127

“The constructional analysis of timber load bearing systems as a tool forinterpreting Aegean Bronze Age architecture”

Dr. Eleftheria Tsakanika-TheohariCivil Engineer, NTUA

Introduction

Though, timber masonry reinforcements constituted a common feature of wall construction,attested in most of the civilizations that developed in the Eastern Mediterranean during BronzeAge, most studies on the architecture of this era do not emphasize on the use of wood as astructural element. Wood “is the invisible hero. Invisible since hardly any wood has been pre-served to prove its presence and hero since it carries a large part of structural loads” as Palyvoucomments characteristically for Akrotiri.1 Invisible indeed, also because the systematic andgeneralized use of timber as autonomous structural elements (columns, pillars and piers),frames (pier-and-door partitions, doors, windows), or horizontal and vertical timber reinforcingsystems of rubble, mud brick and ashlar walls, is rarely and not systematically studied.

This paper is based on a research conducted for Minoan timber load bearing systems andreinforcements of masonry in the framework of a Ph.D dissertation.2 The difficulties that such aresearch faces are many. In prehistoric archaeology one has to work with architectural remains,and not whole buildings, trying to understand the role of structural elements that do not existanymore3. As Graham points out4 “Since well preserved remains are rare we must dependlargely upon inference, conjecture, and analogy for the study of the use of wood in Minoanarchitecture”.5 The only indications of its presence are voids in the walls, mortises and horizon-tal beddings curved on dressed stones to provide a resting place for the connection of horizon-tal timber elements. Even these few but valuable data, can be lost due to the unavoidable“destruction” during the excavation procedure, due to restoration works, in several cases neces-sary, and unfortunately due to the luck of protection of vulnerable structural materials (Fig. 1).

Concerning the method of recording the architectural remains, another problem arises sincein several cases, especially in older excavation projects, there is inadequate documentation ofthe architectural and structural elements, either of the whole building, or of significant con-structional details.6 Documentation consisted of a few drawings, mainly plans, lacking usuallysections and elevations7. The constructional details were briefly recorded, usually in texts, but1 Palyvou 1999, 425.2 Ε. Τsakanika-Theohari, «O δομικός ρόλος του ξύλου στην τοιχοποιία των ανακτορικού τύπου κτηρίωντης Μινωικής Κρήτης», Ph.D. diss. N.T.U.A, Athens 2006.

3 There are many difficulties in understanding the structural role of timber load bearing systems even inexisting buildings with existing timbers.

4 Graham 1962, 145.5 But even in cases as Akrotiri, where the “amount of information is overwhelming”, we must be very

careful in our interpretations because “one may easily fall into the trap of thinking he has understood itall” (Palyvou 2005, 13).

6 Naturally it depends greatly on the presence of architects during excavation works. See also Nelson 2001,4–5,17.

7 A usual problem for the documentation of archaeological sites is the recording, in one general plan,of architectural remains which belong to different levels. If the conventions of architectural design arefollowed, each level should be depicted in a different drawing. In order to have an idea of the whole ex-cavation area, the architectural remains of a lower floor could be included in the plan of the last preservedfloor, but they should differentiated. The sections in these cases are very important too.

128

rarely in drawings or sketches. Therefore, it is quite difficult for a modern scholar to under-stand an architectural element or a constructional detail that was found years ago. Their origi-nal state as found during excavation can not be reproduced through written descriptions, notmention the considerable problems regarding terminology.8 Taking into account that the lan-guage of communication in architecture is drawings, the best way to record architecturalremains in order to present them in a comprehensive way for the next researchers,9 is the use ofgeneral plans, sections, elevations and mainly axonometric sketches either of the whole build-ing10, or of the structural details11 accompanied but not replaced by photographs.

Data recording should be followed by an analytical procedure, that includes constructionalanalysis. This kind of analysis is based on the identification of the main characteristics and thetypological classification of the structural systems. The study of the typology of load bearingsystems includes several parameters12:

The structural type and quality of the masonry (type of stone and mortar, width, way of con-–struction of the wall both in the horizontal and vertical level),the type and dimensions of the timber elements, their number and location within the thick-–ness of the masonry (in one face of the wall, both faces, hidden in between), their numberand location along the length and the height of the wall,the connection of the timber members to each other– 13, the most critical part for the evalua-tion of their structural behavior,

8 Palyvou 1999, 39–40. See also Tsakanika 2006, 52–54 concerning the term “xylodesia” in Greek andEnglish.

9 Tsakanika 2001, 232–233.10 See axonometric drawings of buildings or parts of buildings in Palyvou 1999, 2005, Rethemiotakis 1999,pl.CL3 – Galatas, Sakellarakis 1997, fig. 31 – Archanes, Platon 1974, fig. 40, 103, 105 – Zakros, EvansPMI–IV).

