Greek City Walls of the Archaic Period: 900-480 BC [Illustrated] 0199578125, 9780199578122

Citation preview

Title Pages

Greek City Walls of the Archaic Period, 900–480 BC Rune Frederiksen

Print publication date: 2011 Print ISBN-13: 9780199578122 Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: April 2015 DOI: 10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199578122.001.0001

Title Pages (p.i) Greek City Walls of the Archaic Period (p.ii) Oxford Monographs on Classical Archaeology (p.iii) Greek City Walls of the Archaic Period 900–480 BC The series includes self-contained interpretative studies of the art and archaeology of the ancient Mediterranean world. Authoritative volumes cover subjects from the Bronze Age to late antiquity, with concentration on the central periods, areas, and material categories of the classical Greek and Roman world. Other titles in the series include: The Odrysian Kingdom of Thrace Orpheus Unmasked Z. H. Archibald Hellenistic Engraved Gems Dimitris Plantzos Naukratis Trade in Archaic Greece Astrid Möller The Late Mannerists in Athenian Vase-Painting Thomas Mannack Page 1 of 4

Title Pages Chryselephantine Statuary in the Ancient Mediterranean World Kenneth D. S. Lapatin Approaches to the Study of Attic Vases Beazley and Pottier Philippe Rouet The Protogeometric Aegean The Archaeology of the Late Eleventh and Tenth Centuries BC Irene S. Lemos Brickstamps of Constantinople Volume 1: Text Volume 2: Illustrations Jonathan Bardill Roman Theatres An Architectural Study Frank Sear Late Classical and Hellenistic Silver Plate from Macedonia Eleni Zimi Komast Dancers in Archaic Greek Art Tyler Jo Smith

(p.iv) Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship,

Page 2 of 4

Title Pages and education by publishing worldwide in Oxford New York Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto With offices in Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore South Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries Published in the United States by Oxford University Press Inc., New York © Rune Frederiksen 2011 The moral rights of the author have been asserted Database right Oxford University Press (maker) First published 2011 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this book in any other binding or cover and you must impose the same condition on any acquirer British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Data available Typeset by SPI Publisher Services, Pondicherry, India Printed in Great Britain on acid-free paper by

Page 3 of 4

Title Pages MPG Books Group, Bodmin and King’s Lynn ISBN 978–0-19–957812–2 (Hbk.) 1 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4 2

Page 4 of 4

Dedication

Greek City Walls of the Archaic Period, 900–480 BC Rune Frederiksen

Print publication date: 2011 Print ISBN-13: 9780199578122 Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: April 2015 DOI: 10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199578122.001.0001

Dedication (p.v) For Mogens (p.vi)

Page 1 of 1

Preface

Greek City Walls of the Archaic Period, 900–480 BC Rune Frederiksen

Print publication date: 2011 Print ISBN-13: 9780199578122 Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: April 2015 DOI: 10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199578122.001.0001

(p.vii) Preface This book has been ten years in the making counting from the first year of my PhD studentship at the Copenhagen Polis Centre at the University of Copenhagen in 2000. Archaic Greek City Walls was the topic of my dissertation, suggested to me by Mogens Herman Hansen, then director of the Copenhagen Polis Centre and my supervisor. My warmest thanks go first of all to him. As a supervisor Mogens was simply every PhD student’s dream, by his way of creating an ultimate academic environment, with a positive, friendly, and humoristic atmosphere, and by always being ready to help in every possible way to clarify my ideas, and to help me during the hard work of producing a text from my original manuscript: there was hardly a sentence in the submitted dissertation which he did not help me to improve, in one way or the other. Next, I owe many thanks to my former colleague at the Centre, Thomas Heine Nielsen, with whom I have discussed many aspects of the dissertation, and countless other aspects of the ancient Greeks, and with whom I have shared many good moments. Both Mogens and Thomas acted as my teachers in ancient Greek and as consultants in matters of ancient Greek history and literature, areas in which I, as a Classical Archaeologist, did not have formal training. The Copenhagen Polis Centre was also in this sense a great environment, an opportunity to receive monastic training in a modern university environment. I would never have been able to produce the original dissertation without an environment like the Copenhagen Polis Centre or without its people. I would also like to thank the examiners of the submitted dissertation, John Camp, Lars Karlsson, and Annette Rathje, for a lot of corrections and suggestions in connection with the viva in March 2004, all of which improved the discussions, the quality of the Catalogue, as well as the text itself. Camp has also been a great support during the process of revising the text, with his huge knowledge of city walls and Greek and Turkish topography. Page 1 of 4

Preface The original dissertation was revised and turned into the present book during 2005–9, mainly because the architectural analysis needed to be stronger, and the Catalogue to be changed and updated. Due to full-time employment in museums and universities throughout that period, this work of course took much longer than I would have wanted. I would like to emphasize, however, that as much care as possible has been taken in updating the information and bibliography, in particular of the Catalogue, until the stage when such updating became practically impossible because of the process of producing the book. In this process of revision I have received help from a number of people, without whom, as well, needless to say, this book would never have issued. I would like to single out Jim Coulton, who read my manuscript twice. His broad and deep knowledge of ancient Greek archaeology, topography, and of course architecture, generated hundreds of corrections and suggestions, from detail to the overall picture, and have been of immense importance, and his advice crucially improved, in particular, the architectural parts of the original text. Jim also gave me detailed feedback on illustrations, the final quality of which, I am sure, is still far below what he would have been happy to sign off his own desk. I am also indebted to Bert Smith and Andrew Lintott, both of whom read early drafts and responded with suggestions, corrections, and encouragement. (p.viii) In the summer of 2002 — in the middle of my work on the dissertation — I had the opportunity to excavate at the upper fortification wall of the acropolis at Kalydon, which we, as it happened, were able to date to the late sixth century BC. I learned a lot from that campaign and from Søren Dietz, the director of the Danish-Greek excavations at Kalydon. Alexandra Alexandridou (Athens) was a great support for me, academically as well as personally. With Sylvian Fachard (Athens) I have been able to discuss matters of Greek fortification in great depth, and Gojko Barjamovic (Copenhagen) was always ready to draw my attention to the Near East. Invaluable, too, were the translations from Russian by Thomas Olander (Copenhagen) and from Turkish by Anders R. Rasmussen (the then Klokker in Regensen, Copenhagen). I owe many thanks as well to Martin Skrydstrup, Bobbo Krabbe Magid, and Tobias Magid (all Copenhagen) for suggestions, and, not the least, cooking and good company in times of despair. Mr Fritz Saabye Pedersen (Odense and Copenhagen) has saved me on a number of occasions when, at Christmas or Easter time when the University was devoid of people (except him and myself), I left my office with the keys on the wrong side of the door. His computer skills, moreover, have saved me often as well. An additional number of colleagues and friends have helped me as well in one way or the other. I would like to state in general that excavators and investigators of individual sites and other scholars working with ancient Greek Page 2 of 4

Preface fortifications have been extremely generous and helpful when approached with a letter, an email, or a phone call from me with questions about their excavations or publications. I thank the following people in alphabetical order: Prof. N. Allegro (Palermo), Dr E. Carando (Athens), Prof. N. Ceka (Tirana), C. Dengate and the Halieis team, Prof. A. J. Dominguez (Madrid), Prof. P. Ducrey (Lausanne), Dr Y. Ersoy (Izmir), Dr R. Felsch (Hannover), Mr T. Fischer-Hansen (Copenhagen), Dr P. Gaber (Chicago), Prof. Dr V. Gassner (Vienna), Dr L. Grasso (Catania), Ms A.-S. Hjermov (Copenhagen), Prof. Dr H. P. Isler (Zurich), Dr M. Kerschner (Vienna), Prof. I. Lemos (Oxford), Dr J. Ley (Berlin and Aachen), Prof. Dr F. G. Maier (Zurich), Dr Y. Moschos (Patras), Mrs A.-M. Nielsen (Copenhagen), Dr P. Ørsted (Copenhagen), Dr P. Pachidis (Athens), K. S. Pedersen MA (Copenhagen), Dr P. Pedersen (Odense), Prof. Dr K. Randsborg (Copenhagen), Dr P. Roos (Lund), Dr P. Scherrer (Vienna), Dr E.-L. Schwandner (Berlin), Dr A. Schwartz (Copenhagen), Dr A. Sokolicek (Vienna), Dr S. Solovyov (St Petersburg), Dr B. Tang (Copenhagen), F. Theilgaard (Danish Embassy, Tirana), Dir E. Tréziny (Marseilles), Dr A. Wilson (Oxford). In the process of getting a printable book out of my manuscript I am indepted to Diana Davies, London, for having revised my English (at an early stage) and Niels Grotum, Copenhagen, for having spotted a great number of errors and typos in the ancient Greek. Publishing with Oxford University Press has been a first class experience, and the following people contributed in various ways to the final product: Rowena Anketell (copy-editor), Amy Cusden, Kathleen Fearn, Helen Hill, Dorothy McCarthy (assistant commissioning editor), Abhirami Ravikumar and Hilary O‘Shea (editor). Paul Simmons in Oxford drew the maps for which I am grateful. It should be clear, however, despite all the generous help I have received, that all shortcomings fall back on myself alone. I would, finally, like to thank the Royal Library of Copenhagen which in fact possessed or was able to bring in from abroad most of the literature I needed; the recent cuts in its budget have — so far — only had a limited effect on the possibility to conduct a piece of research like the present one with Copenhagen as a base. I do fear that a similar investigation will not be possible in ten years time. However, I would like to stress that the splendid book delivery service of the Royal Library has saved me innumerable hours and without it there would have been a great temptation to move the working base to for example Athens, Berlin, or Rome. A study like the present one faces the challenge of constantly trying to keep up with the output of new publications, in particular of excavated remains of walls. The ambition of presenting a completely up-to-date Catalogue in this book is, accordingly, part of the reason why it issues six years after the viva of the PhD. Some works came to my attention too late for them to be incorporated, sometimes fully, at other times only partly so (for example F. G. Maier’s excellent Page 3 of 4

Preface publication on the walls of Old Paphos). A modest attempt has been made to compensate for this in an Addendum at the back of the book.

Page 4 of 4

List of Figures

Greek City Walls of the Archaic Period, 900–480 BC Rune Frederiksen

Print publication date: 2011 Print ISBN-13: 9780199578122 Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: April 2015 DOI: 10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199578122.001.0001

(p.x) List of Figures I would like to express my gratitute to colleagues and other copyright holders for allowing me to use their illustrations in this book. Whenever it is not indicated whether permission has been obtained to reproduce a figure, such a permission has either been granted or been sought. 1. Phigaleia, trace of the Classical walls (city-side on right hand side of wall). Author’s photo 1998 2 2. François Vase, Florence, Museo Archeologico, inv. 4209. Reproduced with the kind permission of the Museo Archeologico in Florence 39 3. Section of socle of double-faced or two-shelled wall (R. Frederiksen) 51 4. Section of socle of terrace wall (R. Frederiksen) 52 5. Reconstruction of stone socle with superstructure in mudbrick (Eleusis). Orlandos, Les Matériaux de construction 1, 60 fig. 36 55 6. Stone socle with mudbrick superstructure of wall, Eleusis (W. Wrede, Attische Mauern (Athens 1933), fig. 11) 56 7. Stagiros, relief-decorated and inscribed lintel at gate. Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki, cat. nos. 3180 (left fr) and 3181. The figure is composed by two individual photographs; the left fragment is not photographed at a 90° angle. Courtesy of the Archaeologial Museum of Thessaloniki 64 8. Venn diagram with intersection of sets, showing numbers of fortified towns and poleis according to type of source (R. Frederiksen) 112 9. Bar chart of geographical distribution of types of source for Archaic city walls (R. Frederiksen) 113 10. Abai, gate with lintel. Author’s photo 1998 122 11. Abdera, general plan of the site and fortifications. Suggested trace of circuit indicated (dotted line) (D. Triandaphyllos, ‘Abdera: The Classical

Page 1 of 9

List of Figures and Hellenistic Cities’, in Moustaka et al. (eds.), Klazomenai, Teos and Abdera, 262 fig. 1, with permission) 123 12. Abdera, phases 1–2 of wall (Ch. Koukouli-Chrysanthaki, in Moustaka et al. (eds.), Klazomenai, Teos and Abdera, 238 fig. 6, with permission) 124 13. Achilleion (Beşik-Yassitepe), general plan of the site (after M. Korfmann, ‘Beşik-Tepe, vorbericht über die Ergebnisse der Grabung von 1984’, AA (1986), fig. 2). Archaic Wall found (A) and suggested trace of circuit indicated (crosses) 124 (p.xi) 14. Achilleion, outer face of fortification wall (at A) (M. Korfmann, ‘BeşikTepe 1985 und 1986’, AA (1988), fig. 3) 125 (p.xii) 15. Agios Andreas, general plan of the site and fortifications (Televantou, ‘Ayios Andreas’, fig. 2, with permission) 126 16. Aigina, general plan of the site and fortifications (G. Welter, Aigina (Berlin 1938), fig. 36). Walls found (A–C) and suggested trace of circuit indicated (stippled) 127 17. Akragas, general plan of the site and fortifications (Romeo (ed.), Sicilia, plan 1) 127 18. Alalie, plan and section of the south rampart (J. Jehasse and L. Jehasse, ‘La Société corse face à l’expansion phocéenne’, in Iberos y Griegos: Lecturas desde la diversidad, HuelvaArq 13.2 (1994), 305–22, fig. 2) 127 19. Amathous, general plan of the site and fortifications (after P. Aupert, Guide d’Amathonte (Paris 1996), pl. I, with permission), and (above) plan of North Wall of Lower Town (P. Aupert, Guide to Amathus (Nicosia 2000), pl. 11, with permission). Archaic portions (at A–C) and suggested completion of circuit, lower town (stippled) 128 20. Ambrakia, general plan of the site and fortifications (Hammond, Epirus, map 6, by permission of Oxford University Press) 129 21. Antissa, general plan of the site and fortifications (W. Lamb, ‘Antissa’, BSA 32 (1931–2), 41–67, ps. 17–18). Archaic walls (A–C) and suggested trace of circuit (stippled) 130 22. Antissa, elevation of wall. Lamb, ‘Antissa’, fig. 4 130 23. Apollonia, general plan of the site and fortifications (M. G. Amore, ‘Apollonia d’Illyrie (Albanie)’, BCH 119 (1995), at 766 fig. 2) 131 24. Argos, general plan of the site and fortifications (Lang, Siedlungen, fig. 34, with permission). Archaic remains (A), suggested trace of Classical circuit (stippled) 132 25. Asine, general plan of the site and fortifications (B. Wells, ‘Early Greek Building Sacrifices’, in R. Hägg et al., Early Greek Cult Practice (Stockholm 1988), 259–66, fig. 1, with permission). Walls found (solid) and suggested trace of circuit (stippled) 132 26. Bouthroton, general plan of the site and fortifications (N. Ceka, ‘Städtebau in der vorrömischen Periode in Südillyrien’, Akten des XIII. Page 2 of 9

List of Figures Internationalen Kongresses für Klassische Archäologie, Berlin 1988 (Mainz am Rhein 1990), 215–29, fig. 7, with permission). Sections of inner circuit Archaic 134 27. Corinth, general plan of the site and fortifications (Williams, ‘Urbanization Corinth’, fig. 3) 135 28. Corinth, plan of walls at Potters’ Quarter (Stillwell, Potters’ Quarter, pl. 51, courtesy of the Trustees of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens) 136 29. Corinth, socle of seventh-century BC wall at Potters’ Quarter. Seen from the north towards the Akrocorinth. Author’s photo 2009 136 30. Eleusis, plan of acropolis and sanctuary with fortification, partly reconstructed (Travlos, Attika, fig. 136, © Ernst Wasmuth Verlag Tübingen) 137 31. Emporio, general plan of the site and reconstructed trace of circuit (Boardman, Emporio, fig. 4, with permission) 138 32. Ephesos, general plan of the site and fortifications. Archaic wall remains (A). Modified from P. Scherrer and E. Trinkl, Die Tetragonos Agora in Ephesos: Grabungsergebnisse von archaischer bis in byzantinische Zeit — ein Überblick. Befunde und Funde klassischer Zeit. Forshungen in Ephesos 13.2 (Vienna 2006), pl. 3, with permission 139 33. Eretria, general plan of the site and fortifications (modified from plan obtained from S. Fachard, Swiss School at Athens, with permission). Suggested trace of southern perimeter in C7 (crosses) and trace of later walls (dotted line) 140 34. Eretria, West Gate area phase 1. From Krause, Westtor, plan 2, with permission 140 35. Eretria, reconstruction/interpretation of walls at West Gate area phase 1 (Krause, Westtor, fig. 4, with permission) 141 36. Eretria, West Gate area phase 2 (Krause, Westtor, plan 3, with permission) 141 37. Eretria, reconstruction/interpretation of walls at West Gate area phase 2 (Krause, Westtor, fig. 5, with permission) 141 38. Euesperides, general plan of the site and fortifications. Archaic walls found (H, N, and Q) and suggested trace of circuit (stippled). From P. Bennett et al., ‘Euesperides (Benghazi): Preliminary Report on the Spring 2000 season’, LibStud 31 (2000), 121–43, fig. 1, with permission 142 39. Euesperides, plan of Area H and N with wall (J. A. Lloyd et al., ‘Excavations at Euesperides (Benghazi): An Interim Report on the 1998 Season’, LibStud 29 (1998), 145–68, fig. 2) 142 40. Gela, general plan of site and fortifications (G. Spagnolo, ‘Recente scavi nell’area della vecchia stazione di Gela’, QuadMess 6 (1991), 55–70, pl. 27 fig. 1). Suggested trace of circuit stippled 143 41. Gela, plan of wall and other structures on acropolis (P. Orlandini and D. Adamesteanu, ‘L’acropoli di Gela’, NSc XVI (1962), 340–7 pl. 1) 144 Page 3 of 9

List of Figures 42. Gela, outer face of fortification wall (P. Orlandini, ‘La Terza Campagna di Scavo sull’Acropoli di Gela’, Kokalos VII (1961), pl. 16 fig. 4) 144 43. Halai, general plan of site and Archaic sections of fortification (based on H. Goldman, ‘The Acropolis of Halae’, Hesperia 9 (1940) 381–514, at 381–97, 430, pl. 3, © courtesy of the Trustees of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens) 145 44. Halieis, plan of the site and fortifications (after McAllister, Halieis, fig. 18, reprinted with permission of Indiana University Press). Archaic walls found (A and B). Reconstructed trace of two circuits (stippled) and hypothetical traces of Archaic sections combining the two (crosses) 146 45. Heloron, plan of the site and fortifications (Romeo, Sicilia, plan 5) 147 46. Heloron, plan of wall on north-west side of plateau, including (outer face) of Archaic wall and later reinforcement in front (E. Militello, ‘Eloro: III. — Relazione degli Scavi del 1958–1959’, MonAnt 47 (1966), 299–335, at 310–4, fig. 62) 147 (p.xiii) 47. Heloron, wall on north-west side of plateau, including (outer face) of Archaic wall and later reinforcement in front. Author’s photo 2001 148 48. Hephaistia, general plan of the site and fortifications (E. Greco, ‘Hephaestia 2004’, ASAtene 82.2 (2004), 809–21, fig. 1, with permission) 148 49. Hyele, general plan of the site and fortifications (V. Gassner, ‘Neue Forschungen zu den frühen Stadtmauern von Velia’, in F. Blakolmer and H. D. Szemethy (eds.), Akten des 8. österreichischen Archäologentages (Vienna 2001), 81–90, fig. 1, with permission) 149 50. Hypsele, general plan of the site and indication of line of wall (Ch. A. Televantou, ‘Ο αρχαίος οικισμός της γψηλής στην Άνδρο’, Andriaka Chronika 29 (1998), 31–55, fig. 1) 150 51. Iasos, general plan of the site and fortifications (D. Levi, ‘Gli scavi di Iasos’, ASAtene 29–30 (1967–8), 537–94, pl. C, with permission). EIA walls found (3, g) and suggested trace of circuit indicated (stippled) 151 52. Idalion, general plan of the site and fortifications (Stager and Walker (eds.), Idalion, fig. 2 at p. 4, with permission) 151 53. Istros, general plan of the site and fortifications (P. Dupont et al., ‘Les Enceintes grecques d’Histria: vers une nouvelle approche’, in P. Lévêque and O. Lordkipanidzé (eds.), Religions du Pont-Euxin: Actes du VIIIe symposium de Vani 1997 (Paris 1999), 37–52, fig. 1, with permission). Walls found (As) and suggested trace of circuit indicated (stippled) 153 54. Kalydon, general plan of the site and fortifications (Dietz and Stavropoulou-Gatsi (eds.), Kalydon I, with permission). Archaic wall found at A 153 55. Kalydon, outer face of fortification wall, central acropolis, south side. Author’s drawing 2002. © Danish Institute at Athens, with permission 154

Page 4 of 9

List of Figures 56. Kalydon, outer face of fortification wall, central acropolis, south side. Author’s photo 2002. © Danish Institute at Athens, with permission 154 57. Kamarina, general plan of the site and fortifications (Romeo, Sicilia, pl. 3) 155 58. Kaulonia, general plan of the site and fortifications (Tréziny, Kaulonia, fig. 81, with permission). Archaic wall found (D), and suggested completion of circuit indicated (dotted) 155 59. Kyme, general plan of the site and fortifications (after d’Agostino et al., Cuma, pl. 1). Archaic walls (1,100, and at 1–3) and suggested trace of circuit indicated (stippled) 157 60. Leontinoi, general plan of the site and fortifications (after Rizza, Fortificazioni, fig. 1) 159 61. Leontinoi, wall with gate and tower between the S. Mauro Hill and the Metapiccola Hill (Rizza, Fortificazioni, fig. 7) 159 62. Leontinoi, wall with tower at the east side of S. Mauro Hill (Rizza, Fortificazioni, fig. 4) 160 63. Leontinoi, wall on east side of S. Mauro Hill. Author’s photo 2001 160 (p.xiv) 64. Lokroi Epizephyrioi, general plan of the site and fortifications (M. Barra Bagnasco, ‘Spazi interni ed esterni alle mura nella zona costiera di Locri Epizefiri: Un esempio di pianificazione integrata’, Orizzonti 1 (2000), 11–33. fig. 1) 161 65. Lokroi Epizephyrioi, the gate Porta Portuense as reconstructed (Barra Bagnasco, ‘Spazi interni’, fig. 8a) 161 66. Massalia, general plan of the site and fortifications (after H. Tréziny, ‘Les Fortifications de Marseille’, in M. Bouiron et al. (eds.), Marseille. Trames et paysages urbains de Gyptis au Roi René (Aix-en-Provence 2001), 45–57, fig. 2, with permission). Wall found (A) and suggested trace of circuit (stippled) 162 67. Megara Hyblaea, general plan of the site and fortifications (from Gras et al., Mégara Hyblaea 5, unnumbered plan, with permission). Walls found (A, B, C, West Wall) and suggested trace of circuit (stippled) 163 68. Megara Hyblaea. West Gate and Tower 5 (From P. Orsi and F. S. Cavallari, ‘Megara Hyblaea’, MonAnt 1 (1889), 723–47, pl. 2) 164 69. Megara Hyblaea, circular tower in the late Archaic wall (phase 3). Author’s photo 2001 165 70. Melie, general plan of the site and fortifications (after Kleiner et al., Melie, pl. 1). Suggested continuation of trace of lower circuit (stippled) 165 71. Melie, plan of upper acropolis (Kale Tepe) and fortifications (Kleiner et al., Melie, pl. 2) 166 72. Melie, outer face of lower wall (Müller-Wiener, ‘Melie’, 102 fig. 47) 166

Page 5 of 9

List of Figures 73. Metapontion, general plan of the site and fortifications (after D. Adamesteanu ‘Le fortificazioni’, in D. Adamesteanu et al., Metaponto I. NSc suppl. 29 (Rome 1980), 242–89, at 257–64, fig. 10). Walls found (A, B) 167 74. Metapontion, West wall with sally port (D. Adamesteanu, ‘Le fortificazioni’, fig. 277) 167 75. Methymna, general plan of the site and fortifications (Buchholz, Methymna, fig. 4). Walls found (A, B, and C), suggested trace of circuit (stippled) 168 76. Miletos, general plan of the site and fortifications (W. Müller-Wiener, ‘Bemerkungen zur Topographie des archaischen Milet’, in W. MüllerWiener (ed.), Milet 1899–1980. Ergebnisse, Probleme und Perspektiven einer Ausgrabung. Kolloquium Frankfurt am Main 1980 (Tübingen 1986), 95–104, at 95–8, fig. 24, with permission © Ernst Wasmuth Verlag Tübingen). Walls found (A, D, and E), suggested trace of circuit (stippled) 169 77. Miletos, walls at Kalabaktepe (Gerkan, Kalabaktepe, pl. 3, with permission © Ernst Wasmuth Verlag Tübingen) 169 78. Miletos, Kalabaktepe, wall AA, outer face. Author’s photo 2004 170 79. Minoa, general plan of the site and fortifications (after Marangou, Αμοργός, fig. 246). Walls found and suggested trace of circuit (crosses) 171 80. Myrmekeion, general plan of the site and fortifications (Y. A. Vinogradov et al., ‘Myrmekeion — Porthmeus: Two “Small” Towns of Ancient Bosporus’, in D. V. Grammenos and E. K. Petropoulos (eds.), Ancient Greek Cities in the Black Sea (Thessaloniki 2003), 803–25, at 805–8, 831 fig. 1, with permission). Archaic wall identified (1), suggested trace of circuit stippled 172 81. Naxos (Sicily), general plan of the site and fortifications (M. C. Lentini, ‘L’abitato proto-arcaico di Naxos di Sicilia (scavi 1998–1999)’, in M. C. (p.xv) Lentini (ed.), Le due città di Naxos: Atti del Seminario di Studi Giardini Naxos 29–31 Ottobre 2000 (Giardini Naxos 2004), 28–34, plan at p. 28, permission granted). Suggested trace of circuit (stippled) and suggested line of western LBA-EIA wall indicated (hollow dots) 173 82. Naxos (Sicily), Archaic walls at South-west corner of town and sanctuary of Hera (P. Pelagatti, ‘Naxos II — Ricerche topografiche e scavi 1965–1970. Relazione preliminare’, BdA 57 (1972), 211–20, fig. 2). Phase 1: B, C, F. Phase 2: E. Phase 3: A, G 174 83. Naxos (Sicily), wall F at the south-west corner of the city. Author’s photo 2001 174 84. Oikonomos, general plan of the site and fortifications (D. U. Schilardi, ‘Αρχαιολογιαὶ ἔpευναι ἐν Πάρῳ’ Praktiká (1975 A), 197–211, at 205–11 fig. 3, plan, with permission) 175

Page 6 of 9

List of Figures 85. Old Paphos, general plan of the site and fortifications (after Maier and Karageorghis, Paphos, fig. 100, with permission). Walls found (KA, KB), suggested line of circuit (crosses). New plan: Maier, Nordost-Tor, fig. 238 177 86. Old Paphos. Wall at site KA (F. G. Maier and M.-L. von Wartburg, ‘Reconstructing History from the Earth, ca. 2800 B.C.-1600 A.D.: Excavating at Palaepaphos, 1966–1985’, in V. Karageorghis (ed.), Archaeology in Cyprus 1960–1985 (Nicosia 1985), 153–5, fig. 6, with permission). New plan: Maier, Nordost-Tor, Beilage 1 177 87. Old Paphos. Section of wall at B–B (Maier and Karageorghis, Paphos, fig. 150, with permission). New section: Maier, Nordost-Tor, fig. 19 178 88. Old Paphos, reconstruction of phase 1 (Maier and Karageorghis, Paphos, fig. 149, with permission). New fig.: Maier, Nordost-Tor, figs. 41 and 237 A 178 89. Old Paphos Reconstruction of phase 2 (Maier and Karageorghis, Paphos, fig. 180, with permission). New fig.: Maier, Nordost-Tor, figs. 87 and 237 B 179 90. Pergamon, general plan of the site and fortifications (Radt, ‘Frühesten Wehrmauern’, fig. 1, with permission) 180 91. Pergamon, plan of walls 1–2 (Radt, ‘Frühesten Wehrmauern’, Beilage 2, with permission) 181 92. Phaistos, general plan of the site and fortifications (after N. Cucuzza, ‘Festòs “Post-Minoica”: Note di topografia e di storia’, CretAnt 6 (2005), 285–335, fig. at p. 122, with permission). Wall identified and suggested further trace of circuit indicated (crosses) 181 93. Phokaia, general plan of the site and fortifications (after Özyıǧıt, ‘Phokaia’, fig. 1, with permission). Walls found (As), suggested trace of circuit indicated (crosses) 182 94. Phokaia, elevation of wall and buttress at the Maltepe Tumulus (Özyıǧıt, ‘Phokaia’, figs. 3–4, with permission) 183 95. Salamis (Cyprus), general plan of the site and fortifications (Balandier, ‘Cyprus’, fig. 3, with permission). Wall and suggested trace of circuit (stippled), suggested trace of later circuit (dotted line) 184 96. Selinous, general plan of the site and fortifications (after Mertens, Selinus, Beilage 1, with permission). Walls found (A, B), trace of circuit (stippled, Mertens) and further suggested trace of circuit (crosses, Mertens/further interpretation Frederiksen) 185 (p.xvi) 97. Selinous, Small Eastern Gate (Mertens, Selinus, fig. 370, with permission) 186 98. Selinous, Great Eastern Gate (Mertens, Selinus, fig. 394, with permission) 186 99. Siris, general plan of the site and fortifications (B. Hänsel, ‘Scavi eseguiti nell’ area dell’ acropoli di Eraclea negli anni 1965–1967’, NSc 27 (1973), 400–92, at 429–41 and 491–2, fig. 1). Wall found (A) 187 Page 7 of 9

