INTRODUCTION

For the last 2000 years, the culture and ideas that developed among
the ancient Greeks have heavily inuenced western civilization.
Greek monuments in various states of ruin, ranging from merely
heaps of stone or a few columns to almost complete temples can
be found in all territories once occupied by Alexander the Great:
Turkey, North Africa, Sicily, the Levant, Southern Italy, and, of
2.001: eastern Mediterranean basin
course, Greece. (Figures 2.001 & 2.002) Like Egypt, the chief
material characteristic of Greek architecture is that it is made of
stone, although this was not the only building material used by
the Greeks.

Our common knowledge of the ancient Greeks relates principally to

a time called “The Golden Age”. This was in the mid-5th century BC,
the time of the apotheosis of Athens under Perikles. But we can also
nd signicant cultural developments among the Greeks in times
2.002: eastern mediterranean basin with Italy
both before and after the 5th century BC. As far back as 2000BC,
the Peloponnesian peninsula of mainland Greece was inhabited
by Mycenaeans, who were none other than the Achaeans of the
8th-century BC poet Homer’s epic poems the Iliad and the Odyssey.
But Mycenaean culture paralleled an even older culture found on
the island of Crete: the Minoan civilization. Because Greek, or
more properly Hellenic culture emerges from the coming together
of these second millennium BC civilizations, we should start with
a brief overview of the culture of Crete that ourished during this
time, the Bronze Age.

The Bronze Age, which began in Greece about 2000BC is, of course,
when humans began to experiment with alloying copper and tin to
make tools. But, it was also marked by increased specialization, the
invention of the wheel and the ox-drawn plow. Beginning about 1000
BC, the ability to heat and forge iron brought the Bronze Age to an
end and began the Iron Age.

MINOAN CULTURE
Located at the southern edge of the Aegean, Crete is 150 miles long
1
and 35 miles at its widest point. (Figures 2.003 & 2.004) The island
is quite mountainous, with peaks up to 8000 feet high. (Figures
2.005 & 2.006) There are also over 1000 caves on the island. These
numerous caves provided the rst homes and shrines for Crete’s
earliest settlers, who probably came from Asia Minor sometime
between 6500 and 6000 BC, the beginning of the Neolithic Age.
These Neolithic settlers interred their dead in the same caves that 2.003: dark age settlements of the Greek world

they used as dwellings. This practice continued even after people

began building and inhabiting houses when the common practice
was to bury the dead under the oor of the house. This practice did
2.004: the island of Crete
not disappear from Greek civilizations until the late Mycenaean Age.
Another wave of immigration to Crete occurred around 3000BC, the
approximate beginning of the Bronze Age, with people coming from
what is now Turkey, i.e., Asia Minor, Egypt, and Libya.

2.005: Mt. Xyloskalo, Crete

Crete was the Isle of the Blessed, home of the mythical wise King
Minos, the fabled Minotaur, and the architect/inventor Daedalus.
(Figure 2.007) According to Cretan folklore, Minos was the son of
Zeus, born of Europa in a cave along with his two brothers. Mt. Ida,
the highest mountain on Crete in the center of the island, is where,
also according to myth, Zeus was born. According to one of the more 2.006: Mt. Jouctas, Crete
salacious myths surrounding King Minos, the god Poseidon sent the
king a great white bull to be sacriced, but Minos kept it instead.
In revenge, Poseidon gave Queen Pasiphae an unnatural passion
for the bull. Daedalus, exiled from Athens, arranged a tryst between
Queen and bull by making a wooden cow in which the queen could
hide and “present” herself to the amorous ungulate. The love
child of this bizarre copulation was the Minotaur, half bull and half
human. In retribution, Minos imprisoned Daedalus in the maze or
labyrinth he had built.