11 See axonometric drawings of details in Palyvou 1999, 2005, Shaw 1973, Nelson 2001.12 For the evaluation of the timber structural systems used during Bronze Age in Aegean, every gap timbers

left, the existence and the exact position of every mortise or bedding on ashlar members has to be re-corded. The method of recording and presenting the collected data, must be suitably organized in orderto be easy to recall, observations that refer many times to small, tiny constructional details hidden in acorner of palace. See also Tsakanika – Palyvou – Touliatos 2006, 2 (in press).

13 Unfortunately, in Bronze Age architecture, information regarding the connections of the timber elementsis almost non existent. The fact that nails or other metal connectors were not used, as in most timber

(Mylonas PAE 1971) (Tsakanika 2004)

Fig. 1. Mycenae. Building E, Room 1. The very rare imprints of the timber reinforcing system on themud-brick wall have been gradually lost for ever.

129

the connection to the other load bearing and non load bearing elements of the building, an–equally critical issue.

The next step, the interpretation of all the collected data (synthesis procedure), may lead us toconclusions, comments and queries concerning :

the role of each structural element, as a basic step towards the recognition of the overall–load bearing system of the building.14

the building techniques applied and their relation to the type, the chronology and the phases–of the buildings and,the reasons that made one structural solution to be preferred over another, since the choices–of initial design, and the final quality of the architectural result, high or low, depend cru-cially and directly on the construction techniques applied and vice versa. The interpretationof architecture is a complex procedure and must be derived from the assessment of all theparameters that affect the architectural design: historical, architectural, constructional andstructural.

Case Studies

Some of the main typological characteristics of Minoan timber structural systems will be dis-cussed briefly, focusing mainly on examples that highlight their possible use as a tool for inter-preting Aegean Bronze Age architecture.

Horizontal timber reinforcing system of rubble masonry

The horizontal timber reinforcing system embedded in masonry walls, was continuously usedfor about 1300 years, throughout Minoan era. During the Prepalatial period, at Vasiliki Iera-petras (Red House) and during the Protopalatial period (first palace of Phaistos), this systemwas used as a reinforcement for the rubble walls of these important buildings. It is interestingto note that especially for the Red House at Vasiliki, several scholars, including Evans15,expressed the opinion that a vertical timber reinforcing system was used in walls made of sun-dried mud bricks16. In reality, the masonry both at Vasiliki and at the first palace of Phaistos,

load bearing systems built during historical periods for which we have a lot of information, is one moredifficulty.

14 The structural role of a load bearing system can be evaluated by engineers also through mathematicalmodels (quantitative way). But in order to use this tool, a necessary presupposition “is the recogniti-on of the structural system, its behaviour and pathology through constructional analysis (qualitativeway). The results of this evaluation will give the necessary information for the formation of the propermathematical model that must be compatible with the existing building. Otherwise a significant dangeris to calculate with the best computer program and the best knowledge of the relevant Standards thewrong model even of the simplest structural system”. (Tsakanika 2001, 231).

15 Evans PM I, 72, “Large sun-dried bricks were used in the upper part of the walls, which were alsoframed vertically and horizontally with wooden beams, their inner and outer framework being linkedby cross bars … Α massive timber framework was from the first associated with the good masonryof the MM age, an inheritage from the Early Minoan buildings of which the remains at Vasiliki supplythe best example”. See also: Pendelbury 1963, 62, Vermeule 1964, 35, Branigan 1970, 46, Hood 1971,61.

16 Shaw is the first who pointed out that the materials and the structural system of this very importantbuilding for the evolution of constructional methods in Minoan Crete could not be the above, at leastwith the evidence that exists on site today. (Shaw 1973, 140, note 2). See also Tsakanika 2006, vol. 2(Vasiliki, first palace of Phaistos), Tsakanika – Palyvou – Touliatos 2006, 3 (in press).

130

was built with small and medium size rubble stones, with large amount of mud mortar, rein-forced with a horizontal timber grid of unworked timber trunks or tree branches laid longitudi-nally as runners and transversally as cross-ties in different levels of the walls (Fig. 2).

Vertical timber reinforcing system of rubble masonry

During the neopalatial period the load bearing system of palatial buildings changed17 and theuse of wood increased considerably18. One of the most important changes concerns the rein-forcement of rubble walls. The above mentioned timber horizontal system though it was aban-

17 Compared to the first palace of Phaistos. It must be pointed out however, that the high level of techno-logical knowledge used in the construction of new palaces and villas, characteristic of the Neopalatialperiod, could not be achieved in a short period of time. It must have been the result of experience thatwas enriched over time.

18 The amount of the wood used for the construction of the palatial buildings is enormous. See also Tsaka-nika – Palyvou – Touliatos, 2006, 11–12, fig. 8 (in press).

