from the tenth anniversary symposium of the Norwegian Institute at Athens, 12 - 16 May 1999.

Antonaccio, Carla. 2006. “Religion, basileis and heroes”. In Ancient Greece: From the Mycenaean palaces to the age of Homer., eds. I. Lemos, S. Deger-Jalkotzy, 381. Edinburgh University.

Bahn, Paul G., and Elizabeth C. Robertson. 2007. “Review space and spatial analysis in archaeology”. Journal of Anthropological Research 63 (4): 579-80.

Bendall, Lisa Maria. 2007. Economics of religion in the Mycenaean world. Resources dedicated to religion in the Mycenaean palace economy, ed. Lisa Maria Bendall. Oxford: School of Archaeology University of Oxford.

———. 2001. “The economics of Potnia in the Linear B documents: Palatial support for Mycenaean religion”. Aegaeum 22 (POTNIA. Deities and Religion in the Aegean Bronze Age): 445.

Bennet, John. 2007. “Iconographies of value: Words, people and things in the late Bronze Age Aegean”. In The emergence of civilisation revisited., 90-106Oxford: Oxbow Books.

———. 2007. “Pylos. The expansion of a Mycenaean palatial center”. In Rethinking Mycenaean palaces II. revised and expanded second edition., eds. Michael L. Galaty, Philip W. Stockhammer, 29.

———. 2007. “Representations of power in Mycenaean Pylos. script, orality, iconography”. Paper presented at ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΣ ΑΡΙΣΤΕΙΟΣ. Archäologische Forschungen zwischen Nil und Istros. Festschrift für Stefan Hiller zum 65. Geburtstag., eds. Lang, F. Reinholdt, C. & Weilhartner, J.

———. 1995. “Space through time: Diachronic perspectives on the spatial organization of the Pylian state”. Aegaeum 12 (Politeia. Society and State in the Aegean Bronze Age): 315-24.

Blegen, Carl W. 1966. The palace of Nestor at Pylos in western Messenia. Vol.1&3. Princeton University Press

———. 1945. “The roof of the Mycenaean megaron”. American Journal of Archaeology 49 (1): 35-44.

Borgna, Elisabetta. 2004. “Aegean feasting: A Minoan perspective”. Hesperia 73 (2): 247-79.

Bourdieu, Pierre. 1977. “Generative schemes and practical logic: Invention within limits”. In Outline of a theory of practice., Cambridge University Press.

Bretschneider, J., J. Driessen, and K. V. A. N. Lerberghe. 2007. “Power and monument: Past and present”. In Power and architecture: Monumental public architecture in the bronze age Near east and Aegean., 1.

Brouwers, José Johannes. 2010. “The Mykenaian prelude”. In Warfare and society in early Greece. from the fall of the Mycenaean palaces to the end of the Persian wars. Vol. 175, 222-227.

Brysbaert, A., and M. Vetters. 2010. “Practicing identity: A crafty ideal?” Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 10 (2): 25-43.

C.W., Shelmerdine (ed ). 2008. The Cambridge companion to the Aegean bronze age.

IX

71

Carlier, Pierre. 2006. “Wanax and basileus in the Homeric poems”. In Ancient Greece: From the Mycenaean palaces to the age of homer., 101.

Cavanagh, William. 2001. “Empty space courts and squares in Mycenaean towns”. In Urbanism in the Aegean bronze age., ed. Keith Branigan, 199.

Chadwick, John. 1988. The Mycenaean world. fifth ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Chadwick, John, and Lydia Baumbach. “The Mycenaean Greek vocabulary”. Glotta1 41 : 157-271.

Chatford Clark David. 2007. “Viewing the liturgy: A space syntax study of changing visibility and accessibility in the development of the Byzantine church in Jordan”. World Archaeology 39 (1) (mar): 84-104.

Cosmopoulos, Michael B. 2006. “The political landscape of Mycenaean states: A-pu2 and the hither province of Pylos”. American Journal of Archaeology 110 (2): 205-28.

