Master thesis in Classical and Mediterranean Archaeology

THE RECIPROCITY BETWEEN

ARCHITECTURE AND MAN

Power representation in the Mycenaean

megaron-palaces
By
Heleen E. Duinker

Faculty of Arts - Department of Archaeology

Supervisor: prof. Sofia Voutsaki

Groningen
January 2014

Rijksuniversiteit Groningen

University of Groningen

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 Mllers classification. After Mllaer 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

I
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

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
2

I
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 sociopolitical 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
6

The excavations of Mycenae and Tiryns by Heinrich Schliemann and Wilhem Drpfeld (1885)
Wright 1994, 49; Cavanagh 2001, 119

I
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 Rapoports 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
8

For example, on iconography: Immerwahr 1990; Younger 1995, on mobility: Parkinson 2010
Rapoport 1982

II
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 Drpfeld 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 Drpfeld 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 Drpfeld 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() 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 Drpfeld was rather from
general descriptions of the setting, such as the following example from Homers Odyssey.15

Wright 2006, 9
Schliemann and Drpfeld 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 Drpfeld 1885, 223
10

II
In book 6, Nausicaa - daughter of king Alcinous (or Alkinos) 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 Drpfeld
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 Homers 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).

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

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 Drpfeld 1885, 215, 253; Maran 2006, 76;

Winckler, Die Wohnhuser der Hellenen, 120 ff; Robinson & Graham 1938, Excavations at Olynthos part VIII:
The Hellenic House. Baltimore.
18

II
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 south- west
Anatolia. For example, the speculations by Ulrich Khler (1838-1903) connect the origins of
Mycenaean civilization with the Carian thalassocracy.21 Further excavations in Anatolia, however,
would criticize Khlers 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

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
20

II
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
Fig. 2: Part of the typology of Greek
for the characteristics of the Classical Greek temple (Gr. naos, temples, based on Vitrivius book 4.4
26
; Lt. cella). (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 ones subject. Even so, Valentin
Mller 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 Mller 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; Mller; Smith

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
Mller 1944, 342
30
Mller 1944, 343 - 345
31
Mller 1944, 342
26

II
seems to also be generated from the domestic dwellings in the Middle Helladic period, such as in
Lerna. (fig.3)

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 Mllers classification.

After Mllaer 1944, fig.1.

All features that do not correspond to the traditional dwelling, Mller declares to be the result of
foreign influences. For example, the aim to clarify civilizations 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
Mller 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 Smiths 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
33
34
35
36

Mller 1944, 347

Blegen 1945, 42
Ibid.; and still not an unusual opinion for modern scholars, see Nelson 2007, 153-159.
Blegen 1945, 44
Blegen 1945, 43

II
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 Homers 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 Mller, 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
Mller 1944: 347

II
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

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.
42

10

II
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 someones 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 megarons 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
48
49
50
51

Hodder 1982, 1-16

Kilian 1987, 203-205; Wright 2006, the formation of the palaces, 7
Fitzsimons 2007a; 2007b
Fitzsimons 2007a, 115
Tsountas and Mannat, 1897. The Mycenaean Age. Boston and New York, 336. In Thomas 1995, 94

11

II
Firstly, within the search of unravelling this society, the Homeric epic inferred the line of reasoning
and attributed to a possible Mycenaean monarchy. In Homers 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 priestking 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 (v).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
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61

Maran 2007, 285

Palaima 1995, 126-127; Maran 2007, 285; among others.
Maran, 2007
Carlier, P. 1984. La royaut en Grce avant Alexandre. Strasbourg: AECR. Referred by Maran 2007, 286
Chadwick 1987, 12 - 21
Ibid., 33
Whittaker 1997; Killen 1996; Palaima 1995, 132
Chadwick 1987; Killen 2006
Thomas 1995, 96
Chadwick 1987; Thomas 1995, 97; Nakassis 2012, 6 - 9; Tablets Er 312 and Er 388.

12

II
2.4.5 WANAX-IDEOLOGY
Klaus Kilians 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, Kilians 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 Homers 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

13

III
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
68
69

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

Giddens 1984, 24; Maran 2006, 75
Fitzsimons 2006, 2007

14

III
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 rulers
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
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
71

15

III
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
75
76

Maran 2006, 76
Wright 2006 in Maran, 49
Ibid.

16

IV
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, Fishers 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

17

IV
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
82
83

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

Hillier and Hanson 1984, 147 - 155
Fisher 2009, 444

18

IV
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 Lw 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
85
86

Lw 2001, 158-161
Hall 1966, 95-105; Rapoport 1982, 87-101; referenced by Maran 2006, 76
Thaler 2009, 95 ff.

19

IV
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 Marans 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 Hilliers
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

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
88

20

IV
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.