Fig. 2. Red House at Vasiliki Ieraperas. The position of horizontal timber elements in the rubble masonrybehind the thick layer of the plaster, are marked (Tsakanika 2006) by yellow color at the photos

and by green color at the published plan by Zois (1976).

Possible arrangement of the horizontal timber gridembedded in a wall of the first Palace of Phaistos.

131

doned in the palaces and palatial buildings (type 1 according to McEnroe)19, continued to beused at least in Thera, in houses of type 2 according to McEnroe.

The well-built walls of the palatial buildings of the Neopalatial period, with medium andlarge stones, were reinforced by an elaborate vertically placed timber system. The vertical tim-bers set in pairs, were based directly or with the interval of a transverse timber member, on astone base placed as stretcher through the wall, 20–90 cm above the floor. Traces for longitudi-nally placed horizontal timbers appear at the level of the lintel of the doors and windows withinthe few walls that exist at that height (Fig. 3). Another pair (?) of longitudinal timbers mayhave existed at the level of the upper horizontal timber of the pier-and-door partitions20 (Fig. 3).Unfortunately, there are no traces on the walls to indicate the use of transversal timbers, exceptfor some comments by Mackenzie in his daybooks for Knossos21 and Palyvou’s evidence fromthe South wall of Xeste 322. From a structural point of view, their existence is necessary at leastat the same levels that the longitudinal timbers exist, in order to make the timbers on either sideof the walls collaborate.

The most important information concerning not just the masonry reinforcements but theoverall Minoan palatial structural system is derived from the “Hall of Double Αxes”, the bestpreserved part of the palace of Knossos and probably of all palatial buildings in Crete. This is asuitable occasion to mention again how important is the method of recording architectural datareferring to the excellent axonometric drawing of Theodore Fyfe (Fig. 3).23 Even if he had donenumerous plans, sections and elevations he could not transfer to us, 100 years later, so vividlyand mainly with such clarity, what has been found. Of course between his drawing and the realarchaeological data there is always his own interpretation. But this is inevitable.On the other hand, in many excavation reports and published drawings there is lack of ade-

quate recording of the embedded in the walls vertical timbers. As a result, some scholars sup-posed that their use was limited in certain areas. Working on the documentation for the use ofvertical timbers in masonry, it was discovered exactly the opposite. Their use was quite gener-alised and systematic24, especially at the palace of Knossos and almost all palatial buildingsaround it, with the only but important exception of the new palace of Phaistos. This exceptionarises questions that need to be investigated through future research, concerning the reasonsthat dictated the absence of these reinforcements, while all other typical characteristics ofMinoan palatial architecture (ashlar masonry, pier-and-door partitions, timber pillars and tim-

19 It could be interesting to note the comment of Loyd (1963, 169), for the evolution of the timber re-inforcing systems at Beycesultan “the habit of strengthening stone or mud-brick walls by inserting atregular intervals rows of runners cross-ties goes back at Beycesultan to considerable earlier period. Theelaboration of this system by means of vertical timber posts, extending from the foundation to the roofand thus creating a timber framework in the structure of the building, seems to have been an innovationin the Middle Bronze Age”.

20 Tsakanika – Palyvou – Touliatos, 2006, 4–6 (in press).21 See Page 1L, Wednesday, 1 March–Saturday, 11 March 1905. The access to Mackenzie’s daybooks and

Evans’s notebooks was possible through an electronic version that made the work much easier. I. Pater-son had the kindness to give me permission to use them since their transformation to electronic files wasa part of his dissertation thesis “Structures and Stratigraphy of the So-called Reoccupation Period at thePalace of Knossos, Crete and the Contexts of the Linear B Archives”, University of Edinburgh, 2002.

22 Palyvou, 2005, 123, fig. 173.23 The axonometric drawing was made in ca. 1929 and was published in the third volume of the Palace of

Minos (as plan G) without any reference to the architect who made it. I would like to thank the recentlyestablished Society Aegeus and in particular Nektarios Karadimas for helping me to identify the realcreator, i.e. T. Fyfe. Of the same opinion is also Shaw (1973, 145). It is worth mentioning that a firstversion of this axonometric drawing was published in 1901 (BSA 7, 1900–1, 116, fig. 36).

24 At least for one building phase. See also Tsakanika – Palyvou – Touliatos, 2006, note 9 (in press).

132

Fig. 3. Palace of Knossos, “Hall of Double Axes”. Axonometric drawing by T. Fyfe (PM III, plate G).

(PM I, fig. 251). Remnantsof timbers as found duringexcavation.

Possible connection of the verticaland horizontal timber members.

The presence of the 2nd horizontallongitudinal timber is documentedat the level of the lintel of the“skylights” of the pier-and-doorpartitions.

The presence of the 1st longitudi-nal timber is documented at thelevel oof the lintel of the doors,windows and pier-and-doorpartitions.

