Supervisors info:
Yannis Papadatos, 9, Department of History and Archaeology, Ε.Κ.Π.Α.
Giorgos Vavouranakis, 9, Department of History and Archaeology, Ε.Κ.Π.Α.
Konstantinos Kopanias, 9, Department of History and Archaeology, Ε.Κ.Π.Α.
Summary:
Having originated in Neolithic Anatolia, the megaron emerged as the central building of fortified settlements in the Neolithic Age (Sesklo, Dimini) and the Early Helladic period (“corridor houses” at Lerna, Akovitika, Aegina). Subsequently, its apsidal version became the main type of domestic unit in the Early Helladic III and Middle Helladic period. In the Late Helladic period, the tripartite megaron formed the core unit of the Mycenaean palaces, laid-out axially in three sequential rooms (aithousa, prodomos, domos), fronted by courtyards, and surrounded by residential quarters, workshops and storage facilities. The focal feature of the throne room of the Mycenaean palace, however, was not the throne itself, but, instead, the fixed central circular hearth, which may have served as a visual point of communal gathering and ritual performance. The throne room (or more appropriately, “hearth room”) of the Mycenaean megaron, therefore, was radically different from contemporary royal throne rooms in Egypt, Anatolia, Assyria, and Mesopotamia, whose spatial arrangement focuses on the monumental throne as their main feature. The Mycenaean palaces served practical functions but also carried symbolic significance, as they embodied in form and operation the dynamics of power ideology and the performance mechanics for constructing collective memory and identity.
The political and socio-economic context of the Mycenaean palaces will be presented first (Chapter 1), with special focus on their internal socio-political organization and their diplomatic and economic interaction with other states and empires in the Eastern Mediterranean, as the form and operation of the Mycenaean palaces is directly connected with their regional status, power, and outreach.
The Mycenaean throne rooms and their surrounding architectural contexts will be subsequently examined in detail (Chapter 2) based on the original publications of the excavators of these sites and recent field reports in order to compare and contrast their spatial arrangement, form, and function.
According to this comparative study, Mycenaean throne rooms and palaces display astonishing similarities in chronology, location, fortification, layout, size, materials, construction techniques, internal features, decorative iconography, surrounding compounds, permeability and access, systems of traffic and circulation. These patterns of uniformity (Chapter 3) betray advanced standardization of Mycenaean palatial architecture by the 13th century BC, reflecting cultural homogeneity, and reveal the diverse and intertwined functions of the Mycenaean palaces and their throne rooms (political, administrative, socio-economic, ritual and religious). Certain diagnostic features of the Mycenaean throne room, such as the central circular hearth, the monumental throne, and the iconography of the wall frescoes acquired special symbolic significance attached to their practical function. Combined with megalithic architecture, monumental art, scale and spatial complexity of its architectural surroundings, the throne room served as focal topological reference for palatial authority, visual manifestation of the ruler’s power, wealth and elite status, and as control mechanism for social integration.
The comparative study of Mycenaean throne rooms and palaces produced not only patterns of uniformity and advanced standardization, but also patterns of variation of potential political semiology that set the palace of Mycenae above the rest in terms of scale, monumentality, and materials (Chapter 4). These patterns of variation may reflect power dynamics and geopolitical relations between the palace of Mycenae and other palace centers, thus allowing alternative readings and interpretations of the Mycenaean political geography.
Keywords:
Mycenaean palaces, Throne Rooms, Mycenaean palatial architecture, Mycenaean political geography, Mycenaean palace states, Mycenaean empire, Mycenae, Pylos, Tiryns, Glas, power ideology
