←  Древняя Греция

Исторический форум: история России, всемирная история

»

Микенские города

Фотография andy4675 andy4675 18.12 2013

10.GIF

11.GIF

12.GIF

13.GIF

14.GIF

15.GIF

16.GIF

17.GIF

19.GIF

20.GIF

Прикрепленные изображения

  • 21.GIF
Ответить

Фотография andy4675 andy4675 18.12 2013

81.GIF

82.GIF

83.GIF

84.GIF

85.GIF

86.GIF

87.GIF

88.GIF

89.GIF

90.GIF

91.GIF

 

 



92.GIF

93.GIF

Ответить

Фотография andy4675 andy4675 19.12 2013

ANCIENT GREECE: FROM THE

MYCENAEAN PALACES TO THE
AGE OF HOMER
Edited by
Sigrid Deger-Jalkotzy and Irene S. Lemos

 

at Mycenae there
seems to have been an early circuit (Rowe 1954) although Mylonas (1966: 168–9)
did not think this wall was MH in date because he found LH IIIB sherds in the
fill behind it.

 

At Tiryns MH remains document extensive settlement, including atop the
Oberburg, although we can no longer accept Müller’s (1930: 15–6) argument for
a massive, MH terrace wall around the Oberburg (see Kilian 1990: 104).

 

Dickinson has famously argued for a ‘special relationship’
between Mycenae and Crete (Dickinson 1977: 54–6, esp. 55), and this is
quantifiable when taking into account the uneven distribution of wealth at mainland
centres as evidenced by the wealth in the Shaft Graves and many chamber
tombs at Mycenae in comparison to elsewhere (see Wright 1995, pl. XXVIII; and
Shelton 1993 for an assessment of the total number of chamber tombs around Mycenae). There are also differences in the kinds of artefacts found at different sites, for example at Mycenae, Vapheio and Dendra,5 and these may be evidence

of the guest-friendship established between peer elites at different places. In architecture,
such special relations should also be manifest.

 

evidence of Minoan
influence is not apparent at the citadels in the northeastern Peloponnesos,
although Nelson (2001: 130–1, 142) cites the orthostate in the megaron Room IV
at Tiryns

 

5 Mycenae, Grave Circle A, Grave IV: the silver stag of Anatolian origin (Koehl 1995; Vermeule
1975: 15); Vapheio: the bronze ‘Syrian’ axe head (Kilian-Dirlmeier 1987: 203–4); Dendra: the
octopus cup (Hurwit 1979) and the wishbone-handled cup with bucrania like that from Enkomi
(Matthäus 1985: 120–3; in general see Cline 1991).

 

As Kilian-Dirlmeier observes,
competing groups acquired luxuries at many different centres of production or
ownership scattered throughout the Aegean (Kilian-Dirlmeier 1997: 114–21), and even further abroad. They also commanded the producers of luxuries to

manufacture items they commissioned (Kilian-Dirlmeier 1997: 122; Vermeule
1975; Davis 1974, 1977; Matthäus 1980: 339–43). But the extent to which these
rising elites were able to do this varied dramatically from place to place; that is
why there is such a disparity in the distribution of luxury items among such
premier places at Mycenae, Vapheio, and Peristeria, to name only a few. This disparity,
however, was governed by the need to communicate in a vocabulary known
to the intended audience (Clark and Blake 1994: 25–6), and this rule explains not
only variation from community to community but also the adaptation of foreign
styles for local purposes.

Ответить

Фотография andy4675 andy4675 23.12 2013

In the environs of Mycenae, the availability of conglomerate
offered the opportunity for local masons to develop a very distinctive style, and this
process can be followed in detail in the tholos tombs and subsequently in the architecture
of the citadel (Wright 1987: 179–82; Küpper 1996: 115–19; Nelson 2001).