List of Figures 100. Old Smyrna, general plan of the site with fortifications and suggested completion of circuit (stippled) (Mazarakis Ainian, Rulers’ Dwellings, fig. 395, with permission) 188 101. Old Smyrna, NE Gate area (Nicholls, ‘Old Smyrna’, fig. 18) 189 102. Old Smyrna, plan and elevation of Wall 1 Tower (phase 1) at NE Gate (Nicholls, ‘old Smyrna’, fig. 19) 189 103. Old Smyrna, section of Wall I–III (phases 1–3) at λ – λ1. Nicholls, ‘Old Smyrna’, pl. 7 190–1 104. Stagiros, general plan of the site with fortifications (K. Sismanides, Αρχαία Στάγειρα, γενέτειρα του Αριστοτέλη, 2nd edn. (Olympiada 1997), pl. 1, with permission). Wall found (A), and suggested trace of fortification (stippled) 192 105. Taucheira, general plan of the site with fortifications (P. Bennett et al., ‘The Effects of Recent Storms on the Exposed Coastline of Tocra’, LibStud 35 (2004), 113–22, at 118–22, fig. 2, with permission). Walls found (A, B), and suggested trace of circuit (stippled) 193 106. Taucheira, plan of wall (Boardman and Hayes, Tocra 1, fig. 4) 193 107. Teichioussa, general plan of the site and fortifications (W. Voigtländer, Teichiussa: Näherung und Wirklichkeit (Rahden in Westfalen 2004), 146–8, pl. 97, with permission) 194 108. Thasos, general plan of the site with fortifications (D. Vivier, ‘Nouvelles données archéologiques sur la fortification de Thasos’, in E. Greco (ed.), Architettura, urbanistica, societa, nel mondo antico: Giornata di studi in ricordo di Roland Martin (Paestum 2001), 65–77, fig. 1, with permission). Indications of excavated Archaic sections (A, B) 194 109. Thasos, Gate of the Charites (F. Blondé, A. Muller, and D. Mulliez, ‘Les Abords Nord-Est de l’agora (terrain Valma)’, BCH 124.2 (2000), 516– 20, fig. 9, with insert from F. Blondé, A. Muller, and D. Mulliez, ‘Évolution urbaine d’une colonie à l’époque archaïque. L’exemple de Thasos’, in Luce (ed.), Urbanisme, 251–65, fig. 89) 195 110. Thasos, plan and section of the Gate of Parmenon (C. Fredrich, ‘Thasos’, AM 33 (1908), 215–46, figs. 4–5) 196 111. Vroulia, general plan of the site with wall (Kinch, Vroulia, unnumbered plan) 197 112. Xobourgo, general plan of the site with fortifications (N. Kourou, ‘Tenos-Xobourgo: From a Refuge Place to an Extensive Fortified Settlement’, in Stamatopoulou and Yeroulanou (eds.), Culture, 255–68, fig. 2) 198 113. Xobourgo, Wall AA (Kourou, ‘Tenos-Xobourgo’, fig. 3) 199 114. Zagora, general plan of the site with fortifications (after Cambitoglou et al., Zagora 2, pl. 2, with permission) 199

Page 8 of 9

List of Figures

Page 9 of 9

List of Tables

Greek City Walls of the Archaic Period, 900–480 BC Rune Frederiksen

Print publication date: 2011 Print ISBN-13: 9780199578122 Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: April 2015 DOI: 10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199578122.001.0001

(p.xvii) List of Tables 1. Chronological distribution of walls dated by external evidence (category A) 201–2 2. Geographical distribution of walls dated by external evidence (category A) 203–4 3. Geographical distribution of walls dated by circumstantial evidence (category B) 204 4. Chronological distribution of walls attested directly or indirectly by literary sources (category C) 205 5. Geographical distribution of walls attested directly or indirectly by literary sources (category C) 206 6. Intramural areas enclosed by walls of Early Iron Age towns 207 7. Basic elements and dimensions of Early Iron Age walls 207 8. Intramural areas enclosed by walls of seventh-century towns and cities 208 9. Basic elements and dimensions of seventh-century walls 208 10. Intramural areas enclosed by walls of middle Archaic towns and cities, 600–550 BC 209 11. Basic elements and dimensions of middle Archaic walls, 600–550 BC 210 12. Intramural areas enclosed by walls of late Archaic towns and cities, 550–480 BC 210 13. Basic elements and dimensions of late Archaic walls, 550–480 BC 211 14. Temples dating from the eighth to the seventh century BC 212 15. Poleis founded in the Greek West in the Archaic period, with indication of attestation of fortification 213

Page 1 of 2

List of Tables

Page 2 of 2

List of Maps

Greek City Walls of the Archaic Period, 900–480 BC Rune Frederiksen

Print publication date: 2011 Print ISBN-13: 9780199578122 Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: April 2015 DOI: 10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199578122.001.0001

(p.xviii) List of Maps 1. Geographical distribution of walled towns before 600 BC, wall categories A and C 214 2. Geographical distribution of walled poleis, 600–550 BC and 550–480 BC, wall category A 216 3. Geographical distribution of walled poleis, 550–480 BC, wall categories A, B, and C 218 4. Geographical distribution of walled poleis, 550–480 BC, wall categories A, B, and C (central Greek world) 220

Page 1 of 1

Abbreviations

Greek City Walls of the Archaic Period, 900–480 BC Rune Frederiksen

Print publication date: 2011 Print ISBN-13: 9780199578122 Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: April 2015 DOI: 10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199578122.001.0001

(p.xix) Abbreviations Ancient Authors and Texts Standard abbreviations of ancient authors and texts are used as given in the Oxford Classical Dictionary, 3rd edn.

Dates The following abbreviations appear in the notes and Catalogue: a.q. ante quem C century Ce early part of the century Cf first half of the century Cl late part of the century Cm middle of the century Cs second half of the century so e.g. C8f = the first half of the eighth century, C6m = the middle of the sixth century EG Early Geometric EH Early Helladic EIA Page 1 of 20

Abbreviations Early Iron Age G Geometric LBA Late Bronze Age LG Late Geometric LH Late Helladic LM Late Minoan MG Middle Geometric MH Middle Helladic PC Protocorinthian PG Protogeometric p.q. post quem rBC information appearing in a later source but concerning this year, so e.g. r415BC is an event of 415BC mentioned by a later source, not contemporary or near-contemporary with the event (p.xx)

General AA Archäologischer Anzeiger AAA Αρχαιολογικά ανάλεκτα εζ Αθηνών ActaCl Acta classica: Proceedings of the Classical Association of South Africa ADelt Αρχαιολογικόν δελτίον AErgoMak Το αρχαιολογικό έργο στη Μακεδόνια και Θράκη AGC Ancient Greek Cities: Athens Technological Organization, Athens Center of Ekistics (1971–) d’Agostino et al., Cuma B. d’Agostino, F. Fratta, and V. Malpede, Cuma: Le fortificazioni, 1. Lo scavo 1994–2002 (Naples 2005) Page 2 of 20

Abbreviations AJA American Journal of Archaeology AK Antike Kunst Akurgal, Alt-Smyrna E. Akurgal, Alt-Smyrna, I. Wohnschichten und Athenatempel (Ankara1983) Akurgal, ‘Archaic Period Wall of Smyrna’ M. Akurgal, ‘Archaic Period Wall of Smyrna’, in B. Brandt et al.(eds.), Synergia: Festschrift für Friedrich Krinzinger, 2 vols. (Vienna 2005), 83–8 AM Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Athenische Abteilung Anatolia Anatolia. Revue annuelle de l’Institut d’archéologie de l’université d’Ankara AncCivScytSib Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia: An International Journal of Comparative Studies in History and Archaeology Andriaka Chronika Ανδριακά Χρονικά Antiquity Antiquity: A Quarterly Review of Archaeology AR Archaeological Reports: The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies and the British School at Athens Archaiognosia Αρχαιογνωσία ArchEph Αρχαιολογική Εφημερίς ASAtene Annuario della Scuola archeologica di Atene e delle Missioni italiane in Oriente Asia Minor Studien Asia Minor Studien AttiTaranto Atti del Convegno di studi sulla Magna Graecia, Taranto Autino, Terremoti P. Autino, I terremoti nella Grecia Classica: Memorie dell’istituto lombardo, Accademia di Science e Lettere (Milan 1987) Balandier, Fortifications

Page 3 of 20

Abbreviations C. Balandier, Fortifications et défense des territoires à Chypre de l’époque archaïque aux invasions arabes (VIIIe av. N.E.-VIIe de N.E.) (Unpubl. Diss., Marseilles, 1999) Balandier, ‘Cyprus’ C. Balandier, ‘The Defensive Organization of Cyprus at the Time of the City-Kingdoms (8th Century B.C. to the End of the 4th Century B.C.)’, RDAC 2000, 169–84 BASOR Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research BCH Bulletin de correspondance hellénique BdA Bollettino d’arte BJb Bonner Jahrbücher des Rheinischen Landesmuseums in Bonn und des Vereins von Altertumsfreunden im Rheinlande (p.xxi) Blackman, Rankov et al., Shipsheds D. J. Blackman, N. B. Rankov, K. Baika, H. Gerding, J. Mckenzie, and J. Pakkanen, Shipsheds in the Ancient Mediterranean (Cambridge, forthcoming) Boardman, Emporio J. Boardman, Greek Emporio: Excavations in Chios 1952–1955, BSA suppl. 6 (London 1967) Boardman, ‘Material Culture’ J. Boardman, ‘The Material Culture of Archaic Greece’, CAH2 III.3 (Cambridge 1982), 442–61 Boardman and Hayes, Tocra 1 J. Boardman and J. W. Hayes, Excavations at Tocra, 1963–1965 The Archaic Deposits I. BSA suppl. vol. 4.1 (Oxford 1966) BSA Annual of the British School at Athens BTCGI Bibliografia topografica della colonizzazione Greca in Italia e nelle isole tirreniche (Pisa, Rome, and Naples) Buchholz, Methymna H.-G. Buchholz, Methymna (Mainz am Rhein 1975) Butroti Butroti: Përmbledhje Studimesh CAH2 Cambridge Ancient History, 2nd edn. Cambitoglou et al., Zagora 1 A. Cambitoglou et al., Zagora 1: Excavation of a Geometric Town on the Island of Andros (Sydney 1971) Cambitoglou et al., Zagora 2 Page 4 of 20

Abbreviations A. Cambitoglou et al., Zagora 2: Excavation of a Geometric Town on the Island of Andros (Athens 1988) Camp, ‘Walls’ J. McK. Camp II, ‘Walls and the Polis’, in Flensted-Jensen et al. (eds.), Polis and Politics, 41–57 Carpenter and Bon, Defences R. Carpenter and A. Bon, The Defences of Acrocorinth and the Lower Town. Corinth vol. iii.ii (Cambridge, Mass. 1936) Carratelli, Western Greeks G. P. Carratelli (ed.), The Western Greeks: Classical Civilization in the Western Mediterranean (London 1996) Childs, City-Reliefs W. A. P. Childs, The City-Reliefs of Lycia (Princeton 1978) Cobet, ‘Mauern’ J. Cobet, ‘Milet 1994–1995: Die Mauern sind die Stadt. Zur Stadtbefestigung des Antiken Milet’, AA (1997), 249–84 Coldstream, Formation N. J. Coldstream, The Formation of the Greek Polis: Aristotle and Archaeology. Talk delivered in Rheinisch-Westfälische Akademie der Wissenschaften 1983 (Düsseldorf 1984) Coldstream, Geometric Greece J. N. Coldstream, Geometric Greece (London 1977) Coldstream, ‘Temples’ J. N. Coldstream, ‘Greek Temples: Why and Where’, in P. E. Easterling and J. V. Muir (eds.), Greek Religion and Society (Cambridge 1985), 67–97 Cook, Troad J. M. Cook, The Troad (Oxford, 1973) Cook and Nicholls, Temples J. M. Cook and R. V. Nicholls, The Temples of Athena. BSA suppl. 30 (Athens 1998) Coulton, Architects J. J. Coulton, Ancient Greek Architects at Work: Problems of Structure and Design (New York 1977) Courtils, ‘L’Appareil polygonal “lesbien’” J. des Courtils, ‘L’Appareil polygonal “lesbien” et l’architecture éolique’, REA 100 (1998), 125–37 (p.xxii) CPCActs 1 M. H. Hansen (ed.), The Ancient Greek City-State (Copenhagen 1993) CPCActs 2 M. H. Hansen (ed.), Sources for the Ancient Greek City-State (Copenhagen 1995) CPCActs 3

Page 5 of 20

Abbreviations M. H. Hansen (ed.), Introduction to an Inventory of Poleis (Copenhagen 1996) CPCActs 4 M. H. Hansen (ed.), The Polis as an Urban Centre and as a Political Community (Copenhagen 1997) CPCActs 5 M. H. Hansen (ed.), Polis and City-State: An Ancient Concept and Its Modern Equivalent (Copenhagen 1998) CPCActs 6 T. H. Nielsen and J. Roy (eds.), Defining Ancient Arcadia (Copenhagen 1999) CPCPapers 1 D. Whitehead (ed.), From Political Architecture to Stephanus Byzantius: Sources for the Ancient Greek Polis (Stuttgart 1994) CPCPapers 2 M. H. Hansen and K. Raaflaub (eds.), Studies in the Ancient Greek Polis (Stuttgart 1995) CPCPapers 4 T. H. Nielsen (ed.), Yet More Studies in the Ancient Greek Polis (Stuttgart 1997) CPCPapers 5 P. Flensted-Jensen (ed.), Further Studies in the Ancient Greek Polis (Stuttgart 2000) CPCPapers 6 T. H. Nielsen (ed.), Even More Studies in the Ancient Greek Polis (Stuttgart 2002) CPCPapers 7 T. H. Nielsen (ed.), Once Again: Studies in the Ancient Greek Polis (Stuttgart 2004) CretAnt Creta antica: Rivista annuale di studi archeologici, storici ed epigrafici CronA Cronache di archeologia Debord and Descat (eds.), Fortifications P. Debord and R. Descat (eds.), Fortifications et défense du territoire en Asie Mineure occidentale et méridionale, REA 96.1–2 (1994), 7– 355 Dekapente Chronia Θεσσαλία. Δεκαπέντε χρόνια αρχαιολογικής έρευνας, 1975– 1990.Αποτελέσματα και προπτικές. Πρακτικά διεθνούς συνεδρίου, Λυών, 17–22 Απριλίου 1990. = La Thessalie: Quinze années de recherches archéologiques, 1975–1990. Bilans et perspectives. Actes

Page 6 of 20

Abbreviations du collège international Lyon, 17–22 avril 1990. Volume B (Athens 1994) Denti and Lanos, ‘Rouges, non rougies’ M. Denti and P. Lanos, ‘Rouges, non rougies. Les briques de l’Incoronta et le problème de interprétation des depôts de cerámique’, MEFRA 119.2 (2007), 445–81 Descoeudres, Colonists J.-P. Descoeudres (ed.), Greek Colonists and Native Populations (Oxford 1990) Dickinson, Aegean O. Dickinson, The Aegean from Bronze Age to Iron Age:Continuity and Change Between the Twelfth and Eighth Centuries BC (London 2006) Dietz and Papachristodoulou, Dodecanese S. Dietz and I. Papachristodoulou (eds.), Archaeology in the Dodecanese (Copenhagen 1988) Dietz and Stavropoulou-Gatsi (eds.), Kalydon I S. Dietz and M. Stavropoulou-Gatsi (eds.), Kalydon in Aetolia:Reports on the Danish/Greek Field Work 2001–2005, vol. i. Field Work and Studies, MDIA 12 (Aathus, 2010) DossArch Les Dossiers d’archéologie Drerup, Baukunst H. Drerup, Griechische Baukunst in geometrischer Zeit. Archaeologia Homerica, Band II, Chapter O (Göttingen 1969) Ducrey, ‘Fortifications’ P. Ducrey, ‘Les Fortifications grecques: rôle, fonction et efficacité’, in Leriche and Tréziny (eds.), Fortification, 133–42 (p.xxiii) Ducrey, ‘Muraille’ P. Ducrey, ‘La muraille est-elle un élément constitutif d’une cité?’, CPCActs 2, 245–56 EAA Enciclopedia dell’arte antica: Classica e orientale (Rome 1958–) EchCl Echos du monde classique: Classical Views Ergon Το Ἐργον τής Αρχαιοιογικής Εταιρείας Études massaliètes Études massaliètes Fehr, ‘Greek Temple’ B. Fehr, ‘The Greek Temple in the Early Archaic Period: Meaning, Use and Social Context’, Hephaistos 14 (1996), 165–91 FGrHist Fragmente der Griechischen Historiker, ed. F. Jacoby (Berlin and Leiden 1923–) Page 7 of 20

Abbreviations Flensted-Jensen et al. (eds.), Polis and Politics $$ P. Flensted-Jensen et al. (eds.), Polis and Politics: Studies in Ancient Greek History Presented to Mogens Herman Hansen on his Sixtieth Birthday, August 20, 2000 (Copenhagen 2000) Fossey, Boiotia J. M. Fossey, Topography and Population of Ancient Boiotia (Chicago 1988) Fossey, Lokris J. M. Fossey, The Ancient Topography of Opountian Lokris (Amsterdam 1990) Garlan, ‘Fortifications’ Y. Garlan, ‘Fortifications et histoire grecque’, in J.-P. Vernant (ed.), Problèmes de la guerre en grèce ancienne (Paris 1968), 245–60 Garlan, Poliorcétique Y. Garlan, Recherches de poliorcétique grecque (Paris 1974) Gerkan, Städteanlagen A. von Gerkan, Griechische Städteanlagen: Untersuchungen zur Entwicklung des Städtebaues im Altertum (Berlin and Leipzig 1924) Gerkan, Kalabaktepe A. von Gerkan, Kalabaktepe, Athenatempel und Umgebung: Milet, vol. 1.8 (Berlin 1925) Gorlov and Lopanov Ju. V. Gorlov and Ju. A. Lopanov, ‘Ukreplenija Akropolja Mirmekija’, in V. M. Masson (ed.), Fortifilcacija V Drevnosti I Srednevnekove (St Petersburg, 1995), 33–6 Gras et al., Mégara Hyblaea 5 M. Gras, H. Tréziny, and H. Broise, Mégara Hyblaea 5: La ville archaïque: l’espace urbain d’une cité grecque de Sicile orientale (Rome 2004) Greece & Rome Greece & Rome, a journal of the (British) Classical Association Hammond, Epirus N. G. L. Hammond, Epirus: The Geography, the Ancient Remains, the History and the Topography of Epirus and Adjacent Areas (Oxford 1967) Hansen, ‘Hellenic Polis’ M. H. Hansen, ‘The Hellenic Polis’, in M. H. Hansen (ed.), A Comparative Study of Thirty City-State Cultures (Copenhagen 2000), 141–87 Hansen, ‘Introduction’ M. H. Hansen, ‘Introduction’, in Hansen and Nielsen, 3–153 Hansen, ‘Kome’ M. H. Hansen, ‘Kome: A Study in How the Greeks Designated and Classified Settlements which were not Poleis’, CPCPapers 2, 45–81 Page 8 of 20

Abbreviations Hansen, ‘Lex Hafniensis’ M. H. Hansen, ‘ΠΟΛΛΑΧΩΣ ΠΟΛΙΣ ΛΕΓΕΤΑΙ (Arist. Pol. 1276a23): The Copenhagen Inventory of Poleis and the Lex Hafniensis de Civitate’, in CPCActs 3, 7–72 Hansen, Polis M. H. Hansen, Polis: An Introduction to the Ancient Greek City-State (Oxford 2006) Hansen, ‘Urban Centre’ M. H. Hansen, ‘The Polis as an Urban Centre: The Literary and Epigraphical Evidence’, in CPCActs 4, 9–86 (p.xxiv) Hansen and Nielsen M. H. Hansen and T. H. Nielsen (eds.), An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis (Oxford 2004) HarvStClPhil Harvard Studies in Classical Philology Hayden, ‘Fortifications’ B. J. Hayden, ‘Fortifications of Postpalatial and Early Iron Age Crete’, AA (1988), 1–21 Hellmann, L’Architecture grecque, 2 M.-C. Hellmann, L’Architecture grecque, 2. Architecture religieuse et funéraire (Paris, 2006) Hesperia Hesperia: Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens Höcker, ‘Architektur’ C. Höcker, ‘Architektur als Metaphor: Überlegungen zur Bedeutung des dorischen Ringhallentempels’, Hephaistos 14 (1996), 45–79 Hoepfner and Schwandner, Haus und Stadt2 W. Hoepfner and E.-L. Schwandner (eds.), Haus und Stadt im klassischen Griechenland, 2nd edn. (Munich and Berlin 1994) Hölscher, Öffentliche Räume T. Hölscher, Öffentliche Räume in frühen griechischen Städten, 2nd edn. (Heidelberg 1999) Hope Simpson and Dickinson, Gazetteer R. Hope Simpson and O. T. P. K. Dickinson, A Gazetteer of Aegean Civilisation in the Bronze Age, vol. I: The Mainland and Islands. SIMA 52 (Gothenburg 1979) HuelvaArq Huelva arqueológica I.cret. Inscriptiones creticae I.Delos Inscriptions de Délos I.Erythrai Page 9 of 20

Abbreviations H. Engelmann and R. Merkelbach, Die Inschriften von Erythrai und Klazomenai (Bonn 1972–3) IG Inscriptiones Graecae I.Priene F. Hiller von Gaertringen, Die Inscriften von Priene (Berlin, 1906) IstMitt Istanbuler Mitteilungen Jameson et al., Countryside M. H. Jameson et al., A Greek Countryside: The Southern Argolid from Prehistory to the Present Day (Stanford 1994) JdI Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts JFA Journal of Field Archaeology JHS Journal of Hellenic Studies Karageorghis and Morris (eds.), Defensive Settlements V. Karageorghis and C. E. Morris (eds.), Defensive Settlements of the Aegean and the Eastern Mediterranean after c. 1200. B.C.(Nicosia 2001) Karlsson, Towers L. Karlsson, Fortification Towers and Masonry Techniques in the Hegemony of Syracuse, 405–211 B.C. (Stockholm 1992) Kienast, Samos H. J. Kienast, Die Stadtmauer von Samos (Bonn 1978) Kinch, Vroulia K. F. Kinch, Fouilles de Vroulia (Berlin 1914) Klearchos Klearchos: Bollettino dell’Associazione amici del Museo nazionale di Reggio Calabria Kleiner et al., Melie G. Kleiner, P. Hommel, and W. Müller-Wiener, Panionion und Melie. JdI, Suppl. 23 (Berlin 1967) Kokalos Κωκαλος. Studi pubblicati dall’Istituto di storia antica dell’Università di Palermo Kolb, Stadt F. Kolb, Die Stadt im Altertum (Munich 1984) Koldewey, Lesbos R. Koldewey, Die antiken Baureste der Insel Lesbos (Berlin 1890) Krause, Westtor C. Krause, Das Westtor: Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen 1964 1968. Eretria. Ausgrabungen und Forschungen IV (Bern 1972) (p.xxv) Page 10 of 20

Abbreviations Krinzinger (ed.), Ägäis F. Krinzinger (ed.), Die Ägäis und das westliche Mittelmeer:Beziehungen und Wechselwirkungen 8. bis. 5. Jh. v. Chr. (Vienna 2000) Laietania Laietania: Estudios d’Historie i d’Arqueologie del Maresma Lamb, ‘Antissa’ W. Lamb, ‘Antissa’, BSA 31 (1930–1), 166–80 Lang, Siedlungen F. Lang, Archaische Siedlungen in Griechenland (Berlin 1996) Lauffer, Lexikon S. Lauffer (ed.), Griechenland: Lexikon der historischen Stätten. Von den Anfängen bis zur Gegenwart (Munich 1989) Lauter-Bufé and Lauter, ‘Vorthemistokleische Stadtmauer’ H. Lauter-Bufé, and H. Lauter, ‘Die vorthemistokleische Stadtmauer Athens nach philologischen und archäologischen Quellen’, AA (1975), 1–9 Lawrence, Aims A. W. Lawrence, Greek Aims in Fortification (Oxford 1979) Lawrence, Architecture5 A. W. Lawrence, Greek Architecture, 5th edn., rev. by R. A. Tomlinson (New Haven and London 1996) Lehmann-Hartleben, Hafenanlagen K. Lehmann-Hartleben, Die antike Hafenanlagen des Mittelmeeres. Klio 14 (Leipzig 1923) Leriche, ‘L’Étude archéologique’ P. Leriche, ‘L’Étude archéologique des fortifications urbaines grecques’, in Debord and Descat (eds.), Fortifications, 9–27 Leriche and Tréziny (eds.), Fortification P. Leriche and H. Tréziny (eds.), La Fortification dans l’histoire du monde grec (Paris 1986) LibStud Libyan Studies LIMC Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae (Zurich and Munich) Loader, Masonry N. C. Loader, Building in Cyclopean Masonry: With Special Reference to the Mycenaean Fortifications on Mainland Greece (Jonsered 1998) LSJ H. G. Liddell, R. Scott, and H. Stuart Jones, Greek-English Lexicon, 9th edn. (Oxford 1940) Luce (ed.), Urbanisme J.-M. Luce (ed.), Habitat et urbanisme dans le monde grec de la fin des palais mycéniens à la prise de Milet (494 av. J.-C.) (Toulouse 2002) Page 11 of 20

Abbreviations McAllister, Halieis M. H. McAllister, The Excavations at Ancient Halieis, vol. 1: The Fortifications and Adjacent Structures (Indiana 2005) McNicoll, Fortifications A. W. McNicoll, Hellenistic Fortifications from the Aegean to the Euphrates (Oxford 1997) Maier, Mauerbauinschriften 1 F. G. Maier, Griechische Mauerbauinschriften: Erster Teil, Texte und Kommentare (Heidelberg 1959) Maier, Mauerbauinschriften 2 F. G. Maier, Griechische Mauerbauinschriften: Zweiter Teil, Untersuchungen (Heidelberg 1961) Maier, Nordost-Tor F. G. Maier, Nordost-Tor und Persische Belagerungsrampe in AltPaphos: III. Grabungsbefund und Baugeschichte: Ausgrabungen in Alt-Paphos auf Zypern, vol. 6 (Berlin, 2008) Maier and Karageorghis, Paphos F. G. Maier and V. Karageorghis, Paphos: History and Archaeology (Nicosia 1984) Mallwitz, ‘Architectur’ A. Mallwitz, ‘Kritisches zur Architectur Griechenlands im 8. und 7. Jahrhundert’, AA (1981), 599–642 Marangou, Αμοργός L. Marangou, Αμοργός Ι. Η Μινώα. Η πόλις, ο λιμήν και η μείζων περιφέρεια (Athens 2002) (p.xxvi) Marangou, ‘Minoa on Amorgos’ L. Marangou, ‘Minoa on Amorgos’, in M. Stamatopoulou and M. Yeroulanou (eds.), Excavating Classical Culture (Oxford 2002), 295– 316 Marsden, Artillery E. W. Marsden, Greek and Roman Artillery: Historical Development (Oxford 1969) Martin, Manuel R. Martin, Manuel d’architecture grecque, I. Matériaux et techniques (Paris 1965) Mason, ‘Lesbia Oikodomia’$$ H. J. Mason, ‘Lesbia Oikodomia: Aristotle, Masonry, and the Cities of Lesbos’, Mouseion 1.1 (2001), 31–53 Mazarakis Ainian, Rulers’ Dwellings$$ A. Mazarakis Ainian, From Rulers’ Dwellings to Temples:Architecture, Religion and Society in Early Iron Age Greece (1100–700 B.C.). SIMA 121 (Jonsered 1997) Méditerranée Méditerranée: Revue géographique des pays méditerranéens Page 12 of 20

