Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilNuméros148.1Building with Stone in the Bronze...

Building with Stone in the Bronze Age Aegean. Towards a Comprehensive Terminology for Building Components and Masonry Types

Οικοδόμηση με Λίθο στο Αιγαίο της Εποχής του Χαλκού. Προς μια Ολοκληρωμένη Ορολογία για τα Δομικά Στοιχεία και τους Τύπους Τοιχοποιίας
Construire en pierre à l’âge du bronze en Égée. Pour une terminologie des éléments de construction et types de maçonnerie
Maud Devolder, Marialucia Amadio et Eleni Christaki
p. 1-38

Résumés

Cet article propose de définir les éléments de construction en pierre et les types de maçonneries utilisés à l’âge du bronze dans le bassin égéen. Sur la base de données issues de sites datés du IIIe et IIe millénaire av. n. è. en Grèce continentale, en Turquie occidentale et dans les îles de la mer Égée, une terminologie précise et cohérente est proposée qui doit permettre de décrire les vestiges architecturaux en pierre à cette époque et dans cette région. À cette fin sont successivement traités le vocabulaire lié à l’acquisition et au travail de différents types de pierres, en lien avec des contextes géologiques particuliers ; les termes permettant de désigner les éléments réguliers ou irréguliers en pierre composant les murs, et ce quelles que soient leurs formes et dimensions ; et l’identification des principaux types de maçonneries en pierre. L’objectif de cette terminologie est de contribuer à la description claire et fiable des vestiges architecturaux en pierre, et d’établir une base solide permettant d’explorer les techniques et pratiques de construction utilisées à l’âge du bronze dans les différentes régions de l’Égée.

Haut de page

Notes de l’auteur

This work was funded by the European Union (ERC Consolidator Project DAEDALOS, grant Agreement no. 101043552). The authors wish to thank Vassiliki Sythiakaki and Elisavet Kavoulaki of the Heraklion Antiquities Services and Chryssa Sofianou, Vasso Zografaki and Kleio Zervaki of the Aghios Nikolaos Antiquities Services for granting and facilitating access to multiple sites; Emmanouela Apostolaki, Ian Begg, Thea Messina, Clairy Palyvou, and Todd Whitelaw for insightful discussions on specific terms and topics covered in this paper; Alexandra Karetsou, Pietro Militello, and Metaxia Tsipopoulou for site access; and Alexandra Karetsou, Marisa Marthari, Pietro Militello, and Jean-Claude Poursat for providing or authorising us to use illustrations. Our thanks also go to Athéna Tsingarida and Tina Kalantzopoulou of the Belgian School at Athens (EBSA), Kostis Christakis of the British School at Athens (BSA), and Véronique Chankowski, Laurianne Sève-Martinez, and Sophia Zoumboulaki of the French School at Athens (EFA) for assistance with permit applications. Special thanks to Hilary Tysoe for reviewing the English. Any errors or omissions remain the responsibility of the authors.

Texte intégral

Introduction

  • 1 See Sapirstein 2023 for a review.
  • 2 Sapirstein 2023, p. 169.
  • 3 Sapirstein, Murray 2017; Cantoro et al. 2019; Sapirstein 2020; Sapirstein 2023, p. 182.

1The study of Bronze Age Aegean architecture has recently produced new and exciting research that contributes to deeper and more diversified ways of improving our knowledge of the built environment.1 In particular, these findings have been fuelled by an increasing engagement with building materials at the macro- and microscopic levels, and with a growing interest in building techniques as a means for understanding 3rd and 2nd millennium BCE societies in and around the Aegean basin. This “notable rise in scrutiny” of the fabric of architecture is evident in the growing care taken in fieldwork data recording and primary processing of both in situ and collapsed building components,2 an interest increasingly fed by new technologies.3

  • 4 Wright 1978; McEnroe 1982; McEnroe 1990; McEnroe 2001; Küpper 1996; Chlouveraki 2005; Palyvou 2005; (...)
  • 5 Orlandos 1966–1968; Aurenche (ed.) 1977; Aurenche 1981; Ginouvès, Martin 1985; Pérouse de Montclos (...)
  • 6 Sapirstein 2023, p. 171, for reference to recent works.
  • 7 On earth, with a strong bias towards Crete, see Devolder 2009; Lorenzon 2017; Lorenzon 2021; Devold (...)

2The terms used to define these components are formulated in synthetic works that offer comprehensive guidance to the building materials and techniques of the Bronze Age Aegean.4 Each focuses on a specific region or site for which the types of masonry are discussed, taking into consideration the material, provenance, shape and dimensions of the individual building components, the mode and extent of their working, and the characteristics of their assembly into walls. Because they offer a well-structured presentation of the material evidence often grounded in an extensive number of case-studies, these are invaluable “handbooks” for the study of the 3rd and 2nd millennium BCE architecture around the Aegean. In addition to these reference works, dictionaries of architecture in neighbouring regions and earlier or later periods and multilingual lexicons often assist specialists of the Bronze Age Aegean in defining building components and parts of edifices.5 These are complemented by architectural information produced in excavation monographs.6 Stone, upon which this paper focuses, is by far the best-preserved building material and thus the best documented and the most varied in its known forms and uses. However, recent and ongoing studies of earth, terracotta, and timber are now contributing to a fuller understanding of the Bronze Age Aegean built environment.7

  • 8 Palyvou 1999, pp. 39–40.

3Owing to the wealth of architectural information to be synthesised and structured, reference works are often limited in their geographical scope. As a result, current definitions of stone building components and masonry types are often context-specific or, at the other extreme, too generic. This polarisation partly hampers our ability to create a common and effective terminology for Bronze Age Aegean stone architecture that would allow building components and masonry types to be easily defined and unambiguously communicated while acknowledging their diversity.8 By inference, it also limits our understanding of the technical processes and associated expertise involved in the production of each building component, and thus of the masonry they compose, and our ability to truly compare and track building technologies and their variations through time and space.

4The aim of this paper is to systematise the terminology used to define stone building components and masonry types in the Bronze Age Aegean in order to facilitate descriptive and analytical studies. It stems from the need to establish a shared but targeted vocabulary for stone elements in order to interpret evidence from Bronze Age buildings in mainland Greece, Crete, the Cyclades and Western Anatolia, overcoming particularisms while highlighting key features in the recording of primary architectural data. Based on an extensive review of Bronze Age Aegean architectural remains described or illustrated with plans, sections, elevations and photographs in published excavations reports, architectural studies (PhDs or targeted papers or book chapters) and online sources (fig. 1), we offer a synthetic account of stone types and methods of procurement and shaping, comprehensive and unambiguous definitions of building components, and standardised classifications of masonry types.

Fig. 1 — Map of the Aegean with the location of the sites upon which this study is based.

Fig. 1 — Map of the Aegean with the location of the sites upon which this study is based.

Greek mainland: Aghios Kosmas (1); Aghios Vasileios (2); Aigeira (3); Akovitika (4); Argos (5); Asine (6); Askitario (7); Brauron (8); Chrysso (9); Dimini (10); Drosia (11); Eleon (12); Eleusis (13); Eretria (14); Eutresis (15); Gla (16); Kakovatos (17); Kiapha Titi (18); Kirrha (19); Korakou (20); Lefkandi (21); Lerna (22); Malthi (23); Manika (24); Midea (25); Mitrou (26); Mycenae (27); Nichoria (28); Orchomenos (29); Peristeria (30); Pevkakia (31); Pylos (32); Sparta Menelaion (33); Tanagra (34); Thebes (35); Thorikos (36); Tiryns (37); Toumba (38); Tsoungiza (39); Zygouries (40). Crete: Aghia Triada (41); Amnisos (42); Agriana (43); Archanes (44); Chania (45); Gaidourophas (46); Galatas (47); Gournia (48); Iuktas (49); Kato Zakros (50); Knossos (51); Kommos (52); Malia (53); Mochlos (54); Myrtos Pyrgos (55); Nirou Hani (56); Palaikastro (57); Petras (58); Phaistos (59); Pseira (60); Sissi (61); Zominthos (62). Other islands: Aghia Irini (Kea) (63); Aghioi Anargyroi (Naxos) (64); Aghios Andreas (Sifnos (65); Akrotiri (Thera) (66); Dhaskalio (Keros) (67); Emporio (Chios) (68); Grotta (Naxos) (69); Heraion (Samos) (70); Kastri (Syros) (71); Katalimata (Gavdhos) (72); Kolonna (Aegina) (73); Koukounaries (Paros) (74); Mt. Kynthos (Delos) (75); Markiani (Amorgos) (76); Mikre Vigla (Naxos) (77); Mikro Vouni (Samothrace) (78); Mouri (Chryssi) (79); Palamari (Skyros) (80); Panormos (Naxos) (81); Plaka (Andros) (82); Phylakopi (Melos) (83); Poliochni (Lemnos) (84); Serraglio (Kos) (85); Skarkos (Ios) (86); Thermi (Lesbos) (87); Trianda (Rhodes) (88); Vathy (Astypalaia) (89). Western Anatolia: Bakla Tepe (90); Iasos (91); Liman Tepe (92); Troy (93).

M. Devolder, based on Darcque 2005; Vlachopoulos 2006; McEnroe 2010; Phialon 2011; Wiersma 2014; Kouka 2016.

Stone types, procurement methods and stoneworking techniques

  • 9 Wright 1978, p. 126; McEnroe 1990, p. 197; Evely 1993, p. 207; Küpper 1996, pp. 5–6; Palyvou 2005, (...)
  • 10 Vals et al. 2020; Moretti 2023.

5Bronze Age Aegean architecture relies almost exclusively on local materials, most of which are collected in the immediate vicinity of the building site, a pattern that characterises not only vernacular buildings but also monumental or so‑called “palatial” or “elite” ones.9 This procurement strategy, which differs from later monumental building practices in ancient Greece,10 results in the very local character of Bronze Age architecture, the building processes, structural properties, and appearance of which are deeply rooted in their geological setting.

Stone types

  • 11 Higgins M., Higgins R. 1996, p. 17; Higgins 2009.
  • 12 Higgins M., Higgins R. 1996, p. 18; Searle, Lamont 2022, pp. 2–3.
  • 13 Higgins 2009, pp. 394–399.
  • 14 Mondillo et al. 2022, pp. 1–3.
  • 15 Higgins M., Higgins R. 1996, p. 197; Fassoulas et al. 2004.

6Combined tectonic activity, volcanic events, and sedimentation processes contributed to the unique landscapes and diverse geological features seen across the Aegean region, which is set at the interface between the Eurasian, African and Anatolian tectonic plates (fig. 2).11 Metamorphic rocks such as schist, gneiss and marble predominate in the northern and eastern Aegean, the eastern part of mainland Greece, Euboea, and the Cyclades,12 where volcanic activities also produced intrusive igneous rocks – mainly granites.13 Mainland Greece primarily consists of limestone and dolomite intercalated with bauxite in the Parnassos and Gavrovo zones,14 and of limestone and various other sedimentary rocks, notably sandstones, in the Pindos and Ionian zones. This Ionian zone extends along the entire Hellenic arc and includes the island of Crete, the backbone of which is composed of metamorphosed dark‑grey platy limestone upon which soft sedimentary deposits are formed.15

Fig. 2 — Simplified geological map of the Aegean region with the indication of the isopic zones and massifs.

Fig. 2 — Simplified geological map of the Aegean region with the indication of the isopic zones and massifs.

Modified by M. Devolder from Higgins M., Higgins R. 1996, fig. 2.2 and Higgins 2009, fig. 2.

  • 16 Bessac 2004, p. 14.

7This rich geological setting can be characterised in the terms of vacuolar, granular/micro-granular, compact and fissile rocks, based on the size of their components, the degree of compactness and homogeneity of their structure, and the propensity or not of the stone to cleave.16 This categorisation proves especially useful for our understanding of how geological properties played a role in the selection of specific rocks and contributed to defining the structural and aesthetic attributes of ancient masonry. Neither the categories defined by the geological formation processes, nor those established on the basis of the rocks’ composition were recognised as such by ancient builders of course, but the sensible use of materials for specific building components demonstrates the masons’ deep understanding of the stones’ physical, structural, working and aesthetic properties.

  • 17 Atkinson 1904, pp. 29, 61; Palyvou 1999, p. 46; Walberg 2007, p. 89; Catling 2009, p. 8; Shaw 2009, (...)

8Rocks are mainly incorporated in construction in the form of irregular-shaped stones of various dimensions sometimes rounded by water erosion, namely rubble, pebble and cobble stones, slabs and boulders. Unworked elements in andesite, basalt, diorite, dolerite, gabbro, granite, ophiolite, tuff, gneiss, marble, phyllite, quartzite, schist, beach rock, breccia, conglomerate, soft and hard limestones, and sandstones are used,17 the shapes of which are closely related to the geological properties and ensuing fracturing and weathering of the rocks.

  • 18 Wright 1978, p. 134; Wright 2020, p. 187; Dimou, Schmitt, Pelon 2000, pp. 438–448; Catling 2009, p. (...)
  • 19 Palyvou 1999, p. 47; Palyvou 2005, pp. 113–114.
  • 20 Shaw 2009, pp. 17–18.