Possible constructional representation of the verticaltimber reinforcing sysstem embedded in masonry walls.

133

ber piers embedded in the walls) are present.25 Another question that emerges is why the use ofvertical timber reinforcements is so extensive in Ayia Triada (Fig. 4), being similar to Knossospalace and not to Phaistos which is closer, just 1500m away?26

Once the constructional features of a structural element (e.g. the above described verticaltimber reinforcements) is well understood, we have to go back and re-examine the buildingsbecause now we may see things we couldn’t see before. For example the vertical timber at theWest face of the wall seen in Fig. 5 (white frame in the picture), can not be recognized easily.Its existence starts to become evident when we expect it to be there since at the other face ofthe wall there is clear evidence of a vertical timber, its pair.

Using the following two examples we could highlight how the recognition of the features ofa structural system could help clarify the constructional phases of the buildings.

25 According to some theories, a distinctive structural feature of the palace of Phaistos in relation to theother palaces, is the unquestionable use of stone for the upper floors. But there are reasonable doubtswhether this difference really exists. The extensive use of mud brick walls at the upper floors of theMinoan palaces and villas as several scholars have stated, is not so self-evident. In Minoan palatial build-ings, the reduction of the loads at the upper floors, a common argument for the use of mud brick walls,could be achieved by the extensive use of wood inside the walls and the extensive use of timber frames(pier-and-door partitions, doors, windows) which substitute large masses of compact walls. For morearguments see Tsakanika, 2006, 237–240.

26 It must be noted that in Domestic Quarters of the Knossos palace, the vertical timber reinforcing systemof the rubble walls was covered by gypsum slabs till the level of the lintels, and by plaster till the roof(Fig. 3, axonometric drawing). Visible vertical timbers may existed in four archaeological sites, but inthese cases they were reinforcing ashlar walls (at the Palace of Knossos – N Bastion, at Archanes-Room32, 33, at the Royal Villa – Hypostyle Crypt and in area 9, of Ayia Triada).

Fig. 4. Villa of Ayia Triada. The visible vertical timbers embedded in the retaining rubble walls ofroom 4, a unique example for Minoan Crete, show that the Minoan builders knew how to use timber.

They wouldn’t make the mistake to hide them behind gypsum slabs, trapping the humidity of the groundand causing their decay.26

134

At the South and central part of the West Magazines in the palace of Knossos, the stonebases we expect to see under the vertical voids that timbers had left in the masonry, are notthere (Fig. 6,7). Taking into account that at the North part of the West Magazines, the stonebases exist and are visible (Fig. 8), as in most other places of the Knossos palace, a probablehypothesis is that the existing floor at the South and central part has raised and may belong to amore recent construction phase than the walls. Such an observation may prove to be valuablefor an archaeologist working on the history and the phases of the palace.The second example comes again from the Knossos palace. Having always in mind, that a

typical building technique is that the vertical timbers are always in pairs, we expect that behindthe transversal walls with direction N–S in the West part of the palace (areas 31,34) are hiddenvertical timbers that belong to the longitudinal wall with direction W–E (Fig. 9, black frame).Their existence would mean two things. Either the longitudinal walls with direction W–Ebelong to an older building phase from the transversal ones since they were built first, or theybelong to the same phase, but the construction procedure of the particular structural systemdictates the longitudinal walls (W–E) to be built first and the transversal ones (N–S) afterthem.

Fig. 5. Palace of Knossos. North part of the West Wing. The vertical traces and the stone base that can bedetected on the face of the wall, indicate the existence of a vertical timber.

135

Fig. 8. At the North part of the Magazines,the stone bases are visible.

Fig. 6, 7. South and central part of the Magazines at the West Wing of the Knossos palace.There are no traces of the stone bases on which the vertical timbers usually rest.

Fig. 6. Fig. 7.

Storeroom 13

136

Of course, another hypothesis could be that the rule of using vertical timbers in pairs is notso strict and in the areas that two walls meet transversally (in a “T”), is not followed. But if weexamine the data we have for the longitudinal North wall of the “Hall of the Double Axes”,from the excellent survey of the palace made by Hood and Taylor (1981) along with photosduring excavation (Fig. 10), we can see that a pair of vertical timbers existed behind the pier-and-door partition. The above item constitutes another indication for the second assumption,according to which the longitudinal walls were built before the transversal ones, if of coursethe pier-and-door partition belongs to the same building phase with the North wall of the “Hallof the Double Axes”. It is interesting to note that a building method of this kind is not typical atall. Usually the load bearing walls of a masonry structure are built all together as the building isrising up.

Horizontal timbers in coursed ashlar masonry

The coursed ashlar walls of Minoan Neopalatial buildings, both in palaces and houses, are ofexquisite craftsmanship – the best in the eastern Mediterranean world.27 It is a mixed structuralcomponent since the outer face is made of ashlar blocks, wedge shaped or trapezoidal in plan,an intelligent technique, since the rest of the wall is made of rubble backing and needs to beconnected and collaborate with the ashlar part.

