Palaces, Minoan/MycenaeanKOSTIS S. CHRISTAKIS

The term “palace” usually designates the seat

of a political authority. Schliemann described

the residential headquarters of the Mycenaean

rulers, so often mentioned in Homeric poems,

as palaces. Evans, too, was quick to interpret

the complex at KNOSSOS as the remains of

a palace: the seat of a “priest-king,” the center

of a joyful world of kings, queens, and cour-

tiers. Evans’s royal world – actually a mirror of

monarchical early modern Europe – has been

criticized in recent years. The Minoan palaces

are quite unlike the Mycenaean complexes,

with few similarities to those of Egypt and the

Near East. Their use and function remain

unclear, as do their probably fluctuating rela-

tionships with the surrounding towns and

territories.

The first palaces in the Aegean appeared in

CRETE between 2300 and 1800 BCE. Their con-

struction signals a new form of sociopolitical

complex, capable of mobilizing wealth and

labor. These early complexes have so far been

discovered at Knossos, PHAISTOS, MALLIA,

and Petras. Our picture of them is extremely

fragmentary because they were heavily over-

built by later occupation. Patchy evidence

shows that they had a large central court and

four wings, with ceremonial and ritual spaces

and extensive storerooms. The artifactual

assemblages found within palaces and admin-

istrative documents bear witness to the refined

and complex lifestyle of the ruling class, and

the control it exercised over part of its domain.

The first palaces, hit by multiple earthquakes,

were finally destroyed and abandoned at the end

of the Protopalatial period (1700 BCE). New

complexes, on an even larger scale, were raised

upon their ruins. Other palaces were built at

ARCHANES, Galatas, Gournia, and Kato Zakros;

several more may await discovery. Although it

was generally accepted that the new palaces were

built early in the Neopalatial period and

destroyed at the end of this era (1700–1450),

recent studies have highlighted marked chrono-

logical differences in their foundation and

destruction/abandonment dates. The new pal-

aces at Knossos and Mallia were built soon after

1700, as was that of Galatas Pediada. The palaces

of Archanes, Petras, and Gournia were built

around 1600. Knossos has proved the most-

luxurious and architecturally daring palace

of them all.

During their life-span, the new palaces suf-

fered various earthquake destructions followed

by rebuilding/repair. The most serious destruc-

tion was that caused by the volcanic eruption of

THERA (1550–1530); the palaces at Galatas and

Mallia were abandoned, the others were

repaired, and two new palaces were built at

Phaistos and Zakros. These buildings were all

destroyed and abandoned in 1450, with the

exception of Knossos, which remained in use

until 1350 or 1300.

The diagnostic feature of the palaces is the

large, stone-paved rectangular court around

which four adjoining wings are arranged.

The primary role of the central court, as well

as the other open-air spaces in palaces, reflects

the great significance of outdoor activities in

Bronze Age Crete. The court is delimited and

defined by the spectacular facades of the wings

surrounding it, consisting of imposing colon-

nades and elegant verandas on several stories.

The multi-story wings consist of a large

number of halls, rooms of various sizes, long

storerooms, lustral basins, pillared crypts, and

light-wells linked by a complex system of

corridors and staircases. Often referred to as

labyrinthine, this layout in fact serves purely

practical purposes, providing and controlling

a carefully designed network of access routes

across the entire complex.

Despite some broad formal and functional

similarities, palaces exhibit many differences in

ceremonial architectural features, building

elaboration, and variety of functions. Such dis-

crepancies demonstrate the wide range of

motivations and aspirations of local polities;

governing institutions might follow different

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine,

and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 4993–4995.

© 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah02141

1

political, economic, ceremonial, and social

strategies, and this was reflected in their

buildings.

Sophisticated palatial architectural design

and luxury building technology were inte-

grated into the important complexes of small

towns, and into the large mansions usually

considered elite residences. This style prolifer-

ated beyond the limits of Crete – the role of the

Knossian elite in this process must have been

crucial – into the Aegean, mainly Thera, and

mainland Greece.

Palaces in mainland Greece were smaller

than their Cretan counterparts, but better

positioned and fortified for defense. Such

complexes are known to date in the Argolid

(MYCENAE, TIRYNS, probably MIDEA and ARGOS),

Messenia (PYLOS), Lakonia (Menelaion), proba-

bly in Attica (ATHENS), BOIOTIA (Thebes, Gla,

Orchomenos), and THESSALY (Dhimini). The

first to be built was the Menelaion (1450–

1400) and the last were the complexes at

Pylos and Gla (1340–1200). The so-called “Pal-

ace of Nestor” at Pylos is the best-preserved

and documented complex. The wealth of

objects stored in the palace, including a con-

siderable assemblage of LINEARB tablets, provide

valuable clues to the function of the building

and the organization of an important Myce-

naean kingdom.

These two-story complexes were arranged

around open-air spaces, each opening

onto several clusters of rooms used for cere-

monial, ritual, administrative, residential,

storage, and craft activities. The heart of this

compound was the MEGARON, a rectangular

hall fronted by an open two-columned porch,

four columns around a central open hearth

vented through an oculus in the roof, and a

throne against the right-hand wall. The design

concept of theMycenaean palace, therefore, was

centripetal, in contrast to the centrifugal layout

of Cretan palaces. The architectural planning of

these complexes presents very distinctive fea-

tures. Although some, such the megaron unit,

the courts, bathrooms, and a second throne

room occur – with variations – in more than

one palace, there are also many individual fea-

tures peculiar to specific complexes.

Many architectural features in certain pal-

aces were actually Cretan in inspiration (e.g.,

the Grand Staircase at Mycenae, the banquet

hall at Pylos, the extensive use of colonnades at

Tiryns, the widespread adoption of frescoes

and dressed masonry). The megaron, however,

was a scaled-up version of the Early andMiddle

Helladic house.

Used as the seats of power of kings controlling

extensive domains, the Mycenaean palaces were

destroyed in 1200 – that at Gla was destroyed

earlier, in 1300 – and never rebuilt. Their

destruction marks the collapse of a highly

centralized political and economic system and

the rise of a new sociopolitical reality in the

thirteenth and twelfth centuries.

SEE ALSO: Dhimini in Thessaly; Gournia in

Crete; Menelaion in Lakonia; Minoan society and

culture; Mycenaean society and culture;

Orchomenos in Boiotia; Petras in Crete; Thebes

in Boiotia; Zakros in Crete.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS

Cadogan, G. (1976) Palaces of Minoan Crete.

London.

Driessen, J., Schope, I., and Laffineur, R. (2003)

Monuments of Minos: rethinking the Minoan

palaces. Liege.

Galaty, M. L. and Parkinson, W. A. (1999)

RethinkingMycenaean palaces: new interpretations

of an old idea. Los Angeles.

2