A Landscape of Conflict? Rural Fortifications in the Argolid (400–146 BC) 1789699703, 9781789699708, 9781789699715

A Landscape of Conflict? Rural Fortifications in the Argolid (400–146 BC) is the first systematic study of Late Classica

324 99 86MB

English Pages 328 Year 2022

Table of contents :
Cover
Title Page
Copyright page
List of Figures
Figure 1.1 The landscape of the northeastern Peloponnese.
Figure 2.1 Watersheds in the northwestern Argolid and sedimentary deposits on the Argive plain (deposits after Fouache 1999: 170, fig. 49).
Figure 2.2 The Argolic and the Saronic Gulf: drainage basins and areas most susceptible to coastline changes.
Figure 2.3 Evidence for ancient land use in the Argolid (after Table 2).
Figure 3.1 The geographical distribution of fortified sites in the Argolid (by type).
Figure 3.2 The geographical distribution of towers in the Argolid (by size and shape).
Figure 3.3 The geographical distribution of fortified settlements in the Argolid (by size).
Figure 4.1 Kastraki (35): satellite image and sketch plan (Google Earth 2013).
Figure 4.2 The gates of Mantineia (Maher 2017: 223, fig. C8.7).
Figure 4.3 Plaka Leonidiou (63): satellite image and sketch plan (Google Earth 2013).
Figure 4.4 Sportiza (74): satellite image and sketch plan (Google Earth 2013).
Figure 4.5 The Southeast Tower at Asini (14): plan (Adam 1982: 57, fig. 24).
Figures 4.6–7 Argos’ (12) hexagonal towers on the Aspis (above) and on the Larissa-Aspis wall (below) (Adam 1982: 58, fig. 26).
Figure 4.8 The possible hexagonal tower at Achladokampos (1) (Google Earth 2012).
Figure 4.9 The northwest side of the possible hexagonal tower at Achladokampos (1) from the north.
Figure 4.10 Drystone masonry on the north side of Agio Lias (2).
Figure 4.11 Roughly hewn coursed polygonal masonry at Agios Sostis (5)
Figure 4.12 Roughly hewn uncoursed polygonal masonry at Tyros (83).
Figure 4.13 Carefully fitted ashlar masonry at Asini (14)
Figure 4.14 Carefully fitted coursed trapezoidal masonry at Elliniko Astrous (21).
Figure 4.15 Carefully fitted uncoursed trapezoidal masonry at Ano Phanari (10).
Figure 4.16 Carefully fitted coursed polygonal masonry at Iria (31).
Figure 4.17 Carefully fitted uncoursed polygonal masonry at Palaia Epidavros 1 (54)
Figure 4.18 The distribution of masonry by type of joint (number of samples).
Figure 4.19 The distribution of roughly hewn masonry by shape of blocks (number of samples).
Figure 4.20 The distribution of fitted masonry by shape of blocks (number of samples).
Figure 4.21 Uncoursed roughly hewn polygonal masonry at Plaka Leonidiou (63).
Figure 4.22 The distribution of drystone masonry by type of site (number of samples, excluding drystone circuits).
Figure 4.23 The distribution of roughly hewn masonry by type of site (number of samples).
Figure 4.24 The distribution of carefully fitted masonry by type of site (number of samples).
Figure 4.25 The distribution of coursed polygonal masonry by type of site (number of samples).
Figure 5.1 The territory of Kleonai (after Marchand 2002b).
Figure 5.2 The territory of Hermion and the shared territory of Hermion and Epidauros (2nd century BC).
Figure 5.3 The territory Epidauros (3rd and 2nd century BC).
Figure 5.4 The fortifications on the Akte by city-state (400–146 BC).
Figure 5.5 Argive komai and dependent settlements (400–146 BC).
Figure 5.6 The fortifications in the territory of Argos.
Figure 6.1 The tower of Agios Sostis (5) from the south.
Figure 6.2 The view from the tower of Agios Sostis (5) to the north.
Figure 6.3 Surviving wheel-ruts and ancient bridges in the Argolid (after Φάκλαρης 1990; Πίκουλας 1995; Tausend 2006 and Πίκουλας 2012).
Figure 6.4 Least cost paths between Argos and Mantineia calculated with the ArcGIS Path Distance tool, the so-called ‘Tobler’s Hiking Formula’ (after Tripcevich 2009 and White 2015) and the relative effort required to walk on different slopes (after Minet
Figure 6.5 The least cost paths between urban centres, compared to the surviving wheel-ruts and ancient bridges.
Figure 6.6 The least cost paths between urban centres and fortified settlements, compared to the least cost paths between urban centres and the surviving wheel-ruts and ancient bridges.
Figure 6.7 The least cost paths between fortified settlements, compared to the least cost paths between urban centres, the least cost paths between urban centres and fortified settlements and the surviving wheel-ruts and ancient bridges.
Figure 6.8 The least cost paths, compared to the 4th-century BC and Hellenistic fortifications in the region.
Figure 6.9 The results of the cumulative pathway analysis, compared to the distribution of 4th-century BC and Hellenistic fortifications. Paths marked in blue denote routes with a low overlap between different paths, paths marked in red denote routes with
Figure 6.10 The freestanding rectangular tower with chamfered corners at Kephalovryso (40).
Figure 6.11 The view from the possible tower at Kondyli (98).
Figure 6.12 The view from the drystone circuit at Vigliza (85).
Figure 6.13 The view from the tower at Tourkovrysi (78).
Figure 6.14 The view from the tower of Agios Sostis (5) to the south.
Figure 6.15 The binary viewshed of the fortified settlement of Achladokampos (1).
Figure 6.16 The classified viewshed of the fortified settlement of Achladokampos (1).
Figure 6.17 Site intervisibility in the territories of Halieis and Hermion.
Figure 6.18 Site intervisibility in the territory of Troizen.
Figure 6.19 Site intervisibility in the territory of Epidauros.
Figure 6.20 The view from Ano Phanari (10), with Palaia Epidavros and the Korinthia (left), Salamis and Attica (centre) and Aigina (right).
Figure 6.21 The view from Skala 1 (104) to the west, south and east, with Stavropodio (75) (left), the Benteni valley (centre) and the Argolic Gulf (right). The plain of Iria is just visible through the trees on the right edge of the picture.
Figure 6.22 Site intervisibility in the territory of Argos.
Figure 6.23 Intervisible ‘site clusters’ in the territory of Argos.
Figure 6.24 ‘Cluster 3’: intervisible Argive fortifications in the plain of Prosymna.
Figure 6.25 The view from Agio Lias (2) to the east, with the plain of Prosymna (left) and the Argive plain (right).
Figure 6.26 ‘Cluster 5 and 6’: intervisible Argive fortifications around Achladokampos (1) and south of the Zavitsa mountains.
Figure 6.27 The view from Tourniki: Gaidourovouni (79) to the east along the Xerias valley.
Figure 6.28 ‘Cluster 2’: intervisible fortifications in the territory of Kleonai.
Figure 6.29 The area visible from fortifications in Argos’ hypothetical signalling network (400–146 BC).
Figure 6.30 Argos (12), satellite-image (Google Earth 2018) with the remains of the city walls (aft
Figure 6.31 Ermioni (24): plan (Frickenhaus – Müller 1911: pl. 1).
Figure 6.32 Palaia Epidavros 1 (54): satellite-image with sketch plan (Google Earth 2018).
Figure 6.33 Porto Cheli (64): plan (McAllister 2005:, fig. 18).
Figure 6.34 Troizina (80): satellite-image with sketch plan (Google Earth 2018, after Welter 1941: pl. 2).
Figure 6.35 Argos, Larissa (12): the west wall of the outer circuit from the west.
Figure 6.36 Argos, Larissa (12): the outer circuit. Satellite-image with sketch plan (Google Earth 2018, after Πιτέρος 2013: 346, fig. 2).
Figure 6.37 Argos, Aspis (12): plan (Philippa-Touchais – Touchais 2006: 717, fig. 16).
Figure 6.38 a Galatas: Megali Magoula (25): the view to the west and north towards Troizina (80).
Figure 6.38 b Galatas: Megali Magoula (25): the view to the north and east towards Limanaki 1 (48) and Limanaki 2 (99), the straits of Poros, the island of Poros and the straits between Poros and Galatas.
Figure 6.38 c Phourkaria (61): the view to the southeast, south and southwest towards the island of Hydra.
Figure 6.39 Walking distances, cost boundaries and fortifications (400–300 BC).
Figure 6.40 Walking distances, cost boundaries and fortifications (300–235 BC).
Figure 6.41 Walking distances, cost boundaries and fortifications (235–146 BC).
Figure 6.42 Benteni Kiapha (16): the southwest wall from the southeast.
Figure 6.43 Kazarma (39): satellite-image with sketch plan (Google Earth 2013).
Figures 6.44 a–b The masonry at Kastraki (35) (top) and Kazarma (39) (bottom).
Figures 6.45 a–b The cross section of the south tower at Kastraki (35) (top) and tower II at Kazarma (39) (bottom).
Figure 6.46 Andritsa: Goulas (9): the cistern.
Figure 6.47 Agios Adrianos (3): the cistern from the south.
Figure 6.48 Kazarma (39): the cistern from the east.
Figure 7.1 Walking distances in southern Attica.
Figure 7.2 Possible places of refuge: walking distances and cost boundaries.
Figure 7.3 Possible places of refuge: walking distances, cost boundaries, agricultural installations and the probable maximum altitude for olive cultivation (500 mamsl).
Figure 7.4 Possible places of refuge: walking distances, cost boundaries, agricultural installations and modern agricultural areas.
Figure 7.5 The surface pottery assemblage from the drystone circuit at Vigliza (85) by functional category (after Penttinen 1996b: 268–70).
Figure 7.6 Crossbar cuttings at Elliniko: Kephalari (23) (outer door).
Figure 7.7 Crossbar cuttings at Kampia (32).
Figure 7.8 Cuttings for a double crossbar at Agios Adrianos (3).
Figure 7.9 Areas above an altitude of 500 mamsl (with fortifications by type).
Figure 7.10 Areas with a slope above 10° (with fortifications by type).
Figures 7.11 a–c Ancient press beds at Andritsa: Goulas (9) (a), Ierakas (28) (b) and Mykinai (51) (c).
Figures 7.12 a–d Ancient press weights at Asini (14) (a), Elliniko Astrous (21) (b), Mykinai (51) (c), and Troizina (80) (d).
Figures 7.13 a–d Ancient olive mills at Amygdalitsa (7) (a), Iliopoulaiika (30) (b), Pyrgouli (71) (c) and Malantrenion (101) (d).
Figure 7.14 The distribution of ancient agricultural installations at fortifications in the Argolid.
Figure 7.15 The distribution of portable finds (connected to specific agricultural or industrial activities) at fortifications in the Argolid.
Figure 7.16 The pottery assemblages from Agios Sostis (5) and Prosymna: Pyrgouthi (69) by functional category (after Cloke 2016: 901 and Penttinen 2005: 23–89).
Figure 7.17 The pottery assemblages from two unfortified rural sites from the NVAP by functional category (after Cloke 2016: 682–87, 799–818).
List of Tables
Table 2.1 Sediment deposits on the Argive plain (after Fouache and Gaki-Papanastassiou 1997; Fouache 1999).
Table 2.2 a Land use in the ancient Argolid: olives.
Table 2.2 b Land use in the ancient Argolid: cereals.
Table 2.2 c Land use in the ancient Argolid: vines.
Table 2.2 d Land use in the ancient Argolid: legumes.
Table 2.2 e Land use in the ancient Argolid: tree crops.
Table 2.2 f Land use in the ancient Argolid: pastoralism.
Table 2.2 g Land use in the ancient Argolid: wood.
Table 2.2 h Land use in the ancient Argolid: hunting.
Table 2.2 i Land use in the ancient Argolid: beekeeping.
Table 2.2 j Land use in the ancient Argolid: salt panning.
Table 2.2 k Land use in the ancient Argolid: fishing.
Table 3.1 Towers and possible towers in the Argolid.
Table 3.2 Fortified settlements and possible fortified settlements in the Argolid. Bibliographic references to individual finds at these sites can be found in the catalogue.
Table 3.3 Forts and possible forts in the Argolid.
Table 3.4 Drystone circuits in the Argolid.
Table 4.1 The width and stock length of stone-throwing palintones.
Table 4.2 The width and stock length of arrow-shooting euthyones, reconstructed from washers at Ephyra and the Mahdia shipwreck.
Table 4.3 The outer dimensions of the hexagonal towers (in meters).
Table 4.4 a The hypothetical inner dimensions of the hexagonal towers: battlements (width 0.4–0.8, all measurements in meters).
Table 4.4 b The hypothetical inner dimensions of the hexagonal towers: mudbrick walls (width 1.35–2.15; Miletus: 1.35–1.8; Samos: 1.35; all measurements in meters).
Table 4.4 c The hypothetical inner dimensions of the hexagonal towers: stone walls (width 0.4–1.42, Samos: 0.75–1.35, all measurements in meters).
Table 4.5 a The hypothetical stock length of catapults at the hexagonal towers (battlements; all measurements in meters).
Table 4.5 b The hypothetical stock length of catapults at the hexagonal towers (mudbrick walls; all measurements in meters).
Table 4.5 c The hypothetical stock length of catapults at the hexagonal towers (stone walls; all measurements in meters).
Table 6.1 Site clusters in the territory of Epidauros.
Table 6.2 Site clusters in the territory of Argos.
Table 6.3 Average monthly run-off from a tiled roof (10m2) in the Argolid.
Table 6.4 Average monthly run-off from a stone surface (10m2) in the Argolid.
Table 6.5 Estimated storage volume for a catchment area of 81m2 (tiled), a garrison of 16 men and a water consumption of 5 litres per day per person.
Table 6.6 Estimated storage volume for a catchment area of 77m2 (stone), a garrison of 16 men and a water consumption of 5 litres per day per person.
Table 6.7 Estimated storage volume for a catchment area of 230 m2 (stone), a garrison of 16 men and a water consumption of 15 litres per day per person.
Table 6.8 Estimated storage volume for a catchment area of 195 m2 (stone), a garrison of 40 men and a water consumption of 5 litres per day per person.
Acknowledgements
Note to the Reader
On the transliteration of Greek toponyms, personal names and pottery terms
On sites names and catalogue numbers
The descriptive catalogue
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 Approaching a landscape of conflict
1.2 Fortification studies: a brief history of scholarship
1.3 Defining the Argolid
1.4 Studying fortifications in the Argolid: an outline
Chapter 2: The Landscape of the Ancient Argolid
2.1 Setting the scene
2.2 Landscape changes: from tectonics to vegetation
2.3 Land use: agriculture, pastoralism and ‘marginal’ resources
2.4 The scene is set: the landscape of the Late Classical and Hellenistic Argolid
Chapter 3: A Typology of Ancient Fortifications
3.1 Ancient terminologies and modern typologies
3.2 Fortified settlements, forts, towers and drystone circuits
3.3 Safety in numbers: the distribution of fortifications in the Argolid
Chapter 4: Dating Ancient Fortifications in the Argolid
4.1 Dating ancient fortifications: a persistent problem
4.2 Securing a date: dating by stratified and surface finds
4.3 Building a chronology: dating by architectural features
4.4 Polygonal problems: dating by masonry technique
4.5 Dating ancient fortifications: discussion and conclusions
Chapter 5: A Regional Study of Fortifications in the Argolid
5.1 The political geography of the Argolid (400–146 BC)
5.2 Settlement patterns in the Argolid (400–146 BC)
Chapter 6: Rural Fortifications as Territorial Defences
6.1 Movement: fortifications and roads
6.1.1 Tracing ancient movement: the archaeological record
6.1.2 Tracing ancient movement: A least cost path analysis
6.1.3 Least cost paths and ancient fortifications in the Argolid
6.2 Visibility: fortifications as watch-posts and signal-stations
6.2.1 Studying visibility: methods and practice
6.2.2 Site visibility and intervisibility on the Akte
6.2.4 Evaluating the ‘visual networks’
6.3 Territories: fortifications and defensive strategies
6.3.1 Late Classical and Hellenistic strategies of territorial defence
6.3.2 Fortifications as ‘deterrents’ and the role of city walls
6.3.3 ‘Dynamic’ defences: the role of rural fortifications
6.3.4 Conclusions: fortifications as strategic military sites
Chapter 7: Rural Fortifications as Local Defences
7.1 Conflict: fortifications as places of refuge
7.2 Cultivation: fortifications and agriculture
7.2.1 Fortified architecture: between practicality and defensibility
7.2.2 Location: rural fortifications in context
7.2.3 Agricultural installations: rural fortifications as processing sites
7.2.4 Portable finds: everyday activities at rural fortifications
7.3 ‘Agricultural’ fortifications: economy and agency
Chapter 8: Conclusions
Bibliography
A. General bibliography
B. Editions of ancient authors
C. Fragments
D. Inscriptions
E. Papyri
F. Electronic resources
Catalogue
A. Fortifications in the Argolid
B. Possible fortifications in the Argolid
C. Fortifications and possible fortifications in the Argolid: location unknown
D. Fortifications and possible fortifications in the Argolid: now destroyed
E. Structures inconclusively or erroneously identified as ancient fortifications in the Argolid
Appendix
Index of Sources
Literary sources
Epigraphic sources
Papyri
General Index

Recommend Papers

Settlement and Social Trends in the Argolid and the Methana Peninsula, 1200–900 BC 9781407310206, 9781407339986

This research centres on the ideology and socio-economic practices of the communities in the Argolid and the Methana Pen

150 20 12MB Read more

Lahun. A town in Egypt 1800 BC, and the history of its landscape

449 47 6MB Read more

Managing the Historic Rural Landscape 9780415207911, 9780415207904

98 7 2MB Read more

The Rural Landscape of Ancient Israel 9781841714974, 9781407325200

Israel is, and always has been, a geographical, historical and most importantly cultural crossroads, linking three conti

109 2 43MB Read more

The Rural Landscape of Ancient Israel 1841714976, 9781841714974

161 70 13MB Read more

Akutō and Rural Conflict in Medieval Japan 9780824875336

This volume offers the first in-depth analysis in English of an understudied phenomenon in medieval Japanese history: th

149 28 1MB Read more

Hinterland: America’s New Landscape of Class and Conflict (Field Notes)

Over the last forty years, the landscape of the USA has been fundamentally transformed. It is partially visible in the a

355 64 226KB Read more

Hinterland: America’s New Landscape of Class and Conflict (Field Notes)

367 58 241KB Read more

Religious Division and Social Conflict: The Emergence of Hindu Nationalism in Rural India 9781138102736, 9781315146959

561 85 10MB Read more

The Fortifications of Pompeii and Ancient Italy 2018012142, 9781472477163, 9780429462009

207 33 102MB Read more

A Landscape of Conflict? Rural Fortifications in the Argolid (400–146 BC)
1789699703, 9781789699708, 9781789699715

Author / Uploaded
Anna Magdalena Blomley

Commentary
decrypted from A28A91E3AA7F6EA867932CD966E67900 source file

0 0 0
Like this paper and download? You can publish your own PDF file online for free in a few minutes! Sign Up

File loading please wait...

Citation preview

A Landscape of Conflict? Rural Fortifications in the Argolid (400–146 BC)

Anna Magdalena Blomley

A Landscape of Conflict? Rural Fortifications in the Argolid (400–146 BC)

Anna Magdalena Blomley

Archaeopress Archaeology

Archaeopress Publishing Ltd Summertown Pavilion 18-24 Middle Way Summertown Oxford OX2 7LG www.archaeopress.com

ISBN 978-1-78969-970-8 ISBN 978-1-78969-971-5 (e-Pdf) © Archaeopress and Anna Magdalena Blomley 2022 Cover: The view from the fort of Kazarma (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the copyright owners. This book is available direct from Archaeopress or from our website www.archaeopress.com

To my parents

Contents

List of Figures�� iii List of Tables��v Acknowledgements �� vii Note to the Reader�� ix On the transliteration of Greek toponyms, personal names and pottery terms�� ix On sites names and catalogue numbers�� ix The descriptive catalogue�� ix Chapter 1: Introduction��1 1.1 Approaching a landscape of conflict��1 1.2 Fortification studies: a brief history of scholarship��1 1.3 Defining the Argolid ��4 1.4 Studying fortifications in the Argolid: an outline��6 Chapter 2: The Landscape of the Ancient Argolid��7 2.1 Setting the scene��7 2.2 Landscape changes: from tectonics to vegetation��7 2.3 Land use: agriculture, pastoralism and ‘marginal’ resources��12 2.4 The scene is set: the landscape of the Late Classical and Hellenistic Argolid��18 Chapter 3: A Typology of Ancient Fortifications��19 3.1 Ancient terminologies and modern typologies��19 3.2 Fortified settlements, forts, towers and drystone circuits��21 3.3 Safety in numbers: the distribution of fortifications in the Argolid��23 Chapter 4: Dating Ancient Fortifications in the Argolid��31 4.1 Dating ancient fortifications: a persistent problem��31 4.2 Securing a date: dating by stratified and surface finds��31 4.3 Building a chronology: dating by architectural features��33 4.4 Polygonal problems: dating by masonry technique��41 4.5 Dating ancient fortifications: discussion and conclusions��44 Chapter 5: A Regional Study of Fortifications in the Argolid��45 5.1 The political geography of the Argolid (400–146 BC)��45 5.2 Settlement patterns in the Argolid (400–146 BC)��51 Chapter 6: Rural Fortifications as Territorial Defences ��57 6.1 Movement: fortifications and roads��57 6.1.1 Tracing ancient movement: the archaeological record��57 6.1.2 Tracing ancient movement: A least cost path analysis ��58 6.1.3 Least cost paths and ancient fortifications in the Argolid��65 6.2 Visibility: fortifications as watch-posts and signal-stations��69 6.2.1 Studying visibility: methods and practice��69 6.2.2 Site visibility and intervisibility on the Akte��73 6.2.4 Evaluating the ‘visual networks’��83 6.3 Territories: fortifications and defensive strategies��84 6.3.1 Late Classical and Hellenistic strategies of territorial defence��84 6.3.2 Fortifications as ‘deterrents’ and the role of city walls��84 6.3.3 ‘Dynamic’ defences: the role of rural fortifications��89 6.3.4 Conclusions: fortifications as strategic military sites��103

i

Chapter 7: Rural Fortifications as Local Defences��106 7.1 Conflict: fortifications as places of refuge��106 7.2 Cultivation: fortifications and agriculture��112 7.2.1 Fortified architecture: between practicality and defensibility��112 7.2.2 Location: rural fortifications in context��114 7.2.3 Agricultural installations: rural fortifications as processing sites ��117 7.2.4 Portable finds: everyday activities at rural fortifications��121 7.3 ‘Agricultural’ fortifications: economy and agency��123 Chapter 8: Conclusions�� 127 Bibliography�� 131 A. General bibliography��131 B. Editions of ancient authors��159 C. Fragments��160 D. Inscriptions��161 E. Papyri��161 F. Electronic resources��161 Catalogue�� 163 A. Fortifications in the Argolid��164 B. Possible fortifications in the Argolid��268 C. Fortifications and possible fortifications in the Argolid: location unknown��279 D. Fortifications and possible fortifications in the Argolid: now destroyed��284 E. Structures inconclusively or erroneously identified as ancient fortifications in the Argolid��290 Appendix�� 294 The Masonry Technique and Chronology of Fortifications in the Argolid��294 Index of Sources�� 303 Literary sources��303 Epigraphic sources��305 Papyri��305 General Index�� 306

ii

List of Figures

Figure 1.1 The landscape of the northeastern Peloponnese.�� 2 Figure 2.1 Watersheds in the northwestern Argolid and sedimentary deposits on the Argive plain (deposits after Fouache 1999: 170, fig. 49).�� 8 Figure 2.2 The Argolic and the Saronic Gulf: drainage basins and areas most susceptible to coastline changes.�� 10 Figure 2.3 Evidence for ancient land use in the Argolid (after Table 2).�� 13 Figure 3.1 The geographical distribution of fortified sites in the Argolid (by type).�� 20 Figure 3.2 The geographical distribution of towers in the Argolid (by size and shape).�� 22 Figure 3.3 The geographical distribution of fortified settlements in the Argolid (by size).�� 24 Figure 4.1 Kastraki (35): satellite image and sketch plan (Google Earth 2013).�� 33 Figure 4.2 The gates of Mantineia (Maher 2017: 223, fig. C8.7). �� 34 Figure 4.3 Plaka Leonidiou (63): satellite image and sketch plan (Google Earth 2013).�� 34 Figure 4.4 Sportiza (74): satellite image and sketch plan (Google Earth 2013).�� 34 Figure 4.5 The Southeast Tower at Asini (14): plan (Adam 1982: 57, fig. 24).�� 35 Figures 4.6–7 Argos’ (12) hexagonal towers on the Aspis (above) and on the Larissa-Aspis wall (below) (Adam 1982: 58, fig. 26). �� 35 Figure 4.8 The possible hexagonal tower at Achladokampos (1) (Google Earth 2012). �� 36 Figure 4.9 The northwest side of the possible hexagonal tower at Achladokampos (1) from the north. �� 36 Figure 4.10 Drystone masonry on the north side of Agio Lias (2).�� 40 Figure 4.11 Roughly hewn coursed polygonal masonry at Agios Sostis (5). �� 40 Figure 4.12 Roughly hewn uncoursed polygonal masonry at Tyros (83). �� 40 Figure 4.13 Carefully fitted ashlar masonryat Asini (14). �� 40 Figure 4.14 Carefully fitted coursed trapezoidal masonry at Elliniko Astrous (21).�� 40 Figure 4.15 Carefully fitted uncoursed trapezoidal masonry at Ano Phanari (10). �� 40 Figure 4.16 Carefully fitted coursed polygonal masonry at Iria (31). �� 41 Figure 4.17 Carefully fitted uncoursed polygonal masonry at Palaia Epidavros 1 (54). �� 41 Figure 4.18 The distribution of masonry by type of joint (number of samples). �� 41 Figure 4.19 The distribution of roughly hewn masonry by shape of blocks (number of samples). �� 41 Figure 4.20 The distribution of fitted masonry by shape of blocks (number of samples). �� 41 Figure 4.21 Uncoursed roughly hewn polygonal masonry at Plaka Leonidiou (63).�� 42 Figure 4.22 The distribution of drystone masonry by type of site (number of samples, excluding drystone circuits).�� 42 Figure 4.23 The distribution of roughly hewn masonry by type of site (number of samples).�� 42 Figure 4.24 The distribution of carefully fitted masonry by type of site (number of samples).�� 42 Figure 4.25 The distribution of coursed polygonal masonry by type of site (number of samples).�� 42 Figure 5.1 The territory of Kleonai (after Marchand 2002b).�� 47 Figure 5.2 The territory of Hermion and the shared territory of Hermion and Epidauros (2nd century BC). �� 48 Figure 5.3 The territory Epidauros (3rd and 2nd century BC). �� 49 Figure 5.4 The fortifications on the Akte by city-state (400–146 BC).�� 50 Figure 5.5 Argive komai and dependent settlements (400–146 BC). �� 52 Figure 5.6 The fortifications in the territory of Argos.�� 53 Figure 6.1 The tower of Agios Sostis (5) from the south. �� 57 Figure 6.2 The view from the tower of Agios Sostis (5) to the north.�� 58 Figure 6.3 Surviving wheel-ruts and ancient bridges in the Argolid (after Φάκλαρης 1990; Πίκουλας 1995; Tausend 2006 and Πίκουλας 2012).�� 59 Figure 6.4 Least cost paths between Argos and Mantineia calculated with the ArcGIS Path Distance tool, the so-called ‘Tobler’s Hiking Formula’ (after Tripcevich 2009 and White 2015) and the relative effort required to walk on different slopes (after Minetti et al. 2002).�� 60 Figure 6.5 The least cost paths between urban centres, compared to the surviving wheel-ruts and ancient bridges.�� 62 Figure 6.6 The least cost paths between urban centres and fortified settlements, compared to the least cost paths between urban centres and the surviving wheel-ruts and ancient bridges.�� 63 Figure 6.7 The least cost paths between fortified settlements, compared to the least cost paths between urban centres, the least cost paths between urban centres and fortified settlements and the surviving wheel-ruts and ancient bridges.�� 64 Figure 6.8 The least cost paths, compared to the 4th-century BC and Hellenistic fortifications in the region.�� 66 Figure 6.9 The results of the cumulative pathway analysis, compared to the distribution of 4th-century BC and Hellenistic fortifications. Paths marked in blue denote routes with a low overlap between different paths, paths marked in red denote routes with a high overlap.�� 66 Figure 6.10 The freestanding rectangular tower with chamfered corners at Kephalovryso (40).�� 67 Figure 6.11 The view from the possible tower at Kondyli (98). �� 68 Figure 6.12 The view from the drystone circuit at Vigliza (85). �� 68 Figure 6.13 The view from the tower at Tourkovrysi (78).�� 69 Figure 6.14 The view from the tower of Agios Sostis (5) to the south. �� 70

iii

Figure 6.15 The binary viewshed of the fortified settlement of Achladokampos (1).�� 71 Figure 6.16 The classified viewshed of the fortified settlement of Achladokampos (1).�� 71 Figure 6.17 Site intervisibility in the territories of Halieis and Hermion.�� 72 Figure 6.18 Site intervisibility in the territory of Troizen.�� 72 Figure 6.19 Site intervisibility in the territory of Epidauros.�� 74 Figure 6.20 The view from Ano Phanari (10), with Palaia Epidavros and the Korinthia (left), Salamis and Attica (centre) and Aigina (right).�� 75 Figure 6.21 The view from Skala 1 (104) to the west, south and east, with Stavropodio (75) (left), the Benteni valley (centre) and the Argolic Gulf (right). The plain of Iria is just visible through the trees on the right edge of the picture.�� 75 Figure 6.22 Site intervisibility in the territory of Argos.�� 76 Figure 6.23 Intervisible ‘site clusters’ in the territory of Argos.�� 78 Figure 6.24 ‘Cluster 3’: intervisible Argive fortifications in the plain of Prosymna.�� 79 Figure 6.25 The view from Agio Lias (2) to the east, with the plain of Prosymna (left) and the Argive plain (right).�� 79 Figure 6.26 ‘Cluster 5 and 6’: intervisible Argive fortifications around Achladokampos (1) and south of the Zavitsa mountains.�� 80 Figure 6.27 The view from Tourniki: Gaidourovouni (79) to the east along the Xerias valley.�� 80 Figure 6.28 ‘Cluster 2’: intervisible fortifications in the territory of Kleonai.�� 81 Figure 6.29 The area visible from fortifications in Argos’ hypothetical signalling network (400–146 BC).�� 82 Figure 6.30 Argos (12), satellite-image (Google Earth 2018) with the remains of the city walls (after Pariente – Touchais 1998: pl. 12). �� 85 Figure 6.31 Ermioni (24): plan (Frickenhaus – Müller 1911: pl. 1). �� 85 Figure 6.32 Palaia Epidavros 1 (54): satellite-image with sketch plan (Google Earth 2018). �� 86 Figure 6.33 Porto Cheli (64): plan (McAllister 2005:, fig. 18). �� 86 Figure 6.34 Troizina (80): satellite-image with sketch plan (Google Earth 2018, after Welter 1941: pl. 2). �� 87 Figure 6.35 Argos, Larissa (12): the west wall of the outer circuit from the west.�� 88 Figure 6.36 Argos, Larissa (12): the outer circuit. Satellite-image with sketch plan (Google Earth 2018, after Πιτέρος 2013: 346, fig. 2). �� 88 Figure 6.37 Argos, Aspis (12): plan (Philippa-Touchais – Touchais 2006: 717, fig. 16). �� 89 Figure 6.38 a Galatas: Megali Magoula (25): the view to the west and north towards Troizina (80).�� 90 Figure 6.38 b Galatas: Megali Magoula (25): the view to the north and east towards Limanaki 1 (48) and Limanaki 2 (99), the straits of Poros, the island of Poros and the straits between Poros and Galatas.�� 90 Figure 6.38 c Phourkaria (61): the view to the southeast, south and southwest towards the island of Hydra.�� 90 Figure 6.39 Walking distances, cost boundaries and fortifications (400–300 BC).�� 92 Figure 6.40 Walking distances, cost boundaries and fortifications (300–235 BC).�� 92 Figure 6.41 Walking distances, cost boundaries and fortifications (235–146 BC).�� 93 Figure 6.42 Benteni Kiapha (16): the southwest wall from the southeast.�� 94 Figure 6.43 Kazarma (39): satellite-image with sketch plan (Google Earth 2013).�� 94 Figures 6.44 a–b The masonry at Kastraki (35) (above) and Kazarma (39) (below).�� 95 Figures 6.45 a–b The cross section of the south tower at Kastraki (35) (above) and tower II at Kazarma (39) (below).�� 96 Figure 6.46 Andritsa: Goulas (9): the cistern. �� 99 Figure 6.47 Agios Adrianos (3): the cistern from the south.�� 99 Figure 6.48 Kazarma (39): the cistern from the east.�� 99 Figure 7.1 Walking distances in southern Attica.�� 107 Figure 7.2 Possible places of refuge: walking distances and cost boundaries.�� 108 Figure 7.3 Possible places of refuge: walking distances, cost boundaries, agricultural installations and the probable maximum altitude for olive cultivation (500 mamsl).�� 109 Figure 7.4 Possible places of refuge: walking distances, cost boundaries, agricultural installations and modern agricultural areas.�� 109 Figure 7.5 The surface pottery assemblage from the drystone circuit at Vigliza (85) by functional category (after Penttinen 1996b: 268–70).�� 110 Figure 7.6 Crossbar cuttings at Elliniko: Kephalari (23) (outer door).�� 113 Figure 7.7 Crossbar cuttings at Kampia (32).�� 113 Figure 7.8 Cuttings for a double crossbar at Agios Adrianos (3).�� 114 Figure 7.9 Areas above an altitude of 500 mamsl (with fortifications by type).�� 115 Figure 7.10 Areas with a slope above 10° (with fortifications by type).�� 116 Figures 7.11 a–c Ancient press beds at Andritsa: Goulas (9) (a), Ierakas (28) (b) and Mykinai (51) (c).�� 118 Figures 7.12 a–d Ancient press weights at Asini (14) (a), Elliniko Astrous (21) (b), Mykinai (51) (c), and Troizina (80) (d). �� 118 Figures 7.13 a–d Ancient olive mills at Amygdalitsa (7) (a), Iliopoulaiika (30) (b), Pyrgouli (71) (c) and Malantrenion (101) (d). �� 119 Figure 7.14 The distribution of ancient agricultural installations at fortifications in the Argolid.�� 120 Figure 7.15 The distribution of portable finds (connected to specific agricultural or industrial activities) at fortifications in the Argolid.�� 122 Figure 7.16 The pottery assemblages from Agios Sostis (5) and Prosymna: Pyrgouthi (69) by functional category (after Cloke 2016: 901 and Penttinen 2005: 23–89).�� 123 Figure 7.17 The pottery assemblages from two unfortified rural sites from the NVAP by functional category (after Cloke 2016: 682–87, 799–818).�� 123

iv

List of Tables

Table 2.1 Sediment deposits on the Argive plain (after Fouache and Gaki-Papanastassiou 1997; Fouache 1999).�� 9 Table 2.2 a Land use in the ancient Argolid: olives.�� 14 Table 2.2 b Land use in the ancient Argolid: cereals.�� 14 Table 2.2 c Land use in the ancient Argolid: vines.�� 15 Table 2.2 d Land use in the ancient Argolid: legumes.�� 15 Table 2.2 e Land use in the ancient Argolid: tree crops.�� 15 Table 2.2 f Land use in the ancient Argolid: pastoralism.�� 16 Table 2.2 g Land use in the ancient Argolid: wood.�� 16 Table 2.2 h Land use in the ancient Argolid: hunting.�� 16 Table 2.2 i Land use in the ancient Argolid: beekeeping.�� 16 Table 2.2 j Land use in the ancient Argolid: salt panning.�� 17 Table 2.2 k Land use in the ancient Argolid: fishing.�� 17 Table 3.1 Towers and possible towers in the Argolid.�� 25 Table 3.2 Fortified settlements and possible fortified settlements in the Argolid. Bibliographic references to individual finds at these sites can be found in the catalogue.�� 28 Table 3.3 Forts and possible forts in the Argolid.�� 30 Table 3.4 Drystone circuits in the Argolid.�� 30 Table 4.1 The width and stock length of stone-throwing palintones.�� 37 Table 4.2 The width and stock length of arrow-shooting euthyones, reconstructed from washers at Ephyra and the Mahdia shipwreck.�� 37 Table 4.3 The outer dimensions of the hexagonal towers (in meters). �� 38 Table 4.4 a The hypothetical inner dimensions of the hexagonal towers: battlements (width 0.4–0.8, all measurements in meters).�� 38 Table 4.4 b The hypothetical inner dimensions of the hexagonal towers: mudbrick walls (width 1.35–2.15; Miletus: 1.35–1.8; Samos: 1.35; all measurements in meters).�� 38 Table 4.4 c The hypothetical inner dimensions of the hexagonal towers: stone walls (width 0.4–1.42, Samos: 0.75–1.35, all measurements in meters).�� 38 Table 4.5 a The hypothetical stock length of catapults at the hexagonal towers (battlements; all measurements in meters).�� 39 Table 4.5 b The hypothetical stock length of catapults at the hexagonal towers (mudbrick walls; all measurements in meters).�� 39 Table 4.5 c The hypothetical stock length of catapults at the hexagonal towers (stone walls; all measurements in meters).�� 39 Table 6.1 Site clusters in the territory of Epidauros.�� 75 Table 6.2 Site clusters in the territory of Argos.�� 77 Table 6.3 Average monthly run-off from a tiled roof (10m2) in the Argolid.�� 100 Table 6.4 Average monthly run-off from a stone surface (10m2) in the Argolid.�� 100 Table 6.5 Estimated storage volume for a catchment area of 81m2 (tiled), a garrison of 16 men and a water consumption of 5 litres per day per person.�� 101 Table 6.6 Estimated storage volume for a catchment area of 77m2 (stone), a garrison of 16 men and a water consumption of 5 litres per day per person.�� 101 Table 6.7 Estimated storage volume for a catchment area of 230 m2 (stone), a garrison of 16 men and a water consumption of 15 litres per day per person.�� 102 Table 6.8 Estimated storage volume for a catchment area of 195 m2 (stone), a garrison of 40 men and a water consumption of 5 litres per day per person.�� 102

v

vi

Acknowledgements This monograph — completed during my time as Esmée Fairbairn Junior Research Fellow in Classics at New College, Oxford — is largely based on the research I undertook while writing my DPhil at Corpus Christi College, Oxford. Neither the DPhil thesis nor the monograph would have been possible without the help and support of many people in Oxford and beyond. Although the following list of names and institutions surely remains incomplete, I would like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to those who contributed to my research over the past years. First and foremost, I would like to thank all those within the Greek Archaeological Service who made it possible for me to study the numerous sites that feature in this monograph. In particular, I am very much indebted to the present and former directors of five ephorates: Dr Alkistis Papadimitriou of the Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida, Dr AnnaVasiliki Karapanagiotou and Dr Konstantinos Kissas of the Ephorate of Antiquities of Arkadia, Panagiota Kasimi of the Ephorate of Antiquities of the Korinthia, Evangelia Pantou of the Ephorate of Antiquities of Lakonia, and Dr Stella Chryssoulaki of the Ephorate of Antiquities of Piraeus and the Islands. Without their kind permission to photograph more than 100 fortified sites, this monograph would not have been possible, and I would like to express my gratitude for their generosity. I would also like to thank Dr Anastasia Gadolou at the Directorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities (Department of Archaeological Sites and Monuments) for her invaluable help in applying for the permits to photograph the various archaeological sites, and Tania Gerousi at the BSA for her advice and support in submitting the necessary applications. Secondly, I would like to thank my DPhil supervisor, Dr Maria Stamatopoulou, for all her patience, support and encouragement, both during my time as a doctoral student and beyond. I am very grateful to Maria for opening my eyes to the potential of the material in hand, for her comments and suggestions, for her assistance in obtaining publications, maps and permissions necessary for this research, and most of all for her enduring confidence that a study of rural fortifications in the Argolid is both feasible and worthwhile. Thirdly, I am greatly indebted to my friends and colleagues Dr Peter Haarer and Dr Marco Raabe, who accompanied me on my fieldwork in the Argolid. Without their patience, endurance and humour in the face of all adversity (from unexpected snakes and uncooperative dogs to the omnipresent pournari), their keen eyes for pottery and polygonal masonry, and of course their immense skill in manoeuvring a car along windy mountain tracks my research would never have been possible. Thinking back to this fieldwork, I would also like to thank the people of the Argolid — the local farmers, villagers, beekeepers and shepherds I had the pleasure of meeting during my travels. I am very grateful for their eagerness to share their unique local knowledge of the Argolid’s landscape and its obscure archaeological sites, for their hospitality, for their patience with my unusual questions and limited modern Greek, and for their genuine (and to the archaeologist hugely encouraging) delight in seeing a visitor take interest in their local sites. Without their help and co-operation, this monograph would look very different and would not have been such a pleasure to write. Furthermore, I would like to thank all those who made it possible for me to access archaeological and archival material, especially Dr Jutta Stroszeck, Dr Joachim Heiden and Dr Anne Fohgrub at the DAI Athens (for access to the DAI’s archive and archaeological collection), the ASCSA (for access to the ASCSA Student Papers) and Gian Piero Milani at the BSA (for access to several images from the BSA’s aerial photograph collection). I would also like to express my gratitude to all authors, artists and copyright holders who very kindly granted permission for the reproduction of plans and images: Prof. Jean-Pierre Adam, Prof. John M. Fossey, Ginette Gauvin, Dr Yvonne Goester, Dr Matthew Maher, Prof. Anna Philippa-Touchais, Prof. Curtis Runnels, Prof. Gilles Touchais, the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, the British School at Athens, the German Archaeological Institute at Athens, the French School at Athens, the Swedish Institute at Athens, the Archaeological Institute of America, the American Journal of Archaeology, Indiana University Press and Stanford University Press. For the images published in the article Goester 1993, the Netherlands Institute in Athens, Dr Yvonne Goester and myself have tried our best to identify and consult the copyright holders. The copyright of all photographs of archaeological sites taken by the author belongs to the Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Organization of Cultural Resources Development and the relevant Ephorates.

vii

There are also many people who have contributed to this monograph ‘behind the scenes’ — academically, administratively and otherwise. In particular, thanks are due to Dr Lita Tzortzopoulou-Gregory at the AAIA, Vicky Tzavara at BSA, and the team at Archaeopress, especially Dr David Davison and Erin McGowan. I am also very grateful to the wonderful staff at Corpus Christi College and New College — the porters, librarians, kitchen and hall staff, and especially the maintenance team, who very kindly made the north arrow and scale bar for my fieldwork. I would also like to express my gratitude to the Clarendon Scholarship, Corpus Christi College, the Thomas Whitcombe Greene Fund and the Meyerstein Bequest for generously funding my studies and fieldwork. In writing this monograph, I have profited greatly from many conversations and discussions with colleagues in Oxford and beyond. In particular, I would like to thank Prof. Andrew Wilson and Prof. Sylvian Fachard, who examined my DPhil thesis and whose comments proved invaluable on the path from the thesis to the monograph. I am especially grateful to Prof. Sylvian Fachard for several valuable discussions on Greek rural fortifications and for generously sharing his knowledge on the excavations on Argos’ Aspis. I would also like to express my gratitude to my former college advisor Dr Jaś Elsner, to my colleagues Stephen Anderson, Dr Chloe Colchester, Dr Pieter Houten, Robin Lane Fox, Prof. Jane Lightfoot, Dr Thomas Mannack, Prof. Andrew Meadows, Dr Milena Melfi and Dr Claudia Wagner, and to the late Dr Mark Whittow, who provided much encouragement during the early stages of this project and will be very sadly missed. Furthermore, I would like to thank numerous friends and family members for their help, support and encouragement over the past years, especially Rosmarie and Eddy Blomley, Blagovesta Atanassova, Ioannis Chalazonitis, William Guast, Stylianos Ieremias, David Leake, Christina Marini, Patrick Meyer-Higgins, Nefeli Piree Iliou, Geraldine Porter, Daniel Sawyer, Grace Stafford, Fleur Stolker, Daphne Vlanti and Chris Vogel. Very special thanks are due to Jonathan Griffiths, Theodore Hill and Sydney Taylor, who with great generosity and diligence undertook much proofreading for my work, and to Peter Haarer, for whose patience and support over the past years I am more grateful than a simple acknowledgement can express. Finally, I am indebted — more than to anyone else — to my parents Joseph and Marina, who have been a source of immeasurable and unfailing support, encouragement and love over the past 30 years. This monograph is dedicated to them as a small token of my gratitude.

viii

Note to the Reader On the transliteration of Greek toponyms, personal names and pottery terms This study uses the following spelling conventions: Modern Greek toponyms (including all toponyms used to refer to specific ancient fortifications in the Argolid) are transliterated according to the guidelines for contributors to the Annual of the British School at Athens,1 while ancient toponyms, political communities and larger regions are referred to by the names in general use in anglophone scholarship (e.g. Athens, Corinth and the Peloponnese). This means that different spellings of the same toponym are used to describe an archaeological site and the associated ancient community. For example, ‘Mykinai’ and ‘Asini’ refer to archaeological sites, while ‘Mycenae’ and ‘Asine’ denote the associated ancient political communities. If alternative spellings for the same toponym are in general use in anglophone scholarship (e.g. ‘Kleonai’ and ‘Cleonae’), the form closer to the Greek (in this case ‘Kleonai’) is given preference over the latinised version (‘Cleonae’), with the exceptions of ‘Attica’, ‘Carthage’, ‘Corinth’, ‘Crete’, ‘Cyclades’, ‘Cyprus’, ‘Mycenae’ and ‘Syracuse’. For personal names, this study also uses different spelling conventions for ancient and modern names: modern personal names are not transliterated, while ancient authors are referred to by the form conventionally used in anglophone publications (for example Herodotus instead of Herodotos and Plutarch instead of Plutarchos). For objects, especially pottery shapes, the conventional scholarly names are used, choosing spellings with ‘k’ rather than spellings with ‘c’ (e.g. ‘krater’ not ‘crater’) and if applicable using the plural ending ‘-ai’ instead of ‘-ae’ (e.g. ‘lekanai’ not ‘lekanae’). The only exception is the plural of ‘amphora’, which will be spelt ‘amphorae’.

On sites names and catalogue numbers In the Argolid, ancient sites are often known under different names. In this study, each fortification is referred to under one main toponym (in transliteration as discussed above) and the catalogue number in parentheses. In the maps, the sites are labelled by catalogue number. Alternatives toponyms are not mentioned in the thesis itself, but are listed in the descriptive catalogue.

The descriptive catalogue A descriptive catalogue of fortified sites in the Argolid is included as an appendix. It is divided into five sections: ‘A. Fortifications in the Argolid’, ‘B. Possible fortifications in the Argolid’, ‘C. Fortifications and possible fortifications in the Argolid: location unknown’, ‘D. Fortifications and possible fortifications in the Argolid: now destroyed’ and ‘E. Structures inconclusively or erroneously identified as ancient fortifications in the Argolid’. For each site, the catalogue includes the following information (if known): the main modern toponym, alternative modern toponyms, the ancient name, the location, the type of fortification, the approximate size, the masonry style, a short description of the site, its finds and its chronology, further information (such as the site’s visibility or its historical context) and a short bibliography. Whenever possible, the location of the individual sites was recorded with a handheld GPS device. These precise coordinates form the basis for the study’s maps and GIS-analyses, but for the protection of the archaeological sites were not included in the catalogue. The final manuscript for this monograph was submitted in April 2021. Any research published after this date could unfortunately not be included.

1 Guidelines on the transliteration of Modern Greek, viewed 10 March 2021, .

ix

x

Chapter 1

Introduction were never collected in a single corpus and have not yet been studied systematically. It is this lacuna that the present monograph aims to fill with the first regional study of ancient fortification in the Argolid.

1.1 Approaching a landscape of conflict The modern Argolid is a region of contrasts: from fertile plains to inhospitable mountain ranges, from the harbours of Nafplio and Porto Cheli to the landlocked valley of Prosymna, from the urban centre of Argos to innumerable rural villages. At the centre of this varied natural and man-made landscape lies the Argive plain. Covering more than 80km2 and surrounded by numerous subsidiary valleys, this fertile lowland forms the region’s agricultural heartland, as well as one of the key crossroads of southern Greece (Figure 1.1).1

1.2 Fortification studies: a brief history of scholarship Many of the Argolid’s fortified structures first appeared in archaeological scholarship through the writings of foreign travellers. An unusually early example is the 15th-century diary of Ciriaco de’ Pizzicolli (also known as Cyriacus of Ancona),7 while the majority date to the 19th century.8 Most travellers were eager to draw connections between military events mentioned by ancient authors and the archaeological remains they encountered in the landscape around them.9 Their writing thus laid the foundations for a ‘military-strategic’ approach to ancient rural fortifications, which still continues to influence Classical scholarship today.

Over the centuries, the inhabitants of the Argolid paid a heavy price for this strategically and economically desirable location — the brutal Spartan destruction of Argive Hysiai in 417 BC,2 Pyrrhus’ attack on Argos in 272 BC,3 the events vividly documented at the 6th-century AD refuge cave at Andritsa,4 the Battle of Dervenakia during the Greek War of Independence5 and the German occupation of 1943–19446 are just some among the many episodes of violence in the region’s history. Even today, the Argolid’s landscape bears witness to past conflicts and is visually dominated by fortified structures such as the Bronze Age citadels of Mycenae, Midea and Tiryntha, the Byzantine, Venetian and Ottoman walls on Argos’ Larissa and Nafplio’s Palamidi hill, and the more recent concrete constructions that guard the northern entrance of the Argive plain.

Building on this work, many further fortifications were located and recorded in subsequent topographical research, especially during studies on the Argolid’s ancient road network10 and in various surface surveys: 7 See for example Diary V, 63–69 for a description of Ciriaco’s visit to the fort of Agios Adrianos (3) in AD 1448 (Wolters 1915: 91–100; Bodnar 1960: 63–64; Bodnar and Foss 2003: 335–39). 8 The most important 19th- and early 20th-century travellers’ reports are Gell 1810, 1817; Dodwell 1819; Gell 1823; Pouqueville 1826; Gell 1829; Leake 1830a, 1830b; Trant 1830; Le Puillon de Boblaye 1836; Forchhammer 1837; Ross 1841; Leake 1846; Wordsworth 1846; Curtius 1851, 1852; Forchhammer 1857; Rhankabes 1857; Vischer 1857; Clark 1858; Conze and Michaelis 1861; Bursian 1862, 1872; Μηλιαράκης 1886; Le Bas, Landron, and Reinach 1888; Philippson 1892; Παρασκευόπουλος 1895; Omont 1902; and Frickenhaus and Müller 1911. Further useful resources are Steffen and Lolling 1884 (documenting archaeological sites in the vicinity of Mykinai (51)), two unpublished papers on the Hermionid (Jameson and Jameson 1950) and the valley of Soulinari (Winter 1950) in the archive of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, and the extracts from the diaries of A. Frickenhaus, W.A. Müller, W. Wrede and K. Gebauer in the archive of the German Archaeological Institute at Athens (D-DAI-ATH-Archiv-NL-Wrede, referred to in the following as Wrede 1959). I am very grateful to the ASCSA and the DAI for giving me the opportunity to access these documents. 9 For example, the now-lost remains at Ellinon Lithari (113) on the Tretos pass were quickly associated with the ‘Tower of Polygnotos’ mentioned in Plut. Arat. 6–7 (Curtius 1852: 512; Bursian 1872: 39). Tausend 2006: 19 followed this traditional identification, whereas Bynum 1995: 60, 83–84, 99 argued for a location of this structure at Agios Sostis (5). Πίκουλας 1995: 177, 348–49; Πιτερός 1997e: 361 suggested an alternative identification with the tower of Phichtia: Limiko (58). 10 For example Pritchett 1980, 1982; Πίκουλας 1995; Jansen 2002; Tausend 2006; Marchand 2009a, 2009b; Tausend 2020. Most of these

In this strongly fortified landscape, defensive structures from the Archaic, Classical or Hellenistic period seem few and far between, and are often dwarfed by their Bronze Age neighbours and predecessors. However, closer study reveals that this impression is misleading. In reality, nearly 150 fortified structures in the region can be associated (although sometimes only tentatively) with one or several periods of Classical antiquity. Most of these fortifications are located in rural areas and are visually less prominent than urban defences. This may in part explain why these sites have so far received comparatively little scholarly attention, 1 The routes through the region will be discussed in detail in chapter 6, its landscape in chapter 2. 2 Thuc. 5.83; D. S. 12.81.1. 3 Plut. Pyrrh. 31–34. 4 Κορμαζοπούλου and Χατζηλαζάρου 2005. 5 On the Battle of Dervenakia (1822), see for example Gallant 2015: 81–82. 6 On the German occupation of the Argolid, see for example Kalyvas 2006: 254–65.

1

A Landscape of Conflict? Rural Fortifications in the Argolid (400–146 BC)

Figure 1.1 The landscape of the northeastern Peloponnese.

2

Chapter 1: Introduction

the Argolid Exploration Project (mostly referred to as the Southern Argolid Survey (1972 and 1979–82)),11 a survey of the plain of Astros (1976–9),12 the Laconia Rural Sites Project (1983–88),13 the Berbati-Limnes Archaeological Survey (1988–90),14 and the Nemea Valley Archaeological Project (NVAP) (1984–1990).15 Two further surveys have been conducted since the 1990s (the Western Argolid Regional Project (WARP) and the Troizen Archaeology Project), but have so far not been published in detail.16

textbook on Greek military architecture. Closely related to these studies are publications on the developments of Greek artillery and siege-craft, for example E.W. Marsden’s ‘Greek and Roman Artillery from 399 B.C. to the 4th century A.D.’ (1969) and Y. Garlan’s ‘Recherches de poliorcétique Greque’ (1974). More recently, publications that focus on particular types of fortified sites (e.g. F. Lang’s ‘Archaische Siedlungen in Griechenland. Struktur und Entwicklung’ (1996), R. Frederiksen’s ‘Greek City Walls of the Archaic Period, 900–480 BC’ (2010), or O. Hülden’s ‘Das griechische Befestigungswesen der archaischen Zeit’ (2020)) or aim to provide a methodological overview (especially ‘Ancient Fortifications. A Compendium of Theory and Practice’ edited by S. Müth and others (2016)) were added to this list of synthetic works.

Despite the increasing number of fortifications recorded since the 1970s, excavations at fortified sites in the Argolid remain rare, and usually focus on urban rather than rural sites.17 Notable exceptions are L. Lord’s 1930s excavations at various towers around the Argive plain18 and the work carried out by the Swedish Archaeological Institute at the tower of Prosymna: Pyrgouthi (69) between 1995 and 1997.19

Besides studies that discuss fortifications throughout the Greek world and beyond, regional fortification studies provide a contrasting and complementary approach to Greek fortified structures. Scholars had already begun to experiment with such studies in the early 20th century,22 but it was not until J. Ober’s influential (and controversial) ‘Fortress Attica. Defense of the Athenian Land Frontier, 404–322 B.C.’ (1985) and M.H. Munn’s ‘The Defense of Attica. The Dema Wall and the Boiotian War of 378–375 B.C.’ (1993) that regional approaches rose to prominence in ancient fortification research. Following J. Ober’s work in Attica, further regional fortification studies were conducted in many parts of the Greek world, including Sicily,23 Epeiros,24 Achaia Phthiotis,25 Lokris,26 the Phokis,27 Arkadia,28 Karia,29 Central Anatolia,30 Cyprus,31 Crete,32 Euboia,33 Siphnos34 and the Cyclades.35 In many of these studies, fortified sites were viewed primarily as military-strategic defensive networks,36 but more recent publications (such as S. Fachard’s work on the fortifications of Eretria37) suggest that interpreting

Unlike ‘travellers’ reports’, synthetic research on Greek fortifications remained rare throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries20 — with the exception of masonry studies21 — and it was not until the 1970s and 1980s that the study of ancient fortifications developed into an independent field of archaeological research. This turning point in the history of Greek fortification studies is marked by the publication of F.E. Winter’s ‘Greek Fortifications’ (1971) — a work which together with A.W. Lawrence’s more technical ‘Greek Aims in Fortification’ (1979), J.P. Adam’s ‘L’architecture militaire Greque’ (1982) and A. McNicoll’s ‘Hellenistic Fortifications from the Aegean to the Euphrates’ (1997) is still considered a standard studies were based on extensive fieldwork, which until the advent of handheld GPS devices, satellite imagery and GIS-based data collection still largely followed the methods used by 19th-century travellers, relying heavily on local informants and ancient literary sources. 11 Jameson et al. 1994; Runnels et al. 1995. 12 Goester 1983, 1993. 13 Cavanagh et al. 1996. 14 Wells, Runnels, and Zangger 1990; Wells and Runnels 1996. 15 Wright 1990; Cloke 2016. 16 For the Western Argolid Regional Project, see Gallimore et al. 2017; Tetford, Desloges, and Nakassis 2018; Caraher et al. 2020; Erny and Caraher 2020; James 2020; ‘Western Argolid Regional Project (WARP)’ (preliminary project information), viewed 5 August 2018, . For the Troizen Archaeology Project, see Fouquet 2015; ‘Troizen Archaeology Project’ (preliminary project information), viewed 5 August 2018, . Further fortifications have been published in the Αρχαιολογικόν Δελτίον or feature in regional site catalogues (e.g. Simpson 1965; Φαράκλας 1972a, 1972b, 1972c, 1973; Leekley and Noyes 1976; Simpson and Dickinson 1979; Foley 1988; Simpson and Hagel 2006). However, most of these catalogues focus on Bronze Age sites. 17 For example at Argos (12) (e.g. Philippa-Touchais and Touchais 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011; Philippa-Touchais and Fachard 2015; Philippa-Touchais 2016; Philippa-Touchais et al. 2016), Asini (14) (e.g. Frödin 1938; Wells 1992; Penttinen 1996a) or Porto Cheli (64) (e.g. McAllister 2005). 18 Lord 1938, 1939, 1941. 19 Hjohlman et al. 2005. 20 A rare exception is La Noë 1888. For a history of scholarship, see for example Hülden 2020: 17–35. 21 See for example Wrede 1933; Säflund 1935; Scranton 1941.

For example in Attica (Tillyard 1905) or Siphnos (Δραγάτσης 1920). Karlsson 1992. 24 Dausse 2003, 2011. 25 Chykerda 2010: 100–24; Chykerda, Haagsma, and Karapanou 2014a: 20–22, 2014b: 287–301. 26 Dakoronia and Kounouklas 2019. 27 Typaldou-Fakiris 2004. 28 Maher 2012, 2015, 2017. 29 Pimouguet-Pédarros and Geny 2000. 30 Vergnaud 2012. 31 Balandier 1999, 2002. 32 Coutsinas 2011, 2013. 33 Reber 2002; Fachard 2012; Chatzidimitriou and Chidiroglou 2014; Seifried and Parkinson 2014; Seifried 2017. 34 Ashton 1991; Davies 1998; Birkett-Smith 2000. 35 Louyot 2005; Louyot and Mazarakis Ainian 2005; Louyot 2008; Lambertz and Ohnesorg 2018. Regional fortification studies were also the focus of several conferences, for example Leriche and Tréziny 1986; Maele and Fossey 1992; Brunet 1999b; Kourtessi-Philippakis and Treuil 2011. 36 See for example Maele 1982: 199–205; Fossey 1986: 135–41; Osborne 1987: 155; Fossey 1992: 128–30; Gauvin 1992: 145; Maele 1992: 106; Skorda 1992; Πίκουλας 1995; McInerney 1999: 343–46; Topouzi et al. 2002: 559–66. 37 Fachard 2012. A further regional study that highlights the nonmilitary function of ancient fortifications is Lambertz and Ohnesorg 2018 on the towers of Naxos. 22 23

3

A Landscape of Conflict? Rural Fortifications in the Argolid (400–146 BC) rural fortified structures solely as ‘territorial defences’ may be oversimplified. This tension between different regional approaches gives rise to the main questions addressed in the present monograph: what is the purpose of ancient fortifications in the Argolid? Were they constructed primarily or exclusively as ‘defensive networks’ or did they also fulfil functions beyond a strictly military-strategic role?

Despite this ‘regional’ use of the terms Ἀργολίς and Ἀργεία, the pre-Roman Argolid did not form a coherent political or even cultural unit. Politically, the area was divided between numerous city-states (Argos, Epidauros, Halieis, Hermion, Kleonai, Methana, Mycenae, Orneai, Phleious, Tiryns and Troizen),45 as well as other communities that were over time incorporated into the territories of their neighbours (for example Asine and Nauplia).46 In the western part of the region, Argos gradually developed into a dominant political centre, so that by the Late Classical period the city’s territory included the formerly independent settlements of Asine,47 Nauplia,48 Tiryns,49 Mycenae50 and Orneai51 around Argive plain, as well as Kleonai52 to the north and parts of the Thyreatis to the south.53

1.3 Defining the Argolid Before addressing these questions, it is necessary to define the monograph’s scope of study, both geographically and chronologically. Today, the ‘Argolida’ or ‘Argolis’ is one of the five regional units of the Peloponnese, comprising of the Argive plain, the surrounding mountain ranges and the greater part of the Akte peninsula.38 Its name derives from one of three adjectives connected to the toponym Argos: ἀργολίς, ἀργολικός and ἀργεῖος.39 All three terms first appear as adjectives in connection with a noun (for example τὴν ἀργολίδα χώρην)40, but by the second half of the 5th century BC Ἀργολίς and Ἀργεία had developed into toponyms in their own right.41 By the Roman period, both terms could not only be applied to the territory of Argos,42 but also to a wider region. For example, Pausanias and Herodian use the term Ἀργολίς (and in some instances Ἀργεία)43 to refer to an area that includes most of the northeastern Peloponnese.44

In contrast, none of the four cities on the Argolic Akte (Epidauros, Troizen, Hermion and Halieis) developed into a dominant regional centre, and — although the four Aktaian cities often fought alongside each other54 — disputes between them are equally attested.55 The Kalaureian Amphictyony, probably founded before the middle of the 7th century BC,56 originally included the cities of Hermion, Epidauros, Aigina, Athens, Prasiai (later replaced by Sparta), Nauplia (replaced by Argos) and the Boiotian Orchomenos,57 but there is no evidence that it served political or military functions besides its cultic role.58 Piérart 2004: 600, 602–17. Piérart 2004: 600, 2006: 20–21. Asine was probably incorporated into the Argive territory during the late 8th century BC (Frödin 1938: 437; Kelly 1976: 44–46, 64–66; Piérart 2004: 600; Ratinaud-Lachkar 2004; Piérart 2006: 20–21). 48 Kelly 1976: 45, 88–89; Piérart 2004: 602. The historicity of the Argive invasion of Nauplia is doubted by Hall 1995b: 583–84 due to the lack of evidence for a Spartan connection of the city (supposedly the Argives’ motive for its destruction (Paus. 4.24.4, 4.27.8, 4.35.2)) and the insignificance of deep-water harbours in the Archaic period. Instead, Nauplia may have become a dependent polis (Piérart 2004: 602). 49 Kelly 1976: 45–46; Piérart 2004: 615. 50 Piérart 2004: 612. 51 Piérart 2004: 612; Shipley 2018: 283. 52 For the incorporation of Kleonai into the Argive territory, see section 5.1. 53 The extent and chronology of the Argive control over the Kynouria and Thyreatis will be discussed in section 5.1. Herodotus’ claim that Argos once controlled the western coast of the Gulf as far south as Cape Malea and the island of Kythera (Hdt. 1.82.2) is usually considered as unlikely (Kelly 1976: 40, 73, 116–17; Piérart 2004: 599). 54 Hdt. 8.43, 8.72, 9.28.4, 9.31.3–4; Thuc. 1.27.2, 8.3.2; Xen. Hell. 4.2.16, 6.2.3, 7.2.2. 55 IG IV2. i 75 (early 2nd century BC); IG IV 751 (late Hellenistic), 791 (late Hellenistic); Piérart 2004: 600. 56 The foundation of the amphictyony is traditionally dated by the terminus ante quem of the 7th-century BC destruction of Nauplia (Kelly 1966: 119; Tausend 1992: 13; Jameson et al. 1994: 68). In contrast Hall 1995a: 584–85 suggested that the amphictyony may not have been founded until the Hellenistic period, and included the transfer from Nauplia and Prasiai to Argos and Sparta in a deliberately archaising foundation history. 57 Str. 8.6.14 (Wilamowitz-Moellendorff 1935: 102; Kelly 1976: 74; Tausend 1992: 12–16; Jameson et al. 1994: 66; Piérart 2004: 600). 58 Tausend 1992: 16–19; Jameson et al. 1994: 67–68. Kelly 1966: 119–21 suggested that the amphictyony may originally have been founded as a coalition against Argos, but later abandoned this idea (Kelly 1976: 74). 45

The northeastern Akte and the peninsula of Methana (as well as the islands of Poros, Hydra and Spetses) form part of the adjacent Nison regional unit. 39 The term ἀργολίς — usually only attested in the feminine form, rather than as the rare masculine ἀργόλας (for ἀργόλας, see for example E. Rh. 41; E. fr. 630 (TrGF); Ar. fr. 311 (PCG) (Hoenigswald 1980: 105–06; Leukart 1994: 307–308; Piérart 2004: 599)) — is first attested in the 5th century BC (A. Supp. 236; E. HF 1016; Hdt. 1.82.2, 6.92.1), but remains rare until the Augustan period. The ktetikon ἀργολικός (probably first attested in Hdt. 4.152.4) is more common and can be used to describe geographical features as well as objects (Hoenigswald 1980: 105; Piérart 2004: 599). For a use of ἀργολικός with geographical features (especially the Argolic Gulf), see for example Dem. 52.5; Scyl. 49, for a use with objects, see Hdt. 4.152.4. Unlike ἀργολίς, ἀργολικός is also attested in inscriptions, where it usually specifies metal objects (κρατῆρες Ἀργολικοί (IG II² 1424a (369/68 BC); IG II² 1425 (368/67 BC)); κυναῖ χαλκαῖ ἀργολ[ικαὶ (SEG xix 129 (352/51 BC)) or weight standards (δραχμὰς Ἀργολικοὺς (IG IV². i 97 (3rd century BC)). One exception is Kaibel 932 (235–200 BC) from Sidon, where ἀργολικός refers to the Nemean games. The ethnic ἀργεῖος is already attested in the Homeric epics, where it can be used metonymically for all the Greeks (Drews 1979: 116; Wathelet 1992: 105; Hall 1995b: 580, 1997: 90; Cingano 2004: 60; Piérart 2004: 599). On the Homeric use of the toponym Ἄργος for the city of Argos, the Argive plain, the Peloponnese and Greece as a whole, see Wathelet 1992: 99–105, although Drews 1979: 121–24 previously doubted that the term could denote the plain or the Peloponnese. From the 7th century BC onwards, ἀργεῖος also served as a proper city ethic (Piérart 2004: 599). 40 Hdt. 6.92.1. 41 For example, Thuc. 5.75.4; Plut. Ages. 31.6 (Hirschfeld 1896a, 700; Hirschfeld 1896b, 728). 42 Ἀργεία: Paus. 2.18.1. 43 Paus. 2.1.1. 44 Hdn. De prosodica catholica. 3.1.20, 3.1.279; Paus. 3.23.6, 4.2.4, 8.1.2, 8.4.6, 10.9.10, 10.15.1 (Hirschfeld 1896a: 700, 1896b: 728; Piérart 2004: 599).

46

38

47

4

Chapter 1: Introduction

Culturally, the ‘Argolid’ was equally diverse. Unlike the inhabitants of neighbouring Arkadia,59 the population of the Argive plain and the Akte were not united by an ethnonym or myth of origin,60 a shared dialect61 or a common Archaic local script,62 nor by local cults63 or common funerary customs.64 The ‘Argolid’ thus not only remains politically fragmented, but also lacks the linguistic and cultural characteristics of an ethnic group.65

Throughout the Late Classical and Hellenistic period, individual city-states were key in shaping the Argolid’s history.68 Besides the local city-states of Argos, Epidauros, Halieis, Hermion, Kleonai and Troizen, the city of Sparta played a particularly important role, exerting considerable influence even after the battle of Leuktra in 371 BC.69 In contrast to the traditional Argive-Spartan enmity of the Classical period and the 4th century BC,70 the cities’ relationship during the 3rd and 2nd centuries BC was more ambivalent, ranging from a brief Argive-Spartan alliance in 225 BC71 to Nabis’ Spartan control over Argos in 197 BC.72

Strictly speaking, the present study thus aims to investigate fortifications in the territory of Argos and on Akte, rather than fortifications in the ‘Argolid’. Nevertheless, the term ‘Argolid’ will be used for convenience’s sake, although (unless explicitly stated) not for the modern administrative unit ‘Argolida’, but rather for the wider area of the Argive territory and the Aktaian cities. This area largely overlaps with the ‘Argolida’, but unlike the modern administrative unit also includes the southeastern part of the Akte, the territory of Kleonai and parts of the Thyreatis and Kynouria.66

In discussing the role of different city-states, it is important to point out that individual communities did not always act as coherent polities, but that internal division or stasis was a recurring event in the political history of the Peloponnese. The cities of the Argolid were no exception: for example Argos experienced a period of particularly violent stasis in 370 BC.73 Beyond individual city-states and their alliances, formal leagues or confederacies (in particularly the Achaean League) are a major feature in the politicomilitary narrative of the Argolid.74 The Achaean League’s emergence and history are closely linked to another key agent in the Hellenistic Peloponnese: the kingdom of Macedon. From the 340s until 197 BC, the Macedonian kings exerted various degrees of control over individual Peloponnesian city-states, which was often cemented through local garrisons75 or the installation of pro-Macedonian rulers.76 However, there are no signs of an imposition of Macedonian royal bureaucracy; their main interest in the Argolid seems to have been geostrategic rather than territorial.77

As chapter 4 of this monograph will demonstrate, the overwhelming majority of datable fortifications in this area belong to the period after c. 400 BC. The political history of the Late Classical and Hellenistic Argolid has been addressed in several recent studies, and thus does not need to be repeated here.67 For the purpose of this introduction, it must suffice to draw attention to the different ‘agents’ that dominate the region’s politicomilitary narrative.

Nielsen 1999: 22–36. Argos was considered as Dorian (with an additional Achaian and Pelasgian population), Asine and Halieis as Dryopean, Midea, Mycenae and Tiryns as Achaian, and Epidauros, Hermion and Troizen as Dorian and Ionian. Furthermore, ancient authors mention Karians in Epidauros and Hermion, Dryopes in Hermion and Troizen, and Achaians in Epidauros (Hall 1995a: 11, 1997: 67–77). 61 Hall 1995a: 13, 1997: 156–58. On the differences between the West Argolic and the East Argolic dialect, see for example Bartoněk 1972; Fernández Alvarez 1981. 62 Jeffery and Johnston 1990: 114–82; Hall 1997: 149–52. 63 For example, cults of Apollo, Poseidon and Demeter are common on the Akte from the 8th century BC onwards (for example at Epidauros, Kalaureia, Troizen and Halieis), but not on the Argive plain (Hall 1995a: 13, 1997: 101). Although at least two cultic associations are known from the region (the Kalaureian Amphictyony and the cultic association of Apollo Pythaieus), both include cities outside the ‘Argolid’ (Tausend 1992: 10–19), and therefore cannot be considered as markers of a distinctive shared culture. 64 Hall 1995a: 13; Dimakis 2016, but see also Schlehofer 2018: 167–72 for similarities between funerary practices in different parts of the region. 65 For typical ‘markers’ of ethnicity in Classical antiquity, see for example Hall 1995a: 9, 1997: 22–25, 32–33. 66 However, the region of study does not include the valley at the head of the Asopos river, which belonged to the independent Phleious (Meyer 1941: 272; Alcock 1991: 425–28; Piérart 2004: 613). 67 See for example Kralli 2017; Shipley 2018. For less recent studies of the Argolid’s history, see for example Μίτσος 1945; Tomlinson 1972; Jameson et al. 1994: 73–101. 59 60

For a recent assessment of the role of city-states in the history of the Hellenistic Peloponnese, see for example Shipley 2018: 288. 69 See for example Kralli 2017: 489; Shipley 2018: 36–37; Stewart 2018. 70 For the enmity between Archaic and Classical Argos and Sparta, see for example Shipley 2018: 132–133, for several 3rd-century BC conflicts between the two cities, see for example Polyb. 2.64 (222 BC); Polyb. 4.36.5 (219 BC). 71 Plut. Cleom. 17.4–5. 72 Liv. 32.38–39. 73 D. S. 15.57–58. For stasis in the Late Classical and Hellenistic Peloponnese, see for example Gehrke 1985: 31–34, 53–57, 84–87, 103– 06, 127–31, 146–50, 154–59; Shipley 2018: 126–54. 74 See for example Jameson et al. 1994: 90; Kralli 2017: 162–63, 169–70 for the incorporation of Argos, Epidauros and Troizen into the Achaean Leagues. 75 For Antigonid garrisons, see for example Shipley 2018: 105–26. For a Macedonian garrison at Argos between 315 and 303 BC, see for example Piérart 2000: 309; Shipley 2018: 106; for a Macedonian garrison at Troizen before 270 BC, see for example Jameson et al. 1994: 88; Gill 2007: 61; Fouquet and Kató 2017: 103. 76 For a list of Peloponnesian ‘tyrannies’ and their ‘sponsors’ between 371 and 197 BC, see Shipley 2018: 99–103. 77 See for example Shipley 2005: 319–21. 68

5

A Landscape of Conflict? Rural Fortifications in the Argolid (400–146 BC) The Macedonians were not the only Hellenistic power interested in strategically important locations on the Peloponnese. During the mid 3rd century BC, Ptolemy II Philadephos established a number of naval bases around the Saronic Gulf, including at Methana, which probably remained under Ptolemaic control until the mid 2nd century BC.78 The Ptolemaic kingdom thus clearly maintained an important strategic foothold in the region.

All 146 fortifications and possible fortifications in the Argolid are collected in a descriptive catalogue, which forms an appendix to this monograph. For each fortification, this catalogue includes the following information: the site’s ancient and modern name, alternative toponyms, altitude, location (if known), type, approximate size, masonry, description of the structural remains, summary of finds, a brief discussion of the site’s date, further information and a short bibliography.82

From the late 3rd century BC onwards, Rome increasingly appears as a further political agent. The Roman victory over Philip V at Kynoskephalai in 197 BC marks the end of Macedonian power in the Peloponnese, while the defeat of the Achaean League and the destruction of Corinth in 146 BC clearly established the Roman control over the region.79 This break in the Argolid’s politico-military narrative forms the chronological endpoint of the current study, even though both urban and rural fortifications continued to be inhabited long into the Roman period.80

The discussion of the sites and their surrounding landscape is presented in seven chapters. Chapter 2 focuses on the Argolid’s ancient environment, chapter 3 proposes a typology of fortified structures and chapter 4 creates the first systematic framework for dating ancient fortifications in the region. Chapter 5 discusses political structures and settlement patterns in the Argolid, chapter 6 explores the possible strategic role of rural fortifications, and chapter 7 considers their significance beyond a strictly ‘military-strategic’ function. The concluding chapter 8 offers a summary of the study’s main results.

1.4 Studying fortifications in the Argolid: an outline

By combining different sources and methods, the current monograph not only provides the first systematic study of rural fortifications in the Argolid, but also casts new light on wider issues, such as the interaction between natural environment and human activity, or the impact of different forms of conflict on everyday life in ancient communities. It thus not only contributes to our understanding of the specific region, but also serves as a case study to test the potential of GIS-based methods of data collection and analysis in the wider field of Greek landscape archaeology and fortification research.

As noted above, no systematic study of fortified structures within this geographic and chronological framework — the territory of Argos and the Argolic Akte between c. 400 BC and 146 BC — has yet been attempted. The present monograph aims to fill this lacuna by combining traditional approaches (e.g. extensive on-site observations, epigraphic research, and architectural studies) with GIS-based methods of data analysis, shedding new light on the functions of rural fortifications by placing them within the context of their surrounding landscape.81

78 See for example Gill 2007: 60–63; Fouquet and Kató 2017: 107; Meadows 2018: 135–36. 79 See for example Shipley 2005: 316; Kralli 2017: 311–79; Shipley 2018: 79–86, 90–91. 80 For the continued use of towers in the Argolid during the Roman period, see for example Σαρρή 2013, for Roman surface pottery from several sites, see for example Grigoropoulos 2011. 81 All GIS-analyses were performed with the programme ArcGIS 10.4.1, with an underlying digital elevation model (DEM) derived from the 1 arc-second SRTM digital elevation data (Digital elevation model, viewed 7 November 2015, ). For the use of GIS-based methods in previous fortification studies, see for example Topouzi et al. 2002; Chykerda 2010; Chykerda, Haagsma, and Karapanou 2014b; Seifried and Parkinson 2014.

This information was gathered from previous publications and during on-site visits. Sites that could not be located are listed in the catalogue, but could not usually be included in the analyses.

82

6

Chapter 2

The Landscape of the Ancient Argolid ancient environments, and provides crucial glimpses of the landscape that once surrounded the Argolid’s Late Classical and Hellenistic fortifications.

2.1 Setting the scene Like many parts of Greece, the modern Argolid is a region of ‘descriptive toponyms’ – place names that invoke particular landscape features or agricultural practices. In many cases, these toponyms are recognisable in the modern environment: for example, the village of Elaiochorion (‘Olivevillage’) in the southwestern Argolid is surrounded by olive groves. Elsewhere, toponyms are a mere memory of previous land use: no vineyards exist today on the slopes of Ampelotopia (‘Vineyards’) and salt-making at Alatovouni (‘Salthill’) has long ceased.1

2.2 Landscape changes: from tectonics to vegetation Geologically, the northeastern Peloponnese is a very dynamic area, which throughout its human history experienced significant seismic and volcanic activity.5 Reason for these phenomena is the region’s location on the ‘Aegean microplate’ between the converging Eurasian and Greek plates in the north, the Anatolian and South Marmara plates in the east, and the African plate in the south.6 Its most notable volcanic feature is the island of Methana,7 last active in the 3rd century BC.8 Other volcanic deposits in the region predate the Classical period.9

The idea that Mediterranean agricultural environments may have changed significantly over time is by no means new. For example, Aristotle proposed that ‘during the Trojan War the Argeia was able to support only few inhabitants, because it was marshy, but Mycenae was prospering and therefore more famous. But now the opposite is the case […]: for the one has become unproductive and completely dry, while the other, which had once been unproductive because of its stagnant pools, has become serviceable.’2 Regardless of whether such drastic developments did in fact occur, this passage acts as a reminder of the close and reciprocal relationship between shifting environmental conditions and changes in pre-modern socio-economic and political structures.3 Any study that aims to understand archaeological sites such as fortifications in the context of their surrounding landscape must therefore take into account long-term changes in natural environment, agricultural activities and pastoralist practices.

Seismic activity is more widespread, and is occasionally even mentioned by ancient authors. For example, the Spartans abandoned an expedition against Argos after an earthquake in the summer of 414 BC,10 while in 373 BC the cities of Helike and Bura on the Corinthian Gulf were destroyed in a seismic event.11 Earthquakes in the Argolid usually do not exceed M=7 in magnitude,12 but studies have shown that even earthquakes of only c. M=4.3 can have a considerable impact on landscape formation, for example by triggering increased soil erosion.13 Although individual seismic events are difficult to trace archaeologically, they may thus have contributed significantly to environmental changes over the last 2500 years.

In contrast to modern scholars, ancient authors show comparatively little interest in environmental changes — the above-quoted passage is certainly an exception rather than the rule.4 Consequently, modern geological, climatological, archaebotanical, archaeozoological and palynological research plays a key role in studying

For seismic events in ancient, Byzantine and early modern sources, see Ambraseys and Jackson 1990: 672; Ambraseys 1996: 29; 2009. For recent seismic events, see Nyst and Thatcher 2004: fig. 1. 6 For a summary of different deformation patterns proposed for the eastern Mediterranean, see Nyst and Thatcher 2004: 33–41. 7 Mee, Forbes, and Atherton 1997: 7; Pe-Piper and Piper 2013: 147. 8 For this eruption, see Stothers and Rampino 1983: 6366; Fytikas et al. 1986; Jameson et al. 1994: 17; Higgins and Higgins 1996: 39; Mee, Forbes, and Atherton 1997: 5; Ambraseys 2009: 90–91; Pe-Piper and Piper 2013: 151. It is mentioned by Str. 1.3.18; Paus. 2.34.1 and Ov. Met. 15.296–306. According to Paus. 2.34.1 it took place during the reign of Antigonos, either Antigonos Gonatas (Higgins and Higgins 1996: 39) or Antigonos Doson (Ambraseys 2009: 90). 9 Pe-Piper and Piper 2013: 150. 10 Thuc. 6.95.1. 11 Paus. 7.24.12; D. S. 15.48.2–3; Str. 1.3.18. Bousquet, Dufaure, and Péchoux 1983: 9; Horden and Purcell 2000: 305; Bresson 2016: 33. 12 Ambraseys 1996: 29–30. 13 Malamud et al. 2004: 57. For direct and indirect impacts of earthquakes, see for example Stiros 2016: 193–94. 5

Ampelotopia is located on a western spur of Mount Arachnaion, Alatovouni between modern Ermioni and Thermisia. For the saltworks at Thermisia (closed in 1928), see Jameson et al. 1994: 311. 2 Arist. Met. 352a. 3 For the ‘ecological framework’ of economic and social developments in ancient Greece, see for example Bresson 2016: 31–70. 4 Hughes 2014: 6. Another rare example is the discussion of the deforestation of Attica (Pl. Criti. 111c). The historical value of this passage remains much disputed (see for example Meiggs 1982: 188– 189; Horden and Purcell 2000: 331), although Harris 2011 argued that deforestation had in fact occurred in Attica by the Classical period. 1

7

A Landscape of Conflict? Rural Fortifications in the Argolid (400–146 BC)

Figure 2.1 Watersheds in the northwestern Argolid and sedimentary deposits on the Argive plain (deposits after Fouache 1999: 170, fig. 49).

Soil erosion and the deposition of sediments belong to the most important landscape formation processes in the Argolid, with a significant impact on the region’s agricultural potential and the survival or visibility of archaeological materials.14 To understand the processes that shaped the Holocene sediments of the Mediterranean, archaeologists have long relied on C. Vita-Finzi’s model of two phases of sediment formation during the last glacial period (the ‘Older Fill’) and the Late Roman or early modern period (the ‘Younger Fill’).15 However, more recent data collections contradict the notion of a two-stage, uniform and monocausal sediment deposition, and instead emphasise the importance of regional processes.16

Roman sediment deposits can be divided into three zones (Figure 2.1): a zone of coarse deposits on the northern plain (c. 1–2m deep), a zone of fine deposits in the southeast (c. 0.5–1m deep) and a zone laid down by the irregular floods of the Inachos and Xerias rivers (c. 4–8m deep).18 Beyond the Argive plain, the sedimentary history of the southern Akte was investigated as part of the Southern Argolid Survey,19 leading to the identification of seven different phases of sediment deposition.20 Three of these phases were laid down during the Pleistocene and thus considerably predate the period of this study,21 while four phases belong to the Holocene (the ‘Pikrodhafni’

The Argolid’s most extensive Holocene sediment deposition occurred on the Argive plain. Thanks to investigations in the 1980s and 1990s,17 the area’s post-

1997; Fouache 1999: 169–92 (including a study of the stratigraphic context of archaeological sites). For the results of more recent geomorphological studies in the area to the south of Argos (PhilippaTouchais et al. 2012: 800–02; 2016: 818–27), see below. 18 Fouache and Gaki-Papanastassiou 1997; Fouache 1999: 169–92. 19 This study included the analysis of aerial photographs, a terrain survey and a study of soil profiles (Pope and Andel 1984: 282; van Andel 1986: 107; van Andel, Zangger, and Demitrack 1990: 381; Jameson et al. 1994: 173–74). The chronology of the different phases of deposition was established through archaeological sites and artefacts, radiocarbon dates and historical information, as well as uranium/thorium disequilibria for periods prior to the Bronze Age (Pope and Andel 1984: 283–84; Pope, Runnels, and Ku 1984; van Andel 1986: 107; Jameson et al. 1994: 175). 20 Pope and Andel 1984: 282; van Andel 1986: 108; van Andel, Zangger, and Demitrack 1990: 381; Jameson et al. 1994: 174–75, 182. 21 The ‘Lower Loutro’ (280,000–244,000 BP), the ‘Middle Loutro’ (c. 60,000 BP) and the ‘Upper Loutro’ (42,000–35,000 BP). For the current dating of these deposits, see Jameson et al. 1994: 188. For a previous chronology, see Pope and Andel 1984: 293.

Cherry 1983: 397; Simpson 1983: 45, 1984: 116; Terrenato 2000: 60; Given 2004: 18–19. For a recent study of the relationship between soil loss and archaeological artefact exposure in the Inachos valley (western Argolid), see Tetford, Desloges, and Nakassis 2018. 15 Vita-Finzi 1969. For the application of this model in Greek archaeology, see for example Bintliff 1975; 1976; 1977. 16 For example Butzer 1969; Raphael 1973: 86–89; Kraft, Aschenbrenner, and Rapp 1977; Davidson 1980; Wagstaff 1981; Pope and Andel 1984; Bintliff 1992: 10–11; 2002; Jameson et al. 1994: 184; Higgins and Higgins 1996: 24–25; Fuchs 2007: 349. 17 The studies include Finke 1988; van Andel, Zangger, and Demitrack 1990; Zangger 1993 (based on detailed topographical maps (1:5000), 81 core samples and stratigraphic observations in riverbeds or construction trenches) and Fouache and Gaki-Papanastassiou 14

8

Chapter 2: The Landscape of the Ancient Argolid

Thickness of sediment in m

Area in km2

Approximate volume of sediment in m3

0.5–1

29.11

14,555,000–29,110,000

1–2

82.9

82,900,000–165,800,000

4–6

24.59

98,360,000–147,540,000

all sediments

Argolid. Moving along the Argolic Gulf from west to the east, the southwestern-most area is the coastal plain of Astros — a plain that was formed through sediment deposition and had already reached its present extent by c. 3000 BC.30 No indications of sea-level changes were so far recorded at Astros, but further south submerged cuttings and steps at the harbour of ancient Zarax suggest a sea-level rise of at least 3m since antiquity.31

195,815,000–342,450,000

Table 2.1 Sediment deposits on the Argive plain (after Fouache and Gaki-Papanastassiou 1997; Fouache 1999).

Moving further east, the development of the northern Argolic Gulf is strongly linked to the sedimentary history of the Argive plain,32 which had largely reached its modern extent by c. 1100 BC.33 Two exceptions are the shoreline south of Tiryntha (which at least until the Roman period ran several hundred metres inland and was characterised by coastal marshes)34 and a marshy freshwater lagoon at the mouth of the Erasinos river. While previous studies suggested that this lagoon — known as Halkyonian Lake or Lake Lerna (Figure 2.1)35 —had largely silted up during the Late Bronze Age before expanding again during the Late Hellenistic or Roman period,36 more recent research indicates the existence of a shallow lake throughout antiquity.37 Both Tiryntha and the mouth of the Erasinos were thus more difficult to access from the sea in antiquity than they are today, while having access to some marginal coastal resources that have since disappeared.38

(2500–1000 BC), the ‘Lower Flamboura’ (350–50 BC), the ‘Upper Flamboura’ (AD 400–1700) and the ‘Kranidhi’ (since AD 1700)).22 Based on this stratigraphy and the volume of deposited sediment, the authors of this study not only argued for human agency as a possible cause of erosion,23 but also estimated that c. 0.5–0.6m of upland soil were lost during the last 5000 years. If the region is divided into a northern and a southern zone, the estimated soil loss amounts to c. 0.4m in the north and 1m in the south, suggesting that in the Classical period the southern Akte in particular was richer in soil than it is today.24 Attempting a similar estimate for the uplands around the Argive plain, the results — though very tentative — seem roughly comparable. According to E. Fouache and K. Gaki-Papanastassiou’s study of post-Roman alluvia,25 an estimated 195,815,000–342,450,000m3 of sediment have been deposited on the Argive plain since the Roman period (Table 2.1 and Figure 2.1).26 This material must originate in the drainage basins around the plain (approximately 730km2 (Figure 2.1)),27 which suggests an average sediment loss of at least 0.27–0.49m since the Roman period, although erosion must have occurred to a varying extent in different geomorphological settings.28

To the east of the Argive plain, the shoreline at Asini largely resembled the modern coast by the Late Helladic period, except in an area north of the Kastraki hill, where a small inlet — now silted up — may have provided the Hellenistic settlement with a sheltered harbour.39 Judging by sedimentary deposits and a now submerged wall west of the acropolis, the sea-level was probably c. 2m lower in the Classical and Hellenistic period than it is today.40 Goester 1993: 43. Flemming, Czartoryska, and Hunter 1973: 8. The results of this study were presented in Zangger 1993, Finke 1988 and in several articles (e.g. Finke and Malz 1988; Niemi and Finke 1988; Zangger 1991; 1994a). The development of Lake Lerna was also summarized by Knauss 1996: 125–62. 33 Zangger 1993: 64. 34 Zangger 1991: 13, 1993: 64–65. 35 Str. 8.6.2; Paus. 2.37.5–6. 36 Finke and Malz 1988; Niemi and Finke 1988: 133–135; Zangger 1991, 1993: 62–65. 37 Philippa-Touchais et al. 2016: 826–27. This study also suggests that the lake extended further to the north than previously suggested. 38 Zangger 1993: 65–67 also suggested a sea-level rise of c. 0.5–1.2m since the Early Bronze Age, but this figure is at odds with the now destroyed remains of a mole at Nafplio, which lie c. 3m below the present surface (Negris 1904: 352–53). 39 Zangger 1994b: 232–33. This study is based on detailed topographical maps (1:5000) and 18 core samples (Zangger 1994b: 221, 226–27). 40 Zangger 1994b: 236–37. Both the date and the function of this wall are unclear. While Frödin 1938: 56 reported bricks and therefore suggested a Venetian date, Zangger (1994b: 233) dated the wall to the Hellenistic period. It has been variously interpreted as a coincidental accumulation of rocks (Bintliff 1977: 315), a landing quay (Frost 1963: 101), a harbour basin (Frödin 1938: 56 rejected by 30

The movement of sediment also played an important role in shaping the region’s coastlines, together with other factors such as tectonic activity and global eustatic sea-level changes (caused by variations in the amount of water stored as ice-sheets).29 Historic coastline changes have so far been studied in five areas of the

31 32

22 Pope and Andel 1984: 292–93; van Andel 1986: 109; van Andel, Zangger, and Demitrack 1990: 382–83; Jameson et al. 1994: 188. 23 Pope and Andel 1984: 299–302; van Andel 1986: 108–26; van Andel, Zangger, and Demitrack 1990: 382–83; Jameson et al. 1994: 191–92. 24 van Andel 1986: 110–11; Jameson et al. 1994: 192–94. 25 Fouache and Gaki-Papanastassiou 1997: 314–15; Fouache 1999: 170– 71. 26 This figure is only a very rough estimate, as the calculated volume of sediment does not include alluvia deposited in former marshes or below sea-level. 27 The plain is here defined as the area below 60 mamsl. 28 See for example Tetford, Desloges, and Nakassis 2017 and 2018 for varying rates of soil erosion in the Inachos valley. 29 van Andel 1989: 734; Higgins and Higgins 1996: 12; Grove and Rackham 2001: 328–29; Pirazzoli 2005; Stewart and Morhange 2009: 390–93, 402–05; Walsh 2014: 31–36.

9

A Landscape of Conflict? Rural Fortifications in the Argolid (400–146 BC)

Figure 2.2 The Argolic and the Saronic Gulf: drainage basins and areas most susceptible to coastline changes.

10

Chapter 2: The Landscape of the Ancient Argolid

Moving to the Akte, many coastlines are characterised by transgression rather than progradation. The main reason is a substantial sea-level rise: according to radiocarbon-dated samples from Porto Cheli, the sea-level between c. 1500 BC and the late 3rd century AD was at least 5.3m lower than today,41 a figure that finds support in the submerged archaeological sites at Porto Cheli, Phourkaria, Lakkes, the Korakia Island and the bays of Kranidi and Potokia.42 As a result, coastal fortifications such as Phranchthi (62) and Vigla (84) were originally located further away from the sea.

Epidavros, Poulithra, Phokianou, Kyparissi and Vathy Avlaki (Figure 2.2).47 Returning to the Argolid’s inland areas, one of the most important factors that influenced the region’s agricultural potential and settlement patterns was the availability of water. The region has three main groundwater sources, which can be tapped by wells or emerge on the surface as springs: the contact zone between limestone and impermeable flysch or ophiolite,48 alluvial fills49 and karst springs50 such as the source of the Erasinos at Kephalari.51 Modern springs and wells can often help to identify sources of water in the vicinity of ancient fortifications, but abandoned wells demonstrate that in many parts of the region the groundwater level has dropped significantly since antiquity.52 In addition, the sea-level rise mentioned above has limited the availability of freshwater in coastal areas.53 Without more detailed research, a precise reconstruction of the groundwater supply of individual ancient sites in the Argolid therefore remains challenging.

Changes in sea-level have also been recorded on the southern coast of the Saronic Gulf. Submerged archaeological sites, beachrock phases and wave notches,43 suggest a local sea-level curve with a period of sea-level stability at c. -3.3m (from c. 1800 BC to the late 4th or 6th century AD) and three steps in sea-level rise to c. -0.9m (4th–6th century AD), c. -0.55m (AD 1555– 1838) and to the present level.44 This sea-level rise has important implications for reconstructing the ancient shoreline, for example at Palaia Epidavros, where the harbour was even more enclosed and defensible in antiquity than it appears today.45

Similarly, the exact course of streams and rivers in the region is difficult to reconstruct.54 The southern Argolid is characterised by numerous but comparatively small drainage basins, while the northern and western Argolid is dominated by the large basins of the Inachos, Xerias (the ancient Charadros),55 Erasinos, Xavrio and Tanos (Figures 1.1 and 2.2). With the exception of the Erasinos, most streams and rivers in the region are seasonal or only carry water periodically,56 but whether

Without further fieldwork, it is impossible to say for certain how sea-level changes and the movement of sediment affected the coastline beyond these areas, but together the studies indicate that shallow coastlines with comparatively large drainage basins were most susceptible to change through sediment deposition.46 Although this identification of ‘dynamic’ coastlines is admittedly speculative, the areas most susceptible to change would include the plains of Iria, Kantia, Asini, Argos and Astros, as well as the bays of Palaia

This includes several areas of high modern coastal vulnerability (Gaki-Papanastassiou et al. 2010). 48 For example in the valley of Phournoi and on the Iliokastro plateau (Jameson et al. 1994: 171) or on the east slope of Argos’ Larissa (Crouch 2004: 115). 49 For example in the Ermioni valley (Jameson et al. 1994: 171) or on the plain of Argos (Crouch 2004: 115). 50 Karst springs develop when rainwater is collected in large, flat basins (poljes) and drains through sinkholes or dolines into underground drainage systems, before re-emerging at the surface elsewhere (Crouch 1993: 67–78; Higgins and Higgins 1996: 13–15; Walsh 2014: 79). 51 Ancient authors connected the source of the Erasinos at Kephalari with sinkholes at Stymphalos (Hdt. 6.76.1; D. S. 15.49.5; Str. 6.2.9, 8.6.8; Paus. 2.24.6 (Pritchett 1965: 122–23, 132; Burdon 1967; Stringfield and Rapp 1977; Crouch 1993: 66; 2004: 113)), but it belongs to a subterranean drainage system combining water from Stymphalos, Alea and Skotini (Morfis and Zojer 1986; Higgins and Higgins 1996: 49; Crouch 2004: 113–15). 52 Harper 1976: 49; Jameson et al. 1994: 169–71. For the distribution of water-sources in the region today, see for example Ματσούκα et al. 2008; Συρίγος et al. 2009. 53 For example by submerging coastal springs (Harper 1976: 49; Jameson et al. 1994: 171) or contaminating springs with sea water (Jameson et al. 1994: 171). 54 Especially on coastal plains, the course of rivers has changed considerably since antiquity. For example, a 5th-century BC bridge over the Xerias already ceased to function in the 4th or 3rd century BC (Fouache and Gaki-Papanastassiou 1997: 318; Fouache 1999: 177). On the course of the Xerias, see also Πιτερός 1998b: 180–85. 55 Baladié 1980: 70–73; Fouache 1999: 173. 56 Zangger 1993: 18; Jameson et al. 1994: 169; Higgins and Higgins 1996: 45; Fouache and Gaki-Papanastassiou 1997: 316; Fouache 47

Flemming, Czartoryska, and Hunter 1973: 7; Zangger 1994b: 233) or an underwater fortification to prevent ships from approaching the Kastraki hill (Zangger 1994b: 233). When assessing the coastal topography west of the Kastraki hill, it should also be noted that large quantities of soil were dumped in the area during early excavations (see for example Frödin 1938: 45, fig. 27). 41 Jameson et al. 1994: 199–210. An exception may be the eastern side of the bay of Koilada, where the shoreline may have shifted seawards through alluvial deposits (Jameson et al. 1994: 208). For the preClassical development of the bay of Koilada, see also Surdez et al. 2018. 42 Flemming, Czartoryska, and Hunter 1973: 7; Flemming 1978: 411; Jameson et al. 1994: 200; McAllister 2005: 85–97. 43 Kolaiti and Mourtzas 2016: 74–75. Previous studies on sea-level changes in the Saronic Gulf were conducted at Kenchreai (Flemming, Czartoryska, and Hunter 1973: 4; Scranton, Shaw, and Ibrahim 1978: 144–47), Korphos (Nixon, Reinhardt, and Rothaus 2009), Kalamianos (Dao 2011) and Aigina (Knoblauch 1969, 1972). Further submerged archaeological sites were recorded at Palaia Epidavros (Κριτζάς 1972; Flemming, Czartoryska, and Hunter 1973: 5; Flemming 1978: 411) and Methana (Flemming, Czartoryska, and Hunter 1973: 5). On the problems of using wave-notches to reconstruct past sea-levels, see Pirazzoli and Evelpidou 2013. 44 Kolaiti and Mourtzas 2016: 45–89. 45 For the harbour of Palaia Epidavros, see Kolaiti and Mourtzas 2016: 77–78, for the recent excavation of a submerged Late Roman villa to the south of Palaia Epidavros, see Davidde Petriaggi et al. 2019. 46 van Andel, Zangger, and Demitrack 1990: 380–81; Jameson et al. 1994: 195.

11

A Landscape of Conflict? Rural Fortifications in the Argolid (400–146 BC) this was also the case in the Classical and Hellenistic periods strongly depends on the ancient climate.

the end of the Hellenistic period, perhaps indicating an abandonment of previously cultivated farmland.65

On the Peloponnese, historic data on climatic developments are mostly derived from proxies in cave speleothems or lake sediments.57 Although they are difficult to match chronologically,58 these proxies suggest a significant degree of climate variability over the last 2500 years. Sediments from Asea and Lerna indicate an increasingly dry and warm climate from c. 600 BC onwards, which reached its peak around 300 BC, before showing a trend towards a higher humidity.59 In contrast, the speleothems from Alepotrypa indicate an arid period between 1750 BC and 600 BC, followed by wet conditions that prevailed until AD 300 (though interspersed with dry spells around 350 BC and AD 50– 150),60 while the Kapsia Cave records three ‘dry to wet’ climate cycles around 950–400 BC, 400 BC–AD 150 and AD 150–650.61

Another development visible in the pollen record at Lerna is an increase in swamp vegetation from c. 300 BC onwards.66 Chronologically, this corresponds to a humid phase in the climate reconstructions from Alepotrypa and Kapsia,67 perhaps suggesting that the climate in the Argolid did indeed become wetter during this period. Besides recording variations in forest, maquis and swamp vegetations, pollen records also chart the intensity of olive cultivation in different locations and periods. For example, the pollen record from Thermisi shows a notable rise in olive cultivation from 850 BC onwards, which reaches its peak in the Classical and Hellenistic period, before declining in Early Roman times.68 Conversely, olive pollen continues to be common at Lerna into the Early Roman period.69 2.3 Land use: agriculture, pastoralism and ‘marginal’ resources

Closely connected to climatic developments is the Argolid’s Late Classical and Hellenistic vegetation history. In general, the region was characterised by similar species as it is today, especially conifers, deciduous trees, evergreen maquis species, ericaceae, grasses, sedges, cereals, olive and vine.62 Looking at the individual pollen records in more detail reveals changes in vegetation across antiquity, as well as local variation. For example, semi-natural woodland had largely disappeared around Kleonai by the Roman period,63 while Koilada in the southern Akte experienced a strong increase in forest vegetation (abies, pinus and platanus) from the end of the Geometric period onwards.64 Both at Lerna on the Argolic Gulf and at Thermisi in the eastern Akte, woodland and maquis pollen increased at

Building on these pollen records, the remaining part of this chapter sets out the most important evidence for agriculture, pastoralism, and the exploitation of marginal or maritime resources in the Classical and Hellenistic Argolid, combining literary, epigraphic, archaeological, archaeobotanical, archaeozoological and osteoarchaeological material.70 One of the main challenges of examining ancient land use is that some crops and ‘resource management strategies’ are archaeologically more ‘visible’ than others.71 For example, vines are usually underrepresented in pollen records,72 while remains of crops that require only little processing are less likely to survive than those that are parched before consumption.73 Cultivation regimes and processing techniques that required specialise tools similarly ‘generate’ more identifiable archaeological

1999: 173–77. 57 Bonnier and Finné 2020: 1484. For speleothems, see for example the studies from the Kapsia and Alepotrypa caves (Finné et al. 2011; 2014; Finné 2014; Boyd 2015), for lake sediments, see the studies from Asea (Unkel et al. 2014), Stymphalos (Unkel et al. 2011; Heymann et al. 2013; Seguin et al. 2019) and Lerna (Katrantsiotis et al. 2019), as well as Pheneos and Kaisari (Seguin et al. 2020). For a summary and comparison of different paleoenvironmental records from the Peloponnese, see Weiberg et al. 2016: 42–44; Finné and Weiberg 2018: 274; Seguin et al. 2020. Since the northeastern and the southwestern Peloponnese in part follow different climatic trajectories (Katrantsiotis et al. 2019), climate proxies from the southwestern Peloponnese are not included in the present overview. 58 Finné and Weiberg 2018: 272–76; Bonnier and Finné 2020: 1484. 59 Unkel et al. 2014: 101–02; Katrantsiotis et al. 2019: 46. 60 Weiberg et al. 2016: 58. 61 The cycles are interrupted by brief spells of wetter conditions around 850 BC, 700 BC, 400–100 BC, AD 160–300 and AD 770. For the results from Kapsia, see Finné 2014: 42; Finné et al. 2014: 224–25; Weiberg et al. 2016: 58. 62 Sheehan 1979a: 324; Atherden and Hall 1994: 125; Jameson et al. 1994: 17, 161. For the species recorded at the individual sites, see Sheehan 1979b; 1979a: 321; Bottema 1990: fig. 47; Atherden et al. 1993: 354, fig. 2; Jahns 1993: 195. For various issues in using pollen data to reconstruct vegetation histories, see for example Fuchs 2007: 352; Kouli et al. 2015: 70–72. 63 Atherden, Hall, and Wright 1993: 353–55; Atherden and Hall 1994: 125; Kouli et al. 2015: 77. 64 Bottema 1990: 124–27.

Jahns 1993: 197–200; Jameson et al. 1994: 168–69; Weiberg et al. 2016: 49. Kouli 2012: 275 noted a similar development in the pollen record from Vavron (Attica). 66 Jahns 1993: 198–98. 67 Zangger 1993: 64–65. He also pointed out that this phase corresponds to a peak in porotic hyperstosis in human bones from southern Greece, a condition that was previously used as a proxy for malaria (Angel 1966: 761–62, 1972: 100), but is probably related to nutritional megaloblastic anaemia (Keenleyside and Panayotova 2006: 377–81; Walker et al. 2009: 109, 114). 68 Jameson et al. 1994: 168–69. Interestingly, a similar chronological development in the cultivation of olives has been observed at Vavron in Attica (Kouli 2012: 275). 69 Jahns 1993: 197; Kouli et al. 2015: 77. 70 Since the Argolid does not possess major geological resources (Jameson et al. 1994: 301), mines and quarries are not included in this overview. 71 In literary sources, the cultivation of specific crops is only rarely attested. A rare exception could be Theophr. HP 7.4.2; Ath. 2.56f; Plin. HN 19.75, which mention a specific variety of ‘Kleonian’ radishes. 72 Atherden, Hall, and Wright 1993: 355. 73 Sarpaki 1992: 72. 65

12

Chapter 2: The Landscape of the Ancient Argolid

Figure 2.3 Evidence for ancient land use in the Argolid (after Table 2).

13

A Landscape of Conflict? Rural Fortifications in the Argolid (400–146 BC)

Type

Location

Date

Description

Reference

archaeobotanical

Lerna

4th-century BC

olives

Hopf 1961: 243, 1962: 4.

archaeobotanical

Prosymna: Pyrgouthi (69)

Classical and Hellenistic

olives

Sarpaki 2005: 318, 336.

archaeological

Amygdalitsa (7)

uncertain

olive mill

Πιτερός 1997: 144.

archaeological

Berbati-Limnes FS 502

uncertain

olive mill

Forsell 1996: 305, 336.

archaeological

Berbati-Limnes FS 504

uncertain

olive mill

Forsell 1996: 318.

archaeological

Chalasmata (location uncertain, perhaps FS 504?)

uncertain

olive mill

Πίκουλας 1995: 171, 366.

archaeological

Elliniko: Kephalari (23)

uncertain

possible olive mill

Lord 1939: 82.

archaeological

Iliopoulaiika (30)

uncertain

olive mill

Wright 1990: 610; Πίκουλας 1995: 237, 365; Gauvin 1997: 32; Cloke 2016: 911–12.

archaeological

Karnezeika

uncertain

olive mill

Jameson and Jameson 1950: 89.

archaeological

Lygourio 1 (49)

uncertain

olive mill

Πιτερός 2000: 198–99.

archaeological

Malantrenion (101)

uncertain

olive mill

Pritchett 1980: 19; Πίκουλας 1995: 193, 365.

archaeological

Myloi: Kalamaki (137)

uncertain

olive mill

Lord 1941: 108.

archaeological

Phichtia: Limiko (58)

uncertain

olive mill

Πίκουλας 1995: 177, 365; Jansen 2002: 79.

archaeological

Phichtia: Stathmos (60)

uncertain

olive mill

Lord 1939: 82, 1941: 95; Πίκουλας 1995: 183, 365.

archaeological

Pyrgouli (71)

uncertain

possible olive mill

Πιτερός 2005e: 268.

archaeological

near Skaphidaki (Pigadaki (123))

uncertain

possible olive mill

Πίκουλας 1995: 211, 366

archaeological

Southern Argolid B 78

Late Classical or Early Hellenistic

olive mill

Jameson et al. 1994: 457; Kardulias and Runnels 1995: 131.

archaeological

Southern Argolid C 11

uncertain

olive mill

archaeological

Southern Argolid E 7

Late Classical or Early Hellenistic

olive mill

Jameson et al. 1994: 484; Kardulias and Runnels 1995: 131.

archaeological

Stanotopaki

uncertain

olive mill

Cloke 2016: 780–81.

archaeological

near Vombiki

uncertain

two olive mills

Πίκουλας 1995: 365.

archaeological

Vourlia 1 (86)

uncertain

olive mill

Suto 1996: 11.

pollen

Koilada

Bronze Age – modern

olive pollen

Bottema 1990: 126–27.

pollen

Lerna

Bronze Age – modern

olive pollen

Jahns 1993: 197–98.

pollen

Thermisi

Geometric – modern

olive pollen

Jameson et al. 1994: 167–69.

Jameson et al. 1994: 467; Kardulias and Runnels 1995: 131.

Table 2.2 a Land use in the ancient Argolid: olives.

Type

Location

Date

Description

Reference

archaeobotanical

Prosymna: Pyrgouthi (69)

Classical

barley

Sarpaki 2005: 336.

archaeological

Southern Argolid E 76

uncertain, possibly possible threshing Classical – Early Roman floor

Table 2.2 b Land use in the ancient Argolid: cereals.

14

Jameson et al. 1994: 503.

Chapter 2: The Landscape of the Ancient Argolid

Type

Location

Date

Description

Reference

archaeobotanical

Prosymna: Pyrgouthi (69)

Classical

vine

Sarpaki 2005: 336.

archaeological

Nemea

1st-century BC

planting trenches

Πίκουλας 2003: 399–400.

Table 2.2 c Land use in the ancient Argolid: vines.

Type

Location

Date

Description

Reference

archaeobotanical

Prosymna: Pyrgouthi (69)

Classical

legumes

Sarpaki 2005: 336.

Table 2.2 d Land use in the ancient Argolid: legumes.

Type

Location

Date

Description

Reference

archaeobotanical

Prosymna: Pyrgouthi (69)

Classical or Hellenistic

almonds

Sarpaki 2005: 336.

archaeobotanical

Prosymna: Pyrgouthi (69)

Early Roman

figs

Sarpaki 2005: 336.

Table 2.2 e Land use in the ancient Argolid: tree crops.

material than those possible with multi-purpose equipment.74

(Figure 2.3), but this distribution pattern could in part be a result of the current state of research. Moveable equipment in perishable materials may also have been widespread,78 so that a lack of surviving agricultural equipment does not necessarily argue for an absence of olive cultivation.

Perhaps partly as a result of these issues, olives are by far the most frequently attested crop in the Argolid (Table 2.2 a), visible mainly through olive mills,75 archaeobotanical remains76 and pollen records.77 Sites of known olive production, processing or consumption are particularly common in the southern Akte, the northwestern Argolid and the valley of Prosymna

Both pre-Roman and undated sites of olive processing or consumption usually lie below 500 mamsl — even today the maximum altitude of olive cultivation in the Argolid79 — and are mainly found on slopes of less than 10°, which were cultivable without terracing.80 North-facing slopes are generally avoided, echoing the advice given in Theophrastus’ Historia Plantarum.81 The preferred substrates are alluvial deposits, flysch, marl or serpentine, while limestone was usually avoided.82 Fortifications in areas that share these characteristics are thus more likely to be associated with olive cultivation than those at higher altitude, on steeper slopes or on limestone.

An important issue that still remains unresolved is the extent to which agricultural terraces were used in antiquity to allow cultivation on slopes. While some scholars believed to have identified Classical terraces (for example Bradford 1956, 1957: 29–34; Lohmann 1993b) and have even suggested that terraces were widespread in antiquity (see for example Hanson 1995: 79–84), others have emphasised the difficulties of obtaining secure dates for surviving terraces walls (see for example Foxhall 1996: 60–64; Frederick and Krahtopoulou 2000: 90–91; Grove and Rackham 2001: 112–13; Price and Nixon 2005: 679). Perhaps the most thoroughly investigated case study are terraces on the island of Delos, where several test excavations were carried out in the soil behind the terrace walls. Based on these excavations, Brunet and Poupet 1997: 778–79; Brunet 1999a: 9 have argued that the investigated terraces predate the end of the 1st century BC, but doubts have been raised by subsequent scholars. For example, Foxhall 2007: 65 pointed out that the dateable pottery contained by the terraces walls merely provides a terminus post quem for specific soil strata. In written sources, the word αἱμασιά may refer to terrace walls (Robert 1945: 79–81; 1946: 137–38; Rackham and Moody 1992: 128; 1996: 143; Grove and Rackham 2001: 113), but none of the 36 attestations of this term collected by Price and Nixon 2005 is unambiguous (Foxhall 2007: 66–68). Therefore, secure evidence for Classical and Hellenistic terraces remains largely elusive, even though their use should certainly not be excluded. 75 On the different types of pre-Roman olive crushing equipment, see Brun 2004: 8–9. 76 At Lerna (Hopf 1961: 243; 1962: 4) and at Prosymna: Pyrgouthi (69) (Penttinen 2005: 318–19; Sarpaki 2005: 330–39). 77 At Kleonai (Atherden, Hall, and Wright 1993: 353–55; Atherden and Hall 1994: 124–25), Koilada (Bottema 1990: 126–27), Lerna (Jahns 1993: 197–98) and Thermisi (Jameson et al. 1994: 167–69). 74

Cereals played an even more important role in the ancient diet than olives, and probably accounted for as much as 70% of an individual’s average calorific intake.83 78 Foxhall 1993b: 192–99, 2007: 136; Mee, Forbes, and Atherton 1997: 261. 79 Foxhall 2007: 112. Only at Elliniko Astrous (21) several press weight blocks have been recorded above 500 mamsl (Goester 1993: 75–76). 80 Whitelaw 1998: 234 estimated that in antiquity slopes up to 10° could be cultivated without terracing. Exceptions are the press weights at ancient Elliniko Astrous (21) and the olive mill at Vourlia 1 (86). 81 Theophr. CP 2.3.1, 3.7.9. See also Foxhall 2007: 112. 82 The only exceptions are again Elliniko Astrous (21) and Vourlia 1 (86). 83 Bresson 2016: 120. For the role of cereals in the ancient diet, see for example Foxhall and Forbes 1982: 41; Garnsey 1999: 17–19. The

15

A Landscape of Conflict? Rural Fortifications in the Argolid (400–146 BC)

Type

Location

Date

Description

Reference

archaeozoological

Lerna

Classical

bones of sheep, goats, pigs, cattle and donkey

Gejwall 1969: 10.

archaeozoological

Nemea

6th- – 3rd-century BC

archaeozoological

Porto Cheli (64)

Classical

archaeozoological

Prosymna: Pyrgouthi (69)

Classical to Hellenistic

epigraphic

Epidauros

mid 4th-century

bones of cattle, sheep, goats and pigs at the sanctuary of Zeus

bones of sheep, goats and pigs at the sanctuary of Apollo

epigraphic

Epidauros / Hermion

2nd-century BC

osteoarchaeological

Asini (14)

Hellenistic

bones of horses, cattle, pigs, sheep, goats, dogs and birds

SEG xxvi 451: dedication as a tithe of the goats IG IV2. i 75 and SEG xi 377: border settlement between Hermion and Epidauros including grazing rights

human bones indicating a high meat consumption

Mackinnon 2013: 132. 137. Jameson et al. 1994: 287. 289; Jameson 2014: 205. Mylona 2005: 301. Μίτσος 1976; Jameson et al. 1994: 604. Jameson et al. 1994: 596–605; Harter-Uibopuu 1998: 72–80. Edward, Fossey, and Yaffe 1984: 45.

Table 2.2 f Land use in the ancient Argolid: pastoralism.

Type

Location

Date

Description

Reference

IG IV . i 76+77, IG IV 752: a border settlement between Arsinoe Jameson et al. 1994: 307; Harterand Troizen possibly Uibopuu 1998: 97–109. regulating woodcutting rights 2

epigraphic

Arsinoe / Troizen

2nd-century BC

Table 2.2 g Land use in the ancient Argolid: wood.

Type

Location

Date

Description

Reference

archaeozoological

Nemea

4th-century BC

hare bones at the sanctuary of Zeus

Mackinnon 2013: 132. 137.

archaeozoological

Porto Cheli (64)

4th-century BC

red deer bones at the sanctuary of Apollo

Jameson et al. 1994: 261.

Table 2.2 h Land use in the ancient Argolid: hunting.

Type archaeological

Location

Date

Prosymna: Pyrgouthi Late Hellenistic – Early (69) Roman

Description

Reference

sherds of pottery beehive

Penttinen 2005: 33. 35. 46. 48.

archaeological

Southern Argolid, B23

Classical – Hellenistic

a sherd of a pottery beehive

Jameson et al. 1994: 290. 447.

archaeological

Tsiorovos Dolianon (82)

probably Hellenistic

a sherd of a pottery beehive

Pritchett 1982: 76.

Table 2.2 i Land use in the ancient Argolid: beekeeping.

16

Chapter 2: The Landscape of the Ancient Argolid

Type

Location

Date

Description

Reference

IG IV . i 76+77, IG IV 752: a Jameson et al. 1994: 311; Harterborder settlement between Uibopuu 1998: 97–109; Marzano Arsinoe and Troizen 2013: 136. regulating salt panning) 2

epigraphic

Arsinoe / Troizen,

2nd-century BC

Table 2.2 j Land use in the ancient Argolid: salt panning. Type

Location

Date

Description

Reference

archaeological

Asini (14)

Hellenistic

fishing hooks

Frödin 1938: 336.

archaeological

Nemea

Hellenistic or Late Roman

fishing hooks

Miller 1976: 184, 1980: 194; Mylona 2008: 138.

archaeological

Porto Cheli (64)

6th- – 4th-century BC

fishing hooks

archaeozoological

Porto Cheli (64)

4th-century BC

fishbones

epigraphic

literary

Arsinoe / Troizen

Argos

2nd-century BC

Rose 2000: 530; Mylona 2008: 144.

IG IV2. i 76+77, IG IV 752: a border settlement Jameson et al. 1994: 311; Harterbetween Arsinoe and Uibopuu 1998: 97–109; Marzano Troizen regulating tuna 2013: 136. fishing

Arist. Rh. 1365a: epigram for a winner in the Olympian games, who transported fish from Argos to Tegea

Classical

Jameson et al. 1994: 315; Mylona 2008: 137.

Jameson et al. 1994: 313; Marzano 2013: 298–299.

Table 2.2 k Land use in the ancient Argolid: fishing.

However, they are archaeologically difficult to trace and only little evidence for their cultivation survives in the Argolid (Figure 2.3 and Table 2.2 b).84 This lack of evidence precludes any detailed reconstruction of ancient agricultural practices in the region, but unless terraces were widespread, the cultivation of arable crops was probably limited to slopes below 10°.85 Viticulture — commonly attested in early modern sources and ‘preserved’ in many toponyms86 — is so

far only confirmed at Nemea,87 while at Prosymna: Pyrgouthi (69) remains of grapes88 were found together with legumes, almonds and figs (Figure 2.3 and Table 2.2 c–e).89 The social and economic implications of these finds will be explored in more detail in chapter 7 — for now, it suffices to say that sites like Prosymna: Pyrgouthi (69) point towards a mixed cultivation of different crops rather than large scale monocultures. Moving beyond agriculture, two models have been proposed for ancient pastoralism:90 on the one hand, a mixed farming and herding regime, and on the other hand a regime of seasonal transhumance, operating independently of agriculture.91 Both models are rooted in historical and ethnographic research,92 but their

main cereals consumed in antiquity were wheat and barley, but millet, emmer wheat, einkorn wheat and oats were also cultivated (Garnsey 1988: 51–52; 1999: 119–21; Sallares 1991: 361–68; Isager and Skydsgaard 1992: 21; Jameson et al. 1994: 265). 84 The currently known evidence for cereal cultivation comprises archaeobotanical remains at the tower of Prosymna: Pyrgouthi (69) (Sarpaki 2005: 336), a possible threshing floor at Ermioni: Magoula (93) (Jameson et al. 1994: 503) and the Roman pollen record at Kleonai (Atherden, Hall, and Wright 1993: 353–55; Atherden and Hall 1994: 124–25), but even the archaeobotanical remains from Prosymna: Pyrgouthi (69) strictly speaking merely attest the consumption of cereals rather than their local cultivation. The 4th-century BC inscription SEG ix 2 (330–326 BC) lists Troizen and Hermion among cities receiving grain from Kyrene, but this does not necessarily argue for a reliance on imported grain (James, Mee, and Taylor 1994: 265). 85 Wagstaff and Gamble 1982: 101; Whitelaw 1994: 405; 1998: 234. On slopes between 10° and 15° cultivation of arable crops would have been possible without terracing, but may have caused severe soil erosion (Whitelaw 1998: 234). For the discussion of agricultural terraces in the Classical and Hellenistic periods, see above. 86 See for example Jameson et al. 1994: 278–80 for the cultivation of grapes in the southern Argolid during the Medieval, early modern

and modern periods. 87 For the identification of 1st-century BC vine planting trenches at Nemea, see Πίκουλας 2003: 399–400. 88 Sarpaki 2005: 336. In addition, the submerged ‘Villa of the Dolia’ to the south of Palaia Epidavros provides evidence for Late Roman wine making (Davidde Petriaggi et al. 2019: 548–50). Both Hom. Il. 2.561 and Str. 8.6.10 characterised the city of Epidauros as ‘rich in vines’. 89 Sarpaki 2005: 318, 336. 90 Following the definition suggested by Penttinen (2005: 99), the term ‘pastoralism’ is used in this study to describe ‘any type of reliance on livestock as sole or partial means of living’. 91 Halstead 1987; Hodkinson 1988: 38; Chang 1994: 353; Penttinen 2005: 99. 92 Chang 1994: 354; Forbes 1994: 188, 1995: 325–26. On historical and

17

A Landscape of Conflict? Rural Fortifications in the Argolid (400–146 BC) practices leave few traces in the archaeological record.93 Reconstructing the type and extent of pastoralism in the ancient Argolid is therefore difficult. Classical or Hellenistic remains of sheep, goats, cattle and pigs were found at Lerna,94 Nemea,95 Porto Cheli (64)96 and Prosymna: Pyrgouthi (69),97 providing information on the species consumed, but not necessarily on specific pastoralist practices (Figure 2.3 and Table 2.2 f).98 Besides these archaeological finds, there is occasional evidence for pastoralism in literary and epigraphic sources, for example an early 2nd-century BC boundary dispute between Hermion and Epidauros,99 which regulates grazing rights in a shared border area. Combining these sources, it is clear that pastoralism was widely practiced in the Argolid throughout the period of study, but the exact strategies remain obscure.

fishbones106 and fishing hooks,107 but are also attested at Asini (14)108 and possibly inland at Nemea.109 In addition, the above-mentioned boundary dispute between Troizen and Arsinoe not only regulates rights to cut wood, but also makes provisions for salt panning and tuna fishing,110 while Athenaeus describes the Argolid as the best source of the sea fish κάπρος.111 2.4 The scene is set: the landscape of the Late Classical and Hellenistic Argolid To sum up the results of this chapter, some aspects of the Argolid’s landscape have remained constant over the last 2500 years, especially the basic underlying topography and the different species represented in the natural vegetation. Based on the similar distribution of ancient and modern olive cultivation, it is tempting to assume that the Late Classical and Hellenistic climate resembled modern conditions, even though climate and groundwater level are two environmental factors that are so far difficult to reconstruct.

In addition to pastoralism, archaeological and epigraphic sources occasionally also attest other ways in which ‘marginal’ areas could be put to use. For example, a 2nd-century BC boundary dispute between Troizen and Arsinoe mentions woodcutting (Figure 2.3 and Table 2.2 g),100 while 4th-century BC remains of hare and red deer at Nemea101 and Porto Cheli (64)102 suggest that these species were hunted and consumed in the Argolid (Figure 2.3 and Table 2.2 h). Furthermore, sherds of beehives (Figure 2.3 and Table 2.2 i) bear witness to Classical or Hellenistic beekeeping at the fortifications of Prosymna: Pyrgouthi (69)103 and Tsiorovos Dolianon (82),104 as well as in the southern Argolid.105

There are also marked differences between the modern and Late Classical or Hellenistic landscape. Probably the most striking developments are the local sea-level rise of up to 5m, the alluviation at river mouths, the disappearance of the marshes at Tiryntha and Lerna, the soil loss in the upland areas and the resulting deposition of sediments on the plains. Furthermore, pollen records make it possible to trace local changes in agriculture, for example the growth and decline of olive cultivation.

Coastal areas also saw the exploitation of maritime resources (Figure 2.3 and Table 2.2 j–k). Fishing and fish consumption are archaeologically most visible at Porto Cheli (64), especially through 4th-century BC

While in its general outlines the modern Argolid might thus still be familiar to an ancient observer, specific areas have altered beyond recognition. Re-examining the evidence for different landscape changes has demonstrated that at present our knowledge still remains rather fragmentary, but nevertheless provides an initial working model for contextualising the region’s Late Classical and Hellenistic fortifications.

ethnographic studies of pastoral practices in the Argolid, see Koster and Koster 1976; Koster 1977; Jameson et al. 1994: 290–301, on the potential and difficulties of using ethnographic literature in Classical studies, see Chang 1994: 354–55, 358–67; Penttinen 2005: 99. 93 Isager and Skydsgaard 1992: 7, 83–85; Forbes 1995: 325; Penttinen 2005: 99. 94 Gejwall 1969: 10. Remains of donkeys were also found at the site. 95 Mackinnon 2013: 132, 137. 96 Jameson et al. 1994: 287, 289; Jameson 2014: 205. 97 Mylona 2005: 301. She also identified remains of a horse, a dog and some birds. 98 The same applies to Hellenistic human remains from Asini (14), which indicate a high meat consumption (Edward, Fossey, and Yaffe 1984: 45). In surveys, off-site ‘haloes’ of worn artefacts may indicate the spread of manure and household waste as fertilizer, but this interpretation is still debated (Alcock, Cherry, and Davis 1994: 149–70; Penttinen 2005: 99) 99 IG IV2. i 75 + SEG xi 405 + SEG xi 377 (early 2nd century BC). The inscription will be discussed in detail in section 5.1. 100 IG IV2. i 76–77 (2nd century BC). 101 Mackinnon 2013: 132, 137. 102 Jameson et al. 1994: 261. 103 Penttinen 2005: 33, 35, 46, 48. 104 Pritchett 1982: 76. 105 Jameson et al. 1994: 290, 447.

Rose 2000: 530; Mylona 2008: 144. Jameson et al. 1994: 315; Mylona 2008: 137. According to Ath. 7.297e, the first catch of tuna at Halieis was dedicated to Poseidon (Jameson et al. 1994: 314). 108 For Hellenistic fishing hooks from Asini (14), see Frödin 1938: 336. 109 For Hellenistic or late Roman fishing hooks from Nemea, see Miller 1976: 184; 1980: 194; Mylona 2008: 138. In addition, fishbone of different species (picarel, small comber, sea bream, gilt-head, tuna, scombridae, grey mullet, moray and eel) were identified at the sanctuary of Poseidon at Kalaureia on the island of Poros (Mylona 2008: 93–95; Marzano 2013: 298; Mylona 2015; Mylona and Boethius 2019). 110 IG IV2. i 76–77 (2nd century BC) (Jameson et al. 1994: 311; HarterUibopuu 1998: 97–109; Marzano 2013: 136; Theodoropoulou 2018: 398). 111 Ath. 7.288f. Mylona 2008: 133; LSJ s.v. κάπρος. There are also two intriguing Classical references to the transport of fish from Argos and the coast to Tegea, which may provide an interesting example of the fish consumption outside coastal areas (IG IV2. i 123 (350–300 BC); Arist. Rh. 1365a (Jameson et al. 1994: 313; Marzano 2013: 298–99)). 106 107

18

Chapter 3

A Typology of Ancient Fortifications sites may still remain to be discovered under the alluvial fill of the Argive plain or the dense vegetation of the surrounding mountains.