A very important characteristic of Minoan coursed ashlar walls, that seems to be commonduring the Bronze Age around the Aegean28, is the use of horizontal timber elements placedbetween the ashlar courses. Their use is not common for the facades of the buildings29, butthey exist in ashlar walls inside the buildings30, in light wells (Domestic Quarters of the Knos-

27 Palyvou, 1999, 154.28 Their existence has been testified also in ashlar walls of Mycenaean palatial buildings, in Mycenae, Pylos

and Thebes. But in these cases, contrary to the Minoan examples, the 1st level that a horizontal timbermember has been documented interrupting two successive courses, is above the 1st course. See alsoWright’s representation (1984, fig. 10) for the SE façade of the Palace at Pylos, ashlar walls around theCentral Court at the palace of Mycenae.

29 Palyvou, 2005, 119.30 Some of them are retaining walls, as the West wall of the light well in Queen’s Megaron and the Westwall of the four-pillared Hall in the Unexplored Mansion.

Fig. 9. Plan of the area West of the Central Sanctuary (Hood and Taylor 1981). The vertical timbers aremarked by red color (Tsakanika 2006).

Fig. 10. (PM I, fig. 241). The vertical timber (white frame) was embedded in the wall before the const-ruction of the pier-and-door partition.

Fig. 9. Fig. 10.

137

sos palace), possibly at the open corridor 41 of Phaistos palace, even in roofed spaces as in thecase of the four-pillared Hall of the Unexplored Mansion.31 The necessary data to identify thetypical structural features of the horizontal timber reinforcing system embedded in ashlarmasonry are scant and the representation that is shown in Fig. 11, corresponds to evidence thatderives just from one case, the light well of the “Hall of Double Axes”.

The external longitudinal timbers were probably orthogonal in section and they were con-nected to the stones under them with timber dowels.32 Longitudinal timbers were placed at theother face of the wall, made of rubble, as Evans and Mackenzie have noted in their excavationdaybooks. From a structural point of view33, we would expect the longitudinal timbers to beconnected with transversal ones. The question is whether the original imprint on the mortar thatEvans left intact at the West wall of the light well in “Double Axe Hall” is an indication of theirexistence (Fig. 11, white frame).It must be pointed out that the existence of mortises on the first course of an ashlar wall of

Minoan buildings, indicates the position of a horizontal timber that corresponds to the sill ofthe timber frame of a window34 and not to a horizontal timber that runs along the wall interrupt-ing the first and the second ashlar course (Fig. 12).

Further research needs to be done in order to answer why the horizontal timbers are absent in ashlarfacades. There must be a clear architectural and structural reason for this. At Phaistos palace there isevidence for the existence of horizontal timbers above the last preserved course of the North ashlar wallof the Central Court. But this case is not the same since the ashlar wall most likely stopped at that height.See also Shaw, 1973, fig. 210, Graham, 1962, fig. 50.

31 The use of vertical timbers embedded in coursed ashlar masonry is another significant feature of Minoanarchitecture. See Tsakanika, 2006, 127–129.

32 The existence of mortises on the dressed stones under the horizontal timbers, has been testified in thepublished quite detailed drawings and photos of the Pillared Hall of the Unexplored Mansion (Phopam,1984).

33 The use of transversal timber members along with the longitudinal ones, is a common feature of thetimber horizontal reinforcing systems of rubble and mud brick masonry, used either during prehistory orduring more recent historical periods. For their structural role see Tsakanika, 2006, vol. 1, 51–54.

34 For windows see also Shaw, 1973, 174–182, fig. 205a, b, Tsakanika, 2006, vol. 1, 195–202.

Fig. 11. Knossos Palace. Coursed ashlar masonry at the light well of the “Hall of Double Axes”.The sketch on the right (section and axonometric view), is a representation of a possible constructional

detail of the horizontal timber system embedded in ashlar walls.

138

Fig. 13. The horizontal timber is serving various structural roles along the wallsof the Hall of Colonnades at the Knossos Palace.