0.GIF

Figure 1.4 Diagram of stones used in the tholoi at Mycenae

 

At first roughly shaped conglomerate is employed to span the lintels of tholos
tombs, then it is introduced as an orthostate course in the chambers (Figure 1.4).
After a while it replaces or is used in combination with poros in the stomion, and
then spreads to the dromos. Finally, the end of LH IIIA2 or at the beginning of LH
IIIB (Hope Simpson and Dickinson 1979: 36; Cavanagh and Mee 1999: 94), it is
used throughout the tomb and technically elaborate means of dressing it are introduced
(Wright 1982; 1987; Küpper 1996: 8, 14). It is at this time that this masonry
style is employed as the key visual element in a ‘royal’ building program that
extended from the bridge at Ayios Giorgos to the Atreus tholos (and its external
terrace), the Klytemnestra tholos, the Lion Gate entrance and its flanking bastions,
and in the details of thresholds, column bases and antae throughout the palace (see
also Küpper 1996: 115–18; Maran 2003: 275).

 

The importance of recognising the local evolution of these architectural practices
cannot be underestimated. As I have argued elsewhere, they were powerful
visual markers of the ascendance of the ruling power at Mycenae (Wright 1987:
183–4; 1995: 74; Küpper 1996: 122 and fig. 220). It is especially noteworthy that
this special style appeared at key locations in neighbouring citadels: at Tiryns in
the primary entrance gate, the ‘Steintor’ and employed also throughout the palace
for details and at Argos in an unknown structure that may have graced the
Larissa. In these places, the display of conglomerate surely marked a very close
relationship (if not subordination) of these places with Mycenae. Finally, this
style continued to have a strong influence during the Iron Age, as evident in the
massive terrace built at the Argive Heraion during the late eighth and early
seventh centuries  (Wright 1982; Antonaccio 1992: 91–6; 1994: 95–6).

 

This example illustrates the importance of tracing the evolution of local traditions
in the craft of architecture and of recognising the power of an architectural
style that on the one hand reflects local tastes and preferences and on the other
represents an evolving component of Mycenaean stylistic identity. This argument
admits for variation in this evolution from region to region while also pointing to
an increasing standardisation as emerging palatial centres interacted and became
interdependent. This process of standardisation is also apparent in many other
craft traditions, for example in the proliferation of the chamber tomb, in the use
of plaster and frescoes and in the production of pottery.

 

PALACE FORMATION
We can now to return to the problem of the formation of the palaces. Evidence
today permits a much more detailed understanding of the architectural formation
of the palaces than in the past. Thanks to recent excavations at Tiryns we
now have a sequence of buildings atop the Oberburg that begins in LH I, continues
in LH II–III A1, and then reaches its culmination in the buildings of LH III
A2 and LH IIIB (Figure 1.5). Kilian and Maran argue that these document
the formation of a palace at Tiryns, replete with formal stepped entrance and

1.GIF

Figure 1.5 Plan of citadel at Tiryns during LH IIIA, adapted from Kilian 1987a,
fig. 7; 1989, pl. D

 

decorative fresco (Kilian 1987a: 209, fig. 6; 1987b, 1988b; Maran 2001a). On the
basis of the most recent research Kilian’s notion of a Doppelpalast seems indisputable,
even as his evaluation of the dates is now understood to have been somewhat
early and the formal Megaron dates to LH IIIA1–2 (Maran 2001a: 23 and
n.5). It seems certain that a similar process occurred at Mycenae, and likely at
other citadel centres where such evidence is no longer preserved (Wace
1921–1923: 181–6, 203–4; 1949: 81; Kilian 1987c), but that is not to say that developments
were uniform.

 

Rutter has recently proposed that the corridor type plan evolved in the northeastern
Peloponnesos (Rutter 2005: 27–8; Hiesel 1990: 249).

 

One
may venture the suggestion that while both the tholos and ashlar masonry were
introduced into the Argolid from Messenia, contemporaneously (LH II–III A1)
local preferences at Mycenae and Tiryns led to the formation of the megaron and
20  . 
6 Barber 1992; perhaps this tradition extends back to LH I given the dressed limestone block that
was built into the LH II ‘mansion’.We must also take note of the substantial free-standing rectangular
buildings of LH II date in the Unterstadt at Tiryns in Trench F (Gercke and Hiesel
1971: 6–8, Beilagen 3, 4, 6) and the remarkable LH IIIA building 49, west of the citadel, with
its pebble mosaic (Podzuweit 1977).