The greatest areas of cultivatable ground in Crete and its best harbors 2.007: pottery detail, Theseus wrestles the Minotaur

are in the north, where the island slopes to the sea. (Figure 2.008)
Most of the remains of early civilization here are from 2000-1400BC.
By 2000BC, the eastern half of the island had developed a civilization
2.008: the island of Crete
with a rather high level of sophistication. The principal types of
2
 buildings found in this civilization are palaces, houses, and tombs. No
temples were ever found and it has been assumed that the Minoans
worshipped their deities in caves or out in the open on mountaintops.
(Figure 2.009) There were also no protective walls around Cretan
cities because there was no warfare between the various Minoan
settlements and also because Crete could rely on its isolation as
an island for its security. Being an island civilization, the Cretans
developed excellent navigational skills that they used for the purpose
of commerce. Due to their seafaring and especially their boat-
building skills, the Cretans traveled widely throughout the eastern
Mediterranean basin and came into contact with other advanced
civilizations like those in Mesopotamia, the Levant, and Egypt. (Figure
2.010) The principal Minoan export was pottery and earthenware.
2.009: Cretan mother goddess with snakes
(Figures 2.011 – 2.013) Archaeologists have found some examples
of these in Egyptian tombs.

At about the time that Minoan civilization was entering into

Mediterranean commerce, the Egyptians of the New Kingdom were
2.010: the Homeric world, 8th & 9th centuries BC undergoing a kind of cultural renaissance in their architecture. They
had broken away from the severity and rigidity of Old Kingdom
architecture and had begun developing a colonnaded architecture
as is evidenced in the hypostyle halls of their temples in Karnak,
Luxor, and elsewhere. (Figures 2.014 & 2.015) There was clearly
an inuence on Minoan architecture in this respect. However, the
Minoans were not content merely to copy the Egyptians and created
2.011: Minoan pottery their own unique approach to architecture and architectural space.
Part of their innovation must be credited to the fact that they did not
have access to high quality stone on Crete that the New Kingdom
architects had in Egypt. Therefore, the Minoans had to gure out an
approach to architecture that conformed to the building materials
available to them. But we must also be aware that the Minoans had
a different worldview than the Egyptians. The Minoans also had
a different geographical and climatic situation than the Egyptians.
The natural protection afforded by the sea around their island and
its mountainous terrain is analogous in some ways to the natural
2.012: Minoan pottery
protection that the desert provided for the Egyptians. However, they
3
had no major navigable rivers and a landscape that did not have the
geometrical clarity of Egypt. Because of the dynamic originality of its
inspiration in the arts, crafts, and architecture, Minoan Crete marks
the historical beginning of Western architecture.
2.013: Minoan pithoi

Homer described Crete as a rich and lovely land, densely populated

by peoples of several races, each with its own language. The mild
climate, natural geographical protection, access to the sea, arable
land, and generally peaceable way of life encouraged an increase
of general prosperity on Crete leaving far behind the more backward
Helladic civilizations on the Greek mainland. (Figure 2.016) Surplus
production from agriculture contributed to maintaining skilled
craftsmen. This was an important foundation for the Bronze Age.
With the wealth brought by such commerce and with the abundance
of agricultural products, the Minoans enjoyed a very good life at a
fortunate level of peace and prosperity. They were in harmony with
each other and nature. Further evidence of their gracious living can
be found in the level of comfort of their dwellings, which included
well-lighted and airy living rooms, separate bedrooms, ample storage, 2.014: temple complex at Karnak
and bathrooms. (Figure 2.017) Furthermore, the walls of important
houses were painted with scenes depicting the appearance of the
Cretans and their social customs, etc. These frescoes give evidence
that the Minoans enjoyed a certain social equality as well as an
equality between the sexes, demonstrated by similar clothing and
long black, wavy hair for both men and women. (Figures 2.018 –
2.021) In the famous painting of the game of bull leaping, we see
both a woman and a man taking part in the game attired in some
kind of kilt. (Figure 2.022) 2.015: Karnak, main axis of hypostyle hall