———. 1999. “From artifacts to peoples. Pelasgoi, Indo-Europeans, and the arrival of the Greeks. In Archaeology and language III. artefacts, languages and texts., eds. Roger Blench, Matthew Spriggs, One World Archaeology.

Crossland, R. A. 1967. “The problem of the Indo-Europeans”. In Immigrants from the north., 824.

Crowley, Janice L. 2008. “Mycenaean art and architecture”. In The Cambridge companion to the Aegean bronze age., ed. Cynthia W. Shelmerdine.

———. 1995. “Images of power in the bronze age Aegean”. Aegaeum 12 (Politeia. Society and State in the Aegean Bronze Age): 476.

Davis, Ellen N. 1995. “Art and politics in the Aegean: The missing ruler”. Aegaeum 11 (The Role of the Ruler in the Prehistoric Aegean): 11.

Davis, Jack L. 1998. Sandy Pylos. an archaeological history from Nestor to Navarino, ed. Jack L. Davis.

Davis, Jack L., and John Bennet. 1999. “Making Mycenaeans: Warfare, territorial expansion and representations of the other in the Pylian kingdom”. Aegaeum 19 (POLEMOS. Le contexte guerrier en Égée à l'âge du Bronze): 106.

Deger-Jalkotzy, Sigrid. 2006. “Late Mycenaean warrior tombs”. In Ancient Greece: From the Mycenaean palaces to the age of homer., eds. Sigrid Deger-Jalkotzy, Irene S. Lemos, 151.

Desyllas, Jake, and Elspeth Duxbury. 2001. “Axial maps and visibility graph analysis. A comparison of their methodology and use in models of urban pedestrian movement”. Paper presented at the Space Syntax Third International Symposium, .

Dinsmoor, William Bell. 1942. “Notes on megaron roofs”. American Journal of Archaeology 46 (3): 370-2.

Downey, W. S. 2011. “Orientations of Minoan buildings on Crete may indicate the first recorded use of magnetic compass”. Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 11 (1): 9-20.

Fisher, Kevin D. 2010. “Elite place-making and social interaction in the late Cypriot bronze age”. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 22 (2) (jan): 183-209.

———. 2009. “Placing social interaction: An integrative approach to analyzing past built environments”. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 28 (4) (dec): 439-57.

IX

72

Fitzsimons, Rodney D. 2011. “Monumental architecture and the construction of the Mycenaean state”. In State formation in Greece and Italy: Questioning the neoevolutionist paradigm., eds. D. C. Haggis, N. Terrenato, Oxbow Books.

———. 2007. “Architecture and power in the bronze age Argolid”. In Power and architecture. monumental public architecture in the bronze age Near east and Aegean., eds. Bretschneider, J., Driessen, J. and van Lerberghe, K.Leuven

Galaty, Michael L. 2007. “Wealth ceramics, staple ceramics. pots and the Mycenaean palaces”. In Rethinking Mycenaean palaces II. revised and expanded second edition., ed. Michael L. Galaty, 74.

Galaty, Michael L., and William A. Parkinson. 2007. “2007 introduction: Mycenaean palaces rethought 1999 introduction: Putting Mycenaean palaces in their place”. In Rethinking Mycenaean palaces II. revised and expanded second edition., eds. Michael L. Galaty, William A. Parkinson. California: Regents of the University of California.

Goodison, Lucy. 2001. “From tholos tomb to the throne room: Perceptions of the sun in Minoan ritual”. Aegaeum 22 (POTNIA. Deities and Religion in the Aegean Bronze Age): 77.

Gosden, Chris. 2012. “Magic, materials and matter: Understanding different ontologies”. In Materiality and social practice: Transformative capacities of intercultural encounters., eds. Joseph Maran, Philip W. Stockhammer, 13.

Halstead, Paul. 2007. “Toward a model of Mycenaean palatial mobilization”. In Rethinking Mycenaean palaces II. revised and expanded second edition., eds. Michael L. Galaty, Philip W. Stockhammer, 66.

Hillier, Bill, and Julienne Hanson. 1984. The social logic of space. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hitchcock, Louise A. 2008. “Architectures of feasting”. Aegaeum 29 (DAIS: The Aegean Feast): 318.