9For cut‑stone building components, Bronze Age Aegean builders often preferred granular or microgranular stones such as soft, yellowish-grey limestone, beige pinkish sandstone, white or pinkish coarse- or fine-crystallised gypsum,18 and to a lesser extent vacuolar igneous rocks such as dacitic tuff, porous lava and ignimbrite.19 The procurement of these homogeneous or “free” stones required the expert and time-consuming channel extraction technique, but the blocks thus separated from the bedrock could be shaped without the limitations imposed by the fracturing lines more common in harder rocks.20

Stone procurement methods

  • 21 Wright 2005, pp. 34–36.
  • 22 Bessac 1996, p. 105; Bessac 2004, p. 16.

10Procurement methods of Bronze Age Aegean building components can be distinguished as three main processes: collection, fracturing and separation from the bedrock,21 in increasing degrees of technological complexity and visibility in the landscape. All make use of the lithostratigraphy of the outcrops, particularly the bedding planes that create layered formations in the rock mass from sedimentation, along with natural breaks, often perpendicular to these bedding planes, that divide the rock into stones of various sizes.22

  • 23 Plassart 1928, p. 12; Dierckx 2017, p. 195; Mersereau 2020, pp. 376, 381, 388, 402, 412, 415.
  • 24 Tsoraki 2012, pp. 202–203, 212–220.

11The simple collection of loose stones from the ground was the most common form of procurement of stone building components in the Bronze Age Aegean. The picking up of stones from the ruins of previous buildings near or on the building site must have accounted for an especially high proportion of the materials incorporated in the walls of long-lived, densely occupied settlements. Because of the irregular shape of most of the stones used in Bronze Age Aegean masonry, it is virtually impossible to assess the extent to which this spoliation or recycling process occurred. There is, however, an interesting and easy‑to‑spot practice, namely the incorporation in the masonry of lithic tools once used for food processing or craft activities. Indeed, grindstones and pounders are sporadically used as building materials.23 The latter can easily be mistaken for pebble or cobble stones, but the marks sometimes visible on their use‑face or the fracturing of it suggest that stone pounders were used in the dressing of building components (see hammering/pounding infra) and were incorporated into the masonry after they broke or simply fell out of use (fig. 3). This practice may in part explain the large amounts of lithic tools found in destruction or abandonment layers on some sites,24 since one may hypothesise that some of the pounders come from collapsed walls rather than being part of primary occupation deposits.

Fig. 3 — Worn stone pounder embedded in mud mortar in a Late Bronze Age wall in the Palace at Malia, general (a) and detailed (b) views.

Fig. 3 — Worn stone pounder embedded in mud mortar in a Late Bronze Age wall in the Palace at Malia, general (a) and detailed (b) views.

YPPO/EFA/M. Devolder.

  • 25 Hansen 1974, pp. 159–161, fig. 3; Dworakowska 1975, esp. pp. 128–129; Waelkens 1992, p. 10; Loader (...)
  • 26 For quarries where procurement through fracturing during the Bronze Age is attested or strongly sug (...)
  • 27 Wright 1978, p. 229, n. 329 with ref.; Dimou, Schmitt, Pelon 2000, p. 449; Shaw 2009, pp. 25–26; Hi (...)
  • 28 Blackwell 2011, p. 129.

12Fracturing consists in taking advantage of bedding planes and natural fissures in order to pry lumps of stones loose from the bedrock (fig. 4a).25 This made it possible to procure large building components using quite a simple technique that only required increasing strength and thus workforce as the size of the stones increased, but unfortunately for the study of the Aegean Bronze Age quarries, it left virtually no trace in the landscape.26 With this method, hard stones, including the compact limestones so common in Greece, could easily be procured in the shape of irregular boulders of various dimensions. When the rock presented clear bedding planes, as is the case for some varieties of hard limestones, individual components and sometimes even naturally regular blocks were pried loose from the bedrock (fig. 4b). Loose boulders of conglomerate and breccia did occur, but outcrops are also known to have been systematically exploited.27 It remains surprising, considering the importance of this procurement method, that metal levers and crowbars are missing from the Bronze Age Aegean archaeological record.28 Perhaps the use of hardwood implements must be considered.

Fig. 4 — Stone procurement methods.

Fig. 4 — Stone procurement methods.

The fracturing of boulders (a) and natural blocks (b) from the bedrock surface, and the separation of blocks from the quarry bed using the channel extraction technique (c).

Y. Nakas and M. Devolder.

  • 29 Waelkens 1992, pp. 7–11; Palyvou 2005, p. 113; Blackwell 2011, pp. 166–167, 176; Kreimerman, Devold (...)
  • 30 Wright 2005, p. 35; Hitchcock et al. 2016, p. 72.
  • 31 Arnold 1991, pp. 27–36; Klemm D., Klemm R. 2010, pp. 12–26.

13Because of their homogeneous composition, soft sedimentary rocks such as soft limestone, sandstone and gypsum could be methodically detached from open‑air – be they pit, trench, or stepped – or more rarely subterranean quarries by cutting lateral extraction channels using metal picks, pick-adzes, double-adzes, chisels or points (fig. 4c).29 The lower face of the block was then separated from the bedrock by taking advantage of the bedding planes or, if the natural stone bank proved too thick, by creating shallow grooves as undercuts – with a technique thus called grooving – and then levying the block.30 This practice, first attested in the Aegean at the beginning of the 2nd millennium BCE – on Crete more precisely, strongly echoes that used in pharaonic Egypt since the 27th c. BCE.31 There is little evidence for it outside Crete because of the preeminence and use elsewhere in the Aegean of harder rocks procured through fracturing. It is also worth noting that no trace of the use of wedges exists in Bronze Age Aegean quarries, and there is also no evidence for the use of stone hammers for extracting stone blocks.

Stoneworking techniques

  • 32 Wright 2005, pp. 43–44. Note that Boleti (Boleti 2020, pp. 247–255) also suggests that drilling was (...)

14As noted earlier, most of the stone building components in the Bronze Age Aegean are left in their natural, generally irregular state and incorporated in the walls without being worked. But in some cases the stone is worked in order to be shaped and/or provided with regular surfaces through cleaving/splitting, hammering/pounding, cutting, sawing, and abrading (fig. 5).32

Fig. 5 — Stoneworking techniques used for shaping stone building components in the Bronze Age Aegean.

Fig. 5 — Stoneworking techniques used for shaping stone building components in the Bronze Age Aegean.

Splitting of naturally regular stones in an Early Bronze Age wall in the Knossos Palace, with chink stones visible in the joints (a); hammering or pounding of a naturally regular stone on the peak sanctuary of Iuktas (b); chisel marks on a Late Bronze Age soft limestone ashlar block in the Phaistos Palace (c); and pendulum saw marks on a Late Bronze Age conglomerate ashlar block in the Tiryns Palace (d).

(a) YPPO/E. Apostolaki; (b) YPPO/M. Devolder courtesy of A. Karetsou; (c) YPPO/SAIA/T. Messina; (d) YPPO/M. Devolder.

15Cleaving or splitting is the shaping of a procured stone into one or several building components. It is done by fracturing the stone along cleavage lines, or by striking it to create a fissure along which the rock will split. In the latter case, the point of impact of the tool used for splitting the stone is often visible (fig. 5a).

  • 33 Boleti 2020, p. 256.
  • 34 Davis 1986, p. 8, pl. 39c; Devolder 2017; Devolder 2018, fig. 3e; Wright 2020, fig. 7.24.

16Hammering or pounding consists of dressing the building components through repetitive percussion of the stone in order to remove protruding matter and in some cases produce regular surfaces (fig. 5b). This method generally applies to hard stones, hence it is usually done using lithic tools.33 The impact of the pounder is visible in a more or less dense pattern of impacts on the surface of the stone,34 unless the same surface has been further processed through abrasion and the pounding marks are strongly attenuated or have entirely disappeared.

  • 35 Blackwell 2011, pp. 130–177.

17Cutting describes the shaping of – mainly soft – stone blocks and the modification of their surfaces with metal tools. Axes and adzes of various types, and mainly chisels with cutting edges of various widths, were used to cut the procured stone into the desired shape and to give the stone faces a regular appearance (fig. 5c).35

  • 36 Schwandner 1991; Küpper 1996, pp. 16–25; Shaw 2009, pp. 49–50; Blackwell 2011, pp. 187–193; Blackwe (...)

18Sawing is mostly used for shaping building components in hard stones such as conglomerate, breccia, and compact limestones, or for producing thin “slices” of soft stones (e.g., gypsum) to be used as wall revetment (dadoes) or floor paving. Various types of saws sometimes used in combination with sand or ground minerals are known from the archaeological record, but the most elaborate device, the pendulum saw, is attested only by the curved marks left by the sawing blade on stone blocks in 14th–13th c. BCE mainland Greece and Crete (fig. 5d).36

  • 37 Küpper 1996; Shaw 2009, pp. 43, 46, 52, 54; Boleti 2017, pp. 227, 229–230, 250.

19Abrading consists of the rubbing of the stone with a metal or lithic tool or with an abrasive material – sand or emery powder possibly combined with liquid and a piece cloth – in order to create smooth surfaces, almost or thoroughly polished in appearance.37

Stone building components

  • 38 Ginouvès, Martin 1985, p. 47.
  • 39 Blair, McPherson 1999, fig. 2.
  • 40 Darcque 2005, pp. 132–133; Shaw 2009, pp. 149–150.

20The terminology is based on the material, shape, size and type and degree of working of the building component (tables 1 and 2). The smallest visible stone components used in construction are gravel and pebble stones, the latter rendered smooth and roundish by water erosion. Gravel is described by specialists of ancient architecture as being 2 to 20 mm long and pebbles between 2 and 8 cm long, suggesting that pebble stones less than 2 cm long should be defined as gravel.38 This is at odds with the common use in the field of the terms gravel and pebbles for defining small irregular and water-worn stones, respectively. Also, these dimensions do not fit the definitions produced by the reference classifications of sedimentary particles.39 Gravel and pebble stones are thus considered here as individual building components less than 8 cm long, which are often used as stone chips/chinks in the joints between other components, or in the interior fill of the masonry. Stones smaller than 2 cm long are mostly incorporated in another building material (e.g., mudbrick fabric, mud mortar or lime plaster).40 This takes liberties with the sedimentary classification (where the axial length of gravel is 0.02 to 40.96 cm on the Udden-Wentworth scale) and the size terminologies for Greek and Roman architecture, but proves to be an appropriate and a practical definition for the smallest visible stone building components used in Bronze Age Aegean architecture.

Table 1 – Dimensions of irregular building components.

Gravel stones  0.08 m  Rubble stones 0.30 m  Small
boulders 
0.70 m  Large
boulders 
Pebble stones Cobble stones 

Table 2 — Procurement methods and stoneworking techniques associated to the different types of stone building components.

Procurement method Building component Stoneworking technique
Collection or fracturing Rubble stone

None,

unless hammering, cleaving/splitting or pounding on a limited surface

Slab stone
Cobble stone
Boulder
Natural block
Separation Raw (extraction) block None
(Extraction) waste block
Separation or fracturing (Stoneworking) waste block Wasted after stoneworking through cleaving/splitting, pounding, cutting or sawing
Rough ashlar block Lower and upper faces worked through pounding or cutting
Pseudo-ashlar block Outer and most often also lower and upper faces worked through pounding, cutting or sawing
Ashlar block Outer, lower, upper and side faces (limited to rising joint) worked through pounding, cutting or sawing
Pure/true ashlar block All faces worked through pounding, cutting or sawing
  • 41 Ginouvès, Martin 1985, p. 47.
  • 42 Renfrew et al. (eds.) 2007, fig. 3.14, pls. 2a, 3a, 6a; Walberg 2007, p. 90; Catling 2009, p. 27; M(...)

21Rubble stones, also called fieldstones, are irregular-shaped stones of small dimensions simply collected loose on the landscape or the surface of a building site (fig. 6a). These loose stones are characterised as being light enough to be lifted by one individual.41 However, a more precise definition, based on a maximum axial length of 0.30 m suggested by published graphic documentation and field observations, is deemed more applicable. Rubble stones are unworked, although in some cases large loose stones may have been broken into smaller elements. This process often leaves no visible trace or only faint evidence once the rubble stones are incorporated into the masonry. In any case, such breaking was aimed at producing rough stones of the small, desirable size, and not at producing plane faces. However, it is common to find that the builders deliberately set the most regular natural face of the rubble stone on the wall’s exterior face, a pattern that also applies to other types of irregular stone building components.42

Fig. 6 — Stone building components.

Fig. 6 — Stone building components.

Small boulders and rubble stones in the Late Bronze Age Palace at Malia (a); slabs in Early Bronze Age walls at Skarkos (b); cobble stones in Late Bronze Age shell-walls at Sparta Menelaion (c); naturally regular stones in the Bronze Age walls of the Iuktas peak sanctuary (d); and large boulders in the Late Bronze Age Palace at Malia (e).

(a) YPPO/EFA/M. Devolder; (b) YPPO/M. Marthari, from Marthari 2018, fig. 13; (c) YPPO/M. Devolder; (d) YPPO/M. Devolder, courtesy of A. Karetsou; (e) YPPO/EFA/M. Devolder.

  • 43 Kreimerman, Devolder 2020, p. 31, with ref.

22Stone chips are used as wedges in the mud mortar between the rubble and cobble stones, slabs or mudbrick courses, between larger, dressed or undressed stones – a technique called “chinking” (fig. 5a) – or as a filling in the inner part of the wall or in the wall foundations. They are sometimes produced by the processing on the building site of stone building components.43

  • 44 Levi 1952, p. 321, fig. 4.
  • 45 Caskey 1971, pp. 388–389, pl. 72c–e; Doumas 1972; McEnroe 2001, p. 30, pls. 3B, 5B, 7, 23A, 36; Mar (...)