4 2.016: Mt. Jouctas, Crete 2.017: palace of Knossos, Queen’s Hall

 Minoan houses were usually two stories high. (Figures 2.023 &
2.024) Most had a sizable pavilion on the roof, stairs, a central
column, light well, and bathroom. (Figures 2.025 - 2.027) Minoan
tombs are about 1300SF and either cut into the rock of a hillside or
underground. They have an entrance, open court, and tomb chambers.
Most of the familiar characteristics of Minoan architecture—porticoes
with alternating columns and piers, three-aisled hypostyle halls
inspired by Egypt, the practice of using large stone slabs at the base
of the walls or for framing openings, lightwells, and broad ights of
steps—were in full use in its rst palaces. The Minoans celebrated
the landscape in their palaces. They had no practical reason to do
so as did the Egyptians, for whom the Nile was fundamentally the
2.018: palace of Knossos, blue monkey fresco
source of life and the axis around which they ordered their cosmos.
For the Minoans, it seems this was more of an aesthetic choice in
that their landscape was dramatic. However, there is some evidence
at Knossos that a view to Mt. Jouctas was favored because its
double peaks echo the horns of the sacred bull. (Figure 2.028)
2.019: palace of Knossos, birds fresco
Their way of life was in respectful harmony with nature, which is
demonstrated throughout their art and architecture. The Minoans
wrote in hieroglyphs, but their writing has never been deciphered.
(Figure 2.029) There are no Minoan texts or literature to give us
an idea about their civilization. There are not even any completely
preserved remnants of their architecture. Only ruins remain. Thus,
what archaeologists have been able to glean about Minoan civilization
has come through the careful examination of their artifacts, the ruins
of their buildings, and the relationships between the Minoans and
other better known cultures.
2.020: palace of Knossos, fresco of the lily prince

2.021: palace of Knossos. la Parisenne fresco 2.022: palace of Knossos, bull leaping fresco 5
According to Homer, Crete had 90 towns, with Knossos as the
great city. Although Knossos at its height had a population of about
100,000, most other Minoan towns were quite small. The Minoan
towns and cities were essentially city-states and hence forerunners of
the Greek polis. The Minoan city-states were effectively the creation
of princes or priest-kings who organized dispersed villages or small
2.023: Minoan faience plaques of houses
territorial units into more centralized political entities throughout the
island. These towns along with Minoan settlements on other islands
throughout the Aegean formed an oikoumene, a commonwealth,
which was focused on the palace-city of Knossos.
2.024: contemporary houses on Crete

It is presumed that Minoan towns effectively took their form

based on the organization of the princely palaces, which were the
administrative, religious, and economic centers of Minoan civilization.
For example, the town of Mallia clearly seems to derive its order from
the palace to which it is adjacent. (Figure 2.030) This palace like all
the palaces of the early second millennium (sometime between 2000
& 1700BC) on Crete was built around a huge courtyard. The town
was likewise organized around a very large open square, a place 2.025: house Da, Mallia, plan

in the open for public assembly, or agora as it was termed by the

Hellenic Greeks. Minoan towns also had an irregular perimeter and
were without protective outer walls. This was also true of the Minoan
palaces. Further, the facades of these palaces were turned toward
the inner court. (Figure 2.031) These palaces and towns occupied 2.026: house Da, Mallia, reconstruction

slopes or atlands instead of the tops of hills and mountains. The

Minoans did not build on these summits in order to pay deference
to the goddesses who they believed dwelled there. The Minoans
conducted open-air religious rites on these summits to propitiate
the goddesses.