Abbreviations MEFRA Mélanges de l’ecole française de Rome: Antiquité Mertens, Selinus D. Mertens, Selinus I: Die Stadt und Ihre Mauern (Mainz am Rhein 2003) Miller, Befestigungsanlagen$$ M. Miller, Befestigungsanlagen in Italien vom 8. bis 3. Jahrhundert vor Christus (Hamburg 1995) MonAnt Monumenti antichi Morgan, ‘Sacral “Landscape” ’ C. Morgan, ‘The Evolution of a Sacral “Landscape”’, in S. Alcock and R. Osborne (eds.), Placing the Gods: Sanctuaries and Sacred Space in Ancient Greece (Oxford 1994), 105–42 Morgan and Coulton, ‘Physical Polis’ C. Morgan and J. J. Coulton, ‘The Polis as a Physical Entity’, CPCActs 4 (1997), 87–144 Morris, Burial I. Morris, Burial and Ancient Society: The Rise of the Greek City-State (Cambridge 1987) Moustaka et al. (eds.), Klazomenai, Teos and Abdera A. Moustaka, E. Skarlatidou, M.-C. Tzannes, and Y. Ersoy (eds.), Klazomenai, Teos and Abdera: Metropolis and Colony. Proceedings of the International Symposium held at the Archaeological Museum of Abdera. Abdera, 20–21 October 2001 (Thessaloniki 2004) Müller-Wiener, Bauwesen W. Müller-Wiener, Griechisches Bauwesen in der Antike (Munich 1988) Müller-Wiener, ‘Melie’ W. Müller-Wiener, ‘III. Melie. B. Der Burgberg (Kaletepe)’, in Kleiner et al., Melie, 97–127 Munn, Attica M. H. Munn, The Defence of Attica: The Dema Wall and the Boiotian War of 378–375 B.C. (Los Angeles 1993) MusHelv Museum Helveticum Mylonas, Mycenae G. E. Mylonas, Mycenae and the Mycenean Age (Princeton 1966) Nicholls, ‘Old Smyrna’ R. V. Nicholls, ‘Old Smyrna: The Iron Age Fortifications and Associated Remains on the City Perimeter’, BSA 53–4 (1958–9), 35– 137 Nielsen, Arkadia

Page 13 of 20

Abbreviations T. H. Nielsen, Arkadia and its Poleis in the Archaic and Classical Periods (Göttingen 2002) Nielsen, ‘Phrourion’ T. H. Nielsen, ‘Phrourion: A Note on the Term in Classical Sources and in Diodorus Siculus’, in CPCPapers 6, 49–64 (p.xxvii) Nowicki, Defensible Sites K. Nowicki, Defensible Sites in Crete c.1200–800 BC (Eupen 2000) NP Der Neue Pauly: Enzyklopädie der Antike (Stuttgart 1996–) NSc Notizie degli scavi di antichità NürnBlArch Nürnberger Blätter zur Archäologie Oakley, Hill-Forts S. P. Oakley, The Hill-Forts of the Samnites (London 1995) Ober, Fortress Attica J. Ober, Fortress Attica: Defence of the Athenian Land Frontier, 404– 322 B.C. (Leiden 1985) OCD3 Oxford Classical Dictionary, 3rd edn. (Oxford 1996) ÖJh Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes in Wien ÖJhBeibl Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes in Wien, Beiblatt OLD P. G. W. Glare (ed.), Oxford Latin Dictionary (Oxford 1976) OpArch Opuscula archaeologica OpAth Opuscula atheniensia Oppermann, Westpontischen Poleis M. Oppermann, Die Westpontischen Poleis (Langenweissbach, 2004) OpRom Opuscula romana Opuscula Opuscula: Annuals of the Swedish Institutes at Athens and Rome Orizzonti Orizzonti: rassegna di archeologia Orlandos, Construction 1 A. K. Orlandos, Les Matériaux de construction, et la technique architectureale des anciens grecs. Première partie (Paris 1966) Orlandos, Construction 2

Page 14 of 20

Abbreviations A. K. Orlandos, Les Matériaux de construction, et la technique architectureale des anciens grecs. Seconde partie (Paris 1968) Orlandos and Travlos, Λεξικόν A. K. Orlandos and J. N. Travlos, Λεξικόν Αρχαίων Αρχιτεκτονικών Όρων (Athens 1986) Özyıǧıt, ‘Phokaia’ Ö. Özyıǧıt, ‘The City Walls of Phokaia’, in Debord and Descat, Fortifications, 77–109 PAA Πρακτικά της Ακαδημίας Αθηνών PAE Πρακτικά της εν Αθήναις αρχαιολογικής εταιρείας PDIA Proceedings of the Danish Institute at Athens PECS The Princeton Encyclopedia of Classical Sites (Princeton 1976) PEP D. F. McCabe et al. (eds.), Princeton Epigraphical Project (Princeton 1984–9) Perlman, ‘Gortyn’ P. Perlman, ‘Gortyn: The First Seven Hundred Years (part I)’, in Flensted-Jensen et al. (eds.), Polis and Politics, 59–89 Popham et al. (eds.), Lefkandi 1–2 M. R. Popham et al. (eds.), Lefkandi: The Iron Age, vols. 1–2 (Oxford 1979 and 1980) PP La parola del passato QuadMess Quaderni dell’Istituto di archeologia della Facoltà di lettere e filosofia della Università di Messina Radt, Pergamon W. Radt, Pergamon: Geschichte und Bauten einer antiken Metropole (Darmstadt 1999) Radt, ‘Frühesten Wehrmauern’ W. Radt, ‘Die frühesten Wehrmauern von Pergamon und die zugehörigen Keramikfunde’, IstMitt 42 (1992), 163–234 (p.xxviii) Radt (ed.), Stadtgrabungen und Stadtforschungen W. Radt (ed.), Stadtgrabungen und Stadtforschungen im westlichen Kleinasien: Geplantes and Erreichtes BYZAS 3 DAI Istanbul (Istanbul 2006) RANarb Revue archéologique de Narbonnaise RDAC Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus Page 15 of 20

Abbreviations RE Paulys Real-Encyclopädie der Classischen Altertumswissenschaft REA Revue des études anciennes Renfrew and Wagstaff (eds.), Island Polity C. Renfrew and M. Wagstaff (eds.), An Island Polity: The Archaeology of Exploitation in Melos (Cambridge 1982) RivStorAnt Rivista storica dell’antichità Rizza, Rilievi S. Rizza, Studi sulle fortificazione greche di Leontini: Rilievi (Palermo 1999) Rizza, Studi S. Rizza, Studi sulle fortificazione greche di Leontini (Catania 2000) RLA Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie (Stuttgart 1894–) RM Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Römische Abteilung Romeo (ed.), Sicilia R. Romeo (ed.), Storia della Sicilia, vol. 1 (Naples 1979) Sakellaraki et al., Phylla E. S. Sakellaraki, J. J. Coulton, and I. R. Metzger, The Fort at Phylla, Vrachos: Excavations and Researches at a late Archaic Fort in Central Euboia, BSA suppl. no. 35 (Oxford and Northampton 2002) Salmon, Corinth J. B. Salmon, Wealthy Corinth: A History of the City to 338 BC (Oxford 1984) Schilardi, ‘Emergence Paros’ D. U. Schilardi, ‘The Emergence of Paros the Capital’, in Luce (ed.), Urbanisme, 229–49 Schilbach, Festungsmauern Argolis J. Schilbach, Festungsmauern des ersten Jahrtausends vor Christus in der Argolis (diss. Munich 1975) Schmid, ‘Zwischen Mythos und Realität’ S. G. Schmid, ‘Zwischen Mythos und Realität: Neue Forschungen zum geometrischen und archaischen Eretria’, NürnBlArch 17 (2000–1), 101–20 Schulz, Neandreia A. Schulz, Die Stadtmauern von Neandreia in der Troas (Bonn 2000) Scranton, Walls R. L. Scranton, Greek Walls (Cambridge, Mass. 1941) Scully, Homer Page 16 of 20

Abbreviations S. Scully, Homer and the Sacred City (Ithaca and London 1990) SEG Supplementum epigraphicum graecum Shipley, Samos G. Shipley, A History of Samos 800–188 BC (Oxford 1987) SicArch Sicilia archeologica SIMA Studies in Mediterranean Archeology Simon, Vasen E. Simon (with M. and A. Hirmer), Die griechische Vasen (Munich 1976) Sjögren, Locations L. Sjögren, Cretan Locations: Discerning Site Variations in Iron Age and Archaic Crete 800–500 BC (Oxford 2003) Snodgrass, ‘Historical Significance’ A. M. Snodgrass, ‘The Historical Significance of Fortification in Archaic Greece’, in Leriche and Tréziny (eds.), Fortification, 125–31 Snodgrass, ‘Archaeology’ A. M. Snodgrass, ‘Archaeology and the Study of the Greek City’, in J. Rich and A. Wallace-Hadrill (eds.), City and Country in the Ancient World (London 1991), 1–24 (p.xxix) Sokolicek, ‘Architettura e urbanistica’ A. Sokolicek, ‘Architettura e urbanistica di Velia: Lo sviluppo della città in relazione al cosidetto tratto A delle mura’, AttiTaranto 45 (2006), 193–205 Spencer, Gazetteer N. Spencer, A Gazetteer of Archaeological Sites in Lesbos. BAR no. 623 (Oxford 1995) Spencer, ‘Towers and Enclosures’ N. Spencer, ‘Towers and Enclosures of Lesbian Masonry in Lesbos: Rural Investment in the Chora of Archaic Poleis’, in P. N. Doukellis and L. G. Mendoni (eds.), Structures rurales et sociétés antiques (Paris 1994), 207–13 Stager and Walker (eds.), Idalion L. S. Stager and A. M. Walker (eds.), American Expedition to Idalion: Cyprus 1973–1980. Oriental Institute Communications no. 24 (Chicago 1989) Stählin, Thessalien F. Stählin, Das hellenische Thessalien (Stuttgart 1924) Stamatopoulou and Yeroulanou, Culture M. Stamatopoulou and M. Yeroulanou (eds.), Excavating Classical Culture (Oxford 2002) Stillwell, Potters’ Quarter Page 17 of 20

Abbreviations A. N. Stillwell, The Potters’ Quarter. Corinth vol 15.1 (Cambridge, Mass. 1948) StTroica Studia troica Symeonoglou, Thebes S. Symeonoglou, The Topography of Thebes: From the Bronze Age to Modern Times (Princeton 1985) Televantou, ‘Ayios Andreas’ C. Televantou, ‘Ayios Andreas on Siphnos: A Late Cycladic III Fortified Acropolis’, in Karageorghis and Morris (eds.), Defensive Settlements, 191–213 Thuc. Thucydides Tolstikov, ‘Fortifications’ V. P. Tolstikov, ‘Descriptions of Fortifications of the Classical Cities in the Region to the North of the Black Sea’, AncCivScytSib 4.3 (1997), 187–231 TOPOI Topoi Orient-Occident Tracy (ed.), City Walls J. D. Tracy (ed.), City Walls: The Urban Enceinte in Global Perspective (Cambridge 2000) Travlos, Athens J. Travlos, Pictorial Dictionary of Ancient Athens (Tübingen 1971) Travlos, Attika J. Travlos, Bildleksikon zur Topographie des antiken Attika (Tübingen 1988) Tréziny, Kaulonia H. Tréziny, Kaulonia I: Sondages sur la fortification nord (1983–1985). Cahiers du Centre Jean Bérard, XIII (Naples 1989) Tréziny, ‘Military Architecture’ H. Tréziny, ‘Greek Military Architecture in the West’, in G. P. Carratelli (ed.), The Western Greeks: Classical Civilization in the Western Mediterranean (London 1996), 347–52 Tréziny, ‘Fortifications grecques’ H. Tréziny, ‘Les Fortifications grecques en Occident à l’époque classique (491–322 av. J.-C.)’, Pallas 51 (1999), 241–82 Tréziny, ‘Fortifications archaïques’ H. Tréziny, ‘Les Fortifications archaïques’, in M. Gras et al., Mégara Hyblaea 5, 237–301 TROPIS Conference proceedings of the Hellenic Institute for the Preservation of Nautical Tradition Tuplin, Empire Page 18 of 20

Abbreviations C. Tuplin, The Failings of Empire (Stuttgart 1993) Van de Maele and Fossey (eds.), Fortificationes Antiquae S. Van de Maele and J. M. Fossey (eds.), Fortificationes Antiquae (Amsterdam 1992) (p.xxx) Voyatzis, Athena Alea M. E. Voyatzis, The Early Sanctuary of Athena Alea at Tegea and Other Archaic Sanctuaries in Arcadia. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology and Literature 97 (Gothenburg 1990) Weir, ‘Wall’ R. G. A. Weir, ‘The Lost Archaic Wall Around Athens’, Phoenix 49.3 (1995), 247–58 Welter, ‘Aeginetica’ G. Welter, ‘Aeginetica XIII–XXIV’, JdI 53 (1938), 480–5 West, Theogony M. L. West, Theogony and Works and Days (Oxford 1988) Westgate et al. (eds.), Building Communities R. Westgate, N. R. E. Fisher, and J. Whitley (eds.), Building Communities: House, Settlement and Society in the Aegean and Beyond Proceedings of the 2001 Cardiff Conference, British School at Athens Studies (Cardiff 2007) Wiener Studien Wiener Studien Williams, ‘Urbanization Corinth’ C. K. Williams, ‘The Early Urbanization of Corinth’, in Atti del convegno internazionale: Grecia, Italia e Sicilia nell’ VIII e VII secolo a.C., ASAtene 60 (1982), 9–20 Winter F. E. Winter, Greek Fortifications (Toronto 1971) Winter, Stadtspuren E. Winter, Stadtspuren: Zeugnisse zur Siedlungsgeschichte der Chalkidiki (Wiesbaden 2006) Wokalek, Stadtbefestigungen A. Wokalek, Griechische Stadtbefestigungen: Studien zur Geschichte der frühgriechischen Befestigungsanlagen (Bonn 1973) Woodhouse, Aetolia W. J. Woodhouse, Aetolia: Its Geography, Topography, and Antiquities (Oxford 1897) Wycherley, Cities2 R. E. Wycherley, How the Greeks Built Cities, 2nd edn. (New York 1962) ZPE Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik

Page 19 of 20

Abbreviations

Page 20 of 20

Introduction

Greek City Walls of the Archaic Period, 900–480 BC Rune Frederiksen

Print publication date: 2011 Print ISBN-13: 9780199578122 Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: April 2015 DOI: 10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199578122.001.0001

Introduction Rune Frederiksen

DOI:10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199578122.003.0001

Abstract and Keywords This introductory chapter sets out the book's purpose, namely to discuss the importance of settlement fortifications and Archaic city walls, how the Greek poleis were normally fortified, and the various complications in understanding the sources of research. An important question concerns the history and development of the early polis along with the role of city walls in its emergence. An overview of the subsequent chapters is presented. Keywords:   settlement fortification, city walls, Archaic city, poleis, polis, Greek cities

City walls are a prominent part of the archaeological record in the ancient Greek world and it is not an exaggeration to classify them as the most commonly attested type of ancient Greek monumental architecture.1 Their ubiquitous presence reflects the importance of warfare in ancient Greece from Archaic to Hellenistic times,2 since in these periods the situation as a rule was one of war rather than of peace for many poleis.3 City walls belong to the category of public architecture4 and must have constituted the most expensive and laborious undertaking for the communities that built them. They were the most substantial monuments of the cities they enclosed, as they occupied a considerable amount of space and were constructed of thousands of tons of clay, soil, stone, or wood.5 City walls remained a prominent architectural feature of Greek cities far into Roman times, wherever Greek cities retained a position of economic and military significance in the Empire.6

Page 1 of 13

Introduction At Akragas, Athens, Corinth, Gela, Hipponion, Meta-pontion, Megalopolis, Olynthos, and Phigaleia (Fig. 1), as well as literally hundreds of other poleis, remains of city walls are still standing or have been detected by excavation or other archaeological methods.7 The majority of these walls date from the Classical and Hellenistic (p.2) periods.8 In addition, numerous references in written sources attest to their existence,9 either directly by the use of technical architectural terms, of which the most common is τεῖχος, or indirectly, by describing a siege of a city — in ancient Greek πολιορκία.10

Because of the mass of evidence from Classical and later times, it is generally held that the towns and cities11 of the Greek world were not normally surrounded by defensive walls

Fig. 1. Phigaleia, trace of Classical walls (city-side on right hand side of wall).

before the early fifth century BC.12 Fortification walls have indeed been noted among (p.3) the remains of Early Iron Age settlements,13 but they have not been thought to form a significant amount of the monumental architectural output of that era. Even for the late Archaic period, fortifications have not been regarded as a normal element of the urban centre of the polis, and the walls do not therefore feature as a constituent element of the early polis in modern scholarly literature.14 In recent years, however, archaeological research has uncovered so much new evidence that a new appraisal of the importance of Archaic city walls is called for. A significant number of walls have been dated by stratified pottery finds and the literary evidence is also impressive, suggesting that the pessimistic view that relatively few cities were walled in pre-Classical times must now be revised. In other words, their prevalence in earlier periods may have been much underestimated.

Aims The marshalling of the evidence for Early Iron Age settlement fortifications and Archaic city walls, and a discussion of their importance, constitute the main focus of this book. The evidence is collected in a Catalogue (p. 121–200), 132 sites with walls arranged alphabetically. It presents the evidence for fortifications before 480/79 BC,15 and a capital letter (A, B, or C) following the toponym indicates the nature of the evidence: A are remains of fortifications dated by external archaeological evidence, mainly stratified pottery found in relation to structures; B are remains of fortification walls dated by masonry

Page 2 of 13

Introduction style, or other less secure means; C are pre-Classical fortification walls mentioned in literary sources. The assembled data will serve first of all to substantiate the claim that Archaic Greek poleis were normally fortified.16 Next the material will be used to describe and analyse the architecture of fortification walls and its development from the beginnings in the Early Iron Age through the Archaic period to the Persian Wars of480/79 BC. There are numerous difficulties in matters of interpretation of the sources, and these areas of research touch upon highly controversial topics. The remains of Archaic cities themselves, for example, are generally very poor and an inevitable question is what the attested walls actually encircled. Some fortified sites are clearly too small to be classed as even small towns, and some of them were probably second-order settlements, and thus not poleis. Indeed, to speak of city walls as a general and widespread phenomenon in the Archaic period requires, in the first place, the positive identification of a high number of actual cities at this point in Greek history. This question is linked with an even more controversial issue, that is, the emergence and character of the early polis. A major aim of this book is to provide answers to these questions, or at least contribute to the scholarly debate, by investigating the role city walls may have played in the development of the early polis.

Research History To establish at what point in history cities as a rule were fortified, has been on the agenda ever since the first general studies on ancient Greek urbanization appeared. In his Griechische Städteanlagen,17 A. von Gerkan noticed that fortification of cities is more frequently mentioned during the second half of the sixth century, but at the same time he was sceptical about there being a high number of walled cities even after the Persian Wars of 480/79.18 In the only previous monograph on Archaic city walls, Griechische Stadtbefestigungen19 A. Wokalek maintains that ‘walls begin to appear’ in Archaic times. She further notes that the earliest fortifications on the Greek mainland appeared in the seventh century, that the number increases strikingly in the course of the sixth century, and finally, that city walls became a typical (p.4) feature of Greek cities in the fifth century.20 According to F. Lang’s Archaische Siedlungen in Griechenland, the city wall was not a standard feature of the pre-Classical city,21 and pessimistic views on the prevalence of city walls in the later Archaic period22 are expressed by for example P. Ducrey, who is sceptical about the existence of walls in the seventh and sixth centuries in Greece proper, as well as in the West in the seventh century.23 A. M. Snodgrass is doubtful about the large mainland sites,24 and seems to have had sites like Argos, Athens, and Corinth in mind.25 R. Osborne is sceptical about the existence of fortified settlements in the Greek world generally in the eighth and seventh centuries.26 M. H. Hansen comments on the astonishing discrepancy between these views on the one hand, and on the other, the great role city walls play in Greek literature of the same epoch.27 This observation has been the primary inspiration for the investigation Page 3 of 13

Introduction presented in this book. Hansen’s own opinion is that most poleis were not walled around 600 BC.28 This may have been the case, although the evidence that walls existed from the seventh century is impressive, as will be discussed below. A. W. Lawrence29 is generally sceptical about early fortifications in Sicily, and he accepts an early date only for a handful of the walls, which, as it happens, were probably not older than the sixth century.30 Lawrence, however, sees the western walls — the ones which he accepts — as evidence for a development that also affected the Greek homeland but is not so well attested here as in the West. Interest in city wall architecture can be traced at least as far back as the first half of the fifteenth century AD, with Cyriacos of Ancona’s visit to Eretria in 1436 and his records of the city walls.31 In the nineteenth century, the era of the philhellenes, an important example of interest in walls and masonry styles is W. Gell’s The Itinerary of Greece.32 Like other scholars of the time, Gell used the term ‘Cyclopian walls’ for Mycenaean masonry, a term inspired by the ancient legends surrounding their origin.33 His work is remarkable for its interest in establishing a relative chronology based on type of construction and its concern for the problems connected with the description of polygonal (not Mycenaean) masonry, problems that constitute a serious obstacle for the study of city walls to this day. He accompanies the publication of drawings of walls from the acropolis of Argos (Larissa) with the following comment: ‘The sketches are given, because it is impossible to describe the style of building so as to give any idea of its real effect; for the early masonry of Greece differs most materially from the drystone walls of other countries, yet in a manner which cannot be explained without a drawing’ (p. 148). E. Dodwell34 is another author who took an early interest in masonry styles and their possible chronological significance,35 but his book is important mainly as an illustrative document of city wall masonry styles and the state of preservation of a number of walls in early nineteenth-century Greece and Italy. City walls remained of interest throughout the nineteenth century36 and into the twentieth, when the study of the ancient world became more systematized and specialized. The establishing of typologies based on (p.5) masonry style, begun in the nineteenth century, culminated around the middle of the twentieth with the monograph Greek Walls by R. L. Scranton37 a study on masonry styles not restricted to ancient Greek fortification walls, but to walls as such. A synthetic study with a detailed presentation of all major aspects of city walls did not appear until 1971 with the publication of F. Winter’s Greek Fortifications, a highly comprehensive and allembracing study, which still remains the principal work in the field of ancient Greek fortification studies.

Page 4 of 13

Introduction Descriptions of fortifications in reference books on Greek architecture tend to be minimal. The importance of city walls is stressed, but even so the subject is treated only in passing.38 This tendency is in keeping with the traditional perception of Greek architecture as the history of the architectural orders and the ornamentation of mainly religious architecture, above all temples. This again goes back to the rediscovery of ancient architecture in the Renaissance, which concentrated on the aesthetic qualities of (temple) architecture. The adoption of the orders as ornaments in European architecture since the Renaissance has only emphasized the focus on temples.39 Greek and Roman city walls did indeed play a role in the debate on city fortification from the Renaissance onwards,40 and it is perhaps the disappearance of city walls from modern Europe in the nineteenth century which is to blame for the lack of interest in Greek walls in scholarship of the late nineteenth century and most of the twentieth. However, the coverage given in some recent reference works seems to be a sign of shifting interests, and future studies are likely to reassess the importance not only of city walls, but also of the entire category of non-religious architecture.41 From the very beginning of scholarly interest, the view that the walls belong to the category of military architecture has prevailed. That this aspect of city walls has dominated almost entirely42 does seem strange, however, given the fact that city walls were highly significant for many other aspects of everyday life in ancient Greek cities. The study of the civic aspects of city walls in fact has much to offer social and economic studies of the ancient Greek world.43 A number of studies devoted to pre-Classical fortification in general, or to aspects of the topic, have furthered our knowledge of city walls considerably.44 However, they fall short of expectations in two ways. (1) No study has as yet presented all the archaeological evidence from the entire Greek world.45 This is of particular importance, since a comprehensive view of all sources is the only way to identify basic trends in the architecture and to understand the sociopolitical significance of the city wall in the period. Thus, a study must include material from Greece, Asia Minor, Cyprus, Magna Graecia, Sicily, Kyrenaika, and the Black Sea coast. (2) To date no study has made serious use of the literary sources, either the Archaic or the Classical, which retrospectively illuminate aspects of city walls in Archaic times. In order to get as complete a picture as possible of the character and significance of the city wall in the Archaic period, all relevant information, literary as well as archaeological, must be taken into consideration.

(p.6) Sources The walls erected around Early Iron Age settlements form the first chapter in urban fortification of the Greek world after the Bronze Age. They can be divided into two categories. The first consists of walls at settlements which were abandoned before or in the early Archaic period, for example Emporio on Chios,46 the hilltop fortification of Melie in Ionia and Zagora on Andros,47 and Page 5 of 13

Introduction walls at settlements which later developed into poleis, but where fortifications are not known to have been constructed during the Archaic period, such as Minoa on Amorgos and Phaistos in Crete. The best documented and most securely dated settlements of this category are included in this investigation.48 Some or perhaps even all such settlements represent poleis in a rudimentary and sometimes abortive state of development. They may have been called polis and understood as such by their inhabitants, but, if so, the term was probably used in the sense of stronghold rather than in the later senses of settlement or political community.49 Some may have been nucleated settlements within kingdoms, while others may have been independent communities, but, as the evidence stands, we can only speculate. These settlements remain crucial for our understanding of the process of urbanization and of the development in urban fortification architecture prior to the Archaic period, and are therefore discussed in this book. The second category consists of Early Iron Age fortification walls found at poleis with continuous occupation and fortification phases into the Archaic period or later, example Old Paphos and Old Smyrna.50 The continuation of these settlements, and their later identification as poleis, does not automatically allow for a similar classification in the early period. But, again, including these settlements enables us to analyse the physical character of early fortification, and in a wider sense urbanization, and the development of these phenomena into the Archaic period. In the Archaic period, when written sources inform about settlements being poleis,51 and where we in general know so very much more, there are still problems surrounding our knowledge of the status of most individual walled settlements. Quite a number of well-known ancient Greek cities do not yield information on their polis status before Classical times, and it follows that in many cases it is an open question whether an Archaic fortification found among the remains of a settlement, which is only later attested as a polis (city), was actually a city wall at that earlier stage. As argued more in depth in Chapter 2, however, there is only very limited evidence to suggest that fortified settlements that were not cities (or first-order settlements) existed in any abundance before Classical times. Thus, whenever a fortification wall dates to the period under scrutiny in this book, it will be assumed that it was connected to a first-order settlement as well. With this method of deduction we are of course still far from a positive definition of the nature of the settlements associated with the walls, and I wish to underline that I present what I believe to be the most likely interpretation of the contexts of these many walls rather than facts, which we do not have. This central problem of identifying the character of settlements is treated further below (p. 17–19).

Page 6 of 13

Introduction Only a few Archaic fortification walls cannot be linked to sites attested as poleis, either in sources contemporary with the walls, or in sources of the Classical period. With the exception of western Greece and, perhaps, the northern Peloponnese,52 the polis had emerged everywhere in the Hellenic world by the (p.7) sixth century BC.53 It is possible to distinguish poleis from others types of settlement, and accordingly, Archaic settlements for which we do not have this type of information, and settlements or cities lying outside the areas generally accepted as having been of Greek dominance, are excluded from the present study.54 To draw a line between Greek and non-Greek settlements is, however, bound to be a controversial undertaking, especially in the Archaic period. An obvious example is Cyprus, with eighth-century sites such as Paphos and Salamis. Were they Greek at this early point of their history? Since there is no evidence for their having been primarily Phoenician,55 the other obvious possibility at the time, they will be considered as Early Iron Age and Archaic Greek towns, mainly because they develop into Greek poleis, a status clearly attested in the case of both Salamis and Paphos in the fifth century.56 Ethnicity is a difficult and complex topic, especially in early phases of sites in ethnically mixed regions, and merits a comprehensive study in itself. An inclusive approach has been followed here, so that, for example, Cyprus, an island of particular importance for early fortification, could be included.57 If a few sites have been erroneously included or excluded in the source material, however, this will not materially affect the main conclusions presented in this book.

Organization of the Book This chapter and Chapter 2 discuss the significance of the fortification of primary settlements and urban centres of poleis, and offer a brief discussion of types of fortified settlement in the Greek world before Classical times. Chapter 3 deals with the relevant literary sources for particular city walls in the Archaic period, analyses references to the city wall as a general phenomenon in Archaic written sources, and examines the information on early walls provided by the visual arts. Chapters 4 to 6 put the statistical significance of the preserved walls into perspective, discuss the archaeology and architectural features of fortification walls, and review the various methods for dating pre-Classical city walls. Chapters 7 and 8 contain a topographical and architectural analysis of the archaeological evidence, a discussion of the prevalence and distribution of city walls in the pre-Classical Greek world, and a general conclusion. The text is concluded by the Catalogue which is explained in greater detail on p. 121. Notes:

(1) Müller-Wiener, Bauwesen, 171; Winter, x; Morgan and Coulton, ‘Physical Polis’, 105; Camp, ‘Walls’, 41; Lawrence, Architecture5, 173–4. (2) Y. Garlan, Guerre et économie en Grèce ancienne (Paris 1989), 12–15.