23Slab stones are naturally flat stones generally less than 0.05 m in thickness but that can go up to 0.10 m – when thicker they are naturally regular blocks. They are easily procured loose on the ground or by taking advantage of the natural lines of cleavage of the bedrock. In exceptional instances they are sawn away directly from the quarry or from an already detached large stone component.44 Besides their use in floor paving and as wall revetment (dadoes), slabs are regularly incorporated in the masonry of buildings in the appropriate geological setting (i.e., marble, schist) [fig. 6b]. Stone slabs associated with naturally regular blocks can form entire walls,45 or they can be used as wedges or to compensate for the irregular heights of other building components in the masonry (fig. 7b).

24Cobble stones are smooth, roundish, water-worn stones of small dimensions, generally 0.08–0.30 m in size collected on beaches and in riverbeds, or in conglomerate beds of former coastal or riverine deposits. Cobble stones of hard rocks are brought by erosion and rivers down the mountains, sometimes for long distances, and thus often reflect a broader geological variety. Their shape and size make this building component especially fitting for pavement, which is why cobble stones are often seen as synonymous with paving stones, but this is not necessarily the case and the term is also used to define small water-worn stone components incorporated in masonry in a similar manner – and sometimes together – with rubble stones (fig. 6c).

  • 46 McEnroe (McEnroe 2001, p. 36) distinguishes between small (< 0.4 m), large, and megalithic (> 0.90 m) stones at Pseira. Loader (L (...)

25Boulders are irregular-shaped, weathered stones larger than rubble or cobble stones, i.e., more than 0.30 m in size. Weathering may be related to the action of water or of other natural processes that caused the fracturing of the boulder from the bedrock and its subsequent attrition, which is affected by the geological properties of the rock. Small and large boulders of less or more than 0.70 m in size are sometimes distinguished. The largest elements are often termed “Cyclopean” or “megalithic” (fig. 6e), although there is no agreement as to the required size for this term to be applied.46

  • 47 Plassart 1928, p. 12, fig. 7, pp. 10–12, 18; Doumas 1972; Iakovidis 1989, pp. 150, 155; Dimou, Schm (...)
  • 48 Devolder 2017.

26Naturally regular blocks, often called “natural blocks,” are quadrangular stones the shape of which results from their fracturing from the bedrock using natural cleavage lines (fig. 4b). They are made of hard fissile rocks with clearly defined bedding planes and perpendicular fractures that form natural parting surfaces (figs. 5a, 6d).47 Because of their regular shape, they are sometimes alluded to as “ashlar blocks,” but when they are left unworked after being procured through pry-levering, this term must be avoided. Indeed, shaping of naturally regular blocks is rare and when it exists it is often limited to the erasure of natural protrusions through hammering, although some cases exist where the natural blocks have been thoroughly worked by pounding to be shaped into ashlar blocks.48 Stoneworking is done with a lithic tool because of the hardness of the rocks. Dimensions vary according to the lithostratigraphic features of the bedrock but natural blocks are more than 0.10 m in thickness. Although they are often called “slab‑like” stones, natural blocks are distinct from slabs, which are thinner. Both building components are often combined in the same wall (fig. 6b).

  • 49 Devolder 2018, p. 353, figs. 4a, 5b, 9a.

27Raw blocks or raw extraction blocks are regular – often but not necessarily quadrangular-shaped – stones procured with the channel extraction technique but left unworked after they were removed from the quarry to be used as building components (fig. 4c).49 Raw blocks are procured by actively cutting the soft stone bedrock instead of detaching it by using natural lines of cleavage of harder stone types, thus often producing blocks with blunter edges than for those procured through the fracturing of fissile rocks (fig. 7a).

Fig. 7 — Stone building components.

Fig. 7 — Stone building components.

Raw sandstone blocks in the Late Bronze Age Palace at Malia (a); sandstone ashlar blocks elevation set on a levelling course of rough ashlar blocks in the Late Bronze Age Palace at Malia (b); pseudo-ashlar – perhaps a broken ashlar – soft limestone block in the Late Bronze Age Palace at Phaistos (c); sandstone ashlar blocks with triangular and trapezoidal shapes in the Late Bronze Age Palace at Malia (d); and pure or true sandstone ashlar blocks in a Middle Bronze Age wall of the Mu Quarter at Malia (e).

(a) YPPO/EFA/M. Devolder; (b) YPPO/EFA/M. Devolder; (c) YPPO/SAIA/T. Messina; (d) YPPO/EFA/M. Devolder; (e) YPPO/EFA/M. Devolder.

28Extraction or stoneworking waste blocks are stones acquired with the channel extraction technique but that did not retain the regular shape in which the raw blocks were procured. Instead, they consist of waste material that became smaller and more irregular during extraction, transport or shaping, and that was later incorporated in the walls. The term “waste block” proves sufficient as a definition, because it is often impossible to distinguish between extraction and stoneworking waste blocks. However, the presence of specific tool marks (generally narrow chisels) may in some cases indicate that the stone had reached the stage of being worked before part of it was broken.

29Rough ashlar blocks have their bedding and resting surfaces roughly worked. It is often difficult to distinguish them from raw blocks, unless tool marks are visible, but there is a tendency in Minoan monumental architecture to use rough ashlar blocks in the lower parts of the masonry, for the levelling course of a coursed ashlar elevation (fig. 7b).

  • 50 Mantzourani, Vavouranakis, Kanellopoulos 2005, p. 755, fig. 11.

30A pseudo-ashlar block only has its outer, visible face careful dressed – most often but not necessarily together with the bedding and resting surfaces roughly cut. In other words, it lacks the dressed side joints that would make it an ashlar block fitting tightly against neighbouring blocks (fig. 7c).50

  • 51 Shaw 2009, p. 69.
  • 52 See for example Schmid, Treuil 2017, figs. 30, 44, 45, 228.

31An ashlar block designates a block of which the lower and upper faces are roughly cut or well dressed, and the front and side faces are also carefully trimmed (figs. 7b8b). In the Bronze Age Aegean, typically only parts of the side faces are dressed, specifically the rising joints – the narrow vertical bands where the blocks are in contact with each other. The back face of the ashlar block is often left irregular, so that the block is wedge-shaped, a trend that is said to have become more common in the Late Bronze Age (fig. 7d).51 A pure or true ashlar block is an exceptional example where all six faces of the block are processed (fig. 7e).52 Although the terms “ashlar block” should normally refer only to blocks that are entirely worked, such examples are so rare in the Bronze Age Aegean that a separate category is defined for those specimens that are indeed entirely processed.

Assembly of the stone building components into masonry

32After defining the stone building components of Bronze Age Aegean architecture, their assembly into walls is examined, taking into account key features such as the positioning of the individual stones of various types within the masonry, the regularity of the courses and tightness of the joints, the binding material, and the possible combination with other building materials.

Positioning of the stone building components

33The positioning and dimensions of the stone building components in the wall are described and measured with the axis of the wall taken as a reference (fig. 8a). Elements can be set as stretchers, headers, or as through-stones when the building component spans the entire width of the wall (fig. 9). A larger, often more regular element positioned at the exterior junction of two walls is referred to as a corner or quoin stone.

Fig. 8 — Schematic representations of a two‑faced small boulders and rubble stone wall or stone socle (a) and of a wall in one‑faced coursed ashlar masonry (b), with indications pertaining to the measurement of building components (a) and the terminology of ashlar building components (b).

Fig. 8 — Schematic representations of a two‑faced small boulders and rubble stone wall or stone socle (a) and of a wall in one‑faced coursed ashlar masonry (b), with indications pertaining to the measurement of building components (a) and the terminology of ashlar building components (b).

Y. Nakas and M. Devolder.

Fig. 9 — Positioning of the building components.

Fig. 9 — Positioning of the building components.

Headers (a); stretchers (b); through-stones (c); and upright (d)

Y. Nakas and M. Devolder.

  • 53 Hagel, Lauter 1987, pp. 8–9, pl. 1.1; Hagel 1992, p. 49, pl. 16; Burke et al. 2020, pp. 451–453, fi (...)

34Stone building components can also be set upright in the masonry, meaning they are set on one of their smallest (end or side) faces. The term upright is fitting for building components placed vertically as a rendering on one face of the wall.53 In the case of raw and ashlar blocks, natural blocks and boulders in sedimentary stones, additional information can be provided regarding the setting of the building component on its seam or split face. The seam face of the building component is parallel to the stone’s geological bedding plane, while the split face is perpendicular to it (fig. 10ab). To express it otherwise, the seam faces correspond to the lower and upper faces of the stone as it is procured from the quarry, and they may or may not correspond to the upper (bedding) and lower (resting) surfaces of the stone as it is positioned in the wall. It can sometimes be difficult to distinguish between a split and a seam face when the sedimentary rock structure is very homogeneous, but the geological layering is often visible on the split face. For structural reasons, the stone building components are generally set on one of their seam faces, but this it is not always the case, and such exceptions are thus worth pointing out. Orthostates, for example, are ashlar blocks set on their split face, and it can also happen that building components are set on their split face so as to fit a gap, or as an adaptation to surrounding constraints in the masonry, especially at wall ends (fig. 10c).

Fig. 10 — Schematic representations of stone blocks set on their seam (a) and split (b) faces, and view of a Middle Bronze Age hard limestone rough block set upright on its split face in a Late Bronze Age wall of the Palace at Malia (c).

Fig. 10 — Schematic representations of stone blocks set on their seam (a) and split (b) faces, and view of a Middle Bronze Age hard limestone rough block set upright on its split face in a Late Bronze Age wall of the Palace at Malia (c).

(a, b) Y. Nakas and M. Devolder; (c) YPPO/EFA/M. Devolder.

Binding material

  • 54 Wright 1978, pp. 37–38, 126; Zois 1990, p. 83.
  • 55 Palyvou 2005, p. 114; Wright 2005, p. 32.
  • 56 Wright 1978, p. 160. Loader (Loader 1998, p. 20), although she acknowledges variations due to local (...)
  • 57 Caskey 1971, p. 389; Doumas 1972, p. 154; Marthari 1998, p. 23; Marthari 2018, p. 171; Katsarou, Sc (...)
  • 58 Boyd 2013, p. 375.
  • 59 Doumas 1972, pp. 155, 162, 165, 166, 170.
  • 60 Wright 1978, p. 163ff.

35Stone building components are bonded with mud mortar in local clay mixed with chaff, ceramic and microlith fragments, shells, bones, sand, pebbles and gravel, and, in some regions, with limey marls.54 The proportions of stone and binding materials vary significantly depending on the character of the walls – primarily due to load-bearing requirements – but closer contact between the stones ensures the structural integrity of the masonry.55 The quantity of mud mortar naturally increases with the diminishing size of the stone building components, but even walls made of large boulders in the citadels on the Greek mainland seem to have required the use of a binding agent.56 Mud mortar was also incorporated in masonry erected with naturally regular or ashlar blocks (see infra). Dry‑walls do occur in the Aegean, where the types of stone used sometimes allowed builders to set the components in place without mud mortar.57 However, in some cases, the absence of binder may be due to erosion.58 In Cycladic islands with marble and schist geology producing laminar slabs and natural blocks, dry‑wall building is frequently encountered, even though counter-examples exist.59 Wright also notes that in late Middle Bronze Age and early Late Bronze Age fortification walls in the Peloponnese (at Malthi, Peristeria, and early Pylos), the outer facings were made of boulders set without mortar, with mortar used only in the core of the wall.60

Stone masonry structures

36Bronze Age Aegean masonry can be divided into four categories based on how the individual building components are assembled in the wall’s structure, namely one‑faced, two‑faced, shell‑wall or main‑line (fig. 11).

Fig. 11 — Masonry structures as defined by the assembling of the building components in the thickness of the wall.

Fig. 11 — Masonry structures as defined by the assembling of the building components in the thickness of the wall.

One-faced (a); two-faced (b); shell-wall (c); and main-line (d).

Y. Nakas and M. Devolder.

37Walls in one‑faced masonry have the largest building components set in one face of the wall – the front or outer or, when it is an exterior wall, exterior face – and a backing made of smaller elements in the other face of the wall – the back or inner or, when it is an exterior wall, interior face (fig. 11a). This category encompasses most exterior walls, where one face of the wall is generally made of the largest and most regular building components. This terminology also characterises walls built against a pre-existing surface, most generally the bedrock or another, earlier wall, in such a way that the wall has an outer but no proper back face.

38Walls in two-faced masonry have the largest building components set in both faces of the wall, so that the wall presents two main faces that are similar in appearance (fig. 11b). The building components in each face interlock in the middle of the wall with those in the opposite face. It is the most common masonry type for inner walls using small and medium-sized stones.

39Shell-wall is technically a sub-category of two-faced masonry, but it is so distinctive among Aegean Bronze Age masonry that it is worth treating it separately. In shell-walls the building components are set on both faces of the wall and frame a filling of smaller elements set in binding material (figs. 6c, 11c). In shell-wall masonry, there is no overlap in the middle of the wall between the building components of the opposite faces; however, through-stones are sometimes set to connect the two faces, serving as tie-stones.