———. 2008. “Building identities. fluid borders and an “International style” of monumental architecture in the bronze age”. Paper presented at Crossing Cultures: Conflict, Migration and Convergence, Proceedings of the 32nd international conference of art history (CIHA), University of Melbourne, 13-18 January 2008. .

———. 2007. “Naturalising the cultural: Architectonised landscape as ideology in Minoan Crete”. British School at Athens Studies 15 (Building communities: House, settlement and society in the Aegean and Beyond): 91-7.

———. 2000. “Engendering ambiguity in Minoan Crete: It's a drag to be a king”. In Representations of gender from prehistoric to the present., eds. Moira Donald, Linda Hurcombe.

Hoffman, Adolf. 2003. “Macht der architektur - architektur der macht”. In Macht der architektur - architektur der macht. diskussionen zur arch\{a}ologischen bauforschung 8., ed. Deutsches Archaeologisches Institut, 4.

Hruby, Julie. 2006. “Feasting and ceramics: A view from the palace of Nestor at Pylos”. Dissertation, Division of Research and Advanced Studies of the University of Cincinnati.

Immerwahr, Sara A. 1990. Aegean painting in the bronze age. The Pennsylvania State University.

Küpper, Michael. 1996. Mykenische architektur. In Internationale archiiologie 25., 31.

Kilian, Klaus. 1988. “The emergence of wanax ideology in the Mycenaean palaces”. American Journal of Archaeology 7 (3).

IX

73

Killen, John T. 2006. “The subjects of the wanax. aspects of Mycenaean social structure”. In Ancient Greece: From the Mycenaean palaces to the age of homer., 87.

———. 2001. “Religion at Pylos: The evidence of the fn tablets”. Aegaeum 22 (POTNIA. Deities and Religion in the Aegean Bronze Age): 435.

Knapp, A. Bernard. 2009. “Monumental architecture, identity and memory”. Paper presented at Proceedings of the Symposium: Bronze Age Architectural Traditions in the East Mediterranean: Diffusion and Diversity (Gasteig, Munich, 7-8 May, 2008).

Koehl, Robert B. 1995. “The nature of Minoan kingship. In memory of Charles M. Edwards”. Aegaeum 11 (The Role of the Ruler in the Prehistoric Aegean): 23.

Konsolaki-yannopoulou, Eleni. 2001. “New evidence for the practice of libations in the Aegean bronze age”. Aegaeum 22 : 213.

Löw, Martina. 2001. Raumsoziologie. Frankfurt

Laffineur, Robert. 2007. “Building for ruling. architecture and power at Mycenae”. In Power and architecture. Monumental public architecture in the Bronze age Near east and Aegean., ed. Jan Driessen, 117.

———. 2001. “Seeing is believing: Reflections on divine imagery in the Aegean Bronze age”. Aegaeum 22 (POTNIA. Deities and Religion in the Aegean Bronze Age): 387.

———. 1995. “Aspects of rulership at Mycenae in the shaft grave period”. Aegaeum 11 (The Role of the Ruler in the Prehistoric Aegean): 291-302.

Lake, Mark. 2007. “Viewing space”. World Archaeology 39 (1) (mar): 1-3.

Lang, Mabel. 1966. The palace of Nestor at Pylos in western Messenia. Princeton University Press

Lefebvre, Henri. 1991. The production of space. Blackwell Publishing.

Lupack, Susan. 2007. “Palaces, sanctuaries, and workshops. The role of the religious sector in Mycenaean economics”. In Mycenaean palaces revisited., eds. Michael L. Galaty, William A. Parkinson, 54.

Müller, Valentin. 1944. “Development of the megaron in prehistoric Greece”. American Journal of Archaeology 48 (4): 342-8.

Mackenzie, Duncan. 1905. “Cretan palaces and the Aegean civilization II”. The Annual of the British School of Athens 12 : 216-58.