In Minoan architecture, the first level that a horizontal timber is embedded in ashlar masonrybetween two successive courses, is the level of the timber lintel of the openings (pier-and-doorpartitions, windows and doors) which coincides also with the level of the first horizontal mem-ber of the vertical reinforcing system of the rubble walls (Fig. 3). The existence of these tim-bers at the same level in various structural elements is not accidental. 35 A timber “zone” musthave been created intentionally because otherwise how could one explain that at the light wellof the Grand Staircase, the horizontal timbers coincide this time with the sill of a window thathad to be built higher because behind it there is another staircase. And how could one explainthat the horizontal timber that continues at the same level further, turns right and becomes atimber “belt”, that “embraces” the balustrade of the Grand staircase (Fig. 13), while on the35 PM I, 349–350, fig. 252. See also Tsakanika, 2006, vol. 2. Tables for Domestic Quarters – ashlar mason-

ry, E–W Corridor. From a structural point of view, the above constructional feature is very important. Itseems that a horizontal timber zone was created at the level of the lintels in order to provide connectionpoints for the different and autonomous structural elements that constitute Minoan palatial architecture,and moreover make the building work as one entity resisting vertical and horizontal forces. Tsakanika,2006, 245–249, Tsakanika – Palyvou – Touliatos, 2006, 6–12 (in press).

Fig. 12. Light well at Villa Nirou Hani. The mortises on the ashlar stones (white frames)indicate the presence of a window. The horizontal timber at the level of the sill does not continue

on either side of the window while the timber at the level of the lintels usually does(see Shaw, 1973, fig. 205a, b for windows at Ayia Triada).

139

North wall of the E-W corridor becomes the timber that rests between the two constructionalphases of the wall (Protopalatial and Neopalatial) ?

It is quite clear that through all the Domestic Quarters this horizontal timber “zone” is sys-tematic, constant and continuous,36 highlighting and proving once more that Minoan palatialbuildings are the result of a high-level initial design and not an incoherent and arbitrary arrange-ment of space.

Epilogue

In all the above cases different structural systems and details have been presented along withobservations, conclusions, comments, and queries that could be helpful to the future research-ers of the same or similar structures, to suspect the existence of timber elements, search anddetect the way they were constructed, since most of them do not exist anymore. The methodol-ogy used for the identification of the structural features of the Minoan load bearing systemscould also be helpful for comparative studies concerning various timber systems used by neigh-boring civilizations that flourished during Bronze Age. Finally through this work, the contribu-tion of another scientific field, civil engineering, could be recognized as another tool in thehands of archaeologists for the interpretation and study of ancient civilizations.

Selected bibliography

PM I–IV: EVans, A. J.: The Palace of Minos at Knossos, vol. I–IV, London 1921–1935.GrahaM, J. W., 1962: The palaces of Crete, Princeton 1962.hood, W. – Taylor, S., 1981: The Bronze Age palace at Knossos: plan and sections, London 1981.McEnroE, J., 1982: The Typology of the Neopalatial Houses, American Journal of Archaeology 86 (1982):

3–19.Mylonas, G., 1971: Ανασκαφή Μυκηνών, PAE 1971.nElson, M.C., 2001: The Architecture of Epano Englianos, Greece, Ph.D. diss, University of Toronto,2001.

PalyVou, C., 1999: Ακρωτήρι Θήρας – Η οικοδομική τέχνη και μορφολογικά στοιχεία στην Υστεροκυ-κλαδική αρχιτεκτονική, Athens 1999.

PalyVou, C., 2005: Akrotiri Thera. An Architecture of Affluence 3,500 Years Old, Athens 2005.PalyVou, C., 2007: The Cosmopolitan Harbour Town of Ugarit and the “Aegean” Aspects of Its Domestic

Architecture. In: BETancourT, Ph. – nElson, M. and WIllIaMs, H. (eds.): Krinoi kai Limenes, Studies inHonor of Joseph and Maria Shaw, INSTAPAcademic Press, Philadelphia.

PoPhaM, M.R., 1984: The Minoan Unexplored Mansion at Knossos. Texts and Plates, London 1984.shaW, J., 1973: Minoan architecture: materials and techniques, ASAtene 33, 5–256, Rome.shaW, J., 1999: A tale of three bases. New Criteria for Dating Minoan Architectural Features. In: BETan-

courT, P. – KaraGEorGhIs, V. – laffInEur, R. – nIEMEIEr, W. (eds.): Meletemata. Studies in AegeanArchaeology presented to Malcolm H. Wiener as he enters his 65th year, Aegaeum 20, Liège-AustinTexas 1999, vol. 3, 761–767.

TsaKanIKa, E., 2001: The application of Eurocode 5 and 8 in modern and historical timber structures. BEr-TolInI, c. (ed.): Proceedings of European Program Culture 2000: Italian Action: Wooden Handwork/wooden carpentry: European Restoration Sites, Torino 2001, 223–234.

TsaKanIKa-ThEoharI, E., 2006: O δομικός ρόλος του ξύλου στην τοιχοποιία των ανακτορικού τύπουκτηρίων της Μινωικής Κρήτηs, Ph.D. diss. NTUA, Athens, 2006.

TsaKanIKa, E. –PalyVou, c. –ToulIaTos, P., 2006 (in press): Ο δομικός ρόλος του ξύλου στηΝεοανακτορικήΑρχιτεκτονική της Μινωικής Κρήτης, Proceedings of the 10th Cretological Congress, Chania 2006.

