Bronze Age Architecture in Greece the Bronze

Bronze Age Architecture in Greece The Bronze Age had amazing architecture, much of it located in Greece. In order to clearly understand all that the time period had to offer and how what was seen during that time in that particular country influenced others, information about architecture in the Bronze Age in Greece has to be carefully analyzed. Discussed here will be six separate works that address the Bronze Age in Greece and the architecture offered during that time.

These articles will show how valuable the architecture was, not just for that period of time but also as society advanced, grew, and changed. Four of the writings deal primarily with Minoan architecture, while another addresses Minoan and Mycenaean styles and the final work is focused more on Cypriot details. By working with all six writings, it is easier to see not only the value of the architecture, but how much of a strong role the Minoan style actually played during that time.

This style was more significant than the others, but that does not mean that Mycenaean and Cypriot styles were without merit. Cypriot Much of the details of what Cyprus had to offer when it comes to architecture during the Bronze Age have been lost because of unscrupulous excavation methods and a lack of proper recording of what was found (Swiny, 2008).

Beginning in the 1970s, there were many changes in what was discovered in Cyprus and how it was categorized and recognized, making it easier for those who study the Bronze Age there to gain information (Swiny, 2008). The first extensive remains of a Bronze Age settlement at Mouttes were uncovered by a team from Cornell University, and rows of multi-roomed, rectangular structures there indicated the value of an egalitarian community with little to no social stratification (Swiny, 2008).

The way the structures were constructed was focused much more on the usage of the rooms as opposed to the architectural design of the created space, but that was not all that was found in the area. More architectural information would be forthcoming. As more discoveries took place, it appeared that all of the structures had been ransacked and torched (Swiny, 2008). That provided the excavation teams with information as to the art, architecture, and political instability of Cyprus during much of the Bronze Age.

However, it also made it difficult to draw conclusions about the architectural styles and plans of the Cypriot period, because so much damage had been done (Swiny, 2008). Most of the discovered buildings had utilitarian goals and features, as opposed to anything that was designed for royalty or wealthy people. In a society where most of the people were relatively equal in wealth and status, there was little need for grand locations (Swiny, 2008).

It was noted, however, that the beginning of the prehistoric Bronze Age saw the inclusion and usage of rectilinear architecture, as opposed to the circular, traditional style of the Chalcolithic period that preceded it (Swiny, 2008). This was a significant change, and one that was evident despite the damage that had been done to many of the structures. Accretive, rectilinear structures were uncovered at Kaminoudhia in 1981, and were the earliest recorded buildings of the Bronze Age (Swiny, 2008).

The settlement appeared to have been abandoned in 2230 BC, and is known for the broad range of architectural layouts that are seen in the three clusters of buildings located on the site (Swiny, 2008). There does not appear to be any kind of standard plan for building there, and square, rectangular, and even round buildings are all grouped together in various ways, instead of having a more planned development that would allow for buildings of the same or a similar type to remain grouped closer together (Swiny, 2008).

Many other civilizations created their buildings this way, as well, but this was the first and earliest settlement where the mix-matched style of building appeared to be so prevalent. Swiny (2008) noted the unique issues with the architecture of the settlement. There were two-room and three-room habitats, while others had courtyards, and there were also single-room structures that seemed to be used for a multitude of various purposes (Swiny, 2008).

D-shaped complexes subdivided by parapet walls were also a significant part of the buildings in that area, as were floors that were cut into the bedrock so as to give horizontal flooring services on which to walk (Swiny, 2008). The ways in which the buildings were constructed at the time were solid and impressive based on what was available. With that being the case, many of the walls and other structures were still standing and were able to be studied and analyzed.

There were also many characteristic features found there, including low-built benches next to many of the walls and a rectangular heart that was well-preserved (Swiny, 2008). There was one room excavated that did not have any actual door, and was believed to be the only true basement in the settlement out of 27 rooms that were located (Swiny, 2008). There were both wide streets and narrow alleyways throughout the settlement, and evidence of people throwing refuse and debris out into the alleyways (Swiny, 2008).

