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.