Magnum, Bendik. 2009. “Generality versus specificity; A study on the interior space of apartments”. ??, Oslo school of architecture, Norway

Maran, Joseph. 2012. “Ceremonial feasting equipment, social space and interculturality in post-palatial Tiryns”. In Materiality and social practice: Transformative capacities of intercultural encounters., eds. Joseph Maran, Philip W. Stockhammer, 121. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

———. 2007. “Reflections on the ideology of Mycenaean kingship”. Keimelion 3 (5): 285.

———. 2006. “Architecture, power and social practice - an introduction”. In Constructing power: Architecture, ideology and social practice., eds. Joseph Maran, Carsten Juwig, Hermann Schwengel and Ulrich Thaler.

IX

74

———. 2006. “Mycenaean citadel as performative space”. In Constructing power: Architecture, ideology and social practice., eds. Joseph Maran, Carsten Juwig, Hermann Schwengel and Ulrich Thaler.

———. 2006. “Coming to terms with the past: Ideology and power in LH IIIC”. In Ancient Greece: From the Mycenaean palaces to the age of homer., eds. Sigrid Deger-Jalkotzy, Irene S. Lemos. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press: 123

———. 2004. “The spreading of objects and ideas in the late bronze age eastern mediterranean: Two case examples from the argolid of the 13th and 12th centuries BC”. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research(336): 11-30.

———. 2001. “Political and religious aspects of architectural change on the upper citadel of tiryns. the case of building T”. Aegaeum 22 (POTNIA. Deities and religion in the Aegean Bronze Age): 113.

———. 2000. “Das megaron im megaron. Archäologischer Anzeiger, 1 : 1-16

Maran, Joseph, Philip W. Stockhammer, and H. P. Hahn. 2012. “Words and things: Reflections on people's interaction with the material world”. In Materiality and social practice: Transformative capacities of intercultural encounters., eds. Joseph Maran, Philip W. Stockhammer. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Mayor, Adrienne, and Michael Heaney. 1993. “Griffins and Arimaspeans”. Folklore 104 (1/2): 40-66.

Meier-brugger, Michael. 2006. “The rise and descent of the language of the homeric poems”. In Ancient Greece: From the Mycenaean palaces to the age of homer., eds. Sigrid Deger-Jalkotzy, Irene S. Lemos, 417. Oxford University Press.

Mustafa, A. F. 2010. “Using space syntax analysis in detecting privacy : A comparative study of traditional and modern house layouts in Erbil city , Iraq”. Asian Social Science 6, 8.

Nakassis, Dimitri. 2012. “Prestige and interest. feasting and the king at Mycenaean pylos”. Hesperia 81 : 1-30.

———. 2010. “Reevaluating staple and wealth finance at Mycenaean pylos”. In Political economies of the Aegean bronze age., ed. Daniel J. Pullen, 127. Oxford: Oxford Books.

Nelson, M. C. 2007. “Pylos, block masonry and monumental architecture in the late bronze age Peloponnese”. In Power and architecture. monumental public architecture in the bronze age near east and Aegean., eds. J. Bretschneider, Jan Driessen and K. van Lerberghe, 143Peeters.

Nelson, Michael C. 2001. “The architecture of epano englianos, Greece”. Dissertation, Department of History of Art, Toronto.

Olsen, Barbara A. 1998. “Women, children and the family in the late Aegean bronze age: Differences in Minoan and Mycenaean constructions of gender”. World Archaeology 29 (3): 380-92.

Palaima, Thomas G. 2006. “Wanaks and related power terms in Mycenaean and later Greek”. In Ancient Greece: From the Mycenaean palaces to the age of homer., eds. Sigrid Deger-Jalkotzy, Irene S. Lemos, 53. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

———. 2004. “Sacrificial feasting in the linear B documents”. In Hesperia. the Mycenaean feast., ed. James C. Wright, 97.

———. 1995. “The last days of the pylos polity”. Aegaeum 12 (Politeia. Society and State in the Aegean Bronze Age): 623.

IX

75

———. 1995. “The nature of the Mycenaean wanax: Non-Indoeuropean origins and priestly functions”. Aegaeum 11 (The Role of Ruler in the Prehistoric Aegean): 119.

Paliou, Eleftheria. 2011. “Visibility analysis in fully 3D spaces”. Computational Analysis in Archaeology.

