A Typology of Minoan Neopalatial Houses

Abstract

Minoan houses of the Neopalatial period can be divided into three architectural types on the basis of size, construction, and types of rooms. This sort of classification is a fundamental step in the study of Minoan houses. The types not only provide a basis for the accurate description and comparison of houses, but can be used to define other factors that influenced the designs of individual buildings. One such factor, the role of local building traditions, is briefly considered. The Neopalatial period lasted only about 250 years, yet more is known about the architecture of that phase than of the other 1500 years of Minoan history combined.' In addition to the four major palaces, we now have about 180 excavated Neopalatial houses.2 They provide a vast amount of information, and, if we are to make use of that information, it is clear that some means of organization is necessary. In the study of houses, classification by types has, over the years, proved to be a useful method.3 Such types serve two complementary purposes. The more obvious is to combine the individual buildings into manageable groups of comparable structures. At the same time, the process of organization helps to define the most distinctive characteristics of those buildings. This sort of classification does not, of course, constitute a comprehensive analysis of the architecture. It is simply an elementary step in the process of investigation. By providing a sound basis for both description and comparison, however, it can be a useful step. There are a number of problems involved in defining meaningful architectural types, and for the Neopalatial houses one problem is particularly acute. Each of these houses is unique, and together they form a basically homogeneous series that ranges from the smallest house at Gournia to the palace at Knossos. The problem is this: within that architectural continuum, how does one draw the lines that separate one type from another without being entirely arbitrary? Perhaps any archaeological ordering of this sort of information will be, to some extent, arbitrary, but the problem can, I think, be lessened if the definitions of the types are based not on the presence or absence of one or two characteristics, but rather on the specific combinations and relative frequencies of a number of characteristics. In the following presentation, 29 houses, selected t illustrate the variety of Neopalatial architecture, are examined for 32 characteristics including types of rooms, arrangements of rooms, constructional details, and size. The major characteristics defined by those houses can be used to sort the approximately 180 Neopalatial houses into three basic types.