  • 61 Palyvou 2018, pp. 117–121.

40Main-line masonry is made of building components that are mainly set in the wall as headers and/or stretchers used as through-stones (fig. 11d). This masonry type is thus mainly composed of large building components. Its purpose is fundamentally structural. Walls in main-line masonry generally match the main configuration lines of the building,61 and they often supported the walls of upper storeys. However, some examples exist of main-line masonry in raw extraction, rough ashlar or ashlar blocks that form a levelling course so as to create a regular bedding surface for the upper elevation courses or for timber or composite vertical supports.

  • 62 See for example the herringbone masonry used in stone socles for mudbrick masonry in the Early Bron (...)
  • 63 Jerome 1991, pp. 30–32; Wiencke 2000, pp. 7–304; Devolder, Lorenzon 2019; Devolder forthc. See also (...)
  • 64 Iakovidis 1989, p. 152; Van de Moortel 2020, p. 879.

41Within these four broad categories, sub-categories are defined based on the types of stone building components in the main wall face or faces (table 3). These can be very diverse, especially when a building is used over a long period of time and old components of various types are reincorporated in new walls, but most masonry is composed of one, sometimes two (indicated in table 3 between brackets) building components. Additional, often smaller stone elements used only for filling gaps or in the joints are not considered in defining the masonry type, although they should be mentioned in the general description of the wall. These categories make it possible to characterise most of the walls in the Bronze Age Aegean, but they are not exhaustive, and some localised masonry types must be taken into account.62 It is also important to point out that in many instances only the lower part of the wall is made of stone, the rest being made of sun-dried mudbricks, wattle-and‑daub, cob/clob/clom or pisé.63 In such instances, the lower, stone-built part of the wall is referred to as the stone socle (fig. 8a). When the elevation is carried up in stone, the upper courses are often composed of smaller stones than the lowest courses.64

Table 3 — Types of stone masonry in Bronze Age Aegean architecture.

One-faced masonry
One-faced rubble/cobble/slab stones The backing is composed
of the same building
components but in smaller
dimensions.
One faced small boulders (and rubble/cobble stones)
One-faced natural blocks (and slab stones)
One-faced large (and small) boulders
One-faced raw extraction blocks
One-faced pseudo-ashlar blocks
One-faced coursed ashlar blocks
One-faced orthostate blocks
The backing is composed of
smaller, almost exclusively
irregular building components,
most typically rubble/cobbles/
slab stones, although small
boulders or natural blocks
sometimes appear when the
thickness of the wall makes it
possible. This masonry is often
described as “rubble backed.”
Two-faced masonry
Two-faced rubble/cobbles/slab stones
Two-faced small boulders (and rubble/cobble stones)
Two-faced natural blocks (and slab stones)
Two-faced large (and small) boulders
Two-faced raw extraction blocks (and boulders)
Two-faced raw extraction blocks
The spaces between the largest
building components are
typically filled with smaller
irregular ones. The tight
imbrication of diverse building
components sometimes
requires their unusual
positioning, and it is in these
kinds of masonries that
elements set on their split face
are most common.
Shell-wall masonry
Shell-wall rubble/cobbles/slab stones
Shell-wall small boulders and rubble/cobble stones
Shell-wall coursed ashlar blocks
Shell-wall orthostate blocks
The inner fill between the
wall’s two outer faces is
typically made of small to very
small irregular building com-
ponents, as well as anthropic
remains such as ceramic
fragments or used stone tools.
Main-line masonry
Main-line large boulders
Main-line raw extraction blocks
Main-line rough ashlar blocks
Main-line coursed ashlar blocks
Smaller building components
are sometimes placed to fill
gaps between the largest
ones, though this is rare. This
type of masonry is primarily,
or exclusively, characterised
by elements that span the
full width of the wall.

Foundations

  • 65 Wright 1978, pp. 10–44; Loader 1998, pp. 16–19, fig. 2.2; Fotou 1990; Zois 1990, pp. 81–85; Shaw 20 (...)

42Unless the wall required additional structural support or, particularly, a levelled surface, the foundation courses were constructed using the same type of masonry as the lower elevation (fig. 8a). These foundations went down until the bedrock was reached, which was sometimes levelled by cutting and/or by covering the virgin rock with a bedding layer of clay, gravel or pebbles.65 In some instances, the substructures were wider than the elevation they supported. The addition on top of the foundations of a levelling course is rare (figs. 7b, 8b). It applies mainly to elaborate masonry in ashlar blocks or massive walls in large boulders, the setting of which required a levelled surface. In such cases, the levelling course often extends one to three dozen centimetres beyond the wall plane.

Stone coursing

  • 66 Walsh, MacDonald 1986; McEnroe 2001, p. 36.

43On top of the foundations and occasional levelling course, the elevation of the wall was built. The selection and positioning of stone building components in regular or irregular courses, or their completely random placement within the wall, result from the specific decisions made by the builders.66 These not only reflect the walls’ structural purpose but also the varying levels of the masons’ expertise and labour involved in the construction. For obvious structural reasons, and regardless of the type of building component, Bronze Age Aegean builders avoided continuous vertical joints – a practice dubbed stack or stacked bond. When such alignment occurred, it created a seam line, which is often indicative of a repair or the junction of walls from distinct building phases (fig. 12a).

Fig. 12 — Seam line between Bronze Age walls in the Iuktas peak sanctuary (a); stone socle for mudbrick wall in the Middle Bronze Age Mu Quarter in Malia (b); mud coating on small boulders and rubble stone masonry in the Late Bronze Age Malia Palace (c); superimposed white and pink plaster coatings on small boulders and rubble stone masonry in the Late Bronze Age Palace at Malia (d); white plaster coating on ashlar wall in the Late Bronze Age Palace at Malia (e); and gypsum dadoes adorning rubble stone masonry in the Late Bronze Age Villa at Aghia Triada (f).

Fig. 12 — Seam line between Bronze Age walls in the Iuktas peak sanctuary (a); stone socle for mudbrick wall in the Middle Bronze Age Mu Quarter in Malia (b); mud coating on small boulders and rubble stone masonry in the Late Bronze Age Malia Palace (c); superimposed white and pink plaster coatings on small boulders and rubble stone masonry in the Late Bronze Age Palace at Malia (d); white plaster coating on ashlar wall in the Late Bronze Age Palace at Malia (e); and gypsum dadoes adorning rubble stone masonry in the Late Bronze Age Villa at Aghia Triada (f).

(a) YPPO/M. Devolder, courtesy of A. Karetsou; (b) YPPO/EFA/M. Devolder; (c) YPPO/EFA/M. Devolder; (d) YPPO/EFA/M. Devolder; (e) YPPO/EFA/M. Devolder; (f) YPPO/SAIA/M. Devolder, courtesy of P. Militello.

  • 67 Ginouvès, Martin 1985, n. 97.
  • 68 Ginouvès, Martin 1985, pp. 104, 108.
  • 69 Devolder, Lorenzon 2019, pp. 69–71.

44Due to their natural, irregular shape, building components such as rubble stones, cobble stones, slab stones, and boulders are often assembled into irregular courses or placed randomly within the wall masonry. However, builders also sought to create regular courses with these irregular stones by selecting elements of similar heights to form each course, sometimes piling smaller components to match the height of the intended course, a technique known as “rubble brought to course.”67 Regardless of their coursing, irregular building components were separated in the wall facing by mortared joints of mud, occasionally incorporating stone chips or chinks (known as “chinking”) [fig. 5a]; in masonry using larger building components, such as large or very large boulders, the mixture of mud mortar and small irregular stones between the larger ones is referred to as the “packing” (fig. 6e).68 In stone socles supporting a mudbrick superstructure, a flattened layer of mud mortar is sometimes visible, compressed before the upper elevation of the wall was erected.69 This flattened layer often contained small stones (0.5–0.10 m), which are sometimes visible on the upper preserved surface of the stone socle (fig. 12b).

  • 70 Wright 1978, p. 148; Shaw 2009, p. 66.
  • 71 Ginouvès, Martin 1985, p. 98, n. 114.
  • 72 Palyvou 2005, p. 118; Kreimerman, Devolder 2020, p. 31.
  • 73 Oddo 2022, fig. 6a.

45Natural, raw or pseudo-ashlar blocks are generally set in regular courses with thick mortared joints (figs. 5a, 6d, 7a). Horizontal mortared joints often contain stone chips or chinks and small slab stones to compensate for the height variations between individual building components in the course. Similarly, vertical mortared joints may also include small stone chips, gravel, or pebbles within the mud mortar. Well-dressed, ashlar and pure ashlar blocks are typically set in regular courses and separated with mortared joints a few millimetres to several centimetres thick (fig. 7b, de). Horizontal joints of up to 5 cm have been recorded in ashlar walls in Minoan Crete and of up to 10 cm on the Greek mainland.70 While Shaw associates thinner joints with the work of more skilled stonemasons, the mud mortar likely facilitated sliding the blocks into place within the masonry. Most often, vertical contact between the ashlar blocks was limited to a narrow band along the carefully dressed rising joints (figs. 7b, d, 8b), and full contact occurred only between pure ashlar blocks where the side faces were entirely dressed (fig. 7e). In Bronze Age Aegean architecture, these regular courses of well-dressed blocks are referred to as coursed ashlar masonry or, less commonly, pseudo-isodomic ashlar masonry. Unlike in later cut-stone masonry, the block dimensions within a course may vary, as do the heights of the courses within the wall.71 The height of the courses almost always decreases as the wall rises, likely reflecting a structural intent to incorporate the largest building components in the lower courses while making it easier to lift the blocks of the upper courses.72 There are instances of ashlar blocks set in regular courses without horizontal or vertical contact between them, where the blocks are separated with the mortared joints filled by small stones.73 This is called coursed or pseudo-isodomic ashlar masonry with thick mortared joints. Irregular ashlar masonry, composed of ashlar blocks arranged in irregular courses or entirely randomly, is rare and typically indicates the reuse of ashlar blocks as spolia.

  • 74 Tsakanika-Theohari 2006; Palyvou 2018, pp. 136–138.
  • 75 Devolder 2019; Shaw 2020; Wright 2020.

46Both regularly and irregularly coursed, as well as random stone masonry, were often associated with other building materials. As indicated earlier, many of the 3rd and 2nd millennium BCE stone walls known to us represent only the socle – or part of it – of a wall made in materials that are now entirely decomposed. Timber, essential in the seismically active Aegean, is now largely absent from excavated Bronze Age architectural remains. The range and significance of its applications are now well recognised, and ongoing research aims to refine the terminology used to describe its role in ancient architecture.74 Since our focus is solely on stone building components and masonry, timber is not addressed here. However, it is worth highlighting key features and terms related to its association with stone. Timber could be used squared (i.e., square timber) or raw (i.e., round timber), and its use in the walls is often indicated only by the voids its disintegration left in the walls. In walls made of regular building components, its former presence is sometimes indicated by a bevelled bedding surface or by mortise holes carved in the block’s bedding surface.75 The latter aimed at fixing a horizontal beam that would be part of a timber framework which ensured the structural integrity of the superstructure, often made in smaller and irregular stone building components or in mudbricks. All traces pertaining to the incorporation of square or round timber elements in the masonry must be recorded, and consideration given as to whether the individual elements were set horizontally as low or high wall plates in one or both faces of the wall, transversally as tie‑beams, or vertically as posts.

Stone masonry revetment and rendering

  • 76 Darcque 2005, pp. 100–101; Devolder forthc.
  • 77 Devolder 2009, p. 71.
  • 78 Palyvou 2005, pp. 117–118.
  • 79 Driessen 2012, p. 22, fig. 1.4; Devolder 2019, fig. 5.
  • 80 Shaw 2009, pp. 75–76.
  • 81 Palyvou 2005, pp. 116, 166; Shaw 2009, pp. 21, 27, 66, 68, 100, 104, fig. 12, 180; Tsipopoulou 2002 (...)
  • 82 Hagel, Lauter 1987, pp. 8–9, pl. 1.1.

47Masonry and building components were hardly visible to the users of the buildings once their construction was completed. Except for terracing and fortification walls, the faces of which were kept bare, Bronze Age Aegean walls in stones were rendered with a layer of mud coating in a fabric that often incorporated small- to medium-sized vegetal, mineral, and anthropic temper. The purpose of this first, coarse mud coating, generally up to 10 cm in thickness, was to regularise the wall faces, which were then covered with a thinner mud coating in a fine fabric made of levigated clay in varying colours that reflects locally available sediments (fig. 12bc), or with lime or gypsum plaster (fig. 12d).76 These final renderings were sometimes painted, and they required regular maintenance.77 It is unclear whether ashlar walls were rendered with plaster. This may seem at odds with an already elaborate stone masonry, but sometimes the joints, edges,78 and in some rare instances the entire outer face of ashlar blocks still bear the remains of a plaster coating (figs. 7e, 12e).79 It is suggested that only the softest stones were thus coated.80 In rare instances, irregular masonry was faced with thin stone slabs set upright, or “dadoes,” often made from nicely veined gypsum or fine-grained limestone (fig. 12f).81 However, in published works, the distinction between purely decorative dadoes and load-bearing orthostates is not always straightforward.82

Concluding note

48By clarifying and systematising the vocabulary used to describe masonry across a broad range of Bronze Age sites in the Aegean, we have developed a reference terminology designed to effectively and unambiguously characterise stone masonry and building components. While acknowledging local variations, the use of this standardised vocabulary could help facilitate a structured recording of architectural remains and help anchor the study of ancient architecture more firmly in the available evidence. The shared adoption of precise and unambiguous terms by archaeologists may support a more accurate and nuanced assessment of architectural characteristics within their local, regional, and extra-regional contexts, potentially enhancing comparative studies. By more precisely naming the material characteristics related to the use of specific building components and their assembly into masonry, we may gain a better understanding of the strategies and choices made by builders, and deepen our insight into the processes involved in the construction and use of Bronze Age Aegean architecture.

