Conclusions

This essay started with the hypothesis that open spaces within Mycenaean towns would act as places where those in command might exercise their authority, or at least make a show of their power in public. It is plain that the Mycenaeans were masters of the architecture of power (cf. Wright 1987). The Great Courts were the culmination of a tradition which saw its ever more sophisticated expression. But the Great Courts very emphatically were not public: access was carefully controlled and their capacity was limited. Certainly there was, in the citadels, a conscious articulation of the courts and open spaces, but one that was very different from that found in, say, the Central Courts and the West Courts of Minoan Crete. In both cases there was a hierarchy, the peak of which is the palace itself. In the case of the Mycenaean palaces the megaron lay at the centre, the hub of political power, and the place where the business of state was formally conducted, before a very restricted audience. Thereafter one seems to pass through a series of concentric circles. Certain, at least ceremonial, activities would take place in the only slightly larger arena of the Great Courts: to judge from the altar at Tiryns, this might include sacrifice. Beyond this, in the outer courts at Tiryns and Pylos access was still controlled, but less strictly than in the inner circles. Evidently economic transactions, the storage of produce and craft activities would also be found in these areas. Whereas the more ceremonial aspects of royal power seem to have concentrated on a processional progress, rather than a static display. Such an interpretation is suggested in the first place by the focus, for example at Tiryns, on the gateways which regularly mark the route of the processional way. In the second place this argument helps explain the exception of Mycenae, where forecourts such as those at Pylos and Tiryns, have not been located. At Mycenae the two functions, the processional and the redistributive, were separated. Storage areas (for example the Granary, by the Lion Gate, and the magazines by the Postern Gate) and craft areas (such as the workshops to the west of the House of Columns lakovidis 1983: 63-64) were distributed in various parts of the site. The ceremonial progress from the Great Court proceeded either by way of the Grand Staircase to, among other destinations, the Cult Centre, or, by way of the Propylaeum ultimately to the Ramp and the Lion Gate (Wace 1921-23: 209-13).

The search for a public meeting place, where populace and rulers might come together, has failed. Almost certainly future research holds surprises for us, and in particular the very imprecise picture we have of the Tower towns' associated with the great citadels leaves great scope to find important squares or other public places. Nevertheless I would like to hazard a view which suggests an alternative interpretation. What has come through very clearly from this discussion is the emphasis and focus on procession. In particular, as Wright has already pointed out, the series of monumental gateways, which form such a marked sequence through the Mycenaean palatial complexes, seem to give a rhythm and emphasis to the progress from Megaron to the outer world (and vice versa). Procession is also a constantly repeated theme in Mycenaean wall painting, indeed Immerwahr has identified the procession of all female votaries or priestesses as a Mycenaean innovation, distinct from the Minoan, and reflecting a change of religious emphasis (Immerwahr 1990: 114-5). Likewise Shelmerdine has recently underlined the procession as an important aspect of Mycenaean religious observance (Shelmerdine 1997: 577-80). At times procession on the walls seems to accompany the processional way, at least there is a notable example from the vestibule to the megaron at Pylos (more generally on this see McCallum 1987 (non vidi)). There were processions on foot and there were processions by chariot, to judge from the female charioteers in the Tiryns Boar hunt, and the frequent chariot scenes on pictorial kraters, whose iconography was probably borrowed from wall painting. Crouwel has written 'Unlike the wall paintings from mainland Greece, the numerous Mycenaean vases with Dual chariots rarely, if ever, show the vehicles in a military setting. From their earliest, relatively accurately drawn, representations onwards the chariots are usually depicted as taking part in processions of some kind, moving slowly and often accompanied by human figures on foot' (Crouwel 1981: 133, see also 135-39 on the civil uses of dual chariots, and 142 on civil uses of Rail chariots and chariot racing).

Moreover, one thing we can say about the lower town at Mycenae is that it was traversed by built roadways, which then continued out into the surrounding countryside (for a collection of recent references see Appendix 2). It has been argued traditionally that the roads were constructed for chariots (Crouwel 1981: 29-31 summarizes earlier views; see also Jansen 1997 5-8 for a discussion of the military theory), but whilst one purpose might be military, they could also have served other purposes: Lavery (1990: 1995) and Jansen (1997) have pointed to their importance for the movement of grain, in particular, and of building materials, and here I wish to point up their significance for processions. Jansen has, in a similar vein, suggested that the network of roads from Mycenae acted as a sign of the political reach of the citadel. Great monuments, such as the Lion Gate and the Treasury of Atreus, look onto the major routes and would themselves have formed points on a route where the populace could gather. I should not wish to build an edifice of inference beyond what the evidence can bear. If, however, the procession and the royal progress are accepted as an important, perhaps the important way in which rulers and ruled came together in Bronze Age Greece, then we should underline how different this is from the Homeric examples cited at the beginning. In the Homeric dyopf) the assembly of people participate in political actions, to approve a 'straight' judgement, or to witness recompense and political reconciliation. The procession does not lend itself to such acts. On the contrary it polarizes even more markedly the two sides: those who process and those who look on. In this I would suggest it expresses the hierarchical nature of the Mycenaean state. Of course, like all such public manifestations of power, the theory need not coincide with the reality. The elite who processed were probably not the single united body behind their leader that their participation was meant to convey (I write as one who has taken part in processions of academics). And the people could barrack as well as cheer.