2005 2006 EARTH IN MINOAN CONSTRUCTION ISSN 1233-624665 From the Ground Up: Earth in Minoan Construction. The Case of Building 5 at Palaikastro1 MAUD DEVOLDER The violent destruction by fire of Building 5 at Palaikastro, Crete, provided an interesting and varied collection of well-pre- served fired-earth elements. Those include fragments of mudbricks, mud coatings, roofs/ceilings, doorjambs, and other samples which bear impressions of wooden elements, probably from installations made of a combination of earth and wood. The publica- tion of a selection of the samples has two purposes. The first is to offer a typological description of the earthen features in order to elucidate their various functions and their importance in Minoan architecture. Thus considered, the fragments described illus- trate particular construction techniques and help reconstructing the original appearance of the building. The second purpose of this study is to consider the knowledge Minoan builders had of materials and techniques involved in earthen architecture. This study may allow some insights into the status of the practitioners of architecture and the degree of involvement of inhabitants or of specialists in construction. Because it was destroyed by a violent fire at the tail in the final publication,3 the role and composition end of Late Minoan (LM) IB, Building 5 at Roussolak- of a selection of the most significant samples is stud- kos in Palaikastro, Crete, offers an interesting and ied here. Combined with observations on published varied collection of fired-earth elements illustrating the samples from other contemporary buildings, the present role of this material in Minoan Neopalatial architec- report aims to elucidate the various functions of earthen ture (Fig. 1). One of the two aims of this paper is to elements and their importance in Minoan architecture. offer a typological description of these remains, illus- It will be suggested that the specialised use and char- trating particular construction techniques and helping acter of earthen architectural features point to a com- to reconstruct the original appearance of the building.2 mon use of a material that is often barely preserved While this latter aspect will be considered in full de- and only rarely given sufficient attention in excavation reports.4 1 Thanks are due to the directors of the Palaikastro excavations, Hugh Sackett, Sandy MacGillivray and Jan Driessen, for permission to study and reproduce the material presented here. Particular thanks 3 J.A. MACGILLIVRAY, J. DRIESSEN and L.H. SACKETT, Pa- go to Jan Driessen for his advice and comments, as well as members laikastro. Building 5 (forthcoming). of the Topography of Power project at the UCLouvain. I am extremely 4 One should note, however, amongst the most specialised anal- grateful to Pamela Jerome, Joseph Shaw, Martin Schmid, Jules Bou- ysis and publications J. SHAW, Minoan Architecture: Materials and harmont and Anaya Sarpaki for their help and comments on specific Techniques (ASAtene 49, Rome 1973), 187196; J. SHAW, New Ev- subjects, as well as to Carl Knappett for comments on early drafts. idence for Aegean Roof Construction from Bronze Age Thera, AJA 2 J. DRIESSEN, On the Use of Upper Floors in Minoan Neopa- 81 (1977), 229233; A. GUEST-PAPAMANOLI, Lemploi de la latial Architecture, in I. BRADFER-BURDET, B. DETOURNAY and brique crue dans le domaine égéen à lépoque néolithique et à lâge R. LAFFINEUR (eds.), Lartisan crétois (Aegaeum 26, Liège/Austin du bronze, BCH 102 (1978), 324 ; E. HALLAGER, Upper Floors 2005), 87. in LM I Houses, in P. DARCQUE and R. TREUIL (eds.), Lhabitat 66 MAUD DEVOLDER AEA 8 Building 5 at Palaikastro was discovered in the to which earth was put in construction techniques, course of the British School excavations at Palaikas- ranging from bricks and revetments to ceilings, floors tro, between 1986 and 2003. Built in LM IA, it was and other structural elements. Five categories of ma- considerably modified in the course of its history be- terials could be distinguished: fragments of mudbricks, fore it was destroyed by fire in LM IB.5 After minor mud coatings, roofs/ceilings, doorjambs, and samples damage following a presumed fire in the course of the which cannot be fully identified beyond the fact that LM IB period, some of its rooms were given ashlar they bear impressions of wooden elements. The latter façades, a few floors needed relaying, some walls were probably formed part of installations that combined rebuilt and the north-western part was cut off from the earth and wood such as niches, window-sills, shelves, remaining building. It is here that fragments of a large boxes, bins, compartments etc. Although the basic chryselephantine statuette were found.6 After the LM component of