In addition to its disproportionately large courtyard, we can

2.027: Minoan house at Nirou Khani, Crete, plan
immediately notice by inspecting the plan of an early Minoan palace
like Mallia two additional qualities. (Figure 2.032) One is its seeming
chaotic organization of spaces and the dramatic dichotomy between
the scale of its immense courtyard of almost 12,000 square feet
and the bewildering cacophony of rooms that surrounds it. What
6 2.028: view of Mt. Jouctas from palace of Knossos
 we further note about this organization is that there is no abstract,
geometrical clarity to this organization. There is no axiality, no
regularity, no logical progression, and no hierarchy except for the
polarity in scale between the courtyard and the rooms that surround
it. Even many of the passages leading from the multiple palace
entries to the inner courtyard are somewhat circuitous and do not
suggest the scale of the space that concludes the sequence. This is
obviously different from the abstract, predictable, spatial organization
characteristic of Egyptian architecture. (Figure 2.033)

PALACE OF KNOSSOS
2.029: Linear A hieroglyphs on stone tablet Knossos is the site of the palace of the legendary King Minos, who
Homer tells us ruled there for nine years and enjoyed the friendship
of Zeus. Minos is said to have received from Zeus a code of laws
that were the source of later Cretan codes. Minos is also generally
attributed with establishing the rst navy and suppressing piracy
in the seas around the island, which had obvious benets to the
commerce of Crete. It was under the dominion of the princes of
2.030: palace & town, plan, Mallia
Knossos that Crete was ultimately unied.

Like its predecessors such as the palace at Mallia, the palace at

Knossos was built around a huge courtyard, which was almost
14,000 square feet. (Figures 2.034 & 2.035) Around this courtyard
2.031: palace at Mallia, reonstruction
were grouped domestic quarters, artisans’ workshops, reception and
audience rooms, a throne room, and subsidiary rooms grouped over
a long series of storage rooms and, at the south, loggias looking
out over the valley beyond. The throne room had cult functions
associated with the bull dance, the great public celebration of Minoan
life. At the edge of the courtyard but within the body of the palace
2.032: palace & town, plan, Mallia

2.033: Minoan palace typology diagram 2.034: palace & town, plan, Mallia 2.035: palace of Knossos, plan
stood a shrine, one of the few discovered for this culture. It was in the
form of a single freestanding column. (Figures 2.036 – 2.038)

2.036: palace of Knossos, courtyard

The ofcial approach to the palace was from the northwest and there
was also a secondary important entrance from the south up a long
ight of stairs called a stepped causeway. (Figures 2.039 & 2.040) A
monumental facade overlooked the huge agstone paved inner court.
To the north of the contiguous walls of the palace was an area with
2.037: palace of Knossos, great stair
gently rising stairs that may have served as the earliest theater to watch
dances in an adjacent courtyard. (Figures 2.041 & 2.042)

The palace of Knossos was developed over 4 different periods of

time. At rst, it had round corners then square corners. The rst period 2.038: palace of Knossos, great stair & courtyard
started in 2300BC. The New Palace form dates from 1700BC. Like the
palace at Mallia, the plan is asymmetrical and very complex. (Figures
2.043 & 2.044) If we called it labyrinthine, we would be mythologically
correct because it is this palace with its complex plan that scholars
believe is the source of the labyrinth myths regarding Daedalus,
Theseus, and the Minotaur. However, the word labyrinthos in ancient
Greek meant “place of the double axes.” (Figure 2.045) The double
axe was a common cult object used in the ritual killing of bulls for
sacrice to propitiate Zeus.
2.040: palace of Knossos, stepped causeway

2.041: palace of Knossos, plan

8 2.039: palace of Knossos, reconstruction drawing 2.042: palace of Knossos, theatral area
 Many of the important spaces of the palace at Knossos share similar
modular proportions and size. The proportions they share are 8:5 and
5:2 and they are of three different sizes, 800 square feet, 100 square
feet, and 130 square feet. At Knossos, the path from the multiple
entries to the inner court is even more tortuous than at Mallia. (Figure
2.046) Just like Mallia, this huge all-purpose court acts as a still,
2.043: palace of Knossos, plan
regular center. It is a kind of stabilizer to the labyrinthine collection
of spaces that surrounds it. Again, the contrast to the architecture
of Egypt could not be clearer.