Parkinson, William A. 2010. “Beyond the peer: Social interaction and political evolution in the bronze age Aegean”. In Political economies of Aegean bronze age., ed. Daniel J. Pullen, 11.

Plommer, H. 1965. “A carved block from the megaron of Mycenae”. The Annual of the British School of Athens 60 : 207-11.

Preziosi, Donald. 1979. Architecture, language, and meaning. The Hague: Mouton publishers.

Pullen, Daniel J. 2011. “Redistribution in Aegean palatial societies before the palaces : Redistribution and chiefdoms in mainland Greece”. American Journal of Archaeology 115 (2): 185-95.

Raaflaub, Kurt A. 2006. “Historical approaches to homer”. In Ancient Greece: From the Mycenaean palaces to the age of homer., eds. Sigrid Deger-Jalkotzy, Irene S. Lemos, 449. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Reed, Nancy B. 1976. “Griffins in post-Minoan cretan art”. Hesperia 45 (4): 365-79.

Rehak, Paul. 1995. “Enthroned figures in Aegean art and the function of the Mycenaean megaron”. Aegaeum 11 (The Role of the Ruler in the Prehistoric Aegean): 95.

Robinson, David M., and J. Walter Graham. 1940. “Excavations at olynthus , part VIII : The hellenic house. The American Journal of Philology 61 (2): 234-8.

Rystedt, Eva. 2001. A new (old) Mycenaean scene of worship. Aegaeum 22 (POTNIA. Deities and Religion in the Aegean Bronze Age): 393.

Schliemann, Henry, and Wilhem Dörpfeld. 1885. Tiryns . the prehistoric palace of the kings of tiryns, the results of the latest excavations. University of California.

Schoep, Ilse. 2010. “Making elites: Political economy and elite culture(s) in middle Minoan Crete”. In Political economies of Aegean bronze age., ed. Daniel J. Pullen, 216-258. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Schon, Robert. 2007. “Chariots, industry, and elite power at pylos”. In Rethinking Mycenaean palaces II. revised and expanded second edition., 133-145.

Scoufopoulos, Nikki C. 1971. “Mycenaean citadels”. Paper presented at Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology, .

Shaw, Maria C. 1980. “Painted ikria at mycenae?” American Journal of Archaeology 84 (2): 167-79.

Shelmerdine, Cynthia W. 2008. “Background, sources and methods”. In The cambridge companion to the Aegean bronze age., ed. Cynthia W. ShelmerdineCambridge University Press.

———. 2006. “Mycenaean palatial administration”. In Ancient Greece: From the Mycenaean palaces to the age of homer., eds. Sigrid Deger-Jalkotzy, Irene S. Lemos, 73. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Shelton, K. 2010. “Citadels and settlement. A developing economy at mycenae, the case of petsas house”. In Political economies of Aegean bronze age., 184.

Sherratt, Susan. 2004. “Feasting in homeric epic”. In Hesperia. the Mycenaean feast., ed. James C. Wright, 181.

IX

76

Siennicka, Malgorzata. 2010. “Spatial organisation of late Mycenaean settlements”. Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie. Band 194 : 69 - 94

Small, David B. 2007. “Mycenaean polities. states or estates?” In Rethinking Mycenaean palaces II. revised and expanded second edition., eds. Michael L. Galaty, William A. Parkinson, 47-53. California: University of California.

Smith, E. Baldwin. 1942. “The megaron and its roof”. American Journal of Archaeology 46 (1): 99-118.

Stocker, Sharon R., and Jack L. Davis. 2004. “Animal sacrifice, archives and feasting at the palace of nestor”. In Hesperia. the Mycenaean feast., ed. James C. Wright, 59.

Stubbings, F. H. 1957. “Mycenaean deciphered”. Greece & Rome. Second Series 4 (2): 114-24.

Thaler, Ulrich. 2006. “Constructing and reconstructing power the palace of pylos”. In Constructing power: Architecture, ideology and social practice., eds. Joseph Maran, Carsten Juwig, Hermann Schwengel and Ulrich Thaler: 93

Thomas, Carol G. 1995. “The components of political identity in Mycenaean Greece”. Aegaeum 12 (Politeia. Society and State in the Aegean Bronze Age): 349.

