DOCSLIB.ORG

Megarons and Minoan Hall Systems a Comparison of the Large Hall Systems in Minoan and Mycenaean Architecture by Melanie Teahan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Megarons and Minoan Hall Systems A Comparison of the large hall systems in Minoan and Mycenaean Architecture By Melanie Teahan A thesis submitted to the Victoria University of Wellington in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Classics Victoria University of Wellington 2017 1 Contents Abstract 4 Acknowledgements 6 Table List 8 Figure List 8 Plan List 9 Chapter 1: Introduction 12 1.2 Introduction to Minoan Hall Systems 15 1.3 Introduction to Mycenaean Megaron-Units 17 1.4 Limitations 21 Chapter 2: Spatial Structure 22 2.1 Introduction 22 2.2 Space Syntax Analysis 22 2.3 Clinton’s Typology of Access and Circulation Patterns 25 Spatial Structure of Minoan Hall Systems 28 2.4 Space Syntax Analysis 28 2.5 Approach 30 2.6 Connections 32 2.7 Conclusions 34 Spatial Structure of Mycenaean Megaron-Units 36 2.8 Space Syntax Analysis 36 2.9 Approach 39 2.10 Connections 42 2.11 Conclusions 43 2.12 Comparison and Conclusions 45 Chapter 3: Climate and Climate Manipulation in Hall Systems 50 3.1 Introduction: Climate in the Bronze Age Aegean 50 3.2 Open-Air Spaces 52 3.3 Pier and Door Partitions 59 3.4 Hearths 63 3.5 Conclusions 72 Chapter 4: Conclusions 76 Works Cited 84 Appendix 1: Space Syntax Analysis of Mycenaean Megaron-Units 90 Tables 99 Figures 106 Plans 118 2 3 Abstract Scholarship comparing the Minoan Hall System with the Mycenaean ‘megaron’ has in general emphasized either the similarities or differences between the two types of suite. Early archaeological literature tends to equate the two suites, with scholars such as Joseph Hazzidakis (Hazzidakis 1934:16-17) suggesting that the differences between the two can be explained by differences in climate between Crete and mainland Greece. On the other hand, in more recent scholarship, the two forms are distanced from one another, in effect polarizing the two architectural forms. Comparisons such as these tend to imply that the form of both types of hall system is very regular, with each suite likely hosting the same function as the next. In order to study the similarities and differences between the Minoan Hall System and Mycenaean ‘megaron’, 27 Minoan hall systems and 15 megaron-units have been analysed and compared. These hall systems will be compared in their form, in the way they were incorporated into the surrounding building, and in the features they incorporate. To discuss how the hall systems were incorporated into buildings, Space Syntax Analysis will be used alongside a typology of access and circulation developed by Miriam Clinton (2013) for Minoan architecture. The climate-controlling features of open-air spaces, pier and door partitions and hearths will also be discussed. A close examination of a wide variety of Minoan Hall Systems and Mycenaean ‘megarons’ shows that both forms differed considerably from site to site. Within each architectural form are examples of vastly different sizes, which are incorporated into buildings in very different ways. It is likely, therefore, that these buildings would have functioned in different ways. With this wide variation, it is unsurprising, therefore, that in comparison while some Minoan Hall Systems and Mycenaean ‘megarons’ are very different, others are very similar. It is likely that the functions of some of these more standard hall systems may have overlapped. An examination of the climate-controlling features of open-air spaces, pier and door partitions and hearths reveals that Minoan Hall Systems and Mycenaean ‘megarons’ likely did not differ primarily based on differences in climate. Though these features would have certainly been used for climate control, it will be shown that they likely had some other significance. Finally, from this comparison some tentative and broad conclusions about the possible functions of the two types of hall system have been drawn. 4 5 Acknowledgements I would like to thank my supervisor, Judy Deuling, for her constant support and guidance throughout my studies, both in the writing of this thesis and earlier, and for passing on her enthusiasm for Bronze Age Archaeology. This thesis would not have been possible without her support. I would also like to thank the staff and postgraduate students of the Classics Department at Victoria University of Wellington, for their academic and moral support, their feedback and ideas and for the fantastic community I have been privileged to be part of for the last six years. Finally, I would like to thank my friends and family, for their incredible support and encouragement. 6 7 List of Tables Table 1: Minoan Hall Systems (studied by Letesson). 99 Table 2: Other Certain Minoan Hall Systems. 100 Table 3: Other Hypothetical Minoan Hall Systems. 100 Table 4: Mycenaean Megaron-Units. 101 Table 5: Space Syntax Analysis of Minoan Hall Systems. 