ZoIs, A., 1976: Βασιλική Ι, Νέα αρχαιολογική έρευνα εις το Κεφάλι πλησίον του χωριού ΒασιλικήΙεράπετρας, Athens 1976.

36 It is interesting to note that this structural feature is commented by Mackenzie in his notebooks.

140

Die Architektur von Lasttragenden Holzsystemenals Mittel zur Interpretation der bronzezeitlichen Architektur der Ägäis

Dr. Eleftheria Tsakanika-TheochariBauingenieurin, Lektorin an der Technischen Hochschule Athen (EMPA)

Zusammenfassung

Im ganzen östlichen Mittelmeer zur Bronzezeit ist hölzernes Tragwerk ein gemeinsames Merk-mal des Werkstein- und Ziegelmauerwerks und notwendiger Bestandteil der Baukunst in denmeisten Kulturen dieser Region. Über Jahrzehnte hindurch konzentrierte sich die Forschungder prähistorischen Bauten hauptsächlich auf die architektonischen Merkmale der Gebäude.Ihre Bauweise, ihre einzelnen Elemente, das Tragwerk und der Bauprozess waren selten Gegen-stand der Forschung. Das hauptsächlich in den Forschungen der ägäischen Archäologie hervor-tretende Bauelement war der Quaderstein, viel weniger das Holz. Vom systematischen, allge-meinen Gebrauch von Holz, sei es am selbständigen Tragwerk (Pfeiler bzw. Säulen), anRahmen (Polythyra, Türen, Fenster) oder als hölzerne Stütze (horizontal oder senkrecht anBruch- und Quadersteinmauern) wurde selten und auszugsweise gesprochen, obwohl das Holzerwiesenerweise die Architektur der Minoer und anderer benachbarter Kulturen jener Epochezeichnet.Dieser Vortrag basiert auf der im Rahmen meiner Dissertation1 erfolgten Untersuchung zum

hölzernen Tragwerk und der hölzernen Zugverstärkung der Mauern im minoischen Kreta. DieUntersuchung der verschiedenen Typen, ihrer Einordnung und Klassifizierung führte u.a. zufolgenden Ergebnissen:

Erkennung ihrer Hauptmerkmale und Bewertung bzw. Klärung ihrer Rolle.–Semantische Analyse und Erklärung der Bausysteme als archäologisches Instrument zur–Erkennung der Bautechniken und zur Datierung der Gebäude und ihrer Bauphasen.Formulierung von Erkenntnissen und Fragestellungen über die Ursachen der Auswahl diver-–ser technischer Lösungen, ist doch das architektonische Endergebnis, ob hoch- oder minder-wertig, direkt abhängig auch von den angewandten Baumethoden und umgekehrt. Die archi-tektonische Planung hängt von vielen Faktoren ab, die vielfach in einander greifen. DieDarstellung eines Bauwerks ist demnach ein äußerst komplexer Prozess und muss sich aufdie Mitbewertung aller historischen, gesellschaftlichen, architektonischen, bautechnischen,sogar das Tragwerk betreffenden Elemente stützen, umso mehr, als diese Gebäude vor meh-reren Jahrtausenden errichtet wurden und nur geringe Elemente erhalten sind.

Anhand dieser Methodik kann eine vergleichende Forschung durchgeführt werden und könnendie Ähnlichkeiten bzw. Unterschiede der hölzernen Tragwerke an der Baukunst benachbarterKulturen der Bronzezeit in der Ägäis erkannt werden. Dabei ist zu bemerken, dass die heutegeläufige Betrachtung der hölzernen Mauerverstärkungen als einheitliches System zu falschenSchlüssen bezüglich Entwicklung und gegenseitiger Beeinflussung der Bautradition der Ägäisin der Bronzezeit führen kann.

1 E. Tsakanika-Theocharis, Die Rolle des Holzes am Bau der palastähnlichen Gebäude im mino-ischen Kreta, Dissertationsarbeit bei der Technischer Hochschule Athen (EMPA), 2006.

141

Η κατασκευαστική ανάλυση των ξύλινων φερόντων συστημάτωνως εργαλείο για την ερμηνεία της Αιγαιακής αρχιτεκτονικής

