Residences — Styles and Periods

The first houses of Monemvasia, whether in the upper or lower town, werde built during the Byzantine period. The following centuries with their wars, sieges, and destruction saw constant building activity — reconstruction, remodeling, and new construction of houses. For that reason, it is difficult today to date accurately the extant remains, and to determine which cultural forces influenced them. Nowadays, it is generally thought that the older secular structures still visible today date either from the second Venetian period (1690 — 1715), or from the second Turkish rule immediately thereafter. The characteristics used to date the secular buildings include the methods of construction, the ground plans, and the time lag in the adoption of new styles, and in the development of technical and craftsmanlike skills for handling new styles.

The differences among the Turkish, Greek, and Venetian methods of construction are clearer in the upper stories than in ground floors. For the upper floors, the Greeks and Venetians almost exclusively used stone, either layered or masoned into supporting arches and walls. In contrast, the Turks built upper stories only out of wood. Sometimes one finds a kind of half timbered work on the ground floor. A special feature of Turkish construction is the overhanging of upper stories supported by plain or sculpted wooden corbels. Other characteristics of Turkish building include openwork parcloses that decorate the harems, and roofs and oriels that jut far out over the streets. But in Monemvasia natural limitations required certain accomodations in this style of construction. A shortage of wood in the area around Monemvasia forced Turkish builders to make greater use of stone. Furthermore, wood deteriorates rather quickly, and in times of destruction, it creates a fire hazard. Since the ruins in Monemvasia consist mostly of ground floors, and since Greek, Venetian, and Turkish ground level construction was very similar, it is nearly impossible to attribute the extant ruins either to Greek, Venetian, or Turkish builders.

Frequently the ground plans are more informative than the material of construction though they only give information on the cultural background of the person who first erected the house. Only in cases where old structures were completely razed can one assume that a succeeding population with a different ethnic heritage laid out its own characteristic ground plans for new houses. Otherwise, one must assume that the existing structures were simply reconstructed or remodeled so as to accomodate them to the needs of the new culture.

Another problem of dating lies in the fact that new dominant groups of rulers, merchants, or residents could not immediately begin to build in their own characteristic style. Though the ruling classes changed, the artisans usually remained the same. The skills of their craft and their manner of ornamentation continued to have an effect under the new official style. Only if native craftsmen were required by contract to work with completely new techniques or ornamentation, can we learn from the amateurish results that the work was done in the early years of the commissioner's rule. On the other hand, stylistic perfection indicates longer experience with a certain style, and thus execution during a later phase of the commissioner's rule. The above applies particularly in the case of the Venetians, who insisted upon Renaissance details on their houses and churches.

Last but not least, the constant changes in sovereignty over the rock of Monemvasia and over the mainland, and the consequent juxtaposition of cultures inevitably led to a strong mutual influence of styles. This fact also makes the dating of a structure or its attribution to a certain culture difficult.