102 Table 6: Minoan Hall System Connections. 103 Table 7: Space Syntax Analysis of Mycenaean Megaron-Units. 104 Table 8: Light Wells in Minoan Hall Systems. 105 List of Figures Figure 1: Plan of Phylakopi showing the walls of the LCIII ‘Megaron’ and LCI ‘Mansion’ which it was built on top of. 106 Figure 2: Middle Cycladic Building at Phylakopi with megaron-unit and flanking corridor. 106 Figure 3: a) Plan and b) reconstruction of a typical Minoan hall system. 107 Figure 4: Pier and Door Partitions, reconstruction and plan. 107 Figure 5: Pier and door partitions, showing the three ways they can be used – as a wall, door or void. 108 Figure 6: Comparison of the three palatial megaron-units from Mycenae, Tiryns and Pylos. 108 Figure 7: Rectangular buildings with central hearths. a) Reconstructed EB I-II settlement at Demircihüyük, Turkey, b) Plan of a typical Chinook plank house with several central hearths based on remains from 14th-15th Century AD Oregon c) Modern Central-hearth house from Dalecarlia, Sweden, d) Reconstruction of a traditional Tlingit house from the North-West coast of North America. 109 Figure 8: Space Syntax Analysis of House He at Gournia. a) Connections between the various spaces as seen on the plan. b) The standard Justified Graph, with the exterior as carrier. c) Justified Graph with Space 31 as carrier. d) Depth and Integration figures for the exterior and space 31 of Gournia House He. 110 Figure 9: Ringy system in the House of the Frescoes at Knossos, represented on a) a plan and justified graph (b). 111 Figure 10: Ringy systems in Akhladia, with type d spaces shaded in green, represented on (a) a plan and justified graph (b). 111 Figure 11: Plan of Tiryns showing bent axis approach to the two Megaron-units. 112 Figure 12: Tylissos House C showing circulation patterns into the Minoan Hall System and surrounding matrix. 113 Figure 13: Comparison of the Minoan Hall System at a) Nirou Hani with b) the monumental entrance to the Palace at Phaistos and c) the megaron-unit at Tiryns. Plans not to scale. 113 Figure 14: a) Archanes House Model, showing half wall of the Minoan Hall System, b) Reconstruction of the South House at Knossos with a half wall at the Minoan Hall System. 114 8 Figure 15: Double doors opening onto the Storage Magazines at Phaistos. 114 Figure 16: Circular hearth from Tell Judeideh, Syria. 115 Figure 17: Rim of the Hearth at Pylos showing painted decoration. 115 Figure 18: The hearth at Mycenae: a) Remains, b) illustration of construction, c) decoration. 116 Figure 19: Sherd-based hearth from House M, Tiryns. 117 List of Plans Plan 1: Akhladia, Building A. 118 Plan 2: Chania, House 1. 118 Plan 3: Gournia, Building G/Palace. 119 Plan 4: Knossos, House of the Frescoes. 120 Plan 5: Knossos, Little Palace. 121 Plan 6: Knossos, Royal Villa. 122 Plan 7: Knossos, South House. 122 Plan 8: Malia, Palace Ilôts III and IV. 123 Plan 9: Malia, Maison Δα. 123 Plan 10: Malia, Maison Ζα. 124 Plan 11: Malia, Maison Ζβ. 125 Plan 12: Mochlos, Building B.2, restored plan of second floor, east wing. 125 Plan 13: Nirou Hani. 126 Plan 14: Palaikastro, Building X1-17. 127 Plan 15: Phaistos, Palace, Secondary Minoan Hall System 63-64. 128 Plan 16: Phaistos, Palace, Residential Quarters. 128 Plan 17: Pseira, Building BC. 129 Plan 18: Tylissos, Building A. 130 Plan 19: Tylissos, Building C. 131 Plan 20: Vathypetro, West Building. 131 Plan 21: Zakros, Palace, Minoan Hall Systems. 132 Plan 22: Archanes, Villa. 132 Plan 23: Galatas, Palace. 133 Plan 24: Hagia Triada, Villa Reale. 134 Plan 25: Knossos, Southeast House. 135 Plan 26: Knossos, Residential Quarter. 136 Plan 27: Mycenae, Megaron-unit. 137 Plan 28: Tiryns, Upper Citadel. 138 Plan 29: Pylos, Main Building and South-Western Building. 139 Plan 30: Gla, Residence. 140 Plan 31: Dimini, Megaron A. 141 Plan 32: Dimini, Megaron B. 141 Plan 33: Menelaion, Mansion 1. 142 Plan 34: Mycenae, West House. 142 Plan 35: Phylakopi, Megaron. 143 9 Plan 36: Gournia, House He. 143 Plan 37: Mycenae, House of the Sphinxes. 144 Plan 38: Korakou, House L. 144 Plan 39: Thermos, Megaron A. 145 Plan 40: Tiryns, Building 110a. 145 Plan 41: Pyrgos Myrtos. 146 10 11 Chapter 1: Introduction In early archaeological literature, the main suites in the newly discovered palaces at Mycenae and Tiryns were given the name ‘megaron’.1 The term was taken from the ancient Greek word μέγαρον, which was used by Homer to describe the main halls of the Mycenaean palaces as well as the women’s quarters, and occasionally the entire building.2 At Tiryns, as in Homer’s palaces, a second, smaller ‘megaron’ was discovered adjacent to the main suite, and after Homer this was labelled the women’s hall.3 When Arthur Evans excavated a similar double hall at Knossos, with a larger suite adjoined by a more isolated, smaller suite, he also called the area a ‘megaron’.4 Early scholars continued to use the name ‘megaron’ to describe buildings similar to those found at Knossos.
Recommended publications
  • Parthenon 1 Parthenon