3.1 Ancient terminologies and modern typologies Like countless other archaeological sites across the Greek world, most fortifications in the Argolid owe their ‘discovery’ to the work of 19th-century travelling scholars. For these men — working at a time when detailed maps were not yet widely available — rural Greece could be challenging to navigate. But in 1817 Sir William Gell (by then a seasoned traveller) offered one possible solution by publishing a collection of detailed itineraries. His descriptions of various routes not only included travelling times and important landmarks, but also brief notes on ancient remains en route. Along the suggested route between Nafplio and the village of Lygourio, a visitor could see no fewer than six ancient fortifications: the substantial ‘palaia kastra’ at Agios Adrianos (3), Kazarma (39) and Kastraki (35), the rectangular tower at Pyrgouli (71), the circular tower at Choutalaiika (18), and the pyramidal structure at Lygourio 1 (49).1

The size and heterogeneity of this archaeological corpus highlight the need for a suitable terminology. Ancient literary and epigraphic sources attest a detailed vocabulary for defensive structures,3 but these terms are not necessarily suitable for the classification of archaeological remains. For example, many words describe fortifications with a certain function rather than with a specific, archaeologically recognisable layout.4 The individual terms can furthermore refer to structures built for different purposes,5 and may not be used consistently across different authors.6 Recognising these lexical ambiguities, modern scholars have proposed numerous alternative terminologies for the description and classification of ancient fortifications. For example, R. Frederiksen suggested a division of Archaic fortified sites into settlement fortifications (including second-order settlements and private farms), fortifications of a city-state’s territory (forts and towers) and regional defences.7 But even such a nuanced terminology soon reaches its limits when applied to fortified sites of uncertain function. For example, fortified farms can be difficult to distinguish from ‘strategic-military’ towers, as chapter 6 and 7 will demonstrate. This problem illustrates why a regional study that aims to investigate the purpose of ancient fortifications initially requires a descriptive typology rather than a functional classification.8

Both in its wealth and variety of ancient fortifications, this route is characteristic of many areas in the Argolid. No fewer than 146 fortified or possibly fortified sites are currently known from the region, ranging from impressive city walls to small rural towers.2 Further Gell 1817: 185–86. In addition to these 146 fortified structures, twelve sites in the Argolid were previously misidentified as fortifications: Agios Ioannis 2 (147) (which is only mentioned by Φαράκλας 1973: E. 2.4, probably due to a misinterpretation of Meyer 1930: 2066 and Simpson 1965: 22), Agios Vasileios Kastro (148) (where Gauvin 1992: 136, fig. 7.2, 137, fig. 7.3, 138, fig. 7.4 proposed a fort, but no ancient remains could be identified by subsequent scholars (Πέππα 1993: 153; Bynum 1995: 110–11; Πίκουλας 1995: 51; Marchand 2002: 246)), Apesas (149) (previously mentioned as the site of an ancient fortified settlement (Gauvin 1992: 136, fig. 7.2, 137, fig. 7.3, 138, fig. 7.4), but in fact the site of a Frankish fort (Πέππα 1993: 159–60; Marchand 2002: 214–16)), Asprochoma (150) (interpreted as a tower by Steffen and Lolling 1884: 18, but now identified as a sanctuary (Iakovides and French 2003: 39)), Kenchreai (151) (where Πέππα 1990: 168–69 noted an ‘ancient’ drystone wall, which is probably more recent (Πίκουλας 1995: 271)), Kephalari (152) (previously believed to be a tower (Steffen and Lolling 1884: 18; Wiseman 1978: 119; Tausend 2006: 22–23), but now identified as a sanctuary or shrine (Bynum 1995: 115; Marchand 2002: 66)), Kosmas (153) (interpreted by Χρηστού 1963: 87–88; Simpson 1965: 52; Παπαχατζής 1976: 417; Shipley 1996: 282 as a fort, but now identified as the sanctuary of Apollo Maleatas (Φάκλαρης 1990: 179– 83; Pritchett 1991a: 155; Shipley 1996: 282)), Lophos Kokkinou (154) (where G. Gauvin claimed to have seen a polygonal tower (Gauvin 1992: 136, fig. 7.2, 137 fig. 7.3, 138, fig. 7.4; Gauvin and Morin 1997: 5–7), but according to Marchand 2002: 247–48 all stones appear natural), Phousia (155) (where Tausend 2006: 160 suggested a fortification, but no remains of walls could be identified), Tou Antreiomenou to Mnema 2 (156) (where owing to the limited visible remains an interpretation as watchtower (proposed by Wrede 1959; Tausend 2006: 154) is very speculative), Tourkopigado (157) (previously seen as a fortification

1 2

(Russell 1924: 44; Gauvin 1992: 142; Πίκουλας 1995: 233), but judging by the surface finds probably a villa rustica (Πίκουλας 1995: 233; Cloke 2016: 818)) and Tracheia (158) (where a wall noted by Φαράκλας 1972a: E. 3.7 may be a terrace wall or field boundary). These twelve sites are included in the final section of the catalogue. 3 For example, ἔρυμα, πύργος, περιπόλιον, σκοπία, τείχισμα, τεῖχος, φρούριον, φυλακτήριον or χωρίον. Maier 1959: 78–82; Robert 1970: 598; Nowicka 1975: 7; Debord 1994: 53–61; Frederiksen 2011: 10– 13, 20–25; Fachard 2012: 241; Frederiksen, Laufer, and Müth 2016: 179– 80. 4 For example, φυλακτήριον can refer both to parts of larger fortifications (Thuc. 4.110; Arist. Ath. 42.4) and to independent guard posts (Thuc. 4.31). 5 For example, the term φρούριον is used for garrison forts, mountain refuges and fortified settlements (Lawrence 1979: 172; PimouguetPédarros and Geny 2000: 113–15; Nielsen 2002; Lo Monaco 2020). For the different meanings of χωρίον as ‘place, spot’ and ‘stronghold’, see Pimouguet-Pédarros and Geny 2000: 111–13. 6 Fachard 2012: 241. 7 Frederiksen 2011: 9–17. 8 McCredie 1966: 88–99 divided Attic rural fortifications into garrison forts, fortified demes, refuges, fieldworks and military camps, but this typology does not include towers and lacks a detailed description

19

A Landscape of Conflict? Rural Fortifications in the Argolid (400–146 BC)

Figure 3.1 The geographical distribution of fortified sites in the Argolid (by type).

20

Chapter 3: A Typology of Ancient Fortifications

‘Forts’ — the second category in S. Fachard’s typology — were built primarily for military purposes. Often strategically located, these sites lack evidence for domestic activities, public buildings or funerary monuments,15 and tend to be smaller in size than fortified settlements.16 Forts and fortified settlements thus form two typologically distinctive groups, but their functions can overlap. For example, literary and epigraphic sources mention military garrisons at fortified settlements,17 while some forts served as refuges for the rural population in times of conflict.18

3.2 Fortified settlements, forts, towers and drystone circuits A good example of such a descriptive ‘archaeological’ typology is S. Fachard’s classification of the fortifications of Eretria into four types: fortified settlements, forts, towers and drystone circuits.9 The first term — ‘fortified settlements’ — describes nucleated settlements surrounded by defensive walls. These sites are characterised by remains of dwellings, public monuments, streets and cisterns, as well as finds that indicate production, permanent occupation and domestic activities (for example oil- and winepresses, beehives or loomweights). Graves and funerary monuments outside the walls can also help to identify fortifications of this type.10

Literary and epigraphic sources demonstrate that Late Classical and Hellenistic forts could vary considerably in garrison strength. Some fortifications are said to have housed several hundred men,19 while others were manned by more modest contingents, like the c. 20 men and 3 dogs stationed at a 3rd-century BC fort at Kyrbissos in Ionia.20 However, reliable sources on the exact strength of ancient garrisons are rare and usually refer to troops at allied or dependent city-states21 or at ‘offensive’ fortifications.22

These ‘fortified settlements’ include major sites protected by city walls. The strong urbanistic and symbolic significance of such fortifications has been the focus of much scholarship.11 However, the walls’ practical military role should not be underestimated: throughout the Classical and Hellenistic period, sieges belonged to the cruellest forms of ancient warfare, involving not only fighting men-at-arms, but all inhabitants of a city.12 ‘Civilians’ and combatants alike might face crowded conditions or starvation, and were not exempt from the consequences of defeat. If a city surrendered, its population would usually be allowed to depart (albeit without property), whereas resistance could result in the mass enslavement or even massacre of a settlement’s inhabitants.13 This practice highlights the role of urban fortifications for the survival of a city and forms the background to the Hellenistic perception of city walls as guarantors of a city-state’s autonomy.14

Any estimate of the number of men stationed permanently at forts in the Argolid thus largely relies on archaeological remains, even though both in the Argolid and beyond rural forts have so far only rarely been studied in detail.23 One important exception is the late 6th- or early 5th-century BC fort at Phylla (Vrachos) on Euboia, where a rectangular building of 20 rooms has convincingly been identified a barrack for c. 200 men (c. 2.63m2 per person).24 This building covers c. 3.12% of the total area of the fort25 — a percentage that, interestingly, is paralleled at other rural forts.26 Cautiously using Fachard 2012: 242–44; 2016b: 216–20. Coulton 1996: 161; Fachard 2012: 241–42, 245. Lawrence 1979: 137–40; Πετράκος 1999: 164–74; Chaniotis 2005: 88– 93; Oliver 2007: 148–53, 176–79; Fachard 2012: 247; 2016b: 215. 18 For example, at Thalamai in Elis in 219 BC (Polyb. 4.75.2–8) or in Attica (Dem. 18.37–38). 19 For example, 300 Spartans were sent to Epidauros in 419 BC (Thuc. 5.56), while 1000 Athenians were stationed at Pylos in 425 BC (Thuc. 4.5). 20 SEG xxvi 1306 (3rd century BC). This is perhaps the only known inscription that records the exact strength of a garrison (Robert and Robert 1976: 206). For the use of guard-dogs in ancient fortifications, see Roussel 1930: 364–66; Robert and Robert 1976: 207–09. 21 For example, 300 Spartans at Epidauros in 419 BC (Thuc. 5.56), 400 Achaeans (and 50 dogs) under Aratos of Sikyon at Acrocorinth in 251 BC (Plut. Arat. 24.1), 500 Corinthians at Leukas and Ambrakia in 425 BC (Thuc. 4.42) or 500 Athenians at the fort at Delphinium on Chios in 407 BC (D. S. 13.76.4). 22 For example, 1000 Athenians at Pylos (Thuc. 4.5). 23 See, for example, the difficulties in identifying rural forts in Attica (Sapouna-Sakellaraki et al. 2002: 113). 24 Coulton 1996; Sapouna-Sakellaraki et al. 2002: 28–43, 111–13. The interpretation of Building 3 as a barrack had already been suggested before the excavation of the site (see for example Lawrence 1979: 176), but was not generally accepted (for a previous interpretation of the building as stoa, see for example Tritle 1992: 145). 25 The total area measures c. 1.7ha (Fachard 2012: 300). 26 For example at the Classical or Hellenistic fort of Psilo Lithari on Euboia (with a total size of 0.25ha and possible barracks covering 72m2 or c. 2.9% of the total surface area (Fachard 2012: 135–37)), 15 16

of the archaeological characteristics of each type. 9 Fachard 2012: 242–53. A revised typology, proposed in Fachard 2016b: 215–22, also includes non-urban long walls as a fifth category, but such structures are rare in the archaeological record (Fachard 2016b: 222) and have so far not been identified with any certainty among the Late Classical and Hellenistic fortifications in the Argolid. 10 Fachard 2012: 244–47; 2016: 215–16. 11 For the semantic value of Greek city walls, see for example Müth 2016a; 2016b; 2020; Müth, Laufer, and Brasse 2016. The importance of city walls for the perception and identity of ancient cities is reflected in ancient iconography, where walls could be used as a pars pro toto for the entire city (Müth, Laufer, and Brasse 2016: 128). However, Camp (2000: 43–44) probably went too far in suggesting that some walls (for example at Herakleia at Latmos) were ‘built purely as an item of prestige and civic pride’. For the strategic concepts at Herakleia at Latmos, see McNicoll 1997: 77. 12 See, for example, Kern 1999; Wees 2004: 149; Jansen 2016: 105; Trundle 2019: 137. 13 For the impact of siege warfare on a city’s population, see for example Volkmann and Horsmann 1990; Pritchett 1991b: 152–57, 203– 312; Ducrey 1999: XV, 107–47; Kern 1999: 135–62; Krentz 2007: 181; Payen 2012: 132–78; Ducrey 2016: 332–34, 360; 2019: 103–04; Martinez Morales 2019: 150, 163–65. Both private property and the inhabitants themselves were considered the rightful spoils of the victor (Kern 1999: 134–62; De Souza 2007: 459; Strauss 2007: 245). See, for example, Xen. Cyr. 7.5.73; Xen. Mem. 4.2.15. 14 Ducrey 1986: 186–87; Ma 2000: 339–43; Chaniotis 2005: 18–19, 26. See, for example, SEG xxxviii 1476 (206/05 BC).

17

21

A Landscape of Conflict? Rural Fortifications in the Argolid (400–146 BC)

Figure 3.2 The geographical distribution of towers in the Argolid (by size and shape).

22

Chapter 3: A Typology of Ancient Fortifications

these figures as an estimate, the garrisons stationed at rural forts in the Argolid may have been comparatively small, perhaps as few as 16 men at Agios Adrianos (3), 40 men at Kastraki (35) or Kazarma (39), or 140 men at Ano Phanari (10). Without further excavations, such numbers remain highly speculative, but nevertheless suggest that the Argolid’s rural garrisons were dwarfed by contemporary field armies.27

The fourth and perhaps most challenging category in S. Fachard’s typology are the circuits in drystone masonry, which are often located on hilltops and lack access to fresh water or agricultural resources.36 Comparatively quick to build,37 they probably fulfilled various temporary defensive or offensive objectives, for example as refuge sites38 or temporary camps.39 Since such sites were only used sporadically, drystone circuits usually lack surface pottery or internal structures, and are consequently very difficult to date and interpret.40

Towers — rectangular or circular structures with a considerably greater height than diameter or width — form the third category.28 Buildings of this type are known from most regions of the Greek mainland and the islands,29 but are difficult to interpret. In line with the military focus of traditional fortification research, they were often considered part of civic defensive networks,30 defining and controlling borders31 or serving as watchtowers32 and signal-stations.33 However, many towers are ill situated for these purposes34 and may have fulfilled other functions, such as guarding mines, quarries, fuel supplies or agricultural areas.35

3.3 Safety in numbers: the distribution of fortifications in the Argolid Applying this typology to the 146 fortified or possibly fortified sites in the Argolid, it becomes clear that towers are the most widely represented and distributed type of rural fortification (Figure 3.1). However, out of the 86 ancient towers in the Argolid, 13 (15.1% of all ‘towers’) cannot be securely identified. A further 14 towers (16.3% of all towers) are recorded, but no longer exist, while 17 towers (19.8% of all ‘towers’) could not be located and may have been destroyed since they were last referred to in a scholarly publication (Table 3.1).

the Hellenistic fort at Megalo Vouno in Boiotia (with a total size of 1.83ha and possible barracks of 25 rooms ‘similar in size to those of Building 3’ (Sapouna-Sakellaraki et al. 2002: 112), so covering c. 3.6% of the total surface area (Bakhuizen 1970: 79–84, 92–95)), the fort of Tsouka Madhari (with a total size of 0.7ha and possible barracks covering at least 130m2, so at least 2% of the total surface area (Bakhuizen 1970: 74–76)), and the Late Classical fort of Galatas: Megali Magoula (25) in the Argolid (with a size of c. 0.09ha and possible barracks covering 28m2 or c. 3.3% of the total surface area (KonsolakiYiannopoulou 2010: 69)). 27 For example, the Spartan expedition against Argos in 418 BC with the full Spartan levy as well as 11,000 men from Boiotia, 2000 men from Corinth, forces from Sparta’s allies in Arkadia, Megara, Sikyon, and Pellene, and the full levy of Phleious (Thuc. 5.57–63). 28 Fachard 2016b: 220. 29 See, for example, Morris and Papadopoulos 2005: 155. 30 Kallet-Marx 1989: 301–11; Fossey 1992: 109–32; Gauvin 1992; Munn 1993; Ober 1985. 31 Winterberger 1892; Munn 1993: 25–32. 32 For example in Attica (Vanderpool 1978; Lohmann 1989; 1993: 40), Lokris (Dakoronia and Kounouklas 2019), the Phokis (McInerney 1999), Boiotia (Snodgrass 1985; Kallet-Marx 1989) or Akarnania (Wacker 1999). 33 For example between Lebadeia and Delphi (Lawrence 1979: 189), south of Lake Kopais (Fossey 1992) or between the border fortress of Eleutherai and Athens (Winter 1971: 43–45; Ober 1985: 191–207). 34 Young 1956: 132; Morris and Papadopoulos 2005: 158. 35 Lohmann 2015: 249–51; Fachard 2016b: 220. For towers connected to mines, see for example Attica (Osborne 1985b: 31–34; Morris and Papadopoulos 2005: 173–74), Andros (Τελεβάντου 1996: 49–53) or Siphnos (Ashton 1991; Birkett-Smith 2000); for towers connected to agricultural production, see Siphnos (Δραγάτσης 1915; 1920), Attica (Young 1956: 140) or Naxos (Lambertz and Ohnesorg 2018: 227–32). Πύργοι are frequently noted in literary and epigraphic sources as parts of farm complexes, for example as part of leased estates in Late Classical and Hellenistic contracts (Attica: SEG xii 100.74–76 (367/66 BC). Delos: IG XI. ii 287.154, 165 (250 BC); ID 3 1417.92 (155 BC). Tenos: IG XII. v 871, 61–62 (1st century BC)). See for example Young 1956: 133–34; Nowicka 1975: 20; Pritchett 1991b: 353–54; Morris and Papadopoulos 2005: 166. Furthermore, πύργοι are mentioned as part of estates in Hellenistic and Roman papyri (for example, BGU I 298.6 (AD 173/74), BGU III 889.13 (after 151 BC), BGU VI 1280.11 (before 210 BC), BGU XI 2054.11 (AD 184–92), P. Mich. III 212.17 (2nd or 3rd c. AD) and P. Tebt III 779.11 (171 BC)). For further examples see Nowicka 1975: 21. However, it is debatable whether πύργοι in Graeco-Roman Egypt are comparable to the structures on the Greek mainland or the islands (Preisigke 1919; Alt 1920; Meyer 1920; Hasebroek 1922; Grimal

The surviving 74 towers differ considerably in shape and size (Figures 3.2 and Table 3.1). Rectangular towers predominate with 66 known examples (76.7% of all towers), including the famous ‘pyramids’ at Elliniko: Kephalari (23), Lygourio 1 (49) and Dalamanara (131).41 The width of these rectangular towers varies considerably between an impressive 14.8m at Tou Antreiomenou to Mnema (77) and a mere 4.4m at Ano Phanari: Vigliza (11).42 Circular towers are much fewer in number (8 towers, 9.3% of all towers) and usually smaller in size.43 Both types of towers are largely clustered to the north, west and east of the Argive plain, rather than evenly distributed throughout the region (Figures 3.2). On the plain itself, as well as in the southern Akte, the 1939: 43; Young 1956: 133; Nowicka 1970; 1974: 175–78; 1975: 20–21; Morris and Papadopoulos 2005: 166). 36 Fachard 2012: 251–53 ; 2016b: 220–21. 37 Fachard 2016b: 221. 38 McCredie 1966: 92–93; Hanson 1998: 112; Fachard 2012: 252–53. 39 McCredie 1966: 96–100; Lawrence 1979: 162–64; Fachard 2012: 252– 53; 2016b: 221. 40 Fachard 2016b: 221. One common difficulty is distinguishing ancient fortified structures from post-antique pastoralist structures, for example sheepfolds (mandres). However, with a size between 0.05– 0.28ha the drystone circuits in the area of study are considerably larger than Roman or modern sheepfolds. For the size of pastoralist structures, see Kron 2010: 183; Daly 2015: 24. 41 The architecture of these structures will be discussed in detail in chapter 7. 42 The largest possible tower (measuring c. 15 by 15m) is located at Marmaralono Agiou Petrou (102), but with a width of c. 1m the structure’s outer walls are comparatively narrow, casting doubt on the reconstruction as a tower (advanced for example by Φάκλαρης 1990: 128). 43 They measure between 5–12m in diameter.

23

A Landscape of Conflict? Rural Fortifications in the Argolid (400–146 BC)

Figure 3.3 The geographical distribution of fortified settlements in the Argolid (by size).

24

Chapter 3: A Typology of Ancient Fortifications

Nr. 5

Name

Shape

Agios Sostis

circular

TOWERS

6

Akova: Varda

rectangular

11

Ano Phanari: Vigliza

rectangular

7

13 17

Amygdalitsa Aria

rectangular

8.8 by at least 9.5

rectangular

6.7 by 6.9

circular

11.5

rectangular

8.4 by 10.3

Elliniko: Ellinikaki

rectangular

10.2 by 10.2

rectangular

7.5 by 9

Drymoni 1

Elliniko: Kephalari

30

Iliopoulaiika

34

Kantia 2

rectangular (2)

Kophy Rachi

rectangular

32

4 by 4

rectangular

Gymnon

8.6 by 14.7

rectangular

Kampia

circuit or terrace wall

8 by 8.5

rectangular

23

26

4.4

Douka Vrysi

20

22

12

rectangular

Choutalaiika

Further structures

6.3 by 6.35

Charadros

18 19

Size in m

additional building (?)

additional building (?)

7 by 7.9

rectangular

7.7 by 8.1

rectangular

6.5 by 6.5

rectangular

6 by 7

5.5 by 5.5

additional building

40

Kephalovryso

43

Krya Vrysi: Marmarakia

46

Levkakia

rectangular

8.5 by 8.5

9 by 11

additional building

47

Lileika Xeropigadou

rectangular

5 by 5.5

48

Limanaki 1

circular

5

circuit and additional building with several rooms

53

Nera

42

45

49

Lampagiana

rectangular

Lygourio 1

rectangular

57

Phichtia: Kokkinia

rectangular

59

Phichtia: Paliopyrgos

rectangular

66

Prosilia

circular

58

60

Phichtia: Limiko

Phichtia: Stathmos

Prosymna: Agios Dimitrios

70

Pyrgiotika

71

73

Prosymna: Pyrgouthi Pyrgouli

Tou Antreiomenou to Mnema

79

Tourniki: Gaidourovouni

87

Vourlia 2

81

88

11 by 11

rectangular

9.3 by 9.4

rectangular

6.4 by 6.8

rectangular

6.4 by 6.5

rectangular

6.9

6 by 13

8.4 by 9.3 12.2 by 14.8

rectangular

7.5 by 9.5

rectangular

9.2 by 9.5

rectangular

Xylopyrgo

circular

circuit

7 by 7.2

rectangular

Tserpho Tyrou

possible circuit

6.5

rectangular

rectangular

circuit

7 by 7

rectangular

Tourkovrysi

circuit or terrace wall

6.5

rectangular

Spathokommeno

77

78

12 by 14

circular

68 69

5.6 by 6.6

6 by 6.15 8 by 8 6.5

Table 3.1 Towers and possible towers in the Argolid.

25

circuit or terrace wall

A Landscape of Conflict? Rural Fortifications in the Argolid (400–146 BC)

Nr. 89

Name

Shape

Agios Leonidas

rectangular

POSSIBLE TOWERS

93

Ermioni: Magoula

95

Kalkani

94

Drymoni 2

96

Kapsala

98

Kondyli

97

at least 4.2 by 5

rectangular

?

at least 4.2 by 5.2

rectangular

?

102

Marmaralono Agiou Petrou

rectangular

105

Tourniki: Agios Nikolaos sta Ampelia

106

Perasphalktra

Xydeika

Agia Paraskevi

109

Andritsa: Elliniko

110

?

15 by 15

rectangular

at least 4.8

rectangular

9 by 13

rectangular

at least 5.7

rectangular

Akova: Chouni

Andritsa: Koukouras

111

rectangular

10 by 10

circular

6.5

6 by 8

113

Ellinon Lithari

?

?

115

Katsigiari

rectangular

5.5 by 5.75

117

Krya Vrysi: Misorrachi

rectangular

at least 2 by 5

119

Moni Panagias Agnountos

rectangular

7.25 by 7.25

122

Papoutsaiika

?

?

Dervenakia

118

121

?

Kato Phanari

116

126 127

Metochi

Nea Epidavros: Palatia

4 by 6

?

?

rectangular

2 towers

Zogka: Pyrgos

rectangular

additional building (?)

8 by 9

rectangular

Stena

Zavitsa

?

rectangular

Koroni

124

additional buildings and circuit wall

6.5 by 6.55

rectangular

114

additional building (?)

?

rectangular

Chora

112

additional building (?)

TOWERS AND POSSIBLE TOWERS (LOCATION UNKNOWN)

107

108

?

rectangular

rectangular

103

6 by 7

rectangular

Malantrenion

?

rectangular

Limanaki 2

101

Further structures

?

rectangular

Karya

99

?

Size in m

7.7 by 8.3 ?

?

?

6 by 8

Table 3.1 cont. Towers and possible towers in the Argolid.

northern Epidauria and in the Kynouria towers are rare or entirely absent, although this pattern may in part be a result of the extensive post-Hellenistic alluvial deposits on the Argive plain44 or the intensive agriculture and development in the southern Argolid and the Epidauria.

and six possible examples (Figure 3.3 and Table 3.2).45 The possible examples include Lygourio 2 (100) (where the lack preservation makes it difficult to distinguish between fortified settlement and fort (Καββαδίας 1885: 21–23; Frazer 1898: 232–33; Frickenhaus and Müller 1911: 30; Παπαδημητρίoυ 1951: 212; Κριτζάς 1972b: 219; Παπαχατζής 1976: 197–99; Foley 1988: 186–87; Πιτερός 2005f: 268)), Nea Epidavros: Brinia (120) (which could not be located and may have been destroyed since it was referred to by Πιτερός 2004c: 58–59), Pigadaki (123) (which was mentioned by Φαράκλας 1972a: E. 3.2 and may be identical with the site recorded by Πιτερός 2004c: 58–59), Petrothalassa (138) (which was recorded by Φαράκλας 1973: 23. E. 2.3; Foley 1988: 196; Jameson et al. 1994: 483–84 and has produced fragments of sculpted marble, but has since been

45

Among the three remaining types, fortified settlements make up the largest group, with 28 securely identified 44

See chapter 2.

26

Chapter 3: A Typology of Ancient Fortifications

Nr.

Name

128

Agios Dimitrios

131

129 132

133 134

135

136

Shape

Size in m

rectangular

?

Dalamanara

rectangular

?

Kodeles

?

TOWERS AND POSSIBLE TOWERS (NOW DESTROYED)

Agios Ioannis 1

?

Dimaina

10.5 by 10.5

Korakia

rectangular (?)

?

Monastiraki

rectangular

?

Myloi: Kalamaki

141 144

143

145

146

?

rectangular

137

140

?

rectangular

Mathi

?

rectangular

7.1 by 7.1

Prosymna: SM 8

rectangular

at least 6.2

Ververonta

rectangular

at least 4

rectangular

at least 7

Porto Ydra

Spathovouni

Zogka: Asprorrema Zogka: Sykitsa

Further structures

circular

additional drystone buildings

circuit

10

rectangular

?

rectangular

?

Table 3.1 cont. Towers and possible towers in the Argolid.

The most striking difference between the individual fortified settlements is their surface area, which varies from just 0.2ha at Prosymna: Agios Athanasios (67) to perhaps as much as 100ha at Argos (12).46 Circuits enclosing more than 10ha occur at Kleonai (41), on the Argive plain, along the Saronic Gulf and on the east coast of the Argolic Gulf, but are absent on the plain of Prosymna and in the western Argolid. In some cases, the surface area appears to correlate with a site’s political status — for example circuits of more than 12ha are largely limited to the urban centres of the six city-states in the region.47

towers and forts were constructed in different areas to fulfil similar functions — a hypothesis that will be explored in detail in chapters 6 and 7. The fourth and final type of fortification are drystone circuits (Figure 3.1 and Table 3.4). Like the forts, the twelve recorded examples in the Argolid show a marked east-west divide with a lack of drystone circuits in the western part of the region.49 Sites of this type were constructed both in strategic locations (for example at passes)50 and at locations that show no obvious military value, suggesting that even such simple structures may have served a variety of functions.

In addition to these fortified settlements, at least 13 forts have been recorded in the region (Figure 3.1 and Table 3.3).48 They are mainly located in the eastern Argolid, where towers are rare. This may suggest that

Overall, the fortifications’ distribution pattern thus indicates that different architectural types were not necessarily connected to specific defensive purposes. Instead, one and the same strategic requirement could be met through different structures. To understand this complex picture, it is, however, necessary to step back and consider the dating of the Argolid’s ancient fortifications, before returning to an analysis of specific sites in chapters 6 and 7.

destroyed), Petrothalassa: Kypraiou (139) (identified as a possible fortification by Jameson et al. 1994: 484, but now destroyed) and Skala 2 (142) (which has produced Prehistoric, Hellenistic and later sherds (Pritchett 1980: 15; Πίκουλας 1995: 189) but no in-situ remains of Classical or Hellenistic buildings). Among the securely identified sites, Sportiza (74) lacks small finds, but was classified as a fortified settlement due to its substantial size of c. 2ha. Small finds and internal building remains are also missing at Kyparissi (44), but this may largely be due to a lack of previous research. 46 On the different reconstructions of Argos’ city walls (12), see section 6.3.2. 47 The walls at Mykinai (51), which enclose an area of c. 17.3ha, are an exception. 48 At one of the 13 sites (Kastro tis Palaiopanagias (38)), the absence of finds and internal structures could be the result of later building activity or a lack of research. The site’s identification as a fort rather than a fortified settlement is thus not entirely conclusive. Besides these 13 sites, one further possible fort (Strongylo (125)) is mentioned by Russell 1924: 44, but could not be located by Pritchett 1969: 98; Πίκουλας 1995: 229 and may in fact be identical with the tower at Tourkovrysi (78).

49 The only two drystone circuits in the western part of the region are Vigliza (85) and Aitolithi (130) (now destroyed). On the issues of dating drystone circuits, see chapter 4. 50 One example is the drystone circuit of Kastro 2 (37), which is located on the pass between Lygourio and the Arachaion mountains. The connection between fortifications and passes will be discussed in detail in section 6.1.

27

A Landscape of Conflict? Rural Fortifications in the Argolid (400–146 BC)

Nr.

Name

1

Achladokampos

4

Agios Andreas

9

Andritsa: Goulas

12

Argos

14

Asini

15

Asini: Barbouna

21

Elliniko Astrous

24

Ermioni

28

Ierakas

29

Iliokastro

33

Kantia 1

41

Kleonai

44

Kyparissi

50

Lyrkeia

51

Mykinai

52

Nafplio

54

Palaia Epidavros 1

56

Paralio Astros

61

Phourkaria

Characteristics • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

FORTIFIED SETTLEMENTS numerous fragments of tile and pottery ‘ancient weights for spinning’ traces of buildings along a regular street plan stone basins numerous fragments of tile and pottery a conical loomweight a fragment of a terracotta figurine a press bed and stone basin a block with architectural mouldings public, domestic and industrial buildings graves and funerary monuments presses kilns and clay moulds loomweights Protogeometric, Geometric and Hellenistic graves possible sanctuary Protogeometric, Geometric and Hellenistic graves remains of buildings within the circuit weight blocks from wine or olive presses stone-cut basins numerous fragments of tile and pottery loomweights terracotta figurines iron ore and slag graves remains of internal structures, including at least one temple graves

• • • • • •

numerous fragments of tile and pottery a press bed regular street plan numerous fragments of tile and pottery a stone column Geometric buildings

• • • • •

public buildings and sanctuaries numerous fragments of tile and pottery graves loomweights numerous fragments of tile and pottery

• • • • • • •

numerous fragments of tile and pottery on the slope below possible graves to the east remains of internal buildings from the Geometric, Archaic and Hellenistic period, including a Hellenistic fountain house and theatre Geometric, Archaic and Hellenistic graves loomweights wine- or olive- presses Geometric to Hellenistic graves

• • • • • • •

remains of public buildings Geometric to Hellenistic graves loomweights numerous fragments of tile and pottery a loomweight a loomweight a trachyte column

Size in ha

Ancient name

0.5

Hysiai

9

Anthene or Thyrea

? 100 (?)

Argos

5.2

Asine

9

Asine

5

Eua

20 (?)

Hermione / Hermion

3.6

Zarax

1.8

Eileoi (?)

?

Eiones (?)

34.8

Kleonai

0.7

Kyphanta

0.5

Orneai (?)

17.3

Mycenae

12 (?)

Nauplia

17 (?)

Epidauros

?

Astron

0.4 (?)

Table 3.2 Fortified settlements and possible fortified settlements in the Argolid. Bibliographic references to individual finds at these sites can be found in the catalogue.

28

Chapter 3: A Typology of Ancient Fortifications

Nr. 63

Name

Characteristics FORTIFIED SETTLEMENTS CONT.

Plaka Leonidiou

64

Porto Cheli

65

Poulithra

67

Prosymna: Agios Athanasios, FS 405/406

74

Sportiza

76

Tiryntha

• •

numerous fragments of tile and pottery two bronze mirrors

• • • • • • • •

regular street plan residential and industrial buildings wine- or olive-presses numerous fragments of tile and pottery several sanctuaries Archaic and Classical graves numerous fragments of tile and pottery Hellenistic graves

• •

numerous fragments of tile and pottery a loomweight

• •

80

Troizina

82

Tsiorovos Dolianon

83

Tyros

• • • • • • • •

100

Lygourio 2

•

120

Nea Epidavros: Brinia

123

Pigadaki

numerous fragments of Hellenistic and Roman pottery, especially coarse wares remains of public buildings, including the agora, the sanctuary of Aphrodite Akraia and the sanctuary of Athena Sthenias on the acropolis Geometric to Hellenistic graves numerous fragments of tile and pottery a loomweight a fragment of a beehive iron ore several stone basins numerous fragments of tile and pottery a loomweight

POSSIBLE FORTIFIED SETTLEMENTS a re-used column of a Hellenistic perirrhanterion and Ionian column capital

Size in ha

Ancient name

3.6

Prasiai / Brasiai or Polichna

18.2

Halieis / Halia

3.2

Polichna

at least 0.2 at least 6.5 ?

Tiryns

50

Troizen

?

Anthene (?)

0.9

Tyros

?

FORTIFIED SETTLEMENTS AND POSSIBLE FORTIFIED SETTELEMENTS (LOCATION UNKNOWN)

138 139 142

•

two Hellenistic cist graves

?

• •

fragments of pottery a column

?

FORTIFIED SETTLEMENTS AND POSSIBLE FORTIFIED SETTELEMENTS (NOW DESTROYED) • numerous fragments of tile and pottery • four pieces of sculpted marble ? Petrothalassa • a limestone column • querns and quern fragments • numerous fragments of tile and pottery Petrothalassa: • a mortarium ? Kypraiou • a press weight • numerous fragments of tile and pottery Skala 2 ?

Table 3.2 cont. Fortified settlements and possible fortified settlements in the Argolid.

29

A Landscape of Conflict? Rural Fortifications in the Argolid (400–146 BC)

Nr. 2

Name FORTS

Agio Lias

Size in ha

Nr.

0.05

36

0.27

62

Phranchthi

0.28

84

Vigla

0.05

Vourlia 1

0.13

Agios Adrianos

at least 0.13

37

10

Ano Phanari

1.25

72

25

Galatas: Megali Magoula

0.1

31

Iria

16 27 35

Anathema

Benteni Kiapha Gyphtokastro Kastraki

85

0.28

86

0.03

90

Kazarma

0.39

92

Stavropodio

0.7

Strongylo

?

Kastro tis Paliopanagias

55

Palaia Epidavros 2

75

0.2

0.34

38 39

0.03

0.45

91

?

104

Kastro 2 Soros

Vigliza

POSSIBLE DRYSTONE CIRCUITS

0.2

0.05

0.15

Akrotiri Iria 1

?

Alogomandra Kalogirou

1.3

Akrotiri Iria 2 Skala 1

?

0.25

DRYSTONE CIRCUITS AND POSSIBLE DRYSTONE CIRCUITS (NOW DESTROYED)

FORTS AND POSSIBLE FORTS (LOCATION UNKNOWN)

125

DRYSTONE CIRCUITS

Size in ha

Kastro 1

3 8

Name

130

Table 3.3 Forts and possible forts in the Argolid.

Aitolithi Table 3.4 Drystone circuits in the Argolid.

30

?

Chapter 4

Dating Ancient Fortifications in the Argolid Unfortunately, this scarcity of unambiguous literary or epigraphic testimonies is a common feature of Greek fortification studies. Dating defensive structures is one of the field’s central methodological problems,7 especially in rural areas, where frequent excavations are a comparatively recent phenomenon.8 Even chronologies of masonry techniques9 — regularly used as a last resort for assigning otherwise undatable structures to broad historical periods — have provoked increasing criticism over the past decades.10

4.1 Dating ancient fortifications: a persistent problem In the summer of 418 BC, Argos was heavily involved in military campaigns against its ‘traditional’ Peloponnesian rival Sparta. Seeing the Argives engaged elsewhere, the Epidaurians decided to seize the moment and invaded the neighbouring Argive territory. But they had reckoned without Argos’ allies — the Mantineans, Eleans and Athenians — who in turn invaded the Epidauria and constructed a fort at Epidauros (modern Palaia Epidavros).1 Nearly three hundred years later, the Troizenians (Epidauros’ neighbours to the southeast) responded to Rome’s increasingly powerful presence in the region with the construction of a diateichisma — a decision that survives thanks to an inscribed epidosis decree.2

As outlined in the previous chapter, at least 146 fortifications were so far identified in the Argolid. Most of these sites have previously been associated with one or several periods between the Early Iron Age and the destruction of Corinth in 146 BC,11 but dating methods vary greatly from site to site and only few structures can boast a secure chronology. To address this problem, the present chapter aims to collect the dating evidence for all 146 fortified sites in the region, allowing a first chronological study within a consistent framework.

Such literary and epigraphic narratives provide valuable and much needed evidence for the chronology of ancient fortifications. However, they seldom include sufficient detail to draw clear connections between particular texts and surviving archaeological remains.3 For example, the destruction of Argive Hysiai in 417 BC — attested by Thucydides and Diodorus — appears to imply a terminus ante quem for the surviving walls at modern Achladokampos (1),4 but in fact at least one tower at the site belongs to a Late Classical or Hellenistic building phase.5 Similarly, it is only thanks to recent archaeological excavations that a 3rd-century BC inscription from Argos (recording a loan of 100 talents for the improvement of the city’s fortifications and cavalry) can be associated with the triangular bastion on the city’s Aspis.6

4.2 Securing a date: dating by stratified and surface finds Since literary and epigraphic sources provide only two fixed points in this chronology — the above-mentioned 2nd-century BC diateichisma at Troizina (80) and the fort at Palaia Epidavros 2 (55), which most likely dates to 418 BC — archaeological dating evidence plays a particularly important role in the study of fortified structures in the Argolid. Judging by stratified finds, the development of the region’s historical fortifications begins with the drystone walls on the Barbouna hill and the acropolis of Asini (14–15). Assuming that the late 8th-century BC date proposed for these walls is correct, they are not only the oldest datable structures in the present corpus, but also among the earliest

Thuc. 5.75.4–6. For possible remains of this fort (Palaia Epidavros 2 (55)), see Καζά – Παπαγεωργίου and Προσκυνητοπούλου 1981: 105; Σαρρή 1997: 153; Προσκυνητοπούλου 2011: 77. 2 IG IV 757 (2nd century BC) (Frickenhaus and Müller 1911: 31; Welter 1941: 12; Maier 1959: 139–45; Winter 1971: 114; Lawrence 1979: 150; Migeotte 1992: 49–54; Sokolicek 2009: 132). For Troizen’s participation in the Achaian Confederacy and the political events of the Achaian War, see Kralli 2017: 162–63, 369–79. 3 Pimouguet-Pédarros and Geny 2000: 25–32; Fachard 2012: 260. On literary and epigraphic evidence in general, see Pimouguet-Pédarros and Geny 2000: 23–28, for a collection of ‘building inscriptions’, see Maier 1959. 4 Thuc. 5.83; D. S. 12.81.1. 5 For the construction date of the ‘hexagonal’ tower at Achladokampos (1), see below. 6 For this inscription (SEG xix 317 = SEG xxv 361 = SEG xxx 358 = SEG xli 278 (c. 300 BC)), see for example Vollgraff 1916; Maier 1959: 145–48; Scranton 1941: 165; Marsden 1969: 144; Migeotte 1984: 81–84; Piérart and Touchais 1996: 64. I am very grateful to Dr Sylvian Fachard and Dr Jean-Claude Bessac for generously sharing some results of the recent 1

excavations on the Aspis in advance of their publication. 7 Frederiksen 2011: 62; Hülden 2020: 35–36. For a summary of different approaches to dating Greek fortifications, see for example Coutsinas 2019: 413–14; Hülden 2020: 37–51. 8 For example in the territory of Phoinike (Giorgi and Bogdani 2012: 309–22), in the territory of Eretria (Fachard 2012: 256–62) or on Crete (Coutsinas 2013: 131–47). 9 Especially the chronologies of Scranton 1941 and Winter 1971: 69– 100 (see below). 10 For example by McNicoll 1997: 3; Pimouguet-Pédarros and Geny 2000: 70–71; Ley 2009: 179, 200–15; Frederiksen 2011: 65–68; Fachard 2012: 257–60; Brasse and Müth 2016: 76; Coutsinas 2019: 414–16; Hülden 2020: 39–42. 11 Dates previously suggested for individual sites are summarised in the catalogue.

31

A Landscape of Conflict? Rural Fortifications in the Argolid (400–146 BC) known historical fortifications of mainland Greece.12 Chronologically, their construction is followed by the 7th- or 6th-century BC earth and mudbrick walls of ancient Halieis (modern Porto Cheli (64))13 and the Archaic ‘phase 2’ of the inner circuit on Argos’ Larissa hill (12).14

or the early 3rd century BC: the tower at Prosymna: Pyrgouthi (69) (built between the late 4th century BC and the 260s BC),20 the triangular bastion on the Aspis of Argos (12) (early Hellenistic),21 the Southeast Tower and the adjacent polygonal circuit at Asini (14) (around 300 BC)22 and the southeast and ‘middle’ walls at Porto Cheli (64).23 Furthermore, the small fort of Anathema (8) has been dated to the late 4th or 3rd century BC,24 while excavations have revealed a phase of Late Hellenistic reuse at the lower citadel of Tiryntha (76).25 A final fortification that should briefly be mentioned in relation to stratified finds is the drystone circuit at Phranchthi (62), where a Classical or Hellenistic sherd was found in the fill of the wall during the Southern Argolid Survey. Based on this find, a construction in the Classical or Hellenistic period has tentatively been suggested, but it remains unclear if the sherd was found in situ.26

After the end of the Archaic period, stratigraphically datable fortification walls are missing in the Argolid until the late 5th and the early 4th century BC, when new defensive structures were constructed at Argos (12),15 Asini (14),16 Galatas: Megali Magoula (25),17 Lygourio 1 (49)18 and Porto Cheli (64).19 Four further buildings or construction phases belong to the latter part of the 4th Both structures are dated through foundation deposits to c. 720 BC. For the deposit on the Barbouna hill, see Wells 1988: 261–262, for the deposit on the acropolis, see Frödin 1938: 330–33; Wells 1988: 262–64; Coldstream 2008: 131–33, 330. A further deposit of Geometric pottery (found in the 1920s near the east circuit of the Barbouna hill) was previously interpreted as a grave, but may in fact represent a third foundation deposit (Frödin 1938: 152; Wells 1988: 264). For a more cautious approach to these finds and a chronological comparison to other walls on the Greek mainland, see Hülden 2020: 354. 13 McAllister 2005: 17–18, 76–77. 14 These walls are constructed in carefully fitted coursed polygonal masonry with smoothed faces — an unusual construction technique for fortified sites in the Argolid. The wall’s Archaic date is based on Protocorinthian sherds found between the ‘phase 1’ and ‘phase 2’ walls, as well as a reused 6th-century BC inscription (see for example Schilbach 1975: 18; Frederiksen 2011: 131; Πιτερός 2013: 339–40). Πιτερός 2013: 340 suggested that the walls may have remained unfinished after the battle of Sepeia in 494 BC. However, some uncertainty remains as to the original function of the walls: Although they were subsequently incorporated into the later defences, Schilbach 1975: 12–14 pointed out that their rectangular layout is illsuited for defensive purposes and does not make use of the Larissa’s naturally defensible terrain. He furthermore noted that a temple foundation on the summit of the hill is aligned with the ‘phase 2’ walls, and therefore concluded that the walls may have formed a rectangular terrace for the temples of Athena Akraia and Zeus Larisaios, rather than a primarily defensive structure. 15 Judging by the discovery of a terracotta figurine, the western polygonal wall of Argos’ Larissa belongs to the last third of the 5th century BC at the earliest (Garlan 1966: 147). 16 At Asini (14), the ashlar masonry phase (previously believed to be Roman (Frödin 1938: 48–57)) was dated by pottery inside the wall’s fill to the period between the late 5th- and the mid 4th-century BC (Πιτερός 1996a: 90). 17 At Galatas: Megali Magoula (25) — originally built in the Middle or Late Helladic period — two round towers and a three-roomed building were added in the Late Classical period (Κονσολάκη-Γιαννοπούλου 2003: 162, 2009: 506; Konsolaki-Yiannopoulou 2010: 69). 18 When the tower of Lygourio 1 (49) was excavated in 1937, no pottery later than the late 5th or early 4th century BC was discovered below the floor level of the entrance corridor (Scranton 1938: 528). A silver coin of Epidauros was recorded under the floor of the second building phase (Scranton 1938: 528), but cannot be dated securely. For the date of the coin, see Babelon 1901: III. 490 nr. 682. Lygourio 1 (49) shares the shape of its unusual tapering base with Elliniko: Kephalari (23) and Dalamanara (131), suggesting a similar date for all three structures. 19 At Porto Cheli (64), 4th-century BC pottery was found above the bedrock cuttings for the ‘chambered curtain’, indicating a 5thcentury BC date (McAllister 2005: 64–65, 79). Furthermore, the square predecessor of Tower 6 may be associated with the so-called ‘Acropolis Deposit 5’ (dating to 410–390 BC (McAllister 2005: 79)), but as the acropolis area has not yet been published in detail, this link remains uncertain. A further wall that has been dated through stratified finds to the Classical period forms part of the northern circuit of Agios Andreas (4) (Γρηγορακάκης 2010: 642). 12

In the absence of stratified finds and written sources, unstratified surface material can give some indication of a structure’s date. However, this material may be heavily influenced by post-depositional changes, accessibility, surface visibility and modern recording or sampling strategies, and thus needs to be treated with caution.27 At most fortifications in the Argolid, surface material attests a long occupation history,28 but at fifteen sites the recorded surface finds cluster in a particular period. In these cases, the surface material may provide a very tentative construction date for otherwise undatable structures.29 Penttinen 2005: 64. For the date of the walls on the Aspis, see for example PhilippaTouchais and Touchais 2010: 557–59. 22 This tower is dated by finds in the surrounding construction layer (Wells 1992: 139; Penttinen 1996a: 153–54, 158, 166–67). 23 The southeast circuit is dated through sherds in the core of the wall (McAllister 2005: 51), while the middle wall is dated by a coin of Hermion in the upper part of the stone fill (McAllister 2005: 56). Blocks from this wall were reused in mid 4th-century BC houses, indicating that the wall was built before the middle of the century (McAllister 2005: 55). 24 Γιαννοπούλου 2011: 149. 25 Kilian, Podzuweit, and Weisshaar 1981: 153; Kilian 1988: 105–06. 26 Jameson et al. 1994: 475. 27 On the limitations of surface surveys in general, see Cherry 1983: 397–400; Simpson 1984: 116; Wallace-Hadrill 1991: xvi–v; Hayes 2000: 45; Millett 2000: 53; Terrenato 2000: 60; Banning 2002: 46–48, 63; Given 2004: 16–19; Witcher 2006: 45. For the sampling strategies used in the Argolid, see Wright 1990: 604–08; Goester 1993: 97; Jameson et al. 1994: 224–28; Wells 1996: 15–22; Cloke 2016: 45–69. 28 For the date of surface finds at individual fortifications, see the catalogue of sites. 29 The Classical sites include the drystone circuit at Soros (72) (Jameson et al. 1994: 521–22; Γιαννοπούλου 2009: 534) and the possible fortified settlement at Petrothalassa: Kypraiou (139) (Jameson et al. 1994: 484). The fortified settlements at Iliokastro (29) (5th-century to late 3rd- or early 2nd-century BC (Jameson et al. 1994: 519–21)) and Prosymna: Agios Athanasios (67) (Classical or 4th-century BC (Penttinen 1996b: 251)) bridge the Classical and the Hellenistic period, while the towers at Agios Sostis (5) (probably 4th-century BC (Wiseman 1978: 116; Cloke 2016: 910)) and Kophy Rachi (42) (Late Classical or Hellenistic (Penttinen 2005: 112)) are either Late Classical or Hellenistic in date. Seven further sites probably belong to the Hellenistic period: Iria (31) (late 4th- and 3rd-century BC 20 21

32

Chapter 4: Dating Ancient Fortifications in the Argolid

Figure 4.1 Kastraki (35): satellite image and sketch plan (Google Earth 2013).

BC.32 Moving into the Hellenistic period, the ‘V-shaped’ fortifications at Plaka Leonidiou (63) in the Kynouria (Figure 4.3) and at Sportiza (74) in the northwestern Argolid (Figure 4.4) are similar in plan to the walls of Alea, Drymaia, New Halos and Stymphalos, suggesting a late 4th- or early 3rd-century BC date.33 Towers with integrated posterns (for example at Elliniko Astrous (21), Ierakas (28) and Troizina (80)) are also a Hellenistic phenomenon.34

4.3 Building a chronology: dating by architectural features In addition to written sources and archaeological finds, a site’s defensive architecture can be of great chronological significance.30 For example, the overlap gate at Kastraki (35) (Figure 4.1) mirrors the 4thcentury BC gates B and D at Mantineia (Figure 4.2),31 while towers with ground-floor chambers (e.g. the ‘Crown Prince Tower’ at Asini (14) or several towers at Porto Cheli (64)) have no parallels before the 4th century

32 For the development of towers or bastions with ground-floor chambers, see Winter 1971: 162; Lawrence 1979: 223; McAllister 2005: 21, for the ‘Crown Prince Tower’ at Asini (14), see Schilbach 1975: 93, for the towers at Porto Cheli (64), see McAllister 2005: 30–31. 33 Alea: probably 4th-century BC (Maher 2017: 108–19), Drymaia: late 4th-century BC (Winter 1971: 36, 158; Typaldou-Fakiris 2004: 30–41; Rönnlund 2018: 123), New Halos: late 4th- or early 3rd-century BC (Reinders 1988: 170), Stymphalos: 4th-century BC, with late 4th- or early 3rd-century BC modifications (Williams and Schaus 1997: 66; Williams and Gourley 2005: 232–33, 249–50; Maher 2017: 334–44). 34 On towers with integrated posterns, see Winter 1971: 240; Maher 2017: 53. Other examples can be found at Paestum (Winter 1971: 245), Iasos (Winter 1971: 245) and Antikythera (Brillowski, Mourgi, and Sakowicz 2013: 10–21). For the postern at Elliniko Astrous (21), see Goester 1993: 79, for the diateichisma at Troizina (80), see Fouquet 2015: 124, and for the inner circuit at Ierakas (28), see Wace and Hasluck 1908: 172–73. In addition, it has been noted that the round towers of Kazarma (39) and Kastraki (35) are not firmly bonded with the adjoining curtain walls — a construction technique that is probably related to the rise of mechanised siege-craft (Ph. Pol. 84.18–23. Winter 1971: 167; Schilbach 1975: 97) and thus suggests a terminus post quem in the late 5th century BC (Schilbach 1975: 97, 109). For Kazarma (39), Schilbach 1975: 110–12 furthermore argued

(Schilbach 1976: 128)), Lampagiana (45) (Jameson et al. 1994: 507–08), Stavropodio (75) (Αρχοντίδου-Αργύρη 1975: 77; Touchais 1977: 554), Vigliza (85) (Penttinen 1996b: 270), Marmaralono Agiou Petrou (102) (Φάκλαρης 1990: 128; Shipley 1996: 280) and Nea Epidavros: Palatia (121) (Αρχοντίδου-Αργύρη 1977a: 49). In addition, the historic walls at Mykinai (51) were built during the resettlement of the site in the 3rd century BC (Wace et al. 1923: 417; Schilbach 1975: 101; French 2002: 147; Iakovides and French 2003: 27). Only at Kastro 1 (36) the surface pottery suggests a Geometric date (Jameson et al. 1994: 442). 30 For developments in Greek fortified architecture, see for example Winter 1971: 101–25, 305; Garlan 1974: 244–69; Lawrence 1979: 42, 419; Kern 1999: 95–96; Strauss 2007: 239. For siege technologies (especially their origin in the Near East), see Lawrence 1979: 41–42; Strauss 2007: 239; Jansen 2016: 102–03. 31 Maher 2017: 222–23. For the date of the walls of Mantineia, see Maher 2017: 228–29, for the function and development of overlap gates, see Winter 1971: 208–09, 215–17, 223; Lawrence 1979: 332– 34; Maher 2017: 51–52. Similar overlap gates were also used in the 4th-century BC city walls of Stymphalos (see for example Maher 2015: 338–39, 343–44).

33

A Landscape of Conflict? Rural Fortifications in the Argolid (400–146 BC)

Figure 4.2 The gates of Mantineia (Maher 2017: 223, fig. C8.7).

A particularly important — and controversial — group of ‘chronological markers’ are ‘hexagonal’ towers. In his late 3rd-century BC Poliorketika, Philo of Byzantion recommended that such towers should be placed at gateways ‘in order that the corners may be less broken (than if they were rectangular), and that falling (enemy) missiles may not all come together at the gate-passages and so shatter the gates and make them difficult to go out of, and that you may have bearings for catapults in any direction’.35 Various scholars inferred from this passage that towers with chamfered corners were functionally connected to ancient artillery, and therefore postdate the introduction of catapults in the early 4th century BC.36

Figure 4.3 Plaka Leonidiou (63): satellite image and sketch plan (Google Earth 2013).

In the archaeological record, pre-Roman hexagonal towers are rare, with only eight known examples. Of these towers, four are located in the Argolid — at that the mudbrick crenellation or parapet points to a date before the introduction of torsion artillery. However, the walls of Gela and the Attic inscription IG II2 463 (307/06 BC) demonstrate that mudbrick continued to be used for crenellations and parapets into the 4th and 3rd century BC (Lawrence 1979: 362, 368–68). 35 Ph. Pol. 79.21–26. 36 See, for example, Marsden 1969: 147–48; Winter 1971: 194–200, 229. The first catapult (the handheld arrow-shooting gastraphetes) was probably invented around 399 BC in Syracuse (D. S. 14.42.1), followed by the stone-throwing gastraphetes in the first half of the 4th century BC (Marsden 1969: 13–14, 43, 48–56; Campbell 2011: 678–80). Schneider 1912: 1306; Marsden 1969: 56–60 placed the invention of the torsion catapult before 350 BC, while Campbell 2011: 681–82 argued that the stone missiles from the so-called cenotaph of Nikokreon at Salamis (around 311 BC) and the Athenian inventories of the year 306/05 BC (IG2 II 1487) are the first evidence for torsion artillery. By the second half of the 4th century BC, artillery was employed both by individual city-states and the Macedonian kings (D. S. 17.24.6, 17.26.7, 17.45.2. Marsden 1969: 56–57, 60–61).

Figure 4.4 Sportiza (74): satellite image and sketch plan (Google Earth 2013).

34

Chapter 4: Dating Ancient Fortifications in the Argolid

Figure 4.5 The Southeast Tower at Asini (14): plan (Adam 1982: 57, fig. 24).

Asini (14) (Figure 4.5),37 Argos (12) (Figures 4.6–7)38 and Achladokampos (1) (Figures 4.8–9)39 — while the remaining four are found at Mantineia,40 Stymphalos,41 Samos42 and Miletus.43 Four hexagonal towers have so far been dated; all belong to the 4th- or early 3rdcentury BC.44 Given this chronological and geographic distribution, Philo’s late 3rd-century BC Poliorketika may not provide the best interpretive framework for the surviving hexagonal towers.45 But even focusing strictly on the quoted passage rather than its chronological or geographical context, Philo’s three arguments for constructing hexagonal towers are not universally applicable to the surviving examples. The absence of vulnerable corners (Philo’s first argument), may have been a consideration at Achladokampos (1),

37 Frödin 1938: 27–28; Winter 1971: 196; Garlan 1974: 332; Lawrence 1979: 387; Adam 1982: 58. 38 Vollgraff 1907: 152; Maier 1959: 145–46; Garlan 1974: 332; Lawrence 1979: 387; Adam 1982: 58; Philippa-Touchais and Touchais 2010: 558. The tower on the Aspis is known as ‘Tower Y’. 39 This previously unidentified tower is located at the northeast corner of the site. Curtius 1852: pl. 15 shows a circular rather than a hexagonal tower, but this is probably due to the small scale of the plan. 40 Fougères 1898: 155–56; Maher 2017: 222. 41 Williams and Schaus 1997: 66; Maher 2017: 337. 42 Tölle 1969: 44; Garlan 1974: 332; Kienast and Homann-Wedeking 1978: 14–15, 83–84, 94–97; Lawrence 1979: 387; Adam 1982: 58. 43 Gerkan 1935: 46–47; Garlan 1974: 332; Lawrence 1979: 387; Adam 1982: 58. A further tower with angled corners was recorded at Thisbe in Boiotia (Maier 1958: 20–23; Garlan 1974: 332; Lawrence 1979: 387), but it differs considerably in layout from the towers in the Argolid and will therefore not be included in this study. 44 Asini (14): c. 300 BC (see above); Mantineia: 4th-century BC (Maher 2017: 228–29); Stymphalos: late 4th- or early 3rd-century BC (Williams and Schaus 1997: 66; Maher 2017: 343–44); Samos: 310–290 BC (Kienast and Homann-Wedeking 1978: 96–97). 45 This work was probably written in the late 3rd century BC in the context of the Ptolemaic-Seleucid wars in the eastern Mediterranean (Lawrence 1979: 70–71; Whitehead 2016: 22–24, 33).

Figures 4.6–7 Argos’ (12) hexagonal towers on the Aspis (above) and on the Larissa-Aspis wall (below) (Adam 1982: 58, fig. 26).

35

A Landscape of Conflict? Rural Fortifications in the Argolid (400–146 BC) Asini (14), Mantineia, Miletus and Samos,46 but less so at the naturally defensible sites of Argos (12) and Stymphalos.47 Similarly, Philo’s second argument — hexagonal towers hinder artillery attacks at gateways48 — is only relevant at Samos.49 Philo’s third argument — ‘that you may have bearings for catapults in any direction’ — is usually taken to refer to the hexagonal towers’ superior arc of fire.50 Although no ancient torsion catapults survive complete, it is possible to estimate the size of two types — stonethrowing palintones and arrow-shooting euthyones — on the basis of literary sources,51 surviving missiles52 and preserved metal fittings, especially the washers that reinforced the holes for the torsion springs (Tables 4.1–2).53 Assuming that the upper walls or parapets of the hexagonal towers were of comparable width to contemporary fortified structures elsewhere Figure 4.8 The possible hexagonal tower at Achladokampos (1) (Google Earth 2012).

These towers face even ground or gentle slopes and are thus easily accessible. 47 The slope of the Aspis (and possibly also the Larissa) would have protected the fortification from attacks with rams (although artillery fire may have been possible), while the tower at Stymphalos was inaccessible from below and probably beyond the reach of stonethrowing catapults. 48 For τοὺς δὲ κατὰ τοὺς πυλεῶνας ἑξαγώνους δεῖ συντελεῖν Lawrence 1979: 75 suggested the translation ‘it is necessary to associate (a pair of) hexagonal towers as gateway-complexes’, but the Greek does not specify that hexagonal towers should be constructed in pairs. In fact, flanking an entrance with two hexagonal towers would expose the gate to fire from a wider angle. 49 At Asini (14), tower and gate are too far apart, at Mantineia only missiles fired from a very narrow angle posed a danger to the gate and at Miletus the gate is placed at right angle to the city walls. 50 For example, Marsden 1969: 147–48; Winter 1971: 195–96. The translation of τάς τε ἐπιτάσεις τῶν βελῶν ἔχῃς πανταχόθεν is difficult. Firstly, Philo used the term τὸ βέλος both for missiles and for catapults (e.g. Ph. Bel. 55.19, 91.2). Secondly, the meaning of ἐπίτασις (literally ‘stretching’) is unclear. In the context of artillery, the term is used for the stretching of a bowstring (Bito 46.2, 46.7, 51.2) or for fibre-made springs (App. Pun. 93). Perhaps here it should be understood as ‘the drawing of the bowstring’, which would imply aiming a catapult. 51 Ph. Bel. 51.15–25, 53.15–20, 54.25–55.2; Vitr. 10.10–12. 52 Ph. Bel. 51. 21–27; Ph. Pol. 99.17 lists missiles of 2, 10, 15, 20, 30 and 50 minai, as well as 1, 2 1/2 and 3 talents (Campbell 2011: 685). The stone missiles found at Rhodes, Pergamon, Tel Dor, Salamis and Carthage differ slightly in calibre, but weigh roughly 3, 5, 8, 10, 12, 15, 18, 20, 22, 25, 30, 37.5, 40, 50, 65, 70, 80 and 100 minai, as well as 1, 1 1/2, 2, 2 1/2 and 3 talents (Campbell 2003: 20–22, 2011: 685; Nossov 2005: 137–38). In addition, stone missiles of 6–7 minai were found at Pergamon (Szalay 1937: 50). 53 The basic unit for calculating the dimensions of ancient torsion catapults is the diameter of the torsion spring. Based on Ph. Bel. 51.15–25, 53.15–20, 54.25–55.2 and Vitr. 10.5–10, Marsden 1969: 36; Baatz 1982: 224 estimated that a stone-throwing palintone measured c. 30 diameters in length, while an arrow-shooting euthyone was c. 25 diameters long. These formulae were widely adopted (see for example Ober 1987: 600–01, 1992: 150; Winter 1997: 249; Campbell 2003: 14; Nossov 2005: 281), but as Rihll 2006: 380–83 has pointed out, it remains unclear how E.W. Marsden and D. Baatz reached their conclusions. Strictly speaking, it is only possible to estimate the length of the stock (16 diameters for arrow-shooting euthyones and 19 diameters for stone-throwing palintones) and the width of ancient torsion catapults (14 diameters for arrow-shooting euthyones and 12 diameters for stone-throwing palintones). These figures are summarised in Tables 4.1–2, based on the known calibres of ancient missiles and on surviving 2nd-century BC spring-hole washers from Ephyra (Baatz 1979; 1982) and from the 1st-century BC Mahdia shipwreck (Baatz 1985). 46

Figure 4.9 The northwest side of the possible hexagonal tower at Achladokampos (1) from the north (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

(Tables 4.3–4)54 and that at least 1m was necessary behind a catapult’s stock for the handspike and operators, arrow-shooting euthyones could theoretically have been fitted at all eight hexagonal towers (Table 4.5). Judging solely by the structures’ dimensions, the towers at Argos (12), Asini (14), Miletus and Samos could also have housed stone-throwing palintones (Table 4.5),55 even though some towers 54 As no hexagonal tower survives to its full height, the original width of the mudbrick or stone walls, crenellations or battlements has to be estimated with the help of better-preserved fortification walls. For mudbrick walls, see the walls of Demetrias (1.35–2.15m wide (Stählin 1934: 84–90)), for stone walls see the so-called ‘artillery towers’ in Attica, Boiotia, at Messene and in Asia Minor (0.4–1.42m wide (Ober 1987, 1992)), for crenellated stone battlements, see Kaunus and Herakleia ad Latmos (0.5m wide (Lawrence 1979: 361, 370)) and for continuous stone battlements, see Aetolian Chalkis, Perga and Herakleia ad Latmos (0.53–0.8m wide (Lawrence 1979: 368, 370–71)). 55 For the towers at Asini (14), Argos (the Larissa tower) (12), Miletus and Samos, Winter 1997: 259, 267–68, 279 reached a similar

36

Chapter 4: Dating Ancient Fortifications in the Argolid

Weight (in minai)

Diameter of spring hole in cm

Width in m

Length in m

3

14.2

1.71

2.70

2

12.4

5

1.49

16.9

2.36

2.02

3.20

8

19.7

2.37

3.75

12

22.6

2.71

4.29

10

21.2

15

2.55

24.3

18

2.92

25.8

20

3.67

6.27

36.3

4.36

6.90

60 (1 talent)

38.6

4.04

6.07

5.30

45.7

8.39

5.49

120 (2 talents)

48.6

5.83

180 (3 talents)

55.6

6.68

150

7.72

5.10

44.2

100

7.53

4.87

42.5

90 (1 1/2 talents)

7.33

4.75

40.6

80

6.40

4.63

39.6

70

5.82

3.96

33.7

65

5.48

33

40 50

5.25

3.46

30.6

37.5

5.08

3.31

28.8

30

4.91

3.21

27.6

25

4.62

3.10

26.7

22

4.03

52.4

8.69 9.24

6.28

9.95

10.57

Table 4.1 The width and stock length of stone-throwing palintones.

Diameter of spring hole in cm

Length of arrow in cm

Ephyra

5.6

50.4

0.78

0.90

Ephyra

7.5

67.5

1.05

1.20

Findspot Ephyra

Ephyra

Ephyra

Ephyra

3.4 6

8.3

8.4

30.6 54

74.7

0.63

0.72

84.6

1.32

7.2

64.8

9.4

9.5

1.33

40.5

Mahdia shipwreck

Mahdia shipwreck

1.16

0.96

1.34

122.4

Mahdia shipwreck

0.84

0.54

1.17

13.6 4.5

0.48

Length in m

75.6

Ephyra

Mahdia shipwreck

Width in m

85.5

1.9

1.01

1.33

2.18

1.15

1.50

1.52

Table 4.2 The width and stock length of arrow-shooting euthyones, reconstructed from washers at Ephyra and the Mahdia shipwreck.

37

A Landscape of Conflict? Rural Fortifications in the Argolid (400–146 BC)

Name

Total width

Central flank

Oblique flank a

Oblique flank b

Side flank a

Side flank b

Argos: Larissa-Aspis (12)

9.6

5.6

2.82

2.82

5.45

5.45

Asini (14)

10.1 5.40

7.5

1.83

1.91

1.77

3.9

5.75

Miletus

ca. 13

6.47

4.52

4.52

Samos

11.22

3.84

5.22

5.22

8.53

8.53

Argos: Aspis (12)

Mantineia

Stymphalos

6.4

6.55

3.64

2.4

2.58

2.31

1.5

2.58

2.75

3

31

4.15

3.78

2.6

2.75

3.78

Williams and Schaus 1997: 63; Williams and Gourley 2005: 246 give a length of 4m for the oblique faces, but the accompanying plan shows that the sides are closer to 3m in length.

1

Table 4.3 The outer dimensions of the hexagonal towers (in meters). Name

Side flank a

Side flank b

Oblique flank a

Central flank

Oblique flank b

Argos: Aspis (12)

3.86–3.98

2.31–2.43

1.82–2.07

3.06–3.31

0.92–1.17

Argos: Larissa– Aspis (12)

5.12–5.28

5.12–5.28

2.17–2.5

4.94–5.27

2.17–2.5

Asini (14) Mantineia

3.56–3.73 2.41–2.58

5.41–5.58 2.41–2.58

1.11–1.44 1.92–2.25

6.84–7.17 1.17–1.5

1.24–1.57 1.92–2.25

Miletus

?

?

3.86–4.19

5.81–6.14

3.86–4.19

Samos Stymphalos

7.4–7.96 3.45–3.61

7.4–7.96 3.45–3.61

4.56–4.89 2.34–2.67

3.18–3.51 1.65–1.98

4.56–4.89 2.34–2.67

Table 4.4 a The hypothetical inner dimensions of the hexagonal towers: battlements (width 0.4–0.8, all measurements in meters). Name Argos: Aspis (12) Argos: LarissaAspis (12) Asini (14)

Side flank a 3.26–3.59

Side flank b 1.71–2.04

Oblique flank a 0.62–1.28

Central flank 1.86–2.52

Oblique flank b 0–0.38

4.56–4.89

4.56–4.89

1.05–1.71

3.82–4.48

1.05–1.71

3.01–3.34

4.86–5.19

0–0.64

5.72–6.38

0–0.79

Mantineia

1.85–2.18

1.85–2.19

0.8–1.46

0.05–0.71

0.8–1.46

Miletus

?

?

3.03–3.4

4.98–5.35

3.03–3.4

Samos Stymphalos

6.62 2.89–3.22

6.62 2.89–3.22

4.1 1.22–1.88

2.72 0.53–1.19

4.1 1.22–1.88

Table 4.4 b The hypothetical inner dimensions of the hexagonal towers: mudbrick walls (width 1.35–2.15; Miletus: 1.35–1.8; Samos: 1.35; all measurements in meters). Name

Side flank a

Side flank b

Oblique flank a

Central flank

Oblique flank b

Argos: Aspis (12)

3.56–3.98

2.01–2.43

1.22–2.07

2.47–3.31

0.32–1.17

Argos: LarissaAspis (12)

4.86–5.85

4.86–5.85

1.65–2.5

4.42–5.27

1.65–2.5

Asini (14)

3.31–3.73

5.16–5.58

0.59–1.44

6.32–7.17

0.73–1.58

Mantineia

2.16–2.58

2.16–2.58

1.4–2.25

0.65–1.5

1.4–2.25

Miletus

?

?

3.34–4.19

5.29–6.13

3.34–4.19

Samos Stymphalos

6.62–7.96 3.19–3.61

6.62–7.96 3.19–3.61

4.1–4.89 1.82–2.67

2.72–3.51 1.13–1.98

4.1–4.89 1.82–2.67

Table 4.4 c The hypothetical inner dimensions of the hexagonal towers: stone walls (width 0.4–1.42, Samos: 0.75–1.35, all measurements in meters).

38

Chapter 4: Dating Ancient Fortifications in the Argolid

Name

Catapult at the oblique flank a

Catapult at the oblique flank b

Central catapult

Catapult at the side flanks

Argos: Aspis (12)

1.98–2.38

1.53–1.93

1.08–1.48

1.4–1.8

Argos: Larissa-Aspis (12)

3.57–3.97

3.57–3.97

3–3.4

3–3.4

Asini (14)

4.39–4.79

4.46–4.86

3.2–3.6

3.25–3.65

Mantineia

0.78–1.18

0.78–1.18

0.94–1.34

0.94–1.34

Miletus

5.04–5.44

5.04–5.44

4.63–5.03

4.63–5.03

Samos

3.53–3.93

3.53–3.93

3.81–4.21

3.81–4.21

Stymphalos

1.33–1.73

1.33–1.73

1.48–1.88

1.48–1.88

Table 4.5 a The hypothetical stock length of catapults at the hexagonal towers (battlements; all measurements in meters).

Name

Catapult at the oblique flank a

Catapult at the oblique flank b

Central catapult

Catapult at the side flanks

Argos: Aspis (12)

0.63–1.43

0.18–0.98

0–53.2

0.5–0.85

Argos: Larissa-Aspis (12)

2.22–3.02

2.22–3.02

1.65–2.45

1.65–2.45

Asini (14)

3.84 (not possible for w=2.15)

3.91 (not possible for w=2.15)

1.85–2.65

1.90–2.70

Mantineia

0–0.23

0–0.23

0–0.39

0–0.39

Miletus

4.04–4.49

4.04–4.49

3.63–4.08

3.63–4.08

Samos

2.98

2.98

3.26

3.26

Stymphalos

0–0.78

0.78

0.13–0.93

0.13–0.93

Table 4.5 b The hypothetical stock length of catapults at the hexagonal towers (mudbrick walls; all measurements in meters).

Name

Catapult at the oblique flank a

Catapult at the oblique flank b

Central catapult

Catapult at the side flanks

Argos: Aspis (12)

1.36–2.38

0.91–1.93

0.46–1.48

0.78–1.8

Argos: Larissa-Aspis (12)

2.95–3.97

2.95–3.97

2.38–3.4

2.38–3.4

Asini (14)

3.77–4.79

3.84–4.86

2.58–3.6

2.63–3.65

Mantineia

0.16–1.18

0.16–1.18

0.32–1.34

0.32–1.34

Miletus

4.42–5.44

4.42–5.44

4.01–5.03

4.01–5.03

Samos

2.98–3.93

2.98–3.93

3.26–4.21

3.26–4.21

Stymphalos

0.71–1.73

0.71–1.73

0.86–1.88

0.86–1.88

Table 4.5 c The hypothetical stock length of catapults at the hexagonal towers (stone walls; all measurements in meters).

39

A Landscape of Conflict? Rural Fortifications in the Argolid (400–146 BC)

Figure 4.10 Drystone masonry on the north side of Agio Lias (2) (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Figure 4.11 Roughly hewn coursed polygonal masonry at Agios Sostis (5) (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Korinthia; photo by the author).

Figure 4.12 Roughly hewn uncoursed polygonal masonry at Tyros (83) (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Arkadia; photo by the author).

Figure 4.13 Carefully fitted ashlar masonry at Asini (14) (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Figure 4.14 Carefully fitted coursed trapezoidal masonry at Elliniko Astrous (21) (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Arkadia; photo by the author).

Figure 4.15 Carefully fitted uncoursed trapezoidal masonry at Ano Phanari (10). ) (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Piraeus and the Islands; photo by the author).

40

Chapter 4: Dating Ancient Fortifications in the Argolid

Figure 4.17 Carefully fitted uncoursed polygonal masonry at Palaia Epidavros 1 (54) (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Figure 4.16 Carefully fitted coursed polygonal masonry at Iria (31) ) (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

may not have provide sufficient stability for torsion catapults. Consequently, hexagonal towers could be connected to ancient artillery, but alternative explanations for their unusual shape are equally possible. For example, the hexagonal plan of the tower on the Aspis is related to the structure’s specific building history. The tower is located at the joint between two curtain walls, and was probably constructed towards the end of the major late 4th- or early 3rd-century construction project at the site. By this point, resources may have been limited, and choosing a hexagonal ground plan would have allowed for the use of different-sized blocks, including material ‘recycled’ from other parts of the site.56 In the light of this example, it is the limited chronological range of dated examples (4th – early 3rd century BC) rather than a concrete connection to ancient artillery that makes the hexagonal towers a ‘chronological marker’ in the study of fortifications in the Argolid.

Figure 4.18 The distribution of masonry by type of joint (number of samples).

4.4 Polygonal problems: dating by masonry technique Masonry chronologies are perhaps the most widely used (but certainly also the most controversial) technique of dating Greek fortifications. Many previous studies draw

Figure 4.19 The distribution of roughly hewn masonry by shape of blocks (number of samples).

conclusion, although his calculations were based on Marsden’s estimates of catapult sizes. Besides the hexagonal towers, the Argolid also provides three examples of genuine artillery bastions: the rectangular bastion at the highest point of Plaka Leonidiou (63), which mirrors the artillery bastions at Alea (Lawrence 1979: 396) and Stymphalos (Williams and Gourley 2005: 246; Maher 2017: 337), the triangular bastion at Elliniko Astrous (21) (Balandier and Guintrand 2019: 444–45) and the semi-circular bastion at the northern end of the elaborate triangular bastion on Argos’ Aspis (for this bastion, see for example Vollgraff 1907: 150–52; Philippa-Touchais and Touchais 2010: 559). This complex bastion is comparable in shape to the late 4th- or early 3rd-century BC battery at the North Gate of Selinous (Winter 1971: 181; Mertens, Mathieu, and Wannagat 1989: 113–14, 129–31; Karlsson 1992: 59). 56 I am very grateful to Dr Sylvian Fachard for sharing this insight into the tower’s building history.

Figure 4.20 The distribution of fitted masonry by shape of blocks (number of samples).

41

A Landscape of Conflict? Rural Fortifications in the Argolid (400–146 BC)

Figure 4.22 The distribution of drystone masonry by type of site (number of samples, excluding drystone circuits).

Figure 4.21 Uncoursed roughly hewn polygonal masonry at Plaka Leonidiou (63) (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Arkadia; photo by the author).

heavily on the masonry typology set out by R. Scranton in 1941,57 even though it has become increasingly clear that its chronological model fall short of reality. Instead of following an overarching ‘panhellenic’ trajectory of aesthetic preferences and military technology, different masonry techniques were often employed in responses to particular local problems and circumstances (e.g. the available financial resources or the characteristics of the local stone).58

Figure 4.23 The distribution of roughly hewn masonry by type of site (number of samples).

The masonry techniques employed at the fortifications in the Argolid can be divided into the three broad categories: drystone masonry (Figure 4.10),59 roughly hewn masonry (Figures 4.11–12) and carefully fitted masonry (Figures 4.13–17).60 The second and third category can be subdivided according to the shape of the individual blocks into seven subgroups (ashlar (Figure 4.13), coursed trapezoidal (Figure 4.14), uncoursed trapezoidal (Figure 4.15), coursed polygonal (Figures 4.11 and 4.16) and uncoursed polygonal masonry (Figures 4.12 and 4.17), as well as trapezoidal or polygonal walls that cannot be attributed to a more specific subgroups).61 In addition, it is possible to differentiate between walls with rough or deliberately

Figure 4.24 The distribution of carefully fitted masonry by type of site (number of samples).

Scranton 1941. See for example Lawrence 1979: 234–35; McNicoll 1997: 3; Fachard 2012: 257–58; Bessac 2016: 132–34; Brasse and Müth 2016: 90–99; Maher 2017: 43; Coutsinas 2019: 422–24; Hülden 2020: 40–42. 59 In this type of masonry, individual blocks show no or only very few signs of shaping. 60 The walls of the third group consist either of similarly sized blocks or include small triangular stones, which were used to fill the corners between larger blocks. Today, these stones are sometimes missing, giving the masonry a similar appearance as the walls of the second group. In past scholarship, fortification walls have often been described as ‘cyclopean’, but since this term can encompass a variety of different masonry styles, it will not be used as one of the main descriptive categories in the present study. Depending on the specific building technique, ‘cyclopean walls’ are instead classified either as ‘drystone’ constructions or as walls in ‘roughly hewn polygonal masonry’. 61 Both coursed and uncoursed polygonal masonry can include levelling courses and rectangular corner stones. 57 58

Figure 4.25 The distribution of coursed polygonal masonry by type of site (number of samples).

42

Chapter 4: Dating Ancient Fortifications in the Argolid

irregular faces (Figures 4.11–12 and 4.14–16) and walls with smooth or regularly patterned surfaces (Figure 4.13).62

Palaia Epidavros is hard, fine-grained and usually employed in carefully fitted masonry (Figure 4.17), whereas the limestone around the bay of Poulithra is often crossed by fine cracks and in consequence frequently cut into roughly hewn blocks (Figure 4.21). Using the appearance of the joints between individual blocks as an indicator of a site’s construction date would therefore be misleading.

Among the 146 fortifications in the Argolid, 101 are sufficiently preserved and documented to analyse both the general masonry type and the shape of the individual blocks.63 At 20 sites, multiple masonry techniques are present at the same fortification, raising the total number of individual ‘samples’ to 134 (see Appendix). The distribution of different types of masonry is summarised in Figures 4.18–20: 26 walls were built in drystone masonry (19.4% of all examples), 39 in roughly hewn masonry (29.1%) and 69 in carefully fitted masonry (51.5%). Of the 39 roughly hewn walls, one is constructed in ashlar masonry (2.6% of the roughly hewn walls), one in coursed trapezoidal (2.6%), one in uncoursed trapezoidal (2.6%), 16 in coursed polygonal (41.0%), seven in uncoursed polygonal (18.0%) and 13 in polygonal of uncertain structure (33.3%). In comparison, the 69 carefully fitted examples include four walls in ashlar (5.8% of the carefully fitted walls), eleven in coursed trapezoidal (15.9%), three in uncoursed trapezoidal (4.4%), 28 in coursed polygonal (40.6%), 15 in uncoursed polygonal (21.7%), one in trapezoidal (1.5%) and seven in polygonal masonry (10.1%).

Similarly, different masonry techniques are not equally distributed among the four types of fortifications. As Figures 4.22–24 show, drystone walls include an unusually high number of forts, while towers are more commonly constructed in carefully shaped or roughly hewn blocks. This pattern may partly be a result of the preservation, identification and recording of drystone structures — easily mistaken for buildings of more recent date — but nevertheless it casts doubt on whether the distinction between drystone, roughly hewn and carefully fitted masonry alone is chronologically significant. Turning to the shape of the individual blocks (ashlar, coursed polygonal, uncoursed trapezoidal etc.), only the coursed polygonal walls are common enough to study their distribution among different types of fortifications. Fortified settlements account for 45.5% of all roughly hewn or carefully fitted coursed polygonal walls, forts for 9.1% and towers for 45.5%. Interestingly, these figures closely resemble the distribution of different types of fortifications among all roughly hewn or carefully fitted masonry samples (Figures 4.23–5). This parallel suggests that specific shapes of blocks were not associated with particular types of fortifications.

These different masonry techniques do not follow a strict regional pattern,64 but there is a strong correlation between the choice of masonry and the locally available building stone. For example, the limestone around Although this new classification is specifically tailored to the present study, some overlap between different categories remains. For example, polygonal and trapezoidal blocks can be present in the same fortification. Such combinations of two or more masonry techniques are described in detail in the site catalogue, but for the purpose of classification this chapter will distinguish between two methods of incorporating diverse blocks within the same structure: If, on the one hand, a site includes clearly defined sections in different masonry techniques, the different techniques are classified individually (e.g. at Kophy Rachi (42)), but if, on the other hand, different types of masonry are present within the same structure and building phase, the masonry will be classified according to the predominant technique. 63 The 45 sites where the masonry cannot be fully classified are Palaia Epidavros 2 (55), Tiryntha (76), Agios Leonidas (89), Ermioni: Magoula (93), Kapsala (96), Marmaralono Agiou Petrou (102), Perasphalktra (103), Xydeika (106), Agia Paraskevi (107), Andritsa: Elliniko (109), Andritsa: Koukouras (110), Chora (111), Dervenakia (112), Ellinon Lithari (113), Kato Phanari (114), Katsigiari (115), Koroni (116), Krya Vrysi: Misorrachi (117), Metochi (118), Moni Panagias Agnountos (119), Nea Epidavros: Brinia (120), Nea Epidavros: Palatia (121), Papoutsaiika (122), Pigadaki (123), Stena (124), Strongylo (125), Zavitsa (126), Agios Dimitrios (128), Agios Ioannis 1 (129), Dalamanara (131), Dimaina (132), Kodeles (133), Korakia (134), Mathi (135), Monastiraki (136), Myloi: Kalamaki (137), Petrothalassa (138), Petrothalassa: Kypraiou (139), Porto Ydra (140), Prosymna: SM 8 (141), Skala 2 (142), Spathovouni (143), Ververonta (144), Zogka: Asprorrema (145) and Zogka: Sykitsa (146). Most of these sites no longer survive or could not be located. 64 In the case of the Thyreatis, Balandier and Guintrand (2019: 443) suggested a connection between masonry styles and political territories, an idea that will be explored further in chapter 6 with the examples of Kastraki (35) and Kazarma (39). 62

Unlike the choice between drystone, roughly hewn and carefully fitted masonry, the shape of individual blocks even shows some chronological patterns within the constraints of the locally available building materials. Of the 134 ‘samples’ of masonry included in this study, only 43 can be dated through written sources, stratified material, surface finds or architectural features (32.1% of all examples).65 Ten of these dated ‘samples’ are drystone walls. They include some of the earliest datable fortified structures of this study (the late 8th-century BC drystone circuits at Asini (14–5)), but examples like Anathema (8), Kophy Rachi (42), Phranchthi (62) and Soros (72) demonstrate that drystone masonry continued to be used into the Classical and Hellenistic period. Drystone masonry thus does not necessarily indicate a Geometric or Archaic construction date. Comparing the date and construction technique of the 34 remaining dated walls, a more nuanced pattern In addition to the fortifications discussed above, this includes the tower at Drymoni 1 (20), which Marchand (2002, 311–12) has convincingly dated no later than the Hellenistic period.

65

43

A Landscape of Conflict? Rural Fortifications in the Argolid (400–146 BC) emerges. Firstly, fortifications walls in roughly hewn and carefully fitted masonry are rare before the 5th century BC, with only one tentative example (the Archaic ‘phase 2’ circuit on Argos’ Larissa hill (12)).66 Given the scarcity of securely dated fortifications, this may however reflect the state of research rather than a genuine chronological pattern.

and four are more specific, encompassing walls of the Classical (ashlar masonry and trapezoidal blocks with smoothed faces) and Hellenistic period (carefully fitted uncoursed polygonal masonry) respectively. This ‘local masonry chronology’ provides a rough date for 68 ‘samples’ of masonry that would otherwise be entirely undatable. This brings the total number of datable fortifications in the Argolid to 94 out of 146 sites. Of these 94 fortified sites, only six include historical building phases that clearly predate the Late Classical period.68 Of the remaining 88 sites, 11 were constructed either in the Classical or the Hellenistic period, while 77 can be assigned to a date between c. 400 and 146 BC.69

Secondly, all dated fortification walls in trapezoidal or ashlar masonry with smooth faces or in carefully fitted ashlar masonry with rough surfaces belong to the period between the late 5th and the mid 4th century BC. Despite the small number of surviving examples, this tentatively suggests that all three masonry techniques went out of use for fortifications in the region around the middle of the 4th century BC.67

Admittedly, this new chronology lacks considerably in precision, making it difficult to identify contemporary fortifications or to draw connections between individual sites and specific historical events. Further research on the chronology of fortified structure in the Argolid (especially systematic excavations that may reveal additional dating evidence) is thus still an important desideratum. Nevertheless, the new chronology presents a considerable step forward. Instead of being limited to a handful of datable sites, the present study can draw on a collection of 88 fortifications and possible fortifications that are both securely located and roughly dated, as well as a collection of undated sites that were in use during the Late Classical or Hellenistic period.70 Like any corpus of archaeological material, this collection remains fragmentary, but nonetheless provides an adequate basis for a first systematic regional analysis of fortifications in the Argolid.

Thirdly, walls in carefully fitted uncoursed polygonal masonry are very uniform in date. Of the 15 examples in the Argolid, four have a known construction date (26.7% of all carefully fitted uncoursed polygonal walls), which consistently falls within the Hellenistic period. This tentatively suggests that walls in this particular technique are primarily a Hellenistic phenomenon. For other masonry techniques, the chronological patterns are less clear. Walls in roughly hewn polygonal masonry (both coursed and uncoursed) and carefully fitted coursed polygonal masonry occur both in the Late Classical and the Hellenistic period, while coursed trapezoidal walls (both in roughly hewn and in carefully fitted blocks) appear to span much of the Classical as well as the Hellenistic period. 4.5 Dating ancient fortifications: discussion and conclusions

68 Argos (12), Asini (14), Asini: Barbouna (15), Kastro 1 (36), Palaia Epidavros 2 (55) and Porto Cheli (64). 69 Despite this improved chronology, 53 fortifications in the corpus remain undatable. At 21 of these sites, surface finds indicate one or several periods of use during the Late Classical or Hellenistic period, but for the remaining 32 sites the chronology remains entirely obscure. However, 26 out of the 32 undatable sites no longer survive or could not be located. Regardless of their date, these sites therefore have only a limited potential for a study that focuses on the location of individual fortifications within the ancient landscape. 70 Classical: Kastro 2 (37) (Rupp 1976: 264; Tausend 2006: 29) and Kapsala (96) (Iakovides and French 2003: 41). Hellenistic: Kantia 1 (33) (Gebauer 1939: 288–92; Brommer 1975: 172; Πιτερός 1995a: 111; Simpson and Hagel 2006: 40) and Skala 2 (142) (Pritchett 1980: 15; Πίκουλας 1995: 189). Classical and Hellenistic: Agio Lias (2) (Wace et al. 1923: 433; Brommer 1975: 170; Wells, Runnels, and Zangger 1990: 228; Πίκουλας 1995: 187; Hahn 1996: 349–51), Ano Phanari (10) (Φαράκλας 1972a: Ε. 3.9), Choutalaiika (18) (Simpson and Dickinson 1979: 52; Simpson and Hagel 2006: 45), Gymnon (26) (Simpson 1965: 18; Simpson and Lazenby 1970: 66–67; Leekley and Noyes 1976: 62; Simpson and Dickinson 1979: 45–46; Simpson 1981: 25; Πίκουλας 1995: 227), Kastro tis Paliopanagias (38) (Waterhouse and Simpson 1961: 135; Παπαχατζής 1976: 417; Φάκλαρης 1990: 155; Shipley 1996: 281), Vigla (84) (Simpson 1981: 31; Jameson et al. 1994: 510), Vourlia 1 (86) (Κύρου 1990: 85, 222; Suto 1996: 11), Agios Leonidas (89) (Φαράκλας 1972a: E. 3.3), Ermioni: Magoula (93) (Jameson et al. 1994: 502), Katsigiari (115) (Jameson et al. 1994: 501), Koroni (116) (Φαράκλας 1972a: E. 3.5), Metochi (118) (Jameson et al. 1994: 431), Dimaina (132) (Φαράκλας 1972a: E. 3.3), Korakia (134) (Jameson et al. 1994: 451), Petrothalassa (138) (Jameson et al. 1994: 483–84) and Spathovouni (143) (Πίκουλας 1995: 163; Marchand 2002: 156).

These observations — though at first discouraging — can provide a rudimentary ‘local masonry chronology’ which divides the fortified structures in the Argolid into four broad chronological brackets. The first and broadest of the four brackets spans the Classical and the Hellenistic period and includes walls in roughly hewn and carefully fitted coursed trapezoidal masonry. The second bracket is chronologically slightly narrower — from the beginning of the Late Classical to the end of the Hellenistic period — and includes walls in carefully fitted coursed polygonal and roughly hewn polygonal masonry (both coursed and uncoursed). Brackets three 66 See above for the possible identification as a sanctuary terrace rather than as a primarily defensive structure (Schilbach 1975: 12– 14). Although this identification is uncertain, it is notable that the circuit’s polygonal masonry technique with smoothed faces would be unique among fortifications in the Argolid. 67 The only possible example of a Hellenistic fortification in ashlar blocks is the tower of Dymoni 1 (20). This structure was probably constructed with material repurposed from a nearby quarry (Marchand 2002: 311–12), which may explain the unusual shape of the blocks.

44

Chapter 5

A Regional Study of Fortifications in the Argolid a dramatic increase from c. 400 BC onwards.7 By this time the region’s communities had crystallised into the familiar city-states of Argos, Epidauros, Halieis, Hermion, Kleonai and Troizen.8 This is not to say that from 400 BC onwards the political landscape of the Argolid remained static: for example, the city of Kleonai was temporarily incorporated into the Argive territory (probably between the early 4th century BC and 235 BC),9 while Halieis was destroyed and ceased to exist as a political community in the early 3rd century BC.10

5.1 The political geography of the Argolid (400–146 BC) 272 BC was a turbulent year for the community of Argos: despite previous attempts to remain neutral, they became embroiled in the struggle between Antigonos Gonatas and Pyrrhus of Epeiros, culminating in Pyrrhus’ attack on the city. But when the gates of Argos proved too small to admit Pyrrhus’ war elephants, confusion ensued and the king himself was hit by a roof tile and killed in the streets of the city.1 Over the subsequent years or decades, visitors to the small Enyalios shrine northeast of Mycenae were able to see a striking reminder of these events: a bronze shield, dedicated by the Argives and carrying the inscription ‘τοὶ Ἀργεῖο[ι τοῖς] θεοῖς ἀπὸ β[ασιλέως] Πύρρο[υ]’ (‘The Argives [dedicated this] to the gods from the king Pyrrhus’).2

Locating the often shifting boundaries between these six city-states is crucial for understanding rural fortifications, not least because it is often only the political division of the region that allows the attribution of sites to specific territories. Yet it is important to bear in mind that the nature of ancient territorial boundaries is neither uniform nor directly comparable to modern borders. In some areas, the limits of ancient territories appear as transitional ‘grey-zones’ or ‘noman’s-lands’,11 while in other areas surviving boundary disputes characterise the borders between city-states as clearly defined notional ‘lines’.12 It must therefore be stressed that the ‘borders’ reconstructed in this chapter are not an attempt to impose a concept of ‘borders’ as ‘demarcation lines’ on the ancient political landscape,13

Such weapon dedications are neither particularly unusual nor limited to the Hellenistic period — for example, the Argives dedicated several shields, helmets and greaves at Olympia after a victory against Corinth in the late 6th or early 5th century BC.3 Nor were they the only visual reminders of past conflicts in sacred or public spaces. A 4th-century BC visitor to the Asklepieion at Epidauros would have encountered pilgrims with shocking war wounds (‘Antikrates of Knidos […] had been struck with a spear through both his eyes in some battle, and he became blind and carried around the spearhead with him, inside his face’4), while an Argive walking towards the city’s agora around 400 BC might have passed a freshly cut limestone casualty list.5 These examples illustrate how past conflicts were present in the everyday life of the ancient Argolid, and demonstrate how across different periods the region’s inhabitants were frequently reminded of both the opportunities and the costs of war.

See chapter 4. See chapter 1. Marchand 2002: 512–13; Mattern 2015: 23–26; Kralli 2017: 174. Kleonai was traditionally thought to have retained its independence into the late 4th century BC (Piérart and Thalmann 1980: 261–68; Perlman 2000: 138–52; Piérart 2004: 611), but some of the evidence cited for this date is problematic. For example, the name of the city in the Athenian proxeny-decree IG II2 365 (323/22 BC) is heavily restored, while the late 4th-century BC date of Kleonian bronze coins is based on their archaeological find context at Nemea (Miller 1976, 192; Piérart 2004, 611) and is thus merely a terminus ante quem. Kleonai is in fact already mentioned as an Argive kome in the early 4th-century BC (Kritzas 2006: 427–29), but may have enjoyed a brief period of independence from Argos in the mid 4th century BC (SEG lxiv 75 (323 BC); Mattern 2015: 24). 10 Rudolph 1975: 71–72; Jameson. 1994: 88–89, 394–95, 436–37; Schlehofer 2018: 20. From the mid 3rd century BC onwards, Halieis disappears from the literary, numismatic and epigraphic record (Hodkinson and Hodkinson 1981: 245; Jameson et al. 1994: 88–99, 395). Since the Epidauria bordered on Halieis in the 4th century BC (Scyl. 50.2), but on Hermion in the 2nd century BC (IG IV2. i 75; SEG xi 377; SEG xi 405 (2nd century BC)), the former territory of Halieis was probably incorporated into Hermion. 11 See, for example, Penttinen 2005: 98. 12 See, for example, Rousset 1999: 50–54. For epigraphically attested boundary disputes, see Daverio Rocchi 1988: 93–177; Harter-Uibopuu 1998: 9–116; Dixon 2000. In the 4th century BC, a clearly delineated territorial border marked with boundary stones existed between Argos and Corinth (Xen. Hell. 4.4.6). 13 Even in modern scholarship, the terms ‘border’, ‘boundary’ and 7 8 9

While such material reminders of ancient warfare seem ubiquitous,6 the Argolid’s fortifications are not equally distributed across different periods, but experienced Plut. Pyrrh. 31–34. SEG xxiii 186 (272 BC). For this find, see for example Μυλωνάς 1967: 95–96; Marchetti 1992: 58–59; Baitinger 2011: 75. 3 Jackson 2000; Baitinger 2011: 80. 4 IG IV². i 122.63–66 (4th century BC). See, for example, LiDonnici 1995: 108–09. 5 SEG xxix 361 (c. 400 BC). See, for example, Κριτζάς 1979: 217. 6 The ‘ubiquity’ of war itself is still very much a matter of debate. See for example Shipley 1993: 1–24; Chaniotis 2005: 1–17; Hall 2007: 88; Hornblower 2007: 23–39. 1 2

45

A Landscape of Conflict? Rural Fortifications in the Argolid (400–146 BC) but merely a tool to visualise the approximate extent of different city-states without making any assumptions about the nature of their boundaries.

previously to investigate ancient borders. But as rural fortifications may serve a variety of functions, they cannot a priori be considered evidence for the course of ancient borders, while non-epigraphic boundary markers (varying in size and shape from stone cairns (boleoi) to drystone walls)21 are difficult to date and interpret.

When it comes to reconstructing the political geography of the Late Classical and Hellenistic Argolid, literary sources are very limited. Ancient historiographical texts usually mention territorial boundaries only in passing, while the earliest surviving geographical work relating to the region — the 4th-century BC Periplus Maris Interni, erroneously attributed to Scylax of Karyanda — is notoriously corrupt and difficult to interpret.14 At first glance, the detailed descriptions in Pausanias’ Periegesis (2nd century AD)15 and Strabo’s Geographica (1st century AD)16 seem more promising, but both describe the landscape of the Roman period rather than of the timeframe under investigation in this study.

In the absence of literary, epigraphic or archaeological sources, natural boundaries are often used to define areas of study or to model ancient city-states.22 Some borders described in Hellenistic arbitrations follow natural features,23 but other territorial boundaries — for example the 2nd-century AD border between Tegea and Argos24 — clearly did not. Using natural boundaries to model ancient territories can therefore be misleading. Moving from this general discussion to the Argolid’s individual city-states, only the borders of Kleonai — part of the Argive territory for some of the 4th and 3rd century BC25 — have so far been studied comprehensively. The city’s territory probably covered c. 110km2 and was bordered by the hills Spathovouni and Liouphti, the heights of Kalentzi and the ridges of Phoukas, Liophata, Rachi Mantzorou and Psili Rachi. The border with Corinth and Tenea to the east is not entirely clear, but probably ran to the west of the hill Skionas (Figure 5.1).26

Due to these difficulties, inscriptions are a crucial source for the Argolid’s political geography. Especially important are the aforementioned boundary disputes, which record arbitrations between two neighbouring city-states (often members of the Achaian League)17 and provide detailed evidence for the nature and course of specific boundaries. However, even these inscriptions can be difficult to interpret. For example, only one of the 19 toponyms describing the 3rd-century BC border between Epidauros and Corinth is attested elsewhere.18 Epigraphic boundary markers like the rock-cut horos on the northwestern border of the Hermionid should also be considered,19 but most horoi mark the limits of properties rather than city-states.20

Beyond Kleonai, the territorial boundaries of 2ndcentury BC Hermion are the best known borders in the Argolid, largely thanks to a boundary dispute that designates the area ‘of the Sellas [stream] and the “Wild Harbours” up to Strouthous’ for joint use with Epidauros (Figure 5.2).27 To the southeast of this area, Hermion’s territory probably included the bay of

Apart from literary and epigraphic sources, two groups of archaeological features — rural fortifications and non-epigraphic boundary markers — have been used

For stone cairns, see for example the boundary markers on the border between Hermion and Epidauros (Jameson et al. 1994: 599– 600), for drystone walls, the linear features at Elaiochori in the Kynouria, which are thought to mark the eastern border of Tegea (Φάκλαρης 1990: 207–08). 22 See, for example, Σακελλάριος 1971: 1–3 for the ‘natural boundaries’ of the Korinthia. 23 On the use of natural features as territorial boundaries in antiquity, see Daverio Rocchi 1988: 49–53; McCarthy 2008: 204. 24 Paus. 8.54.7. For this passage, see also Loring 1895: 79; Curtius 1851: 273; Pritchett 1980: 77. 25 The borders of Kleonai probably became the frontiers of the Argive territory after the end of Argos’ union with Corinth in 386 BC. For the union between Argos and Corinth (mentioned by D. S. 14.91.2– 92.3; Xen. Ages. 2.17; Xen. Hell. 4.4.6) and especially the question whether this union was concluded in two stages (the establishment of an isopoliteia in 392 BC and the complete unification in 390/89 BC), see Griffith 1950; Burford 1969: 27; Tuplin 1982; Whitby 1984; Kralli 2017: 6; Shipley 2018: 129. 26 Marchand 2002: 142–248. 27 IG IV2. i 74 (300–250 BC); IG IV2. i 75 + SEG xi 405 (2nd century BC). The boundaries of this shared territory can probably be identified as Cape (ancient Strouthous), the watersheds along the Driva, Koukouras, Psili Gonia and Prophitis Ilias hills and the Vigla ridge. For previous scholarship on this inscription, see Daverio Rocchi 1988: 156–61; Harter-Uibopuu 1998: 72–80; Jameson et al. 1994: 596– 606; Dixon 2000: 123–75; Bresson 2016: 361. 21

‘frontier’ are not always used consistently. For three different and conflicting uses in modern theoretical approaches, see McCarthy 2008: 203–04; Diener and Hagen 2012: 4–13; Feuer 2016: 11–23. In the following study, the three terms will be used interchangeably to refer to the limit or liminal zone of ancient city-states. 14 Shipley 2011: 1–2, 6–9. 15 Pretzler 2007: 23. 16 Dueck 2000: 146–51 17 The surviving inscriptions were collected by Harter-Uibopuu 1998 and Dixon 2000. Another document that might describe a border is the 4th-century BC Argive inscription SEG xxxvi 336 = SEG li 414 = SEG lix 356 (340–330 BC), which list 40 otherwise mostly unattested toponyms under the headings ‘ΟΡΟΣ’. Vollgraff 1914: 333 suggested that the document records the borders between different Arkadian settlements, while Plassart 1915: 123 read the inscription as a description of the Argive border. Πίκουλας 2009: 290–91 argued for a translation of ‘ΟΡΟΣ’ as ‘fort’ rather than ‘mountain’, interpreting the text as a description of Argive border fortifications. However, due to the uncertain location of the toponyms, the text cannot be used to reconstruct the territorial boundaries of 4th-century BC Argos. 18 IG IV2. i 71 (242–237 BC). For a discussion of this document, see below. 19 SEG xlvii 319. For this inscription, see for example Jameson et al. 1994: 531–32, 602–03. 20 See for example SEG xxiv 275 (4th–3rd century BC); SEG xli 288 (5th century BC); SEG xlviii 417 (5th century BC).

46

Chapter 5: A Regional Study of Fortifications in the Argolid

Figure 5.1 The territory of Kleonai (after Marchand 2002b).

47

A Landscape of Conflict? Rural Fortifications in the Argolid (400–146 BC)

Figure 5.2 The territory of Hermion and the shared territory of Hermion and Epidauros (2nd century BC).

Koilada, the plain of Didyma28 and possibly the plateau of Iliokastro,29 while in the northeast the city-state may have extended as far as the modern resort village of Porto Ydra (between Akri Skyllaio and Thermisi). Akri Skyllaio itself probably belonged to Troizen (Figure 5.2).30

dispute between Epidauros and Arsinoe suggests that by the 3rd century BC Troizen had lost the mainland area west of the isthmus of Methana.34 Moving northwards, the territory of Epidauros stretched across the entire breadth of the Akte.35 On the Argolic Gulf, the Periplus mentions 30 stades of Epidaurian coastline (probably the plains of Iria and Kantia),36 while on the Saronic Gulf Epidauros’ border with Corinth is the subject of a 3rd-century BC boundary dispute (Figure 5.3).37 Taken together, the evidence from Hermion, Troizen and Epidauros allows

The precise extent of Troizen’s territory is difficult to reconstruct,31 but epigraphic sources show that the city suffered a considerable loss of territory from the end of the 5th century BC onwards. The previously Troizenian island Kalaureia (modern Poros) is first attested as an independent polity in the late 4th-century BC,32 while by the Hellenistic period Methana was no longer dependent on Troizen, but (as the newly founded Arsinoe) on the Ptolemies.33 Furthermore, a boundary

IG IV2. i 72 (after 228 BC). See Jameson et al. 1994: 18; HarterUibopuu 1998: 34–41; Dixon 2000: 177–93. 35 Scyl. 50, 54–55. 36 Scyl. 50. Epidauros probably also controlled the Benteni valley and the area east of ancient Lessa. For the Benteni valley, see SEG xxiv 274 (5th century BC); IG IV2. i 701 (discussed by Jameson 1953: 163; Jameson et al. 1994: 570), for the area east of Lessa, see Paus. 2.26.1. The location of Lessa will be discussed in detail in section 6.3. 37 IG IV2. i 71 (242–237 BC). The interpretation of this important document hinges on the location of Σπιραῖον, the only toponym in the inscription that is attested elsewhere. While for Thuc. 8.10.3, Σπειραιόν is a deserted harbour on the border of the Korinthia (usually identified with the bay of Korphos (Fowler 1932: 22–23; Wiseman 1978: 140; Salmon 1984: 6–7, 32; Harter-Uibopuu 1998: 21; Dixon 2000: 58–60)), Ptol. Geog. 3.16.12 and Plin. HN 4.18 use the toponym for a promontory between Epidauros and the harbour ‘of the Athenians’ or the harbour ‘Anthedus’, either modern Cape Spiri (Salmon 1984: 6; Magnetto 1997: 218) or Cape Trachili (Wiseman 1978: 22–23, disputed by Harter-Uibopuu 1998: 22; Dixon 2000: 59). Since it is unclear if the boundary dispute refers to a harbour or a promontory, it remains uncertain whether the Epidaurian border ran to the north or south of modern Korphos. 34

Jameson et al. 1994: 29, 596–06. Jameson et al. 1994: 29–32, 576. 30 Scyl. 51.2 and IG IV 757 (2nd century BC) attribute Cape Skyllaion to Troizen. See also Paus. 2.34.7; Scyl. 51.2; Ptol. Geog. 3.16.11; Thuc. 5.53.1 apply this toponym to modern Akri Skyllaio, Plin. HN 4.17–18; Str. 8.6.13, 10.5.1 and presumably Liv. 31.44.1 to a cape on the Argolic Gulf (Frost 1980: 187; Jameson et al. 1994: 577; Dixon 2000: 253–56). 31 According to Scyl. 54, Troizen directly bordered onto the territory of Epidauros, while IG IV2. i 76+77 (2nd century BC) and IG IV 752 (2nd century BC) attest a shared territory of Troizen and Arsinoe south of Methana. For previous scholarship on these inscriptions, see HarterUibopuu 1998: 97–109; Dixon 2000: 176–249; Carusi 2005. 32 IG IV 839 (4th century BC). For Kalaureia, see for example Figueira 2004: 622–23. Jameson et al. 1994: 87 suggested Antipatros’ desire to punish Troizen for harbouring Demosthenes in 322 BC as a possible factor in the division of Kalaureia and Troizen. 33 Piérart 2004: 611. 28 29

48

Chapter 5: A Regional Study of Fortifications in the Argolid

Figure 5.3 The territory Epidauros (3rd and 2nd century BC).

49

A Landscape of Conflict? Rural Fortifications in the Argolid (400–146 BC)

Figure 5.4 The fortifications on the Akte by city-state (400–146 BC).

a tentative reconstruction of the political geography of the 4th-century BC and Hellenistic Akte, making it possible to attribute most fortifications in the region to one of the three city-states (Figure 5.4).38

of Asine,40 Eua,41 Hysiai,42 Kleonai,43 Kyphanta,44 Midea,45 Mycenae,46 Nauplia,47 Orneai,48 Tiryns49 and Zarax,50 as

Identifying the borders of Late Classical and Hellenistic Argos is more difficult, and hinges largely on the location of komai and other dependent settlements.39 Fortunately, such territorial ‘fixed points’ are fairly numerous: they include the securely located settlements 40 SEG xix 317 (3rd century BC). See Vollgraff 1916: 221; Charneux 1984: 217; Piérart 2004: 600. 41 SEG liv 427 (early 4th century BC). See Καλίτσης 1960: 6–8; Pritchett 1980: 124–27, 1991a: 169–70; Shipley 1997: 241; Piérart 2001: 29; Kritzas 2003: 58; Shipley 2004: 581; Kritzas 2006: 429–30. 42 D. S. 12.81.1. See Pritchett 1980: 54–64; Piérart 2004: 601. 43 IG IV 616 (after 363 BC); SEG xxx 355 = SEG xxxi 305 (330–300 BC); SEG liv 424 (late 4th century BC). See Piérart and Thalmann 1980: 261– 69; Charneux 1984: 217; Piérart 1985: 351; Kritzas 2006: 427–29. 44 Polyb. 4.36.5. See Shipley 1996: 282–83, 2004: 583. 45 IG IV 527; SEG liv 427 (early 4th century BC). See Piérart 2004: 601; Kritzas 2006: 426. 46 IG IV 498 (after 195 BC); SEG liv 427 (early 4th century BC); Scyl. 49. See Charneux 1984: 218; Piérart 2004: 612; Kritzas 2006: 434; Shipley 2011: 129. 47 IG IV 527; SEG liv 427 (early 4th century BC); Scyl. 49. See Piérart 2004: 602; Kritzas 2006: 426; Shipley 2011: 129; Κριτζάς 2013: 293. 48 D. S. 16.39.4. This kome is usually located at the site of Lyrkeia (50) (see for example Pritchett 1980: 24–31; Πίκουλας 1995: 267–70), but from the late 4th century BC onwards could also be identified with the little-known site of Sportiza (74). For this site, see Πίκουλας 1995: 269–70; Gallimore et al. 2017: 429. 49 SEG liv 427 (early 4th century BC). See Kritzas 2006: 426. 50 SEG xvii 143 = SEG xviii 146 = SEG xviii 151 (before 222 BC); Polyb. 4.36.5. See Παπαχατζής 1976: 427; Shipley 1996: 310, 2004: 576–77; Kralli 2017: 250–51.

Galatas: Megali Magoula (25), Limanaki 1 (48), Phourkaria (61), Troizina (80) and Limanaki 2 (99) can be attributed to Troizen, Ermioni (24), Lampagiana (45), Phranchthi (62), Vigla (84), Ermioni: Magoula (93) and Petrothalassa (138) to Hermion, and Ano Phanari (10), Ano Phanari: Vigliza (11), Benteni Kiapha (16), Gyphtokastro (27), Iria (31), Kampia (32), Kantia 1 (33), Kantia 2 (34), Palaia Epidavros 1 (54), Stavropodio (75), Tou Antreiomenou to Mnema 1 (77), Agios Leonidas (89), Skala 1 (104) and Xydeika (106) to Epidauros. Anathema (8), Iliokastro (29) and Soros (72) may have belonged to Troizen or Hermion, Akrotiri Iria 1 (90), Akrotiri Iria 2 (91), Vourlia 1 (86) and Vourlia 2 (87) to Hermion or Epidauros and Alogomandra Kalogirou (92), Choutalaiika (18), Kastraki (35), Kastro 2 (37), Lygourio 1 (49) and Lygourio 2 (100) to Epidauros or Argos. 39 No inscription referring to an Argive boundary dispute has yet been identified, even though SEG xxiii 178 attests a territorial dispute between Argos and Kleonai shortly after 229/28 BC. For this inscription, see Blegen 1927: 429–30; Bradeen 1966: 323–26; Ager 1996: 132–33; Magnetto 1997: 252–56; Uibopuu 1997; Harter-Uibopuu 1998: 323–26; Marchand 2002: 516–18, 643–44. 38

50

Chapter 5: A Regional Study of Fortifications in the Argolid

well Elaious,51 Gympeis,52 Kenchreai,53 Lessa,54 Leukai,55 Lyrkeia,56 Neris,57 Polichna,58 Prasiai59 and Prosymna60, which have not yet been identified conclusively (Figure 5.5). The distribution of these sites demonstrates that during the 4th, 3rd and 2nd centuries BC Argos not only controlled the Argive plain, but also the eastern foothills of the Artemision, Ktenias and Partheni mountains, certain areas in the Thyreatis and Kynouria, and the western part of the valley between the Argolic and the Saronic Gulf. The border between Argos and Corinth was probably located near the modern village of Stephani, making the plain of Prosymna part of the Argive territory,61 but there is no evidence that Argos controlled either the plain of Phleious or the area north of the plain of Prosymna.

static. Especially in the valley of Kleonai, the Kynouria and the Thyreatis, the borders of the Argive territory shifted considerably during the 4th century BC and the Hellenistic period. While Kleonai was largely under Argive control between the early 4th century BC and 235 BC, the Kynouria probably remained in Spartan hands until the late 3rd century BC, when Polichna, Prasiai, Kyphanta, Zarax, Glyppia and Leukai are briefly attested as Argive.63 The Thyreatis was long thought to have been given to Argos by Philip II after 338 BC,64 but an early 4th-century BC archive from Argos mentions both Eua and Neris as Argive komai,65 and thus demonstrates that at least parts of the Thyreatis were already Argive by the early 4th century BC. This tentatively suggests that we should perhaps take Thucydides’ description of Thyrea as ‘on the border of the Argeia and the Lakonike’66 and Euripides’ portrayal of the river Tanos as the border between Argos and Sparta67 more seriously.

Thanks to this reconstruction of the Argive borders, 42 towers, 21 fortified settlements, four forts and two drystone circuits can be attributed to the territory of Argos (Figures 5.6).62 However, this picture is far from

5.2 Settlement patterns in the Argolid (400–146 BC)

SEG xxxiii 278 = SEG xxxix 345 (3rd century BC). This site is probably located north of the river Xavrio (Vollgraff 1915: 366; Charneux 1956: 599–600; Βερδέλης 1964: 121–22; Charneux 1984: 218; Piérart 1985: 351; Pritchett 1991a: 170–73; Piérart 2004: 600). 52 Polyb. 4.36.5. Glympeis (also known as Glyppia) has been identified with Kastro tis Paliopanagias (38) (Le Puillon de Boblaye 1836: 97; Leake 1846: 362–64; Curtius 1852: 303–04; Frazer 1898: 381–82; Ρωμαίος 1906: 453–54; Walker 1936: 63; Παπαχατζής 1976: 417–18; Φάκλαρης 1990: 153–57; Pritchett 1991a: 155–56). 53 SEG liv 427 (early 4th century BC); Str. 8.6.17. Kenchreai must be located on the road between Argos and Tegea, probably at Agia Paraskevi near Nera (Pritchett 1980: 54–64; Πίκουλας 1995: 270–72; Piérart 2004: 601; Kritzas 2006: 426). 54 SEG liv 427 (early 4th century BC). The location of Lessa will be discussed in detail in section 6.3. 55 Polyb. 4.36.5. On the possible identification of Leukai with modern Chalasmata, see Shipley 1996: 308. 56 SEG xvii 143 (before 222 BC); SEG liv 427 (early 4th century BC). Lyrkeia might be located near modern Skala (Charneux 1958: 7; Παπαχριστοδούλου 1970: 118; Παπαχατζής 1976: 186–88; Pritchett 1980: 12–19; Πίκουλας 1995: 263–67; Kritzas 2006: 434). Other suggestions are summarised by Πίκουλας 1995: 265–66. 57 SEG liv 427 (early 4th century BC). The most convincing argument has been made for locating Neris at Kato Doliana (Pritchett 1980: 122– 24; Φάκλαρης 1990: 94–96; Pritchett 1991a: 170; Shipley 1996: 277; Kritzas 2003: 58; Shipley 2004: 575; Kritzas 2006: 429–30). 58 Polyb. 4.36.5. Polichna has been identified with modern Poulithra (Wace and Hasluck 1908: 176; Φάκλαρης 1990: 141–42; Pritchett 1991a: 140; Shipley 1996: 282, 2004: 575–76). For an alternative location of Polichna at Plaka Leonidiou, see Woysch-Méautis 2000: 170–85. 59 Polyb. 4.36.5. Prasiai has been identified with modern Plaka Leonidiou (Bursian 1872: 133–34; Philippson 1892: 486; Wace and Hasluck 1908: 174; Ρωμαίος 1955a: 94; Waterhouse and Simpson 1961: 131; Παπαχατζής 1976: 429–30; Κουσκουνάς, Κακαβούλιας, and Χασαπογιάννης 1981: 119; Spyropoulos and Christien 1985: 459; Φάκλαρης 1990: 129, 136; Pritchett 1991a: 142; Christien-Tregaro 1992: 158; Goester 1993: 47; Shipley 1996: 282, 2004: 586). 60 SEG xvii 155 = SEG xxxiii 286 (4th century BC); SEG xxx 355 = SEG xxxi 305 (330–300 BC). This site is probably located near the Argive Heraion (Bursian 1872: 47; Vollgraff 1916: 223; Blegen and Blegen 1937: 11–22; Παπαχατζής 1976: 142; Piérart 1982a: 127; Piérart and Thalmann 1980: 261–69; Charneux 1984: 214; Piérart 1985: 351) or in the valley of Prosymna (Penttinen 1996b: 279, 2005: 113–14). 61 Marchand 2002: 246. 62 Whether the towers at Choutalaiika (18) and Lygourio 1 (49), the fort at Kastraki (35), the drystone circuits at Kastro 2 (37) and Alogomandra Kalogirou (92), and the possible fortified settlement of Lygourio 2 (100) belonged to Argos or Epidauros depends of the location of ancient Lessa. 51

This brief analysis of the Argolid’s Late Classical and Hellenistic political geography not only makes it possible to attribute most fortified sites in the region to specific city-states, but also provides a starting point for investigating the landscape and settlement patterns within the individual territories. Reconstructing rural human activity in Classical and Hellenistic Greece is notoriously challenging and riddled with methodological difficulties. Surviving ancient texts are heavily skewed towards urban phenomena, giving rise to the long-held but now largely outdated view that ancient Greece was primarily ‘a world of cities’.68 This picture of Greece as a landscape of nucleated settlements surrounded by a largely ‘empty’ countryside changed dramatically with the numerous intensive surveys conducted from the 1970s onwards.69 These projects invariably revealed scatters of Classical and Hellenistic rural ‘sites’ outside urban areas,70 often with a ceramic repertoire that resembles urban assemblages, and implies that various economic and domestic activities took place in what was formerly seen as an ‘empty’ transitional zone between urban centres.

Shipley 2000: 376–79. See for example Shipley 2000: 376, 387; Piérart 2001: 27–30. Kritzas 2006: 429; Balandier and Guintrand 2019: 440. 66 Thuc. 4.56.2. 67 E. El. 410–11. On the identification of the ancient and modern river Tanos, see Pritchett 1982: 92–94. 68 Finley 1981: 3. For a short summary of previous scholarship on the rural landscapes of ancient Greece, see for example McHugh 2017: 2–7. 69 For a short history of survey archaeology in Greece, see for example Alcock 2000: 1–3; Alcock and Cherry 2004; Stewart 2013: 6–7. 70 Definitions of what constitutes a ‘site’ (usually based on find density) vary considerably between different surveys. For a comparison of different site definitions and classifications, see for example Mattingly 2000: 6–8; Stewart 2013: 11–14. 63 64 65

51

A Landscape of Conflict? Rural Fortifications in the Argolid (400–146 BC)

Figure 5.5 Argive komai and dependent settlements (400–146 BC).

52

Chapter 5: A Regional Study of Fortifications in the Argolid

Figure 5.6 The fortifications in the territory of Argos.

53

A Landscape of Conflict? Rural Fortifications in the Argolid (400–146 BC) Within the modern Argolid, several areas have been the focus of pedestrian surface surveys, including the southern Akte, the plain of Prosymna and the Nemea valley.71 In all three areas, rural settlement patterns are characterised by a similar site hierarchy, albeit with some local variation. The urban centres form the top of the hierarchy, followed by ‘second-order sites’ such as towns, villages or hamlets, and ‘third-order sites’ such as farmsteads or agricultural installations.72 These third-order sites, which form by far the largest group of settlements recorded in each survey,73 are particularly common on the alluvial soils of the southern Akte74 and in the northwestern valley of Prosymna.75

between 0.05 and 0.3 ha,76 while everything from the small informal cluster of habitation around the site of Prosymna: Agios Athanasios (67) to the orthogonally laid out fortified settlement of Iliokastro (29) can fall under the definition ‘second-order sites’.77 Even beyond surveyed areas, urban centres and ‘secondorder sites’ enjoy a high archaeological visibility, while ‘third-order sites’ remain difficult to identify without systematic research.78 Due to its exceptional size, the territory of Argos encompasses a particularly high number of ‘second-order sites’, including the above mentioned koimai as well as formerly independent settlements such as Kleonai. Many of these ‘secondorder sites’ fall into the category of ‘fortified settlements’ and are thus described in detail in the present study’s catalogue.

Within each group in this settlement hierarchy, sites can vary considerably in size and layout. For example, ‘third-order sites’ in the Southern Argolid Survey measure

Besides remains of ancient habitation, surface surveys have revealed various ‘special purpose’ sites such as cemeteries and sanctuaries.79 In the Argolid, sanctuaries range in size from small local cult places (primarily recognizable by their pottery and find assemblages)80 to large regional or even panhellenic sites such as the Argive Heraion or the sanctuary of Zeus at Nemea.81 These major sanctuaries were not only of religious significance, but could also play an important economic role, for example as landowners.82

For surveys in these three areas, as well as more recent work that has not yet been published in detail, see chapter 1. The surveys in the southern Akte, the plain of Prosymna and the Nemea valley employed a functional rather than purely descriptive site classification system, but unfortunately the material from the Southern Argolid Survey has so far not been published in sufficient detail for a direct comparison of artefact assemblage. For site classification in the Southern Argolid Survey, see Jameson et al. 1994: 248–52, for the discussion of sitefunctions in the Berbati-Limnes Archaeological Survey, see Penttinen 1996b: 231–72. 72 In many surveys, the term ‘farmsteads’ is used to denote the smallest artefact clusters in a site hierarchy, rather than sites with an agricultural function (Witcher 2012: 16; Stewart 2013: 14). Genuine farmsteads that ‘could support either year-round or temporary occupation by a free or slave labour force engaged in agricultural activity for either subsistence or economic gain’ (McHugh 2017: 1) remain difficult to identify (Morris and Papadopoulos 2005: 163). For example, agricultural installations such as threshing floors, olive mills, presses and patitiria can not only be moved, reused or repurposed in later periods (McHugh 2017: 88), but may also belong to isolated agricultural installations rather than to proper farmsteads (on isolated agricultural installations, see for example McHugh 2017: 87–96). Similarly, the absence of agricultural equipment does necessarily argue against a site’s identification as a farmstead, since moveable equipment in perishable materials was probably widespread (Foxhall 1993b: 192–99, 2007: 136; Mee, Forbes, and Atherton 1997: 261) and some crops (for example legumes) do not require specialised agricultural equipment. Since agricultural installations are thus not sufficient to identify a site as a farmstead, scholars are increasingly turning to the detailed study of surface assemblages to gain new insights into the function of rural sites. One example is K. Winther-Jacobsen’s work on ceramic assemblages from the Troodos Archaeological and Environmental Survey Project (TAESP), in which surface pottery was divided into different functional categories (e.g. cooking, heavy and light utility, lamps, transport and table vessels) to identify five distinct ‘signatures’ (or ‘indices’) of different site types (WintherJacobsen 2010a: 274–84, 2010b: 59–130). This artefact-function-based approach is only applicable when surface material has been recorded and published comprehensively, but even among sites published in less detail functional pottery categories can be useful. For example, artefact assemblages from domestic sites are typically characterized by a combination of fine wares, domestic wares and storage wares, which helps to distinguish unoccupied agricultural installations from genuine farmsteads (McHugh 2017: 57–59). 73 For the Classical and Hellenistic settlement patterns and site hierarchy in the the Berbati-Limnes Archaeological Survey, see Penttinen 1996b: 271–72, 278–79, in the NVA, see Wright 1990: 610, and in the Argolid Exploration Project, see Jameson et al. 1994: 383–400. 74 For the proliferation of Late Classical and Hellenistic ‘third-order site’ on the ‘Loutro Alluvial’, see Jameson et al. 1994: 385. 75 Penttinen 1996b: 271, 279. 71

Looking in more detail at agricultural sites, all three surveys revealed comparable narratives. Key features include changing intensities of rural human activity and shifts from primarily nucleated to largely dispersed settlement patterns. In the southern Argolid and the valley of Prosymna, these developments appear to follow a broadly parallel trajectory. In both areas, the number of rural sites peaks in the Late Classical and Early Hellenistic period, with a clear break from the preceding 5th-century BC settlement patterns and a sharp decline in site numbers from the 2nd century BC onwards.83 Many rural sites have produced a fair cross Jameson et al. 1994: 383. For the village at Prosymna: Agios Athanasios (67), see for example Penttinen 1996b: 250–57, 279, for Iliokastro (29), see Jameson et al. 1994: 519–21. Besides these two settlements, the most important Late Classical and Hellenistic ‘second-order’ site in the surveyed areas is the possible fortified settlement at Petrothalassa (138). 78 In the absence of surface surveys, ‘third-order sites’ are often only identifiable though surviving agricultural installations, which were collected in chapter 2. 79 For cemeteries, see for example Jameson et al. 1994: 474–75; Penttinen 1996b: 278. 80 For example the site FS 409 in the Berbati-Limnes Archaeological Survey (Penttinen 1996b: 254–56, 278) or Site 204 in the NVAP (Cloke 2016: 124–32, 628–61) 81 For the Argive control over the Sanctuary of Zeus at Nemea and the Nemean Games, see for example Miller 1982: 106–07. 82 For example, a Late Hellenistic inscription from Argos attests a lease of ‘ἱερὰ καὶ δαμοσία χώρα’ (‘public and sacred land’) (Kritzas 1992: 231–40; Piérart 1997: 332–33; Kritzas 2006: 410–11; Rousset 2013: 125). 83 Jameson et al. 1994: 251, 383, 394; Penttinen 1996b: 272–73, 76 77

54

Chapter 5: A Regional Study of Fortifications in the Argolid

section of domestic pottery, pointing to a temporary or all-year-round occupation.84

alluvial deposits.93 However, the increase in dispersed agricultural settlements during the Late Classical and Hellenistic periods is remarkably consistent throughout the Argolid and the wider region.94 This indicates that the Late Classical and Hellenistic Peloponnese was not merely a ‘world of cities’, but also a world of rural farmsteads. Regardless of whether free citizen farmers, dependent labourers or slaves provided the main workforce,95 the rural chora of cities in the Argolid was an agricultural and pastoralist landscape, which was economically and socially intertwined with life in the asty.

In both areas, the rise in site numbers during the Late Classical and Early Hellenistic periods has been interpreted as the result of an intensification of agriculture.85 This explanation neatly correlates with the pollen data from Thermisi and Lerna, which suggest a rise in olive and cereal cultivation in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic times and a partial abandonment of agricultural areas at the end of the Hellenistic period.86 In the southern Argolid the development goes hand in hand with a shift from primarily nucleated settlements to dispersed family farms,87 while in the Berbati valley the increasing number of agricultural sites may be connected to the resettlement of Mycenae around 300 BC.88

This strong connection between asty and chora has implications for the social, economic and psychological effects of warfare. In ancient literary sources, invasions in the Argolid and elsewhere usually go hand in hand with the destruction and plundering of the rural countryside.96 The economic impact of this type of warfare has been much debated, but even if the destruction of the countryside did not amount to a wholesale devastation, it must have caused considerable disruption and financial loss (for example, through damage to agricultural processing sites) and was clearly perceived in antiquity as a threat.97 This means that a city-state’s defence could not focus solely on the urban centre, but also had to encompass the chora.

The NVAP has revealed a comparable overall development but a slightly different chronology, with a period of intense dispersed agro-pastoralist settlement activity during the Classical period and a subsequent decline in site numbers from the Hellenistic period onwards.89 However, the discrepancy between the NVAP and the other two surveys in the region may in part be a product of the projects’ chronological frameworks. While both the Southern Argolid Survey and the BerbatiLimnes Archaeological Survey recognised a distinct ‘Late Classical / Hellenistic’ phase between c. 400/350 and 250/200 BC,90 the NVAP merely distinguished between ‘Classical’ (c. 480–323 BC) and ‘Hellenistic’ (c. 323–31 BC) sites.91 It is thus possible that the ‘Classical’ peak of rural activity in the Nemea valley is in fact contemporary to the early part of the ‘Late Classical / Hellenistic’ development in the southern Argolid and the valley of Prosymna.92

The importance of agricultural considerations for strategic choices and military practices has been studied in detail for the Archaic and Classical periods, especially in connection to hoplite warfare.98 However, by the 4th century BC — and even more so by the Hellenistic period — military practices had changed significantly. Warfare was no longer a seasonal activity centred around pitched hoplite battles, but could be fought all year round with a greater variety of troops (e.g. light armed troops, cavalry and military ‘specialists’).99 Together with the increase of dispersed

Together, the three surveys provide a valuable context for the Argolid’s Late Classical and Hellenistic fortifications. Admittedly, they only cover a fraction of the region under investigation and many important areas lie hidden under post-Hellenistic

See chapter 2. For example in the Evrotas valley (Shipley 2002: 310–13, 316–17, 322–24), at Asea (Forsén 2003: 266, 270–71) or around Pylos (Alcock et al. 2005: 161–64). 95 For a discussion of the workforce on ancient farms and a brief summary of recent scholarship, see McHugh 2017: 33–39. 96 See for example Thuc. 5.53–54 (419 BC), 6.105 (414 BC); Xen. Ages. 2.17 (392 BC); Xen. Hell. 4.4.19 (391 BC); Polyb. 4.36.4–6 (219 BC). For the vocabulary of agricultural devastation, see Hanson 1998: 185–94. 97 For the effectiveness of agricultural devastation in antiquity, see for example Harvey 1986: 205–10; Chandezon 1999: 196–201, 203–07, 2000: 321–42; Chaniotis 2005: 122–29; Krentz 2007: 170–73; Chaniotis 2011: 126–29. For a more general discussion of the economic effects of conflict, see Shipley 2018: 178–83. Hanson 1998 has argued that the amount of damage a hostile army could inflict on the rural countryside has so far been overestimated, while Foxhall 1993a concluded that the destruction of agricultural resources rarely threatened food supplies, but was a serious danger to a city’s political unity. 98 For a summary of past scholarship on this question, see Kagan and Viggiano 2013. 99 For new types of troops, see for example Chaniotis 2005: 78–82; Sekunda and De Souza 2007: 326–30, 336–48; Sheldon 2012: 103–06, for the change from seasonal to all-year-round warfare, see for example 93 94

2005: 114. 84 Jameson et al. 1994: 383–85; Penttinen 1996b: 273–75, 278–79. 85 Jameson et al. 1994: 384–87; Penttinen 1996b: 279. 86 See chapter 2. 87 Jameson et al. 1994: 385. 88 Penttinen 1996b: 281. 89 Cloke 2016: 71, 168–69. For the interpretation of the Classical dispersed sites as mixed agro-pastoralist family farms, see Cloke 2016: 424. 90 Jameson et al. 1994: 491; Penttinen 1996b: 271. 91 Cloke 2016: 505–06. For differences between the chronological periods use in various surveys and the challenges resulting from an ‘event-based historical periodization’, see also James 2020: 332–33. 92 The results of the WARP have not yet been published in detail, but preliminary results suggest a different chronological trajectory, with a continuity of rural activity from the Classical to the Early Roman period and a steep decline in the Middle Roman period (c. AD 150– 400) (James 2020: 339–43).

55

A Landscape of Conflict? Rural Fortifications in the Argolid (400–146 BC) rural settlements, these developments challenged Late Classical and Hellenistic city-states to adapt and refine their approaches to defending the countryside.

strategic defences that are centrally planned (and, presumably, financed) to protect the rural countryside. Chapter 6 will explore these military-strategic defensive options, testing whether rural fortifications could have served as signal-stations or to control roads, before analysing different possible strategies of territorial defence in detail.

As section 6.3 will show, written sources provide little evidence for defensive strategies in the 4th-, 3rd- or 2nd-century BC Argolid. There are no exceptional epigraphic records, no surviving theoretical discussions and comparatively few narratives that describe a city’s response to conflict in detail. This lack of written sources makes ancient fortifications a vital source for historical research in the region. Can they reveal how the city-states in the Argolid aimed to protect their rural territories?

In contrast, the second group of defensive options — discussed in chapter 7 — focuses more strongly on providing security in individual parts of a citystate’s territory. This can include the fortification of agricultural sites at various levels of the settlement hierarchy or the creation of an infrastructure that facilitates the evacuation of the countryside. Analysing and contrasting these two groups of defensive options will not only help to evaluate the function of individual sites, but will also contribute to the wider study of ancient warfare, providing a more refined and detailed framework for approaching rural fortifications in other parts of the Greek world.

This question is at the heart of the present study and will be investigated in depth in the next two chapters. For clarity’s sake, possible defensive options have been divided into two groups, although individual fortified sites could fulfil different functions simultaneously or at different points in their ‘site biography’. The first group encompasses ‘territorial defences’, i.e. military-

Osborne 1987: 153–54; Penttinen 1996b: 261.