Haut de page

Bibliographie

Adrymi-Sismani 2014 = Vasiliki Adrymi-Sismani, Ιωλκός : η εϋκτιµένη πόλη του Οµήρου. Ενα αστικό κέντρο στον µυχό του Παγασητικού κόλπου. Το διοικητικό κέντρο, οι οικίες και το νεκροταφείο, Volos, Υπουργείο Πολιτισµού και Αθλητισµού, 2014.

Aravantinos, Fappas, Galanakis 2020 = Vassilis L. Aravantinos, Ioannis Fappas, Yannis Galanakis, “Atop the Kadmeia: Mycenaean Roof Tiles from Thebes in Context”, ABSA 115, 2020, pp. 175–245.

Arnold 1991 = Dieter Arnold, Building in Egypt: Pharaonic Stone Masonry, New York, Oxford, OUP, 1991.

Atkinson 1904 = Thomas Dinham Atkinson, “The Architecture”, in Thomas Dinham Atkinson et al., Excavations at Phylakopi in Melos Conducted by the British School at Athens, London, Macmillan, Supplementary Paper – Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 4, 1904, pp. 25–69.

Aurenche (ed.) 1977 = Olivier Aurenche (ed.), Dictionnaire illustré multilingue de l’architecture du Proche-Orient ancien, Lyon, Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée Jean Pouilloux, Collection de la Maison de l’Orient méditerranéen – série archéologique 3, 1977.

Aurenche 1981 = Olivier Aurenche, La maison orientale : l’architecture du Proche-Orient ancien des origines au milieu du IVe millénaire, Paris, Paul Geuthner, 1981.

Bessac 1996 = Jean-Claude Bessac, La pierre en Gaule narbonnaise et les carrières du bois des Lens (Nîmes) : histoire, archéologie, ethnographie et techniques, Ann Arbor (Mich.), JRA, Suppl. 16, 1996.

Bessac 2004 = Jean-Claude Bessac, “L’archéologie de la pierre de taille”, in Jean-Claude Bessac et al. (eds.), La construction. Les matériaux durs : pierre et terre cuite, Paris, Errance, 2004, pp. 7–49.

Blackwell 2011 = Nicholas G. Blackwell, Middle and Late Bronze Age Metal Tools from the Aegean, Eastern Mediterranean, and Anatolia: Implications for Cultural/Regional Interaction and Craftsmanship, PhD dissertation [unpublished], Bryn Mawr College, 2011.

Blackwell 2014 = Nicholas G. Blackwell, “Making the Lion Gate Relief at Mycenae: Tool Marks and Foreign Influence”, AJA 118.3, 2014, pp. 451–488.

Blackwell 2018 = Nicholas G. Blackwell, “Experimental Stone-Cutting with the Mycenaean Pendulum Saw”, Antiquity 92.361, 2018, pp. 217–232.

Blackwell 2020 = Nicholas G. Blackwell, “Exploring Late Bronze Age Stoneworking Connections through Metal Tools: Evidence from Crete, Mainland Greece, and Cyprus”, in Devolder, Kreimerman (eds.) 2020, pp. 215–240.

Blair, McPherson 1999 = Terence C. Blair, John G. McPherson, “Grain-Size and Textural Classification of Coarse Sedimentary Particles”, Journal of Sedimentary Research 69.1, 1999, pp. 6–19.

Boleti 2017 = Athina Boleti, L’émeri : modalités d’exploitation dans le monde égéen protohistorique et antique, Paris, Publications de la Sorbonne, 2017.

Boleti 2020 = Athina Boleti, “Stone Tools Related to Stone Masonry Techniques in the Bronze Age Eastern Mediterranean: An Overview”, in Devolder, Kreimerman (eds.) 2020, pp. 241–264.

Boswinkel 2021 = Yannick Boswinkel, Labouring with Large Stones: A Study into the Investment and Impact of Construction Projects on Mycenaean Communities in Late Bronze Age Greece, Leiden, Sidestone Press, 2021.

Boyd 2013 = Michael J. Boyd, “The Structure and Architecture of the Settlement”, in Colin Renfrew et al. (eds.), The Settlement at Dhaskalio: The Sanctuary on Keros and the Origins of Aegean Ritual Practice. The Excavations of 2006–2008, vol. 1, Cambridge, McDonald institute for Archaeological Research, 2013, pp. 341–385.

Buell, McEnroe 2020 = D. Matthew Buell, John C. McEnroe, “Addressing Disruption: A Contextual Study of the Ashlar Masonry at Gournia”, in Devolder, Kreimerman (eds.) 2020, pp. 121–145.

Burke et al. 2020 = Brendan Burke et al., “Fieldwork at Ancient Eleon in Boeotia, 2011–2018”, AJA 124.3, 2020, pp. 441–476.

Cantoro et al. 2019 = Gianluca Cantoro et al., “Numérisation 3D du Bâtiment Dessenne”, in Maud Devolder, Ilaria Caloi, Fouilles exécutées à Malia : le Bâtiment Dessenne et les abords Sud-Ouest du palais dans l’établissement pré- et protopalatial de Malia, Athens, EFA, Et. cret. 37, 2019, pp. 81–101.

Caskey 1956 = John L. Caskey, “Excavations at Lerna, 1955”, Hesperia 25.2, 1956, pp. 147–173.

Caskey 1957 = John L. Caskey, “Excavations at Lerna, 1956”, Hesperia 26.2, 1957, pp. 142–162.

Caskey 1958 = John L. Caskey, “Excavations at Lerna, 1957”, Hesperia 27.2, 1958, pp. 125–144.

Caskey 1971 = John L. Caskey, “Investigations in Keos: Part I: Excavations and Explorations, 1966–1970”, Hesperia 40.4, 1971, pp. 359–396.

Catling 2009 = Hector William Catling, Sparta: Menelaion I. The Bronze Age, Athens, BSA, ABSA Suppl. 45, 2009.

Chlouveraki 2005 = Stefania Chlouveraki, Gypsum in Minoan Architecture: Exploitation, Utilisation and Weathering of a Prestige Stone, PhD dissertation [unpublished], University College London, 2005.

Christaki 2020 = Eleni Christaki, Architectural Elements and Construction Techniques of Neopalatial Buildings: Methodology for Managing and Documenting Archaeological Data Using an Information System and Digital Representations. The Case of the Zominthos Building, PhD dissertation [unpublished], National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 2020.

Cucuzza 2021 = Nicola Cucuzza, Haghia Triada IV : gli edifice Tardo Minoico III del settore meridionale, Athens, SAIA, Monografie della Scuola archeologica di Atene e delle missioni italiane in oriente 32, 2021.

Darcque 2005 = Pascal Darcque, L’habitat mycénien : formes et fonctions de l’espace bâti en Grèce continentale à la fin du IIe millénaire avant J.‑C., Athens, EFA, BEFAR 319, 2005.

Darcque, Treuil (eds.) 1990 = Pascal Darcque, René Treuil (eds.), L’habitat égéen préhistorique : actes de la table ronde internationale, Athènes, 23‑25 juin 1987, Athens, EFA, BCH Suppl. 19, 1990.

Davis 1986 = Jack L. Davis, Keos, Results of Excavations Conducted by the University of Cincinnati under the Auspices of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens V. Ayia Irini: Period V, Mainz, Ph. von Zabern, 1986.

Devolder 2009 = Maud Devolder, “From the Ground Up: Earth in Minoan Construction. The Case of Building 5 at Palaikastro”, Aegean Archaeology 8 (2005–2006), 2009, pp. 65–80.

Devolder 2016 = Maud Devolder, “The Protopalatial State of the Western Magazines of the Palace at Malia (Crete)”, OJA 35.2, 2016, pp. 141–159.

Devolder 2017 = Maud Devolder, “L’assise de nivellement en calcaire de la façade Ouest protopalatiale du palais de Malia”, BCH 141.2, 2017, pp. 447–484.

Devolder 2018 = Maud Devolder, “The Functions of Masons’ Marks in the Bronze Age Palace at Malia (Crete)”, AJA 122.3, 2018, pp. 343–365.

Devolder 2019 = Maud Devolder, “Éléments structurels en bois dans un palais de l’âge du Bronze crétois. Le cas de la Cour Nord du palais de Malia”, Pallas 105, 2019, pp. 133–149.

Devolder 2021 = Maud Devolder, “The Μαύρα Βλιχάδια Quarry”, in Jan Driessen (ed.), Excavations at Sissi V. Preliminary Report on the 2017–2019 Campaigns, Louvain-la‑Neuve, PUL, Aegis 21, 2021, pp. 495–499.

Devolder forthc. = Maud Devolder, “Macroscopic Evidence for the Use of Adobes at Minoan Malia (Bronze Age Crete)”, in Lucía Ruano Posada et al. (eds.), Using Earthen Architecture as an Excuse: Productive and Social Practices in Prehistoric and Protohistoric Building, Oxford, BAR Archeopress, forthcoming.

Devolder, Kreimerman (eds.) 2020 = Maud Devolder, Igor Kreimerman (eds.), Ashlar: Exploring the Materiality of Cut-Stone Masonry in the Eastern Mediterranean Bronze Age, Louvain-la‑Neuve, PUL, Aegis 17, 2020.

Devolder, Lorenzon 2019 = Maud Devolder, Marta Lorenzon, “Minoan Master Builders? A Diachronic Study of Mudbrick Architecture in the Bronze Age Palace at Malia (Crete)”, BCH 143.1, 2019, pp. 63–123.

Dierckx 2017 = Heidi M. C. Dierckx, “The Use of Querns and Other Ground Stone Hand Tools in Early to Middle Minoan Mortuary Practices at Petras”, in Metaxia Tsipopoulou (ed.), Petras, Siteia: The Pre- and Proto-palatial cemetery in context. Acts of a two‑day conference held at the Danish Institute at Athens, 14–15 February 2015, Aarhus, The Danish Institute at Athens, Aarhus UP, Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens 21, 2017, pp. 195–202.

Dimou, Schmitt, Pelon 2000 = Elefthéria Dimou, Anne Schmitt, Olivier Pelon, “Recherches sur les matériaux lithiques utilisés dans la construction du palais de Malia : étude géologique”, BCH 124.2, 2000, pp. 435–457.

Dixon, Kinnaird 2013 = John E. Dixon, Tim C. Kinnaird, “The Geology of Kavos and Dhaskalio”, in Colin Renfrew et al. (eds.), The Sanctuary on Keros and the Origins of Aegean Ritual Practice, vol. 1: The Settlement at Dhaskalio, Cambridge, McDonald institute for Archaeological Research, 2013, pp. 25–44.

Doumas 1972 = Christos Doumas, “Notes on Early Cycladic Architecture”, AA 87, 1972, pp. 151–170.

Driessen 2012 = Jan Driessen, “Excavations at Sissi 2011: Introduction”, in Jan Driessen et al., Excavations at Sissi, III: Preliminary Report on the 2011 Campaign, Louvain-la‑Neuve, PUL, Aegis 6, 2012, pp. 17–26.

Dworakowska 1975 = Angelina Dworakowska, Quarries in Ancient Greece, Wrocław, Warsaw, Zakład Narodowy imiena Ossolińskich, Bibliotheca Antiqua 14, 1975.

Evely 1993 = R. D. G. Evely, Minoan Crafts: Tools and Techniques, Göteborg, Åströms, Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 92, 1993.

Fassoulas et al. 2004 = Charalampos Fassoulas et al., “Patterns and Conditions of Deformation in the Plattenkalk Nappe, Crete, Greece: A Preliminary Study”, Bulletin of the Geological Society of Greece 36.4, 2004, pp. 1626–1635.

Fotou 1990 = Vassiliki Fotou, “L’implantation des bâtiments en Crète à l’époque néopalatiale : aménagement du terrain et mode d’occupation du sol”, in Darcque, Treuil (eds.) 1990, pp. 45–73.

Gale et al. 1988= N. H. Gale et al., “The Sources of Mycenaean Gypsum”, Journal of Archaeological Science 15.1, 1988, pp. 57–72.

Ginouvès, Martin 1985 = René Ginouvès, Roland Martin, Dictionnaire méthodique de l’architecture grecque et romaine, t. I: Matériaux, techniques de construction, techniques et formes du décor, Athens, EFA, Rome, EFR, CEFR 84, 1985.

Hagel 1992 = Dietmar Hagel, “The Fortifications of the Late Bronze Age at Kiapha Thiti, Attike”, in Symphorien Van de Maele, John M. Fossey (eds.), Fortificationes Antiquae, Amsterdam, Gieben, McGill University Monographs in Classical Archaeology and History 12, 1992, pp. 45–51.

Hagel, Lauter 1987 = Dietmar Hagel, Hans Lauter, “Die frühmykensiche Burg von Kiapha Thiti/Attika. Erster Vorbericht”, Marburger Winckelman Programm, 1987, pp. 3–13.