    Parthenon 1 Parthenon

    Parthenon 1 Parthenon Parthenon Παρθενών (Greek) The Parthenon Location within Greece Athens central General information Type Greek Temple Architectural style Classical Location Athens, Greece Coordinates 37°58′12.9″N 23°43′20.89″E Current tenants Museum [1] [2] Construction started 447 BC [1] [2] Completed 432 BC Height 13.72 m (45.0 ft) Technical details Size 69.5 by 30.9 m (228 by 101 ft) Other dimensions Cella: 29.8 by 19.2 m (98 by 63 ft) Design and construction Owner Greek government Architect Iktinos, Kallikrates Other designers Phidias (sculptor) The Parthenon (Ancient Greek: Παρθενών) is a temple on the Athenian Acropolis, Greece, dedicated to the Greek goddess Athena, whom the people of Athens considered their patron. Its construction began in 447 BC and was completed in 438 BC, although decorations of the Parthenon continued until 432 BC. It is the most important surviving building of Classical Greece, generally considered to be the culmination of the development of the Doric order. Its decorative sculptures are considered some of the high points of Greek art. The Parthenon is regarded as an Parthenon 2 enduring symbol of Ancient Greece and of Athenian democracy and one of the world's greatest cultural monuments. The Greek Ministry of Culture is currently carrying out a program of selective restoration and reconstruction to ensure the stability of the partially ruined structure.[3] The Parthenon itself replaced an older temple of Athena, which historians call the Pre-Parthenon or Older Parthenon, that was destroyed in the Persian invasion of 480 BC. Like most Greek temples, the Parthenon was used as a treasury.
  • Ancient Greece and Rome - Activity 1

    Ancient Greece and Rome - Activity 1

    Ancient Greece and Rome - Activity 1. Greek City- States (Athens vs. Sparta) *** If you have not gone through the preparation of this topic yet, please click here. *** *** The red circle(s) on the screen shots indicate the location of the tool or button you must use. *** 1. We will start a new map. If ArcGIS Explorer Online is not opened now, go to “explorer.arcgis.com.” Then click “New Map.” 2. Let’s save the map first. Click the “Save” button on the toolbar. 3. Give the map a title. You can add tags to be searchable by others. Once you fill out the form, click “Save.” 4. We will use the imagery basemap to see the topology of Ancient Greece. Click the “Basemap” tool, and then click the “Imagery” option. 5. Move the map to see Greece. At this point, you might need to discuss the definition of a city-state, list some of the major city-states, and contrast this type of ancient political organization with what students are familiar with today. Also, you can show topology of Greece—many mountains and few plains—to discuss how the small city-states were situated with respect to this terrain and perhaps also why it might have been difficult to organize larger city-states. The darker green color means mountains, and the brown color means plains. When you work with students, it might be better to have a wall map of Europe available for reference. 6. Let’s mark major city-states on the map by adding a point feature.
  • The Military Policy of the Hellenistic Boiotian League

