Bronze-Age faulting at Mycenae (Greece) and a glimpse at
cultural responses
Eric R. Force
this posting has been superseded by
this posting has been superseded by
Force, E. R., and Rutter, J. B., 2018,
Holocene fault scarps at Mycenae (Greece) and possible cultural ties: Studi Micenei ed Egeo Anatolici NS4, p.
63-74.
Abstract: The
upper citadel at Mycenae is the upthrown block between two active normal
faults, both represented by prominent scarps. One of these faults is known to have moved during Mycenaean
times (in this case between about 1650 and 1300 B.C.), and a temple complex is draped across a
fault scarp along a splay of the other, the more famous Lion Gate fault zone.
The sole outcrop exposure of this fault scarp within the temple complex was
already thought to have had “cultic”
significance. The scarp itself provided the focus for the arrangement of
adjacent cultic paraphernalia. Inhabitants of Mycenae, accustomed to the
movement of faults in their midst as well as accompanying earthquakes,
responded in a cultic/religious framework reflecting an appreciation of a link
between these phenomena and their relation to the “underworld.”
Introduction
A role of tectonic activity in
ancient Hellenic cultures has recently been documented (e.g. de Boer and
Sanders 2005, Force 2015). Currently, the review of Stewart (in
press) is finding that temples and sanctuaries of classical ancient Hellenic
culture took advantage of active faults in various ways--topographic scarps
formed along the planes of such faults are commonly found in such association,
for example. Stewart suggested
that this association at Mycenae is possible. The numerous implications of such early religious/tectonic links
there, including what form they might take, require testing of this hypothesis.
The hilltop citadel of Mycenae at the head of the Argos basin
gives its name to the entire Late Bronze-Age culture of mainland Greece.
“Well-built Mycenae” was a referent for several aspects of later classical Greek
culture via Homer. It was a major
center of Mycenaean culture from at least 1600 B.C. until this culture ended
(and the Bronze Age ended with it) after 1200 B.C. Its position at the head of
an extensional basin produces high seismicity today (e.g. Ambraseys 2009), and
its geology reveals a Holocene history of complex tectonic behavior.
Local tectonic setting
Two of the citadel’s most famous
cultural features are themselves tectonic features—the Lion Gate on its western
margin (FIG 1) and the Perseia spring on its northern margin. These are located
along recently active faults that form the SW and NE margins of the upper citadel,
respectively (FIG. 2). The faults
are both steeply dipping normal faults, i.e. upper block thrown down, but dip
away from each other so that the citadel between them is a horst, i.e. a block
raised up relative to those on either side.
The bedrock wall on which the NE bastion
of the Lion Gate rests is itself a fault plane striking SE and dipping about 60
degrees SW (FIG. 1) It preserves
details of its movement (down-dip ”slickensides”), showing its last movement to
be very recent in a geologic sense, as erosion degrades such features (Stewart
and Hancock 1988). The Lion Gate
and the “cyclopean” wall built atop this bedrock, however, show that this fault
has not moved since their construction in the LH III A2 or early LH III B
period (French 1996), ca. 1350-1300 B.C.
For convenience I will refer to this as the Lion Gate fault zone.
The NE-dipping fault forming the NE
margin of the citadel, mapped and
described by Maroukian et al. (1996), also has cyclopean walls built atop its
exposures (their fig. 3). ). I
will refer to this fault as the Perseia fault. The Perseia spring along the fault plane feeds a cistern accessed
by three flights of steps within a corbel-vaulted tunnel starting from inside
the citadel, a design for surviving siege (FIG. 2). Maroukian et al. (1996)
made another important observation:
the Perseia fault, present as a continuous fault scarp (readily visible
on Google Earth) dammed the Havos stream SE of the spring (FIG. 2), and the 2.5
m of sediments that filled the impoundment contain only “Mycenaean” sherds at
the base, and only significantly more recent sherds higher within this
fill. Maroukian et al. conclude that
this drainage disruption occurred in the Mycenaean period, i.e. probably 1650
to 1200 B.C However, an additional
constraint is the age of walls built on its scarp, about 1350-1300 B.C..,
suggesting the available period of movement is about 1650 to 1300 B.C.
This is consistent with the
observation of Maroukian et al. (their fig. 5) that the lowest 1.5 m of the
Perseia fault plane is fresh, complete with slickensides and showing no
evidence of weathering or erosion, in contrast to the weathered and eroded 1.5
m portion above. Since the lower
interval corresponds with the part of the fault plane that impounds Mycenaean-age
sediment, the lower portion must have been exposed by fault movement at that
time. We must conclude as did Maroukian that faulting occurred “during Mycenaean
time”, and we can assume that Mycenaeans were present to observe at least the
changes in exposed fault planes.
