The Mycenaean Road

In the winter of 1881-1882, German topographer and military officer Bernhard Steffen (1844-1891) visited Mycenae and produced detailed maps of the Mycenaean citadel and its surrounding landscape. These maps were published in 1884 under the title “Karten von Mykenai”, commissioned by the Imperial German Archaeological Institute and contributed significantly to the early documentation of the Mycenaean road network. Steffen’s maps were pioneering in identifying and documenting segments of the four main highways, M1-M4, that led eastwards from the Mycenaean citadel; M1-M3 north towards the Corinthia while M4 led south towards ancient Prosymna and to where the later dated Argive Heraion was built.

George E. Mylonas, a prominent archaeologist and leading authority on Mycenaean civilization, while he did not focus exclusivey on roads, provided valuable insights into the layout and function of pathways within and around the citadel, reflecting a high level of organization and planning characteristic of Mycenaean society.
In his seminal work, Mycenae and the Mycenaean Age (1966), Mylonas mentioned a tentative date for highway M1 as the second half of the 13^th c. BCE based on two decorated sherds found in his trial trenches.  Later, it was suggested that the sherds could have belonged to a supplementary fill from a later road surface repair.

J. Lavery’s research in the early 1990s significantly advanced our understanding of the Mycenaean roads network, introducing a systematic classification of these ancient routes, distinguishing between major highways and smaller roads/paths. He argued that the four major “M-highways” (M1-M4) were constructed through state-organized labor, reflecting a centralized approach to infrastructure. These primary roads, emanating from the Lion Gate of Mycenae, facilitated connections to various regions, servicing the landlocked but rich agricultural plains of Phlious, Kleonai, Tenea, Stephani and Berbati while providing access to the sea and their markets, thus supporting administrative and economic integration. Lavery observed that the construction of the M-highways occurred after the establishment of the earliest LH chamber tomb cemeteries and tholos tomb, suggesting that the development of these roads was part of a broader expansion of Mycenaen infrastructure, reflecting increased regional integration and administrative control during the LH IIIA period and beyond. In addition to the main highways, Lavery also recognized smaller subsidiary roads or paths, termed “m-roads” that connected more distant locations and were primarily used by pedestrians and pack animals. He concluded that these routes were likely older, predating the M-highways. Lavery later identified additional main highways, including M5 through M8 and road Rho, expanding the known network and suggesting a more intricate system of connectivity.

In his influential article “The Mycenaean Highways” (1998), Richard Hope Simpson who was a pioneering scholar in the study of Mycenaean infrastructure and the Mycenaean road network and its role in the political and economic landscape of the Late Bronze Age Greece, examined the construction techniques of Mycenaean roads, noting their use of Cyclopean masonry akin to that found in Mycenaean fortifications. He argued that such engineering feats indicated a centralized authority capable of organizing large-scale infrastructure projects. He viewed the road network as a significant infrastructure that required immense labor to construct, indicating its importance in connecting various regions. Moreover, he suggested that the extent of the roads implied that Mycenae’s territorial reach was more expansive than previously believed, encompassing vast areas of the Argolid and Corinthia. Hope Simpson acknowledged the challenges in maintaining these roads, especially with the repeated use by heavy vehicles, which could deteriorate their condition. Later (“The Mycenae Roads and Mycenaean Chariots”, 2002), he proposed that the roads were deliberately designed to accommodate chariot travel. This design would have facilitated not only administrative and elite mobility but also rapid military deployment in response to external threats, underscoring the roads’ strategic importance in both governance and defense.

Anton Jansen, in his 1997 article “Bronze Age Highways at Mycenae” and 2002 thesis “A Study of the Remains of Mycenaean Roads and Stations of Bronze-Age Greece“, presented a conservative and critical reassessment of the Mycenaean road network, challenging more expansive interpretations like those of Richard Hope Simpson. He argued that Mycenaean roads were primarily designed for short-range, local communication and served to control the core territory of a palatial center and nearby settlements and resources, rather than extensive, overland transport. Jansen emphasized that these roads were part of a system for territorial management, allowing elites to maintain oversight over agricultural production and smaller outposts. He was skeptical of attributing military and chariot-based logistics to these roads and reinterpreted the roadside blockhouses, structures previously assumed to be military in function, as having administrative or logistical roles, possibly as tax or toll stations, or rest stops. He also did not recognize Lavery’s m5 road and the importance of the Berbati Valley to Mycenae.
Jansen’s limited view of the the mycenaean road network has been widely rejected. Recent studies have confirmed that the local and regional road network and M-highways tied in with a much wider road network system beyond the Mycenaean territories.

In their 2003 publication, “Archaeological Atlas of Mycenae”, Spyros Iakovidis and his colleagues conducted a comprehensive survey of the Mycenaean road network in the Argolis and Corinthia. They meticulously documented approximately 703 archaeological features, including roads, tombs, buildings, and quarries, integrating this data into a digitized database. The study identified a sophisticated system of constructed roads totaling around 175–180 kilometers in length. These roads connected the citadel of Mycenae to various regions, such as Nemea, Phlious, and Tiryns, indicating a well-organized infrastructure that facilitated movement, trade, and administrative control across the territory. The findings underscore the Mycenaeans’ advanced engineering capabilities and their emphasis on connectivity, reflecting a complex society with centralized planning and extensive regional influence.