    The Military Policy of the Hellenistic Boiotian League

    The Military Policy of the Hellenistic Boiotian League Ruben Post Department of History and Classical Studies McGill University, Montreal December, 2012 A thesis submitted to McGill University in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree Master of Arts ©Ruben Post, 2012. Table of Contents Abstract ............................................................................................................................. 3 Abrégé ............................................................................................................................... 4 Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................ 5 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 7 Sources .........................................................................................................................11 Chapter One .....................................................................................................................16 Agriculture and Population in Late Classical and Hellenistic Boiotia .........................16 The Fortification Building Program of Epameinondas ................................................31 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................43 Chapter Two ....................................................................................................................48
  • Continuity of Architectural Traditions in the Megaroid Buildings of Rural Anatolia: the Case of Highlands of Phrygia

    Continuity of Architectural Traditions in the Megaroid Buildings of Rural Anatolia: the Case of Highlands of Phrygia

    ITU A|Z • Vol 12 No 3 • November 2015 • 227-247 Continuity of architectural traditions in the megaroid buildings of rural Anatolia: Te case of Highlands of Phrygia Alev ERARSLAN [email protected] • Department of Architecture, Faculty of Architecture, Istanbul Aydın University, Istanbul, Turkey Received: May 2015 Final Acceptance: October 2015 Abstract Rural architecture has grown over time, exhibiting continuities as well as ad- aptations to the diferent social and economic conditions of each period. Conti- nuity in rural architecture is related to time, tradition and materiality, involving structural, typological, functional and social issues that are subject to multiple interpretations. Tis feldwork was conducted in an area encompassing the villages of the dis- tricts of today’s Eskişehir Seyitgazi and Afyon İhsaniye districts, the part of the landscape known as the Highlands of Phrygia. Te purpose of the feldwork was to explore the traces of the tradition of “megaron type” buildings in the villages of this part of the Phrygian Valley with an eye to pointing out the “architectural con- tinuity” that can be identifed in the rural architecture of the region. Te meth- odology employed was to document the structures found in the villages using architectural measuring techniques and photography. Te buildings were exam- ined in terms of plan type, spatial organization, construction technique, materials and records evidencing the age of the structure. Te study will attempt to produce evidence of our postulation of architectural continuity in the historical megara of the region in an efort to shed some light on the region’s rural architecture. Te study results revealed megaroid structures that bear similarity to the plan archetypes, construction systems and building materials of historical megarons in the region of the Phrygian Highlands.
  • Polybios, the Laws of War, and Philip V of Macedon1

    Polybios, the Laws of War, and Philip V of Macedon1

    ORE Open Research Exeter TITLE Polybios, the Laws of War, and Philip V of Macedon AUTHORS Nicholson, EL JOURNAL Historia - Zeitschrift fur Alte Geschichte DEPOSITED IN ORE 25 September 2018 This version available at http://hdl.handle.net/10871/34104 COPYRIGHT AND REUSE Open Research Exeter makes this work available in accordance with publisher policies. A NOTE ON VERSIONS The version presented here may differ from the published version. If citing, you are advised to consult the published version for pagination, volume/issue and date of publication Historia 67, 2018/4, 434–453 DOI 10.25162/historia-2018-0017 Emma Nicholson Polybios, the Laws of War, and Philip V of Macedon1 Abstract: In his account of Philip V of Macedon’s attack of Thermos in 218 BC (5.9–12), Poly- bios uses the ‘laws of war’ as a rhetorical device to reinforce his own interpretation of the king and perspective on the situation. While this is not the only place within his work where the laws are referenced in such a way – they are, for instance, similarly used in the defence of Achaian actions after recapturing Mantinea in 226 BC (Plb. 2.58) – the Thermos episode represents the most extensive and explicit application of this motif and therefore offers us an opportunity to investigate the historian’s historiographical aims and literary workings in more detail. This arti- cle sets out to offer fresh perspectives on this well-known episode, exploring how the reference to the ‘laws’ has serious consequences for the development of the king’s character within the narrative, how it engages with wider didactic and political purposes, and what it reveals about Polybios’ historical method and literary workings.
  • Architectural History I ARC5731-003 ARC2702-002 Introduction