Page 7 of 13

Introduction (3) J.-P. Vernant, Problèmes de la guerre en Grèce ancienne (Paris 1968), 10; P. Ducrey, Guerre et guerriers dans la Grèce antique (Paris 1985), 9; V. D. Hanson, The Western Way of War, Infantry Battle in Classical Greece (London 1989), 219; V. D. Hanson, Warfare and Agriculture in Classical Greece2 (Berkeley 1998), 1; M. H. Hansen, ‘Introduction’, in M. H. Hansen (ed.), The Imaginary Polis (Copenhagen 2005), 20. (4) In a handful of cases, always in connection with gates, gods are known to have been protectors of a city wall. This does not, however, transfer city walls to the category of religious architecture. See Catalogue entries on Stagiros and Thasos phase 2. (5) It is, accordingly, no surprise that Aristotle hints at the aesthetic potential in the architecture of city walls (Pol. 7.10.8): εἰ δὴ τοῦτον ἔχει τὸν τρόπον, οὐχ ὅτι τείχη μόνον περιβλτέov, ἀλλὰ καὶ τούτων ἐπιμελητέον ὅπως καὶ πρὸς κόσμον ἔχῃ τῇ πóλει πρεπóντως καὶ πρὸς τὰς πολεμικàς χρείας, κτλ ‘If then this is so, not only must walls be put round a city, but also attention must be paid to them in order that they may be suitable both in regard to the adornment of the city and in respect of military requirements, etc.’ (tr. Racham, Loeb). The Iliad is full of examples attesting to the fact that the aesthetic qualities of walls mattered already in ‘the old days’, see below, Chap. 3. (6) The takeover by the Romans from c.150 BC changed this picture dramatically on a regional level, as walls of resisting poleis were torn down, Camp, ‘Walls’, 50. See below p. 45–6 for examples of Roman destruction of numerous Greek city walls in the period following the Roman conquest of the Greek mainland. The widely retained self-governance of Greek poleis in the Roman Empire did not include the right to erect fortification walls without the blessing of the Roman masters, and walls were to a great extent unnecessary because of the Pax Romana, Lawrence, Aims, 111. (7) Winter, xi; Morgan and Coulton, ‘Physical Polis’, 105: ‘We will begin with walls [i.e. city walls] as the feature most commonly observed even at sites where very little else is visible or investigated…’ Cf. Morgan and Coulton, ‘Physical Polis’, 106, on C5L On the entire period before Hellenistic times see Hansen and Nielsen, 135–7, summing up the evidence from the inventory as follows: 261 of 459 securely identified poleis have evidence of one kind or the other attesting to fortification in or before late Classical times. See also Hansen, ‘Introduction’, in Hansen and Nielsen, at 33–40, where city walls of Greek poleis are listed with basic information on chronology and topography. For a discussion of unwalled poleis see below, p. 25–6, 30. (8) e.g. Lawrence, Architecture5, 174. A high number of city walls is also listed in indices of Winter; Leriche and Tréziny, Fortification; Miller, Befestigungsanlagen.

Page 8 of 13

Introduction (9) From the histories of Herodotos, Thucydides, Xenophon, and Diodorus Siculus, it can be observed that more than 250 Greek poleis were fortified before 300 BC. For a treatment of some of the references in Thucydides, see Ducrey, ‘Fortifications’, 133–42, and Lawrence, Aims, 53–61. For a selection from various authors see Ducrey, ‘Muraille’, 249, and below, Chap. 3. A complete list of urban fortification walls found at poleis from the Archaic and Classical periods is offered in a separate index in Hansen and Nielsen, 1368–75. (10) These two central terms are discussed in detail below, Chap. 3. (11) No established distinction exists between ‘town’ and ‘city’ in scholarship on the ancient world. The two terms are used synonymously in this book unless otherwise stated. For a brief general discussion mainly on the post-antique western world, see M. H. Hansen, ‘The Concepts of City-State and City-State Culture’, in M. H. Hansen (ed.), A Comparative Study of Thirty City-State Cultures (Copenhagen 2000), 11–34, at 25. (12) Pessimistic views on the prevalence of city walls in the Archaic period: C. G. Starr, The Economic and Social Growth of Early Greece, 800–500 B.C. (Oxford 1977), 99–100; Kolb, Stadt, 128–9; Snodgrass, ‘Archaeology’, 9; Ducrey, ‘Muraille’, 248, 254; Miller, Befestigungsanlagen, 185; Lang, Siedlungen, 54; F. Lang, ‘House-Community-Settlement: The New Concept of Living in Archaic Greece’, in Westgate et al. (eds.), Building Communities; OCD3 s.v. Urbanism (R. Osborne); Morgan and Coulton, ‘Physical Polis’, 105–6; Schilardi, ‘Emergence Paros’, 244 (for the view that towns on the Greek mainland with circuits occupying an extensive territory developed in C6); J. D. Tracy, ‘To Wall or Not to Wall: Evidence from Medieval Germany’, in Tracy (ed.), City Walls, 71–87, at 72. See also R. Brock, ‘The Tribute of Karystos’, EchCl 40 n.s. 15 (1996), 357–70, at 364, for the view that Karystos is one of the few cities attested in literary sources as having fortifications in the Archaic period. Hölscher, Öffentliche Räume, 67, believes that the role of the wall in the concept of the early Greek city has yet to be clarified. Full discussion below, Chap. 8. (13) An early summing-up of the evidence in Nicholls, ‘Old Smyrna’, 114–20. (14) Snodgrass, ‘Archaeology’, 9; Ducrey, ‘Muraille’, 254; Hansen, ‘Urban Centre’, 52. For the view that the wall is in fact a constituent of the polis see Camp, ‘Walls’, 51. (15) Sites not included in the Catalogue are footnoted; site names followed by ‘(Cat.)’ are included in the Catalogue. (16) I use the definition of the Greek polis as proposed by the Copenhagen Polis Centre, which is basically a town which was the centre of a self-governing political community. Any settlement called a polis by the ancient Greeks themselves would essentially meet these criteria, Hansen, ‘Lex Hafniensis’, 7– Page 9 of 13

Introduction 72, esp. 12–14, and references to localities and their status as poleis follow the registration of the 1034 poleis published in Hansen and Nielsen. (17) (Berlin and Leipzig 1924). (18) Gerkan, Städteanlagen, 19–23. (19) (Bonn 1973). (20) Stadtbefestigungen, 23–5. Wokalek lists 51 fortified sites from the Archaic period. The observation that Archaic city walls are found more frequently in Sicily than in south Italy has to be balanced against the higher number of Archaic poleis in Sicily compared to Italy, 22 against 17. In the investigation conducted by the Copenhagen Polis Centre, the numbers including later foundations are Italy 22 and Sicily 46, Hansen and Nielsen, nos. 5–51 (Sicily) and 52–74 (Italy). (21) Lang, Siedlungen, 54. F. Lang, ‘House-Community-Settlement: The New Concept of Living in Archaic Greece’, in Westgate at al. (eds.), Building Communities, 183–93. (22) Above, n. 12. (23) See ibid. See, however, P. Ducrey, Warfare in Ancient Greece (New York 1986), 146, for the view that the higher prevalence of Classical walls in relation to Archaic ones could be influenced by different conditions of preservation. (24) n. 12, above. (25) ‘Historical Significance’, 126. (26) n. 12, above. (27) Hansen, ‘Urban Centre’, 52. (28) ‘Hellenic Polis’, 160. (29) Aims, 34 with n. 55. (30) Akragas, Leontinoi, Metapontion, Naxos in Sicily phase 2 and Selinous. See Chap. 7 and entries for these cities in the Catalogue. (31) Parts of the walls of Eretria were drawn on 5 Apr. 1436, see P. Auberson, ‘Note sur Cyriaque d’Ancone’, AK (1967.1), 57. (32) (London 1810).

Page 10 of 13

Introduction (33) Gell, Itinerary, 152–3, and ‘Argolid plates’ 7–17; Loader, Masonry, 1. For the tradition in the ancient literature, see Apollodoros 2.2.1, Strabo 8.6.2, 11, and Pausanias 2.16.5–6, 2.25.8. (34) E. Dodwell, Views and Descriptions of Cyclopian or Pelasgic Remains in Greece and Italy (London 1835). (35) Dodwell and Gell travelled in Greece in the years 1801–6, also together, but Gell’s book (1810) was published before Dodwell’s (1835). (36) W. M. Leake, Travels in the Morea, vol. 2 (London 1830) pl. 6 (plan of Argos with indication of walls observed and estimate of the remaining traces),. In Italy the earliest studies of walls date from C17l, but the walls are from houses and temples, see Miller, Befestigungsanlagen, 1 with refs. (37) (Cambridge, Mass. 1941). (38) In W. B. Dinsmoor, The Architecture of Ancient Greece3 (London and Sydney 1975), the lemma ‘Greek fortification’ (in the index of subjects) will only take the reader to the bibliography. In the more recently updated work Lawrence, Architecture5, 173, this undeserved low priority given to city walls is partly rectified by a brief general treatment. Müller-Wiener, Bauwesen, 170–2, acknowledges the enormous number of walls and their early significance, but still only offers a two-page account. Fortifications are mentioned briefly in the entry architecture in OCD3 (R. A. Tomlinson). In the CAH2 Archaic fortifications are grouped with the non-monumental material culture (Boardman, ‘Material Culture’, 442–61). (39) e.g. R. A. Tomlinson, Greek Sanctuaries (London 1976), 16; Scranton, Walls, 3. See Chap. 3 for further documentation of interest in walls in C18 and C19 AD. (40) e.g. M. Dögen, L’Architecture militaire moderne ou Fortification: confirmée par diverses histoires tant anciennes que nouvelles, & enrichie des Figures des principales Forteresses qui sont en l’Europe (Amsterdam 1648). (41) e.g. the following quote, G. R. H. Wright, Ancient Building Technology, vol. 1. Historical Background (Leiden 2000), 89: ‘From this it can be seen that Classical Greek monumental building was not confined in expression to religious architecture (as might be said of Egyptian monumental building). It was sufficiently versatile to express other functional plans (e.g. meeting places and, above all, fortifications).’ (42) Marsden, Artillery; Garlan, Poliorcétique; Lawrence, Aims; J.-P. Adam, L’Architecture militaire grecque (Paris 1982); van de Maele and Fossey (eds.), Fortificationes Antiquae.

Page 11 of 13

Introduction (43) J. J. Coulton, ‘General Introduction’, in Sakellaraki et al., Phylla, 6: ‘… the visible remains of Greek fortifications are well known and often discussed, there have been few systematic excavations, and their internal buildings have rarely been investigated.’ (44) Wokalek, Stadtbefestigungen; Miller, Befestigungsanlagen; Lang, Siedlungen. Balandier, Fortifications et defence (unpubl. diss. Marseilles). (45) P. Ducrey, Warfare in Ancient Greece (New York 1986), 146. Cobet, ‘Mauern’, 251. (46) Sites that are not footnoted appear in the Catalogue, pp. 285–343. (47) Vroulia on Rhodos is later and may have been a kome of an early polis (Lindos) on Rhodes. (48) To these few examples should be added a number of sites on Crete C11–8 BC, Nowicki, Defensible Sites; Camp, ‘Walls’, 49; in the Aegean, Morgan and Coulton, ‘Physical Polis’, 105; Ducrey, ‘Muraille’, 247; A. M. Snodgrass, ‘Les Premiers Fortifications grecques’, DossArch 192 (1992), 20–7; Lawrence, Aims, 32–3; Wokalek, Stadtbefestigungen, 25. (49) M. H. Hansen, ‘Introduction: The Polis as a Citizen-State’, CPCActs 1, 7–29, at 9; Hansen, Polis, 44. (50) Sites at which we cannot prove the construction of new structures but for which we can assume the reuse (or continuous use) of structures from the Mycenaean Period, could be claimed as a third category, e.g. Haliartos (Fossey, Boiotia, 302–3), Agios Andreas on Siphnos (see below, p. 105–6). (51) Hansen ‘Introduction’, 18, gives c.650 BC as the earliest date, to which the essential characteristics of the Classical polis as a city state can be traced (Dreros, Sparta, and Thasos). See also Hansen, ‘Hellenic Polis’, 145–8. (52) See discussion on Achaia in Hansen and Nielsen, 474–7 (Morgan and Hall). (53) Hansen, ‘Hellenic Polis’, 148–9; Hansen, Polis, 46–7. Here are also listed the regions where urbanization happened later, e.g. Akarnania and Aetolia. Here the Greek poleis were colonies lying along the coast whereas the rest of the population was apparently settled in villages. See discussion of Aetolia, P. Funke, ‘Polisgenese und Urbanisierung in Aetolien im 5. und 4. Jh. v. Chr.’, CPCActs 4, 145–88. It has to be remembered, however, that the archaeological investigation of settlements of inner Aetolia and Akarnania has gained progress only in very recent years, Funke, ibid. 169 (on Aetolia). Excavations of city walls and other urban bulding types might change this chronological picture, as e.g. the present excavations at Kalydon did with probable Archaic acropolis walls (Cat.).

Page 12 of 13

Introduction (54) The site Montagna di Marzo in Sicily, where a C6m city wall has been found, may have been the Greek polis Herbessos, but this identification is not established firmly enough to allow for inclusion in this study. The settlement may just as well have been a Hellenized indigenous community, see A. Cutroni Tusa and D. Moreschini, ‘Montagna di Marzo’, BTCGI 10 (1992), 229–35. (55) On Paphos being Phoenician, see e.g. Drerup, Baukunst, 101. (56) Paphos is possibly called polis in the political sense by Aeschylos (Persae 892), and must be one of the poleis mentioned in the urban sense by Herodotos (5.115 [inferred]). Salamis is called polis in the political sense by Aeschylos (Persae 893), and polis in the urban sense by Herodotos (5.104.3, 115.1). (57) The Cypriot poleis of Paphos and Salamis of C8 are well identified, but we cannot prove that they were actually poleis before C5. They were clearly vassal states to the Assyrians, and it can even be questioned whether they were primarily Greek at that early point in their history. For a brief discussion of a similar problem of ethnicity, see below, p. 76.

Page 13 of 13

Types of Fortification

Greek City Walls of the Archaic Period, 900–480 BC Rune Frederiksen

Print publication date: 2011 Print ISBN-13: 9780199578122 Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: April 2015 DOI: 10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199578122.001.0001

Types of Fortification Rune Frederiksen

DOI:10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199578122.003.0002

Abstract and Keywords This chapter talks about the different classifications of fortified settlement starting from the Early Iron Age, followed by the Archaic fortifications and that of the polis. Early Iron Age fortifications are marked by the absence of settlement within and may have only been used as a refuge; an example of this is the Emporio on Chios. The chapter states that distinct characterization must be made between fortifications of the polis' settlements (including the urban centre), territory, and the fortifications created for defence on a regional scale in order to procure a clear analysis of the situation in the Archaic period. It presents evidence on the existence of fortified harbours and villages (also known as second-order settlements), private estates, forts, and towers. It also compares nucleated settlements and urban centres. Keywords:   fortification, Early Iron Age, Archaic city, polis, nucleated settlements, Chios

In Classical and Hellenistic Greece the walls of a polis-town, the urban centre of the polis, were often one constituent part only of a complex system of fortifications of the same polis-state, which included networks of forts and towers spreading out to the most remote corners of the territory.1 But what was the situation of Greek settlements and cities and their fortification before Classical times? To establish an overview of different categories of fortified settlement in the period, and how commonly they occur, is important, because we quite often are confronted with fortification remains with settlement remains of unclear status; such an overview will be a guideline when suggesting the status of such settlements.

Page 1 of 25

Types of Fortification Early Iron Age Fortifications Sometimes fortifications are identified without remains of a settlement within. In such situations the fortified site may have been a refuge, that is a fortified area which was never properly inhabited.2 This type of fortification is often considered popular in the Early Iron Age. However, Early Iron Age settlement remains are meagre,3 and seem largely not to have been found for this reason, rather than never having been there in the first place. So, traces of urban architecture from this period are simply harder to find than remains from later periods. It seems valid, however, to allow for the identification as a refuge, when settlement remains are positively identified outside and not inside the walls. Emporio on Chios is a clear example (Fig. 31), consisting of 2.4 hectares of uninhabited space on a hilltop, surrounded by a fortification wall, and 4 hectares of houses immediately outside the wall to the west. The size of the intramural space created by the walls on the Barbouna Hill at Asine in the Argolid (Fig. 25), combined with the fact that the walls run down the hillside to the east, suggests a proper settlement fortification rather than a refuge. Phaistos in Crete (Fig. 92), on the other hand, may in fact have been a refuge. The intramural space here is much smaller, and the wall may have encircled the hilltop only. Most of the firmly dated Early Iron Age fortifications (Table 1) did, however, enclose true settlements. As mentioned earlier it is impossible to place these within a known administrative and economic power structure. (p.9) Only a few fortified settlements that may have been subordinated to other settlements have been identified,4 and a cautious conclusion is that in the Early Iron Age only first-order settlements were fortified.

Archaic Fortifications As in the Early Iron Age, remains of Archaic fortification walls are sometimes the only structural evidence on a site directly relating to the existence of a settlement.5 In such situations interpretation based on circumstantial topographical observations, and on evidence extrapolated from later periods, is the only way to suggest what the walls protected. At Ephesos, a stretch of a fortification wall is identified on the north slope of the Panayırdaǧı (Fig. 32). The Archaic settlement itself has only been located in part;6 in addition, recent surveys by the Austrians have identified remains of houses on this hill, although not dated positively to the Archaic period. The inclusion of Ephesos in the present study presupposes hypothetically that the settlement, or part of it, was located behind the wall on the Panayırdaǧı. J. Keil’s suggestion that the hill was a refuge is not implausible,7 but given the size of the intramural space of the hill, around 16 hectares, it seems more reasonable to assume that at least a part of the Archaic settlement was situated there. The identified wall is found on the primary hill in the area of what is very likely to have been the centre of the nucleated settlement of Archaic Ephesos. Page 2 of 25

Types of Fortification The situation at Ephesos is not dissimilar to that of a number of other Archaic sites, where evidence for the existence of true cities either later in the Archaic period or in Classical times8 is indeed found, which means that the early walls represent indirect evidence only for contemporary settlements within them. Such an assumption will not always be correct, but I will argue further for the validity of this approach since in situations where settlement remains have not been located, it is just as likely that there was a settlement inside the wall as outside, but that the remains have either disappeared or remain undiscovered underground. Furthermore, refuges of the type known in the Early Iron Age are not encountered in large numbers in the Archaic period. However, let us now examine the characteristics of such fortified settlements. In order to obtain a clear overview of the situation in the Archaic period a distinction must be made between (1) fortification of settlements of the polis, including its urban centre, (2) fortification of the territory of the polis, and finally (3) fortification systems constructed for the purpose of defending settlements and territories of entire regions or settlements of supra-regional character.

Fortification of Settlements of the Polis Polis-Town

The evidence for fortification of urban centres of cities increases steadily from the eighth century BC onwards.9 Examples include Asine, Eretria (?), Megara Hyblaea, Leontinoi, Miletos (Kalabaktepe), Old Smyrna, and Phokaia. These communities, and most of the others listed in the Catalogue (an overview appears in Tables 1–5), are attested as poleis by either contemporary or later evidence,10 and since the polis emerges at the same time as these early walls, the communities within them are most likely to have been early poleis or proto-poleis; evidence for this to have been the case may be lacking in many individual instances, but it seems impossible that any communities could have escaped taking part in the development of such a fundamental all-pervading social change as the one constituted by the polis.11 As a (p.10) community either you became one or you were subdued by one. These many walls, their architecture, and their value for the interpretation of socio-economic trends in the ancient Greek world, constitute the main focus of this book and will be treated extensively below, especially in Chapters 7–8. Harbours

In the Classical and Hellenistic periods coastal cities sometimes incorporated a harbour into the line of fortification, e.g. Ephesos, Halieis, Siphai, Miletos, and Thasos.12 Communication with the outside world in times of trouble is likely to have been a major concern in the Archaic period as well, and it is thus often maintained that the practice of including harbours in the line of fortifications encircling nearby urban centres emerged in the course of the second half of the sixth century,13 although we do not have much hard evidence to support this Page 3 of 25

Types of Fortification from archaeology14 or from written sources.15 Thasos seems, as far as we know, to be the only example of a closed harbour from the Archaic period.16 Aigina, Methymna, and Samothrace are three of a number of cases likely to be verified by future research,17 while Pheia — the harbour of Elis — appears in Homer’s Iliad as a fortified polis;18 underwater remains of Mycenaean fortifications found at the site, now known as Pontikokastro,19 may be adduced to substantiate the view that Pheia functioned as a fortified harbour site in later times as well.20 The designation λιμὴν κλειστός,21 frequently used by ancient writers to describe such a harbour, does not in fact appear in any relevant source dealing with Archaic Greece. We do possess occasional and indirect information about fortified harbours in the literary sources, such as Herodotos’ remark about Miletos being difficult to besiege because of its access to the sea.22 The implication is that Miletos had a limen kleistos even in the late seventh to early sixth century, but this is only a possible interpretation of Herodotos, since he mentions neither a harbour nor its fortification. Despite the close proximity of some harbours to urban centres of their cities, moles and quays were sometimes excluded from the line of fortifications,23 as for example at Anthedon, Euboian Chalkis, Larymna, Sicilian Naxos, and Samos. The harbour could, in such cases, either be unfortified or have its own fortification.24 When a city was not situated on or near the coast, the harbour often constituted a separate settlement which could be fortified. Post-Archaic examples are the port of Kyrene, located at the site of the later Hellenistic (p.11) polis Apollonia,25 the two ports of Elis, Kyllene and Pheia,26 and the harbour of Sikyon.27 Separate fortification at the Peiraieus, the harbour of Athens, is attested by two events of the late sixth28 and early fifth centuries29 respectively, before the long walls were built between 461 and 456 BC to connect the harbour with the fortified urban centre of Athens itself.30 While at least part of the settlement at the harbours was fortified, the sources do not specifically mention that the harbour installations were included in the fortifications. Long walls, documented in a handful of other cases, served to connect the fortified inland polis with the fortified harbour settlement by two closely set parallel walls. In our sources they appear as μακρὰ τείχη,31 and the general opinion is that they date from the Classical period.32 Fortified harbours certainly existed in the Archaic period. They are only rarely attested in our sources, but this may be due to the scanty nature of the sources and the hitherto limited research on harbours. Underwater investigation at Greek harbours dating from later periods could reveal earlier phases, just as investigations of walls on land have often uncovered remains of earlier walls.33 Assuming, however, that the sources do provide a trustworthy picture and harbour fortifications were few, it may normally have been the case that Page 4 of 25

Types of Fortification harbours of pre-Classical times located at some distance from cities were insignificant as settlements, and were unfortified for that reason.34 Fortified access to the sea presumably developed in the course of the Archaic period35 and seems to have been the norm in the Classical period.36 Villages

Evidence for fortified second-order settlements in the territories of poleis in the Archaic period is also scanty.37 Eleusis is, however, an example (discussed below, p. 17), and the fortified settlement at Vroulia on the southern tip of Rhodes, existing from c.700 to c.550 BC, may have been a small polis, but is more likely to have been a deme in the territory of Lindos, already a powerful city founding colonies in the West in the early seventh century.38 The fortified early Archaic settlement on the islet of Oikonomos off Paros, the similar but larger Teichioussa in the territory of Miletos, as well as Çatalkaye and Bel Kahve in the territory of Old Smyrna — where fortification walls perhaps going back to the seventh/sixth century BC have (p.12) been found — are also likely to have been demes rather than poleis in their own right.39 More examples are known from the Classical period, but the evidence for fortified second-order settlements is not overwhelming. Attic demes like Rhamnous, Sounion, and Thorikos are well known,40 and outside Attika fortified demes are found in the territory of Eretria (Dystos and Kotylaion),41 while Askra in Boiotia is an example of a fortified kome.42 Nestane in the territory of Mantinea in Arkadia is yet another example from this settlement category.43 Thucydides states that Limnaia in northern Akarnania was an unfortified kome (κώμην ἀτείχιστον),44 and further that the entire region of Aetolia was settled with unwalled komai.45 Since Thucydides is explicit about the Aetolian komai being unfortified, it could be inferred that komai were often fortified in other regions. Another interpretation of the passage is that the settlements mentioned were meant to be contrasted with an imaginary group of fortified poleis that would have constituted a much more difficult obstacle to a planned Athenian attack. Like many coastal poleis some coastal second-order settlements had a harbour which was sometimes incorporated into the fortification line. Peiraieus may have been an example in the period preceding the construction of the long walls connecting it to the urban centre of Athens.46 A comprehensive study of second-order settlements in the Greek world has yet to be published, and it is therefore impossible to state without qualification whether or not second-order settlements were normally fortified, either in the Archaic period or later. It seems, however, from the brief survey above, that the established view that second-order settlements were normally not fortified47 does indeed apply to the Archaic period.48

Page 5 of 25

Types of Fortification Private estates/farms

Numerous small settlements — commonly identified as farms and having a tower as an adjacent building to the domestic structures — are found scattered all over the Greek world. Larger fortified private estates, like the so-called ‘Nine Towers’ estate owned by the wife of the Syracusan tyrant Gelon, located 200 stades away from the city, are reported in written sources. This estate existed at least from 478 BC, when Gelon was buried there (Diod. 11.38.4); evidence for fortifications of this kind is, however, limited.49 Examples of smaller farms with a single tower are found in the Argolid, Attika, Megaris, the Crimean Peninsula, on (p.13) the Greek islands, and elsewhere.50 If these towers are correctly interpreted as defensive architecture, they constitute the smallest unit of settlement fortification. By contrast with other fortifications they are not a result of public polis policy, but were built on private initiative in order to protect the inhabitants and the estate against local and temporary dangers.51 In time of war the people living on these estates would have to withdraw inside the teichos of their polis.52 It seems that fortified private estates or farms were few and far between in Archaic Greece. A systematic compilation of the archaeological evidence, as well as comprehensive studies of the nature and chronology of this type of fortification, has yet to be undertaken, and more excavations of rural sites are needed before this view can be confirmed.53 However, in recent years, a number of surveys and excavations have focused on the Greek countryside,54 and the combined results from these may change our view on the prevalence, nature, and chronology of fortified farms.