Hansen 1974 = Erik Hansen, “Emploi de pierres brutes dans les constructions, surtout à Delphes”, in Mélanges helléniques offerts à Georges Daux, Paris, De Boccard, 1974, pp. 159–179.

Higgins 2009 = Michael Denis Higgins, “Greek Islands: Geology”, in Rosemary Gillespie, David A. Clague (eds.), Encyclopedia of Islands, Berkeley, University of California Press, 2009, pp. 392–396.

Higgins M., Higgins R. 1996 = Michael Denis Higgins, Reynold Higgins, A Geological Companion to Greece and the Aegean, Ithaca, New York, Cornell UP, 1996.

Hitchcock et al. 2016 = Louise A. Hitchcock et al., “The Conglomerate Quarry at the Mycenaean Site of Vapheio-Palaiopyrgi in Laconia”, Hesperia 85.1, 2016, pp. 65–90.

Hnila 2021 = Pavol Hnila, “Load-Bearing Horizontal Timber Framing in the Aegean Bronze Age Architecture and Its Anatolian Parallels”, in Daňová Miroslava, Lucia Nováková (eds.), Vtere Felix, Mária : Žiaci svojej profesorke, Trnava, Filozofická fakulta TU, 2021, pp. 37–64.

Iakovidis 1989 = Spyros E. Iakovidis, Γλας I : η ανασκαφή 1955-1961, Athens, Η εν Αθήναις Αρχαιολογική Εταιρεία, Βιβλιοθήκη της εν Αθήναις αρχαιολογικής εταιρείας 107, 1989.

Jazwa 2024 = Kyle A. Jazwa, The Tiled-Roof Phenomenon in Early Helladic Greece: Evidence from Zygouries, Princeton, ASCSA, Hesperia Suppl. 53, 2024.

Jerome 1991 = Pamela S. Jerome, “Analysis and Conservation of Mudbrick Construction in Bronze Age Crete”, PhD dissertation [unpublished], University of Columbia, 1991.

Katsarou, Schilardi 2004 = Stella Katsarou, Demetrius U. Schilardi, “Emerging Neolithic and Early Cycladic settlements in Paros: Koukounaries and Sklavouna”, ABSA 99, 2004, pp. 23–48.

Klemm D., Klemm R. 2010 = Dietrich Klemm, Rosemarie Klemm, The Stones of the Pyramids: Provenance of the Building Stones of the Old Kingdom Pyramids of Egypt, Berlin, New York, De Gruyter, 2010.

Kokkorou-Alevra et al. 2014 = Georgia Kokkourou-Alevra et al., Corpus αρχαιων λατοµειων : λατοµεία του Ελλαδικού χώρου από τους προϊστορικούς έως τους µεσαιωνικούς χρόνους, Athens, Καρδαµίτσα, 2014.

Kouka 2016 = Ourania Kouka, “The Built Environment and Cultural Connectivity in the Aegean Early Bronze Age”, in Barry P. C. Molloy (ed.), Of Odysseys and Oddities: Scales and modes of interaction between prehistoric Aegean societies and their neighbors, Oxford, Oxbow Books, Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology, 2016, pp. 203–224.

Koutsoumpos 2012 = Nikos Koutsoumpos, Dictionary of Archaeological Terms: English-Greek / Greek-English, Oxford, Archaeopress, 2012.

Kreimerman, Devolder 2020 = Igor Kreimerman, Maud Devolder, “Leaving No Ashlar Unturned: Definitions, Technical Features and Regional Synopsis of Cut-Stone Masonry in the Eastern Mediterranean Bronze Age”, in Devolder, Kreimerman (eds.) 2020, pp. 1–71.

Küpper 1996 = Michael Küpper, Mykenische Architektur: Material, Bearbeitungstechnik, Konstruktion und Erscheinungsbild, Espelkamp, Leidorf, Internationale Archäologie 25, 1996.

Lamouille, Péfau, Rougier-Blanc (eds.) 2019 = Stéphane Lamouille, Pierre Péfau, Sylvie Rougier-Blanc (eds.), Bois et architecture dans la protohistoire et l’antiquité (xvie av. J.‑C-iie s. apr. J.‑C) : approches méthodologiques et techniques, Toulouse, PU du Midi, Pallas 110, 2019, pp. 13–256.

Lenuzza 2013 = Valeria Lenuzza, “Of Roofs and Roof Drainage: A Survey of the Evidence in Bronze Age Crete”, in Giampaolo Graziadio et al. (eds.), Φιλική Συναυλία: Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology for Mario Benzi, Oxford, Archaeopress, BAR International Series 2460, 2013, pp. 79–98.

Levi 1952 = Doro Levi, “Attività della Scuola Archeologica Italiana di Atene nell’anno 1951”, Bolletino d’Arte, 1951, pp. 320–348.

Loader 1998 = N. Claire Loader, Building in Cyclopean Masonry with Special Reference to the Mycenaean Fortifications on Mainland Greece, Jonsered, Åström, Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 148, 1998.

Lorenzon 2017 = Marta Lorenzon, Earthen Architecture in Bronze Age Crete: From Raw Materials to Construction, PhD dissertation [unpublished], University of Edinburgh, 2017.

Lorenzon 2021 = Marta Lorenzon, “From Chaff to Seagrass: The Unique Quality of Minoan Mudbricks. A Geoarchaeological Approach to the Study of Architectural Craft Specialization in Bronze Age Crete”, Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 40, 2021, pp. 103–122.

Maner 2019 = Çiğdem Maner, Du sollst für die Ewigkeit bauen!: Untersuchungen zu hethitischen und mykenischen Befestigungen, Bonn, Habelt Verlag, Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 338, 2019.

Manolioudis 2018 = Stelios Manolioudis, Από τα αρχαία λατοµεία στα µνηµεία του πολιτισµού, s.l., Έκδοση Στέλιος Μιχ. Μανωλιούδης, 2018.

Mantzourani, Vavouranakis, Kanellopoulos 2005 = Eleni Mantzourani, Giorgos Vavouranakis, Chrysanthos Kanellopoulos, “The Klimataria-Manares Building Reconsidered”, AJA 109.4, 2005, pp. 743–776.

Maran 1992 = Joseph Maran, Die deutschen Ausgrabungen auf der Pevkakia-Magula in Thessalien, III: Die mittlere Bronzezeit, Bonn, Habelt Verlag, Beiträge zur ur- und frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie des Mittelmeer-Kulturraumes 30–31, 1992.

Marthari 1998 = Marisa Marthari, Σύρος : Χαλανδριανή, Καστρί. Από την έρευνα και την προστασία στην ανάδειξη του αρχαιολογικού χώρου = Syros: Chalandriani Kastri. From the Investigation and Protection to the Presentation of an Archaeological Site, Athens, 1998.

Marthari 2018 = Marisa Marthari, “Architecture, Seals and Aspects of Social Organisation in the Peak Period of the Early Bronze Age Cyclades: The evidence from the Major Settlement at Skarkos on the Island of Ios”, in Harald Meller, Detlef Gronenborn, Roberto Risch (eds.), Surplus without the State: Political Forms in Prehistory, Halle (Saale), Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologie Sachsen-Anhalt, Tagungen des Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte Halle 18, 2018, pp. 167–198.

McEnroe 1982 = John C. McEnroe, “A Typology of Minoan Neopalatial Houses”, AJA 86.1, 1982, pp. 3–19.

McEnroe 1990 = John C. McEnroe, “Significance of Local Styles in Minoan Vernacular Architecture”, in Darcque, Treuil (eds.) 1990, pp. 195–202.

McEnroe 2001 = John C. McEnroe, Pseira V: The Architecture of Pseira, Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania, Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, University Museum monograph 109, 2001.

McEnroe 2010 = John C. McEnroe, Architecture of Minoan Crete: Constructing Identity in the Aegean Bronze Age, Austin, University of Texas Press, 2010.

Mersereau 2020 = Rebecca Mersereau, “Chapter 8: Building Materials and Techniques”, in James C. Wright, Mary K. Dabney (eds.), Nemea Valley Archaeological Project, III: The Mycenaean Settlement on Tsoungiza Hill, Princeton, ASCSA, 2020, pp. 373–472.

Mondillo et al. 2022 = Nicola Mondillo et al., “Petrographic and Geochemical Features of the B3 Bauxite Horizon (Cenomanian-Turonian) in the Parnassos-Ghiona Area: A Contribution towards the Genesis of the Greek Karst Bauxites”, Ore Geology Reviews 143, 2022, 104759.

Moretti 2023 = Jean-Charles Moretti, “Géologie et architecture à Délos (2022) [archaeological report]”, BAEFE, 2023, online, https://doi.org/10.4000/baefe.10284, accessed 28 February 2024.

Nelson 2001 = Michael C. Nelson, The Architecture of Epano Englianos, Greece, PhD dissertation [unpublished], University of Toronto, 2001.

Nelson 2017 = Michael C. Nelson, “The architecture of the Palace of Nestor”, in Frederick A. Cooper, Diane Fortenberry (eds.), The Minnesota Pylos Project, 1990–98, Oxford, BAR Publishing, BAR International Series 2856, 2017, pp. 281–418.

Oddo 2022 = Emilia Oddo, Knossos: The House of the Frescoes, London, BSA, ABSA Suppl. 51, 2022.

Orlandos 1966–1968 = Anastasios Orlandos, Les matériaux de construction et la technique architecturale des anciens Grecs, Paris, De Boccard, 1966–1968.

Palyvou 1999 = Clairy Palyvou, Ακρωτήρι Θήρας : η οικοδοµική τέχνη, Athens, Η εν Αθήναις Αρχαιολογική Εταιρεία, Βιβλιοθήκη της εν Αθήναις Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας 183, 1999.

Palyvou 2005 = Clairy Palyvou, Akrotiri Thera: An Architecture of Affluence 3,500 Years Old, Philadelphia, INSTAP Academic Press, Prehistory Monographs 15, 2005.

Palyvou 2018 = Clairy Palyvou, Daidalos at Work: A Phenomenological Approach to the Study of Minoan Architecture, Philadelphia, INSTAP Academic Press, 2018.

Palyvou 2019 = Clairy Palyvou, Ακρωτήρι Θήρας : η αρχιτεκτονική της ∆υτικής Οικίας, Athens, Μέλισσα, 2019.

Perello 2011 = Bérangère Perello, L’architecture domestique de l’Anatolie au IIIe millénaire avant J.‑C., Istanbul, Institut français d’études anatoliennes Georges-Dumezil, Varia Anatolica 24, 2011.

Pérouse de Montclos 2000 = Jean-Marie Pérouse de Montclos, Architecture : méthode et vocabulaire, 3rd ed., Paris, Imprimerie nationale, 2000.

Phialon 2011 = Laetitia Phialon, L’émergence de la civilisation mycénienne en Grèce centrale, Leuven, Liège, Peeters, Aegaeum 32, 2011.

Plassart 1928 = André Plassart, EAD XI. Les sanctuaires et les cultes du mont Cynthe, Paris, De Boccard, 1928.

Renfrew et al. (eds.) 2007 = Colin Renfrew et al. (eds.), Excavations at Phylakopi in Melos 1974–77, London, BSA, ABSA Suppl. 42, 2007.

Sapirstein 2020 = Philip Sapirstein, “Hand Drawing Versus Computer Vision in Archaeological Recording”, Studies in Digital Heritage 4.2, 2020, pp. 134–159.

Sapirstein 2023 = Philip Sapirstein, “Recent Research on Greek Architecture: 2012–2022”, Archaeological Reports 68, 2023, pp. 169–195.

Sapirstein, Murray 2017 = Philip Sapirstein, Sarah Murray, “Establishing Best Practices for Photogrammetric Recording during Archaeological Fieldwork”, JFA 42.4, 2017, pp. 337–350.

Schmid, Treuil 2017 = Martin Schmid, René Treuil, Fouilles exécutées à Malia : le Quartier Mu, VI: Architecture minoenne à Malia : les bâtiments principaux du Quartier Mu (A, B, D, E) (Minoen Moyen II), Athens, EFA, Et. cret. 36, 2017.

Schwandner 1991 = Ernst-Ludwig Schwandner, Der Schnitt im Stein: Beobachtungen zum Gebrauch der Steinsäge in der Antike”, in Adolf Hoffmann et al. (eds.), Bautechnik der Antike: Internationales Kolloquium in Berlin vom 15–17. Februar 1990, Mainz, Ph. von Zabern, Diskussionen zur archäologischen Bauforschung 5, 1991, pp. 215–223.

Searle, Lamont 2022 = Michael P. Searle, Thomas N. Lamont, “Compressional Origin of the Aegean Orogeny, Greece”, Geoscience Frontiers 13, 2022, pp. 1–22.

Shaw 2004 = Joseph W. Shaw, “Roof Drains and Parapets in the Southern Aegean”, ABSA 99, 2004, pp. 173–188.

Shaw 2009 = Joseph W. Shaw, Minoan Architecture: Materials and Techniques, Padua, Bottega d’Erasmo, Studi di Archeologia Cretese 7, 2009.

Shaw 2015 = Joseph W. Shaw, Elite Minoan Architecture: Its Development at Knossos, Phaistos, and Malia, Philadelphia, INSTAP Academic press, Prehistory Monographs 49, 2009.

Shaw 2020 = Joseph W. Shaw, “‘Mycenaean’ Façade Construction in the Western Messara, Crete”, in Devolder, Kreimerman (eds.) 2020, pp. 389–419.