A further contrast to the single-minded governing order of Egyptian

architecture can be seen in the way the palace of Knossos was
2.044: palace of Knossos, aerial view of ruins
massed. Whereas Egyptian architecture is massed uniformly and
unifyingly around a single axis, the massing of Knossos, typical of
other Minoan palaces is irregular, additive, accretive, and picturesque.
(Figures 2.047 & 2.048) Varying in height from one to ve stories
with most parts of the building being three stories, the palace
of Knossos has no unifying formal theme. It is full of setbacks,

2.045: Minoan double axe

2.046: palace of Knossos, plan 9

 2.048: Medinet Habu

2.049: palace of Knossos, courtyard

2.047: palace of Knossos, reconstruction drawing

salients, projections, and recessions that reect the diversity of the
spaces within. The massing of the palace of Knossos cannot be
encompassed in one clear geometric gure, as was the case with
2.050: palace of Knossos, plan
the pyramid. This lack of geometrical consistency in the massing
at Knossos is echoed also in the way the palace elevations are
formed. The outer elevations vary from one part to the next; in some
places they are wall-like with a few openings, in others they are
distinguished by long porticoes. There is no sense of continuity
connecting them. The elevations around the main courtyard have 2.051: palace of Knossos, reconstruction drawing
only localized unity among several different parts, none of which
dene or even suggest a comprehensive organization of the façades
that encircle this space. (Figures 2.049 & 2.050) The Egyptians
with their highly rened sense of an all-encompassing, singular,
geometric order must have been puzzled by this Minoan architecture.
The enormous central court of course does provide a kind of unifying 2.052: mortuary temple of Hatshepsut

order to the palace. However, it is not a compositional order governed

by geometrical principles like axiality or symmetry. Its order is based
on more immediately tangible, pragmatic, and experiential concerns;
these are the relations and lines of communication that connect the
2.053: palace of Knossos, Queen’s hall
many different activities the palace encompasses. This building also
responds to the asperities and peculiarities of its sloping site rather
10
 than attempting to create an articial site in the way that Senmut did
with the terracing for Hatshepsut’s New Kingdom burial temple at
Deir-el-Bahari. (Figures 2.051 & 2.052) The currents of circulation
through the palace sometimes proceed through corridors; sometimes
they move from room to room. In doing so, they constantly open up
2.054: palace of Knossos. hall of double axes
on the outdoors to disclose neatly framed glimpses of the landscape
that had great sacred and aesthetic signicance to the Minoans.
(Figures 2.053 & 2.054) The order at Knossos is predicated more on
functionality than formality, more on topography than geometry.

The use of columns, piers, and pillars is especially appropriate as

a means to express the spatial exibility and desultory movement
2.055: palace of Knossos, plan that we nd in the Minoan palace. At some places in Knossos, we
nd columns in the middle of relatively small spaces. Some scholars
have hypothesized that this curious practice indicated that the column
must have had some sacred signicance for the Minoans beyond
its obvious structural value. (Figure 2.055) There are two sets of
2.056: palace of Knossos, hall of double axes spaces within the palace of Knossos where columns were employed
with an especially high level of spatial sophistication. These sets of
spaces are virtually adjacent one another in the middle part of the

2.057: palace of Knossos, hall of double axes

2.058: palace of Knossos, hall of double axes

2.059: palace of Knossos, plan

2.060: palace of Knossos, stair court 11
plan on the east side. The rst of these is the Hall of the Double
Axes. We can understand this space in several ways. In the middle
there is a small peristyle, a ring of piers that forms a space that is
prototypical of the Mycenaean megaron, which will be discussed
in the next section. This gives the entire space of the hall a kind of
center of gravity. On each side of this megaron is another range of 2.061: palace of Knossos, stair hall