Earlier offset followed by partial
burial in the channel of the Havos drainage is documented by Maroukian et al. (1996) along the Perseia fault. Also known is earthquake damage to the
citadel during LH III B Middle time, about 1250 BC (French 1996) and probably
also in early LH III C (about 1200 BC; Kilian 1996). There is no evidence of fault offset in Mycenae for these
later seismic events, but clearly Mycenae was seismically risky in prehistory,
as it has been since.
There is no direct evidence that
the Lion Gate fault moved in the 1650-1300 B.C. interval as the Perseia fault
did, but the similarity of the faults and their symmetry certainly suggest the
possibility. The extension of the
Lion Gate fault through the citadel is uncertain; based on Google Earth images
I would extend it as a slightly sinuous fault zone trending first about S30W across
the citadel, then S40W to the lip of the Havos stream’s ravine. A historical image of the fault rock at
the Lion Gate (e.g. Taylour 1983 fig. 94) as well as my own observation (FIG.
1) show that it is not a single plane.
Google Earth images show a conspicuous “avenue” of poor rock exposure
about 15-30 m wide along the trend of this fault as it is exposed at Lion Gate
(FIG. 2). Foundations of Mycenaean
structures are conspicuously absent in this avenue, either because of deeper
burial on the down-dropped block, or an ancient perception of great seismic
risk. Indeed it is this zone that divides Mycenae into a lower and an upper
citadel.
The Lion Gate fault zone in the temple complex
The evidence of Mycenaean-age fault
movement might moderate our surprise in finding it involved in the architecture
and culture of the lower citadel. Excavation by Taylour (1970) of a temple complex of about
1300 B.C. in the lower citadel documented a planar bedrock exposure with about the
same trend and slope as the fault-scarp at the Lion Gate (and quite unlike that
of country-rock bedding). That is,
this plane strikes NW-SE and dips steeply SW. The exposure occurs in a back room of the temple dubbed “the
alcove” by its excavators (FIG. 2).
The details of architecture, cultic offerings, etc. prompted Taylour to
suggest that the rock exposure itself was of some “cultic” significance. He pointedly repeated this suggestion
in a later summary (Taylour 1983, p. 50), adding details such as the planar
shape and unaltered natural surface of this outcrop. Taylour (1983, p. 56) was willing to consider that this
outcrop might be central to activities at the temple, the cultic/religious
significance of which is not in dispute.
The location and elevation of this
temple and its outcrop/alcove are quite close to my projection of the Lion Gate
fault zone toward the SE; they lie SW of it (FIG. 2) and topographically about
8 m below its elevation at the Lion Gate or its SE projection, as might be
expected from the fault’s SW dip.
Thus it is likely that the outcrop in the alcove is part of the Lion
Gate fault zone in the broad sense. Taylour’s (1970, 1983) descriptions of the
outcrop are insufficient to determine whether it is fault-rock, and no photograph
that includes it (Taylour 1983 fig. 24, see also Moore and Taylour 1999
including microfiche) is useful for this purpose, but its attitude (Taylour 1970
fig. 1; 1983 fig. 26) is as one would expect for an exposure of the Lion Gate
fault zone, and is not that of regional bedding.
This outcrop is continuous and
along-trend with the SW margin of bedrock shelves on either side of the temple
complex per se, i.e. under South House annex to the NW and the megaron to the
SE (FIG. 3). That is, this margin
is an abrupt down-to-SW step in the bedrock surface as shown by excavations
along trend (p. 32 and 33 respectively in Taylour 1981), perhaps as far as the similar
bedrock shelf within grave circle A (Wace 1921-3).
The excavation literature reveals
details of bedrock exposed in the temple complex (Taylour 1981, Moore and
Taylour 1999). They show that Taylour’s outcrop in the alcove abruptly separates
plastered bedrock floors to the NE 1.75 m higher (room 19, known as the Room of
the Idols) than that to the SW (room 18, in the central temple). A considerable amount of bedrock
excavation and removal would be required to produce this relation, and clearly
would alter the natural surface of the exposures in the alcove. So the outcrop
itself represents a SW-dipping fault plane, this exposure of which forms a fault
scarp (FIG. 3). Room 19 is on the
upthrown block, the alcove floor and room 18 on the downthrown block. The fault plane and its scarp elsewhere
in the temple complex is obscured by walls and stairways; it trends obliquely
under the SW corner of room 19 and the stairway leading up to it (FIG. 3). Its extensions to the SE and NW are
marked by the bedrock shelf margin.