Fortification of Polis Territory Defence structures in the territory of poleis are less frequently mentioned in the sources than the fortification of the settlements and urban centres of poleis. Poleis which had territories equivalent to peninsulas sometimes had these fortified by walls running across a narrow point (isthmus) towards the mainland, thus effectively walling off the entire territory.55 The Dema wall, well within the territory of Attika, is a rare example of an attempt to defend part of the territory of a single polis, with an actual wall erected between two mountains, thus blocking one of the major approaches further into Attika.56 As a rule the defence of territories was organized through a network of towers and forts.57 Forts

From Classical times onwards, forts—commonly termed τεῖχος and φρούριον58 in written sources59 — were often placed along the frontier of the territory of a polis.60 They could also be scattered throughout the territory, and were sometimes built in the territory of allied or enemy poleis,61 and in that capacity often called ἐπιίτείχισμα.62 Their function was not only to defend the city and its territory; they were also, but more rarely, used strategically for offensive Page 6 of 25

Types of Fortification military purposes.63 The Athenian forts located along the border of Attika are an example of forts defending the territory,64 while forts scattered over the territory are found in, for example the Argolid and Eretria. (p.14) A sixth-fifth-century Sybarid fort close to Poseidonia,65 and forts used by Athens and Sparta in the territories of each other at various times during the Peloponnesian War, are examples of the individual offensive type.66 At present a reliable picture of the distribution and chronology of forts in the Greek world as such is difficult to establish, again largely because of a general lack of interest in the Greek countryside. The focus of interest has been changing in recent years, however, and identifying and dating the forts in a region is only possible by means of extensive archaeological surveys, such as those undertaken in Arkadia, Attika, Euboia, Lakonia, and in the Argolid.67 The results from these will often have to be followed up by excavation to clarify chronological matters. The Archaic evidence can be summed up as follows. From the westernmost periphery of the Greek world remains have been found at Agathe, located in nonGreek territory more than 200 kilometres west of Massalia. According to Strabo, it was an ἐπιτείχισμα of Massalia, a bulwark against the ‘barbarians’,68 but it could also have been a fortified emporion, securing trade routes, rather than an outpost securing the territory of Massalia. The fortifications excavated on the site date to Classical or Hellenistic times, with possible Archaic phases.69 In Magna Graecia an early sixth-century BC fortification wall at ‘Site A’, at Cozzo Presepe, seems indeed to be proof of the existence of a Metapontine border fortress, built on top of an indigenous settlement which was destroyed just before the construction of the fortification wall.70 From the north-easternmost corner of the Greek world, Porthmeion at the Cimmerian Bosporos, with fortifications dating to the second half of the sixth century, is considered to be a teichos dependent on Pantikapaion,71 but the status of the site is disputed.72 The same applies to Melie in the seventh century, which was a fortified hilltop settlement prior to its abandonment in the eighth century. In the late seventh century Melie was resettled, the hilltop fortifications reused, and an additional circuit wall constructed to encompass the settlement on the hillside below. No remains of houses are reported, but the lower settlement is indirectly attested by the location of the necropolis outside the wall.73 It is impossible to know if Melie in the sixth century had the same status as Karion, the name of the settlement much later, when it belonged to Priene, either as a dependent polis or as a phrourion.74 A number of (p.15) large towers and enclosures on Lesbos may have been forts in the territories of the poleis there. They are most likely of Archaic date, but are difficult to classify because none have, so far, been excavated.75

Page 7 of 25

Types of Fortification Herodotos76 informs us that in 511 BC, during the stasis at Athens, Leipsydrion was fortified by the Alkmaionidai as part of a last and unsuccessful attempt to expel the Peisistratidai from Attika. The settlement was situated on the border towards Boiotia, and remains have been found at the site.77 Leipsydrion falls into the category of temporary stasis forts, and there is no suggestion in the sources that a teichos existed at the location after the period of occupation by the Alkmaionidai.78 More promising, from the archaeological point of view, is the recently published late Archaic fort at Phylla in central Euboia,79 and from the same period Herodotos refers to forts of Samothrace in the coastal area of southern Thrace opposite the island, in his description of Xerxes’ march through northern Greece.80 The evidence for Classical forts is much better than that for Archaic, and it seems that regular forts were in fact few and far between in the Archaic period.81 This conclusion, which is indeed the general opinion,82 may be challenged in the future in the light of new evidence from surveys and/or excavations of already known but undated structures. The written sources probably only provide an incomplete picture, since forts would have been referred to but rarely in the sources, which are already sparse when it comes to pre-Classical matters. Towers

Towers scattered in the territories and along the borders of poleis formed part of the fortification system protecting first the territories themselves, and ultimately the urban centres of poleis. Such towers are commonly referred to as πύργοι.83 They were small fortified units, built to house just a handful of men, often situated on an eminence so that the garrison could communicate with neighbouring towers or forts. Defensive communication systems of towers and forts have been identified in Attika, along the frontiers towards Boiotia and Megara,84 in Boiotia along the frontier towards Phokis,85 around the poleis Kleonai and Phleious in the Argolid, and on a number of Aegean islands, to mention a few of the more notable examples.86 There is a risk of confusing these military towers with the rural farm-towers mentioned above. However, when towers are found along the border between two poleis it seems reasonable to assume that they were built by either of the two, and so constituted a part of their defences, and conversely, when they are found in an area where such a function seems unlikely, they should rather be interpreted as private defence towers.87 The evidence for the latter in the Archaic period is as meagre as the evidence for forts, and so it is (p.16) generally believed that the defence of the territory by means of defence architecture was not widely practised in Archaic times.88

Fortification Beyond the Polis Page 8 of 25

Types of Fortification Regional defences

Walls defending areas larger than the territory of one individual polis are attested in connection with the Persian Wars of 480/79 BC, both at Thermopylai and at the Isthmus of Corinth.89 The fortification of the Thracian Chersonese by Miltiades in the late sixth century BC,90 and later by Pharnabazos in 397 BC,91 is another example of a wall that protected a major peninsula settled with a number of poleis.92 The earliest archaeological attestation was earlier thought to be the stretch of Cyclopean wall found at the Corinthian Isthmus, believed to date back to Mycenaean times.93 Supra-territorial fortification walls were permanent, and as such were built and maintained for protection against permanent threats. Their construction required a joint foreign policy on the part of all the poleis involved. The political map of the Greek world was, however, one of changing alliances as the result of a shifting balance of power between the leading poleis, and since extensive landscape walls were expensive and time-consuming to construct and maintain, it is hardly surprising that such structures were built only infrequently in Archaic Greece. Landscape fortification walls became more common in the Classical and Hellenistic periods, when regional and more lasting federations were formed between poleis. Regional and Panhellenic sanctuaries

Temenos walls served to mark off and enclose sanctuaries, to control access, and to monumentalize sanctuaries.94 The religious and political centre of the Aetolian tribes, the sanctuary of Thermos in Aetolia, is the only clear example of a fortified sanctuary and dates from the late fourth century BC.95 According to Diodoros,96 the sanctuary of Delphi was fortified by the Phokian general Philomelos (ὁ Φιλόμηλος τεῖχός τε περιεβάλετο τῷ ἱερῷ κτλ).97 Traces of fortification walls that might date to Philomelos’ time have been found on the hill west of the temenos of Apollo, but there is no further archaeological proof that the sanctuary was fortified.98 It is worth remembering, however, that Philomelos had seized Delphi, (p.17) and the sanctuary was fortified by him and not by its governing body.99 Convincing examples of the latter situation are needed before one can assume that the fortification of a major sanctuary was possible in the universe of Diodoros or, rather, in that of his source.100 It should finally be remembered that Delphi was a polis,101 in which case it is possible that any fortification remains should be related to the settlement rather than to the sanctuary of Delphi. At Dodone in the Hellenistic period the fortified acropolis was intended to protect the settlement, which was also a polis,102 and did not incorporate the sanctuary, which was surrounded by its own clearly narrower temenos wall.103 The situation at Eleusis is different. Here the sanctuary is surrounded by an impressive fortification wall (Fig. 30).104 Eleusis cannot, however, be adduced as an example of a fortified sanctuary as such. Eleusis was also an Attic demos and Page 9 of 25

Types of Fortification its settlement, or parts of it, was probably located within the walls of the sanctuary, namely on the hill above it.105 Therefore the fortification would have been intended to protect the settlement, just as much as the sanctuary. The settlement may in fact have been the main reason why a proper fortification wall was constructed in the first place, rather than a high narrow temenos wall. Remains of a wall dating from the late sixth century, which may have been a diateichisma, have been found between the sanctuary and the hilltop behind.106 If the wall is correctly identified as a diateichisma, it may support the suggestion of the existence of a contemporary settlement on the hill.107 The conclusion is that fortifying major sanctuaries was possible but that it happened rarely.108 This seems to be true of small sanctuaries as well. All identified fortified sanctuaries (apart from Thermos) in Archaic and Classical times were at the same time settlements, either towns or villages, and cannot be adduced as examples of fortified sanctuaries as such.109

Nucleated Settlements and Urban(?) Centres From the discussion above it is clear that we should not expect many smaller or lesser settlements to have been fortified before Classical times. But that does not automatically mean, conversely, that we can be certain that the fortified sites of the period which we encounter, were first-order settlements, or central places in the regions where they appear. With regard to the first centuries of the Early Iron Age, it is hardly possible to identify any clear settlement hierarchies from the meagre archaeological remains.110 Although I am unable to prove it, I prefer to believe that down to the first half of the eighth century there was no general pattern of a tiered settlement system throughout the Greek world, but rather one of self-contained and self-governing settlements, with territories (p.18) occasionally including lesser settlements in some sort of subordinated relation to the principal ones. In the latter part of the eighth century the number and nature of archaeological finds, allow us to begin to speak of settlement hierarchies from that time onwards, in for example the Argolid, Attika, and Crete.111 Some of the Early Iron Age fortifications treated in this book as settlement fortifications, may in fact have been refuges, which again potentially means something for their political status. A basic difference between fortified settlements and settlements with (uninhabited) refuges in the territory was the settlement size, the latter being on average fairly small, and perhaps therefore more likely to have been subordinated to another community. Refuges cease to exist in the Archaic period, probably due to the growth of settlements and the impracticalities of having fortifications separate from what needed protection, and possibly because of the influence of the emerging concept of the urban centre in the physical and architectural sense. The fortified Early Iron Age settlements show a great variety in size and character, and the preserved remains are so few that we cannot be sure that what has been preserved is Page 10 of 25

Types of Fortification representative of the nature of the average fortified settlement of the period. A brief survey of settlements and fortifications from the period before 700 BC provides the following picture. Domestic architecture is attested contemporaneously with the first fortification wall at Old Smyrna, phase 1, from c.820 BC.112 The entire intramural space of 5 hectares may have been occupied by houses, streets, etc., a situation which E. Akurgal believed to be the case at the time of phase 3 from the late seventh century. He estimated that Smyrna had 500–600 houses accommodating some 3,000 inhabitants.113 Substantial remains of eighth-century fortification walls are identified at Old Paphos and Salamis in Cyprus, in the latter case constructed on top of a circuit dating to the eleventh century. At Paphos it seems likely that the wall encircled an area of 45 hectares, and interpretations of the topography of Salamis suggest that the intramural space here may have been as much as 70 hectares. Even though there is no evidence for extensive settlements within these two walls, it seems hard to believe that they were refuges, and even harder to believe that their settlements comprised a few dozen houses only. It is not impossible that walled areas already at this early point were only partly built up, a phenomenon which is well documented for the Classical and later periods.114 The contemporary fortified settlements of Agios Andreas, Iasos, Oikonomos, Phaistos, and Vathy Limenari have a considerably smaller intramural space, on average between 1 and 3 hectares (Table 6). Minoa is 3 hectares, but possibly considerably larger,115 while Zagora has a fortified space of c.7.5 hectares. All seven sites were proper settlements, as is evident from remains of houses and pottery. Like Smyrna, Paphos, and Salamis, these smaller settlements still seem to have been the primary settlements in their local areas,116 and therefore on top of the settlement hierarchy. The Greek landscape is not overflowing with large settlements before the later eighth century BC,117 and to establish whether early settlements were villages or towns (or cities if one wants to add this distinction) is first of all a matter of definition. From the archaeological point of view, two parameters are important for the identification of the status of a settlement: its relation to other settlements and its size. It is assumed here that the pre-700 BC settlements (Table 6) were urban centres, with emphasis on ‘centre’ rather than ‘urban’, in the sense that they were the principal settlements of their regions.118 If any of them are to be classified as villages it is because of their size and not because of a (known) subordinate relationship to other settlements. A clear case of a village — if even that — is Vathy Limenari. (p.19) Central or primary settlements are normally called cities or towns,119 and the main criteria used to define them are the size of habitation area and/or size of population. In the southern Argolis survey project sites of more than 5 Page 11 of 25

Types of Fortification hectares were classified as towns,120 while for Frank Kolb121 a minimum of 1,000 inhabitants is one criterion for accepting a site as a Stadt (town). These two different standards seem to correspond, inasmuch as the ‘250 persons per hectare’ figure suggested by the Argolis team for towns in the Classical period gives an estimated population of 1,250 for their smallest towns of 5 hectares, which is not far from Kolb’s 1,000 inhabitants.122 In a recent major study on ancient (Classical) Greek demography, Mogens Hansen has fine-tuned this figure and suggests 150–200 persons per hectare.123 It is potentially problematic to use definitions based on Classical Greece for the Early Iron Age, but they may be valid as a guideline. Meeting both the size of settlements and the size of population criteria, Smyrna124 and Zagora were definitely towns and, based exclusively on size of settlement (intramural space), so were Asine, Paphos and Salamis. Minoa is smaller, around 3 hectares, and would not from this point of view classify as a town. This is the case as well for the remaining settlements, which should be classed as villages, based on their size only and not on their possible subordinate position to other settlements, for which no information exists. When referring to their fortification walls, the term city wall will be used for convenience, even though it suggests settlement on a grander scale than what is reasonable to imagine for these small settlements. In the Archaic period, the early formative era of the polis, it is clear that fortification was reserved for first-order settlements, and it is hardly a surprising conclusion that the defence of the polis town itself was the basic unit in the fortification system of Greek poleis; this was also the case in later periods. But in Archaic Greece — due to the general absence of other types of fortification—the city wall seems to have been particularly important. Forts did exist, but were not commonly built before Classical times. Elaborate harbours also existed, possibly also with separate fortifications, but they were not common either until much later. As far back as our sources go, every polis seems to have had an urban centre, called polis in the urban sense,125 whereas other types of settlement are not found in the territory of every polis. For obvious reasons many inland poleis did not have a harbour, and many small poleis had no second-order settlements in their territory. Also, forts and towers are known from some regions but are not attested throughout the Greek world. The importance of the fortification of the urban centre and the lack of fortification of the countryside may offer a clue as to where the majority of the populations of pre-Classical Greek poleis lived, namely behind the walls of the polis town. Mogens Hansen has recently suggested that this was actually the case in Classical times in the great majority of poleis, apart from a small number of poleis with an unusually large territory.126 This conclusion must be accompanied with the reservation that topographical research, particularly of the countryside, is still in its infancy.127 In the future when more surveys and excavations of the countryside have been carried out, Page 12 of 25

Types of Fortification and the data from them processed, new information about fortification of settlements below polis level and information about fortification systems of towers could change this picture. In the part of Boiotia covered by the Cambridge/Bradford Boiotian Expedition, for example, a fairly high number of walled settlements have been identified, which may have been something other than poleis.128 Further investigation of these settlements may disclose their function more precisely and help to confirm or disprove their suggested Archaic date. Notes:

(1) Winter, 42–6; Lawrence, Aims, 172–96. (2) I adopt the definition of ‘refuge’ by Nowicki, Defensible Sites, 14: ‘A refuge area or refuge settlement was not permanently inhabited by the whole population due to its difficult access and sometimes very limited space, but it was used in extreme events when the whole chance to survive was to move up there.’ ‘Refuge’ in the more narrow sense applies to sites where there is a certain identifiable distance between the fortified place and the settlement. The proper word in German is Fluchtburg, or Fluchtort (Winter, 26; Wokalek, Stadtbefestigungen, 34), but alternatively Verteidigungsanlag or Rückzugs-Anlag can be used, see Miller, Befestigungsanlagen, 8, and W. Radt, Siedlungen und Bauten auf der Halbinsel von Halikarnassos, unter besondererBerücksichtigung der archaischen Epoche. IstMitt suppl. 3 (Tübingen 1970), 2, respectively. For more on refuges see pp. 9, 18, below. (3) Dickinson, Aegean, 84. (4) A number of sites from Attika are mentioned as candidates for fortified villages of the early Archaic period, see Lauter-Bufé and Lauter, ‘Vorthemistokleische Stadtmauer’, 2 (with refs.). Lathouriza, south-west of Vari, 20 km from Athens, is here described as a small settlement dating from C8 to C7 (Geometric) with remains of a fortification wall. This wall, however, is clearly modern, Mazarakis-Ainian, Rulers’ Dwellings, 235–6. (5) e.g. at Phokaia where remains are found under the later wall, Özyıǧıt, ‘Phokaia’, 79. (6) See e.g. D. O. A. Klose, ‘Türkei’, in K. Brodersen (ed.), Antike Stätten am Mittelmeer (Stuttgart and Weimar 1999), 438–644, at 489. C8–7 houses have been excavated beneath the agora of the Lysimachean city, S. Karwise et al., ‘Ephesos’, ÖJhBeibl 65 (1996), 5–32, at 12. (7) J. Keil, ‘XII. Vorläufiger Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Ephesos’, ÖJh 23 (1926), 247–300, at 261. (8) On the criteria for the data included in this book, see above, Chap. 1. Page 13 of 25

Types of Fortification (9) For a treatment of subcategories of town defence, such as hilltops and city walls see below, p. 50–3. (10) See above, p. 3 for the definition of polis used here. Entries in the Catalogue for sites that were poleis of each entry will have a reference to Hansen and Nielsen, in the respective bibliographies. (11) Discussion of early polis in Wokalek, Stadbefetigungen, 25–8; Hansen, Polis, 39–47; Hansen, ‘Introduction’, 16–19. See also above, Chap. 1 and below Chap. 8. (12) Ephesos: McNicoll, Fortifications, 96–7, fig. 19. Halieis: McAllister, Halieis, chaps. 6–7, figs. 34–6. Siphai: E.-L. Schwandner, ‘Die Böotische Hafenstadt Siphai’, AA (1977), 513–51. Miletos: Cobet, ‘Mauern’. Thasos: below, n. 16. (13) Lawrence, Architecture5, 177–9. (14) One example, however, seems to be Abdera (see Cat.). Although much has happened in archaeology since K. Lehmann-Hartleben’s splendid study, Die antike Hafenanlagen des Mittelmeeres (Leipzig 1923), there is no modern comprehensive study on Greek harbours and their fortifications. Blackman, Rankov, et al., Shipsheds (forthcoming), does not include harbours without shipsheds. (15) The information provided by Strabo (9.1.15) that harbours ‘in the old days’ were incorporated in the fortification circuit, is of limited value since we do not know what period he had in mind. (16) A. Simossi, T. Koželj, and M. Wurch-Koželj, ‘Les Ports de Thasos’, TOPOI 10 (2000), 32–6. Samos may be another example, as a stretch of wall runs from tower 38 in an easterly direction, towards the S mole, as well as the wall running N forming part of the city wall towards the harbour, Kienast, Samos, 32T on general plan. (17) The remains of the military harbour of Aigina are dated circumstantially to late Archaic times by historical sources, see Blackman, Rankov, et al., Shipsheds (forthcoming). Samothrace: H. Ehrhardt, Samothrake: Heiligtümer in ihrer Landschaft und Geschichte als zeugen antiken Geisteslebens (Stuttgart 1985), 31. At Methymna a constructed harbour possibly dating to the Archaic period is likely to have been included in the fortification circuit of Archaic Methymna, see Buchholz, Methymna, 45, 48–9. (18) 7.135. See Chap. 3, p. 27. (19) S.v. Pontikokastro in Lauffer, Lexikon, 560 with refs.

Page 14 of 25

Types of Fortification (20) Pheia is, however, not attested as a harbour in written sources before the Classical period, Thuc. 2.25.3–5; Xen. Hellenika 3.2.30. See also below, p. 77. (21) Lehmann-Hartleben, Hafenanlagen, 65–74. Λιμὴν κλειστός is used once by Philochoros about the Peiraieus (FGrHist 3b.328, F.203), 14 times by PseudoSkylax, and three times by Strabo. Phalasarna in Crete is an example of the archaeological evidence supporting the classification of Pseudo-Skylax, see F. J. Frost and E. Hadjidaki, ‘Excavations at the Harbor of Phalasarna (Crete)’, Hesperia 59 (1990), 513–27, at 527. (22) The Lydians were apparently forced to make continuous raids in the Milesian chora in C7l and C6e, because a siege would not be profitable due to the walls of Miletos and its access to the sea, Hdt. 1.17: τῆς γὰρ θαλάσσης οἱ Μιλήσιοι ἐπεκράτεον, ὥστε ἐπέδρης μὴ εἶναι ἔργον τῇ στρατιῇ. κτλ ‘for as the Milesians had command of the sea, it was of no avail for his army to besiege their city’ etc. (tr. Godley, Loeb). (23) Lehmann-Hartleben, Hafenanlagen, 75. (24) RE XIII.1, 561, s.v. λιμήν 3.C. (25) That the port was fortified at least in C4I can be inferred from the siege by Thibron (Diod. 18.20.1–2, r322 BC). (26) J. Roy in Hansen and Nielsen, 492, 499, with discussions of the status of the two settlements. (27) The situation at Sikyon is inferred from literary sources; no remains of the harbour have been found. See Aen. Tact. 29.12; Xen. Hell. 7.3.2; Polyaenus 5.16.3; and Frontinus 3.2.10. See also Ch. H. Skalet, Ancient Sicyon (Baltimore 1928), 7, 74; Wokalek, Stadtbefestungen, 7; R. Martin, L’Urbanisme dans la Grèce antique (Paris 1974), 38. (28) At least the Mounychian Hill was fortified in C6l. This is clear from the description by Aristotle of Hippias’ strategy for keeping power at Athens in the years between the murder of his brother Hipparchos and the final overthrow of tyranny in 508/7: Athenaion Politeia 19.2: τὴν Μουνυχίαν ἐπεχείρησε τειχίζαν, κτλ. See R. Garland, The Piraeus: From the Fifth to the First Century B.C. (London 1987), 14; K. L. von Eickstedt, Beiträge zur Topographie des antiken Piräus (Athens 1991), 44. (29) Fortification of the Peiraieus as a whole seems to have originated in 493/2 BC, when Themistokles was archon, Thuc. 1.93.3; Garland, (n. 28, above), 14–22, 163–5. (30) D.H. Conwell, Connecting a City to the Sea: The History of the Athenian Long Walls (Leiden and Boston, 2008). Page 15 of 25

Types of Fortification (31) Argos: Thuc. 5.82.5–6. Athens: Thuc. 1.107.1, 1.108.3; cf. Strabo 9.1.15. Corinth: Xen. Hell. 4.4.18. Megara: Thuc. 1.103.4, 4.109.1. Alternative terms: Σκέλη, e.g. Strabo 8.6.22 about the long walls from Corinth to the harbour settlement Lechaion, see Winter, 64 fig. 48, or τείχη … ἐς θάλασσαν, e.g. Thuc. 5.52.2 on Patrai, see Lehmann-Hartleben, Hafenanlagen, 78–80. For the long walls at Athens, see generalized plan at Winter, 111 fig. 84; For Megara see A Delt 38 (1989), 39–40; Corinth: A. W. Parsons, ‘The Long Walls to the Gulf’, in Carpenter and Bon (eds.), Defenses, 84–125. Patrai: physical remains identified recently, see A Delt 52 (1997), 273–5. Remains of long walls are also reported from Akarnania, at Nea Pleuron and at least one other location. These are, however, so far unpublished (personal communication with Y. Moschos of the Patras Ephorate). (32) Lawrence, Aims, 156, 419. (33) A study combining maritime archaeology and a thorough study of literary sources would most likely produce new evidence and further our knowledge. R. F. Paget argues persuasively from a combination of bradyseismic analysis and literary sources, that there must have been a harbour proper at Italian Kyme in the Archaic period (Paget, ‘The Ancient Ports of Cumae’, JRS 58 (1968), 152–69, at 153–9). At Dion. Hal. 7.1. a limen is indeed mentioned, but judging from the following lines (7.3–4) it seems to have been unfortified, cf. quote at Kyme (Cat). (34) A late Archaic exception to this generalization was the Peiraieus. Being a demos with its own urban centre, at least from the Classical period, the Peiraieus was still the harbour of Athens. (35) This development was augmented by the rising numbers of military fleets from the late Archaic period onwards. Blackman, Rankov, et al., Shipsheds (forthcoming). (36) No fortified harbours are attested in Cyprus before Classical times, see Balandier, ‘Cyprus’, 182. (37) For ancient Greek settlement categories and the extent to which they match archaeology, see Hansen, ‘Urban Centre’, 20–5. (38) Hansen and Nielsen, 1198 (Rhodos), 1202–4 (Lindos). (39) Hansen and Nielsen, 1099 no. 867 (L. Rubinstein); J. M. Cook, ‘Old Smyrna, 1948–1951’, BSA 53–4 (1958/9), 1–34, at 4 and 17–18. (40) Rhamnous: J. Pouilloux, La forteresse de Rhamnonte (Paris 1954); Sounion fortified 413 BC: Thuc. 8.4.1: ’Αθηναῖοι, κτλ, καὶ Σούνιον τειχίσαντες, κτλ; Thorikos in 412 BC: H. F. Mussche, ‘Recent Excavations in Thorikos’, ActaCl 13 (1970), 125–36, at 127–9; C. A. van Rooy, ‘Fortifications in South Attica and the Date of Thorikos’, ActaCl 12 (1969), 171–80, (preferring 410 BC); H. R. Goette, Page 16 of 25

Types of Fortification ‘Städtische Siedlungen in Attika’, in E.-L. Schwandner and K. Rheidt (eds.), Stadt und Umland: Neue Ergebnisse der archäologischen Bau-und Siedlungsforschung (Mainz an Rhein 1999), 160–7. (41) Walls from C4 are reported from Dystos, Hansen and Nielsen, 651 no. 369. At Kotyleion — if correctly located at Vrysi/Episkopi (Hansen and Nielsen, 645) — fortification walls from C4 are also found. (42) Askra was a kome in the territory of Thespiai, Hansen, ‘Kome’, 62; Hansen, ‘An Inventory of Boiotian Poleis in the Archaic and Classical Periods’, CPCActs 3, 73–116, at 74. Fortification at the site is dated contemporaneously, that is between 700 BC and late Classical times, A. M. Snodgrass, ‘The Site of Askra’, in G. Argoud and P. Roesch (eds.), La Béotie antique (Paris 1985), 87–95; Fossey, Boiotia, 142–5. Aigosthena in the Megarid may be another example, but here the date of the complex is even more uncertain, Hansen, ‘Kome’, 62. (43) Nestane was possibly a kome at the time to which the fortifications at the site are dated, H. and S. Hodkinson, ‘Mantineia and the Mantinike: Settlement and Society in a Greek Polis’, BSA 76 (1981), 239–96, at 246–8. (44) Thuc. 2.80.8. (45) Thuc. 3.94.4: τὸ γὰρ ἔθνος μέγα μὲν εἶναι τὸ τῶν Αἰτωλῶν καὶ μάχιμον, οἰκοῦν δὲ κατὰ κώμας ἀτειχίστους, καὶ ταύτας διὰ πολλοῦ, κτλ ‘The Aetolians, they explained, were, it was true, a great and warlike people, but as they lived in un-walled villages, which, moreover, were widely separated’, etc. (tr. Forster Smith, Loeb). (46) See above, p. 77. (47) Hansen, ‘Kome’, 61–2 (with refs.). We should not expect demes in Attica to have had fortifications, since they did not have a foreign policy of their own, J. R. McCredie, Fortified Military Camps in Attica (Princeton 1966), 91–2. From the Classical period onwards a number of coastal demes, in particular, were fortified due to their exposed position and the long distance to the fortified urban centre of Athens. (48) For the observation that only the capitals of the ‘city kingdoms’ of Cyprus were fortified in the Archaic and Classical periods, seeBalandier, ‘Cyprus’, 179, 181. (49) Garlan, ‘Fortifications’, 257, argues theoretically that fortified farms existed in abundance in the Archaic period, in areas of the Greek world with aristocratic dominance. Sources in support of this view are few and date from the late Archaic period. Depending on what Garlan precisely means by ‘villa fortifiée’, he might be right about the significance of fortified estates in the countryside in connection with staseis in C6. Leipsydrion may have been such a villa, although Page 17 of 25

Types of Fortification the fortification of it is described as temporary rather than permanent, see below, p. 15. (50) For some compilations of sites: M. Nowicka, Les Maisons à tour dans le monde grec (Warsaw 1975), catalogue at 142–7. J. H. Young, ‘Studies in South Attica, Country Estates at Sounion’, Hesperia 25 (1956), 122–46. (51) See below on polis military towers. (52) Cf. Thuc. 2.14–17. (53) J. Pecirka’s point that the majority of archaeological investigations are made in larger city centres, sanctuaries, and cemeteries, instead of in the countryside, remains true today, J. Pecirka, ‘Homestead Farms in Classical and Hellenistic Hellas’, in M. I. Finley (ed.) Problèmes de la terre en Grèce ancienne (Paris and The Hague, 1973), 113–47, at 122. For similar views see Nowicka, Maisons à tour, 7; Jameson et al., Countryside, 248; Lang, Siedlungen, 56. (54) An example is the more than 70 identified farms in the chora of Metapontion dating to before 500 BC, J. C. Carter, ‘Metapontum: Land, Wealth, and Population’, in Descoeudres, Colonists, 405–41. Even in a well-studied area, like the Metapontine chora, information is poor, due to demolition and reuse of Archaic structures (ibid., 413). (55) For Methana see below, p. 16 n. 92. (56) On the strategic purpose, Munn, Attica, 98–104. The function of the Dema wall was similar to that of the wall at Thermopylai. The difference is that it was the work of a single polis for the benefit of a single polis. For Thermopylai see below, p. 16 n. 89. (57) Winter, 42; Balandier, Fortifications, 12. (58) On phrourion, Nielsen, ‘Phrourion’. (59) Overlaps in the terminology are considerable. A site proven to be a polis by some sources can easily be called a phrourion or a teichos by others. This is not a problem in the present context, as we are only looking for definitions on a broad scale. (60) Epieikia, in the territory of Sikyon: Xen. Hell. 4.4.13. Istone, in the territory of Korkyra: Thuc. 3.85.4; 4.46.2. Oinoe, in the territory of Athens: Thuc. 2.18.1, 8.98.2, physical remains probably contemporary, Ober, Fortress Attica, 154–5. See also Winter, 43. (61) According to Lawrence, Aims, 160, and Architecture5, 174, the offensive type of fort is a phenomenon of the time of the Peloponnesian War and Page 18 of 25

