Minoan, Mycenaean, and Cypriot architecture during the Bronze Age

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.

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 storage that was secure and that was designed to provide plenty of options underneath the main rooms (Inanova, 2003). Many archeologists work with reconstructions, because they want to see what the buildings and other objects looked like when they were first designed and created (Schoep, 2004). When that is taken along with the excavation of actual settlements, there is a great deal to be learned about the civilization, its art, its architecture, and society (Schoep, 2004). Without the excavation of the society there cannot be any recreation, but without the recreation something very important about the original society could have been missed. Those who study archeology and architecture are aware of the value of recreation.

The history of Minoan architecture is a long and varied one, culminating with the Bronze Age and the architecture provided by it. There were both domestic structures and more palatial, monumental creations, along with urban features and tombs (Letesson & McEnroe, 2011; Schoep, 2004). These buildings and other structures are all generally described in context, and they all also provide archeologists with a great deal of information to go on when it comes to the societies in which the architecture was created (Letesson & McEnroe, 2011). That is largely because buildings and other structures convey a high level of meaning in society and are among the most significant ways that people present themselves to others and shape their individual and societal identities (Inanova, 2003; Letesson & McEnroe, 2011). Chronology and topography are valuable commodities for the archeological researcher, but so is the concept of identity that so many of the Minoan palaces and other buildings of that time period provide to researchers (Letesson & McEnroe, 2011).

Conclusion

Form, function, and structure are all important when it comes to architecture. They all need to be addressed when Greek architecture in the Bronze Age is discussed. However, it is not always possible to discuss all three of the issues together because there is so much to consider. It is also safe to say that the architecture that was seen in the Bronze Age in Greece deeply affected the way architecture was created and how it developed once the Bronze Age ended and Greece and the rest of the world moved on to something else. In understanding societies and how they function, one also needs to understand its architecture (Ivanova, 2003). The structure was often based on utilitarian concerns and made out of the materials that were available at the time. Stonemasons and others who built houses were only able to bring in certain types of tools and materials, because they did not have the means to get other items that were too far away from their location and move them easily.

Structure was somewhat based on that, but form and function were different issues entirely (Ivanova, 2003). Form follows function in most cases, of course. As architecture evolved throughout the Bronze Age in Greece, form generally did follow function. The function of any structure was very important, and in order for the structure to be completely functional, it had to have the right form. Despite the primitive way many things were built during that time, they were very functional, had excellent form, and were often also highly beautiful in many ways. That was especially true for the palaces, but also for the smaller and more utilitarian structures that were created by the stonemasons.