Comparing Minoan, Mycenaean, and Trojan Palaces - Essay Example

Minoan, Mycenaean and Trojan palaces Introduction The Great Civilization was experienced in Greece in the Greek Bronze Age. The earlier civilization which took place in the island of Crete is referred to as the Minoan civilization. Its name was derived from its leader king Minos. The later civilization which is named after one of its principal cities is referred to as Mycenaean (Pedley, 2011). From this description, one can deduce that there is great possibility for the palaces that were formed during these civilizations to have some close similarity. However, it is evident that the palaces in these civilizations will also have some differences. In connection to this, the paper aims at comparing and contrasting Minoan, Mycenaean and Trojan palaces. It will also provide detailed information as to why the Mycenaean palaces should be regarded as an indigenous mainland Greek development. In doing so, it will expound on architecture, decoration as well as artifacts found inside the palaces and their respective culture roles. The design of the palaces The Minoan, Trojan and Mycenaean palaces had central poinst of focus; they had rectangular paved court in which the palace buildings were well designed and built. However, their construction materials varied; the Minoan palaces were constructed from stone blocks, rubble, mud bricks and wood. The walls, wooden roofs as well as wooden door frames expounds on how wood was highly valued in construction Minoan palaces. The walls of the Minoan palaces were also plastered by gypsum plaster (Pedley, 2011). Apart from having light wells to provide light and fresh air to lower stories, the palaces had also pier and door partitions to increase ventilation as well as conserve heat. The palaces were also provided with drains to drain away water through light wells. The Minoan, Trojan and Mycenaean palaces had very special elements; they had well defined military architecture. Like Trojan and Mycenaean palaces, the Minoan palaces had also storage places for agricultural products and military equipment. Additionally, they had living quarters for rulers, living quarters, religious rooms, and banquet rooms. However, unlike Trojan and Mycenaean palaces, the Minoan palaces lacked the fortification walls; they were not protected from any kind of intrusion. The walls of Mycenaean palaces were 20 feet tall and fifteen feet thick, an indication of how security was very important. The use of fortified walls in constructing Mycenaean and Trojan palaces portray an element of dominancy and intimidation. Unlike Trojan and Minoan palaces, Mycenaean palaces had a unique way of appeasing the death; they tombs were circular in shape with thick walls. Unlike the Minoan palaces, the Mycenaean and Trojan palaces had also specific entry points. The Mycenaean palaces had three gates; a lion’s gate that was the main entry, Postern gate that was used by the locals to sell their products, and another gate near the palace (Pomeroy, 2009). The Trojan palaces on the other hand were divided into three parts; Troy I, Troy II, Troy III, Troy IV, Troy V, and Troy VI. All these sections of the palace had specific entry points. Within the court Mycenaean, Trojan and Minoan palaces there were a megaron, main courtyard, main building, artisan quarters, and cisterns. Figures of living things in the palaces and religion The use of animal carvings as well as human carvings are is well portrayed in the Minoan, Trojan and Mycenaean palaces. However, there were numerous bull carvings as well as their drawings in the walls of Minoan palaces along a carving portraying a religious woman referred to as mother of goddess. From the carvings, it is evident that women played a very significant role in Minoan palaces. Apart from ruling, they also took control of religious matters. Additionally, it is evident that the Minoan worshipped bulls. Unlike in the Minoan palaces, the bulls were controlled by man in the Mycenaean palaces; in Mycenaean palaces men controlled all living things. Additionally, majority of the pictures in Mycenaean palaces expressed the essence of war during that time. For instance, the walls had violence pictures; pictures portraying wars, killings and deaths. Paintings Both Minoan and Mycenaean palaces used paintings extensively in conveying messages. This is evidenced by the Minoan palaces being painted with bright colors to express the love of life. The Mycenaean palaces on the other hand were highly decorated to express the level of wealth. However, unlike in the Minoan palaces, majority of the paintings in Mycenaean palaces showed how was very important during the Bronze Age. Use of tablets and pottery Use of tablets was common in both the Minoan and Mycenaean palaces (Pomeroy, 2009). This is evidenced by the discovery of script Linear A and script Linear B in the Minoan palaces. The two tablets contained information about materials within the palaces. In the Mycenaean palaces, tablets inscribed in a unique language were also discovered. Unlike the tablets in Minoan palaces however, the tablets found Mycenaean palaces contained more information about military. Pots and drinking cups of different shapes were also found in Minoan, Trojan and Mycenaean palaces; the pots and pottery portray the social aspects of those ages. However, the number of pots as well as drinking cups was highest in the Mycenaean palaces compared to the Minoan and Trojan palaces. Thus, social relations were higher in the Mycenaean palaces than the Minoan palaces. Mycenaean palaces an indigenous mainland Greek development Mycenaean palaces should be regarded an indigenous mainland Greek development because of how majority of the cultural practices in the palaces continued to be used even after the destruction of the palaces. For instance, it is evident that Mycenaean style of pottery continued to be produced and used after Mycenaean palaces destruction. It is also evident that the Mycenaean practice of multiple interments in tombs was maintained after its destructions. Apart from something like sub-Mycenaean seeming to have existed in Argolid and Euboca, material records of mainland which was thought to be central Greece played a significant role in learning Greek history. Additionally, most of the materials collected in 1971 contain information same to Mycenaean civilization time. Features of architecture and sociopolitical that might grow out of local traditions All the palaces in historical times were constructed within a courtyard. This was a portrayal of unity that coexisted among people in the past. The construction of the palace in the middle of other buildings was also a clear indication of how leadership as well as a leader was respected in the historical days (Pedley, 2011). Thus, the architectural positioning of houses enhances people to live in unity as well as develop respect to their leaders by observing scales of leadership. From traditional practices, some sociopolitical features such as observance of security can be learnt. This is evidenced by what can be learnt from the protection aspect of Mycenaean palaces. The Mycenaean palaces had fortification walls that protected the people within it from enemies. The observance of leadership scales is also one of the features that can be learnt from local traditions; people will learn their respective roles in different positions in leadership. Assimilation of cultures Assimilation of cultures is one product of different societies coming together. The coming together of people creates a platform for sharing ideas and cultural practices. The learnt practices engrave in an individual’s mind leading to a change of habit. This is also evidenced by what took place in the Mycenaean palaces; the age, at which Mycenaean palaces were active, lions were not common in Greece. The people in Mycenaean palaces knew of the bulls than lions. However, with the cultivation of Western culture, the Mycenaean people were able to associate themselves with the control of lions which they had never seen. Interaction with other societies has also the potential to changing the way with think and does our respective activities; it makes us view things in a different way as well as behave in a different way. References Pedley, G. (2011). Greek Art and Archaeology. 5th ed. New York: Prentice Hall. (ISBN: 978- 0205001330) Pomeroy, S. et al, (2009). A Brief History of Ancient Greece: Politics, Society and Culture. 2nd ed. Oxford. New York: University Press. (ISBN: 978-0195372359) Lecture notes via file:///C:/Users/Admin/AppData/Local/Temp/Temp1_6622102_lecture_203_20- _20part_202.html.zip/Lecture%203%20-%20Part%202.html and file:///C:/Users/Admin/AppData/Local/Temp/Temp1_6622104_lecture_203_20- _20part_201.html-2.zip/Lecture%203%20-%20Part%201.html Read More