της Εποχής του Χαλκού

Δρ. Ελευθερία Τσακανίκα-ΘεοχάρηΠολιτικός μηχανικός

Περίληψη

Στην Εποχή του Χαλκού σε όλη σχεδόν την Ανατολική Μεσόγειο, οι ξύλινες ενισχύσεις αποτε-λούν κοινό χαρακτηριστικό των τοιχοποιιών (λιθοδομών και πλινθοδομών) και αναπόσπαστοστοιχείο της δομικής τέχνης των περισσοτέρων πολιτισμών που αναπτύχθηκαν στην περιοχήαυτή. Για πολλά χρόνια, η έρευνα των προϊστορικών κατασκευών εστιαζόταν κυρίως στημελέτη των αρχιτεκτονικών χαρακτηριστικών των κτηρίων. Ο τρόπος κατασκευής τους, ταοικοδομικά τους στοιχεία, ο φέρων οργανισμός, καθώς και η διαδικασία οικοδόμησής τουςσπανίως αποτελούσε αντικείμενο μελέτης. Επίσης, το δομικό στοιχείο που κυρίως έχει προ-βληθεί στις μελέτες της Αιγαιακής αρχαιολογίας είναι η λαξευτή τοιχοποιία και πολύ λιγότεροτο ξύλο. Ή συστηματική και γενικευμένη χρήση του ξύλου είτε στα αυτόνομα φέρονταστοιχεία, υποστυλώματα (πεσσοί, κίονες), είτε στα πλαίσια (πολύθυρα, θύρες, παράθυρα), είτεως ξύλινες ενισχύσεις (οριζόντιες και κατακόρυφες σε αργολιθοδομές και λαξευτούς τοίχους),αναφέρεται σπάνια και αποσπασματικά, μολονότι το ξύλο αποτελεί όπως αποδεικνύεται, τουλικό που περισσότερο από κάθε άλλο φαίνεται να χαρακτηρίζει αλλά και να σηματοδοτεί τηνΜινωική Αρχιτεκτονική καθώς και άλλους γειτονικούς πολιτισμούς της εποχής αυτής.Η παρουσίαση αυτή έχει ως βάση την έρευνα που έγινε στο πλαίσιο διδακτορικής δια-

τριβής1 για την χρήση των ξύλινων δομικών συστημάτων και των συστημάτων ενίσχυσης τωντοιχοποιιών στην Μινωική Κρήτη. Η συστηματική εξέταση της τυπολογίας τους, της κατάτα-ξης και ταξινόμησής τους είχε ως αποτέλεσμα :

Την αναγνώριση των κύριων χαρακτηριστικών τους και την αποτίμηση και ερμηνεία του–δομικού τους ρόλου.Την ανάδειξη της τυπολογίας και της ερμηνείας των ξύλινων δομικών συστημάτων ως–εργαλείο αρχαιολογικό για την αναγνώριση των κατασκευαστικών τεχνικών, την χρονο-λόγηση των κτιρίων και των οικοδομικών τους φάσεων.Την διατύπωση συμπερασμάτων και προβληματισμών για τα αίτια που οδήγησαν στην–επιλογή της μιας ή της άλλης κατασκευαστικής λύσης, αφού το τελικό αρχιτεκτονικόαποτέλεσμα, υψηλό ή χαμηλό εξαρτάται άμεσα και από τις χρησιμοποιούμενες κατα-σκευαστικές μεθόδους και το αντίστροφο. Οι παράγοντες που επηρεάζουν τον αρχιτεκτονικόσχεδιασμό είναι πάρα πολλοί και με πολλούς τρόπους αλληλοεπηρεαζόμενοι. Η ερμηνεία,επομένως, ενός κτιρίου είναι πολύ σύνθετη διαδικασία και θα πρέπει να προέρχεται από τηνσυναξιολόγηση όλων των στοιχείων: ιστορικών, κοινωνικών, αρχιτεκτονικών, κατασκευα-στικών ακόμα και εκείνων που αφορούν τον φέροντα οργανισμό. Πόσο μάλλον, όταν τοκτίριο έχει κατασκευαστεί αρκετές χιλιάδες χρόνια πριν και ελάχιστα στοιχεία του έχουνδιασωθεί.

1 Ε. Τσακανίκα-Θεοχάρη, O δομικός ρόλος του ξύλου στην τοιχοποιία των ανακτορικού τύπου κτηρίωντης Μινωικής Κρήτης, Διδακτορική Διατριβή Ε.Μ.Π. Αθήνα, 2006.

142

Μέσω της παραπάνω μεθοδολογίας είναι δυνατόν να γίνει συγκριτική μελέτη και να αναγνωρι-στούν οι ομοιότητες ή οι διαφορές των ξύλινων φερόντων συστημάτων που εμφανίζονται στηναρχιτεκτονική γειτονικών πολιτισμών την Εποχή του Χαλκού στο Αιγαίο. Πρέπει να επισημαν-θεί ότι η συνήθης θεώρηση των χρησιμοποιούμενων ξύλινων ενισχύσεων των τοιχοποιιών ωςεάν να ήταν ένα και μόνον σύστημα, μπορεί να οδηγήσει σε λανθασμένα συμπεράσματα γιατην εξέλιξη και την αλληλεπίδραση της αρχιτεκτονικής παράδοσης στο Αιγαίο την Εποχή τουΧαλκού.