Tsakanika-Theohari 2006 = Eleutheria Tsakanika-Theohari, Ο ∆οµικός Ρόλος του Χύλου στην Τοιχοπιίατων Ανακτορικού Τύπου Κτιρίων της Μινωικής Κρήτης, PhD dissertation [unpublished], Εθνικό Μετσόβιο Πολυτεχνείο (ΕΜΠ), 2006.

Tsakanika-Theohari 2017 = Eleutheria Tsakanika-Theohari, “Minoan Structural Systems: Earthquake Resistant Characteristics. The Role of Timber”, in Simon Jusseret, Manuel Sintubin (eds.), Minoan Earthquakes: Breaking the Myth through Interdisciplinarity, Leuven, UP, Studies in Archaeological Sciences 5, 2017, pp. 267–304.

Tsipopoulou 2002 = Metaxia Tsipopoulou, “Petras, Siteia: The Palace, the Town, the Hinterland and the Protopalatial Background”, in Jan Driessen, Ilse Schoep, Robert Laffineur (eds.), Monuments of Minos: Rethinking the Minoan Palaces. Proceedings of the International Workshop “Crete of the hundred Palaces?” Held at the Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la‑Neuve, 14–15 December 2001, Liège, Université de Liège, Austin, University of Texas Program in Aegean Scripts and Prehistory, Aegaeum 23, 2002, pp. 133–144.

Tsoraki 2012 = Christina Tsoraki, “Ground Stone Technologies at the Bronze Age Settlement at Sissi: Preliminary Results”, in Jan Driessen et al., Excavations at Sissi, III: Preliminary Report on the 2011 Campaign, Louvain-la‑Neuve, PUL, Aegis 6, 2012, pp. 201–221.

Vals et al. 2020 = Marilou de Vals et al., “The Stones of the Sanctuary of Delphi: Northern Shore of the Corinth Gulf. Greece”, Bulletin de la Société géologique de France 191.11, 2020.

Van de Moortel 2020 = Aleydis Van de Moortel, “Middle Helladic Architectural Practices and the Formation of Elite Architecture at Mitrou, East Lokris, Early in the Late Helladic Period”, in Alexandros Mazarakis-Ainian (ed.), Αρχαιολογικό έργο Θεσσαλίας και στερεάς Ελλάδας : πρακτικά επιστηµονικής συνάντησης, Βόλος 26.2 έως 1.3.2015, vol. 2: Στερεά Ελλάδα, Volos, Έκδοση του Ταµείου Αρχαιολογικών Πόρων και Απαλλοτριώσεων, 2020, pp. 877–890.

Veropoulidou, Devolder 2024 = Rena Veropoulidou, Maud Devolder, “Moluscan Remains as Indirect Proxy for Identifying Disintegrated Mudbricks in Aegean Bronze Age Archaeological Contexts”, Environmental Archaeology: The Journal of Human Palaeoecology, 2024, pp. 1–15.

Vlachopoulos 2006 = Andreas Vlachopoulos, Archaeology: Aegean Islands, Athens, Μέλισσα, 2006.

Waelkens 1992 = Marc Waelkens, “Bronze Age Quarries and Quarrying Techniques in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Near East”, in Marc Waelkens, Norman Herz, Luc Moens (eds.), Ancient Stones: Quarrying, Trade and Provenance. Interdisciplinary Studies on Stones and Stone Technology in Europe and Near East from the Prehistoric to the Early Christian Period, Leuven, UP, Acta Archaeologica Lovaniensia Monographiae 4, 1992, pp. 5–20.

Walberg 2007 = Gisela Walberg, Midea: The Megaron Complex and Shrine Area. Excavations on the Lower Terraces 1994–1997, Philadelphia, INSTAP Academic Press, INSTAP Prehistory Monographs 20, 2007.

Walsh, Macdonald 1986 = Vicky A. Walsh, William A. Macdonald, “Greek Late Bronze Age Domestic Architecture: Toward a Typology of Stone Masonry”, JFA 13.4, 1986, pp. 493–499.

Walter, Felten 1981 = Hans Walter, Florens Felten, Alt-Ägina III.1: Die vorgeschichtliche Stadt: Befestigungen, Häuser, Funde, Mainz, Ph. von Zabern, 1981.

Wiencke 2000 = Martha Heath Wiencke, Lerna: A Preclassical Site in the Argolid. Results of Excavations Conducted by the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, vol. 4: The Architecture, Stratification and Pottery of Lerna III, Princeton, ASCSA, 2000.

Wiersma 2014 = Corien Wiersma, Building the Bronze Age: Architectural and Social Change on the Greek Mainland during Early Helladic III, Middle Helladic and Late Helladic I, Oxford, Archaeopress, 2014.

Wright 1978 = James C. Wright, Mycenaean Masonry Practices and Elements of Construction, PhD dissertation [unpublished], Bryn Mawr College, 1978.

Wright 2005 = George Roy Haslam Wright, Ancient Building Technology, vol. 2: Materials, Leiden, Brill, Technology and Change in History 7, 2005.

Wright 2020 = James C. Wright, “Mycenaean Ashlar Masonry: An Overview”, in Devolder, Kreimerman (eds.) 2020, pp. 187–213.

Zois 1990 = Antonis A. Zois, “Pour un schéma évolutif de l’architecture minoenne, A : Les fondations. Techniques et morphologie”, in Darcque, Treuil (eds.) 1990, pp. 75–93.

Haut de page

Notes

1 See Sapirstein 2023 for a review.

2 Sapirstein 2023, p. 169.

3 Sapirstein, Murray 2017; Cantoro et al. 2019; Sapirstein 2020; Sapirstein 2023, p. 182.

4 Wright 1978; McEnroe 1982; McEnroe 1990; McEnroe 2001; Küpper 1996; Chlouveraki 2005; Palyvou 2005; Wright 2005; Shaw 2009; Nelson 2001; Nelson 2017; Maner 2019; Devolder, Kreimerman (eds.) 2020.

5 Orlandos 1966–1968; Aurenche (ed.) 1977; Aurenche 1981; Ginouvès, Martin 1985; Pérouse de Montclos 2000; Darcque 2005, pp. 63–64; Koutsoumpos 2012.

6 Sapirstein 2023, p. 171, for reference to recent works.

7 On earth, with a strong bias towards Crete, see Devolder 2009; Lorenzon 2017; Lorenzon 2021; Devolder, Lorenzon 2019; Veropoulidou, Devolder 2024. On terracotta, see Wiencke 2000, pp. 107–108, 253–254; Shaw 2004; Lenuzza 2013; Aravantinos, Fappas, Galanakis 2020; Jazwa 2024. On timber, see Shaw 2015, pp. 97–122; Palyvou 1999; Palyvou 2005; Palyvou 2018, pp. 136–138; Palyvou 2019, pp. 100–102; Tsakanika-Theohari 2006; Tsakanika-Theohari 2017; Lamouille, Péfau, Rougier-Blanc (eds.) 2019; Hnila 2021.

8 Palyvou 1999, pp. 39–40.

9 Wright 1978, p. 126; McEnroe 1990, p. 197; Evely 1993, p. 207; Küpper 1996, pp. 5–6; Palyvou 2005, p. 113; Wright 2005, p. 31; Shaw 2009, p. 17. Note the Early Bronze Age site on the Cycladic islet of Dhaskalio, where some of the building stones were imported by raft from the south-eastern part of Naxos (or from Schinousa) [Dixon, Kinnaird 2013; Boyd 2013, esp. 371]. Note also the transport of gypsum, used for decorative purposes, from Crete to the sites of Akrotiri and Mycenae (Gale et al. 1988; Chlouveraki 2005, pp. 300–301) and potentially from the area of Knossos to the site of Kato Zakros (Chlouveraki 2005, pp. 284–285).

10 Vals et al. 2020; Moretti 2023.

11 Higgins M., Higgins R. 1996, p. 17; Higgins 2009.

12 Higgins M., Higgins R. 1996, p. 18; Searle, Lamont 2022, pp. 2–3.

13 Higgins 2009, pp. 394–399.

14 Mondillo et al. 2022, pp. 1–3.

15 Higgins M., Higgins R. 1996, p. 197; Fassoulas et al. 2004.

16 Bessac 2004, p. 14.

17 Atkinson 1904, pp. 29, 61; Palyvou 1999, p. 46; Walberg 2007, p. 89; Catling 2009, p. 8; Shaw 2009, p. 17; Adrymi-Sismani 2014, p. 229; Mersereau 2020, pp. 467–468; Oddo 2022, p. 62.

18 Wright 1978, p. 134; Wright 2020, p. 187; Dimou, Schmitt, Pelon 2000, pp. 438–448; Catling 2009, p. 8; Shaw 2009, pp. 17–25; Nelson 2017, pp. 293–294; Buell, McEnroe 2020, pp. 128–129; Oddo 2022, p. 61.

19 Palyvou 1999, p. 47; Palyvou 2005, pp. 113–114.

20 Shaw 2009, pp. 17–18.

21 Wright 2005, pp. 34–36.

22 Bessac 1996, p. 105; Bessac 2004, p. 16.

23 Plassart 1928, p. 12; Dierckx 2017, p. 195; Mersereau 2020, pp. 376, 381, 388, 402, 412, 415.

24 Tsoraki 2012, pp. 202–203, 212–220.

25 Hansen 1974, pp. 159–161, fig. 3; Dworakowska 1975, esp. pp. 128–129; Waelkens 1992, p. 10; Loader 1998, p. 47.

26 For quarries where procurement through fracturing during the Bronze Age is attested or strongly suggested, see nos. 271, 323, 353, 357, 368, 386, 496, 586, 589, 590, 704 of Kokkorou-Alevra et al. 2014 (with. ref.); Manolioudis 2018, p. 45.

27 Wright 1978, p. 229, n. 329 with ref.; Dimou, Schmitt, Pelon 2000, p. 449; Shaw 2009, pp. 25–26; Hitchcock et al. 2016.

28 Blackwell 2011, p. 129.

29 Waelkens 1992, pp. 7–11; Palyvou 2005, p. 113; Blackwell 2011, pp. 166–167, 176; Kreimerman, Devolder 2020, pp. 3–4. For quarries for which procurement through separation during the Bronze Age is attested or strongly suggested, see nos. 238, 301–303, 305, 306, 308–313, 318–322, 324–330, 335–338, 347, 354, 356, 360, 361, 373, 405, 409, 416, 417, 479, 585 and 663 of Kokkorou-Alevra et al. 2014; Hitchcock et al. 2016; Manolioudis 2018, pp. 7–11, 53–60, 96–97; Devolder 2021.

30 Wright 2005, p. 35; Hitchcock et al. 2016, p. 72.

31 Arnold 1991, pp. 27–36; Klemm D., Klemm R. 2010, pp. 12–26.

32 Wright 2005, pp. 43–44. Note that Boleti (Boleti 2020, pp. 247–255) also suggests that drilling was used for shaping soft limestone blocks at Phaistos.

33 Boleti 2020, p. 256.

34 Davis 1986, p. 8, pl. 39c; Devolder 2017; Devolder 2018, fig. 3e; Wright 2020, fig. 7.24.

35 Blackwell 2011, pp. 130–177.

36 Schwandner 1991; Küpper 1996, pp. 16–25; Shaw 2009, pp. 49–50; Blackwell 2011, pp. 187–193; Blackwell 2014; Blackwell 2018; Blackwell 2020, p. 221; Boleti 2020, pp. 246–247; Cucuzza 2021, p. 50.

37 Küpper 1996; Shaw 2009, pp. 43, 46, 52, 54; Boleti 2017, pp. 227, 229–230, 250.

38 Ginouvès, Martin 1985, p. 47.

39 Blair, McPherson 1999, fig. 2.

40 Darcque 2005, pp. 132–133; Shaw 2009, pp. 149–150.

41 Ginouvès, Martin 1985, p. 47.

42 Renfrew et al. (eds.) 2007, fig. 3.14, pls. 2a, 3a, 6a; Walberg 2007, p. 90; Catling 2009, p. 27; Mersereau 2020, p. 392, fig. 8.6.

43 Kreimerman, Devolder 2020, p. 31, with ref.

44 Levi 1952, p. 321, fig. 4.

45 Caskey 1971, pp. 388–389, pl. 72c–e; Doumas 1972; McEnroe 2001, p. 30, pls. 3B, 5B, 7, 23A, 36; Marthari 1998, pp. 22–27; Marthari 2018, pp. 173–174.

46 McEnroe (McEnroe 2001, p. 36) distinguishes between small (< 0.4 m), large, and megalithic (> 0.90 m) stones at Pseira. Loader (Loader 1998, appendix 2) gives lengths ranging from 0.75 to 2.20 m for boulders in Mycenaean Cyclopean fortifications. In the Minoan Palaces at Knossos and Malia the largest boulders are 1.81 and 1.60 m long, respectively.

47 Plassart 1928, p. 12, fig. 7, pp. 10–12, 18; Doumas 1972; Iakovidis 1989, pp. 150, 155; Dimou, Schmitt, Pelon 2000, pp. 440, 451; Christaki 2020, pp. 39–40, pls. 7β, 10α.