    Architectural History I ARC5731-003 ARC2702-002 Introduction

    Greek Temple Architecture What is a temple? -a building or a site as the place of dwelling by a deity -the word derives from the Greek word temenos, meaning “an encloser” -In Latin, the word templum originally denoted a place marked out for augury by the seer with his staff -Later, it came to mean an area sacred to a particular deity -It was also used for a large and elaborate structure dedicated to one or more deities -Common elements evident in temples of different religions -an enclosure marking the separation of secular from sacred space -gate or a portal through which the sacred space is reached -the altar for offerings and the shrine as cella -many temples are also raised on some form of podium or platform or occupy a naturally elevated site Greek system of deity -Greek gods and goddess were unique compared other deities -Polytheism, a great contrast with Judaic-Christian tradition -Compared to other systems of deities, Greek gods and goddess retained Humanized character. -They are sacred, but also sometimes make transgressions, sly, cunning -Each embodies some aspect of human life as it can be empirically known and experienced They represented the diverse spectrum of humanity: Aphrodite: love Apollo: clear reasoning Dionysus: ecstatic possession Zeus: justice Athena: right action and divine effrontery Ares: loutish skills of war Origin of Greek Temples Pylos (a Mycenaean city), the palace site, general plan, 13 Century BC - The palaces in Crete and Mycenae operated as the basis for the form of the mature mainland temple -the megaron was a large hall, the chief room of the palace in the kingdoms of the Minoan and Mycenean periods -The megaron contained the sacred hearth.
  • Uniformity and Change in Minoan and Mycenaean Religion

    Uniformity and Change in Minoan and Mycenaean Religion

    Kernos Revue internationale et pluridisciplinaire de religion grecque antique 6 | 1993 Varia Uniformity and Change in Minoan and Mycenaean Religion Bernard C. Dietrich Electronic version URL: http://journals.openedition.org/kernos/540 DOI: 10.4000/kernos.540 ISSN: 2034-7871 Publisher Centre international d'étude de la religion grecque antique Printed version Date of publication: 1 January 1993 Number of pages: 113-122 ISSN: 0776-3824 Electronic reference Bernard C. Dietrich, « Uniformity and Change in Minoan and Mycenaean Religion », Kernos [Online], 6 | 1993, Online since 07 April 2011, connection on 19 April 2019. URL : http:// journals.openedition.org/kernos/540 ; DOI : 10.4000/kernos.540 Kernos Kernos, 6 (1993), p. 113-122. UNIFORMITY AND CHANGE IN MINOAN AND MYCENAEAN RELIGION Two issues, that remain very much alive to-day, concern the relationship of Minoan with Mycenaean religion, and the extent of the survival of Mycenaean into Greek religion. The first question is rarely addressed nowadays, because it is generally assumed that irrecon- cilable differences separated the Minoans, with their central figure of a goddess, from the later, more visibly Indo-European and male domina- ted mainland culture. The assumption is based on chronological, ethnic and on linguistic grounds and reinforced by almost half a century of scholarly tradition since Nilsson's recantation of his earlier view concerning one common Minoan/Mycenaean religion. Now Minoan cuIts are usually traced diachronically from site to site beginning with the Early Minoan tholos to the sophisticated palace cuIture of the Middle and Late Bronze Agel. Religious forms that emerge from the archaeology of the various periods produce a distinctive picture of the geography and architecture of cuIt.
  • Synoecism Processes and Non-Urban Sanctuaries