56

Chapter 6

Rural Fortifications as Territorial Defences

Figure 6.1 The tower of Agios Sostis (5) from the south (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Korinthia; photo by the author).

and Γ.A. Πίκουλας) have argued that in antiquity fortified sites were used extensively to control and monitor movement along these routes.3 This hypothesis can be traced back at least to the work of 19th-century scholars, who were strongly influenced by their experience of travelling through the Peloponnese only decades after the Greek War of Independence.4

6.1 Movement: fortifications and roads 6.1.1 Tracing ancient movement: the archaeological record Today, the area around the Late Classical tower of Agios Sostis (5) seems isolated, remote and frequented by few visitors other than occasional herds of goats (Figures 6.1–2). This impression may be correct for the 21st century, but for antiquity or even the early modern period it is very misleading. Thanks to Pausanias and his 19th-century counterparts (travellers like Lord Byron’s friend and agent E.J. Trelawny), it is clear that the Agios Sostis pass was a well-known route between the Korinthia and the Argive plain,1 which played an important role during the Greek War of Independence.2 Instead of seeing the tower of Agios Sostis (5) as isolated and remote, we should envisage it on a major regional thoroughfare.

Despite this long research history and the undeniable coincidence of ancient fortifications and early modern roads, it remains unclear how rural fortifications could have controlled and restricted movement.5 Should we understand rural fortifications such as the tower of Agios Sostis (5) as ancient ‘guard points’, or were their locations chosen for different reasons (e.g. easy access to other parts of the region)?

See, for example, Pritchett 1980: 29–31; Πίκουλας 1995: 227; Tausend 2006: 65, 2020: 125–27 for the tower at Gymnon (26). 4 For example, Vischer 1857: 290 mentions the now lost tower of Ellinon Lithari (113) in the same breath as the Battle of Dervenakia (1822). 5 See, for example, Munn 1993: 16; Fachard 2016b: 228. On various forms of control over those entering a city-state’s territory, see for example Bertrand 2004; Chaniotis 2004; Lefèvre 2004; Moatti and Kaiser 2007; Bresson 2016: 286–93. Interpretations of ancient fortifications as customs houses were also largely rejected (e.g. Ober 1985: 200), chiefly because customs duties or import taxes are only rarely attested for ancient land routes (Andreades 1933: 138). However, Fachard 2013: 103–05, 2017a: 50–52, 2020: 531–532 argued that the Boiotian fortification at Eleutherai might have been used to collect import taxes and implement the ‘leave of passage’ that was occasionally imposed on Athenians entering Boiotia. 3

Such connections between ancient fortifications and pre-modern roads have not escaped the notice of previous archaeologists. Pre-modern roads are one of the best-studied aspects of the Argolid’s landscape and many prominent scholars (for example W.K. Pritchett 1 See for example Trelawny 1858: 215–16. On the route described by Paus. 2.15.2 and its identification with the path over the Agios Sostis pass, see Roux 1958: 173; Παπαχατζής 1976: 125; Wiseman 1978: 113– 14; Κορδώσης 1981: 46; Salmon 1984: 36; Bynum 1995: 77–99; Πίκουλας 1995: 55; Tausend 2006: 21–22; Marchand 2009b: 156; Cloke 2016: 911. 2 Wiseman 1978: 114.

57

A Landscape of Conflict? Rural Fortifications in the Argolid (400–146 BC) When attempting to address this important question, archaeological remains of ancient roads are an obvious starting point. In the Argolid, these remains include pre-modern bridges,6 cuttings,7 rock-cut wheel-ruts8 and retaining walls.9 While they provide evidence for ‘engineered paths’ and carriageable ‘roads’,10 simple tracks may leave no traces in the physical record. Depending on the local geography and geology, even ‘engineered paths’ and ‘roads’ can remain elusive: for example, wheel-ruts are only found in uneven, rocky terrain11 and are thus largely missing in the eastern Argolid.12 In interpreting this fragmentary archaeological record, past scholars have traditionally focused on principal routes between major settlements, but more recent studies have demonstrated that travel in preRoman Greece was by no means confined to ‘main roads’.13 This not only means that the importance of Classical and Hellenistic local roads has hitherto been underestimated, but also that the limited remains of pre-modern roads and engineered paths visible today may not (as previously assumed) belong to routes between major centres.

Figure 6.2 The view from the tower of Agios Sostis (5) to the north (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Korinthia; photo by the author).

towards carriagable roads. This bias is very problematic, as carts present only one possible means of transporting goods and people through ancient Greece. Mules and donkeys, capable of carrying loads of up to 150–180kg,16 were probably more common,17 but paths and tracks used for pack animals may leave no datable traces at all.

In addition, retaining walls and road surfaces are difficult to date conclusively, resulting in a heavy bias towards ancient bridges14 and wheel-ruts,15 and thus

6.1.2 Tracing ancient movement: A least cost path analysis These problems demonstrate that a comprehensive reconstruction of the Argolid’s pre-Roman road network is not feasible, let alone within the scope of the present study. Instead, the current chapter will compare surviving remains of ancient roads (Figure 6.3) to the most efficient routes through the region, and investigate how this comparison informs our understanding of archaeologically attested carriagable roads and nearby fortifications. 18

6 Examples are the now lost Hellenistic bridge over the Longopotamos river (Wiseman 1978: 82–86; Πίκουλας 1995: 33; Marchand 2009b: 123) or the Mycenaean bridges near modern Arkadiko and Mykinai (Tausend 2006: 23, 151, 199–201). 7 See, for example, the cutting at the Sanga pass between the Argive plain and the plain of Mantineia (Πίκουλας 1995: 104–09, 288–90; Tausend 2006: 95; Pikoulas 2007: 83). 8 For wheel-ruts in the Argolid, see below. In Greece, extra-urban stone-paved roads were uncommon until the Roman period (Pikoulas 2007: 82–83). 9 Literary sources are also commonly used to reconstruct ancient road networks, but this approach relies strongly on the identification of ancient settlements, which in the Argolid often remains uncertain (see chapter 5). Both Πίκουλας 1995 and especially Tausend 2006, 2020 also regarded some towers as evidence for ancient roads, but in the present study fortified site cannot a priori be connected to roads. 10 Following Fachard and Pirisino 2015: 149, the term ‘road’ will be used for carriageable routes, ‘engineered path’ for routes that are not carriageable, but supported by terrace walls or carved in the rock, and ‘track’ for routes that required no constructions. ‘Route’ is used for any connection between different points, regardless of construction technique. 11 Πίκουλας 1995: 21–22; Pikoulas 2007: 82; Πίκουλας 2012: 34. 12 For archaeological remains of roads in the eastern Argolid and on the Akte, see Jameson et al. 1994: 48–49; Tausend 2006: 149–69. Lack of preservation can be a further problem, especially when routes continued to be used into the modern period. See for example Tausend 2006: 152. 13 See, for example, Marchand 2009a: 43–44 for the roads around Kleonai. 14 In Greece, bridges are rare before the Roman period (Pikoulas 2007: 83). 15 Pritchett 1980: 168–70; Πίκουλας 1995: 21; Marchand 2009a: 16; Πίκουλας 2012: 34. The exact date of wheel-ruts is difficult to determine, but — given the lack of widespread wheeled traffic in rural Greece between the end of the Roman period and the arrival of motored transport — they are likely to predate the 5th century AD (Πίκουλας 1995: 25; Lolos 1998: 1; Pikoulas 1999: 306–11, 2007: 80;

Marchand 2009a: 15; Lolos and Koskinas 2011: 93–94). Clark 1858: 65 suggested that some ‘wheel-ruts’ may be of more recent date: travelling on the Peloponnese, he observed that ‘the ordinary mode of carrying wood in Greece is to tie the heavier ends of the poles on each side to the back of the horse or donkey, and suffer the other ends to trail along the ground, thus making two parallel ruts which in course of time may attain the depth of and be mistaken for wheeltracks.’ However, at least in the territory of Kleonai some wheel-ruts were clearly cut rather than worn into the bedrock by repeated use (Marchand 2009a: 16). 16 On the load bearing capacity of mules and donkeys, see Vigneron 1968: 135; Cotterell 1990: 194; Roth 1999: 205–07; Adams 2007: 77–81; Raepsaet 2010: 589; Mitchell 2018: 131. 17 Horden and Purcell 2000: 131; Raepsaet 2002: 51–54, 68–71; Griffith 2006: 225; Adams 2007: 57–58; Fachard and Pirisino 2015: 141; McHugh 2019: 12. In addition, donkeys have a higher thirst threshold than any other equid, making them particularly suitable for use in dry climates (Adams 2007: 58; Mitchell 2018: 24). 18 A similar method was used to evaluate the function of roads in Attica (Fachard and Pirisino 2015: 141; McHugh 2019). The current analysis includes wheel-ruts and datable bridges from four previous studies (Φάκλαρης 1990: 209–16; Πίκουλας 1995; Tausend 2006; Πίκουλας 2012). Three of these studies were conducted before the widespread use of handheld GPS-devices, so that the accuracy of the spatial information may vary. The dataset is therefore not suitable for GIS-analyses that rely on the exact position of the bridges or wheel-ruts.

58

Chapter 6: Rural Fortifications as Territorial Defences

Figure 6.3 Surviving wheel-ruts and ancient bridges in the Argolid (after Φάκλαρης 1990; Πίκουλας 1995; Tausend 2006 and Πίκουλας 2012).

59

A Landscape of Conflict? Rural Fortifications in the Argolid (400–146 BC)

Figure 6.4 Least cost paths between Argos and Mantineia calculated with the ArcGIS Path Distance tool, the so-called ‘Tobler’s Hiking Formula’ (after Tripcevich 2009 and White 2015) and the relative effort required to walk on different slopes (after Minetti et al. 2002).

In recent years, GIS-based ‘least cost path analyses’ have become an increasingly common tool for identifying and analysing optimal routes through ancient landscapes.19 To identify least cost paths, the local topography is represented through a raster map. Every cell in this raster is assigned a ‘cost’ necessary to traverse the cell, which is used to calculate a cumulative cost surface relative to a specific origin of travel. This cumulative cost surface provides the basis for constructing the most efficient route — the ‘least cost path’ — from a point of origin to a specific destination. As the course of these routes depends on the specific function used to generate the cost surface,20 it is first necessary to identify a function that is suitable to modelling optimal routes for ancient wheeled traffic.

Figure 6.4 shows the wheel-ruts between Argos and Mantineia together with four different possible least cost paths. The first route is based on the ArcGIS Path Distance tool, the second on the so-called ‘Tobler’s Hiking Formula’ as applied by Tripcevich 2009, the third on ‘Tobler’s Hiking Formula’ as applied by White 2015 and the fourth on the relative effort required to walk uphill and downhill at different slopes.22 The third and fourth route correspond most closely to the archaeological remains of the road between Argos and Mantineia, while the first and the second function either over- or underestimate the effect of the slope on the choice of route.23 On the basis of this comparison, ‘Tobler’s Hiking Formula’ (as applied by White 2015) was chosen to model the most suitable routes for ancient wheeled traffic in this study.24

Looking at the archaeological remains of roads in the Argolid, the most securely attested route runs along the northern bank of the Xerias valley, connecting the cities of Argos and Mantineia. This road, traceable through surviving wheel-ruts in at least 4 different locations,21 can serve as a point of reference for evaluating different least cost path functions.

Minetti et al. 2002. This method has previously been used to investigate routes of movement and cost surfaces in Euboea and Attica (Knodell 2013; Fachard and Pirisino 2015; Fachard 2017b; Knodell 2017; Fachard and Knodell 2020). Following the example of Knodell 2017: 198, values of walking uphill and downhill were added together in order to simulate bidirectional cost paths. 23 In the second case, the resulting route overestimates the importance of the slope. For this and other common issues in the application of ‘Tobler’s Hiking Formula’, see Herzog and Posluschny 2011: 240; Herzog 2014: 232; White 2015: 408–09. 24 Since the routes calculated with ‘Tobler’s Hiking Formula’ and Minetti’s ‘energy cost function’ are nearly identical, the latter could equally be used to model the most suitable routes for ancient wheeled traffic. For previous studies which apply ‘Tobler’s Hiking Formula’ in the study of Classical landscapes, see for example McHugh 2017: 100– 31, 2019. 22

19 See, for example, Bell, Wilson, and Wickham 2002; Newhard, Levine, and Phebus 2014; Fachard and Pirisino 2015: 141; GüimilFariña and Parcero-Oubiña 2015. 20 See, for example, Kantner 2012; Herzog 2013. 21 Πίκουλας 1995: 112–15, 122–23; Tausend 2006: 91–92.

60

Chapter 6: Rural Fortifications as Territorial Defences

Using ‘Tobler’s Hiking Formula’, least cost paths were first calculated between the urban centres in the region.25 Many results in the northern and western Argolid correlate closely to the surviving bridges or wheel-ruts (Figure 6.5), suggesting that the calculated routes were in use during antiquity.26 However, remains of ancient roads are by no means limited to the calculated least cost paths. This indicates that the ‘road network’ of the ancient Argolid was not exclusively constructed to facilitate movement of goods, people or military forces between the urban centres of ancient city-states.

roads in the region simultaneously had a regional and a local function. Comparing all three sets of least cost paths — from urban centres to urban centres, from urban centres to fortified settlements, and from fortified settlements to fortified settlements — with the archaeological record, 32 out of the 85 bridges or wheel-ruts (approximately 27%) do not correspond to any of the calculated least cost paths. There are several possible explanations: For example, some of the wheel-ruts may be located on optimal routes between unfortified settlements or non-settlement sites, which were not included in this landscape model.28 Alternatively, the archaeological remains of ancient roads may be related to settlements of earlier periods, which could explain why the Mycenaean bridges near Kazarma (39) and Mykinai (51) do not correlate with the calculated least cost paths. Furthermore, some wheel-ruts suggest that roads with lower gradients may sometimes have been prioritised over the most efficient routes.29 For example the least cost path between Argos and Kleonai runs across the Agios Sostis pass, while actual wheel-ruts are only attested along the longer but gentler through the Tretos pass.

To investigate the remains of ancient roads that lie beyond the optimal routes between urban centres, least cost paths between urban centres and fortified settlements were added to the map (Figure 6.6). Many of these new routes — especially in the eastern and northern part of the region — partially follow the same course as the least cost paths between urban centres, indicating that wheeled traffic along these routes may also have served second-order settlements. Of the routes that do not coincide with the least cost paths between urban centres, some correlate with surviving wheel-ruts, while others — especially on the Akte and in the Kynouria — have thus far no parallels in the archaeological record.27 In the Thyreatis, the Arkadian mountains and the northern Argive plain, parallels between wheel-ruts and least cost paths are particularly common, indicating that Argive fortified settlements were connected to Arkadia and Lakonia as well as to Argos. This suggests that the roads between Argos and its second-order settlements should not only be seen from a military perspective, but probably also as part of a larger ‘civilian’ network for the movement of goods and people within and beyond the Argive territory.

Even though the exact course of ancient roads in the Argolid thus often remain elusive, it is possible to draw three main conclusions from the comparison between least cost paths and ancient bridges and wheel-ruts: Firstly, the Argolid’s road network was not limited to connecting urban centres, but included numerous routes between dependent settlements and nonsettlement sites within and beyond the individual political territories. Given the complexity of this network, access to a city-state’s territory was rarely limited to a small number of easily controllable routes. Secondly, the most efficient routes between different types of sites often overlap, so that wheel-ruts located along least cost paths between urban centres may not exclusively or even primarily be connected to longdistance movement across the region. Thirdly, the

The least cost paths between urban centres and fortified settlements thus demonstrate the importance of second-order sites for understanding the remains of carriagable roads in the Argolid. To investigate the role of these sites further, a third set of least cost paths was calculated: the most efficient routes for wheeled transport between the different fortified settlements in the region (Figure 6.7). Again, many of these new least cost paths partially follow the previously calculated routes, suggesting that several ancient

For example, Marchand 2009a: 10–44 has convincingly argued that many roads around Kleonai are related to local quarries or the sanctuary of Zeus at Nemea, while the wheel-ruts near Kophy Rachi (42) may belong to a route to the Argive Heraion (Steffen and Lolling 1884: 17; Tausend 2006: 25). 29 Studies of ancient roads usually place the critical slope of wheeled transport between 8% and 12% (Herzog and Posluschny 2011: 240), but gradients of up to 15% have been observed at ancient roads in Greece (Pikoulas 2007: 83). For the Roman period, wheel-ruts and harness fittings along the Via Claudia Augusta from Altinum (Trient) to Augusta Vindelicum (Augsburg) attest the use of animal-drawn vehicles on roads with gradients up to 30% (Grabherr 2006: 41, 45–48, 219–20). Limitations in gradient are difficult to incorporate into GIS models, since in reality steep slopes can be overcome though the construction of hairpin bends, which are impossible to model on the basis of the currently available DEMs. Setting an upper limit to the gradient the least cost paths can traverse therefore does not usually improve the correlation between least cost paths and surviving traces of pre-modern roads. 28

25 Alea, Argos, Corinth, Epidauros, Halieis, Hermion, Kleonai, Mantineia, Orchomenos, Pheneos, Phleious, Sparta, Stymphalos, Tegea,Tenea and Troizen. 26 In the eastern part of the region, where wheel-ruts are rare or seldom recorded, possible correlations between least cost paths and actual routes remain largely elusive. 27 This could be a result of the state of research or the importance of maritime routes.

61

A Landscape of Conflict? Rural Fortifications in the Argolid (400–146 BC)

Figure 6.5 The least cost paths between urban centres, compared to the surviving wheel-ruts and ancient bridges.

62

Chapter 6: Rural Fortifications as Territorial Defences

Figure 6.6 The least cost paths between urban centres and fortified settlements, compared to the least cost paths between urban centres and the surviving wheel-ruts and ancient bridges.

63

A Landscape of Conflict? Rural Fortifications in the Argolid (400–146 BC)

Figure 6.7 The least cost paths between fortified settlements, compared to the least cost paths between urban centres, the least cost paths between urban centres and fortified settlements and the surviving wheel-ruts and ancient bridges.

64

Chapter 6: Rural Fortifications as Territorial Defences

variety of different roads demonstrates that roads and engineered paths were not constructed exclusively for military purposes, but — as previously suggested for roads in Attica or at Kleonai30 — also served the ‘non-military’ needs of urban populations and rural communities.31

further, the fortifications’ location in the vicinity of routes does not necessarily imply that they were intended to control movement — many sites may have been constructed near roads merely to ensure easy everyday access. Identifying specific ‘military’ structures that were built to monitor or control roads thus requires additional criteria, for example strategic locations where routes are confined through passes or defiles, or where several least cost paths converge. Fortifications at passes or defiles are easy to locate, but surprisingly rare in the Argolid: only 12 of the 110 sites mapped for this study were built at passes or defiles,35 and only eight lie in the vicinity of calculated least coast paths.36

6.1.3 Least cost paths and ancient fortifications in the Argolid What are the implications of these conclusions for the role of Late Classical and Hellenistic fortifications in the Argolid? As mentioned above, previous scholars have interpreted many rural fortifications in the region as military-strategic sites controlling access to and within a city-state’s territory. But in reality, only 10% of the Argolid’s securely located fortifications are situated within 1km of surviving bridges or wheelruts.32 The correlation between fortified sites and least cost paths is much stronger. 48.2% of the fortifications lie within 1km of an optimal route between two urban centres, 40% within 1km of an optimal route between two fortified settlements, and 58.18% within 1km of an optimal route between an urban centre and a fortified settlement (Figure 6.8)33 — at first glance, an important argument in favour of understanding the region’s rural fortifications as military structures controlling movement and access.

Convergences between individual least cost paths are more difficult to pinpoint, but can be located and quantified through a cumulative pathway analysis. For the purpose of this analysis, each least cost path consists of a number of raster cells. Raster cells that form the starting point or destination of a path (in this case the urban centres and fortified settlements) are assigned the value ’1’, while cells along the paths are assigned the value ’3’. The individual paths are then combined into a single raster, in which cells shared by several paths are assigned the sum of the paths’ values. For example, cells shared by two paths are assigned the value ‘6’, cells shared by three paths the value ’9’ and cells shared by four paths the value ’12’.37 Consequently, the higher the assigned value, the more paths overlap and the higher the expected volume of traffic.38

Yet on closer inspection there are several issues with this reading of the archaeological evidence. For example, over half of the fortifications located within 1km of a least cost path are situated more than 0.5km from the ‘adjacent’ route, so that the connection between fortified sites and least cost paths may not be as strong as previously suggested. Even more importantly, it thus far remains unclear how fortifications could have controlled movement, especially since many sites only housed very small garrisons.34 Taking this argument

The cumulative pathway analysis thus highlights routes that may have been particularly well frequented in antiquity (Figure 6.9): the coastal route between the plain of Iria and the Thyreatis, the north-south route 35 Agios Sostis (5), Anathema (8), Gymnon (26), Iliopoulaiika (30), Kastro 2 (37), Kephalovryso (40), Kophy Rachi (42), Lyrkeia (50), Sportiza (74), Tourkovrysi (78), Xylopyrgo (88) and Karya (97). The sites of Chora (111) (Wrede 1959; Tausend 2006: 159–60), Dervenakia (112) (Gauvin 1992: 136–38, figs 7.2–7.4) and Ellinon Lithari (113) (Gell 1810: 26; Leake 1830: 386–87; Curtius 1852: 512; Vischer 1857: 289– 90; Conze and Michaelis 1861: 22; Bursian 1872: 39; Frazer 1898: 86) reportedly also lie in the vicinity of passes, but could not be located. 36 Agios Sostis (5), Anathema (8), Gymnon (26), Kastro 2 (37), Lyrkeia (50), Sportiza (74), Tourkovrysi (78) and Xylopyrgo (88). 37 Cumulative pathway analyses have previously been used to interpret survey data (for example in the Sangro Valley Survey (Bell, Wilson, and Wickham 2002)), but have thus far not been applied to the study of ancient fortifications. 38 Evaluating the results of this analysis, it is important to point out the limitations of using cumulative pathways to model frequency of movement. Firstly, the model is based solely on urban centres and fortified settlements and thus does not take into account movement to and from unfortified rural settlements or ‘special purpose sites’. Secondly, the analysis does not distinguish between different settlement sizes, so that the movement to and from small rural settlements may be overestimated. Thirdly, the model is limited to sites in the area of study and the immediately adjoining regions, so that routes connecting the Argolid with areas further afield may have experienced a larger volume of traffic than the cumulative pathway analysis suggests.

Marchand 2009a: 43–44; Fachard and Pirisino 2015: 148. In Greek antiquity, possible ‘non-military’ contexts for wheeled traffic include agriculture (Hes. Op. 426, 453–57; Raepsaet 2010: 598), heavy goods conveyance (Burford 1969: 187–88; Raepsaet 2010: 592), trade and personal transport. For the economic viability of ancient overland trade, see Laurence 1998; Bresson 2016: 81–84; Shipley 2018: 272. For personal transport, see for example Plut. Moralia 304e, which mentions a Peloponnesian theoria traveling to Delphi by wagon in the late 7th-century BC (although it is unclear if this passage reflects practices in the Archaic period or during Plutarch’s lifetime). Hellenistic ‘guidebooks’ focus on travel on foot, but also include some information on carriagable roads (Lolos and Koskinas 2011: 97, for the text see Pfister 1951: 72–95; Arenz 2006: 103–16, for the date Ferguson 1911: 261, 464–66; Pfister 1951: 44–46; Arenz 2006: 49–83). 32 Benteni Kiapha (16), Douka Vrysi (19), Kampia (32), Kazarma (39), Kophy Rachi (42), Lyrkeia (50), Sportiza (74), Stavropodio (75), Tou Antreiomenou to Mnema 1 (77), Tourniki: Gaidourovouni (79), Marmaralono Agiou Petrou (102) and Spathovouni (143). Only two of these sites (Kazarma (39) and Tou Antreiomenou to Mnema 1 (77)) are located within 0.5km of a surviving bridge or wheel-rut. 33 These figures exclude fortified settlements that function as the starting point or destination of least cost paths. 34 See section 3.2. 30 31

65

A Landscape of Conflict? Rural Fortifications in the Argolid (400–146 BC)

Figure 6.8 The least cost paths, compared to the 4th-century BC and Hellenistic fortifications in the region.

Figure 6.9 The results of the cumulative pathway analysis, compared to the distribution of 4th-century BC and Hellenistic fortifications. Paths marked in blue denote routes with a low overlap between different paths, paths marked in red denote routes with a high overlap.

66

Chapter 6: Rural Fortifications as Territorial Defences

Figure 6.10 The freestanding rectangular tower with chamfered corners at Kephalovryso (40) (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

through the Kynouria, the route from the Argolic Gulf to Andritsa: Goulas (9), and the route through the lower Inachos valley. Probably less well frequented, but still with a considerable volume of traffic are the routes between the Argolic and Saronic Gulfs, between the Argive plain and the plain of Phleious, and across the pass of Agios Sostis.

strategic locations in border areas.41 This suggests that (at least in the region investigated in this study) circular towers may be specific to military sites. The same may apply to freestanding rectangular towers with chamfered corners, which are exclusively found at strategic locations: Kephalovryso (40) lies immediately above a pass (though not on a calculated path (Figure 6.10)), Lileika Xeropigadou (47) was built on a busy coastal route, and Tourniki: Gaidourovouni (79) (as the following section of this chapter will show) may have served as a watchtower or signal-station.42

Along these ‘busy’ routes, there are remains of 21 fortified structures,39 while a further four fortifications — Choutalaiika (18), Gymnon (26), Tourkovrysi (78) and Vigliza (85) — lie at the crossroads of two or more least cost paths. Four of these sites — Agios Sostis (5), Gymnon (26), Tourkovrysi (78) and Xylopyrgo (88) — are also situated on passes or defiles, and are thus ideally placed to monitor the nearby route.

But how is it possible to account for fortifications that are located on passes or well-frequented routes, but could so far not be singled out as military-strategic sites?43 Three of these sites — the tower at Kantia 2 (34),

Looking at the distribution of these sites, we can see some correlation between volume of traffic and type of fortification. Forts tend to be located on ‘busy’ routes, while drystone circuits — weaker but also more cost-efficient — are more common along less frequented least cost paths.40 Furthermore, five of the six surviving free-standing circular towers in the Argolid are located along least cost paths, often at

Agios Sostis (5), Choutalaiika (18), Nera (53), Prosilia (66) and Xylopyrgo (88). For the Late Classical and Hellenistic borders in the region, see section 5.1. The sixth tower, Limanaki 1 (48), probably lies near the boundary between Troizen and Arsinoe. A further round tower, which was recorded in 1979 at Porto Ydra (140), but has since been destroyed, is located near the border between Hermion and Troizen (McAllister 1969: 185; Jameson et al. 1994: 537). 42 See section 6.2. 43 The group includes the sites of Anathema (8), Gyphtokastro (27), Iria (31), Kantia 1 (33), Kantia 2 (34), Kastraki (35), Kastro 2 (37), Kazarma (39), Lampagiana (45), Levkakia (46), Lyrkeia (50), Pyrgouli (71), Phranchthi (62), Sportiza (74), Vigla (84), Vigliza (85), Kondyli (98), Malantrenion (101), Xydeika Of these sites, the ‘tower’ at Tourkopigado (157) and the ‘fortified settlement’ at Skala 2 (142) no longer survive and may not originally have been fortified. They were therefore excluded from the present discussion, as was the fortified settlement at Kantia 1 (33), where Classical and Hellenistic occupation evidence is scarce. For the identification of Tourkopigado (157) as a villa rustica, see Πίκουλας 1995: 233; Cloke 2016: 818, for Skala 2 (142), see Pritchett 1980: 15; Πίκουλας 1995: 189, for the finds from Kantia 1 (33), see Gebauer 1939: 288–92; Brommer 1975: 172; 41

39 Agios Sostis (5), Choutalaiika (18), Iria (31), Kantia 1 (33), Kantia 2 (34), Kastraki (35), Kazarma (39), Lampagiana (45), Levkakia (46), Lileika Xeropigadou (47), Phranchthi (62), Pyrgouli (71), Tourkovrysi (78), Vigla (84), Xylopyrgo (88), Kondyli (98), Malantrenion (101), Skala 2 (142), Xydeika (106) and Tourkopigado (157). 40 There are, however, exceptions, such as the fort of Ano Phanari (10) or the drystone circuits of Phranchthi (62) and Vigla (84). For the cost of ancient drystone circuits, see section 7.2.

67

A Landscape of Conflict? Rural Fortifications in the Argolid (400–146 BC)

Figure 6.11 The view from the possible tower at Kondyli (98).

Figure 6.12 The view from the drystone circuit at Vigliza (85).

68

Chapter 6: Rural Fortifications as Territorial Defences

Figure 6.13 The view from the tower at Tourkovrysi (78).

the possible tower at Kondyli (98) and the drystone circuit at Vigliza (85) — are too restricted in their visibility to monitor or restrict movement along nearby routes (Figures 6.11–2).44 Other sites are limited by their accessibility: the forts of Iria (31) and Kastraki (35) are located nearly 1km from the nearest route, while Gyphtokastro (27) is separated from the nearest least cost path by a steep and inaccessible slope, preventing any effective or reliable control of movement.

Envisioning therefore (merely for the sake of argument) an attempt to block the defile with a large defending force, over 400 men would be needed to stretch across the defile in a single-rank, close-order formation.47 Even leaving aside that single-rank phalanges are only rarely attested,48 this force by far exceeds the number of men that could be stationed in a tower measuring 6 by 6.15m. This demonstrates that the five strategically places towers on the routes through the Argolid were not built to prevent large field armies from entering the Argive territory, but were rather concerned with monitoring, controlling and if necessary restricting the movement of civilian travellers or small forces such as raiding parties. This is an important conclusion, which needs to be investigated further in a later part of this chapter.

Summing up the results of this chapter so far, many of the 110 Late Classical and Hellenistic fortifications in the Argolid lie close to the most efficient routes through the region, but only a few are strategically placed to control movement. Based on the relationship of the sites to the calculated routes and the surrounding topography, only nine structures can be identified as militarystrategic fortifications, and a mere five — the towers of Agios Sostis (5) (Figures 6.1—2), Gymnon (26), Lileika Xeropigadou (47), Tourkovrysi (78) and Xylopyrgo (88) — are well situated for monitoring, controlling or restricting movement along the optimal routes through the region. Several of these towers are located near the Argive borders, but there is no evidence that Argos systematically constructed fortifications to restrict access to its territorial heartland.

6.2 Visibility: fortifications as watch-posts and signal-stations 6.2.1 Studying visibility: methods and practice This chapter opened with a brief mention of the Late Classical tower of Agios Sostis (5), situated at an important pass between the Korinthia and the Argive plain. In addition to its strategic location on a major thoroughfare, the tower boasts excellent vistas of the surrounding countryside, with a magnificent panorama of the southern Korinthia to the north and stunning views of the northern Argive plain to the south (Figures 6.2 and 6.14). Given these vistas, it is hardly surprising that the tower of Agios Sostis (5) has long been described as a ‘watchtower’ or even as part of an ancient ‘signalling network’.49

Furthermore, none of these five towers could have housed the necessary garrison to hold a pass or defile against an invading army for any amount of time. To take one example, the tower at Tourkovrysi (78) is located at the narrowest point on the route between Argos and Phleious (Figures 6.13),45 but even so part of the defile lies beyond the effective range of hand-thrown javelins (30–40m), slingshots (65–100m, depending on the material) or arrows (50–175m) fired from the tower.46 Πιτερός 1995a: 111; Simpson and Hagel 2006: 40. 44 For the technical details of such ‘viewshed analyses’, see below. 45 Today, the area around the tower is dominated by the highway between the Isthmus and Tripoli, but RAF aerial photographs taken in September 1944 (now in the BSA’s aerial photograph collection) demonstrate that the construction of the highway did not involve widening the valley. I am very grateful to the BSA and in particular to Gian Piero Milani for the opportunity to consult these images. 46 For the effective range of hand-thrown javelins, see Lawrence 1979: 40, for slingshots, see Baatz 1990: 66, and for arrows, see McLeod

1965: 8. Catapults (once invented and widespread) could reach further (see for example Rossi 2012), but it is unclear if the tower at Tourkovrysi (78) would have been resilient enough to resist the recoil of artillery. 47 On the interval between men in a hoplite phalanx, see Matthew 2012: 179–96. 48 The only known example is the Spartan phalanx at Dipaia in 471 BC, mentioned in Isoc. 6.99 (Matthew 2012: 175–76). 49 See for example Lord 1939: 80, 83; Gauvin 1992: 138; Tausend 2006: 22. For a more cautious approach, see Lohmann 1993b: 255–56.

69

A Landscape of Conflict? Rural Fortifications in the Argolid (400–146 BC)

Figure 6.14 The view from the tower of Agios Sostis (5) to the south (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Korinthia; photo by the author).

‘identification’ of fortified signalling networks in many regions of the Greek mainland.55 However, critics of these ‘fortified visual networks’ have rightly pointed out that with antiquity’s limited signalling techniques, many ‘links’ in the proposed networks are untenable.56 Moreover, most proposed ‘signalling systems’ rest on the tacit assumption that beacon fires were lit atop ancient towers — a practice that despite numerous literary references to optical signals is unattested in Greek antiquity.57 From a methodological perspective, the rural fortifications of Eretria — often intervisible, but not a signalling system58 — underline that intervisibility alone cannot be considered a decisive criterion for identifying visual networks. Or, as H. Lohmann put it, without further evidence it is impossible to identify a tower as an ancient signalstation ‘und sei die Aussicht noch so schön!’59 Even after more than 40 years of research, signalling systems thus remain a controversial topic in fortification studies, and even the fundamental question ‘Did fortified visual networks exist in ancient Greece, and, if so, how can they be identified?’ is still unresolved.

Judging by the frequent appearance of beacons and smoke signals in ancient literary sources, visual longdistance communication was a common feature of ancient warfare.50 Simple smoke and fire signals are already mentioned in the Iliad,51 while in Aeschylus’ Agamemnon the news of the fall of Troy famously reaches Clytemnestra through a complex chain of beacon fires.52 If nothing else, this passage demonstrates that visual networks were common enough in the 5th century BC for an Athenian audience to appreciate the description.53 Thanks to the often spectacular views from ancient fortifications, ‘defensive networks’ of fortified lookoutposts and signal-stations have — as in the case of Agios Sostis (5) — been a recurring theme in fortification studies since the 19th century,54 culminating in the For ancient sources on signalling, see Woolliscroft 2001: 159–71. Hom. Il. 18.207–13. Riepl 1913: 47; Russell 1999: 145; Woolliscroft 2001: 21. 52 A. Ag. 281–313. The feasibility of this system has been questioned by several scholars (Riepl 1913: 51; Diels 1924: 71–90; Aschoff 1984: 23; Lohmann 1993b: 160), while others have argued that the description is based on a contemporary system, for example a beacon chain established by the Persian general Mardonius in 480 BC (Hdt. 9.3.1) or a hypothetical system to warn Greek cities of the approaching Persian fleet (Hoernle 1921: 14–16; Leiner 1982: 61–63). 53 Long distance signals in ancient Greek warfare were usually transmitted through beacon fires, and were thus largely limited to a small number of prearranged messages (Riepl 1913: 43; Russell 1999: 146; Woolliscroft 2001: 24). More complex signalling techniques were developed in the Hellenistic period, for example the Polybian system (Polyb. 10.45.6–47.4) or the combination of fire signals and synchronised water-clocks (Ph. Bel. 60; Polyb. 10.44.1–13). The transmission of signals by semaphore is only mentioned in Roman sources (Veg. Mil. 5.39; Anon. Byzant. 92.17), while descriptions of signals with shields (Hdt. 6.115; Xen. Hell. 2.1.27; D. S. 20.51) may refer to heliographs or direct optical signals over short distances (Woolliscroft 2001: 49). 54 For an early example, see Winterberger 1892: 122–24 on the rural fortifications of Attica. The arrangement of signals during the expedition to Kerkyra in 372 BC (Xen. Hell. 6.2.33) demonstrate that 50 51

This lack of clarity and consensus partly stems from the discrepancies between ancient and modern visibility. For example, weather conditions, vegetation ancient signalling did not necessarily require permanent structures (Lohmann 1993b: 159). 55 For example in Attica (Vanderpool 1978; Munn 1983; Ober 1985: 191–207; Camp 1991), the Megarid (Maele 1992: 104–06), Phokis (Fossey 1986: 135–41; McInerney 1999: 343–46), at Kleonai and Phleious (Gauvin 1992: 135–44), and more recently at Sikyon (Lolos and Koskinas 2011: 260–61) and Mantineia (Maher 2018). 56 See for example Lohmann 1993b: 159–60; Fachard 2012: 271–73, 2016b: 229–30. 57 Fachard 2016b: 230. Evidence for flat-roofed Greek towers is so far sparse (Haselberger 1979: 110–14). 58 Fachard 2012: 271–92. 59 Lohmann 1993b: 159.

70

Chapter 6: Rural Fortifications as Territorial Defences

Figure 6.15 The binary viewshed of the fortified settlement of Achladokampos (1).

Figure 6.16 The classified viewshed of the fortified settlement of Achladokampos (1).

71

A Landscape of Conflict? Rural Fortifications in the Argolid (400–146 BC)

Figure 6.17 Site intervisibility in the territories of Halieis and Hermion.

Figure 6.18 Site intervisibility in the territory of Troizen.

72

Chapter 6: Rural Fortifications as Territorial Defences

or building activity can easily obscure the view towards nearby sites. The present study will attempt to counter this problem though a ‘classified viewshed analysis’.60 Each analysis consists of three steps. First, a viewpoint is defined for each fortification, based laterally on the structure’s location,61 and vertically on a combination of elevation, original height,62 and stature of the ancient observer.63 After defining the viewpoint, a ‘binary viewshed’ is calculated for each site (Figure 6.15). This viewshed shows areas that are theoretically visible,64 but does not take into account the fact that actual visibility diminishes with growing distance.65 To address this issue, the ‘binary viewsheds’ are classified according to different levels of actual visibility, distinguishing between four likely scenarios (Figure 6.16): the observation of an individual (possible up to 2.4km from the viewpoint), the observation of groups of individuals (up to 5.9km from the viewpoint),66 the observation of smoke (up to

20.6km from the viewpoint),67 and the observation of fire at night (up to 30km from the viewpoint)68. Once calculated, these ‘classified viewsheds’ can be combined with ‘traditional’ on-site observations to create a more nuanced picture of site intervisibility, casting new light on the ‘signalling system controversy’. 6.2.2 Site visibility and intervisibility on the Akte Beginning this investigation on the Argolic Akte, the case for ‘signalling systems’ is particularly weak at Halieis and Hermion, as only a single rural fortification can be seen from each urban centre (Figure 6.17). Admittedly, the site at Ermioni: Magoula (93) visually connects the urban centre of Hermion to nine further fortifications (Figure 6.17),69 but both the date of the structure and its identification as a tower are uncertain.70 The situation is slightly different in the neighbouring territory of Troizen, where the urban acropolis enjoys excellent views over the coastal plain and the strategically important straits of Poros.71 A small visual ‘network’ of rural fortifications to the northeast would be possible (Figure 6.18), but the views from the intervisible sites are not significantly more extensive than those from the city-centre itself. It is thus unlikely

GIS ‘viewshed analyses’ are widely (albeit sometimes rather uncritically) used to study visibility in ancient landscapes (Wheatley and Gillings 2000; Leusen 2002: 6.10–12; Wheatley 2002: 209–19), but have so far only rarely been applied in Greek fortifications studies (e.g. at Mantineia (Topouzi et al. 2002), in the Othrys mountains (Chykerda 2010; Chykerda, Haagsma, and Karapanou 2014a, 2014b: 292–301) or on the Paximadi Peninsula in southern Euboia, where ‘the local schist architecture […] complicates the identification of true towers’ (Seifried and Parkinson 2014). 61 For towers, the analysis will be based on one viewpoint, whereas fortified settlements, forts and drystone circuits require a combined viewshed from several points. 62 As the original height of most major fortifications (fortified settlements, forts and drystone circuits) is impossible to reconstruct, the viewpoint will be assigned the altitude plus the stature of the observer as elevation. When possible, the height of freestanding ancient towers will be estimated on the basis of a standard width to height ratio of 1:2 (Young 1956: 135), even though this calculation largely ignores aspects such as building materials, substratum, foundations or inside arrangements (Thielemans 1982: 140–41). 63 In earlier studies, the average height of adult males in Greek antiquity is often given as 162.2cm, based on skeletal material from 61 male graves in Attica (Angel 1945: 284–85). This figure is problematic due to the comparatively small number of skeletons examined and a possible bias in favour of higher social-economic groups (Foxhall and Forbes 1982: 47). Therefore, the slightly higher figure of 169.46cm (calculated on the basis of 97 male individuals found in Classical graves in mainland Greece, Magna Graecia and the Greek colony of Apollonia on the Black Sea; O’Connor 2013: 344–45) will be used in this study. 64 In reality, visibility depends on numerous factors, including the psychophysical limits of human vision, atmospheric conditions and the properties of the observed object (Wheatley and Gillings 2000: 5–9; Conolly 2006: 231–32; Ogburn 2006: 406–07; Déderix 2015: 526). 65 Fisher 1994: 164; Wheatley and Gillings 2000: 11; Ogburn 2006: 405. 66 In the first and second scenario, the estimated limits of visibility are based on the ‘visual angle’ of the observed object within the observer’s field of vision. This method was first suggested by the Japanese landscape designer Tadahiko Higuchi (Higuchi 1988: 11– 17) and is already widely used in the analysis of archaeological landscapes (see for example Wheatley and Gillings 2000; Letesson and Vansteenhuyse 2006; Ogburn 2006; Llobera 2007; Gillings 2009; Déderix 2015). The visual angle of an object within the observer’s field of vision depends on its dimensions and its distance from the observer. When an object moves towards the observer, the visual angle increases, whereas moving away, the visual angle decreases (Ogburn 2006: 406). For a person with average eyesight, an object is not usually visible if the visual angle of its smallest dimension is less than 1’, meaning that under favourable conditions the limit of visibility for a specific object lies at 3440 times its smallest dimension 60

(Ogburn 2006: 410). A person (c. 0.7m wide) is thus not visible beyond a distance of 2408m, a group of people (c. 1.7m high) beyond 5848m. These upper limits of visibility can be corroborated by observations in the field. For example, standing at fortification at Agio Lias (2) individual visitors at Mykinai’s ‘Tomb of Atreus’ can still be made out over a distance of nearly 2km, while cars (roughly of the same height as a group of individuals) moving through the village of Dalamanara are still visible from the Argos’ Larissa nearly 6km away. 67 This estimate is based on the ‘effective detection radius’ of modern wildfires, which lies around 13.4km under poor conditions and 20.6km in good conditions (Rego and Catry 2006: 201). The visibility of smoke signals is particularly susceptible to changing atmospheric conditions. 68 For the observation of fire-signals at night, the theoretical range of visibility is limited by the luminous intensity of fire. For burning wood, the luminous intensity lies at approximately 0.1 cd/cm2, which means that under optimal conditions a burning stack of wood c. 1m high is visible over 30km (Aschoff 1984: 11–13). In practice, communicating over this distance would have been difficult and may have required lighting fires on the roofs or platforms of fortifications – a practice that is so far unattested for the Late Classical and Hellenistic period (Haselberger 1979: 110–15; Fachard 2016b: 230). 69 Anathema (8), Iliokastro (29), Lampagiana (45), Soros (72), Vigla (84), Vourlia 1 (86), Vourlia 2 (87), Akrotiri Iria 1 (90), Akrotiri Iria 2 (91) and Ermioni: Magoula (93). In addition, Anathema (8) provides a visual link to Porto Cheli (64) and Petrothalassa (138). For the tower at Ermioni: Magoula (93), see Jameson et al. 1994: 502–03. 70 Even with a Classical or Hellenistic tower at Ermioni: Magoula (93), reconstructing a ‘signalling system’ around Hermion is problematic, since the fort of Anathema (8) enjoys only limited visibility to north and thus probably belongs to Troizen rather than to Hermion. The case of the neighbouring drystone circuit of Soros (72) is less clear. Based on a supposed visual connection to Troizina (80), Jameson et al. 1994: 522 identified Soros (72) as Troizenian, but the site is in fact only visible from the acropolis of Iliokastro (29). Γιαννοπούλου 2009: 535 attributed both Soros (72) and Anathema (8) to Troizen but offered no further explanation. 71 Since antiquity alluvial deposits have probably extended the plain to the north, but this development may in part be offset by the local sea-level rise (see section 2.2).

73

A Landscape of Conflict? Rural Fortifications in the Argolid (400–146 BC)

Figure 6.19 Site intervisibility in the territory of Epidauros.

74

Chapter 6: Rural Fortifications as Territorial Defences

Figure 6.20 The view from Ano Phanari (10), with Palaia Epidavros and the Korinthia (left), Salamis and Attica (centre) and Aigina (right) (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Piraeus and the Islands; photo by the author).

Figure 6.21 The view from Skala 1 (104) to the west, south and east, with Stavropodio (75) (left), the Benteni valley (centre) and the Argolic Gulf (right). The plain of Iria is just visible through the trees on the right edge of the picture. (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author). Cluster

Sites

Types

cluster 1

Choutalaiika (18) Kastraki (35) Kastro 2 (37) Lygourio 1 (49) Alogomandra Kalogirou (92) Lygourio 2 (100)

tower fort drystone circuit tower drystone circuit (?) fortified settlement (?)

cluster 2

Benteni Kiapha (16) Gyphtokastro (27) Iria (31) Stavropodio (75) Tou Antreiomenou to Mnema 1 (77) Skala (104) Xydeika (106)

fort fort fort fort tower drystone circuit (?) tower

Table 6.1 Site clusters in the territory of Epidauros.

Vigliza (11) (Figure 6.19). The view from Ano Phanari (10) extends significantly beyond the area visible from Palaia Epidavros 1 (54) (Figures 6.20), while the view from Ano Phanari: Vigliza (11) is more limited. This suggests that — unlike the neighbouring fort — Ano Phanari: Vigliza (11) probably could not serve as an effective Epidaurian watch-post on the Saronic coast.

that the rural fortifications of Troizen functioned as signal-stations between the asty and the chora.72 This leaves only the rural fortifications of Epidauros and Argos — the two largest city-states in the region — as possible candidates for fortified signalling systems. Despite the large number of rural fortifications in the Epidaurian territory, the urban centre at Palaia Epidavros 1 (54) is visually only connected to the coastal fort of Ano Phanari (10) and the tower of Ano Phanari:

The remaining rural fortifications in the territory of Epidauros have no visual connection to the urban centre, but form two separate ‘clusters’ of intervisible sites (Figure 6.19 and Table 6.1). The first ‘cluster’ consists of six fortifications to the west of modern

Nevertheless, visibility may have influenced the location of rural fortifications in the territory of Troizen. For example, the fortified settlement of Phourkaria (61) has an excellent view of Dokos and Hydra, and might be connected to the sea route though the Gulf of Hydra, as well as the land route between Troizen and Hermion.

72

75

A Landscape of Conflict? Rural Fortifications in the Argolid (400–146 BC)

Figure 6.22 Site intervisibility in the territory of Argos.

76

Chapter 6: Rural Fortifications as Territorial Defences

Cluster

Sites

Types

cluster 1

Kazarma (39) Pyrgouli (71)

fort tower

cluster 2

Agios Sostis (5) Drymoni 1 (20) Kleonai (41) Drymoni 2 (94) Spathovouni (143)

tower tower fortified settlement tower tower

cluster 3

Prosymna: Agios Athanasios (67) Prosymna: Agios Dimitrios (68) Prosymna: Pyrgouthi (69) Vigliza (85)

fortified settlement tower tower drystone circuit

cluster 4

Akova: Varda (6) Tourniki: Gaidourovouni (79) Tourniki: Agios Nikolaos sta Ampelia (105)

tower tower tower

cluster 5

Achladokampos (1) Andritsa: Goulas (9) Prosilia (66) Xylopyrgo (88)

fortified settlement fortified settlement tower tower

cluster 6

Agios Andreas (4) Elliniko Astrous (21) Paralio Astros (56) Prosilia (66) Tsiorovos Dolianon (82) Xylopyrgo (88)

fortified settlement fortified settlement fortified settlement tower fortified settlement tower

Table 6.2 Site clusters in the territory of Argos.

Lygourio,73 and includes two sites — the fort of Kastraki (35) and the tower at Choutalaiika (18) — that could have been used to observe the western border of the Epidauria.74 The second ‘cluster’ lies in the Benteni valley, which stretches between the inland plain of Tracheia and the coastal plain of Iria. The fortifications in this second ‘cluster’ are not merely intervisible, but together allow the observation of the entire valley (Figure 6.21). Assuming that they were in use at the same time (a question that due to the lack of finds at Skala 1 (104) remains unanswered), they could have formed an unusual ‘chain’ of signal stations along the southern border of the Epidaurian territory.75

6.2.3 Site visibility and intervisibility in the territory of Argos Moving from the Akte to the territory of Argos, intervisible fortifications are even more common: of the 65 Argive fortifications or possible fortifications recorded so far, only seventeen are visually isolated or form isolated ‘pairs of sites’.76 The remaining 48 sites are either immediately visible from Argos (12) or connected to the city through intervisible fortifications (Figure 6.22). For the present analysis, these intervisible sites can be divided into the central fortifications around the gulf and the plain, and six site ‘clusters’ on the edges of the Argive territory (Figure 6.23 and Table 6.2).77 The first cluster of Argive ‘border fortifications’ is located in the valley between the Saronic and the The isolated sites are the towers and possible towers of Charadros (17), Douka Vrysi (19), Iliopoulaiika (30), Kephalovryso (40), Nera (53), Spathokommeno (73), Malantrenion (101), Marmaralono Agiou Petrou (102) and Zogka: Asprorrema (145), the fort of Kastro tis Paliopanagias (38) and the fortified settlements of Ierakas (28), Kyparissi (44) and Tyros (83). ‘Pairs’ of intervisible sites can be found at Tourkovrysi (78) and Tourkopigado (157), as well as at Plaka Leonidiou (63) and Poulithra (65). Unless these seventeen sites were originally visible from fortifications that no longer survive, they cannot have formed part of a fortified signalling network. 77 Karya (97) and Skala 2 (142) have extensive visual connection, but it is unclear whether ancient fortified structures ever existed at either of the two sites. They will therefore not be considered part of an Argive ‘signalling system’. For possible ancient remains at Karya (97), see Πίκουλας 1995: 207, for the remains at Skala 2 (142), see Πίκουλας 1995: 188–91. 76

73 As the views from two of these sites — Lygourio 1 (49) and Lygourio 2 (100) — closely overlap, it is unlikely that both sites functioned simultaneously as part of a signalling network. 74 The role of Kastro (37) remains unclear. This fort is located at an important pass between Lygourio and Arachnaio, suggesting that the intervisibility with sites in the valley may not have been the main consideration for choosing the site’s location. 75 The cluster had further visual connections to Vourlia 1 (86), Vourlia 2 (87), Akrotiri Iria 1 (90) and Akrotiri Iria 2 (91), but since their date is uncertain, they will not be considered part of the visual ‘network’ in the Benteni valley. The tower at Tou Antreiomenou to Mnema 1 (77) is visible from Stavropodio (75), but has little potential as a ‘signalling-station’.

77

A Landscape of Conflict? Rural Fortifications in the Argolid (400–146 BC)

Figure 6.23 Intervisible ‘site clusters’ in the territory of Argos.

78

Chapter 6: Rural Fortifications as Territorial Defences

Figure 6.24 ‘Cluster 3’: intervisible Argive fortifications in the plain of Prosymna.

Figure 6.25 The view from Agio Lias (2) to the east, with the plain of Prosymna (left) and the Argive plain (right) (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Argolic Gulf, where the territory of Argos borders the neighbouring city-state of Epidauros (Figure 6.23).78 The two fortifications in this cluster share similar viewsheds and are — at least during the day-time — visually isolated from other Argive fortifications. Considering that the area visible from the sites is located less than eight hours’ walk from Argos, this argues against a ‘signalling system’ designed to inform

78

the city centre of threats on the Epidaurian border.79 In the plain of Prosymna, the area visible from the three sites on the plain is also in full view of the fort of Agio Lias (2) (Figures 6.24–5), suggesting that only Agio Lias (2) and possibly Vigliza (85) may have been suitable for optical signalling. Further to the south, ‘cluster 6’ is especially complex, with lines of visibility radiating 79 This assumes an average walking speed of 5km/h, which is probably too low considering that even Roman legionaries carrying armour, weapons and kit moved at an average of 5km/h (Riepl 1913: 129).

On the location of this border, see section 6.3.

79

A Landscape of Conflict? Rural Fortifications in the Argolid (400–146 BC)

Figure 6.26 ‘Cluster 5 and 6’: intervisible Argive fortifications around Achladokampos (1) and south of the Zavitsa mountains.

Figure 6.27 The view from Tourniki: Gaidourovouni (79) to the east along the Xerias valley (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

80

Chapter 6: Rural Fortifications as Territorial Defences

Figure 6.28 ‘Cluster 2’: intervisible fortifications in the territory of Kleonai.

signalling share very similar views.81 In addition, many fortifications around the Argive plain — especially towers — lack direct visual connections to their nearest neighbours (Figure 6.22–3),82 and instead have good views of the central Argive plain and Argos’ Larissa hill. This suggests that — if the fortifications around the Argive plain did form a signalling system — the ‘visual network’ was not intended to alert nearby sites, but to transmit information towards Argos (12).

outwards from the key sites of Agios Andreas (4), Prosilia (66), Xylopyrgo (88) and Elliniko Astrous (21) (Figure 6.26). Given this complex pattern of intervisibility, it is difficult to evaluate whether the sites formed a visual ‘network’ directed towards Argos (12) or a local centre, or whether the visual links are merely coincidental. In contrast, the fortifications of the remaining three ‘clusters’ are well placed for the transmission of optical signals: the fortifications around Achladokampos (1) (Figure 6.26) and in the Xerias valley (Figures 6.23 and 6.27) form ‘chains’ of intervisible sites,80 while the rural fortifications around Kleonai (41) offer good views of areas within and beyond the Kleonian borders that are not directly visible from the city itself (Figure 6.28).

Assuming that this hypothesis is correct, rural fortifications that do not ‘add’ to the view from Argos’ Larissa and Aspis hills are unlikely to have functioned as signal-stations. This allows us to exclude eight sites around the Argive plain from any possible ‘network’,83 and leaves only six ‘central’ sites as possible signalstations.84 Together with the fortifications around

So far, this brief discussion has focused on the edges of the Argive territory, while the ‘central’ fortifications around the Argive plain and the Argolic Gulf have only been mentioned in passing. Around the Gulf, the lines of sight suggest that intervisibility may often have been due to chance rather than design. For example, most rural fortifications are located too far apart for any communication other than at night time, and the few sites that are located close enough for day-time

For example at Kondyli (98), Asini (14), Nafplio (52), Lileika Xeropigadou (47), Paralio Astros (56) and Agios Andreas (4). 82 For example, neither Pyrgiotika (70) nor Nafplio (52) are visible from the tower at Aria (13) — connections that would easily have been possible by placing the tower on the summit of the Vouno Arias rather than on its western slope. 83 Amygdalitsa (7), Phichtia: Kokkinia (57), Phichtia: Paliopyrgos (59), Phichtia: Stathmos (60), Tiryntha (76), Kalkani (95), Kapsala (96) and Perasphalktra (103). 84 Elliniko: Ellinikaki (22) (the visual link to Elliniko: Kephalari (23)), Mykinai (51) (the visual link to Phichtia: Limiko (58)), Agios Adrianos (3) (the visual link to Levkakia (46)), Pyrgiotika (70), Aria (13) and 81

The sites in the Xerias valley were originally linked to Argos (12) through the tower at Akova: Chouni (108), which no longer survives. For the view from this tower, see Πίκουλας 1995: 201.

80

81

A Landscape of Conflict? Rural Fortifications in the Argolid (400–146 BC)

Figure 6.29 The area visible from fortifications in Argos’ hypothetical signalling network (400–146 BC).

82

Chapter 6: Rural Fortifications as Territorial Defences

Kleonai (41), around Achladokampos (1), in the Xerias valley and possibly in the Zavitsa mountains, these sites form a very tentative reconstruction of a possible Argive signalling network (Figure 6.29). This hypothetical network focuses on connecting urban centre and surrounding countryside, and is thus markedly different from the chain of intervisible fortifications along the southern border of the Epidauria.

that — despite the importance of the landscape setting — decisions to construct fortified ‘signal-stations’ were informed and influenced by additional factors, perhaps a city’s military organisation, the funds available for the construction of new sites, the pre-existence of the intervisible sites or experiences in specific conflicts. For the Argolid, most of these non-topographical factors are difficult to reconstruct. For example, it is unclear who manned the region’s rural fortifications, and the few surviving documents that record financial arrangements for the construction of fortified structures concern urban rather than rural sites.89 This means that the military and financial backgrounds of rural fortifications (let alone the funds available at different times in the individual city-states) remain obscure. In addition, any attempt to date the hypothetical signalling systems is entirely dependent on the chronology of individual sites, which — as indicated in chapter 4 — often remains problematic.

6.2.4 Evaluating the ‘visual networks’ Comparing the two ‘visual networks’ at Argos and Epidauros further, it is only at Argos that the cumulative viewshed of intervisible sites covers most of the city’s territory (Figure 6.29). However, the cumulative viewshed rarely extends to areas outside the Argive borders,85 while on the Akte views beyond political boundaries are fairly common. This observations prompt the question of why visual connections may have played different roles in various parts of the region. The answer to this question is complex and multifaceted, but one major factor must be the local topography. While the plains and wide valleys of the Argeia and Epidauria lend themselves to observation from intervisible sites, the mountain ranges of the southern and central Akte do not. A related factor may be the relative importance of maritime and overland routes. Even though the region’s road network cannot be reconstructed in detail, it is clear that the Epidauria and the northern part of the Argive territory were more reliant on overland routes than the southern Akte, the Thyreatis or the Kynouria. ‘Visual networks’ are thus more prevalent in areas where overland communication predominates.86 The size of a city-state may be a third important factor: Argos and Epidauros are not merely the only cities in the region with possible signalling systems, but also the cities with the largest territories.

Two further factors that may have influenced the structure of visual ‘networks’ are the organisation of a territory or population into smaller units — the above-mentioned komai — and the incorporation of formerly independent cities with their own preexisting signalling systems. The komai of Argos were briefly discussed in chapter 5, but their distribution does not generally map onto possible ‘signal-stations’ in the Argive territory. Furthermore, the rather vague chronology of fortified sites in the region makes it difficult to identify local ‘signalling systems’ that were absorbed into a wider Argive ‘network’.90 Despite these uncertainties, the analysis conducted in this chapter contributes significantly to the discussion of ‘fortified signalling networks’ in the Argolid. With the help of the classified viewshed analyses, it has been possible to demonstrate that many fortified sites in the region were intervisible, and that selected rural fortifications could have been used to transmit visual signals between rural fortifications or between rural sites and the urban centres.

The local topography and political geography thus appear to have had a profound effect on the construction and use of intervisible rural fortifications. However, they should not be seen as the only factor determining the creation of fortified signalling systems. For example, the towers in Molossia — like the northern territory of Argos a region that was reliant on overland routes — do not form visual networks,87 while the undoubtedly ‘maritime’ towers of Kea are visually strongly interconnected.88 This demonstrates

However, many of these possible visual ‘networks’ are unnecessarily complicated and do not make use of the most effective points for establishing visual connections (for example the summits of mountains). In addition, the fortifications within the visual ‘networks’ are very heterogeneous in date, type, size and construction technique. For example, the possible ‘signal-stations’ in the territory of Argos range in type from towers to fortified settlements, and in construction technique

Nafplio (52). 85 Exceptions are several summits in Arkadia, the Akte and the Arachaion mountains, the east coast of the Argolic Gulf and the central valley between the Saronic and Argolic Gulfs, as well as parts of the Korinthia (including Acrocorinth and Perachora). 86 This pattern is paralleled elsewhere, for example in neighbouring Mantineia (Topouzi et al. 2002). 87 Nakas 2016. 88 Μενδώνη 1998.

For these documents, see chapter 4. For example, the ‘cluster’ around Kleonai (41) might have been built before the incorporation of the city into the Argive territory, during the period of Argive control, or even after Kleonai regained its independence in 235 BC.

89 90

83

A Landscape of Conflict? Rural Fortifications in the Argolid (400–146 BC) from the carefully fitted polygonal masonry at Agios Adrianos (3) to the drystone walls at Vigliza (85). Even taking into account local variations in building techniques or site location, these differences suggest that the individual rural fortifications were not constructed in a single building programme or planned as a coherent system. Transmitting signals would at times have been possible but was probably neither the only nor the primary function of most fortified structures in the Argolid.

in Greek antiquity: deterring an enemy from making an attack (1), stopping an enemy before the border (2), meeting an enemy at the border (3), resisting an enemy within the defenders’ own territory (4) and withdrawing into a fortified urban centre (5).93 Focusing on defensive strategies in the Late Classical and Hellenistic Argolid, literary and epigraphic sources attest to defensive battles fought outside the city-states’ territories, conflicts on Argive or Epidaurian soil, and withdrawals into the urban centres.94 Only border defences remain conspicuous by their absence.95 However, it does not necessarily follow that such defences were considered ineffective or impractical — the silence of the written sources could merely be a result of their fragmentary survival. To examine defensive strategies in the Argolid systematically, it is therefore necessary to focus on the archaeological record and investigate whether ancient fortifications themselves reveal any preferences for particular approaches of territorial defence.

6.3 Territories: fortifications and defensive strategies 6.3.1 Late Classical and Hellenistic strategies of territorial defence How did city-states in the Late Classical and Hellenistic Argolid protect their rural territories? The conclusions drawn in this chapter so far are oddly paradoxical. Rural fortifications in the Argolid are often located on major routes, but do not systematically control movement through the region; they are often intervisible, but rarely form visual networks. In short, the study has so far mainly succeeded in excluding possible interpretations rather than identifying specific site functions. These results raise an important issue for the remaining part of this chapter: are the functions of rural fortifications in the Argolid really elusive, or has the study so far merely asked the ‘wrong’ questions?

6.3.2 Fortifications as ‘deterrents’ and the role of city walls Among the five defensive strategies outlined in ‘Fortress Attica’, ‘military deterrence’ is particularly difficult to recognise in the archaeological record, since this tactic relies either on the ability to strike back (‘retaliatory deterrence’) or on ensuring that the cost of an attack would outweigh any economic gains.96 Urban fortifications may have played a part in such strategies,97 but in the Argolid do not seem to have had a universal or lasting effect as deterrents. For example, the urban defences of Argos were significantly strengthened in the early Hellenistic period,98 but this did not dissuade Pyrrhus from attempting to take the city in 272 BC.99

Addressing this issue requires a shift towards a more integrated and multifaceted analysis. Instead of using specific aspects of rural fortifications (e.g. ‘visibility’) to identify ‘defensive networks’, this new approach will combine different site characteristics (e.g. size, location, defensibility and construction technique) to explore how individual sites could have functioned as territorial defences. One of the most influential works on territorial defences in the Classical world is J. Ober’s ‘Fortress Attica. Defense of the Athenian Land Frontier, 404–322 B.C.’, a study that has been criticised as passionately by some91 as it has been embraced by others.92 Regardless of whether or not J. Ober’s conclusions should be accepted, ‘Fortress Attica’ provides a convenient overview of five main defensive strategies attested

Ober 1985: 70. For defensive battles fought outside the city-states’ territories, see Xen. Hell. 4.2.11–13 (394 BC), for conflict within their territories, see Thuc. 5.47 / IG I3 86 (420 BC); Thuc. 5.56 (419/18 BC), 5.59 (418 BC), 75 (418 BC), 6.7 (416/15 BC), and for attacks urban centres, see Thuc. 2.56, 5.56, 5.75 (418 BC), 5.82 (417 BC); Polyb. 2.64 (222 BC). For the role of fortified settlements in the Kynouria, see Polyb. 4.36.5 (219 BC). 95 Xen. Hell. 4.7.3 (relating to the Spartan invasion under Agesipolis in 388 BC) suggests an Argive attempt to stop the Spartan army during its advance through the border region — a tactic that contrasts with the more common strategy of withdrawing into an urban fortification. However, the passage does not contain sufficient detail to determine whether the Argives had planned to intercept the Spartans within the territory of Phleious, on the Argive border, or within Argos’ territory. 96 Ober 1985: 71–72. For an example of retaliatory deterrence, see Xen. Vect. 4.47, for deterrence based on economic gain, see Arist. Pol. 2.1267a. 97 Lawrence 1979: 113. For well-maintained city walls as a ‘strategy of dissuasion’, see also Ducrey 2019: 361–63. 98 For the date of the walls on the Aspis, see chapter 4. 99 Plut. Pyrrh. 31–34. 93 94

For criticism of Ober’s ‘Fortress Attica’, see for example Muller 1986: 347–49; Harding 1988: 61–71, 1990: 377–80; Munn 1993: 3–33; Lohmann 1995: 518; Muller 1999: 25; Fachard 2012: 130–33, 263–92; Daly 2015: 26–35; Fachard 2016b: 209. 92 Following the publication of ‘Fortress Attica’, numerous defensive networks were ‘discovered’ in Central Greece and the Peloponnese, for example in Boiotia (Fossey 1992: 112–22), Lokris (Dakoronia and Kounouklas 2019), Phokis (Fossey 1986: 135–41, 1992: 122–23), Opountian Lokris (Fossey 1990: 139–50, 1992: 123–28), the Megarid (Maele 1982, 1992) and at Phleious and Kleonai (Gauvin 1992). 91

84

Chapter 6: Rural Fortifications as Territorial Defences

Figure 6.31 Ermioni (24): plan (Frickenhaus – Müller 1911: pl. 1).

The remaining four strategies can be divided into ‘dynamic’ defences (resisting an enemy before the borders, at the borders, or within the borders) and ‘static’ defences (abandoning the countryside and withdrawing behind city walls). In the Argolid, ‘static’ defences are not only attested through written sources,100 but also indicated by surviving urban fortifications, which experienced a sharp increase in size, number and complexity during the 4th century BC and the Hellenistic period. At Argos (12), recent excavations by the French School at Athens have revealed three 4th-century BC or Hellenistic building phases on the Aspis,101 while the outer Larissa circuit was probably built from the 4th century BC onwards.102 The circuit around the lower city is difficult to date, but its present form possibly belongs to the 3rd century BC.103 Both in size and complexity, the urban fortifications of Argos (12) by far outstrip their neighbours on the Akte. While the fortifications at Argos (12) enclose an area of c. 100ha (Figure 6.30),104 the circuits at Ermioni (24) See above. See chapter 4. 102 See chapter 4. The hexagonal tower on the wall between the the Larissa and the Aspis probably belongs to the same period. 103 Διβάρη-Βαλάκου 1980: 111. Thuc. 5.82; Plut. Alc. 15.2–3 (which mention the construction of ‘long walls’ at Argos in 417 BC) suggest the existence of a 5th-century BC predecessor. 104 The city walls of Argos are still visible between the Larissa and the Aspis (Salviat 1956: 366; Schilbach 1975: 7; Darcque 1980: 128; Piérart et al. 1981: 912–17; Πιτερός 2013: 341), but most of the circuit lies hidden beneath the modern town. For a possible reconstruction of Argos’ city walls, see Πιτερός 2013: 341–45. Marchetti 2013: 320–24 proposed an alternative reconstruction of two separate circuits in the north and south of the city, but on closer inspection the Hellenistic tombs and settlement remains at Argos do not form clearly defined clusters (for a map of the remains see Marchetti 2013: 332, fig. 3). Unless 100 101

Figure 6.30 Argos (12), satellite-image (Google Earth 2018) with the remains of the city walls (after Pariente – Touchais 1998: pl. 12).

85

A Landscape of Conflict? Rural Fortifications in the Argolid (400–146 BC)

Figure 6.32 Palaia Epidavros 1 (54): satellite-image with sketch plan (Google Earth 2018).

Figure 6.33 Porto Cheli (64): plan (McAllister 2005:, fig. 18).

86

Chapter 6: Rural Fortifications as Territorial Defences

Figure 6.34 Troizina (80): satellite-image with sketch plan (Google Earth 2018, after Welter 1941: pl. 2).

(Figure 6.31), Palaia Epidavros 1 (54) (Figure 6.32) and Porto Cheli (64) (Figure 6.33) measure a mere 17 to 20ha. 105 Even the walls at Troizina (80) (Figure 6.34) only fortify an area of c. 50ha. 106

At four of the five urban centres (Argos (12), Porto Cheli (64), Ermioni (24) and Troizina (80)), the surviving circuit walls combine sections in different construction techniques and masonry styles, which may both correlate to specific building phases and reflect local defensive priorities. For example, the walls at Argos (12) are mainly constructed in mudbrick on a stone socle, with the exception of the vulnerable outer Larissa circuit, which was built entirely in limestone (Figure 6.35).107 However, unusually elaborate walls (which could point to concerns beyond defensibility)

further support for Marchetti’s hypothesis comes to light, Πιτερός’ reconstruction of a single circuit therefore seems more plausible. 105 For the date of the circuits, see chapter 4. At Ermioni (24), the reconstruction of the circuit depends on the interpretation of three trapezoidal walls on the Pron Hill. While Frickenhaus and Müller 1911: 35–37 saw these walls as foundations of the temple of Demeter Chthonia and the Echo Stoa (mentioned by Paus. 2.35.4–10), Jameson et al. 1994: 586, 593 suggested an interpretation as city wall or temenos. In view of the location of several nearby cemeteries (Καρατζίκος 2018), the former interpretation seems more probable. 106 The circuit at Troizina (80) is usually attributed to the 3rd century BC (Welter 1941: 12; Maier 1959: 139–44; Φαράκλας 1972b: 42; Sokolicek 2009: 132) and was divided by an east-west diateichisma in 146 BC. For the date of the diateichisma, see chapter 4.

107 Similarly, the curtain walls at Ermioni (24) were constructed in carefully fitted masonry on the accessible north side of the Bisti peninsula, while the blocks on the naturally protected south side are only roughly hewn.

87

A Landscape of Conflict? Rural Fortifications in the Argolid (400–146 BC)

Figure 6.35 Argos, Larissa (12): the west wall of the outer circuit from the west (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Figure 6.36 Argos, Larissa (12): the outer circuit. Satellite-image with sketch plan (Google Earth 2018, after Πιτέρος 2013: 346, fig. 2).

88

Chapter 6: Rural Fortifications as Territorial Defences

within the city.111 Similarly, the neighbouring Aspis hill is fortified both towards the town and the area outside the city walls (Figure 6.37),112 while Troizina’s (80) mid 2nd-century BC diateichisma creates a separately defensible area on the acropolis slope.113 Judging by these architectural features, urban fortifications in the Argolid have a very strong practical defensive character; any desires to create deliberate impressions of strength did not impinge upon military functionality. Consequently, withdrawal to the urban centre may have been a viable military tactic at all five city-states, both as initial defensive strategy and as a last resort.114 6.3.3 ‘Dynamic’ defences: the role of rural fortifications a. Studying ‘dynamic’ defences: five criteria Turning to the dynamic defensive approaches (confronting enemies before, at or within the borders), all three strategies share a strong emphasis on movement. This makes them archaeologically difficult to trace, especially since none of the three tactics necessarily requires fortifications. Nevertheless, five site characteristics help to understand the roles that individual fortified sites could have played in different ‘dynamic’ defensive contexts: size, location within the surrounding region or microregion, defensibility (including water supply), construction technique, and surface material.

Figure 6.37 Argos, Aspis (12): plan (Philippa-Touchais – Touchais 2006: 717, fig. 16).

have so far not been identified.108 The same applies to gates and posterns: none of the main entranceways to the Argolid’s urban fortifications appears to have been embellished at the expense of military functionality,109 and even secondary gates and posterns usually have a military rather than an exclusively civic character.110

b. Criterion 1: size Beginning with the first characteristic, it has already been noted in chapter 3 that rural forts in the Argolid are surprisingly small, probably with garrisons between 12 and 40 men.115 Such rural garrisons were almost certainly too small to have a direct impact in Late Classical and Hellenistic ‘large-scale’ conflict, but were probably — like the περίπολοι and κρύπτοι in 5th-,

At all five urban centres, towers and bastions were placed at strategic locations along the curtain walls. One interesting example is the tower on the east side of Argos’ outer Larissa circuit (Figure 6.36), which emphasises the hill’s role as a fortified stronghold 108 Jansen 2016 suggested a set of guidelines for identifying the military functions of ancient city walls, while Müth, Laufer, and Brasse 2016 collected the characteristics of fortified structures built primarily for symbolic or urbanistic effect. Together, these two articles form a framework for assessing the function of city walls in the Argolid, even though a detailed analysis is beyond the scope of the current chapter. 109 It should, however, be noted that strategic functions and symbolic or urbanistic effects are not mutually exclusive. For example, the towers at the southwest and south gates of Argos (12) (Πιτερός 1998b: 186–87, 2013: 342) probably created an imposing approach to the city as well as fulfilling an important strategic function. Porto Cheli (64), where only the prominent north, east and southeast defences were remodelled with 4th-century BC round towers (McAllister 2005: 82–83), could be another example of combining strategic functionality with a visual effect. 110 For example, the postern at Troizina (80) is covered by a small tower to the east (Legrand 1905: 277; Fouquet 2015: 125), while the posterns on the Aspis form part of the triangular bastion. On the use of posterns in general, see Winter 1971: 234–51; Lawrence 1979: 335– 42; Jansen 2016: 121–22.

111 For the towers of the outer Larissa circuit, see Andrews 1953: 112; Schilbach 1975: 10; Πιτερός 2013: 341. 112 See, for example, the hexagonal ‘Tower Y’ on the east side of the hill. 113 This wall was previously thought to have been built after the abandonment of the Troizenian acropolis (Welter 1941: 12–13; Sokolicek 2009: 132), but a re-examination during the ‘Troizen Archaeology Project’ has convincingly shown that the diateichisma faced the ‘lower city’ rather than the acropolis slope (Fouquet 2015: 125). Plut. Demetr. 25.1, IG IV 769 and a recently published 3rd-century BC inscription attest to the existence of an Antigonid and perhaps a Ptolemaic garrison at Troizen (see for example Welter 1941: 57; Fouquet and Kató 2017: 97–107), but this evidence significantly predates the diateichisma. 114 For the use of static defences as a ‘last resort’, see Aen. Tac. 16.18– 19. 115 See, for example, Galatas: Megali Magoula (25) (0.1ha or 12 men), Agios Adrianos (3) (0.14ha or 16 men), Kastraki (35) (0.34ha or 40 men) or Kazarma (39) (0.35ha or 40 men). ‘Military-strategic’ towers would have housed even smaller troop contingents.

89

A Landscape of Conflict? Rural Fortifications in the Argolid (400–146 BC)

Figure 6.38 a Galatas: Megali Magoula (25): the view to the west and north towards Troizina (80) (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Piraeus and the Islands; photo by the author).

Figure 6.38 b Galatas: Megali Magoula (25): the view to the north and east towards Limanaki 1 (48) and Limanaki 2 (99), the straits of Poros, the island of Poros and the straits between Poros and Galatas (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Piraeus and the Islands; photo by the author).

Figure 6.38 c Phourkaria (61): the view to the southeast, south and southwest towards the island of Hydra (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Piraeus and the Islands; photo by the author).

4th- and 3rd-century BC Athens116 — stationed in the countryside to prevent ‘small-scale’ conflict and raiding by brigands, pirates or neighbouring city-states.117

enemies with small troop contingents and thus prevent plundering and looting — activities that were essential for supplying an army on the march.119 Judging by size along, such garrisons could have been stationed at both rural fortified settlements and larger forts,120 but only as long as they were able to withstand a large invading army. Consequently, the location and defensibility of the individual sites must be explored further before drawing any definite conclusions.

There may, however, be a possible exception to this rule. In his 4th-century BC military ‘handbook’, Aeneas the Tactician advises cities to occupy strategic positions within their territory in order to impede an enemy’s approach.118 Although Aeneas does not explicitly mention built structures, such a defensive strategy could easily have involved rural fortifications capable of threatening an invading army’s retreat routes. Alternatively, rural garrisons could harass approaching

c. Criterion 2: location The main feature that distinguishes the three ‘dynamic’ defensive strategies is their relationship to territorial borders. Such borders not only include the land boundaries discussed in the previous chapter, but also coastal border regions such as the Troizenian

116 For the περίπολοι, see for example Thuc. 3.99, 4.67.2, 6.45.2, 7.48.5; Xen. Vect. 4.43–48, for the κρύπτοι SEG xli 87 (after 235/34 BC); SEG xliv 59 (264/63 BC). Eupolis fr. 340 (PCG) mentions the περίπολοι in connection with rural forts (φρούρια), Xenophon in connection with cavalry (Gomme 1945: 529; Knoepfler 1993; Taylor 1997: 235– 37; Πετράκος 1999: 6–9, 26–28; Chaniotis 2005: 51; Couvenhes 2011: 296–303). 117 Hanson 1998: 92; Ma 2000: 342–43; Chaniotis 2008: 127–31; Fachard 2012: 275–85, 2016: 225–26. For raids by pirates and brigands, see Pritchett 1991b, 312–52. 118 Aen. Tact. 16.16–19.

McCredie 1966: 88–89; Hanson 1998: 92, 122. On the provision of ancient armies, see Pritchett 1974: 30–52; Hanson 1998: 33–34. Towers, as well as forts garrisoned by fewer than 15 men (Agio Lias (2) (0.05ha), Anathema (8) (0.03ha), Galatas: Megali Magoula (25) (0.1ha) and Iria (31) (0.03ha)) probably did not present a sufficient threat to invading armies. 119 120

90

Chapter 6: Rural Fortifications as Territorial Defences

shoreline.121 This point is worth highlighting, as most rural fortifications in the territory of Troizen are concentrated around the main anchorages on this ‘maritime border’ (the straits of Poros and the bay of Phourkaria)122 and command good views towards the sea (Figure 6.38). Larger coastal fortifications like Galatas: Megali Magoula (25) and Phourkaria (61) could have housed garrisons to protect the surrounding countryside from attacks by sea, while the towers at Limanaki (48 and 99) may have served as lookoutposts over the straits of Poros,123 perhaps even relaying information to Troizenian naval forces stationed at the harbour of Pogon.124

boundary is virtually unknown128 — a problem that calls for an alternative approach to analysing the location of rural fortifications in the wider region. Simple ‘site catchment areas’ such as ‘Thiessen polygons’ are a useful step towards visualising spatial relationships between sites.129 However, they are usually based on Euclidian distances and therefore do not take into account the underlying terrain.130 Cost-based ‘catchment areas’ are a possible response to this issue, allowing an analysis of spatial relationships within the parameters of the local topography.131 For the current research, which investigates movement in a military context, travel times are a key ‘cost’ factor. The following analysis is therefore again based on ‘Tobler’s Hiking Formula’, which assumes an average walking speed around 5km/h on level ground.132 As this figure may be considerably slower than the average speed of ancient troops,133 it is essential to stress that the resulting model is not an accurate representation of the time required to move troops from one point to another, but merely a tool to investigate the spatial relationship between different sites without neglecting the local topography.

Given this connection between Troizenian fortifications and landing places, it is tempting to identify similar patterns in the rural Epidauria, especially at the coastal fort of Ano Phanari (10).125 This site is not only located near a small harbour on an otherwise steep and rocky shoreline,126 but also lies close to the main pass between the coast and the Benteni valley. In addition, the fort is surrounded by a modern agricultural area. A garrison stationed at the site could thus have fulfilled the double function of repulsing maritime raids on the coastal area and preventing small- and medium-sized raiding parties from crossing into the Epidaurian hinterland.127

Figures 6.39–41 show the calculated cost surfaces for three different periods. Figure 6.39 reflects the political geography between 400 and 300 BC (with Kleonai as part of the Argive territory and an independent Halieis), Figure 6.40 between 300 and 235 BC (by which point Halieis had been integrated into the territory of Hermion) and Figure 6.41 between 235 and 146 BC (a period during which Kleonai regained its independence and Tenea appeared as an independent community).134 All three maps illustrate the distance

Moving inland, any attempt to identify Epidauros’ prevalent defensive strategies solely through the relationship between rural fortifications and known territorial borders quickly reaches its limits. For example, the course of the northern Epidaurian-Argive 121 For the end of the Troizenian control over Poros and Methana, see section 5.1. 122 This information is based on modern pilot charts. For coastline changes since the Hellenistic period, see section 2.2. 123 Γιαννοπούλου 2009: 534. 124 The existence of a Troizenian fleet is well attested, for example in 369 BC (Xen. Hell. 6.2.3). On the harbour of Pogon (which has so far not been located and probably lies hidden under later sediment), see Hdt. 8.42.1; Str. 8.6.14 (Meyer 1939a: 635–36; Welter 1941: 5; Φαράκλας 1972b: 24. E 2: 1; Γιαννοπούλου 2009: 533; Fouquet 2017). While the level of military presence at Limanaki (48 and 99) and Phourkaria (61) is unclear, Galatas: Megali Magoula (25) has clearly been identified as a fort (Κονσολάκη-Γιαννοπούλου 2003: 162, 2009: 506; KonsolakiYiannopoulou 2010: 69). Established in the Late Classical period, it was constructed during a time of political difficulties for Troizen, when the city was ravaged by Epameinondas (D. S. 15.69.1 (369 BC)) and took part in the Lamian War on the Athenian side (D. S. 18.11.2). In addition, Troizen probably experienced a period of internal stasis after the battle of Chaironeia (Welter 1941: 56–57; Whitehead 2000: 340–41; Piérart 2004: 616). In this unstable political climate, opportunistic seaborne raids may have been particularly common 125 On the grounds of its small size, the neighbouring tower of Ano Phanari: Vigliza (11) can be ruled out as a garrison fort. 126 This harbour and the nearby tower of Ano Phanari: Vigliza (11) are briefly noted in Wrede 1959. 127 On the Argolic side of the Epidaurian territory, connections between fortifications and landing places are more difficult to evaluate, as sea-level changes and sediment deposition may have considerably altered the coastline since antiquity. Nonetheless, the limited views from Iria (31), Kantia 1 (33) and Kantia 2 (34) make a strong case against identifying these fortifications as ‘maritime’ military bases.

See section 5.1. On Thiessen polygons, see, for example, Hodder and Hassall 1971; Renfrew 1976; Cherry 1987; for their application in Greek archaeological landscapes, see Decourt 1990; Bintliff 1994, 1999; Alexakis et al. 2011. 130 On the problems of basing distances and catchment areas on Euclidian distances, see for example Leusen 2002: 6.4–5; Wheatley 2002: 149–51; Fachard 2017b: 199. 131 For three examples of cost-based territorial modelling, see Posluschny 2010; Farinetti 2011; Posluschny et al. 2012; Fachard 2017b. 132 On ‘Tobler’s Hiking Formula’, see section 6.2. In a military context, it is safe to assume that invading armies did cross and make use of private properties (see for example Thuc. 7.81), but also that patrolling troops were not limited to the road network (see for example IG II2 1011 (106 BC), which honours ephebes for patrolling the Attic countryside without causing harm for farmers (Fernández Nieto 1996: 226–27; Chaniotis 2005: 124)). 133 As noted above, Roman legionaries moved at an average speed of 5km/h despite armour, weapons and kit (Riepl 1913: 129). For the use of cavalry for patrol purposes, see Chaniotis 2005: 28; Couvenhes 2011: 296. 134 For the political history of the Argolid, see section 5.1, for the history of Late Classical and Hellenistic Methana / Arsinoe, see Gill 2007. The political status of Alea and Tenea is unclear. Alea was a polis in the 5th and early 4th century BC, but little is known about its later history (Nielsen 2004: 508–09; Maher 2017: 105–06, 116–18). Tenea (originally a Corinthian kome) became independent before 146 BC, but 128 129

91

A Landscape of Conflict? Rural Fortifications in the Argolid (400–146 BC)

Figure 6.39 Walking distances, cost boundaries and fortifications (400–300 BC).

Figure 6.40 Walking distances, cost boundaries and fortifications (300–235 BC).

92

Chapter 6: Rural Fortifications as Territorial Defences

Figure 6.41 Walking distances, cost boundaries and fortifications (235–146 BC).

connected to local quarries)137 and the now-submerged structure at Ermioni: Magoula (93).138

from the nearest urban centre in hours (the ‘walking distances’) as well as boundaries that delineate which area is best accessible from each urban centre (the ‘cost boundaries’).135 Some of the calculated cost boundaries correspond surprisingly well to territorial borders identified in chapter 5, especially in the area around Cape Iria and the southern Benteni valley. Elsewhere, especially at Argive Kleonai, city-states controlled areas well beyond the cost boundaries. Together with areas far away from the city centres, these zones would have been particularly vulnerable to ‘large-scale’ invasions and ‘small-scale’ raids or skirmishes.

Looking at the distribution of individual types of rural fortifications, the fortified settlements, forts, drystone circuits and towers display slightly different patterns. For rural fortified settlements (Figures 6.39–41), there is a correlation between the number of sites and the size of a city-state’s territory: Halieis, Hermion and Troizen — the smallest fully independent polities in the area — each include one or at the most two dependent fortified settlements,139 while Epidauros controlled the sites of Kantia 1 (33) and Lygourio 2 (100).140 In contrast, the much larger Argive territory includes at least nine

Comparing these walking distances to the known rural fortifications reveals several patterns that would otherwise remain invisible. Beginning with the overall site distribution, rural fortifications are largely absent within one hour of the region’s urban centres (Figures 6.39–41).136 The only exceptions are the ‘specialpurpose’ towers at Drymoni 1 (20) and 2 (94) (probably

Marchand 2002: 312, 326. As mentioned above, this site cannot be dated or identified conclusively (Jameson et al. 1994: 502–03). A fourth site, the fort of Palaia Epidavros 2 (55), can probably be identified as the Athenian fort built in 418 BC (Thuc. 5.75.4–5; Καζά – Παπαγεωργίου and Προσκυνητοπούλου 1981: 105; Σαρρή 1997: 153; Προσκυνητοπούλου 2011: 77) and therefore predates the period examined in this chapter. 139 Iliokastro (29) and Phourkaria (61). The identification of Petrothalassa (138) as a fortified settlement is uncertain, and sculpted marble found at the site may support an interpretation as a sanctuary (Φαράκλας 1973: 23, E. 2.3; Jameson et al. 1994: 483–84). 140 For Hellenistic pottery from Kantia 1 (33), see Gebauer 1939: 288– 92; Brommer 1975: 172; Πιτερός 1995a: 111; Simpson and Hagel 2006: 40; for the remains of Lygourio 2 (100), see Καββαδίας 1885: 21–23; Frazer 1898: 232–33; Frickenhaus and Müller 1911: 30; Παπαδημητρίoυ 1951: 212; Κριτζάς 1972b: 219; Παπαχατζής 1976: 197– 99; Foley 1988: 186–87; Πιτερός 2005f: 268. Lygourio’s possible identification with ancient Lessa will be discussed below. 137 138

the exact date is unknown (Head 1911: 417; Legon 2004: 466; Shipley 2005: 321, 2018: 286–87). 135 Since this model does not take into account maritime routes, the following discussion will focus on the Akte and the northern Argolid rather than on the ‘maritime’ sites in the Kynouria. 136 At Argos, the lack of fortifications close to the urban centre could be a result of the extensive deposition of sediment on the Argive plain (see chapter 2). However, the lack of rural fortifications around other urban centres suggests an actual pattern of site distribution rather than of site survival and recovery.

93

A Landscape of Conflict? Rural Fortifications in the Argolid (400–146 BC)

Figure 6.42 Benteni Kiapha (16): the southwest wall from the southeast (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Piraeus and the Islands; photo by the author).

Figure 6.43 Kazarma (39): satellite-image with sketch plan (Google Earth 2013).

94

Chapter 6: Rural Fortifications as Territorial Defences

4th-century BC or Hellenistic fortified settlements, not counting the sites south of the Zavitsa ridge.141 Furthermore, fortified settlements usually lie at least two hours from the urban centres142 and are often clustered around the cost boundaries. This pattern is particularly pronounced in the case of Argos. Excluding locations that are determined by preexisting fortifications (Asini (14), Mykinai (51) and Tiryntha (76)) and sites that have not been securely identified (Skala 2 (142)),143 the fortified settlements in the northern and northwestern Argeia form a line that approximately follows the cost boundary between Argos and its neighbours. Like fortified settlements, forts and drystone circuits are usually not found within two hours of the nearest urban centre.144 Instead, they tend to be clustered around the cost boundaries or the coast (Figures 6.39– 41). The specific site distribution pattern clearly differs between various parts of the region. At Hermion, no forts have so far been recorded and the drystone circuits are concentrated on the northwestern coast. All three sites have excellent views towards the sea and are located near sheltered anchorages,145 but with their hilltop locations prioritise security over direct access to land or maritime routes. In the southern Epidauria, forts and drystone circuits form the above-mentioned distinctive cluster of intervisible sites along the Benteni valley,146 which coincides closely with the cost boundaries in the region. Two of these sites — the fort at Iria (31) and the hilltop site at Stavropodio (75) — date to the late 4thor 3rd-century BC and the Hellenistic period.147 Benteni Kiapha (16) and Gyphtokastro (27) can only be identified broadly as Classical or Hellenistic,148 while Skala 1 (104) lacks any datable finds or features. Looking, however, more closely at the structures’ building technique, there are strong similarities between the masonry at Iria (31) and the polygonal walls at Benteni Kiapha (16). Both sites display a strong linear structure in the

Figures 6.44 a–b The masonry at Kastraki (35) (above) and Kazarma (39) (below) (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

arrangement of the polygonal blocks (Figures 4.16 and 6.42), as does the polygonal masonry at Gyphtokastro (27).149 This may suggest that all three sites were built or rebuilt in the late 4th or 3rd century BC. Together, the three sites may thus attest a particular concern for securing Epidauros’ southern border between c. 325 and 200 BC, incorporating existing structures at Benteni Kiapha (16), Gyphtokastro (27) and possibly Skala 1 (104).150 Moving from the eastern Akte to the valley between the Saronic and the Argolic Gulf, the walking distances reveal another intriguing site distribution pattern. Two major fortifications dominate the valley: the fort of Kazarma (39) and the fort of Kastraki (35), c. 3km to the east (Figures 4.1 and 6.43). Covering an area of c. 0.34ha and 0.39ha respectively, they are among the largest forts in the region, exceeded in size only by Kastro tis Paliopanagias (38) in the Kynouria (c. 0.45ha)

Achladokampos (1), Andritsa: Goulas (9), Asini (14), Lyrkeia (50), Mykinai (51), Nafplio (52), Prosymna: Agios Athanasios (67), Sportiza (74) and Tiryntha (76). For the date of these sites, see chapter 4. 142 The only exceptions are Tiryntha (76), Petrothalassa (138) and Skala 2 (142). 143 For a description of Skala 2 (142), see Pritchett 1980: 15; Πίκουλας 1995: 189. 144 Anathema (8), Galatas: Megali Magoula (25) and Soros (72) are the exception. 145 Due to the sea-level rise of c. 5m, the Hellenistic coastline in this region probably lay further seaward than it does today (see chapter 2). 146 See section 6.2. 147 For Iria (31), see Schilbach 1976: 128, for Stavropodio (75), see Αρχοντίδου-Αργύρη 1975: 77; Touchais 1977: 554. 148 For the finds at Benteni Kiapha (16), see Φαράκλας 1972a: E. 3.8; Brommer 1975: 176; for Gyphtokastro (27), see Φαράκλας 1972a: E. 3.11; Brommer 1975: 173; Αρχοντίδου-Αργύρη 1975: 79; Touchais 1977: 554; Tausend 2006: 154. 141

Αρχοντίδου-Αργύρη 1975: 79. At Gyphtokastro (27), a Late Helladic date has been suggested for the original circuit in roughly hewn masonry (Αρχοντίδου-Αργύρη 1975: 79; Touchais 1977: 554). The drystone masonry at Benteni Kiapha (16) and Skala 1 (104) cannot be dated, but may predate the Hellenistic period.

149 150

95

A Landscape of Conflict? Rural Fortifications in the Argolid (400–146 BC) and Ano Phanari (10) (c. 1.25ha). Although there are slight chronological differences in the distribution of surface finds at Kazarma (39) and Kastraki (35),151 the sites’ architecture tentatively suggests a roughly contemporary construction in the first half of the 4thcentury BC.152 Despite this similarity in date, the two sites display marked differences in construction technique and masonry style. Firstly, Kazarma (39) is built in closelyfitted polygonal masonry, while the blocks at Kastraki (35) are more roughly hewn (Figure 6.44 a–b). Secondly, the towers at Kazarma (39) are built with two neat faces of masonry enclosing a rubble core, whereas the towers at Kastraki (35) consist of an outer face in large polygonal blocks and an inner face in smaller stones, leaving only little or no space for an interior rubble fill (Figure 6.45 a–b). Thirdly, the two sites show a different treatment of the underlying bedrock. While at Kastraki (35) many walls were built without careful cutting of the bedrock (resulting in large gaps between the walls and the substrate), the bedrock at Kazarma (39) was carved to create a seamless transition between the substrate and the built walls. The location of these two substantial and contemporary forts in such close vicinity is intriguing and has so far never been explained satisfactorily. Most scholars have attributed both sites to Argos,153 but without addressing the question why the city should have invested in constructing two forts in this particular region, especially since this type of fortification is otherwise largely absent from the Argive territory. Neither have previous scholars offered any comments on the varying construction techniques — a difference that does not exclude both sites from being Argive, but requires an explanation. The main challenge to understanding the two forts is the uncertain course of the Argive-Epidaurian border. Pausanias located this border at Lessa,154 a settlement known as a 4th-century BC Argive kome155 and usually identified with modern Lygourio. However, this identification is far from certain156 and an alternative The pottery recorded at Kastraki (35) dates to the Late Helladic, Classical, Medieval and modern periods (Brommer 1975: 173), while Kazarma (39) has so far produced Early Helladic, Late Helladic, Classical, Hellenistic and Roman sherds (Ålin 1962: 51; Scoufopoulos 1971: 57; Brommer 1975: 173; Grigoropoulos 2011: 222, 235). 152 See chapter 4. As neither fort shows any features specific to later Hellenistic fortified architecture (for example features relating to artillery), a construction after the first half of the 4th century BC is unlikely. Both forts are well preserved and show no signs of substantial damage in key strategic areas, so that a scenario in which one fort was destroyed and replaced by the other in short succession can be excluded. 153 See, for example, Schilbach 1975: 98–99, 109–12. 154 Paus. 2.26.1. 155 SEG liv 427 (late 4th century BC). 156 The identifications rests on the assumption that two perirrhanteria dedicated to Athena on the hill of Agios Athanasios near Lygourio 151

Figures 6.45 a–b The cross section of the south tower at Kastraki (35) (above) and tower II at Kazarma (39) (below) (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

96

Chapter 6: Rural Fortifications as Territorial Defences

(but no more secure) association with Kazarma (39) has also been proposed since the 19th century.157

that one city-state saw the need to construct both sites at the same time.

Since cost boundaries in the Argolid do not always coincide with actual territorial borders, walking distances cannot solve this historical-geographical puzzle. However, the comparison between cost boundaries and site-locations shows that Kazarma (39) and Kastraki (35) are not merely located in an area that is as accessible from Argos as it is from Epidauros, but lie immediately on either side of the cost boundary — Kazarma (39) in the west towards Argos and Kastraki (35) in the east towards Epidauros (Figures 6.39–41).

Secondly, forts are rare at Argos,162 and there is no other instance of two Argive forts at such close proximity to each other. Even beyond the Argolid, it would be unusual for a Late Classical or Hellenistic city to construct two contemporary forts within a radius of a few kilometres.163 Thirdly, as noted above, the two forts differ considerably in construction technique, despite having been built around the same time from the same local limestone. Taking these observations one step further, the masonry at Kazarma (39) closely resembles Argive sites, especially the polygonal west wall on the Larissa (Figure 6.35), while the masonry employed at Kastraki (35) has no Argive parallels.164

This pattern — two fortifications located only few kilometres apart on either side of a cost boundary, facing each other across a fertile plain — strongly recalls the situation in the Mazi plain on the AtticBoiotian border. This small agricultural plain is dominated by the Classical fortifications of Eleutherai and Oinoe.158 Although both sites were long believed to be Athenian,159 S. Fachard and others have convincingly argued for an identification of 4th-century BC Eleutherai as a Boiotian fortification controlling both the western Mazi plain and the main route between Attica and Boiotia.160 Although Eleutherai and Oinoe are considerably larger than Kazarma (39) and Kastraki (35),161 they provide a close parallel; perhaps the two sites between the Argolic and Saronic Gulf should be understood as an Argive and an Epidaurian fort rather than as two fortifications built by Argos.

Together these three points make a good case for seeing Kazarma (39) as an Argive and Kastraki (35) as an Epidaurian fort, although the evidence presented here is admittedly not conclusive. This would place the 4th-century BC border between Argos and Epidauros near the calculated cost boundary and suggest that the Classical drystone circuit at Kastro 2 (37) may also be connected to Epidauros rather than to Argos.165 Among the city-states in the Argolid, Epidauros thus seems to have invested most heavily in the construction of forts or drystone circuits. Unusually for the region, it is even possible to distinguish three main waves or phases of construction — firstly, the construction of the fort at Kastraki (35) in the early 4th century BC; secondly, the fort at Ano Phanari (10) before the late 4th century BC; and thirdly, the fortification or refortification of sites in the Benteni valley in the late 4th or 3rd century BC.166

In the absence of literary or epigraphic sources, this hypothesis is nearly impossible to corroborate, but there are at least three points in favour of seeing Kazarma (39) as Argive and Kastraki (35) as Epidaurian. Firstly, the forts are very similar in location. Both are situated at a comparable distance from the most convenient route through the region, both have views of a very similar area and neither has any visual connections to sites that are not visible from the other. It is thus unlikely (though admittedly not impossible)

The only other examples are Agio Lias (2) and Agios Adrianos (3). See, for example, Ober 1985: 110 for forts in Attica or Fachard 2012: 243 for forts in the territory of Eretria. The map published by Farinetti 2011: 255 at first glance suggests a higher density of forts in Boiotia, but a comparison of the map with the more detailed appendices shows that many neighbouring sites do in fact belong to different city-states or are not securely identified as fortifications. 164 For a recent attempt to identify a typical ‘Argive’ masonry style (especially in the Thyreatis), see Balandier and Guintrand 2019: 443. 165 The circuit at Kastro 2 (37) is so far undatable, but the finds include Classical pottery (Rupp 1976: 264; Tausend 2006: 29). 166 Due to their uncertain chronology, these Epidaurian forts and drystone circuits are difficult to place in a precise political context. For the early 4th-century BC fort at Kastraki (35), there are at least two plausible contexts: the Corinthian War (395–386 BC), when Epidauros appears as an ally of Argos’ enemy Sparta (Xen. Hell. 4.2.16), and the period of Argive aggression against Epidauros between the battle of Leuktra in 371 BC and Epidauros’ peace with Thebes in 365 BC (Kralli 2017: 7). Evidence for subsequent hostilities between Argos and Epidauros comes from an honorific decree indicating an Argive cleruchy at Epidauros (IG IV2. i 69 = SEG xi 400), but probably postdates the construction of Kastraki (for the date of this decree, see for example Kralli 2017: 8, 426–77). The fortifications in the Benteni Valley might partly belong to the period between 243 and 228 BC, by which time Epidauros (but not Argos or Hermion) had 162 163

belong to a temple of Athena mentioned by Paus. 2.35.10 (Μίτσος 1935: 16–18; Παπαδημητρίoυ 1951: 212; Μίτσος 1970: 29–30; Παπαχατζής 1976: 197–99; Billot 1997: 19). 157 For the identification of Lessa with Kazarma (39), see Frazer 1898: 232; Scranton 1938: 537; Winter 1971: 43; Rupp 1976: 267. 158 See, for example, Fachard 2013. The plain has been studied in the Mazi Archaeological Project (MAP), a diachronic regional survey conducted by the Ephorate of Antiquities of West Attika, Piraeus, and the Islands, and the Swiss School of Archaeology in Greece. For the location of the Attic border (investigated through a cost-allocation model of the Attic demes), see Fachard 2017b: 209. 159 See, for example, Ober 1985: 160–63. 160 Fachard 2013: 81–82, 84–91, 94–106, 2017a: 32, 2020: 527–32. For earlier studies advocating a Boiotian construction, see Cooper 2000; Camp 1991. 161 Eleutherai covers an area of c. 2.9ha, Oinoe an area of c. 2.8ha (Fachard 2013: 87, 93). Eleutherai and Oinoe are the site of large nucleated settlements (Fachard 2013: 82), while Kazarma (39) and Kastraki (35) seem to be primarily military-strategic fortifications.

97

A Landscape of Conflict? Rural Fortifications in the Argolid (400–146 BC) Both in the Epidauria and beyond, the distribution of towers — the final type of fortified sites in the region — is strikingly different to the patterns observed so far (Figures 6.39–41). Looking at the region as a whole, towers have a reverse overall distribution pattern to the forts or drystone circuits. While the latter are common on the Akte but rare in the territory of Argos, towers dominate at Argos but are less frequent on the Akte. The locations chosen for towers are also more varied, although areas within one hour of the urban centres are generally still avoided.

Sostis (5) on the cost boundary between Argos and Corinth — constructed in the Late Classical period when Argos and Corinth were ‘direct neighbours’173 — would fit this general chronological development. Overall, the Argolid’s walking distances and cost boundaries thus highlight several regional, local and chronological patterns. However, little has as yet been said about how these patterns might help to explain the function of individual fortifications in the region. Looking first at the implications of the overall site distribution patterns, the near-absence of rural fortifications within one hour of the urban centres indicates that within this radius the urban fortifications fulfilled all functions that required rural fortifications in more distant parts of the territories. Consequently, defensive strategies may be impossible to trace in small city-states.

Focusing on the territory of Argos, which has the highest concentration of towers, two patterns are particularly striking. Firstly, the towers in the west and northwest roughly follow the cost boundary between Argos and the neighbouring Arkadian city-states. Some sites are even (in terms of walking distances) located closer to Alea or Phleious than to Argos itself, and thus lie in areas that would have been particularly vulnerable.

A second striking pattern that is repeated throughout the region is the concentration of fortified sites along cost boundaries. At first glance, this pattern seems to indicate that many Late Classical and Hellenistic rural fortifications were built to deny approaching enemies access to a city’s territory. However, this impression is misleading, as the calculated cost boundaries are not always a reliable model for the limits of ancient territories. Furthermore, most fortifications along the cost boundaries are not located in the immediately vicinity of routes or passes. Stopping invasions at the borders thus cannot have been the intended strategy behind their construction, and most sites could at best have served as rural garrisons from which troops could be dispatched to the wider border region.

Secondly, the conspicuous cluster of towers on the northern edge of the Argive plain falls immediately south of the cost boundary between Argos, Kleonai and Tenea (Figure 6.41).167 This pattern becomes even more pronounced when all four types of fortifications are considered together. Given this distribution pattern, it is tempting to see the construction of rural fortifications in this area as an Argive response to political insecurity or instability in the 3rd century BC or around 235 BC, when Argos lost control of Kleonai as a political ‘buffer zone’ and came under increasing pressure from the Achaean League.168 Alternatively, the sites could predate the incorporation of Kleonai into the Argive territory. Most dated fortifications fit well within such a narrative.169 For example, the fortified settlement at Prosymna: Agios Athanasios (67) was probably established in the 5th century BC before Kleonai was incorporated into the Argive territory,170 while the resettlement and rebuilding of the fortifications at Mykinai (51)171 and construction of the drystone circuit at Vigliza (85)172 fall within the 3rd century BC. Even the tower at Agios

But even from this angle, the practical use of many rural fortifications would have been limited. For example, forts, towers and drystone circuits were regularly built in particularly inaccessible locations such as hilltops, ensuring a good view but hampering quick and efficient movement between the fortifications and the surrounding countryside.174 Other sites do not have a particularly good view of their surroundings and are thus — from a strategic perspective — not ideally situated.175 Only the garrisons at the Argive fort of Kazarma (39), the Troizenian fort of Anathema (8) and the Epidaurian forts of Iria (31), Gyphtokastro (27), Ano Phanari (10) and Kastraki (35) would have been suitably stationed to engage invading enemies in border areas.

been incorporated into the Achaean Leagues (for the incorporation of Epidauros into the Achaean Leagues, see Kralli 2017: 162–63; for the incorporation of Argos, see Kralli 2017: 169–77). 167 Only the tower of Agios Sostis (5) lies on the cost boundary between Argos and Corinth. 168 For the Achaean League’s repeated attacks on Argos between 243 and 229 BC, see Kralli 2017: 169–77. 169 Only the tower at Prosymna: Pyrgouthi (69) (constructed around 300 BC (Penttinen 2005: 63–65)) does not follow the proposed chronological pattern. 170 Penttinen 1996b: 251. 171 This development dates to the 3rd century BC (Wace et al. 1923: 417; Schilbach 1975: 101; French 2002: 147; Iakovides and French 2003: 27). 172 The site is dated by surface pottery to the Hellenistic period (Penttinen 1996b: 270).

Wiseman 1978: 116; Cloke 2016: 910. Some examples are Agio Lias (2), Benteni Kiapha (16) and Stavropodio (75), which even today are difficult to reach. 175 A good example is the polygonal tower at Phichtia: Limiko (58). As already noted by Jansen 2002: 79, this tower has a very limited view. Other examples are the towers at Kantia 2 (34) (discussed above), Kophy Rachi (42) (with a good view towards the Argive plain, but hardly any towards the plain of Prosymna) and Spathokommeno (73). 173 174

98

Chapter 6: Rural Fortifications as Territorial Defences

Taken together, the size and location of towers, forts and drystone circuits thus far indicates that only few sites were built specifically to ensure a military presence along the limits of the city-states’ territories. d. Criterion 3: defensibility and water supply Besides size and location, defensibility is another important aspect of rural fortifications, especially for sites that housed small garrisons to harass invading armies or to threaten retreat routes.176 Most fortified settlement, major forts and drystone circles in the Argolid are well protected by natural or built defences,177 but in practice their defensive capacities also depended on provisions available within the circuit walls, especially their water supply through wells and cisterns.178

Figure 6.46 Andritsa: Goulas (9): the cistern (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Looking at the different types of major rural fortifications, drystone circuits so far lack any evidence for cisterns or wells. If this picture is correct — rather than merely the result of a lack of research — it indicates that drystone circuits were not intended as military-strategic ‘strongholds’ in times of conflict.179 In contrast, at least twelve forts and fortified settlements in the region have been shown to contain Late Classical or Hellenistic wells or cisterns.180 Most cisterns belong 176 As noted above, the Argolid’s towers and small forts did not house sufficient garrisons to pose a serious threat to invading armies. Fortified settlement, major forts and drystone circles in the Argolid are usually well placed to harass hostile armies or threaten retreat routes (see section 6.1). Only Elliniko Astrous (21), Stavropodio (75), Tsiorovos Dolianon (82), Vourlia 1 (86) and Skala 1 (104) are located at some distance from the least cost paths, while the route near Vigliza (85) was probably of local rather than of regional importance. 177 One exception is the fortified settlement of Prosymna: Agios Athanasios (67), which — judging by the surviving remains — could probably not withstand a ‘large-scale’ attack for any amount of time. For a description of the site and its surface pottery, see Penttinen 1996b: 250–51. 178 Most sites were probably supplied by wells and cisterns rather than springs, since only Mykinai (51) has direct access to spring water within the fortified area. For the Mycenaean cistern, see Wace 1936: 405; Iakovides and French 2003: 13, for the Hellenistic Perseia fountain, see Holland, Hood, and Woodhead 1953. Both were supplied from the Perseia spring. 179 This conclusion fits well with the sites’ size and distribution pattern. For example, Soros (72) and Vigla (84) were too small to hold substantial garrisons, while Vigliza (85), Vourlia 1 (86) and Skala 1 (104) are located at some distance from major routes through the region. 180 Fortified settlements: Agios Andreas (4) (‘several cisterns varying in shape and size’ (Goester 1993: 88)), Andritsa: Goulas (9) (one ‘pearshaped’ cistern (Ψυχογυιού 2000: 195)), Asini (14) (several wells and cisterns on the acropolis and in the lower town (Frödin 1938: 41–42, 67)), Elliniko Astrous (21) (seven cisterns, presumably all bell-shaped (Goester 1993: 71–72)), Ierakas (28) (several ancient or later cisterns which were mapped but not described by Wace and Hasluck 1908: 169), Iliokastro (29) (a circular stone-built well (Jameson et al. 1994: 520)), Lyrkeia (50) (a plaster-lined cistern, c. 11m long and between 2.5 and 5m wide (Pritchett 1980: 25)), Mykinai (51) (the Mycenaean cistern and the Hellenistic Perseia fountain house (Wace 1936: 405; Holland, Hood, and Woodhead 1953; Iakovides and French 2003: 13)), Poulithra (65) (a cistern similar to the one recorded at Andritsa: Goulas (9) (Ψυχογυιού 2000: 195)) and Petrothalassa (138) (a square well lined with ashlar blocks (Φαράκλας 1973: E. 2.3; Jameson et al. 1994: 483));

Figure 6.47 Agios Adrianos (3): the cistern from the south (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Figure 6.48 Kazarma (39): the cistern from the east (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

99

A Landscape of Conflict? Rural Fortifications in the Argolid (400–146 BC)

November December January February March April May June July August September October

Monthly mean rainfall (in mm) 85.1 73.9 71.7 49.4 53.6 32 20 9.7 10.3 15.4 16.2 43.4

Catchment area in m2 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

Input per month in l 851 739 717 494 536 320 200 0 0 154 162 434

Input per month in l after 20% loss 680.8 591.2 573.6 395.2 428.8 256 160 0 0 123.2 129.6 347.2

Table 6.3 Average monthly run-off from a tiled roof (10m2) in the Argolid.

November December January February March April May June July August September October

Monthly mean rainfall (in mm) 85.1 73.9 71.7 49.4 53.6 32 20 9.7 10.3 15.4 16.2 43.4

Catchment area in m2 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

Input per month in l 851 739 717 494 536 320 200 97 103 154 162 434

Input per month in l after 20% loss 680.8 591.2 573.6 395.2 428.8 256 160 77.6 82.4 123.2 129.6 347.2

Table 6.4 Average monthly run-off from a stone surface (10m2) in the Argolid.

tanks, built in polygonal masonry and lined with plaster (Figures 6.47–48).183

to a common type with a cylindrical body and a narrow circular opening (variously referred to as ‘bell-’, ‘pear-’ or ‘bottle-shaped’; Figure 6.46),181 which is often found in Classical or Hellenistic domestic contexts.182 The fortifications at Agios Adrianos (3), Kazarma (39), Lyrkeia (50) and on the Aspis of Argos (12) stand out against this overall picture: instead of the usual ‘bottleshaped’ cisterns, they include large, rectangular water

Since none of the rectangular cisterns at rural fortifications in the Argolid has yet been fully excavated, their exact capacity remains unknown. But judging by the remains visible today, their volume was considerable. The cistern at Agios Adrianos (3) (though partly filled with rubble) is at least 3m deep, resulting in an overall capacity of at least 52.2m3 (or 52,200 litres). Assuming a similar depth, the cistern at Kazarma (39) would hold at least 45m3 (45,000 litres).

forts: Agios Adrianos (3) (a plaster-lined cistern with a corbelled roof, at least 3m deep and measuring c. 3.5 by 5m (Schilbach 1975: 56–57)) and Kazarma (39) (a rectangular plaster-lined cistern, measuring c. 2.5 by 6m (Schilbach 1975: 49–50)). In the Late Helladic period, Tiryntha (76) was connected to an underground spring by two passages, but both were filled with debris (stones, earth, pottery and animal bones) in the Hellenistic and Roman periods (Verdelis 1963: 129–30). A further cistern exists at Ano Phanari (10), but belongs to the site’s Medieval phase (Κοντογιάννης 2008: 50). Given the current state of research, it is likely that further cisterns exist, but have so far not been discovered or recorded. 181 At most sites, only a single cistern is known, but this may be a result of the lack of research, since better-studied sites like Elliniko Astrous (21) contain up to seven cisterns. 182 For comparison, see the ‘bottle-shaped’ cistern at the Classical ‘House C’ at Halieis (Boyd and Rudolph 1978: 350; Ault 1994b: 140–41).

Within these limits, the volume of water available at any given time would depend on the average water input and the average extraction. Assuming that the cisterns were primarily used to collect rainwater, the average monthly input (in litres) can be calculated by multiplying the monthly average rainfall (in mm) by the catchment area (in m2), taking into account a 20% For the cisterns on Argos’ Aspis, see Vollgraff 1907: 152–55; Philippa-Touchais et al. 2016: 811–18.

183

100

Chapter 6: Rural Fortifications as Territorial Defences

Monthly mean Catchment area rainfall (in mm) in m2 November December January February March April May June July August September October

85.1 73.9 71.7 49.4 53.6 32 20 9.7 10.3 15.4 16.2 43.4

81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81

Input per month in l

Input per month in l after 20% loss

Monthly mean consumption for 16 men (in l)

Input after loss and consumption

Amount remaining at the end of the month

6893.1 5985.9 5807.7 4001.4 4341.6 2592 1620 0 0 1247.4 1312.2 3515.4

5514.48 4788.72 4646.16 3201.12 3473.28 2073.6 1296 0 0 997.92 1049.76 2812.32

2400 2480 2480 2240 2480 2400 2480 2400 2480 2480 2400 2480

3114.48 2308.72 2166.16 961.12 993.28 -326.4 -1184 -2400 -2480 -1482.08 -1350.24 332.32

3114.48 5423.2 7589.36 8550.48 9543.76 9217.36 8033.36 5633.36 3153.36 1671.28 321.04 653.36

Table 6.5 Estimated storage volume for a catchment area of 81m2 (tiled), a garrison of 16 men and a water consumption of 5 litres per day per person. Monthly mean Catchment area rainfall (in mm) in m2 November December January February March April May June July August September October

85.1 73.9 71.7 49.4 53.6 32 20 9.7 10.3 15.4 16.2 43.4

77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77

Input per month in l

Input per month in l after 20% loss

Monthly mean consumption for 16 men (in l)

Input after loss and consumption

Amount remaining at the end of the month

6552.7 5690.3 5520.9 3803.8 4127.2 2464 1540 746.9 793.1 1185.8 1247.4 3341.8

5242.16 4552.24 4416.72 3043.04 3301.76 1971.2 1232 597.52 634.48 948.64 997.92 2673.44

2400 2480 2480 2240 2480 2400 2480 2400 2480 2480 2400 2480

2842.16 2072.24 1936.72 803.04 821.76 -428.8 -1248 -1802.48 -1845.52 -1531.36 -1402.08 193.44

2842.16 4914.4 6851.12 7654.16 8475.92 8047.12 6799.12 4996.64 3151.12 1619.76 217.68 411.12

Table 6.6 Estimated storage volume for a catchment area of 77m2 (stone), a garrison of 16 men and a water consumption of 5 litres per day per person.

loss of surface run-off due to evaporation or leakage,184 as well as additional water loss through absorption on tiled roof surfaces.185 To give an example, Tables 6.3–4 show the average monthly run-off that can be collected in the Argolid from a tiled, bedrock or paved surface measuring c. 10 m2. Turning to the average monthly extraction, this figure can be estimated by multiplying the number of days (28, 30 or 31 days, depending on the month), by the number of individuals using a cistern

and the average daily water consumption (at least 5 litres of water per day per person).186 For rural fortifications in the Argolid, two variables remain unknown: the cisterns’ catchment areas and the number of individuals present at each site. Consequently, it will not be possible to prove conclusively whether any of the five rectangular cisterns could have supplied a local garrison. Nevertheless, the figures help to evaluate the role of the cisterns for the sites’ water

For a discussion of the loss of surface run-off, see Klingborg and Finné 2018: 6. In the current study, the modern average monthly rainfall at the village of Pyrgela (Modern rainfall statistics, viewed 11 March 2018, ) was used as a proxy for ancient precipitation. For possible changes in climate since antiquity, see chapter 2. 185 Roman roof tiles absorbed c. 5–15mm of rain before producing any surface run-off (Thomas and Wilson 1994: 140). Assuming that this also applies to Classical and Hellenistic tiles, tiled roofs probably did not produce any run-off in June and July. 184

186 This figure (used for example by Thomas and Wilson 1994: 170 and Connelly and Wilson 2002) is based on the WHO’s estimate of the daily minimum of water required to sustain health (Klingborg and Finné 2018: 8), but does not take into account water needed for personal hygiene, manufacturing processes or domestic animals. In the present study, February will consistently be counted as 28 days, ignoring leap years.

101

A Landscape of Conflict? Rural Fortifications in the Argolid (400–146 BC)

Monthly mean Catchment area rainfall (in mm) in m2 November December January February March April May June July August September October

85.1 73.9 71.7 49.4 53.6 32 20 9.7 10.3 15.4 16.2 43.4

230 230 230 230 230 230 230 230 230 230 230 230

Input per month in l

Input per month in l after 20% loss

Monthly mean consumption for 16 men (in l)

Input after loss and consumption

Amount remaining at the end of the month

19573 16997 16491 11362 12328 7360 4600 2231 2369 3542 3726 9982

15658.4 13597.6 13192.8 9089.6 9862.4 5888 3680 1784.8 1895.2 2833.6 2980.8 7985.6

7200 7440 7440 6720 7440 7200 7440 7200 7440 7440 7200 7440

8458.4 6157.6 5752.8 2369.6 2422.4 -1312 -3760 -5415.2 -5544.8 -4606.4 -4219.2 545.6

8458.4 14616 20368.8 22738.4 25160.8 23848.8 20088.8 14673.6 9128.8 4522.4 303.2 848.8

Table 6.7 Estimated storage volume for a catchment area of 230 m2 (stone), a garrison of 16 men and a water consumption of 15 litres per day per person.

Monthly mean Catchment area rainfall (in mm) in m2 November December January February March April May June July August September October

85.1 73.9 71.7 49.4 53.6 32 20 9.7 10.3 15.4 16.2 43.4

195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195

Input per month in l

Input per month in l after 20% loss

Monthly mean consumption for 40 men (in l)

Input after loss and consumption

Amount remaining at the end of the month

16594.5 14410.5 13981.5 9633 10452 6240 3900 1891.5 2008.5 3003 3159 8463

13275.6 11528.4 11185.2 7706.4 8361.6 4992 3120 1513.2 1606.8 2402.4 2527.2 6770.4

6000 6200 6200 5600 6200 6000 6200 6000 6200 6200 6000 6200

7275.6 5328.4 4985.2 2106.4 2161.6 -1008 -3080 -4486.8 -4593.2 -3797.6 -3472.8 570.4

7275.6 12604 17589.2 19695.6 21857.2 20849.2 17769.2 13282.4 8689.2 4891.6 1418.8 1989.2

Table 6.8 Estimated storage volume for a catchment area of 195 m2 (stone), a garrison of 40 men and a water consumption of 5 litres per day per person.

supply at times of conflict, especially at Agios Adrianos (3) and Kazarma (39).187

If the daily water consumption is increased to 15 litres per person to allow for personal hygiene and other activities,190 the necessary catchment area grows to 230 m2 (Table 6.7), but even so the cistern would never reach its full capacity.

As argued above, the fort at Agios Adrianos (3) probably housed a very small garrison, perhaps as few as 16 men, who each month would require a minimum of 2240– 2480 litres of drinking water. Assuming that the cistern was emptied for cleaning once a year (for example at the beginning of the rainy season in October),188 this requirement could be met by collecting the run-off from a tiled roof surface measuring c. 81 m2 or from a bedrock surface measuring c. 77 m2 (Tables 6.5–6).189

Although these figures are very speculative, they strongly suggest that the cistern at Agios Adrianos (3) could have served as the main water supply for a permanent garrison and — depending on the size of the catchment area — for additional troops stationed at the fort on a seasonal basis or for refugees from the surrounding countryside. A similar picture emerges at Kazarma (39), where a garrison of 40 men would require

187 Unlike Agios Adrianos (3) and Kazarma (39), Lyrkeia (50) is a fortified settlement, so that the number of individuals present within the fortified area is difficult to estimate. 188 On the yearly cleaning of cisterns, see Klingborg and Finné 2018: 9. 189 For example, the tower at Agios Adrianos (3) measures c. 9.2 by

9.2m and could thus have carried a roof measuring c. 84.64 m2. 190 For this estimate, see Klingborg and Finné 2018: 7.

102

Chapter 6: Rural Fortifications as Territorial Defences

the run-off from c. 195 m2 of bedrock (based on a daily consumption of 5 litres per person),191 presumably again without ever reaching the full capacity of the cistern (Table 6.8). In times of conflict, the garrisons at the two forts could thus rely on rainwater collected over the past months — a factor that considerably increased the fortifications’ defensibility and potential as fortified rural ‘strongholds’.

capping of mudbrick walls198 — in either case more than a mere temporary structure. Furthermore, the finds from drystone circuits include a Late Classical or Hellenistic andesite quern at Phranchthi (62),199 a Classical andesite mortar at Soros (72),200 and an olive mill at Vourlia 1 (86).201 Similar to the tile fragments, these finds point to an occupation over a longer period of time, and at least the olive mill from Vourlia 1 (86) suggests a ‘civilian’ settlement rather than a primarily military-strategic site.

e. Criterion 4 and 5: construction technique and surface finds Two final features that may help to understand the possible military function of ancient rural fortifications are their construction technique and find material. These two features are particularly useful for identifying ἐπιτειχίσματα — ‘offensive’ fortifications that feature most prominently in the Peloponnesian War,192 but are also attested in the 4th century BC.193 Judging by Thucydides’ famous description of the ἐπιτείχισμα on the Koryphasion promontory at Pylos194 and the remains of the Spartan ἐπιτείχισμα at Dekeleia,195 drystone masonry must have been the favoured construction technique for Classical ἐπιτειχίσματα. The following discussion will therefore focus on the five Late Classical drystone circuits in the Argolid.196

Fragments of pottery make up a third group of finds from the drystone circuits. For Kastro 2 (37) and Vourlia 1 (86), surface pottery has only been mentioned in passing, and even the assemblages from the surveyed sites in the southern Argolid have so far not been fully published. The pottery therefore only seldom presents a clear picture, but at least at Vourlia 1 (86) an ‘abundance’202 of sherds supports the site’s proposed interpretation as a fortified settlement, while at Vigla (84) the pottery points to at least sporadic use over a longer period of time.203 Based on the combined evidence of the various surface finds, an interpretation as a temporary camp can be ruled out for Vourlia 1 (86) and probably Soros (72). For the remaining circuits, where the surface finds are less indicative, the location provides additional clues: Both Phranchthi (62) and Vigla (84) are probably associated with nearby settlements at the foot of the respective hills,204 while Kastro 2 (37) is located at a strategic border pass.205 The Late Classical and Hellenistic drystone circuits in the Argolid are thus more likely to be defensive sites than hostile ἐπιτειχίσματα.

Surface finds in and around these sites are usually scarce, which may argue for a temporary rather than a permanent occupation.197 However, fragments of tile were noted at Soros (72), Vigla (84) and Vourlia 1 (86) and could belong either to roofed structures or to the Given the suspiciously lush vegetation in the southeastern part of the site, further cisterns may well lie hidden within the circuit at Kazarma (39). 192 See, for example, the Athenian fort at Pylos (425–409 BC; Thuc. 4.3–41; D. S. 13.64.5–7) and the Spartan fortification at Dekeleia (413– 404 BC; Thuc. 7.19.2). 193 For a discussion of the ἐπιτειχισμός in the 4th century BC, see Westlake 1983: 19–23. Although no ἐπιτειχίσματα are attested in the Argolid, it is clear that at least the Argives themselves made use of such structures during the 4th century BC. For example, the Argives constructed a fort on the Phleiasian Trikaranon mountain (Xen. Hell. 7.2.1 (366 BC); Cloke 2016: 574–86). 194 Thuc. 4.4. For the Athenian fortification at Pylos and the local topography, see Pritchett 1965: 21; Wilson 1979: 54–61; Strassler 1988; Rubincam 2001; Dyson 2002. Some walls in drystone masonry survive on the summit of the neighbouring island Sphakteria, but could well belong to later periods. 195 For the site of Palaiokastro, its description and its two (not mutually exclusive) identifications as the acropolis of the deme Dekeleia and the Spartan ἐπιτείχισμα in the Peloponnesian War, see for example Michhöfer 1895: 3–4; Chandler 1926: 16; Αρβανιτόπουλος 1958: 15–22; McCredie 1966: 56–58; Ober 1985: 141–42; Mersch 1996: 118–19; Funke 2000: 124. 196 Kastro 2 (37), Phranchthi (62), Soros (72), Vigla (84) and Vourlia 1 (86). As noted above, the drystone structures at Akrotiri Iria 1 (90), Akrotiri Iria 2 (91), Skala 1 (104) and Aitolithi (130) are currently undatable. Kastro 1 (36) probably predates the period of study (Jameson et al. 1994: 442), while Vigliza (85) most likely belongs to the Hellenistic period (Penttinen 1996b: 270). All five drystone circuit in the Argolid are considerably smaller than the fortifications at Dekeleia or the Koryphasion promontory. 197 One exception is Vourlia 1 (86), where ‘fine blackglazed sherds and glazed tiles are abundant’ (Suto 1996: 11). 191

198 Soros (72): Jameson et al. 1994: 521–22; Vigla (84): Jameson et al. 1994: 510; Vourlia 1 (86): Suto 1996: 11. 199 This quern is mentioned by Jameson et al. 1994: 475, but not by Kardulias and Runnels 1995. However, Kardulias and Runnels 1995: 117 list a quern at the adjacent findspot C 11, which is not listed by Jameson et al. 1994: 466–67. This suggests that Kardulias and Runnels 1995 combined the finds from C 11 and C 43, and that the quern listed under findspot C 11 is in fact from C 43. 200 Jameson et al. 1994: 522; Kardulias and Runnels 1995: 135. 201 Suto 1996: 11. In addition, obsidian flakes were discovered at Kastro 2 (37) (Rupp 1976: 264) and Phranchthi (62) (Jameson et al. 1994: 475), but it is unclear if they belong to the period of study or are residual finds from an earlier phase of occupation. For the use of flaked stone tools in historical periods, see Runnels 1982; Kardulias and Runnels 1995: 97–103. 202 Suto 1996: 11. 203 Simpson 1981: 31; Jameson et al. 1994: 510. 204 Phranchthi (62) is probably connected to the nearby site of Magoula Evstratiou (Jameson et al. 1994: 466–67, 475), Vigla (84) to the site of Agios Ioannis (Jameson et al. 1994: 508–10). At Phranchthi (62), the majority of historical pottery belongs to the Late- and Subgeometric periods, while Archaic, Classical, and Hellenistic pottery predominates at Magoula Evstratiou (Jameson et al. 1994: 466– 67, 475). This may reflect a settlement shift from the summit to the foot of the hill during the Archaic period, before the summit was fortified as a refuge in Classical or Hellenistic times. 205 See section 6.1.

103

A Landscape of Conflict? Rural Fortifications in the Argolid (400–146 BC) (38) and Kazarma (39), as the most promising candidates for this function.

6.3.4 Conclusions: fortifications as strategic military sites What do these five different site characteristics (size, location, defensibility, construction technique and surface material) reveal about the strategic-military role of fortifications in the Argolid? As mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, many previous scholars have attempted to understand fortified structures as defensive systems, but section 6.1 and 6.2 have established that extensive or systematic networks of built defences did not exist in the Late Classical and Hellenistic Argolid. Instead, the region’s rural fortifications reflect a piecemeal development in which individual sites (or small groups of sites) were built in response to specific threats. Their importance is thus usually local rather than regional.

Secondly, rural fortifications could be used to control ‘small-scale’ movement at major routes and passes. This can be seen most clearly at the towers of Agios Sostis (5), Gymnon (26), Lileika Xeropigadou (47), Tourkovrysi (78) and Xylopyrgo (88). Thirteen further sites may also be associated with the control of movement but could equally well be located near routes for non-military reasons.208 Thirdly, there are the three clusters of intervisible sites. The interpretation of the cluster around Kleonai (41) remains speculative, but given the city’s position between the major powers of Corinth and Argos, the towers at Drymoni 1 (20), Drymoni 2 (94) and Spathovouni (143) may have been constructed to inform the city centre of ‘small-’ or ‘large-scale’ military activity.209 The second cluster of intervisible fortifications, stretching from Argos over the towers of Akova: Chouni (108) and Akova: Varda (6) to Tourniki: Gaidourovouni (79), has so far not been satisfactorily explained, but at least the tower at Tourniki: Gaidourovouni (79) may be connected to the small agricultural plain around modern Merkourio. The final cluster — in the Benteni valley — was probably constructed in the late 4th or 3rd century BC along the southern border of the Epidauria and may have been used to relay information about military activity.210

Looking at individual fortifications within their wider context, we can identify both defences against ‘smallscale’ conflict or raiding, and fortified sites which could have played a role in the ‘large-scale’ warfare that is at the focus of the Late Classical and Hellenistic Peloponnese’s historical narratives. Among the latter, the most prominent fortifications — both in textual sources and in the archaeological record — are city walls, which especially from around 300 BC onwards were built, rebuilt, enlarged or strengthened at all four urban centres in the region. Rural military strongholds can also belong to the level of ‘large-scale’ warfare, although for the Argolid their use is not attested in literary sources. With their strong defences and reliable water supplies, the Argive forts of Agios Adrianos (3) and Kazarma (39) were particularly suitable as military strongholds, but most larger forts206 and fortified settlements in the region (especially Lyrkeia (50))207 could also have fulfilled a similar function. In contrast, towers, small forts and drystone circuits were too small to pose sufficient threats to invading armies and instead belong to a context of ‘small-scale’ conflict and raiding.

Interestingly, two kinds of sites that are often discussed in military studies have not been identified in the region: ἐπιτειχίσματα and ‘large-scale’ border defences. This emphasises the local rather than regional importance of most rural fortifications in the Argolid. Together, these results provide an important step towards a better understanding of military rural fortifications on the Peloponnese and beyond. Firstly, they demonstrate that it is misleading to read fortified sites though the lens of ancient authors, who focus primarily on ‘large-scale’ warfare. Instead of illustrating ‘grand defensive strategies’, the sites cast new light on a ‘small-scale’ and often local type of conflict that is largely invisible in literary and epigraphic sources.

