² For EH settlement architecture in general, informative discussions are to be found in Hägg and Konsola 1986, including articles by Felten and Pullen. Since then there have been significant additions (Kalogerakou 1999; Pullen 1990, 2005; Themelis 1984; Wiencke 1989, 2000; and others). Of some interest is an article by Harrison, S., ‘Domestic architecture in Early Helladic II: some observations on the form of nonmonumental houses’, BSA 90 (1995), 23–40Google Scholar, that addresses an apparent odd gap between the small and the larger EH buildings, the latter discussed here. Harrison attempts to show that some of the poorly preserved ‘small’ buildings were actually much larger.

³ Shaw 1987; 1990.

⁴ Recently Dan Pullen has made a strong case that the well-built House A at Tsoungiza may be such a progenitor for the corridor-house building type. In favour of this possibility is the arrangement of the building's doorways, and also the probable central support at its entrance way, above which there may have been a balcony. According to Pullen, the building dates to EH II Developed Phase 1 at Tsoungiza, or Lerna III A late-III B early, which probably makes it earlier than any of the corridor houses discussed herein. For details of construction and dating see Pullen 1990, 338–40, but especially now Pullen 2005, ch. 5, passim. For an earlier reference on my part to the possibility see Shaw 1990, 190–2.

⁵ Aravantinos 1986, passim.

⁶ Wiencke 2000, passim.

⁷ Aravantinos 1986. This was first pointed out by Wiencke 2000, 650.

⁸ Aravantinos, the excavator, confirmed their absence recently (pers. comm.).

⁹ Rutter, J., ‘Review of Aegean prehistory II: the Prepalatial Bronze Age of the southern and central Greek Mainland, with addendum (1993–1999)’, in Cullen, T. (ed.), Aegean Prehistory: A Review (AJA supp. 1; Boston, 2001), 95–156, at 106, 114Google Scholar.

¹⁰ French, E. A., ‘Archaeology in Greece’, AR 37 (1990–1991), 34Google Scholar.

¹¹ The Theban building also supports the theory that stairways were added alongside ground floor rooms in order to provide access to a second floor. Wiencke 2000, 301, for instance, noted that it had not been proved by ceramic or stratigraphic evidence that ‘buildings with incomplete corridor spaces on the long sides were necessarily earlier than those with completed corridors’. Now the Theban structure establishes the precedent, as Akovitika A may if our argument below for its predating Akovitika B is accepted.

¹² Wiencke 2000.

¹³ Ibid. 270. Kilian has noted a similar arrangement for the related corridor-like EH II building, the Rundbau, at Tiryns; see Kilian, K., ‘The Circular Building at Tiryns’, in Hägg and Konsola 1986, 65–71, at 67Google Scholar.

¹⁴ Wiencke 2000, 642; at p. 197 she describes in detail how fine, thin terracotta tiles were replaced eventually by the coarser type used in the House of the Tiles. Pullen 1986, 80 has noted both thin and thicker tiles at Zygouries, equivalent in date to Lerna III ‘mature’ C phase (Wiencke 2000, 656 n. 1). In their analysis of the Lerna tile fabrics, Shriner and Murray have recently pointed out that the earlier, ‘finer’ tiles of micaceous clay were inferior to the later, coarser ones of the alluvial clay still used in modern times for making roof tiles. See C. M. Shriner and Murray, H. H., ‘Explaining sudden economic change at Early Helladic Lerna: a technological paradigm’, in Druc, I. C. (ed.), Archaeology and Clays (BAR S942; Oxford, 2001), 1–16Google Scholar, at 9.