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

91

Cavanagh 2001, 122

21

V
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
93

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

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

22

V
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 centurys long search for a
historically known location. As is true for more Bronze Age societies in the Aegean, Homers Iliad and
Odyssey interested many descendants to localize the landscape of these historical figures in
Messenia. In their interpretation of Homers 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 couldnt find any remnants of Nestors 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 megaronpalace.97
Fig. 6: Ancient geography Elis. Smith, W,.
1854. Dictionary of Greek and Roman
Geography, London

94
95
96
97

In the case of Pylos: Blegen 1966

Davis 1998, 70
Blegen 1962. A guide to the palace of Nestor, 3
Ibid., 3-4

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

V
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
99
100
101
102
103

Bennet, J., 1998. The PRAP surveys contribution. In Davis, Sandy Pylos. 135 ff.
Blegen 1966, Davis 1998, xxxi-xxxv, 2
Davis 1998, 4
Davis 1998, xxxi - xxxiv
For example tablets Ng 319 & Ng 332; Bennet 1998. In Davis, 113
Zangger, Eberhard, 1998. The environmental setting. In Davis ed. 8

26

V
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 Blegens 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. Blegens 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 northeastern 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

Blegen, 1962. 4; 1966
106
Bennet, J., 1998. The PRAP surveys 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
105

27

V
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

28

V
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
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
111

29

V
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.

30

V
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 visitors 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 Southwestern building was separate and most likely served a different purpose than the main building.

118

31

Blegen 1966, 54

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

32

V
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

33

V
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

34

V
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 buildings 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

35

Blegen 1966, 59

V
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.

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
120

Cavanagh 2001, 122

36

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)

37

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

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

38

V
Ioannis Travlos (1960) sufficiently consists of reconstructed wall structures. In the detailed
descriptions by Blegens 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
Fishers 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:

122
123

39

cell

max. density

3
2
4
44
Total

322
82
67
138
609

Fisher 2009, 444: Neufert and Neufert 2000, 16-17

Fisher 2009, 444

V
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.

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

5.5.3 WHAT KIND OF GATHERINGS CAN BE DISTINGUISHED IN A POWER CONTEXT OF AN HIERARCHICAL

SOCIETY?
We cant 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
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
125

40

V
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

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.
128

41

V
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 rulers 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
130
131
132
133
134

Wright 2004, 126

Ibid., 122
Nakassis 2012
Whitelaw, 2001, 74
Ibid., 2001. 52-62
Shelmerdine 1998, 84, 88

42

V
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 dont 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 structures 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
136

43

Whitelaw 2001, 62
Wright 2004

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

44

V
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
Kpper 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 faade to suggest the
importance of what was present in the next depth level.
Against the north-eastern antablock of the porticos 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
Kpper 1996, Nelson 2001

45

V
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

46

V
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

47

Blegen 1966, 54 - 57

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

48

V
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
142
143

49

Blegen, 78 - 81
Konsolaki-yannopoulou, Eleni 2001, 213-215
Blegen 1966, 78

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 doesnt 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.

50

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

On framing in the usage of symbolism: Renfrew 1998, Mind and Matter: Cognitive archaeology and external
symbolic storage. Cambridge. 1-6
145

51

V
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.

52

VI
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

53

VI
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

54

VI
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.

55

Fig. 30: Control value map of Tiryns. Author

VII
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 Nelsons suggested wall construction technique and I have placed Langs 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 Rapoports 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.
56

VII
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.

57

VIII
APPENDIX
Table 1: Parameters Pylos
Cell

Depth

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52

1
2
3
4
5
6
2
3
6
5
4
5
6
7
8
7
8
8
10
9
10
9
10
9
8
9
10
7
8
9
9
10
9
10
6
7
5
6
7
8
7
8
7
4
5
6
7
7
8
9
6
7

Total
D
3
11
26
50
95
161
11
26
161
95
50
95
161
245
333
245
333
333
484
414
484
414
484
414
333
414
484
245
333
414
414
484
414
484
161
245
95
161
245
333
245
333
245
50
95
161
245
245
333
414
161
245

K-1

MD

RA

CV

Cell

Depth

3
7
12
18
27
38
7
12
38
27
18
27
38
50
61
50
61
61
77
70
77
70
77
70
61
70
77
50
61
70
70
77
70
77
38
50
27
38
50
61
50
61
50
18
27
38
50
50
61
70
38
50

1
1,571
2,167
2,778
3,519
4,237
1,571
2,167
4,237
3,519
2,778
3,519
4,237
4,9
5,459
4,9
5,459
5,459
6,286
5,914
6,286
5,914
6,286
5,914
5,459
5,914
6,286
4,9
5,459
5,914
5,914
6,286
5,914
6,286
4,237
4,9
3,519
4,237
4,9
5,459
4,9
5,459
4,9
2,778
3,519
4,237
4,9
4,9
5,459
5,914
4,237
4,9

0
0,19
0,212
0,209
0,194
0,175
0,19
0,212
0,175
0,194
0,209
0,194
0,175
0,159
0,149
0,159
0,149
0,149
0,139
0,142
0,139
0,142
0,139
0,142
0,149
0,142
0,139
0,159
0,149
0,142
0,142
0,139
0,142
0,139
0,175
0,159
0,194
0,175
0,159
0,149
0,159
0,149
0,159
0,209
0,194
0,175
0,159
0,159
0,149
0,142
0,175
0,159