In this context of ‘small-scale’ conflict, fortifications could fulfil various functions, which remain largely unattested in the surviving textual sources. Firstly, fortified structures could house small garrisons to protected the surrounding countryside from pirates, brigands and raids by political neighbours. For both coastal and inland sites, visibility and efficient access are crucial, which makes it possible to single out the maritime fortifications of Ano Phanari (10), Galatas: Megali Magoula (25) and possibly Phourkaria (61), along with the inland sites of Anathema (8), Gyphtokastro (27), Iria (31), Kastraki (35), Kastro tis Palaiopanagias

Secondly, it has become clear that there is no simple correspondence between architectural type and site 208 Anathema (8), Choutalaiika (18), Kastro 2 (37), Kazarma (39), Lampagiana (45), Levkakia (46), Lyrkeia (50), Phranchthi (62), Pyrgouli (71), Sportiza (74), Vigla (84), Malantrenion (101) and Xydeika (106). 209 This would place the sites in the context of an independent Kleonai. Whether the tower at Agios Sostis (5) belonged to Argos or Kleonai is unclear. 210 Most of the sites in this cluster are highly inaccessible and thus not ideally placed as bases for mobile rural troops. The latter therefore seems more plausible.

Ano Phanari (10), Gyphtokastro (27), Kastraki (35) and Kastro tis Paliopanagias (38). 207 The only exception is Prosymna: Agios Athanasios (67). 206

104

Chapter 6: Rural Fortifications as Territorial Defences

function. For example, small- and medium-sized forts appear both as military strongholds in ‘large-scale’ warfare and as rural bases in local conflicts.

may partly explain why throughout the chapter it has been difficult to tease apart individual site functions. Finally, and perhaps most intriguingly, even this detailed study — examining the possible military potential of each individual site and drawing on a wealth of different comparanda, sources and methods — leaves many rural fortifications unexplained, especially among the towers and drystone circuits. It is these sites that will be the focus of the next chapter, which attempts to understand the role of rural fortifications beyond the world of military defensive strategies.

Thirdly, the current chapter illustrates that many rural fortifications in the Argolid were not limited to a single strategic role. For example, the fort at Kazarma (39) may have served both as a military stronghold in ‘large-scale’ warfare and as a base in ‘small-scale’ conflicts. Some sites (like the fortified settlement at Lyrkeia (50)) probably even fulfilled both military and ‘civilian’ roles at the same time. This multifunctionality

105

Chapter 7

Rural Fortifications as Local Defences This combination of circumstances poses the question how the rural population of the Late Classical and Hellenistic Argolid coped with the constant threat of property loss, enslavement or even death. One option was to flee from conflict and take refuge elsewhere — a practice which is archaeologically difficult to trace. However, written sources reveal that at times the occupants of rural Greece not only moved women, children, slaves and livestock, but also their movable farm-equipment, household furnishings, food and crops to places of refuge.7 Even the woodwork of houses could be removed for safekeeping,8 and in some cases troops were employed to gather important crops.9

7.1 Conflict: fortifications as places of refuge Pirates make for good plots — or so at least Menander thought when writing The Sikyonians in the 4th century BC. This play, now mostly lost, featured a certain Philoumene, an Athenian’s daughter, who is kidnapped by pirates at the age of four, taken to Karia and sold as a slave at Mylasa.1 This story may be fictional, but to some degree mirrors real-life events attested through Hellenistic honorific inscriptions. For example, a mid3rd-century BC document from Amorgos recounts how more than 30 people, including women and children, were kidnapped by pirates and only saved by the intervention of two brothers, who persuaded their captors to liberate every free person (as well as some of the freedmen and slaves) in exchange for the payment of a ransom.2 Such incidents were not confined to coastal areas: around 100 BC a certain Lykos was made a proxenos at Delphi for saving young men captured by brigands, presumably while crossing Mount Parnassos.3

According to these testimonies, different types of locations could serve as places of refuge in the 4th century BC or the Hellenistic period. One possibility was to flee to a friendly neighbouring city-state, either overland or by sea.10 This must have been a common practice, since many treaties include provisions granting ἀτέλεια (freedom from import and export duties) to temporary refugees.11

Both Menander’s story and these two real-life incidents concluded happily, but they are a vivid reminder of how easily ‘being in the wrong place at the wrong time’ could have serious consequences in the Late Classical and Hellenistic world. To make matters worse, ancient warfare was essentially fought without a concept of ‘civilians’.4 Taking captives for ransom or sale into slavery was common practice,5 and both the defeated themselves and their property were considered the rightful spoils of the victor.6 For those members of a city who resided temporarily or permanently outside the urban centre (for example at the numerous farmsteads mentioned in section 5.2), such threats must have been all the more pressing, especially since the Argolid’s city-states did not generally pursue a policy of stopping invasions at territorial borders.

A second option was to take refuge in naturally inaccessible areas.12 For example, Xenophon notes that prior to the Spartan invasion in 390 BC the Corinthians moved their livestock to the mountainous Piraion peninsula for safekeeping,13 while in 389 BC the Akarnanians drove their herds into the mountains to keep them out of the reach of Agesilaos’ plundering troops.14 Fortified structures provided a third possible category of refuges. As usual, written sources focus on urban fortifications15 (where evacuations may have been Müller 1975: 131–44; Pritchett 1991b: 348–52; Hanson 1998: 104–10; Chandezon 2003: 26–27. Thuc. 2.14.1. See also Hanson 1998: 108. 9 Shear 1978: 19–21; Hanson 1998: 104–05; Chaniotis 2005: 121–22. For example, the Athenian Kallias of Sphettos was honoured in 287 BC for leading soldiers into the countryside to protect the grain harvest during the war against Demetrius Poliorketes (SEG xxviii 60.23–27 (279/69 BC)). 10 A famous 5th-century BC example is the Athenian evacuation of livestock to Euboia and the adjacent islands in 431 BC (Thuc. 2.14.1). 11 Müller 1975: 131–56; Pritchett 1991b: 348–49; Chandezon 2003: 185; Chaniotis 2005: 125–26, 128. 12 See for example Ducrey 2019: 245. 13 Xen. Age. 2.18; Xen. Hell. 4.5.1. 14 Xen. Hell. 4.6.4. 15 See D. S. 17.4.6 for an example from 4th-century BC Athens. If the so-called ‘Callisthenes Decree’ (quoted by Dem. 18.37–38 as stating that no Athenians other than the rural garrisons were to remain 7 8

Men. Sik. 3–7, 355–59. For further examples of pirates in Classical and Hellenistic literature, see Boulic and Létoublon 2014: 125–28. IG XII. vii 386 (3rd century BC). Pritchett 1991b: 277; De Souza 1999: 61; Austin 2006: 204; Ducrey 2019: 106. 3 Fouilles de Delphes III 1 457. Pritchett 1991b: 282. Other incidents are collected by Pritchett 1991b: 324–48; Bielman 1994: 3–227. According to Plut. Arat. 6.1, brigandage was also common in the 3rd-century BC Argolid. 4 See chapter 3. 5 For a collection of examples, see Pritchett 1991b: 223–97; Bielman 1994: 3–227. 6 Rihill 1993: 79; Krentz 2007: 180–81; Ducrey 2016: 332–33. For example, Xen. Hell. 4.7.6 mentions that Cretan troops ravaged Nafplio during Agesipolis’ campaign in 388 BC. 1 2

106

Chapter 7: Rural Fortifications as Local Defences

Figure 7.1 Walking distances in southern Attica.

subject to specific rules or regulations),16 but rural fortifications such as forts or second-order settlements were also considered as possible places of refuge.17 A further group of structures that are not explicitly mentioned by ancient writers, but which are often discussed as possible refuges by modern scholars, are the simple drystone circuits that are scattered on hilltops throughout the Greek countryside.18

drystone circuit)19 at Besa to ensure that ‘every man would have but a short distance to safety’. The distance between the three sites measures roughly 5–6km.20 The second source is an inscription honouring the Athenian general Epichares, who ‘saved the fort (i.e. Rhamnous) for the people during the war (i.e. the Chremonidean War) and gathered in the crops and fruits within a range of 30 stadia (c. 5.5km)’, as well as providing protection for vines and additional guard dogs.21 What is striking about these two sources is that the radius of the operations at Laurion and Rhamnous is remarkably consistent (around 30 stadia).22 Taking into account the varying topography of Attica, this translates into a ‘walking distance’ of c. 1–1.5 hours (Figure 7.1).

The most detailed surviving descriptions of evacuations survive from Attica. Two sources, a passage from Xenophon’s De Vectigalibus and a 3rdcentury BC honorific inscription from Rhamnous, are particularly informative. In the first text, Xenophon outlines a defensive plan for a hypothetical attack on the mining area of Laurion. He notes the existence of two fortifications at Anaphlystos and Thorikos, and suggests the construction of an ἔρυμα (possibly a

This pattern helps to evaluate the potential of Late Classical and Hellenistic fortifications in the Argolid as places of refuge.23 Besides urban centres, the region offers three types of fortifications that could have served as places of refuge in times of conflict:

outside Athens or the Piraeus at night) is genuine or reflects genuine Athenian legislation (as Hanson 1998: 113 suggested), it may belong to a similar context. However, the document is usually regarded as a later forgery (Droysen 1893: 204–11; Schläpfer 1939: 43–46; Wankel 1976: 288–89; Canevaro 2013: 243–49). 16 For example, Aen. Tact. 10.1 recommends banning slaves and livestock from the city. 17 One example is the fort of Thalamai in Elis, which served as a place of refuge in 219 BC (Polyb. 4.75.2–8). 18 McCredie 1966: 92–93; Hanson 1998: 112; Fachard 2012: 252–53. These structures are often referred to by the German term ‘Fluchtburgen’.

Fachard 2012: 284. Xen. Vect. 4.44. For a discussion of this passage, see Lauffer 1979: 223; Fachard 2012: 283–85. 21 SEG xxiv 154 (264/3 BC). See also Hanson 1998: 105; Chaniotis 2005: 121; Austin 2006: 132–35; Fachard 2012: 284–87. 22 Fachard 2012: 285. 23 Fachard 2012: 288–92 applied a similar approach to the fortifications of Eretria, although working with Euclidian measurements rather than ‘walking distances’. 19 20

107

A Landscape of Conflict? Rural Fortifications in the Argolid (400–146 BC)

Figure 7.2 Possible places of refuge: walking distances and cost boundaries.

secondary fortified settlements (including formerly independent centres like Kleonai), forts and drystone circuits.24 However, many forts and drystone circuits are surprisingly small, even in comparison to ancient rural fortifications elsewhere.25 Considering that ancient evacuations often included livestock and movable property as well as entire households, fortifications of less than 0.1ha were probably too small to provide refuge beyond the immediate vicinity of the site.26 For example, with a size of 0.05ha the drystone circuit at Vigla (84) may have sheltered the inhabitants of the nearby unfortified settlement of Agios Ioannis, but probably not from further afield.27 Structures like

Prosymna: Agios Athanasios (67), which are easily accessible and lack strong natural or built defences,28 can similarly be excluded from the possible refuge sites. Calculating the 1.5-hour radius around the remaining fortified settlements, forts and drystone circuits reveals that they are not equally distributed throughout the region (Figure 7.2). Differences in chronology or territorial boundaries probably account for the close proximity of Lyrkeia (50) and Sportiza (74) or Kazarma (39) and Kastraki (35),29 but even so the distance between the remaining sites is far from consistent. As a result, much but by no means all of the region falls within 1.5 hours of the nearest possible refuge site. For example, the inhabitants of the central Argive territory, of the valley between the Saronic and the Argolic Gulf and of the southern Akte had particularly good access to major fortifications, unlike the Argives living in the Thyreatis and the Kynouria, where such sites are more dispersed. This suggests that the aim of the Argolid’s rural fortifications was not to provide places of refuge systematically, but only in particular areas.

24 In the case of the drystone circuits, a use as temporary refuges rather than for permanent or even seasonal habitation would account for the scarcity of surface finds noted in previous chapters. 25 See, for example, the rural forts and drystone circuits in the territory of Eretria (Fachard 2012: 242, 251–52). 26 The following fortifications enclose areas of up to 0.1ha: Anathema (8) (0.03ha), Iria (31) (0.03ha), Agio Lias (2) (0.05ha), Galatas: Megali Magoula (25) (0.1ha), Soros (72) (0.05ha), Vigla (84) (0.05ha) and probably Kantia 1 (33). Porto Cheli (64) (ancient Halieis) is also excluded from the following analysis, as it was abandoned for most of the period studied in this chapter. It remains difficult to quantify how many people may have been involved in rural evacuations. Although ancient authors occasionally give specific figures (for example Liv. 27.32.7 mentions 4000 people and 20,000 livestock at Pyrgos and Poly. 4.75.28 speaks of more than 5000 people and their livestock at Thalamai), it is unclear if these numbers are reliable. In addition, the places of refuge mentioned in the two examples have never been identified, making it impossible to compare the reported numbers to the size of specific fortified areas. 27 For the settlement at Agios Ioannis and its relationship to Vigla (84), see Jameson et al. 1994: 508–10.

For the defensibility of Prosymna: Agios Athanasios (67), see section 6.3. Another important criterion is the water supply, but as discussed in the previous chapter, this has so far proven difficult to reconstruct. 29 For the date of Lyrkeia (50) and Sportiza (74), see chapter 4, for the territorial boundaries at Kazarma (39) and Kastraki (35), section 6.3. 28

108

Chapter 7: Rural Fortifications as Local Defences

Figure 7.3 Possible places of refuge: walking distances, cost boundaries, agricultural installations and the probable maximum altitude for olive cultivation (500 mamsl).

Figure 7.4 Possible places of refuge: walking distances, cost boundaries, agricultural installations and modern agricultural areas.

109

A Landscape of Conflict? Rural Fortifications in the Argolid (400–146 BC) Most of the areas within 1.5 hours of possible refuge sites have several features in common: they are largely located at altitudes below 500 mamsl (probably the maximum altitude at which olives prospered in antiquity),30 include most agricultural installations mapped in chapter 2 (olive mills, press beds and press weights),31 and mainly coincide with modern agricultural areas (Figure 7.3–4).32 Together, these three observations reveal a close correlation between major fortified sites and areas of cultivation, suggesting that the fortifications could have provided shelter for an agricultural population at times of conflict. However, this is not to say that every fortified settlement, fort or drystone circuit in the region was constructed principally as a temporary refuge site. As argued above, the forts at Agios Adrianos (3), Kazarma (39), Kastraki (35) and Ano Phanari (10) were probably built primarily to house garrisons.33 Nevertheless, they could have played a role during rural evacuations, especially since the cisterns at Agios Adrianos (3) and Kazarma (39) may well have been sufficient to supply additional people on a temporary basis. This could support an identification of the sites as temporary refuges as well as military-strategic fortifications.

Figure 7.5 The surface pottery assemblage from the drystone circuit at Vigliza (85) by functional category (after Penttinen 1996b: 268–70).

At Kastro tis Paliopanagias (38) and Vigliza (85), the situation is less clear. Very little is known about the fortification at Kastro tis Paliopanagias (38), partly because Medieval occupation and modern vegetation obscure the earlier structures.35 Owing to the lack of interior buildings, the site was typologically classified as a fort in chapter 3, but based on the remains published to date or visible at the site, it is impossible to decide conclusively whether the remains represent a fortified settlement, a military-strategic fort or (as W.K. Pritchett suggested) a refuge site.36 Until further research has taken place, the function of Kastro tis Paliopanagias (38) therefore remains unknown.

There are also some interesting exceptions to the usual correlation between major fortified sites and agricultural areas. For example, the fort at Kastro tis Paliopanagias (38) in the Kynouria and the drystone circuits at Kastro 2 (37) and Vigliza (85) are located above an altitude of 500 mamsl. Around two of these sites (Kastro 2 (37) and Vigliza (85)), as well as the Epidaurian forts of Gyphtokastro (27) and Stavropodio (75), extensive modern cultivation is also largely lacking.34 Judging by their location, some of these sites may primarily have served a military-strategic function: Kastro 2 (37) is situated on a pass into the Epidaurian territory), while the forts of Gyphtokastro (27) and Stavropodio (75) may form part of a visual network on the southern border of the Epidauria. In all three cases, the location thus seems to be determined by military-strategic considerations, rather than by the desire to provide places of refuge for the surrounding countryside.

The fortification at Vigliza (85) was investigated during the Berbati-Limnes Archaeological Survey, but remains nearly equally difficult to interpret. The site — consisting of a small drystone circuit (c. 0.15ha) and enclosing a number of rectangular rubble foundations of uncertain date37 — is located on a small plateau, not far from two possible routes between the Argolid and the Korinthia.38 Even taking into account the heterogeneous nature of Classical and Hellenistic ceramic assemblages from the Berbati-Limnes Archaeological Survey and the comparatively small quantity of finds recovered,39 the pottery at Vigliza (85) is unusual:40 it shows an uncommonly low percentage of fine wares (a mere three sherds or 13.63% of the total assemblage) and a surprising absence of drinking and storage vessels.

See chapter 2. The only exceptions are the olive mill at the tower of Iliopoulaiika (30), the press weight at the tower of Kampia (32), three olive mills near Tourkopigado (157) and an olive mill on the northwestern coast of the Argolic Gulf. 32 For modern land use in the region, see (13/8/2018). For landscape changes which may have affected the viability of agriculture (especially the loss of upland soils and the possible lack of agricultural terraces), see chapter 2. 33 See chapter 6. 34 The area around Vigliza (85) shows signs of intensive terracing, probably dating to the first Venetian period (Wells 1996: 9), but the terraces are now largely abandoned. 30 31

For the Medieval structures at Kastro tis Paliopanagias (38), see Μπάλλα 2002: 199–200. The only part of the ancient fortification that is visible today is a stretch of circuit wall in large drystone blocks. 36 Pritchett 1991a: 164–65. 37 Penttinen 1996b: 268. 38 See section 6.1. 39 For the Classical and Hellenistic surface finds from the BerbatiLimnes Archaeological Survey, see Penttinen 1996b: 231–71. 40 For the surface finds at Vigliza (85), see Penttinen 1996b: 268–70, for the division of pottery into functional categories, see Cloke 2016: 509. 35

110

Chapter 7: Rural Fortifications as Local Defences

Instead, the survey recorded an unusually high number of sherds from transport amphorae (five sherds or 22.7% of the assemblage) and household vessels, especially large open shapes like lekanai and mortaria (six sherds or 27.3% of the assemblage) (Figure 7.5).41 In addition, Vigliza (85) lacks querns and loomweights, which are otherwise common in the region.42

was available.46 This would explain why certain features of the ceramic assemblage are mirrored at other, nonfortified sites in the eastern part of the Berbati-Limnes Survey or at ‘site 7’ in the Nemea valley.47 Seeing Vigliza (85) as a primarily pastoralist site would also account for its location outside the possible agricultural areas of the Argive territory.

What does the pottery at Vigliza (85) reveal about the fortification’s functions? Firstly, the site clearly does not have the usual ‘ceramic signature’ of ancient farmsteads, which is characterised by a combination of fine wares, domestic coarse wares and storage vessels.43 The drystone circuit at Vigliza (85) is thus unlikely to be part of a ‘ordinary’ Hellenistic farmstead.

In addition to major fortifications outside cultivated zones, there are four possible agricultural areas in the territories of Epidauros and Argos that do not fall within 1.5 hours of a major fort, fortified settlement or drystone circuit: the coastal plain of Iria (though home to the ‘minor’ fort at Iria (31)),48 the small inland plain of Dimaina, the eastern Inachos valley and large parts of the western Argolid.49 Although the rural settlement pattern in these areas remains largely unclear, an intriguing pattern emerges when comparing ‘agricultural areas’ and major fortifications with the distribution of ancient towers: the majority of known towers are located beyond or at the edge of the 1.5 hours-radius around possible places of refuge (Figures 7.2–4).50

Secondly, the pottery assemblage is strikingly different from those found at military-strategic sites, which usually include an abundance of drinking vessels.44 Vigliza (85) is therefore probably not part of a line of Argive territorial defences.45 Thirdly, the presence of household pottery, especially the leg of a cooking tripod, suggests at least temporary occupation at the site, while fragments of tile attest the existence of permanent or semi-permanent structures. At the same time, the large percentage of amphorae within the ceramic assemblage reveals an emphasis on portable storage, suggesting either that the commodities kept in the amphorae were not produced locally or that Vigliza (85) was only occupied temporarily.

There are of course exceptions to this overall pattern, especially towers near primarily military sites51 or with a strategic function.52 Nevertheless, the correlation between towers and possible agricultural areas beyond 1.5 hours’ walk from a major fortification seems too 46 A connection to pastoralism was briefly suggested by Penttinen 2005: 115. For the amount of water required for stock raising, see for example Bresson 2016: 134–35. 47 Like Vigliza (85), the NVAP’s ‘site 7’ lacks Hellenistic drinking and large storage vessels and shows an unusually high percentage of transport amphorae (Cloke 2016: 162–63, 540–73). For pastoralism in the valley, see Cloke 2016: 305. 48 As noted above, the fort at Iria (31) would have been too small to serve as a refuge beyond its immediate hinterland. 49 Interpreting this distribution pattern, three caveats need to be considered: firstly, it is possible that fortified places of refuge once existed in these areas, but have yet to be identified; secondly naturally defensible locations or even pre-Classical fortifications may have served as refuges in times of conflict (for example the Mycenaean fortifications at Kastraki Dimainas and Vassa near the plain of Dimaina (Φαράκλας 1972a: E. 3.1–2)); and thirdly, the extent of ancient agricultural areas may have differed from the area that is under cultivation today. However, at least in the western Argolid wine or olive presses attest agricultural activities in antiquity (see chapter 2). 50 This pattern is even more striking if chronological differences are taken into account. Ancient Mycenae was only resettled and refortified in the 3rd century BC (Wace et al. 1923: 417; Schilbach 1975: 101; French 2002: 147; Iakovides and French 2003: 27), while many nearby towers may belong to the 4th century BC. For their chronology, see chapter 4, for Classical surface finds, see, for example, Phichtia: Limiko (58) (Scranton 1938: 538; Brommer 1975: 171) and Kapsala (96) (Iakovides and French 2003: 41). 51 For example, Ano Phanari: Vigliza (11) near the fort of Ano Phanari (10), Tou Antreiomenou tou Mnema (77) near Stavropodio (75) or Pyrgouli (71) near Kazarma (39). 52 One example is the tower of Xylopyrgo (88). Other exception are Ermioni: Magoula (93), where the identification as a tower is uncertain (Jameson et al. 1994: 502–03) and the towers at Drymoni 1 and 2 (20 and 94), which are probably connected to the nearby quarries (Marchand 2002: 312, 326).

One activity that could have produced an assemblage like Vigliza’s (85) surface pottery is pastoralism. For example, the drystone circuit could have been used to protect flocks at certain times of the year or in periods of conflict, provided that sufficient fodder and water

41 In addition to the pottery published by Penttinen 1996b: 268–70, several fragments of tile and coarse-wares (including the rim of a lekane and a vertical handle in coarse Corinthian fabric) were observed on site in August 2016. 42 For loomweights and querns discovered in the Berbati-Limnes Archaeological Survey, see Penttinen 1996: 272–73, 276–77. Vigliza’s (85) surface assemblage has no parallels in the Berbati-Limnes Archaeological Survey, although some features (the low percentage of fine-wares and drinking vessels, and the absence of storage pottery) may form part of a wider regional pattern. For a low percentage of fine-wares, see also findspots 41 and 307 (Penttinen 1996b: 267–68, 270–71), for an absence of drinking vessels, see findspots 41, 307 and possibly 411 (Penttinen 1996b: 259–60, 267–68, 270–71) and for a lack of storage vessels, see findspots 307 and 504, although the assemblage at findspot 307 may include a pithos lid (Penttinen 1996b: 252, 267– 68). With the exception of findspot 411 and 505, all these sites are located in the eastern part of the survey area. 43 For the ‘ceramic signature’ of ancient farmsteads, see McHugh 2017: 57–59. 44 Penttinen 2005: 93. For the drinking vessels at the fort of Phylla on Euboia, see Sapouna-Sakellaraki et al. 2002: 92–95. 45 For an interpretation of Vigliza (85) as a military-strategic site, see Penttinen 1996b: 270, 281.

111

A Landscape of Conflict? Rural Fortifications in the Argolid (400–146 BC) pronounced to be coincidental, and may suggest that (on a more local level) towers could fulfil the same functions as larger fortifications, perhaps serving as refuges for individual households or protecting sites of agricultural processing.

the urban centre.53 Studying rural fortifications with a particular focus on their local function may thus offer new glimpses of the relationship between the urban and the rural population of the Late Classical and Hellenistic Peloponnese — a topic to return to at the end of this chapter after discussing the agricultural role of rural fortifications in more detail.

To sum up this discussion, the Argolid shows a remarkable correlation between possible agricultural areas and access to forts, fortified settlements or drystone circuits. Many of these fortifications, including those with a principally military-strategic focus, probably served as places of refuge for the local rural population. As the site at Vigliza (85) suggests, the practice of using fortified refuges may have extended into areas in which pastoralism predominated.

7.2 Cultivation: fortifications and agriculture 7.2.1 Fortified architecture: between practicality and defensibility The idea that rural fortifications could be connected to agricultural and non-agricultural production is by no means new, even though nucleated settlements such as the asty or rural komai were long seen as the main places of residence for the agricultural population of Greek city-states.54 By now, few archaeologists would dispute that towers could serve as agricultural sites in the Late Classical and Hellenistic period,55 but nevertheless two key questions remain. Firstly, is it possible to distinguish between fortifications with a strong agricultural role and those that were primarily built as strategicmilitary sites? And secondly, can the interpretation of rural fortifications be taken one step further and placed in a wider social and economic context, rather than merely distinguishing agrarian and non-agrarian sites? For example, should rural towers with agricultural functions be seen as ‘family-farms’ or as part of large estates worked mainly through unfree labour?

Those parts of the region that could be cultivated, but lie beyond 1.5-hours from the nearest major fortified site, show an unusually high number of towers. Besides indicating that these minor structures may have served as ‘small scale refuges’, this pattern may contribute to the ongoing debate of how and how far domestic ‘farm’ towers can be distinguished from strategicmilitary structures (a point discussed in detail later in this chapter). The current chapter thus offers one possible interpretation for many fortified settlements and drystone circuits that were so far unexplained, as well as adding new ‘non-military’ facets to primarily strategic sites. If the conclusions drawn here are correct, they have two implications for the wider study of rural fortifications.

Starting with the first question, four different criteria may help to distinguish ‘strategic-military’ and ‘agricultural’ fortifications: the sites’ architecture, their location, the presence of agricultural or ‘industrial’ installations and the small finds recorded at the fortifications. In most cases, any one of these criteria is on its own insufficient to identify a site as ‘agricultural’ and a clear picture only emerges when several criteria are considered together.

Firstly, the focus of research should shift away from viewing rural fortified structures principally as part of a city-state’s territorial defences and towards analysing the sites as local fortifications. This shift makes agricultural areas and pastoralist practices key to understanding the function of individual sites. Secondly, the discussion reveals the multifunctionality of ancient fortifications, demonstrating that not only particular types of fortified structures (e.g. ‘rectangular towers’ or ‘drystone circuits’) but also individual sites could simultaneously serve both as local and as territorial defences. At least for major sites such as forts, military-strategic and ‘civilian’ functions should therefore not be seen as mutually exclusive.

The first criterion, the architecture, is particularly useful in the case of ‘rural’ towers, i.e. towers that are not part of a larger fortification such as a fort or city wall.56 It has long been observed that many ancient See section 5.2. See, for example, Finley 1977: 305. Morris and Papadopoulos 2005: 162–63; Lohmann 2015: 249. For a brief summary of the history of scholarship on this subject, see also chapter 3. 56 ‘Rural tower’ can be divided into two different groups: freestanding towers (which can occur on their own or associated with outbuildings and enclosure walls) and ‘towerhouses’ (which usually resemble a typical Greek pastas house, except that one room carries additional storeys to form a tower (Jones, Graham, and Sackett 1973: 438; McHugh 2017: 62)). Most towers in the Argolid belong to the first group, with the possible exception of the 3rd-century BC building at Marmaralono Agiou Petrou (102). Based on the width of its walls (c. 0.95m), Φάκλαρης 1990: 128 suggested at least one upper storey and 53 54 55

These two conclusions throw open an important question: who was responsible for the construction of rural fortifications in the Argolid and beyond? As this chapter has shown, many fortified sites appear to play a predominantly local rather than regional defensive role. At the same time, the rural territory around the fortifications did not exist in isolation, but was economically and socially intertwined with life in 112

Chapter 7: Rural Fortifications as Local Defences

towers are difficult to access, which enhances their defensibility. For example, entrances are often located above ground-level or lead into ground-floor rooms connected to upper storeys by a trapdoor.57 However, among the towers in the Argolid entrances above ground-level are rare, with only two certain examples.58 In most cases, ease of access was thus prioritised over defensibility. This does not necessarily argue for a nonmilitary function, but does suggest that the structures were used frequently enough to justify the loss of defensibility. At eight towers, enough remains of the thresholds, door jambs or lintels to reconstruct the structure of a door or closing mechanism.59 The rebating around the doorframes and the cuttings for the doorposts show that all known doors opened inwards, usually with the doorpost on the right when entering.60 Some doors could be locked from the inside with a crossbar (held by large square cuttings in one of the doorjambs)61 or with with vertical fastenings (Figures 7.6–7).62 At the tower at Charadros (17), there is a cutting for a doorpost, but none for a fastening, suggesting that the door was originally fitted in a wooden frame.63 proposed an interpretation as a tower. However, with a size of c. 15 by 15m the structure would be unusually large for a freestanding tower. Since its eastern part is divided by an east-west wall, it is possible that only one room carried one or several upper storeys, creating a building similar to the towerhouse at Vari in Attica (Jones, Graham, and Sackett 1973: 421). If this hypothesis is correct (which admittedly is difficult to verify without further excavation), this would argue for an interpretation of the ‘tower’ as a farmstead or a wealthy rural residence rather than as a strategic-military site. 57 See, for example, the tower of Agios Petros on Andros (Morris and Papadopoulos 2005: 188). 58 The entrance to the tower at Akova: Varda (6) is located c. 1.9m above the present ground level (Πίκουλας 1995: 199). The entrance at Pyrgouli (71) has not survived, but since the walls of this tower survive up to an elevation of 2.4m, a ground-level entrance can be excluded. In contrast, ground-floor entrances have survived at Charadros (17), Elliniko: Kephalari (23), Iliopoulaiika (30), Kampia (32), Krya Vrysi: Marmarakia (43), Lygourio 1 (49), Nera (53), Phichtia: Limiko (58), Prosymna: Pyrgouthi (69) and Tou Antreiomenou to Mnema 1 (77), and are recorded at Kantia 2 (34) (Gebauer 1939: 293) and Tourniki: Gaidourovouni (79) (Πίκουλας 1995: 203). All remaining towers are not preserved to a sufficient elevation to determine the location of the entranceways. 59 Charadros (17), Elliniko: Kephalari (23), Kampia (32), Krya Vrysi: Marmarakia (43), Lygourio 1 (49), Phichtia: Limiko (58), Prosymna: Pyrgouthi (69) and Tou Antreiomenou to Mnema 1 (77). At Prosilia (66) a threshold or lintel survives, but is not in situ. Intriguingly, Charadros (17) only has a cutting for a doorpost in the lintel, but not the threshold. 60 The only exception is the inner door at Elliniko: Kephalari (23), which opened to the right, presumable to lie against the interior wall when open. 61 Such cuttings are preserved at the interior and exterior doors of Elliniko: Kephalari (23) (although the date of the outer cutting is disputed (Lohmann 2015: 258)), at Kampia (32), Krya Vrysi: Marmarakia (43) and Tou Antreiomenou to Mnema 1 (77). No tower preserves a corresponding cutting on the opposite doorjamb. In addition to the large square cuttings for the crossbar, the doors at Elliniko: Kephalari (23) and Kampia (32) also preserve several smaller rectangular cuttings. Their purpose is unclear. 62 Phichtia: Limiko (58) (Lord 1938: 491). 63 None of the towers show any evidence that the doors could be locked from the outside. This strongly suggests that an interpretation

Figure 7.6 Crossbar cuttings at Elliniko: Kephalari (23) (outer door) (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Figure 7.7 Crossbar cuttings at Kampia (32) (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

113

A Landscape of Conflict? Rural Fortifications in the Argolid (400–146 BC) shape, these structures have long been interpreted as ‘military-strategic’ sites,67 but in fact the tapering bases may simply provide actional stability,68 and can therefore no longer be seen as ‘architectural markers’ of military structures. 7.2.2 Location: rural fortifications in context A second criterion that contributes to the discussion of ‘military’ versus ‘non-military’ rural fortifications is the sites’ geographical context. While in chapter 6 the sites’ location was used to explore possible ‘military-strategic’ functions, the earlier part of the present chapter has already demonstrated a striking association between rural fortifications and possible agricultural areas — a correlation which calls for further investigation. As discussed in chapter 2, archaeological remains, bioarchaeological data and textual sources provide evidence for the cultivation of different arable and tree crops in the Late Classical and Hellenistic Argolid, as well as for pastoralist activities and the exploitation of marginal resources. Summarising briefly, olives are best attested (although this may partly be a result of their archaeological visibility), while other known crops include cereals, legumes, tree crops and grapes. Evidence for ancient olive cultivation occurs primarily in areas below 500 mamsl and on slopes up to 10° (Figures 7.9–10).69

Figure 7.8 Cuttings for a double crossbar at Agios Adrianos (3) (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Compared to the surviving doorways at ‘major’ sites such as forts and fortified settlements, the doors at towers are similar in construction, but often less substantial. For example, the entrance to the central tower at Agios Adrianos (3) (though similar in width to the doorways at Charadros (17) and Prosymna: Pyrgouthi (69))64 had a substantially larger doorpost and was fastened by a double crossbar (Figure 7.8).65 Although the rural towers are still impressive defensible structures, less emphasis was thus placed on the fortification of entranceways than at contemporary forts.

1842: 195–97; Leake 1846: 344; Curtius 1852: 365–66; Forchhammer 1857: 6; Vischer 1857: 326–28; Clark 1858: 98–100; Conze and Michaelis 1861: 22–23; Bursian 1872: 65; Tsountas and Manatt 1897: 38–39; Frazer 1898: 212–14; Wiegand 1901: 241–46; Lord 1938: 496–510; Scranton 1938: 538; Lord 1939: 80; Young 1956: 144; Oppermann 1971: 46–52; Nowicka 1975: 31; Παπαχατζής 1976: 181–83; Adam 1982: 72, 74–75; Fracchia 1985: 686; Foley 1988: 184; Πέππα 1990: 162–63; Πίκουλας 1991: 257 (no. 10); Λάζος 1995: 19–44; Πίκουλας 1995: 208–09; Πιτερός 1996a: 95, 1997e: 344, 347–59, 367–71, 1997c: 489–90; Tausend 1998, 2006: 121; Lohmann 2015: 256–60, 266–67. For Lygourio 1 (49), see Lord 1938: 511–27; Scranton 1938: 528–38; Lord 1939: 78–84, 1941: 112; Oppermann 1971: 48, 51–52; Παπαχατζής 1976: 193–94; Fracchia 1985: 687–89; Λάζος 1995: 45–55; Πιτερός 1997e: 345–47, 367–71, 1997c: 489–90; Tausend 2006: 150.; Πιτερός 2008; Lohmann 2015: 260– 67. For the reconstruction of the mudbrick superstructure at Elliniko: Kephalari (23), see Πίκουλας 1996: 46; Πιτερός 1997e: 350; Lohmann 2015: 257. A third comparable structure was reported east of Argos at Dalamanara (131), but no longer survives (Λάζος 1995: 56–61; Πιτερός 1997e: 362–67, 1997f: 490). As Παππάς 2006 has shown, the tower at Kampia (32) did not have a pyramidal base (as previously suggested by Πιτερός 1995c: 113). However, a tapering base was also used for the 4th-century BC circular tower at Agios Sostis (5). For previous research on this tower, see Lord 1939: 80–81, 83; Young 1956: 144; Wiseman 1978: 116; Wright 1990: 610–52; Πέππα 1990: 211; Πίκουλας 1991: 257 (no. 6); Gauvin 1992: 136–38, figs 7.2–7.4; Bynum 1995: 86, 95–97; Πίκουλας 1995: 174–75; Jansen 2002: 96–97; Marchand 2002: 63, 236–39; Penttinen 2005: 112, 115; Tausend 2006: 22, 41–42; Marchand 2009b: 156; Bonnier 2014: 22, 132, 150; Cloke 2016: 898–911; Lohmann 2015: 255–56. 67 See, for example, Πίκουλας 1995: 341–44; Πιτερός 1997e: 351; Tausend 1998: 46–47. Tapering bases at major fortifications are only rarely attested, for example at Chaironea, Samikon, Limyra, Gagai and Pergamon (Marksteiner 1994: 40–43; Lohmann 2015: 252). 68 For example, the tower at Elliniko: Kephalari (23) is located on a hill, so that a wider base was needed to support the mudbrick superstructure (Πιτερός 1997e: 350–52). 69 Unlike today, areas with an underlying limestone geology seem to

Two rural structures that must have been particularly impressive and have attracted much scholarly attention are the 4th-century BC ‘pyramids’ at Elliniko: Kephalari (23) and Lygourio 1 (49) — rectangular mudbrick towers on tapering masonry bases.66 Due to their unusual as ‘lock-ups’ for slaves working in nearby mines or vineyards (as suggested by Morris and Papadopoulos 2005: 188–200) is not applicable in the Argolid. 64 The doorway at Agios Adrianos (3) is c. 0.95m wide (Schilbach 1975: 56), compared with a width of 0.85m for the doorway at Prosymna: Pyrgouthi (69) (Penttinen 2005: 59) or 0.83m at Charadros (17) (Φάκλαρης 1990: 206). 65 The cutting for the doorpost in the lintel at Agios Adrianos (3) measures c. 0.15 by 0.15m and is c. 0.1m deep (Schilbach 1975: 56). In contrast, the doorpost at Prosymna: Pyrgouthi (69) measured only c. 0.11 by 0.12m (Penttinen 2005: 59) and the circular hole in the lintel at Charadros (17) c. 0.08m in diameter (Φάκλαρης 1990: 206). 66 For previous research on the ‘pyramid’ of Elliniko: Kephalari (23), see Cockerell 1830: 23; Leake 1830: 338–39; Ross 1841: 138–45; Mure

114

Chapter 7: Rural Fortifications as Local Defences

Figure 7.9 Areas above an altitude of 500 mamsl (with fortifications by type).

115

A Landscape of Conflict? Rural Fortifications in the Argolid (400–146 BC)

Figure 7.10 Areas with a slope above 10° (with fortifications by type).

116

Chapter 7: Rural Fortifications as Local Defences

Although olive cultivation dominates both the archaeological and palaeo-environmental record, neither the finds from the Berbati-Limnes Archaeological Survey nor from the southern Argolid suggest a Late Classical and Hellenistic ‘olive monoculture’.70 A particularly good example of the combination of different agricultural and pastoralist activities (or at least the consumption of different produce) is the tower at Prosymna: Pyrgouthi (69): despite the small quantity of stratified material recovered at this site, there are remains of olives, almonds, figs and legumes (Late Hellenistic or Early Roman),71 bones of sheep, goats, birds and occasionally pigs and cattle (Classical and Hellenistic),72 as well as fragments of terracotta beehives (from a predominantly Late Hellenistic stratum).73

7.2.3 Agricultural installations: rural fortifications as processing sites A third criterion that may shed light on the functions of rural fortifications in the Argolid is the presence of agricultural installations, especially presses75 and ‘olive mills’ (the latter usually referred to by the Latin terms trapetum and mola olearia).76 While many presses in the region clearly belong to the Late Classical or Hellenistic period,77 the chronology of the olive mills is more problematic. Examples from Chios, Olynthos and Argilos as well as from Cyprus and the Levant demonstrate that rotary olive mills were used from at least the Hellenistic period onwards,78 but as long as a detailed typology of Greek olive mills is still lacking, a Late Classical or Hellenistic date can neither be proven nor excluded for individual specimens.

Assuming that these animal and plant remains are local ‘produce’, they paint a picture of a mixed agriculturalpastoralist economy. The surviving remains of preRoman agricultural installations in the wider region fit well into such a general pattern. Many of them are located at the upper limits of olive cultivations, which may suggest that individual sites exploited both the agricultural areas at lower altitudes and grazing or marginal lands in the mountains above. Numerous Late Classical and Hellenistic rural fortifications in the northern and western Argolid — for example the fortified settlements of Achladokampos (1), Andritsa: Goulas (9). Elliniko Astrous (21) and Tsiorovos Dolianon (82), or the tower at Krya Vrysi: Marmarakia (43) — share this location on ‘ecological boundaries’ (Figure 7.9).

In the Argolid, such agricultural installations are fairly common, with examples at 19 rural fortifications as well as at Porto Cheli (64) and Troizina (80) (Figures 7.11–14). Presses are found both at fortified settlements and at smaller sites,79 whereas rotary olive On the difficulties of distinguishing places of wine and oil production, see for example Brun 2004: 7–27, although based on the small size of the associated basins the installations at Asini (14), Mykinai (51) and Porto Cheli (64) have been identified as olive rather than wine presses (Jameson 2001: 290; Brun 2004: 104–05). Some presses may also have been used in industrial activities (Foxhall 2007: 146–48). 76 Based on Cato Arg. 20–22 and Columella Rust. 12.52.6–7, the term trapetum is usually associated with olive mills with concave crushing surfaces, while the term mola olearia is commonly used for mills with flat crushing surfaces (see for example Hadjisavvas 1992: 9–16; Brun 1997: 70–71). Although this may not reflect a consistent ancient terminology (Frankel 1993: 477–80), trapetum and mola olearia are by now established archaeological terms and will therefore be used in the following to describe the olive mills in the Argolid. Recent discussions have raised the possibility that trapeta and molae oleariae may also have been used to crush grapes (see for example KourakouDragona 2015: 166–73), but this view is currently not widely accepted. 77 The presses at Asini (14), Mykinai (51) and Porto Cheli (64) came to light during excavations, while the weight blocks at Elliniko Astrous (21) and Troizina (80) belong to Brun’s type 41, which is characteristic of the Hellenistic period (Brun 2004: 17). Press weights comparable to the find from Lygourio 2 (100) are known from Hellenistic Cyprus (Hadjisavvas 1992: 36–38). 78 Brun 1997; Foxhall 2007: 165–77. For Chios, see Boardman 1958: 304; for Olynthos, see Foxhall 2007: 167–69; for Argilos, see Μπόνιας and Perreault 1997: 544–45; for Cyprus, see Hadjisavvas 1992; and for the Levant, see Waliszewski 2014. 79 The examples at fortified settlements include a press bed at Andritsa: Goulas (9) (Ψυχογυιού 2000: 195), several Hellenistic press installations at Asini (14) (Frödin 1938: 33–38, 67; Jameson 2001: 287– 89; Brun 2004: 105–07), ten rectangular weights from lever presses at Elliniko Astrous (21) (previously identified as ‘bases’ (Goester 1993: 75–76)), a press bed at Ierakas (28), several presses at Mykinai (51) (Wace et al. 1923: 416; Bowkett 1995; Brun 2004: 103–05), at least 11 press installations at Porto Cheli (64) (see for example Ault 1999: 559– 64; Jameson 2001: 282–87; Ault 2005: 79, 2007: 263), a possible weight block at Lygourio 2 (100) (Κριτζάς 1972b: 217) and a Late Classical or Hellenistic weight block at the possible fortification of Petrothalassa: Kypraiou (139) (Jameson et al. 1994: 484; Kardulias and Runnels 1995: 130–31). Bowkett 1995 interpreted the presses at Mykinai (51) as dye works, but according to Brun 2004: 104 they were almost certainly agricultural installations. Outside fortified settlements, a press bed was recorded at Lygourio 1 (49) (Lord 1939: 82; Πιτερός 2008: 296), while weight blocks were found near the tower of Kampia 75

Looking beyond direct connections between fortifications and agriculture, studying fortifications within their surrounding landscape occasionally also provides clues as to their place in the wider settlement pattern. A good example is again the tower at Prosymna: Pyrgouthi (69), which was originally located within or in close proximity to a Late Classical and Hellenistic village, perhaps the kome of Prosymna.74 This site acts as a reminder that even towers that appear ‘isolated’ today may form part of larger settlements, which without detailed surface surveys remain invisible.

have been avoided for olive cultivation in antiquity (chapter 2). Several towers above 500 mamsl in the western Argolid (Kephalovryso (40), Lileika Xeropigadou (47), Nera (53), Prosilia (66), Tourniki: Gaidourovouni (79) and Xylopyrgo (88)) were already tentatively identified as possible strategic-military structures in the previous chapter. 70 Jameson et al. 1994: 275–76; Penttinen 2005: 114. In general, polycropping of different tree crops was probably more common in Greek antiquity than monocropping (Foxhall 2007: 112–16). 71 Sarpaki 2005: 318, 336. 72 Mylona 2005: 301–03. 73 Penttinen 2005: 46. 74 Penttinen 1996b: 279, 2005: 113–14.

117

A Landscape of Conflict? Rural Fortifications in the Argolid (400–146 BC)

a

b

c

Figures 7.11 a–c Ancient press beds at Andritsa: Goulas (9) (a), Ierakas (28) (b) and Mykinai (51) (c) (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida [Goulas and Mykinai] / Ephorate of Antiquities of Lakonia [Ierakas]; photos by the author).

b

c

a

d

Figures 7.12 a–d Ancient press weights at Asini (14) (a), Elliniko Astrous (21) (b), Mykinai (51) (c), and Troizina (80) (d) (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida [Asini and Mykinai] / Ephorate of Antiquities of Arkadia [Elliniko Astrous] / Ephorate of Antiquities of Piraeus and the Islands [Troizina]; photos by the author).

118

Chapter 7: Rural Fortifications as Local Defences

mills are predominantly located near towers.80 Only at Petrothalassa: Kypraiou (139) olive mills and presses were found together,81 suggesting that the individual stages of oil production may have taken place in different locations. The role of olive cultivation within the Argolid’s economy is particularly well studied at Porto Cheli (64),82 where olive oil production was widespread.83 Based on comparisons to better-studied (and more effective) Roman presses and to agricultural practices in the 18th and 19th century, L. Foxhall tentatively suggested that one press would at the most be sufficient to process the olives harvested from 400–600 trees.84 Assuming that there was one major olive harvest every two years and that every tree would produce an average of c. 2.16kg of oil per harvest,85 the output of each press would at the most amount to c. 864–1296kg per harvest or c. 432–648kg per year. L. Foxhall also argued that a single wealthy household in the Classical period consumed between 200 and 300kg of oil per year, which would be equivalent to the olive harvest from c. 185–306 trees.86 If these figures are correct, each press could produce a yearly surplus of up to 132–448kg.

a

b

These figures are admittedly speculative, but give cause to reconsider the role of olive cultivation in the economy of Porto Cheli (64), as well as Asini (14), Elliniko Astrous (21) and Mykinai (51). Although for (32) (Πιτερός 1995c: 113) and at the possible tower of Katsigiari (115) (Jameson et al. 1994: 501; Kardulias and Runnels 1995: 130). A further press bed was recorded at Didyma (Jameson and Jameson 1950: 100), while a weight block was reused in the south wall of the church of Agia Triada near Pikrodaphni (between modern Ermioni and Kranidi). 80 In all cases, only the lower stone of the mill is preserved. Olive mills were found at the towers of Amygdalitsa (7) (Πιτερός 1997b: 144), Iliopoulaiika (30) (Wright 1990: 610; Πίκουλας 1995: 237, 365; Gauvin 1997: 32; Cloke 2016: 911–12), Phichtia: Limiko (58) (Πίκουλας 1995: 177, 365; Jansen 2002: 79), Phichtia: Stathmos (60) (Lord 1939: 82, 1941: 95; Πίκουλας 1995: 183, 365) and Malantrenion (101) (Pritchett 1980: 19; Πίκουλας 1995: 193, 365), as well as at the drystone circuit of Vourlia 1 (86) (Suto 1996: 11). At Pyrgouli (71), a large round conglomerate block was interpreted by Πιτερός 2005e: 268 as a Byzantine press bed, but the slight rise in the centre of the block suggests that it is in fact a very worn olive mill. Two further possible examples come from Myloi: Kalamaki (137) (Lord 1941: 108) and Elliniko: Kephalari (23) (Lord 1939: 82; Lohmann 2015: 259). Only at Petrothalassa: Kypraiou (139) an olive mill was recorded at a possible fortified settlement (Jameson et al. 1994: 484; Kardulias and Runnels 1995: 130–31). 81 For the now destroyed site of Petrothalassa: Kypraiou (139), see Jameson et al. 1994: 484; Kardulias and Runnels 1995: 130–31. 82 Jameson et al. 1994: 384–94 suggested that the prosperity of 4thcentury BC Halieis was strongly linked to supplying olive oil to the export market, while Ault 1999: 566 argued that the economic role of olive oil production should not be overestimated. For a critique of the strong link between olive oil production and export proposed in the Southern Argolid Survey, see also Acheson 1997. 83 Jameson 2001: 289, 291. The same may apply to Elliniko Astrous (21), where a large number of press weights were discovered dispersed throughout the settlement. 84 Foxhall 2007: 215. 85 Foxhall 2007: 216. This figure was calculated using an average fruit to oil ratio of 4:1 (Foxhall 2007: 215). 86 Foxhall 2007: 85–95, 216.

c

d Figures 7.13 a–d Ancient olive mills at Amygdalitsa (7) (a), Iliopoulaiika (30) (b), Pyrgouli (71) (c) and Malantrenion (101) (d) (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida [Amygdalitsa, Pyrgouli and Malantrenio] / Ephorate of Antiquities of Korinthia [Iliopoulaiika]; photos by the author).

119

A Landscape of Conflict? Rural Fortifications in the Argolid (400–146 BC)

Figure 7.14 The distribution of ancient agricultural installations at fortifications in the Argolid.

120

Chapter 7: Rural Fortifications as Local Defences

individual households olive oil could be a considerable source of income,87 the overall quantity of surplus per press is comparatively small. Considering that there must have been groups within the population that were not directly involved in agricultural production (e.g. craftsmen or mercenaries), this suggests that production was mainly directed towards local consumption rather than large scale export. This economic pattern distinguishes the Argolid from other regions with a strong link between rural fortifications and agricultural production. Whereas on Thasos or Leukas (to pick only two examples), wine was produced on a large scale for the export market,88 the olive cultivation in the Argolid seems to have been aimed primarily at local consumption. Since this difference may have social implications, it is unsurprising that the Argolid may not show the strong emphasis on unfree labour postulated for Thasos and Leukas.89

finds, objects relating to metalworking and pottery production are concentrated in fortified settlements, while beehives, loomweights and terracotta spools are found both at fortified settlements and towers (Figure 7.15).94 On the other hand, there are also finds that are not specifically associated with any agricultural or industrial activities, but can nevertheless offer clues to a site’s function. For example, the distribution of ‘functional categories’ in pottery assemblages can be used to compare and contrast individual sites and may help to distinguish ‘agricultural’ from ‘military’ fortifications or ‘residential’ from ‘non-residential’ sites.95 Unfortunately, most pottery assemblages from fortified sites in the Argolid are insufficient to allow a meaningful comparison between individual fortifications. Three rare exceptions are the drystone circuit at Vigliza (85), the tower at Agios Sostis (5) (probably a military-strategic site)96 and the tower at Prosymna: Pyrgouthi (69).97 As already discussed, the pottery assemblage from Vigliza (85) shows a pattern consistent with a temporary occupation, perhaps in the context of pastoralism. The assemblages at Agios Sostis (5) and Prosymna: Pyrgouthi (69) are very different. Both sites show a high proportion of drinking, dining and cooking vessels (suggesting frequent or permanent residence), but while the tower at Agios Sostis (5) was used continuously or at least sporadically from the Late Classical into the Hellenistic period, the pottery at Prosymna: Pyrgouthi (69) belongs to two distinct phases in the Early Hellenistic and the Late Hellenistic or Early Roman period. While the first phase coincides with the construction of the tower, the second phase represents a period of later reuse.98

7.2.4 Portable finds: everyday activities at rural fortifications ‘Portable’ surface finds and materials recovered during excavation provide a final criterion for distinguishing ‘non-military’ and military-strategic sites. ‘Portable’ finds from the Argolid’s rural fortifications can be divided into two groups. On the one hand, there are finds that are connected to specific agricultural or industrial activities (e.g. beehives,90 loomweights or terracotta spools,91 metalworking debris92 and moulds or kiln fittings93). Looking at the distribution of such 87 4th-century BC documents attest much fluctuation in the price of olive oil, varying between 12 drachmai and 55 drachmai per 39.4 litres (Pritchett and Pippin 1956: 184; Ault 2007: 264). Using these figures, the estimated surplus produced with a single press could range in value between 40 and 625 drachmai. 88 Morris 2001: 341–42; Morris and Papadopoulos 2005: 179; Tzochev 2016: 230–51. 89 On the link between vineyards and slave labour, see Morris and Papadopoulos 2005: 175–80. 90 Fragments of beehives were found at Prosymna: Pyrgouthi (69) (Penttinen 2005: 46) and Tsiorovos Dolianon (82) (Pritchett 1982: 76). 91 Loomweights or terracotta spools relating to textile production were found at the following fortified sites: Asini (14) (Poulsen 1994: 20), Elliniko Astrous (21) (Φάκλαρης 1990: 87; Goester 1993: 100), Kleonai (41) (Bonnier 2014: 143), Lygourio 1 (49) (Scranton 1938: 525), Lyrkeia (50) (Gallimore et al. 2017: 429), Mykinai (51) (Bowkett 1995: 36–40), Palaia Epidavros 1 (54) (Προσκυνητοπούλου 2011: 168. 227–28), Paralio Astros (56) (Brommer 1975: 179), Phourkaria (61) (Brommer 1975: 178), Prosymna: Agios Athanasios (67) (Penttinen 1996b: 251), Prosymna: Pyrgouthi (69) (Penttinen 1996b: 262, 2005: 53. 71), Tsiorovos Dolianon (82) (Pritchett 1982: 76) and Tyros (83) (Φάκλαρης 1990: 144). In addition, Leake 1830: 337 reported ‘ancient weights for spinning’ to the east of Achladokampos (1). 92 One fragment of iron ore and several pieces of metal slag were recorded at Elliniko Astrous (21) (Goester 1993: 100) and one piece of iron ore at Tsiorovos Dolianon (82) (Goester 1993: 98). A piece of metal slag was observed in September 2017 near the tower of Spathokommeno (73), but its date and relation to the tower are unclear. 93 Moulds or kiln fittings were recorded at Asini (14) (Frödin 1938: 336) and Mykinai (51) (4th–3rd- century BC moulds from the site are now on display in the site’s museum). In addition, a kiln was excavated c. 30m from Marmaralono Agiou Petrou (102) (Rhomaios 1908: 178–84).

Agios Sostis (5) and Prosymna: Pyrgouthi (69) also differ in the proportion of different functional categories within the pottery assemblages (Figure 7.16). At both Early and Late Hellenistic Prosymna: Pyrgouthi (69), drinking and dining vessels are more prominent than at Agios Sostis (5), while for the Late Hellenistic period Prosymna: Pyrgouthi (69) also preserves a higher proportion of cooking vessels. The Early Hellenistic pottery from Prosymna: Pyrgouthi (69) is difficult to 94 Loomweights from Lygourio 1 (49) and Prosymna: Pyrgouthi (69) suggest that at least at some point during their occupational history, the towers served as more than merely military-strategic sites. 95 For the study of ‘functional categories’ in pottery assemblages, see section 5.2. 96 For the interpretation of Agios Sostis (5) as a military-strategic site, see chapter 6. 97 The figures for Agios Sostis (5) are based on Cloke 2016: 901, excluding pottery that could not be assigned to a specific function; the figures for the Prosymna: Pyrgouthi (69) on Penttinen 2005: 23– 89, excluding earlier and later pottery, as well as pottery of uncertain date. 98 Penttinen 2005: 92–95; Cloke 2016: 164, 901.

121

A Landscape of Conflict? Rural Fortifications in the Argolid (400–146 BC)

Figure 7.15 The distribution of portable finds (connected to specific agricultural or industrial activities) at fortifications in the Argolid.

122

Chapter 7: Rural Fortifications as Local Defences

Agios Sostis (5)

Alepotrypes (NVAP site 210)

Prosymna: Pyrgouthi (69): Early Hellenistic

Tourkovrysi (NVAP site 512)

Prosymna: Pyrgouthi (69): Late Hellenistic

Figure 7.17 The pottery assemblages from two unfortified rural sites from the NVAP by functional category (after Cloke 2016: 682–87, 799–818).

Prosymna: Pyrgouthi (69) may have fulfilled the same (possibly agricultural) functions as unfortified sites in the region.100 7.3 ‘Agricultural’ fortifications: economy and agency Combining the four different criteria discussed in this chapter, the following picture emerges. The majority of fortified settlements in the Argolid are not only located with access to possible agricultural areas and (in many cases) upland zones suitable for pastoralism, but also show evidence for agricultural and industrial activities in the form of portable finds and agricultural installations.101 Given that remains of agricultural and industrial activities were used in chapter 3 to distinguish between forts and fortified settlements, this pattern is hardly surprising, but it is nevertheless interesting that evidence for agricultural activity is found at nucleated sites of all sizes and at all levels of

Figure 7.16 The pottery assemblages from Agios Sostis (5) and Prosymna: Pyrgouthi (69) by functional category (after Cloke 2016: 901 and Penttinen 2005: 23–89).

interpret,99 but the Late Hellenistic assemblage finds its closest regional parallels at two unfortified rural sites investigated in the NVAP (Figure 7.17). This indicates that during its Late Hellenistic phase, the tower at

100 For these pottery assemblages and their interpretation, see Cloke 2016: 682–87, 799–818. 101 Some fortified settlements had access to agricultural areas, but have produced no finds related to agricultural or industrial activities. In many cases, this could be a consequence of a lack of research.

Penttinen 2005: 93 noted that with regard to the question of military versus non-military use, the early finds from the tower are inconclusive. Perhaps the differences to the assemblage from Agios Sostis (5) speak for a non-military interpretation of Early Hellenistic Prosymna: Pyrgouthi (69).

99

123

A Landscape of Conflict? Rural Fortifications in the Argolid (400–146 BC) the settlement hierarchy — from the small fortified settlement of Prosymna: Agios Athanasios (67),102 over komai and dependent settlements to urban centres.

Kyzikos places the cost for a single tower in the city’s fortification at 9200 drachmai,105 while around 200 BC the construction of c. 20–25m of curtain wall at Teos may have required a financial outlay of up to 5010 drachmai.106 In the late 4th century BC, the city of Kolophon collected loans totalling 333,000–454,000 drachmai for the construction of its walls,107 while in the late 4th or early 3rd century BC Argos received a loan of 100 talents (600,000 drachmai) from Rhodes for the improvement of its fortifications and cavalry.108 Although it is unclear how much of the loan was spent on Argos’ fortifications, these inscriptions demonstrate that in the Late Classical and Hellenistic period the cost of building or strengthening major fortifications was considerable and clearly exceeded the financial capacity of the average wealthy individual. Forts and fortification walls around major settlements were therefore most likely financed by larger political bodies.

Moving to minor fortifications, the pottery assemblage from Prosymna: Pyrgouthi (69) demonstrates that towers could be frequently or permanently occupied and fulfil functions that are not strictly militarystrategic. In fact, many towers are not only located in areas suitable for ancient agriculture, but also show specific evidence for non-military activities (such as agricultural processing or textile production).103 In addition, their architecture suggests that everyday accessibility often took precedence over increased security. In combination, the four criteria discussed (architecture, location, agricultural installations and portable finds) thus suggest that many towers in the Argolid served as non-military sites at some point during their Late Classical or Hellenistic occupation history. This offers a plausible interpretation for many fortified structures that were so far unexplained, especially in the areas that are not within easy reach of possible refuge sites.

For drystone circuits and individual towers, the picture is more nuanced. A skilled mason could probably construct 1m3 of drystone masonry per day, meaning that an approximately 3.6–4.5m wide and 2m high circuit (measuring c. 43 by 68m) could be completed by 80 men in 24 days or by 10 men in 192 days.109 Assuming that stones were readily available and that each labourer was paid 2 drachmai per day,110 a drystone circuit would cost around 3840 drachmai, possibly less if labour was freely available.

The four criteria therefore underline the connection between fortification and agriculture, and strongly suggest that many sites not only served as temporary refuges, but also as permanent places of agricultural processing. This agricultural connection reinforces the local importance of rural fortifications at all levels of the settlement hierarchy. But in acknowledging this local role, it becomes necessary to consider one crucial question that has so far remained unanswered: who was responsible for constructing the ancient fortifications in the Argolid, especially those without a strong military-strategic importance?

The cost of ‘isolated’ towers is more difficult to reconstruct. Based on a late 4th-century BC building inscription from Eleusis,111 L. Haselberger estimated that the construction of the tower at Cheimarrou on Naxos would have required c. 8000 drachmai,112 a sum comparable to the cost of the above-mentioned tower at Kyzikos. However, while the structure at Cheimarrou is constructed entirely in isodomic masonry, the towers in the Argolid usually consist of a mudbrick superstructure on a stone base. Assuming that the ratio between a tower’s width and height was approximated 1:2,113 and that the stone bases did not rise significantly above the level preserved today, a tower like Pyrgouli (71) would require c. 480m3 of mudbrick,114 or (with an average mudbrick size of 0.45 by 0.45 by 0.1m) c.

A first factor to consider is the construction cost of fortified sites. Although there are no reliable sources for the cost of fortifications in the Argolid and building expenses must have varied considerably depending on local circumstances (e.g. the distance to a suitable quarry),104 it is clear that the construction of major fortifications such as fortified settlements and forts required significant financial resources. For example, a 4th- or 3rd-century BC building inscription from

Maier 1959: 209–11, 1961: 66. Maier 1959: 217–19, 221–23, 1961: 66–67. 107 Maier 1959: 224–31, 1961: 67. 108 SEG xix 317 = SEG xxv 361 = SEG xxx 358 = SEG xli 278 (c. 300 BC). 109 Fachard 2016b: 221. 110 For 2 drachmai per day as the average salary of a 4th-century BC labourer, see Loomis 1998: 104–20. It must, however, be pointed out that this figure is primarily based on Attic evidence. 111 IG II2 1672 (329/28 BC). 112 Haselberger 1984: 47–48. 113 Young 1956: 135. 114 The tower at Pyrgouli (71) measures c. 8.4 by 9.4m, with a 2.4m high stone socle of c. 1m wide polygonal masonry walls. The following figures are calculated with the (admittedly hypothetical) assumption that the stone socle survives to its original height, and that the overall height of the tower was around 18m. 105 106

Penttinen 1996b: 251, 277. This includes the towers of Amygdalitsa (7), Elliniko: Kephalari (23), Iliopoulaiika (30), Kampia (32), Lygourio 1 (49), Phichtia: Limiko (58), Phichtia: Stathmos (60), Pyrgouli (71), Malantrenion (101) and Myloi: Kalamaki (137), as well as the possible tower at Katsigiari (115). 104 Only two surviving building inscriptions refer to the construction of fortifications in the Argolid (see chapter 4) and neither records the precise cost of a specific structure. Building inscriptions from the sanctuary of Asklepios at Epidauros furthermore show that construction costs could fluctuate considerably over time, even within the same construction project (Burford 1965: 27–28). For two recent attempts to estimate the cost of fortified structures from the surviving remains, see Bessac and Müth 2020: 28–33; Fachard 2020: 515–24. 102 103

124

Chapter 7: Rural Fortifications as Local Defences

24000 individual bricks.115 Prices for ancient mudbricks varied, but the above-mentioned inscription from Eleusis records a cost of c. 38 drachmai per 1000 bricks (including transport), plus an additional 12–20 drachmai for construction.116 If the cost of building material and labour was comparable in the Argolid, this would place the cost of the mudbrick construction at Pyrgouli (71) around 1300 drachmai.117 Together with the price of the stone base, perhaps around 1100–1300 drachmai,118 this would bring the total cost to at least c. 2400–2600 drachmai. This figure is very speculative (and crucially does not include the cost for rooftiles or the wooden parts of the construction), but nevertheless suggests that the towers in the Argolid were considerably cheaper than their stone counterparts on the islands.

fortifications at dependent settlements may have been constructed before their integration into the Argive territory. This seems to have been the case at Kleonai (41)121 and possibly at Plaka Leonidiou (63).122 But even major rural fortifications that were constructed ‘under Argive rule’ may not necessarily have been centrally planned or financed. Especially from the 4th century BC onwards, komai feature prominently in Argive inscriptions, especially through the practice of including a citizen’s kome or pentekostys as part of his official nomenclature.123 Comparatively little is known about the practical role of the komai within the city-state of Argos, but at least in the 3rd century BC the community of Asine was referred to as a koinon (κοινὸν τῶν Ἀσιναίων) and by the 2nd century BC Mycenae had its own assembly (the aliaia teleiai) and magistrates (damiorgoi), replicating the larger political institutions within Argos itself.124 Argive komai (or at least some of them) thus begin to appear as semi-independent political communities under Argive control, so that the initiative for fortifying rural settlements may not only have come directly from the central assembly in Argos, but also from individual local communities themselves.125

Very little is known about the level of personal wealth in the Late Classical and Hellenistic Argolid, but to put the estimated costs of towers and drystone circuits into perspective, they can be compared to contemporary property prices on Tenos, in Attica, or at Olynthos. In the 4th and 3rd century BC, an urban house on Tenos could be purchased for around 1100 drachmai), in Attica for 2000–5000 drachmai and at Olynthos for 230–5300 drachmai.119 This suggests that although drystone circuits are very much at the upper limit of what would be financially feasible for an individual or an individual family, the estimated cost of stone and mudbrick towers falls remarkable close to mid-range urban property prices in Attica and Olynthus. ‘Isolated’ towers and perhaps even drystone circuits may thus have been constructed by individuals rather than by larger political bodies.

So far, the link between the Argive komai and local construction works is tenuous, but a stamped tile from Elliniko Astrous (21) (ancient Eua) may provide an important clue. This tile, discovered in 1960 near the ancient city,126 bears a rectangular stamp with the inscription ΕΥΑΤΑΝ ΔΑΜΟΣΙΟΙ. According to Κ. Καλίτσης, it belongs to the Hellenistic period.127 If this date is correct, the inscription is very significant.

This brings the chapter to its final question: who were the political bodies and individuals behind the construction of locally-focused fortifications in the Argolid? For major fortifications such as fortified settlements and forts, the most obvious candidates are the five Late Classical and Hellenistic city-states in the region. Judging by the building inscriptions collected by F. Maier, most Greek fortifications were public monuments,120 while the surviving inscriptions from Argos (12) and Troizina (80) attest the demos’ crucial role in the respective building projects.

For the date of the walls at Kleonai (41), see chapter 4. For the date of the walls at Plaka Leonidiou (63), see chapter 4; for the identification of the site as ancient Prasiai and the incorporation of the Kynouria into the Argive territory, see section 5.1. 123 For naming practices in Argive inscriptions, see for example Piérart 1985: 348–54, 1997: 338–39, 2004: 604; Kritzas 2006: 425. 124 IG IV2. i 621 (229–25 BC) and IG IV 497 (197–96 BC). Piérart 1997: 339–40. 125 There may even be parallels for the role of local communities in Troizen, where the Skyllaieis contributed their common funds (τὰ κοινεῖα τὰ ὑπάρχοντα) for the construction of the diateichisma (IG IV 757 (146 BC)). Frost 1980: 187–88 locates this community near Phourkaria (61), which is the only known fortified rural settlement that can be attributed securely to the Hellenistic territory of Troizen. The hypothesis that major rural fortifications may have been financed by particular groups within a larger political community could find support in a recent study of the Attic fort of Eleutherai, which suggests that even the construction of stone-built fortification walls may have been less costly than previously assumed (Fachard 2020: 515–27). 126 The exact findspot is not specified in the original publication (Καλίτσης 1960), but Φάκλαρης 1990: 190–91 suggested that the tile might belong to the extra-urban sanctuary of Apollo. A second tile with the ethnic ΕΥΑΤΑΝ, reportedly from Elliniko Astrous (21), is now in the Archaeological Museum of Astros (Grigorakakis 2009: 185). For comparison, see the tiles from Argos’ Aspis stamped with ΔΑΜΟ(Σ)ΙΟΙ ΑΡΓΕΙΩΝ (Philippa-Touchais et al. 2016: 810) or from the Agamemnoneion at Mykinai (51) inscribed with ΔΑΜΟΣΙΟΣ ΑΡΓΗΩΝ (Cook 1953: 66). 127 Καλίτσης 1960: 6. 121 122

However, at least for major fortifications in the territory of Argos there are two additional possibilities. Firstly, On the average size of Greek mudbricks, see Maier 1961: 71–72. Pritchett and Pippin 1956: 286–87; Maier 1961: 66–67. 117 This figure is calculated with an average cost of c. 16 drachmai for setting 1000 bricks. 118 This figure is based on recent cost estimates for the masonry walls at Eleutherai (Fachard 2020: 517–20. It includes the cost of quarrying (c. 2.5 person-days of labour or c. 5 drachmai per m3) and carving and placement (c. 4.76–6.35 person-days of labour or c. 9.52–12.7 drachmai per m3) for ca. 75.4m3 of masonry, but (since the location of the quarry used for Pyrgouli (71) is unclear) excludes transport costs. 119 Cahill 2000: 508–09; Nevett 2000: 335–36. 120 Maier 1961: 40. 115 116

125

A Landscape of Conflict? Rural Fortifications in the Argolid (400–146 BC) Thanks to the bronze archive from Argos, it is clear that Eua was an Argive kome from at least the early 4th century BC onwards,128 and the settlement probably remained under Argos’ control until the end of the Hellenistic period.129 This means that the tile stamp from Elliniko Astrous (21) testifies to public building works undertaken by a kome while under Argive control. Although the tile probably does not come from the walls of Elliniko Astrous (21), the inscription thus strengthens the case for an involvement of Argive komai in the construction of major rural fortifications.

oil was not the only possible source of income,133 but nevertheless this comparison suggests that we should associated rural towers with the wealthier citizens of Argos rather than the ‘rural poor’. At the same time, it is important to remember that the individuals that financed rural towers were not necessarily the residents, the cultivators of the surrounding land or even the landowners. Leases and sale agreements from other regions suggest that rural properties in Late Classical and Hellenistic Greece frequently changed hands, were leased to tenants or were owned by groups of individuals.134 In addition, a Late Hellenistic inscription from Argos attests the existence of ‘public and sacred land’ (ἱερὰ καὶ δαμοσία χώρα), that was leased out to private individuals for cultivation.135 Thinking of the rural towers as ‘feudal seats’ of wealthy Argive families is therefore likely to be misleading.

In contrast, ‘agricultural’ towers in the Argolid and possibly even some of the drystone circuits (especially Vigliza (85) with its possible links to a pastoralist economy) may belong to a rather different scenario. As the calculations in this chapter have shown, these sites may well have been financed and constructed by wealthy individuals rather than by larger political bodies.

Instead, the ‘agricultural’ towers of the Argolid are perhaps best explained as privately financed structures built by wealthy landowners in lieu of ordinary unfortified farmsteads. They were not necessarily orientated towards the cultivation of a particular crop and were involved in different types of agriculture, along with pastoralism in upland areas. In this context, a tower would not only provide security for its residents (whether members of the owner’s household or temporary tenants), but would also enhance the value of the surrounding land by providing an alternative to the disruptive practice of taking refuge in nearby major fortifications or in the mountainous hinterland.

The economic and social context of towers in the Late Classical and Hellenistic Argolid is very difficult to reconstruct, particularly as social and economic structures may have varied considerably between different environments, city-states and time-periods. However, at least for the territory of Hellenistic Argos (where most ‘non-military’ towers are located) it is possible to assume a high degree of social variability, together with an uneven distribution of private wealth.130 Given the agricultural focus of Argos’ economy, cultivation and pastoralism probably provided one of the main sources of individual income.131 Private wealth was therefore strongly linked to land ownership or the exploitation of agricultural and pastoralist resources. Comparing estimated construction costs not only to property prices, but also to the income that could be generated from a single olive press, can help to contextualise ancient towers within this socio-economic environment. As argued above, the average output of a Late Classical or Hellenistic press would at most amount to 432–648kg of oil per year, of which c. 200 and 300kg were required for household consumption, leaving a yearly surplus of up to 132–448kg. Using a figure of 12–55 drachmai per metretes (39.4 litres),132 this olive oil surplus could generate a yearly income between 40 and 625 drachmai, compared to the 2650 drachmai necessary to construct a rural tower. Of course, olive

Examining the Argolid’s rural fortifications within their topographical context thus confirms the strong connection between fortifications, agriculture and pastoralism, not only as places of refuge, but also as sites of agricultural production and processing. This offers a plausible explanation for many sites without a clear military-strategic function. At the same time, this chapter emphasises the local importance of both major and minor fortified sites and thus paints a new picture of the Argolid, where city-states are less centralised than was previously assumed and where both individuals and local communities have a greater degree of agency in the use and construction of Late Classical and Hellenistic fortifications.

Kritzas 2006: 429. See also section 5.1. Shipley 2000: 377. Eua was previously identified as a member of the Achaian League, but this argument was based on Achaian federal coins that are no longer attributed to Eua (Warren 2007: 97–98). 130 This assumption is based on research such as N. Dimakis’ study of mortuary practices in Classical and Hellenistic Argos (Dimakis 2011: 119, 2016: 22–25, 75–77). 131 For the ‘agricultural economy’ of ancient Argos, see Piérart 1997: 332. 132 Pritchett and Pippin 1956: 184; Ault 2007: 264.

For example, a mid 4th-century BC altar dedicated at Epidauros as a ‘tithe of goats’ attests the role of pastoralism as a possible source of income (SEG xxvi 451 (c. 350 BC), see for example Μίτσος 1976; Jameson et al. 1994, 60). 134 See for example Osborne 1985a; Morris and Papadopoulos 2005: 165–66. For towers with multiple owners, see for example IG XII. v 872 (4th century BC). 135 Kritzas 1992: 231–40; Piérart 1997: 332–33; Kritzas 2006: 410–11; Rousset 2013: 125.

128 129

133

126

Chapter 8

Conclusions

Approaching the Argolid from the north, three fortifications dominate the landscape: Mykinai on the northern edge of the plain, Nafplio on the coast and the Larissa towering over the modern city of Argos. But prominent as they may be, these major sites are not isolated structures in an otherwise unknown archaeological landscape. Instead, they are surrounded by numerous smaller and often less visible fortifications — fortified second-order settlements, forts, towers and simple drystone circuits. It is these minor sites that have become the main focus of this first systematic study of fortifications in the Argolid.

primarily as military-strategic defensive networks,1 a trend that continues to influence current scholarship. In contrast, the present monograph — heavily indebted to S. Fachard’s research in the territory of Eretria and on the Mazi plain — belongs to a small, but growing number of studies suggesting that the model of rural fortifications as ‘territorial defences’ may often be oversimplified.2 It thus calls for a re-examination of sites or regions that have so far been viewed exclusively within a military-strategic framework, as well as of sites that have previously been identified as fortified farmsteads solely on the basis of architectural features, agricultural installations or find assemblages.

Analysing the sites required a substantial amount of preliminary ‘groundwork’, trawling through publications from 19th-century travellers’ accounts to the latest issues of the Αρχαιολογικόν Δελτίον, locating the fortifications with the help of satellite images and aerial photographs, visiting (or at least attempting to visit) all 146 sites, investigating the surrounding ancient landscape (chapter 2), determining a coherent typology and terminology (chapter 3) and creating the first systematic framework for dating the individual structures (chapter 4).

Secondly, placing the Argolid’s rural fortifications in the context of their surrounding landscape helps to evaluate their place within Classical and Hellenistic warfare on the northeastern Peloponnese. The scale and location of the individual sites demonstrates that most of the region’s rural fortifications were not primarily designed to play a role in the large-scale military campaigns known from literary sources, but belong to a context of small-scale conflict and raiding. The sites thus offer a window into a type of warfare that significantly shaped life in the Greek countryside — especially in vulnerable border regions — but remains largely elusive in written sources.

But at the heart of this monograph lies the analysis of the collected sites, which sheds new light on the role of the region’s rural fortifications by placing them in the context of their natural, political and socio-economic environment (chapters 5–7). Even though there are some instances of Late Classical and Hellenistic militarystrategic rural fortifications (such as the intervisible sites along Epidauros’ southern border, occasional towers at defiles or passes, and the fortifications near the harbours of the Saronic Gulf), this study has shown that fortifications built for local ‘civilian’ communities predominate in most parts of the Argolid.

In emphasizing the importance of ‘small scale’ warfare, the results of the present study stand in stark contrast to the dominant narrative of Classical warfare, which focuses overwhelmingly on pitched hoplite battles. However, this narrative has been increasing called into question, especially for the Late Classical and Hellenistic periods. For example, alternative types of troops (such as peltasts, archers or slingers)3 or military

This conclusion not only allows a better understanding of individual sites, but also has important wider implications within ancient military studies and beyond. Firstly, the results of the current study contribute to the long-standing and ongoing debate about the functions of rural fortifications in Greek antiquity. As noted in chapters 1 and 6, fortified sites throughout the Greek world have long been interpreted

1 See, for example, Maele 1982: 199–205; Fossey 1986: 135–41; Osborne 1987: 155; Fossey 1992: 128–30; Gauvin 1992: 145; Maele 1992: 106; Skorda 1992; Πίκουλας 1995; McInerney 1999: 343–46; Topouzi et al. 2002: 559–66. 2 See, for example, Fachard 2012 (Eretria), Seifried and Parkinson 2014 (Karystos), Fachard, Knodell, and Banou 2015; Fachard 2016b: 226–27, 2017a (Attica) and Nakas 2016 (Molossia). For a summary of recent projects on Greek rural fortifications, see Fachard 2016a: 82–83. 3 See, for example, Wees 2004: 61–76; Hunt 2007: 118–24; Sekunda and De Souza 2007: 326–48. For peltasts, see also Niese 2012, for archers, see Davis 2013 and for slingers, see Pritchett 1991b: 1–67; Sheldon 2012: 159–60. On professional specialisation in Hellenistic warfare, see for example Chaniotis 2005: 78–79.

127

A Landscape of Conflict? Rural Fortifications in the Argolid (400–146 BC) tactics4 seem to have played a more important role in Greek warfare than they have previously been given credit for. Studies like the present monograph fit well into this context of challenging the traditional focus of Classical studies on pitched battles and — based primarily on archaeological material and therefore less affected by any biases in ancient written sources — may indeed prove particularly valuable for studying Greek warfare beyond the battlefield.

begin to appear in the archaeological and epigraphic record as ‘semi-independent’ political communities. This demonstrates how rural fortifications can contribute to reconstructing socio-political structures within specific areas or political territories — an approach which has not yet been fully explored, but which has significant potential, especially for regions where literary or epigraphic information on political and social structures is scarce.

Thirdly, the study of fortifications in the Argolid emphasises the multifunctionality of rural fortified structures, both for individual sites and for site types. With the possible exceptions of circular towers and rectangular towers with chamfered corners, no type of rural fortification is clearly tied to a specific function. For example, possible watchtowers such as Akova: Varda (6) and fortified farmsteads like Prosymna: Pyrgouthi (69) are architecturally nearly impossible to distinguish. Even at individual sites, ‘strategic-military’ and ‘non-military’ roles are not mutually exclusive, as illustrated by Kazarma (39), which probably served as a border fort, but could double as a temporary place of refuge in times of conflict.

In the Argolid, this high degree of local agency may in part account for the diverse distribution patterns of rural fortifications. Some trends already became apparent in summarising the distribution of different types of fortified structures in chapter 3. For example, there is a marked east-west divide between the western Argolid (where towers are the most common type of fortified structure), and the Akte and eastern Argive territory (where forts and drystone circuits predominate). Other variations in distribution pattern concern the use of rural fortified sites. Overall, a higher proportion of sites in the eastern Argolid seem to have fulfilled ‘strategic-military’ functions (e.g. the fortifications along the southern border of the Epidauria, the fort of Ano Phanari (10) or the coastal towers near the Troizenian harbour at Pogon) than in the western part of the region, while the Kynouria and Thyreatis show an unusually strong focus on the fortification of coastal settlements.

This multifunctionality not only explains why the function of individual sites is so difficult to establish, but also highlights the limitations of studies that focus primarily or exclusively on the architectural features and developments of Greek fortifications. Such studies are invaluable for dating individual sites and for understanding the technology of Greek siege-craft, but the multifunctionality of fortified structures means that the role of individual sites is difficult to appreciate solely on the basis of their architecture. Instead, ancient rural fortifications call for more multifaceted and methodologically diverse approaches that take into account the varied and highly significant natural, political and socio-economic setting of the individual structures.5

Comparing the results of this study to rural fortifications in other parts of the Greek mainland and the islands, these diverse patterns are no exception. For example, the western Argolid not only differs considerably from the Kynouria, Thyreatis and Akte, but also from Lakonia and Messenia (where fortifications are mostly absent),7 Akarnania (where fortified refuges are deliberately hidden from view)8 or the islands.9 Contrary to common assumptions that underlie many earlier studies,10 Greek rural fortifications thus show very marked regional or even local developments.

In the present study, rural fortifications were not only considered from a strictly military-strategic perspective but also as fortified places of habitation, production and agricultural processing, revealing a remarkable degree of local motivation and agency.6 This phenomenon is particularly striking in the territory of Argos, where komai such as Asine, Mycenae and Eua

This diversity of rural fortifications not only highlights the need for further studies of defensive sites in specific regions or micro-regions, but also demonstrates how a Πίκουλας 1991: 248, 255, 2000: 266; Morris and Papadopoulos 2005: 201. 8 Ley 2009. 9 With a density of up to one tower per 1.3km2 (Πίκουλας 2000: 268– 75), surviving towers on some islands (especially Siphnos, Keos and Thasos) are considerably more common than in the Argolid, although this may partly be due to the islands’ preference for masonry rather than mudbrick constructions. Many towers on the islands may be connected to mining areas (e.g. on Andros (Τελεβάντου 1996: 49– 53) or Siphnos (Ashton 1991; Birkett-Smith 2000)) or agricultural production (e.g. on Siphnos (Δραγάτσης 1915, 1920)). 10 One example is Gauvin 1992, who without much discussion adopted Ober’s Attic model of fortifications as defensive networks for the study of rural fortifications in the territories of Phleious and Kleonai. 7

4 See, for example, Krentz 2000: 167–78; Sheldon 2012: 54–140 for the role of deception and surprise attacks in Classical and Hellenistic warfare. 5 For the importance of studying fortifications from multiple angles, see for example Fachard 2016a: 84–85. 6 In this aspect, the current work stands in contrast to G. Shipley’s study of the early Hellenistic Peloponnese. While the current work emphasises local agency, G. Shipley concludes that ‘few explicit choices affecting the landscape or economy were made either at regional level or at that of locality’ and continues to see the city-state as the key level at which decisions were taken (Shipley 2018: 288).

128

Chapter 8: Conclusions

comparatively small repertoire of architectural types could be adapted to suit a wide variety of topographical, economic and social settings. This adaptability makes fortified structures a particularly good case study for future research on the interaction between natural environment and human activity in ancient Greece.

affect the understanding of rural fortifications in the northwestern part of the Argive territory.13 A further issue that has not been fully investigated is the relationship between rural fortifications and the wider settlement pattern. In the Argolid, exploring this relationship in detail would require a systematic collection of non-fortified structures, both from the region’s various surface surveys and from additional sources such as travellers’ diaries, archaeological reports and short find notices. Given the current state of research in the Argolid, this immense task lies beyond the scope of the present study, so that some aspects of the region’s rural fortifications within the wider social-economic landscape (for example any possible connections to or contrasts with rural sanctuaries) are for the present uncertain.

The present study thus demonstrates the potential of a ‘landscape approach’ for future fortification studies, as well as presenting the first systematic collection and analysis of rural fortifications in the Argolid. Nevertheless, some issues remain, especially concerning questions of chronology, which despite the new framework established in chapter 4 remains the study’s ‘Achilles’ heel’. Firstly, it is often impossible to establish whether specific sites were in use at the same time — an issue that is particularly problematic for the study of rural fortifications as defensive ‘networks’. For example, the sites on the southern border of the Epidauria form a line of intervisible fortifications, but unless it is possible to prove that Iria (31), Xydeika (106), Gyphtokastro (27), Skala 1 (104), Stavropodio (75) and Benteni Kiapha (16) were occupied simultaneously, an interpretation as a ‘network’ remains nothing more than a working hypothesis.

Having said this, the Argolid as defined in the introduction is probably not an ideal case study for the relationship between fortified and non-fortified sites, as various parts of the region — especially the crucial Argive plain — have been heavily influenced by postdepositional processes that have concealed the ancient landscape under several meters of alluvia or have caused so much disturbance that only the most substantial of ancient structures remain. For studies aiming to investigate the relationship between rural fortifications and the wider settlement pattern, it may thus be more promising to focus on individual parts of the region, for example on the rural Thyreatis (where post-depositional processes so far seem less dramatic) or on the strategically important and comparatively well-studied ‘micro-region’ around ancient Mycenae.

Secondly, the region’s fortifications can only rarely be dated accurately enough to connect them to specific historical events. Cases like the fortifications at Argos (12), Palaia Epidavros 1 (54) and Troizina (80) (where the surviving remains can be connected to specific narratives or epigraphic documents) are decidedly the exception. This means that the specific historical context of most fortified sites, as well their exact social and economic backgrounds, largely remains elusive.

Despite these shortcomings, the present monograph has achieved three important aims. Firstly, it has succeeded in ‘putting the rural fortifications of Argolid back on the map’, both literally through locating the sites and metaphorically through the analysis and catalogue, which may spark new discussions and provide future scholars with the primary archaeological data necessary to re-examine the conclusions drawn here. The present study can thus become a ‘resource’ for future fortification research both in the Argolid and beyond.

Thirdly, the lack of recorded, published and datable finds makes it nearly impossible to trace changes in the use of individual sites. The fortifications in the Argolid therefore lack reconstructable ‘site biographies’, even though chronological changes in site function have been suggested for fortified sites elsewhere.11 These three problems highlight the need for future studies that could throw new light on the precise chronology of rural fortified structures in the Argolid, for example systematic excavations and intensive surface surveys at key sites and ‘micro-regions’.12 It also remains to be seen how the as yet largely unpublished Western Argolid Regional Project (WARP) will

Secondly, the monograph has demonstrated the potential of a GIS-based contextual analysis of Classical and Hellenistic archaeological sites. The methods and approaches used to explore the rural fortifications in the Argolid can equally be applied to other regions and contribute to a multiplication of regional fortification corpora and studies. It is to be hoped that such regional projects will eventually provide sufficient results to serve as a basis for larger synthetic studies, exploring

11 See for example Seifried and Parkinson 2014: 304–11 on changes in site function among the towers on the Paximadi Peninsula (southern Euboia). 12 For the importance of systematic excavations and intensive surveys in future fortification studies, see also Fachard 2016a: 83–84.

13

129

For a preliminary report on this project, see Gallimore et al. 2017.

A Landscape of Conflict? Rural Fortifications in the Argolid (400–146 BC) and contrasting not only the role of rural fortifications, but also wider socio-economic and political structures or different ancient concepts of borders and political territories. Such synthetic studies are highly desirable, but are currently limited by the comparatively small number of extant case studies — a situation that would improve considerably if studies like the present one (both comparatively cost-efficient and feasible with a very small team of researchers) became more widespread.

encountered — practical, methodological and chronological — rural fortifications have an unexpected and so far underappreciated potential for illuminating various aspects of the ancient world, including the interaction between natural environment and human activity, and the impact of different forms of conflict on everyday life in ancient communities. Rethinking the Argolid’s rural fortifications as local structures with a social and economic, as well as a political and ‘strategicmilitary’, significance allows us to write Greek history from archaeological sources and present an alternative and complementary account to the predominant narratives of the surviving literary sources.

Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, the present study has demonstrated that despite all the difficulties

130

Bibliography Whenever possible, journals and standard works of reference are cited according to the AJA abbreviation list (viewed 2 March 2021, ). Journals and works of reference that are not included in this list are cited in full. Ålin, P. 1962. Das Ende der mykenischen Fundstätten auf dem griechischen Festland. Lund: C. Bloms. Alt, S. 1920. Noch einmal ΠΥΡΓΟΣ Wirtschaftsgebäude. Hermes 55: 334–36. Amandry, P. 1952. Observations sur les monuments de l’Heraion d’Argos. Hesperia 21: 222–74. Ambraseys, N.N. 1996. Material for the investigation of the seismicity of Central Greece, in S. Stiros and R.E. Jones (eds) Archaeoseismology: 23–36. Athens: British School at Athens. Ambraseys, N.N. 2009. Earthquakes in the Mediterranean and Middle East: A Multidisciplinary Study of Seismicity up to 1900. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ambraseys, N.N. and J.A. Jackson 1990. Seismicity and associated strain of central Greece between 1890 and 1988. Geophysical Journal International 101: 663– 708. Andreades, A.M. 1933. A History of Greek Public Finance. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Andrews, K. 1953. Castles of the Morea. Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Angel, J.L. 1945. Skeletal material from Attica. Hesperia 14: 279–363. Angel, J.L. 1966. Porotic hyperostosis, anemias, malarias, and marshes in the prehistoric Eastern Mediterranean. Science 153: 760–63. Angel, J.L. 1972. Ecology and population in the Eastern Mediterranean. WorldArch 4: 88–105. Arenz, A. 2006. Herakleides Kritikos ‘Über die Städte in Hellas’: eine Periegese Griechenlands am Vorabend des Chremonideischen Krieges. München: Herbert Utz Verlag. Aschoff, V. 1984. Geschichte der Nachrichtentechnik. Berlin: Springer. Ashton, N.G. 1991. Siphnos: Ancient Towers B.C. Athens: Eptalofos ABEE. Atherden, M. and J. Hall 1994. Holocene pollen diagrams from Greece. Historical Biology 9: 117–30. Atherden, M., J. Hall, and J.C. Wright 1993. A pollen diagram from the northeast Peloponnese, Greece: implications for vegetation history and archaeology. Holocene 3: 351–56. Ault, B.A. 1994a. Koprones and oil presses: domestic installations related to agricultural productivity and processing at Classical Halieis, in P. Doukellis

A. General bibliography Acheson, P.E. 1997. Does the ‘economic explanation’ work? Settlement, agriculture, and erosion in the territory of Halieis in the late Classical-early Hellenistic period. JMA 10: 165–90. Adam, J.P. 1982. L’architecture militaire grecque. Paris: Picard. Adam, J.P. 1992. Approche et défense des portes dans le monde hellénisé, in S. van de Maele and J.M. Fossey (eds) Fortificationes Antiquae: Including the Papers of a Conference Held at Ottawa University, October 1988: 5–43. Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben. Adams, C.E.P. 2007. Land Transport in Roman Egypt: A Study of Economics and Administration in a Roman Province. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ager, S.L. 1996. Interstate Arbitrations in the Greek World, 337–90 B.C. Berkeley: University of California Press. Alcock, S.E. 1991. Urban survey and the polis of Phlius. Hesperia 60: 421–63. Alcock, S.E. 2000. Extracting meaning from ploughsoil assemblages: assessments of past, strategies for the future, in R. Francovich, H. Patterson, and G. Barker (eds) Extracting Meaning from Ploughsoil Assemblages: 1–4. Oxford: Oxbow. Alcock, S.E., A.M. Berlin, A.B. Harrison, S. Heath, N. Spencer, and D.L. Stone 2005. Pylos Regional Archaeological Project: part VII: historical Messenia, Geometric through Late Roman. Hesperia 74: 147– 209. Alcock, S.E. and J.F. Cherry 2004. Introduction, in S.E. Alcock and J.F. Cherry (eds) Side-by-Side Survey: Comparative Regional Studies in the Mediterranean World: 1–9. Oxford: Oxbow. Alcock, S.E., J.F. Cherry, and J. Davis 1994. Intensive survey, agricultural practice and the classical landscape of Greece, in I. Morris (ed.) Classical Greece: Ancient Histories and Modern Archaeologies: 137–70. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Aldenhoven, F. 1841. Itineraire descriptif de l’Attique et du Péloponèse. Athens: Adolphe Nast. Alexakis, D., A. Sarris, T. Astaras, and K. Albanakis 2011. Integrated GIS, remote sensing and geomorphologic approaches for the reconstruction of the landscape habitation of Thessaly during the Neolithic period. JAS 38: 89–100. 131

A Landscape of Conflict? Rural Fortifications in the Argolid (400–146 BC) and L.G. Mendoni (eds) Structures rurales et sociétés antiques: 197–206. Paris: Belles Lettres. Ault, B.A. 1994b. Classical Houses and Households: An Architectural and Artifactual Case Study from Halieis, Greece. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Indiana University. Ault, B.A. 1999. ‘Koprones’ and oil presses at Halieis: interactions of town and country and the integration of domestic and regional economies. Hesperia 68: 549–73. Ault, B.A. 2005. The Houses: The Organization and Use of Domestic Space (Excavations at Ancient Halieis 2). Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Ault, B.A. 2007. Oikos and Oikonomia: Greek houses, households and the domestic economy. BSA 15: 259–65. Aupert, P. 1975. Chronique des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques en Grèce en 1974. BCH 99: 589–694. Aupert, P. 1976. Chronique des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques en Grèce en 1975. BCH 100: 591–745. Aupert, P. 1978. Chronique des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques en Grèce en 1977. BCH 102: 641–770. Aupert, P., C. Abadie, J. Des Courtils and A. Hesse 1982. Argos. BCH 106: 637–51. Austin, M.M. 2006. The Hellenistic World from Alexander to the Roman Conquest: A Selection of Ancient Sources in Translation. 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Baatz, D. 1979. Teile hellenistischer Geschütze aus Griechenland. AM 94: 68–75. Baatz, D. 1982. Hellenistische Katapulte aus Ephyra (Epirus). AM 97: 211–33. Baatz, D. 1985. Katapultteile aus dem Schiffswrack von Mahdia (Tunesien). AA 1985: 679–91. Baatz, D. 1990. Schleudergeschosse aus Blei: eine waffentechnische Untersuchung. Saalburg Jahrbuch 45: 59–67. Babelon, E. 1901. Traité des monnaies grecques et romaines. Paris: E. Leroux. Baitinger, H. 2011. Waffenweihungen in griechischen Heiligtümern. Mainz: Verlag des RömischGermanischen Zentralmuseums. Bakhuizen, S.C. 1970. Salganeus and the Fortifications on Its Mountains. Gronigen: Wolters-Noordhoff. Baladié, R. 1980. Le Péloponnèse de Strabon: étude de géographie historique. Paris: Belles Lettres. Balandier, C. 1999. Fortifications et défense des territoires à Chypre de l’époque archaique aux invasions arabes (VIIIe s. av. n. è. - VIIe s. de n. è.). Unpublished PhD dissertation, Université de Provence. Balandier, C. 2002. La défense des territoires à Chypre de l’époque archaïque aux invasions arabes (VIIIe s. av. n.è. - VIIe s. de n.è.). Dialogues d’Histoire Ancienne 28: 175–206. Balandier, C. and M. Guintrand 2019. L’apport de la teichologie à l’étude historique d’une région: le cas

des fortifications de Thyréatide, zone conflictuelle entre Sparte et Argos aux périodes classique et hellénistique. BCH 143: 425–45. Balcer, J.M. 1974. The Mycenaean dam at Tiryns. AJA 78: 141–49. Banning, E.B. 2002. Archaeological Survey. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. Bartoněk, A. 1972. Classification of the West Greek Dialects at the Time about 350 B.C. Prague: Academia. Bell, T., A. Wilson and A. Wickham 2002. Tracking the Samnites: landscape and communications routes in the Sangro Valley, Italy. AJA 106: 169–86. Béquignon, Y. 1930. Chronique des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques dans l’Orient hellénique. BCH 54: 452–528. Bertrand, J.-M. 2004. Frontières externes, frontières internes des cités grecques, in C. Moatti (ed.) La mobilité des personnes en Méditerranée de l’antiquité à l’époque moderne: procédures de contrôle et documents d’identifications: 71–98. Rome: École Française de Rome. Bessac, J.-C. 2016. Techniques et économie de la construction des fortifications en pierre: méthodes et perspectives, in R. Frederiksen, S. Müth, P. Schneider and M. Schnelle (eds) Focus on Fortification: New Research on Fortifications in the Ancient Mediterranean and the Near East: 129–41. Oxford: Oxbow. Bessac, J.-C. and S. Müth 2020. Economic challenges of building a geländemauer in the middle of the 4th century BC: quantifying the city wall of Messene, in C. Recko and M. Heinzelmann (eds) 19th International Congress of Classical Archaeology, Cologne/Bonn 2018: Panel 3.24: Quantifying Ancient Building Economy: 23– 37. Heidelberg: Propylaeum. Bielman, A. 1994. Retour à la liberté: libération et sauvetage des prisonniers en Grèce ancienne. Recueil d’inscriptions honorant des sauveteurs et analyse critique. Lausanne: École Française d’Athènes. Billot, M.-F. 1997. Sanctuaires et cultes d’Athéna à Argos. OpAth 22: 7–52. Bintliff, J.L. 1975. Mediterranean alluviation: new evidence from archaeology. PPS 41: 74–84. Bintliff, J.L. 1976. Sediments and settlement in southern Greece, in D.A. Davidson and M.L. Shackley (eds) Geoarchaeology: Earth Science and the Past: 267–75. London: Duckworth. Bintliff, J.L. 1977. Natural Environment and Human Settlement in Prehistoric Greece Based on Original Fieldwork. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. Bintliff, J.L. 1992. The interaction between archaeological sites and geomorphology. Cuaternario y Geomorfologia 6: 5–20. Bintliff, J.L. 1994. Territorial behaviour and the natural history of the Greek polis, in E. Olshausen and H. Sonnabend (eds) Stuttgarter Kolloquium

132

Bibliography

zur Historischen Geographie des Altertums: 207–49. Amsterdam: Hakkert. Bintliff, J.L. 1999. Pattern and process in the city landscapes of Boeotia from Geometric to Late Roman times, in M. Brunet (ed.) Territoires des cités grecques: actes de la table ronde internationale, 31 Octobre – 3 Novembre 1991, organisée par l’École Française d’Athènes: 15–33. Paris: De Boccard. Bintliff, J.L. 2002. Time, process and catastrophism in the study of Mediterranean alluvial history. A review. WorldArch 33.3: 417–35. Birkett-Smith, J. 2000. On the towers and mines of Siphnos, in Διεθνές Σιφναϊκό Συμπόσιο (ed.) Πρακτικά Α΄ Διεθνούς Σιφναϊκού Συμποσίου: Σίφνος, 25–28 Ιουνίου 1998: 278–94. Athens: Σύνδεσμος Σιφναϊκών Μελετών. Blegen, C.W. 1927. Excavations at Nemea 1926. AJA 31: 421–40. Blegen, C.W. and E.D. Blegen 1937. Prosymna: The Helladic Settlement Preceding the Argive Heraeum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Blümner, H. and H. Hitzig 1899. Pausaniae Graeciae description: I.2. Leipzig: O.R. Reisland. Boardman, J. 1958. Excavations at Pindakas in Chios. BSA 53: 295–309. Bodnar, E.W. 1960. Cyriacus of Ancona and Athens. Bruxelles: Latomus. Bodnar, E.W. and C. Foss (eds) 2003. Ciriaco d’Ancona: Later Travels. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Bölte, F. 1909. Beiträge zur Topographie Lakoniens. AM 34: 376–92. Bon, A. 1969. La Morée franque: recherches historiques, topographiques et archéologiques sur la principauté d’Achaïe (1205–1430). Paris: De Boccard. Bonnier, A. 2014. Coastal Hinterlands: Site Patterns, Microregions and Coast-Inland Interconnections by the Corinthian Gulf, c. 600–300 BC. Oxford: Archaeopress. Bonnier, A. and M. Finné 2020. Climate variability and landscape dynamics in the Late Hellenistic and Roman north-eastern Peloponnese. Antiquity 94: 1482–500. Bottema, S. 1990. Holocene environments of the Southern Argolid: a pollen core from Kiladha Bay, in T.J. Wilkinson and S.T. Duhon (eds) Franchthi Paralia: The Sediments, Stratigraphy, and Offshore Investigations: 117–138. (Excavations at Franchthi Cave 6). Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Boulic, N. and F. Létoublon 2014. Pirates in the library, in M.P. Futre Pinheiro, G. Schmeling and E.P. Cueva (eds) The Ancient Novel and the Frontiers of Genre: 125– 41. Eelde: Barkhuis. Bousquet, B., J.J. Dufaure and P.-Y. Péchoux 1983. Temps historiques et évolution des paysages égéens. Méditerranée 48: 3–25. Bowkett, L.C. 1995. The Hellenistic Dye-Works (Well built Mycenae 36). Oxford: Oxbow.

Boyd, M. 2015. Speleothems from Warm Climates: Holocene Records from the Caribbean and Mediterranean Regions. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Stockholm University. Boyd, T.D. 1982. An orthogonally planned town at Iliokastro in Southern Greece. AJA 86: 256. Boyd, T.D. and M.H. Jameson 1981. Urban and rural land division in ancient Greece. Hesperia 50: 327–42. Boyd, T.D. and W.W. Rudolph 1978. Excavations at Porto Cheli and vicinity: preliminary report IV: the lower town of Halieis, 1970–1977. Hesperia 47: 333–55. Bradeen, D.W. 1966. Inscriptions from Nemea. Hesperia 35: 320–30. Bradford, J. 1957. Ancient Landscapes: Studies in Field Archaeology. London: Bell. Bradford, J. M. A. 1956. Fieldwork on aerial discoveries in Attica and Rhodes: part II: ancient field systems on Mt. Hymettos, near Athens. AntJ 36: 172–80. Brasse, C. and S. Müth 2016. Mauerwerksformen und Mauerwerkstechniken, in S. Müth, P.I. Schneider, M. Schnelle and P.D. De Staebler (eds) Ancient Fortifications: A Compendium of Theory and Practice: 75–100. Oxford: Oxbow. Bresson, A. 2016. The Making of the Ancient Greek Economy: Institutions, Markets, and Growth in the City-States. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Brillowski, W., G. Mourgi and D. Sakowicz 2013. The South Gate in Kastro, Antikythera: analysis of form and function. ArcheologiaWar 64: 7–22. Brommer, F. 1975. Antiken des Athener Instituts: II. AM 90: 163–88. Brüggemann, N. 2015. Kult im archaischen Tiryns: eine Analyse neuer Befunde und Funde (Tiryns. Forschungen und Berichte 18). Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag. Brun, J.-P. 1997. L’introduction des moulins dans les huileries antiques, in D. Meeks and D. Garcia (eds) Techniques et économie antiques et médiévales: le temps de l’innovation: colloque international (C.N.R.S.), Aix-enProvence, 21–23 Mai 1996: 69–78. Paris: Errance. Brun, J.-P. 2004. Archéologie du vin et de l’huile de la préhistoire à l’époque hellénistique. Paris: Errance. Brunet, M. 1999a. Le paysage agraire de Délos dans l’Antiquité. JSav 1999.1: 1–50. Brunet, M. (ed.) 1999b. Territoires des cités grecques: actes de la table ronde internationale, 31 Octobre – 3 Novembre 1991, organisée par l’École Française d’Athènes. Paris: De Boccard. Brunet, M. and P. Poupet 1997. Territoire délien. BCH 121: 776–81. Burdon, D. 1967. Hydrogeology of some karstic areas in Greece, in Hydrologie des roches fissures: Actes du colloque de Dubrovnik, Octobre 1965: 308–16. Paris: Association Internationale d’Hydrologie Scientifique. Burford, A. 1965. The economics of Greek temple building. Cambridge Classical Journal 11: 21–34.

133

A Landscape of Conflict? Rural Fortifications in the Argolid (400–146 BC) Burford, A. 1969. The Greek Temple Builders at Epidauros: A Social and Economic Study of Building in the Asklepian Sanctuary, during the Fourth and Early Third Centuries B.C. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. Bursian, C. 1862. Geographie von Griechenland: I. Leipzig: G. B. Teubner. Bursian, C. 1872. Geographie von Griechenland: II. Leipzig: G. B. Teubner. Butzer, K.W. 1969. Changes in the land (review of ‘The Mediterranean Valleys: Geological Changes in Historical Times’). Science 165: 52–53. Bynum, M.R. 1995. Studies in the Topography of the Southern Corinthia. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of California. Cahill, N. 2000. Olynthus and Greek town planning. CW 93: 497–515. Camp, J.M. 1991. Notes on the towers and borders of Classical Boiotia. AJA 95: 193–202. Camp, J.M. 2000. Walls and the ‘Polis’, in M.H. Hansen, P. Flensted-Jensen, T.H. Nielsen and L. Rubinstein (eds) Polis & Politics: Studies in Ancient Greek History: Presented to Mogens Herman Hansen on his Sixtieth Birthday, August 20, 2000: 41–57. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press. Campbell, D.B. 2003. Greek and Roman Artillery 399 BC–AD 363. Oxford: Osprey. Campbell, D.B. 2011. Ancient catapults: some hypotheses reexamined. Hesperia 80: 677–700. Canevaro, M. 2013. The Documents in the Attic Orators: Laws and Decrees in the Public Speeches of the Demosthenic Corpus. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Caraher, W.R., S. Gallimore, D. Nakassis and S.A. James 2020. Survey and the 7th century in the western Argolid. JGA 5: 377–405. Caraher, W.R., D.K. Pettegrew and S.A. James 2010. Towers and fortifications at Vayia in the southeast Corinthia. Hesperia 79: 385–415. Carusi, C. 2005. Nuova edizione della homologia fra Trezene e Arsinoe (IG IV 752, IG IV2 76+77). Studi Ellenistici 16: 79–139. Caskey, M.E. 1971. News letter from Greece. AJA 75: 295– 317. Catling, H.W. 1973. Archaeology in Greece, 1972–73. AR 19: 3–32. Catling, H.W. 1974. Archaeology in Greece, 1973–74. AR 20: 3–41. Catling, H.W. 1975. Archaeology in Greece 1974–75. AR 21: 3–28. Catling, H.W. 1976. Archaeology in Greece, 1975–76. AR 22: 3–33. Catling, H.W. 1978. Archaeology in Greece, 1976–77. AR 24: 3–69. Cavanagh, W.G., J. Crouwel, H.W. Catling and G. Shipley (eds) 1996. The Laconia Survey: Continuity and Change in a Greek Rural Landscape. London: British School at Athens.

Chandezon, C. 1999. L’économie rurale et la guerre, in F. Prost (ed.) Armées et sociétés de la Grèce classique: aspects sociaux et politiques de la guerre aux Ve et IVe s. av. J.-C.: 195–208. Paris: Errance. Chandezon, C. 2000. Guerre, agriculture et crises d’après les inscriptions hellénistiques, in J. Andreau (ed.) Economie antique: la guerre dans les économies antiques: 231–52. Saint-Bertrand-de-Comminges: Musée archéologique départemental de Saint-Bertrandde-Comminges. Chandezon, C. 2003. L’élevage en Grèce (fin Ve – fin Ier s. a. C.): l’apport des sources épigraphiques. Bordeaux: De Boccard. Chandler, L. 1926. The north-west frontier of Attica. JHS 46: 1–21. Chandler, R. 1776. Travels in Greece: Or an Account of a Tour Made at the Expense of the Society of Dilettanti. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Chang, C. 1994. Sheep for the ancestors: ethnoarchaeology and the study of ancient pastoralism, in P.N. Kardulias (ed.) Beyond the Site: Regional Studies in the Aegean Area: 353–71. Lanham: University Press of America. Chaniotis, A. 2004. Mobility of persons during the Hellenistic wars: state control and personal relations, in C. Moatti (ed.) La mobilité des personnes en Méditerranée de l’Antiquité à l’époque moderne: procédures de contrôle et documents d’identifications: 481–500. Rome: École Française de Rome. Chaniotis, A. 2005. War in the Hellenistic World: Α Social and Cultural History. Malden: Blackwell Publishing. Chaniotis, A. 2008. Policing the Hellenistic Countryside: realities and ideologies, in H. van Wees, C. Brélaz and P. Ducrey (eds) Sécurité collective et ordre public dans les sociétés anciennes: sept exposés suivis de discussions: 103–53. Genève: Fondation Hardt. Chaniotis, A. 2011. The impact of war on the economy of Hellenistic poleis, in Z.H. Archibald, J.K. Davies and V. Gabrielsen (eds) The Economies of Hellenistic Societies, Third to First Centuries BC: 122–37. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Charneux, P. 1956. Inscriptions d’Argos. BCH 80: 598– 618. Charneux, P. 1958. Inscriptions d’Argos. BCH 82: 1–15. Charneux, P. 1984. Phratries et kômai d’Argos. BCH 108: 207–27. Chatzidimitriou, A. and M. Chidiroglou 2014. Ancient towers in central and southern Euboea, in D.W. Rupp and R.A. Tomlinson (eds) Meditations on the diversity of the built environment in the Aegean Basin and beyond: Proceedings of a colloquium in memory of Frederick E. Winter, Athens, 22–23 June 2012: 311–37. Athens: Canadian Institute in Greece. Cherry, J.F. 1983. Frogs around the pond: perspectives on current archaeological survey projects in the Mediterranean, in D.R. Keller and D.W. Rupp (eds)

134

Bibliography

Archaeological Survey in the Mediterranean Area: 375– 416. Oxford: BAR. Cherry, J.F. 1987. Power in space: archaeological and geographical studies of the state, in J.M. Wagstaff (ed.) Landscape and Culture: Geographical and Archaeological Perspectives: 146–72. Oxford: Blackwell. Christien, J. 1989. Promenades en Laconie. Dialogues d’Histoire Ancienne 15: 75–105. Christien-Tregaro, J. 1992. De Sparte à la côte orientale du Péloponnèse, in M. Piérart (ed.) Polydipsion Argos: Argos de la fin des palais mycéniens à la constitution de l’état classique: actes de la table ronde Fribourg (Suisse), 7–9 Mai 1987: 157–72. Athens: École Française d’ Athènes. Chykerda, C.M. 2010. Kallithea to Halos: The Defensive Network of the North Othrys Mountains. Unpublished MA dissertation, University of Alberta. Chykerda, C.M., M. Haagsma and S. Karapanou 2014a. Landscapes of defense: Kastro Kallithea and its role in fourth-century BCE Achaia Phthiotis. Backdirt 2014: 10–23. Chykerda, C.M., M. Haagsma and S. Karapanou 2014b. From city to sea: Kastro Kallithea (Thessaly) and its role in the defense of southern Achaia Phthiotis, in D.W. Rupp, J.E. Tomlinson and F.E. Winter (eds) Meditations on the Diversity of the Built Environment in the Aegean Basin and beyond: Proceedings of a Colloquium in Memory of Frederick E. Winter, Athens, 22–23 June 2012: 285–310. Athens: Canadian Institute in Greece. Cingano, E. 2004. Tradizioni epiche intorno ad Argo da Omero al 6o sec. a.C, in P. Angeli Bernardini (ed.) La Città di Argo: mito, storia, tradizioni poetiche : atti del convegno internazionale, Urbino, 13–15 Giugno 2002: 59–78. Edizioni dell’Ateneo. Clark, W.G. 1858. Peloponnesus: Notes of Study and Travel. London: J. W. Parker. Cloke, C.F. 2016. The Landscape of the Lion: Economies of Religion and Politics in the Nemean Countryside (800 B.C. to A.D. 700). Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Cincinnati. Cockerell, C.R. 1830. Antiquities of Athens and other places in Greece, Sicily, etc. London: John Haberkorn. Coldstream, J.N. 2008. Greek Geometric Pottery: A Survey of Ten Local Styles and Their Chronology (2nd edition) Exeter: Bristol Phoenix. Connelly, J.B. and A.I. Wilson 2002. Hellenistic and Byzantine cisterns on Geronisos Island. RDAC 2002: 269–92. Conolly, J. 2006. Geographical Information Systems in Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Conze, A. and A. Michaelis 1861. Rapporto d’un viaggio fatto nella Grecia nel 1860. Rome: Tipografia Tiberina. Cook, J.M. 1953. Mycenae, 1939–1952: part III: the Agamemnoneion. BSA 48: 30–68. Cooper, F.A. 2000. The fortifications of Epaminondas and the rise of the monumental Greek city, in J.D. Tracy

(ed.) City Walls: The Urban Enceite in Global Perspective: 155–91. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cotterell, B. 1990. Mechanics of Pre-Industrial Technology: An Introduction to the Mechanics of Ancient and Traditional Material Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Coulton, J.J. 1996. Euboean Phylla and Greek barracks, in R.D. Evely, I.S. Lemos and S. Sherratt (eds) Minotaur and Centaur: Studies in the Archaeology of Crete and Euboea Presented to Mervyn Popham: 161–65. Oxford: Tempus Reparatum. Coutsinas, N. 2011. Territoire et frontières des cités crétoises hellénistiques: l’exemple de Lato, in G. Kourtessi-Philippakis and R. Treuil (eds) Archéologie du territoire, de l’Egée au Sahara: 245–55. Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne. Coutsinas, N. 2013. Défenses crétoises: fortifications urbaines et défense du territoire en Crète aux époques classique et hellénistique. Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne. Coutsinas, N. 2019. Note méthodologique: de l’étude des fortifications crétoises au travers de l’analyse du type d’appareil. BCH 143: 409–24. Couvenhes, J.-C. 2011. Péripoloi, kryptoi et hypaithroi de la cité athénienne, in J.-C. Couvenhes, S. Crouzet and S. Péré-Noguès (eds) Pratiques et identités culturelles des armées hellénistiques du monde méditerranéen: 295– 306. Bordeaux: Ausonius Éditions. Croissant, F. 1972. Note de topographie argienne. BCH 96: 137–54. Crouch, D.P. 1993. Water Management in Ancient Greek Cities. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Crouch, D.P. 2004. Geology and Settlement: Greco-Roman Patterns. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Curtius, E. 1851. Peloponnesos: eine historisch-geographische Beschreibung der Halbinsel: I. Gotha: J. Perthes. Curtius, E. 1852. Peloponnesos: eine historisch-geographische Beschreibung der Halbinsel: II. Gotha: J. Perthes. Dakoronia, F. and R. Kounouklas 2019. Locrian and Phocean watch‑towers. BCH 143: 267–88. Daly, K.F. 2015. On when and where to find Athenian forts, in K.F. Daly and L.A. Riccardi (eds) Cities Called Athens: Studies Honoring John McK. Camp II: 64–112. Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press. Dao, P. 2011. Marine Geophysical and Geomorphic Survey of Submerged Bronze Age Shorelines and Anchorage Sites at Kalamianos (Korphos, Greece). Unpublished MA dissertation, McMaster University. Darcque, P. 1980. Larissa. ArchDelt 35.2: 128. Dausse, M.-P. 2003. Géographie historique de la Molossie aux époques classique et hellénistique. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Université Paris Nanterre. Dausse, M.-P. 2011. Territoire et itinéraires molosses: éléments de géographie historique en Épire aux époques classique et hellénistique, in G. KourtessiPhilippakis and R. Treuil (eds) Archéologie du territoire, de l’Egée au Sahara: 231–43. Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne. 135

A Landscape of Conflict? Rural Fortifications in the Argolid (400–146 BC) Daux, G. 1963. Chronique des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques en Grèce en 1962. BCH 87: 689–878. Daux, G. 1966. Chronique des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques en Grèce en 1965. BCH 90: 715–1020. Daux, G. 1967. Chronique des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques en Grèce en 1966. BCH 91: 623–900. Daux, G. 1968. Chronique des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques en Grèce en 1967. BCH 92: 711–1138. Daverio Rocchi, G. 1988. Frontiera e confini nella Grecia antica. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider. Davidde Petriaggi, B., P. Galiatsatou, S. Medaglia, A. Tsompanidis, R. Petriaggi, R. Mancinelli, C. Sacco Perasso, S. Ricci and H.-M. Bardas 2019. The submerged ‘Villa of the Dolia’ near ancient Epidauros: the preliminary results of the first excavation and conservation campaign. ASAtene 97: 543–64. Davidson, D.A. 1980. Erosion in Greece during the first and second millennia BC, in R.A. Cullingford, D.A. Davidson and J. Lewin (eds) Timescales in Geomorphology: 143–58. Chichester: Wiley. Davies, G.N. 1998. Economic Geography of the Ancient Greek Countryside: A Re-Examination of Monumental Rural Sites on the Island of Siphnos. Unpublished DPhil dissertation, University of Oxford. Davis, T. 2013. Archery in Archaic Greece. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Columbia University. De Souza, P. 1999. Piracy in the Graeco-Roman World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. De Souza, P. 2007. The Hellenistic world and the Roman republic: battle: naval battles and sieges, in P.A.G. Sabin, H. van Wees and M. Whitby (eds) The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare: 434–60. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Debord, P. 1994. Le vocabulaire des ouvrages de défense, occurrences littéraires et épigraphiques confrontées aux realia archéologiques. RÉA 96: 53–61. Decourt, J.-C. 1990. La Vallée de l’Énipeus en Thessalie: études de topographie et de géographie antique. Paris: De Boccard. Déderix, S. 2015. A matter of scale: assessing the visibility of circular tombs in the landscape of Bronze Age Crete. JSA 4: 525–34. Dengate, J.A. 1974. Coins from the Mycenae excavations, 1939–1962. BSA 69: 95–102. Diels, H. 1924. Antike Technik. Leipzig: Teubner. Diener, A.C. and J. Hagen 2012. Borders: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dimakis, N. 2011. Social identity and status in the Classical and Hellenistic northern Peloponnese: the evidence from burials: an overview, in K. Savvopoulos (ed.) Second Hellenistic Studies Workshop: Alexandria, 4–11 July 2010: Proceedings: 114–23. Alexandria: Alexandria Center for Hellenistic Studies.

Dimakis, N. 2016. Social Identity and Status in the Classical and Hellenistic Northern Peloponnese: The Evidence from Burials. Oxford: Archaeopress Archaeology. Dixon, M.D. 2000. Disputed Territories: Interstate Arbitrations in the Northeast Peloponnese, ca. 250– 150 B.C. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Ohio State University. Dodwell, E. 1819. A Classical and Topographical Tour through Greece, during the Years 1801, 1805, and 1806: II. London: Rodwell and Martin. Drews, R. 1979. Argos and Argives in the Iliad. CPh 74: 111–35. Droysen, J.G. 1893. Kleine Schriften zur alten Geschichte. Leipzig: Veit. Ducrey, P. 1986. Les fortifications grecques: rôle, fonction et efficacité, in P. Leriche and H. Tréziny (eds) La fortification dans l’histoire du monde Grec: actes du colloque international: la fortfication et sa place dans l’histoire politique, culturelle et sociale du monde Grec (Valbonne, Décembre 1982): 133–42. Paris: Éditions du Centre National de la Recherche scientifique. Ducrey, P. 1999. Le traitement des prisonniers de guerre dans la Grèce antique des origines à la conquête Romaine. Athènes: École Française d’Athènes. Ducrey, P. 2016. Defence, attack and the fate of the defeated: reappraising the role of city-walls, in R. Frederiksen, S. Müth, P. Schneider and M. Schnelle (eds) Focus on Fortification: New Research on Fortifications in the Ancient Mediterranean and the Near East: 332–36. Oxford: Oxbow. Ducrey, P. 2019. Polemica: études sur la guerre et les armées dans la Grèce ancienne. Paris: Belles Lettres. Dueck, D. 2000. Strabo of Amasia: A Greek Man of Letters in Augustan Rome. London: Routledge. Dunbabin, T.J. 1944. Archaeology in Greece, 1939–45. JHS 64: 78–97. Dyson, M. 2002. Thucydides and the sandbar at Pylos. Antichthon 36: 19–29. École Française 1928. Chronique des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques dans l’Orient hellénique, 1928. BCH 52: 466–510. École Française 1953. Chronique des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques en Grèce en 1952. BCH 77: 190–292. École Française 1954. Chronique des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques en Grèce en 1953. BCH 78: 95–224. École Française 1955. Chronique des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques en Grèce en 1954. BCH 79: 205–309. Edward, J., J.M. Fossey, and L. Yaffe 1984. Analysis by neutron activation of human bone from the Hellenistic cemetery at Asine, Greece. JFA 11: 37–46. Erny, G. and W.R. Caraher 2020. The Kingdom of Chelmis: architecture, material culture, and the modern landscape of the western Argolid. JFA 45: 209–21.

136

Bibliography

Ervin, M. 1967. News letter from Greece. AJA 71: 293– 306. Ervin, M. 1968. News letter from Greece. AJA 72: 265–78. Ervin, M. 1969. News letter from Greece. AJA 73: 341–57. Fachard, S. 2012. La garde du territoire d’Erétrie: étude de la chora et de ses fortifications. Gollion: Infolio Éditions. Fachard, S. 2013. Eleutherai as the Gates to Boeotia, in S. Fachard and C. Brélaz (eds) Pratiques militaires et art de la guerre dans le monde Grec antique: études offertes à Pierre Ducrey à l’occasion de son 75e anniversaire: 81– 106. Paris: Picard. Fachard, S. 2016a. A decade of research on Greek fortifications. AR 62: 77–88. Fachard, S. 2016b. Studying rural fortifications: a landscape approach, in S. Müth, P.I. Schneider, M. Schnelle and P.D. De Staebler (eds) Ancient Fortifications: A Compendium of Theory and Practice: 207–30. Oxford: Oxbow. Fachard, S. 2017a. The resources of the borderlands: control, inequality, and exchange on the AtticBoeotian borders, in P. Derron (ed.) Économie et inégalité: ressources, échanges et pouvoir dans l’antiquité Classique: 19–61. Vandœuvres: Fondation Hardt. Fachard, S. 2017b. Modelling the territories of Attic demes: a computational approach, in J.L. Bintliff and N.K. Rutter (eds) The Archaeology of Greece and Rome: Studies in Honour of Anthony Snodgrass: 192–222. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Fachard, S. 2020. The fortress of Eleutherai: new insights from survey, architecture, and epigraphy. Hesperia 89: 475–533. Fachard, S. and A.R. Knodell 2020. Out of Attica: modeling mobility in the Mycenaean period, in N. Papadimitriou, J.C. Wright, S. Fachard, N. Polychronakou-Sgouritsa and E. Andrikou (eds) Athens and Attica in Prehistory: Proceedings of the International Conference, Athens, 27–31 May 2015: 407– 16. Oxford: Archaeopress Archaeology. Fachard, S., A.R. Knodell and E. Banou 2015. The 2014 Mazi Archaeological Project (Attica). AntK 58: 178– 86. Fachard, S. and D. Pirisino 2015. Routes out of Attica, in M.M. Miles (ed.) Autopsy in Athens: Recent Archaeological Research on Athens and Attica: 139–53. Oxford: Oxbow. Farinetti, E. 2011. Boeotian Landscapes: A GIS-Based Study for the Reconstruction and Interpretation of the Archaeological Datasets of Ancient Boeotia. Oxford: Archaeopress. Ferguson, W.S. 1911. Hellenistic Athens: An Historical Essay. London: Macmillan. Fernández Alvarez, M.P. 1981. El argólico occidental y oriental en las inscripciones de los siglos VII, VI y V a C. Salamanca: Universidad de Salamanca. Fernández Nieto, F.J. 1996. Los reglamentos militares griegos y la iusticia castrense en época helenística, in G. Thür and J. Vélissaropoulos-Karakostas

(eds) Symposion 1995: Vorträge zur Griechischen und Hellenistischen Rechtsgeschichte (Korfu, 1.–5. September 1995): 213–44. Köln: Böhlau. Feuer, B.A. 2016. Boundaries, Borders and Frontiers in Archaeology: A Study of Spatial Relationships. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company. Figueira, T. 2004. The Saronic Gulf, in M.H. Hansen and T.H. Nielsen (eds) An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis: An Investigation Conducted by the Copenhagen Polis Centre for the Danish National Research Foundation: 620–23. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Finke, E.A.W. 1988. Landscape Evolution of the Argive Plain, Greece: Paleoecology, Holocene Depositional History, and Coastline Changes. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Stanford University. Finke, E.A.W. and E. Malz 1988. Der Lernäische See: Auswertung von Satellitenbildern und Ostracodenfaunen zur Rekonstruktion eines vergangenen Lebensraumes. Natur und Museum 118: 213–22. Finley, M.I. 1977. The ancient city: from Fustel de Coulanges to Max Weber and beyond. Comparative Studies in Society and History 19: 305–27. Finley, M.I. 1981. Economy and Society in Ancient Greece. London: Chatto and Windus. Finné, M. 2014. Climate in the Eastern Mediterranean during the Holocene and beyond: A Peloponnesian Perspective. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Stockholm University. Finné, M., M. Bar-Matthews, K. Holmgren, H.S. Sundqvist, I. Liakopoulos and Q. Zhang 2014. Speleothem evidence for late Holocene climate variability and floods in Southern Greece. Quaternary Research 81: 213–27. Finné, M., K. Holmgren, H.S. Sundqvist, E. Weiberg and M. Lindblom 2011. Climate in the eastern Mediterranean, and adjacent regions, during the past 6000 years: a review. JAS 38: 3153–73. Finné, M. and E. Weiberg 2018. Climate change and ancient societies: facing up to the challenge of chronological control, in A. Ekblom, C. Isendahl, and K.-J. Lindholm (eds) The Resilience of Heritage: Cultivating a Future of the Past. Essays in Honour of Professor Paul Sinclair: 269–87. Uppsala: Uppsala Universitet. Fisher, P.F. 1994. Probable and fuzzy models of the viewshed operation, in M.F. Worboys (ed.) Innovations in GIS: Selected Papers from the First National Conference on GIS Research UK: 161–75. London: Taylor & Francis. Flemming, N.C. 1978. Holocene eustatic changes and coastal tectonics in the northeast Mediterranean: implications for models of crustal consumption. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 289: 405–58. Flemming, N.C., N.M.G. Czartoryska and P.M. Hunter 1973. Archaeological evidence for eustatic and 137

A Landscape of Conflict? Rural Fortifications in the Argolid (400–146 BC) tectonic components of relative sea level change in the South Aegean. Marine Archaeology 23: 1–63. Foley, A. 1988. The Argolid, 800–600 B.C.: An Archaeological Survey, together with an Index of Sites from the Neolithic to the Roman Period. Göteborg: P. Åströms. Forbes, H. 1994. Pastoralism and settlement structures in ancient Greece, in P.N. Doukellis and L.G. Mendoni (eds) Structures rurales et sociétés antiques: actes du colloque de Corfou (14–16 Mai 1992): 187–96. Paris: Belles Lettres. Forbes, H. 1995. The identification of pastoralist sites within the context of estate-based agriculture in ancient Greece: beyond the ‘transhumance versus agro-pastoralism’ debate. BSA 90: 325–38. Forchhammer, P.W. 1837. Hellenika: Griechenland im Neuen das Alte. Berlin: Nicolai. Forchhammer, P.W. 1857. Halkyonia: Wanderung an den Ufern des Halkyonischen Meeres. Berlin: Nicolai. Forsell, R. 1996. The Roman Period, in B. Wells and C.N. Runnels (eds) The Berbati-Limnes Archaeological Survey: 1988–1990: 285–343. Stockholm: P. Åströms. Forsén, J. 1996. The Early Helladic period, in B. Wells and C.N. Runnels (eds) The Berbati-Limnes Archaeological Survey: 1988–1990: 75–120. Stockholm: P. Åströms. Forsén, J. 2003. The Asea Valley Survey: An Arcadian Mountain Valley from the Palaeolithic Period until Modern Times. Stockholm: Svenska Institutet i Athen. Fossey, J.M. 1986. The Ancient Topography of Eastern Phokis. Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben. Fossey, J.M. 1990. The Ancient Topography of Opountian Lokris. Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben. Fossey, J.M. 1992. The development of some defensive networks in eastern central Greece during the classical period, in J.M. Fossey and S. van de Maele (eds) Fortificationes Antiquae: Including the Papers of a Conference Held at Ottawa University, October 1988: 109– 32. Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben. Fouache, É. 1999. L’alluvionnement historique en Grèce occidentale et au Péloponnèse: géomorphologie, archéologie, histoire. Athens: École Française d’Athènes. Fouache, É. and K. Gaki-Papanastassiou 1997. Les crues brutales dans la plaine d’Argos (Grèce): une contrainte à l’aménagement, de l’Antiquité à nos jours. Géomorphologie 3: 313–24. Fougères, G. 1898. Mantinée et l’Arcadie orientale. Paris: A. Fontemoing. Fouquet, J. 2015. Wasser für die Stadt: einige Beobachtungen zur Topographie von Troizen. Thetis 21: 124–32. Fouquet, J. 2017. Zwei Häfen in Troizen? Eine topographische Miszelle. AM 131/2: 279–86. Fouquet, J. and P. Kató 2017. Königliche Soldaten in der Stadt: eine neue hellenistische Inschrift aus Troizen. ZPE 201: 97–109. Fowler, H.N. 1932. Introduction, Topography, Architecture (Corinth 1). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Foxhall, L. 1993a. Farming and fighting in ancient Greece, in J. Rich and G. Shipley (eds) War and Society in the Greek World: 134–45. London: Routledge. Foxhall, L. 1993b. Oil extraction and processing equipment in classical Greece, in M.-C. Amouretti and J.-P. Brun (eds) La production du vin et de l’huile en Méditerranée: actes du symposium international organisé par le Centre Camille Jullian (Université de ProvenceC.N.R.S.) et le Centre Archéologique du Var (Ministère de la Culture et Conseil Général du Var), Aix-En-Provence et Toulon, 20–22 Novembre 1991: 183–200. Athens: École Française d’Athènes. Foxhall, L. 1996. Feeling the earth move: cultivation techniques on steep slopes in Classical Antiquity, in J.B. Salmon and G. Shipley (eds) Human Landscapes in Classical Antiquity: Environment and Culture: 44–67. London: Routledge. Foxhall, L. 2007. Olive Cultivation in Ancient Greece: Seeking the Ancient Economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Foxhall, L. and H. A. Forbes 1982. Σιτομετρεία: the role of grain as a staple food in Classical antiquity. Chiron 12: 41–90. Fracchia, H.M. 1985. The Peloponnesian pyramids reconsidered. AJA 89: 683–89. Frankel, R. 1993. The trapetum and the mola olearia, in M.-C. Amouretti, J.-P. Brun and D. Eitam (eds) La production du vin et de l’huile en Méditerranée: 477–81. Athens: École Française d’Athènes. Fraser, P.M. 1969. Archaeology in Greece, 1968–69. AR 15: 3–39. Fraser, P.M. 1970. Archaeology in Greece, 1969–1970. AR 3–31. Frazer, J.G. 1898. Pausanias’s Description of Greece: III. London: Macmillan. Frederick, C. and A. Krahtopoulou 2000. Deconstructing agricultural terraces: examining the influence of construction method on stratigraphy, dating and archaeological visibility, in P. Halstead and C. Frederick (eds) Landscape and Land Use in Postglacial Greece: 79–94. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Frederiksen, R. 2011. Greek City Walls of the Archaic Period, 900–480 BC. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Frederiksen, R., E. Laufer, and S. Müth 2016. Source Criticism: fortifications in written sources and the visual arts, in S. Müth, P.I. Schneider, M. Schnelle and P.D. De Staebler (eds) Ancient Fortifications: A Compendium of Theory and Practice: 173–95. Oxford: Oxbow. French, E.B. 2002. Mycenae: Agamemnon’s Capital: The Site in Its Setting. Stroud: Tempus. Frickenhaus, A. and W. Müller 1911. Aus der Argolis: Bericht über eine Reise vom Herbst 1909. AM 36: 21–38. Frödin, O.V.A. 1938. Asine: Results of the Swedish Excavations, 1922–1930. Stockholm: Generalstabens litografiska anstalts förlag.