Types of Fortification thereafter. The teichos (fortified camp) of the Achaioi and the teichos of the Curetes are very early examples, but the Homeric ‘evidence’ is of course problematic, as discussed below, p. 34–5. The teichos built by Mantineia at Kypsela, in the territory of the Parrhasians, is an example of a teichos built by one polis against another (Sparta) in the territory of a third, Thuc. 5.33.1. (62) A number of terms are used for forts of the offensive type. See also below, p. 23 with n. 38. (63) The polis itself as a plain military settlement is not found as a common phenomenon prior to the Hellenistic period. Examples of such poleis apparently founded due to strategic military reasons in the Archaic period are Akrai and Kasmenai in the western territory of Syracuse, see M. H. Hansen, ‘A Typology of Dependent Poleis’, CPCPapers 4, 29–37, at 36 (with refs.). (64) J. R. McCredie, Fortified Military Camps in Attica (Princeton 1966); Ober, Fortress Attica, 130–80. (65) Strabo 6.1.1. (66) Dekeleia, a demos in Athenian territory, was fortified, and thus made into a teichos, by the Spartans in 413 BC, Thuc. 7.19.1; Isokrates 8.84; Demosthenes 21.146; Aeschines 2.76. In the same year the Athenians fortified a small peninsula in Lakonia opposite Kythera, but left it the same year, Thuc. 7.26.2, 7.31.1, and 8.4.1. Earlier in the war, in 425 BC, the Athenians fortified an uninhabited chorion at Pylos, described by Thucydides as both an oikodomema (3.8.4) and a teichisma (4.8.6, 4.9.1). The Athenian teichos Delphinion in the territory of Chios, Thuc. 8.34.1, 8.56.2 (for remains J. Boardman, ‘Delphinion in Chios’, BSA 51 (1956), 41–54), and an Athenian fortification of a hamlet in the territory of Syracuse 414 BC, are of similar character, Thuc. 7.4.6, cf. Diodorus Siculus 13.7.6. Spartan forts (phrouria) were built in the territory of Elis in C5l, Diodorus Siculus 14.17.12. At Gaurion on Andros Alkibiades fortified an existing phrourion as a base against combined Spartan and Andrian forces, Diodorus Siculus 13.69.4. (67) Attica: Ober, Fortress Attica. Argolid: Jameson et al., Countryside. Arkadia: Y. A. Pikoulas, Η Νότια Μεγαλοπολιτική Χώρα, από τον 80 π.Χ. ως τον 40 μ.Χ. αιώνα (Athens 1988); B. Forsén and J. Forsén (eds.), The Asea Valley Survey: An Arcadian Mountain Valley from the Palaeolithic Period until Modern Times (Stockholm 2003). Euboia: forthcoming PhD thesis on the fortification of Eretria and its territory, S. Fachard (Fribourg). Cf. Winter, 42–6. (68) Strabo 4.1.5: ἐπιτειχίσματα τὰς κτλ, τὴν δέ Ῥόην ᾿Ρόην Ἀγάθην τοῖς περὶ τὸν ποταμὸν οἰκοῦσι τὸν Ῥοδανὸν βαρβάροις, κτλ ‘strongholds … secondly, Rhöe Agathe, as a stronghold against the barbarians who live round about the River Rhodanus’ (tr. Jones, Loeb). Depending on whether the plain around the Page 19 of 25

Types of Fortification Hebros river at the Thracian coast is to be considered as an area of Greek influence in late Archaic times, Doriskos is an example of the opposite situation, i.e. a barbarian teichos in the Greek area, built by Dareios in C6l, Hdt. 7.59.3. It was still held by a Persian garrison at the time of Xerxes’ invasion according to Herodotus (ibid.). (69) A. Nickels and G. Marchand, ‘Recherches stratigraphiques ponctuelles a proximité des remparts antiques d’Agde’, RANarb 9 (1976), 45–62, at 61–2; A. Nickels, ‘Les Grecs en Gaule: l’exemple du Languedoc’, in G. Nenci (ed.), Forme di contatto e processi di trasformazione nelle società antiche (Pisa and Rome 1983), 409–27, at 421–2. (70) J. du Plat Taylor et al., ‘The Excavations at Cozzo Presepe (1969–1972)’, NSc 8 ser. no. 31 1977 suppl. (Rome 1983), 191–406, at 214–23, 240–3 (Macnamara); J. C. Carter, ‘Sanctuaries in the Chora of Metaponto’, in S. E. Alcock and R. Osborne (eds.), Placing the Gods: Sanctuaries and Sacred Space in Ancient Greece (Oxford 1994), 177. (71) Y. A. Vinogradov et al., ‘Myrmekeion-Porthmeus: Two “Small” Towns of Ancient Bosporus’, in D. V. Grammenos and E. K. Petropoulos (eds.), Ancient Greek Cities in the Black Sea (Thessaloniki 2003), 822. For remains at Porthmeion, M. J. Vachtina, ‘Archaic Buildings or Porthmion’, in P. Guldage Bilde et al. (eds.), The Cauldron of Ariantas (Aarhus 2003), 37–54. (72) G. R. Tsetskhladze, ‘A Survey of the Major Urban Settlements in the Kimmerian Bosporos (with a discussion of their status as Poleis)’, CPCPapers 4, 39–81, at 68–9. (73) P. Hommel, ‘C. Inschriften. a. Die archaische Inschrift vom Burgtor’, in Kleiner et al., Melie, 127–32; Müller-Wiener, ‘Melie (Kaletepe)’, in Kleiner et al., Melie, 97–127, at 100–16, with pl.; Lang, Siedlungen, 196–7. (74) The name Karion appears as a phrourion in a C2 inscription from Priene, I.Priene 37 and 38a.I.9–10. (75) Spencer, ‘Towers and Enclosures’. (76) 5.62.2. (77) PECS s.v. Limes Attica. (78) Ober, Fortress Attica, 191. (79) For a discussion of the locality: Sakellaraki et al., Phylla. There are two phases of fortification on the site, Coulton, ‘The Buildings’, 25–8. Despite the effort of cutting two trenches up against walls of the earlier circuit, external evidence for dating was not found. The later and inner circuit seems to be Page 20 of 25

Types of Fortification contemporary with settlement structures found within, which were dated by excavation to C6l to C5e, Sakellaraki et al., Phylla, 111–16. (80) See below, p. 24 with n. 51 for the passage and discussion. (81) Winter, 42; J. D. Tracy, ‘To Wall or Not to Wall: Evidence from Medieval Germany’, in Tracy (ed.), City Walls, 71–87, at 72: ‘The cities of Archaic Greece had no walls and no frontier defenses either.’ (82) Sakellaraki et al., Phylla, 114 (with refs.). (83) For examples of πύργος used for tower in this sense: Hdt. 4.164, Demosthenes 47.56 and 63. A pyrgos could be built on private initiative, to satisfy local needs only, and was therefore not part of the planned polis defence. Such cases will have to be inferred from the context, as with Aglomachos’ tower in Kyrene, Hdt. 4.164: ἑτέρονς δέ τινας τῶν Κυρηναίων ἐς πύργον μέγαν Ἀγλωμάχον καταφνγόντας ἰδιωτικὸν ὕλην περινήσας ὁ Ἀρκεσίλεως ἐνέπρησε ‘Others of the Cyrenaeans fled for refuge into a great tower that was the private property of one Aglomachus, a private man, and Arcesilaus piled wood round it and burnt them there’ (tr. Godley, Loeb (modified)). For a more lengthy description of this passage and the meaning of pyrgos in general, S. Morris and J. K. Papadopoulos, ‘Greek Towers and Slaves: An Archaeology of Exploitation’, AJA 109.2 (2005), 155–225, at 207–9. (84) Munn, Attica; Ober, Fortress Attica. (85) R. M. Kallet-Marx, ‘The Evangelistria Watchtower and the Defense of the Zagara Pass’, in H. Beister (ed.) Boiotika: Vorträge vom 5. Internationalen Böotien-Kolloquium, München 13.-17 Juni 1986 (Munich 1989), 301–11, with pl.; J. M. Fossey, ‘The Development of Some Defensive Networks in Eastern Central Greece During the Classical Period’, in van de Maele and Fossey (eds.), Fortificationes Antiquae, 109–32. (86) For a recent general survey: S. Morris and J. K. Papadopoulos, ‘Greek Towers and Slaves: An Archaeology of Exploitation’, AJA 109.2 (2005), 155–225. (87) J. H. Young, ‘Studies in South Attica, Country Estates at Sounion’, Hesperia 25 (1956), 122–46, at 131–2, uses exactly this argument for interpreting structures near Sounion in Attika. See M. H. Munn, ‘Watchtowers, Blockhouses, and Farmsteads: A Preliminary Typology of Isolated Structures in the Greek Countryside’, AJA 86 (1982), at 278, who also states that location is the decisive criterion for distinguishing private from military structures. For the observation that no proof of private fortifications exists in epigraphic sources, see Maier, Mauerbauinschriften 2, 40. This applies to the initiative, the control of construction, and the ensuing responsibility for maintenance of the works, not

Page 21 of 25

Types of Fortification the construction itself, which was practically always done as a private enterprise (ibid. 50). (88) Ober, Fortress Attica, 191. (89) Thermopylai: Hdt. 7.176. The Isthmus: Hdt. 8.71, 9.7–8; cf. Diod. 11.15.3, 16.3 (40 stades from Lechaion to Kenkhreai). The wall at the Isthmus as well as the wall at Thermopylai seem to have had predecessors, Lawrence, Aims, 167. The fortification of the Isthmus in 369/8 BC, constructed to hinder the advance of Thebes, was of a more improvised character, Diod. 15.72.1. This type of fortification was also known outside the Greek world, e.g. the Median wall from Euphrates NE to the Tigris, Xen. Anab. 1.7.15, 2.4.12. For the early wall at Isthmia see, however, below, n. 93. (90) Hdt. 6.36–7. Lawrence, Aims, 167. (91) Xen. Hell. 3.2.10. (92) The fortification of the Methana peninsula by the Athenians in 425 BC is another example, but differs in being offensive military architecture, Thuc. 4.45.2. The actual wall has not been found, C. Mee and H. Forbes, A Rough and Rocky Place: The Landscape and Settlement History of the Methana Peninsula, Greece (Liverpool 1997), 65. (93) O. Broneer, ‘The Corinthian Isthmus and the Isthmian Sanctuary’, Antiquity 32 (1958), 80–8, at 80–3, fig. 1; Mylonas, Mycenae, 44; Salmon, Corinth, 18–19; see however C. Morgan, Isthmia viii: The Late Bronze Age Settlement and Early Iron Age Sanctuary (Princeton 1999), 362–65, 437–46, with a thorough restudy of the wall, and convincing arguments against an early date. (94) B. Bergquist, The Archaic Greek Temenos: A Study of Structure and Function (Lund 1967), 6; R. A. Tomlinson, Greek Sanctuaries (London 1976), 17. (95) C. Antonetti, Les Étoliens: image et religion (Paris 1990), 152–3, pl. 4.1–2; EAA VII (1966), s.v. Thermos; PECS s.v. Thermos. In favour of a date in C4e: Scranton, Walls, 172. For a C4l date: U. Sinn, ‘Greek Sanctuaries as Places of Refuge’, in N. Marinatos and R. Hägg (eds.), Greek Sanctuaries: New Approaches (London and New York 1993), 88–109, at 103. F. Poulsen, Thermos (Copenhagen 1924), 11, was of the opinion that the wall was not a regular fortification wall but a wall ‘just strong enough to ward off gangs of robbers’. The wall, which has an average width of 2.5–2.7 m, is on the other hand classed as ‘massive’ by Bookidis (PECS above). In Archaic and Classical times Thermos was the religious centre of the Aetolian tribes, since C4 of the Aetolian League, see P. Funke, ‘Polisgenese und Urbanisierung in Aitolien im 5. und 4 Jh. v. Chr.’, CPCActs 4, 145–188, at 154. For the slight evidence (C5 and C2) for Thermos actually having been a polis, see Hansen and Nielsen, 381 s.v. Thermos. Page 22 of 25

Types of Fortification (96) 16.25.1. (97) ‘Philomelus threw a wall around the shrine’ etc. (tr. Sherman, Loeb). (98) M. Maass, Das Antike Delphi: Orakel, Schäzte und Monumente (Darmstadt 1993), 68–70. (99) A similar example of temporary fortification of a sanctuary took place in 424 BC, when the Athenians turned Delion, a sanctuary in the territory of Tanagra, into a teichos, a deed for which the Athenians were severely reproached. Thuc. 4.90.2, 4.92.7, 4.97.3–4, 4.100.1. (100) Another example is the (myhological) fortification of Phrixos sanctuary in Kolkhis. Diod. 4.47.6: τὸν βασιλέα φασὶ τειχίσαι τὸ τέμενος καὶ φρουρὰν ἐγκαταστῆσαι, κτλ ‘the king, they say, built a wall about the precinct and stationed a guard over it’ (tr. Oldfather, Loeb). (101) Hansen and Nielsen, 412–16 no. 177. (102) Hansen and Nielsen, 343–4 no. 93. (103) C. Carapanos, Dodone et ses ruines, vols. 1–2 (Paris 1878), pl. 3; Hammond, Epirus, 169, 171. Another example with a clear difference between temenos wall and fortification wall is found at Haliartos in Boiotia. Here the two walls are constructed in the same materials, with the same technique and style, but the difference in dimensions is clear, R. P. Austin, ‘Excavations at Haliartos, 1926’, BSA 27 (1925–6), 81–91, at 83. (104) See Eleusis (Cat.); Travlos, Attika, 122. Eleusis was fortified at least from C6, ibid. 93–4. (105) Travlos states, ibid. 94, that the town of Eleusis has not been found, but says at the same time ambiguously that a part of habitation area has in fact been identified on the N side of the acropolis. For a general treatment of the topography of Eleusis, see G. E. Mylonas, Eleusis and the Eleusinian Mysteries (Princeton 1961), 96–7. For the character of Eleusis as settlement, H. Lauter, ‘Some Remarks on Fortified Settlements in the Attic Countryside’, in van de Maele and Fossey (eds.), Fortificationes Antiquae, 77–91, at 78. (106) Remains of a wall behind the telesterion have been interpreted as a diateichisma. The wall is so poorly preserved, however, that the precise trace of it is unknown. See Travlos, Attika, 94. (107) A diateichisma mentioned in an inscription of 329/8 BC, IG II2 1672, may be the same wall. For a C4 situation plan of the entire site: Travlos, Attika, fig. 170.

Page 23 of 25

Types of Fortification (108) Sanctuaries isolated within rural areas in Middle Kingdom Egypt and later were just as often fortified as towns and cities, since they were open to attack from the desert. An example is the fortification of the temple at Medinet Habu organized by Rameses III, Lawrence, Aims, 15. (109) Sterna in Akarnania, in the territory of Palairos, is such a case, described as a fortified sanctuary and settlement (Gehrke and Wirbelauer in Hansen and Nielsen, 353). (110) The existence of settlement hierarchies is often suggested based on different ‘sizes’ of settlements as identified by survey, e.g. on the Methana peninsula, C. Mee and H. Forbes, A Rough and Rocky Place: The Landscape and Settlement History of the Methana Peninsula, Greece (Liverpool 1997), 57–61. (111) C. Morgan and T. Whitelaw, ‘Ceramic Evidence for the Rise of the Argive State’, AJA 95 (1991), 79–108, at 86–91. Attica: A. Mersch, Studien zur Siedlungsgeschichte Attikas von 950 bis 400 v. Chr. (Frankfurt am Main 1996), 83–4. Crete: Sjögren, Cretan Locations, 109. (112) Akurgal, Alt-Smyrna, 24–5. See Smyrna phase 1 (Cat.). (113) Akurgal, Alt-Smyrna, 14. (114) M. H. Hansen, The Shotgun Method: The Demography of the Ancient Greek City-State Culture (Columbia and London 2006), 38–47, with refs. (115) A wall running from the hilltop down the hillside indicates that the intramural area was larger. The date of the wall has not been established with enough certainty to allow for a contemporary attribution. (116) Oikonomos may have been one of a handful of similar fortified settlements around the Naousa bay on the north side of Paros, Schilardi, ‘Emergence Paros’, 229–37. (117) See discussion, below, p. 108–11. (118) In this sense sometimes called central place, to emphasize the focus on the relationship to other settlements in a settlement hierarchy, Hansen, ‘Introduction’, 74, with refs. (119) Hansen, ‘Introduction’, 74. (120) Jameson et al., Countryside, 249. (121) Kolb, Stadt, 15. (122) Hansen, ‘Introduction’, 74.

Page 24 of 25

Types of Fortification (123) M. H. Hansen, The Shotgun Method: The Demography of the Ancient Greek City-State Culture (Columbia and London, 2006), 51, 60. Aiming generally at c. 400 BC he operates with an average house number of 30–3 per hectare in an urban environment and 6 persons per family, 180–200 inhabitants per hectare. (124) Kolb, Stadt, 69 on Smyrna in C9 and C8. (125) M. H. Hansen, ‘A Survey of the Use of the Word Polis in Archaic and Classical Sources’, CPCPapers 5, 173–215, at 202; M. H. Hansen, ‘Was Every Polis State Centred on a Polis Town?’, CPCPapers 7, 131–47. (126) M. H. Hansen, ‘The Concept of the Consumption City Applied to the Greek Polis,’ CPCPapers 7, 9–47; Hansen, The Shotgun Method, 64–76. (127) See above, p. 13 n. 54, p. 14 n. 67, and p. 17 n. 110 for some of the important surveys already undertaken and in process. Cf. B. and J. Forsén, ‘The Polis of Asea: A Case-Study of How Archaeology Can Expand Our Knowledge of the History of a Polis’, CPCPapers 4, 163–76, at 172–4. (128) Snodgrass, ‘Historical Significance’, 130, explains how 15 sites with walls in the polygonal style most likely date to Archaic times, but their identity and status are unknown. Some were acropoleis of poleis, others fortification walls of sites probably on a level below poleis, either komai or demes of some kind. Cf. Morgan and Coulton, ‘Physical Polis’, 105.

Page 25 of 25

City Walls in the Written Record and the Visual Arts

Greek City Walls of the Archaic Period, 900–480 BC Rune Frederiksen

Print publication date: 2011 Print ISBN-13: 9780199578122 Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: April 2015 DOI: 10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199578122.001.0001

City Walls in the Written Record and the Visual Arts Rune Frederiksen

DOI:10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199578122.003.0003

Abstract and Keywords This chapter examines the textual evidence pertaining to the establishment of the Archaic city walls. These include written sources and terminology relevant to that time period as well as attestations of the fortification of poleis through archaeological evidence and illustrations of walls on ancient Greek pottery. The chapter begins with an explanation of the two meanings of the word teichos, city wall and fort. It then discusses other terms that imply fortification and presents evidence of attestations regarding groups of walled poleis and Homeric city walls. Keywords:   Archaic city, city walls, Archaic period, poleis, Greek pottery, Homeric city walls, fortification

Written sources are of great importance for the understanding of Archaic city walls,1 and the present chapter discusses terminology and analyses the central textual evidence relevant to the period. Sources attesting to the fortification of individual poleis, together with archaeological evidence, help to establish the ratio of walled and unwalled poleis in different regions and periods, while other sources refer to city walls in general and provide information about the ancient Greeks’ own ideas of the importance and character of early city walls. Depictions of walls on pottery form a small but very important source for our understanding of the architecture of Archaic city walls.

Terminology

Page 1 of 42

City Walls in the Written Record and the Visual Arts Meaning of the word τεῖχος

The central term in the ancient Greek nomenclature for fortification is τεῖχος.2 It has two principal meanings, city wall and fort,3 but τεῖχος is the most commonly used word to denote a fortification wall surrounding a settlement.4 This (p.21) use of the word occurs already in the Iliad5 — unsurprisingly, since the setting of this work is a siege of a city. The Trojans defend themselves behind the wall of their city, while the Greeks attack from a fortified camp on the coast where they have hauled up their ships.6 The walls of Troy and the wall around the Greek camp7 are frequently mentioned and both are referred to as a τεῖχoς,8 but also as πύργος (occasionally in the plural).9 The basic meaning of πύργος is tower, but there is no doubt that the word often refers to a wall with its towers, also when used in the singular.10 Both walls have gates, πύλαι, almost exclusively used in the plural, and at Troy we even meet gatekeepers, πνλαωροί, an indication of the establishment of the fortification as an institution.11 These three terms are the ones used by later authors, when they refer to city walls of poleis: teichos is the preferred word when city walls are described, while pyle and pyrgos are sometimes used for poetic variation, or when events surrounding gates and towers are described. An example is Herodotos’ description of the abortive Spartan siege of Samos in the second half of the sixth century which includes a reference to a tower, as well as to the wall itself: προσβαλόντες δὲ πρὸς τὸ τεῖχος τοῦ μὲν πρὸς θαλάσσῃ ἑστεῶτος πύργου κατὰ τὸ προάστειον τῆς πόλιος ἐπέβησαν, …12 The wall of Samos is well preserved and thoroughly studied, and several sections of it are considered to be contemporary with the events described by Herodotos. However, even though it is clear that the Spartan attack took place on the part of the wall by the sea, and that there was a tower as well, it is not altogether clear what actually happened and to what extent the archaeological remains match Herodotos’ description.13 Godley seems to imply in his translation14 that the teichos mentioned is not the city wall of Samos, but a fortress, and that two different actions are referred to in the passage. A second tower is mentioned by Herodotos: κατὰ δὲ τὸν ἐπάνω πύργον τὸν ἐπὶ τῆς ῥάχιος τοῦ ὄρεος ἐπεόντα ἐπεξῆλθον οἵ τε ἐπίκουροι καὶ αὐτῶν Σαμίων συχνοί,…15 In this case Herodotos must be referring to a tower either at the east or the west end of the city of Samos, and in both areas more than one tower is preserved that may date to this period.16 The best link, however, between the term τεῖχος and the wall it denotes, is provided by attestations inscribed on the physical remains of city walls. The earliest is a sixth-century inscription at the gate of the Early Iron Age acropolis wall of Kaletepe, the hilltop settlement of ancient Melie. Only a fragment of the text is preserved, but the reading τὸ τῖχος [– – – τε] τέλεσται can be made out.17 From the Classical period (fourth century) the island of Nisyros provides another undisputed link between τεῖχος and a wall. A public decree inscribed on the (p. 22) wall reads (IG XII.3 8618): Δαμόσιον τὸ χωρίον πέντε πόδε[ς] ἀπὸ το(ῦ) Page 2 of 42

City Walls in the Written Record and the Visual Arts τείχε[ος].19 Another example of a slightly different kind is from Rhegion, where mudbricks from the fourth-century city wall are stamped ΤΕΙΧΕΩΝ.20 Τεῖχος was also the proper word when reference was made to the walls of an acropolis or hilltop fortification. This is apparent from Herodotos’ description of the chains hung from the Athenian acropolis wall in c.500 BC: τὰς δὲ πέδας αὐτῶν, ἐν τῇσι ἐδεδέατο, ἀνεκρέμασαν ἐς τὴν ἀκρόπολιν, αἵ περ ἔτι καὶ ἐς ἐμὲ ἦσαν περιεοῦσαι, κρε-μάμεναι ἐκ τειχέων21 περιπεφλευσμένων πνρὶ ὑπὸ τοῦ Μήδου, ἀντίον δὲ τοῦ μεγάρου τοῦ πρὸς ἑσπέρην τετραμμένου22 And the acropolis wall is referred to again at 6.137.2 [quoting Hekataios]: ἐπείτε γὰρ ἰδεῖν τοὺς Ἀθηναίους τὴν χώρην, τὴν σφίσι αὐτοῖσι ὑπὸ τὸν Ὑμησσὸν ἐοῦσαν ἔδοσαν Πελασγοῖσι οἰκῆσαι μισθὸν τοῦ τείχεος τοῦ περὶ τὴν ἀκρόπολιν κοτὲ ἐληλαμένου,…23. By using the phrase τοῦ τείχεος τοῦ περὶ τὴν ἀκ-ρόπολιν, Herodotos makes specific reference to the wall around the acropolis, and this is important for two reasons. First there must have been another fortification wall, from which Herodotos needed to distinguish the one on the acropolis, and secondly the phrase confirms that the basic meaning of τεῖχος is fortification wall.24 Teichos is likewise the preferred word when the reference is to walls around second-order settlements or military camps.25 The fortified camps of the Carthaginians at Himera in 480 BC are described by Diodoros as …, δύο παρεμβολὰς ἔθετο, τὴν μὲν τῷ πεζῷ στρατεύματι, τὴν δὲ τῇ ναυτικῇ δυνάμει. καὶ τὰς μὲν μακρὰς ναῦς ἀπάσας ἐνε ώλκησε καὶ τάφρῳ βαθείᾳ καὶ τείχει ξυλίνω περιέλ αβε, …26 Diodoros refers to the same wall/palisade again at 11.21.5:, … γενομένους δ’ ἐντὸς τοῦ ξυλίνου τείχους τὸν μὲν Ἀμίλκαν ἀποκτεῖναι, …27. The wall encircled (περιέλαβε) the camp, and we are also told that it was made of wood, and reinforced with a ditch (τάφρος). Another obvious example of such a τεῖχος is, as mentioned before, the wall around the camp of the Greeks, referred to a number of times in the Iliad.28 The principal meaning of the word τεῖχος is thus fortification wall. The word does not imply any particular monumentality, construction, or choice of material. This is clear from Homer’s use of the word, both for the wall around the camp of the Greeks and for the walls of Troy, and, as we have seen, this basic meaning of the word continues in the Classical period. Specification as to the kind of teichos is often given in the sources, leaving no doubt as to what wall is meant, while problems of interpretation are apparent when no specification is provided. A famous example of the latter from Classical times is the teichos at Tanagra mentioned by Xenophon:29 καὶ ἐκ τούτου δὴ ἀττῄει ἐν ἀριστερᾷ ἔχων τὸ τεῖχος. Unfortunately we do not know whether Xenophon was thinking of the city walls of Tanagra, or of a long Theban stockade built in the territory of Tanagra. Munn has argued persuasively in Page 3 of 42

City Walls in the Written Record and the Visual Arts favour of the latter.30 Confusion and misinterpretation are possible in such (p. 23) cases, but as walls around camps do not seem to have been common before Classical times,31 the risk of mixing up a teichos in the sense of city wall with a teichos in the sense of wall around a temporary military camp — when searching for city walls in the written sources — is not very high. Verbs and adjectives derived from the noun τεῖχος are frequently attested,32 especially in poetry. A commonly used adjective is εὐτείχεος ‘well-walled’ and the verb par excellence is τειχίζω, often translated ‘to build walls’. Examples of both words occur in the odes of Pindar: τετείχισται δὲ πάλαι πύργος ὑψηλαῖς ἀρεταῖς ἀναβαίνειν,33 and … παρ’ εὐτειχέσιν Κάδμov πύλαις.34 Theognis describes Thebes in the same way (Eleg. 1. 1209–10):35 Αἴθων μὲν γένος εἰμί, πόλιν δ’ εὐτείχεα Θήβην οἰκῶ πατρῷας γῆς ἀπερνκόμενος.36 Generally speaking the interpretation of these derivatives is unproblematic. However, τειχίζω does not necessarily mean ‘to build a fortification wall from scratch’. In some cases there may have been a wall already so that the meaning is simply ‘to fortify’, i.e. to repair or reconstruct a dilapidated wall. Finding the right interpretation of τειχίζω is very important, since some passages employing this verb are of central importance in the debate concerning the date of the earliest fortifications of, for example, the Ionian cities.37 While the word τεῖχος is well attested in Archaic sources, a number of derivatives are found only in Classical and later sources,38 perhaps because the features designated by these terms were post-Archaic developments. Some features are, on the other hand, attested in archaeology before they are attested in written sources. The substantial and sophisticated outworks of late Archaic Old Paphos (phase 2), for example, probably constitutes what ancient Greeks would have called προτειχίσματα. Yet we do not find that word attested before the late fifth century BC, witness Thucydides’ description of the Athenian fortification of the sanctuary of Apollo at Delion.39 But this description, important as it is for the understanding of what a proteichisma could be in the fifth century, is irrelevant for the Archaic period. It is tempting to attribute the lack of attestations of these terms prior to Classical times to the fact that almost all our Archaic texts are poetry and that no prose texts, in which we can expect these technical terms to occur, antedate the middle of the fifth century. The term proteichisma may well have been coined in the sixth century to describe what has been found at, for example, Paphos. Most importantly, as will be clear from the architectonical analyses in Chapter 7, there are not many archaeological attestations of outworks or proteichismata, which may be the reason why we do not find many references to them in the written sources. There are a few passages in which teichos is used to designate walls that are not fortification walls, but this is exceptional.40 There is no reason to assume that τεῖχος, as an architectural term, generally had a broader meaning and might Page 4 of 42