columns. To the west a single line of columns runs north south and
to the east, looking out to the landscape, is a two-sided colonnade.
These groups of colonnades form a series of perforated spatial layers
that contrasts with the centrality established by the very megaron
2.062: palace of Knossos, stair hall, light court
that lies at its core. (Figures 2.056 – 2.058) Thus, from deep within
the Hall of the Double Axes, one can stand and view the landscape
framed by a complex of spatial cells that interact with one another.
Immediately to the west of the Hall of the Axes and adjacent to
the great courtyard is an exceptional staircase. To the left of this
2.063: palace of Knossos, stair hall, view up
staircase is a multi-story space dened by vertically superimposed
peristyles. (Figures 2.059 – 2.063) Light oods into the space of this
staircase from above and creates a kind of vertical spatial analog to
the horizontal sequence of column-screened spaces that dene the
Hall of the Axes. (Figures 2.064 & 2.065) Across the great courtyard
and northwest of this staircase lies a very broad staircase that is
perpendicular to the courtyard. It is supposed that this Grand Stair is 2.064: palace of Knossos, stair court

where members of the palace sat to watch dance performances and

perhaps bull-leaping matches in the great courtyard. At the center
of this Grand Stair where it connects to the courtyard is a single
column that archaeologists have presumed had sacred signicance.
(Figures 2.066 & 2.067) 2.065: palace of Knossos, hall of double axes

Unlike Egyptian columns, Minoan columns are not stone. (Figures

2.068 & 2.069) They are made of timber, then stuccoed and painted.
There are two very curious qualities of these columns which is
characteristic of Minoan columns in general. One is the downward
2.066: palace of courtyard, great stair and courtyard
taper of the shaft, which is typical of the Bronze Age, and the other is
that the shaft is not circular in cross section as might be surmised. It
is oval. There are no satisfactory explanations for these eccentricities.
The capitals of these columns have a thick cushion-like shape.
12 2.067: palace of courtyard, great stair and courtyard
 Contrary to the Greeks or the Egyptians, who explored the expressive
possibilities of stone in simple structural systems of post and lintel,
called trabeation, and bearing wall, the Minoans used materials
2.068: palace of Knossos, upper story colonnade such as wood for their columns and beams and rubble and mortar
for their walls. Such walls might have a certain kind of primitive
romantic attractiveness for us. (Figures 2.070 – 2.072) The Minoans,
however, were not so disposed and covered these walls with thin
slabs of gypsum, a mineral that we still use today in the manufacture
2.069: palace of Knossos, interior
of “sheet-rock,” a common material for interior walls. Gypsum was
plentiful on Crete. Frequently, they would paint the gypsum slabs
with bright colors or murals to distract from the innate qualities of
the materials. This architectural tradition came to magnicent fruition
with the Romans. The base or plinth from which the outer walls of
the palace rise is constructed of stone with a veneer of alabaster
slabs. (Figures 2.073 & 2.074) The Minoans were also very clever
with plumbing systems, having ceramic bathtubs, latrines that could
2.070: palace of Knossos, room in west wing
be ushed, and pressurized drainage pipes that conducted waste
water into the river. (Figures 2.075 & 2.076)

The Minoan civilization failed in the second millennium BC for two

reasons. First, there was a cataclysmic volcanic eruption that modern
2.071: palace of Knossos, throne room scientists have determined to occur around 1600BC on a circular
island in the Cyclades chain in the Aegean Sea. This island, called
either Santorini or Thera had been settled and developed by the
Minoans; it was less than 100 miles directly north of Knossos. The
earthquake, tidal waves, and fallout of ash from this explosion had
a significant impact on Crete and the Minoan civilization never
recovered to its former glory. This eruption and its aftermath, however,
did not destroy Minoan civilization as archaeologists had once
conjectured. (Figure 2.077) There is ample evidence to suggest
that the Minoan palaces and towns survived and even ourished for
the next 150 years. Nevertheless, the Minoan palatial system and
particularly its formidable navy were very likely weakened enough by
2.072: palace of Knossos, queen’s hall, dolphin frieze
this catastrophe to make this civilization a target of the Mycenaean
warrior civilization of the Greek mainland. The Mycenaeans were
a relatively advanced Bronze Age culture that had been in direct
13