138

Bibliography

Frost, F. 1980. Skyllaieis: a district of Troizenia. AJA 84: 186–88. Frost, F.J. 1985. The ‘harbour’ at Halieis, in A. Raban (ed.) Harbour Archaeology: Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Ancient Mediterranean Harbours, Caesarea Maritima, 24–28.6.83: 63–66. Oxford: BAR. Frost, H. 1963. Under the Mediterranean: Marine Antiquities. London: Routledge and Regan Paul. Fuchs, M. 2007. An assessment of human versus climatic impacts on Holocene soil erosion in NE Peloponnese, Greece. Quaternary Research 67: 349–56. Funke, P. 2000. Grenzfestungen und Verkehrsverbindungen in Nordost-Attika: zur Bedeutung der attisch-boiotischen Grenzregion um Dekeleia, in P. Flensted-Jensen, T.H. Nielsen and L. Rubinstein (eds) Polis and Politics: Studies in Ancient Greek History: Presented to Mogens Herman Hansen on his Sixtieth Birthday, August 20, 2000: 121–31. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press. Fytikas, M., F. Innocenti, P. Manetti, R. Mazzuoli and N. Kolios 1986. The Plio-Quaternary volcanism of Saronikos area (western part of the active Aegean volcanic arc). Annales Géologiques des Pays Helléniques 33: 23–45. Gaki-Papanastassiou, K., E. Karymbalis, S.E. Poulos, A. Seni and C. Zouva 2010. Coastal vulnerability assessment to sea-level rise based on geomorphological and oceanographical parameters: the case of Argolikos Gulf, Peloponnese, Greece. Hellenic Journal of Geosciences 45: 109–21. Gallant, T.W. 2015. The Edinburgh History of the Greeks, 1768 to 1913: The Long Nineteeth Century. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Gallimore, S., S. James, W.R. Caraher and D. Nakassis 2017. To Argos: archaeological survey in the western Argolid, 2014–2016, in D.W. Rupp and J.E. Tomlinson (eds) From Maple to Olive: Proceedings of a Colloquium to Celebrate the 40th Anniversary of the Canadian Institute in Greece. Athens, 10–11 June 2016: 421–38. Athens: Canadian Institute in Athens. Garlan, Y. 1966. Nettoyage du rempart urbain a Argos. ArchDelt 21.2: 147. Garlan, Y. 1974. Recherches de poliorcétique Grecque. Paris: De Boccard. Garnsey, P. 1988. Famine and Food Supply in the GraecoRoman World: Responses to Risk and Crisis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Garnsey, P. 1999. Food and Society in Classical Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gauvin, G. 1992. Les systèmes de fortifications de Kléonai et de Phlionte à la période classique-hellénistique, in S. van de Maele and J.M. Fossey (eds) Fortificationes Antiquae: Including the Papers of a Conference Held at Ottawa University, October 1988): 133–46. Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben.

Gauvin, G. 1997. La tour phliasienne au sud du Polyphengo, in J.M. Fossey (ed.) Argolo-Korinthiaka I: Proceedings of the First Montreal Conference on the Archaeology and History of the North East Peloponnesos (McGill University, 27th November 1993): 29–43. Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben. Gauvin, G. and J. Morin 1997. Quelques sites préhistoriques à la périphérie des plaines de Cléonées et Phlionte: une note, in J.M. Fossey (ed.) Argolo-Korinthiaka I: Proceedings of the First Montreal Conference on the Archaeology and History of the North East Peloponnesos (McGill University, 27th November 1993): 1–13. Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben. Gebauer, K. 1939. Forschungen in der Argolis. AA 1939: 268–94. Gebauer, K. 1940. Neue Ausgrabungen in der Epidauria. Neue Jahrbücher für Antike und Deutsche Bildung 1940: 180–88. Gehrke, H.-J. 1985. Untersuchungen zu den inneren Kriegen in den Griechischen Staaten des 5. und 4. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. München: C.H. Beck. Gejwall, N.-G. 1969. Lerna, a Preclassical Site in the Argolid: The Fauna (Lerna 1). Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Gell, W. 1810. The Itinerary of Greece, with a Commentary on Pausanias and Strabo and an Account of the Monuments of Antiquity at Present Existing. London: T. Payne. Gell, W. 1817. Itinerary of the Morea. London: Rodwell and Martin. Gell, W. 1823. Narrative of a Journey in the Morea. London: Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, and Brown. Gell, W. 1829. Reisebericht von Morea, oder Beschreibung der Straßen dieser Halbinsel. Karlsruhe: Müller. Gerkan, A. von 1935. Die Stadtmauern (Milet 2.3). Berlin: De Gruyter. Giannakopoulos, G. 2013. Kleonai, in K. Kissas and A. Doumas (eds) Ancient Corinthia: From Prehistoric Times to the End of Antiquity: 89–97. Athens: Foinikas Publications. Gill, D.W.J. 2007. Arsinoe in the Peloponnese: the Ptolemaic base on the Methana peninsula, in T. Schneider and K. Szpakowska (eds) Egyptian Stories: A British Egyptological Tribute to Alan B. Lloyd: 87–110. Münster: Ugarit Verlag. Gillings, M. 2009. Visual affordance, landscape, and the megaliths of Alderney. OJA 28: 335–56. Giorgi, E. and J. Bogdani 2012. Il territorio di Phoinike in Caonia: archeologia del paesaggio in Albania meridionale (Scavi di Phoinike 1). Bologna: Ante Quem. Given, M. 2004. Mapping and manuring: can we compare sherd density figures?, in S.E. Alcock and J.F. Cherry (eds) Side-by-Side Survey: Comparative Regional Studies in the Mediterranean World: 13–21. Oxford: Oxbow. Goester, Y.C. 1983. The Thyreatis: a survey, in D.R. Keller and D.W. Rupp (eds) Archaeological Survey in the Mediterranean Area: 265–66. Oxford: BAR.

139

A Landscape of Conflict? Rural Fortifications in the Argolid (400–146 BC) Goester, Y.C. 1993. The plain of Astros: a survey. Pharos 1: 39–112. Gomme, A.W. 1945. A Historical Commentary on Thucydides: III. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Grabherr, G. 2006. Die Via Claudia Augusta in Nordtirol: Methode, Verlauf, Funde, in E. Walde and G. Grabherr (eds) Via Claudia Augusta und Römerstrassenforschung im östlichen Alpenraum: 35–336. Innsbruck: Innsbruck University Press. Griffith, G. 1950. The union of Corinth and Argos (392– 386 B. C. ). Historia 1: 236–56. Griffith, M. 2006. Horsepower and donkeywork: equids and the ancient Greek imagination. CP 101: 185–246. Grigorakakis, G. 2009. New investigations by the 39th Ephoreia of Prehistoric and Classical antiquities at Helleniko, n. Kynouria: the burial of Late Classical date from the western roadside cemetery, in H. Cavanagh, W.G. Cavanagh and J. Roy (eds) Honouring the Dead in the Peloponnese: Proceedings of the Conference Held in Sparta 23–35 April 2009: 183–200. Nottingham: Centre for Spartan and Peloponnesian Studies. Grigoropoulos, D. 2011. Kaiserzeitliche und spätantike Keramik in der Sammlung des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Athen: die Funde des griechischen Festlandes, der Inseln und Kleinasiens. AM 126: 177–244. Grimal, P. 1939. Les maisons à tour hellénistiques et romaines. MÉFR 56: 28–59. Grove, A.T. and O. Rackham 2001. The Nature of Mediterranean Europe: An Ecological History. New Haven: Yale University Press. Guay, L. 1983. Étude comparative de dix-huit tours Grecques isolées. Unpublished M.A. dissertation, University of Ottawa. Güimil-Fariña, A. and C. Parcero-Oubiña 2015. ‘Dotting the joins’: a non-reconstructive use of Least Cost Paths to approach ancient roads: the case of the Roman roads in the NW Iberian Peninsula. JAS 54: 31–44. Hadjisavvas, S. 1992. Olive Oil Processing in Cyprus: From the Bronze Age to the Byzantine Period. Jonsered: Paul Åströms Förlag. Hägg, I. and J.M. Fossey 1980. Excavations in the Barbouna Area of Asine: The Hellenistic Nekropolis and Later Structures on the Middle Slopes, 1973–77. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. Hahn, M. 1996. The Early Byzantine to Modern periods, in B. Wells and C.N. Runnels (eds) The Berbati-Limnes Archaeological Survey: 1988–1990: 345–51. Stockholm: P. Åströms. Hall, J.M. 1995a. Approaches to ethnicity in the early Iron Age of Greece, in N. Spencer (ed.) Time, Tradition, and Society in Greek Archaeology: 6–17. London: Routledge. Hall, J.M. 1995b. How Argive was the ‘Argive’ Heraion? The political and cultic geography of the Argive Plain, 900–400 B.C. AJA 99: 577–613.

Hall, J.M. 1997. Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hall, J.M. 2007. International relations, in P.A.G. Sabin, H. van Wees, and M. Whitby (eds) The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare: 85–107. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Halstead, P. 1987. Traditional and ancient rural economy in Mediterranean Europe: plus ça change? JHS 107: 77–87. Hanson, V.D. 1989. The Western Way of War: Infantry Battle in Classical Greece. London: Hodder and Stoughton. Hanson, V.D. 1995. The Other Greeks: The Family Farm and the Agrarian Roots of Western Civilization. New York: Free Press. Hanson, V.D. 1998. Warfare and Agriculture in Classical Greece. Berkeley: University of California Press. Harding, P. 1988. Athenian defensive strategy in the fourth century. Phoenix 42: 61–71. Harding, P. 1990. Athenian defensive strategy again. Phoenix 44: 377–80. Harper, D.B. 1976. Just Add Water... Expedition 19: 40–49. Harris, W.V. 2011. Plato and the deforestation of Attica. Athenaeum 99: 479–82. Harter-Uibopuu, K. 1998. Das zwischenstaatliche Schiedsverfahren im achäischen Koinon: zur friedlichen Streitbeilegung nach den epigraphischen Quellen. Köln: Böhlau. Harvey, P. 1986. New harvests reappear: the impact of war on agriculture. Athenaeum 64: 205–18. Hasebroek, J. 1922. Nochmals πύργος, Wirtschaftsgebäude. Hermes 57: 621–23. Haselberger, L. 1979. Dächer griechischer Wehrtürme. AM 94: 93–115. Haselberger, L. 1984. Befestigte Turmgehöfte im Hellenismus auf den Kykladeninseln Naxos, Andros und Keos. Unpublished PhD dissertation, TU München. Hayes, J.W. 2000. The current state of Roman ceramic studies in Mediterranean survey, or handling pottery from surveys, in R. Francovich, H. Patterson and G. Barker (eds) Extracting Meaning from Ploughsoil Assemblages: 105–09. Oxford: Oxbow. Head, B.V. 1911. Historia Numorum: A Manual of Greek Numismatics (2nd edition). Oxford: Clarendon Press. Heberdey, R. 1894. Die Reisen des Pausanias in Griechenland. Prag: F. Tempsky. Herzog, I. 2013. Theory and practice of cost functions, in F.J. Melero, P. Cano and J. Revelles (eds) Fusion of Cultures: Proceeding of the 38th Conference on Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology, Granada, Spain, April 2010: 375–82. Oxford: Archaeopress. Herzog, I. 2014. A review of case studies in archaeological least-cost analysis. Archeologia e Calcolatori 25: 223– 39. Herzog, I. and A. Posluschny 2011. Tilt: slope-dependent Least Cost Path calculations revisited, in E. Jerem, 140

Bibliography

F. Redő and V. Szeverényi (eds) On the Road to Reconstructing the Past: Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology (CAA): Proceedings of the 36th International Conference: Budapest, April 2–6, 2008: 236–42. Budapest: Archeaeolingua. Heymann, C., O. Nelle, W. Dörfler, H. Zagana, N. Nowaczyk, J. Xue and I. Unkel 2013. Late Glacial to mid-Holocene palaeoclimate development of Southern Greece inferred from the sediment sequence of Lake Stymphalia (NE-Peloponnese). Quaternary International 302: 42–60. Higgins, M.D. and R.A. Higgins 1996. A Geological Companion to Greece and the Aegean. London: Duckworth. Higuchi, T. 1988. The Visual and Spatial Structure of Landscapes. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. Hirschfeld, G. 1896a. Argeia. RE 2: 700. Hirschfeld, G. 1896b. Argolis. RE 2: 728–31. Hjohlman, J., A. Penttinen, and B. Wells (eds) 2005. Pyrgouthi: A Rural Site in the Berbati Valley from the Early Iron Age to Late Antiquity: Excavations by the Swedish Institute at Athens: 1995 and 1997. Stockholm: P. Åströms. Hodder, I. and M. Hassall 1971. The non-random spacing of Romano-British walled towns. Man 6: 391–407. Hodkinson, S. 1988. Animal husbandry in the Greek polis, in C.R. Whittaker (ed.) Pastoral Economies in Classical Antiquity: 35–74. Cambridge: Cambridge Philological Society. Hodkinson, S. and H. Hodkinson 1981. Mantineia and the Mantinike: settlement and society in a Greek polis. BSA 76: 239–96. Hoenigswald, H.M. 1980. The name of the Argolid. Word 31: 105–07. Hoernle, E.S. 1921. The Problem of the Agamemnon. Oxford: Blackwell. Holland, M., M.S.F. Hood, and A.G. Woodhead 1953. Mycenae, 1939–1952: part II: the Perseia Fountain House. BSA 48: 19–29. Hood, M.S.F. 1959. Archaeology in Greece 1959. AR 6: 1–26. Hood, M.S.F. 1961. Archaeology in Greece, 1961–1962. AR 8: 3–31. Hopf, M. 1961. Pflanzenfunde aus Lerna/Argolis. Der Züchter 31: 239–47. Hopf, M. 1962. Nutzpflanzen vom Lernäischen Golf. JRGZM 9: 1–19. Horden, P. and N. Purcell 2000. The Corrupting Sea: A Study of Mediterranean History. Oxford: Blackwell. Hornblower, S. 2007. Warfare in ancient literature: the paradox of war, in P.A.G. Sabin, H. van Wees and M. Whitby (eds) The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare: 22–53. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hughes, J.D. 2014. Environmental Problems of the Greeks and Romans: Ecology in the Ancient Mediterranean (2nd edition). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Hülden, O. 2018. Greek fortifications before the Persian Wars: an overview, in A. Ballmer, M. FernándezGötz and D.P. Mielke (eds) Understanding Ancient Fortifications: Between Regionality and Connectivity: 93–109. Oxford: Oxbow. Hülden, O. 2020. Das Griechische Befestigungswesen der archaischen Zeit: Entwicklungen— Formen — Funktionen. Vienna: Verlag Holzhausen. Hunt, P. 2007. Archaic and Classical Greece: military forces, in P.A.G. Sabin, H. van Wees and M. Whitby (eds) The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare: 108–46. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Iakovides, S. and E.B. French 2003. Archaeological Atlas of Mycenae. Athens: Archaeological Society at Athens. Isager, S. and J.E. Skydsgaard 1992. Ancient Greek Agriculture: An Introduction. London: Routledge. Jackson, A.H. 2000. Argos’ victory over Corinth: ΑΡΓΕΙΟΙ ΑΝΕΘΕΝ ΤΟΙ ΔΙϝΙ ΤΟΝ ϙΟΡΙΝΘΟΘΕΝ. ZPE 132: 295– 311. Jacobsen, T.W. 1968a. Halieis (Porto-Cheli). ArchDelt 23.2: 144–45. Jacobsen, T.W. 1968b. Investigations at Porto CheliHalieis, 1967. AJA 72: 167. Jacobsen, T.W. 1969. Investigations at Porto Cheli. ArchDelt 24.2: 124–26. Jahns, S. 1993. On the Holocene vegetation history of the Argive Plain (Peloponnese, southern Greece). Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 2.4: 187–203. James, P.A., C.B. Mee and G.J. Taylor 1994. Soil erosion and the archaeological landscape of Methana, Greece. JFA 21: 395–416. James, S. 2020. Rediscovering the Late Hellenistic-Early Roman Peloponnese: analyzing transitional ceramic assemblages found on archaeological survey. HEROM 9: 327–52. Jameson, M.H. 1953. Inscriptions of the Peloponnesos. Hesperia 22: 148–71. Jameson, M.H. 1959. Inscriptions of Hermione, Hydra and Kasos. Hesperia 28: 109–20. Jameson, M.H. 1963. Excavations at Porto-Cheli. ArchDelt 18.2: 73–74. Jameson, M.H. 1967. Halieis: excavations at Porto Cheli. AJA 71: 190. Jameson, M.H. 1969. Excavations at Porto Cheli and vicinity: preliminary report I: Halieis, 1962–1968. Hesperia 38: 311–43. Jameson, M.H. 1971. Excavations at Porto Cheli. ArchDelt 26.2: 114–19. Jameson, M.H. 1972. Excavations at Porto Cheli: excavations at Halieis: final report. ArchDelt 27.2: 233–36. Jameson, M.H. 1974. Excavations at Halieis (Porto Cheli) 1973. ArchDelt 29.2: 261–64. Jameson, M.H. 2001. Oil presses of the late classicalhellenistic period, in J.-P. Brun and P. Jockey (eds) Techniques et sociétés en Méditerranée: Hommage à 141

A Landscape of Conflict? Rural Fortifications in the Argolid (400–146 BC) Marie-Claire Amouretti: 281–99. Paris: École Française d’Athènes. Jameson, M.H. 2014. Sacrifice and animal husbandry in ancient Greece, in M.H. Jameson (ed.) Cults and Rites in Ancient Greece: 198–231. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jameson, M.H., M.H. Munn, C.N. Runnels and T.H. van Andel 1994. A Greek Countryside: The Southern Argolid from Prehistory to the Present Day. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Jameson, M.H. and C.K. Williams 1966. Halieis. ArchDelt 21.2: 148–51. Jameson, V. and M.H. Jameson 1950. An archaeological and topographical survey of the Hermionid. Unpublished paper. Athens: American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Archives, Student Papers. Jansen, A. 2002. A Study of the Remains of Mycenaean Roads and Stations of Bronze-Age Greece. Lewiston: Mellen Press. Jansen, B. 2016. Defensive Funktionen, in S. Müth, P.I. Schneider, M. Schnelle and P.D. De Staebler (eds) Ancient Fortifications: A Compendium of Theory and Practice: 101–25. Oxford: Oxbow. Jantzen, U. 1938. Archäologische Funde vom Sommer 1937 bis Sommer 1938: Griechenland. AA 53: 541–85. Jantzen, U. 1975. Führer durch Tiryns. Athen: Deutsches Archäologisches Institut Athen. Jeffery, L.H. and A.W. Johnston 1990. The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece: A Study of the Origin of the Greek Alphabet and Its Development from the Eighth to the Fifth Centuries B.C. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Joanne, A. 1888. Grèce. Paris: Hachette. Jochmus, A. 1857. Commentaries. JRGS 27: 1–53. Jones, J.E., A.J. Graham and L.H. Sackett 1973. An Attic country house below the cave of Pan at Vari. BSA 68: 355–452. Kagan, D. and G. Viggiano 2013. The Hoplite Debate, in D. Kagan and G. Viggiano (eds) Men of Bronze: Hoplite Warfare in Ancient Greece: 1–56. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Kahrstedt, U. 1950. Zwei Geographica im Peloponnes. RhM 93: 227–42. Kallet-Marx, R.M. 1989. The Evangelistria watchtower and the defense of the Zagara pass, in H. Beister and J. Buckler (eds) Boiotika: Vorträge vom 5. Internationalen Böotien-Kolloquium zu Ehren von Professor Dr. Siegfried Lauffer: Institut Für Alte Geschichte, LudwigMaximilians-Universität München, 13.–17. Juni 1986: 301–11. München: Editio Maris. Kalyvas, S.N. 2006. The Logic of Violence in Civil War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kantner, J. 2012. Realism, reality, and routes: evaluating cost-surface and cost-path algorithms, in D.A. White and S.L. Surface-Evans (eds) Least Cost Analysis of Social Landscapes: Archaeological Case Studies: 225–38. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.

Kardulias, P.N. and C.N. Runnels 1995. The lithic artifacts: flaked stone and other nonflaked lithics, in C.N. Runnels, D.J. Pullen and S.H. Langdon (eds) Artifact and Assemblage: The Finds from a Regional Survey of the Southern Argolid, Greece: 74–139. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Karlsson, L. 1992. Fortification Towers and Masonry Techniques in the Hegemony of Syracuse. 405–211 B.C. Sävedalen: Åström. Karo, G. 1915a. Katsingri. AM 40: 106–10. Karo, G. 1915b. Führer durch die Ruinen von Tiryns. Athen: Eleutheroudakis und Barth. Karo, G. 1935. Mykenisch Kultur. RE Suppl. 6: 548–615. Karo, G. 1936. Archäologische Funde vom Sommer 1935 bis Sommer 1936. AA 1931: 94–180. Katrantsiotis, C., E. Norström, R.H. Smittenberg, M. Finne, E. Weiberg, M. Hättestrand, P. Avramidis and S. Wastegård 2019. Climate changes in the Eastern Mediterranean over the last 5000  years and their links to the high-latitude atmospheric patterns and Asian monsoons. Global and Planetary Change 175: 36–51. Keenleyside, A. and K. Panayotova 2006. Cribra orbitalia and porotic hyperostosis in a Greek colonial population (5th to 3rd centuries BC) from the Black Sea. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 16: 373–84. Kelly, T. 1966. The Calaurian amphictiony. AJA 70: 113–21. Kelly, T. 1976. A History of Argos to 500 B.C. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Kern, P.B. 1999. Ancient Siege Warfare. London: Souvenir Press. Kienast, H.J. and E. Homann-Wedeking 1978. Die Stadtmauer von Samos (Samos 15). Bonn: Habelt. Kilian, K. 1988. Ausgrabungen in Tiryns 1982/83: Bericht zu den Grabungen. AA 1988: 105–51. Kilian, K., C. Podzuweit and H.J. Weisshaar 1981. Ausgrabungen in Tiryns 1978–1979. AA 1981: 149– 256. Klingborg, P. and M. Finné 2018. Modelling the freshwater supply of cisterns in ancient Greece. Water History 2018: 1–19. Knauss, J. 1996. Argolische Studien: alte Strassen, alte Wasserbauten: Talsperre von Mykene, Flussumleitung von Tiryns, Hydra von Lerna, Küstenpass Anigraia. Obernach/Walchensee: Versuchsanstalt für Wasserbau und Wasserwirtschaft, TU München. Knoblauch, P. 1969. Neuere Untersuchungen an den Häfen von Aegina. BJb 169: 104–16. Knoblauch, P. 1972. Die Hafenanlagen der Stadt Aegina. ArchDelt 27.1: 50–85. Knodell, A.R. 2013. Small-World Networks and Mediterranean Dynamics in the Euboean Gulf: An Archaeology of Complexity in Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age Greece. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Brown University. 142

Bibliography

Knodell, A.R. 2017. A conduit between two worlds: geography and connectivity in the Euboean Gulf, in Ž. Tankosić, F. Mavridis and M. Kosma (eds) An Island between Two Worlds: The Archaeology of Euboea from Prehistoric to Byzantine Times: 195–213. Athens: Norwegian Institute at Athens. Knoepfler, D. 1993. Les κρυπτοί du stratège Épicharès à Rhamnonte et le début de la guerre de Chrémonidès. BCH 117: 327–41. Kolaiti, E. and N.D. Mourtzas 2016. Upper Holocene sea level changes in the West Saronic Gulf, Greece. Quaternary International 401: 71–90. Konsolaki-Yiannopoulou, E. 2010. The Middle Helladic establishment at Megali Magoula, Galatas (Troizenia), in A. Philippa-Touchais (ed.) Mesoelladika: la Grèce continentale au Bronze Moyen: 67–76. Athens: École Française d’Athenès. Koster, H.A. 1977. The Ecology of Pastoralism in Relation to Changing Patterns of Land Use in the Northeast Peloponnese. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. Koster, H.A. and J.B. Koster 1976. Competition or Symbiosis? Pastoral Adaptive Strategies in the Southern Argolid, Greece. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 268.1: 275–85. Kouli, K. 2012. Vegetation development and human activities in Attiki (SE Greece) during the last 5,000 years. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 21: 267–78. Kouli, K., A. Masi, A.M. Mercuri, A. Florenzano, and L. Sadori 2015. Regional vegetation histories: an overview of the pollen evidence from the central Mediterranean. Late Antique Archaeology 11: 69–82. Kourakou-Dragona, S. 2015. Vine and Wine in the Ancient Greek World. Αthens: Εκδόσεις του Φοίνικα. Kourtessi-Philippakis, G. and R. Treuil (eds) 2011. Archéologie du territoire, de l’Egée au Sahara. Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne. Kraft, J.C., S.E. Aschenbrenner, and G. Rapp 1977. Paleogeographic reconstructions of coastal Aegean archaeological sites. Science 195: 941–47. Kralli, I. 2017. The Hellenistic Peloponnese: Interstate Relations: A Narrative and Analytic History, 371–146 BC. Swansea: Classical Press of Wales. Krentz, P. 2000. Deception in Archaic and Classical Greek warfare, in H. Van Wees (ed.) War and Violence in Ancient Greece: 167–200. Swansea: Classical Press of Wales. Krentz, P. 2007. Archaic and Classical Greece: war, in P.A.G. Sabin, H. van Wees and M. Whitby (eds) The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare: 147–85. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kritzas, C. 1980. Muses delphiques à Argos, in Études Argiennes: 195–209. Athens: École Française d’Athènes. Kritzas, C. 1992. Aspects de la vie politique et économique d’Argos au Ve siècle avant J.-C, in M.

Piérart (ed.) Polydipsion Argos: Argos de la fin des palais mycéniens à la constitution de l’état classique: actes de la table ronde Fribourg (Suisse), 7–9 Mai 1987: 231–40. École Française d’Athènes. Kritzas, C. 2003. Literacy and society: the case of Argos. Kodai 13/14: 53–60. Kritzas, C. 2006. Nouvelles inscriptions d’Argos: les archives des comptes du trésor sacré (IVe s. av. J.C.). CRAI 1: 397–434. Kron, G. 2010. Animal husbandry, hunting, fishing and fish production, in J.P. Oleson (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Engineering and Technology in the Classical World: 175–222. Oxford: Oxford University Press. La Noë, G.O. de 1888. Principes de la fortification antique depuis les temps préhistoriques jusqu’aux croisades, pour servir au classement des enceintes dont le sol de la France a conservé la trace. Paris: E. Leroux. Lambertz, M. and A. Ohnesorg 2018. Hellenistische Türme und Turmgehöfte auf Naxos. AM 133: 185– 238. Landeschi, G., S. Lindgren, H. Gerding, A. Papadimitriou and J. Wallensten 2020. Ancient Hermione revealed: the contribution of high‐performance computing and digital methods to the analysis of a hidden cityscape. Archaeological Prospection 27: 315–28. Lang, F. 1996. Archaische Siedlungen in Griechenland: Struktur und Entwicklung. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Lauffer, S. 1979. Die Bergwerkssklaven von Laureion (2nd edition). Wiesbaden: F. Steiner. Laurence, R. 1998. Land transport in Roman Italy: costs, practices and the economy, in H.M. Parkins and C.J. Smith (eds) Trade, Traders and the Ancient City: 129– 48. London: Routledge. Lavery, J. 1990. Some aspects of Mycenaean topography. BICS 37: 165–71. Lawrence, A.W. 1979. Greek Aims in Fortification. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Le Bas, P., E. Landron, and S.H. Reinach 1888. Voyage archéologique en Grèce et en Asie Mineure sous la direction de P. Le Bas. Paris: Firmin-Didot et Cie. Le Puillon de Boblaye, É. 1836. Expédition scientifique de Morée: section des sciences physiques: recherches géographiques sur les ruines de la Morée. Paris: F. G. Levrault. Leake, W.M. 1830a. Travels in the Morea: I. London: John Murray. Leake, W.M. 1830b. Travels in the Morea: II. London: John Murray. Leake, W.M. 1846. Peloponnesiaca: A Supplement to Travels in the Morea: II. London: J. Rodwell. Leekley, D. and R. Noyes 1976. Archaeological Excavations in Southern Greece. Park Ridge: Noyes Press. Lefèvre, F. 2004. Contrôle d’identité aux frontières dans les cités grecques: le cas des entrepreneurs étrangers et assimilés, in C. Moatti (ed.) La mobilité des personnes en Méditerranée de l’Antiquité à l’époque moderne:

143

A Landscape of Conflict? Rural Fortifications in the Argolid (400–146 BC) procédures de contrôle et documents d’identifications: 99–125. Rome: École Française de Rome. Legon, R.P. 2004. Megaris, Korinthia, Sikyonia, in M.H. Hansen and T.H. Nielsen (eds) An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis: an Investigation Conducted by the Copenhagen Polis Centre for the Danish National Research Foundation: 462–71. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Legrand, P.-E. 1905. Antiquités de Trézène: notes de topographie. BCH 29: 269–318. Leiner, W. 1982. Die Signaltechnik der Antike. Stuttgart: Privately printed. Leriche, P. and H. Tréziny (eds) 1986. La fortification dans l’histoire du monde grec: actes du colloque international: la fortification et sa place dans l’histoire politique, culturelle et sociale du monde grec, Valbonne, décembre 1982. Paris: Éditions du Centre national de la Recherche scientifique. Letesson, Q. and K. Vansteenhuyse 2006. Towards an archaeology of perception: ‘looking’ at the Minoan palaces. JMA 19: 91–119. Leukart, A. 1994. Die frühgriechischen nomina auf -ās und -ās: Untersuchungen zu ihrer Herkunft und Ausbreitung (unter Vergleich mit den nomina auf -eús). Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Leusen, M. van 2002. Pattern to Process: Methodological Investigations into the Formation and Interpretation of Spatial Patterns in Archaeological Landscapes. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. Ley, J. 2009. Stadtbefestigungen in Akarnanien: ein bauhistorischer Beitrag zur urbanen Entwicklungsgeschichte einer antiken Landschaft. Unpublished PhD dissertation, TU Berlin. LiDonnici, L.R. 1995. The Epidaurian Miracle Inscriptions: Text, Translation, and Commentary. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Llobera, M. 2007. Reconstructing visual landscapes. WorldArch 39: 51–69. Lo Monaco, V. 2020. Phrourion: history and archaeology of a word. História 39. Loader, N.C. 1998. Building in Cyclopean Masonry: With Special Reference to the Mycenaean Fortifications on Mainland Greece. Jonsered: Paul Åströms Förlag. Lohmann, H. 1989. Aγρóκτημα με πύργo κλασσικής επoχής στην περιoχή Θυμάρι Παλαιάς Φωκαίας. AAA 22: 189–95. Lohmann, H. 1993a. Ein Turmgehöft klassischer Zeit in Thimari (Attika). AM 108: 101–49. Lohmann, H. 1993b. Atene: Forschungen zu Siedlungsund Wirtschaftsstruktur des klassischen Attika. Köln: Böhlau. Lohmann, H. 1995. Die Chora Athens im 4. Jahrhundert v. Chr: Festungswesen, Bergbau und Siedlungen, in W. Eder (ed.) Die Athenische Demokratie im 4. Jahrhundert v. Chr.: Vollendung oder Verfall einer Verfassungsform? Akten eines Symposiums 3.-7. August 1992, Bellagio: 515– 48. Stuttgart: Steiner.

Lohmann, H. 2015. Wachtturm oder Turmgehöft? Privater oder staatlicher Wehrbau?, in B. BeckBrandt, S. Ladstätter, and B. Yener-Marksteiner (eds) Turm und Tor: Siedlungsstrukturen in Lykien und Benachbarten Kulturlandschaften: Akten des Gedenkkolloquiums für Thoman Marksteiner in Wien, November 2012: 249–78. Vienna: Österreichisches Archäologisches Institut. Lolos, Y.A. 1998. Studies in the Topography of Sikyonia. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of California. Lolos, Y.A. and A. Koskinas 2011. Land of Sikyon: Archaeology and History of a Greek City-State. Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Loomis, W.T. 1998. Wages, Welfare, Costs, and Inflation in Classical Athens. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Lord, L.E. 1938. The ‘pyramids’ of Argolis. Hesperia 7: 481–527. Lord, L.E. 1939. Watchtowers and fortresses in Argolis. AJA 43: 78–84. Lord, L.E. 1941. Blockhouses in the Argolid. Hesperia 9: 93–112. Loring, W. 1895. Some ancient routes in the Peloponnese. JHS 15: 25–89. Louyot, D. 2005. Archéologie des fortifications et défense du territoire dans les cyclades durant l’antiquité Grecque. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Université de Tours. Louyot, D. 2008. Le rôle historique des sites fortifiés géométriques dans les cyclades. RA 2: 227–63. Louyot, D. and A. Mazarakis Ainian 2005. Les structures défensives antiques dans les Cyclades: l’exemple de Kythnos. REA 107.2: 559–83. Ma, J. 2000. Fighting poleis of the Hellenistic world, in H. Van Wees (ed.) War and Violence in Ancient Greece: 337–76. Swansea: Classical Press of Wales. Mackinnon, M. 2013. ‘Side’ matters: animal offerings at ancient Nemea, in J. Wallensten and G. Ekroth (eds) Bones, Behaviour and Belief: The Zooarchaeological Evidence as a Source for Ritual Practice in Ancient Greece and Beyond: 129–47. Stockholm: Svenska Institutet i Athen. Maele, S. van de 1982. Fortifications antiques sur la frontière attico-mégarienne. EchCl 26: 199–205. Maele, S. van de 1992. Le réseau Mégarien de défense territoriale contre l’Attique à l´époque classique (Ve et IVe s. av. J.-C.), in S. van de Maele and J.M. Fossey (eds) Fortificationes Antiquae: Including the Papers of a Conference Held at Ottawa University, October 1988: 93– 107. Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben. Maele, S. van de and J.M. Fossey (eds) 1992. Fortificationes Antiquae: Including the Papers of a Conference Held at Ottawa University, October 1988. Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben. Magnetto, A. 1997. Gli arbitrati interstatali Greci: dal 337 al 196 a. C. Pisa: Scuola Normale Superiore. 144

Bibliography

Maher, M. 2015. In defense of Arkadia: the city as a fortress, in A. Kemezis (ed.) Urban Dreams and Realities in Antiquity: Remains and Representations of the Ancient City: 15–45. Leiden: Brill. Maher, M. 2017. The Fortifications of Arkadian City States in the Classical and Hellenistic Periods. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Maher, M. 2018. The defense network in the chora of Mantineia. Hesperia 87: 451–95. Maier, F G. 1958. Die Stadtmauer von Thisbe. AM 73: 17–25. Maier, F.G. 1959. Griechische Mauerbauinschriften: I. Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer. Maier, F.G. 1961. Griechische Mauerbauinschriften: II. Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer. Malamud, B.D., D.L. Turcotte, F. Guzzetti and P. Reichenbach 2004. Landslides, earthquakes, and erosion. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 229: 45–59. Marchand, J. 2002. Well-Built Kleonai: A History of the Peloponnesian City Based on a Survey of the Visible Remains and a Study of the Literary and Epigraphic Sources. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of California. Marchand, J. 2009a. All roads lead to Nemea: physical evidence for ancient roads in the territory of Kleonai in the northeastern Peloponnesos. AA 2009: 1–49. Marchand, J. 2009b. Kleonai, the Corinth-Argos road, and the ‘axis of history’. Hesperia 78: 107–63. Marchand, J. 2013. Investigations in the territory of Kleonai in the northeastern Peloponnese, in K. Kissas and W.-D. Niemeier (eds) The Corinthia and the Northeast Peloponnese: Topography and history from prehistoric times until the end of antiquity: Proceedings of the international conference, organized by the Directorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities, the LZ’ Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities and the German Archaeological Institute, Athens, held at Loutraki, March 26–29, 2009: 313–22. München: Hirmer. Marchetti, P. 1992. Témoignages épigraphiques concernant Pyrrhus, in T. Hackens, N.D. Holloway, R.R. Holloway and G. Moucharte (eds) The Age of Pyrrhus: Papers Delivered at the International Conference, Brown University, 8–10 April, 1988: 51–72. Louvain-laNeuve: Art and Archaeology Publications. Marchetti, P. 1994. Recherches sur les mythes et la topographie d’Argos. BCH 118: 131–60. Marchetti, P. 2000. Recherches sur les mythes et la topographie d’Argos: V: quelques mises au point sur les rues d’Argos: à propos de deux ouvrages récents. BCH 124: 273–89. Marchetti, P. 2013. Argos: la ville en ses remparts, in D. Mulliez and A. Μπανάκα-Δημάκη (eds) Στα βήματα του Wilhelm Vollgraff: εκατό χρόνια αρχαιολογικής δραστηριότητας στο Άργος: πρακτικά του διεθνούς συνεδρίου που διοργανώθηκε από την Δ’ ΕΠΚΑ και από τη Γαλλική Σχολή Αθηνών, 25–28 Σεπτεμβρίου 2003: 315–34. Athens: École Française d’Athènes.

Marksteiner, T. 1994. Geböschte Mauern in der griechischen Befestigungsarchitektur des Mutterlandes und Kleinasiens in klassischer und hellenistischer Zeit. IstMitt 44: 39–54. Marsden, E.W. 1969. Greek and Roman Artillery: Historical Development. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Martinez Morales, J. 2019. Women on the walls? The role and impact of women in Classical Greek sieges, in J. Armstrong and M. Trundle (eds) Brill’s Companion to Sieges in the Ancient Mediterranean: 150–68. Leiden: Brill. Marzano, A. 2013. Harvesting the Sea: The Exploitation of Marine Resources in the Roman Mediterranean. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mattern, T. 2012. Das wohlgebaute Kleonai: neue Ausgrabungen in einer Stadt des Dritten Griechenlands. AntW 48.2: 46–54. Mattern, T. 2013. Kleonai: neue Forschungen in einer Stadt des ‘Dritten Griechenlands’, in K. Kissas and W.-D. Niemeier (eds) The Corinthia and the Northeast Peloponnese: Topography and history from prehistoric times until the end of antiquity: Proceedings of the international conference, organized by the Directorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities, the LZ’ Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities and the German Archaeological Institute, Athens, held at Loutraki, March 26–29, 2009: 323–32. München: Hirmer. Mattern, T. 2015. Das Herakles-Heiligtum von Kleonai: Architektur und Kult im Kontext. Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag. Matthew, C. 2012. A Storm of Spears: Understanding the Greek Hoplite in Action. Barnsley: Pen & Sword Military. Mattingly, D. 2000. Methods of collection, recording and quantification, in R. Francovich, H. Patterson and G. Barker (eds) Extracting Meaning from Ploughsoil Assemblages: 5–15. Oxford: Oxbow. McAllister, M.H. 1969. A temple at Hermione. Hesperia 38: 169–85. McAllister, M.H. 2005. The Fortifications and Adjacent Structures (Excavations at Ancient Halieis 1). Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. McCarthy, M. 2008. Boundaries and the archaeology of frontier zones, in B. David and J. Thomas (eds) Handbook of Landscape Archaeology: 202–09. Walnut Creek, California: Left Coast Press. McCredie, J.R. 1966. Fortified Military Camps in Attica. Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens. McHugh, M. 2017. The Ancient Greek Farmstead. Oxford: Oxbow. McHugh, M. 2019. Going the extra mile: travel, time and distance in Classical Attica. BSA 114: 207–40. McInerney, J. 1999. The Folds of Parnassos: Land and Ethnicity in Ancient Phokis. Austin: University of Texas Press.

145

A Landscape of Conflict? Rural Fortifications in the Argolid (400–146 BC) McLeod, W.E. 1965. The range of the ancient bow. Phoenix 19: 1–14. McNicoll, A. 1997. Hellenistic Fortifications from the Aegean to the Euphrates. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Meadows, A. 2018. The coinage of Arsinoe-Methana, in C. Doyen and E. Apostolou (eds) Ὀβολός 10: Coins in the Peloponnese: Mints, Iconography, Circulation, History from Antiquity to Modern Times: Proceedings of the Sixth Scientific Meeting in the Memory of Tony Hackens Argos, May 26–29, 2011: 133–49. Athens: École Française d’Athènes. Mee, C., H.A. Forbes and M.P. Atherton (eds) 1997. A Rough and Rocky Place: The Landscape and Settlement History of the Methana Peninsula, Greece. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. Megaw, A.H.S. 1963. Archaeology in Greece, 1962–1963. AR 9: 3–33. Megaw, A.H.S 1966. Archaeology in Greece, 1965–1966. AR 12: 3–24. Megaw, A.H.S 1967. Archaeology in Greece, 1966–1967. AR 13: 3–24. Megaw, A.H.S 1968. Archaeology in Greece, 1967–1968. AR 14: 3–26. Meiggs, R. 1982. Trees and Timber in the Ancient Mediterranean World. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Mersch, A. 1996. Studien zur Siedlungsgeschichte Attikas von 950 bis 400 v. Chr. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Mertens, D., K. Mathieu and D. Wannagat 1989. Die Mauern von Selinunt: Vorbericht der Arbeiten des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Rom 1971–75 und 1975–87. RM 96: 87–154. Meyer, E. 1920. Πύργος Wirtschaftsgebäude. Hermes 55: 100–02. Meyer, E. 1927. Lyrkeion. RE 13: 2499–500. Meyer, E. 1930. Mases. RE Suppl. 4: 2065–66. Meyer, E. 1939a. Troizen. RE Suppl. 7.A: 618–54. Meyer, E. 1939b. Peloponnesische Wanderungen: Reisen und Forschungen zur antiken und mittelalterlichen Topographie von Arkadien und Achaia. Zürich: M. Niehans. Meyer, E. 1941. Phleius. RE 20: 269–90. Michaud, J.P. 1970. Chronique des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques en Grèce en 1968 et 1969. BCH 94: 883–1164. Michaud, J.P. 1971. Chronique des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques en Grèce en 1970 et 1971. BCH 95: 803–1067. Michaud, J.P. 1973. Chronique des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques en Grèce en 1972 et 1973. BCH 97: 253–412. Michhöfer, A. 1895. Karten von Attika: Heft VII-VIII, in E. Curtius and J.A. Kaupert (eds) Karten von Attika: erläuternder Text: 1–37. Berlin: D. Reimer. Migeotte, L. 1984. L’emprunt public dans les cités grecques: recueil des documents et analyse critique. Québec: Éditions du Sphinx.

Migeotte, L. 1992. Les souscriptions publiques dans les cités grecques. Genève: Librairie Droz. Miller, S.G. 1976. Excavations at Nemea, 1975. Hesperia 45: 174–202. Miller, S.G. 1980. Excavations at Nemea, 1979. Hesperia 49: 178–205. Miller, S.G. 1982. Kleonai, the Nemean Games, and the Lamian War, in Studies in Athenian Architecture, Sculpture, and Topography: Presented to Homer A. Thompson: 100–08. Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Millett, M. 2000. Dating, quantifying and utilizing pottery assemblages from surface survey, in R. Francovich, H. Patterson and G. Barker (eds) Extracting Meaning from Ploughsoil Assemblages: 53–59. Oxford: Oxbow. Minetti, A.E., C. Moia, G.S. Roi, D. Susta and G. Ferretti 2002. Energy cost of walking and running at extreme uphill and downhill slopes. Journal of Applied Physiology 93: 1039–46. Mitchell, P. 2018. The Donkey in Human History: An Archaeological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Moatti, C. and W. Kaiser 2007. Gens de passage en Méditerranée de l’Antiquité à l’époque moderne: procédures de contrôle et d’identification. Paris: Maisonneuve & Larose. Möbius, H. and W. Wrede 1927. Archäologische Funde, 1927. AA 1927: 345–410. Morfis, A. and H. Zojer 1986. Karst hydrogeology of the central and eastern Peloponnese. Steirische Beiträge zur Hydrogeologie 37.8: 1–301. Morris, S.P. 2001. The towers of ancient Leukas: results of a topographic survey, 1991–1992. Hesperia 70: 285–347. Morris, S.P. and J.K. Papadopoulos 2005. Greek towers and slaves: an archaeology of exploitation. AJA 109: 155–225. Muller, A. 1986. La défense de l’Attique au IVe siècle. REG 99: 347–49. Muller, A. 1999. La défense du territoire civique: stratégies et organisation spatiale, in F. Prost (ed.) Armées et sociétés de la Grèce classique: aspects sociaux et politiques de la guerre aux Ve et IVe s. av. J.C.: 16–33. Paris: Errance. Müller, H. 1975. Φυγῆς ἕνεκεν. Chiron 5: 129–56. Munn, M.H. 1983. Studies on the Territorial Defenses of Fourth-Century Athens. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. Munn, M.H. 1993. The Defense of Attica: The Dema Wall and the Boiotian War of 378–375 B.C. Berkeley: University of California Press. Mure, W. 1842. Journal of a Tour in Greece and the Ionian Islands. Edinburgh: William Blackwood and sons. Müth, S. 2016a. Urbanistic functions and aspects, in R. Frederiksen, S. Müth, P. Schneider and M. Schnelle (eds) Focus on Fortification: New Research on 146

Bibliography

Fortifications in the Ancient Mediterranean and the Near East: 159–72. Oxford: Oxbow. Müth, S. 2016b. Functions and semantics of fortifications: an introduction, in R. Frederiksen, S. Müth, P. Schneider and M. Schnelle (eds) Focus on Fortification: New Research on Fortifications in the Ancient Mediterranean and the Near East: 183–92. Oxford: Oxbow. Müth, S. 2020. More than war: symbolic functions of Greek fortifications, in P. Sapirstein and D. Scahill (eds) New Directions and Paradigms for the Study of Greek Architecture: Interdisciplinary Dialogues in the Field: 199–214. Leiden: Brill. Müth, S., E. Laufer and C. Brasse 2016. Symbolische Funktionen, in S. Müth, P.I. Schneider, M. Schnelle, and P.D. De Staebler (eds) Ancient Fortifications: A Compendium of Theory and Practice: 126–58. Oxford: Oxbow. Mylona, D. 2005. The animal bones from Pyrgouthi in the Berbati Valley, in J. Hjohlman, A. Penttinen and B. Wells (eds) Pyrgouthi: A Rural Site in the Berbati Valley from the Early Iron Age to Late Antiquity: Excavations by the Swedish Institute at Athens: 1995 and 1997: 301–08. Stockholm: P. Åströms. Mylona, D. 2008. Fish-Eating in Greece from the Fifth Century B.C. to the Seventh Century A.D.: A Story of Impoverished Fishermen or Luxurious Fish Banquets? Oxford: Archaeopress. Mylona, D. 2015. From fish bones to fishermen: views from the sanctuary of Poseidon at Kalaureia, in D.C. Haggis and C.M. Antonaccio (eds) Classical Archaeology in Context: Theory and Practice in Excavation in the Greek World: 385–418. Berlin: De Gruyter. Mylona, D. and A. Boethius 2019. Animals in the Sanctuary: mammal and fish bones from areas C and D at the Sanctuary of Poseidon at Kalaureia. OpAth 12: 173–221. Mylonas, G.E. 1966. Mycenae and the Mycenaean Age. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Nakas, Y.D. 2016. Isolated towers in the fortification network of ancient Molossia: a case study, in R. Frederiksen, S. Müth, R. Schneider and M. Schnelle (eds) Focus on Fortification: New Research on Fortifications in the Ancient Mediterranean and the Near East: 446–55. Oxford: Oxbow. Negris, P. 1904. Vestiges antiques submergés. AM 29: 340–63. Nevett, L. 2000. A real estate ‘market’ in Classical Greece? The example of town housing. BSA 95: 329–43. Newhard, J.M.L., N.S. Levine and A.D. Phebus 2014. The development of integrated terrestrial and marine pathways in the Argo-Saronic region, Greece. Cartography and Geographic Information Science 41: 379–90. Nielsen, T.H. 1999. The concept of Arkadia: the people, their land, and their organisation, in T.H. Nielsen

and J. Roy (eds) Defining Ancient Arkadia: Symposium, April 1–4, 1998: 16–79. Copenhagen: Munksgaard. Nielsen, T.H. 2002. ‘Phrourion’: a note on the term in classical sources and in Diodorus Siculus, in T.H. Nielsen (ed.) Even More Studies in the Ancient Greek ‘Polis’: 49–64. Steiner. Nielsen, T.H. 2004. Arkadia, in M.H. Hansen and T.H. Nielsen (eds) An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis: An Investigation Conducted by the Copenhagen Polis Centre for the Danish National Research Foundation: 505–39. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Niemi, T. and E.A.W. Finke 1988. The application of remote sensing to coastline reconstruction in the Argive plain, in A. Raban (ed.) Archaeology of Coastal Changes: Proceedings of the First International Symposium ‘Cities on the Sea — Past and Present’, Haifa, Israel Sept. 22–29 1986: 119–36. Haifa: Center for Maritime Studies. Niese, D.A. 2012. Peltasts and Javelineers in Classical Greek Warfare: Roles, Tactics, and Fighting Methods. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Wright State University. Nixon, F.C., E.G. Reinhardt and R. Rothaus 2009. Foraminifera and tidal notches: dating neotectonic events at Korphos, Greece. Marine Geology 257: 41–53. Nossov, K. 2005. Ancient and Medieval Siege Weapons: A Fully Illustrated Guide to Siege Weapons and Tactics. Staplehurst: Spellmount. Nowicka, M. 1970. A propos des tours: πύργοι dans les papyrus grecs. ArcheologiaWar 21: 53–62. Nowicka, M. 1974. A propos d’οἰκία διπυργία dans le monde grec. Archaeologia Polona 14: 175–78. Nowicka, M. 1975. Les maisons à tour dans le monde Grec. Warsaw: Polish Academy of Science. Nyst, M. and W. Thatcher 2004. New constraints on the active tectonic deformation of the Aegean. Journal of Geophysical Research B: Solid Earth 109: B1106. Ober, J. 1985. Fortress Attica: Defense of the Athenian Land Frontier, 404–322 B.C. Leiden: Brill. Ober, J. 1987. Early artillery towers: Messenia, Boiotia, Attica, Megarid. AJA 91: 569–604. Ober, J. 1992. Towards a typology of Greek artillery towers: the first and second generations (c. 375– 275 B.C.), in J.M. Fossey and S. van de Maele (eds) Fortificationes Antiquae: Including the Papers of a Conference Held at Ottawa University, October 1988: 147– 69. Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben. O’Connor, S. 2013. The daily grain consumption of classical Greek sailors and soldiers. Chiron 43: 327– 56. Ogburn, D.E. 2006. Assessing the level of visibility of cultural objects in past landscapes. JAS 33: 405–13. Oliver, G.J. 2007. War, Food, and Politics in Early Hellenistic Athens. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Omont, H.A. 1902. Missions archéologiques françaises en Orient au xiie et xviiie siècles. Paris: Imprimerie nationale. 147

A Landscape of Conflict? Rural Fortifications in the Argolid (400–146 BC) Oppermann, S. 1971. Pyramiden in Griechenland. AntW 2: 45–52. Osborne, R. 1985a. Buildings and residence on the land in Classical and Hellenistic Greece: the contribution of epigraphy. BSA 80: 119–28. Osborne, R. 1985b. Demos: The Discovery of Classical Attika. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Osborne, R. 1987. Classical Landscape with Figures: The Ancient Greek City and Its Countryside. London: George Philip. Pariente, A. 1990. Chronique des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques en Grèce en 1989. BCH 114: 703–850. Pariente, A. and G. Touchais (eds) 1998. Argos et l’Argolide: topographie et urbanisme: actes de la table ronde internationale, Athènes-Argos, 28 Avril – 1er Mai 1990. Paris: De Boccard. Payen, P. 2012. Les revers de la guerre en Grèce ancienne: histoire et historiographie. Paris: Belin. Pečírka, J. 1973. Homestead farms in Classical and Hellenistic Hellas, in M.I. Finley (ed.) Problèmes de la terre en Grèce ancienne: 113–47. Paris: Mouton. Penttinen, A. 1996a. Excavations on the acropolis of Asine in 1990. OpAth 21: 149–67. Penttinen, A 1996b. The Classical and Hellenistic periods, in B. Wells and C. N. Runnels (eds) The Berbati-Limnes Archaeological Survey: 1988–1990: 229– 83. Stockholm: P. Åströms. Penttinen, A 2005. From the early Iron Age to the early Roman times, in J. Hjohlman, A. Penttinen and B. Wells (eds) Pyrgouthi: A Rural Site in the Berbati Valley from the Early Iron Age to Late Antiquity: Excavations by the Swedish Institute at Athens: 1995 and 1997: 11–126. Stockholm: P. Åströms. Pe-Piper, G. and D.J.W. Piper 2013. The effect of changing regional tectonics on an arc volcano: Methana, Greece. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 260: 146–63. Perlman, P.J. 2000. City and Sanctuary in Ancient Greece: The Theorodokia in the Peloponnese. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Persson, A.W. 1931. Asine: de svenska utgrävningarna. Uppsala: Lindblads. Pfaff, C.A. 2002. The Architecture of the Classical Temple of Hera (Argive Heraion  1). Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Pfister, F. 1951. Die Reisebilder des Herakleides. Wien: R. M. Rohrer. Philippa-Touchais, A. 2016. The Middle Bronze Age fortifications on the Aspis hill at Argos, in R. Frederiksen, S. Müth, P. Schneider and M. Schnelle (eds) Focus on Fortification: New Research on Fortifications in the Ancient Mediterranean and the Near East: 645–61. Oxford: Oxbow. Philippa-Touchais, A. and S. Fachard 2015. L’Aspis. BCH 136–7: 799–816. Philippa-Touchais, A. and G. Touchais 2006. Aspis. BCH 130: 714–21.

Philippa-Touchais, A. and G. Touchais 2007. Argos: II. Aspis. BCH 131: 960–71. Philippa-Touchais, A. and G. Touchais 2008. Argos: L’Aspis. BCH 132: 767–85. Philippa-Touchais, A. and G. Touchais 2009. Argos: L’Aspis. BCH 133: 567–80. Philippa-Touchais, A. and G. Touchais 2010. Argos: L’Aspis. BCH 134: 551–66. Philippa-Touchais, A. and G. Touchais 2011. Argos: L’Aspis. BCH 135: 551–66. Philippa-Touchais, A., G. Touchais, A. Alexandridou, A. Balitsari, G. Ackermann, S. Fachard, M. Kayafa, O. Métaxas, R. Prévalet, S. Triantaphyllou and E. Tsiolaki 2014. Argos. BCH 138: 733–56. Philippa-Touchais, A., G. Touchais, A. Alexandridou, A. Balitsari, R. Bardet, D. Bartzis, Y. Bassiakos, M.-F. Billot, A. Chabrol, G. Klebinder‑Gauss and O. Metaxas 2016. L’Aspis. BCH 139–40: 799–827. Philippa-Touchais, A., G. Touchais, S. Fachard, A. Alexandridou, A. Balitsari, C. Diogo de Souza, A. Gardeisen, M. Ghilardi, S. Triantaphyllou and E. Tsiolaki 2012. L’Aspis. BCH 136–37: 799–817. Philippson, A. 1892. Der Peloponnes: Versuch einer Landeskunde auf geologischer Grundlage, nach Ergebnissen eigener Reisen. Berlin: R. Friedländer & Sohn. Philippson, A. 1950. Die griechischen Landschaften: eine Landeskunde. Frankfurt am Main: V. Klostermann. Piérart, M. 1982a. Argos, Cléonai et le Koinon des Arcadiens. BCH 106: 119–38. Piérart, M. 1982b. Deux notes sur l’itinéraire argien de Pausanias. BCH 106: 139–52. Piérart, M. 1985. À propos des subdivisions de la population argienne. BCH 109: 345–56. Piérart, M. 1997. L’attitude d’Argos à l’égard des autres cités d’Argolide, in M.H. Hansen (ed.) The Polis as an Urban Centre and as a Political Community: Symposium August 29–31, 1996: 321–51. Copenhagen: Munksgaard. Piérart, M. 2000. Argos: une autre démocratie, in M.H. Hansen, P. Flensted-Jensen, T.H. Nielsen and L. Rubinstein (eds) Polis & Politics: Studies in Ancient Greek History: Presented to Mogens Herman Hansen on his Sixtieth Birthday, August 20, 2000: 297–314. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press. Piérart, M. 2001. Argos, Philippe II et la Cynourie (Thyréatide): les frontières du partage des Héraclides, in P. Ducrey, R. Frei-Stolba, and K. Gex (eds) Recherches récentes sur le monde hellénistique: 27–43. Bern: Lang. Piérart, M. 2004. Argolis, in M.H. Hansen and T.H. Nielsen (eds) An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis: An Investigation Conducted by the Copenhagen Polis Centre for the Danish National Research Foundation: 599–619. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Piérart, M. 2006. Argos des origines au synœcisme du VIIIe siècle avant J.-C, in C. Bearzot and F. Landucci

148

Bibliography

(eds) Argo: una democrazia diversa: 3–26. Milan: Vita e Pensiero. Piérart, M., P. Aupert, G. Reynal, H. Rio, J.-F. Bommelaer, J. Des Courtils, C. Baurain, J.-Y. Empereur and P. Darcque 1981. Argos. BCH 105: 891–917. Piérart, M. and J.P. Thalmann 1980. Nouvelles inscriptions argiennes I, in Études Argiennes: 255–78. Athens: École Française d’Athènes. Piérart, M. and G. Touchais 1996. Argos: une ville grecque de 6000 ans. Paris: CNRS. Pikoulas, G.A. 1999. The road-network of Arkadia, in T.H. Nielsen and J. Roy (eds) Defining Ancient Arkadia: Symposium, April 1–4, 1998: 248–319. Copenhagen: Munksgaard. Pikoulas, G.A. 2007. Travelling by land in ancient Greece, in C.E.P. Adams and J. Roy (eds) Travel, Geography and Culture in Ancient Greece, Egypt and the Near East: 78– 87. London: Routledge. Pimouguet-Pédarros, I. and E. Geny 2000. Archéologie de la défense: histoire des fortifications antiques de Carie (époques classique et hellénistique). Paris: Presses Universitaires Franc-Comtoises. Pirazzoli, P. A. 2005. A review of possible eustatic, isostatic and tectonic contributions in eight lateHolocene relative sea-level histories from the Mediterranean area. Quaternary Science Reviews 24: 1989–2001. Pirazzoli, P.A. and N. Evelpidou 2013. Tidal notches: a sea-level indicator of uncertain archival trustworthiness. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 369: 377–84. Plassart, A. 1915. Orchomène d’Arcadie: fouilles de 1913: inscriptions II. BCH 39: 53–127. Polczyk, U. 2005. Die archaische Keramik von Tiryns, in Tiryns. Forschungen und Berichte 13: 3–178. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern. Pope, K.O. and T.H. van Andel 1984. Late quaternary alluviation and soil formation in the southern Argolid: its history, causes and archaeological implications. JAS 11: 281–306. Pope, K.O., C.N. Runnels, and T.-L. Ku 1984. Dating Middle Palaeolithic red beds in southern Greece. Nature 312: 264–66. Posluschny, A. 2010. Over the hills and far away? Cost surface based models of prehistoric settlement hinterlands, in B. Fischer, J. Webb Crawford and D. Koller (eds) Making History Interactive: Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology (CAA): Proceedings of the 37th International Conference, Williamsburg, Virginia, United States of America, March 22–26: 313–19. Oxford: Archaeopress. Posluschny, A., E. Fischer, M. Rösch, K. Schatz, E. Stephan and A. Stobbe 2012. Modelling the agricultural potential of Early Iron Age settlement hinterland areas in southern Germany, in S. Kluiving and E. Guttmann-Bond (eds) Landscape Archaeology between Art and Science: From a Multi- to an Interdisciplinary

Approach: 413–28. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Poulsen, E. 1994. The Post-Geometric Settlement Material and Tombs of the Hellenistic Period (Asine: Results of the Excavations East of the Acropolis, 1970–74 2.6). Stockholm: Aström. Pouqueville, F.C.H.L. 1826. Voyage de la Grèce. Paris: Firmin-Didot et Cie. Preisigke, F. 1919. Die Begriffe ΠΥΡΓΟΣ und ΣΤΕΓΗ bei der Hausanlage. Hermes 54: 423–32. Pretzler, M. 2007. Pausanias: Travel Writing in Ancient Greece. London: Duckworth. Price, S.R.F. and L. Nixon 2005. Ancient Greek agricultural terraces: evidence from texts and archaeological survey. AJA 109: 665–94. Pritchett, W.K. 1965. Studies in Ancient Greek Topography. Berkeley: University of California Press. Pritchett, W.K. 1969. Studies in Ancient Greek Topography II: Battlefields. Berkeley: University of California Press. Pritchett, W.K. 1974. The Greek State at War I. Berkeley: University of California Press. Pritchett, W.K. 1980. Studies in Ancient Greek Topography III: Roads. Berkeley: University of California Press. Pritchett, W.K. 1982. Studies in Ancient Greek Topography IV: Passes. Berkeley: University of California Press. Pritchett, W.K. 1989. Studies in Ancient Greek Topography VI. Berkeley: University of California Press. Pritchett, W.K. 1991a. Studies in Ancient Greek Topography VII. Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben. Pritchett, W.K. 1991b. The Greek State at War V. Berkeley: University of California Press. Pritchett, W.K. 1995. Thucydides’ Pentekontaetia and Other Essays. Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben. Pritchett, W.K. and A. Pippin 1956. The Attic Stelai: part II. Hesperia 25: 178–328. Psychoyos, O. 2008. The stadium at Argos: new evidence for its location. Nikephoros 21: 197–222. Rackham, O. and J. Moody 1992. Terraces, in B. Wells (ed.) Agriculture in Ancient Greece: Proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens, 16–17 May 1990: 123–30. Stockholm: Svenska institutet i Athen. Rackham, O. and J. Moody 1996. The Making of the Cretan Landscape. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Raepsaet, G. 2002. Attelages et techniques de transport dans le monde gréco-romain. Bruxelles: Le Livre Timperman. Raepsaet, G. 2010. Land transport part 2: riding, harnesses, and vehicles, in J.P. Oleson (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Engineering and Technology in the Classical World: 580–605. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Raphael, C.N. 1973. Late quaternary changes in coastal Elis, Greece. Geographical Review 63: 73–89.

149

A Landscape of Conflict? Rural Fortifications in the Argolid (400–146 BC) Ratinaud-Lachkar, I. 2004. Insoumise Asiné? Pour une mise en perspective des sources littéraires et archéologiques relatives à la destruction d’Asiné par Argos en 715 avant notre ère. OpAth 29: 73–88. Reber, K. 2002. Die Südgrenze des Territoriums von Eretria (Euböa). AntK 45: 40–54. Rego, F.C. and F.X. Catry 2006. Modelling the effects of distance on the probability of fire detection from lookouts. International Journal of Wildland Fire 15: 197–202. Reinders, H.R. 1988. New Halos: A Hellenistic Town in Thessalia, Greece. Utrecht: HES. Renaudin, L. 1921. Note sur le site d’Asiné en Argolide. BCH 45: 295–308. Renfrew, C. 1976. Before Civilization: The Radiocarbon Revolution and Prehistoric Europe. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Rhankabes, A.R. 1857. Souvenir d’une excursion d’Athènes en Arcadie. Paris: Institute de France. Rhomaios, K.A. 1908. Ein Töpferofen bei H. Petros in der Kynuria. AM 33: 177–84. Riepl, W. 1913. Das Nachrichtenwesen des Altertums: mit besonderer Rücksicht auf die Römer. Leipzig: Teubner. Rihill, T. 1993. War, slavery, and settlement in early Greece, in J. Rich and G. Shipley (eds) War and Society in the Greek World: 77–107. London: Routledge. Rihll, T. 2006. On artillery towers and catapult sizes. BSA 101: 379–83. Robert, L. 1945. Les inscriptions grecques (Le sanctuaire de sinuri près de Mylasa 1). Paris: De Boccard. Robert, L. 1946. Hellenica: recueil d’épigraphie, de numismatique et d’antiquités grecques. Paris: Adrian Maisonneuve. Robert, L. 1970. Compte rendu de F. G. Maier, Griechische Merbauinschriften: 1, Texte und Kommentare (1959). Gnomon 42: 579–603. Robert, L. and J. Robert 1976. Une inscription grecque de Téos en Ionie: l’union de Téos et de Kyrbissos. JSav 3: 153–235. Rönnlund, R. 2018. A City on a Hill Cannot Be Hidden: Function and Symbolism of Ancient Greek Akropoleis. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Gothenburg. Rose, M.J. 2000. The fish remains, in J.W. Shaw, M.C. Shaw, and P.J. Anderson (eds) The Greek Sanctuary (Kommos 4): 495–560. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Ross, L. 1840. Reisen auf den Griechischen Inseln des Ägäischen Meeres. Stuttgart: J.G. Cotta. Ross, L. 1841. Reisen und Reiserouten durch Griechenland. Berlin: Reimer. Rossi, C. 2012. Ancient throwing machines: a method to calculate their performance. Mechanism and Machine Theory 51: 1–13. Roth, J.P. 1999. The Logistics of the Roman Army at War (264 B.C.–A.D. 235). Leiden: Brill. Roussel, P. 1930. Les κυνηγοί à l’époque hellénistique et romaine. REG 43: 361–71.

Rousset, D. 1999. Centre urbain, frontière et espace rural dans les cités de Grèce centrale, in M. Brunet (ed.) Territoires des cités grecques: actes de la table ronde internationale, 31 Octobre – 3 Novembre 1991, organisée par l’École Française d’Athènes: 35–77. Paris: De Boccard. Rousset, D. 2013. Sacred property and public property in the Greek city. JHS 133: 113–33. Roux, G. 1958. Pausanias en Corinthie (Livre II, 1–15). Paris: Belles Lettres. Rubincam, C. 2001. The topography of Pylos and Sphakteria and Thucydides’ measurements of distance. JHS 121: 77–90. Rudolph, W.W. 1971. Tiryns 1968: Mykenische und nachmykenische Streufunde von der Unterburg, in Tiryns. Forschungen und Berichte 5: 87–103. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern. Rudolph, W.W. 1973a. Excavations in Halieis (Porto Cheli). ArchDelt 27.2: 159–63. Rudolph, W.W. 1973b. Summer season 1972 in Halieis, Argolid. AJA 77: 225. Rudolph, W.W. 1974a. Excavations at Porto Cheli and vicinity: preliminary report, III: excavations at Metochi 1970. Hesperia 43: 105–31. Rudolph, W.W. 1974b. Excavations at Halieis (Porto Cheli): final report 1974. ArchDelt 29.2: 265–68. Rudolph, W.W. 1975. Final report: Halieis. ArchDelt 30.2: 64–73. Rudolph, W.W. 1976. Halieis excavations: final report for the 1976 season. ArchDelt 31.2: 72–74. Rudolph, W.W. 1978. Hellenistic fine ware pottery and lamps from above the House with the Idols at Mycenae. BSA 73: 213–34. Rudolph, W.W. 1984. Excavations at Porto Cheli and vicinity: preliminary report VI: Halieis, the stratigraphy of the streets in the northeast quarter of the lower town. Hesperia 53: 123–70. Runnels, C.N. 1982. Flaked-stone artifacts in Greece during the historical period. JFA 9: 363–73. Runnels, C.N., D.J. Pullen and S.H. Langdon 1995. Artifact and Assemblage: The Finds from a Regional Survey of the Southern Argolid, Greece. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Rupp, D.W. 1976. The altars of Zeus and Hera on Mt. Arachnaion in the Argeia, Greece. JFA 3: 261–68. Russell, A.G. 1924. The topography of Phlius and the Phliasian plain. AnnLiv 11: 37–47. Russell, F.S. 1999. Information Gathering in Classical Greece. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Säflund, G. 1935. The dating of ancient fortifications in Southern Italy and Greece. OpArch 1: 87–119. Sallares, R. 1991. The Ecology of the Ancient Greek World. London: Duckworth. Salmon, J.B. 1984. Wealthy Corinth: A History of the City to 338 BC. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Salviat, F. 1956. Sondages sur la pente est de la Larissa (mur d’enceinte). BCH 80: 366. 150

Bibliography

Sapouna-Sakellaraki, E., J.J. Coulton and I.R. Metzger 2002. The Fort at Phylla, Vrachos: Excavations and Researches at a Late Archaic Fort in Central Euboea. London: British School at Athens. Sarpaki, A. 1992. The palaeobotanical approach: the Mediterranean triad or is it a quartet?, in B. Wells (ed.) Agriculture in Ancient Greece: Proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens, 16–17 May 1990: 61–75. Stockholm: Svenska institutet i Athen. Sarpaki, A 2005. The archaeobotanical material form the site of Pyrgouthi in the Berbati Valley: the seeds, in J. Hjohlman, A. Penttinen and B. Wells (eds) Pyrgouthi: A Rural Site in the Berbati Valley from the Early Iron Age to Late Antiquity: Excavations by the Swedish Institute at Athens: 1995 and 1997: 313–41. Stockholm: P. Åströms. Schachermeyr, F. 1942. Zweiter Bericht über die Neufunde und Neuerscheinungen zur ägäischen und griechischen Frühzeit. Klio 35: 115–39. Schaefer, W. 1959. Das Stadttor von Akronauplia, in Neue Ausgrabungen im Nahen Osten, Mittelmeerraum und in Deutschland: Bericht über die Tagung der Koldewey-Gesellschaft Vereinigung für Baugeschichtliche Forschung e. V. in Xanten vom 19. bis 23. Mai 1959: 18–24. Karlsruhe: n.a. Schaefer, W. 1961. Neue Untersuchungen über die Baugeschichte Nauplias im Mittelalter. AA 1961: 156–214. Schallin, A.-L. 1996. The Late Helladic period, in B. Wells and C. N. Runnels (eds) The Berbati-Limnes Archaeological Survey: 1988–1990: 123–75. Stockholm: P. Åströms. Schilbach, J. 1975. Festungsmauern des ersten Jahrtausends vor Christus in der Argolis. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München. Schilbach, J. 1976. Kastell am Nordrand der Ebene von Iria (Argolis). ArchEph 126–32. Schläpfer, L. 1939. Untersuchungen zu den attischen Staatsurkunden und den Amphiktyonenbeschlüssen der Demosthenischen Kranzrede. Paderborn: F. Schöningh. Schlehofer, J.H. 2018. Nekropolen der Polis Halieis (Argolis): Bestattungs- und Beigabensitten in Archaischer und Klassischer Zeit. Berlin: Logos Verlag. Schliemann, H. 1878. Mykenae: Bericht über meine Forschungen und Entdeckungen in Mykenae und Tiryns. Leipzig: F.A. Brockhaus. Schneider, R. 1912. Geschütze. RE 7: 1297–322. Scoufopoulos, N.C. 1971. Mycenaean Citadels. Göteborg: P. Åströms. Scranton, R.L. 1938. The pottery from the pyramids. Hesperia 7: 528–38. Scranton, R.L. 1941. Greek Walls. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Scranton, R.L., J.W. Shaw and L. Ibrahim 1978. Topography and Architecture (Kenchreai, Eastern Port of Corinth 1). Leiden: Brill.

Seguin, J., P. Avramidis, A. Haug, T. Kessler, A. Schimmelmann and I. Unkel 2020. Reconstruction of palaeoenvironmental variability based on an inter-comparison of four lacustrine archives on the Peloponnese (Greece) for the last 5000 years. E&G Quaternary Science Journal 69: 165–86. Seguin, J., J.L. Bintliff, P.M. Grootes, T. Bauersachs, W. Dörfler, C. Heymann, S.W. Manning, S. Müller, M.-J. Nadeau, O. Nelle, P. Steier, J. Weber, E.-M. Wild, E. Zagana and I. Unkel 2019. 2500 years of anthropogenic and climatic landscape transformation in the Stymphalia polje, Greece. Quaternary Science Reviews 213: 133–54. Seifried, R.M. and W.A. Parkinson 2014. The ancient towers of the Paximadi Peninsula, southern Euboia. Hesperia 83: 277–313. Seifried, R. 2017. Situating the Paximadi towers in the Classical and Roman landscapes, in Ž. Tankosić, F. Mavridis and M. Kosma (eds) An Island between Two Worlds: The Archaeology of Euboea from Prehistoric to Byzantine Times: 431–40. Athens: Norwegian Institute at Athens. Sekunda, N. and P. De Souza 2007. Military forces, in P.A.G. Sabin, H. van Wees, and M. Whitby (eds) The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare: 325–67. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Shear, T.L. 1978. Kallias of Sphettos and the Revolt of Athens in 286 B.C. Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Sheehan, M.C. 1979a. Pollen analysis of Halieis sediments. Hesperia 48: 321–24. Sheehan, M.C. 1979b. The Postglacial Vegetational History of the Argolid Peninsula, Greece. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Indiana University. Sheldon, R.M. 2012. Ambush: Surprise Attack in Ancient Greek Warfare. Barnsley: Frontline. Shipley, G. 1993. Introduction: the limits of war, in J. Rich and G. Shipley (eds) War and Society in the Greek World: 1–24. London: Routledge. Shipley, G. 1996. Archaeological sites in Laconia and the Thyreatis, in W.G. Cavanagh, J. Crouwel, H. W. Catling and G. Shipley (eds) The Laconia Survey: Continuity and Change in a Greek Rural Landscape: 263– 313. London: British School at Athens. Shipley, G. 1997. ‘The other Lakedaimonians’: the dependent perioikic poleis of Laconia and Messenia, in M.H. Hansen (ed.) The Polis as an Urban Centre and as a Political Community: Symposium August, 29–31, 1996: 189–281. Copenhagen: Munksgaard. Shipley, G. 2000. The extent of Spartan territory in the late Classical and Hellenistic periods. BSA 95: 367–90. Shipley, G. 2002. The survey area in the Hellenistic and Roman periods, in W.G. Cavanagh, J. Crouwel, H.W. Catling and G. Shipley (eds) The Laconia Survey: Continuity and Change in a Greek Rural Landscape: 257– 338. London: British School at Athens.

151

A Landscape of Conflict? Rural Fortifications in the Argolid (400–146 BC) Shipley, G. 2004. Lakedaimon, in M.H. Hansen and T.H. Nielsen (eds) An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis: An Investigation Conducted by the Copenhagen Polis Centre for the Danish National Research Foundation: 569–98. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Shipley, G. 2005. Between Macedonia and Rome: political landscapes and social change in southern Greece in the early Hellenistic period. BSA 100: 315–30. Shipley, G. 2011. Pseudo-Skylax’s Periplous: The Circumnavigation of the Inhabited World: Text, Translation and Commentary. Exeter: Bristol Phoenix Press. Shipley, G. 2018. The Early Hellenistic Peloponnese: Politics, Economies, and Networks 338–197 BC. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Simpson, R.H. 1965. A Gazetteer and Atlas of Mycenaean Sites. London: Institute of Classical Studies. Simpson, R.H. 1981. Mycenaean Greece. Park Ridge: Noyes Press. Simpson, R.H. 1983. The limitations of surface surveys, in D.R. Keller and D.W. Rupp (eds) Archaeological Survey in the Mediterranean Area: 45–47. Oxford: BAR. Simpson, R.H. 1984. The analysis of data from surface surveys. JFA 11: 115–17. Simpson, R.H. and O.T.P.K. Dickinson 1979. A Gazetteer of Aegean Civilisation in the Bronze Age. Göteborg: P. Åströms. Simpson, R.H. and D.K. Hagel 2006. Mycenaean Fortifications, Highways, Dams and Canals. Sävedalen: P. Åströms. Simpson, R.H. and J.F. Lazenby 1970. The Catalogue of the Ships in Homer’s Iliad. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Skorda, D. 1992. Recherches dans la valleé du Phleistos, in F. Bommelaer (ed.) Delphes: centenaire del la ‘Grande Fouille’ réalisée par l’École Française d’Athènes (1892– 1903): actes du Coll. Paul Perdrizet, Strasbourg 1991: 39– 66. Leiden: Brill. Snodgrass, A. 1985. The site of Askra, in P. Roesch and G. Argoud (eds) La Béotie antique, Lyon-Saint-Étienne, 16– 20 Mai 1983: 87–95. Paris: Éditions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique. Sokolicek, A. 2009. Diateichismata: Zu dem Phänomen innerer Befestigungsmauern im Griechischen Städtebau. Wien: Wien Österreichisches Archäologisches Institut. Spyropoulos, T. and J. Christien 1985. Eua et la Thyréatide: topographie et histoire. BCH 109: 455– 66. Stählin, F. 1934. Pagasai und Demetrias: Beschreibung der Reste und Stadtgeschichte. Berlin: De Gruyter. Steffen, B. and H. Lolling 1884. Karten von Mykenai. Berlin: Reimer. Stewart, D.R. 2013. Reading the Landscape of the Rural Peloponnese: Landscape Change and Regional Variation in an Early ‘provincial’ Setting. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Stewart, D.R. 2018. From Leuktra to Nabis, 371–192, in A. Powell (ed.) A Companion to Sparta: 374–402. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons. Stewart, I. and C. Morhange 2009. Coastal geomorphology and sea-level change, in J.C. Woodward (ed.) The Physical Geography of the Mediterranean: 385–414. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Stiros, S. 2016. On the historical role of earthquakes in antiquity, in M. Ghilardi (ed.) Géoarchéologie des îles de Méditerranée: 191–98. Paris: Éditions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique. Stothers, R.B. and M.R. Rampino 1983. Volcanic eruptions in the Mediterranean before A.D. 630 from written and archaeological sources. Journal of Geophysical Research B: Solid Earth 88.B8: 6357–71. Strassler, R.B. 1988. The harbor at Pylos, 425 BC. JHS 108: 198–203. Strauss, B. 2007. Archaic and Classical Greece: battles: naval battles and sieges, in P.A.G. Sabin, H. van Wees, and M. Whitby (eds) The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare: 223–47. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Stringfield, V.T. and J.R. Rapp 1977. Progress of knowledge of hydrology of carbonate rock terranes: a review, in R.R. Dilamarter and S.C. Csallany (eds) Hydrologic Problems in Karst Regions: 1–9. Bowling Green: Western Kentucky University. Stroud, R.S. 1998. A Corinthian epitaph. Horos 10: 239–43. Styrenius, C.-G. 1998. Asine: en svensk utgrävningsplats i Grekland. Stockholm: P. Åströms. Surdez, M., J. Beck, D. Sakellariou, H. Vogel, P.B. Emery, D. Koutsoumba and F.S. Anselmetti 2018. Flooding a landscape: impact of Holocene transgression on coastal sedimentology and underwater archaeology in Kiladha Bay (Greece). Swiss Journal of Geosciences 111: 573–88. Suto, Y. 1996. Borderland under dispute: a reappraisal of ancient Greek countryside through epigraphical evidence from Hellenistic Argolid. Kodai 6: 1–40. Szalay, Á. von 1937. Die hellenistischen Arsenale: Garten der Königin (Altertümer von Pergamon 10). Berlin: De Gruyter. Tausend, K. 1992. Amphiktyonie und Symmachie: Formen zwischenstaatlicher Beziehungen im archaischen Griechenland. Stuttgart: Steiner. Tausend, K. 1995. Pheidon von Argos und das argolische Aigina. GrazBeitr 21: 1–5. Tausend, K. 1998. Ein Rundturm in der Pheneatiké und die Pyramiden der Argolis. ÖJh 67: 37–50. Tausend, K. 2006. Verkehrswege der Argolis: Rekonstruktion und historische Bedeutung. Stuttgart: F. Steiner. Tausend, K. 2020. Zur Rekonstruktion antiker Verkehrswege. Digital Classics Online 6: 120–36. Taylor, M.C. 1997. Salamis and the Salaminioi: The History of an Unofficial Athenian ‘Demos’. Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben. 152

Bibliography

Terrenato, N. 2000. The visibility of sites an the interpretation of field survey results: towards an analysis of incomplete distributions, in R. Francovich, H. Patterson and G. Barker (eds) Extracting Meaning from Ploughsoil Assemblages: 60–71. Oxford: Oxbow. Tetford, P.E., J.R. Desloges and D. Nakassis 2017. Modelling surface geomorphic processes using the RUSLE and specific stream power in a GIS framework, NE Peloponnese, Greece. Modeling Earth Systems and Environment 3: 1229–44. Tetford, P.E., J.R. Desloges and D. Nakassis 2018. The potential relationship between archaeological artifact exposure and surface geomorphic processes: northeastern Peloponnese, Greece. JFA 43: 538–50. Theodoropoulou, T. 2018. To salt or not to salt: a review of evidence for processed marine products and local traditions in the Aegean through time. JMA 13: 389–406. Thielemans, S. 1982. The reconstructed height of a number of Attic towers: some critical remarks, in P. Spitaels and H.F. Mussche (eds) Studies in South Attica: 127–46. Gent: Belgian Archaeological Mission in Greece. Thomas, R. and A. Wilson 1994. Water supply for Roman farms in Latium and south Etruria. PBSR 62: 139–96. Tillyard, H.J.W. 1905. Two watch towers in the Megarid. BSA 12: 101–08. Tölle, R. 1969. Die antike Stadt Samos: Ein Führer. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. Tomlinson, R.A. 1972. Argos and the Argolid: From the End of the Bronze Age to the Roman Occupation. London: Routledge. Topouzi, S., A. Sarris, G.A. Pikoulas, S. Mertikas, X. Frantzis and A. Giourou 2002. Ancient Mantineia’s defence network reconsidered through a GIS approach, in G. Burenhult and J. Arvidsson (eds) Archaeological Informatics: Pushing the Envelope: CAA 2001: Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology: Proceedings of the 29th Conference, Gotland, April 2001: 559–66. Oxford: Archaeopress. Touchais, G. 1977. Chronique des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques en Grèce en 1976. BCH 101: 513–666. Touchais, G. 1978. Chronique des fouilles et découvertes archéologiqnes en Grèce en 1977. BCH 102: 641–877. Touchais, G. 1979. Chronique des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques en Grèce en 1978. BCH 103: 527–615. Touchais, G. 1983. Ασπίδα. ArchDelt 38.2: 86. Touchais, G. 1986. Chronique des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques en Grèce en 1985. BCH 110: 763–822. Touchais, G. 2013. La colline de l’Aspis à l’époque mycénienne, in D. Mulliez and Α. Μπανάκα-Δημάκη (eds) Στα βήματα του Wilhelm Vollgraff: εκατό χρόνια αρχαιολογικής δραστηριότητας στο Άργος: πρακτικά του διεθνούς συνεδρίου που διοργανώθηκε από την Δ’ ΕΠΚΑ και από τη Γαλλική Σχολή Αθηνών, 25–28 Σεπτεμβρίου 2003: 101–39. Athens: École Française d’Athènes.

Trant, T.A. 1830. Narrative of a Journey through Greece in 1830: With Remarks upon the Naval and Military Power of the Ottoman Empire. London: Henry Colburn and Richard Bentley. Trelawny, E.J. 1858. Recollections of the Last Days of Shelley and Byron. London: Edward Moxon. Tripcevich, N. 2009. Cost Distance Analysis, viewed 12 October 2015 . Tritle, L.A. 1992. Eretria, Argoura, and the road to Tamynai: the Athenians in Euboia, 348 B.C. Klio 74: 131–65. Trundle, M. 2019. The introduction of siege technology into Classical Greece, in J. Armstrong and M. Trundle (eds) Brill’s Companion to Sieges in the Ancient Mediterranean: 135–49. Leiden: Brill. Tsountas, C. and J.I. Manatt 1897. The Mycenaean Age: A Study of the Monuments and Culture of Pre-Homeric Greece. London: Macmillan. Tuplin, C. 1982. The date of the union of Corinth and Argos. CQ 32: 75–83. Typaldou-Fakiris, C. 2004. Villes fortifiées de Phocide et la IIIe guerre sacrée, 356–346 av. J.-C. Aix-en-Provence: Publications de l’Université de Provence. Tzochev, C. 2016. Markets, amphora trade and wine industry: the case of Thasos, in E.M. Harris, D.M. Lewis and M. Woolmer (eds) The Ancient Greek Economy: Markets, Households and City-States: 230–53. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Uibopuu, K. 1997. A treaty of reconciliation between Argos and Kleonai (after 229 B.C.), in Πρακτικά του E’ Διεθνούς Συνεδρίου Πελοποννησιακών Σπουδών, Άργος-Nαύπλιον 6–10 Σεπτεμβρίου 1995: 249–56. Athens: Εταιρεία Πελοποννησιακών Σπουδών. Unkel, I., C. Heymann, O. Nelle and E. Zagana 2011. Climatic influence on Lake Stymphalia during the last 15 000 years, in N. Lambrakis, G. Stournaras and K. Katsanou (eds) Advances in the Research of Aquatic Environment: 75–82. Berlin: Springer. Unkel, I., A. Schimmelmann, C. Shriner, J. Forsén, C. Heymann and H. Brückner 2014. The environmental history of the last 6500 years in the Asea Valley (Peloponnese, Greece) and its linkage to the local archaeological record. Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie 58: 89–107. van Andel, T.H. 1986. Five thousand years of land use and abuse in the Southern Argolid, Greece. Hesperia 55: 101–28. van Andel, T.H. 1989. Late quaternary sea-level changes and archaeology. Antiquity 63: 733–45. van Andel, T.H., E. Zangger and A. Demitrack 1990. Land use and soil erosion in prehistoric and historical Greece. JFA 17: 379–96. Vanderpool, E. 1978. Roads and forts in northwestern Attica. CSCA 11: 227–45. Verdelis, N. 1963. Tiryns’ water supply. Archaeology 16: 129–30.

153

A Landscape of Conflict? Rural Fortifications in the Argolid (400–146 BC) Vergnaud, B. 2012. Recherches sur les fortifications d’Anatolie occidentale et centrale au début du premier millénaire av. J.-C. (Xe – VIe s.). Unpublished PhD dissertation, Université Michel de Montaigne. Vigneron, P. 1968. Le Cheval dans l’antiquité gréco-romaine: des guerres médiques aux grandes invasions, contribution à l’histoire des techniques. Nancy: Faculté des Lettres et des Sciences Humaines de l’Université. Vischer, W. 1857. Erinnerungen und Eindrücke aus Griechenland. Basel: Schweighauser. Vita-Finzi, C. 1969. The Mediterranean Valleys: Geological Changes in Historical Times. London: Cambridge University Press. Volkmann, H. and G. Horsmann 1990. Die Massenversklavungen der Einwohner eroberter Städte in der Hellenistisch-Römischen Zeit (2nd edition). Stuttgart: Steiner. Vollgraff, W. 1903. Inscriptiones d’Argos. BCH 27: 260–79. Vollgraff, W. 1906. Fouilles d’Argos B: les établissements préhistoriques de l’Aspis. BCH 30: 5–45. Vollgraff, W. 1907. Fouilles d’Argos. BCH 31: 139–84. Vollgraff, W. 1914. Novae inscriptiones Argivae. Mnemosyme 42: 330–53. Vollgraff, W. 1915. Novae inscriptiones Argivae. Mnemosyme 43: 365–84. Vollgraff, W. 1916. Novae inscriptiones Argivae. Mnemosyme 44: 219–38. Vollgraff, W. 1928. Arx Argorum. Mnemosyne 56: 315–28. Vollgraff, W. 1931. Nieuwe opgravingen te Argos. Amsterdam: Mededeelingen der Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen. Wace, A.J.B. 1932. Chamber Tombs at Mycenae. Oxford: J. Johnson. Wace, A.J.B. 1936. Mycenae. Antiquity 10: 405–16. Wace, A.J.B. 1949. Mycenae: An Archaeological History and Guide. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Wace, A.J.B. (ed.) 1980. Excavations at Mycenae, 1939–1955. London: Thames and Hudson. Wace, A.J.B., C.-A. Boethius, W.-A. Heurtley, L.-B. Holland and W. Lamb 1923. Mycenae: report of the excavations of the British School at Athens 1921– 1923. BSA 25: 1–434. Wace, A.J.B. and F.W. Hasluck 1908. Laconia II: topography: east-central Laconia. BSA 11: 158–76. Wacker, C. 1999. Palairos: eine historische Landeskunde der Halbinsel Plagia in Akarnanien. München: Oberhummer. Wagstaff, J.M. 1981. Buried assumptions: some problems in the interpretation of the ‘Younger Fill’ raised by recent data from Greece. JAS 8: 247–64. Wagstaff, J.M. and C. Gamble 1982. Island resources and their limitations, in C. Renfrew and J.M. Wagstaff (eds) An Island Polity: The Archaeology of Exploitation in Melos: 95–105. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Waliszewski, T. 2014. Elaion: Olive Oil Production in Roman and Byzantine Syria-Palestine. Warsaw: University of Warsaw Press. Walker, I. 1936. Kynouria: Its History in the Light of Existing Remains. Williamsport: Bayard Press. Walker, P.L., R.R. Bathurst, R. Richman, T. Gjerdrum and V.A. Andrushko 2009. The causes of porotic hyperostosis and cribra orbitalia: a reappraisal of the iron‐deficiency‐anemia hypothesis. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 139: 109–25. Wallace-Hadrill, A. 1991. Introduction, in J. Rich and A. Wallace-Hadrill (eds) City and Country in the Ancient World: ix–xviii. London: Routledge. Walsh, K. 2014. The Archaeology of Mediterranean Landscapes: Human-Environment Interaction from the Neolithic to the Roman Period. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Walter, O. 1940. Archäologische Funde in Griechenland von Frühjahr 1939 bis Frühjahr 1940. AA 1940: 121–307. Wankel, H. 1976. Demosthenes: Rede für Ktesiphon über den Kranz. Heidelberg: Winter. Warren, J.A.W. 2007. The Bronze Coinage of the Achaian Koinon: The Currency of a Federal Ideal. London: Royal Numismatic Society. Waterhouse, H. and R.H. Simpson 1961. Prehistoric Laconia: II. BSA 56: 114–75. Wathelet, P. 1992. Argos et l’Argolide dans l’épopée, spécialement dans le Catalogue des vaisseaux, in M. Piérart (ed.) Polydipsion Argos: Argos de la fin des palais mycéniens à la constitution de l’état classique: actes de la table ronde Fribourg (Suisse), 7–9 Mai 1987: 99–116. Athens: École Française d’Athènes. Wees, H. van 2004. Greek Warfare: Myths and Realities. London: Duckworth. Weiberg, E., I. Unkel, K. Kouli, K. Holmgren, P. Avramidis, A. Bonnier, F. Dibble, M. Finné, A. Izdebski, C. Katrantsiotis, S.R. Stocker, M. Andwinge, K. Baika, M. Boyd and C. Heymann 2016. The socioenvironmental history of the Peloponnese during the Holocene: towards an integrated understanding of the past. Quaternary Science Reviews 136: 40–65. Wells, B. 1987. Apollo at Asine II, in Πρακτικά τoυ Γ’ Διεθνoύς Συνεδρίoυ Πελoπoννησιακών Σπoυδών, Kαλαμάτα 8–15 Σεπτεμβρίoυ 1985: 349–52. Athens: Εταιρεία Πελοποννησιακών Σπουδών. Wells, B. 1988. Early Greek building sacrifices, in Early Greek Cult Practice: Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens, 26–29 June 1986: 259–66. Stockholm: Svenska Institutet i Athen. Wells, B. 1990. The Asine sima. Hesperia 59: 157–61. Wells, B. 1992. The walls of Asine. OpAth 19: 135–42. Wells, B. 1993. Tornen är inga torn: Asines akropol byter skepnad. Hellenika 65: 18–20. Wells, B. 1996. Introduction, in B. Wells and C.N. Runnels (eds) The Berbati-Limnes Archaeological Survey: 1988– 1990: 9–22. Stockholm: P. Åströms. 154

Bibliography

Wells, B. 2002a. The ‘kontoporeia’: a route from Argos to Korinth, in K. Ascani (ed.) Ancient History Matters: Studies Presented to Jens Erik Skydsgaard on his Seventieth Birthday: 69–76. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider. Wells, B. 2002b. Evidence for cult at the acropolis of Asine from Late Geometric through Archaic and Classical times, in B. Wells (ed.) New Research on Old Material from Asine and Berbati: In Celebration of the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Swedish Institute at Athens: 95–133. Svenska Institutet i Athen. Wells, B. 2011. Introduction, in M. Lindblom, B. Wells and J. Hjohlman (eds) Mastos in the Berbati Valley: An Intensive Archaeological Survey: 17–34. Stockholm: Svenska Institutet i Athen. Wells, B. and C.N. Runnels (eds) 1996. The Berbati-Limnes Archaeological Survey: 1988–1990. Stockholm: Åströms. Wells, B., C.N. Runnels and E. Zangger 1990. The BerbatiLimnes archaeological survey: the 1988 season. OpAth 18: 207–38. Welter, G. 1941. Troizen und Kalaureia. Berlin: Gebrüder Mann Verlag. Westlake, H.D. 1983. The progress of epiteichismos. CQ 33: 12–24. Wheatley, D. 2002. Spatial Technology and Archaeology: The Archaeological Applications of GIS. London: Taylor & Francis. Wheatley, D. and M. Gillings 2000. Visual perception and GIS: developing enriched approaches to the study of archaeological visibility, in G. Lock (ed.) Beyond the Map: Archaeology and Spatial Technologies: 1–27. Amsterdam: IOS Press. Whitby, M. 1984. The union of Corinth and Argos: a reconsideration. Historia 33: 295–308. White, D.A. 2015. The basics of least cost analysis for archaeological applications. Advances in Archaeological Practice 3: 407–14. Whitehead, D. 2000. Hypereides: The Forensic Speeches. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Whitehead, D. 2016. Philo Mechanicus: On Sieges: Translated with Introduction and Commentary. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. Whitelaw, T. 1998. Colonisation and competition in the polis of Koressos: the development of settlement in north-west Keos from the Archaic to the Late Roman periods, in Λ.Γ. Μενδώνη and Α. Μαζαράκης-Αινιάν (eds) Κέα – Κύθνος: ιστορία και αρχαιολογία: πρακτικά του Διεθνούς Συμποσίου Κέα - Κύθνος 22–25 Ιουνίου 1994: 227–57. Athens: Εθνικό Ίδρυμα Ερευνών / Κέντρο Ελληνικής και Ρωμαϊκής Αρχαιότητος. Whitelaw, T.M. 1994. An ethnoarchaeological study of rural land-use in north-west Keos: insights and implications for the study of past Aegean landscapes, in P.N. Doukellis and L.G. Mendoni (eds) Structures rurales et sociétés antiques: actes du colloque de Corfou (14–16 Mai 1992): 163–86. Paris: Belles Lettres. Wiegand, T. 1901. Die ‘Pyramide’ von Kenchreai. AM 26: 241–46.

Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von 1935. Die Amphiktionie von Kalaurea, in U. von WilamowitzMoellendorff (ed.) Kleine Schriften: 100–13. Berlin: Weidmann. Williams, C.K. 1967. Halieis. ArchDelt 22.2: 195–96. Williams, H. and B. Gourley 2005. The fortifications of Stymphalos. Mouseion 5: 213–59. Williams, H. and G.P. Schaus 1997. Excavations at ancient Stymphalos, 1996. EchCl 16: 23–73. Wilson, J.B. 1979. Pylos 425 B.C.: A Historical and Topographical Study of Thucydides’ Account of the Campaign. Warminster: Aris & Phillips. Winter, F.E. 1950. The Classical Fortifications on the Valley of Soulinari in the Argolid. Unpublished paper. Athens: American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Archives, Student Papers. Winter, F.E. 1971. Greek Fortifications. London: Routledge. Winter, F.E. 1997. The use of artillery in fourth-century and Hellenistic towers. EchCl 41: 247–91. Winter, J.E. and F.E. Winter 1990. Some disputed sites and itineraries of Pausanias in the northeast Peloponnesos. EchCl 34: 221–61. Winterberger, H. 1892. Sitzungsbericht der Archäologischen Gesellschaft zu Berlin. AA 1892: 122–24. Winther-Jacobsen, K. 2010a. The Classical farmstead revisited: activity differentiation based on a ceramic use-typology. BSA 105: 269–90. Winther-Jacobsen, K. 2010b. From Pots to People: A Ceramic Approach to the Archaeological Interpretation of Ploughsoil Assemblages in Late Roman Cyprus. Leuven: Peeters. Wiseman, J. 1978. The Land of the Ancient Corinthians. Göteborg: P. Åströms. Witcher, R. 2006. Broken pots and meaningless dots? Surveying the rural landscapes of roman Italy. PBSR 74: 39–72. Witcher, R. 2012. ‘That from a long way off look like farms’: the classification of Roman rural sites, in P.A.J. Attema and G. Schörner (eds) Comparative Issues in the Archaeology of the Roman Rural Landscape: Site Classification between Survey, Excavation and Historical Categories: 11–30. Portsmouth, Rhode Island: Journal of Roman Archaeology. Wolters, P. 1915. Cyriacus in Mykene und am Tainaron. AM 40: 91–105. Woolliscroft, D.J. 2001. Roman Military Signalling. Stroud: Tempus. Wordsworth, C. 1846. Greece: Pictorial, Descriptive, and Historical. London: W.S. Oregon and Company. Woysch-Méautis, D. 2000. Prasiai ou la topographie de la côte est du Péloponnèse. Peloponnesiaka 25: 149–92. Wrede, W. 1933. Attische Mauern. Athen: Deutsches Archäologisches Institut. Wrede, W. 1959. D-DAI-ATH-Archiv-NL-Wrede, Auszüge aus den Tagebüchern von August Frickenhaus und Walter A. Müller (1909), Walther Wrede (1926), 155

A Landscape of Conflict? Rural Fortifications in the Argolid (400–146 BC) Kurt Gebauer (1938). Unpublished paper. Athens: Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Abteilung Athen, Archiv. Wright, J.C. 1990. The Nemea valley archaeological project: a preliminary report. Hesperia 59: 579–659. Young, J.H. 1956. Studies in South Attica: country estates at Sounion. Hesperia 25: 122–46. Zangger, E. 1991. Prehistoric coastal environments in Greece: the vanished landscapes of Dimini Bay and Lake Lerna. JFA 18: 1–15. Zangger, E. 1993. The Geoarchaeology of the Argolid. Berlin: Gebrüder Mann. Zangger, E. 1994a. Landscape changes around Tiryns during the Bronze Age. AJA 98: 189–212. Zangger, E. 1994b. The island of Asine: a palaeogeographic reconstruction. OpAth 20: 221–39. Αναγνωστόπουλος, Ι. 1988. Η Αγία Παρασκευή της περιοχής Νερά του Αχλαδοκάμπου. Athens: Βιβλιοσυνεργατική. Αντωνακάτου, Ν. 1973. Αργολίδος περιήγησις. Athens: Νομαρχία Αργολίδος. Αρβανίτης, Ι. 1984. Το Σπαθοκομμένο. Arkadiko Deltio 4: 19–20. Αρβανιτόπουλος, Θ. 1958. Δεκέλεια. Athens: s.n. Αρχοντίδου-Αργύρη, Α. 1975. Ειδήσεις εξ Επιδαυρίας. ΑrchEph 1975: 77–80. Αρχοντίδου-Αργύρη, Α. 1977a. Θέση Παλάτια. ArchDelt 32.2: 49. Αρχοντίδου-Αργύρη, Α. 1977b. Νέα Επίδαυρος. ArchDelt 32.2: 49. Βερδέλης, Ν. 1964. Ανασκαφή εις θέσιν Σπηλιωτάκη. ArchDelt 19.2: 121–22. Γιαννοπούλου, Μ. 2009. Τα αποτελέσματα των ερευνών στην αρχαία Τροιζήνα, in Β. Βασιλοπούλου and Σ. Κατσαρού - Τζεβελέκη (eds) Από τα Μεσόγεια στον Αργοσαρωνικό: Β΄ Εφορεία Προïστορικών και Κλασικών Αρχαιοτήτων: το έργο μιας δεκαετίας 1994–2003: 519–36. Mesogeia: Δημος Μαρκοπουλου Μεσογαιας. Γιαννοπούλου, Μ. 2011. Τροιζήνα. ArchDelt 66.2: 148–51. Γρηγορακάκης, Γ. 2009a. Δ.Δ. Αγίου Ανδρέα: Θέση Νησί: Οικόπεδα Δ. Αραχωβίτη και Κ. Κούκλη. Απομάκρυνση αυθαιρέτων. ArchDelt 64.2: 344. Γρηγορακάκης, Γ. 2009b. Πρόστασεις οριοθέτησης αρχαιολογικών χώρων Κυνουρίας. ArchDelt 64.2: 344–45. Γρηγορακάκης, Γ. 2010. Άγιος Ανδρέας, θέση Νησί (κοινοτική πλατεία). ArchDelt 65.2: 641–42. Γρηγορακάκης, Γ. 2011. Η συστηματική ανασκαφική έρευνα στη νότια Κυνουρία. ArchDelt 66.2: 143–47. Γρηγορακάκης, Γ. 2013. Νότια Κυνουρία. ArchDelt 68.2: 199–209. Δεϊλάκη, Ε. 1973. Αρχαιότητες και μνημεία ΑργολίδοςΚορινθίας 1971–1972. ArchDelt 28.2: 80–122. Διβάρη-Βαλάκου, Ν. 1980. Άργος: Οδός Ατρέως (Σκάμμα Δήμου). ArchDelt 35.2: 111–12. Δούκας, Π. Χ. 1922. Η Σπάρτη διά μέσου των αιώνων. New York: Εθνικός Κήρυκας.

Δραγάτσης, Ι. 1915. Έρευναι εν Σίφνῳ. Prakt 1915: 96– 107. Δραγάτσης, Ι. 1920. Οι πύργοι οι επί των νήσων και ιδίᾳ της Σίφνου. Prakt 1920: 147–71. Καββαδίας, Κ. 1885. Επιγραφαί εκ των εν Επιδαύρῳ ανασκαφών. ArchEph 1884: 21–31. Καζά-Παπαγεωργίου, Κ. and Ρ. Προσκυνητοπούλου 1981. Παλαιά Επίδαυρος. ArchDelt 36.2: 99–105. Καλίτσης, Κ. 1960. Εύας επιγραφή. ArchEph 1960: 6–8. Καλίτσης, Κ. 1964. Η Θυραία κατά τους αρκαίους συγγραφείς και το έτυμον αυτής. Platon 16: 219–35. Καλίτσης, Κ. 1965. Τα Ανιγραία του Παυσανίου και η θέσις των Θυραιατικών κωμών. ArchEph 1960: 10–18. Καράγιωργα, Θ. 1963. Άγιος Ανδρέας Κυνουρίας. ArchDelt 18.2: 89–90. Καρατζίκος, Γ. 2018. Η νεκρόπολη της Ερμιόνης: ελληνιστικοί και ρωμαϊκοί χρόνοι, in Ε. Ζυμή, Α.-Β. Καραπαναγιώτου, and Μ. Ξανθοπούλου (eds) Το αρχαιολογικό έργο στην Πελοπόννησο (ΑΕΠΕΛ1): πρακτικά του διεθνούς συνεδρίου: Τρίπολη, 7–11 Νοεμβρίου 2012: 299–307. Πανεπιστήμιο Πελοποννήσου. Κονσολάκη-Γιαννοπούλου, Ε. 2003. Η Μαγούλα στον Γαλατά της Τροιζηνίας: ένα νέο ΜΕ–ΥΕ κέντρο στον Σαρωνικό, in Ε. Κονσολάκη-Γιαννοπούλου (ed.) Αργοσαρωνικός: πρακτικά του 1ου Διεθνούς Συνεδρίου ιστορίας και αρχαιολογίας του Αργοσαρωνικού, Πόρος, 26–29 Ιουνίου 1998: 159–228. Athens: Δήμος Πόρου. Κονσολάκη-Γιαννοπούλου, Ε 2009. Νέα προϊστορικά ευρήματα από την Τροιζηνία, in Β. Βασιλοπούλου and Σ. Κατσαρού - Τζεβελέκη (eds) Από τα Μεσόγεια στον Αργοσαρωνικό: Β΄ Εφορεία Προïστορικών και Κλασικών Αρχαιοτήτων: το έργο μιας δεκαετίας 1994– 2003: 497–518. Mesogeia: Δημος Μαρκοπουλου Μεσογαιας. Κοντογιάννης, Ν. 2008. Οδοιπορικό στα μεσαιωνικά κάστρα και τις οχυρώσεις της επαρχίας Τροιζηνίας, in Ε. Κονσολάκη-Γιαννοπούλου (ed.) Αργοσαρωνικός: πρακτικά του 1ου διεθνούς συνεδρίου ιστορίας και αρχαιολογίας του Αργοσαρωνικού, Πόρος, 26–29 Ιουνίου 1998: 45–67. Athens: Δήμος Πόρου. Κορδώσης, Μ. 1981. Συμβολή στην ιστορία και τοπογραφία της περιοχής Κορίνθου στους μέσους χρόνους. Athens: Καραβίας. Κορμαζοπούλου, Λ. and Δ. Χατζηλαζάρου (eds) 2005. Σπήλαιο Ανδρίτσας: μοιραίο καταφύγιο. Athens: Υπουργείο Πολιτισμού. Βυζαντινό και Χριστιανικό Μουσείο. Κουσκουνάς, Ι., Ι. Κακαβούλιας and Κ. Χασαπογιάννης 1981. Θυρεάτις Γη: Ιστορία – Αρχαιολογία – Λαογραφία. Athens: Πνευματικό Κέντρο Άστρους. Κριτζάς, Χ. 1972a. Nέα εκ της πóλεως Eπιδαύρoυ. AAA 5: 186–98. Κριτζάς, Χ. 1972b. Λιγουριό. ArchDelt 27.2: 215–19. Κριτζάς, Χ. 1979. Πάροδος Θεάτρου 12 (οἰκόπεδον Εὐαγγ. Φλώρου). ArchDelt 29.2: 214–17.

156

Bibliography

Κριτζάς, Χ. 2013. Οι νέοι χαλκοί ενεπίγραφοι πίνακες από το Άργος: ΙΙ. Πρόδρομη ανακοίνωση, in D. Mulliez and A. Μπανάκα-Δημάκη (eds) Στα βήματα του Wilhelm Vollgraff: εκατό χρόνια αρχαιολογικής δραστηριότητας στο Άργος: πρακτικά του διεθνούς συνεδρίου που διοργανώθηκε από την Δ’ ΕΠΚΑ και από τη Γαλλική Σχολή Αθηνών, 25–28 Σεπτεμβρίου 2003: 275–301. Athens: École Française d’Athènes. Κύρου, Α. 1990. Στο σταυροδρόμι του Αργολικού: ιστορικό και αρχαιολογικό οδοιπορικό σ’ ένα χώρο της θάλασσας του Αιγαίου. Athens: n.a. Λάζος, Χ. 1995. Πυραμίδες στην Ελλάδα. Athens: Αίολος. Λαμπρινουδάκης, Β. 1970. Προβλήματα περί την αρχαίαν τοπογραφίαν του Άργους. Athena 71: 47–84. Ματσούκα, Π., Τ. Αδαμακόπουλος, Δ. Σταθάκος, Π. Βουλουμάνος, Α. Αδαμακόπουλος, Κ. Ζαρόκωστας, Γ. Σταυρόπουλος, Β. Γεωργιάδης, Ν. Μιχαλόπουλος, Γ.A. Πίκουλας, Γ. Ρούσσος, Γ. Λαμπρινάκος, Δ. Λεβεντάκης, Α. Ρουσέτος and Γ. Χριστάκος 2008. Χάρτης Πάρνωνας. Map. Scale 1:50000. Topo 50 Series. Athens: Ανάβαση. Μενδώνη, Λ.Γ. 1998. Οι πύργοι της Κέας: προσθήκες και επισημάνσεις, in Λ.Γ. Μενδώνη and Α. ΜαζαράκηςΑινιάν (eds) Κέα-Κύθνος: ιστορία και αρχαιολογία: πρακτικά του Διεθνούς Συμποσίου, Κέα-Κύθνος, 22–25 Ιουνίου 1994: 275–308. Athens: De Boccard. Μηλιαράκης, Α. 1886. Γεωγραφία πολιτική, νέα και αρχαία του Νομού Αργολίδος και Κορινθίας μετά γεωγραφικού πίνακος του νομού. Athens: Tυπογραφείον Κορίννης. Μίτσος, Μ.Θ. 1935. Επιγραφικά εξ Αργολίδος. Ellenika 8: 7–18. Μίτσος, Μ.Θ. 1945. Πολιτική ιστορία του Άργους: από του τέλους του Πελοποννησιακού Πολέμου μέχρι του έτους 146 π.Χ. Athens: Εκδοτικός Οίκος Ιωάννου Ν. Σιδέρη. Μίτσος, Μ.Θ. 1970. Επιγραφαί εκ του Επιγραφικού Μουσείου και εξ Επιδαυρίας. ArchDelt 25.1: 29–35. Μίτσος, Μ.Θ. 1976. Ανάθεμα δεκάτης αιγών, in Πρακτικά πρώτου Διεθνούς Συνεδρίου Πελοποννησιακών Σπουδών: 20–22. Athens: Εταιρεία Πελοποννησιακών Σπουδών. Μπάλλα, Α. 2002. Κάστρα της Κυνουρίας: επισκόπηση των μεσαιωνικών κάστρων της Τσακωνιάς. Peloponnesiaka 26: 193–227. Μπανάκα-Δημάκη, Α. 1998. To Mαλανδρένι στην αρχαιóτητα. Horos 10: 245–50. Μπόνιας, Z. and J. Perreault 1997. Άργιλος, ανασκαφή, 1997. Αρχαιολογικό έργο στη Μακεδονία και Θράκη 11: 539–48. Μυλωνάς, Γ. 1967. Ἀνασκαφή Μυκηνών. Praktika 1965: 85–98. Μώρου, Ε. 1982. Άργος. ArchDelt 37.2: 94–99. Νάντη-Ταρατόρη, Π. 2009. Αρχαία Ασίνη. ArchDelt 64.2: 287–90. Παπαδημητρίoυ, I. 1951. Ανασκαφαί Επιδαύρου. Prakt 1951: 204–12. Παπαχατζής, Ν. 1976. Παυσανίoυ Eλλάδoς περιήγησις: Koρινθιακά και Λακωνικά. Athens: Εκδοτική Αθηνών.

Παπαχριστοδούλου, Ι. 1970. Λύρκεια-Λύρκειον. AAA 3: 117–20. Παππάς, Σ. 2006. Η ‘πυραμίδα’ στην περιοχή Καμπία της Νέας Επιδαύρου: η επίλυση ενός προβλήματος. Αρχαιολογία και Τέχνες 99: 65–69. Παρασκευόπουλος, Γ.Π. 1895. Ταξίδια ανά την Ελλάδα. Athens. Πέππα, Ι.Ε. 1990. Μεσαιωνικές σελίδες της Αργολίδος, Αρκαδίας, Κορινθίας, Αττικής. Athens: n.a. Πέππα, Ι.Ε. 1993. Μεσαιωνικές σελίδες της Κορινθίας και Μωρέως. Athens: n.a. Πετράκος, Β. 1999. Ο Δήμος του Ραμνούντος: σύνοψη των ανασκαφών και των ερευνών (1813–1998). Athens: Εν Αθήναις Αρχαιολογική Εταιρεία. Πίκουλας, Γ.A. 1991. Πύργoι: δίκτυο, χρήση, απoρίες και ερωτήματα: πρoσέγγιση με τα δεδoμένα της Aργoλίδoς, Aρκαδίας, Λακωνίας. Horos 8: 247–57. Πίκουλας, Γ.A. 1992. Συμβολή στην τοπογραφία της ΝΑ Αργολίδος: οδικό δίκτυο και άμυνα, in Πρακτικά του Δ’ Διεθνούς Συνεδρίου Πελοποννησιακών Σπουδών, Κόρινθος 9–16 Σεπτεμβρίου 1990: 226–36. Athens: Εταιρεία Πελοποννησιακών Σπουδών. Πίκουλας, Γ.A. 1995. Οδικό Δίκτυο και Άμυνα: από την Κόρινθο στο Άργος και την Αρκαδία. Athens: Horos. Πίκουλας, Γ.A. 1996. Οι ‘πυραμίδες’ της Αργολίδος, in Πρακτικά του E’ Διεθνούς Συνεδρίου Πελοποννησιακών Σπουδών: Άργος-Nαύπλιον 6–10 Σεπτεμβρίου 1995: 43– 50. Athens: Εταιρεία Πελοποννησιακών Σπουδών. Πίκουλας, Γ.A. 2000. Με αφόρμη τους πύργους της Σίφνου, in Πρακτικά A’ Διεθνούς Σιφναϊκού Συμποσίου: Σίφνος, 25–28 Ιουνίου 1998: 263–78. Athens: Εταιρεία Σιφναϊκών Μελετών. Πίκουλας, Γ.A. 2003. Οι αρχαίοι αμπελώνες στο ιερό του Διός στη Νεμέα. Horos 14–19: 395–400. Πίκουλας, Γ.A. 2009. Επαναπραγμάτευση Αργείου τερμονισμού. Horos 17–21: 279–96. Πίκουλας, Γ.A. 2012. Το οδικό δίκτυο της Λακωνίας. Athens: Horos. Πιτερός, Χ. 1992. Άκοβα - Χούνη. ArchDelt 47.2: 98–99. Πιτερός, Χ. 1995a. Αρχαιολογικός χώρος Κάντιας. ArchDelt 50.2: 110–11. Πιτερός, Χ. 1995b. Χερσόνησος Νησί (υστερορωμαϊκόβυζαντινό τείχος Παλαιάς Επιδαύρου). ArchDelt 50.2: 111–12. Πιτερός, Χ. 1995c. Νέα Επίδαυρος: θέση Καμπία. ArchDelt 50.2: 113. Πιτερός, Χ. 1995d. Νέα Επίδαυρος: περιοχή μονής Αγνούντος (οικόπεδο Δημ. Φίνου). ArchDelt 50.2: 113. Πιτερός, Χ. 1996a. Αρχαία Ασίνη (Καστράκι). ArchDelt 51.2: 90–92. Πιτερός, Χ. 1996b. Άργος - Μυκήνες. ArchDelt 51.2: 95. Πιτερός, Χ. 1996c. Εργασίες καθαρισμός-αναστηλώσης. ArchDelt 51.2: 95–96. Πιτερός, Χ. 1997a. Φίχτια, θέση Κοκκινιά. ArchDelt 52.2: 142–43. Πιτερός, Χ. 1997b. Αμυγδαλίτσα. ArchDelt 52.2: 143–44.

157

A Landscape of Conflict? Rural Fortifications in the Argolid (400–146 BC) Πιτερός, Χ. 1997c. Ναύπλιο: Ψαρομαχαλάς, οδός Ζυγομαλά 26 (οικία Μ. Ρούτελ - Μ. Χάγερ). ArchDelt 52.2: 147. Πιτερός, Χ. 1997d. Παλαιά (αρχαία) Επίδαυρος, ‘Νησί’. ArchDelt 52.2: 152–53. Πιτερός, Χ. 1997e. Οι ‘πυράμιδες’ της Αργολίδας, in Πρακτικά του E’ Διεθνούς Συνεδρίου Πελοποννησιακών Σπουδών, Άργος-Nαύπλιον 6–10 Σεπτεμβρίου 1995: 344– 94. Athens. Πιτερός, Χ. 1997f. ‘Πυράμιδες’ της Αργολίδας, in Πρακτικά του E’ Διεθνούς Συνεδρίου Πελοποννησιακών Σπουδών, Άργος-Nαύπλιον 6–10 Σεπτεμβρίου 1995: 489– 90. Athens. Πιτερός, Χ. 1998a. Καθαρισμοί – Επισημάνσεις: Άργος: ακρόπολη (κάστρο) Λάρισας. ArchDelt 53.2: 139–40. Πιτερός, Χ. 1998b. Συμβολή στην αργειακή τοπογραφία: χώρος, οχυρώσεις, τοπογραφία και προβλήματα, in A. Pariente and G. Touchais (eds) Argos et l’Argolide: topographie et urbanisme: actes de la table ronde internationale, Athènes-Argos, 28 Avril – 1er Mai 1990: 179–210. Paris: De Boccard. Πιτερός, Χ. 2000. Λιγουριό. ArchDelt 55.2: 198–99. Πιτερός, Χ. 2003. Η μυκηναϊκή ακρόπολη της Λάρισας του Άργους, in Ν. Κυπαρίσση-Αποστολίκα and Μ. Παπακωνσταντίνου (eds) Η περιφέρεια του Μυκηναϊκού κόσμου: B’ Διεθνές Διεπιστημονικό Συμπόσιο: πρακτικά: 369–96. Athens: Υπουργείο Πολιτισμού. Πιτερός, Χ. 2004a. Ναύπλιο: Οδός Ζυγομαλά (Ο.Τ. 193, οικόπεδο Α. Αρμελίδη). ArchDelt 59.2.1.4: 55–56. Πιτερός, Χ. 2004b. Άγιος Δημήτριος – Καρακαλά: θέση Κοδέλες. ArchDelt 59.2: 58. Πιτερός, Χ. 2004c. Νέα Επίδαυρος: θέση Μπρινία. ArchDelt 59.2: 58–59. Πιτερός, Χ. 2004d. Ίρια: περιοχή Κατσάμπα (ιδιοκτησία Αφών Τσιλιμίγκρα). ArchDelt 59.2: 63. Πιτερός, Χ. 2005a. Άρια Ναυπλίου: Αγία Μονή. ArchDelt 60.2: 263–64. Πιτερός, Χ. 2005b. Ναύπλιο: Πυργιώτικα. ArchDelt 60.2: 264–65. Πιτερός, Χ. 2005c. Ακρόπολη Αρχαίας Ασίνης. ArchDelt 60.2: 265–67. Πιτερός, Χ. 2005d. Ναύπλιο: Ψαρομαχαλάς. Οδός 30ής Νοεμβρίου και Σαλαμίνος, (ιδιοκτησία Ι.Μ. Ζωοδόχου Πηγής Άριας). ArchDelt 60.2: 265. Πιτερός, Χ. 2005e. Άγιος Δημήτριος. ArchDelt 60.2: 267–68. Πιτερός, Χ. 2005f. Ναός Ταξιαρχών. ArchDelt 60.2: 268–69. Πιτερός, Χ. 2008. Λιγουριό. ArchDelt 63.2: 294–96. Πιτερός, Χ. 2013. Η ακρόπολη της Λάρισας και τα τείχη της πόλης του Άργους, in D. Mulliez and A. ΜπανάκαΔημάκη (eds) Στα βήματα του Wilhelm Vollgraff: εκατό χρόνια αρχαιολογικής δραστηριότητας στο Άργος: πρακτικά του διεθνούς συνεδρίου που διοργανώθηκε από την Δ’ ΕΠΚΑ και από τη Γαλλική Σχολή Αθηνών, 25–

28 Σεπτεμβρίου 2003: 335–52. Athens: École Française d’Athènes. Προσκυνητοπούλου, Ρ. 1982. Παλαιά Επίδαυρος. ArchDelt 37.2: 87–89. Προσκυνητοπούλου, Ρ. 2011. Αρχαία Επίδαυρος: εικόνες μίας αργολικής πόλης από την προïστορική εποχή έως την ύστερη αρχαιότητα. Αρχαιολογικά ευρήματα και ιστορικές μαρτυρίες. Athens: Ταμείο Αρχαιολογικών Πόρων και Απαλλοτριώσεων. Πρωτονοταρίου-Δεϊλάκη, Ε. 1971. Αρχαιότητες και μνημεία Αργολιδοκορινθίας. ArchDelt 26.2: 68–84. Ρωμαίος, Κ. 1906. Επιγραφαί εκ Κυνουρίας. Αθηνά 18: 438–50. Ρωμαίος, Κ. 1911. Έρευναι εν Κυνουρίᾳ. Prakt 1911: 253–79. Ρωμαίος, Κ. 1955a. Πρασιαί ή Βρασιαί της Κυνουρίας. PraktAkAth 30: 94–99. Ρωμαίος, Κ. 1955b. Μικρά Μελετήματα. Thessaloniki. Σακελλάριος, Α. 1853. Εύα ή Άγιος Πέτρος. Pandora 88: 407–10. Σακελλάριος, Α. 1971. Corinthia, Cleonaea (Ancient Greek Cities 3). Athens: Αθηναϊκός Τεχνολογικός Όμιλος. Σαρρή, Ε. 1997. Παλαιά (αρχαία) Επίδαυρος, ‘Νησί’. ArchDelt 52.2: 152–53. Σαρρή, Ε. 2013. Αγροτικές εγκαταστάσεις της ρωμαϊκές εποχής στην Αργολίδα, in A.D. Rizakis and G. Touratsoglou (eds) Villae rusticate: Family and Marketoriented Farms in Greece under Roman Rule: Proceedings of an International Congress Held at Patrai, 23–24 April 2010: 212–77. Paris: De Boccard. Σκάγκος, Ν. 2002. Κυπάρισσι Λακωνίας: αρχαιολογική έρευνα, in Πρακτικά του σ’ Διεθνούς Συνεδρίου Πελοποννησιακών Σπουδών, Τρίπολις 24–29 Σεπτεμβρίου 2000: 446–500. Athens. Σπάχος, Γ. 1985. Γεωφυσική έρευνα στην αρχαία πόλη του Άργους. ArchDelt 40.2: 97–99. Συρίγος, Σ., Τ. Αδαμακόπουλος, Π. Ματσούκα, Ρ. Κούτση, Ν. Βέης, Γ. Ρούσσος, Β. Κανελλόπουλος, Α. Αδαμακόπουλος, Ν. Νέζης, Α. Καλογήρου, Γ. Πίκουλας and S. Bocher 2009. Πελοπόννησος: οδικός και περιηγητικός Άτλας. Map. Scale 1:50000. Athens: Ανάβαση. Τελεβάντου, Χ.Α. 1996. Άνδρος: τα μνημεία και το αρχαιολογικό μουσείο. Athens: Γιώργος Δαρδανός. Τσέκε, Γ. 2006. Αχλαδόκαμπος: ιστορία και τοπογραφία: οδικό δίκτυο, οχυρώσεις, οικισμοί αρχαίων και βυζαντινών χρόνων. Peloponnesiaka 28: 81–96. Φάκλαρης, Π.Β. 1981. Κυνουρία. ArchDelt 36.2: 131–33. Φάκλαρης, Π.Β. 1990. Aρχαία Kυνoυρία: ανθρώπινη δραστηριότητα και περιβάλλον. Athens: Ταμείου Αρχαιολογικών Πορών και Απαλλοτριώσεων. Φαράκλας, Ν. 1972a. Επιδαυρία (Ancient Greek Cities 12). Athens: Αθηναϊκός Τεχνολογικός Όμιλος. Φαράκλας, Ν. 1972b. Τροιζηνία, Καλαυρεία, Μέθανα (Ancient Greek Cities 10). Athens: Αθηναϊκός Τεχνολογικός Όμιλος.

158

Bibliography

Φαράκλας, Ν. 1972c. Φλειασία (Ancient Greek Cities 11). Athens: Αθηναϊκός Τεχνολογικός Όμιλος. Φαράκλας, Ν. 1973. Ερμιονίς, Αλιάς (Ancient Greek Cities 19). Athens: Αθηναϊκός Τεχνολογικός Όμιλος. Φιλάδελφευς, Α. 1909. Αι εν Ερμιονίδι ανασκαφαί. Prakt 172–84. Χαριτωνίδης, Σ. 1966. Αργολίς. ArchDelt 21.2: 125–32. Χρηστού, Χ. 1963. Κοσμάς Κυνουρίας. ArchDelt 18.2: 87– 88. Ψυχογυιού, Ό. 2000. Ανδρίτσα. ArchDelt 55.2: 194–96. Ψυχογυιού, Ό. 2013. Où il est de nouveau question du stade antique et de l’Aspis d’Argos, in D. Mulliez and Α. Μπανάκα-Δημάκη (eds) Στα βήματα του Wilhelm Vollgraff: εκατό χρόνια αρχαιολογικής δραστηριότητας στο Άργος: πρακτικά του διεθνούς συνεδρίου που διοργανώθηκε από την Δ’ ΕΠΚΑ και από τη Γαλλική Σχολή Αθηνών, 25–28 Σεπτεμβρίου 2003: 353–71. Athens: École Française d’Athènes.

B. Editions of ancient authors Aen. Tact.

Whitehead, D. (ed.) 1990. Aineias the Tactician: How to survive under siege: A historical commentary, with translation and introduction. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

A. Ag.

Page, D.L. (ed.) 1972. Aeschyli septem quae supersunt tragoedias. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

A. Supp.

Page, D.L. (ed.) 1972. Aeschyli septem quae supersunt tragoedias. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Anon. Byzant.

Dennis, G.T. (ed.) 1985. Three Byzantine military treatises. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks.

App. Pun.

Gabba, E., A.G. Roos and P. Viereck (eds) 1962. Appiani historia Romana: I. Leipzig, Teubner.

Arist. Ath.

Oppermann, H. (ed.) 1928 Aristotelis Ἀθηναίων Πολιτεία. Leipzig: Teubner.

Arist. Met.

Fobes, F.H. (ed.) 1919. Aristotelis meteorologicorum libri quattuor. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Arist. Pol.

Ross, W.D. (ed.) 1957. Aristotelis Politica. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Arist. Rh.

Ross, W.D. (ed.) 1959. Aristotelis ars rhetorica. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

159

Ath.

Kaibel, G. (ed.) 1887–1890. Athenaei Naucratitae deipnosophistarum. Leipzig: Teubner.

Bito

Marsden, E.W. (ed.) 1971. Greek and Roman artillery: Technical treatises. Oxford, Clarendon Press.

Cato Agr.

Goujard, R. (ed.) 1975. Caton: de l’agriculture. Paris: Belles Lettres.

Columella Rust.

Rodgers. R.H. (ed.) 2010. L. Iuni Moderati Columellae Res Rustica: incerti auctoris Liber de Arboribus. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Dem.

Butcher, S.H. (ed.) 1907. Demosthenis orations: II.1. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

D. S.

Fischer, K.T. and F. Vogel (eds) 1888– 1906. Diodori bibliotheca historica. Leipzig: Teubner.

E. El.

Diggle, J. (ed.) 1981. Euripidis fabulae: II. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

E. HF

Diggle, J. (ed.) 1981. Euripidis fabulae: II. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

E. Rh.

Diggle, J. (ed.) 1994. Euripidis fabulae: III. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hes. Op.

Solmsen, F., R. Merkelbach and M.L. West (eds) 1990. Hesiodi Theogonia, Opera et Dies, Scutum. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Hdn. De prosodica catholica

Lentz, A. (ed.) 1867. Grammatici Graeci: III.1. Leipzig: Teubner.

Hdt.

Wilson, N. G. (ed.) 2015. Herodoti historiae. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hom. Il.

Allen, T.W. (ed.) 1931. Homeri Ilias. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hsch.

Latte, K. (ed.) 1953–66. Hesychii Alexandrini lexicon. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.

Isoc.

Norlin, G. (ed.) 1954. Isocrates: I. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Liv.

Conway, R.S., C.F. Walters, A.H. McDonald, P.G. Walsh and S.K. Johnson (eds) 1914–1999. Titi Livi ab urbe condita. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

A Landscape of Conflict? Rural Fortifications in the Argolid (400–146 BC)

Men. Sik.

Arnott, W.G. (ed.) 2000. Menander: III: Samia. Sikyonioi. Synaristosai. Phasma. Unidentified Fragments. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press

Scyl.

Shipley, G. (ed.) 2011. Pseudo-Skylax’s Periplous: The Circumnavigation of the Inhabited World: Text, Translation and Commentary. Exeter: Bristol Phoenix Press.

Ov. Met.

Tarrant, R.J. (ed.) 2004. P. Ovidii Nasonis Metamorphoses: recognovit brevique adnotatione critica instruxit R. J. Tarrant. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Str.

Meineke, A. (ed.) 1877. Strabonis geographica. Leipzig: Teubner.

Theophr. CP

Einarson, B. and G.K.K. Link (eds) 1971– 1990. Theophrastus: De causis plantarum. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Paus.

Spiro, F. (ed.) 1903. Pausaniae Graeciae descriptio. Leipzig: Teubner.

Ph. Bel.

Diels, H. and E. Schramm (eds) 1919. Philons Belopoiika. Berlin: Reimer.

Theophr. HP

Ph. Pol.

Diels, H. and E. Schramm (eds) 1920. Exzerpte aus Philons Mechanik B. VII und VIII. Berlin: Reimer.

Holt, A. (ed.) 2014. Theophrastus: Enquiry into plants. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Thuc.

Plin. HN

Mayhoff, C. (ed.) 1892–1909. C. Plini Secundi Naturalis Historiae. Leipzig: Teubner.