    Synoecism Processes and Non-Urban Sanctuaries

    Sacred landscapes ofAetolia and Achaea: synoecism processes and non-urban sanctuaries Sanne Houby­ "On the acropolis of Patrae is a sanctuary image of Dionysos too was brought from of Artemis Laphria. The surname of the Calydon" (Paus. 7. 21. 1; translated by Nielsen goddess is a foreign one, and her image Jones 1961). too was brought in from elsewhere. For after Calydon with the rest of Aetolia had Introduction been laid waste by the Emperor Augustus in order that the Aetolian people nlight be In many ways - geographically, culturally incorporated into Nicopolis above Ac­ and historically - the landscapes of Achaia tium, the people of Patrae thus secured (especially Western Achaea) and Aetolia the image of Laphria. Most of the images form a unity even though physically they out of Aetolia and fi·om Acarnania were are separated by the gulf of Kalydon and brought by Augustus' orders to Nicopolis, Corinth. They are therefore treated to­ but to Patrae he gave, with other spoils gether in this paper. The passages fi·om fi·om Calydon, the image of Laphria, Pausanias' description of Achaea given which even in my time was still wor­ above serve as a good illustration of their shipped on the acropolis ofPatrae" (Paus. cultural-historical integration. Here Pausa­ 7. 18. 8-9; translated by Jones 1961). nias describes how Augustus soon after his victory at Actium and his foundation of " In this part of the city [agora and the ad­ Nicopolis, moved the cult of Artemis joining areas] is also a sanctuary of Laphria and Dionysos at Kalydon across Dionysos surnamed Calydonian - for the the gulf to Patras (Figs.
  • The Megaron of the Mycenaean Palace

    The Megaron of the Mycenaean Palace

    THE MEGARON OF THE MYCENAEAN PALACE by CLARK HOPKINS No fairer prelude could be found for a review of the Mycenaean megaron than the magnificent publication of the Palace of Nestor by Carl W. Blegen and Marion Rawson (Vol. I, 1966) 1. For the first time the foundation of the whole complex belonging to a royal Mycenaean edifice have been discovered and meticulously excavated. The tablets recovered and deciphered have opened a new chapter in Mycenaean history. The fragments of painting have provided fresh evidence of the splendor of Mycenaean dwellings as already known at Mycenae and Tiryns. One particularly interesting and striking feature was the extraordinarily close parallel found in the great hall, the megaron, to those of Mycenae and Tiryns. The similarity is particularly noteworthy because the type is so dis­ tinctive. The porch, decorated with two columns, looks across an open court toward the entrance way. Behind the porch is a vestibule, a broad room giving entrance to a large hall, almost square. A great circular hearth is placed in the center of the main room and framing it are four columns supporting the roof. In Nestor's palace a single doorway gives access to the vestibule from the court, and another single one from the vestibule to the great hall. Side doors in the vestibule open into corridors on either side of the structure. Storage rooms at the rear of the megaron are accessible only from the corridors. Foundations for the throne lie in the center of the north wall, that is on the right as one enters (fig.
  • FIGURE and TEMPLE in the GREEK WORLD UNTIL the BEGINNING of the LATE ARCHAIC PERIOD (Ca

    FIGURE and TEMPLE in the GREEK WORLD UNTIL the BEGINNING of the LATE ARCHAIC PERIOD (Ca

    Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-85797-0 - Temple Decoration and Cultural Identity in the Archaic Greek World: The Metopes of Selinus Clemente Marconi Excerpt More information ᪉᪉᪉᪉ one FIGURE AND TEMPLE IN THE GREEK WORLD UNTIL THE BEGINNING OF THE LATE ARCHAIC PERIOD (ca. 700–530) It is remarkable that the investigation of the uses of figural representation in Greek sacred architecture is not one of the main areas of present-day scholarship. There are as many monographs as there are temples and parts of the temple once used to display figures – the akroteria, pediments, and friezes; however, thus far there has been no general history of the use of figures on Greek sacred build- ings. The reasons for this odd situation become clear upon examining the history of the discipline, and in particular, the history of scholarly restorations of tem- ples in the period between the beginning and the end of the nineteenth century. For much of the nineteenth century, architects were very creative in their restorations of the original appearance of Greek temples and lavish in their imag- inings of the temples’ figural apparatus. One need only look at restorations of the Parthenon such as those of Gottfried Semper (ca. 1834), Alexis Paccard (1845–6), or Benoit Loviot (1879–81) to realize how important it was for several generations of scholars to create a model of the Greek temple in which figural decoration and architectural structure played equal roles in the original visual impact of the buildings.1 As a result, the illustrations of these studies, dedicated to the master- pieces of Greek Archaic and Classical architecture from all over the Mediterra- nean, restore the temples overwhelmed by gaily colored figures from the top of the roof down to the bottom of the cella walls.
  • The Aetolians, the Europeans and the Pakistanis: Lessons for Modern Federations