 

corridor plan, similar to (and perhaps in concert with) that at the Menelaion
(compare also the LH II–III A1 buildings in the Understadt at Tiryns; Gercke
and Hiesel 1971).

 

The LH IIIA1–2 megaron at Tiryns sets the stage for the elaborate and typical
Mycenaean palace plan known so well from LH IIIB. If this plan was established
at this time also at Mycenae and at Thebes (Dakouri-Hild 2001: 105, who thinks
the House of Kadmos is of the corridor plan, and who suggests a date around
LH III A2), it may be that it was introduced at other places as they fell under
Mycenaean domination (Hiesel 1990: 250).

Ответить

Фотография andy4675 andy4675 23.12 2013

Building during LH IIIA1 is marked by the widespread appearance of monumental
plans, elaborate architectural craftsmanship, and the beginning of decorative
programs. At Mycenae and at Thebes (‘House of Kadmos’) we are not well
enough informed to know if the palace complexes were initially constructed in
LH IIIA and are uncertain about their plans.9 Mycenaean fresco painting also
flourishes at this time when programmatic scenes are first applied in the palaces,
many borrowing heavily from Minoan traditions (Lang 1969: 221–4; Immerwahr
1990: 106–13, 110–11; Shaw 1980, 1996, 1997). As we have seen, similar developments
are traceable at Tiryns, where in addition, Müller argues the citadel was
first fortified and provided a monumental gate (Figure 1.5; Müller 1930; Kilian
1987a: fig. 7; Wright 1978; Küpper 1996:34). At this time (LH IIIA1–2) on the
outskirts of the palaces and within their territories there appeared second- and
third-tier architecture that emulates palace forms.

 

At Mycenae (Figure 1.7) the Ramp
House, Tsountas House, Petsas House, and the Houses Outside the Citadel,
appear between LH IIIA and early LH IIIB (Nichoria: Nichoria II, 433–43;
Mycenae: Darcque 2005: plans 27, 31, 39–40, 102–3). The special nature of some
of these structures is now well understood and includes workshops for producing
perfumed oils, carving of ivory, and possibly storage of pottery (Shelmerdine
1985; Tournavitou 1995; 1997a, 1997b).
LH IIIA marks the emergence of a mainland-based culture as a series of recognisable
and repeated forms and styles that follow distinguishing organising principles
unique to what we term ‘Mycenaean’ culture.10

 

10 Kilian (1987d: 33–6) reviewed the question of the indigenous nature of the Mycenaean palaces
in comparison to Crete and the Near East; Mühlenbruch’s (2003) attempt to find principles of
planning and organisation of the Mycenaean palaces in Near Eastern ones is unconvincing; see
also Darcque 2001.

 

Figure 1.7a The Ramp House, Mycenae, adapted from Wace 1921–23, pl. 1. 1.7b Tsountas House, Mycenae, adapted from Hiesel
1990. 1.7c Houses Outside the Citadel, drawing by author

Прикрепленные изображения

  • 0.GIF
Ответить

Фотография andy4675 andy4675 23.12 2013

The achievement of this level of socio-political integration marks the
emergence of the first state-level polities on the Mainland, yet the evidence of
continuing regional variation highlights the extent to which these peer polities of
the Mainland, while sharing salient cultural traits, also competed with each other
in their display. (This formation is repeated in the historic period with the evolution
of city-states and ethnos-states, which also shared ethnic markers: language,
religion, iconography, architectural forms [Doric and Ionic], etc., see Hansen
2000: 17–19, 141–87, 599–602). What follows at probably all the palace sites are
architectural phases that correspond largely to the familiar plan of the palace
(Nelson 2001: 201). In the planning of architecture the concept of centripetal
organisation is consciously applied, whereby the approach to the central
‘megaron’ is organised by processing inwards through a series concentric rings
pierced by gates that open onto courts (Cavanagh 2001). This is best illustrated in
the organisation of the final stage at Tiryns.

Ответить