Jones, H.S. and J.E. Powell (eds) 1942. Thucydidis historiae. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Veg. Mil.

Reeve, M.D. (ed.) 2004. Epitoma rei militaris. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Pl. Criti.

Burnet, J. (ed.) 1902. Platonis opera: IV. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Vitr.

Krohn, F. (ed.) 1912. Vitruvii De Architectura libri decem. Leipzig: Teubner.

Plut. Ages.

Lindskog, C. and K. Ziegler (eds) 1973. Plutarchi vitae parallelae. III.2. Leipzig: Teubner.

Xen. Age.

Marchant, E.C. (ed.) 1920. Xenophontis opera omnia: V. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Plut. Alc.

Lindskog, C. and K. Ziegler (eds) 1959. Plutarchi vitae parallelae. II.2. Leipzig: Teubner.

Xen. Cyr.

Marchant, E.C. (ed.) 1910. Xenophontis opera omnia: IV. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Plut. Arat.

Lindskog, C. and K. Ziegler (eds) 1971. Plutarchi vitae parallelae. III.1. Leipzig: Teubner.

Xen. Hell.

Marchant, E.C. (ed.) 1900. Xenophontis opera omnia: I. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Plut. Cleom.

Lindskog, C. and K. Ziegler (eds) 1971. Plutarchi vitae parallelae. III.1. Leipzig: Teubner.

Xen. Mem.

Marchant, E.C., (ed.) 1901. Xenophontis opera omnia: II. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Plut. Demetr.

Lindskog, C. and K. Ziegler (eds) 1971. Plutarchi vitae parallelae: III.1. Leipzig: Teubner.

Xen. Vect.

Marchant, E.C., (ed.) 1920. Xenophontis opera omnia: V. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Plut. Moralia.

Nachstädt, W., W. Sieveking and J.B. Titchener (eds) 1971. Plutarchi moralia: II.1. Leipzig: Teubner.

Plut. Pyrrh.

Lindskog, C. and K. Ziegler (eds) 1971. Plutarchi vitae parallelae: III. Leipzig: Teubner.

Polyb.

Büttner-Wobst, T. (ed.), ed. 1889–1905. Polybii historiae. Leipzig: Teubner.

Ptol. Geog.

Grasshoff, G. and A. Stückelberger (eds) 2006. Klaudios Ptolemaios: Handbuch der Geographie. Basel: Schwabe.

C. Fragments

160

PCG

Kassel, R. and C. Austin (eds) 1983– 2001. Poetae Comici Graeci (PCG). Berlin: De Gruyter.

TrGF

Snell, B., S. Radt and R. Kann nicht (eds) 1971–2009. Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Bibliography

D. Inscriptions

E. Papyri

Fouilles de Bourguet, É. (ed.) 1929. Épigraphie: Delphes III 1 inscriptions de l’entrée du sanctuaire au trésor des Athéniens (Fouilles de Delphes 3). Paris: École Française d’Athènes. ID 3

Durrbach, F. and P. Roussel (eds) 1935. Inscriptions de Délos 3. Paris: H. Champion.

IG I3

Lewis, D. (ed.) 1981. Inscriptiones Atticae Euclidis anno anteriores: Decreta et tabulae magistratuum (Inscriptiones Graecae 1). Berlin: Reimer.

IG II2

Kirchner, J. (ed.) 1913–1940. Inscriptiones Atticae Euclidis anno posteriores (Inscriptiones Graecae 2). Berlin: Reimer.

IG IV

Fraenkel, M. (ed.) 1902. Inscriptiones Graecae Aeginae, Pityonesi, Cecryphaliae, Argolidis (Inscriptiones Graecae 4). Berlin: Reimer.

IG IV2. i

Hiller von Gaertringen, F. (ed.) 1929. Inscriptiones Argolidis: Inscriptiones Epidauri (Inscriptiones Graecae 4.1). Berlin: Reimer.

IG XI. ii

Dürrbach, F. (ed.) 1912. Inscriptiones Deli (Inscriptiones Graecae 11). Berlin: Reimer.

IG XII. v

Hiller von Gaertringen, F. (ed.) 1903–1909. Inscriptiones Cycladum (Inscriptiones Graecae 12.5). Berlin: Reimer.

IG XII. vii

Delamarre, J. (ed.) 1908. Inscriptiones Amorgi et insularum vicinarum (Inscriptiones Graecae 12.7). Berlin: Reimer.

Kaibel

Kaibel, G. (ed.) 1878. Epigrammata graeca ex lapidibus conlecta. Berlin: Reimer.

ML

Meiggs, R. and D.M. Lewis (eds) 1989. A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions to the End of the Fifth Century B.C. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

SEG

Supplementum Graecum.

BGU I

Generalverwaltung der Königlichen Museen zu Berlin (ed.) 1895. Griechische Urkunden (Ägyptische Urkunden aus den Königlichen Museen zu Berlin 1). Berlin: Weidmann.

BGU III

Generalverwaltung der Königlichen Museen zu Berlin (ed.) 1903. Griechische Urkunden (Ägyptische Urkunden aus den Königlichen Museen zu Berlin 3). Berlin: Weidmann.

BGU VI

Schubart, W. and E. Kühn (eds) 1922. Griechische Urkunden (Papyri und Ostraka der Ptolemäerzeit. Ägyptische Urkunden aus den Königlichen Museen zu Berlin 6). Berlin: Weidmann.

BGU XI

Maehler, H. (ed.) 1968. Griechische Urkunden (Urkunden römischer Zeit. Ägyptische Urkunden aus den Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin 11). Berlin: Hessling.

P. Mich. III

Winter, J.G. (ed.) 1936. Miscellaneous papyri (Michigan Papyri 3). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

P. Tebt. III

Hunt, A.S., J.G. Smyly and C.C. Edgar (eds) 1938. The Tebtunis Papyri 3. London: Cambridge University Press.

F. Electronic resources American Journal of Archaeology Abbreviations, viewed 2 March 2021, . ‘Borders of Attica’ (preliminary project information), viewed 5 July 2018, . CORINE Land Cover data, viewed 13 September 2018, . Digital elevation model, viewed 7 November 2015, . Google Earth Pro 7.1.8.3036, viewed 12 December 2017, . Guidelines on the transliteration of Modern Greek, viewed 10 March 2021, .

Epigraphicum

161

A Landscape of Conflict? Rural Fortifications in the Argolid (400–146 BC) Modern rainfall statistics, viewed 11 March 2018, . ‘Troizen Archaeology Project’ (preliminary project information), viewed 5 August 2018, . ‘Western Argolid Regional Project (WARP)’ (preliminary project information), viewed 5 August 2018, .

162

Catalogue

163

Catalogue: 1. Achladokampos

A. Fortifications in the Argolid At the SE corner of the site, the wall projects outwards, probably forming another tower. To the S of this possible tower, a previously unrecorded wall continues in a straight line towards the cliff edge in the S. Finds: Late Helladic, Classical and Hellenistic surface pottery (Simpson and Dickinson 1979: 48; Simpson 1981: 26; Foley 1988: 171). Leake 1830b: 337 also reported ‘ancient weights for spinning’ E of the site. Date: Tomlinson 1972: 37 suggested a date from the 6th century BC onwards, while Frederiksen, Laufer, and Müth 2016: 179 assumed that the walls predate the Spartan destruction in 417 BC (see below). However, the hexagonal tower suggests a date in the early 4th or the 3rd century BC (see chapter 4). Further information: The site is usually identified as ancient Hysiai, an Argive outpost on the road between Argos and Tegea (see for example Winter 1971: 43; Schilbach 1975: 25; Pritchett 1980: 74–77; Tausend 2006: 120), which was destroyed by the Spartans in 417 BC (Thuc. 5.83.2; D. S. 12.81.1). If the date proposed in the current study is correct, the walls visible today at least in part postdate this destruction. Bibliography: Leake 1830b: 337; Le Puillon de Boblaye 1836: 48; Ross 1840: 147, 1841: 229; Mure 1842: 199; Curtius 1852: 367; Vischer 1857: 328–29; Bursian 1872: 66; Le Bas, Landron, and Reinach 1888: 33; Frazer

1. ACHLADOKAMPOS (Αχλαδόκαμπος)

Achladokampos: satellite-image with sketch plan (Google Earth 2012).

Ancient name: Ὑσία, Ὑσιαί Altitude: 453 mamsl Location: SE of the modern settlement of Achladokampos, and S of the chapel of the Panagia. Type: fortified settlement Approximate size: 0.5ha Masonry: carefully fitted coursed polygonal (including trapezoidal blocks) with rough surfaces Description: The site is located on a low foothill of the Paravounaki mountain. It is protected in the W by a steep slope and on the S, E and NE by a circuit wall. The circuit is best preserved in the E, where it still stands up to a height of 3m. Its lower courses are constructed in sandstone, its upper courses in limestone. As the modern ground level inside the circuit reaches the upper edge of the surviving masonry, it is uncertain whether the wall is double-faced. In the NE corner, where only one or two courses of masonry are visible, the wall projects outwards and turns to the N at an angle of c. 45°. A ‘mirror image’ of this wall is visible c. 9m to the NW, suggesting a ‘hexagonal tower’. Some blocks of this tower were connected with swallowtail clamps.

Achladokampos: the SE circuit wall from the E (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Achladokampos: the E circuit wall from the E (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

164

Catalogue: 1. Achladokampos, 2. Agio Lias 1898: 214; Winter 1971: 43, 158; Tomlinson 1972: 9, 37; Schilbach 1975: 25–28; Παπαχατζής 1976: 184; Simpson and Dickinson 1979: 47–48; Pritchett 1980: 74–77; Simpson 1981: 26; Foley 1988: 171; Lang 1996: 176–77; Tausend 2006: 120; Τσέκε 2006: 81; Balandier and Guintrand 2019: 443. Further images: Figures 4.8–9.

Date: Schliemann 1878: 170; Wace et al. 1923: 433; Wace 1949: 47; Πίκουλας 1995: 187; Jansen 2002: 85 dated at least the walls on the summit to the Mycenaean period, but this could not be verified by Schallin 1996: 126. While the construction date of the structures thus remains unclear, the pottery attests a use of the site in the Classical and the Hellenistic period. Further information: While Schliemann 1878: 170 saw the site as a sanctuary (though without specific evidence), it was subsequently interpreted as a military structure, either as a watch- and signal-station (Steffen and Lolling 1884: 20; Tsountas and Manatt 1897: 38; Wace et al. 1923: 434; Wace 1949: 47; Πίκουλας 1995: 187; Jansen 2002: 86) or as a small refuge site (Penttinen 2005: 115). Bibliography: Schliemann 1878: 169–71; Steffen and Lolling 1884: 19–20; Tsountas and Manatt 1897: 38; Wace et al. 1923: 423, 429–34; Wace 1949: 47–48; Brommer 1975: 170; Wells, Runnels, and Zangger 1990: 228; Πίκουλας 1995: 184–87; Hahn 1996: 349–51; Schallin 1996: 126; Jansen 2002: 84–86; Penttinen 2005: 112, 115; Simpson and Hagel 2006: 34–35. Further images: Figures 4.10 and 6.25.

2. AGIO LIAS (Άγιο Λιάς, Άγιος Ηλίας, Προφήτης Ηλίας)

Agio Lias: plan of the walls on the summit (below) and the saddle (above; Wace et al. 1923: pl. 3).

Ancient name: Altitude: 801 mamsl Location: On the summit of the hill Prophitis Ilias. Type: fort Approximate size: 0.05ha Masonry: drystone Description: This fortification consists of five drystone walls built directly on the bedrock. The first wall (c. 1.5–2m wide and up to 2.5m high) surrounds the summit of the hill, and includes a rectangular bastion in the N. Schliemann 1878: 169 and Steffen and Lolling 1884: 19 recorded an entrance with a threshold in the E, which no longer survives. Today, a modern chapel stands inside the circuit. The second and the third wall are situated approximately 2m below the circuit on the summit. They form two terraces in the NW and NE. Two further walls can be found on a saddle approximately 200m NE of the summit. Running parallel in E-W direction, they are c. 25m long and 1.5m wide. An entrance is located c. 6m from the E end of the upper wall, and may have provided access to the spring of Mathi at the foot of the hill. Finds: The finds include Late Helladic, Classical, Hellenistic and Medieval pottery, unglazed sherds of uncertain date and fragments of tile, as well as a Late Roman and a Medieval coin (Wace et al. 1923: 433; Brommer 1975: 170; Wells, Runnels, and Zangger 1990: 228; Πίκουλας 1995: 187; Hahn 1996: 349–51).

Agio Lias: the circuit around the summit and the lower wall from the W (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Agio Lias: the bastion on the summit from the S (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

165

Catalogue: 3. Agios Adrianos tower and preserves cuttings for the doorpost and a double crossbar. Lower circuit wall: To the W of the upper circuit, there are several previously unpublished walls in polygonal masonry. The first, standing two courses high, runs in an E-W direction from the foot of the cliff towards the foot of the hill. One block preserves a rectangular cutting, perhaps for a doorpost. The second wall is located to the S and runs in a N-S direction. Only one course is visible. The two walls may either have enclosed a lower fortified area or defended the approach to the fort (see below). Gate: The location of the gate is uncertain, but to the W of the tower, there are four rock-cut steps. A second (previously unrecorded) flight of steps W of the upper circuit probably marks the ancient approach to the site. Internal remains: A plastered cistern with corbelled vaulting (c. 3.5 by 5m) survives in the SW corner of the fort (at the lowest point of the circuit). No further building remains were discovered inside the circuit, but there are various cuttings in the bedrock. Finds: Mainly Classical and Hellenistic pottery, as well as Mycenaean, Roman and Medieval sherds (Brommer 1975: 164; Grigoropoulos 2011: 193, 199, 236). Date: The uncoursed polygonal masonry of the upper circuit points to a construction during the Hellenistic period (see chapter 4), but it is unclear if all parts of the fort are contemporary. Schilbach 1975: 114 drew attention to similarities between the masonry at Agios Adrianos and the carefully fitted uncoursed polygonal walls on Argos’ Aspis (12). These walls have been identifed as Early Hellenistic (Philippa-Touchais and Touchais 2010: 557–59) and thus support a dating of the fort at Agios Adrianos to the Hellenistic period. Further information: The site of Agios Adrianos has an excellent view of the road between Argos and Palaia Epidavros (Lord 1939: 81; Schilbach 1975: 112; Tausend 2006: 151), while the lack of internal buildings suggests that the fortification served as a fort rather than as a fortified settlement. Bibliography: Gell 1817: 185; Leake 1830b: 418; Curtius 1852: 396; Karo 1915a: 106–10; Wolters 1915: 98–100; Lord 1939: 81, 84; Scoufopoulos 1971: 31, 57; Winter 1971: 43, 45, 48; Tomlinson 1972: 42; Balcer 1974: 149; Brommer 1975: 164; Schilbach 1975: 51–57, 112–17; Foley 1988: 183; Πέππα 1990: 263–66; Simpson and Hagel 2006: 44; Tausend 2006: 149–51; Grigoropoulos 2011: 193, 199, 236; Philippa-Touchais et al. 2016: 817. Further images: Figures 6.47 and 7.8.

3. AGIOS ADRIANOS (Άγιος Αδριανός, Κατσίγκρι)

Agios Adrianos: satellite-image with sketch plan (Google Earth 2013).

Ancient name: Altitude: 148 mamsl Location: C. 1000m E of the village of Agios Adrianos, on the summit and to the W of a limestone hill with steep cliffs in the W, N and E. Type: fort Approximate size: at least 0.13ha Masonry: carefully fitted coursed and uncoursed polygonal with rough surfaces and vertically drafted corners Description: Upper circuit wall: The upper circuit encloses an approximately rectangular area on the summit of the hill. Its walls are constructed in uncoursed polygonal masonry of local limestone, lie directly on the bedrock, are c. 1–1.5m wide and survive up to a height of c. 2.5m. Tower: At the highest point of the hill, a large tower in coursed polygonal masonry with drafted corners (c. 9.2 by 9.2m) survives up to an elevation of c. 2m. Judging by the flat upper surfaces of its walls, the upper part of the tower was probably constructed in mudbrick. A c. 0.96m wide doorway is located on the W side of the 166

Catalogue: 3. Agios Adrianos

Agios Adrianos: the hill of Agios Adrianos from the N (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Agios Adrianos: the tower from the W (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Agios Adrianos: the upper circuit from the S (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Agios Adrianos: the lower circuit from the S (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Agios Adrianos: the steps W of the upper circuit, looking SE (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

167

Catalogue: 4. Agios Andreas (perhaps the remains of a second tower) survives in the W. Gates: Goester 1993: 87 noted a gate E of Tower 17. Internal structures: Inside the fortified area, there are traces of buildings in regular insulae. Several cisterns and conical stone basins were also recorded (Curtius 1852: 378; Kahrstedt 1950: 229; Pritchett 1989: 95; Φάκλαρης 1990: 48, 50; Goester 1993: 87–88; Shipley 1996: 279). Finds: The finds include Classical and Hellenistic red-figure and black-glazed pottery from the 5th to at least the 3th century BC, Roman, Late Roman and Byzantine pottery, conical loomweights and a fragment of a terracotta figurine. Five bronze coins were also

4. AGIOS ANDREAS (Άγιος Ανδρέας, Νησί Αγίου Ανδρέα, Παλαιόκαστρο)

Agios Andreas: plan (Goester 1993: 86, fig. 14).

Ancient name: Ἀνθάνα, Ἀνθήνη or Θυρέα Altitude: 65 mamsl Location: On a low coastal hill immediately S of the mouth of the river Vrasiatis. Type: fortified settlement Approximate size: 9ha Masonry: carefully fitted coursed and uncoursed polygonal with rough surfaces and vertically drafted corners, as well as ashlar (probably reused) Description: Curtain walls: The curtain walls form an outer and an inner circuit. The outer circuit (c. 2.6–3.4m wide and surviving up to an elevation of c. 3m) encloses an area of c. 200m by 500m between the coast in the NE and a cliff in the SW. In the S and E, this circuit no longer survives or has been incorporated into modern buildings. A c. 132m long SW-NE wall divides the outer circuit into a small lower town in the N and an upper town in the S. The inner circuit is located at the highest point of the hill directly to the E of the cliff. It measures c. 25 by 35m. Καράγιωργα 1963: 89; Φάκλαρης 1990: 48; Γρηγορακάκης 2010: 641–42 recorded further walls to the W of the outer circuit, which enclose a rectangular area under the plateia of the modern settlement. Towers: The outer circuit and the dividing wall are strengthened with at least 21 rectangular towers: seven towers along the NE side of the outer circuit (number 1–7 in the plan), one tower at the E corner (number 8), two towers in the E (number 9 and 10), one tower in the SE corner (number 11), four towers in the S and SW (number 12–15), one tower in the N and five towers on the wall dividing the upper and lower town (number 16–20). Along the inner circuit, there are remains of one or possibly two further rectangular towers. One tower is situated on the N side of the inner circuit, while a corner

Agios Andreas: the W wall of the outer circuit from the W (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Arkadia; photo by the author).

Agios Andreas: the S wall of the outer circuit looking S towards the summit of the hill (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Arkadia; photo by the author).

168

Catalogue: 4. Agios Andreas recorded: three coins of Argos (one 3rd-century BC, one 3rd-century BC or later and one undated), a coin of Messene (370–280 BC) and a coin of Constantius II (Walker 1936: 26–27; Καράγιωργα 1963: 89; Brommer 1975: 179; Φάκλαρης 1990: 48–49, 53–54; Goester 1993: 97–98; Shipley 1996: 279). Date: Καράγιωργα 1963: 89; Φάκλαρης 1990: 48, 54 suggested a Byzantine date for the rectangular enclosure by the harbour, while the wall at the N side of the modern plateia was dated to the Classical period in more recent excavations (Γρηγορακάκης 2010: 642). The remaining fortifications, constructed in coursed and uncoursed polygonal masonry, probably date to the Late Classical or Hellenistic period (see chapter 4). Further information: The site has variously been identified as Θυρέα (Le Puillon de Boblaye 1836: 69; Pritchett 1995: 236; Shipley 1996: 279), Ἀνθήνη or Ἀνθάνα (Philippson 1950: 483; Παπαχατζής 1976: 303; Κουσκουνάς, Κακαβούλιας, and Χασαπογιάννης 1981: 119; Φάκλαρης 1990: 55; Winter and Winter 1990: 239), Μεθάνα (Spyropoulos and Christien 1985: 458, 462; Christien 1989: 79), and Πρασιαί or Βρασιαί (Leake 1830b: 485, 1846: 295, 302; WoyschMéautis 2000). Bibliography: Leake 1830b: 484–85, 497–98, 1846: 295, 302; Le Puillon de Boblaye 1836: 68–69; Ross 1841: 163, 167; Curtius 1852: 378; Bursian 1872: 70–71; Joanne 1888: 245; Frazer 1898: 307–09; Möbius and Wrede 1927: 365; Walker 1936: 24–28; Scranton 1941: 162; Kahrstedt 1950: 229; Philippson 1950: 483; Καράγιωργα 1963: 89; Brommer 1975: 179; Παπαχατζής 1976: 303; Κουσκουνάς, Κακαβούλιας, and Χασαπογιάννης 1981: 119; Spyropoulos and Christien 1985: 458, 462; Christien 1989: 76; Pritchett 1989: 94–101; Winter and Winter 1990: 229–39; Φάκλαρης 1990: 47–55; Pritchett 1991a: 214–22; Goester 1993: 84–88, 97–98; Pritchett 1995: 235–36; Shipley 1996: 279; Simpson 1981: 26; Woysch-Méautis 2000; Γρηγορακάκης 2009a, 2009b: 345, 2010: 641–42; Balandier and Guintrand 2019: 434, 442.

Agios Andreas: Tower 9 (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Arkadia; photo by the author).

Agios Andreas: Tower 20 (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Arkadia; photo by the author).

Agios Andreas: the tower on the inner circuit from the E (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Arkadia; photo by the author).

Agios Andreas: Tower 15 (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Arkadia; photo by the author).

169

Catalogue: 5. Agios Sostis 5. AGIOS SOSTIS (Άγιος Σώστης, Ανεμόμυλος, Σιδηροδρομικός σταθμός Νεμέας, Δερβενάκια)

has been interpreted as a watchtower (Lord 1939: 80; Wiseman 1978: 116; Jansen 2002: 96–97; Cloke 2016: 911) and has been connected to the nearby pass from Corinth to Mykinai (Lord 1939: 80; Wright 1990: 610; Tausend 2006: 22; Bonnier 2014: 22). It remains unclear to which city-state the tower belonged. Wiseman 1978: 116 noted that the approach to the tower from the Corinthia is clearly visible, while the approach from the Argolid is largely hidden from view. He therefore concluded that the tower belonged to Argos rather than to Corinth. In contrast, Gauvin 1992: 136–38, figs 7.2–7.4 attributed the tower to Kleonai (albeit without any further explanation), while Marchand 2002: 237–39 argued for a joint ArgiveKleonian construction. Bynum 1995: 84–86 identified the tower as the ‘Tower of Polygnotos’ mentioned in Plut. Arat. 6–7, but most scholars do not follow this suggestion (see for example Tausend 2006: 41–42). During the visit to the site, a shepherd pointed out the remains of two buildings nearby. The first building was

Agios Sostis: plan and profile (Lord 1939: 81, fig. 1; courtesy of the Archaeological Institute of America and the American Journal of Archaeology).

Ancient name: Altitude: 517 mamsl Location: On the summit of the hill Anemomylos near the pass between the Korinthia and the Argive plain. Type: circular tower with a conical base Approximate size: 12m in diameter Masonry: roughly hewn coursed polygonal with rough surfaces Description: This circular tower (c. 12m in diameter) stands on a conical base (c. 14m in diameter at ground level). While the inner walls are vertical, the outer walls slope at an angle of c. 45°. The structure survives up to a height of seven courses. Architectually, its closest parallel is the tower at Mati to the S of Pheneos (see for example Tausend 1998; Lohmann 2015: 252–54). Finds: Wiseman 1978: 116, Wright 1990: 610 and Cloke 2016: 901–10 recorded Prehistoric, Classical, Hellenistic and possibly Archaic and Roman pottery, as well as Laconian roof tiles. In the Nemea Valley Archaeological Project, two non-joining fragments of inscribed blister ware dating to c. 350–250 BC were also found (Wright 1990: 652). The pottery from the site includes storage, drinking and dining vessels, as well as toilet and miniature shapes, and thus indicates a permanent or semi-permanent occupation (Cloke 2016: 901–10). Date: The pottery suggests a date in the Classical period (possibly in the 4th century BC), with continued use in the Hellenistic period, but little later occupation (Wiseman 1978: 116; Cloke 2016: 910). Further information: Based on its excellent views towards the Argive plain and the Korinthia, this site

Agios Sostis: the inner and outer face of the S wall (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Korinthia; photo by the author).

Agios Sostis: the rectangular structure to the SE from the S (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Korinthia; photo by the author).

170

Catalogue: 5. Agios Sostis, 6. Akova: Varda, 7. Amygdalitsa located c. 300–400m to the NNE and no longer survives, although Bynum 1995: 94 reported roof tiles in this area. The second building is situated c. 250m to the SE of the tower. The area is densely overgrown, but nevertheless up to two courses of the NW and SW sides of a rectangular building (measuring c. 10.2 by 10.5m) are visible. There are few pieces of tile and unglazed pottery, and the date of the structure remains uncertain. Bibliography: Lord 1939: 80–81, 83; Young 1956: 144; Wiseman 1978: 116; Wright 1990: 610–52; Πέππα 1990: 211; Πίκουλας 1991: 257 (no. 6); Gauvin 1992: 136– 38, figs 7.2–7.4; Bynum 1995: 86, 95–97; Πίκουλας 1995: 174–75; Jansen 2002: 96–97; Marchand 2002: 63, 236–39; Penttinen 2005: 112, 115; Tausend 2006: 22, 41–42; Marchand 2009b: 156; Bonnier 2014: 22, 132, 150; Cloke 2016: 898–911; Lohmann 2015: 255–56; Tausend 2020: 125. Further images: Figures 4.11, 6.1–2 and 6.14.

(Πιτερός 1992: 98–99; Πίκουλας 1995: 199; Tausend 2006: 91) and could form part of a network of intervisible sites between Argos (12) and Tourniki: Agios Nikolaos sta Ampelia (105) (see chapter 6). Bibliography: Trant 1830: 133–34; Αντωνακάτου 1973: 60; Πιτερός 1992: 98–99; Πίκουλας 1995: 198–99; Tausend 2006: 91, 2020: 125. Tausend 2006: fig. 113 is labelled ‘Turm von Loutsa’, but in fact shows the tower of Pyrgouli (71).

7. AMYGDALITSA (Αμυγδαλίτσα) Ancient name: Altitude: 201 mamsl Location: Immediately N of the modern village Amygdalitsa. Type: rectangular tower Approximate size: at least 8.8 by 9.5m Masonry: roughly hewn polygonal with rough surfaces Description: At this site, the c. 9.5m long N wall and part of the W wall of a tower survive up to an elevation of c. 1.5m. The walls are c. 0.8m wide and are constructed in polygonal conglomerate blocks. Finds: The lower stone of a limestone olive mill (c. 1.3m in diameter and c. 1m high) lies few meters to the SE, but it is unclear if it belongs to the tower. Date: The polygonal masonry may point to a construction from the 5th century BC onwards (see chapter 4). Πιτερός 1997b: 144 suggested a 4th-century BC date. Further information: The tower may be connected to the road from the northern Argive plain to Tiryntha and Nafplio (Πιτερός 1997b: 144). However, its location and the presence of an olive mill may suggest a use as a farmstead. Bibliography: Πέππα 1990: 326; Πιτερός 1997b: 143–44. Further images: Figure 7.13 a.

6. AKOVA: VARDA (Άκοβα, Βάρδα, Λιβαθιταίικα, Καστράκι, Λούτσα)

Akova: Varda: the tower from the NE (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Ancient name: Altitude: 154 mamsl Location: On the S side of the Xerias valley, c. 500m W of a modern quarry. Type: rectangular tower Approximate size: 6.3 by 6.35m Masonry: carefully fitted uncoursed polygonal with rough surfaces Description: This rectangular tower (c. 6.3 by 6.35m) in carefully fitted uncoursed polygonal masonry with levelling courses survives up to an elevation of six courses. The entrance is located in the W, c. 1.9m above the present ground level. Finds: Date: Πιτερός 1992: 98; Πίκουλας 1995: 199 suggested a 4th-century BC construction, while the masonry might point towards a Hellenistic date (see chapter 4). Further information: The site has a good view of the Xerias, might be connected to a road along the valley

Amygdalitsa: the N wall, looking S (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

171

Catalogue: 8. Anathema, 9. Andritsa: Goulas 8. ANATHEMA (Ανάθεμα)

9. ANDRITSA: GOULAS (Ανδρίτσα: Γούλας, Κάστρο)

Anathema: satellite-image with sketch plan (Google Earth 2014).

Ancient name: Altitude: 641 mamsl Location: On a hilltop in the Anathema ridge, SW of Troizina. Type: fort Approximate size: 0.03ha Masonry: drystone Description: Excavations at this site revealed a c. 1.8m wide drystone wall, which encloses an apsidal area of c. 16 by 22m with several internal walls. Finds: Dixon 2000: 257 noted one black-glazed sherd (possibly Classical), while excavations revealed late 4th- or 3rd-century BC finds (Γιαννοπούλου 2011: 149). Date: The pottery found during excavation suggests a date in the late 4th or 3rd century BC (Γιαννοπούλου 2011: 149). Further information: The site has been interpreted as a Troizenian border fort (Γιαννοπούλου 2009: 535, 2011: 149), but may have belonged either to Troizen or to Hermion (see chapter 5). However, since visibility to north is limited, an attribution to Troizen is more likely (see chapter 6). Bibliography: Gell 1810: 123–24; Jameson et al. 1994: 575; Dixon 2000: 257; Γιαννοπούλου 2009: 535, 2011: 148–49.

Andritsa: Goulas: satellite-image with sketch plan (Google Earth 2013).

Ancient name: Altitude: 322 mamsl Location: On a small plateau in the N foothills of the Kardia mountain, W of modern Andritsa and c. 400m NE of the modern road between Andritsa and Elaiochori. The site is bordered in the E and W by steep ravines. Type: fortified settlement Approximate size: uncertain, probably c. 40 by 150m Masonry: carefully fitted coursed polygonal with rough surfaces and vertically drafted corners Description: This fortification is largely overgrown and difficult to trace. The most notable feature is a round tower in the SE of the plateau, built directly on the bedrock and standing up to four courses tall. A polygonal wall runs S from the tower to the edge of the ravine. It survives up to an elevation of three courses and is also built directly on the bedrock. Together with the tower, it encloses an area of c. 7 by 13m in the SE corner of the plateau. In this area, there are remains of a press bed, a stone basin and a rock-cut cistern. A second wall runs from the tower to the W edge of the plateau. The fortification was accessible through a courtyard gate at the E end of this W wall, which is protected by the round tower. In the SE corner of the

Anathema: the site from the S (Γιαννοπούλου 2011: 148, fig. 27; © Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Piraeus and the Islands).

172

Catalogue: 9. Andritsa: Goulas gate, there are two rectangular cuttings, perhaps for the gate’s crossbar or wooden doorframe. Further remains of the circuit wall have survived on the E side of the plateau. They include a corner in ashlar masonry, perhaps the remains of a rectangular tower. Several architectural blocks lie nearby, including a broken lintel and the corner block of an entablature. Finds: Besides the stone basin, the press bed and the architectural blocks, pieces of unglazed pottery and tile were found. Date: The site is difficult to date, but the masonry style may point to a Late Classical or a Hellenistic construction (see chapter 4). Further information: Bibliography: Ψυχογυιού 2000: 194–95. Further images: Figures 6.46 and 7.11 a.

Andritsa: Goulas: the stone basin (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Andritsa: Goulas: the outer gate from the W (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Andritsa: Goulas: the S wall from the SW (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Andritsa: Goulas: the possible rectangular tower from the SE (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Andritsa: Goulas: the circular tower from the W (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

173

Catalogue: 9. Andritsa: Goulas, 10. Ano Phanari

Andritsa: Goulas: the broken lintel (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Ano Phanari: the gate from the W (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Piraeus and the Islands; photo by the author).

Ancient name: Altitude: 553 mamsl Location: On the summit of a coastal hill above the modern road between Palaia Epidavros and Troizina. Type: fort Approximate size: 1.25ha Masonry: carefully fitted uncoursed trapezoidal with rough surfaces and vertically drafted corners Description: The site, bordered by steep cliffs, is protected in the S by a c. 65m long E-W wall. A courtyard gate is located between two rocky outcrops at the E end of the wall. In a second construction phase, the gate was reduced in width, and the threshold and pivot hole of this modified gate are still visible. At the W end of the wall, a rectangular tower projects to the S, covering the approach to the gate. Finds: Φαράκλας 1972a: Ε. 3.9 reported Classical to modern pottery, while Brommer 1975: 176 noted unidentified unglazed sherds. Date: The walls’ date is uncertain, but the sherds attest a use of the site in the Classical and the Hellenistic period.

Andritsa: Goulas: the entablature block (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

10. ANO PHANARI (Άνω Φανάρι)

Ano Phanari: the SE corner of the rectangular tower (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Piraeus and the Islands; photo by the author).

Ano Phanari: satellite-image with sketch plan (Google Earth 2013).

174

Catalogue: 10. Ano Phanari; 11. Ano Phanari: Vigliza, 12. Argos Further information: The site has an excellent view of the Saronic Gulf and the isthmus of Methana, as well as the pass that leads from the coast to the inland Epidauria. In the Medieval period, the fortifications were reused and partly rebuilt (Κοντογιάννης 2008: 47–50). Bibliography: Jantzen 1938: 560; Wrede 1959; Φαράκλας 1972a: Ε. 3.9; Brommer 1975: 176; Foley 1988: 172; Jameson et al. 1994: 25; Tausend 2006: 161; Κοντογιάννης 2008: 46–50; Γιαννοπούλου 2009: 534. Further images: Figures 4.15 and 6.20.

11. ANO PHANARI: VIGLIZA (Ανω Φανάρι: Βίγλιζα)

Ano Phanari: Vigliza: the wall along the N edge of the plateau (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Piraeus and the Islands; photo by the author).

12. ARGOS (Άργος) Ancient name: Ἄργος Altitude: 249 mamsl Location: At modern Argos, on the Larissa and Aspis as well as to the E of the hills. Type: fortified settlement Approximate size: at least 100ha Masonry: drystone, carefully fitted ashlar and roughly hewn or carefully fitted coursed polygonal (with rough and smooth surfaces) Description: A. Aspis Curtain walls: The summit of the Aspis is surrounded by a circuit wall, which is currently visible in the N, E and S, and includes sections from various building phases. The oldest part of the circuit consists of a ‘cyclopaean’ drystone wall (c. 2.6–2.7m wide), which is most visible in the N and NE. This wall was partially rebuilt and refaced in subsequent building phases, using roughly hewn and carefully fitted polygonal masonry blocks. Within this outer circuit, there are remains of an inner circuit in drystone masonry (Vollgraff 1907: 140–43, 150–51; Touchais 1978: 801–02, 1983: 86; Philippa-Touchais and Touchais 2008: 777–78, 2010: 555–58; Philippa-Touchais 2016: 649–57, 659). Towers: Several towers have been recorded along the outer Aspis circuit, including the following:

Ano Phanari: Vigliza: the tower from the W (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Piraeus and the Islands; photo by the author).

Ancient name: Altitude: 177 mamsl Location: On a small coastal plateau c. 1500m ESE of the fort of Ano Phanari. Type: rectangular tower, possibly with a circuit wall Approximate size: tower: 4.4m wide Masonry: carefully fitted coursed polygonal with rough surfaces and vertically drafted corners Description: The best-preserved feature at this site is a rectangular tower (c. 4.4m wide) in the SE corner of the plateau. Up to three courses are currently visible. A further wall in large limestone blocks runs along the N edge of the plateau, possibly a defensive structure rather than a mere terrace wall. Finds: K. Gebauer noted fragments of tile, Attic pottery and perhaps Mycenaean sherds (Wrede 1959). Date: The structures’ date is uncertain, but the coursed polygonal masonry points to a construction in the Late Classical or Hellenistic period (see chapter 4). Further information: The site has a good view of Ano Phanari, Palaia Epidavros, the Saronic Gulf and the isthmus of Methana. Bibliography: Wrede 1959; Γιαννοπούλου 2009: 534. 175

Catalogue: 12. Argos a) Tower V: This rectangular tower on the W side of the Aspis was noted by Vollgraff 1907: 150, but is no longer visible (Philippa-Touchais and Touchais 2010: 559). b) Tower a: A rectangular tower (c. 3.5 by 6.66m) in polygonal masonry, which was built against the drystone circuit wall, possibly over an older tower (Philippa-Touchais and Touchais 2010: 558–59). c) Tower Y: This ‘hexagonal’ tower stands at the joint of two sections of outer circuit wall, which do not follow

Argos: Aspis: the S cistern from the W (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Vollgraff 1907: 152–53, 155–56 also uncovered two long cisterns with round settling basins on the W and S sides of the Aspis, which were restudied during more recent excavations by the French School at Athens (PhilippaTouchais et al. 2016: 811–18). B. Inner Larissa Circuit Curtain walls: In antiquity, the Larissa was fortified with two circuits, which were extensively reused and rebuilt in later periods. The inner circuit measures approximately 52 by 57m (Πιτερός 2013: 337) and has four ancient building phases in different construction techniques. Remains of phase 1 (a c. 1.5m wide ‘cyclopaean’ drystone wall) are visible to the E and N of the summit. Today, this wall survives up to an elevation of c. 3.7m (Vollgraff 1928, 1931: 1–2; Béquignon 1930: 480; Scoufopoulos 1971: 33–34; Πιτερός 1998a: 139–40, 2003, 2013: 337–38). The walls of phase 2 are characterised by coursed polygonal masonry with smoothly finished surfaces, resting on a socle in coursed polygonal masonry with rough surfaces. Schilbach 1975: 14–16 saw this socle as an earlier building phase, but it can probably be identified as a foundation for the wall above. The most prominent remains of this building phase are a c. 30m long and up to 3.7m high E-W wall on the N side of the inner circuit. In the E and W, this wall turns to the S at right angle. It may originally have enclosed a rectangular area around the Larissa’s summit and could have incorporated the drystone walls of phase 1 in the S (Schilbach 1975: 11; Πιτερός 2013: 339). During phase 3, this rectangular circuit was extended by 8.75m to the E, using blocks in similar coursed polygonal masonry with smoothly finished surfaces (Schilbach 1975: 11; Πιτερός 2013: 340). The SE corner of this extension is just visible S of a later tower. A further section of wall in coursed polygonal masonry with smoothly finished surfaces survives in the SW of the circuit and could belong either to phase 2 or to phase 3. The walls of phase 4 were constructed in coursed polygonal masonry with rough surfaces. At the inner

Argos: Aspis: Tower Y and the polygonal curtain wall from the NE. The drystone curtain wall is visible behind the tower (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

the same alignment. As a result, the S flank of the tower is c. 1.6m shorter than the N flank. The curtain forms the back wall of the tower, suggesting that tower and curtain wall are contemporary (Philippa-Touchais and Touchais 2010: 558). Triangular Bastion: A triangular bastion was added to the NE of the outer circuit. The two flanks are c. 3m wide and 60m long and meet in the N at a semicircular tower (c. 12.5m in diameter). Each flank is reinforced with a rectangular tower. A c. 1.4m wide postern is located in the N flank of the tower, while two further posterns are placed at the junctions of the bastion and the circuit wall. The socle of the triangular bastion is built in polygonal masonry and was probably topped by a mudbrick wall with a tile covering. Tile fragments with the inscriptions δαμόιοι and ]ιων were discovered near the wall and might belong to this covering. (Vollgraff 1903: 269–70, 1907: 150–51; Winter 1971: 121–22; Schilbach 1975: 21–23; Philippa-Touchais and Touchais 2010: 559; Philippa-Touchais and Fachard 2015: 802–03). Internal buildings: Remains of internal buildings were uncovered on the summit and on the N, E and S sides of the hill (Vollgraff 1906, 1907). They were divided by Vollgraff 1907 into Middle Helladic and Hellenistic buildings, but the two phases are difficult to distinguish and several buildings have since been redated (Touchais 1978: 801; Philippa-Touchais and Touchais 2008: 775). 176

Catalogue: 12. Argos circuit, remains of this phase are currently only visible in the SE, just to the N of a later round tower (Schilbach 1975: 11; Πιτερός 2013: 340). The walls of the phases 2 and 3 were incorporated into the later defences, but it is uncertain if they were originally constructed as fortification walls. Schilbach 1975: 12–14 pointed out that their rectangular layout is ill-suited for defensive purposes and does not make use of the Larissa’s naturally defensible terrain. He furthermore noted that no towers have so far been identified on the inner circuit and that the foundations of a temple within the circuit (see below) are aligned with the circuit’s N wall. He therefore concluded that the walls of phases 2 and 3 formed a rectangular terrace for the temples of Athena Akraia and Zeus Larisaios. Gates: The main gate to the inner Larissa circuit was situated in the S, where a Mycenaean lintel and remains of a c. 4.5m wide ancient gateway survive (Vollgraff 1928; Πιτερός 2003: 21–23, 2013: 338, 341). A second gate may have existed in the W, where a doorpost with a 6thcentury BC inscription was incorporated into a later wall (Πιτερός 2013: 339–40). Internal buildings: Within the circuit, Vollgraff 1928: 315 discovered foundations of a temple, probably the temple of Athena mentioned in Paus. 2.24.3. As noted above, these foundations follow the same orientation as the circuit of phase 2 (Schilbach 1975: 13–14).

Argos: Larissa (inner circuit): the N wall from the N (phase 2) (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Argos: Larissa (inner circuit): the S wall (phase 4) from the E (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Argos: Larissa (inner circuit): the E wall (phase 2) from the E. The drystone wall (phase 1) is visible on the left edge of the picture (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

C. Outer Larissa Circuit Curtain walls: Several sections of the Larissa’s ancient outer circuit were incorporated into later fortification walls, but remain recognisable by their characteristic

Argos: Larissa: the inner circuit. Satellite-image with sketch plan (Google Earth 2018).

177

Catalogue: 12. Argos

Argos: Larissa (inner circuit): the N wall (phase 3 (left) and phase 2 (right)) from the N (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

construction in coursed polygonal masonry with rough surfaces. The most prominent section is a c. 30m long wall along the W side of the hill. It is c. 1.8m wide and survives up to its original elevation of c. 8m, preserving the ancient crenellation (Schilbach 1975: 19–20; Πιτερός 2013: 341). Two waterspouts in the wall indicate the original ground level inside the circuit (Schilbach 1975: 20). Other sections of the ancient outer circuit survive to the S of a later rectangular tower on the W side of the hill and in the NE corner of the later circuit (Πιτερός 2013: 341). The post-antique walls on the N and E sides of the hill are probably built on ancient predecessors, but in the S the ancient circuit ran further S than the later walls. Overall, the ancient outer Larissa circuit probably enclosed an area of c. 200m by 275m (Schilbach 1975: 11; Πιτερός 2013: 341). Towers: Along the outer circuit, there are remains of at least two ancient towers: a) The W Tower: The later rectangular tower on the W side of the circuit was built inside an ancient tower in polygonal masonry, of which only the lowest courses survive (Andrews 1953: 112; Schilbach 1975: 10). b) The NE Tower: Two or three courses of a rectangular tower (measuring c. 3.5 by 5m) survive E of the two post-antique round towers (Πιτερός 2013: 341). D. City Walls The pre-Roman city walls (constructed in mudbrick on a c. 2.6m wide and 0.6m high stone socle) lie to the E and S of the Larissa and the Aspis. Remains of this fortification have been discovered in the following locations: a) W of the Panagia cemetery: Along the W side of the modern Panagia cemetery, there are remains of a curtain wall, a gate (c. 4.1m wide) and a rectangular tower (3.32 by 4.65m). In the Hellenistic period, the width of the gate was reduced to 2.5m (Πιτερός 1998b: 186, 2013: 342). b) S of the Panagia cemetery: C. 80–100m SE of this gate, the wall runs in a NW-SE direction along the S side of the cemetery. It was constructed in poros and includes

a rectangular tower (c. 2.4m by 6.4m; École Française 1953: 263; Πιτερός 1998b: 186, 2013: 342). c) E of the Οδός Τριπόλεως: A c. 49m long stretch of wall (running N-S) was recorded c. 50m E of the Οδός Τριπόλεως. The wall includes two rectangular towers (one of them measuring c. 5m by 6.6m) and a gate (Πιτερός 1998b: 186–87, 2013: 342). d) E of wall c: Immediately to the E of this wall, a section of the city walls’ ditch (c. 14m wide and 4m deep, see also Xen. Hell. 4.7.4) and proteichisma were uncovered (Πιτερός 1998b: 187, 2013: 342). e) E of wall d: C. 20m E of the ditch and the proteichisma, a stretch of wall (c. 11m long), a rectangular tower (c. 1.8 by 4.1m) and a section of the proteichisma were recorded (Πιτερός 1998b: 187, 2013: 342). A geophysical study conducted in 1981 suggests that the wall continues towards the ESE (Aupert et al. 1982: 648; Σπάχος 1985). f) E of wall e: A further section of the proteichisma was found to the SE of wall e (Μώρου 1982: 99; Πιτερός 1998b: 187). g) E wall: Only one section of the pre-Roman E wall has so far been noted. It is located at the corner of the Οδός Ατρέως and Οδός Δανάου and runs N-S (ΔιβάρηΒαλάκου 1980: 111; Piérart et al. 1981: 908; Marchetti 1994: 139, 2013: 320–21). h) SE of the Aspis: The outer face of the city wall was uncovered immediately SE of the hexagonal Tower Y. The inner face runs at least 5m to the S, suggesting a tower (Philippa-Touchais and Fachard 2015: 803). i) The Larissa-Aspis wall: A two-faced polygonal wall runs from the NW corner of the outer Larissa circuit towards the valley between the Larissa and the Aspis. It is protected by a hexagonal tower measuring c. 5.45 by 9.6m (Salviat 1956: 366; Schilbach 1975: 7; Darcque 1980: 128; Piérart et al. 1981: 912–17; Πιτερός 2013: 341). Vollgraff 1907: 159 furthermore recorded a section of a poros wall between the valley and the Aspis circuit. j) Between the Larissa and the Aspis: A c. 38m long wall in ashlar poros masonry runs E-W between the Larissa and the Aspis. The wall is usually interpreted as part of the stadium of Argos (École Française 1954: 170; 178

Catalogue: 12. Argos Psychoyos 2008; Ψυχογυιού 2013), but Πιτερός 2013: 344 argued that it forms part of the city walls. Besides the two gates discovered W of the Panagia cemetery and E of the Οδός Τριπόλεως (probably leading towards Tegea and Lerna), five gates are known from literary sources: the gate ‘πρὸς τῇ Δειράδι’ leading towards Mantineia, Oinoe and Lyrkeia (Paus. 2.25.1, 4), the gates ‘παρὰ τὴν Κυλάραβιν’ and ‘Διαμπερές’ leading to Nafplio (Plut. Pyrrh. 32.1–2; Paus. 2.22.8), a gate by the sanctuary of Eileithyia leading to Mykinai and the Heraion (Paus. 2.18.1–3) and the Nemean gate in the N (Hsch. s.v. Νεμεάδες πύλαι). A further gate may have led to Temenion (Winter 1971: 104; Croissant 1972; Piérart 1982b; Πιτερός 1998b: 188–92; Marchetti 2000, 2013: 328–29). Based on the archaeological remains and literary sources, two different reconstructions of Argos’ city walls have been proposed. Πιτερός 2013: 341–45 suggested that the city walls ran from the SW corner of the outer Larissa circuit along the SE side of the Larissa hill to the church of Agios Georgios, where the ψαλίδες mentioned in Plut. Cleom. 21.3 may have been located (Λαμπρινουδάκης 1970: 65–66; Croissant 1972: 154; Πιτερός 1998b: 187, 2013: 341–42). According to Χ. Πιτερός, it then followed the W and S sides of the modern cemetery, ran S along the Οδός Τριπόλεως, turned to the E and ran between the Larissa and the Aspis. In a later phase, the Aspis may have been incorporated into this circuit. In contrast, Marchetti 2013: 320–24 suggested that Hellenistic Argos was fortified with two separate circuits to the SE of the Larissa and the Aspis. This argument is based on the distribution of occupational and funerary remains within the city area. P. Marchetti argued that two clusters of Hellenistic settlement around the agora and to the SE of the Aspis are separated by two necropoleis. Although he was right to point out that the E wall of the city ran further W than Πιτερός 2013 suggested and that the course of the N wall is uncertain, his reconstruction of two separate circuits is problematic, as Hellenistic tombs and occupation remains do not form clearly defined clusters (Marchetti 2013: 332, fig. 3) and the hypothesis of two circuits is hard to reconcile with the existence of a gate on the Deiras ridge. E. Long Walls According to Thuc. 5.82, the Argives (with the help of other Peloponnesian cities and Athens) constructed ‘long walls’ in 417 BC in order to connect Argos to the sea. Plut. Alc. 15.2–3 attributed the initiative for this building project to Alcibiades. If Thucydides’ account is correct, the ‘long walls’ were probably destroyed by the Spartans in the following winter (Thuc. 5.83). Finds: A. Aspis The finds on the Aspis predominantly belong to the Middle Helladic, Late Helladic, Geometric, Archaic,

Early Classical and Hellenistic periods (Vollgraff 1907: 156; Philippa-Touchais and Touchais 2008: 780– 84, 2009: 571–76, 2010: 560–66; Touchais 2013; PhilippaTouchais et al. 2014: 734–45; Philippa-Touchais and Fachard 2015: 805–09, 814–17). The Archaic finds include votive material, especially a late 8th- to 5thcentury BC votive depot found next to the drystone wall (phase 1). The votive material suggests a cult of a female deity (Vollgraff 1907: 156; Philippa-Touchais et al. 2014: 744–45; Philippa-Touchais and Fachard 2015: 815–17). Among the Hellenistic pottery, vessels for food preparation and consumption predominate over storage and transport vessels (Philippa-Touchais and Touchais 2010: 563–66). B. Inner Larissa Circuit Finds from the Middle Helladic II–III and Late Helladic III B–C periods were recorded within the inner Larissa circuit (École Française 1928: 479; Vollgraff 1928: 325; Daux 1966: 932; Πιτερός 2003: 376, 2013: 339), while votive material (including Late Geometric and Protocorinthian sherds) was found between the N walls of phases 1 and 2 (Béquignon 1930: 480; Vollgraff 1931: 4; Schilbach 1975: 18). C. Outer Larissa Circuit A terracotta figurine dating to the second half of the 5th century BC or the early 4th century BC was found in the foundation trench of the W wall (Garlan 1966: 147). Date: A. Aspis Excavations by the French School at Athens suggest the following chronology for the fortifications on the Aspis: the inner circuit and the first phase of the outer circuit date to the Middle Helladic periods II and III, rather than to the Geometric or Archaic period as Loader 1998: 35 and Frederiksen 2011: 130 had previously suggested (Philippa-Touchais and Touchais 2010: 555; Philippa-Touchais 2016: 649–50, 653–54, 656). The second phase of the circuit probably belongs to the 5th century BC (Touchais 1983: 83; Philippa-Touchais and Touchais 2010: 555–57; Philippa-Touchais 2016: 652, 659), while the final phase (including the towers and the triangular bastion) date primarily to the Early Hellenistic period (Philippa-Touchais and Touchais 2010: 557–59). The cisterns on the Aspis probably also belong to the late 4th or early 3rd century BC (Philippa-Touchais et al. 2016: 817–18). B. Inner Larissa Circuit The drystone walls (phase 1) are usually dated to the Mycenaean period (Vollgraff 1928; Scoufopoulos 1971: 33–34; Πιτερός 1998a: 139, 2003, 2013: 337, but questioned by Loader 1998: 35). The chronology of the phases 2, 3 and 4 is unclear. Schilbach 1975: 18, Frederiksen 2011: 131 and Πιτερός 2013: 339–40 assigned phase 2 to the Archaic period. This date is based on Protocorinthian sherds found between the walls of phases 1 and 2, as well as a reused 6th-century 179

Catalogue: 12. Argos, 13. Aria BC inscription. Πιτερός 2013: 340 suggested that the circuit may have remained unfinished after the battle of Sepeia in 494 BC. For phase 3, Schilbach 1975: 18 argued for an Archaic date, while Πιτερός 2013: 340 compared the masonry to the mid 5th-century BC terrace at the Argive Heraion (for the dating of this terrace, see Amandry 1952: 269– 72; Pfaff 2002: 6). Phase 4 is usually dated to the 4th century BC (Schilbach 1975: 11; Πιτερός 2013: 340). C. Outer Larissa Circuit The terracotta figurine discovered in the foundation trench of the W wall (Garlan 1966: 147) provides a terminus post quem in the second half of the 5th century BC or in the early 4th century BC, but the exact construction date of the wall remains uncertain. Πιτερός 2013: 341 suggested a construction in the 4th or the 3rd century BC, while Schilbach 1975: 103–06 argued that the crenellation should not be dated later than the 1st half of the 4th century BC. D. City Walls The E wall (at the corner of the Οδός Ατρέως and Οδός Δανάου) is part of a Hellenistic layer, possibly dating to the 3rd century BC (Διβάρη-Βαλάκου 1980: 111). E. Long Walls Thuc. 5.82 dates the construction of the long walls to 417 BC. Further information: The territory of Argos is discussed in chapter 5. Bibliography: Vollgraff 1903: 269–70, 1906, 1907: 140– 59, 1916; École Française 1928: 479; Vollgraff 1928; Béquignon 1930: 480; Vollgraff 1931: 1–4; Scranton 1941: 63–67; Andrews 1953: 112; École Française 1953: 263, 1954: 170; Salviat 1956; Maier 1959: 145–48; Ålin 1962: 42; Simpson 1965: 16–17; Daux 1966: 932; Garlan 1966; Λαμπρινουδάκης 1970: 65–66; Scoufopoulos 1971: 33–34; Winter 1971: 101, 104, 108, 121–22; Croissant 1972; Schilbach 1975: 5–24, 91–93, 101–06; Leekley and Noyes 1976: 57–58; Touchais 1978: 801–02; Simpson and Dickinson 1979: 43–44; Darcque 1980; Διβάρη-Βαλάκου 1980: 111; Piérart et al. 1981: 908–17; Simpson 1981: 24; Aupert et al. 1982: 648; Piérart 1982b; Μώρου 1982: 99; Touchais 1983; Σπάχος 1985; Foley 1988: 172–74; Marchetti 1994: 139; Lang 1996: 174; Loader 1998: 35; Πιτερός 1998a: 139–40, 1998b: 186–92; Marchetti 2000; Πιτερός 2003; Simpson and Hagel 2006: 39; PhilippaTouchais and Touchais 2008; Psychoyos 2008: 197– 222; Philippa-Touchais and Touchais 2009: 571–76, 2010: 555–66; Frederiksen 2011: 130–31; Marchetti 2013; Touchais 2013; Πιτερός 2013; Ψυχογυιού 2013; PhilippaTouchais et al. 2014; Philippa-Touchais and Fachard 2015: 802–17; Philippa-Touchais 2016; Hülden 2018: 103, 2020: 346–49. Further images: Figures 6.30 and 6.35–37.

13. ARIA (Άρια, Αγία Μονή)

Aria: the tower from the NE (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Ancient name: Altitude: 66 mamsl Location: Outside the W wall of the monastery of Agia Moni, on the sloping ground S of the modern asphalt road. Type: rectangular tower Approximate size: 6.7 by 6.9m Masonry: carefully fitted coursed polygonal with rough surfaces. Description: Today only the lowest course of this rectangular tower (6.7 by 6.9m) survives. It is built directly on the bedrock. Inside the tower, a well or cistern is visible in the N corner. Finds: Date: Πιτερός 2005a: 263–64 suggested a date in the 4th- or 3rd century BC, while the masonry could belong to the Later Classical or the Hellenistic period (see chapter 4). Further information: The site may be connected to the ancient road between Nafplio and Asini (Πιτερός 2005a: 263–64), although an interpretation as a farmstead would also be possible (see chapter 7). Bibliography: Πιτερός 2005a: 263–64.

Aria: the cistern (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

180

Catalogue: 14. Asini a) S Tower: This tower (with a hollow base) was recorded by Renaudin 1921: 299 at the S end of the promontory, but no longer survives. b) Crown Prince’s Tower: A tower with a ground-floor chamber, located c. 130m N of the S end of the E wall. It measures c. 11 by 14m and is built in roughly hewn uncoursed polygonal masonry. c) SE Tower: This solid tower with chamfered corners is located S of the Acropolis Gate and survives to an elevation of 14 courses (c. 9.5m). It measures c. 5.5–7m by 10.3m and is constructed in carefully fitted coursed trapezoidal masonry with vertical drafting at the corners. Both flanks of the tower are bonded with the adjoining curtain wall. d) NE Tower: The small NE Tower is located N of the Acropolis Gate. It consists of ancient polygonal blocks, but was probably built or re-built after the end of the Hellenistic period. Gates and posterns: a) Acropolis Gate: The main gate to the acropolis lies in the NE. It is reached by 15 steps leading into a semicircular courtyard. b) Postern: A c. 1m wide postern was noted by Renaudin 1921: 299 to the S of the Crown Prince’s Tower.

14. ASINI (Ασίνη)

Asini: acropolis and lower town: satellite-image with sketch plan (Google Earth 2018).

Ancient name: Ἀσίνα, Ἀσίνη Location: On the plateau and to the NW of the Kastraki promontory. Altitude: 42 mamsl Type: fortified settlement Approximate size: 5.2ha Masonry: drystone, roughly hewn uncoursed polygonal with rough surfaces, carefully fitted ashlar with smooth surfaces, carefully fitted coursed trapezoidal with rough surfaces and carefully fitted coursed and uncoursed polygonal with rough surfaces and vertically drafted corners Description: A. Acropolis Curtain walls: The W side of the acropolis is bordered by a steep cliff, leaving only two possible points of access on this side. Both were blocked with terrace walls. In the E and NE, where the promontory is more accessible, the site was fortified with curtain walls in carefully fitted polygonal masonry. Behind this polygonal wall, a section of an earlier drystone curtain is preserved. There are also later repairs in small stones, bricks, tiles and mortar. Towers: The acropolis was protected by four towers:

Asini: acropolis: the Crown Prince’s Tower, looking W (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Asini: acropolis: the SE Tower and the adjoining curtain wall from the SE (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

181

Catalogue: 14. Asini B. Lower Town Curtain walls: The curtain walls of the lower town were constructed in three phases. The walls of phase 1 were built in ashlar masonry with smooth surfaces, using a soft limestone. Remains of this phase can be found between the gate to the lower town and the N Tower, as well as to the W of the N Tower, where the wall projects outwards by c. 2.8m. Phase 2 was built in largely uncoursed polygonal masonry, using a hard limestone. Walls of this phase can be found to the W of the N Tower and in the W of the lower town. They are not bonded to the walls of phase 1. The walls of phase 3 make up the remaining curtain walls of the lower town. They are constructed in reused blocks of the earlier phases and are partly bonded to the polygonal walls. Towers: a) Gate Tower: To the W of the lower town gate, a tower is set at an angle to the curtain wall. It measures c. 3.5–4.5 by 6.1–2m and is constructed in polygonal masonry. b) N Tower: Situated c. 21m W of the Gate Tower, this tower is faced in hard limestone and filled with blocks of soft limestone. It measures c. 2 by 5.4m and is not bonded with the curtain walls on either side. c) NW Tower: This tower (c. 9.2 by 11.9m) forms the NW corner of the lower city walls. Its outer face is constructed in coursed polygonal hard limestone blocks (with a vertically drafted NW corner), the inner face in soft limestone. The tower is not bonded to the adjoining curtain wall to the S. To the W of this tower, there are two further walls of uncertain function: a row of five blocks of hard and soft limestone in line with the N wall of the tower and a c. 3m long wall at right angle to the tower’s W wall. Gate: The only entrance to the lower town is located NW of the acropolis. The present structure is built from reused ashlar blocks, but the tower immediately to the W suggests a Hellenistic predecessor (Frödin 1938: 49).

Asini: lower town: the Gate Tower from the E (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Asini: lower town: the NW Tower and the W curtain wall from the NW (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Finds: The finds include the following find-contexts: A. Acropolis a) In 1922, a Late Geometric deposit consisting of one amphora (730–690 BC), four oinochoai, a kantharos, two skyphoi and several cups (725–720 BC) was discovered next to the drystone wall S of the Acropolis Gate. Based on its position and homogenous assemblage, this find group was interpreted as a foundation deposit (Wells 1988: 262–64). b) In 1990, a trench was opened N of the SE Tower. It revealed a construction layer, containing large amounts of pottery, pieces of tile and a Late Classical terracotta figurine. 95% of the datable pottery (206 sherds in total) belonged to the Late Classical or Early Hellenistic period. The date of the remaining sherds ranged from Middle Helladic to Geometric. This material provides a date for the construction of the tower (Wells 1992: 139; Penttinen 1996a: 153–54). B. Lower Town a) Πιτερός 1996a: 90 reported Middle Helladic, Late Helladic, Geometric, Archaic and Classical pottery in the internal fill of the soft limestone ashlar walls (phase 1).

Asini: lower town: the polygonal wall W of the N Tower from the N (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

182

Catalogue: 14. Asini, 15. Asini: Barbouna 1998; Piérart 2004: 600; Ratinaud-Lachkar 2004: 82–86; Simpson and Hagel 2006: 40; Tausend 2006: 152; ΝάντηΤαρατόρη 2009; Frederiksen 2011: 131–32; Hülden 2018: 103, 2020: 349–54. Further images: Figures 4.5, 4.13 and 7.12 a.

Date: A. Acropolis On the acropolis, there are at least two pre-Roman building phases. The first phase consists of the drystone wall S of the Acropolis Gate. If the interpretation of the above-mentioned pottery as a foundation deposit is correct (Wells 1988: 262–64), this would suggest a construction in the last quarter of the 8th century BC. The walls in carefully fitted polygonal and trapezoidal masonry belong to a second phase, which includes the terrace wall W of the acropolis, the E curtain wall, the SE Tower, the Acropolis Gate and the N curtain wall. This phase can be dated by the pottery in the construction layer around the SE Tower to c. 300 BC (Wells 1992: 139; Penttinen 1996a: 153–54). The date of the Crown Prince’s Tower remains uncertain. Based on the roughly hewn masonry, both a Late Helladic and a Geometric date have been suggested (Frödin 1938: 33; Adam 1982: 188; Frederiksen 2011: 132), but towers with ground-floor chambers are without parallel before the 4th century BC (see chapter 4). The tower could thus either predate the surrounding Hellenistic curtain wall by up to a century or be contemporary, but less carefully constructed due to its naturally defensible position (Schilbach 1975: 93). B. Lower Town Based on the pottery in the fill, Πιτερός 1996a: 90 tentatively dated phase 1 (characterised by ashlar masonry in soft limestone) to the 5th or 4th century BC. Judging by the masonry, phase 2 is probably contemporary to the polygonal walls on the acropolis and should therefore be dated to c. 300 BC. Further information: Near the summit of the acropolis, Frödin 1938: 33–38 recorded two Hellenistic houses with wine- or oil-presses. Press installations and kilns were also discovered in the lower town (Frödin 1938: 67), while numerous loomweights (Poulsen 1994: 20) and a clay mould (Frödin 1938: 336) attest the production of textiles and terracottas. There are also several wells or cisterns on the acropolis and in the lower town (Frödin 1938: 41–42, 67). In the original excavation report, Frödin 1938: 437 argued that the settlement was deserted between c. 700 BC and 300 BC. This view was widely accepted, but more recent studies suggested a settlement continuity throughout the Archaic and Classical periods (Poulsen 1994: 30; Wells 2002b: 95; Ratinaud-Lachkar 2004: 82–84). Bibliography: Frazer 1898: 299; Renaudin 1921; Persson 1931; Frödin 1938: 25–58; Winter 1971: 43, 54, 84, 196; Tomlinson 1972: 42–43; Brommer 1975: 166; Schilbach 1975: 67–75, 93–96; Leekley and Noyes 1976: 59–60; Lawrence 1979: 209, 240, 242, 387, 439; Simpson and Dickinson 1979: 49; Simpson 1981: 26; Adam 1982: 48, 57, 105, 188–90; Foley 1988: 175; Wells 1988: 261–62, 1992, 1993, 2002b; Πέππα 1990: 268; Poulsen 1994; Penttinen 1996a; Πιτερός 1996a, 2005c; Loader 1998: 35; Styrenius

15. ASINI: BARBOUNA (Ασίνη: Μπαρμπούνα)

Asini: Barbouna: satellite-image with sketch plan (Google Earth 2018, after Frödin 1938: fig. 1).

Ancient name: Ἀσίνα, Ἀσίνη Altitude: 91 mamsl Location: On the NW and NE slopes of the Barbouna hill, c. 400m NW of the acropolis of Asini (14). Type: fortified settlement Approximate size: 9ha Masonry: drystone Description: Today, the Barbouna hill is very overgrown, making it difficult to identify any archaeological remains. The site may partly have been destroyed (for example during the use of the hill in the Second World War), but Frödin 1938: 147–49 noted the following remains:

183

Catalogue: 15. Asini: Barbouna, 16. Benteni Kiapha Bibliography: Frazer 1898: 299; Persson 1931; Frödin 1938: 147–51; Tomlinson 1972: 42–43; Brommer 1975: 166–67; Leekley and Noyes 1976: 59–60; Simpson and Dickinson 1979: 49; Hägg and Fossey 1980; Simpson 1981: 26; Touchais 1986: 691; Foley 1988: 175; Wells 1988: 261–62, 1993; Loader 1998: 35; Styrenius 1998; Ratinaud-Lachkar 2004: 82–86; Simpson and Hagel 2006: 40; Frederiksen 2011: 131–32; Hülden 2018: 103, 2020: 349–54.

Asini: Barbouna: circuit 1 from the N (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Curtain walls: Remains of three circuits or terraces in drystone masonry were recorded on the hill. The innermost circuit (circuit 1) encloses the plateau on the summit of the hill, is c. 2.3m wide and still visible N of the summit. The lower circuit 2 follows the contours (at c. 65 mamsl) along the NW, N and NE of the hill, and could be a terrace or a fortification wall. The c. 2m wide circuit 3 adjoins circuit 2 in the NW. After continuing in an almost straight line towards the NNW, this wall turns NE and runs towards the NE spur of the hill. A further section of wall (possibly also part of circuit 3) is visible on the E slope. Approximately 80m W of circuit 3, there is a c. 100m long N-S wall, which may support a terrace. Towers: A rectangular structure (c. 3 by 6m) at the junction of circuit 2 and circuit 3 has been interpreted as a tower. Gates: Two gates were recorded: a c. 1.5m wide gate to circuit 1 and a c. 2m wide gate to circuit 3, which was located N of the possible tower. Finds: The finds from the site include two deposits next to the circuit walls: a) Four kraters, an amphora and a cup (c. 725–720 BC) were deposited on the virgin soil between circuit 2 and an outcrop of rocks. Judging by the stratigraphy, they are contemporary to the wall (Wells 1988: 261–62). b) A second deposit of several Geometric vessels (surrounded by stones) was discovered in the 1920s next to the possible E wall of circuit 3. Although it was originally published as a grave (Frödin 1938: 152), Wells 1988: 264 suggested an alternative interpretation as a foundation deposit. Date: If the interpretation of these assemblages as building deposits is correct, circuits 2 and 3 can be dated to the last quarter of the 8th century BC, probably around 725–720 BC. Further information: Frödin 1938: 149–51 identified a structure on the summit of the hill as the sanctuary of Apollo Pythaeus, which was probably built in the last quarter of the 8th century BC and continued to be used throughout the Archaic and Classical periods (Wells 1987: 349–53, 1990, 2002b: 95–97).

Asini: Barbouna: the Barbouna hill, seen from the acropolis of Asini (14) (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author)

16. BENTENI KIAPHA (Μπεντένι Κιάφα, Μπάφι) Ancient name: Altitude: 520 mamsl Location: On the small plateau E of the valley of Tracheia. Type: fort Approximate size: 0.2ha Masonry: roughly hewn and carefully fitted uncoursed polygonal with rough surfaces Description: The fort is located on a small plateau at the summit of a hill, surrounded by steep slopes in the W, S and E, and a cliff in the N. This naturally defensible position was reinforced with walls in the W, SW and SE. The walls in the W and SW (of which up to five courses survive) were built directly on the bedrock in carefully fitted uncoursed polygonal masonry. The masonry style, combining polygonal and rectangular blocks, is similar to that at Iria (31) and Palaia Epidavros 1 (54). In contrast, the SE wall is constructed in roughly hewn polygonal masonry. Between the SW and the SE walls, there is an area of rubble, perhaps the remains of a collapsed circuit wall in drystone masonry. Finds: Late Helladic, Geometric, Classical, Hellenistic and later sherds (as well as pieces of obsidian and tile) were recorded at the site (Φαράκλας 1972a: E. 3.8; Brommer 1975: 176). A. Frickenhaus and W. Müller also noted Archaic and Roman sherds (Wrede 1959). 184

Catalogue: 16. Benteni Kiapha Date: The walls in the W and SE differ in masonry style and may belong to different construction phases (Φαράκλας 1972a: E. 3.8). Φαράκλας 1972a: E. 3.8 suggested a date in the Late Helladic or Classical period, but based on the uncoursed polygonal masonry, the W wall can tentatively be dated to the period after 300 BC (see chapter 4). Further information: The site forms part of a cluster of intervisible fortifications on the southern border of the Epidauria (see chapter 6). Bibliography: Gell 1810: 115; Jantzen 1938: 561; Wrede 1959; Φαράκλας 1972a: Ε. 3.8; Brommer 1975: 176; Foley 1988: 176–77; Πέππα 1990: 268, 287–88; Tausend 2006: 160; Γιαννοπούλου 2009: 534. Further images: Figure 6.42.

Benteni Kiapha: the SW corner from the SW (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Piraeus and the Islands; photo by the author).

Benteni Kiapha: satellite-image with sketch plan (Google Earth 2013).

Benteni Kiapha: the view from the site to the W over the plain of Tracheia (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Piraeus and the Islands; photo by the author).

185

Catalogue: 17. Charadros, 18. Choutalaiika 17. CHARADROS (Χάραδρος, Ελληνικό)

18. CHOUTALAIIKA (Χουταλαίικα, Αλεπότυπες)

Ancient name: Altitude: 300 mamsl Location: On the slope of a hill, c. 3000m E of Charadros and near the modern road between Agios Andreas and the inner Thyreatis. Type: rectangular tower Approximate size: 8 by 8.5m Masonry: carefully fitted coursed polygonal with rough surfaces and vertically drafted corners Description: At this site, there are remains of a rectangular tower (c. 8 by 8.5m) in coursed polygonal masonry with vertically drafted corners. The walls are c. 1m wide and survive up to an elevation of c. 2.3m. The tower’s entrance is preserved in the SE and measures c. 0.9m by 1.62m. A cutting for the pivot or doorpost in the lintel and the profile of the doorjambs demonstrate that the door originally opened inwards. Finds: Φάκλαρης 1990: 206 noted fragments of tile and sherds of pottery of an uncertain date. Date: Φάκλαρης 1990: 206 suggested a construction in the late 4th or early 3rd century BC, while the masonry points to a Late Classical or Hellenistic date (see chapter 4). Further information: Bibliography: Πέππα 1990: 181; Φάκλαρης 1990: 205–06; Shipley 1996: 280; Γρηγορακάκης 2009b: 345; Balandier and Guintrand 2019: 436, 443.

Choutalaiika: the view to the N. The drystone circuit of Kastro 2 (37) and the pass into the Arachaion mountains is visible on the saddle immediately left of the centre of this picture (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Choutalaiika: the S of the tower looking NW, showing the rubble core or fill (top right), the two courses of the outer wall (centre) and the ca. 1.35m wide wall abutting in the SW (left) (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Ancient name: Altitude: 342 mamsl Location: On the summit of a low hill, S of the modern road between Choutalaiika and Lygourio. Type: circular tower Approximate size: c. 11.5m in diameter Masonry: carefully fitted coursed trapezoidal with rough surfaces Description: The archaeological remains at this site consist of the foundations or lower courses of a complex circular structure with an outer diameter of c. 11.5m. The centre of the structure comprises of a circular rubble core or fill, measuring c. 9.1m in diameter. On the N side of the structure, a c. 1.2m wide outer wall is visible. Between this outer wall and the central rubble core or fill, there is a gap of c. 0.6m, but it is unclear whether this is a structural feature.

Charadros: the SW wall from the SW (above); the entrance from the SE (below) (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Arkadia; photos by the author).

186

Catalogue: 18. Choutalaiika The S side of the building is more complex. As on the N side, it is possible to make out the outer edge of the central rubble core or fill. Underneath the rubble, two courses of an outer wall in roughly hewn trapezoidal masonry are visible. The upper course is at least c. 0.5m wide, the lower course at least 0.7m. In the SW, an additional short section of wall (c. 1.35m wide) abuts the outer wall. Finds: Simpson and Dickinson 1979: 52; Simpson and Hagel 2006: 45 noted Mycenaean sherds, flakes of obsidian and fragments of Classical and Hellenistic tile. Date: The date of the tower is unclear, but the finds attest a use of the site in the Classical and Hellenistic period.

Further information: Owing to good views towards the E, S and W, the site has been interpreted as a watchtower, possibly to protect the road between the Argolic and the Saronic Gulf (Lord 1939: 81; Tausend 2006: 30). Bibliography: Lord 1939: 81; Ålin 1962: 51; Simpson 1965: 19–20; Simpson and Dickinson 1979: 52; Simpson 1981: 27; Foley 1988: 187; Simpson and Hagel 2006: 45; Tausend 2006: 30, 150. The tower was possibly also mentioned by Gell 1817: 186.

Choutalaiika: the S of the tower looking NE (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Choutalaiika: the N side of the tower looking SW, showing the rubble core or fill (left) and the outer wall (right) (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Choutalaiika: the view to the E and SE (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Choutalaiika: the view to the S and SW (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

187

Catalogue: 19. Douka Vrysi, 20. Drymoni 1, 21. Elliniko Astrous Masonry: roughly hewn ashlar Description: The site is located on a baulk between two ancient quarries. Measuring c. 4 by 4m, it consists of eight rectangular blocks. There is an opening in the NE, but it is unclear whether this represents the orginal entrance (Marchand 2002: 311). Finds: Date: Marchand 2002: 311–12 suggested that the surrounding quarries were used to extract stone for the 4th-century BC temple of Zeus at Nemea, and that the tower should consequently be dated no later than the Hellenistic period. Further information: The tower has a good view of the surrounding quarries, the plain of Kleonai, the ancient road between Corinth and Argos and the route over the Agios Sostis pass. It may have been used as a shelter or watchtower for the quarries, as well as to observe the surrounding area (Marchand 2002: 312). Bibliography: Marchand 2002: 311–12, 2013: 317.

19. DOUKA VRYSI (Δούκα Βρύση) Ancient name: Altitude: 475 mamsl Location: On the N slope of the Kephalovryso (or Xerorema) valley, S of the modern road to Kephalovryso and at the E edge of the village Douka Vrysi. Type: rectangular tower Approximate size: 8.4 by 10.3m Masonry: carefully fitted coursed polygonal with rough surfaces Description: This rectangular structure (8.4 by 10.3m) in coursed polygonal masonry survives up to a height of three courses, but is heavily overgrown. Traces of a second structure were noted to the W. Finds: Πίκουλας 1995: 195 recorded few fragments of unglazed pottery and tile. Date: Πίκουλας 1995: 195 suggested a date in the 4th century BC, while the masonry points to a Late Classical or Hellenistic construction (see chapter 4). Further information: The site has a good view along the Kephalovryso. Both Πίκουλας 1995: 195 and Tausend 2006: 94 suggested a connection between the tower and a road through the valley, but an alternative interpretation as a farmstead may also be possible. Bibliography: Αντωνακάτου 1973: 66; Πίκουλας 1995: 194–95; Tausend 2006: 94.

21. ELLINIKO ASTROUS (Ελληνικό Άστρους, Τειχιό) Ancient name: Εὔα Altitude: 630 mamsl Location: On a hill SW of the plain of Astros and N of the modern road between Astros and Agios Petros. Type: fortified settlement Approximate size: 5ha Masonry: roughly hewn polygonal with rough surfaces, carefully fitted coursed trapezoidal with rough surfaces, and carefully fitted coursed and uncoursed polygonal with rough surfaces and vertically drafted corners Description: Curtain walls: The curtain walls, which are preserved up to an elevation of c. 4m, enclose an area of c. 150 by 350m around the summit and NE slope of the hill. From the summit in the SW corner of the site, two curtain walls (c. 2.6m wide and constructed in doublefaced coursed polygonal masonry) run approximately parallel towards the NE, before turning to the W and E respectively to enclose a semi-circular area on the N slope of the hill. In the NW, the circuit is strengthened by several indented traces (projecting by c. 1.2–1.9m), while the NE and SE corners of the circuit wall project outwards to form two rectangular bastions. Inside this circuit, there are traces of a roughly rectangular inner fortification or terrace wall around the summit (constructed in roughly hewn polygonal masonry) and a c. 19m long wall running parallel to the circuit in the SE. The function of this wall is uncertain. Towers: The circuit wall was protected by six rectangular towers (Towers 2, 3, 4, 5, 11 and 12), four semi-circular towers (Towers 7, 8, 9 and 10), and a triangular bastion (Tower 6).

Douka Vrysi: the tower from the S (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

20. DRYMONI 1 (Δρυμώνι, Quarry Tower 1) Ancient name: Altitude: 360 mamsl Location: At an ancient quarry c. 130m N of a modern quarry and c. 270m N of the motorway between the Isthmus and Tripoli. Type: rectangular tower Approximate size: 4 by 4m 188

Catalogue: 21. Elliniko Astrous

Elliniko Astrous: plan (Goester 1993: 57, fig. 4).

a) Tower 2: This solid rectangular tower (measuring c. 3.5–4.7 by 5.4m) is located in the NE of the circuit. It is constructed in a combination of coursed and uncoursed polygonal masonry with vertically drafted corners. b) Tower 3: The rectangular Tower 3 measures c. 3.1–3.15 by 5.55m and is constructed in roughly hewn polygonal masonry with vertically drafted corners. c) Tower 4: This square tower (4.5 by 4.5m) projects c. 1.35m from the curtain wall and is located N of the W Gate. d) Tower 5: This rectangular tower (measuring c. 3.4 by 5.6m) is bonded with the SE circuit wall. e) Tower 6: This ‘tower’ is a triangular bastion in the SW of the circuit. It is constructed in coursed trapezoidal blocks and is strengthened with an internal reinforcement wall. f) Tower 7: Built against the S wall, this semi-circular tower has a radius of c. 3.3m. g) Tower 8: This semi-circular tower (with a radius of c. 3.5m) is located E of Tower 7 and is constructed in coursed polygonal masonry. h) Tower 9: The uncoursed polygonal Tower 9 marks the turning of the circuit wall from a SW-NE to an E-W direction. Constructed on a U-shaped plan, it measures c. 4.5 by 7.5m. i) Tower 10: Located c. 25m E of Tower 9, this 10.5m wide semi-circular tower or projection is constructed in coursed polygonal masonry. j) Tower 11: Only part of the S and E sides of this tower survive. Constructed in roughly hew polygonal masonry, it projects c. 4.7m from the curtain wall and measures at least 4.35m in width.

Elliniko Astrous: Tower 6: plan (Goester 1993: 65, fig. 7).

Elliniko Astrous: Tower 2: the W wall, looking E (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Arkadia; photo by the author).

189

Catalogue: 21. Elliniko Astrous

Elliniko Astrous: the N curtain wall, looking W from Tower 2 (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Arkadia; photo by the author).

Elliniko Astrous: the NE corner of the curtain wall, looking NW (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Arkadia; photo by the author).

k) Tower 12: This tower is only partly preserved, with a surviving width of c. 3.4m. Located c. 30m N of Tower 11, it projects c. 2.5m from the curtain wall and is constructed in roughly hewn polygonal masonry. Gates: a) The W Gate: The W Gate is strategically placed on the steep slope in the W of the site. It is c. 3.3m wide and protected by Tower 4. The wall immediately S of the gate is constructed in coursed trapezoidal masonry. b) The N Postern: This postern (c. 0.82m wide) is located in the E flank of Tower 2. c) The E Postern: A second postern (c. 1.8m wide) lies to the E of Tower 9. Internal remains: Within the circuit, foundations, threshold blocks, drains and cisterns attest the existence of a settlement, but a street plan can so far not be reconstructed. Finds: The surface pottery dates to the Mycenaean, Geometric, Classical, Hellenistic, Roman, Byzantine and Ottoman periods, but Hellenistic pottery appears to predominate. Further finds include Hellenistic and Roman terracotta lamps, five pyramidal and four conical loomweights, the heads of two Hellenistic female terracotta figurines, fragments of two grinding stones and five millstones, flakes of obsidian, 21 fragments of glass, two bronze rings, fragments of several Hellenistic round bronze mirrors, one threebarbed bronze arrowhead, twelve iron nails, one piece of iron ore and one piece of iron slag. 14 bronze coins were also recorded: eight coins of Argos (five dating to 228–146 BC and three to the 3rd century BC), one Macedonian coin (possibly minted under Philip II), one coin of the Arkadian League (363–280 BC), one coin of Megara (after 307 BC) and three unidentified coins. The only silver coin from the site was minted by Argos and dates to c. 350–270 BC. In addition to these portable finds, there are several free-standing or rock-cut stone basins with a capacity between 40 and 70l, as well as weight blocks of wineor oil-presses (Brommer 1975: 179; Touchais 1977: 557;

Elliniko Astrous: the N wall of the inner circuit or terrace wall, looking S (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Arkadia; photo by the author).

Φάκλαρης 1990: 81–87; Goester 1993: 73–78, 100–06; Grigoropoulos 2011: 236). Date: While Scranton 1941: 165 assumed that the different styles of masonry belong to different construction phases, Goester 1993: 80 argued that (with the exception of repairs in the NE) the different parts of the fortification are contemporary. The postern in the flank of Tower 2 and the triangular ‘Tower 6’ point to a construction from the late 4th century BC onwards (Goester 1993: 79). Further information: Based on two Hellenistic tiles stamped with the inscription ΕΥΑΤΑΝ ΔΑΜΟΣΙΟΙ, the site can be identified as ancient Εὔα (Καλίτσης 1960; Pritchett 1980: 124–27, 1989: 87–89, 1995: 245–46; Spyropoulos and Christien 1985: 457; Christien 1989: 79; Woysch-Méautis 2000: 157–58; Grigorakakis 2009: 185). Bibliography: Leake 1830b: 484; Le Puillon de Boblaye 1836: 66; Ross 1841: 171–72; Leake 1846: 296; Curtius 1852: 380; Bursian 1872: 66; Heberdey 1894: 51; Möbius and Wrede 1927: 365; Walker 1936: 32–34; Scranton 1941: 165; Καλίτσης 1960; Brommer 1975: 179; Touchais 190

Catalogue: 21. Elliniko Astrous, 22. Elliniko: Ellinikaki 1977: 557; Pritchett 1980: 124–27; Goester 1983: 265– 66; Φάκλαρης 1981: 131; Spyropoulos and Christien 1985: 457; Christien 1989: 78–80; Pritchett 1989: 87–89; Φάκλαρης 1990: 78–90; Goester 1993: 55–84, 100–06; Shipley 1996: 278; Woysch-Méautis 2000: 157–58; Pritchett 1995: 245–46; Πέππα 1990: 173, 175–76; Grigorakakis 2009; Γρηγορακάκης 2009b: 344–45; Grigoropoulos 2011: 236; Balandier and Guintrand 2019: 433–34, 441, 444–45. Further images: Figures 4.14 and 7.12 b.

22. ELLINIKO: ELLINIKAKI (Ελληνικό: Eλληνικάκι)

Elliniko Astrous: a rock-cut basin (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Arkadia; photo by the author). Elliniko: Ellinikaki: plan (Lord 1941: 101, fig. 11; courtesy of the Trustees of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens).

Ancient name: Altitude: 72 mamsl Location: On the coastal plain, c. 400m SE of Elliniko: Kephalari (23). Type: rectangular tower Approximate size: 10.2 by 10.2m Masonry: roughly hewn polygonal with rough surfaces Description: Lord 1941: 95–103 recorded a square structure (10.2 by 10.2m) in polygonal limestone masonry on poros foundations. Today, this structure is heavily overgrown and only a single course of masonry is visible. Finds: Date: The polygonal masonry may point to a Late Classical or Hellenistic construction (see chapter 4). Further information: Πιτερός 1997e: 355; Tausend 2006: 120 connected the site to the road between Argos and Tegea, but an interpretation as a farmstead is also possible. Bibliography: Leake 1830b: 339–40; Lord 1939: 80, 1941: 95–103; Young 1956: 144; Nowicka 1975: 42, 77–78, 142; Πίκουλας 1991: 257 (no. 11), 1995: 210–11; Πιτερός 1997e: 355–56; Tausend 2006: 120.

Elliniko Astrous: a free-standing basin (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Arkadia; photo by the author).

Elliniko: Ellinikaki: the N corner, looking N (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

191

Catalogue: 23. Elliniko: Kephalari thus marks the ancient floor level. 2.75m above this level, four sockets for beams (0.2 by 0.21m) are cut into the wall. The interior of the tower was accessed through a ground-floor entrance in the SE. The outer entrance, which is topped by two stones placed in an inverted V-shape and preserves two rectangular cuttings (presumably for crossbars), leads into a c. 7.9m long and 1.85m wide entrance corridor. The inner door at the end of this corridor is c. 0.8m wide and (judging by the threshold and doorjambs) opened inwards. To the N of the tower, a 3.4m long and 0.6m wide foundation wall runs from the tower’s entrance towards the E (Fracchia 1985: 686). Furthermore, part of an earlier structure is visible underneath the towers’ NE wall. Finds: Only little pottery was recorded during the excavation of the tower: a pithos in the tower’s entrance corridor, Early Helladic pottery in a pit under the E wall, few sherds of undated coarse wares and some Roman lamps (Lord 1938: 505, 508; Scranton 1938: 538). However, Fracchia 1985: 686 noted surface pottery nearby (mainly coarse wares dating to the second half of the 4th century BC), while numerous fragments of tile suggest that the tower was originally covered with a tiled roof (Lohmann 2015: 259). A fragment of a conglomerate olive mill was found inside the tower, but is not in situ.

23. ELLINIKO: KEPHALARI (Ελληνικό: Κεφαλάρι)

Elliniko: Kephalari: plan and section (Lord 1938: 499, fig. 2; courtesy of the Trustees of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens).

Ancient name: Altitude: 126 mamsl Location: E of the village Elliniko and S of the modern road between Elliniko and Kephalari. Type: rectangular tower with a tapering base, possibly with an outbuilding Approximate size: outer dimensions at the base of the tower: W: 14.7m, N: 12.58m, E: 8.62m, S: 8.61m Masonry: carefully fitted coursed polygonal with smooth surfaces Description: This structure (often referred to as a ‘pyramid’) is a rectangular tower on a tapering base. The walls, constructed in carefully fitted coursed polygonal masonry, are between 0.95 and 2.75m wide and survive up to an elevation of c. 3.65m. The interior of the tower is almost square (c. 7.1 by 7.1m). Cuttings in the bedrock show that it was divided into two rooms by an E-W crosswall. The N room was further divided by a small N-S wall, perhaps of a later date. In the NE corner of the tower, Lord 1938: 508–09 recorded a rectangular mortar-lined tank with a stepped bottom and a settling basin (c. 0.27m in diameter). Liquid from the tank could overflow through a drain in the N wall, which is part of the original construction and

Elliniko: Kephalari: the inner entrance from the NE (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

192

Catalogue: 23. Elliniko: Kephalari Date: Although no clearly stratified pottery was recorded, the surface pottery and the architectural similarities to the tower at Lygourio 1 (49) suggest a 4th-century BC date (see chapter 4). Further information: Lord 1939: 80; Oppermann 1971: 51; Tausend 1998: 43, 2006: 121 interpreted the structure as a military tower controlling the road between Argos and Tegea, while Fracchia 1985: 688 argued for an interpretation as a fortified farmstead. Judging by the towers location, the latter seems more likely. Bibliography: Cockerell 1830: 23; Leake 1830b: 338–39; Ross 1841: 138–45; Mure 1842: 195–97; Leake 1846: 344; Curtius 1852: 365–66; Forchhammer 1857: 6; Vischer 1857: 326–28; Clark 1858: 98–100; Conze and Michaelis 1861: 22–23; Bursian 1872: 65; Tsountas and Manatt 1897: 38–39; Frazer 1898: 212–14; Wiegand 1901: 241–46; Lord 1938: 496–510; Scranton 1938: 538; Lord 1939: 80; Young 1956: 144; Oppermann 1971: 46–52; Brommer 1975: 172; Nowicka 1975: 31; Παπαχατζής 1976: 181– 83; Adam 1982: 72, 74–75; Fracchia 1985: 686; Foley 1988: 184; Πέππα 1990: 162–63; Πίκουλας 1991: 257 (no. 10); Marksteiner 1994: 44; Λάζος 1995: 19–44; Πίκουλας 1995: 208–09; Πιτερός 1996c: 95, 1997e: 344, 347–59, 367–71, 1997f: 489–90; Tausend 1998, 2006: 121; Grigoropoulos 2011: 196–97, 203, 222–23, 236; Lohmann 2015: 256–60; Tausend 2020: 126. A photograph of the site is reproduced by Morris and Papadopoulos 2005: 164, fig. 11, but mislabelled as ‘Kephalari (Kandia)’. Further images: Figure 7.6.

Elliniko: Kephalari: the olive mill (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Elliniko: Kephalari: the tower from the SE, showing the outer entrance in the centre of the picture (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

193

Catalogue: 24. Ermioni 24. ERMIONI (Ερμιόνη, Καστρί)

Ermioni: the walls on the Pron hill. Satellite image with sketch map (Google Earth 2014).

Ancient name: Ἑρμιόνη, Ἑρμιών Altitude: up to 32 mamsl Location: In modern Ermioni, on the Bisti peninsula and on the E slope of the Pron hill. Type: fortified settlement Approximate size: uncertain, perhaps 20ha Masonry: roughly hewn coursed polygonal with rough surfaces, carefully fitted uncoursed trapezoidal with rough surfaces and vertically drafted corners, and carefully fitted uncoursed polygonal with rough surfaces Description: Today only the following remains of Hermion’s city walls —still standing in the 2nd century AD (Paus. 2.34.11) — are visible: Curtain walls: Sections of the curtain walls can still be seen on the Bisti peninsula and on the Pron hill. The best-preserved section on the Bisti peninsula runs along the NE side of the headland. It survives up to an elevation of four courses and is constructed in carefully fitted coursed and uncoursed trapezoidal masonry with rough surfaces. Along the steep SE side of the peninsula, there are remains of a wall in roughly hewn polygonal masonry, which may form part of a terrace or a fortification wall. On the Pron hill, a c. 3m high wall in uncoursed polygonal masonry runs E-W along the modern road to Kranidi. The visible section is c. 20m long, but the wall may continue inside the private properties to the E and W. At the NW end of the wall Frickenhaus and Müller 1911: 37 noted a gate, which is no longer visible.

Ermioni: the polygonal wall on the Pron hill from the N (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Ermioni: the S curtain wall on the peninsula from the SW (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

194

Catalogue: 24. Ermioni In addition to this polygonal wall, three walls in coursed trapezoidal masonry with rough surfaces and vertically drafted corners survive on the NE part of the hill. All three walls were integrated into later buildings around the Apostolos Gatsos Municipial Library and the church Agios Taxiarchis. Frickenhaus and Müller 1911: 35– 37 — probably correctly — attributed these walls to Hermion’s extramural temple of Demeter Chthonia and the Echo Stoa (Paus. 2. 35.4–10), rather than the city’s fortifications. Towers: There are remains of two towers: a) The Rectangular Tower: This rectangular tower on the N side of the Bisti peninsula (constructed in polygonal masonry with rough surfaces) was first mentioned by Bursian 1872: 96. Today, only part of the S, E and W walls survives. To the NE, there is a large block with several ‘steps’, but it is probably not in situ. b) The Circular Tower: At the NE tip of the peninsula there are remains of a circular tower in trapezoidal masonry. Remains of a further circular structure in trapezoidal masonry lie to the W of the Circular Tower, but their interpretation is unclear. Internal structures: Among the most notable ancient remains within the circuit are the foundations of a 4th-century BC temple (see, for example, Welter 1941: 37; McAllister 1969; Jameson et al. 1994: 589–90)

and the ‘false tholos’, possibly a cistern (Φιλάδελφευς 1909: 175–76; Jameson and Jameson 1950: 35–36), on the Bisti peninsula. An ancient mole in the N harbour and a theatre above the S harbour were noted by Curtius 1852: 457–58, but have since disappeared. Finds: Jameson et al. 1994: 488 noted sherds dated from the Archaic period to modern times, especially of Classical, Hellenistic, Roman and Late Roman date. Date: According to Jameson et al. 1994: 586, the trapezoidal walls could belong to the Classical or Early Hellenistic period, while the uncoursed polygonal masonry of the NE Pron wall suggests a Hellenistic date (see chapter 4). Further information: Paus. 2.34.9 mentions several harbours, probably N and S of the peninsula (Jameson et al. 1994: 591). Bibliography: Curtius 1852: 457–60; Bursian 1872: 96; Frazer 1898: 293–95; Φιλάδελφευς 1909; Frickenhaus and Müller 1911: 35–38; Jameson and Jameson 1950: 16–43; Wrede 1959; McAllister 1969: 169; Φαράκλας 1973: 36– 38, E. 4.1–8; Leekley and Noyes 1976: 63; Παπαχατζής 1976: 271–74; Simpson 1981: 31; Foley 1988: 181; Πέππα 1990: 268, 296–7; Jameson et al. 1994: 488–89, 581–95; Καρατζίκος 2018: 299–300; Landeschi et al. 2020. Further images: Figure 6.31.

Ermioni: the stepped block at the Rectangular Tower (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Ermioni: the circular structure from the SE (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Ermioni: the Circular Tower from the E (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Ermioni: the central part of the trapezoidal wall 1 from the N (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

195

Catalogue: 24. Ermioni, 25. Galatas: Megali Magoula 25. GALATAS: MEGALI MAGOULA (Γαλατάς: Μεγάλη Μαγούλα) Ancient name: Altitude: 45 mamsl Location: On a hill NW of the village Agia Sotira. Type: fort Approximate size: 0.1ha Masonry: drystone and roughly hewn coursed polygonal with rough surfaces Description: This fortification originally consisted of an elliptic circuit wall. In a second phase, two semicircular towers in roughly hewn coursed polygonal masonry were added in the E and the W, while the circuit was reinforced in the W. Inside the circuit Κονσολάκη-Γιαννοπούλου 2003: 162, 2009: 506; Konsolaki-Yiannopoulou 2010: 69 recorded a building with three rooms, which postdates the original circuit. Finds: The site’s pottery dates mainly to the Middle

Ermioni: the Rectangular Tower from the S (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

and the Late Helladic periods, but Late Classical pottery was found in the floor deposits of the interal building (Κονσολάκη-Γιαννοπούλου 2003: 162, 2009: 506; Konsolaki-Yiannopoulou 2010: 69). Date: While the original circuit belongs to the Middle and the Late Helladic periods, the towers, the reinforcement of the circuit and the internal building were dated to the Late Classical period (ΚονσολάκηΓιαννοπούλου 2003: 162–64, 2009: 506; KonsolakiYiannopoulou 2010: 69). Further information: The site has a good view across the bay and the straits of Poros. In the Late Classical

Ermioni: the N curtain wall on the peninsula from the NW (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Galatas: Megali Magoula: satellite image with sketch map (Google Earth 2018).

196

Catalogue: 25. Galatas: Megali Magoula, 26. Gymnon period, it may have held a garrison connected to the harbour at Pogon or the sites at Limanaki 1 (48) and Limanaki 2 (99) (Κονσολάκη-Γιαννοπούλου 2003: 162; Konsolaki-Yiannopoulou 2010: 69, see also chapter 6). Bibliography: Κονσολάκη-Γιαννοπούλου 2003: 159–62; Γιαννοπούλου 2009: 533; Κονσολάκη-Γιαννοπούλου 2009: 504–06; Konsolaki-Yiannopoulou 2010: 69. Further images: Figures 6.38 a–b.

Finds: Sherds of Late Helladic and 5th- to 4th-century BC pottery were recorded at the site, as well as pieces of obsidian (Simpson 1965: 18; Simpson and Lazenby 1970: 66–67; Leekley and Noyes 1976: 62; Simpson and Dickinson 1979: 45–46; Simpson 1981: 25; Πίκουλας 1995: 227). Date: The surface pottery attests a use of the site in the 5th and 4th centuries BC (Simpson 1981: 25; Πίκουλας 1995: 227). Further information: The tower has a good view of the route between Sterna and the plain of Phleious, and has therefore been interpreted as a watchtower (Roux 1958: 162; Simpson 1965: 18; Simpson and Lazenby 1970: 66; Leekley and Noyes 1976: 62; Pritchett 1980: 29–31; Πίκουλας 1995: 227; Tausend 2006: 65, see also chapter 6). Bibliography: Le Puillon de Boblaye 1836: 45–46; Forchhammer 1837: 217, 1857: 8; Roux 1958: 162; Hood 1961: 31; Simpson 1965: 18; Simpson and Lazenby 1970: 66; Leekley and Noyes 1976: 62; Simpson and Dickinson 1979: 45–46; Pritchett 1980: 27–32; Simpson 1981: 25; Foley 1988: 180; Πέππα 1990: 153–55; Πίκουλας 1995: 227; Tausend 2006: 65.

Galatas: Megali Magoula: the W tower from the S (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Piraeus and the Islands; photo by the author).

26. GYMNON (Γυμνόν, Πάνω Ζαμπύργο, Κάστρο Κουρούνας) Ancient name: Altitude: 498 mamsl Location: On a hill to the E of the modern road between Sterna and Gymnon. Type: rectangular tower Approximate size: 7.5 by 9m Masonry: carefully fitted coursed trapezoidal with rough surfaces Description: This rectangular tower in trapezoidal masonry (7.5 by 9m) survives up to an elevation of four courses, but is heavily overgrown.

Gymnon: the E wall, looking W (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Gymnon: the view to the N towards the valley of Leontio (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

197

Catalogue: 27. Gyphtokastro 27. GYPHTOKASTRO (Γυφτόκαστρο, Άνω Καρνεζaίικα, Καστράκι, Κάστρο του Καπετάνου, Καναπίτσα)

Gyphtokastro: the rock-cut steps, looking NW (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Gyphtokastro: satellite-image with sketch plan (Google Earth 2014).

Ancient name: Altitude: 312 mamsl Location: On a hill above the Benteni valley, S of the road between Ano Karnezaiika and Kanapitsa. Type: fort Approximate size: 0.28ha Masonry: roughly hewn uncoursed polygonal with rough surfaces Description: The site is located on a naturally defensible outcrop surrounded by steep cliffs. Its weaker SE side was fortified with a wall in roughly hewn polygonal masonry, which survives up to an elevation of c. 2m and shows signs of later repairs in small blocks. In the NW of the hill, Αρχοντίδου-Αργύρη 1975: 79 recorded remains of a tower or an internal building. Rock-cut steps lead from this point to the lower part of the fortification. Finds: Early Helladic, Middle Helladic, Late Helladic, Geometric, Archaic, Classical, Hellenistic and Roman pottery was recorded at the site (Φαράκλας 1972a: E. 3.11; Brommer 1975: 173; Αρχοντίδου-Αργύρη 1975: 79; Touchais 1977: 554; Tausend 2006: 154; Grigoropoulos 2011: 222, 234). Brommer 1975: 173 also mentioned a Geometric terracotta fragment, while a 4th-century BC silver coin was reportedly found to the NW of the

Gyphtokastro: the view from the site to the W towards the plain of Iria (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Gyphtokastro: the E wall, looking W (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

198

Catalogue: 27. Gyphtokastro, 28. Ierakas fortification (Αρχοντίδου-Αργύρη 1975: 79; Touchais 1977: 554). Date: The surface pottery attests a use of the site from the Middle Helladic to the Roman period. For the surviving walls, both a Late Helladic and a Classical date have been suggested (Αρχοντίδου-Αργύρη 1975: 79; Touchais 1977: 554). Further information: The site has a good view over the Benteni valley, and belongs to a cluster of intervisible fortifications on the southern border of the Epidaurian territory (see chapter 6). Bibliography: Curtius 1852: 429; Jantzen 1938: 561; Gebauer 1939: 294; Jameson and Jameson 1950: 91– 92; Jameson 1953: 163–64; Wrede 1959; Φαράκλας 1972a: Ε. 3.10–11; Brommer 1975: 173; ΑρχοντίδουΑργύρη 1975: 79; Touchais 1977: 554; Foley 1988: 180; Suto 1996: 10–11; Piérart 2004: 601; Tausend 2006: 154; Grigoropoulos 2011: 222, 234.

Ierakas: the entrance to the inner circuit, plan and elevation (Wace and Hasluck 1908: 171, fig. 9).

28. IERAKAS (Ιέρακας, Λιμάνι Γέρακα)

Ierakas: the entrance to the rectangular tower on the inner circuit from the E (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Lakonia; photo by the author).

circuit is located at the E edge of the promontory. Its curtain walls (still visible in the SW, W, N and NE) are c. 2.8m wide and built in double-faced polygonal masonry. The outer circuit encloses a triangular area to the W of the inner circuit. In the E and S, which are protected by steep cliffs, only few traces of curtain walls are visible. In contrast, the polygonal curtain walls in the N and NW are well preserved. Towers: The inner circuit was protected by a rectangular tower in the NE and a circular tower in the NW. The rectangular NE tower was built with a hollow interior chamber (accessible through a doorway in the S), while the ground-floor of the circular NW tower appears to be solid, except for the entrance to the inner circuit. The outer circuit was protected by seven rectangular towers in the N and NW, which are bonded with the adjoining curtain walls. Surviving to an elevation of four visible courses, they are constructed in polygonal masonry with vertically drafted corners. In addition

Ierakas: plan (Wace and Hasluck 1908: 169, fig. 4).

Ancient name: Ζάραξ Altitude: 40 mamsl Location: On a limestone promontory N of the bay of Ierakas. To the SW, the bay expands into a shallow lake. Type: fortified settlement Approximate size: 3.6ha Masonry: roughly hewn coursed and uncoursed polygonal with rough surfaces and carefully fitted coursed polygonal with rough surfaces and vertically drafted corners Description: Curtain walls: The fortification at Ierakas consists of an inner and an outer circuit. The rectangular inner 199

Catalogue: 28. Ierakas

Ierakas: the harbour and the lake, looking W from the fortification (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Lakonia; photo by the author).

to these towers, the outer circuit wall widens in the NW to form an irregularly shaped bastion, using a natural outcrop of rock. Gates: The gateway to the outer circuit was probably located between the two towers at the NW corner of the site, but this area is today heavily overgrown. The inner circuit was accessible through an L-shaped passage in the circular NW tower. The passage was spanned by blocks placed in an inverted V-shape (today partly collapsed). Internal structures: Inside the circuits, there are remains of several buildings, but a street plan can so far not be reconstructed. The buildings include several churches and a cistern. Finds: Besides numerous fragments of tile and pottery from the Hellenistic to Late Roman periods (Shipley 1996: 310), a press bed is preserved at the site, though probably not in situ. Two blocks of a 3rd-century AD funerary monument (described by Jameson 1953: 168–70) are still at the site, one of them decorated with a relief showing a mirror and other cosmetic implements. Date: The postern in the flank of the circular tower and the use of uncoursed polygonal masonry suggest that the fortification dates at least partly to the Hellenistic period (see chapter 4).

Ierakas: the entrance to the inner circuit: the outer gate from the S (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Lakonia; photo by the author).

200

Catalogue: 28. Ierakas, 29. Iliokastro Further information: The site has been identified as ancient Ζάραξ, which is attested as an Argive kome in the late 3rd century BC (SEG xvii 143 (before 222 BC)). The settlement was captured by Kleonymos in 272 BC and attacked by Lykourgos in 219 BC (Polyb. 4.36.5; Paus. 3.24.1; Wace and Hasluck 1908: 167; Παπαχατζής 1976: 427; Pritchett 1991a: 158–63; Shipley 1996: 310). Bibliography: Leake 1830a: 219; Curtius 1852: 291–92; Wace and Hasluck 1908: 167–73; Δούκας 1922: 565–66; Leekley and Noyes 1976: 115; Παπαχατζής 1976: 427; Pritchett 1991a: 158–64; Shipley 1996: 310, 2000: 379, 2004: 576–77. Further images: Figure 7.11 b.

Iliokastro: the SE corner of the SE tower from the E (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Ierakas: the W wall of the inner circuit from the W (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Lakonia; photo by the author).

Ancient name: Εἰλεοί (?) Altitude: 332 mamsl Location: On the summit and S slope of a hill c. 2000m N of modern Iliokastro. Type: fortified settlement Approximate size: 1.8ha Masonry: carefully fitted coursed trapezoidal with rough surfaces and vertically drafted corners Description: Curtain walls: A limestone outcrop in the N forms the highest point of the site. From this outcrop, two curtain walls in coursed trapezoidal masonry run to the SW and SE. Several trapezoidal blocks in the foundations of a modern building to the S may form part of the site’s S curtain wall, but it is unclear if the blocks are in situ. Towers: There are remains of two rectangular towers in the SW and the SE corners of the circuit. Both are constructed in trapezoidal masonry with vertically drafted corners, but are currently very overgrown. Internal structures: Numerous foundations of buildings and an ancient well were recorded inside the circuit. The buildings follow an orthogonal grid plan (Jameson et al. 1994: 520). Finds: Most sherds from the site date to the period between the middle of the 5th century BC and the late 3rd or early 2nd century BC. The finds include blackglazed pottery (cups, kraters, lamps and closed shapes), as well as coarse wares. Pieces of tile, a stone column, fragments of grinding stones and hopper mills, and few sherds of Early Helladic, Late Helladic, Archaic

29. ILIOKASTRO (Ηλιόκαστρο, Παλαιόκαστρο, Κάστρο του Καρακάσι)

Iliokastro: plan (Jameson et al. 1994: 520, fig. A.38).

201

Catalogue: 29. Iliokastro, 30. Iliopoulaiika

Iliokastro: the view from the limestone outcrop to the S and SE. The island Hydra is visible in the far distance to the right of the centre of the picture (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

and Medieval pottery were also recorded (Φαράκλας 1973: E. 2.2; Jameson et al. 1994: 520–21). Date: The surface pottery suggests a date in the Classical period, with a continued occupation into the early 2nd century BC (Jameson et al. 1994: 519–21). Further information: The site has tentatively been identified as ancient Εἰλεοί (Paus. 2.34.6; Φιλάδελφευς 1909: 182–83; Boyd 1982: 256). It has a good view over the Iliokastro valley and the two valleys leading to the Aderes mountains. Parts of the N coast of the island Hydra are also visible, including the area W of modern Chora, where Jameson 1959: 116–17 noted an ancient settlement. In both layout and masonry style, the Iliokastro is very similar to the fortification at Phourkaria (61). Bibliography: Φιλάδελφευς 1909: 182–83; Wrede 1959; Simpson 1965: 23; Φαράκλας 1973: 23, E. 2.1–2; Leekley and Noyes 1976: 61; Simpson and Dickinson 1979: 57–58; Simpson 1981: 31; Boyd 1982; Foley 1988: 178; Πέππα 1990: 268, 295; Jameson et al. 1994: 519–21; Tausend 2006: 167.

30. ILIOPOULAIIKA (Ηλιοπουλαίικα, Πύργος, Πολύφεγγο)

Iliopoulaiika: plan (Gauvin 1997: 36, fig. 3.4).

Ancient name: Altitude: 439 mamsl Location: At the pass between Nemea and Leontio. Type: rectangular tower Approximate size: 7 by 7.9m Masonry: carefully fitted coursed polygonal with rough surfaces Description: This rectangular tower (c. 7 by 7.9m) survives up to an elevation of four courses. The entrance is located in the S (c. 2.9m from the SW corner) and a broken doorpost or lintel lies inside the tower (not in situ). Two cisterns are located nearby (Gauvin 1997: 32). Finds: The site has produced fragments of tile, blackglazed and unglazed pottery (possibly dating to the Archaic, Classical, Hellenistic, Roman, Late Roman and modern periods) and the lower stone of a conglomerate olive mill (Wright 1990: 610; Πίκουλας 1995: 237; Gauvin 1997: 32; Cloke 2016: 914–18). Date: Judging by surface pottery and masonry style, the structure is probably of Late Classical or Hellenistic date, with subsequent periods of use until at least the Late Roman period (see chapter 4).

Iliokastro: the E wall from the E (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

202

Catalogue: 30. Iliopoulaiika, 31. Iria

Iliopoulaiika: the view from the site to the W (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Korinthia; photo by the author).

31. IRIA (Ίρια)

Iliopoulaiika: the view from the site to the E (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Korinthia; photo by the author).

Iliopoulaiika: the NW corner from the N (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Korinthia; photo by the author).

Further information: The site has been interpreted as a watchtower (Cloke 2016: 918), perhaps connected to a route between Leontio and the Phleiasia (Πίκουλας 1995: 237; Gauvin 1997: 38; Tausend 2006: 67). However, the olive mill clearly demonstrates that the site was at some point used for agricultural production. Bibliography: Le Puillon de Boblaye 1836: 32; Ross 1841: 27; Rhankabes 1857: 136; Frickenhaus and Müller 1911: 24; Russell 1924: 43, 45–6; Meyer 1941: 280; Pritchett 1969: 98; Φαράκλας 1972c: 8, 11, E. 2.3; Wright 1990: 610; Gauvin 1992: 140, 141, 143–44, figs 7.5–7.7; Πέππα 1993: 163; Πίκουλας 1995: 236–37; Gauvin 1997: 31–38; Tausend 2006: 67; Bonnier 2014: 150; Cloke 2016: 911–18. Further images: Figure 7.13 b.

Iria: satellite-image with sketch plan (Google Earth 2018, internal structure after Schilbach 1976: 127, fig. 1).

Ancient name: Altitude: 94 mamsl Location: On a small plateau at the N edge of the plain of Iria. Type: fort Approximate size: 0.03ha Masonry: carefully fitted coursed polygonal with rough surfaces and vertically drafted corners Description: The site is located on a small, naturally defensible plateau, which was fortified with a circuit wall in coursed polygonal masonry. The wall is c. 1.1m wide and was built directly on the bedrock. The entrance to the fortified area was located in the E, where parts of a doorjamb (with a cutting for a crossbar) survive. The 203

Catalogue: 31. Iria, 32. Kampia approach to this entrance is marked by two L-shaped walls, possibly terrace walls. Inside the circuit, there are remains of a building with two rooms. Finds: Schilbach 1976: 128 noted Hellenistic sherds (mostly dating between the last third of the 4th century BC and the 3rd century BC) and explicitly mentioned that no Late Roman, Medieval or modern sherds were found at the site. Date: The sherds point to a Hellenistic date. Further information: The site belongs to a cluster of intervisible fortifications on the southern border of the Epidaurian territory. Its masonry style shows similarities to the sites of Benteni Kiapha (16) and Palaia Epidavros (54) (see chapter 6). Bibliography: Schilbach 1976; Aupert 1978: 670; Πέππα 1990: 268, 289–90; Tausend 2006: 153. Further images: Figure 4.16.

32. KAMPIA (Καμπία, Μαλεβίτη) Ancient name: Altitude: 93 mamsl Location: On a low hill in the NE of the Lykotroupi valley. Type: rectangular tower Approximate size: 7.7 by 8.1m Masonry: carefully fitted coursed polygonal with rough surfaces Description: Today, up to two courses of this rectangular structure (7.7 by 8.1m) are visible. The walls are c. 0.8–1m wide and constructed in coursed polygonal masonry. An entrance (c. 0.7m wide) is situated in the SW. Both the threshold and parts of the doorjambs survive, showing that the door originally opened inwards. The S doorjamb bears a large square cutting (possibly for a crossbar), while the N doorjamb preserves two small rectangular holes. Finds: Πιτερός 1995c: 113 noted a weight block nearby, while Αρχοντίδου-Αργύρη 1977b: 49 mentioned pieces of obsidian. Date: Πιτερός 1995c: 113 suggested a date in the 4th century BC, while the masonry indicates a Late Classical or Hellenistic construction (see chapter 4). Further information: As Παππάς 2006 has shown, this tower does not have a pyramidal base (as previously suggested by Πιτερός 1995c: 113). Foley 1988: 192; Tausend 2006: 31 interpreted the structure as a watchtower, while the nearby weight block might point to an interpretation as a site of agricultural production. Bibliography: Αρχοντίδου-Αργύρη 1977b: 49; Foley 1988: 192; Πιτερός 1995c: 113; Παππάς 2006. Πιτερός 1995c: 113 described the site as located E rather than W of Nea Epidavros, while Tausend 2006: 31 erroneously treated ‘Palati’ and ‘Kampia / Maleviti’ as the same site. Further images: Figure 7.7.

Iria: the S and W walls from the S (above); Iria: the N doorjamb from the S (below) (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photos by the author).

Kampia: the SW wall from the SW (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

204

Catalogue: 33. Kantia 1, 34. Kantia 2 but this identification is uncertain (Jameson et al. 1994: 58–60, 485). Bibliography: Curtius 1852: 467; Μηλιαράκης 1886: 92; Frazer 1898: 299; Frickenhaus and Müller 1911: 26; Möbius and Wrede 1927: 365; Karo 1935: 605; Gebauer 1939: 287–94, 1940: 182–86; Walter 1940: 220–21; Schachermeyr 1942: 116; Dunbabin 1944: 82; Ålin 1962: 49–50; Simpson 1965: 21; Scoufopoulos 1971: 39, 56; Siedentopf 1973: 215–19; Brommer 1975: 172; Leekley and Noyes 1976: 64; Simpson and Dickinson 1979: 50; Simpson 1981: 26; Foley 1988: 182–83; Suto 1996: 10; Πιτερός 1995a: 110–11; Loader 1998: 31; Simpson and Hagel 2006: 40–41; Tausend 2006: 153.

33. KANTIA 1 (Κάντια)

Kantia 1: the NE wall from the NE (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

34. KANTIA 2 (Κάντια)

Ancient name: Ἠιόνες (?) Altitude: 49 mamsl Location: On a small hill above the NE edge of the plain of Kantia. Type: fortified settlement Approximate size: Masonry: drystone Description: In 1939, remains of a fortified settlement were excavated on this hill. The site (originally accessible from the E) was fortified in the NE and W with a circuit wall in ‘cyclopaean’ drystone masonry. Inside the circuit, there were remains of several buildings and a round tower (Gebauer 1939: 288–93, 1940: 182, 184). Today, a chapel and a cemetery are located on the hill. Finds: The finds include Early Helladic, Middle Helladic, Late Helladic, Geometric, Archaic, Hellenistic and Byzantine sherds, as well as fragments of Hellenistic tile and obsidian (Gebauer 1939: 288–92; Brommer 1975: 172; Πιτερός 1995a: 111; Simpson and Hagel 2006: 40). Gebauer 1939: 292, 1940: 182 also noted a large number of nails at the highest point of the site. Date: The circuit walls and most buildings within the fortified area were dated to the Helladic periods (Gebauer 1939: 291–93; Ålin 1962: 50; Scoufopoulos 1971: 56; Simpson and Dickinson 1979: 50; Simpson 1981: 26; Simpson and Hagel 2006: 41), but the finds indicate a reuse of the site in Geometric, Archaic, Hellenistic and Byzantine times (Möbius and Wrede 1927: 365; Simpson 1981: 26; Foley 1988: 182; Πιτερός 1995a: 111). Gebauer 1939: 291–92 suggested not only that some structures on the S slope are of Geometric date, but also that the tower was reused in the Early Roman period, but the evidence for these hypotheses remains unclear. Further information: Some scholars have identified the settlement as ancient Ἠιόνες (for example Curtius 1852: 467; Scoufopoulos 1971: 56; Tausend 2006: 153),

Kantia 2: plan (Gebauer 1939: 283-84, fig. 9).

Ancient name: Altitude: 5 mamsl Location: On the SW edge of the plain of Kantia, c. 500m from the modern coast. Type: two rectangular towers with remains of one further building Approximate size: 5.5 by 5.5m Masonry: carefully fitted coursed polygonal with rough surfaces and vertically drafted corners Description: In 1939, remains of two rectangular towers were excavated on the W edge of the plain of Kantia. Both towers measured c. 5.5 by 5.5m and were constructed in carefully fitted coursed polygonal masonry with rough surfaces and vertically drafted corners. The interior of the W tower was divided by a N-S crosswall, while a room was marked off inside the NW corner of the E tower. The entrance to the W tower was situated in the W, the entrance to the E tower in the E. To the NW of the E tower, Gebauer 1939: 293–94 recorded the SW corner of a rectangular building in polygonal masonry. Today, the site is heavily overgrown and only the E tower is visible. Finds: According to Gebauer 1940: 181–82, most sherds inside the towers date to the 1st century BC. They probably include two relief bowls and a plate with 205

Catalogue: 34. Kantia 2, 35. Kastraki Towers: The fort is protected by two circular and two rectangular towers: a) The SW Tower: This circular tower (c. 8.3m in diameter) strengthens the SW corner of the circuit. Constructed with a solid core, it is not strongly bonded with the adjoining circuit wall. b) The Gate Tower: This solid circular tower (c. 8.2m in diameter) is situated E of the gate. It is only lightly bonded with the circuit wall, but strongly connected to the walls of the gate. c) The E Tower: A rectangular tower is located at the E corner of the fortification. It is c. 6.1m wide and filled with earth and rubble. d) The N Tower: This rectangular tower in the N, immediately to the E of the cliff face, is c. 6m wide, projects by c. 2.4–3m and is not bonded with the circuit wall. Gates: The fortification is accessible by a gate in the SW. Flanked to the E by the Gate Tower, this gate consists of an outer corridor (c. 2.5 by 2.7m), a rectangular courtyard (c. 4.5 by 6.1–6.5m) and an inner corridor (c. 2.1 by 3.3m). The gate is constructed in the same masonry style as the circuit wall, but the blocks are more carefully fitted and include vertically drafted corners. Internal structures: Winter 1950: 20 noted remains of a building near the gate. Finds: Brommer 1975: 173 mentioned Late Helladic, Classical and unidentified sherds, as well as pieces of obsidian. Medieval and modern sherds are also visible at the site. Date: Except for later repairs in stone, brick and mortar, this fortification probably belongs to a single construction phase. The limited bonding between the circuit and the towers suggests a date after the mid 5th century BC, while the gate shows close similarities to the 4th-century BC gates B and D at Mantineia. The site was therefore probably constructed in the 4th century BC (Schilbach 1976: 65–66, 97–99, see also chapter 4).

Kantia 2: the two towers from the N (Gebauer 1939: 283-84, fig. 10; courtesy of the German Archaeological Institute (D-DAI-ATH-Argolis 485)).

the incised inscription ΑΘΛΟΥ (Gebauer 1940: 182), although Walter 1940: 221 suggests that they were found at Kantia 1. Brommer 1975: 172; Grigoropoulos 2011: 199, 201, 203, 235 also noted Roman and Late Antique pottery from the site. Date: Gebauer 1939: 293–94 suggested a Hellenistic date, while the coursed polygonal masonry could belong to the Late Classical or the Hellenistic period (see chapter 4). Further information: The towers are probably located near the Argive-Epidaurian border (see chapter 5), but due to their very limited visibility a use as ‘militarystrategic’ sites is doubtful (see chapter 6). Bibliography: Gebauer 1939: 293–94, 1940: 181; Brommer 1975: 172; Suto 1996: 9; Tausend 2006: 153; Grigoropoulos 2011: 199, 201, 203, 235.

35. KASTRAKI (Καστράκι, Καστράκι Φωνίσκου) Ancient name: Altitude: 397 mamsl Location: On the NE end of a ridge, N of the modern road between the villages Arkadiko and Giannoulaiika. Type: fort Approximate size: 0.34ha Masonry: roughly hewn coursed polygonal with rough surfaces Description: Curtain walls: This site on a small plateau is protected to the N and NW by a cliff and surrounded by a circuit wall in double-faced uncoursed polygonal masonry, usually built directly on the bedrock. In the NE, E, S and SW, this wall is c. 2.1–2.2m wide and has survived up to an elevation of c. 3m, while in the N and NW only few traces of the circuit are visible.

Kastraki: the S side from the SW, showing the SW Tower (left) and the curtain wall (right) (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

206

Catalogue: 35. Kastraki

Kastraki: the view to the W and NW. The fortification of Kazarma is located on the hill in the left foreground (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Kastraki: the view to the E, S and W. The fortification of Kazarma is located on the hill in the right foreground (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Kastraki: the N Tower, looking SE (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Kastraki: the S wall of the gate from the N (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Further information: Based on its excellent views over the valley between the Argolic and the Saronic Gulf, the fortification has been connected to an ancient route through the valley (Schilbach 1975: 58; Tausend 2006: 151). As argued in chapter 6, it may have served as an Epidaurian fort on the border of the Argive territory. A spring is located at the foot of the hill, immediately to the N (Παπαχατζής 1976: 199). Bibliography: Gell 1817: 186; Frazer 1898: 233; Lord 1939: 83; Scranton 1941: 166; Winter 1950: 16–48; Scoufopoulos 1971: 30, 57; Winter 1971: 86, 138, 193, 220–21; Brommer 1975: 173; Schilbach 1975: 58–66, 97–99; Παπαχατζής 1976: 199; Adam 1982: 192; Πέππα 1990: 268, 275; Adam 1992: 39; Simpson and Hagel 2006: 45; Tausend 2006: 151, 2020: 127. Further images: Figures 4.1, 6.44 a and 6.45 a.

36. KASTRO 1 (Κάστρο) Ancient name: Altitude: 90 mamsl Location: On a hill c. 1400m N of Prophitis Ilias. Type: drystone circuit Approximate size: 0.27ha Masonry: drystone Description: The summit of the hill is surrounded by a c. 6m wide, largely collapsed circuit wall in drystone masonry. Since the site was recorded in 1979 (see Jameson et al. 1994: 442), a modern building has been erected on the hill, breaking through the circuit wall to create a new access route. 207

Catalogue: 36. Kastro 1

Kastro 1: the view to the W towards Koilada (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Finds: Jameson et al. 1994: 442 recorded Late- and Subgeometric pottery (including sherds of kraters, cups, amphorae, jugs, pyxides and pithoi), but also few Early Helladic, Archaic and Classical sherds, fragments of roof tiles, one loomweight, one piece of haematite and three stone tools. Date: The pottery suggests a Geometric date (Jameson et al. 1994: 442). Further information: The site has a good view over the bay of Koilada and could either be a small fortified settlement or a refuge site (Jameson et al. 1994: 442). Bibliography: Jameson et al. 1994: 442. Kastro 1: the S circuit wall from the W (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Kastro 1: the S circuit wall from the S (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Kastro 1: plan (Jameson et al. 1994: 442, fig. A.8).

208

Catalogue: 37. Kastro 2 Ancient name: Altitude: 870 mamsl Location: On a limestone outcrop W of the pass between Lygourio and Arachnaio. Type: drystone circuit Approximate size: 0.2ha Masonry: drystone Description: The site is protected to the S by a steep cliff, while in the W, N and E a drystone circuit wall survives up to an elevation of 3m. The entrance to the circuit is located near the NW corner of the site. Finds: Early Helladic, Late Helladic, Classical, Roman and later pottery was noted at the site, as well as obsidian blades and debitage (Rupp 1976: 264; Tausend 2006: 29). Date: Although the date of the walls is uncertain, the pottery indicates a use of the site during the Classical period. Further information: The site is located on a pass between Lygourio and Arachnaio, and has a good view towards both the N and the S (see chapter 6). Bibliography: Gell 1810: 99–100; Le Puillon de Boblaye 1836: 53–54; Leake 1846: 417, 419–20; Curtius 1852: 418; Rhankabes 1857: 276; Bursian 1872: 71; Rupp 1976: 263– 64; Πέππα 1990: 259–60; Tausend 2006: 29, 2020: 127.

37. KASTRO 2 (Κάστρο, Γκύκλος)

Kastro 2: satellite-image with sketch plan (Google Earth 2014).

Kastro 2: the view from the site to the N (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Kastro 2: the view from the site to the S (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

209

Catalogue: 37. Kastro 2, 38. Kastro tis Paliopanagias 38. KASTRO TIS PALIOPANAGIAS Παλιοπαναγιάς, Κάστρο, Γλυππία)

(Κάστρο

της

Ancient name: Γλυμπεῖς, Γλυππία Altitude: 813 mamsl Location: On a rocky plateau c. 2000m from Agios Vasileios, to the left of the modern road between Agios Vasileios and Platanaki, and to the N of the chapel Agios Konstantinos. Type: fort (?) Approximate size: 0.45ha Masonry: drystone Description: The site is located on a rocky plateau surrounded by cliffs. This naturally defensible position was strengthened with drystone walls in the NW and NE. The walls were built directly on the bedrock. In the Medieval period, a tower, a chapel and other buildings were constructed on the site (Μπάλλα 2002: 199–200). Finds: Late Classical, Hellenistic, Roman and Medieval sherds were noted at the site (Waterhouse and Simpson 1961: 135; Παπαχατζής 1976: 417; Φάκλαρης 1990: 155; Shipley 1996: 281). Date: The date of the walls is uncertain, but the surface pottery attests a Late Classical and Hellenistic use of the site. Further information: Due to the current state of preservation and the extensive later use, it is impossible to determine whether this fortification served as a fort or as a fortified settlement. The site is usually identified as ancient Γλυππία, which was attacked by Lykourgos

Kastro 2: the W wall from the NW (above); Kastro 2: the limestone plateau from the E (below) (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photos by the author).

Kastro tis Paliopanagias: satellite-image with sketch plan (Google Earth 2013).

210

Catalogue: 38. Kastro tis Paliopanagias, 39. Kazarma or crenellation, which was probably built in mudbrick) and has been repaired in later periods with small stones and tiles. Towers: The site is protected by the following four circular towers, which are constructed in the same coursed polygonal masonry as the curtains, but are only lightly bonded with the adjoining walls: The Gate Tower: This small tower (c. 4.9m in diameter) is located at the SW corner of the fortification and protects the gate to the E. It is bonded with the NW wall. Tower I: Tower I is located at the SE corner of the site. It has a diameter of c. 7.5m, but today only its W side survives. Tower II: This tower strengthens the E corner of the circuit. It has a diameter of c. 7.4m and was constructed with a solid core. Tower III: Located at the highest point of the circuit, this tower has a diameter of c. 6.2m. Gates: The SW Gate: The main entrance to the fortification is located in the SW corner of the site, immediately E of the Gate Tower. Both sides of the gate are preserved and show that the entrance was originally c. 1.4m wide. Immediately to the S of the gate is an E-W terrace, which forms the orginal approach route, and might incorporate parts of an earlier drystone fortification (Winter 1950: 4–5). The S Postern: Located in the E wall, this postern is c. 1.1m wide and spanned by a corbelled arch.

in 219 BC (Polyb. 4.36.5; Le Puillon de Boblaye 1836: 97; Leake 1846: 362–64; Curtius 1852: 303–04; Frazer 1898: 381–82; Ρωμαίος 1906: 453–54; Walker 1936: 63; Παπαχατζής 1976: 417–18; Φάκλαρης 1990: 153–57; Pritchett 1991a: 155–56). Bibliography: Le Puillon de Boblaye 1836: 97; Leake 1846: 362–64; Curtius 1852: 303–04; Frazer 1898: 381–82; Ρωμαίος 1906: 453–54; Wace and Hasluck 1908: 165; Bölte 1909: 376–84; Ρωμαίος 1911: 277–78; Walker 1936: 61–63; Ρωμαίος 1955b: 151–54; Waterhouse and Simpson 1961: 135; Simpson 1965: 52; Παπαχατζής 1976: 417; Simpson and Dickinson 1979: 125; Simpson 1981: 110; Πέππα 1990: 174; Φάκλαρης 1990: 153–57; Pritchett 1991a: 155–56; Shipley 1996: 281–82; Μπάλλα 2002: 198–201.

Kastro tis Paliopanagias: the NW wall from the W (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Arkadia; photo by the author).