2.073: palace of Knossos

2.074: palace of Knossos
competition with the Minoans regarding commerce in the eastern
Mediterranean world. Thus, scholars have surmised that in a very
short time between 1450 and 1400BC Mycenaean troops landed
on peaceful and still weakened Crete, set re to their palaces, and
dominated the Cretans. These Mycenaeans took over both the
commercial shipping and the once rich farmland of the Minoans. It
is possible that they also inhabited what was left of the Minoans’
2.075: palace of Knossos, queen’s bath
palaces to govern the territory that once had been Minoan. This
conquering race was not immune to the pleasures of comfort as
demonstrated by the fact that we will also nd remnants of bathrooms
and water systems in their own settlements in Greece, which were
likely derived from Minoan examples.

MYCENAEAN CULTURE
The Bronze Age came later to mainland Greece than to Crete. This
pre-Bronze Age time on the Greek mainland is generally known
as the Helladic period. Despite its cultural backwardness relative
to Crete at this time, mainland Greece shows complex patterns
2.076: palace of Knossos, queen’s bath
of social life similar to that of most parts of southeastern Europe
such as Crete, while northern Europe itself remained very backward
despite the megalithic architecture of Stonehenge. (Figures 2.078
& 2.079) The Achaean peoples came to mainland Greece probably
14

2.077: map of Santorini eruption ash fall zone

2.078: map of Mycenaean settlements on Greek mainland 2.079: bust of Homer
from northern Europe and/or Anatolia (there is evidence for both
places of origin) around 1900BC to settle on the Peloponnesian
peninsula where they became known as the Mycenaeans. As stated
above, the Mycenaeans, i.e., the Achaeans, were the people of
Homer’s epic poems, the Iliad and the Odyssey. Being warrior tribes,
2.080: Peloponnese landscape
the Mycenaeans developed walled towns that generally occupied
highlands in the rugged terrain of the Peloponnese. They placed
their citadels on the highest ground of all. (Figures 2.080 - 2.082)
Unfortunately, like the Minoan civilization, all that is left of Mycenaean
2.081: Tyrins, aerial view of ruins
towns and their architecture are ruins. Nevertheless, by looking at
the ruins of these settlements, we can discover something of their
building techniques and resources as well as their general form. Their
most important settlements were Tyrins and Mycenae.

The techniques and materials available to the Mycenaeans depended

on where their respective settlements were located throughout the
Peloponnese. The Mycenaeans built principally with stone, mud
brick, and some timber like cypress, oak, r, and palm. They used
both timber and stone for trabeation and masonry and stone for
2.082: Mycenae, aerial view of ruins
corbelled construction. Although they were able to approximate the
arch and vault with corbelling, they did not know how to make a true
arch, i.e., arcuated construction. The Mycenaeans constructed their
15
2.083: palace of Knossos, plan 2.084: Phylakopi, megaron plan 2.085: Korakou, midhelladic house plan

palaces of rubble and mortar strengthened by horizontal and vertical

timbers. The principal exterior walls were faced with limestone, a practice
that they may have learned from the Cretans. Parts of the palace at Tyrins
are still visible. However, in Mycenae, a temple was built over the site of
the palace several centuries later following the Dorian takeover in the 11th
century BC that erased Mycenaean civilization and its culture.