all the samples is earth, their specific IB destruction, the north-western part of the building composition, especially where binding elements are was partly cleaned out and reused during LM III. In concerned, differs consistently, allowing straightforward the south-eastern part, however, the mass of burnt macroscopic typological distinctions. The samples pre- collapsed destruction debris remained and it is from sented here were selected because they illustrate spe- this level that the material presented here derives. In- cific features in terms of function or composition. The deed, the undisturbed state of the destruction layer present investigation is only part of an initial analysis comprised an exceptional concentration of earthen of the building, but points to the need, if not to reas- elements, allowing a contextual study. The samples de- sess, then to define more accurately the role of earth, scribed illustrate the knowledge Minoan builders had and the particular shapes formed by this material in of materials and techniques involved in earthen Minoan Neopalatial architecture. Moreover, further architecture. Some aspects such as the composition of studies on the role of wood may provide interesting various earthen features lead to a better understanding insights into earth construction, perhaps clarifying the of the possible ways in which their production was or- existence of various earthen-wall categories. ganised. In fact, the material described here allows us to explore a key question in Minoan architecture: what was the status of its practitioners, and how involved Mudbrick walls were ordinary people and/or construction specialists. The destruction layer of Building 5 comprised, in Most of the mudbrick walls in Building 5 have dis- addition to a large quantity of shapeless mudbrick frag- appeared, owing to post-depositional vicissitudes. Of- ments, a series of samples illustrating the various uses ten, only their stone socle survives, but some standing architectural remains in the building act to preserve the égéen préhistorique, Actes de la Table Ronde internationale, Athènes, bricks. Many others, in various degrees of preserva- 2325 juin 1987 (BCH Suppl. 19, Athens 1990), 281292; P.S. JE- tion, were found during excavation. In order to be ROME, Analysis and Conservation of Mudbrick Construction in suitable for construction, bricks should present a hete- Bronze Age Crete, Unpublished Master Thesis, Columbia University (New York 1991); P.S. JEROME, Analysis of Bronze Age Mudbricks rogeneous granulometry: gravel, silt, sand and clay, from Palaikastro, Crete, 7th International Conference on the Study and with the latter material ensuring the cohesion between Conservation of Earthern Architecture, Silves, Portugal, (Lisbon 1993), the various particles.7 Their heterogeneity ensures the 381386; A. DANDRAU, La construction en terre dans le monde right balance between a sufficient plasticity of the égéen protohistorique: les matériaux et leurs propriétés. Volume I. Les matériaux: généralités. Contextes archéologiques. Volume II. Analyse matrix on the one hand, and cohesion of the elements et résultats. Discussions, PhD, Paris I (Paris 1997); J. SHAW & on the other hand, so as to avoid disintegration during M. SHAW (eds.), Kommos V. The Monumental Minoan Buildings at the drying process. It is this particular combination Kommos (Princeton 2006), 128, 139, 146, 155, 158, 164, 175, and which justifies the use of the term earth rather 251 n. 45. 5 T. CUNNINGHAM, Havoc: The Destruction of Power and the than clay since the latter represents only one of the Power of Destruction, in J. BRETSCHNEIDER, J. DRIESSEN and different components of the matrix and it is better to K. VAN LERBERGHE (eds.), Power and Architecture. Monumental Public Architecture in the Bronze Age Near East and Aegean (Leu- ven 2007), 3039. 7 F.J. PETTIJOHN, P.E. POTTER and R. SIEVER, Sand and 6 J.A. MACGILLIVRAY, J.M. DRIESSEN and L.H. SACKETT Sandstone (New YorkHeidelbergBerlin 1973), 1; O. AURENCHE, (eds.), The Palaikastro Kouros: a Minoan Chryselephantine Statuette La maison orientale. Larchitecture du Proche-Orient ancien, des ori- and its Aegean Bronze Age Context (BSA Studies 6, London 2000). gines au milieu du IVème millénaire (Paris 1981), 46. 2005 2006 EARTH IN MINOAN CONSTRUCTION 67 Fig. 1. Plan of Neopalatial Building 5, Palaikastro (Jan Driessen) avoid the term since one risks confusion with both of the Petsofas hill, just next to the excavations, where a geological deposit and a specific grain size. Several the Minoans exploited their building earth.10 It is per- studies have stressed the importance of terra rossa in haps good to remember that the recommended clay Aegean earth construction,8 implying an earth type proportion for making