Soot and ashes from fires, as well as damaged and broken pots and other waste were commonly tossed there, and the buildings were constructed in such a way as to keep those items from coming back into the dwellings (Swiny, 2008). While not everything can be known about Cypriot style from the basic architecture of the settlements that remain, quite a bit of information about the Bronze Age can be collected just based on the basics that are left.

In addition to information from Cyprus, the Bronze Age in Greece also provided many researchers with information on Mycenaean and Minoan styles. Mycenaean Some of the most significant work done in addressing the Mycenaean architecture in the Bronze Age was done by Walsh, et al., (1986). The indication in that study was that, like history, it is hard to keep archaeology moving forward when one does not have its timeline correct in the past.

By understanding how architecture has changed, more can be understood about when particular settlements occurred and when they disappeared (Walsh, et al., 1986). When the civilization was first found at Mycenae, it was deemed prehistoric because there was no evidence that the people were literate (Walsh, et al., 1986). However, as time went on it was determined that some people in the Mycenaean culture were indeed literate, and that some of the works they created could be translated (Walsh, et al., 1986).

Even with that being the case, though, most people still refer to the Mycenaean area as prehistoric (Walsh, et al., 1986). Many people try to date art and pottery, but dating architecture is often not as easy to do -- partially because of the damage that is often done to it over time. Buildings get abandoned, ransacked, or torn down. They can also get damaged or destroyed by fire, earthquake, floods, and other problems.

Over time, the materials with which the buildings were created simply erode and break down, making it difficult for archaeologists and others who study the buildings to determine when something was created, when it might have been destroyed, and what it was used for during the time period in which it was available (Walsh, et al., 1986). One of the main issues Walsh, et al. (1986) addressed in their study was how techniques of stonemasonry have changed.

This was important, because determining the age of the buildings and how they were constructed based on the techniques that are available in the present day does not actually work properly. Instead, one has to determine how the stonemasons of the Mycenaean era used their tools, what tools they had at their disposal, and how they put together the buildings and other structures they created (Walsh, et al., 1986). Only then can the work of the stonemasons really be understood.

Unfortunately, excavation of the settlements that came from that time period were found to have been unacceptable for determining what the stonemasons might have done and/or how they may have used their tools and materials (Walsh, et al., 1986). Reports from the stonemasons contain insufficient information and evidence, so those reports must be deemed unreliable and cannot be used to make any final determinations regarding stonemasons during that time period.

The above-ground remains were too badly disturbed to be used, as well, and could not provide any kind of dependable evidence (Walsh, et al., 1986). The hypothesis was presented that stonemasons, as well as their methods and tools, would have continued to evolve throughout time, even if evidence indicating that was not readily available from the excavation reports (Walsh, et al., 1986). From that point, other sites that were being excavated were studied in an effort to determine how stonemasonry and architecture changed through the Mycenaean era and beyond.

One of the focuses of Walsh, et al. (1986) was on the typology of wall groups. The variables of horizontal bonding, chinking, coursing, rubble fill, and working were all very important to examine (Walsh, et al., 1986). Wall width, butt joints, the presence of foundation trenches, and other variables were also studied (Walsh, et al., 1986). The issue was not so much how the architecture looked when it was completed, but how the stonemasons had actually created it.

In terms of evolutionary development of the stonemasons and their tools and techniques, though, the study proved to be inconclusive (Walsh, et al., 1986). The plan was to determine how the work was done and how the way the work was completed changed over time. The goal was to be able to show archaeology just as a person would with history, but that was not to be (Walsh, et al., 1986). Since not enough information could be found to address the issue in that way, Walsh, et al.

(1986) had to be satisfied with being able to see a steady improvement in the way the stonemasons worked with hammers. Coursing also saw a steady increase, but not enough to be able to definitely say how it evolved through the time period (Walsh, et al., 1986). The late Bronze Age, however, does show a more technical type of stonemasonry overall, especially where the walls are concerned (Walsh, et al., 1986).