———. 1995. “The nature of Mycenaean kingship”. Aegaeum 11 : 93.

Vermeule, Emily Townsend. 1958. “Mythology in Mycenaean art”. The Classical Journal 54 (3): 97-108.

Voutsaki, Sofia. 2010. “Agency and personhood at the onset of the Mycenaean period”. Archaeological Dialogues 17 (01): 65-92.

———. 2010. “From the kinship economy to the palatial economy: The argolid in the second millennium BC”. In Political economies of Aegean bronze age., ed. Daniel J. Pullen, 86. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

———. 2001. “Economic control power and prestige in the Mycenaean world: The archaeological evidence”. Paper presented at Economy and Politics in the Mycenaean palace states. Proceedings of a conference held on 1 - 3 July 1999 in the Faculty of Classics, Cambridge, .

———. 1998. “Mortuary evidence, symbolic meanings and social change: A comparison between messenia and the argolid in the Mycenaean period”. In Cemetery and society in the Aegean bronze age., ed. Keith Branigan, 41.

Wace, Helen. 1961. Mycenaean guide. Athens: Princeton University Press.

Wardle, D. and K. A. Wardle. 2000. Cities of legends. the Mycenaean world. 2nd edition. Birstol: Classical world series.

Wedde, Michael. 1995. “On hierarchical thinking in Aegean bronze age glyptic imagery”. Aegaeum 12 (Politeia: Society and the State in the Aegean Bronze Age): 493.

Wesolowski, Deanna L. 2006. “Feasting at Nestor 's palace at Pylos”. Nebraska Anthropologist 21 : 117-28.

Whittaker, Hélene. 2001. “Reflections on the socio-political function of Mycenaean religion”. Aegaeum 22 (POTNIA. Deities and Religion in the Aegean Bronze Age): 355.

———. 1997. Mycenaean cult buildings. A study of their architecture and function in the context of the Aegean and the Eastern Mediterranean. Norwegian Institute of Athens

IX

77

Wilkinson, Toby C., Susan Sherratt, and John Bennet, eds. 2011. Interweaving worlds. systemic interactions in eurasia, 7th to the 1st millennia BC. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Wright, James C. 2010. “Political economies in the Aegean bronze age: A response”. In Political economies of Aegean bronze age., 248.

———. 2006. “The formation of the Mycenaean palace”. In Ancient Greece: From the Mycenaean palaces to the age of homer., eds. Sigrid Deger-Jalkotzy, Irene S. Lemos, 7-52. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

———. 2006. “The social production of space and the architectural reproduction of society in the bronze age Aegean during the 2nd millenium BCE”. In Constructing power: Architecture, ideology and social practice., eds. Joseph Maran, Carsten Juwig, Hermann Schwengel and Ulrich Thaler, 49.

———. 2004. “A survey of evidence for feasting in Mycenaean society”. Hesperia 73 (2: The Mycenaean feast): 121.

———. 1995. “The archaeological correlates of religion: Case studies from the Aegean”. Aegaeum 12 (Politeia, Society and State in the Aegean Bronze Age): 343.

———. 1995. “From chief to king in Mycenaean Greece”. Aegaeum 11 (The Role of the Ruler in Prehistoric Greece): 63.

———. 1994. “The Mycenaean entrance system at the west end of the akropolis of Athens”. Hesperia 63 (3): 323-60.

———. 1994. “The spatial configuration of belief: The archaeology of Mycenaean religion”. In Placing the gods. sanctuaries and sacred space in ancient Greece., eds. Susan E. Alcock, Robin Osborne. Vol. 41, 37. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

———. 1987. “Death and power at mycenae. changing symbols in mortuary practices”. Aegaeum 1 : 171.

Younger, John G. 1995. “The iconography of ruler ship. A conspectus”. Aegaeum 11 (The Role of the Ruler in the Prehistoric Aegean): 151.

The reciprocity between architecture and man: Power representation in the Mycenaean megaron-palaces

Documents