In connection to this, the paper aims at comparing and contrasting Minoan, Mycenaean and Trojan palaces. It will also provide detailed information as to why the Mycenaean palaces should be regarded as an indigenous mainland Greek development. In doing so, it will expound on architecture, decoration as well as artifacts found inside the palaces and their respective culture roles.
The Minoan, Trojan and Mycenaean palaces had central poinst of focus; they had rectangular paved court in which the palace buildings were well designed and built. However, their construction materials varied; the Minoan palaces were constructed from stone blocks, rubble, mud bricks and wood. The walls, wooden roofs as well as wooden door frames expounds on how wood was highly valued in construction Minoan palaces. The walls of the Minoan palaces were also plastered by gypsum plaster (Pedley, 2011). Apart from having light wells to provide light and fresh air to lower stories, the palaces had also pier and door partitions to increase ventilation as well as conserve heat. The palaces were also provided with drains to drain away water through light wells. The Minoan, Trojan and Mycenaean palaces had very special elements; they had well defined military architecture. Like Trojan and Mycenaean palaces, the Minoan palaces had also storage places for agricultural products and military equipment. Additionally, they had living quarters for rulers, living quarters, religious rooms, and banquet rooms. However, unlike Trojan and Mycenaean palaces, the Minoan palaces lacked the fortification walls; they were not protected from any kind of intrusion. The walls of Mycenaean palaces were 20 feet tall and fifteen feet thick, an indication of how security was very important. The use of fortified walls in constructing Mycenaean and Trojan palaces portray an element of dominancy and intimidation. Unlike Trojan and Minoan palaces, Mycenaean palaces had a unique way