The temple complex and its neighboring structures are thus draped across
a fault scarp, apparently a splay within the Lion Gate fault zone. However, the
only exposure of the fault plane itself after temple-complex construction would
have been that in the alcove.
Apparent cultic/religious responses
Construction of the temple complex
required intimate knowledge of the fault scarp there, and obscured it in all
but one place. Three additional
features of the alcove and adjacent room 19 suggest that Taylour (1970, 1983)
was correct in assigning a cultic significance to the alcove outcrop, and that
this significance relates to the fault scarp exposed there. First, the anomalous concentration of
snake figurines near the fault scarp and its hidden extensions suggests an
association with the underworld (Taylour 1983, p. 53-55, Moore and Taylour 1999,
p. 117).
Second, the excavators found that
most figurines in these two rooms were broken in half, one half of which was
found in each room (Moore and Taylour, 1999, p. 17). Thus half of each of these figurines was found on the
upthrown block and half on the downthrown block of the fault. The geometry of this arrangement is
roughly symmetrical about the fault scarp, though subsequent construction
obscured this even from excavators.
It seems likely that the placement of figurines was intentional, and reflects
some attempt at correlation or landscape reconstruction across the offset, i.e.
“stitching” together their landscape.
If these particular figurines are heirlooms as suggested by Taylour
1983, p. 53, perhaps appropriate terms describing their placement would be
commemoration or even re-enactment of the fault’s movement. Following a later
earthquake of ca. 1250 B.C. (Taylour 1983, French 1996) room 19 and its cultic
paraphernalia were walled off. The
placement of figurines is thus
constrained between construction of the rooms and the walling off of one of
them. If the breaks in the
figurines are a result of the 1250 B.C. earthquake, then their arrangement is
constrained between that earthquake and the walling-off of room 19. However, Hinzen et al. 2014 found such
breakage etc. of these figurines unlikely for this particular earthquake.
Third, leaving only one exposure of
the fault plane and obscuring it elsewhere suggests an aspect of the alcove
outcrop that could be like a museum or sanctuary.
Conclusion and speculation
First,
it seems clear that ties between faults and cultic/religious practices
documented for ancient Hellenic cultures of later periods extend back into the
Mycenaean era. Indeed, these ties
are quite vivid, though mysterious to us.
Available evidence strongly
suggests that the Mycenaeans would have been cognizant of fault-scarp planes as
features of significance; they would have observed that their precious spring
was along one of the two conspicuous scarps (the Perseia fault) that was
growing in height, and that the upper part of their citadel was being uplifted,
accompanied no doubt by earthquakes. They would have observed a similarity of the Perseia scarp to
that at the Lion Gate and the alcove, and generational memory might even have included
the latter’s appearance after an earthquake. It would be a powerful experience
to see fault scarps appear in the aftermath of an earthquake, forming a
continuous curtain that offset their landscape. Links among landscape,
solid-earth structure, and earthquakes would become apparent.
It also appears that their observations
had cultic/religious responses, as they linked the surface of their citadel to
their underworld. Indeed
Taylour (1983 p. 56) thought the
significance of his “cultic” outcrop with attendant snake figurines was that of
a link to the underworld, even though he was not aware of this outcrop as a
fault scarp. Mycenaean awareness of a
“before-and-after” aspect of their faulted landscape is apparently marked by
their remarkable arrangement of cultic figurines in the temple complex.
Thus Mycenaean need for a religious
response to their tectonic environment required an underworld aspect, an
earth-structure aspect, and an earthquake aspect. The latter two aspects recall the suggestion by Polimenakos (1996,
p. 252-255) that our earliest glimpses of Poseidon (PO-SE-DA-O-NE in Linear B)
include both of these, i.e. as earth-smith and earth-shaker, though navigation
of the underworld might have required additional deities.
The fascinating possibility
suggests itself that the inhabitants of ancient Mycenae appreciated something
about their local tectonic processes as these unfolded before them. They probably had a precocious
appreciation that earthquakes and faults are related. Despite seismic/faulting disruption they responded in several
constructive ways: they took
advantage of the increased elevation of their upper citadel by building walls (“Well-Built”)
on the margins of uplifted blocks, and they took advantage of springs along
them. But they also apparently envisioned
these processes as links to their underworld, enshrining them in various ways
and commemorating their tectonic history.
Perhaps it is no accident that the Lion Gate itself displays this
tectonic-cultural relationship.
Recommended further work
Results described here suggest further avenues of research
for confirmation and for exploring implications. Perhaps most urgent is the need for more specific ages for
the “Mycenaean” sherds in basal sediments impounded behind the Perseia
fault-scarp dam on Havos stream (cf.. Force 2004 for criteria of dating using
detrital sherd assemblages).