¹⁵ Pullen 2005, during Lerna's Late III A to Early B, the period of House A at Tsoungiza, a building that may have been tiled; Wiencke 2000, 645. As mentioned in the text, on various sites roof tiles appear towards the end of Lerna III B, remain in use into Lerna III D (the House of the Tiles is surely one of the later examples), and disappear not long afterwards, when apsidal houses became the norm and the corridor-house type of building vanished. During the stated period of use, perhaps to be extended as excavation continues, tiled buildings appear to have been rather common. Kalogerakou 1999, 94, also n. 25, and Wiencke 2000, 650 n. 8 have provided documentation based on excavation and survey, especially of sites in Attica, Boeotia, the Corinthia, the Argolid, and the Hermionid, among which are twenty-one with terracotta tiles (Orchomenos, Raphina, Kolonna, Askitario, Koropi, Rouph, Perachora, Tsoungiza, Zygouries, Berbati, Makrovouni, Lerna, Tiryns, Asine, H. Dimetrios Lepreou, as well as six sites in the Hermionid). Far fewer sites (five) had schist tiles: Rouph, Tsoungiza, Lerna, Tiryns, and Akovitika. Perhaps this is partly due to the process of surface survey, for schist occurs naturally and therefore might not attract attention, whereas terracotta tiles are obviously manufactured artefacts and would be selected out. Of the five sites with schist tiles, all but Akovitika had terracotta slabs as well. Akovitika thus appears to be the only site with exclusively schist tiles. At at least two sites (Lerna, Rouph), some of the schist slabs were pierced, presumably so that they could be attached to the eaves. Wiencke (2000, 650) comments that the amenity of tiles may perhaps not have been restricted to elite constructions, but that it is also possible that tiles were used on structures closely related to corridor houses, such as fortifications or storerooms, or for some other special purpose.

¹⁶ Of course there might have been a predecessor to Building BG at Lerna itself. See also Wiencke 2000, 192.

¹⁷ As reported especially in Themelis 1970, 1984; Papathanasopoulos, G. A., ‘Ακοβίτικα Καλαμάτας’, A. Delt. 25 (1970), 177–9Google Scholar; and Karagiorga 1971.

¹⁸ Themelis 1970, 307, 311, shown in his pl. 4 and connected with the ‘prothyron’. Papathanasopoulos (n. 17), 178, later also found tiles in the same general area.

¹⁹ Karagiorga 1971, 128.

²⁰ Ibid. 126–8. Concerning the pottery, Wiencke 2000, 656 n. 1 suggests ‘nothing before later Lerna III, Phase III C’.

²¹ This has now been confirmed by its excavator Petros Themelis (pers. comm.).

²² One might note here, however, that Megaron A has at least one characteristic not shared by other such buildings, namely a large ‘antechamber’ 10.00 m × 11.50 m (Themelis 1984, 145). Themelis thought that it might have been hypaethral or with a light roof supported by columns (ibid. 146). Possibly, therefore, a new space (for gatherings?) was added to an old form. See also below.

²³ Ibid. 344 n. 57.

²⁴ Ibid. 347.

²⁵ Actually, A is also larger than either of the corridor houses at Lerna.

²⁶ Karagiorga 1971, 126.

²⁷ The restored plan published by the excavator (Themelis 1970, 305 drawing 2) gives the impression that the space was roofed, but he later suggested (1984, 346) that it may have been open to the sky.

²⁸ The 2.00 m approximation is minimal, as measured on the drawings published by Themelis (1984, figs. 4, 5) and Karagiorga (our fig. 6). As shown in fig. 6, there is a north-south feature between Megarons A and B. This was identified by Themelis as a paved walkway (1970, 305 drawing 2 e; 308 pl. 3, left), a view reflected in Themelis 1984, fig. 4. Karagiorga 1971, 126 identified it as a (presumably low) retaining wall.

²⁹ That at Akovitika was bordered, as has been pointed out, on three sides. For the court at Lerna, see Wiencke 2000, 56–9, 121, 190, 642, 646, 649–50.

³⁰ At Kolonna, on the other hand, both the earlier Haus am Felsrand and the later Weißes Haus were oriented north-south, nor did they ‘share’ a court.

³¹ See Wiencke 2000, 649 concerning the enclosure of ritual space in prehistoric Europe. She also posits the possibility of a predecessor to Building BG (ibid. 192) on the basis of tiles found. At Tzoungiza there was apparently an open court south of House A, reinforcing the idea of open courts associated with these buildings (Pullen, pers. comm.). It has been argued recently by Jan Driessen that the later second millennium Minoan palaces on Crete, which feature large rectangular courts, may also have developed from open court spaces later ‘ritualized’ by being defined by borders; see Driessen, J., ‘“The King must die.” Some observations about the use of Minoan court compounds’, in Driessen, J., Schoep, I., and Laffineur, R. (eds), Monuments of Minos: Rethinking the Minoan Palaces (Aegaeum, 23; Liège and Austin, TX, 2002), 1–14Google Scholar, at 9. See also Shaw 2003, 241 concerning the choice of ‘appropriate sites for shared activities’.