39. KAZARMA (Καζάρμα, Άγιος Ιωάννης, Αρκαδικό, Μπρουτζαίικα, Ξεροκαστέλλι) Ancient name: Altitude: 300 mamsl Location: On the E end of a ridge between the plain of Metochi and the valley betwen the Argolic and the Saronic Gulf. Type: fort Approximate size: 0.39 ha Masonry: carefully fitted coursed polygonal with rough surfaces Description: Curtain walls: The circuit encloses a roughly triangular area on the summit and the SW slope of the hill. In the NW (where the site is naturally protected by the steep slope) the curtain wall is only c. 1.8m wide. On the more accessible S and E slopes, the curtain wall is c. 2.4–2.5m wide and constructed in double-faced coursed polygonal masonry. The wall partly survives up to its original elevation (c. 6m excluding the parapet

Kazarma: the S Postern from the E (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

211

Catalogue: 39. Kazarma

Kazarma: the SW Gate (centre) and the Gate Tower (right) from the NE (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Kazarma: the view from the site to the NW (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Kazarma: Tower III and the adjoining N Postern from the SE (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Kazarma: the E circuit wall and Tower I from the NE (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Kazarma: the view from the site to the E, S and W. The fort of Kastraki is located on the hill in the left of this picture (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

The N Postern: This entrance immediately to the S of Tower III (spanned by a lintel) is c. 1m wide. Internal structures: Traces of walls have been noted inside the circuit, but were not recorded in detail (Winter 1950: 15; Schilbach 1975: 50). In the E corner, there is a cistern, which measures c. 2.5 by 6m, is lined with plaster, and was covered with a corbelled vault. Finds: Early Helladic, Late Helladic, Classical, Hellenistic and Roman sherds were recorded at this site (Ålin 1962: 51; Scoufopoulos 1971: 57; Brommer 1975: 173; Grigoropoulos 2011: 222, 235). Date: Except for later repairs and alterations (easily recognisable by the use of small stones, brick and mortar), the fortification appears to belong to a single

building phase. The limited bonding between the curtain walls and the towers suggests a date after the mid 5th century BC (Schilbach 1975: 109–10). For a terminus ante quem, Schilbach 1975: 110–12 argued that the mudbrick crenellation or parapet points to a date before the introduction of torsion artillery, but the walls of Gela and the Attic inscription IG II2 463 (307/06 BC) demonstrate that mudbrick continued to be used into the 4th and 3rd centuries BC (Lawrence 1979: 362, 368–68; see chapter 4). The site’s coursed polygonal masonry could belong to the Late Classiacal or the Hellenistic period (see chapter 4). Further information: Due to the excellent views of the surrounding valley, the site has been interpreted as 212

Catalogue: 39. Kazarma , 40. Kephalovryso Masonry: roughly hewn polygonal with rough surfaces Description: The site is located on the summit of a small hill, which is surrounded by a circuit or terrace wall in drystone masonry. At its centre, there are remains of a rectangular tower with chamfered corners in roughly hewn polygonal masonry. Measuring c. 6.5 by 6.5m, this tower survives up to an elevation of four courses and has been incorporated into a later chapel. Immediately W of the tower, a circular basin has been cut into the bedrock. Finds: Date: Πίκουλας 1995: 197 suggested a construction in the 4th century BC, while the masonry indicates a Classical or Hellenistic date (see chapter 4). Further information: The site is located at the pass from Neochori to Kephalovryso, and has a good view of the Kephalovryso and Inachos valleys, as well as the pass to Alea (Πίκουλας 1995: 197; Tausend 2006: 94). This location may suggest a ‘mititary-strategic’ function (see chapter 6). Bibliography: Πέππα 1990: 138; Πίκουλας 1991: 257 (no. 22), 1995: 196–97; Tausend 2006: 94. Further images: Figure 6.10.

an Argive border fort guarding the route between the Argolic and the Saronic Gulf (Schilbach 1975: 41, 109; Tausend 2006: 151, see also chapter 4). It is sometimes identified with ancient Lessa (Frazer 1898: 232; Scranton 1938: 537; Winter 1971: 43; Rupp 1976: 267), but this hypothesis is uncertain (see chapters 5 and 6). Bibliography: Gell 1817: 186; Curtius 1852: 417; Vischer 1857: 503; Bursian 1872: 62; Frickenhaus and Müller 1911: 30; Lord 1939: 83; Philippson 1950: 103; Winter 1950: 3–16, 25–48; École Française 1955: 244; Ålin 1962: 51; Simpson 1965: 19; Scoufopoulos 1971: 30, 57; Winter 1971: 43–45, 138; Brommer 1975: 173; Schilbach 1975: 41–50, 109–12; Leekley and Noyes 1976: 64; Παπαχατζής 1976: 198–99; Lawrence 1979: 309–10; Simpson and Dickinson 1979: 51; Simpson 1981: 27; Adam 1982: 191; Foley 1988: 183; Πέππα 1990: 268, 273–75; Simpson and Hagel 2006: 44; Tausend 2006: 151; Grigoropoulos 2011: 222, 235; Philippa-Touchais et al. 2016: 817; Tausend 2020: 127. Further images: Figures 6.43, 6.44 b, 6.45 b and 6.48.

40. KEPHALOVRYSO (Κεφαλόβρυσο, Άγιος Δημήτριος)

Kephalovryso: the S side of the tower from the S (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Kephalovryso: satellite-image with sketch plan (Google Earth 2013).

Ancient name: Altitude: 933 mamsl Location: On a low hill, to the E of the pass between the villages Neochori and Kephalovryso. Type: rectangular tower with a circuit or terrace wall Approximate size: 6.5 by 6.5m

Kephalovryso: the rock-cut basin (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

213

Catalogue: 40. Kephalovryso, 41. Kleonai

Kephalovryso: the view from the site to the S towards Neochori (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Kephalovryso: the view from the site to the N towards Kephalovryso (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

41. KLEONAI (Κλεωναί) Ancient name: Κλεωναί Altitude: 278 mamsl Location: On two hills c. 800m SE of the village Archaies Kleones. Type: fortified settlement Approximate size: 34.8ha Masonry: drystone and carefully fitted ashlar with smooth surfaces Description: The ancient settlement of Kleonai is located on two hills: the acropolis hill in the NE and a lower hill in the SW. The city walls, which were described in detail by Marchand 2002: 363–86, follow the contours of both hills and enclose an area of c. 34.8ha. In many areas of the site, only a sudden drop in terrain indicates the course of the circuit, but in the W, N and NE several sections of the city walls are still visible. According to Marchand 2002: 382, two types of masonry were used: the W walls were built in drystone (perhaps a socle for mudbrick), while the E walls consist of poros blocks in ashlar masonry. The acropolis hill was fortified by an inner circuit (Marchand 2002: 389–91), but today this area is densely overgrown. Vischer 1857: 287 could still see a gate and several towers, but today only the remains of one possible tower in the NE are visible. Inside the circuit, there are remains of numerous structures, including public buildings (Marchand 2002: 396–436; Mattern 2015: 19). Finds: The finds recorded at the site include Middle Helladic, Late Helladic, Archaic and in particular Classical and Hellenistic pottery, as well as Early Roman and Late Antique sherd, loomweights and fragments

Kleonai: the ashlar masonry of the NW city wall from the SW (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Korinthia; photo by the author).

Kleonai: the possible tower in the NE from the NE (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Korinthia; photo by the author).

214

Catalogue: 41. Kleonai

Kleonai: satellite-image with sketch plan (Google Earth 2018, after Mattern 2013: 324, fig. 1).

Kleonai: the view from the site to the NE. The hill of Spathovouni (143) is visible to the right of the valley in the centre of the picture (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Korinthia; photo by the author).

of tile (Σακελλάριος 1971: 33–34; Brommer 1975: 178; Marchand 2002; Bonnier 2014: 143; Grigoropoulos 2011: 232). Date: The date of the city walls is unclear (Marchand 2002: 372), but the ashlar masonry may point towards a construction in the Classical period (see chapter 4). Further information: Kleonai is attested as an Argive kome in the early 4th century BC (Kritzas 2006: 427–29, see also chapter 5).

Bibliography: Dodwell 1819: 206; Leake 1830b: 324–25; Frazer 1898: 82; Σακελλάριος 1971: 33–34; Brommer 1975: 178; Leekley and Noyes 1976: 80; Simpson and Dickinson 1979: 67; Simpson 1981: 35; Marchand 2002; Piérart 2004: 610–11; Marchand 2009b: 138–40; Mattern 2012; Giannakopoulos 2013; Marchand 2013: 318–20; Mattern 2013: 323, 329; Bonnier 2014: 143; Mattern 2015: 18–19; Grigoropoulos 2011: 232. 215

Catalogue: 42. Kophy Rachi, 43. Krya Vrysi: Marmarakia Ancient name: Altitude: 369 mamsl Location: Near the head of a valley, c. 400m SE of the Kophy Rachi summit and c. 30m E of a spring. Type: rectangular tower with a circuit wall Approximate size: 5.6 by 6.6m Masonry: drystone and roughly hewn coursed polygonal with rough surfaces Description: This rectangular tower (c. 5.6 by 6.6m) in coursed polygonal masonry survives up to an elevation of c. 1.6m, but no traces of an entrance are visible. The tower is surrounded by a drystone circuit or terrace wall, which encloses an area of c. 25 by 30m. Finds: Penttinen 2005: 112 recorded Late Classical and Hellenistic sherds, including fragments of lekanai and amphorae. Date: The pottery suggests a Late Classical or Hellenistic date. Further information: Based on the site’s view of the road between Mykinai and the valley of Prosymna, the tower has been interpreted as a watchtower (Tausend 2006: 25; Wells 2011: 25). Alternatively, the site’s location in good grazing land could point to a use as a fortified farmstead (Jansen 2002: 95–96). Bibliography: Steffen and Lolling 1884: 17–18; Jansen 2002: 94–96; Penttinen 2005: 112, 115–6; Tausend 2006: 25; Wells 2011: 25.

42. KOPHY RACHI (Κοφύ Ράχη, Μουρίτσα)

43. KRYA VRYSI: Μαρμαράκια)

MARMARAKIA

(Κρύα

Βρύση:

Krya Vrysi: Marmarakia: the S wall from the SW (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Ancient name: Altitude: 603 mamsl Location: On an E foothill of the Limonia mountain, S of the modern road between Krya Vrysi and Zogka. Type: rectangular tower Approximate size: 6 by 7m

Kophy Rachi: the W terrace or circuit wall from the SE (above); Kophy Rachi: the view from the site to the W towards the Argive plain (middle); Kophy Rachi: the S corner of the tower from the SW (below) (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photos by the author).

216

Catalogue: 43. Krya Vrysi: Marmarakia, 44. Kyparissi Masonry: carefully fitted coursed polygonal with rough surfaces  Description: At this site, a rectangular tower (c. 6m by 7m) in coursed polygonal masonry is preserved up to an elevation of three courses. Its entrance is located in the E, where a c. 0.9m wide threshold with a cutting for a pivot or doorpost survives. Part of a doorjamb was also found, but is not in situ. Finds: Date: Judging by the masonry, the tower could belong to the Late Classical or the Hellenistic period (see chapter 4). Further information: The site has a good view to the W and has consequently been interpreted as a watchtower guarding a route through the valley (Tausend 2006: 125), although an interpretation as a fortified farmstead would also be possible. Bibliography: Πέππα 1990: 132; Πίκουλας 1991: 257 (no. 18), 1992: 230–31, 1995: 216–17; Tausend 2006: 125.

44. KYPARISSI (Κυπαρίσσι, Καστέλλι) Ancient name: Κύφαντα Altitude: 114 mamsl Location: On a coastal hill on the bay of Kyparissi between the modern villages Kyparissi and Paralia. Type: fortified settlement (?) Approximate size: 0.8ha Masonry: roughly hewn uncoursed polygonal with rough surfaces Description: The ancient fortifications at Kyparissi are located on a naturally defensible coastal hill, which was protected on the weaker NE, E and S sides with an up to c. 2.4m wide curtain wall. Today, this wall can still be traced over a length of c. 180m and survives up to an elevation of six or more courses. Constructed in roughly hewn uncoursed polygonal masonry, it usually rests directly on the bedrock. At two points (c. 75m S of the NE corner and at the site’s SE corner), the curtain walls widen into a tower or bastion, making use of natural outcrops. The area within the circuit is heavily overgrown and strewn with boulders. A Byzantine chapel is today located at the NE corner of the site. Finds: Classical, Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine sherds (Shipley 1996: 282). Date: Σκάγκος 2002: 446 suggested a date in the 4th century BC, while the masonry points to a Late Classical or Hellenistic construction (see chapter 4). Further information: Based on Paus. 3.24.2, Kyparissi has been identified as ancient Κύφαντα (Wace and Hasluck 1908: 173; Pritchett 1991a: 146–47; Shipley 1996: 282, 2004: 583), which was taken by Lykourgos in 219 BC (Polyb. 4.36.5). Conclusive evidence for an identification of the site as a settlement is so far lacking, but this may be a result of the limited research conducted so far. Bibliography: Wace and Hasluck 1908: 173–74; Παπαχατζής 1976: 428–29; Pritchett 1991a: 146–49; Shipley 1996: 282–83, 2004: 583; Σκάγκος 2002.

Krya Vrysi: Marmarakia: the doorjamb (not in situ) (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Krya Vrysi: Marmarakia: the view to the W (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

217

Catalogue: 44. Kyparissi

Kyparissi: satellite-image with sketch plan (Google Earth 2013).

Kyparissi: the E circuit wall from the N (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Lakonia; photo by the author).

Kyparissi: the NE corner of the circuit wall from the E, with the Byzantine chapel built on the ancient remains (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Lakonia; photo by the author).

Kyparissi: the E circuit wall from the SE, as seen from the N bastion (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Lakonia; photo by the author).

Kyparissi: the view to the NE, E and SE over the bay of Kyparissi (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Lakonia; photo by the author).

218

Catalogue: 44. Kyparissi, 45. Lampagiana

Kyparissi: the view to the SW, W and NW. The inland route to Kyparissi leads through the pass in the left of the picture (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Lakonia; photo by the author).

Kyparissi: the site from the S (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Lakonia; photo by the author).

Bibliography: Curtius 1852: 461–62; Jameson and Jameson 1950: 85–87; Jameson 1953: 166; Φαράκλας 1973: E. 2.4; Πέππα 1990: 268; Jameson et al. 1994: 506–08; Suto 1996: 12; Tausend 2006: 159.

45. LAMPAGIANA (Λαμπάγιανα) Ancient name: Altitude: 15 mamsl Location: On a hill c. 250m from the sea and c. 3800m WNW of Phournoi. Type: rectangular tower with an outbuilding Approximate size: 9 by 11m Masonry: carefully fitted uncoursed polygonal with rough surfaces and vertically drafted corners Description: At this site, a rectangular tower (c. 9 by 11m) in polygonal conglomerate masonry with vertically drafted corners survives up to an elevation of four courses. The interior of the tower was divided by a N-S crosswall into a smaller E and larger W room. Immediately to the W of the tower, Jameson et al. 1994: 507–08 recorded a second rectangular building in less substantial masonry. Only few traces of this structure are still visible today. Finds: The surface pottery is predominantly of Hellenistic and Early Roman date, and includes sherds of glazed cups and bowls, domestic coarse wares, amphorae and a pithos. Early Helladic, Late Roman and modern sherds were recorded, as well as fragments of tile (probably Hellenistic or Roman) and two pieces of worked obsidian (Jameson et al. 1994: 507–08). Date: The surface pottery suggests a Hellenistic date. Further information: The site has been interpreted as a fortification guarding the coast and the lower Phournoi valley (Jameson 1953: 166; Tausend 2006: 159) or as a fortified farmstead (Jameson et al. 1994: 508).

Lampagiana: plan (Jameson et al. 1994: 508, fig. A.35).

Lampagiana: the SE corner of the tower from the E (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

219

Catalogue: 45. Lampagiana, 46. Levkakia

Lampagiana: the view from the tower to the SE towards the hill of Phranchthi and the bay of Koilada (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Levkakia: the view to the N (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

46. LEVKAKIA (Λευκάκια, Άγιος Ιωάννης) Ancient name: Altitude: 87 mamsl Location: On a hill W of the village Levkakia. Type: rectangular tower Approximate size: 8.5 by 8.5m Masonry: carefully fitted uncoursed polygonal with rough surfaces Description: This rectangular tower (incorporated into a later chapel) measures c. 8.5 by 8.5m and survives up to an elevation of four courses. The lowest course (a levelling course) is less carefully fitted, and probably forms part of the foundations. Finds: Date: Tausend 2006: 152 suggested a date in the Classical period, whereas the masonry may point to a Hellenistic construction (see chapter 4). Further information: The fortification has a good view to the N and was interpreted by Tausend 2006: 152 as a guard tower along a road between Nafplio and Asini. However, the site’s distance from the road casts doubt on this interpretation (see chapter 6). Bibliography: Tausend 2006: 152.

Levkakia: the SE wall from the SE (above); Levkakia: the E corner from the E (below) (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photos by the author).

220

Catalogue: 47. Lileika Xeropigadou, 48. Limanaki 1 Φάκλαρης 1990: 203 interpreted the larger structure as a 5th-century BC Spartan fort and the tower as an Argive fortification, while Shipley 1996: 276 saw the tower as a 5th-century BC Spartan fortification and the larger building as a Hellenistic Argive fort. Given the close architectural similarity to Kephalovryso (40) and Tourniki: Gaidourovouni (79), an identification of the tower at Likeika Xeropigadou as Argive is likely. Bibliography: Φάκλαρης 1981: 133; Πέππα 1990: 172– 73; Φάκλαρης 1990: 201–03; Shipley 1996: 276; Tausend 2006: 126–27; Balandier and Guintrand 2019: 436, 444.

47. LILEIKA XEROPIGADOU (Λιλέικα Ξεροπήγαδου, Πουρνό, Πύργος, Ανεμόμυλος)

Lileika Xeropigadou: the tower (background) and the terrace or circuit wall (foreground) from the N (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Arkadia; photo by the author).

Ancient name: Altitude: 21 mamsl Location: On the SE edge of a small promontory, E of the village Lileika and S of Cape Pourno. Type: rectangular tower with a further building and a circuit or terrace wall Approximate size: 5 by 5.5m Masonry: roughly hewn polygonal with rough surfaces Description: The archaeological remains at this site comprise of three structures, which have partly been destroyed by coastal erosion. The first structure is a rectangular tower with chamfered corners (c. 5 by 5.5m), constructed in roughly hewn polygonal masonry. A c. 0.8m deep stone-lined pit (c. 0.7–0.9m in diameter) was recorded in its E corner. The second structure consists of a curved drystone circuit or terrace wall, which surrounds the tower in the NW, N and NE. The third structure lies to the NE of the tower and circuit. It measures c. 12 by 12m and is subdivided into several rooms. With a width of c. 0.7m, its walls are less substantial than the walls of the tower. Finds: Classical and Hellenistic black-glazed and unglazed pottery (including many plates and skyphoi), fragments of Laconian tile, shells and a bronze coin of Argos were recorded at the site (Φάκλαρης 1990: 203; Shipley 1996: 276). Date: The tower and the building to the NE may not be contemporary, and both a Classical and a Hellenistic date have been suggested (Φάκλαρης 1990: 203; Shipley 1996: 276). The masonry of the tower may point to a Late Classical or a Hellenistic construction date (see chapter 4). Further information: Judging by the site’s location, the tower may be connected to a coastal route between the Argive plain and the Thyreatis (see chapter 6).

Lileika Xeropigadou: the N wall of the building to the NE of the tower from the N (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Arkadia; photo by the author).

48. LIMANAKI 1 (Λιμανάκι) Ancient name: Altitude: 20 mamsl Location: On a small coastal hill on the NW side of the bay of Vidi. Type: circular tower with a possible circuit wall. Approximate size: 5m in diameter Masonry: roughly hewn polygonal with rough surfaces Description: This round tower (c. 5m in diameter) in roughly hewn polygonal masonry occupies the summit of a small coastal hill. Only two courses of masonry are visible today. On the same hill, there are remains of two further walls to the W, S and E, possibly a rectangular terrace wall or circuit (c. 15 by 20m). Finds: Fragments of tile and unglazed pottery were noted at this site. Date: The date of this tower is uncertain, but the polygonal masonry may suggest a Late Classical or Hellenistic construction. Further information: The site has a good view to the W and S, and has been interpreted as a Troizenian fortification securing the harbour at Pogon (Γιαννοπούλου 2009: 534; Fouquet 2017: 282). Either 221

Catalogue: 48. Limanaki 1, 49. Lygourio 1 Limanaki 1 or Limanaki 2 may be the site referred to as ‘ruined fort’ in R. Chandler’s 1776 map of the straits of Poros (Chandler 1776: 210). Bibliography: Chandler 1776: 210; Leake 1830b: 449; Le Puillon de Boblaye 1836: 57; Curtius 1852: 444; Γιαννοπούλου 2009: 534; Fouquet 2017: 282.

12.5 by 14m. The entrance to the tower is situated in the E and leads into a c. 1m wide corridor. At the end of the corridor, Lord 1938: 516 recorded a rough column with a rectangular base, which has since disappered. This find was originally interpreted as a ‘washing tub’, but may instead represent the miliarium of an olive mill (Lohmann 2015: 262). From the entrance corridor, a c. 0.9m wide door leads into the interior of the tower. One of the most prominent features of this space is a low wall or stone bench (c. 1m high and 0.8m wide), which runs along the four interior walls. Above this ‘bench’, there are remains of bricks or tiles, which originally lined the interior walls (Lord 1938: 516; Lohmann 2015: 264). The tower’s interior is divided into four rooms by two crosswalls, which do not bind into the exterior walls and may thus be of later date. A well or cistern is located in the NE room, while the SW room contained remains of three pithoi (Lord 1938: 522, 525; Lohmann 2015: 263). The remains in the SE room are particularly complex and difficult to interpret. They include a c. 5m long plastered floor in the SE corner of the tower (sloping towards the SE, where liquids could drain through a channel in the S wall), a rectangular stone trough supported by two upright stones, and a c. 0.9m deep plaster-lined basin (c. 0.9 by 1m), which includes re-

Limanaki 1: the tower from the N (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Piraeus and the Islands; photo by the author).

Limanaki 1: the SW corner of the circuit wall from the SW (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Piraeus and the Islands; photo by the author).

49. LYGOURIO 1 (Λυγουριό) Ancient name: Altitude: 325 mamsl Location: On the N edge of the valley between the Argolic and the Saronic Gulf, c. 500m NW of modern Lygourio and c. 500m E of the chapel of Agia Marina. Type: rectangular tower with a tapering base Approximate size: outer dimensions at the base of the tower: N: 14m, W: 12.5m, S: 12m, E: 12.75m Masonry: carefully fitted polygonal with rough surfaces Description: Only few courses of polygonal masonry are visible at the site today. They belong to a rectangular tower with a tapering base, measuring c.

Lygourio 1: plan (Lord 1938: 515, fig. 39; courtesy of the Trustees of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens).

222

Catalogue: 49. Lygourio 1, 50. Lyrkeia used blocks from the walls of the tower (Lord 1938: 516– 25; Lohmann 2015: 263–64). The funtion of these structures is unclear, but Lohmann 2015: 264 suggested that the plastered floor may represent the remains of a bathroom. Finds: The excavation of the tower revealed various sherds below the floor level of the corridor (late 5th- to early 4th-century BC or earlier) and a coin of Epidauros near the plastered floor (323–300 BC). A later fill, which was used to level the interior of the tower, contained loomweights and pottery from the 2nd century BC to the 1st century AD (Scranton 1938: 528–38), while the final destruction layer included lamps from the 4th century AD and fragments of tile (Lord 1938: 513). Surface finds near the tower include 4th-century BC and Roman pottery, fragments of tile, three rock-cut basins (between 0.6 and 1.1m in diameter and between 0.1 and 0.4m deep) and a press bed (Lord 1939: 82; Brommer 1975: 174; Παπαχατζής 1976: 194; Fracchia 1985: 686–89; Πιτερός 2008: 296; Grigoropoulos 2011: 201, 223, 234; Lohmann 2015: 261–62). Date: The pottery suggests that the tower was constructed in the late 5th or early 4th century BC, but was remodelled in the Early Roman period. The tile lining of the interior walls, as well as various basins and channels, have been attributed to this Early Roman phase. The pottery in the destruction layer demonstrates that the tower was reused in the Late Roman period (Lord 1938: 526; Πιτερός 1997e: 345). Further information: The site has been interpreted as a military structure securing a road (Oppermann 1971: 51; Tausend 2006: 150) or as a 4th-century BC fortified farmhouse (Fracchia 1985: 688), an interpretation that is supported by the nearby press bed. Bibliography: Gell 1817: 187; Lord 1938: 511–27; Scranton 1938: 528–38; Lord 1939: 78–84, 1941: 112; Oppermann 1971: 48, 51–52; Brommer 1975: 174; Παπαχατζής 1976: 193–94; Fracchia 1985: 687–89; Marksteiner 1994: 44–45; Λάζος 1995: 45–55; Πιτερός 1997e: 345–47, 367–71; Tausend 2006: 150; Πιτερός 1997f: 489–90, 2008; Grigoropoulos 2011: 201, 223, 234; Lohmann 2015: 260–67.

50. LYRKEIA (Λύρκεια, Κάτω Μπέλεσι, Κάστρο, Παλαιοκαστράκι, Σπόρτιζα)

Lyrkeia: satellite-image with sketch plan (Google Earth 2013).

Ancient name: Ὄρνεαι (?) Altitude: 398 mamsl Location: On a hill above the Inachos valley, c. 1000m NE of the modern village Lyrkeia and immediately N of the motorway between the Isthmus and Tripoli. Type: fortified settlement Approximate size: 0.5ha Masonry: carefully fitted coursed polygonal with rough surfaces Description: Curtain walls: The site is located on a small plateau, surrounded in the W, S and E by steep slopes or cliffs. This naturally defensible position was fortified on all sides with an up to 2.5m wide circuit wall in coursed polygonal masonry. Wherever possible, this wall was built directly on the bedrock. Towers: In the N — the most accessible side of the hill — the fortification was protected by three c. 5–5.5m wide rectangular towers in polygonal masonry. All three towers were constructed with solid cores and are bonded with the outer face of the adjoining curtain wall. Gates: The gate (c. 1.6m wide) is situated in the SW of the site and is set at right angle to the circuit wall. The

Lygourio 1: the NE corner of the tower (Lord 1938: 513, fig. 37; courtesy of the Trustees of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens).

223

Catalogue: 50. Lyrkeia

Lyrkeia: the view to the SW over the Inachos valley (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Lyrkeia: the site from the NE (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

E block of the gate’s threshold survives and preserves a cutting for a doorpost or pivot. Outside the gate, a low wall runs parallel to the circuit. The space between this wall and the cliff is divided by two cross walls (c. 14m and 24m from the gate). The function of this structure is unclear, but it may have served as a terrace to stabilise the approach to the gate. Internal structures: A plaster-lined cistern (c. 2.5 by 11m) is visible in the SW of the circuit. No other internal structures have so far been recorded. Finds: Prehistoric, Protogeometric, Geometric, Archaic, Classical and Hellenistic sherds, as well as loomweights and one obsidian blade were noted at the site (Frickenhaus and Müller 1911: 25; Παπαχατζής 1976: 187; Pritchett 1980: 24; Gallimore et al. 2017: 429). Date: For Schilbach 1975: 107, the short distance between the towers (as well as the bonding between the towers and the curtain walls) suggests a construction before the 2nd half of the 5th century BC. In contrast, Πίκουλας 1995: 268 suggested a 4th-century BC date, while the masonry points to a Late Classical or a Hellenistic construction (see chapter 4). Further information: The site has a good view of the Inachos valley and is usually identified as Argive Ὄρνεαι (Pritchett 1980: 24–31; Πίκουλας 1995: 267–70) rather than Λύρκεια (Frickenhaus and Müller 1911: 24).

Both Lyrkeia and the surrounding area were recently investigated in the Western Argolid Regional Project (WARP), but the results of this study have not yet been published in detail. Bibliography: Μηλιαράκης 1886: 50; Frickenhaus and Müller 1911: 24–25; Schilbach 1975: 29–37, 107–09; Παπαχατζής 1976: 186–87; Pritchett 1980: 24–27; Πέππα 1990: 140–41; Πίκουλας 1995: 267–70; Tausend 2006: 78; Gallimore et al. 2017: 429–30.

Lyrkeia: Tower III from the N (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

224

Catalogue: 51. Mykinai moulds for terracotta figurines (now on display at the site’s museum) and wine- or oil-presses (Wace et al. 1923: 416). Date: The repairs at the citadel and the construction of the lower town circuit date to the resettlement of the site in the 3rd century BC (Wace et al. 1923: 417; Schilbach 1975: 101; French 2002: 147; Iakovides and French 2003: 27). Further information: In the Archaic period, Mycenae was probably an independent city-state (see, for example, Hdt. 7.202.1, ML 27 (479 BC)), before being defeated and destroyed by Argos and its allies in 464 BC (D.S. 11.65.2–5; Paus. 2.16.5, 5.23.3, 8.27.1; Str. 8.6.19; see for example French 2002: 145; Iakovides and French 2003: 10; Piérart 2004: 612). In the 3rd century BC, the site is attested as an Argive kome (Wace et al. 1923: 422; Charneux 1984: 218; Piérart 2004: 612; Kritzas 2006: 434; Shipley 2011: 129). Bibliography: Wace et al. 1923: 409–18; Scranton 1941: 52; Dengate 1974: 95–102; Schilbach 1975: 76–81, 101; Rudolph 1978; Wace 1980: 115–20; Bowkett 1995; French 2002: 145–50; Iakovides and French 2003: 10, 26–27; Simpson and Hagel 2006: 34–35. Further images: Figures 7.11 c and 7.12 c.

51. MYKINAI (Μυκήναι) Ancient name: Μυκάνα, Μυκάναι, Μυκῆναι, Μυκήνη Altitude: 278 mamsl Location: On a hill at the NE edge of the Argive plain. Type: fortified settlement Approximate size: 17.3ha Masonry: roughly hewn coursed polygonal with rough surfaces and carefully fitted coursed and uncoursed polygonal with rough surfaces Description: Citadel: The citadel is surrounded by a substantial Mycenaean fortification wall, which shows signs of later repairs and alterations, especially W of the grave circles, at the ‘Lion Gate Bastion’, in the NE of the citadel and at the so-called ‘Polygonal Tower’ (a c. 24m long stretch of fortification wall in the SE of the citadel). These repairs and alterations were carried out in both conglomerate and limestone. Walls in conglomerate tend to be constructed in coursed polygonal masonry and often include rectangular blocks, while walls in limestone usually consist of uncoursed polygonal blocks. At the ‘Polygonal Tower’ and in the NE, coursed conglomerate and uncoursed limestone masonry are firmly bonded, showing that at Mykinai both styles of masonry are contemporary. Lower town: The walls of the lower town probably surrounded the ridge N of the ‘Treasury of Atreus’ as well as the valley between this ridge and the SE citadel (Wace et al. 1923: 417). Today, only few traces of these walls are visible, including parts of the curtain wall and a rectangular tower (in roughly hewn polygonal masonry) c. 150m SW of the SE corner of the citadel. Finds: The finds at the citadel and the lower town attest an occupation of the site during the Geometric and the Hellenistic period (from the early 3rd to the 2nd century BC; Dengate 1974: 97; Rudolph 1978: 232–33; French 2002: 141–49; Iakovides and French 2003: 26–27). The recorded material includes evidence for production and agricultural processing, for example loomweights,

Mykinai: the NE wall of the citadel from the N (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Mykinai: the ‘Polygonal Tower’ from the S (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

225

Catalogue: 51. Mykinai

Mykinai: plan of the citadel and the SE wall of the lower town (Steffen and Lolling 1884: pl. 2). The post-Mycenaean citadel walls are marked in blue, the surviving remains of the city walls in green.

Mykinai: the NW citadel from the SW. Three types of masonry are visible: the Mycenaean ashlar and polygonal on the left and right, and the post-Mycenaean polygonal at the ‘Lion Gate Bastion’ and W of the grave circles in the centre of the picture (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

226

Catalogue: 51. Mykinai, 52. Nafplio Ancient name: Ναυπλία Altitude: 84 mamsl Location: On the summit and the N side of the Akronafplia peninsula. Type: fortified settlement Approximate size: 12ha (?) Masonry: carefully fitted coursed and uncoursed polygonal with rough surfaces Description: The hill of Akronafplia rises steeply from sea-level to an attitude of more than 80 mamsl. Its continuous occupation from antiquity until today poses considerable challenges to the study of the site: for example, many remains are located within private properties. The ancient fortifications at Nafplio can be divided into two parts: the ancient acropolis on the Akronafplia hill and the lower town to the N. In many places along the N and the W side of the Akronafplia hill, remains of a polygonal limestone circuit survive under the later fortifications, but it is unclear whether the steeper S side was originally also fortified. Remains of the lower town wall are still visible in a plot of land to the S of the Οδός Ζυγομαλά, where c. 20m of a SE-NW wall have survived up to an elevation of 3m. The wall may continue behind a modern building in the E, and is very similar in masonry style to the walls

Mykinai: the lower town wall from the S (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Mykinai: the tower on the lower town wall from the SW (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

52. NAFPLIO (Νάυπλιο)

Nafplio: the lower town wall S of the Οδός Ζυγομαλά from the SW (above); Nafplio: the NW acropolis wall from the NW (below) (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photos by the author).

Nafplio: satellite-image with sketch plan (Google Earth 2014).

227

Catalogue: 52. Nafplio, 53. Nera on the acropolis. A further part of the lower town wall was recorded to the N in a property on the Οδός 30ής Νοεμβρίου (Πιτερός 2005d: 265). Finds: On the Akronafplia hill and near the lower town walls, tiles and pottery from the Middle Helladic to the modern periods were recorded (see, for example, Brommer 1975: 163–64; Grigoropoulos 2011: 199, 236). Date: The walls are usually dated to the 5th, 4th or 3rd century BC (Schilbach 1975: 119; Foley 1988: 191; Πιτερός 1997c: 147), while the uncoursed polygonal masonry may suggest a Hellenistic construction (see chapter 4). Further information: In the Hellenistic period, Ναυπλία is attested as an Argive kome (Piérart 2004: 602; Kritzas 2006: 426; Shipley 2011: 129; Κριτζάς 2013: 293). Bibliography: Karo 1936: 136–37; Schaefer 1959, 1961: 175–79; Bon 1969: 676–77; Δεϊλάκη 1973: 87– 90; Brommer 1975: 163–64; Schilbach 1975: 38–40, 117–9; Leekley and Noyes 1976: 68–69; Παπαχατζής 1976: 295–96; Simpson and Dickinson 1979: 48–49; Simpson 1981: 23; Foley 1988: 191; Πιτερός 1997c: 147, 2004a: 55–56, 2005d: 265; Simpson and Hagel 2006: 39; Grigoropoulos 2011: 199, 236.

Masonry: carefully fitted polygonal with rough surfaces Description: At this site, there are remains of a circular tower (c. 6.5m in diameter) with a c. 0.65m wide entrance in the SE. The tower’s polygonal walls are c. 0.7–1m wide and survive up to an elevation of c. 2m. Finds: Date: Judging by the masonry style, the tower was probably constructed in the Late Classical or the Hellenistic period (see chapter 4). Further information: The site has a good view of the nearby valley and has been interpreted as a military site controlling a route between Argos and Tegea (Πίκουλας 1995: 225; Tausend 2006: 120). Bibliography: Αναγνωστόπουλος 1988: 11, 64; Πέππα 1990: 131, 168; Πίκουλας 1991: 257 (no. 16), 1992: 230–31, 1995: 224–25; Πιτερός 1997e: 356–59; Tausend 2006: 120; Τσέκε 2006: 83; Tausend 2020: 125.

53. NERA (Νερά, Ξεροβίλια, Ελληνικό) Ancient name: Altitude: 611 mamsl Location: C. 600m NE of the Panagia monastery. Type: circular tower Approximate size: 6.5m in diameter

Nera: the tower from the E (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Nera: the view to the S and W (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Nera: the view to the N and E (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

228

Catalogue: 54. Palaia Epidavros 1 54. PALAIA EPIDAVROS 1 (Παλαιά Επίδαυρος) Ancient name: Ἐπίδαυρος Altitude: 65 mamsl Location: On the Nisi peninsula, S of the bay of Palaia Epidavros. Type: fortified settlement Approximate size: 17ha (?) Masonry: carefully fitted uncoursed trapezoidal and uncoursed polygonal with rough surfaces Description: The fortified acropolis of ancient Epidauros is located on the Nisi peninsula S of the harbour of modern Palaia Epidavros, where parts of a c. 2m wide ancient circuit wall are still visible in the S. They are constructed in uncoursed polygonal masonry and survive up to an elevation of c. 3m. Along this wall, there are remains of at least two towers in uncoursed trapezoidal and polygonal masonry. The W tower projects inwards, the E tower (which incorporates conglomerate blocks and is not bonded with the adjoining curtain wall) outwards. In the E, N and W, the layout of the acropolis wall is unclear, but in the N and W, a sudden drop in ground level (c. 200–300m from the coast) may indicate the course of the ancient fortifications. In a later period, a fortification wall was built across the neck of the peninsula, mainly with reused blocks from the nearby ancient theatre. Finds: Φαράκλας 1972a: E. 3.4 noted pottery from the Middle Helladic to modern periods. Date: Based on the masonry, the wall has previously been dated to the 5th century BC or the beginning of the 4th century BC (Προσκυνητοπούλου 2011: 76–77). However, the uncoursed polygonal masonry may point to a Hellenistic date (see chapter 4). The E tower, which is not bonded to the wall, may be a later addition, while the wall at the neck of the peninsula belongs to the Late Roman period (Προσκυνητοπούλου 2011: 113). Further information: Besides the acropolis wall, the archaeological remains at ancient Epidauros include a theatre, an agora and several graves, which were presented in detail by Προσκυνητοπούλου 2011. Bibliography: Curtius 1852: 428; Frazer 1898: 259– 60; Frickenhaus and Müller 1911: 29–30; Κριτζάς 1972a; Φαράκλας 1972a: Ε. 3.4; Brommer 1975: 174; Leekley and Noyes 1976: 61–62; Παπαχατζής 1976: 217; Simpson and Dickinson 1979: 52–53; Simpson 1981: 29; Foley 1988: 182; Πέππα 1990: 252–53; Πιτερός 1995b, 1997d: 152–53; Piérart 2004: 606–608; Grigoropoulos 2011: 200, 233; Προσκυνητοπούλου 2011: 76–77, 84–85, 110–13. Further images: Figures 4.17 and 6.32. Palaia Epidavros 1: the W tower from the N (above); Palaia Epidavros 1: the E tower from the E (middle); Palaia Epidavros 1: the circuit from the E (below) (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photos by the author).

229

Catalogue: 55. Palaia Epidavros 2, 56. Paralio Astros consists of two hills in the N and S, connected by a low saddle. A c. 2.6m wide fortification wall in roughly hewn uncoursed polygonal masonry was built along the W side of the cape, running from the N hill to the saddle. Today, this wall survives up to an elevation of c. 2m and can be traced over a distance of c. 290m. Two further sections of masonry survive c. 150m to the S, and may indicate that the fortification was originally at least 500m long. There are no remains of gates or towers, but c. 100m S of the N end of the fortification the wall projects outwards by c. 2.2m. C. 19.5–33.5m to the NW, a second, c. 34.5m long and c. 1.2m wide section of wall has been recorded. It runs approximately parallel to the main wall and was constructed in similar masonry. Its function is unclear. The surviving fortification only protects the W of the hill and may be incomplete. Finds: Early Helladic, Middle Helladic, Late Helladic, Protogeometric, Geometric, Classical, Hellenistic, Roman and Medieval sherds were found on the hill. The Hellenistic pottery includes black-glazed and unglazed sherds of skyphoi, kantharoi, amphorae and plates (Brommer 1975: 179; Φάκλαρης 1990: 60, 72; Goester 1993: 99; Shipley 1996: 277). Further finds include fragments of tile, a loomweight, a Late Helladic figurine, Hellenistic clay lamps, a piece of glass, fragments of

55. PALAIA EPIDAVROS 2 (Παλαιά Επίδαυρος) Ancient name: Altitude: 7 mamsl Location: On the small peninsula N of the harbour of Palaia Epidavros, W of the church of Agios Nikolaos. Type: fort Approximate size: Masonry: Description: Excavations at this site have revealed a c. 37m long fortification wall in double-faced poros masonry. In the centre of the excavated section, the N face projects inwards to form a tower or bastion (c. 4 by 5.5m). A second wall of similar construction runs at an angle in the W (Καζά – Παπαγεωργίου and Προσκυνητοπούλου 1981: 105; Προσκυνητοπούλου 1982: 87–88; Σαρρή 1997: 153; Προσκυνητοπούλου 2011: 77). Finds: Date: The site was identified as the Athenian fort on the Heraion promontory mentioned by Thuc. 5.75.4–5 and was therefore dated to 418 BC (Καζά – Παπαγεωργίου and Προσκυνητοπούλου 1981: 105; Σαρρή 1997: 153; Προσκυνητοπούλου 2011: 77). Further information: According to Thucydides, the Epidaurians invaded Argos in the summer of 418 BC. A supporting force from Mantineia, Elis and Athens arrived too late to assist with the defence of Argos, but instead marched to Epidauros and began to circumvallate the city. The Mantineians and Eleans abandoned this work before it was completed, but the Athenians built a fortification on the Heraion promontory and left a garrison (Thuc 5.75.4–5). When the treaty between the Athenians and the Epidaurians was renewed, the fort was handed over to the Epidaurians (Thuc. 5.80.3). Bibliography: Καζά – Παπαγεωργίου and Προσκυνητοπούλου 1981: 105; Προσκυνητοπούλου 1982: 87–88; Pariente 1990: 732; Σαρρή 1997: 153; Προσκυνητοπούλου 2011: 77.

56. PARALIΟ ASTROS (Παράλιο Άστρος, Νησί Παραλίου Άστρους, Κάστρο) Ancient name: Θυρέα (?) Altitude: 69 mamsl Location: On the N hill and saddle of Cape Astros, N of the village Paralio Astros. Type: fortified settlement (?) Approximate size: Masonry: roughly hewn uncoursed polygonal with rough surfaces Description: At Paralia Astros, Cape Astros rises c. 69 mamsl above the sea and the coastal plain. The cape

Paralio Astros: satellite-image with sketch plan (Google Earth 2013).

230

Catalogue: 56. Paralio Astros, 57. Phichtia: Kokkinia obsidian, shells, a Geometric bronze needle, a bronze nail, two bronze arrowheads, a lead slingshot, ten bronze coins (three 4th- or 3rd-century BC of Argos, two 3rd-century BC coins of Argos, one 4th- or 3rd-century BC of Corinth, one undated coin of Corinth and two unidentified coins), two pieces of a marble column and a piece of a Roman Ionic capital (Brommer 1975: 179; Φάκλαρης 1990: 58–70, 72–76; Shipley 1996: 277). Date: The site is often identified as the Aiginetan fort mentioned by Thuc. 4.56.2 and consequently dated to the 5th century BC (Παπαχατζής 1976: 303–04; Shipley 1996: 277). However, the masonry could equally belong to the Hellenistic period, while the finds attest a continued use of the site after 424 BC. Further information: The site was initially identified as the ancient Ἄστρον (Ross 1841: 162–63), but since the circuit wall appears to be incomplete, many scholars have argued for an identification with the unfinished Aiginetan fort at Θυρέα, which was attacked and destroyed by the Athenians in 424 BC (Thuc. 4.56–57; Παπαχατζής 1976: 303; Pritchett 1982: 72; Spyropoulos and Christien 1985: 457; Φάκλαρης 1990: 56, 76). Although this identification is not entirely certain, a hasty construction in advance of the Athenian attack could explain the site’s rough and irregular (though skillfully executed) building technique (Balandier and Guintrand 2019: 439). Bibliography: Leake 1830b: 484–85; Le Puillon de Boblaye 1836: 68; Ross 1841: 162–63, 167; Leake 1846: 296; Curtius 1852: 377; Bursian 1872: 69; Joanne 1888: 244; Frazer 1898: 307; Möbius and Wrede 1927: 365; Walker 1936: 22–23; Simpson 1965: 50; Brommer 1975: 179; Παπαχατζής 1976: 301–04; Simpson and Dickinson 1979: 48; Touchais 1979: 561; Simpson 1981: 26; Φάκλαρης 1981: 131; Pritchett 1982: 71–72; Spyropoulos and Christien 1985: 457; Φάκλαρης 1990: 56–78; Goester 1993: 91–93, 99; Shipley 1996: 277; Kahrstedt 1950: 229; Καλίτσης 1964: 224; Κουσκουνάς, Κακαβούλιας, and Χασαπογιάννης 1981: 121–23; Γρηγορακάκης 2009b: 345; Balandier and Guintrand 2019: 434, 439.

Paralio Astros: the circuit wall from the N (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Arkadia; photo by the author).

57. PHICHTIA: KOKKINIA (Φίχτια: Κοκκινιά, Τσιμπίνου)

Phichtia: Kokkinia: the S wall from the S (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Ancient name: Altitude: 100 mamsl Location: C. 700m W of the village Phichtia. Type: rectangular tower Approximate size: 7 by 7m Masonry: carefully fitted polygonal with rough surfaces Description: At this site, up to two courses of a square tower (7 by 7m) in polygonal conglomerate masonry are visible. The walls are c. 0.75m wide and a threshold survives in the NW. Finds: Fragments of tile, as well as black-glazed and unglazed pottery have been noted at this site (Πίκουλας 1995: 181; Πιτερός 1997a: 142–43). Date: Based on the tower’s similarities to Phichtia: Limiko (58), a 4th-century BC date has been suggested (Πιτερός 1997a: 142–43; Jansen 2002: 82), while the masonry points to a Late Classical or Hellenistic construction (see chapter 4).

Paralio Astros: the circuit wall from the S (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Arkadia; photo by the author).

231

Catalogue: 57. Phichtia: Kokkinia, 58. Phichtia: Limiko walls are c. 1.3m wide and built in uncoursed polygonal conglomerate masonry with levelling courses and vertically drafted corners. The walls are topped with a course of flat slabs, which suggest that the stone-built part of the structure survives to its original elevation. The entrance to the tower is located at the S end of the W wall, and is spanned by a stone lintel. The cuttings in the lintel and the doorjambs show that the door opened inwards. The interior of the tower is divided by a N-S crosswall, which is bonded with the outer wall. The E part of the tower is further subdivided into two rooms (roughly equal in size), while the W part is split into a narrow entrance corridor (c. 1.4m wide) and two small rooms (c. 3.5m and c. 4.1m wide). At the E end of the corridor, the doorjambs and threshold of an internal door are preserved. They show that the door was originally c. 1m wide and was fastened with a bolt or brace fitted into a rectangular mortice in the centre of the threshold. In the exterior N and E walls, there are two drainage spouts, which slope inwards and end above the interior floor level. Finds: The site has produced Late Helladic, Classical and Roman sherds (Scranton 1938: 538; Brommer 1975: 171; Grigoropoulos 2011: 237). The lower stone of an olive mill was found nearby (Πίκουλας 1995: 177; Jansen 2002: 79).

Further information: The tower has been interpreted as a military site guarding a route between the Argive plain and ancient Phleious (Tausend 2006: 20) or as a fortified farmhouse (Jansen 2002: 82). Bibliography: Steffen and Lolling 1884: 16; Αντωνακάτου 1973: 17; Πίκουλας 1995: 180–81; Πιτερός 1997a: 142–43; Jansen 2002: 81–82; Penttinen 2005: 112; Tausend 2006: 20.

58. PHICHTIA: LIMIKO (Φίχτια: Λημικό, Μυλιότι)

Phichtia: Limiko: the W wall from the W (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author). Phichtia: Limiko: plan and section (Lord 1938: 485, fig. 4; courtesy of the Trustees of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens).

Ancient name: Altitude: 164 mamsl Location: In a small valley c. 2500m N of the village Phichtia and c. 1800m W of the modern road between Argos and Dervenakia. Type: rectangular tower Approximate size: 11 by 11m Masonry: carefully fitted uncoursed polygonal with rough surfaces and vertically drafted corners Description: This square tower measures c. 11 by 11m and survives up to an elevation of 3m. The exterior

Phichtia: Limiko: the drain in the E wall (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

232

Catalogue: 58. Phichtia: Limiko, 59. Phichtia: Paliopyrgos, 60. Phichtia: Stathmos Date: Based on the masonry, Lord 1938: 495–96 dated the structure to the 4th century BC, although the uncoursed polygonal masonry may point to a Hellenistic date (see chapter 4). Further information: The structure is usually reconstructed as a tower with a stone base and upper storeys in mudbrick (Lord 1938: 490; Πιτερός 1996b: 95, 1997e: 359–61). Although it has in the past been interpreted as a military site securing a road between Argos and Phleious (Πιτερός 1997e: 361; Tausend 2006: 61), its limited visibility and the presence of an olive mill point towards a use as a fortified farmhouse (as suggested by Jansen 2002: 79). Bibliography: Rhankabes 1857: 137–38; Conze and Michaelis 1861: 22; Steffen and Lolling 1884: 16; Tsountas and Manatt 1897: 38; Lord 1938: 481–96; Scranton 1938: 538; Lord 1939: 80; Young 1956: 144; Brommer 1975: 171; Guay 1983: 119–23; Πέππα 1990: 152; Πίκουλας 1991: 257 (no. 7), 1995: 176–77; Πιτερός 1996b: 95, 1997e: 359–62; Jansen 2002: 78–79; Penttinen 2005: 112; Tausend 2006: 61; Grigoropoulos 2011: 237; Tausend 2020: 126.

parts of the E and W walls of a rectangular structure. The walls are constructed in coursed polygonal conglomerate masonry and survive up to an elevation of four courses. The interior of the building is divided into two rooms by a crosswall. To the S of this structure, an area of c. 15 by 20m is enclosed by a drystone circuit wall. Finds: Date: Jansen 2002: 80 suggested a 4th-century BC date, while the masonry may point to a Late Classical or Hellenistic construction. Further information: Tausend 2006: 20 suggested that the site could be connected to a route between Argos and Phleious, but an interpretation as a farmstead would also be possible (see chapter 7). Bibliography: Rhankabes 1857: 138; Steffen and Lolling 1884: 16; Lord 1939: 80; Πέππα 1990: 151; Πίκουλας 1991: 257 (no. 8), 1995: 178–79; Jansen 2002: 80–81; Penttinen 2005: 112; Tausend 2006: 20.

60. PHICHTIA: STATHMOS (Φίχτια: Σταθμός, στό Τούμπι) 59. PHICHTIA: PALIOPYRGOS (Φίχτια: Παλιόπυργος, Πύργος)

Phichtia: Paliopyrgos: the N wall from the N (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Ancient name: Altitude: 111 mamsl Location: C. 430m W of the village Phichtia. Type: rectangular tower with a circuit wall Approximate size: at least 6 by 13m Masonry: carefully fitted coursed polygonal with rough surfaces Description: The visit to this site was hindered by its close proximity to a modern agricultural building with several guard-dogs, but even without detailed study, it was possible to make out the N wall (c. 13m long) and

Phichtia: Stathmos: plan and section (Lord 1941: 94, fig. 1; courtesy of the Trustees of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens).

233

Catalogue: 60. Phichtia: Stathmos, 61. Phourkaria Ancient name: Altitude: 97 mamsl Location: Immediately W of the railway line and c. 170m N of the level crossing between Phichtia and Mykinai. Type: rectangular tower Approximate size: 9.3 by 9.4m Masonry: carefully fitted uncoursed polygonal with rough surfaces Description: At this site, remains of a rectangular tower (c. 9.3 by 9.4m) in polygonal conglomerate masonry (probably uncoursed) survive up to an elevation of four courses. The interior of the tower is divided by a N-S crosswall into two rooms. There are also traces of a later E-W crosswall in small stones. C. 10m to the N of the tower, Lord 1941: 95 recorded traces of further walls, perhaps a cistern. Finds: Fragments of Late Roman pottery and lamps, tiles and a Byzantine coin were recorded at the site, while the lower stone of an olive mill was found nearby (Lord 1939: 82, 1941: 95; Πίκουλας 1995: 183). Date: Judging by the masonry, the tower was probably constructed in the Late Classical or the Hellenistic period (see chapter 4). Further information: The site has been connected to an ancient route between Argos and Phleious (Steffen and Lolling 1884: 15–16; Lord 1939: 82–83; Tausend 2006: 20), although its location and the presence of an olive mill would also be consistent with an interpretation as a farmstead (see chapter 7). Bibliography: Steffen and Lolling 1884: 15–16; Lord 1939: 80, 82–83, 1941: 93–95, 111; Young 1956: 144; Nowicka 1975: 42, 78–79, 142; Πίκουλας 1991: 257 (no. 9), 1995: 182–83; Penttinen 2005: 112; Tausend 2006: 20.

Phichtia: Stathmos: the W wall from the W (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

61. PHOURKARIA (Φουρκαριά)

Phourkaria: satellite image and sketch plan (Google Earth 2014).

Ancient name: Altitude: 50 mamsl Location: On the hill of the monastery Agios Athanasios. Type: fortified settlement Approximate size: at least 0.4ha Masonry: roughly hewn polygonal with rough surfaces and carefully fitted trapezoidal with rough surfaces and vertically drafted corners

Phichtia: Stathmos: the olive mill (Lord 1941: 99, fig. 9; courtesy of the Trustees of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens).

234

Catalogue: 61. Phourkaria Description: The archaeological remains on the hill of Phourkaria were visited in 1909 and 1926 by A. Frickenhaus and W. Wrede. In their unpublished diaries (Wrede 1959, now in the achieve of the German Archaeological Institute at Athens), they noted remains of two circuits: an inner circuit, which enclosed an approximately rectangular area (c. 40 by 100m) around the summit of the hill and was strengthened with rectangular towers in the NE, NW and SE corners, and a larger outer circuit. In the early 20th century, this outer circuit was still visible in the N, W and S of the hill. In the N, the outer circuit was located c. 14m N of the inner circuit and was strengthened by a semi-circular bastion (c. 4.5m in diameter). At the W corner of the outer circuit, W. Wrede noted a rectangular tower. Today, the site is heavily overgrown and only the following sections of the inner circuit are visible: parts of the W and N circuit walls (in roughly hewn polygonal masonry), the NW tower (also in roughly hewn polygonal masonry) and the NE tower (in carefully fitted trapezoidal masonry with rough surfaces and vertically drafted corners). On the E side of the hill, a cutting in the bedrock may indicate the course of the inner circuit wall. No traces of the outer circuit are currently visible, with the exception of a circular structure in the N of the site, perhaps the bastion mentioned by W. Wrede. Finds: Brommer 1975: 178 recorded Middle Helladic, Late Helladic and Classical pottery from the site, as

Phourkaria: the NE tower on the inner circuit from the N (above); Phourkaria: the hill of Phourkaria from the NW, in the background the island Hydra (middle); Phourkaria: the trachyte column, now in front of the chapel (below) (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Piraeus and the Islands; photos by the author).

well as pieces of obsidian and a loomweight. Part of a trachyte column (fluted on one side) lies in front of the chapel at the summit of the hill. Date: While the finds attest a Classical use of the site, the walls’ masonry could belong either to the Classical or to the Hellenistic period (see chapter 4). Further information: The site is located at a small natural harbour and has a good view of the island

Phourkaria: the N wall of the inner circuit from the W (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Piraeus and the Islands; photo by the author).

235

Catalogue: 61. Phourkaria, 62. Phranchthi Hydra. According to Γιαννοπούλου 2009: 534, it may also have secured a land route between Troizina (80) and Ermioni (24). The site’s ancient name is uncertain, but Frost 1980 suggested an identification as the Troizenian community of Skyllaieis. Both in layout and construction technique, the Phourkaria’s inner circuit is similar to the fortifications of Iliokastro (29). Bibliography: Le Puillon de Boblaye 1836: 60; Μηλιαράκης 1886: 247; Möbius and Wrede 1927: 365; Meyer 1939a: 624–25; Wrede 1959; Φαράκλας 1972b: E. 2.2–3; Brommer 1975: 178; Frost 1980; Foley 1988: 192– 93; Tausend 2006: 168; Γιαννοπούλου 2009: 534–35. Further images: Figure 6.38 c.

Further information: The site could be a fortified settlement or a temporary refuge, and has tentatively been identified as part of ancient Μάσης (Jameson et al. 1994: 475). It has a good view to the E, N, W and SW. Bibliography: Leake 1830b: 463, 1846: 287; Curtius 1852: 461–62; Bursian 1872: 87; Frazer 1898: 298; Meyer 1930: 2065–66; Jameson 1953: 166–67; Φαράκλας 1973: E. 2.3–4; Κύρου 1990: 23; Jameson et al. 1994: 475; Suto 1996: 12.

62. PHRANCHTHI (Φράγχθι)

Phranchthi: the Phranchthi hill from the W, seen from the harbour of modern Koilada. The site is located at the left edge of the quarry in the centre of the picture (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Phranchthi: plan (Jameson et al. 1994: 476, fig. A.17).

Ancient name: Μάσης (?) Altitude: 82 mamsl Location: At the edge of a modern quarry on the E side of the Phranchthi hill. Type: drystone circuit Approximate size: at least 0.28ha Masonry: drystone Description: A rubble circuit wall encloses the summit of the E spur of the hill. In the S, this wall has partly been destroyed by a modern quarry. Finds: Late Helladic, Late Geometric, Subgeometric, Classical or Hellenistic and Roman sherds, an andesite quern and a piece of obsidian were recorded at this site (Φαράκλας 1973: E. 2.4; Jameson et al. 1994: 475). Date: Jameson et al. 1994: 475 reported a Classical or Hellenistic sherd in the fill of the wall and therefore suggested a construction date from this period onwards.

Phranchthi: the rubble circuit from the N (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

236

Catalogue: 62. Phranchthi, 63. Plaka Leonidiou

Phranchthi: the view to the W and SW over the bay of Koilada (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Phranchthi: the view to the E and NE (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

63. PLAKA LEONIDIOU (Πλάκα Λεωνιδίου, Παραλία Λεωνιδίου) Ancient name: Βρασιαί, Πρασιαί Altitude: 200 mamsl Location: On the NE slope of a coastal hill, SW of modern Plaka Leonidiou. Type: fortified settlement Approximate size: at least 3.6ha Masonry: roughly hewn coursed polygonal masonry with rough surfaces Description: The site occupies an approximately triangular area on the E slope of a coastal hill. At the site’s highest point, there are remains of a rectangular tower (c. 10.3 by 10.7m). From this tower, two c. 210– 230m long walls run towards the NE and SE. The N wall is protected by several towers, which are c. 4.6m wide and project c. 2.2–2.5m from the wall. Finds: Late Helladic, Archaic, Classical, Hellenistic, Roman, Byzantine and Medieval pottery, three pieces of glass, a glass bead, two bronze mirror discs, a bronze spearhead, four 4th-century BC triobols of Sikyon and a bronze coin of Hermion (350–322 BC) were recorded at the site (Φάκλαρης 1990: 129–30, 132–36; Shipley 1996: 282). Date: The site’s overall plan suggests a late 4th- or early 3rd-century BC date (see chapter 4). Further information: With the exception of WoyschMéautis 2000: 170–85 (who suggested that Plaka Leonidiou might be the location of ancient Πολίχνα) most scholars have identified the site as ancient Πρασιαί or Βρασιαί (Bursian 1872: 133–34; Philippson 1892: 486; Wace and Hasluck 1908: 174; Ρωμαίος 1955a: 94;

Plaka Leonidiou: a tower on the W wall from the SE (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Arkadia; photo by the author).

Plaka Leonidiou: the tower at the summit from the NE (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Arkadia; photo by the author).

237

Catalogue: 63. Plaka Leonidiou

Plaka Leonidiou: the view from the summit to the N and NE (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Arkadia; photo by the author).

Plaka Leonidiou: the view from the summit to the SE. The fortification of Poulithra (65) is located on the hill above the modern village at the right edge of the picture (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Arkadia; photo by the author).

Plaka Leonidiou: the site from the N (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Arkadia; photo by the author).

Waterhouse and Simpson 1961: 131; Παπαχατζής 1976: 429–30; Κουσκουνάς, Κακαβούλιας, and Χασαπογιάννης 1981: 119; Spyropoulos and Christien 1985: 459; Φάκλαρης 1990: 129, 136; Pritchett 1991a: 142; Christien-Tregaro 1992: 158; Goester 1993: 47; Shipley 1996: 282, 2004: 586). This settlement was taken by the Athenians in 430 BC (Thuc. 2.56.5–6), raided twice in the Peloponnesian War (Thuc. 6.105.2, 7.18.3) and captured by Lykourgos in 219 BC (Polyb. 4.36.5). Bibliography: Leake 1846: 299–300; Bursian 1872: 133– 34; Philippson 1892: 486; Wace and Hasluck 1908: 174– 76; Ρωμαίος 1911: 278–79; Walker 1936: 59–61; Ρωμαίος

1955b: 94; Waterhouse and Simpson 1961: 131; Simpson 1965: 140; Παπαχατζής 1976: 429–30; Simpson and Dickinson 1979: 124; Simpson 1981: 110; Κουσκουνάς, Κακαβούλιας, and Χασαπογιάννης 1981: 119; Spyropoulos and Christien 1985: 459; Φάκλαρης 1990: 129–37; Pritchett 1991a: 142–43; Christien-Tregaro 1992: 158; Goester 1993: 47; Shipley 1996: 282, 2004: 586– 94; Woysch-Méautis 2000: 170–85; Γρηγορακάκης 2011: 145, 2013: 204. Further images: Figures 4.3 and 4.21.

238

Catalogue: 64. Porto Cheli 64. PORTO CHELI (Πόρτο Χέλι) Ancient name: Ἁλία, Ἁλιεῖς Altitude: 51 mamsl Location: On a coastal hill SE of Porto Cheli bay. Type: fortified settlement Approximate size: 18.2ha Masonry: carefully fitted ashlar and coursed trapezoidal with rough surfaces and carefully fitted coursed trapezoidal with smooth surfaces Description: The fortifications of ancient Halieis were studied in the 1960s and 1970s by the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Indiana, the Greek Archaeological Service and the American School of Classical Studies at Athens (McAllister 2005: xi). A detailed discussion of the city’s defences was presented by McAllister 2005 and will therefore not be repeated here. In outline, the fortifications of Halieis can however be described as follows: Curtain walls: The curtain walls can be divided into an earlier phase (built in earthworks and in mudbrick) and a later phase (constructed in mudbrick on a stone socle). a) The earthworks and mudbrick walls: Three sections of this circuit have been recorded: firstly, a destruction layer of mudbrick under the later defences on the acropolis (Jameson and Williams 1966: 149; Daux 1967: 661; Williams 1967: 195; Jameson 1972: 233; Lang 1996: 176; McAllister 2005: 17, 76; Frederiksen 2011: 146; Hülden 2020: 391); secondly, remains of a mudbrick curtain wall in trench 910/150 on the Industrial Terrace (McAllister 2005: 17–18, 76; Hülden 2020: 391); and thirdly an earth rampart to the SW of the later Tower 10 (McAllister 2005: 18–19, 77; Hülden 2020: 391). b) The stone and mudbrick walls: The curtain walls of this later phase consisted of a double-faced stone socle, a mudbrick wall and a tile-topped parapet (McAllister 2005: 5–12, 43). In the SE, the wall includes of a row of hollow chambers (McAllister 2005: 63–67). Remains of this circuit are still visible in the E, SE, S, W and N, although the walls in the N are largely submerged. The circuit originally enclosed an area of c. 18.2ha and was divided into an E and a W half by the so-called ‘Middle Wall’ W of the acropolis (McAllister 2005: 15, 45–56). Towers: The curtain walls were protected by 19 towers in mudbrick on a stone socle. They can be divided into 5 types: rectangular towers with solid bases (Towers 1–5, 10 and 19, as well as the predecessors of Towers 6 and 9), rectangular towers with ground-floor chambers (Towers 8, 12, 13, 16 and 18), circular towers with solid bases (Towers 6 and 7), circular towers on socles of wedge-shaped headers (Towers 9, 11 and 14) and circular towers with double walls of alternating headers and stretchers (Tower 15). At least one tower (Tower 6) was topped with limestone merlons (McAllister 2005: 12–13).

Porto Cheli: the stone socle of the curtain wall to the W of Tower 7 from the S (above); Porto Cheli: the stone socle of the curtain wall W of the acropolis from the E (below) (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photos by the author).

a) Tower 1: This rectangular tower with a solid base is located in the NW of the site and overlooks the entrance to the bay. It projects inwards and measures c. 4.2 by 5.2m (McAllister 2005: 21–22). b) Tower 2: This second rectangular tower (c. 5.4 by 5.6m) with a solid base was built c. 120m to the S of Tower 1 and overlooks the W Gate. Unlike Tower 1, it projects outwards from the curtain wall (McAllister 2005: 22). c) Tower 3: This rectangular tower with a solid base is located c. 100m S of Tower 2. It projects by c. 5m and is probably contemporary to the adjoining curtain to the N (McAllister 2005: 22). d) Tower 4: The rectangular Tower 4 was recorded in 1974 at the SW corner of the circuit, but today no traces of this structure are visible (McAllister 2005: 22–23). e) Tower 5: This rectangular tower is located at the SW corner of the acropolis. It projects inwards and was probably associated with a gate (McAllister 2005: 24). f) Tower 6: Tower 6 was built at the highest point of the circuit and has two construction phases: an earlier solid rectangular tower, which projects inwards, and a later circular tower, which has not yet been published in detail (Daux 1966: 789; McAllister 2005: 12–13, 24). 239

Catalogue: 64. Porto Cheli headers and stretchers (Daux 1968: 799–801; Jacobsen 1968a: 145; McAllister 2005: 39–40). o) Tower 16: This square tower is located immediately to the W of a postern in the N curtain wall. C. 5.3m wide, it was constructed on a hollow ground-floor chamber with a doorway in the E (Boyd and Rudolph 1978: pl. 87; McAllister 2005: 31–32). p) Tower 17 and 18: Two further rectangular towers c. 70m and 150m W of Tower 16 can be seen on aerial photographs, but are now submerged (McAllister 2005: 32). q) Tower 19: McAllister 2005: 32–33 recorded an overgrown rectangular tower at the N end of the ‘Middle Wall’. Gates: The city could be accessed through at least seven gates or posterns, usually associated with one or several towers: a) The W Gate: C. 9m to the S of Tower 2, McAllister 2005: 43 noted a gap in the curtain wall, probably the location of a gate. b) Tower 5 Gate: Tower 5 probably controlled a gate to the acropolis (McAllister 2005: 24). c) The SE Gate: This gate is located immediately S of Tower 9. It is c. 2.2m wide and preserves the cuttings for the gateposts (Rudolph 1976: 72; McAllister 2005: 37– 38). d) E Gate: The E Gate, located between Towers 9 and 10, is c. 4.3m wide and was protected by a bastion (c. 5 by 7.2m) in the NE (McAllister 2005: 25–27). e) The Hermion Gate: As this gate immediately S of Tower 11 is now submerged, its exact size is uncertain (McAllister 2005: 39). f) The Harbour Gate: This submerged gate (framed by the circular Towers 14 and 15) was originally interpreted as an entrance to the harbour basin (Jacobsen 1969: 145), but the area is now considered too shallow for a harbour (Frost 1985). In a later building phase, a projection was built to the N of Tower 14 to reduce the width of the gate to c. 7m (McAllister 2005: 40–43). g) Tower 16 Gate: This submerged gate is located immediately E of Tower 16. With a width of c. 1.5m, it is one of the smallest gates of the city (Boyd and Rudolph 1978: 339; McAllister 2005: 32). In addition to these seven gates, a further entrance may have been located on the Industrial Terrace (McAllister 2005: 43–44), while Boyd and Rudolph 1978: 339; McAllister 2005: 44 recorded a postern to the E of Tower 13. Internal structures: Inside the circuit, parts of the street plan have been identified (see for example Boyd and Rudolph 1978: 338–44; Rudolph 1984: 136– 39). The city’s internal structures include residential and industrial buildings (see for example Boyd and Rudolph 1978: 344–55; Ault 1994a, 1994b, 1999), several sanctuaries (see for example Foley 1988: 195) and possibly a mint (Rudolph 1975: 69–71, 1976: 72–73; Aupert 1976: 610; McAllister 2005: 98–126).

Porto Cheli: Tower 6 from the NE (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

g) Tower 7: With a diameter of 6.8m, this circular tower at the SE corner of the Industrial Terrace is the smallest circular tower at Porto Cheli. It was built directly on the bedrock and is not bonded with the adjoining curtain wall (McAllister 2005: 24, 33–34). h) Tower 8: In the SE of the site, the curtain wall consists of a row of hollow chambers. One of these chambers projects c. 1.4m from the wall to form a c. 8.3m deep and c. 8.7m wide bastion (Boyd and Rudolph 1978: pl. 87; McAllister 2005: 24–25). i) Tower 9: The circular Tower 9 (built with a socle of wedge-shaped headers and measuring c. 8m in diameter) is located N of the SE Gate. It was set against an earlier rectangular bastion, which was bonded with the curtain in the NE (Michaud 1973: 305; Rudolph 1973b: 225, 1975: 64; Aupert 1976: 610; McAllister 2005: 25, 34–38). j) Tower 10: This tower with a solid base (also known as the ‘East Tower’) occupies the NE corner of the circuit. It measures c. 8.1 by 8.3m and projects by c. 2.3m in the NW and SW (Jacobsen 1969: 125–26; Jameson 1971: 114– 15; McAllister 2005: 27–29). k) Tower 11: With a width of 11.6m, this submerged square tower N of the Hermion Gate is the largest tower at Porto Cheli. A round tower was later added to its N corner (McAllister 2005: 29, 38–39). l) Tower 12: This submerged rectangular tower on the N side of the fortification is c. 5.1m wide, projects c. 4.8m from the wall and was constructed with a hollow ground-floor chamber (McAllister 2005: 29–30). m) Tower 13: Like Tower 12, this rectangular structure (c. 4.6 by 5.8m) was constructed with a hollow groundfloor chamber and is now submerged. It is located c. 40m W of Tower 13 and is bonded with the adjacent curtain wall (McAllister 2005: 30–31). n) Tower 14 and 15: Two round towers (both c. 9.2m in diameter) were recorded on either side of the Harbour Gate. Tower 14 (to the N of the gate) was constructed on a base of wedge-shaped headers, while Tower 15 (to the S of the gate) was built with a double wall of alternating 240

Catalogue: 64. Porto Cheli, 65. Poulithra Finds: The finds at Porto Cheli span the Neolithic, Early Helladic, Late Helladic, Geometric, Archaic, Classical, Early Hellenistic and Late Roman periods (Jameson 1969: 318–21; Boyd and Rudolph 1978: 334–35; Jameson et al. 1994: 435). The settlement was probably abandoned and ceased to exist as a political community in the early 3rd century BC (Rudolph 1975: 71–72; Jameson et al. 1994: 88–89, 394–95, 436–37; Schlehofer 2018: 20). For the cemeteries of Halieis, see Schlehofer 2018. Date: Curtain walls: a) The earthworks and mudbrick walls: The mudbrick walls on the acropolis and the Industrial Terrace predate the early 6th century BC (Jameson and Williams 1966: 149; Daux 1967: 661; Williams 1967: 195; Jameson 1972: 233; Lang 1996: 176; McAllister 2005: 17, 76; Frederiksen 2011: 146; Hülden 2020: 391), while the earth rampart SW of Tower 10 was dated to the 7th century BC or the early 6th century BC (McAllister 2005: 18, 76–77; Frederiksen 2011: 146; Hülden 2020: 391). For this phase, McAllister 2005: 76–77 reconstructed two adjacent circuits, while Frederiksen 2011: 146 argued for a single circuit. b) The stone and mudbrick walls: Six sections of the stone and mudbrick walls were dated stratigraphically. The walls on the acropolis, on the Industrial Terrace and near Tower 10 postdate the 6th century BC (McAllister 2005: 17–18), the so-called ‘chambered curtain’ probably dates to the 5th century BC (McAllister 2005: 64–65, 79), the so-called ‘Middle Wall’ to the early 4th century BC (McAllister 2005: 55–56) and the SE wall to the early or late 4th century BC (McAllister 2005: 51). Based on the dated sections of curtain wall and the shape of the different towers, McAllister 2005: 79–83, figs 32–35 suggested a construction in four phases: firstly, the construction of a ‘combined circuit’ around the acropolis, the lower town and the Industrial Terrace (before the middle of the 5th century BC); secondly, a phase of rebuilding, which included the addition of the square towers (late 5th century BC); thirdly, the extension of the circuit to the W (late 5th or early 4th century BC); and finally the rebuilding of the E circuit (first half of the 4th century BC). Towers: Based on their shape and building technique, McAllister 2005: 79–83, figs 32–35 assigned the towers to three building phases. The first phase (the ‘SquareTower Program’) comprised the rectangular Towers 5, 6, 9, 10, 11 and 19, and is dated to the end of the 5th century BC. In a second phase (probably in the early 4th century BC), the walls were extended to the W and N with the Towers 1, 2, 3, 4, 12, 13, 16, 17 and 18. The circular Towers 6, 7, 9, 11, 14 and 15 are attributed to a third phase, also in the early 4th century BC. Further information: Porto Cheli has long been identified as ancient Halieis (Jameson et al. 1994: 45; Piérart 2004: 608), which was reportedly given to the Tirynthians around 460 BC (Hdt. 6.83.1–2; Str. 8.6.11; Paus. 2.25.8; see Piérart 2004: 608–609). The city’s

natural harbour was handed to the Athenians in 424 BC for the duration of the war (IG I3 75; see Piérart 2004: 609). After Halieis’ abandonment in the early 3rd century BC (Rudolph 1975: 71–2; Jameson et al. 1994: 88–89, 394–95, 436–37; Schlehofer 2018: 2), the city’s former territory was probably incorporated into the city state of Hermion (see chapter 5). Bibliography: Jameson and Jameson 1950: 58–80; Wrede 1959; Daux 1963: 756–59; Jameson 1963; Megaw 1963: 16–17; Daux 1966: 786–91; Jameson and Williams 1966; Megaw 1966: 8; Daux 1967: 659–661; Ervin 1967: 299; Jameson 1967; Megaw 1967: 10; Williams 1967; Daux 1968: 799–803; Ervin 1968: 270; Jacobsen 1968a, 1968b; Megaw 1968: 9–10; Ervin 1969: 347; Fraser 1969: 14; Jacobsen 1969; Jameson 1969: 315–37; Fraser 1970: 10–11; Michaud 1970: 969; Caskey 1971: 301–02; Jameson 1971; Michaud 1971: 875–78; Jameson 1972; Catling 1973: 9–10, 1973: 15–16; Michaud 1973: 305; Rudolph 1973a, 1973b; Φαράκλας 1973: 17–21, 24–29, figs 19–22; Catling 1974: 11–13; Jameson 1974: 264; Rudolph 1974b: 265–67; Aupert 1975: 618; Catling 1975: 10–12; Rudolph 1975; Aupert 1976: 610–614; Catling 1976: 12– 13; Leekley and Noyes 1976: 69; Rudolph 1976; Touchais 1977: 554–55; Boyd and Rudolph 1978: 333–55; Catling 1978: 28; Boyd and Jameson 1981; Rudolph 1984: 123– 70; Frost 1985; Foley 1988: 194–95; Jameson et al. 1994: 435–37; Lang 1996: 176; Ault 1999; McAllister 2005; Frederiksen 2011: 146; Hülden 2018: 103; Schlehofer 2018: 18; Hülden 2020: 389–91. Further images: Figure 6.33.

65. POULITHRA (Πούλιθρα) Ancient name: Πολίχνα Altitude: 154 mamsl Location: On the Vigla hill, S of the village Poulithra. Type: fortified settlement Approximate size: at least 3.2ha Masonry: roughly hewn coursed polygonal and uncoursed trapezoidal with rough surfaces and vertically drafted corners Description: The site is located on the summit of a coastal hill, which is protected in the E and SE by steep rocky outcrops. In antiquity, the hill was surrounded with a circuit wall, which includes at least four rectangular towers or bastions. Curtain walls: Due to the dense vegetation, the circuit is difficult to trace, especially in the E of the site. Nevertheless, it is possible to reconstruct a roughly elliptical circuit that follows the contours of the hill at c. 120–130 mamsl and incorporates the naturally defensible rocky outcrops on the E and SE sides of the hill. The curtain walls survive up to an elevation of c. 241

Catalogue: 65. Poulithra 2.5m and are constructed in a combination of roughly hewn coursed polygonal and uncoursed trapezoidal masonry. Judging by the sections of wall identified so far, the blocks on the weaker W side of the hill were more carefully shaped than the blocks on the naturally defensible E and SE slopes. Towers or bastions: So far, four towers or bastions could be identified along the circuit, but (given the dense vegetation) several further bastions could well be hidden in the undergrowth. One bastion is located on the SE side of the hill, c. 30m N of the rocky outcrop that forms the S corner of the site. This bastion projects by c. 3.9m from the curtain, measures c. 5.8m in width and is bonded with the adjoining curtain wall. The three other bastions noted so far are located on the weaker W side of the circuit, at a distance of c. 35m and c. 20m from each other. The SW bastion (which today is most easily accessible) is c. 8.5m wide. Like the curtain walls, all four bastions are constructed in roughly hewn coursed polygonal and uncoursed trapezoidal masonry. At several bastions, the corners show signs of vertical drafting and include ashlar cornerstones. Internal structures: Inside the circuit, there are traces of several buildings, but again the vegetation makes it difficult to gain a clear picture. In the W, several walls run parallel to the circuit, perhaps creating terraces on the slope above. In the S and SE of the hill, the building remains stretch

Poulithra: satellite-image with sketch plan (Google Earth 2013).

Poulithra: the coastal hill of Poulithra (centre) from the W (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Arkadia; photo by the author).

Poulithra: the view from the summit to the N and NE. The site of Plaka Leonidiou (63) is located on the hill at the left edge of the picture (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Arkadia; photo by the author).

242

Catalogue: 65. Poulithra, 66. Prosilia

Poulithra: the SW bastion from the W (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Arkadia; photo by the author).

Poulithra: the NW corner of the SW bastion from the NW (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Arkadia; photo by the author).

Poulithra: the SE curtain wall from the SE (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Arkadia; photo by the author).

Poulithra: the SE corner of the internal structure in the S of the site from the SE (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Arkadia; photo by the author).

over several terraces and appear to follow a rectilinear plan. Particularly prominent is a rectangular structure in the S of the sites, which measures c. 10 by 13.5m and includes a cistern in the N. A tower of later date is located on the summit of the hill. Finds: Fragments of obsidian, tile, unglazed pottery and Classical black-glazed pottery were noted at the site, while several Hellenistic tombs were recorded to the NW (Φάκλαρης 1990: 142; Shipley 1996: 282). Date: Based on the masonry style, Φάκλαρης 1990: 142 suggested a construction in the last quarter of the 4th century BC, but both a Late Classical and a Hellenistic construction date would be possible (see chapter 4). Further information: The site has been identified as ancient Πολίχνα, which was attacked by Lykourgos in 219 BC (Polyb. 4.36.5; see Wace and Hasluck 1908: 176; Φάκλαρης 1990: 141–42; Pritchett 1991a: 140; Shipley 1996: 282, 2004: 575–76). It has a good view of the bays to the N and S, and a visual connection to the site at Plaka Leonidiou (63). Bibliography:Wace and Hasluck 1908: 176; Παπαχατζής 1976: 430–31; Φάκλαρης 1990: 141–42; Pritchett 1991a: 140–42; Shipley 1996: 282, 2004: 575–76.

66. PROSILIA (Προσίλια, Ανεμόμυλος) Ancient name: Altitude: 661 mamsl Location: On the hill Anemomylos, NW of Prosilia. Type: circular tower Approximate size: 6.5m in diameter Masonry: drystone Description: The summit of the hill is occupied by a circular tower (c. 6.5m in diameter), which is constructed in c. 1m wide drystone walls and survives up to a height of 0.5m. One carefully shaped block, possibly a doorjamb or threshold, was noted at the site, but is not in situ. Finds: Fragments of tile, pottery and obsidian were recorded at the site (Φάκλαρης 1990: 205; Shipley 1996: 276). Date: The date of the tower is unclear. Further information: The tower has visual connections to the Argolid, as well as the Kynouria (see chapter 6). This has prompted an interpretation of the site as a 5thcentury BC Spartan guard post, possibly controlling a route (Φάκλαρης 1990: 205; Shipley 1996: 276), although the tower could also be an Argive construction, 243

Catalogue: 66. Prosilia, 67. Prosymna: Agios Athanasios especially since the Tanos river to the south may have formed the border between Argos and Sparta as early as the late 5th century BC (E. El. 410–11, see also chapter 5). Bibliography: Touchais 1979: 561; Φάκλαρης 1990: 205; Shipley 1996: 276; Tausend 2006: 130.

67. PROSYMNA: AGIOS ATHANASIOS (Πρόσυμνα: Άγιος Αθανάσιος, FS 405/406)

Prosilia: the tower from the W (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Arkadia; photo by the author).

Prosymna: Agios Athanasios: sketch plan (Penttinen 1996b: 250, fig. 15).

Ancient name: Altitude: 275 mamsl Location: On the summit of the hill Agios Athanasios, c. 200m N of the modern E-W road across the valley of Prosymna. Type: fortified settlement Approximate size: Masonry: roughly hewn coursed trapezoidal with rough surfaces (circuit) and drystone (interior structures) Description: The site stretches over two terraces on the summit and SE side of the hill. The remains on the lower terrace include the NE corner of a rectangular drystone structure and the SE corner of a rectangular circuit in

Prosilia: a doorjamb or threshold (not in situ) (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Arkadia; photo by the author).

Prosymna: Agios Athanasios: the view to the SE, showing the tower of Prosymna: Pyrgouthi (69) (right) (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Prosymna: Agios Athanasios: the view to the SW, showing the Kleisoura valley (left) (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

244

Catalogue: 67. Prosymna: Agios Athanasios, 68. Prosymna: Agios Dimitrios roughly hewn trapezoidal masonry. The circuit survives up to an elevation of two courses. The upper terrace is bordered on the E side by a N-S wall, probably also part of the circuit. On the summit, there are remains of a rectangular building (c. 4 by 6m) in drystone masonry. Finds: In the Berbati-Limnes Archaeological Survey, the site produced fragments of Classical Corinthian and Laconian tile, sherds of Prehistoric and Classical pottery, and a 4th-century BC loomweight (Penttinen 1996b: 251). Date: According to Penttinen 1996b: 251 the masonry points to a construction in the 5th century BC, although this date is uncertain. Further information: Prosymna: Agios Athanasios commands a good view over the Kleisoura (which connects the valley of Prosymna and the Argive plain) and the plain of Prosymna. The site could have had a military-strategic function or served as a farmstead (Penttinen 1996b: 251), but its location, construction and finds tend to support the latter interpretation (see chapter 7). Bibliography: Penttinen 1996b: 250–51; Wells 2002a: 73–74; Penttinen 2005: 112, 115.

Date: The blocks may belong to a 4th-century BC tower similar to Prosymna: Pyrgouthi (69) (Penttinen 1996b: 240). Further information: Bibliography: Wells, Runnels, and Zangger 1990: 232; Πίκουλας 1991: 257 (no. 3), 1995: 168–69; Penttinen 1996b: 240, 2005: 112.

Prosymna: Agios Dimitrios: plan (Penttinen 1996b: 240, fig. 8). The arrow in this plan points to the W rather than the N. Prosymna: Agios Athanasios: the E circuit wall from the E (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

68. PROSYMNA: AGIOS DIMITRIOS (Πρόσυμνα: Άγιος Δημήτριος, FS 19) Ancient name: Altitude: 294 mamsl Location: On the E slope of the Kephalari valley, c. 200m NE of the chapel of Agios Dimitrios. Type: rectangular tower Approximate size: 6.4 by 6.8m Masonry: roughly hewn polygonal with rough surfaces Description: At this site, there are remains of a rectangular structure (c. 6.4 by 6.8m) in rough conglomerate blocks. The W side of the structure is cut by a modern terrace wall. Finds: No diagnostic sherds were recorded during the Berbati-Limnes Archaeological Survey (Wells, Runnels, and Zangger 1990: 232; Penttinen 1996b: 240).

Prosymna: Agios Dimitrios: the tower from the S (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

245

Catalogue: 69. Prosymna: Pyrgouthi 69. PROSYMNA: PYRGOUTHI (Πρόσυμνα: Πύργουθι, FS 506) Ancient name: Altitude: 214 mamsl Location: C. 100m W of the modern cemetery of Prosymna. Type: rectangular tower with outbuildings Approximate size: 7 by 7.2m Masonry: carefully fitted coursed polygonal with rough surfaces and vertically drafted corners Description: At this site, a rectangular tower (c. 7 by 7.2m) survives up to an elevation of three courses. The walls are c. 0.5–0.7m wide and are constructed in coursed polygonal masonry with vertically drafted corners. The entrance to the tower is located in the NE, where a c. 0.85m wide threshold with a hole for a pivot survives. This threshold shows that the door originally opened inwards. Inside the tower, there are three steps in the NW corner, probably part of a staircase to an upper floor. They belong to the original building phase of the tower (Penttinen 2005: 59). To the W of the tower, two kilns and several buildings in less substantial masonry were discovered (Penttinen 2005, 21–23, 38–40). Finds: On the surface and during the excavation of the site, sherds from the Early Iron Age to the Late Roman periods were recorded. The finds also include bobbins, loomweights and a fragment of a beehive (Penttinen 1996b: 262, 2005: 31, 33, 46, 53, 71, 75, 77). Date: After excavation, the kilns can be dated to the 5th century BC (Penttinen 2005: 36, 91), while the tower belongs to the late 4th century BC (Penttinen 2005: 63–65). The tower was initially only occupied for a brief period and fell into disuse around 300 BC, before being reoccupied in the 1st century BC. The additional buildings to the W were probably constructed during this period (Penttinen 2005: 50). After the Augustan period, the site was unoccupied until Late Antiquity (Penttinen 2005: 95). Further information: Due to the 1st-century BC reuse, the original function of the tower cannot be determined, but at least from the 1st century BC onwards it was part of an agricultural site (Penttinen 2005: 95). Bibliography: Frazer 1898: 88; Πέππα 1990: pl. 23a; Πίκουλας 1991: 257 (no. 4), 1995: 170–71; Penttinen 1996b: 260–62; Hjohlman, Penttinen, and Wells 2005; Tausend 2006: 23, 25; Wells 2002a: 73; Tausend 2020: 125.

Prosymna: Pyrgouthi: plan (Penttinen 2005: 39, fig. 26. Plan by B. Ask and M. Lindblom).

Prosymna: Pyrgouthi: the S wall from the S (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Prosymna: Pyrgouthi: the W wall from the W (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

246

Catalogue: 70. Pyrgiotika, 71. Pyrgouli 70. PYRGIOTIKA (Πυργιώτικα)

71. PYRGOULI (Πυργούλη, Ζεκίλια, Άγιος Δημήτριος, Μετόχι)

Ancient name: Altitude: 122 mamsl Location: On a hill c. 900m SE of Pyrgiotika, c. 150m S of the modern road between Pyrgiotika and Lygourio. Type: rectangular tower Approximate size: 6.4 by 6.5m Masonry: carefully fitted polygonal with rough surfaces Description: Today, only one course of this rectangular tower (c. 6.4 by 6.5m) in polygonal masonry survives. Finds: Brommer 1975: 173 noted undated sherds. Date: The masonry may suggest a Late Classical or Hellenistic date (see chapter 4). Further information: Tausend 2006: 151 proposed a military-strategic connection between the tower and a route between the Argolic and the Saronic Gulf, although an interpretation as a fortified farmstead would also be possible (see chapter 7). Bibliography: Brommer 1975: 173; Πιτερός 2005b; Tausend 2006: 151.

Ancient name: Altitude: 302 mamsl Location: On a low hill c. 1000m W of the village Agios Dimitrios (also known as Metochi) and c. 400m N of the modern road between the village and the monastery Moni Agiou Dimitriou Karakala. Type: rectangular tower Approximate size: 8.4 by 9.3m Masonry: carefully fitted coursed polygonal with rough surfaces Description: At this site, a rectangular tower (c. 8.4 by 9.3m) survives up to an elevation of c. 2.4m. The c. 1–1.1m wide outer walls are constructed in doublefaced coursed polygonal masonry. Today, the interior of the tower is filled with rubble, but nevertheless it is possible to make out an E-W crosswall. To the W of the tower, there is a small rectangular terrace.

Pyrgiotika: the S wall from the S (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Pyrgouli: the W wall from the W (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Pyrgouli: the view to the SE, showing the forts of Kastraki (35) (centre left) and Kazarma (39) (right) in the middle distance (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

247

Catalogue: 71. Pyrgouli, 72. Soros Finds: A conglomerate olive mill lies on the terrace to the W of the tower (École Française 1955: 244; Πιτερός 2005e: 268). Date: Judging by the masonry, the tower probably dates to the Late Classical or the Hellenistic period (see chapter 4). Further information: The tower has a good view of the valley, the fort of Kazarma (39) and the fort of Kastraki (35). Its location and the presence of an olive mill suggest that the site was used at least at some point in its history as a farmstead or agricultural installation (see chapter 7). Bibliography: Gell 1817: 186; Winter 1950: 24–25; École Française 1955: 244; Nowicka 1975: 42, 79, 142; Πέππα 1990: 268, 273; Πιτερός 2005e: 268. Further images: Figure 7.13 c.

Anathema (8) and the islands Hydra and Dokos) and may have been a watch-post on the border between Troizen and Hermion (Jameson et al. 1994: 522; Tausend 2006: 167; Γιαννοπούλου 2009: 534, see also chapter 6). The finds suggest some level of permanent or semipermanent occupation, which would be consistent with an interpretation as a watch-post. Bibliography: Jameson et al. 1994: 521–22, 523; Dixon 2000: 257–58; Tausend 2006: 167; Γιαννοπούλου 2009: 534.

72. SOROS (Σωρός) Ancient name: Altitude: 689 mamsl Location: On the ridge of the Aderes mountains, c. 5000m NE of the village Iliokastro. Type: drystone circuit Approximate size: 0.05ha Masonry: drystone Description: This fortification consists of an artificial mound (c. 40m in diameter and c. 8m high) capped by a c. 1.5m wide drystone circuit. Within this circuit, Jameson et al. 1994: 521 recorded traces of at least two internal structures. Finds: The finds from Soros include black-glazed and unglazed Classical sherds (e.g. fragments of lamps, skyphoi, open vessels, lekanai, jugs, an amphora and a pithos), as well as fragments of Corinthian roof tiles, an andesite mortar and two Medieval sherds (Jameson et al. 1994: 521–22; Γιαννοπούλου 2009: 534). Date: The pottery suggests a Classical date (Jameson et al. 1994: 522). Further information: The site has excellent views to both sides of the Aderes ridge (including the fort of

Soros: plan (Jameson et al. 1994: 523, fig. A.40).

Soros: the site from the W (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Piraeus and the Islands; photo by the author).

248

Catalogue: 72. Soros, 73. Spathokommeno

Soros: the view to the E, showing the fort of Anathema (8) on the hill left of the road in the middle distance (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Piraeus and the Islands; photo by the author).

Soros: the view to the S, showing the coastal plain of Thermisi (centre) and the islands Hydra (left) and Dokos (right) (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Piraeus and the Islands; photo by the author).

Spathokommeno: the view to the SE, S and SW © Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Arkadia; photo by the author).

Spathokommeno: the view to the SW, W and NW © Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Arkadia; photo by the author).

73. SPATHOKOMMENO (Σπαθοκομμένο) hewn polygonal masonry) survive up to an elevation of c. 1.5m. To the S of the tower, there are remains of further buildings. Finds: Φάκλαρης 1990: 207 noted Classical and Hellenistic sherds, while fragments of black-glazed pottery, unglazed pottery and tile, a piece of metal slag and an obsidian flake were observed at the site in September 2017.

Ancient name: Altitude: 790 mamsl Location: SE of Agios Ioannis and SW of Oreini Meligou. Type: rectangular tower Approximate size: least 5.5 by 6.9m Masonry: roughly hewn polygonal with rough surfaces Description: At this site, there are remains of a rectangular tower measuring c. 6.9m by at least 5.5m. The walls (c. 1m wide and constructed in roughly 249

Catalogue: 73. Spathokommeno, 74. Sportiza Date: While Γρηγορακάκης 2009b: 345 suggested a 5thcentury BC date, the masonry may point towards a Late Classical or Hellenistic construction (see chapter 4). Further information: The site is located near an ancient route between the Thyreatis and Sparta (Φάκλαρης 1990: 207), and has been interpreted as an Argive watchtower (Shipley 1996: 280). However, this interpretation is uncertain. Bibliography: Jochmus 1857: 43; Αρβανίτης 1984: 19; Spyropoulos and Christien 1985: 464; Φάκλαρης 1990: 206–07; Shipley 1996: 280; Γρηγορακάκης 2009b: 345; Balandier and Guintrand 2019: 436.

cannot be traced without more detailed study. Both the E and the W wall are c. 2.15m wide and (at least in the W) consist of two polygonal faces with a rubble core. The E curtain wall is currently traceable over a distance of c. 290m, but probably continues further to the S. From the summit of the hill, this wall runs approximately SSE, following a straight line rather than the contours of the hill. The W curtain wall is preserved over a distance of at least 480m. Running approximately SE from the summit, it is divided into three sections. The first section runs from the summit of the hill to the SSW. After c. 100m, the wall continues in a SW direction for c. 180m (section 2), before turning to the SSW and continuing in this direction for at least another 200m (section 3). The summit of the hill is today largely covered in vegetation and rubble, but it is possible to make out a c. 70m long curved E-W wall to the S of the summit. This wall connects the E and W curtain walls and creates a separately fortified acropolis or citadel at the highest point of the hill.

Spathokommeno: the NW side of the tower from the N © Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Arkadia; photo by the author).

74. SPORTIZA (Σπόρτιζα) Ancient name: Ὄρνεαι (?) Altitude: 619 mamsl Location: On the summit, SW, S and SE slopes of the Sportiza hill, c. 500m N of the site Lyrkeia (50). Type: fortified settlement Approximate size: at least 6.5ha Masonry: roughly hewn coursed polygonal with rough surfaces Description: This fortification is located on the summit and S slopes of the Sportiza hill. Despite its impressive size, it has up to now only briefly been mentioned by Πίκουλας 1995: 269–70; Gallimore et al. 2017: 429 and has not been published in detail. Today, the site is densely overgrown (making it difficult to trace the walls), but with the help of satellite images it is possible to reconstruct parts of a large circuit, which encloses an area of at least 6.5ha and includes six bastions or towers. Both the curtain walls and the bastions are constructed in roughly hewn polygonal masonry. Curtain walls: On the basis of satellite images and onsite observations, several parts of the E and W curtain walls could be identified, while the site’s S and N walls

Sportiza: the W curtain wall from the SW (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Sportiza: the W curtain wall from the W (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

250

Catalogue: 74. Sportiza

Sportiza: the join between the SW side of bastion 4 and the curtain wall from the W (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Sportiza: the E curtain wall and the NE bastion from the N (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Towers or bastions: Along the E and the W curtain walls, remains of six bastions or towers could be identified, but given the dense vegetation, further bastions may well be hidden in the undergrowth. The bastions are constructed in the same roughly hewn polygonal masonry as the curtain walls, and are (as far as it is possible to tell at present) bonded with the adjoining curtain walls. Two of the bastions lie on the E side of the fortification. The NE bastion is located at the point where the E-W wall S of the summit joins the main curtain wall, while the SE bastion lies c. 140m further S. Both bastions are c. 4.7m wide. The NE bastion projects from the curtain wall by c. 2.8m, the SE bastion by c. 2.6m. The four remaining bastions were placed at the following points along the W curtain wall: between section 1 and section 2, where the W curtain wall turns from the SSW to the SW (bastion 1), c. 70m SW of bastion 1 (bastion 2), between section 2 and section 3 (bastion 3) and c. 100m SSW of bastion 3 (bastion 4). Bastions 3 and 4 are the best preserved and currently most accessible. While bastion 3 is c. 4.9m wide and c. 2.7m deep, bastion 4 measures c. 4.6m in width and projects c. 3.0m from the curtain wall. The outer walls of bastion 4 are c. 0.85m wide. In as far as visible today, all six bastions are similar in size, which argues for a construction in a single building phase. Internal structures: Due to the modern vegetation, it has not been possible to identify any buildings

Sportiza: bastion 3 from the NW (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Sportiza: bastion 4 from the W (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

inside the circuit. The only exception is a rectangular structure near the E-W wall, which may be part of the fortification (perhaps a bastion or gate) or an internal structure. Finds: Fragments of tile and unglazed pottery were observed at the site (especially around the summit), as well as one black-glazed sherd. 251

Catalogue: 74. Sportiza Date: As noted in chapter 4, the site’s layout suggests a construction date in the late 4th or early 3rd century BC. Further information: Although small finds or internal structures are largely missing, the fortification at Sportiza was classified as a fortified settlement due to its size. It is visually connected to Argos’ Larissa (12) and to Lyrkeia (50), and has good views across the Inachos valley and the route towards Alea. The nearby site of

Lyrkeia (50) is usually identified as ancient Ὄρνεαι (see for example Pritchett 1980: 24–31; Πίκουλας 1995: 267–70), but at least from the late 4th century BC onwards Sportiza has to be considered as an alternative candidate for this settlement (see chapter 5.1). Bibliography: Πίκουλας 1995: 269–70; Gallimore et al. 2017: 429. Further images: Figure 4.4.

Sportiza: the rectangular structure at the E-W wall from the SW (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Sportiza: the view to the W and SW across the Inachos valley (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Sportiza: the view to the W across the Kephalovryso valley and the route to Alea (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Sportiza: the view to the E and SE across the Inachos valley. Argos’ Larissa (12) is just visible through the haze in the right of the picture (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

252

Catalogue: 75. Stavropodio, 76. Tiryntha, 77. Tou Antreiomenou to Mnema 1 Description: The Mycenaean citadel of Tiryntha was refortified with a V-shaped ditch outside the W curtain wall and a c. 6.2m wide wall across the lower citadel (Karo 1915b: pl. 1; Kilian, Podzuweit, and Weisshaar 1981: 153; Kilian 1988: 105–06). Finds: The finds at Tiryntha span the period between the Neolithic and modern times (Jantzen 1975: 117–93). Date: Both the ditch in the W and the wall across the lower citadel were constructed in the Late Hellenistic period (Karo 1915b: pl. 1; Kilian, Podzuweit, and Weisshaar 1981: 153; Kilian 1988: 105–06). Further information: In the Archaic and Early Classical periods, Tiryns is attested as an independent city-state (Hdt. 9.28.4; ML 27 (479 BC)). According to Hdt. 6.83.1–2, Tiryns was taken over by Argive slaves (probably shortly after 468 BC), who were defeated and expelled by Argos. Unstratified finds within the Late Helladic upper and lower citadels attest activity from the Submycenaen to the Byzantine periods (Rudolph 1971: 93–103; Jantzen 1975: 155–74; Polczyk 2005: 141–42; Brüggemann 2015: 234–47), but during the Geometric, Archaic and Early Classical periods Tiryntha probably served as a cult site rather than as a settlement (Jantzen 1975: 97– 106; Polczyk 2005: 143–45; Brüggemann 2015: 248–58). The amount of coarse wares from the site increases for the Hellenistic and Roman periods, suggesting a resettlement of the citadels (Polczyk 2005: 142). Bibliography: Rudolph 1971; Jantzen 1975; Kilian, Podzuweit, and Weisshaar 1981: 153; Kilian 1988; Polczyk 2005; Brüggemann 2015; Hülden 2020: 349.

75. STAVROPODIO (Σταυροπόδιο, Κάστρο, Καστράκι, Παλαιοκάστρο) Ancient name: Altitude: 566 mamsl Location: On the Kastro hill, c. 1500m SW of Tou Antreiomenou tou Mnema 1 (77), immediately N of the modern road between Vothiki and Stavropodio. Type: fort Approximate size: 0.7ha Masonry: drystone Description: The site is clearly visible on satellite images, but was impossible to reach due to the dense vegetation. The following description is therefore based on Αρχοντίδου-Αργύρη 1975: 77–79. The fortification of Stavropodio is located on the summit of the Kastro hill. While the S is naturally protected by the steep slope, the W, N and E were fortified with a c. 3m wide circuit wall in drystone masonry. This wall survives up to an elevation of c. 2m. The circuit was originally accessible through a c. 1m wide gate in the SW. To the NE of the drystone wall, a c. 4m wide proteichisma runs parallel to the circuit and forms a semi-circular tower in the NE corner. There are also traces of internal structures. Finds: Hellenistic pottery and pieces of obsidian were recorded at the site (Αρχοντίδου-Αργύρη 1975: 77; Touchais 1977: 554). Date: Although the date of the walls is uncertain, the pottery suggests a use of the site in the Hellenistic period. Further information: The site forms part of a cluster of intervisible fortifications on the southern border of the Epidauria (see chapter 6). Tausend 2006: 154 suggested that it may have been used to observe a route between the plains of Iria and Tracheia, although access to the route from the site itself may have been difficult (see chapter 6). Bibliography: Jameson and Jameson 1950: 52–54; Jameson 1953: 164; Φαράκλας 1972a: E. 3.8; ΑρχοντίδουΑργύρη 1975: 77–79; Touchais 1977: 554; Πέππα 1990: 268–69, 288–89; Suto 1996: 11; Tausend 2006: 154.

77. TOU ANTREIOMENOU Αντρειωμένου το Μνήμα)

TO

MNEMA

1

(Του

Ancient name: Altitude: 246 mamsl Location: On a hill immediately W of the modern road between Vothiki and Neochori, c. 300m W of Vothiki. Type: rectangular tower Approximate size: 12.2 by 14.8m Masonry: carefully fitted trapezoidal with rough surfaces Description: This rectangular structure (c. 12.2 by 14.8m) is located on the summit of a low hill. Its outer walls are c. 1.3m wide and are constructed in trapezoidal blocks, many of which bear rough vertical tool-marks on the outer surface. The structure is divided by a NE-SW wall into two ‘rooms’: the main room in the NW and a narrow, c. 2.2m wide room or corridor in the SE. The two ‘rooms’ are connected by a doorway in the centre of the NE-SW wall. The surviving lower doorjambs show that the door originally opened inwards and could be closed with a crossbar. In 1926,

76. TIRYNTHA (Τίρυνθα) Ancient name: Τίρυνς Altitude: 28 mamsl Location: Inside and to the W of the Late Helladic lower citadel of Tiryntha. Type: fortified settlement Approximate size: Masonry: 253

Catalogue: 77. Tou Antreiomenou to Mnema 1 W. Wrede also saw a broken lintel in front of the door (Wrede 1959). So far, no entrance could be identified in the outer wall. There are at least two possible explanations: either a doorway originally existed in the SE wall, but no longer survives (or is obscured by vegetation), or the SE wall is in fact a terrace wall. This would make the ‘dividing’ NE-SW wall an outer wall and the surviving door the structure’s main entrance. Finds: Mainly Classical and Hellenistic pottery (Φαράκλας 1972a: E. 3.7), as well as Mycenaean, Geometric and Roman sherds were recorded at this site (Brommer 1975: 176; Grigoropoulos 2011: 234). Date: The date of construction is uncertain, but the pottery suggests a use in the Classical and the Hellenistic period. The masonry closely parallels the trapezoidal walls at Ermioni (24) and at Troizina’s ‘Frankish Tower’ (80), both in the shape of the blocks and in the vertical tool-marks. This could tenetatively suggest a Hellenistic construction date (see chapter 4). Further information: The tower is located above the valley connecting the plains of Iria and Tracheia, and has therefore been interpreted as a watchtower securing the route (Φαράκλας 1972a: E. 3.7; Tausend 2006: 154).

However, judging by its location an interpretation as a farmstead would also be possible (see chapter 7). Bibliography: Wrede 1959; Φαράκλας 1972a: E. 3.7; Brommer 1975: 176; Tausend 2006: 154; Grigoropoulos 2011: 234.

Tou Antreiomenou to Mnema 1: the interior wall from the N (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Tou Antreiomenou to Mnema 1: the view to the S (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Tou Antreiomenou to Mnema 1: the view to the N (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

254

Catalogue: 78. Tourkovrysi , 79. Tourniki: Gaidourovouni 78. TOURKOVRYSI (Τουρκόβρυση, Ξερόκαμπο)

79. TOURNIKI: GAIDOUROVOUNI (Τουρνίκι: Γαϊδουροβούνι)

Tourkovrysi: the W wall from the SW (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Tourniki: Gaidourovouni: the S wall from the S (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Ancient name: Altitude: 360 mamsl Location: Immediately NE of the junction between the Isthmus-Tripoli motorway and the road to Nemea. Type: rectangular tower Approximate size: 6 by 6.15m Masonry: roughly hewn polygonal with rough surfaces Description: At this site, two sides of a rectangular structure (c. 6 by 6.15m) in polygonal masonry survive up to an elevation of c. 0.8m, but are heavily overgrown. Finds: Pritchett 1969: 98 noted fragments of tile and black-glazed sherds, while Cloke 2016: 880–82 recorded Classical, Hellenistic, Byzantine and modern pottery, as well as sherds that may date to the Archaic and the Roman period. Date: Φαράκλας 1972c: E. 2.3 proposed a Classical or Hellenistic date, while the masonry may point to a Late Classical or Hellenistic construction (see chapter 4). Further information: The tower has been attributed to Phleious (Gauvin 1992: 141, 143–44, figs 7.5–7.7; Πίκουλας 1995: 231) or to Argos (Tausend 2006: 60; Cloke 2016: 883). It has a good view of the Xerokampos valley, and may have controlled the route between the Argive plain and Phleious (Pritchett 1969: 98; Πίκουλας 1995: 231; Tausend 2006: 60; Cloke 2016: 883, see also chapter 6). Bibliography: Pritchett 1969: 98; Φαράκλας 1972c: E. 2.3; Wright 1990: 610; Gauvin 1992: 141, 143–44, figs 7.5– 7.7; Πίκουλας 1995: 230–31; Tausend 2006: 60; Bonnier 2014: 150; Cloke 2016: 879–83. Further images: Figures 6.13.

Ancient name: Altitude: 884 mamsl Location: On the summit of the Gaidourovouni mountain. Type: rectangular tower with a circuit or terrace wall Approximate size: 7.5 by 9.3m Masonry: roughly hewn coursed polygonal with rough surfaces (tower) and drystone (circuit) Description: On the summit of the Gaidourovouni mountain, there are remains of a rectangular tower (c. 7.5 by 9.3m) with chamfered corners and a c. 0.8m wide entrance in the E. The walls of this tower are c. 1.1m wide and constructed in coursed polygonal masonry. Inside the tower, a low stone wall or bench (c. 1.1m wide) runs along the interior walls. It bears traces of plaster and may be part of a cistern. To the W of the tower, there are two sections of drystone wall, possibly part of a circuit or terrace. Finds: Date: Judging by the masonry, the tower was probably constructed in the Late Classical or the Hellenistic period (see chapter 4). Further information: The site has excellent views over the Xerias valley and the small plain of Merkourio. Its location suggests a use as a military-strategic sites rather than as a farmstead (see chapter 6). Both in masonry style and layout, the tower is very similar to the structures at Kephalovryso (40) and Lileika Xeropigadou (47), both also possible militarystrategic sites (see chapter 6). Bibliography: Πέππα 1990: 128; Πίκουλας 1991: 257 (no. 20), 1995: 202–03; Tausend 2006: 92, 125. Further images: Figures 6.27.

255

Catalogue: 79. Tourniki: Gaidourovouni, 80. Troizina on the acropolis. The walls are constructed in roughly hewn coursed polygonal masonry with rough surfaces. Towers: Along these city walls, traces of five towers have been recorded: one tower on the acropolis, three on the SW wall and one in the SE. The SE tower (which unlike the other towers projects inwards) is constructed

Tourniki: Gaidourovouni: the interior of the tower from the NE (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author). Troizina: the SE tower from the E (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Piraeus and the Islands; photo by the author).

Tourniki: Gaidourovouni: the W terrace or circuit wall from the W (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Troizina: the diateichisma wall E of the ‘Frankish Tower’ (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Piraeus and the Islands; photo by the author).

80. TROIZINA (Τροιζήνα) Ancient name: Τροιζήν Altitude: 312 mamsl Location: On the summit and N slope of the acropolis hill, SW of the modern village Troizina. Type: fortified settlement Approximate size: 50ha Masonry: carefully fitted coursed trapezoidal with rough surfaces and vertically drafted corners (the ‘Frankish tower’ and the diateichisma) and roughly hewn coursed polygonal with rough surfaces and vertically drafted corners (the E and W city walls) Description: A. City walls Curtain walls: The city walls enclose a roughly triangular area of c. 50ha, stretching from the acropolis’ summit in the S to the plain in the N. Traces of these walls have been recorded in the E, N and W, as well as

Troizina: the ‘Frankish Tower’ from the W (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Piraeus and the Islands; photo by the author).

256

Catalogue: 80. Troizina, 81. Tserpho Tyrou in roughly hewn coursed polygonal masonry with rough surfaces and vertically drafted corners. Internal structures: Inside the circuit, there are traces of many buildings, including the agora, the sanctuary of Aphrodite Akraia and the sanctuary of Athena Sthenias. B. Diateichisma Curtain walls: The diateichisma runs approximately E-W along the foot of the acropolis hill and divides the fortified area into two parts. Traces of this wall have survived in at least three locations: immediately to the E of the so-called ‘Frankish Tower’, to the W of a Roman brick structure (E of the ‘Frankish Tower’) and at the junction of the diateichisma and the E city wall. The section E of the ‘Frankish Tower’ is best preserved. It is constructed in trapezoidal masonry and is bonded with the E wall of the tower. Towers: The best-preserved tower on the diateichisma is the ‘Frankish Tower’. Measuring c. 9 by 13m, it survives up to an elevation of several metres. It is constructed in carefully fitted coursed trapezoidal masonry with rough surfaces and vertically drafted corners. A postern in the NE flank of the tower (spanned by a lintel) gives access to an internal staircase. A further wall to the E (approximately at right angle to the diateichisma) may belong to a second tower, which protected the access to this postern. Finds: Finds attest activity between at least the Geometric and the modern periods (see for example Welter 1941: 10, 19–25, 39–42). Date: The city walls are usually attributed to the 3rd century BC (Welter 1941: 12; Maier 1959: 139–44; Φαράκλας 1972b: 42; Sokolicek 2009: 132), while the diateichisma is dated by an epidosis decree to 146 BC (IG IV 757; see for example Frickenhaus and Müller 1911: 31; Welter 1941: 12; Maier 1959: 139–45; Winter 1971: 114; Lawrence 1979: 150; Sokolicek 2009: 132). Further information: The territory of Troizen is discussed in chapter 5. Bibliography: Frickenhaus and Müller 1911: 31; Welter 1941; Maier 1959: 139–45; Winter 1971: 114; Φαράκλας 1972b: 34–42; Lawrence 1979: 149–50, 229–30, 390, 428; Sokolicek 2009: 132; Γιαννοπούλου 2009; Fouquet 2015: 124. Further images: Figures 6.34 and 7.12 d.

Description: At this site, there are remains of a rectangular tower measuring c. 8 by 8m. The tower’s walls (c. 0.8–0.85m wide and constructed in coursed polygonal masonry with vertically drafted corners) survive up to an elevation of c. 1.8m. Finds: Date: A construction in the last quarter of the 4th century BC has been suggested (Φάκλαρης 1990: 206; Shipley 1996: 281), while the masonry points to a Late Classical or a Hellenistic date (see chapter 4). Further information: The tower could be an Argive fortification (Φάκλαρης 1990: 206; Shipley 1996: 281; Balandier and Guintrand 2019: 443), especially considering Argos’ 4th-century BC control over the Thyreatis (see chapter 5). Bibliography: Φάκλαρης 1990: 206; Shipley 1996: 281; Balandier and Guintrand 2019: 436–38, 443.

Tserpho Tyrou: the SE corner of the tower from the S (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Arkadia; photo by the author).

81. TSERPHO TYROU (Τσέρφο Τυρού) Ancient name: Altitude: 34 mamsl Location: N of the stream Kalyvia and c. 300m W of the modern road between Astros and Leonidio. Type: rectangular tower Approximate size: 8 by 8m Masonry: carefully fitted coursed polygonal with rough surfaces and vertically drafted corners

Tserpho Tyrou: the N wall of the tower from the N (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Arkadia; photo by the author).

257

Catalogue: 82. Tsiorovos Dolianon 82. TSIOROVOS DOLIANON (Τσιόροβος Δολιανών, Τσόροβος, Κάτω Δολιανά)

Tsiorovos Dolianon: the wall W of the tower from the E (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Arkadia; photo by the author). Tsiorovos Dolianon: plan (Goester 1993: 89, fig. 15).

Ancient name: Ἀνθάνα, Ἀνθήνη (?) Altitude: 454 mamsl Location: On the S slope of the Zavitsa mountain, c. 2000m N of Kato Doliana. Type: fortified settlement Approximate size: Masonry: carefully fitted coursed trapezoidal with rough surfaces and vertically drafted corners (tower) and drystone (circuit) Description: In 1976–9, an irregularly shaped circuit was recorded during a survey by the State University of Utrecht (Goester 1993: 89), but many sections of this circuit are no longer visible or appear to form terraces rather than fortification walls. The most notable feature at Tsiorovos Dolianon is a rectangular tower (c. 5.4 by 6.2m) in trapezoidal masonry with vertically drafted corner. Only its N, E and S walls were recorded in the survey, but parts of the W wall are also visible. To the N of the tower, there is a short section of a N-S wall, but the trapezoidal blocks in this wall are probably not in situ. To the W of the tower, a double-faced drystone wall runs downhill towards the W. Together with a second possible drystone wall along the modern road in the W, it may form part of the NW circuit.

Tsiorovos Dolianon: the N wall of the tower from the N (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Arkadia; photo by the author).

Tsiorovos Dolianon: the curtain wall W of the tower from the N (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Arkadia; photo by the author).

258

Catalogue: 82. Tsiorovos Dolianon, 83. Tyros To the E of the tower, there are traces of a further double-faced drystone wall, which runs towards the SE. Apart from this wall, no sections of the E circuit could be identified. In the S of the site, few blocks of a substantial E-W wall have survived in situ, but are cut by a modern road. Finds: The site has produced many fragments of black-glazed and unglazed pottery from the Classical, Hellenistic, Roman and Late Roman periods. The Classical and Hellenistic pottery includes fragments of kraters and skyphoi. Other finds include fragments of tile, conical and pyramidal loomweights, part of a terracotta beehive, a triobol of Sikyon (322–251 BC), a fragment of iron ore, fragments of bone and obsidian, a piece of green stone veneer, part of a terracotta sima, several thresholds, a stone with a rectangular cutting (probably part of a press weight) and several stone basins (Pritchett 1980: 120, 1982: 75–76; Φάκλαρης 1990: 92–94; Goester 1993: 90, 98; Shipley 1996: 276). Date: The walls have previously been dated to the last quarter of the 5th century BC or the first quarter of the 4th century BC (Φάκλαρης 1990: 94; Shipley 1996: 276), while the masonry style could argue for a Classical or a Hellenistic date (see chapter 4). Further information: The site is a possible candidate for ancient Ἀνθήνη (Καλίτσης 1965: 16; Pritchett 1980: 120, 1982: 75, 1991a: 170, 1995: 247–48; Spyropoulos and Christien 1985: 457; Christien-Tregaro 1992: 158; Shipley 1996: 276, 2004: 578; Woysch-Méautis 2000: 156). Bibliography: Le Puillon de Boblaye 1836: 66; Ross 1841: 171; Curtius 1852: 378; Bursian 1872: 70; Scranton 1941: 170–72; Καλίτσης 1965: 16; Touchais 1979: 561; Pritchett 1980: 120–21, 1982: 75–79; Spyropoulos and Christien 1985: 457, 461; Φάκλαρης 1990: 90–94; Pritchett 1991a: 170; Christien-Tregaro 1992: 158; Goester 1993: 88–91, 98; Pritchett 1995: 247–48; Shipley 1996: 276; Woysch-Méautis 2000: 156; Shipley 2004: 578; Γρηγορακάκης 2009b: 345; Balandier and Guintrand 2019: 432.

83. TYROS (Τύρος, Κάστρο) Ancient name: Τύρος Altitude: 138 mamsl Location: On the summit of a coastal hill, SE of Paralia Tyrou. Type: fortified settlement Approximate size: 0.9ha Masonry: roughly hewn uncoursed polygonal with rough surfaces Description: The site is located on the summit of a coastal hill, which today is covered by terraces for olive cultivation. Its fortifications have so far not been published in detail, but based on satellite images and on site observations, it is possible to trace the W, N and E sides of an irregularly shaped circuit, which incorporates a steep rocky outcrop at the summit of the hill. The circuit is protected by five towers or bastions. Both the curtain walls and the towers are constructed in roughly hewn uncoursed polygonal masonry. Curtain walls: Remains of the curtain walls survive in the W, N, E and SE of the site. They are c. 2.3m wide, constructed in double-faced masonry and survive up to an elevation of c. 3m. Without a more detailed study, it remains unclear if the steep S side of the hill was also fortified. Towers or bastions: The circuit is protected by five towers or bastions. Like the curtain walls, they are constructed in roughly hewn uncoursed polygonal masonry, but they often include rectangular cornerstones. The bastions are usually c. 4.8m wide, project by c. 3.3m from the circuit and bond into the adjoining curtain walls. This suggests that the curtain walls and the bastions are contemporary. The most accessible bastion is located at the NE corner of the circuit (bastion 1). Like most other bastions at the site, it is rectangular in layout and appears to have a solid core. Bastion 2, located c. 40m to the W of bastion 1, is also rectangular in shape, while bastion 3 (located c. 42m W of bastion 2 and difficult to access) follows a semi-circular layout. Bastion 4 (c. 46m W of bastion 3) is again rectangular in shape and marks the NW corner of the site. The final bastion (bastion 5) is located c. 20m S of bastion 4. It is not as well preserved as the other four bastions and is heavily overgrown. Gates: The location of the main entrance to the site is unclear. It could be located on the NW side of the hill (to the S of bastion 5), where a polygonal terrace wall survives outside the circuit. A small postern (spanned by a monolithic lintel) survives immediately to the W of bastion 2. Internal structures: As the hill is today covered by terraces for olive cultivation, no ancient structures could be identified within the circuit. Immediately to the W of the W curtain wall, a tunnel has been cut into the rock, but it probably belongs to a later period.

Tsiorovos Dolianon: the press weight (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Arkadia; photo by the author).

259

Catalogue: 83. Tyros

Tyros: satellite image and sketch plan (Google Earth 2014).

Tyros: bastion 2 and the adjoining curtain wall from the SE (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Arkadia; photo by the author).

Tyros: the postern from the N (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Arkadia; photo by the author).

Finds: The pottery from the site comprises of blackglazed and unglazed sherds from the Early Helladic, Late Classical, Hellenistic, Roman and Late Roman periods. Other finds include a pyramidal loomweight, several stone grinders and worked obsidian (Waterhouse and Simpson 1961: 131; Φάκλαρης 1990: 143–44; Shipley 1996: 281). Date: The walls have previously been dated to the Hellenistic period (Φάκλαρης 1990: 144; Shipley 1996: 281), which would fit well with their uncoursed polygonal masonry (see chapter 4). Further information: The site (with an excellent view over the bay to the N and over the Argolic Gulf) is probably ancient Τύρος (Bursian 1872: 136–37;

Φάκλαρης 1990: 142; Shipley 1996: 281, 2004: 576), but an identification as Πρασιαί / Βρασιαί has also been suggested (Le Puillon de Boblaye 1836: 102; Aldenhoven 1841: 366; Ross 1841: 166; Curtius 1852: 306). Bibliography: Le Puillon de Boblaye 1836: 102; Aldenhoven 1841: 366; Ross 1841: 165–66; Leake 1846: 294–95, 299–300; Curtius 1852: 305–06; Bursian 1872: 136–37; Walker 1936: 58–59; Waterhouse and Simpson 1961: 131; Simpson 1965: 51; Spyropoulos and Christien 1985: 465; Φάκλαρης 1990: 142–45; Shipley 1996: 281, 2004: 576. Further images: Figure 4.12. 260

Catalogue: 83. Tyros

Tyros: the site from the NW (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Arkadia; photo by the author).

Tyros: the view to the E, showing the southern Argolid (left and centre) and the island of Spetses (right) (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Arkadia; photo by the author).

Tyros: the view to the N and NW (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Arkadia; photo by the author).

261

Catalogue: 84. Vigla Finds: Fragments of tile and sherds of Late Helladic, Classical and Hellenistic pottery were recorded at the site (Simpson 1981: 31; Jameson et al. 1994: 510). Date: Although the date of the circuit is unclear, the surface finds attest a use of the site in the Classical and the Hellenistic period. Further information: The fortification has a good view over the bay of Koilada and may be part of a larger settlement to the W (Jameson et al. 1994: 510). Bibliography: Meyer 1930; Karo 1935: 606; Ålin 1962: 52; Simpson 1965: 22; Simpson and Lazenby 1970: 63; Simpson 1981: 31; Φαράκλας 1973: E. 2.4; Leekley and Noyes 1976: 64–65; Simpson and Dickinson 1979: 58; Foley 1988: 184; Πέππα 1990: 268; Jameson et al. 1994: 510.

84. VIGLA (Βίγλα) Ancient name: Altitude: 113 mamsl Location: On the summit and the W slope of a hill c. 300m E of the promontory of Agios Ioannis. Type: drystone circuit Approximate size: 0.05ha Masonry: drystone Description: The site occupies a small plateau on the summit of the hill. While the N of the hill is naturally protected by its steep slope, the W, S and E were fortified with a drystone circuit. Today, this circuit has mostly collapsed. On the W slope and possibly within the circuit, there are remains of several structures in drystone masonry.

Vigla: satellite image and sketch plan (Google Earth 2016).

Vigla: the view to the NW, W and SW, showing the bay of Koilada (left) and the tower of Lampagiana (on the low coastal hill in the centre of the picture) (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

262

Catalogue: 84. Vigla, 85. Vigliza Penttinen 1996b: 268 recorded the rubble foundations of several structures, but today these remains are hard to make out. Immediately W of the circuit, a second, c. 20m long and c. 1m wide curved drystone wall runs in an approximately E-W direction. To the N of this wall, Penttinen 1996b: 268 recorded the foundations of a rectangular structure measuring c. 5 by 7m, which are difficult to identify today. Finds: Black-glazed and unglazed Classical and Hellenistic sherds (including fragments of bowls, lekanai, mortars and amphorae), pieces of tile and Early Helladic pottery were found at the site (Forsén 1996: 91; Penttinen 1996b: 268–70). Date: As most finds are Hellenistic in date, the structure probably belongs to this period (Penttinen 1996b: 270). Further information: The site has a good view over the plain of Prosymna (Penttinen 1996b: 268). It could have served as a small fort (Penttinen 1996b: 270) or be connected to pastoralism (Penttinen 2005: 115, see also chapter 7). Bibliography: Penttinen 1996b: 268–70, 2005: 112, 115. Vigla: the S circuit wall from the W (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

85. VIGLIZA (Βίγλιζα) Ancient name: Altitude: 576 mamsl Location: On the W spur of the Vigliza hill, c. 1300m S of the village Limnes. Type: drystone circuit Approximate size: 0.15ha Masonry: drystone Description: The fortification consists of a drystone circuit on a small plateau. Within the circuit wall, there are several rectangular pits (perhaps postholes), but it is impossible to say if they are part of the circuit’s original structure. The area within the circuit is divided by a low vertical rock face into a lower W and an upper E half. In the E,

Vigliza: the E circuit wall from the N (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Vigliza: the view from the site to the W, N and E, showing the hill of Agio Lias (the third hill from the right in the middle distance) (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

263

Catalogue: 85. Vigliza, 86. Vourlia 1 86. VOURLIA 1 (Βουρλιά) Ancient name: Altitude: 251 mamsl Location: On the saddle of a ridge running W towards the bay of Vourlia. Type: drystone circuit Approximate size: 0.13ha Masonry: drystone Description: The site is located on a small plateau, which is surrounded by a wide drystone circuit. The hillside to the S is covered with rubble, possibly from the circuit.

Vigliza: satellite image and sketch plan (Google Earth 2014).

Vigliza: a possible posthole in the circuit wall (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Vourlia 1: satellite image and sketch plan (Google Earth 2014).

Vourlia 1: the ridge from the S. The site is located on the summit in the right of the picture (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

264

Catalogue: 86. Vourlia 1, 87. Vourlia 2 To the S of the circuit, there are two further rubble walls, which run in a SW-NE direction. They could form part of a terrace or the original approach to the site from the sea. Finds: The site has produced fragments of obsidian, tile, unglazed pottery, Late Helladic and black-glazed sherds, and the lower stone of an olive mill (Κύρου 1990: 85, 222; Suto 1996: 11). Furthermore, a scatter of unglazed sherds extends from the site to the E (towards Vourlia 2 (87)). Date: The fortification has been dated either to the Mycenaean (Κύρου 1990: 85, 222) or to the Classical period (Suto 1996: 11), while the black-glazed sherds suggest that the site was in used during the Classical or the Hellenistic period. Further information: Bibliography: Κύρου 1990: 85, 222; Πέππα 1990: 290–91; Suto 1996: 11.

Vourlia 1: the wall to the S of the circuit from the E (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

87. VOURLIA 2 (Βουρλιά)

Vourlia 2: the W wall from the S (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Ancient name: Altitude: 254 mamsl Location: C. 120m E of Vourlia 1 (86). Type: rectangular tower Approximate size: 9.2 by 9.5m Masonry: roughly hewn coursed polygonal with rough surfaces Description: At this site, there are remains of a previously unrecorded rectangular structure, probably

Vourlia 1: the S wall from the S (above); Vourlia 1: the W wall from the N (below) (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photos by the author).

265

Catalogue: 87. Vourlia 2, 88. Xylopyrgo a tower. Measuring c. 9.2 by 9.5m, it is constructed in roughly hewn coursed polygonal masonry. The walls were built directly on the bedrock and survive up to an elevation of four courses. Finds: At this site, there are fragments of tile and unglazed pottery. Date: The date of the tower is unclear, but the masonry points to a Late Classical or a Hellenistic construction (see chapter 4). Further information: Bibliography: -

88. XYLOPYRGO (Ξυλόπυργο, Παλαιόπυργος, Τσιόροβος, Ζάβιτσα)

Xylopyrgo: plan (Goester 1993: 90, fig. 16).

Ancient name: Altitude: 667 mamsl Location: C. 250m W of the saddle between the Zavitsa and the Skampani mountains. Type: circular tower Approximate size: 6.5m in diameter Masonry: roughly hewn coursed polygonal with rough surfaces Description: This circular tower (c. 6.5m in diameter) in roughly hewn coursed polygonal masonry survives up to an elevation of four courses. A conical rock-cut basin (c. 0.6m in diameter) is located c. 10m to the SW of the tower. Finds: The site has produced fragments of tile, sherds of coarse wares, Hellenistic pottery (found c. 50m E of the tower) and one piece of obsidian (Pritchett 1980: 118; Φάκλαρης 1990: 205; Goester 1993: 99; Shipley 1996: 276). Goester 1993: 99 further mentioned that two Classical sherds were noted by W. Wrede, possibly referring to two sherds collected at the location ‘Zavitza-Paß (zwischen Thyreatis — Loukou and Elaius) viereckiger antiker Turm’ (Brommer 1975: 179). However, since the preserved tower at Xylopyrgo is circular rather than rectangular, this description does not match the remains at the site. Date: Φάκλαρης 1990: 205; Shipley 1996: 276 suggested a construction in the second half of the 5th century BC, while the masonry may point to a Late Classical or Hellenistic date (see chapter 4). Further information: The site has good views towards the Tanos and the Xavrio valley, and is probably connected to a route over the Zavitsa pass (Tausend 2006: 129, see also chapter 6). The tower has previously been interpreted as a Spartan watch-post (Φάκλαρης 1990: 205; Shipley 1996: 276), but based on its view and the identification of the 4th-century BC Thyreatis as

Vourlia 2: the W wall from the W (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Vourlia 2: the S wall from the S (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

266

Catalogue: 88. Xylopyrgo Argive (see chapter 5), an attribution to Argos seems more likely (Balandier and Guintrand 2019: 443). Bibliography: Le Puillon de Boblaye 1836: 66; Ross 1841: 157; Curtius 1852: 371–72; Joanne 1888: 245; Frazer 1898: 305–06; Touchais 1979: 561; Pritchett 1980: 114–15,

118–19; Πέππα 1990: 172, 180–81; Φάκλαρης 1990: 203– 05; Goester 1993: 91, 99; Shipley 1996: 276; Tausend 2006: 129–30; Γρηγορακάκης 2009b: 345; Balandier and Guintrand 2019: 436, 443.

Xylopyrgo: the rock-cut basin (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Arkadia; photo by the author).

Xylopyrgo: NW side of the tower from the NW (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Arkadia; photo by the author).

Xylopyrgo: the view to the S towards the Tanos valley. The tower of Prosilia is located on the left summit of the right hill in the middle distance (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Arkadia; photo by the author).

Xylopyrgo: the view from the site to the N towards the Xavrio valley (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Arkadia; photo by the author).

267

Catalogue: 89. Agios Leonidas, 90. Akrotiri Iria 1

B. Possible fortifications in the Argolid 90. AKROTIRI IRIA 1 (Ακρωτήρι Ίρια)

89. AGIOS LEONIDAS (Άγιος Λεωνίδας)

Agios Leonidas: the blocks in situ from the SW (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Ancient name: Altitude: 136 mamsl Location: On a low hill W of the chapel of Agios Leonidas. Type: rectangular tower (?) Approximate size: Masonry: trapezoidal with rough surfaces (?) Description: At this site, at least four trapezoidal blocks survive in situ, while other blocks are scattered in the surrounding fields or were reused in terrace walls. Tausend 2006: 31 interpreted the remains as a rectangular tower, but today the site is too overgrown to verify this hypothesis. Finds: In 1937/38 K. Gebauer noted and collected Mycenaean, Geometric, Early Roman and Late Antique pottery (Jantzen 1938: 559; Brommer 1975: 177; Grigoropoulos 2011: 199, 203, 233), while Φαράκλας 1972a: E. 3.3 mentioned Late Helladic, Geometric, Classical and possibly Hellenistic sherds. Date: Although the date of the structure is unclear, the pottery suggests a use of the site in the Geometric, Classical and Hellenistic periods. Further information: The site was previously interpreted as a Classical watchtower (Foley 1988: 176; Tausend 2006: 31) or sanctuary (Φαράκλας 1972a: E. 3.3). Judging by its location on the edge of the plain of Dimaina, a use as a fortified farmstead would also be possible (see chapter 7). Bibliography: Jantzen 1938: 559; Φαράκλας 1972a: 32, Ε. 3.2–3; Brommer 1975: 177; Foley 1988: 176; Tausend 2006: 31; Grigoropoulos 2011: 199, 203, 233.

Akrotiri Iria 1: satellite image with sketch plan (Google Earth 2014).