48 Devolder 2017.

49 Devolder 2018, p. 353, figs. 4a, 5b, 9a.

50 Mantzourani, Vavouranakis, Kanellopoulos 2005, p. 755, fig. 11.

51 Shaw 2009, p. 69.

52 See for example Schmid, Treuil 2017, figs. 30, 44, 45, 228.

53 Hagel, Lauter 1987, pp. 8–9, pl. 1.1; Hagel 1992, p. 49, pl. 16; Burke et al. 2020, pp. 451–453, fig. 9; Mersereau 2020, pp. 407–409; Van de Moortel 2020, p. 881, fig. 10.

54 Wright 1978, pp. 37–38, 126; Zois 1990, p. 83.

55 Palyvou 2005, p. 114; Wright 2005, p. 32.

56 Wright 1978, p. 160. Loader (Loader 1998, p. 20), although she acknowledges variations due to locally available resources, underlines that clay was used only infrequently in Mycenaean fortifications, where smaller stones filled the voids. Boswinkel (Boswinkel 2021, p. 97) calculates that at least 17% of the surface of the fortification walls at Mycenae and Teichos Dymaion was not represented by stones.

57 Caskey 1971, p. 389; Doumas 1972, p. 154; Marthari 1998, p. 23; Marthari 2018, p. 171; Katsarou, Schilardi 2004, p. 31; Renfrew et al. (eds.) 2007, p. 6.

58 Boyd 2013, p. 375.

59 Doumas 1972, pp. 155, 162, 165, 166, 170.

60 Wright 1978, p. 163ff.

61 Palyvou 2018, pp. 117–121.

62 See for example the herringbone masonry used in stone socles for mudbrick masonry in the Early Bronze Age walls – houses and fortification – in Lerna (Caskey 1956, p. 152; Caskey 1957, p. 155; Caskey 1958, p. 134, pl. 33b), the Middle Helladic II house 316 B (phase 5) in Pevkakia (Maran 1992, p. 20, pl. v), or the Weisses Haus in Aegina (Walter, Felten 1981, p. 14, fig. 7, pl. 16,3); the layered rubble masonry used in the Middle Bronze Age Palace at Malia (Devolder 2016); and the pier‑wall construction in Late Bronze Age Pylos (Nelson 2017, pp. 329–345).

63 Jerome 1991, pp. 30–32; Wiencke 2000, pp. 7–304; Devolder, Lorenzon 2019; Devolder forthc. See also Perello 2011, esp. pp. 64–65 on the pisé and wattle-and‑daub techniques in Anatolian contexts.

64 Iakovidis 1989, p. 152; Van de Moortel 2020, p. 879.

65 Wright 1978, pp. 10–44; Loader 1998, pp. 16–19, fig. 2.2; Fotou 1990; Zois 1990, pp. 81–85; Shaw 2009, pp. 54–56.

66 Walsh, MacDonald 1986; McEnroe 2001, p. 36.

67 Ginouvès, Martin 1985, n. 97.

68 Ginouvès, Martin 1985, pp. 104, 108.

69 Devolder, Lorenzon 2019, pp. 69–71.

70 Wright 1978, p. 148; Shaw 2009, p. 66.

71 Ginouvès, Martin 1985, p. 98, n. 114.

72 Palyvou 2005, p. 118; Kreimerman, Devolder 2020, p. 31.

73 Oddo 2022, fig. 6a.

74 Tsakanika-Theohari 2006; Palyvou 2018, pp. 136–138.

75 Devolder 2019; Shaw 2020; Wright 2020.

76 Darcque 2005, pp. 100–101; Devolder forthc.

77 Devolder 2009, p. 71.

78 Palyvou 2005, pp. 117–118.

79 Driessen 2012, p. 22, fig. 1.4; Devolder 2019, fig. 5.

80 Shaw 2009, pp. 75–76.

81 Palyvou 2005, pp. 116, 166; Shaw 2009, pp. 21, 27, 66, 68, 100, 104, fig. 12, 180; Tsipopoulou 2002, p. 139, pl. xliii.

82 Hagel, Lauter 1987, pp. 8–9, pl. 1.1.

Haut de page

Table des illustrations

Titre Fig. 1 — Map of the Aegean with the location of the sites upon which this study is based.
Légende Greek mainland: Aghios Kosmas (1); Aghios Vasileios (2); Aigeira (3); Akovitika (4); Argos (5); Asine (6); Askitario (7); Brauron (8); Chrysso (9); Dimini (10); Drosia (11); Eleon (12); Eleusis (13); Eretria (14); Eutresis (15); Gla (16); Kakovatos (17); Kiapha Titi (18); Kirrha (19); Korakou (20); Lefkandi (21); Lerna (22); Malthi (23); Manika (24); Midea (25); Mitrou (26); Mycenae (27); Nichoria (28); Orchomenos (29); Peristeria (30); Pevkakia (31); Pylos (32); Sparta Menelaion (33); Tanagra (34); Thebes (35); Thorikos (36); Tiryns (37); Toumba (38); Tsoungiza (39); Zygouries (40). Crete: Aghia Triada (41); Amnisos (42); Agriana (43); Archanes (44); Chania (45); Gaidourophas (46); Galatas (47); Gournia (48); Iuktas (49); Kato Zakros (50); Knossos (51); Kommos (52); Malia (53); Mochlos (54); Myrtos Pyrgos (55); Nirou Hani (56); Palaikastro (57); Petras (58); Phaistos (59); Pseira (60); Sissi (61); Zominthos (62). Other islands: Aghia Irini (Kea) (63); Aghioi Anargyroi (Naxos) (64); Aghios Andreas (Sifnos (65); Akrotiri (Thera) (66); Dhaskalio (Keros) (67); Emporio (Chios) (68); Grotta (Naxos) (69); Heraion (Samos) (70); Kastri (Syros) (71); Katalimata (Gavdhos) (72); Kolonna (Aegina) (73); Koukounaries (Paros) (74); Mt. Kynthos (Delos) (75); Markiani (Amorgos) (76); Mikre Vigla (Naxos) (77); Mikro Vouni (Samothrace) (78); Mouri (Chryssi) (79); Palamari (Skyros) (80); Panormos (Naxos) (81); Plaka (Andros) (82); Phylakopi (Melos) (83); Poliochni (Lemnos) (84); Serraglio (Kos) (85); Skarkos (Ios) (86); Thermi (Lesbos) (87); Trianda (Rhodes) (88); Vathy (Astypalaia) (89). Western Anatolia: Bakla Tepe (90); Iasos (91); Liman Tepe (92); Troy (93).
Crédits M. Devolder, based on Darcque 2005; Vlachopoulos 2006; McEnroe 2010; Phialon 2011; Wiersma 2014; Kouka 2016.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/bch/docannexe/image/1872/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 634k
Titre Fig. 2 — Simplified geological map of the Aegean region with the indication of the isopic zones and massifs.
Crédits Modified by M. Devolder from Higgins M., Higgins R. 1996, fig. 2.2 and Higgins 2009, fig. 2.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/bch/docannexe/image/1872/img-2.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 591k
Titre Fig. 3 — Worn stone pounder embedded in mud mortar in a Late Bronze Age wall in the Palace at Malia, general (a) and detailed (b) views.
Crédits YPPO/EFA/M. Devolder.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/bch/docannexe/image/1872/img-3.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 557k
Titre Fig. 4 — Stone procurement methods.
Légende The fracturing of boulders (a) and natural blocks (b) from the bedrock surface, and the separation of blocks from the quarry bed using the channel extraction technique (c).
Crédits Y. Nakas and M. Devolder.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/bch/docannexe/image/1872/img-4.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 560k
Titre Fig. 5 — Stoneworking techniques used for shaping stone building components in the Bronze Age Aegean.
Légende Splitting of naturally regular stones in an Early Bronze Age wall in the Knossos Palace, with chink stones visible in the joints (a); hammering or pounding of a naturally regular stone on the peak sanctuary of Iuktas (b); chisel marks on a Late Bronze Age soft limestone ashlar block in the Phaistos Palace (c); and pendulum saw marks on a Late Bronze Age conglomerate ashlar block in the Tiryns Palace (d).
Crédits (a) YPPO/E. Apostolaki; (b) YPPO/M. Devolder courtesy of A. Karetsou; (c) YPPO/SAIA/T. Messina; (d) YPPO/M. Devolder.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/bch/docannexe/image/1872/img-5.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 589k
Titre Fig. 6 — Stone building components.
Légende Small boulders and rubble stones in the Late Bronze Age Palace at Malia (a); slabs in Early Bronze Age walls at Skarkos (b); cobble stones in Late Bronze Age shell-walls at Sparta Menelaion (c); naturally regular stones in the Bronze Age walls of the Iuktas peak sanctuary (d); and large boulders in the Late Bronze Age Palace at Malia (e).
Crédits (a) YPPO/EFA/M. Devolder; (b) YPPO/M. Marthari, from Marthari 2018, fig. 13; (c) YPPO/M. Devolder; (d) YPPO/M. Devolder, courtesy of A. Karetsou; (e) YPPO/EFA/M. Devolder.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/bch/docannexe/image/1872/img-6.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 608k
Titre Fig. 7 — Stone building components.
Légende Raw sandstone blocks in the Late Bronze Age Palace at Malia (a); sandstone ashlar blocks elevation set on a levelling course of rough ashlar blocks in the Late Bronze Age Palace at Malia (b); pseudo-ashlar – perhaps a broken ashlar – soft limestone block in the Late Bronze Age Palace at Phaistos (c); sandstone ashlar blocks with triangular and trapezoidal shapes in the Late Bronze Age Palace at Malia (d); and pure or true sandstone ashlar blocks in a Middle Bronze Age wall of the Mu Quarter at Malia (e).
Crédits (a) YPPO/EFA/M. Devolder; (b) YPPO/EFA/M. Devolder; (c) YPPO/SAIA/T. Messina; (d) YPPO/EFA/M. Devolder; (e) YPPO/EFA/M. Devolder.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/bch/docannexe/image/1872/img-7.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 530k
Titre Fig. 8 — Schematic representations of a two‑faced small boulders and rubble stone wall or stone socle (a) and of a wall in one‑faced coursed ashlar masonry (b), with indications pertaining to the measurement of building components (a) and the terminology of ashlar building components (b).
Crédits Y. Nakas and M. Devolder.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/bch/docannexe/image/1872/img-8.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 558k
Titre Fig. 9 — Positioning of the building components.
Légende Headers (a); stretchers (b); through-stones (c); and upright (d)
Crédits Y. Nakas and M. Devolder.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/bch/docannexe/image/1872/img-9.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 510k
Titre Fig. 10 — Schematic representations of stone blocks set on their seam (a) and split (b) faces, and view of a Middle Bronze Age hard limestone rough block set upright on its split face in a Late Bronze Age wall of the Palace at Malia (c).
Crédits (a, b) Y. Nakas and M. Devolder; (c) YPPO/EFA/M. Devolder.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/bch/docannexe/image/1872/img-10.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 535k
Titre Fig. 11 — Masonry structures as defined by the assembling of the building components in the thickness of the wall.
Légende One-faced (a); two-faced (b); shell-wall (c); and main-line (d).
Crédits Y. Nakas and M. Devolder.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/bch/docannexe/image/1872/img-11.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 577k
Titre Fig. 12 — Seam line between Bronze Age walls in the Iuktas peak sanctuary (a); stone socle for mudbrick wall in the Middle Bronze Age Mu Quarter in Malia (b); mud coating on small boulders and rubble stone masonry in the Late Bronze Age Malia Palace (c); superimposed white and pink plaster coatings on small boulders and rubble stone masonry in the Late Bronze Age Palace at Malia (d); white plaster coating on ashlar wall in the Late Bronze Age Palace at Malia (e); and gypsum dadoes adorning rubble stone masonry in the Late Bronze Age Villa at Aghia Triada (f).
Crédits (a) YPPO/M. Devolder, courtesy of A. Karetsou; (b) YPPO/EFA/M. Devolder; (c) YPPO/EFA/M. Devolder; (d) YPPO/EFA/M. Devolder; (e) YPPO/EFA/M. Devolder; (f) YPPO/SAIA/M. Devolder, courtesy of P. Militello.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/bch/docannexe/image/1872/img-12.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 629k
Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence papier

Maud Devolder, Marialucia Amadio et Eleni Christaki, « Building with Stone in the Bronze Age Aegean. Towards a Comprehensive Terminology for Building Components and Masonry Types »Bulletin de correspondance hellénique, 148.1 | 2024, 1-38.

Référence électronique

Maud Devolder, Marialucia Amadio et Eleni Christaki, « Building with Stone in the Bronze Age Aegean. Towards a Comprehensive Terminology for Building Components and Masonry Types »Bulletin de correspondance hellénique [En ligne], 148.1 | 2024, mis en ligne le 09 février 2026, consulté le 15 avril 2026. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/bch/1872 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/15o1o

Haut de page

Auteurs

Maud Devolder

Professor in archaeology of the Aegean World and Principal Investigator of the ERC Project DAEDALOS, Ghent University.

Articles du même auteur

Marialucia Amadio

Postdoctoral Researcher (2023–2024) and current Associate Researcher in the ERC project DAEDALOS, Ghent University, and Postdoctoral researcher in DFCLAM, University of Siena.

Eleni Christaki

Postdoctoral Researcher (2023–2024) and current Associate Researcher in the ERC project DAEDALOS, Ghent University.

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0

Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont susceptibles d’être soumis à des autorisations d’usage spécifiques.

Haut de page
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search