With that in mind, it is possible to make the definitive claim that stonemasons throughout the Bronze Age improved on their craft, used better tools, and found ways to use better and more precise materials as they moved forward in time, but it is not possible to place specific years or groups of years on specific types of stonemasonry work (Walsh, et al., 1986). While the typology addressed by Walsh, et al. (1986) is important and significant, it is also important to carefully consider validity.

Others have addressed a same or similar issue, and have even gone so far as to bring in a local, current stonemason and asked for his take on the excavated site (Walsh, et al., 1986).

When this was done, the stonemason did not find appreciable differences between the work that was done at the excavated site and the work that is done in stonemasonry today, indicating either that Bronze Age stonemasons had already evolved a great deal, or that stonemasonry itself has not actually evolved much from where it was very early on in time (Walsh, et al., 1986). Minoan There were many researchers that studied Minoan architecture in an effort to determine more about the archaeology of the area.

These include Ivanova (2003), Letesson & McEnroe (2011), Schoep (2004), and Letesson & Vansteenhuyse (n.d.). When studying Minoan architecture, Letesson & Vansteenhuyse (n.d.) focused on palaces. Their interest was not just in the palaces themselves, but also in how these were constructed and the value of them based on how people see them. In other words, much of the value and style of architecture is about the way the people who are building structures and living in them see them (Letesson & Vansteenhuyse, n.d.).

People want to see architecture that speaks to them, and structures in which they want to live and work (Inanova, 2003; Letesson & Vansteenhuyse, n.d.). If the architecture does not appeal to them, they will be less likely to be interested in the preservation of the structure (Inanova, 2003). In that sense, Letesson & Vansteenhuyse (n.d.) have focused their efforts on the palaces that are Minoan and how they were constructed based not only on stability but also on aesthetics.

The perception that human beings have of architecture is very important, and that is true in both the construction mode and the social networking aspect of architecture (Letesson & Vansteenhuyse, n.d.). Construction methods are designed to be solid and secure, because buildings must remain standing. However, as time evolved and construction methods became more sophisticated, buildings were also designed to be pleasant to look at.

Some of the utilitarianism of the buildings faded over time, and started to be taken up by individuals who wanted to see buildings looking interesting and exotic (Letesson & Vansteenhuyse, n.d.). That is part of the reason that palaces began to be built, because they were exotic and unique looking, as well as designating social class and wealth for the people who owned and lived in them (Letesson & Vansteenhuyse, n.d.).

Palaces were also used as monumental structures in the center of towns or settlements, and they were used by a large number of people that way. What Letesson & Vansteenhuyse (n.d.) wanted to explore was whether these buildings were designed in a way that would be considered monumental from an archaeological standpoint. That would mean that these buildings had permanence, and they were designed and built to remain where they were (and usable) for generations (Inanova, 2003; Letesson & Vansteenhuyse, n.d.).

They are also located centrally, highly visible, and relatively unique. In other words, the palace would generally be in the center of town, it would be easy to see even from far away, and it would be something that did not look like anything else in the area (Letesson & Vansteenhuyse, n.d.).

These structures were very important to the community in which they were built, because they served as symbols of the society, meeting places, and places where social interaction could be both enjoyed and facilitated (Letesson & Vansteenhuyse, n.d.). The First Palaces on Crete were widely influenced by the Minoan palaces (Schoep, 2004). They were used as places of religious, political, and economic authority, and also as community gathering places and symbols of society (Schoep, 2004).

The main difference, though, was that the palaces of the Bronze Age had more 'palatial' architecture, such as lustral basins, column bases, and light wells (Schoep, 2004). The First Palaces in Crete did not have as much of that. That indicated a change in social values as well as a change in architecture. With that in mind, the First Palaces were still very beautiful architecturally, along with being utilitarian in a way that allowed them to work for the community and be used frequently for social gatherings and other activities.

Minoan palaces had to serve as actual palaces, but they were also used for stores, offices, shrines, and workshops (Inanova, 2003; Schoep, 2004). There were also often basements in the palaces, so they were used for more than just what was seen above ground (Schoep, 2004). That made it very important for the palaces to have great architecture and.