Work on the age and geometry of faulting along the Lion Gate zone is
also needed; examination of the Havos stream’s ravine might be helpful in this
regard. A proper description of the
rock outcrop in the alcove would be useful. I have a hunch that in view of
results presented here, the age and nature of figurines in the temple complex
will be re-evaluated.
Acknowledgements
This manuscript is meant thus far as a discussion
paper. I would like to acknowledge
the influence on this presentation of scholars no longer with us: Jelle de Boer, Klaus Kilian, and of
course Lord William Taylour. Special
thanks are due Jeremy Rutter for advice, encouragement, edits, and lessons in
“Prehistoric Aegean Archaeology.” George Davis, David Soren, Ed Wright, and
Elisabeth French have also encouraged and/or advised. Jane Brandon Force was my full-time judge of logic and
plausibility, and Germaine Shames helped with logistics. I take total responsibility for my conclusions.
Figure 1—Photograph of the back side of Lion Gate with
slickensided fault rock visible through it, and “cyclopean” walls atop and
beside it.
Figure 2—Sketch map of Mycenae showing citadel walls
(solid), Perseia and Lion Gate
fault and fault zone (dashed), and Havos Stream ravine (dotted). Upper citadel upthrown relative to
blocks across these faults. Lettered
localities: A, Lion Gate, B.
“alcove” outcrop, C. Perseia spring and cistern, D. Section of Havos Stream dammed
by Perseia fault.
Figure 3—Environs of the Temple Complex at Mycenae after
Taylour 1983, annotated in red with the normal fault at the elevation of
bedrock in room 18. U, upthrown
block; D, downthrown block; ticks on fault in the direction of steep dip. Floors in rooms 18 and 19 are plastered bedrock.
References (Stiros and Jones appearing so often below refers
to Stiros, S., and Jones, R. E., 1996, Archaeoseismology: British School at Athens, Fitch
Laboratory Occasional Paper 7.)
Ambraseys, N., 2009, Earthquakes in the Mediterranean and
Middle East: a multi-disciplinary
study of seismicity up to 1900:
Cambridge Press.
deBoer, J. Z., and Sanders, 2005, Earthquakes in human
history: Princeton University
Press.
Force, E. R., 2004, Late Holocene behavior of Chaco and
McElmo canyon drainages (SW US): a comparison based on archaeologic age
controls: Geoarchaeology v. 19, p.
585-609.
Force, E. R., 2015, Impact of tectonic activity on ancient
civilizations: Lexington.
French, E. B., 1996, Evidence for an earthquake at Mycenae,
in Stiros and Jones, p. 51-54.
Hinzen, K.G., Vetters, M., Kalytta, T., Reamer, S. K., and Damm-Meinhardt, U., 2015,
Testing the response of Mycenaean figures and vessels to earthquake ground
motions: Geoarchaeology v. 30, p.
1-18.
Kilian, K., 1996, Earthquakes and arcahaeological context at
13th century Tiryns, in Stiros ad Jones, p. 63-68.
Maroukian, H., Gaki-Papanastassiou, K., and Papanastassious,
1996, Geomorphic-seismotectonic
observations in relation to the catastrophies at Mycenae, in Stiros and Jones,
p. 189-194.
Moore, A. D., and (posthumous) Taylour, W. D., 1999, Well
Built Mycenae--The Temple Complex:
The Helleno-British Excavations within the Citadel at Mycenae 1959-1969,
fascicule 10, Oxbow Books, Oxford.
Polimenakos, L. C., 1996, Thoughts on the perception of the
earthquake in Greek antiquity, in Stiros and Jones, p. 253-260.
Stewart, I. S., in press, Seismic faults and sacred
sanctuaries in Aegean antiquity:
Proceedings of the Geologists’ Association
Stewart, I. S., and Hancock, P. L., 1988, Normal fault zone
evolution and fault-scarp degradation in the Aegean region: Basin Research v. 1, p. 139-153
Taylour, Lord W, D., 1970, New light on Mycenaean religion:
Antiquity v. 44, p. 170-180.
Taylour, Lord W. D., 1981, Well Built Mycenae—The
Excavations: The Helleno-British Excavations within the Citadel at Mycenae
1959-1969, fascicule 1, Oxbow Books, Oxford.
Taylour, L. W., 1983, The Mycenaeans, 2nd ed.: Thames
and Hudson
Wace, A. J. B., 1921-3, Excavations at Mycenae VIII: Lion
Gate and Grave Circle area: Annual
of the British School of Archaeology at Athens v. 25.