16 2.086: Pylos, palace, plan 2.087: Pylos, palace, plan with axes of organization
2.088: Pylos, palace, plan 2.089: Pylos, palace, reconstruction of megaron
The Mycenaean palace is centered on the megaron, the king’s hall
where the gods are given hospitality. (Figure 2.083) The idea for
the megaron has several possible sources. One is Crete, which the
Mycenaeans had conquered, and where prototypical megarons had
existed in the Minoan palaces. Another possible source is Asia Minor.
However, houses of the Middle Helladic period (2000 – 1600BC) also
show a kind of megaron organization. (Figures 2.084 & 2.085) Because
the upper parts of the Mycenaean palaces were built mostly of wood with
stone used only for the foundations. These foundations are all that is left
for us to get a sense of how the palaces might have been organized.
The megaron of the palace at the Mycenaean town of Phylakopi,
built sometime between 1400 and 1100BC shows the megaron in
its simplest form as porch and hall with hearth. The palace at the
Mycenaean settlement of Pylos perhaps provides us with one of the
most characteristic examples of how spaces were organized around
the megaron. (Figures 2.086 & 2.087) A porch supported by a single
column marks the main entry. This column clearly demarcates an axis of
penetration into the interior. Past the porch and vestibule, which together
form an articulated and formalized sequence of entry spaces called
a propylaeum, lies an oblong courtyard. Here the axis shifts slightly
17
to fall between two columns that support a portico that leads
to an antechamber with openings on all sides. Just beyond this
antechamber on the shifted axis is the megaron. At the center of the
megaron are four columns that surround a hearth. Note that these
columns are tapered downward like those at the palace of Knossos
on Crete. (Figures 2.088 & 2.089) Against the wall to the right is the
king’s throne. The megaron is a one-story space with a high ceiling;
it has an opening in it for ventilation and to allow the smoke from
the hearth to exit the palace.

It is worth comparing the order of this palace with its megaron to both
the Minoan palace and the Egyptian temple. The Minoan palace has
no axial organization. Remember, at Knossos the path is not straight,
the goal not predetermined. (Figures 2.090 & 2.091) If there is a 2.090: Pylos, palace, plan
heart at Knossos, it is the large all-purpose court. Its still, regular
center acts as a kind of stabilizer to the labyrinthine collection of
spaces around it. The Egyptian temple, like the Mycenaean palace
has an axial organization. (Figures 2.092 & 2.093) However, as one
progresses along the Egyptian temple’s axis, the spaces become
progressively smaller and more secretive. At the Mycenaean palace,
the horizontal axis terminates in a large space and is replaced by a
2.091: palace of Knossos, plan
vertical axis that emerges from the hearth. (Figures 2.094 & 2.095)
It is also worth noting the highly articulated sequence of spaces in the
Mycenaean palace that change orientation, shape, and size as one
moves along the axes. The spatial organization of the entry process
at the Mycenaean palace is very highly rened. The sequence of
spaces expands, contracts, and changes orientation and proportion
as the spaces build up to the main hall of the megaron.

The megaron itself constitutes a typology, a large barn-like, single-

story structure comprising a rectangular hall with a circular central
hearth and a front porch formed by the prolongation of the lateral
walls. The axial approach to this largest part of the plan organization
is stiffly hierarchical, yet no single-minded axis governs this
organization.
2.092: temple of Amun at Karnak, plan

18
2.093: Pylos, palace, plan 2.094: Tyrins, palace megaron, reconstruction drawing 2.095: Pylos, palace, plan with axes
The megaron typology has been repeated throughout the history of
architecture. For example, the megaron typology is the most basic
of several different typological congurations that the 19th-century
German architect, Karl Friedrich Schinkel (1781 – 1841), employed
in his design for Berlin’s Altes Museum. (Figures 2.096 & 2.097)
Schinkel was very much inspired in his work by the elegant simplicity
2.096: K. F. Schinkel, Altes Museum, plan of Greek architecture. Likewise, Le Corbusier (1887 - 1965), who was
arguably the most inuential architect of the 20th century, appealed
to the megaron typology when he developed his Citrohan House,
a prototypical residential unit for his mass housing projects of the
2.097: K. F. Schinkel, Altes Museum, view along river 1920s. (Figures 2.098 & 2.099)

2.098: Le Corbusier, Maison Citrohan, plan

19
2.099: Le Corbusier, Maison Citrohan, model