City Walls in the Written Record and the Visual Arts denote, for example retaining, terrace, (p.24) temenos, or house walls. For such walls the Greeks normally used τοῖχος41 or τειχίον,42 and that this distinction existed in the Archaic period43 is clear from the Homeric poems: when for example references are made to the monumental architecture of palaces in the Odyssey, the words used are μέγα τειχίον αὐλῆς often in a combination with θύρα.44 Τεῖχος as a settlement

Τεῖχος is also used for fortified military settlements such as forts and castles.45 An example is Herodotos’ description of Doriskos, a settlement in southern Thrace west of the Hebros river, apparently originally built as a fort by Dareios in the late sixth century:46 ἐν τῷ τεῖχός τε ἐδέδμητὸ βασιλήιον τοῦτο τὸ δὴ Δορίσκος κέκληται, καὶ Περσέων φρουρὴ ἐν αῦτῷ κατεστήκεε … Another Archaic example, also from Herodotos, is the fort built by Aristagoras c.500 BC near the city of Naxos (on Naxos island) to provide sheltered refuge for Naxian exiles:47 … τοῦ πλεῦνός τε ἐδέετο ἡ πολιορκίη, ἐνθαῦτα τείχεα τοῖσι φυγάσι τῶν Ναξίων οἰκοδομήσαντες … In this case the fort (walls) is a real settlement constructed, it may be assumed, for defensive purposes for a group of people for an unknown period of time.48 In his account of the battles of Plataia and Mykale49 Herodotos refers to the Persian camps, and in both descriptions he uses the word στρατόπεδον; the wooden wall around the camp is referred to as τὸ ξύλινον τεῖχος, and in other sources camp (stratopedon) and wall (teichos) are used synonymously.50 When τεῖχος is used to designate a settlement it was not necessarily a fort only. There are examples of τεῖχος used for settlements which at the same time are described as poleis, so, for instance, Herodotos on Mesambria in Thrace:51 παραμείβετὸ δέ πορευόμενος ἐκ Δορίσκου πρῶτα μὲν τὰ Σαμοθρηίκια τείχεα, τῶν ἐσχάτη πεπόλισται πρὸς ἐσπέρης πόλις τῇ οὔνομα ἐστί Μεσαμβρίη. In this case the quality of the settlements as fortifications is in focus rather than their political status; Herodotos’ description seems to indicate that only one of the forts, Mesambria, possessed the status of πόλις.52 Often a close examination of the context prevents misinterpreting a reference to a τεῖχος, but the term does occur in passages that can be interpreted in more than one way. Xenophon’s account of the strife between Apollonia and Olynthos in 381 BC includes the following phrase:53 ὁ δ’ ὡς ἅπαξ ἐτρέψατο, οὐκ ἀνῆκεν ἐνενήκοντα στάδια διώκων καὶ ἀποκτιννύς, ἕως πρὸς αὐτὸ κατεδίωξε τῶν Ὀλννθίων τὸ τεῖχος. For topographical reasons it has (p.25) been persuasively argued that this teichos was not the city wall of Olynthos, but a temporary military fort on the border of the Olynthian territory housing a garrison of horse.54

Page 5 of 42

City Walls in the Written Record and the Visual Arts Similar references to teichos from the Archaic period are on the whole inconclusive, especially when the city ethnic is the only link between teichos and polis as in the example quoted above (… τῶν Ὀλυνθίων τὸ τεῖχος). When teichos occurs with a toponym of a polis it is much more likely that the meaning is city wall.55 That teichos in some instances potentially designates a fort and not the wall of a polis, is, however, not a major obstacle for this method of identifying Archaic city walls. It has already been established that forts hardly existed prior to Classical times,56 and this problem of possible misinterpretation is therefore relevant for the Classical and later periods only.57 Other terms implying fortification

In Classical and later periods other terms are used to designate city walls. ἡ σχοινιά,58 ὁ κύκλος,59 and ὁ περίβολος60 are the most common alternatives to teichos. In the Archaic literary sources, as well as the later sources describing Archaic times, these terms are not used for fortification. From the later Archaic period a few examples exist of the metaphorical form ‘στέφανον τεῦξαι’ which signifies, when used with polis, to ‘build a crown’, i.e. to build the walls of a city.61 In conclusion it seems that an investigation of the occurrences of the term τεῖχος in the Archaic and the (retrospective) Classical literature will give a reliable picture of the situation in Archaic times — in so far as the literary sources can be said to be representative for the Archaic period. Πόλις ἀτείχιστος

Poleis explicitly classified as unwalled are known from Classical and later sources only,62 the two outstanding examples being Elis and Sparta.63 The phenomenon of the πόλις ἀτείχιστος takes up a rather central position in discussions of ancient Greek fortifications, and is often used to substantiate the view that Greek cities were not necessarily fortified. The adjective ἀτείχιστος has traditionally been taken to mean that the polis in question was unfortified, i.e. completely without a fortification wall.64 For Sparta and Elis such an interpretation of the written sources is supported by the archaeological record, since no traces of Archaic or Classical fortifications have been found at the sites of those cities. In our written sources there are several accounts, especially of Spartan history, which imply that the city had no city wall whatsoever.65 With Elis (p.26) the same seems to have been the case, although the situation is less clear.66 In Classical sources another dozen or so poleis are attested as having been ἀτείχιστοι,67 but comparison with information from other sources about the same settlements forces us to look for a different meaning of the term than ‘completely unfortified’. A reading of Thucydides (3.33.2) seems to imply that the entire region of Ionia was ἀτείχιστος around 427 BC.68 Herodotos, on the other hand, informs us that at least the major poleis of Ionia were fortified in the Page 6 of 42

City Walls in the Written Record and the Visual Arts second half of the sixth century.69 What seems to have been the case is that some, perhaps the majority, of walls had fallen into disrepair, or had been destroyed, either deliberately or by earthquakes, to such an extent that they were no longer suitable for defence. It seems obvious to conclude that the word ἀτείχιστος had the core meaning ‘no wall at all’, but it has to be acknowledged that the term may have been used more often to designate ‘unfortified’ in the sense that there was actually a wall, but that this wall was non-functional.70 A clear example is Thucydides 8.41.2, describing Kos Meropis as ateichistos, possibly because its walls had been damaged by an earthquake.71 Returning to the term τεῖχος itself, it must be concluded that, unless there is evidence to the contrary, the meaning is fortification wall whenever it occurs. This principal meaning is found in the earliest sources we have and persists through later periods.72 When a reference contains a named settlement, i.e. a polis mentioned by its toponym,73 or the polis itself is referred to in the urban sense,74 the meaning is city wall in the sense of defensive circuit wall around the settlement. Usually no topographical specification is provided; the example of the teichos of the Athenian acropolis mentioned by Herodotos (see above, p. 22) is an exception. We may therefore reasonably assume that an unspecified reference to a teichos in connection with a polis applies to the city wall proper.75 For the doubtful cases included in the Catalogue, it is still clear from the context that the teichos in question is the wall of the principal urban centre of the polis. Neither in the Archaic period, nor later, did the Greeks adopt a terminology whereby a hilltop fortification wall could be distinguished from a lower city wall. The word ἀκρόπολις denotes the hilltop as physically separate from the rest of the polis below.76 This hilltop was often fortified, but the term acropolis itself does not imply fortifications. The passage from Herodotos about the acropolis of Athens, quoted above, is a good example: Herodotos specifies the teichos because it is not automatically clear that the acropolis would have had one. The term ἀκρόπολις in the sense of citadel, sometimes in the form ἄκρη πόλις, appears only rarely in the Archaic literature.77 Apart from the description of the walls of the Athenian acropolis (see the quotation and discussion above, p.), there is only one other source that can shed light on the question whether the walls referred to were hilltop fortifications or city walls, namely Herodotos’ description of the walls of Phokaia. His account includes information about the length of the wall; he does not provide an exact figure, but a wall which has a length of ‘not a few stadia’ must be a (p.27) genuine city wall. The obvious epithet for an impressive hilltop fortification would refer to its height rather than its length.

Page 7 of 42

City Walls in the Written Record and the Visual Arts The lack of literary sources clearly impedes our knowledge of Archaic urban topography of individual sites, and the limited use of acropolis in the sources we do have may not reflect distinctions between different concepts in Archaic times of upper and lower quarters of cities.

Attestations of actual Fortified Poleis Information in literature about named walled settlements begins with our earliest sources. Scully lists nine walled cities mentioned in the Iliad.78 The correct number, however, must be eight since Lyrnessos is nowhere described as walled in the Iliad.79 Besides Troy and Thebes in Egypt, five other cities are named, cities which are all attested as Greek poleis later in the Archaic and Classical periods.80 The sixth, Pheia, was one of the harbours of Elis.81 A few quotations suffice (Table 4, Map 1): for Gortyn: Κρητῶν δ’ Ἰδομενεὺς δουρικλυτὸς ἡγεμόνευεν, οἳ Κνωσόν τ’ εἶχον Γόρτννά τε τειχιόεσσαν,82 and Tiryns: Οἳ δ’ Ἄργος τ’ εἶχον Τίρννθά τε τειχιόεσσαν,…83 The meagre information on the subject given in the Odyssey does not add more sites to those we already know from the Iliad.84 Ἐϋκτίμενος (well built), the epithet used several times by Homer for named poleis, and other named settlements, may imply that these were walled,85 because city walls formed a prominent part of the entire architectural face of a Homeric city.86 But the word in itself means nothing more than well built, and is indeed used frequently about palaces, houses, and streets,87 and therefore its occurrence cannot be used in isolation as evidence for fortification. Apart from the wall of Troy, the wall around the camp of the Achaioi is the τεῖχος most often referred to in the Iliad,88 and Scully has rightly emphasized that evidence for how common city walls were in the early Archaic period cannot be extrapolated from Homeric poetry.89 But how may we interpret the Homeric fortifications actually mentioned? There are two fundamental problems here: the first is to what degree specific information on city walls in Homer can be taken at face value; the second is to what period this information — if it is in fact reliable — is attributable. Places such as Gortyn and Tiryns were clearly described as fortified because they fitted the ideal image of mighty cities from a distant glorious past in the minds of the Homeric audience.90 The landscape of ancient Greece clearly inspired such ideals, either through still standing overgrown Bronze Age cyclopean walls echoing a long-gone heroic past, or through walls reused and incorporated as fortifications of the urban centres of some poleis in the Early Iron Age and early Archaic periods. Only the latter situation can be proven of course, as it has at Tiryns, while it may also have been the case at Thebes. (p. 28) At Tiryns an Early Iron Age settlement has been found within the Mycenaean walls,91 and in Thebes Mycenaean walls around the Kadmeia were probably reused as defences of the Early Iron Age settlement. At the acropolis of Kalydon, the North Hill, traces of what might have been Mycenaean fortification Page 8 of 42

City Walls in the Written Record and the Visual Arts walls have been reported.92 At Gortyn fortification walls of the Late Bronze Age/ Early Iron Age (LMIIIC-Sub-Minoan/1190–970 BC) are reported from Hagios Ioannis, one of the hilltops; the remains are sparse and their identification as a fortification wall has been challenged.93 The Homeric ‘evidence’ is quite complex and difficult to interpret. The evidence appears in connection both with settlements that used, or may have used, the Bronze Age fortifications (Thebes and Tiryns), and with settlements where the Mycenaean structural remains are anything but impressive (Gortyn, Kalydon, and Thebe). The second type may accordingly have been built from scratch in the Early Iron Age. The Mycenaean walls were seen as impressive survivals of an earlier period, they were reused, and formed part of the physical ideal of the early polis. The cautious conclusion that the walls in Homer reflect actual cultural events in the contemporary world of the poet is proposed here, with the proviso that fortification cannot be dated more precisely than sometime between the Mycenaean period and the creation of the poems.94 The date of composition of the Homeric poems, ultimately equivalent to the time when they were written down, is a matter of dispute. A recent trend in ancient history favours the view of historians such as Kurt Raaf-laub who places the creation of the poems in the first half of the eighth century BC and the writingdown of them to the end of that century.95 The latest possible codification is the last third of the sixth century, and when quoting Homer as a source for specific walls at named places, this date becomes a terminus ante quem for those city walls. Given the prominent place of fortification in general in the remaining body of Archaic literature, from the earliest times, I see no reason why the ‘Homeric walls’ should not be taken into account. They do not appear to be anachronistic, that is entering the Homeric texts only from the time they were written down, which is the usual — and often justified — way to dismiss Homeric ‘evidence’.96 Contemporary (Archaic) descriptions of historical events attesting to the fact that individual poleis were fortified are, obviously, few and far between. The bulk of information stems from later accounts in Classical sources, above all Herodotos, who often has a brief reference to this or that polis as having — or having had — a τεῖχος. In a few cases the information from Herodotos takes us back to the seventh century.97 Thus, from Herodotos 1.150 it is clear that Smyrna was walled from (p.29) an early point in its history: μετὰ δὲ οἱ φυγάδες τῶν Κολοφωνίων φυλάξαντες τοὺς Σμυρναίους ὁρτὴν ἔξω τείχεος ποιευμένους Διονύσῳ, τὰς πύλας ἀποκληίσαντες ἔσχον τὴν πόλιν.98 A later example is the Lydian siege of Ephesos shortly after 560 BC (1.26.2): ἔνθα δὴ οἱ Ἐφέσιοι πολιορ-κεόμενοι ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ [by Kroisos] ἀνέθεσαν τὴν πόλιν τῇ Ἀρτέμιδι, ἐξάψαντες ἐκ τοῦ νηοῦ σχοινίον ἐς τὸ τεῖχος.99 The term τεῖχος, as

Page 9 of 42

City Walls in the Written Record and the Visual Arts well as the fact that the Lydians had to lay siege to the city, leaves no doubt that Ephesos, as described by Herodotos, must have had a defence circuit. The Phokaians too had a τεῖχος around their city in 546 BC, when it was attacked by the Persian strategos Harpagos:100 Τὸ μὲν δὴ τεῖχος τοῖσι Φωκαιεῦσι τρόπῳ τoιῷδε ἐξεποιήθη. ὁ δὲ Ἅρπαγος ὡς ἐπήλασε τὴν στρατιήν, ἐπολιόρκεε αὐτούς, … In another passage Herodotos mentions the walls of Thasos in connection with the events of 490 BC: οἱ γὰρ δὴ Θάσιοι, οἷα ὑπὸ Ἱστιαίου τε τοῦ Μιλησίου πολιορκηθέν τες καὶ πρoσόSων ἐουσέων μεγαλέων, ἐχρέωντο τοῖσι χρή μασι νέας τε ναυπηγεύμενοι μακρὰς καὶ τεῖχος ἰσχυρό τερον περιβαλλόμενοι.101 Depending on the interpretation of the comparative term ἰσχυρότερον,102 Herodotos’ text not only attests to the fact that Thasos was walled in c.490 BC, but it also implies the existence of an even older wall. Sometimes Herodotos’ account is more elaborate and not just a simple reference to the fortifications of a city. An example is his description of the fate of the Ionian cities around the mid-sixth century (1.162.2): Ἅρπαγος … ὡς ἀπίκετο ἐς τὴν Ἰωνίην, αἵρεε τὰς πόλιας χώμασι·ὅκως γὰρ τειχήρεας ποιήσειε, τὸ ἐνθεῦτεν χώματα χών πρὸς τὰ τείχεα ἐπόρθεε.103 This is, incidentally, the only attestation of the phrase τειχήρεας ποιήσειε used retrospectively for the Archaic period, and in the later Classical texts too it is a rare construction.104 R. L. Scranton believes, with reference to Herodotos 8.32, that Amphissa was fortified in the early fifth century, because the Phokaians took refuge there when fleeing from the advancing army of Xerxes,105 the implication being that refuge can only be sought at a fortified place. It is more than likely that Scranton is right in this particular case, and a number of similar descriptions by Herodotos could be interpreted in this way.106 In most cases, however, information of this kind is too vague to allow of such a precise interpretation,107 and has therefore not been systematically collected. In connection with events around the middle of the sixth century BC Herodotos mentions the teichos of a handful of poleis,108 and many more in the period from 550 to 480 BC,109 and from his histories, and a few other sources, twenty-three named poleis can be listed as (p.30) having had a teichos in the Archaic period (for an overview, see Table 4).110

Indirect Attestations of City Walls Accounts of sieges and several other activities related to war presuppose the existence of fortifications and thus provide valuable indirect information about walls which existed at particular cities at particular times.111 The term used to refer to sieges in the ancient texts is either the noun πολιορκία112 or, more often, the related verb, either the simplex πολιορκέω or a compound, for example ἐκπολιορκέω, which indicates that the siege ended in conquest.113 Page 10 of 42

City Walls in the Written Record and the Visual Arts However, every account must be examined closely in order to establish whether or not the besieged locality was in fact the urban centre of a polis. In three cases114 a siege is mentioned in connection with a city ethnic only. In all three instances, however, it can be argued from the contexts that the sieges in question actually were of urban centres of poleis. It remains to be discussed what it may mean in this context that πολιορκείν and πολιορκία are the terms used in descriptions of events at the two most famous unwalled poleis, namely Elis and Sparta. A closer look at the accounts reveals that no actual siege took place either at Elis or at Sparta: the events at Elis in 403/2 BC — i.e. the Spartan attack on Elis led by King Pausanias of Sparta — are described by Xenophon, and he does not use the word πολιορκία or any equivalent.115 The word πολιορκία is used by Diodoros,116 but what he describes is not a siege of the city itself, but of an Aetolian auxiliary force encamped at the gymnasion. The gymnasion was situated on the other side of the river Peneios, isolated from the rest of the settlement of Elis. Thus, Pausanias must have intended to besiege the camp, probably fortified, of the Aetolian auxiliaries, not the urban centre of Elis.117 At Sparta, there was no real siege either: Diodoros, the source for the siege,118 explicitly says that the siege lasted one day only — from sunrise to sunset119 — and he seems to have used the term πολιορκία in a more inclusive way than the Classical historians. If this is so, it is of no great concern for our present question, since Diodoros is not used as source for any walls in the Catalogue. To sum up, there are no examples of sieges of unfortified cities, and it is, accordingly, legitimate to infer from a reference to a siege of a city that the city must have been fortified. The term πολιορκέω (πολιορκία) and synonyms like περικάθημαι120 and προσκάθημαι,121 are completely absent from Archaic literary sources.122 It is clear from descriptions of some events, however, that assaults similar or equivalent to sieges took place, at least in the (p.31) Homeric universe. The siege of Troy in the Iliad123 and the representation of a siege on the Shield of Achilles attest to this.124 In modern accounts of Greek history and in military history in general, it is often said that sieges were not commonly undertaken before the Classical period.125 The absence from Archaic sources of the terms used to describe siege activities may be adduced in support of such a view, but it must be remembered that almost all descriptions of sieges derive from historians and that historiography as a prose genre dates only from the mid-fifth century BC. Accordingly in a discussion of Archaic sources for sieges of cities an argument based on textual silence is invalid.126 In Classical authors, however, we find retrospective descriptions of sieges conducted in the Archaic period. Thucydides supplies one of the early references. In connection with Kylon’s attempt to set himself up as the tyrant of Page 11 of 42

City Walls in the Written Record and the Visual Arts Athens in c.632, the Athenians besieged the acropolis where Kylon and his conspirators had taken refuge: οἱ δὲ Ἀθηναῖοι αἰσθόμενοι ἐβοήθησάν τε πανδημεὶ ἐκ τῶν ἀγρῶν ἐπ’ αὐτοὺς καὶ προσκαθεζόμενοι ἐπολιόρκονν.127 That there was a teichos around the acropolis, forcing the Athenians to lay siege to it rather than make an immediate assault, is documented both archaeologically and in literary sources.128 Another example also referring to the late seventh century, is Herodotos’ account of the crisis between Alyattes and Miletos, which implies the existence of a fortified city rather than just a fortified acropolis: τῆς γὰρ θαλάσσης οἱ Μιλήσιοι ἐπεκράτεον, ὥστε ἐπέδρης μὴ ἔίναι τῇ οτρατιῇ (Hdt. 1.17.3).129 ἘπέSρη is here a synonym for πολιορκία, which is used to describe the entire campaign of Alyattes (1.17.1).130 Herodotos’ account (1.17) of how Alyattes was prevented from besieging Miletos because of its access to the sea, makes it clear that as early as 612–602 BC131 the urban centre and the harbour were either encompassed by a large defence circuit, or, alternatively, town and harbour were fortified separately and connected with walls. Herodotos mentions a number of sieges in the Archaic period and is by far the most important source.132 He uses πολιορκία and περικάθημαι synonymously in one instance, namely about Histiaios’ siege of Thasos (6.28 and 46). Other examples of Archaic sieges known from Herodotos include Samos 524 BC, Barke 510 BC, Amathous 499/98 BC, and Kallipolis, Naxos, Megara Hybleai, Syracuse, and Zankle in Sicily during the two decades preceding 480 BC.133 These accounts are generally very brief and often the only information provided is the name of the aggressor and the name of the city under siege.134 A few references to sieges in mythical and early Archaic times will have to be disregarded for various reasons. That the Messenians were besieged for twenty years by the Spartans during the First Messenian War in the 730s and 720s is not to be taken literally.135 It is worth mentioning, though, that a papyrus fragment of a poem by Tyrtaios includes some lines which mention πύργος, ταφ[ρος], Μεσσηνίων, and τεῖχος.136 The exact meaning, however, is unclear. In Diodoros’ account of the First Sacred War of c.590, Krisa/Kirrha is besieged by the other Greeks, who fear that the Krisaians may attack and (p.32) plunder Delphi.137 However, the various accounts contain so many contradictions that we must refrain from trusting details about how the war was fought.138 What was important was to report that there had been a war and that as a result the Krisaian plain was to be left uncultivated. It is still a moot point whether the war was ever fought and, accordingly, the siege of Krisa is not included as a Catalogue entry for a walled city. The indirect information about city walls obtained from the written sources is, in fact, restricted to attestations of poliorkeo/-ia and related terms in Herodotos’ account of Archaic history. Not all passages contain evidence of sieges which Page 12 of 42

City Walls in the Written Record and the Visual Arts actually took place. Some refer to what may be called potential sieges; for example, when Mardonios, discussing the Persian situation at Plataia with Thorax, Eurypolos, and Thrasydeios in 479 BC, comments that if the Persian army fled to Thebes, it would probably be besieged by the Greeks.139 Thebes must, therefore, have been fortified at that time. Only one siege is known to have involved a hilltop fortification, namely the acropolis of Athens (see above, p. 31) which, however, was besieged more than once. In all other sieges referred to in the sources as having taken place before 480 BC, specifications are not given as to what part of a town was besieged. Other types of indirect evidence call for brief comment. Several sources relate that both the acropolis of Athens and the Kadmeia in Thebes140 were fortified in the seventh century. Furthermore, circumstantial evidence has been adduced to show that Athens had a city wall in the sixth century and that Thebes had walls too. Reviewing the situation in Archaic Athens, Weir makes use of the ancient topography to argue that Athens must have had a lower circuit wall in that period:141 the argument is that since a monumental ramp leading up to the acropolis existed around the middle of the sixth century, there must have been an Archaic teichos as well, around the city below. Had there not been a line of fortification further out, the ramp would not have been built because it compromised the defensive strength of the acropolis.142 Weir has a point in this particular instance, and if we accept the example of Athens, and other similar examples, we would of course arrive at an even higher number of early walled cities.143 Such circumstantial arguments, however, are of course not sufficiently compelling to be able to stand on their own, and have therefore not been included in this investigation.144 Of the twenty-five poleis with walls indirectly attested (Table 4), ten are already known to have been walled by mention of teichos (Table 4), bringing the total of actual walls mentioned in written sources to thirty-eight (Table 4).145

Attestations of Groups of Walled Poleis Reference is sometimes made to a number of fortified poleis in a region. There are a few such passages in Herodotos, which seem to suggest that most, if not all, of the cities of Ionia were fortified already in the mid-sixth century. Herodotos says of Harpagos, the Mede who served as a Persian strategos: … ὡς ἀπίκετὸ (p.33) ἐς τὴν Ἱωνίην, αἴρεε τὰς πόλιας χώμασι· ὄκως γὰρ τειχήρεας ποιήσειε, τὸ ἐνθεῦτεν χώματα χῶν πρὸς τὰ τείχεα ἐπόρθεε.146 After the Lydian defeat by the Persians in 546–545, the Ionian Greeks were in an endangered situation. The walls mentioned by Herodotos (1.162.2) are probably those referred to in an earlier passage (1.141.4), where it is explained how the Ionians built walls around their cities, but not the Milesians, who had closed a deal with King Cyrus. In both the above passages Herodotos refers to the Ionian Page 13 of 42

City Walls in the Written Record and the Visual Arts cities in general, but at 1.142.3 he is more explicit. Combining all three passages the following twelve cities can be listed as having had a teichos from the middle of the sixth century: Myos, Priene, Ephesos, Kolophon, Lebedos, Teos, Klazomenai, Phokaia, Samos, Khios, and Erythrai. Some, or perhaps even all, of the Ionian poleis, may already have been fortified prior to the period of the growing Persian threat;147 Herodotos’ description does not necessarily mean that walls were built where no walls had been before. The wording τείχεα περιεβάλοντο ἕκαστοι at 1.141.4 is not in conflict with the view that the Ionian poleis had already been fortified before the middle of the sixth century, and such a view is supported by other passages in Herodotos and the other evidence we have of fortifications in sixth-century Ionia.148 Existing walls could have been ruinous or considered to be too weak and therefore reinforced; Herodotos would have had no reason to go into that kind of detail. The important information for his story was that the Ionians prepared themselves against a major hostile force likely to come their way. From Herodotos himself we know that at least three poleis in Ionia were fortified earlier than the mid-sixth century: Ephesos, Miletos, and Smyrna.149 With reference to Herodotos (1.26) McNicoll erroneously states that Ephesos was destroyed by Kroisos and was without a wall until Hellenistic times, when Lysimachos built one around the new city.150 There is no information about its destruction in Herodotos, nor about the city being unwalled in the following period. McNicoll seems to deduce from Strabo (the source for the Lysimachaean wall)151 that the old Archaic settlement had no wall. But it is clear from a passage in Aeneas the Tactician152 that Ephesos was fortified in the first half of the fourth century,153 i.e. several decades before the refoundation of the city154 by Lysimachos.155 A similar picture can be painted for Cyprus in the early fifth century: here, too, we have a general statement about cities on the island being fortified, as well as additional information about fortification of individual cities. Once again, the main source is Herodotos. From 5.115.2 it appears that Soloi was the only polis in Cyprus that resisted the Persian siege for more than four months, whereas the other Cypriot cities apparently surrendered much earlier. This event, and the way it is described, indicates that at least the larger poleis in Cyprus had walls. Besides Soloi, specific sources inform us about contemporary or earlier walls in Amathous, Marion, and Old Paphos (in Amathous walls are attested both archaeologically and in literary sources).156 Just as the poleis of a region can be broadly referred to as having had a teichos, poleis of a region can be described as besieged or potentially besieged and, therefore, as having had city walls. An interesting example is Themistokles’ threat against ‘the other islands’ (τὰς ἄλλας νήσον) when besieging Andros in 479 BC (Hdt. 8.112.1): Θεμιστοκλέης δέ, οὐ γὰρ ἐπαύετο πλεονεκτέων, ἐσπέμπων ἐς τὰς ἄλλας νήσονς ἀπειλητηρίους λόγους αἴτεε χρὴματα διὰ τῶν αὐτῶν ἀγγέλων [χρεώμενος] τοῖσι καὶ πρὸς βασιλέα ἐχρήσατο, λέγων ὡς εἰ μὴ Page 14 of 42

City Walls in the Written Record and the Visual Arts δώσονσι τὸ αἰτεόμενον, ἐπάξει τὴν στρατιὴν τῶν Ἑλλήνων καὶ πολιορκέων ἐξαιρήσει.157 We cannot know how many of the Aegean (p.34) islands were threatened by Themistokles and Herodotos only mentions Karystos and Paros as having paid the money he requested.158 But he adds that he believes that other islanders responded to the threat (8.112.2.) A far-reaching interpretation of this passage is that the poleis of the Aegean were generally fortified before the Persian Wars, i. e. at least from the later Archaic period.