Ancient name: Altitude: 93 mamsl Location: To the S of the cliff at the N edge of the Iria peninsula, immediately S of a modern quarry. Type: drystone circuit Approximate size: Masonry: drystone Description: A c. 2m wide drystone wall runs parallel to the cliff in the N of the peninsula. To the E, a second wall runs at approximately right angle towards the S. Suto 1996: 10 also noted two heaps of stone (c. 7m in diameter), which might be related to this structure. Finds: Date: Owing to the lack of finds, the date of these walls is uncertain. Further information: The walls are similar to the structures at Akrotiri Iria 2 (91) and both structures may belong to the same site. Bibliography: Suto 1996: 10. 268

Catalogue: 90. Akrotiri Iria 1, 91. Akrotiri Iria 2

Akrotiri Iria 1: the E wall from the NE (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

91. AKROTIRI IRIA 2 (Ακρωτήρι Ίρια) Ancient name: Altitude: 42 mamsl Location: Across the Iria peninsula. Type: drystone circuit Approximate size: Masonry: drystone Description: A c. 3m wide drystone wall runs across the narrowest point of the Iria peninsula. In the centre of the peninsula, a narrower wall runs parallel to the N of the main wall. Finds: Date: Κύρου 1990: 158 suggested a date in the 5th century BC, but owing to a lack of finds the date of the walls is uncertain. Further information: The walls are similar to the nearby structures at Akrotiri Iria 1 (90) and may belong to the same site. Bibliography: Κύρου 1990: 156–59; Suto 1996: 10.

Akrotiri Iria 2: satellite image with sketch plan (Google Earth 2014).

Akrotiri Iria 2: the wall from the N (above); Akrotiri Iria 2: the N face of the main wall (below) (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photos by the author).

Akrotiri Iria 2: the main wall and the parallel wall, looking E (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

269

Catalogue: 92. Alogomandra Kalogirou 92. ALOGOMANDRA Καλογήρου)

KALOGIROU

(Αλογομάνδρα

Ancient name: Altitude: 543 mamsl Location: On the summit of the hill Alogomandra Kalogirou. Type: drystone circuit Approximate size: 1.3ha Masonry: drystone Description: The summit of the hill Alogomandra Kalogirou is surrounded by a wide (but mostly collapsed) circuit in drystone masonry, which follows the natural contours at c. 530 mamsl. Judging by satellite images and an on-site observations, the site is divided by a central N-S wall just to the E of the hill’s summit. In the S of the circuit, there are remains of rectangular structures, but they are difficult to identify on the ground. Finds: Fragments of coarse ware pottery were observed at the site, but their date is unclear. Date: The date of the site’s construction and use is unknown. Further information: The site has good views in all directions, especially to the N across the valley between the Argolic and the Saronic Gulf. A similar drystone circuit (also of unknown date) is located on the hill Alogomandra Tyrovala (c. 2200m E of the site). This circuit is visible from Alogomandra Kalogirou, but in September 2017 could not be visited due to dogs at a nearby farm. Bibliography: -

Alogomandra Kalogirou: satellite image and sketch plan (Google Earth 2014).

Alogomandra Kalogirou: the central wall from the E (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Alogomandra Kalogirou: the view to the E. The drystone circuit of Alogomandra Tyrovala is visible in the centre of the picture (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Alogomandra Kalogirou: the N wall from the E (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

270

Catalogue: 92. Alogomandra Kalogirou , 93. Ermioni: Magoula, 94. Drymoni 2, 95. Kalkani

Alogomandra Kalogirou: the view to the NW, N and NE (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

have been used to observe the quarries or as a point of communication between the Drymoni ridge and Kleonai (Marchand 2002: 326). Bibliography: Marchand 2002: 324–26, 2013: 317.

93. ERMIONI: MAGOULA (Ερμιόνη: Μαγούλα) Ancient name: Altitude: below sea-level Location: In the NW of Potokia Bay. Type: tower (?) Approximate size: Masonry: Description: During the Southern Argolid Survey, Jameson et al. 1994: 503 noted remains of several structures, including a possible tower. Finds: Jameson et al. 1994: 502 recorded Middle Helladic, Hellenistic and Roman sherds, as well as Classical, Hellenistic and Early Roman tile. Date: The date of this structure is uncertain. Further information: Further submerged remains in the area include a Roman private estate, a possible road, a circular area (perhaps a threshing floor), and an E-shaped building (Jameson et al. 1994: 502–03). The site may have served as Hermion’s S harbour (Jameson and Jameson 1950: 25, 50; Jameson et al. 1994: 503). Bibliography: Jameson and Jameson 1950: 49–50; Jameson et al. 1994: 502–03.

95. KALKANI (Καλκανί) Ancient name: Altitude: 178 mamsl Location: On a hill above the NE edge of the Argive plain, SW of Mykinai (51). Type: rectangular tower (?) Approximate size: 6 by 7m Masonry: carefully fitted polygonal with rough surfaces Description: At this site, there are remains of a rectangular building (c. 6 by 7m) in conglomerate blocks. Today, only one course survives. Finds: Date: The date of the structure is unclear. While Jansen 2002: 69 tentatively suggested a Mycenaean date, Wace 1932: 123, 1949: 42 argued for a construction in the Medieval or modern period. Further information: The site has a good view over the Argive plain and might have served as a watchtower, but an interpretation as a farmstead is also possible (Jansen 2002: 69–70). Bibliography: Steffen and Lolling 1884: 18; Wace 1932: 123, 1949: 42; Jansen 2002: 68–70; Iakovides and French 2003: 46.

94. DRYMONI 2 (Δρυμώνι, Quarry Tower 2) Ancient name: Altitude: 385 mamsl Location: C. 70m SE of the chapel on the Drymoni hill. Type: rectangular tower (?) Approximate size: at least 4.2 by 5m Masonry: drystone Description: At this site, Marchand 2002: 324–25 recorded the E and S walls of a rectangular drystone structure, measuring at least 4.2 by 5m. Only a single course survives and it remains unclear if it could have supported a structure of any great height. Finds: Marchand 2002: 325 noted sheds nearby, including Classical or Hellenistic black-glazed pottery. Date: Based on the pottery, Marchand 2002: 325 suggested a date in the Classical or the Hellenistic period. Further information: The structure has a good view of the nearby quarries and the plain of Kleonai. It may

Kalkani: the E wall from the E (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

271

Catalogue: 95. Kalkani, 96. Kapsala , 97. Karya

Kalkani: the view to the NW and N (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Kalkani: the view to the S and SW (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

96. KAPSALA (Καψάλα) Finds: Iakovides and French 2003: 41 recorded fragments of tile, as well as Archaic and Classical pottery. Date: The date of the structure is unclear, but the pottery suggests a use of the site in the Archaic and the Classical period. Further information: Steffen and Lolling 1884: 18 connected the site with an ancient road N of Mykinai (51). Bibliography: Steffen and Lolling 1884: 18; Jansen 2002: 77; Iakovides and French 2003: 41.

Kapsala: the site from the NW (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

97. KARYA (Καρυά, Κάστρο, Παναγία)

Ancient name: Altitude: 225 mamsl Location: On the W spur of the Kapsala ridge, N of Mykinai (51). Type: rectangular tower (?) Approximate size: Masonry: Description: At this site, Steffen and Lolling 1884: 18 recorded remains of an ancient tower and a terrace wall, but only few blocks of the structure are visible today.

Ancient name: Altitude: 959 mamsl Location: C. 900m SW of the village Karya, N of the chapel of the Panagia and N of the modern road over the Artemision mountains. Type: rectangular tower (?) Approximate size: Masonry: roughly hewn polygonal with rough surfaces Description: Πίκουλας 1995: 207 suggested that the E corner of a Byzantine fortification at this site may incorporate parts of an ancient tower, but it is unclear if the polygonal blocks in the later walls are in situ. 272

Catalogue: 97. Karya, 98. Kondyli To the N of the Byzantine fortification, there is a c. 0.2m deep rock-cut basin (c. 0.55m in diameter). Finds: Date: The date of the site is uncertain. Further information: The site has been interpreted as a watchtower on a road between Argos and Mantineia (Πίκουλας 1995: 207; Tausend 2006: 93). Bibliography: Πέππα 1990: 123; Πίκουλας 1991: 257 (no. 21), 1995: 206–07; Tausend 2006: 93.

Description: The remains at this site are not well preserved, but probably belong to two rectangular buildings. The first building, measuring at least 4.2 by 5.2m, is constructed in large polygonal limestone blocks, but only traces of the S and W walls are visible. The second building is located immediately to the E. Measuring c. 4.2 by 5.8m, it follows the same alignment as the W building, but is constructed in less substantial masonry. Finds: K. Gebauer collected Late Roman and Late Antique sherds at this site (Brommer 1975: 172; Grigoropoulos 2011: 235). Date: The date of this site is uncertain. Further information: Tausend 2006: 152 described the site as an ancient watchtower on the coastal road between Asini and the plain of Kantia, but (given the current state of preservation) this interpretation is uncertain. Bibliography: Gebauer 1940: 181; Brommer 1975: 172; Tausend 2006: 152–53; Grigoropoulos 2011: 235

Karya: the S wall of the Byzantine fortification from the S (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Kondyli: the S wall of the W building from the SE (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author). Karya: the rock-cut basin (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

98. KONDYLI (Κονδύλι, Βιβάρι) Ancient name: Altitude: 15 mamsl Location: On the summit of a low coastal hill above the bay of Vivari, S of the modern road and c. 1300m to the E of the village Vivari. Type: rectangular tower with outbuildings (?) Approximate size: at least 4.2 by 5.2m Masonry: roughly hewn polygonal with rough surfaces (?)

Kondyli: the S wall of the E building from the SW (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

273

Catalogue: 99. Limanaki 2 , 100. Lygourio 2, 101. Malantrenion Description: The remains at this site consist of a c. 15m long curved wall in uncoursed polygonal masonry. It survives up to an elevation of three courses and has been incorporated into a modern wall. Finds: Παπαχατζής 1976: 197 noted Classical sherds on the hill above, while Κριτζάς 1972b: 217 recorded a possible weight block c. 600m to the SE. Date: The masonry could suggest a Hellenistic construction date (see chapter 4). Further information: For the site’s possible identification with ancient Λήσσα, see chapters 5 and 6. Bibliography: Καββαδίας 1885: 21–23; Frazer 1898: 232– 33; Frickenhaus and Müller 1911: 30; Παπαδημητρίoυ 1951: 212; Κριτζάς 1972b: 219; Παπαχατζής 1976: 197–99; Foley 1988: 186–87; Πιτερός 2005f: 268.

99. LIMANAKI 2 (Λιμανάκι) Ancient name: Altitude: 14 mamsl Location: On the SW slope of a small coastal hill, W of the bay of Poros. Type: rectangular tower (?) Approximate size: Masonry: carefully fitted polygonal with rough surfaces Description: The site is currently too overgrown to determine the shape or size of the building remains. Only two courses of polygonal masonry are visible. Finds: Date: The date of this structure is uncertain, but the masonry may tentatively suggest a Late Classical or a Hellenistic construction (see chapter 4). Further information: Γιαννοπούλου 2009: 534; Fouquet 2017: 282 interpreted the site as a Troizenian fortification protecting the harbour at Pogon. Like Limanaki 1, Limanaki 2 could be the site refered to as ‘ruined fort’ in R. Chandler’s 1776 map of the straits of Poros (Chandler 1776: 210). Bibliography: Chandler 1776: 210; Leake 1830b: 449; Le Puillon de Boblaye 1836: 57; Curtius 1852: 444; Κονσολάκη-Γιαννοπούλου 2003: 160–61; Γιαννοπούλου 2009: 534; Fouquet 2017: 282.

Lygourio 2: the W part of the wall from the S (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

101. MALANTRENION (Μαλαντρένιον, Καστράκι Στέρνας) Ancient name: Altitude: 161 mamsl Location: On a low hill c. 400m E of the Inachos and c. 100m E of the modern road between Argos and Sterna. Type: rectangular tower (?) Approximate size: Masonry: roughly hewn polygonal with rough surfaces Description: The remains at this site consist of the W and E walls of a rectangular structure. They survive up to an elevation of three courses and are constructed in polygonal limestone and conglomerate blocks. Today, the site is heavily overgrown, so that neither the sketch plan published by Πέππα 1990: pl. 6 nor the identification as an ancient tower could be verified. Finds: The site has produced unglazed and black-glazed pottery (mostly Late Classical and Hellenistic, but also Late Roman and Byzantine), fragments of tile, and the

Limanaki 2: the site from the N (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Piraeus and the Islands; photo by the author).

100. LYGOURIO 2 (Λυγουριό) Ancient name: Λήσσα (?) Altitude: 386 mamsl Location: On the S slope of the hill within the village Lygourio, c. 60m S of the church Agion Taxiarchon. Type: fortified settlement (?) Approximate size: Masonry: carefully fitted uncoursed polygonal with rough surfaces 274

Catalogue: 101. Malantrenion, 102. Marmaralono Agiou Petrou, 103. Perasphalktra lower stone of a conglomerate olive mill (Pritchett 1980: 19; Πίκουλας 1995: 193, 366). Date: The finds attest a use of the site in the Classical and Hellenistic periods, while the masoney may point to a Late Classical or a Hellenistic construction date (see chapter 4). Further information: Bibliography: Le Puillon de Boblaye 1836: 45; Ross 1841: 138; Curtius 1852: 415; Forchhammer 1857: 7; Frazer 1898: 216; Blümner and Hitzig 1899: 600; Meyer 1927: 2499–2500; Pritchett 1980: 17–19; Πέππα 1990: 141– 42; Πίκουλας 1995: 192–93, 366; Tausend 2006: 78. Further images: Figure 7.13 d.

Rhomaios 1908: 178 noted a pyxis, a jug and a hydria, as well as several pithoi. Date: The pottery indicates a 3rd-century BC construction date (Φάκλαρης 1990: 128; Shipley 1996: 280). Further information: The width of the walls suggests that the building originally carried a second storey, but its function is unclear. It has been interpreted as a sanctuary (Curtius 1852: 383; Σακελλάριος 1853: 407– 10; Jochmus 1857: 41, rejected by Rhomaios 1908: 177, 180), and more recently as a residential site with a tower (Φάκλαρης 1990: 128; Shipley 1996: 280). A kiln (probably Hellenistic) was excavated c. 30m from the site (Rhomaios 1908: 178–84). Bibliography: Le Puillon de Boblaye 1836: 67; Curtius 1852: 383; Σακελλάριος 1853: 407; Jochmus 1857: 41; Rhomaios 1908: 177; Walker 1936: 56–57; Φάκλαρης 1990: 127–29; Shipley 1996: 280.

Malantrenion: the W wall from the NW (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Marmaralono Agiou Petrou: the SE wall from the SE (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Arkadia; photo by the author).

102. MARMARALONO AGIOU PETROU (Μαρμαράλωνο Αγίου Πέτρου) Ancient name: Altitude: 928 mamsl Location: On a ridge NE of the Koromplias river and c. 2000m S of modern Agios Petros. Type: rectangular tower (?) Approximate size: 15 by 15m Masonry: Description: At this site, there are remains of a square building measuring c. 15 by 15m. Its walls are c. 1m wide and survive up to an elevation of two courses, but owing to dense vegetation, the masonry style is difficult to identify. The building was accessible through a c. 1.8m wide entrance in the E. An E-W crosswall divides the interior of the building into two areas of similar sizes. C. 15m below the site, Φάκλαρης 1990: 128 noted the foundations of a c. 0.7m wide wall. Finds: The pottery recorded at the site comprises of black-glazed and unglazed sherds, mainly dating to the 3rd century BC (Φάκλαρης 1990: 128; Shipley 1996: 280).

103. PERASPHALKTRA (Περασφάλκτρα) Ancient name: Altitude: 172 mamsl Location: On the summit of the Perasphalktra hill, N of the Kalkani hill. Type: rectangular tower (?) Approximate size: at least 4.8m Masonry: Description: This site is very overgrown, but nevertheless it is possible to make out remains of three walls (c. 1.5m wide). The first wall (c. 17.4m long) runs approximately NW-SE and appears to form the E wall of a large structure. In the N, it meets the second wall (c. 4.8m long) at right angle. The third wall is located c. 3.25m S of this N wall. 275

Catalogue: 103. Perasphalktra, 104. Skala 1 Finds: Date: The date of this structure is unclear. Further information: The site has a good view of the Argive plain and has been interpreted as a farmhouse with a tower (Jansen 2002: 71). Bibliography: Steffen and Lolling 1884: fig. 1; Jansen 2002: 70–71; Iakovides and French 2003: 44.

104. SKALA 1 (Σκάλα) Ancient name: Altitude: 599 mamsl Location: On the summit of the Skala hill above the Benteni valley, c. 850m N of the village Kanapitsa. Type: drystone circuit Approximate size: 0.25ha Masonry: drystone Description: While the E of the site is naturally protected by the steep Benteni valley, the N, W and S were fortified with a substantial drystone wall. This wall has now largely collapsed. The interior of the circuit is currently very overgrown, so that no internal structures could be identified. Finds: Two sherds of coarse pottery were found at the site, but their date is uncertain. Date: The date of the site’s construction and use is unclear. Further information: The site has a good view of the Benteni valley, and forms part of a cluster of intervisible fortifications on the southern border of the Epidauria (see chapter 6). Bibliography: Further images: Figure 6.21.

Skala 1: satellite image with sketch plan (Google Earth 2014).

Skala 1: the W wall of the circuit from the SW (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Skala 1: the W wall of the circuit from the N (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

276

Catalogue: 105. Tourniki: Agios Nikolaos sta Ampelia, 106. Xydeika 105. TOURNIKI: AGIOS NIKOLAOS STA AMPELIA (Τουρνίκι: Άγιος Νικόλαος στά Αμπέλια) Ancient name: Altitude: 884 mamsl Location: To the E of the modern road between Tourniki and Kryoneri, near a spring. Type: rectangular tower (?) Approximate size: 9 by 13m Masonry: roughly hewn coursed polygonal with rough surfaces Description: At this site, there are remains of a rectangular structure (c. 9 by 13m) in coursed polygonal masonry. Finds: Πίκουλας 1995: 205 noted fragments of Laconian tile. Date: The date of this structure is unclear, but the masonry may point to a Late Classical or Hellenistic construction (see chapter 4). Further information: The site has a good view of the tower at Tourniki: Gaidourovouni (79), the pass towards Nestane and the route towards Douka Vrysi. Πίκουλας 1995: 205; Tausend 2006: 92 suggested a connection to a route between Argos and Mantineia, but it is unclear if the site should be identified as a tower. Bibliography: Αντωνακάτου 1973: 59; Πέππα 1990: 127– 28; Πίκουλας 1991: 257 (no. 19), 1995: 204–05; Tausend 2006: 92, 126.

Tourniki: Agios Nikolaos sta Ampelia: the N wall from the N (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

106. XYDEIKA (Ξυδέϊκα, Ίρια, Κατσάμπα) Ancient name: Altitude: 8 mamsl Location: On the N edge of the plain of Iria. Type: a rectangular tower with an outbuilding (or two rectangular towers) and a circuit wall Approximate size: at least 5.7m

Tourniki: Agios Nikolaos sta Ampelia: the site from the W (above); Tourniki: Agios Nikolaos sta Ampelia: the view to the N, with the site of Tourniki: Gaidourovouni on the central peak (below) (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photos by the author).

Xydeika: the E wall from the E (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author)

277

Catalogue: 106. Xydeika

Xydeika: the E wall of the N structure from the W (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Masonry: polygonal with rough surfaces (?) Description: In the W of the site, there are remains of two rectangular structures. The N structure consists of two walls (c. 2.3 and 3.4m long), that run parallel to each other (c. 2.4m apart). Their width varies between c. 0.7 and 1.2m. The S structure is located c. 17m further S. Built in polygonal masonry, it measures at least 5.7m along the S side. Both structures are partly covered with stones from the surrounding fields. From the S structure, a c. 150–200m long wall runs towards the E. It is aligned with the N side of the S structure and is constructed in double-faced drystone masonry. Finds: Date: Judging by the masonry, the structures could belong to the Late Classical or the Hellenistic period (see chapter 4). Further information: Χαριτωνίδης 1966: 131 and Φαράκλας 1972a: E. 3.10 mentioned a tower in the N of the plain (measuring 6.85 by 8.35m). Whether this is one of the structures at Xydeika remains unclear. Bibliography: Χαριτωνίδης 1966: 131; Φαράκλας 1972a: E. 3.10; Πέππα 1990: 268–69; Πιτερός 2004d: 63.

278

Catalogue: 107. Agia Paraskevi – 110. Andritsa: Koukouras

C. Fortifications and possible fortifications in the Argolid: location unknown 107. AGIA PARASKEVI (Αγία Παρασκευή)

109. ANDRITSA: ELLINIKO (Ανδρίτσα: Ελληνικό)

Ancient name: Altitude: Location: Between modern Lygourio and the entrance to the Devetzi valley, c. 20m S of the hill Agia Paraskevi. Type: rectangular tower (?) Approximate size: Masonry: Visited: Description: In 1909, W. Müller noted a corner of a building (possibly a tower) at the entrance to the Devetzi valley. This site is only mentioned in W. Müller’s unpublished notes (Wrede 1959) and could not be located. Finds: Date: The date of this structure is unclear. Further information: Bibliography: -

Ancient name: Altitude: Location: On the NW slope of the Karvya mountain, c. 100m from the modern boundary between the Argolid and Arkadia. Type: rectangular tower (?) Approximate size: 10 by 10m Masonry: Description: Ψυχογυιού 2000: 194 noted remains of a square building measuring c. 10 by 10m, perhaps a tower. Finds: Ψυχογυιού 2000: 194 recorded fragments of Corinthian tile. Date: The date of this structure is unclear. Further information: Bibliography: Ψυχογυιού 2000: 194.

108. AKOVA: CHOUNI Λιβαδιταίικα, Χούνη)

110. ANDRITSA: KOUKOURAS (Ανδρίτσα: Κούκουρας)

(Άκοβα,

Βάρδα,

Καστράκι,

Ancient name: Altitude: Location: On the NW slope of the Karvya mountain, c. 500m NNE of Andritsa: Elliniko (109). Type: circular tower (?) Approximate size: 6.5m in diameter (?) Masonry: Description: Ψυχογυιού 2000: 194 noted a circular tower (c. 6.5m in diameter), which reportedly survives up to an elevation of three courses and is constructed in similar masonry to the tower at Prosilia (66). Finds: Date: The date of this structure is unclear. Further information: The site reportedly has a good view towards Prophitis Ilias, Kiveri and Achladokampos (Ψυχογυιού 2000: 194). Bibliography: Ψυχογυιού 2000: 194.

Ancient name: Altitude: c. 170 mamsl (?) Location: On the N slope of the Xerias valley, E of the ‘Cave of Tsokri’ and c. 300m N of the modern road to Karya. Type: rectangular tower (?) Approximate size: 6.5 by 6.55m (?) Masonry: carefully fitted coursed polygonal with rough surfaces (?) Description: Πιτερός 1992: 98–99 and Πίκουλας 1995: 201 recorded remains of a rectangular tower measuring c. 6.5 by 6.6m, but the structure could not be located and may have been destroyed by recent terracing. Finds: Date: The date of this structure is unclear, but the masonry may indicate a Late Classical or a Hellenistic construction (see chapter 4). Further information: The site reportedly has a good view of Argos’ Larissa (12) and over the Xerias valley. It has been interpreted as a watchtower that guarded the route along the valley and the crossing of the Xerias (Πιτερός 1992: 98– 99; Πίκουλας 1995: 201; Tausend 2006: 91). Bibliography: Clark 1858: 114; Conze and Michaelis 1861: 22–23; Bursian 1872: 64; Αντωνακάτου 1973: 60; Πιτερός 1992: 98–99; Πίκουλας 1995: 200–01; Tausend 2006: 91. 279

Catalogue: 111. Chora – 115. Katsigiari Finds: Date: The date of this structure is unclear. Further information: Several travellers (e.g. Curtius 1852: 512; Vischer 1857: 289–90; Conze and Michaelis 1861: 22; Bursian 1872: 39) saw this tower as the socalled ‘Tower of Polygnotos’ (Plut. Arat. 6–7). Tausend 2006: 19 followed this interpretation, whereas other modern scholars (for example Bynum 1995: 60, 83–84, 99; Πίκουλας 1995: 177, 348–49) located this monument elsewhere. Bibliography: Gell 1810: 26; Leake 1830b: 386–87; Curtius 1852: 512; Vischer 1857: 289–90; Conze and Michaelis 1861: 22; Bursian 1872: 39; Frazer 1898: 86; Gauvin 1992: 136–38, figs 7.2–7.4; Bynum 1995: 59, 70; Πίκουλας 1995: 57–59, 348–49; Tausend 2006: 19.

111. CHORA (Χώρα) Ancient name: Altitude: Location: On the pass N of the Medieval site Kastro Choriza. Type: tower (?) Approximate size: 6 by 8m (?) Masonry: Description: In their unpublished notes, W. Wrede and K. Gebauer mentioned foundations of an ancient guardhouse at the pass N of Kastro Choriza (Wrede 1959). The structure is otherwise unknown and may no longer survive (Tausend 2006: 159–60). Finds: Date: The date of this structure is unclear. Further information: Bibliography: Wrede 1959; Tausend 2006: 159–60.

114. KATO PHANARI (Κάτω Φανάρι) Ancient name: Altitude: Location: On a cliff to the SW of the harbour of Kato Phanari. Type: rectangular tower (?) Approximate size: 4 by 6m (?) Masonry: Description: In his unpublished notes (Wrede 1959), K. Gebauer mentioned a polygonal tower (c. 4 by 6m) on a cliff SW of the harbour of Kato Phanari. The tower is otherwise unknown and could not be located. Finds: Date: The date of this structure is unclear. Further information: Bibliography: -

112. DERVENAKIA (Δερβενάκια) Ancient name: Altitude: Location: NE of the Tretos pass. Type: tower (?) Approximate size: Masonry: Description: Gauvin 1992: 136–38, figs 7.2–7.4 mapped an ancient tower NE of the Tretos pass, but did not publish any information on the site’s location, layout or preservation. Finds: Date: The date of this structure is unclear. Further information: Bibliography: Gauvin 1992: 136–38, figs 7.2–7.4.

115. KATSIGIARI (Κατσιγιάρι) Ancient name: Altitude: 49 mamsl (?) Location: On a low hill c. 3850m NW of Ermioni. Type: rectangular tower with a outbuilding (?) Approximate size: 5 by 5.75m (?) Masonry: Description: Jameson et al. 1994: 500 noted two rectangular structures at this site: a larger building (c. 4.6 by 10m) and a smaller building with a crosswall (c. 5 by 5.75m). Today, the area is fenced off, so that the site was impossible to visit. Judging by its size and layout, the smaller structure could be an ancient tower, but it is unclear if the walls were substantial enough to carry an upper storey.

113. ELLINON LITHARI (Ελλήνων Λιθάρι) Ancient name: Altitude: Location: NW of the Tretos pass. Type: tower (?) Approximate size: Masonry: Description: NW of the Tretos pass, several 19thcentury travellers (Gell 1810: 26; Leake 1830b: 386–87; Curtius 1852: 512; Vischer 1857: 289–90; Conze and Michaelis 1861: 22; Bursian 1872: 39; Frazer 1898: 86) noted a possible ancient tower, which probably no longer survives. A ‘Pyrgos’ mentioned by Steffen and Lolling 1884: 12 might be the same structure. 280

Catalogue: 115. Katsigiari – 119. Moni Panagias Agnountos Finds: Jameson et al. 1994: 501; Kardulias and Runnels 1995: 130 recorded fragments of roof tiles, sherds of black-glazed and unglazed pottery (mostly Classical, Hellenistic and Late Roman, but also Medieval and modern), two press weights, and two rotary querns (probably Late Roman and Medieval or modern). Date: The date of the structures is unclear. Further information: Jameson et al. 1994: 500 interpreted the site as a farmstead. Bibliography: Jameson et al. 1994: 500–01; Kardulias and Runnels 1995: 130.

Bibliography: Πίκουλας 1991: 257 (no. 17), 1992: 230– 31, 1995: 214–15; Tausend 2006: 125.

118. METOCHI (Μετόχι) Ancient name: Altitude: 15 mamsl (?) Location: On a slope c. 200m NE of Metochi Bay. Type: rectangular tower (?) Approximate size: 8 by 9m Masonry: Description: At this site, Jameson et al. 1994: 431 noted a rectangular structure (c. 8 by 9m), but today the area is fenced off. The structure could be an ancient tower, but it is unclear if the walls were substantial enough to support an upper storey. Finds: Jameson et al. 1994: 431 recorded black-glazed and unglazed sherds (mainly Classical and Hellenistic, but also Early Helladic and Late Roman), fragments of tile, three pieces of obsidian and one possible piece of ancient glass. Date: Jameson et al. 1994: 431 suggested a Classical or a Hellenistic date. Further information: Jameson et al. 1994: 431 interpreted the site as a farmstead. Bibliography: Rudolph 1974a: 107; Jameson et al. 1994: 431.

116. KORONI (Κορώνη) Ancient name: Altitude: Location: On the E edge of a hill c. 1700m SW of the Asklepieion and c. 3000m SE of Lygourio. Type: tower (?) Approximate size: Masonry: Description: Φαράκλας 1972a: E. 3.5 noted a building, perhaps a tower, but this structure could not be located. Finds: Φαράκλας 1972a: E. 3.5 recorded Classical, Hellenistic and perhaps Roman sherds. Date: The date of this structure is unclear. Further information: The remains may belong to a settlement, a fortification or a sanctuary (Φαράκλας 1972a: E. 3.5). Bibliography: Φαράκλας 1972a: E. 3.5.

119. MONI PANAGIAS AGNOUNTOS (Μονή Παναγίας Αγνούντος) 117. KRYA VRYSI: MISORRACHI (Κρύα Βρύση: Μισορράχι)

Ancient name: Altitude: Location: On a hill NW of the modern road between Palaia Epidavros and Corinth. Type: rectangular tower (?) Approximate size: 7.25 b 7.25m (?) Masonry: Description: Πιτερός 1995d: 113 noted up to six courses of a rectangular tower (c. 7.25 by 7.25m). Owing to several dogs at a nearby farmstead, it was impossible to visit the site. Finds: Date: Πιτερός 1995d: 113 suggested a date in the 4th century BC. Further information: The site has been interpreted as a border fortification between Corinth and Epidauros (Πιτερός 1995d: 113; Tausend 2006: 33–34). Bibliography: Πιτερός 1995d: 113; Tausend 2006: 33–34.

Ancient name: Altitude: c. 450 mamsl (?) Location: At the confluence of two streams W of the site Krya Vrysi: Marmarakia (43). Type: rectangular tower (?) Approximate size: at least 2 by 5m (?) Masonry: Description: Πίκουλας 1995: 215, recorded a possible rectangular tower (at least 2 by 5m). Today, the area is heavily overgrown and the remains could not be located. Finds: Date: The date of this structure is unclear. Further information: The site reportedly has a visual connection to the tower at Krya Vrysi: Marmarakia (43) (Πίκουλας 1995: 215). Tausend 2006: 125 suggested that it may have been connected to a road through the valley. 281

Catalogue: 120. Nea Epidavros: Brinia – 124. Stena Description: Gauvin 1992: 136–38, figs 7.2–7.4 mapped an ancient tower SE of the Tretos pass, but did not publish any more detailed information on the structure’s location, layout or preservation. Finds: Date: The date of this structure is unclear. Further information: Bibliography: Gauvin 1992: 136–38, figs 7.2–7.4.

120. NEA EPIDAVROS: BRINIA (Νέα Επίδαυρος: Μπρινία) Ancient name: Altitude: Location: In an olive grove at the site Brinia. Type: fortified settlement (?) Approximate size: Masonry: Description: Πιτερός 2004c: 58 reported disturbed remains of a fortification at this site. Finds: Two cist graves (possibly Hellenistic) were found nearby (Πιτερός 2004c: 58–59). Date: Πιτερός 2004c: 58–59 suggested a Hellenistic date. Further information: This site may be identical with Pigadaki (123) (described by Φαράκλας 1972a: E. 3.2). Bibliography: Πιτερός 2004c: 58–59.

123. PIGADAKI (Πηγαδάκι) Ancient name: Altitude: Location: On the W border of the plain of Dimaina, c. 1500m NW of Dimaina. Type: fortified settlement (?) Approximate size: Masonry: polygonal (?) Description: Φαράκλας 1972a: E. 3.2 noted remains of a polygonal wall. Finds: Φαράκλας 1972a: E. 3.2 recorded Classical and Hellenistic sherds, as well as a column. Date: The date of this structure is unclear. Further information: The site may be identical with Nea Epidavros: Brinia (120) (described by Πιτερός 2004c: 58–59). Bibliography: Φαράκλας 1972a: Ε. 3.2; Foley 1988: 183; Tausend 2006: 32.

121. NEA EPIDAVROS: PALATIA (Νέα Επίδαυρος: Παλάτια) Ancient name: Altitude: Location: 2000m S of Maleviti, at the S entrance to the plain of Dimaina. Type: rectangular tower (?) Approximate size: 7.7 by 8.3m Masonry: Description: Αρχοντίδου-Αργύρη 1977a: 49 noted a rectangular building (c. 7.7 by 8.3m), which reportedly survived up to an elevation of c. 1.7m and had been incorporated into a later building. A c. 0.7m wide entrance was located in the N. Finds: Hellenistic sherds were found nearby (Αρχοντίδου-Αργύρη 1977a: 49). Date: Αρχοντίδου-Αργύρη 1977a: 49 suggested a Hellenistic date. Further information: The site has been interpreted as a fort guarding the S entrance to the plain of Dimaina (Αρχοντίδου-Αργύρη 1977a: 49). Bibliography: Αρχοντίδου-Αργύρη 1977a: 49; Foley 1988: 192. Tausend 2006: 31 erroneously identified the site with Kampia (32).

124. STENA (Στενά) Ancient name: Altitude: Location: On a hill between Lygourio and the Asklepieion. Type: two towers (?) Approximate size: Masonry: Description: This site is only mentioned by Gell 1810: 103, who noted two ancient towers. Finds: Date: The date of these structures is unclear. Further information: One of the towers could be the rectangular structure at Koroni mentioned by Φαράκλας 1972a: E. 3.5. Bibliography: Gell 1810: 103, 1817: 187, 1829: 82; Tausend 2006: 165.

122. PAPOUTSAIIKA (Παπουτσαίικα) Ancient name: Altitude: Location: SE of the Tretos pass. Type: tower (?) Approximate size: Masonry: 282

Catalogue: 125. Strongylo – 127. Zogka: Pyrgos It is therefore unclear if a third tower does exist on the Zavitsa ridge and (if it does) whether it is located at the site noted in the Laconia Rural Sites Project. Finds: Date: Shipley 1996: 276 tentatively suggested a Classical or Hellenistic date. Further information: Bibliography: Shipley 1996: 276.

125. STRONGYLO (Στρογγυλό) Ancient name: Altitude: Location: In the valley E of the Polyphengo mountain. Type: fort (?) Approximate size: Masonry: Description: Russell 1924: 44 noted a c. 17m long wall, possibly part of a fort. Finds: Date: The date of this structure is unclear. Further information: The site is only mentioned by Russell 1924: 44 and could not be located by Pritchett 1969: 98 or Πίκουλας 1995: 229. It could be identical with Tourkovrysi (78) or could be another site, which no longer survives. Bibliography: Russell 1924: 44; Pritchett 1969: 97–98; Πίκουλας 1995: 229; Tausend 2006: 60.

127. ZOGKA: PYRGOS (Ζόγκα: Πύργος) Ancient name: Altitude: Location: In the Kakorema valley, S of the village Zogka. Type: rectangular tower (?) Approximate size: 6 by 8m (?) Masonry: carefully fitted polygonal with rough surfaces (?) Description: In 1990, this rectangular tower still survived up to an elevation of three courses (Πίκουλας 1995: 221), but it could not be located in August 2014 or in April 2016. The remains may either be hidden by the dense vegetation or may have been destroyed by recent terracing. Finds: Pečírka 1973: 123; Πίκουλας 1995: 221 noted sherds of pottery nearby. Date: The date of this structure is unclear, but its masonry could point to a Late Classical or a Hellenistic construction (see chapter 4). Further information: Pečírka 1973: 123 suggested an interpretation as a farmhouse, Tausend 2006: 122 as a patrol-station for a nearby road. Bibliography: Lord 1941: 109; Young 1956: 144; Pečírka 1973: 123; Πίκουλας 1991: 257 (no. 14), 1992: 230–31, 1995: 220–21; Tausend 2006: 122, 125.

126. ZAVITSA (Ζάβιτσα) Ancient name: Altitude: 945 mamsl (?) Location: On the Zavitsa mountain, c. 400m S of the chapel of Prophitis Ilias. Type: tower (?) Approximate size: Masonry: Description: The catalogue of archaeological sites compiled for the Laconia Rural Sites Project includes a tower on the Zavitsa mountain. According to the catalogue, the tower is located at an altitude of 945 mamsl and lies c. 400m S of the chapel Prophitis Ilias (Shipley 1996: 276). However, there are several issues with this description. Firstly, the location c. 400m S of Prophitis Ilias does not lie at an altitude of 945 mamsl, but at around 918 mamsl. Secondly, the catalogue mentions a total of three towers on the Zavitsa ridge: ‘AA295. Xylópyrgo’, ‘AA297. Závitsa’ and ‘AA301. Anemómylos, Prosília’. Based on the bibliography cited for each tower, ‘AA295. Xylópyrgo’ and ‘AA301. Anemómylos, Prosília’ can safely be identified as the towers at Xylopyrgo (88) and Prosilia (66). For the tower ‘AA297. Závitsa’ the bibliography includes Christien 1989: 79, who mentioned ‘deux tours, sur la ligne de crête, permettant de surveiller l’Argolide’ and Spyropoulos and Christien 1985: 456, who described the tower as ‘situe directement au passage du col du mont Zavitsa’. Neither of the two descriptions fits the site 400m S of Prophitis Ilias, which is not situated on a pass and is hidden from the Argive plain by the main summit of the Zavitsa mountain. 283

Catalogue: 128. Agios Dimitrios – 132. Dimaina

D. Fortifications and possible fortifications in the Argolid: now destroyed

Approximate size: Masonry: drystone Description: Steffen and Lolling 1884: 16 noted a drystone circuit on the summit and S slope of the Aitolithi hill. The site can be identified owing to a distinctive outcrop of rocks, but no traces of the drystone circuit survive today. Finds: Date: The date of this structure is unclear. Further information: Due to the building technique and the lack of internal buildings, Steffen and Lolling 1884: 16 suggested that the circuit may have been a temporary structure. Bibliography: Steffen and Lolling 1884: 16.

128. AGIOS DIMITRIOS (Άγιος Δημήτριος, Μετόχι) Ancient name: Altitude: Location: Near the church of Agios Nikolaos at Agios Dimitrios. Type: tower (?) Approximate size: Masonry: Description: Two ancient doorjambs, part of a lintel and several other worked blocks (perhaps originally part of a tower) were built into the walls of the church of Agios Nikolaos (Πιτερός 2005e: 267–68). Finds: Date: The date of this structure is unclear. Further information: Bibliography: Πιτερός 2005e: 267–68.

131. Dalamanara (Δαλαμανάρα) Ancient name: Altitude: Location: Near the church of Agios Georgios at Dalamanara. Type: rectangular tower with a tapering base (?) Approximate size: Masonry: Description: Several travellers’ reports (collected by Πιτερός 1997e: 362–67, 1997f: 490) mention a ‘pyramid’ near the church of Agios Georgios at Dalamanara, but the structure on longer survives. Finds: Date: The similarities to the towers at Elliniko: Kephalari (23) and Lygourio 1 (49) suggest a date in the late 5th or the 4th century BC (Πιτερός 1997e: 365–67). Further information: The structure could be the ‘pyramid’ mentioned by Paus. 2.25.7 (Πιτερός 1997e: 362–67, 1997f: 490). Bibliography: Λάζος 1995: 58–61; Πιτερός 1997e: 362– 67, 1997f: 490.

129. AGIOS IOANNIS 1 (Άγιος Ιωάννης) Ancient name: Altitude: Location: N of the church of Agios Ioannis and the village Limnes. Type: rectangular tower (?) Approximate size: Masonry: Description: Wells 2002a: 74 mentioned a nowdestroyed ‘rectangular structure built of rough ashlar masonry with drafted edges’, presumably a tower. Finds: Date: The date of this structure is unclear. Furter information: The site was located near a spring and on the route between the Korinthia and the plain of Prosymna (Wells 2002a: 74). Bibliography: Wells 2002a: 74; Penttinen 2005: 112, 115.

130. AITOLITHI (Αητολίθι, Χέρωμα)

132. DIMAINA (Δήμαινα)

Ancient name: Altitude: 270 mamsl Location: On the E summit and the S slope of the Aitolithi hill (today also known as Cheroma), c. 1200m N of the village Phichtia. Type: drystone circuit

Ancient name: Altitude: Location: On the NE edge of the plain of Dimaina, c. 1500m NE of the modern village and c. 1000m NW of Agios Leonidas. 284

Catalogue: 132. Dimaina – 136. Monastiraki Finds: Jameson et al. 1994: 451 noted Classical, Hellenistic and Late Roman sherds, as well as fragments of tile and a piece of ancient pebble-cement. Date: The date of this structures is unclear. Further information: Jameson et al. 1994: 450 classified the site as a farmstead. Bibliography: Jameson et al. 1994: 450–51.

Type: rectangular tower (?) Approximate size: 10.5m (?) Masonry: Description: Φαράκλας 1972a: E. 3.3 noted a rectangular tower (c. 10.5m wide) on the NE edge of the plain of Dimaina, but the site could not be located in August 2014 or April 2016. As Tausend 2006: 31–32 suggested, it may have been destroyed through the intensive agricultural use of the plain. Finds: Φαράκλας 1972a: E. 3.3 noted Classical sherds, as well as pottery that might belong to the Hellenistic and Roman periods. Date: The date of this structure is unclear. Further information: Bibliography: Φαράκλας 1972a: Ε. 3.3; Foley 1988: 176; Tausend 2006: 31–32.

135. MATHI (Μάθη) Ancient name: Altitude: Location: Near a spring on the N slope of the Prophitis Ilias hill. Type: rectangular tower with a circuit (?) Approximate size: Masonry: Description: Steffen and Lolling 1884: 18 noted remains of a polygonal tower and a ‘cyclopean’ courtyard near a spring on the N slope of the Prophitis Ilias hill, but in April 2016 these structures could not be located. The landscape around the spring has been terraced in more recent times, which could have led to the destruction of the site. Finds: Date: The date of this structure is unclear. Further information: The site may have been a fortified farmhouse (Jansen 2002: 87). Bibliography: Steffen and Lolling 1884: 18; Jansen 2002: 86–87.

133. KODELES (Κοδέλες, Μονή Αγίου Δημητρίου Καρακαλά) Ancient name: Altitude: Location: SE of the monastery of Agios Dimitrios and S of the modern road between Agios Dimitrios and Nea Tiryntha. Type: tower (?) Approximate size: Masonry: Description: Πιτερός 2004b: 58 noted two large limestone blocks and a threshold (not in situ), which may be part of a destroyed tower. Finds: Date: Πιτερός 2004b: 58 suggested a date in the 4th or the 3rd century BC. Further information: Bibliography: Πιτερός 2004b: 58.

136. MONASTIRAKI (Μοναστηράκι) Ancient name: Altitude: Location: C. 400m E of the modern village Monastiraki. Type: rectangular tower (?) Approximate size: Masonry: Description: Steffen and Lolling 1884 mapped an ancient tower c. 400m E of the village Priphtani (modern Monastiraki). They did not discuss the site in detail, and the remains are no longer visible (Jansen 2002: 94). Finds: Date: The date of this structure is unclear. Further information: For Jansen 2002: 94, the site’s location argues for an identification as an agricultural rather than as a military site. Bibliography: Steffen and Lolling 1884; Jansen 2002: 93–94.

134. KORAKIA (Κορακιά) Ancient name: Altitude: 12 mamsl Location: On a gentle slope on the mainland opposite the island Korakia. Type: two towers (?) Approximate size: Masonry: ashlar (?) Description: Jameson et al. 1994: 450–51 recorded at least two possible towers in ashlar masonry, which have since been destroyed.

285

Catalogue: 137. Myloi: Kalamaki – 139. Petrothalassa: Kypraiou 137. MYLOI: Φραγκοκλησιά)

KALAMAKI

(Μύλοι:

Καλαμάκι,

138. PETROTHALASSA (Πετροθάλασσα, Θαλασσόπετρα) Ancient name: Altitude: at sea-level Location: W of a stream, on the coast c. 5500m NE of Porto Cheli. Type: fortified settlement (?) Approximate size: Masonry: ashlar (?) Description: At this site, Φαράκλας 1973: E. 2.3 noted a double-faced ashlar wall, which may belong to a fortification. An ancient well (lined with ashlar blocks) was recorded to the E of the wall (Φαράκλας 1973: E. 2.3; Jameson et al. 1994: 483). By September 2016, the well was the only archaeological feature visible at this site, while the ashlar wall had probably been destroyed to make way for fields and houses. Finds: Jameson et al. 1994: 483–84 recorded sherds of Classical, Hellenistic, Early Roman and Late Roman pottery, fragments of tile, a piece of Roman brick, four pieces of sculpted marble, two Roman rotary querns, further quern fragments and a fragmentary limestone column. Φαράκλας 1973: E. 2.3 also noted Archaic and Classical pottery. Date: The date of this structure is unclear. Further information: The ashlar wall may belong either to a fortified settlement or (as the fragments of sculpture suggest) to a sanctuary (Jameson et al. 1994: 483–84). Bibliography: Jameson and Jameson 1950: 52–57; Φαράκλας 1973: 23, E. 2.3; Foley 1988: 196; Jameson et al. 1994: 483–84.

Myloi: Kalamaki: plan (Lord 1941: 107, fig. 21; courtesy of the Trustees of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens).

Ancient name: Altitude: Location: S of the Xerias river, c. 100m W of the modern road to Kalamaki. Type: rectangular tower Approximate size: 7.1 by 7.1m Masonry: polygonal (?) Description: Lord 1941: 107–08 recorded a rectangular structure (c. 7.1 by 7.1m) in polygonal masonry with an entrance in the E. The site was preserved up to an elevation of two courses, but by April 2016 had completely disappeared. Finds: The finds recorded at this site include sherds of Late Roman pottery, fragments of tile and a circular block, probably part of an olive mill (Lord 1941: 108; Πίκουλας 1995: 213). Date: The date of this structure is unclear, but the masonry may point to a Late Classical or a Hellenistic construction (see chapter 4). Further information: The site has been interpreted as a farmhouse (Πίκουλας 1995: 213) or as a military structure on the entrance to the Argive plain (Tausend 2006: 128–29). Bibliography: Lord 1939: 80, 1941: 103, 107–09, 111–12; Young 1956: 144; Nowicka 1975: 42, 77, 142; Πίκουλας 1991: 257 (no. 12), 1995: 212–13; Tausend 2006: 128–29.

139. PETROTHALASSA: KYPRAIOU (Πετροθάλασσα: Κυπραίου) Ancient name: Altitude: 40 mamsl Location: On a small hill c. 5500m NE of Porto Cheli and c. 800m from the sea. Type: fortified settlement (?) Approximate size: Masonry: Description: A double-faced wall (possibly from a fortification) was noted between 1970 and 1972, but has since been destroyed (Jameson et al. 1994: 484). Finds: Jameson et al. 1994: 484 recorded Early Helladic, Classical, Hellenistic and Roman sherds, as well as five pieces of obsidian, an andesite olive mill and a limestone weight block. Date: The date of this structure is unclear, but the finds could suggest a Classical date (Jameson et al. 1994: 484). Further information: Bibliography: Jameson et al. 1994: 484. 286

Catalogue: 140. Porto Ydra – 143. Spathovouni Description: A Medieval tower on the summit of the hill incorporates several reused ancient blocks, which could be part of an ancient fortification. Finds: Pritchett 1980: 15 and Πίκουλας 1995: 189 noted Prehistoric, Hellenistic, Roman, Byzantine and modern sherds, as well as fragments of tile. Date: The date of the original structure is unclear. Further information: The site might be ancient Λύρκεια (Πίκουλας 1995: 191, 263–67), which was located 60 stades from Argos (Paus. 2.25.5) and is attested as an Argive kome (SEG xvii 143 (before 222 BC)). Bibliography: Ross 1841: 138; Leake 1846: 268; Curtius 1852: 415; Forchhammer 1857: 7; Μηλιαράκης 1886: 48; Joanne 1888: 380; Frickenhaus and Müller 1911: 24; Meyer 1927: 2499–2500; Πρωτονοταρίου – Δεϊλάκη 1971: 82–83, 1971: 83; Αντωνακάτου 1973: 62; Kritzas 1980: 196–97; Pritchett 1980: 14–15; Πέππα 1990: 142; Μπανάκα-Δημάκη 1998: 248; Πίκουλας 1995: 188–91, 293–97; Tausend 2006: 63.

140. PORTO YDRA (Πόρτο Ύδρα, Ακτή Υδρα) Ancient name: Altitude: Location: On the E slope of a coastal hill between Thermisi and Plepi. Type: circular tower (?) Approximate size: 10m in diameter (?) Masonry: ashlar (?) Description: In 1979, Jameson et al. 1994: 537 noted a circular ashlar tower (c. 10m in diameter) between Thermisi and Plepi. The area is now part of a resort hotel and the tower has probably been destroyed. Finds: Jameson et al. 1994: 537 recorded fragments of Corinthian tiles and scant pottery, including blackglazed sherds and a fragment of a pithos. Date: The date of this structure is unclear. Further information: Bibliography: McAllister 1969: 185; Jameson et al. 1994: 537.

143. SPATHOVOUNI (Σπαθοβούνι, Κοτρόνι, Κοτρώνι) 141. PROSYMNA: SM 8 (Πρόσυμνα, SM 8) Ancient name: Altitude: Location: C. 150m W of Prosymna: Pyrgouthi (69). Type: rectangular tower (?) Approximate size: 6.2m (?) Masonry: Description: Penttinen 1996b: 262 recorded a c. 6.2m long wall, possibly part of a tower, but in April 2016 this wall could not be located. Finds: Date: Based on similarities to the nearby site Prosymna: Pyrgouthi (69), Penttinen 1996b: 262 suggested a date in the late 4th century BC. Further information: Bibliography: Penttinen 1996b: 262; Wells 2002a: 73; Penttinen 2005: 112.

Spathovouni: the view to the NE, including Acrocorinth (right) (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Korinthia; photo by the author).

Ancient name: Altitude: 263 mamsl Location: On the saddle between the Kotroni hill and the Spathovouni hill, c. 1500m NE of the village Spathovouni. Type: rectangular tower (?) Approximate size: Masonry: Description: Gauvin 1992: 135 noted a rectangular tower in isodomic masonry, but the structure has largely been destroyed and only few visible blocks may still be in situ. Finds: Πίκουλας 1995: 163 noted black-glazed and unglazed pottery, while Marchand 2002: 156 saw sherds

142. SKALA 2 (Σκάλα, Σκάλα Μαλανδρενίου, Σχινοχώριο, Παλιόκαστρο Σκάλας, στο Χάνι, Κάστρο) Ancient name: Λύρκεια (?) Altitude: 128 mamsl Location: On a low hill c. 130m N of the modern road between Sterna and Koutsopodi. Type: fortified settlement (?) Approximate size: Masonry: 287

Catalogue: 143. Spathovouni – 145. Zogka: Asprorrema from the Geometric, Archaic and Classical periods, as well as fragments of tile. Date: Πίκουλας 1995: 163 suggested a construction in the 4th century BC, while the masonry might point to a date in the Classical period. Further information: The site has a good view of the surrounding landscape, including Kleonai (41), Perachora and Acrocorinth. Since the structure is only accessible from the S, it probably belonged to Kleonai rather than Corinth (Gauvin 1992: 135; Marchand 2002: 155–56, 2009b: 135–36). Gauvin 1992: 135 connected the tower to a nearby route between the Korinthia and the Argolid. Bibliography: Gauvin 1992: 135–37, figs 7.2–7.3; Stroud 1998: 240; Bynum 1995: 44; Πίκουλας 1995: 162–63; Gauvin and Morin 1997: 9; Marchand 2002: 47–48, 154– 57, 2009b: 135–36; Bonnier 2014: 156.

144. VERVERONTA (Βερβερόντα) Ancient name: Altitude: Location: In a field along the lagoon W of Porto Cheli, c. 150m from the sea. Type: rectangular tower (?) Approximate size: at least 4m Masonry: ashlar Description: Jameson et al. 1994: 536 noted a c. 4m long wall in ashlar masonry, which was destroyed shortly after 1961. Finds: Date: Jameson et al. 1994: 536 suggested a Classical or a Hellenistic date. Further information: According to Jameson et al. 1994: 536, the site may have been a farmstead. Bibliography: Jameson et al. 1994: 536.

145. ZOGKA: ASPRORREMA (Ζόγκα: Ασπρόρρεμα)

Spathovouni: two blocks, possibly in situ (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Korinthia; photo by the author).

Zogka: Asprorrema: worked blocks (not in situ) (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Ancient name: Altitude: 282 mamsl Location: On a small plateau c. 600m S of the monastery of Agios Ignatios. Type: tower (?) Approximate size: Masonry: Description: At the edge of a field, there are several large worked blocks (not in situ), which bear various cuttings, including L-shaped clamp holes. Finds: In the adjacent field, there are numerous fragments of unglazed pottery and tile. Date: The date of this structure is unclear. Further information: The site has a good view of the nearby route between the Argolid and Arkadia

Spathovouni: the view to the S, including Kleonai (41) (centre) (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Korinthia; photo by the author).

288

Catalogue: 145. Zogka: Asprorrema – 146. Zogka: Sykitsa 146. ZOGKA: SYKITSA (Ζόγκα: Συκίτσα) Ancient name: Altitude: Location: Immediately S of the modern road between Zogka and Elliniko. Type: rectangular tower (?) Approximate size: 7m (?) Masonry: Description: In 1939, Lord 1941: 109 noted a rectangular structure (c. 7 by 7m) on the old road between Argos and Tegea. By 1990, this site had been destroyed (Πίκουλας 1995: 219). Finds: Date: The date of this structure is unknown. Further information: Lord 1941: 109 interpreted the site as a fortification controlling the ancient road between the Argolid and Arkadia. Bibliography: Lord 1941: 109; Πίκουλας 1991: 257 (no. 13), 1992: 230–31, 1995: 218–19; Tausend 2006: 125.

Zogka: Asprorrema: the view to the N (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

Zogka: Asprorrema: worked blocks (not in situ) (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

(Πίκουλας 1995: 223) and has been interpreted as a watchtower (Tausend 2006: 112). Bibliography: Πίκουλας 1991: 257 (no. 15), 1992: 230– 31, 1995: 222–23; Tausend 2006: 122.

289

Catalogue: 147. Agios Ioannis 2 – 150. Asprochoma

E. Structures inconclusively or erroneously identified as ancient fortifications in the Argolid Finds: Date: Further information: Bibliography: Gauvin 1992: 136–38, figs 7.2–7.4; Πέππα 1993: 153; Bynum 1995: 110–11; Πίκουλας 1995: 51; Marchand 2002: 65, 246.

147. AGIOS IOANNIS 2 (Άγιος Ιωάννης) Ancient name: Altitude: Location: Uncertain, possibly at Lampagiana (45). Type: previously identified as a rectangular tower Approximate size: 13 by 15m (?) Masonry: Description: Φαράκλας 1973: E. 2.4 reported remains of a Classical or Hellenistic tower (c. 13 by 15m) on a coastal hill N of the Phranchthi hill. According to the bibliography provided, this report is based on Meyer 1930: 2066, who described a rectangular tower (c. 13 by 15m), and on Simpson 1965: 22, who mentioned ‘a small fort of the Late Classical or Hellenistic period, named Pyrgo’. This bibliography is very confusing. Simpson 1965: 22 almost certainly referred to the tower at Lampagiana (45), which is mentioned by Φαράκλας 1973: E. 2.4 as a separate site. The description in Meyer 1930: 2066 also matches the tower at Lampagiana (45), with the exception of some discrepancies in the measurements. There are thus at two possible interpretations of Ν. Φαράκλας’ report: either the report refers to a tower that is only mentioned by Meyer 1930: 2066 and no longer exists, or the site of Lampagiana (45) is listed twice (once as ‘Pyrgos’ or ‘Lampagiana’ and once as ‘Agios Ioannis’). Given the state of research N of the Phranchthi hill, the latter is more likely. Finds: Date: Further information: Bibliography: Meyer 1930: 2066; Simpson 1965: 29, 1981: 31; Φαράκλας 1973: E. 2.4.

149. APESAS (Απέσας, Φουκάς) Ancient name: Altitude: 827 mamsl Location: On the summit of the Phoukas hill, NE of the chapel of the Panagia. Type: previously identified as a fortified settlement Approximate size: Masonry: Description: Gauvin 1992: 136–38, figs 7.2–7.4 noted a fort on the Phoukas hill, but according to subsequent research the fortifications at this site belong to the Frankish period (Πέππα 1993: 159–60; Marchand 2002: 214–16). Finds: Date: Further information: Bibliography: Gauvin 1992: 136–38, figs 7.2–7.4; Πέππα 1993: 159–60; Marchand 2002: 214–16.

150. ASPROCHOMA (Ασπρόχωμα) Ancient name: Altitude: Location: N of the Asprochoma stream, c. 420m NW of Kapsala (96). Type: previously identified as a tower Approximate size: Masonry: Description: Steffen and Lolling 1884: 18 noted an ancient ‘tower’ N of the Asprochoma stream, but Iakovides and French 2003: 39 identified the remains at this site as a sanctuary. Finds: For a short summary, see Iakovides and French 2003: 39. Date: Further information: Bibliography: Steffen and Lolling 1884: 18; Iakovides and French 2003: 39.

148. AGIOS VASILEIOS KASTRO (Άγιος Βασίλειος Κάστρο) Ancient name: Altitude: Location: On the summit of a hill S of the village Agios Vasileios. Type: previously identified as a fort Approximate size: Masonry: Description: Gauvin 1992: 136–38, figs 7.2–7.4 suggested the existence of a fort on a summit S of the village Agios Vasileios, but subsequent researchers were unable to locate any ancient remains on this hill (Πέππα 1993: 153; Bynum 1995: 110–11; Πίκουλας 1995: 51; Marchand 2002: 246). 290

Catalogue: 151. Kenchreai – 153. Kosmas Lavery 1990: 166–67; Wells, Runnels, and Zangger 1990: 225; Bynum 1995: 114–15; Πίκουλας 1995: 51–53, 172–73; Jansen 2002: 88–90; Marchand 2002: 65–66, 240–42; Wells 2002a: 70–71; Penttinen 2005: 112, 115; Tausend 2006: 22–23; Bonnier 2014: 142.

151. KENCHREAI (Κεγχρεαί) Ancient name: Altitude: 612 mamsl Location: To the S and SE of the chapel Agioi Theodoroi (referred to on most maps as Agios Andreas). Type: previously identified as a fortified settlement Approximate size: Masonry: drystone Description: Πέππα 1990: 168–69 noted a drystone wall on the S and SE sides of the hill and interpreted it as the circuit of ancient Kenchreai. However, the wall is probably more recent (Πίκουλας 1995: 271). Finds: Πίκουλας 1995: 271 noted Byzantine pottery. Date: Further information: Bibliography: Πέππα 1990: 168–69; Πίκουλας 1995: 271.

153. KOSMAS (Κοσμάς)

152. KEPHALARI (Κεφαλάρι) Ancient name: Altitude: 527 mamsl Location: On a low hill SW of the Kephalari spring. Type: previously identified a as u-shaped tower with outbuildings Approximate size: 7.5 by 11m Masonry: roughly hewn polygonal with rough surfaces Description: The remains at this site consist of a u-shaped polygonal structure (c. 7.5 by 11m). The walls are c. 1.1–1.3m wide and are preserved up to an elevation of four courses, but are currently heavily overgrown. To the N, Steffen and Lolling 1884: 18 and Wiseman 1978: 119 noted traces of further buildings. These structures were already badly damaged in 1978, and have since disappeared completely. Finds: Wiseman 1978: 119 noted pottery sherds, mostly from the 4th century BC, while Bynum 1995: 114 found a base of a miniature vessel and the base of a drinking cup. In addition, over 118 Archaic and Classical vessels, a figurine of a squatting Silenus and the base of a perirrhanterion with relief decoration were uncovered in an illicit excavation (Bynum 1995: 114–15; Πίκουλας 1995: 51; Marchand 2002: 65–66). Date: Based on the surface pottery, Wiseman 1978: 120 suggested a date in the 4th century BC. Further information: Steffen and Lolling 1884: 18; Wiseman 1978: 119; Tausend 2006: 22–23 saw the site as a tower, but based on the finds and on the shape of the building (which would be unique for a freestanding tower in the Argolid), an interpretation as a sanctuary or shrine is more plausible (Bynum 1995: 115; Marchand 2002: 66). Bibliography: Steffen and Lolling 1884: 18; Frazer 1898: 87; Mylonas 1966: 86; Wiseman 1978: 118–20;

Kephalari: the E wall of the u-shaped building from the E (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Korinthia; photo by the author).

Ancient name: Altitude: 1237 mamsl Location: On the hill Prophitis Ilias, N of the modern road between Geraki and Leonidio. Type: previously identified as a fort Approximate size: Masonry: drystone Description: In 1962, a drystone wall was discovered on the W and S sides of the hill. As fragments of Laconian tiles were found nearby, this structure was interpreted as the foundations of a tile-covered mudbrick wall (Χρηστού 1963: 87–88; Φάκλαρης 1990: 179). Finds: The finds from the site are comprised of Bronze Age, Archaic, Classical and Hellenistic pottery (including miniature vessels), fragments of Laconian tiles, statuettes, spear- and arrowheads, possible knives and lead miniature weapons (Wace and Hasluck 1908: 165; Waterhouse and Simpson 1961: 135; Daux 1963: 759; Χρηστού 1963: 87; Παπαχατζής 1976: 417; Φάκλαρης 1990: 179–83; Shipley 1996: 282). Date: Further information: The remains were interpreted by Χρηστού 1963: 87–88; Simpson 1965: 52; Παπαχατζής 1976: 417 as a fort guarding the route over the Parnon mountains, but the finds, as well as several inscriptions found nearby, suggest that the site represents a sanctuary of Apollo Maleatas rather than a fortification 291

Catalogue: 153. Kosmas – 156. Tou Antreiomenou to Mnema 2 (Φάκλαρης 1990: 179–83; Pritchett 1991a: 155; Shipley 1996: 282). Bibliography: Bursian 1872: 135; Wace and Hasluck 1908: 165; Bölte 1909: 376–84; Hood 1959: 9; Waterhouse and Simpson 1961: 135; Daux 1963: 759; Χρηστού 1963: 87–88; Simpson 1965: 52; Παπαχατζής 1976: 417– 18; Φάκλαρης 1990: 178–83; Pritchett 1991a: 155; Shipley 1996: 282.

156. TOU ANTREIOMENOU TO MNEMA 2 (Του Αντρειωμένου το Μνήμα) Ancient name: Altitude: 263 mamsl Location: On a low hill c. 800m N of Tou Antreiomenou to Mnema 1 (77). Type: previously interpreted as a rectangular tower Approximate size: Masonry: Description: Today, only few blocks at this site are visible in situ. They could belong to a rectangular structure mentioned in W. Wrede’s unpublished notes (Wrede 1959). Finds: In his unpublished notes, W. Wrede noted blackglazed sherds. Date: Further information: Tausend 2006: 154 interpreted the remains as a Classical watchtower, but owing to the preservation of the structure this hypothesis remains speculative. Bibliography: Wrede 1959; Tausend 2006: 154.

154. LOPHOS KOKKINOU (Λόφος Κοκκίνου) Ancient name: Altitude: Location: On the W slope of the Prophitis Ilias mountain, SW of Koutalas. Type: previously identified as a tower Approximate size: Masonry: polygonal (?) Description: Gauvin 1992: 136–38, figs 7.2–7.4; Gauvin and Morin 1997: 5–7 recorded a polygonal watchtower at this site, but according to Marchand 2002: 247– 48, all stones visible today on the W slope of the hill are natural. Finds: Gauvin and Morin 1997: 5–7 reported Early Helladic and 4th-century BC pottery. Date: Further information: Bibliography: Gauvin 1992: 136–38, figs 7.2–7.4, 1997: 5–7; Marchand 2002: 247–48.

155. PHOUSIA (Φούσια, Άγιος Γεώργιος) Ancient name: Altitude: Location: On a hill near the chapel of Agios Georgios, c. 1600m SW of the village Ano Phanari. Type: previously identified as a fortified settlement Approximate size: Masonry: Description: Dodwell 1819: 288; Φαράκλας 1972a: E. 3.8–9; Tausend 2006: 160 noted remains of an ancient settlement at this site. Tausend 2006: 160 suggested that this settlement was fortified, but no remains of ancient defensive walls could be identified. Finds: Date: Further information: Bibliography: Dodwell 1819: 288; Φαράκλας 1972a: E. 3.8–9; Tausend 2006: 160, 166.

Tou Antreiomenou to Mnema 2: the possible wall from the S (© Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports / Ephorate of Antiquities of Argolida; photo by the author).

292

Catalogue: 157. Tourkopigado – 158. Tracheia 157. TOURKOPIGADO (Τουρκοπήγαδο)

158. TRACHEIA (Τραχειά)

Ancient name: Altitude: 356 mamsl Location: C. 800m S of the Isthmus-Tripoli motorway and c. 250m ENE of the road between Nemea and Phichtia. Type: rectangular tower or villa rustica (?) Approximate size: Masonry: Description: At this site, Russell 1924: 44 and Meyer 1941: 280 noted a square structure measuring c. 9m in length. Today, no blocks are visible in situ (Πίκουλας 1995: 233). Finds: The finds recorded at the site include Prehistoric, Archaic, Classical, Hellenistic, Roman, Late Roman, Byzantine and more recent sherds, as well as a clay roof support from a Roman kiln (Φαράκλας 1972c: E. 2.3; Πίκουλας 1995: 233; Cloke 2016: 799–818). Date: The date of this structure is unclear. Further information: The site has been interpreted as a fortification (perhaps mentioned in Xen. Hell. 4.7.7. (Russell 1924: 44; Gauvin 1992: 142; Πίκουλας 1995: 233)), but judging by the surface finds, it should probably be identified as a Roman villa rustica (Πίκουλας 1995: 233; Cloke 2016: 818). Bibliography: Frickenhaus and Müller 1911: 24; Russell 1924: 44; Meyer 1941: 280; Roux 1958: 162; Pritchett 1969: 98; Φαράκλας 1972c: E. 2.3; Gauvin 1992: 141–44, figs 7.5–7.7; Πίκουλας 1995: 232–33; Tausend 2006: 60; Bonnier 2014: 160; Cloke 2016: 799–818.

Ancient name: Αἴγινα (?) Altitude: Location: On a low hill SW of Tracheia. Type: previously identified as a fort or a fortified settlement Approximate size: Masonry: Description: Φαράκλας 1972a: Ε. 3.6 noted traces of a wall on the S and SE of the hill. Finds: The site has produced Classical, Hellenistic and Roman sherds (Φαράκλας 1972a: E. 3.7). Date: Further information: Φαράκλας 1972a: E. 3.7 interpreted the wall as part of a fortification, but judging by the remains visible today, the surviving structure could be a terrace wall or a field boundary. According to Tausend 1995, 2006: 186, Tracheia might be the site of ancient Αἴγινα (Str. 8.6.16). Bibliography: Μηλιαράκης 1886: 214; Φαράκλας 1972a: Ε. 3.6–7; Foley 1988: 198; Tausend 1995, 2006: 186.

293

Appendix

The Masonry Technique and Chronology of Fortifications in the Argolid

294

fortified settlement fort

fort

fortified settlement

Achladokampos

Agio Lias

Agios Adrianos

Agios Andreas

1

2

3

4

295

tower

tower

fort

fortified settlement fort

tower

Amygdalitsa

Anathema

Andritsa: Goulas

Ano Phanari

Ano Phanari: Vigliza

6

7

8

9

10

11

tower

Agios Sostis

Akova: Varda

5

Type

Name

Nr.

coursed polygonal

uncoursed trapezoidal

coursed polygonal

n/a

polygonal (uncertain)

uncoursed polygonal

coursed polygonal

coursed polygonal uncoursed polygonal coursed polygonal uncoursed polygonal ashlar

n/a

coursed polygonal

Shape of blocks

rough

rough

rough

n/a

rough

rough

rough

rough

rough

rough

n/a

rough

Surface

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

surface pottery

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

architecture

Dated by

n/a

n/a

late 4th- or 3rdcentury BC n/a

n/a

n/a

4th-century BC

n/a

n/a

n/a

4th- or early 3rdcentury BC n/a

Date (excluding masonry chronology)

Appendix: The masonry technique and chronology of fortifications in the Argolid.

carefully fitted

carefully fitted

carefully fitted

drystone

roughly hewn

carefully fitted

roughly hewn

n/a

carefully fitted

carefully fitted

drystone

carefully fitted

Masonry

n/a

II

n/a

n/a

II

II

n/a

II

I

n/a

n/a

n/a

II

n/a

III and IV

IV

I n/a

n/a

If undated, period of use (I: Classical or Hellenistic, II: Late Classical or Hellenistic, III: Classical, IV: Hellenistic) n/a

II and IV

II

Date (I: Classical or Hellenistic, II: Late Classical or Hellenistic, III: Classical, IV: Hellenistic)

Appendix

tower

fortified settlement

Aria

Asini

13

296

tower

tower

tower

tower

fortified settlement

Benteni Kiapha

Charadros

Choutalaiika

Douka Vrysi

Drymoni 1

Elliniko Astrous

16

17

21

20

19

18

fortified settlement fort

Asini: Barbouna

15

14

fortified settlement

Argos

12

ashlar

carefully fitted

polygonal (uncertain) coursed trapezoidal coursed polygonal uncoursed polygonal

ashlar

coursed polygonal

rough rough rough rough

n/a

rough

rough

rough rough

rough

n/a

rough

smooth

rough

n/a

rough

smooth

n/a

n/a

n/a

ca. 720 BC

n/a

exploitation of the nearby quarries n/a n/a architecture architecture

n/a

n/a

n/a n/a

n/a n/a Hellenistic Hellenistic

4th-century BC

n/a

n/a

n/a n/a

4th-century BC or later stratified pottery late 5th- to mid 4thcentury BC stratified pottery ca. 300 BC architecture late 4th- or early 3rd-century BC foundation ca. 720 BC deposit n/a n/a

foundation deposit architecture

n/a

stratified after the middle of terracotta the 5th century BC figurine stratified pottery late 4th- or early 3rd-century BC architecture 4th- or early 3rdcentury BC stratified pottery Archaic

n/a

n/a

n/a

The masonry technique and chronology of fortifications in the Argolid, cont.

roughly hewn carefully fitted

roughly hewn

carefully fitted

coursed trapezoidal

uncoursed polygonal coursed polygonal

carefully fitted carefully fitted

carefully fitted

uncoursed polygonal

n/a

roughly hewn

drystone

uncoursed polygonal

roughly hewn

coursed trapezoidal coursed polygonal uncoursed polygonal

n/a

drystone

coursed polygonal

rough

coursed polygonal

carefully fitted

smooth

ashlar

carefully fitted

rough

coursed polygonal

roughly hewn

n/a

n/a

drystone

n/a

Geometric

I n/a n/a n/a

n/a II II I, II and IV

n/a

n/a

II and IV II

n/a

Geometric

II, III and IV

n/a

n/a

II

II, III and IV

Archaic

A Landscape of Conflict? Rural Fortifications in the Argolid (400–146 BC)

tower

fort

fortified settlement

fortified settlement

tower

fort

Gymnon

Gyphtokastro

Ierakas

Iliokastro

Iliopoulaiika

Iria

26

29

30

31

32

297

drystone

carefully fitted

drystone circuit

drystone circuit

fort

fort

Kastro 1

Kastro 2

Kastro tis Paliopanagias Kazarma

34

35

36

39

38

37

fort

Kantia 2

Kastraki

33

coursed polygonal

n/a

n/a

n/a

uncoursed polygonal

coursed polygonal

n/a

coursed polygonal

coursed polygonal

coursed polygonal

coursed polygonal uncoursed polygonal coursed polygonal coursed trapezoidal

uncoursed polygonal

n/a coursed polygonal coursed trapezoidal

coursed polygonal coursed trapezoidal uncoursed trapezoidal uncoursed polygonal

coursed polygonal

polygonal (uncertain)

rough

n/a

n/a

n/a

rough

rough

n/a

rough

rough

rough

rough rough

rough

rough

n/a rough rough

rough rough

smooth

rough

architecture

n/a

n/a

surface pottery

architecture

n/a

n/a

n/a

surface pottery

n/a

architecture surface pottery

n/a

n/a

n/a stratified pottery n/a

architectural similarity to Lygourio 1 (49) n/a n/a

n/a

n/a

late 5th-century BC or later

n/a

n/a

4th-century BC or later Geometric

n/a

n/a

late 4th- to early 3rd-century BC n/a

Hellenistic 5th- to late 3rd- or early 2nd-century BC n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a Late Classical n/a

n/a n/a

early 4th-century BC

The masonry technique and chronology of fortifications in the Argolid, cont.

drystone

drystone

roughly hewn

carefully fitted

drystone

carefully fitted

tower

fortified settlement tower

Kampia

carefully fitted

carefully fitted

carefully fitted carefully fitted

roughly hewn

roughly hewn

drystone roughly hewn carefully fitted

Kantia 1

28

27

fort

Galatas: Megali Magoula

25

roughly hewn carefully fitted

carefully fitted

tower

fortified settlement

roughly hewn

tower

Ermioni

Elliniko: Ellinikaki Elliniko: Kephalari

24

23

22

n/a

Geometric

I n/a

n/a II

III

n/a

n/a

n/a II

n/a

II

II

n/a

IV

IV

n/a

II

n/a

n/a

n/a

II and IV I

n/a

n/a

III

II

n/a

I, II and IV

I

n/a

III

n/a

n/a

II

Appendix

roughly hewn

tower

tower

fortified settlement tower

Kophy Rachi

Krya Vrysi: Marmarakia Kyparissi

41

42

43

298

roughly hewn

tower

tower

fortified settlement fortified settlement

fortified settlement tower

fortified settlement fort

Lygourio 1

Lyrkeia

Mykinai

Nafplio

Nera

Palaia Epidavros 1

Palaia Epidavros 2 Paralio Astros

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

59

58

57

56

48

Phichtia: Paliopyrgos

Phichtia: Kokkinia Phichtia: Limiko

roughly hewn

tower

Lileika Xeropigadou Limanaki 1

47

Levkakia

46

coursed polygonal

uncoursed polygonal

polygonal (uncertain)

uncoursed polygonal

rough

rough

rough

rough

n/a

rough

rough

rough

rough

rough

rough

rough

rough

rough

rough

rough

rough

n/a smooth n/a rough rough

rough

n/a

n/a

n/a

Thuc. 5.83.2; D. S. 12.81.1 n/a

n/a

n/a

resettlement of the site resettlement of the site n/a

n/a

stratified pottery

n/a

n/a

n/a

surface pottery

n/a

n/a

n/a n/a surface pottery

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

418 BC

n/a

n/a

n/a

3rd-century BC

3rd-century BC

early 4th-century BC n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Hellenistic

n/a

n/a

n/a n/a Late Classical or Hellenistic

The masonry technique and chronology of fortifications in the Argolid, cont.

carefully fitted

carefully fitted

tower

tower

carefully fitted

roughly hewn

fortified settlement tower

n/a

carefully fitted

carefully fitted uncoursed trapezoidal uncoursed polygonal n/a

coursed polygonal uncoursed polygonal coursed polygonal uncoursed polygonal polygonal (uncertain)

carefully fitted

carefully fitted

coursed polygonal

coursed polygonal

polygonal (uncertain)

polygonal (uncertain)

polygonal (uncertain)

uncoursed polygonal

uncoursed polygonal

coursed polygonal

n/a ashlar n/a coursed polygonal coursed polygonal

polygonal (uncertain)

roughly hewn

carefully fitted

carefully fitted

carefully fitted

tower

Lampagiana

45

44

carefully fitted

drystone carefully fitted drystone roughly hewn carefully fitted

Kleonai

roughly hewn

tower

fortified settlement

Kephalovryso

40

n/a n/a n/a

IV II

n/a

IV

II

n/a

II

n/a

n/a

III

II

n/a

II

n/a

n/a

II

III

n/a

IV

n/a

n/a

IV

n/a

n/a

II

II

n/a

II

I and IV

n/a

II

n/a

n/a

II and IV

n/a

II III

A Landscape of Conflict? Rural Fortifications in the Argolid (400–146 BC)

299

roughly hewn

roughly hewn

carefully fitted

carefully fitted

fortified settlement

tower

tower

tower

tower

drystone circuit

tower

fortified settlement fort

Prosymna: Agios Athanasios, FS 405/406 Prosymna: Agios Dimitrios Prosymna: Pyrgouthi Pyrgiotika

Pyrgouli

Soros

Spathokommeno

Sportiza

Stavropodio

74

75

73

72

71

70

69

68

67

Prosilia

66

smooth

coursed trapezoidal

n/a

coursed polygonal

polygonal (uncertain)

n/a

coursed polygonal

polygonal (uncertain)

coursed polygonal

polygonal (uncertain)

coursed trapezoidal

n/a

rough

rough

n/a

rough

rough

rough

rough

rough

n/a

rough

rough

coursed trapezoidal

uncoursed trapezoidal coursed polygonal n/a

rough

rough

rough rough n/a

rough

ashlar

coursed polygonal

polygonal (uncertain) coursed trapezoidal n/a

uncoursed polygonal

n/a

n/a

Classical or 4thcentury BC

n/a

n/a

surface pottery

architecture

n/a

surface pottery

n/a

late 4th- or early 3rd-century BC Hellenistic

n/a

Classical

n/a

stratified pottery late 4th- to mid 3rdcentury BC n/a n/a

n/a

surface pottery

n/a

n/a

n/a n/a Classical or Hellenistic (?) late 4th- or early 3rd-century BC architecture 4th-century BC or later stratified pottery 4th-century BC stratified pottery early 3rd-century BC reused blocks before the middle of the 4th century BC architecture 4th-century BC or later ‘Acropolis late 5th- or early Deposit 5’ 4th-century BC

n/a n/a stratified pottery (?) architecture

n/a

The masonry technique and chronology of fortifications in the Argolid, cont.

drystone

roughly hewn

roughly hewn

drystone

carefully fitted

drystone

fortified settlement tower

roughly hewn

carefully fitted

Poulithra

Porto Cheli

64

roughly hewn

65

fortified settlement fortified settlement

Plaka Leonidiou

63

roughly hewn carefully fitted drystone

fortified settlement

drystone circuit

carefully fitted

tower

Phranchthi

Phichtia: Stathmos Phourkaria

62

61

60

n/a n/a n/a

I IV I and IV

n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

n/a I II IV II II III II IV IV

n/a

n/a

I

II

n/a

IV

Appendix

drystone n/a

drystone

fortified settlement drystone circuit

drystone circuit

drystone circuit

tower

tower

tower

drystone circuit

drystone circuit

drystone circuit

tower

tower

tower

tower

tower

Tyros

Vigla

Vigliza

Vourlia 1

Vourlia 2

Xylopyrgo

Agios Leonidas

Akrotiri Iria 1

Akrotiri Iria

Alogomandra Kalogirou Ermioni: Magoula Drymoni 2

Kalkani

Kapsala

Karya

84

300

97

96

95

94

93

92

91

90

89

88

87

86

85

polygonal (uncertain)

n/a

polygonal (uncertain)

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

coursed polygonal

coursed polygonal

n/a

n/a

n/a

uncoursed polygonal

rough

n/a

rough

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

rough

rough

n/a

n/a

n/a

rough

rough

n/a

rough

rough

rough

rough

rough

rough

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

surface pottery

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Hellenistic

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Hellenistic

architecture n/a

2nd-century BC

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Late Hellenistic

SEG xli 278

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

stratified pottery

The masonry technique and chronology of fortifications in the Argolid, cont.

roughly hewn

n/a

carefully fitted

drystone

drystone

n/a

roughly hewn

roughly hewn

drystone

drystone

drystone

roughly hewn

coursed trapezoidal

carefully fitted

83

n/a

coursed polygonal

drystone

fortified settlement

Tsiorovos Dolianon

82

81

carefully fitted

coursed trapezoidal

carefully fitted

tower

coursed polygonal

roughly hewn

fortified settlement

coursed polygonal

polygonal (uncertain)

roughly hewn

roughly hewn

tower

trapezoidal (uncertain)

n/a

tower

carefully fitted

n/a

fortified settlement tower

Tserpho Tyrou

80

79

Tourniki: Gaidourovouni Troizina

Tou Antreiomenou to Mnema Tourkovrysi

77

78

Tiryntha

76

n/a

II and IV

n/a

II

III n/a

II

n/a

I n/a

I

I

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

I

n/a

II n/a

I n/a

I n/a

IV

n/a n/a

II

n/a

n/a

II

I

n/a

II

n/a

n/a

I

II

n/a

IV

A Landscape of Conflict? Rural Fortifications in the Argolid (400–146 BC)

roughly hewn n/a

tower

tower

Tourniki: Agios Nikolaos sta Ampelia Xydeika

107

n/a n/a

tower

tower

tower

tower

tower

tower

tower

tower

tower

tower

Andritsa: Elliniko

Andritsa: Koukouras Chora

Dervenakia

Ellinon Lithari

301

Kato Phanari

Katsigiari

Koroni

Krya Vrysi: Misorrachi Metochi

Moni Panagias Agnountos Nea Epidavros: Brinia Nea Epidavros: Palatia Papoutsaiika

117

119

122

121

120

118

116

115

114

113

112

111

110

109

108

n/a

Akova: Chouni

n/a

n/a n/a

tower

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

rough

n/a

rough

rough

n/a

n/a

n/a

rough

rough

rough

rough

n/a

surface pottery

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

surface pottery

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

The masonry technique and chronology of fortifications in the Argolid, cont.

n/a

n/a

n/a

fortified settlement tower

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

coursed polygonal

n/a

polygonal (uncertain)

coursed polygonal

n/a

n/a

n/a

polygonal (uncertain)

uncoursed polygonal

polygonal (uncertain)

polygonal (uncertain)

tower

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

carefully fitted

tower

tower

Agia Paraskevi

106

drystone

105

n/a

tower

104

103

102

drystone circuit

roughly hewn

Skala 1

Malantrenion

101

carefully fitted

n/a

fortified settlement tower

Lygourio 2

100

99

roughly hewn

carefully fitted

tower

tower

Marmaralono Agiou Petrou Perasphalktra

tower

Kondyli

Limanaki 2

98

n/a

Hellenistic

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Hellenistic

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a n/a n/a n/a

IV II IV

n/a

n/a

IV n/a

n/a

n/a

I

n/a

I

I

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a n/a

n/a

n/a

II II

n/a

II

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

II

n/a

n/a

II

Appendix

tower

tower

tower

tower

tower

Dimaina

Kodeles

Korakia

Mathi

Monastiraki

132

302 n/a n/a

tower

fortified settlement tower

tower

tower

tower

Petrothalassa: Kypraiou Porto Ydra

Prosymna: SM 8

Skala 2

Spathovouni

Ververonta

Zogka: Asprorrema Zogka: Sykitsa

142

143

146

145

144

141

140

139

138

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

rough

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

architectural similarity to Lygourio 1 (49) n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

early 4th-century BC

The masonry technique and chronology of fortifications in the Argolid, cont.

n/a

n/a

ashlar

n/a

n/a

n/a

ashlar

n/a n/a

n/a

ashlar

polygonal (uncertain)

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

polygonal (uncertain)

n/a

n/a

n/a

polygonal (uncertain)

n/a

n/a

n/a

tower

fortified settlement fortified settlement tower

137

Petrothalassa

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

drystone

n/a

n/a

carefully fitted

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Myloi: Kalamaki

136

135

134

133

130

131

Agios Ioannis 1

tower

tower

Agios Dimitrios

drystone circuit

tower

Zogka: Pyrgos

Aitolithi

tower

Zavitsa

Dalamanara

129

128

127

126

fort

tower

Strongylo

Stena

124

125

fortified settlement tower

Pigadaki

123

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

III

IV

n/a

n/a

I

I

n/a

n/a

n/a

I

n/a

I

n/a n/a

n/a III

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

I n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

I

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

A Landscape of Conflict? Rural Fortifications in the Argolid (400–146 BC)

Index of Sources

Literary sources Aen. Tac. 10.1 16.16–19 16.18–19

107 90 89

A. Ag. 281–313

70

A. Supp. 236

4

Anon. Byzant. 92.17

70

App. Pun. 93

36

Arist. Ath. 42.4

19

Arist. Met. 352a

7

Arist. Pol. 2.1267a

84

Arist. Rh. 1365a

17–18

Ath. 2.56f 7.288f 7.297e

12 18 18

Bito 46.2 46.7 51.2

36 36 36

Cato Agr. 20–22

117

Columella Rust. 12.52.6–7 117 Dem. 18.37–38 52.5

21, 106 4

D. S. 11.65.2–5 225 12.81.1 1, 31, 50, 164, 298 13.64.5–7 103 13.76.4 21

14.42.1 34 14.91.2–92.3 46 15.48.2–3 7 15.49.5 11 15.57–58 5 15.69.1 91 16.39.4 50 17.4.6 106 17.24.6 34 17.26.7 34 17.45.2 34 18.11.2 91 20.51 70 E. El. 410–11

51, 244

E. HF 1016

4

E. Rh. 41

4

Hes. Op. 426 453–57

65 65

Hdn. De prosodica catholica 3.1.20 4 3.1.279 4 Hdt. 1.82.2 4.152.4 6.76.1 6.83.1–2 6.92.1 6.115 7.202.1 8.42.1 8.43 8.72 9.3.1 9.28.4 9.31.3–4

4 4 11 241, 253 4 70 225 91 4 4 70 4, 253 4

Hom. Il. 2.561 17 18.207–13 70

303

Hsch. s.v. Νεμεάδες πύλαι Isoc. 6.99

69

Liv. 27.32.7 32.38–39 31.44.1

108 5 48

Men. Sik. 3–7 355–59

106 106

179

Ov. Met. 15.296–306 7 Paus. 2.1.1 2.15.2 2.16.5 2.18.1–3 2.22.8 2.24.3 2.24.6 2.25.1 2.25.4 2.25.5 2.25.7 2.25.8 2.26.1 2.34.1 2.34.6 2.34.7 2.34.9 2.34.11 2.35.4–10 2.37.5–6 3.23.6 3.24.1 3.24.2 4.2.4 4.24.4 4.27.8 4.35.2 5.23.3 7.24.12 8.1.2

4 57 225 4, 179 179 177 11 179 179 287 284 241 48, 96 7 202 48 195 194 87, 96, 195 9 4 201 217 4 4 4 4 225 7 4

A Landscape of Conflict? Rural Fortifications in the Argolid (400–146 BC) 8.4.6 8.27.1 8.54.7 10.9.10 10.15.1

4 225 46 4 4

PCG Ar. fr. 311 Eupolis fr. 340

4 90

Ph. Bel. 51.15–25 36 51.21–27 36 53.15–20 36 54.25–55.2 36 55.19 36 60 70 91.2 36 Ph. Pol. 79.21–26 84.18–23 99.17

34 33 36

Plin. HN 4.17–18 4.18 19.75

48 48 12

Pl. Criti. 111c

7

Plut. Ages. 31.6

4

Plut. Alc. 15.2–3

85, 179

Plut. Arat. 6.1 6–7 24.1

106 1, 170, 280 21

Plut. Cleom. 17.4–5 21.3

5 179

Plut. Demetr. 25.1

89

Plut. Moralia 304e

65

Plut. Pyrrh. 31–34 32.10–2

1, 45, 84 179

Polyb. 2.64 5, 84 4.36.4–6 55 4.36.5 5, 50, 51, 84, 201, 211, 217, 238, 243 4.75.2–8 21, 107 10.44.1–13 70

10.45.6–47.4 70 Ptol. Geog. 3.16.11 3.16.12

48 48

Scyl. 49 50 50.2 51.2 54 54–55

4, 50 48 45 48 48 48

Str. 1.3.18 6.2.9 8.6.2 8.6.8 8.6.10 8.6.11 8.6.13 8.6.14 8.6.16 8.6.17 8.6.19 10.5.1

7 11 9 11 17 241 48 4, 91 293 51 225 48

Theophr. CP 2.3.1 3.7.9

15 15

Theophr. HP 7.4.2

12

Thuc. 1.27.2 2.14.1 2.56 2.56.5–6 3.99 4.3–41 4.4 4.5 4.31 4.42 4.56.2 4.56–57 4.67.2 4.110 5.47 5.53.1 5.53–54 5.56 5.57–63 5.59 5.75 5.75.4 5.75.4–5 5.75.4–6 5.80.3

4 106 84 238 90 103 103 21 19 21 51, 231 231 90 19 84 48 55 21, 84 23 84 84 4 93, 230 31 230 304

5.82 5.83 6.7 6.45.2 6.95.1 6.105 6.105.2 7.18.3 7.19.2 7.48.5 7.81 8.3.2 8.10.3

84, 85, 179, 180 1, 31, 164, 179, 298 84 90 7 55 238 238 103 90 91 4 48

TrGF E. fr. 630

4

Veg. Mil. 5.39

70

Vitr. 10.10–12

36

Xen. Age. 2.17 2.18

46, 55 106

Xen. Cyr. 7.5.73

21

Xen. Hell. 2.1.27 70 4.2.11–13 84 4.2.16 4, 97 4.4.6 45–46 4.4.19 55 4.5.1 106 4.6.4 106 4.7.3 84 4.7.4 178 4.7.6 106 4.7.7 293 6.2.3 4 6.2.3 91 6.2.33 70 7.2.1 103 7.2.2 4 Xen. Mem. 4.2.15

21

Xen. Vect. 4.43–48 4.44 4.47

90 107 84

Index of Sources

Epigraphic sources Fouilles de Delphes III 1 457 106 ID 3 1417.92

23

IG I 75 86

241 84

IG II2 365 463 1011 1424a 1425 1487 1672

45 34, 212 91 4 4 34 124

IG IV 497 498 527 616 751 752 757 769 791 839

125 50 50 50 4 16–17, 48 31, 48, 125, 257 89 4 48

3

IG IV2. i 69 97 71 46, 48 72 48 74 46 75 4, 16, 18, 45, 46 76 16–18, 48 77 16–18, 48 97 4 122.63–66 45 123 18 621 125 701 48 IG XI. ii 287.154 287.165

23 23

IG XII. v 872.61–2 872

23 126

IG XII. vii 386

106

Kaibel 932

4

Papyri ML 27

225, 253

SEG ix 2 xi 377 xi 400 xi 405 xii 100.74–76 xvii 143 xvii 155 xviii 146 xviii 151 xix 129 xix 317 xxiii 178 xxiii 186 xxiv 154 xxiv 274 xxiv 275 xxv 361 xxvi 451 xxvi 1306 xxviii 60.23–27 xxix 361 xxx 355 xxx 358 xxxi 305 xxxiii 278 xxxiii 286 xxxvi 336 xxxviii 1476 xxxix 345 xli 87 xli 278 xli 288 xliv 59 xlvii 319 xlviii 417 li 414 liv 424 liv 427 lix 356 lxiv 75

17 16, 18, 45 97 18, 45, 46 23 50–51, 201, 287 51 50 50 4 31, 50, 124 50 45 107 48 46 31, 124 16, 126 21 106 45 50–51 31, 124 50–51 51 51 46 21 51 90 31, 124, 300 46 90 46 46 46 50 50–51, 96 46 45

305

BGU I 298.6

23

BGU III 889.13

23

BGU VI 1280.11

23

BGU XI 2054.11

23

P. Mich. III 212.17

23

P. Tebt. III 779.11

23

General Index

A

Alepotypes. See Choutalaiika Alogomandra Kalogirou 30, 50–51, 75, 270–271, 300 Amygdalitsa 14, 25, 81, 119, 124, 171, 295 Anathema 30, 32, 43, 50, 65, 67, 73, 90, 95, 98, 104, 108, 172, 248–249, 295 Andritsa: Elliniko 26, 43, 279, 301 Andritsa: Goulas 28, 67, 77, 95, 99, 117–118, 172–174, 295 Andritsa: Koukouras 26, 43, 279, 301 Anemomylos (Agios Sostis). See Agios Sostis Anemomylos (Lileika Xeropigadou). See Lileika Xeropigadou Anemomylos (Prosilia). See Prosilia Ano Karnezaiika. See Gyphtokastro Ano Phanari 23, 30, 40, 44, 50, 67, 75, 91, 95, 97–98, 100, 104, 110–111, 128, 174–175, 295 Ano Phanari: Vigliza 23, 25, 50, 75, 91, 111, 175, 295 Anthana. See Anthene, see also Tsiorovos Dolianon Anthene 28–29, 258. See also Tsiorovos Dolianon Apesas 19, 290 Argive plain 1, 3–5, 8–9, 11, 18–19, 23, 26–27, 51, 57–58, 61, 67, 69, 77, 79, 81, 93, 98, 127, 129, 170–171, 216, 221, 225, 232, 245, 255, 271, 276, 283, 286 Argolic Gulf 4, 9–10, 12, 27, 48, 51, 67, 75, 77, 79, 81, 83, 95, 97, 108, 110, 187, 207, 211–212, 222, 247, 260, 270 Argolid Exploration Project 3, 54. See also Southern Argolid Survey Argos 1, 3–8, 11, 17–18, 23, 27–28, 31–32, 35–36, 38–39, 41, 44–46, 50–51, 53–54, 60–61, 69, 73, 75–79, 81– 85, 87–89, 93, 95–98, 100, 104, 111, 114, 124–129, 164, 166, 168, 170–171, 175–180, 188, 190–191, 193, 221, 225, 228, 230–234, 244, 252–253, 255, 257, 266, 273–274, 277, 279, 287, 289, 296. See also Aspis (Argos); See also Larissa (Argos) Argos, territory of 4, 45–46, 50–51, 96–97 Aria 25, 81, 180, 296 Arkadiko. See Kazarma Arsinoe 16–18, 48, 67, 91 artillery 3, 34, 36, 41, 69, 96, 212. See also catapults ashlar masonry 32, 40, 43–44, 168, 173, 175, 178, 181– 183, 188, 214–215, 226, 239, 284–288, 295–296, 298–299, 302 Asine 4–5, 28, 50, 125, 128, 181. See also Asini Asini ix, 3, 9, 11, 16–18, 28, 31–33, 35–36, 38–40, 43–44, 81, 95, 99, 117–119, 121, 180–184, 220, 273, 296 Asini: Barbouna 28, 31–32, 44, 183–184, 296 Aspis (Argos) 31–32, 35–36, 38–39, 41, 81, 84–85, 89, 100, 125, 166, 175–176, 178–179

Achaian War 31 Achladokampos 28, 31, 35–36, 71, 77, 80–81, 83, 95, 117, 121, 164, 279, 295 Acrocorinth 21, 83, 287–288 Agia Moni. See Aria Agia Paraskevi 26, 43, 279, 301 Agio Lias 30, 40, 44, 73, 79, 90, 97–98, 108, 165, 263, 295 Agios Adrianos 1, 19, 23, 30, 81, 84, 89, 97, 99–102, 104, 110, 114, 166–167, 295 Agios Andreas 28, 32, 77, 81, 99, 168–169, 186, 291 Agios Athanasios. See Prosymna: Agios Athanasios Agios Dimitrios 25, 27, 43, 284, 302 Agios Dimitrios (Kephalovryso). See Kephalovryso Agios Dimitrios (Prosymna). See Prosymna: Agios Dimitrios Agios Dimitrios (Pyrgouli). See Pyrgouli Agios Georgios. See Phousia Agios Ilias. See Agio Lias Agios Ioannis 1 27, 43, 284, 302 Agios Ioannis 2 19, 290 Agios Ioannis (Kazarma). See Kazarma Agios Ioannis (Levkakia). See Levkakia Agios Leonidas 26, 43–44, 50, 268, 284, 300 Agios Nikolaos sta Ampelia. See Tourniki: Agios Nikolaos sta Ampelia Agios Sostis 1, 25, 32, 40, 57–58, 65, 67, 69–70, 77, 98, 104, 114, 121, 123, 170–171, 295 Agios Vasileios Kastro 19, 290 agricultural installations 54, 109–112, 117, 120, 123– 124, 127, 248. See also olive mills; See also presses agricultural sites 23, 54–56, 112, 117–126, 128. See also farmsteads agriculture 12, 17–18, 26, 55, 65, 110, 112, 117, 124, 126. See also agricultural installations; See also agricultural sites; See also cereals; See also vines; See also olives Aigina (Akte). See Tracheia Aigina, island of 4, 11, 75 Aitolithi 27, 30, 103, 284, 302 Akova: Chouni 26, 81, 104, 279, 301 Akova: Varda 25, 77, 104, 113, 128, 171, 295 Akrotiri Iria 1 30, 50, 73, 77, 103, 268–269, 300 Akrotiri Iria 2 30, 50, 73, 77, 103, 268–269 Akte 4–6, 8–9, 11–12, 15, 23, 48, 50, 54, 58, 61, 73, 77, 83, 85, 93, 95, 98, 108, 128 Akti Ydra. See Porto Ydra Alea 11, 33, 41, 61, 91, 98, 213, 252 306

General Index

Asprochoma 19, 290 Asprorrema. See Zogka: Asprorrema asty 55, 75, 112 Athens 4, 23, 85, 90, 106–107, 176, 179, 191–192, 222–223, 230. See also Attica Attica 3, 7, 12, 21, 23, 36, 58, 60, 65, 70, 73, 75, 84, 97, 107, 113, 125, 127

coastline changes 9–11, 91, 95. See also sea–level changes Corinth 6, 21, 23, 31, 45–46, 48, 51, 61, 83, 98, 104, 170, 188, 231, 281, 287–288 Corinthian War 97 cost (of fortifications) 124–126 coursed polygonal masonry 32, 40–44, 164, 166, 168–169, 170–172, 175–177, 180, 182, 186, 188–189, 192, 194, 196, 199, 202–206, 211–212, 216–217, 223, 225, 233, 237, 241–242, 246–247, 250, 255–257, 265–266, 277, 279, 295–301 coursed trapezoidal masonry 40, 42–44, 181, 186, 188– 190, 195, 197, 201, 239, 244, 256–258, 296–297, 299–300 Cyriacus of Ancona 1

B Baphi. See Benteni Kiapha Barbouna. See Asini: Barbouna barracks 21, 23 beehives 16, 18, 21, 29, 117, 121, 246, 259 beekeeping 16, 18. See also beehives Benteni Kiapha 30, 50, 65, 75, 94–95, 98, 129, 184–185, 204, 296 Benteni valley 48, 75, 77, 91, 93, 95, 97, 104, 198–199, 276 Berbati–Limnes Archaeological Survey 3, 54–55, 110, 245 borders 23, 45–46, 48, 50–51, 67, 69, 75, 77, 79, 81, 83–84, 89–91, 93, 95–98, 103–104, 106, 110, 127–130, 185, 199, 204, 206–207, 212, 244, 248, 253, 276, 281–282. See also territorial boundaries; See also boundary disputes boundary disputes 18, 45–46, 48, 50 Brasiai 29, 237. See also Plaka Leonidiou; See also Prasiai bridges 11, 32, 58–59, 61–65 brigands 90, 104, 106 Brinia. See Nea Epidavros: Brinia Broutzaiika. See Kazarma

D Dalamanara 23, 27, 32, 43, 114, 284, 302 dating (of fortifications) 31–44. See also chronology defensibility 31–44, 87, 99, 102, 108, 113 defensive architecture 33–39, 41, 96, 112–114. See also doorways; See also ground–floor chambers (towers with); See also hexagonal towers; See also overlap gates; See also posterns; See also pyramids; See also V-shaped fortifications defensive networks 3, 23, 69–84, 110, 127–129 defensive strategies 21, 69, 84–105 Dekeleia 103 Dervenakia 26, 43, 65, 280, 301 Dervenakia (Agios Sostis). See Agios Sostis Dervenakia, battle of 1, 57 deterrence 84 diateichismata 31, 33, 87, 89, 125, 256–257 Dimaina 27, 43–44, 111, 268, 282, 284–285, 302 Dimaina, plain of 111, 268, 282, 284–285 doorways 113–114 Douka Vrysi 25, 65, 77, 188, 296 Drymoni 1 25, 43, 77, 93, 104, 111, 188, 296 Drymoni 2 26, 77, 104, 111, 271, 300 drystone circuits 21, 23, 27, 30, 32, 42–43, 51, 67–69, 73, 75, 77, 93, 95, 97–99, 103–105, 107–108, 110–112, 119, 121, 124–128, 176, 186, 207, 209, 216, 221, 233, 236, 248, 262–264, 268–271, 276, 284, 297, 299–302 drystone masonry 23, 31, 40, 42–43, 95, 103, 124, 165, 172, 175–177, 179, 181–184, 205, 207, 209–211, 213–214, 216, 221, 233, 236, 243–245, 248, 251, 255, 258–259, 263–264, 268–271, 276, 278, 284, 291, 295–302

C carefully fitted masonry 32, 40–44, 84, 87, 164, 166, 168, 171–172, 174–175, 180–181, 183–184, 186, 188, 192, 194, 197, 199, 201–206, 211, 214, 216, 219–220, 222–223, 225, 227–229, 231–235, 239, 246–247, 253, 256–258, 271, 274, 279, 283, 295–302 catapults 34, 36, 39, 41, 69. See also artillery cereals 12, 14–15, 17, 55, 114 Chaironeia, battle of 91 Charadros 25, 77, 113–114, 186, 296 Charadros, river 11 Cheroma. See Aitolithi chora 55, 75 Chora 26, 43, 65, 279–280, 301 Chouni. See Akova: Chouni Choutalaiika 19, 25, 44, 50–51, 67, 75, 104, 186–187, 296 Chremonidean War 107 chronology 31, 33, 41–44, 55, 83, 97, 117, 129, 179, 295–302 Ciriaco de’ Pizzicolli. See Cyriacus of Ancona cisterns 21, 99–102, 110, 166, 168, 172, 176, 179–180, 183, 190, 195, 200, 202, 212, 222, 224, 234, 243, 255 climate 12, 18, 91, 100

E earthquakes 7 Eileoi 28, 201. See also Iliokastro Eiones 28, 205. See also Kantia 2 Elaious 51 Ellinikaki. See Elliniko: Ellinikaki Elliniko (Andritsa). See Andritsa: Elliniko 307

A Landscape of Conflict? Rural Fortifications in the Argolid (400–146 BC) Elliniko Astrous 15, 28, 33, 40–41, 77, 81, 99–100, 117–119, 121, 125–126, 188–191, 296 Elliniko (Charadros). See Charadros Elliniko: Ellinikaki 25, 81, 191, 297 Elliniko: Kephalari 14, 23, 25, 32, 81, 113–114, 119, 124, 191–193, 284, 297 Elliniko (Nera). See Nera Ellinon Lithari 1, 26, 43, 57, 65, 280, 301 enslavement 21, 106 environment 7–18 Epidauria. See Epidauros, territory of Epidauros 4–5, 16–18, 21, 28, 31–32, 45–46, 48–51, 61, 74–75, 79, 83, 91, 93, 95, 97–98, 111, 124, 126–127, 223, 229–230, 281. See also Palaia Epidavros Epidauros, territory of 26, 31, 45–46, 48–51, 75, 96–97 epidosis 31, 257 Erasinos 9, 11 Ermioni 28, 50, 73, 85, 87, 194–196, 236, 254, 297 Ermioni: Magoula 17, 26, 43–44, 50, 73, 93, 111, 271, 300 Eua 28, 50–51, 125–126, 128, 188, 190. See also Elliniko Astrous evacuation 106–108, 110. See also refuges

Gymnon 25, 44, 57, 65, 67, 69, 104, 197, 297 Gyphtokastro 30, 50, 67, 69, 75, 95, 98, 104, 110, 129, 198–199, 297

H Halieis 4–5, 18, 29, 32, 45, 61, 72–73, 91, 93, 100, 108, 119, 239, 241. See also Porto Cheli Halieis, territory of 45 Halkyonian Lake 9. See also Lake Lerna Hermion 4–5, 16–18, 28, 32, 45–46, 48, 50, 61, 67, 72–73, 75, 91, 93, 95, 97, 172, 194–195, 237, 248, 271. See also Ermioni Hermionid. See Hermion, territory of Hermion, territory of 1, 45–46, 48, 50 hexagonal towers 31, 34–36, 38–39, 41, 85, 89, 164, 176, 178 household pottery 111 hunting 16, 18 Hysiai 1, 28, 31, 50, 164. See also Achladokampos

I Ierakas 28, 33, 77, 99, 117–118, 199–201, 297 Iliokastro 28, 32, 48, 50, 54, 73, 93, 99, 201–202, 236, 297 Iliokastro, plateau of 11, 202 Iliopoulaiika 14, 25, 65, 77, 110, 113, 119, 124, 202–203, 297 Inachos 8–9, 11, 67, 111, 213, 223–224, 252, 274 Iria 30, 32, 41, 50, 67, 69, 75, 77, 90–91, 95, 98, 104, 108, 111, 129, 184, 203–204, 297 Iria, Cape 46, 93, 268–269 Iria, plain of 11, 48, 65, 75, 77, 111, 198, 203, 203, 253–254, 277 Iria (Xydeika). See Xydeika

F farmsteads 23, 54–55, 106, 111–113, 126–128, 171, 180, 188, 191, 193, 216–217, 219, 223, 232–234, 245, 247–248, 254–255, 268, 270–271, 276, 281, 283, 285–286, 288. See also agricultural sites fortified settlements 19, 21, 24, 26–29, 32, 43, 51, 54, 61, 63–65, 67, 71, 73, 75, 77, 83–84, 90, 93, 95, 98–99, 101, 103–104, 108, 110–112, 114, 117, 119, 121, 123–125, 164, 166, 168, 172, 175, 181, 183, 188, 194, 199, 201, 205, 208, 210, 214, 217, 223, 225, 227, 229–230, 234, 236–237, 239, 241, 244, 250, 252–253, 256, 258–259, 274, 282, 286–287, 290–293, 295–302 fortified signalling systems 69–84. See also lookout– posts; See also signal–stations forts 1, 19, 21, 23, 26–27, 30–32, 43, 46, 51, 67, 69, 73, 75, 77, 79, 89–91, 93, 95–99, 101–104, 107–108, 110–112, 114, 123–125, 127–128, 135, 153, 165– 166, 172, 174–175, 184, 196, 198, 203, 206–207, 210–212, 221–222, 230–231, 247–249, 253, 263, 274, 282–283, 290–291, 293, 295–299, 302

K Kalamaki. See Myloi: Kalamaki Kalaureia 5, 18, 48 Kalaureian Amphictyony 4–5 Kalkani 26, 81, 271–272, 275, 300 Kampia 25, 50, 65, 110, 113–114, 117, 124, 204, 282, 297 Kanapitsa 198, 276. See also Gyphtokastro Kantia 1 28, 44, 50, 67, 91, 93, 108, 205–206, 297 Kantia 2 25, 50, 67, 91, 98, 113, 205–206, 297 Kantia, plain of 11, 48, 205, 273 Kapsala 26, 43–44, 81, 111, 272, 290, 300 Karya 26, 65, 77, 272–273, 300 Kastelli. See Kyparissi Kastraki 19, 23, 30, 33, 43, 50–51, 67, 69, 75, 89, 95–98, 104, 108, 110, 206–207, 212, 247–248, 297 Kastraki (Akova). See Akova: Varda Kastraki (Chouni). See Akova: Chouni Kastraki (Gyphtokastro). See Gyphtokastro Kastraki Phoniskou. See Kastraki Kastraki (Stavropodio). See Stavropodio Kastraki Sternas. See Malantrenion Kastri (Ermioni). See Ermioni

G Gaidourovouni. See Tourniki: Gaidourovouni Galatas: Megali Magoula 23, 30, 32, 50, 89–91, 95, 104, 108, 196–197, 297 garrisons 5, 19, 21, 23, 65, 69, 89–91, 98–99, 101–102, 104, 106, 110, 197, 230 Glympeis 51, 210. See also Kastro tis Paliopanagias Glyppia 51, 210. See also Kastro tis Paliopanagias Goulas. See Andritsa: Goulas ground-floor chambers (towers with) 33, 181, 183, 199, 239–240 Gyklos. See Kastro 2 308

General Index

L

Kastro 1 30, 33, 44, 103, 207–208, 297 Kastro 2 27, 30, 44, 50–51, 65, 67, 75, 97, 103–104, 110, 186, 209–210, 297 Kastro (Andritsa). See Andritsa: Goulas Kastro (Karya). See Karya Kastro (Kastro tis Paliopanagias). See Kastro tis Paliopanagias Kastro Kourounas. See Gymnon Kastro (Lyrkeia). See Lyrkeia Kastro (Paraliο Astros). See Paralio Astros Kastro (Skala 2). See Skala 2 Kastro (Stavropodio). See Stavropodio Kastro tis Paliopanagias 30, 44, 51, 77, 95, 104, 110, 210–211, 297 Kastro tou Kapetanou. See Gyphtokastro Kastro tou Karakasi. See Iliokastro Kastro (Tyros). See Tyros Kato Belesi. See Lyrkeia Kato Doliana. See Tsiorovos Dolianon Kato Phanari 26, 43, 280, 301 Katsampa. See Xydeika Katsigiari 26, 43–44, 119, 124, 280, 301 Katsingri. See Agios Adrianos Kazarma 19, 23, 30, 33, 43, 61, 65, 67, 77, 89, 94–102, 104, 108, 110–111, 128, 207, 211–213, 247–248, 297 Kenchreai 19, 291 Kenchreai, port of 11 Kenchreai, settlment of 51 Kephalari 19, 291 Kephalari (Elliniko). See Elliniko: Kephalari Kephalovryso 25, 65, 67, 77, 117, 213–214, 221, 255, 298 kilns 28, 121, 183, 246, 275, 293 Kleonai 4–5, 12, 15, 17, 27–28, 45–47, 50–51, 54, 58, 61, 65, 70, 77, 81, 83–84, 91, 93, 98, 104, 108, 121, 125, 128, 170, 188, 214–215, 288, 298 Kleonai, territory of 5, 45–47, 50 Kodeles 27, 43, 285, 302 komai 45, 50–52, 83, 91, 96, 112, 117, 124–126, 128, 201, 215, 225, 228, 287 Kondyli 26, 67–69, 81, 273, 301 Kophy Rachi 25, 32, 43, 61, 65, 98, 216, 298 Korakia 27, 43–44, 285, 302 Koroni 26, 43–44, 281–282, 301 Kosmas 19, 291–292 Kotroni. See Spathovouni Koukouras. See Andritsa: Koukouras Krya Vrysi: Marmarakia 25, 113, 117, 216–217, 281, 298 Krya Vrysi: Misorrachi 26, 43, 281, 301 Kynouria 4–5, 26, 33, 46, 51, 61, 67, 83–84, 93, 95, 108, 110, 125, 128, 243 Kyparissi 11, 27–28, 77, 217–219, 298 Kyphanta 28, 50–51, 217. See also Kyparissi Kypraiou. See Petrothalassa: Kypraiou Kyrbissos 21

Laconia Rural Sites Project 3, 283 Lake Lerna 9, 12, 156 Lamian War 91 Lampagiana 25, 33, 50, 67, 73, 104, 219–220, 262, 290, 298 land ownership 54, 126 Larissa (Argos) 1, 11, 32, 35–36, 38–39, 44, 73, 81, 85, 87–89, 97, 127, 175–180, 252, 279 Laurion 107 least cost path analysis 58, 61–69, 99 Lerna 14–16, 179 Lessa 48, 51, 93, 96–97, 212, 274. See also Lygourio 2 Leukai 51 Leuktra, battle of 5, 97 Levkakia 25, 67, 81, 104, 220, 298 Lileika Xeropigadou 25, 67, 69, 81, 104, 117, 221, 255, 298 Limanaki 1 25, 50, 67, 90–91, 197, 221–222, 274, 298 Limanaki 2 26, 50, 90–91, 197, 222, 274, 301 Limani Geraka. See Ierakas Limiko. See Phichtia: Limiko Livathitaiika. See Akova: Chouni; See also Akova: Varda lookout-posts 70, 91. See also fortified signalling systems; See also signal-stations loomweights 21, 28–29, 111, 121, 168, 183, 190, 208, 215, 223–225, 230, 235, 245–246, 259–260 Lophos Kokkinou 19, 292 Loutsa. See Akova: Varda Lygourio 1 14, 19, 23, 25, 32, 50–51, 75, 113–114, 117, 121, 124, 193, 222–223, 284, 297–298, 302 Lygourio 2 26, 29, 50–51, 75, 93, 117, 274, 301 Lyrkeia 28, 50, 65, 67, 95, 99–101, 104, 108, 121, 223–224, 250, 252, 298 Lyrkeia (ancient) 51, 179, 287. See also Skala 2

M Magoula. See Ermioni: Magoula Malantrenion 14, 26, 67, 77, 104, 119, 124, 274–275, 301 Maleviti. See Kampia Mantineia 33–36, 38–39, 58, 60–61, 70, 73, 83, 179, 206, 230, 273, 277 maritime resources 12–13, 17–18. See also salt panning; See also tuna fishing Marmarakia. See Krya Vrysi: Marmarakia Marmaralono Agiou Petrou 23, 26, 33, 43, 65, 77, 112, 121, 275, 301 Mases 236. See also Phranchthi masonry techniques 31–32, 41–44, 95–97, 142, 294–302. See also ashlar masonry; See also carefully fitted masonry; See also coursed polygonal masonry; See also coursed trapezoidal masonry; See also drystone masonry; See also polygonal masonry; See also roughly hewn masonry; See also trapezoidal masonry; See also uncoursed polygonal masonry; See also uncoursed 309

A Landscape of Conflict? Rural Fortifications in the Argolid (400–146 BC) trapezoidal masonry Mathi 27, 43, 285, 302 Mazi plain 97, 127 Megali Magoula (Galatas). See Galatas: Megali Magoula metalworking 28, 121, 190, 249 Methana 4, 6–7, 11, 48, 90–91, 174–175 Metochi 26, 43–44, 281, 301 Metochi (Agios Dimitrios). See Agios Dimitrios Metochi (Pyrgouli). See Pyrgouli Midea 1, 5, 50 millstones 190, 201. See also querns mines 12, 23, 114 Misorrachi. See Krya Vrysi: Misorrachi Monastiraki 27, 43, 285, 302 Moni Agiou Dimitriou Karakala. See Kodeles Moni Panagias Agnountos 26, 43, 281, 301 Mouritsa. See Kophy Rachi Mycenae 1, 4–5, 7, 28, 45, 50, 55, 111, 125, 128–129, 225. See also Mykinai Mykinai 1, 27–28, 33, 58, 61, 73, 81, 95, 98–99, 117–119, 121, 125, 127, 170, 179, 216, 225–227, 234, 271–272, 298 Mylioti. See Phichtia: Limiko Myloi: Kalamaki 14, 27, 43, 119, 124, 285–286, 302

Palaia Epidavros 2 30–31, 43–44, 93, 230, 298 Palaiokastraki (Lyrkeia). See Lyrkeia Palaiokastro (Agios Andreas). See Agios Andreas Palaiokastro (Iliokastro). See Iliokastro Palaiokastro (Stavropodio). See Stavropodio Palaiopyrgos. See Xylopyrgo Palatia. See Nea Epidavros: Palatia Paliokastro Skalas. See Skala 2 Paliopyrgos. See Phichtia: Paliopyrgos Panagia. See Karya Pano Zampyrgo. See Gymnon Papoutsaiika 26, 43, 282, 301 Paralia Leonidiou. See Plaka Leonidiou Paralio Astros 28, 77, 81, 121, 230–231, 298 pastoralism 16–18, 23, 55, 111–112, 114, 117, 121, 123, 126, 263 Perasphalktra 26, 43, 81, 275–276, 301 Periplus Maris Interni 46. See also Scylax of Karyanda Petrothalassa 26–27, 29, 43–44, 50, 54, 73, 93, 95, 99, 286, 302 Petrothalassa: Kypraiou 27, 29, 32, 43, 117, 119, 286, 302 Phichtia: Kokkinia 25, 81, 231–232, 298 Phichtia: Limiko 1, 14, 25, 81, 98, 111, 113, 119, 124, 231–233, 298 Phichtia: Paliopyrgos 25, 81, 233, 298 Phichtia: Stathmos 14, 25, 81, 119, 124, 233–234, 299 Philo of Byzantion 34–36. See also Poliorketika Phleious 4–5, 23, 51, 61, 67, 69–70, 84, 98, 128, 197, 232–234, 255 Phourkaria 28, 50, 75, 90–91, 93, 104, 121, 125, 202, 234–236, 299 Phousia 19, 292 Phragkoklisia. See Myloi: Kalamaki Phranchthi 11, 30, 32, 43, 50, 67, 103–104, 236–237, 299 Phylla (Vrachos) 21, 111 Pigadaki 14, 26, 29, 43, 282, 302 pirates 90, 104, 106 plain of Astros 3, 9, 11, 188 Plaka Leonidiou 29, 33–34, 41–42, 51, 77, 125, 237–238, 242–243, 299 Pogon 91, 128, 197, 221–222, 274 Polichna 29, 51, 241, 243. See also Poulithra Poliorketika 34–36. See also Philo of Byzantion political geography 45–51, 83, 91 polygonal masonry 32, 40–44, 84, 95–98, 100, 124, 164, 166, 168–172, 175–178, 180–186, 188–192, 194–196, 198–200, 202–206, 211–213, 216–217, 219–223, 225–235, 237, 241–242, 245–247, 249–251, 255–257, 259–260, 265–266, 271–274, 277–280, 282–283, 285–286, 291–292, 295–302 Polyphengo. See Iliopoulaiika Porto Cheli 1, 3, 11, 16–18, 29, 32–33, 44, 73, 86–87, 89, 108, 117, 119, 239–241, 286, 288, 299 Porto Ydra 27, 43, 48, 67, 287, 302 posterns 33, 89, 176, 181, 190, 200, 211, 240, 257, 259–260

N Nafplio 1, 9, 19, 28, 81, 83, 95, 106, 127, 171, 179–180, 220, 227–228, 298 Nauplia 4, 28, 50. See also Nafplio Nea Epidavros: Brinia 26, 29, 43, 281–282, 301 Nea Epidavros: Palatia 26, 33, 43, 282, 301 Nemea 15–18, 45, 54–55, 61, 188, 202, 255, 293 Nemea Valley Archaeological Project (NVAP) 3, 54–55, 111, 123, 170 Nera 25, 67, 77, 113, 117, 228, 298 Neris 51 Nisi Agiou Andrea. See Agios Andreas Nisi Paraliou Astrous. See Paralio Astros

O occupation 21, 32, 54–55, 67, 103, 111, 121, 124, 170, 179, 202, 225, 227, 246, 248 olive mills 14–15, 54, 103, 110, 117, 119, 171, 192–193, 202–203, 222, 232–234, 248, 265, 275, 286 olives 12, 14–15, 18, 55, 110, 114, 117, 119, 121, 126. See also presses Orneai 4, 28, 50, 223–224, 250, 252. See also Lyrkeia; See also Sportiza overlap gates 33–34, 206

P Palaia Epidavros 11, 17, 31, 41, 43, 75, 166, 174–175, 281. See also Palaia Epidavros 1; see also Palaia Epidavros 2 Palaia Epidavros 1 28, 41, 50, 75, 86–87, 121, 129, 184, 204, 229, 298 310

General Index

Poulithra 11, 29, 51, 77, 99, 238, 241–243, 299 Pourno. See Lileika Xeropigadou Prasiai 4, 29, 51, 125, 237–238. See also Plaka Leonidiou presses 15, 21, 28–29, 54, 110–111, 117–119, 121, 126, 172–173, 183, 190, 200, 223, 225, 259, 281 Prophitis Ilias (Agio Lias), hill of 46, 165, 207, 279, 283, 285, 291–292. See also Agio Lias Prosilia 25, 67, 77, 81, 113, 117, 243–244, 267, 279, 283, 299 Prosymna: Agios Athanasios 27, 29, 32, 54, 77, 95, 98–99, 104, 108, 121, 124, 244–245, 299 Prosymna: Agios Dimitrios 25, 77, 245, 299 Prosymna (kome) 51, 117 Prosymna, plain of. See Prosymna, valley of Prosymna: Pyrgouthi 3, 14–18, 25, 32, 77, 98, 113–114, 117, 121, 123–124, 128, 244–246, 287, 299 Prosymna: SM 8 27, 43, 287, 302 Prosymna, valley of 1, 15, 27, 51, 54–55, 79, 98, 216, 245, 263, 284 Pylos 21, 55, 103 pyramids 19, 23, 114, 192, 284. See also Elliniko: Kephalari; See also Dalamanara; See also Lygourio 1 Pyrgiotika 25, 81, 247, 299 Pyrgos (Iliopoulaiika). See Iliopoulaiika Pyrgos (Lileika Xeropigadou). See Lileika Xeropigadou Pyrgos (Phichtia: Paliopyrgos). See Phichtia: Paliopyrgos Pyrgos (Zogka). See Zogka: Pyrgos Pyrgouli 14, 19, 25, 67, 77, 104, 111, 113, 119, 124–125, 171, 247–248, 299 Pyrgouthi. See Prosymna: Pyrgouthi Pyrrhus of Epeiros 1, 45, 84

108, 127, 147, 174–175, 187, 207, 211–212, 222, 247, 270 Schinochorio. See Skala 2 Scylax of Karyanda 46. See also Periplus Maris Interni sea-level changes 9, 11, 18, 73, 91, 95, 143. See also coastline changes sediment deposition 8–9, 11, 18, 91, 93 seismic activity 7. See also earthquakes Sepeia, battle of 32, 179 settlement hierarchy 54, 56, 124 settlement patterns 51, 54, 56, 117, 129 signal–stations 23, 67, 69–70, 73, 75–84, 165. See also lookout–posts; See also fortified signalling systems Skala 1 30, 50, 75, 77, 95, 99, 103, 129, 276, 301 Skala 2 27, 29, 43–44, 67, 77, 95, 287, 302 Skala Malandreniou. See Skala 2 soil erosion 7–9, 17 Soros 30, 32, 43, 50, 73, 95, 99, 103, 108, 248–249, 299 Southern Argolid Survey 3, 8, 32, 54–55, 119, 271 Sparta 1, 4–5, 7, 21, 23, 31, 51, 61, 69, 84, 97, 103, 106, 164, 179, 221, 243–244, 250, 266 Spathokommeno 25, 77, 98, 121, 249–250, 299 Spathovouni 27, 43–44, 65, 77, 104, 215, 287–288, 302 Sportiza 27, 29, 33–34, 50, 65, 67, 95, 104, 108, 250–252, 299 Sportiza (Lyrkeia). See Lyrkeia springs 11, 99, 165, 207, 216, 277, 284–285, 291 Stathmos. See Phichtia: Stathmos Stavropodio 30, 33, 50, 65, 75, 77, 95, 98–99, 110–111, 129, 253, 299 Stena 26, 43, 282, 302 Sto Chani. See Skala 2 Sto Toubi. See Phichtia: Stathmos Strongylo 27, 30, 43, 282–283, 302 Stymphalos 11–12, 33, 35–36, 38–39, 41, 61 Sykitsa. See Zogka: Sykitsa

Q quarries 12, 23, 44, 61, 93, 111, 124–125, 188, 271, 296 querns 29, 103, 111, 236, 281, 286

T

R

Tanos 11, 51, 244, 266–267 Tegea 17–18, 46, 51, 61, 164, 178, 191, 193, 228, 289 Teichio. See Elliniko Astrous Tenea 46, 61, 91, 98 terminology (fortifications) 19 territorial boundaries 45–46. See also borders; See also boundary disputes textile production. See loomweights Thalassopetra. See Petrothalassa Thyrea 28, 51, 230–231. See also Paralio Astros Thyreatis 4–5, 43, 51, 61, 65, 83, 97, 108, 128–129, 186, 221, 250, 257, 266 Tiryns 4–5, 29, 50, 253. See also Tiryntha Tiryntha 1, 9, 18, 29, 32, 43, 81, 95, 99, 171, 253, 285, 300 Tobler’s Hiking Formula 60–61, 91. See also least cost path analysis Tou Antreiomenou to Mnema 1 23, 25, 50, 65, 75, 77,

raiding 69, 90–91, 93, 104, 127, 283 refuges 19, 21, 23, 103, 106–112, 124, 126, 128, 165, 208, 236. See also evacuation road network 1, 57–65, 83, 91. See also bridges; See also wheel-ruts roughly hewn masonry 41–44, 87, 95–96, 170–171, 175, 181, 183–184, 187–191, 194, 196, 198–199, 206, 213, 216–217, 221, 225, 230, 234–235, 237, 241– 242, 244–245, 249–251, 255–256, 259, 265–266, 272–274, 277, 291, 295–301

S salt panning 7, 17–18 sanctuaries 16, 18–19, 28–29, 44, 54, 61, 93, 124–125, 129, 147, 165, 179, 184, 240, 256, 268, 275, 281, 286, 290–292 Saronic Gulf 6, 10–11, 27, 48, 51, 67, 75, 77, 83, 95, 97, 311

A Landscape of Conflict? Rural Fortifications in the Argolid (400–146 BC) 111, 113, 253–254, 292, 300 Tou Antreiomenou to Mnema 2 19, 292 Tourkopigado 19, 67, 77, 110, 293 Tourkovrysi 25, 27, 65, 67, 69, 77, 104, 255, 283, 300 Tourniki: Agios Nikolaos sta Ampelia 26, 77, 171, 277, 301 Tourniki: Gaidourovouni 25, 65, 67, 77, 80, 104, 113, 117, 221, 255–256, 277, 300 Tower of Polygnotos 1, 170, 280 towers 1, 3, 6, 17, 19, 21–23, 25–27, 31–36, 38–39, 41, 43–44, 51, 57–58, 67–70, 73, 75, 77, 81, 83, 85, 89–91, 93, 96, 98–99, 102, 104–105, 110–114, 117, 119, 121, 123–129, 164, 166–184, 186–193, 195–202, 203–207, 210–214, 216–217, 219–225, 227–235, 237, 239–251, 253–259, 262, 265–268, 271–293, 295–302 towers (circular) 19, 23, 25–27, 32–33, 67, 89, 114,128, 170, 172–173, 176–178, 186, 189, 195–196, 199, 200, 205–206, 211, 221, 228, 235, 239–241, 243, 253, 259, 266, 279, 286 Tracheia 19, 293 Tracheia, plain of 77, 185–186, 252, 254 Tracheia, valley of. See Tracheia, plain of trapezoidal masonry 40, 42–44, 87, 164, 174, 181, 183, 186–190, 194–195, 197, 201, 229, 234–235, 239, 241–242, 244–245, 253–254, 256–258, 268, 295–300 Tretos pass 1, 61, 280, 282 Troizen 3–5, 16–18, 29, 31, 45, 48, 50, 61, 67, 72–73, 75, 89–91, 93, 98, 125, 128, 172, 221–222, 236, 248, 257, 274. See also Troizina Troizen Archaeology Project 3, 89 Troizen, territory of 48, 50, 90–91 Troizina 29, 31, 33, 50, 73, 87, 89–90, 117–118, 125, 129, 172, 174, 236, 254, 256–257, 300 Tserpho Tyrou 25, 257, 300 Tsibinou. See Phichtia: Kokkinia Tsiorovos. See Xylopyrgo Tsiorovos Dolianon 16, 18, 29, 77, 99, 117, 121, 258–259, 300 Tsorovos. See Tsiorovos Dolianon tuna fishing 17–18 typology (fortifications) 19, 21, 23 Tyros 29, 40, 77, 121, 259–261, 300

Ververonta 27, 43, 288, 302 viewshed analysis 69, 71, 73–83. See also visibility Vigla 11, 30, 44, 46, 50, 67, 73, 99, 103–104, 108, 262–263, 300 Vigliza 27, 30, 33, 67–69, 77, 79, 84, 98–99, 103, 110–112, 121, 126, 263–264, 300 Vigliza (Ano Phanari). See Ano Phanari: Vigliza vines 12, 15, 17, 107, 114, 121 visibility 69–84, 104, 172, 206, 233 Vivari. See Kondyli volcanic activity 7 Vourlia 1 14–15, 30, 44, 50, 73, 77, 99, 103, 119, 264–265, 300 Vourlia 2 25, 50, 73, 77, 265–266, 300 V–shaped fortifications 33–34, 237–238, 251–252

W water supply 11, 89, 99–102, 104, 108, 111 Western Argolid Regional Project (WARP) 3, 55, 129, 224 wheel-ruts 58–65 woodcutting 16, 18

X Xavrio 11, 51, 266–267 Xerias 8, 11, 60, 80–81, 83, 171, 255, 279, 286 Xerokampo. See Tourkovrysi Xerokastelli. See Kazarma Xerovilia. See Nera Xydeika 26, 43, 50, 67, 75, 104, 129, 277–278, 301 Xylopyrgo 25, 65, 67, 69, 77, 81, 104, 111, 117, 266–267, 283, 300

Z Zarax 9, 28, 50–51, 199, 201. See also Ierakas Zavitsa 26, 43, 258, 302 Zavitsa, mountains of 80, 83, 95, 258, 266, 283 Zavitsa (Xylopyrgo). See Xylopyrgo Zekilia. See Pyrgouli Zogka: Asprorrema 27, 43, 77, 288–289, 302 Zogka: Pyrgos 26, 283, 302 Zogka: Sykitsa 27, 43, 289, 302

U uncoursed polygonal masonry 40–44, 166, 168–169, 171, 181–182, 184–185, 188–189, 194–195, 198– 200, 206, 217, 219–220, 225, 227–230, 232–234, 259–260, 274, 295–301 uncoursed trapezoidal masonry 40, 42–43, 174, 194, 229, 241–242, 295, 297–299

V Varda (Akova). See Akova: Varda Varda (Chouni). See Akova: Chouni vegetation 12, 18, 70 312