    The Aetolians, the Europeans and the Pakistanis: Lessons for Modern Federations

    Munich Personal RePEc Archive The Aetolians, the Europeans and the Pakistanis: Lessons for modern federations Economou, Emmanouel/Marios/Lazaros and Kyriazis, Nicholas University of Thessaly, Department of Economics 10 March 2015 Online at https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/62974/ MPRA Paper No. 62974, posted 18 Mar 2015 12:40 UTC The Aetolians, the Europeans and the Pakistanis: Lessons for modern federations* Dr. Emmanouil Marios L. Economou (corresponding author) Department of Economics, University of Thessaly, Korai 43 Street, PC: 383 33 Volos Thessaly, Greece. E-mail: [email protected]. Prof. Dr. Nicholas K. Kyriazis Department of Economics, University of Thessaly, Korai 43 Street, PC: 383 33 Volos Thessaly, Greece. Abstract In the present essay we begin with a short presentation of the Aetolian proto- federation, an ancient Greek federation and then, through an interactive approach we compare its structure and institutions with those of the European Union (EU), a would-be federation and Pakistan, an established federal state in central Asia since 1948. To achieve this, we make use of a specific set of criteria such as the democratic legitimization (or not) of their main federal bodies, the existence or not of common defense and security policy, common currency, incentives to participate in the federal structure such as single citizenship (Greek: isopoliteia,) and federal justice. Our results indicate that the Aetolian federation had practiced a series of institutional settlements, such as both direct and representative democracy, cohesion policies such * A first version of this essay was presented at the 53rd ERSA Congress, Regional Integration: Europe, the Mediterranean and the World Economy, 27-31 August 2013 in Palermo, Italy and at the Conference organised by the Faculty of Economics, University of Thessaly and Konrad Adenauer Foundation, Volos, 29 April, 2014.
  • Ancient Greece Alexandros of IKTINOS 447–438 B.C

    Ancient Greece Alexandros of IKTINOS 447–438 B.C

    Ancient Greece Epigonos (?), Dying Gaul, 230 B.C. Alexandros of Antioch‐on‐the‐Meander, Venus de Milo, 150‐120 B.C. IKTINOS and KALLIKRATES , Parthenon, 447–438 BCE The Greek World Artistic Periods • Geometric (900‐600 B.C.) • Archaic (600‐480 B.C) • Early & High Classical (480‐400 B.C.) • Late Classical (400 – 323 B.C.) • Hellenistic (323‐30 B.C.) No other culture has had as far‐reaching or lasting an influence on art and civilization as that of ancient Greece. Geometric Period • Dates: ca. 900–600 BC; named because of the prevalence of geometric designs and patterns in the works of art. • Conceptual (stylized) representation of human figures. • Krater – ancient wide-mouthed bowl for mixing wine and water • Amphora – ancient Greek two-handled jar used for general storage purposes, usually wine or oil Krater vs Amphora DIPYLON PAINTER, Geometric amphora with Geometric krater, from the Dipylon cemetery, mourning scene, from the Dipylon cemetery, Athens, Greece, ca. 740 BCE Athens, Greece, ca. 750 BCE. Mantiklos Apollo, statuette of a youth dedicated by Mantiklos to Apollo, from Thebes, Greece, ca. 700–680 BCE Hero and centaur (Herakles and Nessos?), from Olympia,Greece, ca. 750–730 BCE Archaic Period • Dates: ca. 600 - 480 B.C. • Gradual change from Geometric style to the Archaic style. • It was influenced by the flowing forms and animals in Mesopotamian art. • There was a growing emphasis on the human figure. In a series of bands, reminiscent of geometric vases, native animals (boars) appear next to exotic lions and panthers as well as creatures inspired by eastern creatures like the sphinx and lamassu.