³² The apparent importance of open space around such buildings has also been emphasized by Nilsson, M., ‘A Civilization in the Making: A Contextual Study of the Early Bronze Age Corridor Buildings in the Aegean’ (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Classical Archaeology and Ancient History, Göteborg University, Göteborg, 2004), 137Google Scholar.

³³ The southern part of A is quite similar in plan (and orientation) to the Haus am Felsrand at Kolonna (FIG. 8 b), known to predate the more developed Weißes Haus (FIG. 9) discussed below.

³⁴ As in the cases of the Kolonna and Lerna building sequences, where each successive building was also tiled. Concerning a tradition of tile roofing at Akovitika, Karagiorga 1971, 128 found plentiful EH II pottery, mud brick, and fallen schist roof tiles south of Megaron B. The tiles and a group of parallel walls reminded her of the walls of Megaron B, suggesting that B was not the only tiled EH II building on the site.

³⁵ Wiencke 2000, 656 n. 1; Kalogerakou 1999, 89 and n. 12.

³⁶ Described in Shaw 1987; 1990.

³⁷ Although the Rundbau at Tiryns has another shape, similar aspects of its design (corridors, tiles, mud-brick construction) and its ceramic date certainly place it in the same mature phase mentioned in the text. Wiencke 1989, 497 n. 6 has thought that the Rundbau was constructed some time before the House of the Tiles. See also Haider, P., ‘Zum frühhelladischen Rundbau in Tiryns’, in Krinzinger, F., Otto, B., and Wolde-Psenner, E. (eds), Forschungen und Funde: Festschrift Bernhard Neutsch (Innsbruck, 1980), 157–72Google Scholar.

³⁸ Lydia Berger, who has studied the scanty pottery from the building, has informed me (pers. comm.) that it corresponds with Lerna Phases III C or III D.

³⁹ Shaw 1987; Walter and Felten 1981, passim.

⁴⁰ Shaw 1987.

⁴¹ Wiencke has thought that the Weißes Haus might be contemporary with the House of the Tiles but perhaps continued longer in use (1989, 496 n. 6). Pullen (pers. comm.) has pointed out that the outline of the Haus am Felsrand indicates a transitional phase within its plan, namely that NW Space 10 may be a later addition (if present at all), for the west wall of Space 7 is not perfectly aligned with the west wall of Space 6, and that the suggested restoration by the original excavators (Walter and Felten 1981; FIG. 8 a) misrepresents the NW corner of the structure: it should be set back slightly from the north wall.

⁴² Wiencke 2000, 655, 656 n. 1; Kalogerakou 2003, 192 and n. 18.

⁴³ Wiencke 2000, 655.

⁴⁴ For the pottery see Wiencke's confirmatory comments ibid. 656 n. 1, and 1989, 496 n. 6.

⁴⁵ Kalogerakou 1999, 89, 101. An earlier proposal, which attempted to correlate the Akovitika and Lerna structures, was made by Themelis 1984, 347. See also Pullen 1986, 81.

⁴⁶ Other possible examples of such buildings have been reported. The most likely one is that suggested by Pullen 1986, 80–1 from Zygouries. It consists of part of a large well-built room and adjacent ‘corridor’, originally roofed by tiles, and then reused within later houses (House of the Pithoi, Rooms 4, 19–20), House of the Snailshells. Nilsson (n. 32), 165, 178 has reviewed other possible examples, among them one at Eutresis and another at Perachora. Both had been suggested by Felten 1986, 25, along with Prosymna and House Y at Zygouries.

⁴⁷ For reviews of some of the possibilities see Shaw 1987, 78; 1990, 192; also Nilsson (n. 32), 143–5; Alram-Stern, E. (ed.), Die ägäische Frühzeit, 2. Serie: Forschungsbericht 1975–2000, ii: Die Frühbronzezeit in Griechenland mit Ausnahme von Kreta (Veröffentlichungen der Mykenischen Kommission, 21; Vienna, 2004), i. 238–43Google Scholar.