1,33
0,58
1,58
0,5
2,08
0,25
1,33
0,5
0,5
1,33
1,08
0,88
1,41
1,25
0,5
1,58
0,33
0,99
0,33
1,83
0,83
1,33
0,83
0,83
1,33
1,33
0,5
0,91
2,33
1,25
1,25
0,5
1,25
0,5
1,66
0,33
0,83
1,33
1,25
0,5
1,25
0,5
0,25
1,41
0,91
1,66
0,33
1,16
1,33
0,5
1,16
1,33

53
54
55
56
57
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
77
78
79
80
88
89
90

8
5
6
7
1
1
2
3
3
4
5
4
4
5
6
5
6
6
7
8
8
9
10
3
2

Total
D
333
95
161
245
3
3
11
26
26
50
95
50
50
95
161
95
161
161
245
333
333
414
484
26
11

K-1

MD

RA

CV

61
27
38
50
3
3
7
12
12
18
27
18
18
27
38
27
38
38
50
61
61
70
77
12
7

5,459
3,519
4,237
4,9
1
1
1,571
2,167
2,167
2,778
3,519
2,778
2,778
3,519
4,237
3,519
4,237
4,237
4,9
5,459
5,459
5,914
6,286
2,167
1,517

0,149
0,194
0,175
0,159
0
0
0,19
0,212
0,212
0,209
0,194
0,209
0,209
0,194
0,175
0,194
0,175
0,175
0,159
0,149
0,149
0,142
0,139
0,212
0,19

0,5
0,75
1,5
0,5
0,33
1,49
1,5
0,33
2,41
1,25
0,5
0,25
1,08
1,33
0,5
1,83
0,33
0,66
1,5
0,33
1,33
0,5
0,83
0,5
1,25

58

VIII
Table 2: Parameters Tiryns
Cell

Depth

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45

1
2
3
4
4
5
6
6
5
7
8
9
4
6
6
7
5
6
7
7
8
9
10
10
11
11
12
12
13
14
14
13
12
13
11
11
10
13
12
12
13
13
14
14
15

59

Total
D
1
3
6
18
18
23
53
53
23
88
120
174
18
53
53
88
23
53
88
88
120
174
214
214
269
269
329
329
407
477
477
407
329
407
269
269
214
407
329
329
407
407
477
477
492

K-1

MD

RA

CV

Cell

Depth

1
2
3
6
6
9
14
14
9
19
23
29
6
14
14
19
9
14
19
19
23
29
33
33
38
38
43
43
49
54
54
49
43
49
38
38
33
49
43
43
49
49
54
54
55

1
1,5
2
3
3
2,556
3,786
3,786
2,556
4,632
5,217
6
3
3,786
3,786
4,632
2,556
3,786
4,632
4,632
5,217
6
6,485
6,485
7,079
7,079
7,651
7,651
8,306
8,833
8,833
8,306
7,651
8,306
7,079
7,079
6,485
8,306
7,651
7,651
8,306
8,306
8,833
8,833
8,945

0
0
1
1
1
0,389
0,429
0,429
0,389
0,404
0,383
0,357
1
0,429
0,429
0,404
0,389
0,429
0,404
0,404
0,383
0,357
0,343
0,343
0,329
0,329
0,317
0,317
0,304
0,296
0,296
0,304
0,317
0,304
0,329
0,329
0,343
0,304
0,317
0,317
0,304
0,304
0,296
0,296
0,294

0,83
0,95
2,16
0,25
0,75
0,83
1,5
0,58
2,33
0,66
1,83
0,33
1
0,25
1,25
0,5
0,53
2,16
0,7
0,7
1
1,66
0,33
1,66
0,33
1,83
0,33
0,66
2
0,33
0,66
0,95
2,03
0,25
1,57
0,58
1,2
0,33
1,4
1,4
0,33
3,16
0,2
1,2
0,5

46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55

14
9
8
9
10
11
9
9
7
8

Total
D
477
174
120
174
214
269
174
174
88
120

K-1

MD

RA

CV

54
29
23
29
33
38
29
29
19
23

8,833
6
5,217
6
6,485
7,079
6
6
4,632
5,217

0,296
0,357
0,383
0,357
0,343
0,329
0,357
0,357
0,404
0,383

0,2
0,53
3,33
0,7
1,5
0,5
0,2
0,2
1,4
0,33

FILMPSTRIP SNAPSHOT 3D MODEL (INCLUDING SHADOWS UTC +2:00, 14.30H)

VIII

VIII

VIII

IX

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
. Archologische Forschungen zwischen Nil und Istros. Festschrift fr 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, Jos 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.

70

IX

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 ge l'ge 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.

71

IX

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.
Kpper, 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).

72

IX

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.
Lw, 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.
Mller, 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.

73

IX

. 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. Archologischer 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.

74

IX

. 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 Drpfeld. 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.

75

IX

Siennicka, Malgorzata. 2010. Spatial organisation of late Mycenaean settlements. Universittsforschungen

zur prhistorischen Archologie. 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, Hlene. 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

76

IX

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.

77