ΤΕΪΧΟζ in the Archaic Greek World Having surveyed the evidence for city walls at named pre-Classical poleis and non-specified poleis in named regions, it must be clarified to what extent Archaic sources contribute further to our understanding of the significance of the city wall in the Archaic period. Numerous sources attest to the fact that teichos was an essential characteristic of the polis in Classical times. One source is Aristotle, who mentions the walls in his discussion of the identity of the polis:159 ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τῶν τὸν αὐτὸν τόπον κατοικούντων ἀνθρώπων πότε δεῖ νομίζειν μίαν εἶναι τὴν πόλιν; οὐ γὸρ δὴ τοῖς τείχεσιν, εἴη γὰρ ἂν Πελοποννήσῳ περιβαλεῖν ἒν τεῖχος·160 Aristotle’s rejection of the walls as a criterion for what constitutes the unity of the polis looks like a response to contemporaries who claimed that it was in fact the walls that made the city. The discussion among the Classical authors about the role of the wall in ‘the old days’ is likewise indirect evidence for the significance of city walls in the Classical period.161 Homeric city walls

The numerous mentions of walls in Homer testify to the fact that τεῖχος, in the sense of city wall, is a key concept in the Homeric universe.162 It is furthermore significant that τεῖχος,163 and its poetic variation πύργος,164 is linked to the πόλις. The three significant links are (a) the walls of Troy, (b) the walls of the second polis on the Shield of Achilles and (c) the walls of the city of the Phaeacians on Scheria. (a) The walls of Troy were wide and beautiful (ἦ τοι ἐγώ Τρώεσσι πόλιν πέρι τεῖχος ἒδειμα εὺρύ τε καὶ μάλα καλόν, ἵν’ ἄρρηκτος πόλις εἴη·)165 they were high, long, and had gates (εἰ δὲ σύ γ’ είσελθοῦσα πύλας καὶ τείχεα μακρὰ…).166 Towers (πύργος, -οι) are mentioned in the Iliad dozens of times,167 both as parts of the walls of Troy and as part of the wall around the camp of the Achaioi.168 The towers were high (τὴν δὲ κίχανε πύργῳ ἐφ’ ὑψηλῷ, …)169 and had δoύρατα — wooden planks or beams,170 which suggests a construction at least partly based on timber-framing, probably combined with soil or mudbrick. In the present context it is not important that the polis of Troy is not a Greek polis, and the wall of the camp not a wall of a proper settlement. The terminology used for the elements of these fortifications must have made sense to the Homeric audience, and it follows that these elements reflected either the real world as it Page 15 of 42

City Walls in the Written Record and the Visual Arts was known to this audience — whatever Archaic city they lived in — or an ideal and possible world. (b) The most significant passage in the Iliad in which the relationship between wall and city is emphasized, is (p.35) the description of the second of the two cities depicted on the Shield of Achilles.171 That no wall is mentioned in connection with the first city is probably to be explained by the fact that a wall would have had no relevance for what the poet wanted to say. The shield contrasts the fortunate and the unfortunate city, the unfortunate polis is being besieged and its teichos is mentioned:172 τεῖχος μέν ῥ’ ἄλοχοί τε φίλαι καὶ νήπια τέκνα ῥύατ᾿ ἐφεσταότες, μετὰ δ’ ἀνέρες οὓς ἔχε γῆρας· In the poem it is Hephaistos who engraved the two poleis on the shield, so we are in the world of myth, but it is explicitly stated (verse 490) that the poleis are those of mortals. The picture painted of these two cities, including their basic architectural features, must again have been familiar to the audience of Homer, and the unfortunate city can hardly be thought of as ideal, but, as far as its external features are concerned, like any common Archaic city.173 (c) The description in the Odyssey of the foundation and construction of the polis of the Phaeacians on Scheria, founded by Nausithoos, provides an interesting insight into what was considered important or indispensable for a city.174 The city of Nausithoos was constructed with a τεῖχος as a principal element, mentioned before individual houses and temples:175 ἀμφὶ δέ τεῖχος ἔλασσε πόλει, καὶ ἐδείματο οἴκους. And again:176 θαύμαζεν δ’ Ὀδνσεὺς λιμένας καὶ νῆας ἐίσας αὐτῶν θ’ ἡρώων ἀγορὰς καὶ τείχεα μακρὰ ὑψηλά, σκολόπεσσιν ἀρηρότα, θαῦμα ίδέσθαι.177 Odysseus’ visit to the Phaeacians is of course pure fantasy. Their polis is described as an ideal world, but compared to the fantastic places and monsters encountered by Odysseus during his Odyssey, the Phaeacians represent a normal and successful community.178 The city wall is a central feature in the concept of the Homeric city,179 and the basic terminology used by Homer anticipates that found in later sources, such as Aeneas the Tactician from the second quarter of the fourth century BC.180 Walls in Archaic poetry

As discussed above, much of the information obtainable from the Homeric poems is problematic, especially as far as chronology is concerned, but there is general agreement that Hesiod composed his poems c.700 BC.181 There are numerous references to walls with doors and gates in these poems, mostly in a mythical context. A wall with gates stood at the end of the world (Th. 7323):182 τοῖς οὐκ ἐξιτόν ἐστι, θύρας δ’ ἐπέθηκε Ποσειδέων χαλκείας, τεῖχος δ’ ἐπελήλαται άμφοτέρωθεν … ibid. (p.36) 740–1:183 χάσμα μέγ’, οὐδέ κε πάντα τελεσφόρον εἰς ὲνι-αυτὸν οὖδας ἵκοιτ’, εἰ πρῶτα πνλέων ἔντοσθε γέοι-το, … And, similarly, the home of Hades was closed with πύλαι.184

Page 16 of 42

City Walls in the Written Record and the Visual Arts We have still not quite left the mythical world with Hesiod s description of ‘Seven-Gated Thebes in Works and Days (Op. 161–2):185 καὶ τοὺς μὲν πόλεμός τε κακὸς καὶ φύλοπις αἰνὴ τοὺς μὲν ὑφ’ ἑπταπύλῳ Θήβῃ,. …186 Hesiod is echoed, e.g. by Aeschylos in his tragedy ‘The Seven Against Thebes,187 and Hesiod and his followers were clearly referring to a heroic Mycenaean past. The question is whether they did so using contemporary cultural elements, or elements from the past. The Mycenaean walls of the Theban acropolis are partly preserved and as reconstructed by Symeonoglou they had four gates, not seven (which is probably just a mythical convention). Symeonoglou suggests that the seven gates remembered by the Archaic and Classical poets belonged to the Middle Helladic wall of the Kadmeia.188 Hesiod’s reference to Thebes is mythical, but the city may in fact have possessed a large walled acropolis which would have provided inspiration at the time when Hesiod retold this myth.189 The word τεῖχος occurs in Works and Days, and Hesiod s account of the punishments Zeus may inflict on man if he is violent and cruel, contains the earliest datable attestation of τεῖχος in the sense of city wall, Op. 245–7:190 ἄλλοτε δ’αὖτε ἢ τῶν γε στρατὸν εὐρὺν ἀπώλεσεν ἢ ὅ γε τεῖχος ἢ νέας ἐν πόντῳ Κρονίδης ἀποτείνυται αὐτῶν. It is significant that in this passage the city wall is presented as a well-known feature of Greek society around 700 BC, just as common and important as armies and ships. Admittedly, the word polis is not used explicitly by Hesiod, and thus we can only surmise a connection between polis and teichos. On the other hand, the alternative meaning of τεῖχος would be fort, which seems unlikely in this context. The wall, like the army, is in the singular, the ships in the plural, and thus the words fit the picture of the polis as having one army, one wall, and more than one ship (in one fleet). If the polis has one teichos only, it is not a fort, but the wall of the (principal) urban centre. The ‘Catalogue of Women’ is a work traditionally ascribed to Hesiod, but probably composed in the mid-sixth century. Here τεῖχος appears again, in a mythic context: πολέας δ’ ὀπόλεσσε καὶ ὄλλους μαρνάμενος Νηλῆος ἀγακλειτοῦ περὶ τεῖχος ο[ὗ] πατ-ρός, …191 Such an act, ‘to fight over a teichos’, cannot have seemed unusual to a contemporary audience. So here, again, teichos appears as an universal phenomenon, although admittedly without an explicit link to polis. The same vocabulary is found in the lyric and iambic poetry of the seventh and early sixth century BC. In a fragment of Tyrtaios the Messenians are mentioned in connection with the word teichos and other fortification terms, but the exact meaning is unclear: … κληῆος καὶ ταφ[ρος — — —]/Μεσσηνίων[— — —]/τεῖχος τερ[— — —] πύργον δυ[…192 In spite of the fragmentary character of these verses there can be no doubt that three of the essential terms in fortification terminology, well known from the Classical period (taphros, teichos, and pyrgos), are found close to one another in Tyrtaios poem of the first half of the seventh century.

Page 17 of 42

City Walls in the Written Record and the Visual Arts (p.37) In a fragmentary text of Alkaios, a τεῖχος is described as ‘royal’ (ἐχέπ[..]. [.]α τεῖχος βασιλήϊον).193 The reading is unclear, and it is impossible to be certain about its meaning. But if it means city wall or stronghold, the interpretation with the epithet ‘royal’ brings a fortified hilltop of a chieftain or royal palace to mind. More informative is another fragment of Alkaios, or rather a paraphrase of a lost poem in which τεῖχος is explicitly juxtaposed with πόλις: τὸν λόγον ὃν πάλαι μὲν Ἁλκαῖος ὁ ποιητὴς εἶπεν … ὡς ἄρα οὐ λίθοι οὐδὲ ξύλα οὐδὲ τέχνη τεκτόνων αἱ πόλεις εἶεν ἀλλ’ ὅπου ποτ’ ἂν ὦσιν ἄνδρες αὑτοὺς σῴζειν εἰδότες ἐνταῦθα καὶ τείχη καὶ πόλεις.194 In this account of what constitutes a polis, and what does not, Alkaios focuses on the essential element of the survival of the polis: ‘cities are not stone or timber or the work of carpenters, but both walls and cities are to be found wherever there are men who know how to defend themselves.’ The essence of the passage is that beautiful and well-built urban centres may exist, but the true defence of the polis (τείχη καὶ πόλεις, a hendiadys) is the men who know how to fight for their lives. Furthermore, his antithetical definition of the polis looks like a rebuttal of the belief that walls were considered essential for the polis in his time.195 Πόλις and τεῖχος are juxtaposed again in a papyrus fragment of Stesichoros,196 a contemporary of Alkaios, and in a line of the slightly younger Anakreon, quoted in the scholia to Pindar. The line from Anakreon is more informative:197 ἐπὶ στέφανον τεῦξαι• μεταφορικῶς τὸ τεῖχος. στέφανος γὰρ ὥσπερ τῶν πόλεων τὰ τείχη. καὶ Ἀνακρέων• νῦν δ’ ἀπὸ μὲν στέφανος πόλεως ὄλωλεν. Stephanos is used metaphorically for teichos, a metaphor which became popular in the visual arts for personifications of cities in Classical and Hellenistic times, which were often depicted with mural crowns.198 Again, in the Elegiae of Theognis, also from the sixth century, τεῖχος appears in combination with πόλις: (1.949–51) Νεβρὸν ὑπὲξ ἐλάφοιο λέων ὣς ἀλκὶ πεποιθὼς ποσσὶ καταμάρψας αἵματος οὐκ ἔπιον• τειχέων δ’ὑψηλῶν ἐπιβὰς πόλιν οὐκ ἀλάπαξα199 And similarly, this time specifically on Thebes, polis and teichos are combined at Eleg. 1.1209–10:200 Αἴθων μὲν γένος εἰμί, πόλιν δ’εὐτείχεα Θήβην οἰκῶ πατρῴας γῆς ἀπερνκόμενος. The link between teichos and polis appears obvious, the high walls and the city are common elements in the tale. The pseudo-Hesiodic poem Aspis of the late sixth century,201 contains descriptions of walled cities. They appear in two of the scenes and here, again, τεῖχος, πύργος, and πύλη taken together, make up the defensive architecture of the πόλις.202 Also from the late sixth century, the role of the city wall is singled out in a fragment of Herakleitos: … μάχεσθαι χρὴ τὸν δῆμον ὑπὲρ τοῦ νόμου ὅκωσπερ Page 18 of 42

City Walls in the Written Record and the Visual Arts τείχεος.203 Here νόμος (p.38) stands as the symbol of the polis in the political sense, while τεῖχος is the symbol of the polis as an urban centre.204 It is clear that the city wall was a prominent aspect of the concept of the polis already from the earliest Archaic times. The key terms are nouns like πύλαι (a pair of πύλη constitutes the gates of a town, rarely used in the singular), πύργος (either tower of wall or individual freestanding tower), and τεῖχος (wall of city), as well as poetical adjectives derived from these nouns. Verbs, such as τειχίζω, tend to have a broader meaning than just ‘to build a fortification/city wall (see definition above, p. 23), and we do have one example of τεῖχος as a noun being used to designate the fortification wall of something which is not the urban centre of a polis, namely the camp of the Greeks during their siege of Troy. This camp was a stronghold rather than a polis. But again, in the majority of instances τεῖχος is juxtaposed with πόλις, and that is a strong indication that the city wall was an essential element of the early polis. The main issue is of course whether the picture found in Archaic poetry of fortified cities reflects a world of ideals and fantasy, rather than the world of everyday life. Did poets find their inspiration in the Mycenaean walls of Thebes, Athens, and Tiryns, or in the magnificent walls found in Assyria and Babylonia? This could be — and has been — claimed to be the proper explanation of the walls described in the Homeric poems.205 But what about Anakreon, Hesiod, Alkaios, and Stesichorus? In their poetry, above all, the city wall seems to appear as a scenographic element taken from everyday life like so many other elements. If we infer from these texts that city walls existed in the ideal polis only, we would have had to make the same inference about the armies, fleets, laws, and even the people also mentioned in the poems. Fortifications broadly contemporary with the majority of the Archaic poets quoted above did exist in their home towns206 or regions.207 If the individual traditions of the poets origin are accepted, it is more than likely that they were indeed familiar with city walls from their immediate surroundings. Thus, there can be no denying that the city wall, τεῖχος, formed part of the concept of πόλις in the Archaic period at least as far back as the early seventh century BC,208 and perhaps even further back if we follow those historians who believe in an eighth-century date for the Homeric poems.209 City walls in the visual arts

Representations of city walls in the visual arts constitute a separate category of evidence. Depictions of city walls are few, not only in our period, but in any period.210 However, important information can be obtained from the few representations available. Most important are the sources roughly contemporary with the period under review, namely images of walls on pottery of the Archaic period.211 In the present context (p.39) Page 19 of 42

City Walls in the Written Record and the Visual Arts a few examples will suffice to illustrate the relevance of this information.212

A famous example is the wall with gate depicted on the François Vase dating from c.570 BC (Fig. 2).213 The wall is that of Troy,214 so what is depicted is a mythological scene — like almost all the other depictions of walls known from the visual arts.215 From the picture it is clear that the wall has a battlement with square merlons and crenels, in which stones have been piled up for use in

Fig. 2. Detail of the François Vase.

defence.216 The wall is built entirely in ashlar masonry,217 and the lintel of the gate is almost directly below the battlement, which means that the gate is almost as high as the wall. The reason is that the gate has to be high enough for the men, who are about to pass through the gate, and, as a result, they are unrealistically tall by comparison with the wall. Their size is again determined by the height of the decoration panel on the vase which contains much more than just a section of the Trojan wall.218 Another example is found on a Tyrrhenian am-phora.219 Here, the gate is again almost as high as the wall and three square projections can be interpreted either as individual towers or as individual merlons on the battlement on top of a single tower. In either case, it appears that gate and battlement with square merlons were seen as important characteristics, as was the case with the wall on the François Vase. Another depiction of particular interest is that of Troy on the west pediment of the temple of Artemis at Kor kyra.220 As on the François Vase, Priam is depicted seated, and the wall is used, again, to symbolize Troy.221 On the pediment, it has been suggested, we see the wall from the inside, but this is of no importance for the present discussion: the battlements look the same whether seen from the inside or the outside. The battlements are formed by square merlons, just as in the vase depictions referred to above. A major question in the interpretation of these depictions is to what extent we can assume that they reflect what walls actually looked like in the Archaic period. We may approach the problem by asking how Kleitias, the painter of the François Vase, got the idea to incise and paint Troy the way he did. He may have copied another image, without much thought, or he may have imagined the Page 20 of 42

City Walls in the Written Record and the Visual Arts scene from familiarity with epic poetry — an interest in contemporary poetry, in addition to the highly literary depictions, is attested on the vase by the inscription of Stesichoros’ name.222 As discussed above, the text of Homer contains a great deal of information about city walls,223 and there is nothing to indicate that the version of the Iliad recited in the first half of the sixth century (p.40) differed radically from the version we have today.224 Finally, Kleitias may have had no (detailed) sources for his inspiration, and the wall must then reflect what he thought fit for a representation of Troy, and he is likely to have drawn from his own contemporary surround-ings.225 Assuming, however, that Kleitias did get inspiration from Homer, we can still exclude the possibility that he used Homer for the way he presented the material elements of the wall of Troy. Information in the many descriptions, especially of the walls of Troy and the camp of the Achaioi, is mostly limited to epithets referring to their beauty, dimensions, and efficiency. The most precise detail we are given is that the towers were constructed inter alia of wooden planks or beams. The terms for battlement in ancient Greek, krossai and epalxis (in the plural), appear in the Iliad too so we know that these features were there, but neither we nor Kleitias know what they looked like from Homer.226 I believe, therefore, that Kleitias was probably inspired by Homer, that his knowledge of the poems provided him with the basic elements of the wall, but that their exact appearance in the painting derived from Kleitias’ own physical surroundings. If this is so, it may be that the details provided by this painter can be used directly to reconstruct the physical appearance of the many lost superstructures of Archaic city walls. Iconographical representations are always problematic precisely because we do not know whether they depict reality or fantasy.227 The crucial point is to get behind the intentions of the artists and find the features, details, or shapes of secondary importance, and thus perhaps detect unconscious elements which are copied from the surroundings of the artists. I believe, like Winter228 and Childs, that pictorial representations on Archaic pottery can provide information on the form of superstructures of Archaic walls, already from the first half of the sixth century, not in every detail, but on a general level. Childs, having done the main analysis, noticed that the depicted walls follow a few basic forms, which are repeated in almost all the examples we know: a gate is almost always found, and almost all walls are crowned with crenellated battlements of square merlons. These are the details emphasized in the examples given above, and, apparently, the crenellated battlement with square merlons became the iconographical code that signified a city wall. Since we know next to nothing about the superstructures of walls in Archaic Greece from the walls themselves — no parapets or crenels are preserved from that period229 — pictorial representations derived from this small body of

Page 21 of 42

City Walls in the Written Record and the Visual Arts evidence are extremely important: they provide us with the information that the walls had battlements with square merlons. Notes:

(1) Evidence for Archaic city walls in the epigraphical record is of course limited, see below, p. 21 for a rare and important exception, and Lindos (Cat.), which is another inscription quoting a written source. The number of inscriptions related to urban fortification of the Classical period is limited, as is clear from a glimpse in E. Maier’s Mauerbauinschriften. An example of a reference to a fortification wall that may be Archaic is IPriene 361 (on Thebai in Ionia, before C4m): ἀπὸ τȏ Ἑρμέω [τȏπαρὰ τ]ὸ παλαιὸν τεῖχος εἰς τὰς πέτρας [τὰς..]τι Κόρνο κῆπον, κτλ, ‘from the border (stone), the one at the old (city) wall, to the rocks [that are?] by the garden of Kornos’ (tr. R. Frederiksen). This ‘old wall’, however, need not be more than a few years older than the inscription in order to be given the epithet ‘old’. Moreover, the possible Archaic walls found at Thebai (Cat.) cannot be to palaion teichos mentioned in the inscription, but must be sought for below the hill and probably far out in the territory of Thebai, since there is mention of a garden, which is not likely to have been situated on the acropolis. (2) Maier, Mauerbauinschriften 2, 78; etymologically the word derives from τεῦχω which means to construct or built. Orlandos and Travlos, Λεξικόν, s.v. τεῖχος. (3) Maier, Mauerbauinschriften 2, 78; Martin, Manuel, 375 n. 9. The juxtaposition with the term φρούριον cannot be made on the general level, Orlandos, Construction 2, 122: ‘Les murs épais des enceintes, τείχη ou φρούρια’. There is an overlap between the two terms in the sense of fort, but not in the sense of fortification wall, Nielsen, ‘Phrourion’, 49–64. (4) A number of examples of the metaphorical use of the term and its verb can be adduced. Mountains, for example, constitute the fortification of Italy according to Strabo (6.4.1) … ἅ καὶ αὐτά τετείχισται τοῖς ὄρεσι δυσβάτοις οὖσι. ‘…, and even these are fortified by mountains that are hardly passable’ (tr. Jones, Loeb). (5) e.g. Il. 6.388 (Troy): ἡ μὲν δὴ πρὸς τεῖχος ἐπειγομένη ἀφικάνει, … ‘So she has gone in haste to the wall, …’ (tr. Murray, Loeb) and 11.181–2 (Troy): … ἀλλ’ ὅτε δὴ τάχ’ ἔμελλεν ὑπό πτόλιν αἰπύ τε τεῖχος ἵξεσθαι, … ‘But when he was just about to come beneath the city and the steep wall, …’ (tr. Murray, Loeb). For an example of the word τεῖχος used for the walls of Troy in Classical sources, see Hdt. 2.118. (6) This basic way of organizing a siege with camps is described in accounts about the late Archaic and Classical times, e.g. the Carthaginian camps (parembolai) at Himera in 480 BC, see below, p. 22, and at Akragas, Gela, and Selinous, Diod. 11.20.3, 11.22.2, 13.87.2. Examples from the Peloponnesian Wars are the Athenian fort or camp (teichos) on the islet of Minoa outside Page 22 of 42

City Walls in the Written Record and the Visual Arts Megara in 427 BC, Thuc. 3.51.4, and the Athenian fort at Pylos in Messenia, Diod. 13.64.7. (7) B. Mannsberger, ‘Die Mauer am Schiffslager der Achaier’, StTroica 8 (1998), 287–304. (8) Troy: see above, n. 5, cf. 8.177; the camp of the Greeks: Il. 7.436, 8.533, 12.64. (9) Troy: Il. 3.153–54, 21.526, 22.447; the camp of the Greeks: Il. 12.36, 12.333, 24.443. (10) e.g. Il. 9.587–9 (either the city of Pleuron or a fort of the Curetes): ἀλλ’ οὐδ’ ὧς τοῦ θυμὸν ἐνὶ στήθεσσιν ἔπειθον, πρίν γ’ ὅτε δὴ θάλαμος πύκ’ ἐβάλλετο, τοί δ’ ἐπί πύργων βαῖνον Κουρῆτες καὶ ἐνέπρηθον μέγα ἄστυ ‘Yet not even so could they persuade the heart in his breast, until at last his chamber were being hotly battered, and the Curetes were mounting on the walls and firing the great city’ (tr. Murray, Loeb). Translators often change between ‘tower’, ‘towers’, ‘wall’, and ‘walls’ when translating from the Greek pyrgos and teichos, e.g. E. V. Rieu, The Iliad, rev. P. Jones (Bury St Edmunds 2003). The Danish translation by C. Wilster, Iliaden (Copenhagen 1836) translates pyrgoi by towers, while the new Danish translation by O. S. Due, Iliaden (Viby J. 1999) takes a more interpretative stand and often uses wall instead of towers. (11) Il., 21.530 and 24.681. (12) Hdt. 3.54.2: ‘They assailed the fortress and made their way into the tower by the seaside in the outer part of the city’ (tr. Godley, Loeb). (13) Kienast, Samos, 100. (14) Above, n. 12. (15) Hdt. 3.54.2: ‘The foreign soldiery and many of the Samians themselves sallied out near the upper tower on the ridge of the hill, …’ (tr. Godley, Loeb). (16) Kienast, Samos. See also Samos (Cat.). (17) P. Hommel, ‘C. Inschriften. a. Die archaische Inschrift vom Burgtor’, in Kleiner et al., Melie, 127–32. The meaning is not at all clear, but the attestation of teichos seems clear. The spelling τῖ- in stead of τεῖ- is apparently just a misspelling or a variation. For other examples in other regions of the Greek world of εῖ appearing as ῖ, see E. Schwyzer, Griechische Grammatik (Munich 1939), 94. See also p. 23 n. 40, below. (18) Cf. SEG 19.546; Maier, Mauerbauinschriften 1, no. 47. (19) Public space within 5 feet from the wall (tr. R. Frederiksen). Page 23 of 42

City Walls in the Written Record and the Visual Arts (20) P. G. Guzzo, Le città scomparse della Magna Grecia (Rome 1982), 261; M. C. Parra, Guida archeologica della Calabria (Bari 1998), 169, 171; E. Tropea Barbaro, ‘Il muro di cinta occidentale e la topografia di Reggio ellenica’, Klearchos 9 (1967), 7–130 (with refs.). (21) The use of the plural is an old literary usage which we often meet with regular city walls: Thuc. 1.89.3 on the walls of Athens, Thuc. 3.3.3 on the walls of Mytilene and the walls of Megara, Thuc. 4.67.1. Herodotos, however, rarely uses the plural form. (22) Hdt. 5.77.3: ‘The fetters in which the prisoners had been bound they hung up in the acropolis, where they were still to be seen in my time, hanging from walls that the Medes’ fire had charred, over against the cell that faces westwards’ (tr. Godley, Loeb). (23) ‘for [says Hecataeus] when the Athenians saw the land under Hymettus which, being their own, they had given to the Pelasgians as a dwelling place in reward for the wall that had once been built round the acropolis, …’ (tr. Godley, Loeb). (24) On the question of a lower circuit in Archaic Athens, see below, p. 32 nn. 144 –5. (25) For the use of teichos in the description of Barbarian cities, see the long description by Herodotos of Babylon 1.178–81, 186, and of the long and high wooden walls of the capital of the Boudinoi in the Black Sea region, 4.108. Another example, at Diod. 1.48.1, is the fascinating description of the reliefs at Egyptian Thebes showing the battle of Kadesh (the campaign of Ramses II against the Hittites in 1288 BC). (26) Diod. 11.20.3: ‘… he pitched two camps, the one for the army and the other for the naval force. All the warships he hauled up on land and threw about them a deep ditch and a wooden palisade, …’ (tr. Oldfather, Loeb). (27) ‘… and when they had once got inside the wooden palisade, to slay Hamilcar, …’ (tr. Oldfather, Loeb). (28) e.g. 7.449 and p. 21 n. 8, above. (29) Hell. 5.4.49: ‘After this he proceeded to retire, keeping the wall of Tanagra on his left’ (tr. Brownson, Loeb). Note that the translator implies that the wall in question was the city wall of Tanagra. (30) Munn, Attica, 124–6. (31) Lawrence, Aims, 160.

Page 24 of 42

City Walls in the Written Record and the Visual Arts (32) Τειχίζω e.g. Dem. 19.112, ἀποτειχίζω e.g. Ar. Av. 1576, ἐπιτειχίζω e.g. Aeschin. 2.76. (33) Isth. 5.44–45: ‘…, builded of old as a tower for men to climb by lofty deeds’ (tr. Sandys, Loeb). (34) Isth. 6.75: ‘… beside the noble gates of the walls of Cadmus’ (tr. Sandys, Loeb). (35) ‘I am of Aeton’s kin, and live in the city of Thebes, beautifully walled, deprived of my fatherland’ (tr. R. Frederiksen), cf. A. Garzya, Teognide: Elegie libri I-II Florence 1955). (36) The specific reference to ‘the well-built walls’ of Thebes or ‘the gates of the well-built Kadmeia’ becomes something of a literary topos not only in C6 poetry (e.g. Pindaros Isth. 6.75), but also well into the Classical period, especially in drama (e.g. Aesch. Sept. 271). (37) See below, pp. 33 for a full discussion. (38) The simplex is occasionally used in poetry (Eur. HF. 1096), whereas the compounds are confined to prose texts. Most important is τείχισμα, which also occurs with a number of prefixes and almost always in prose, e.g. ἀπο-τείχισμα (lines of blockade), see Orlandos and Travlos, Λεξικόν, 34; Διατείχισμα (a wall that divides an already-fortified area in two), see ibid. 75; Έπι-τείχισμα (a fort often in enemy territory); Προ-τείχισμα (outwork), see ibid. 224. (39) Thuc. 4.90.1.-101.5. (40) In a papyrus dated to 228–221 BC an Egyptian shaduf (water pump installation) is described as having been constructed with two strengthened walls called τεῖχος, D. Bonneau, Le Régime administratif de l’eau du Nil dans l’Égypte grecque, romaine et byzantine (Leiden 1993), 94. Polybios (9.26a) uses both τειχίον (τὰ τειχία) and τεῖχος (τῶν τειχῶν) for house wall. The change in pronunciation of vowels and diphthongs in ancient Greek of the Hellenistic and Roman periods may be responsible for some occurrences of τεῖχος in texts where in fact a τοῖχος was thought of. One example of change in spelling as a consequence of change in pronunciation of vowels is the development of ei to i, see E. H. Sturtevant, The Pronunciation of Greek and Latin (Groningen 1968) and G. Horrocks, Greek: A History of the Language and Its Speakers (London 1997), 102–11. See also p. 21 n. 17, above. (41) This word is in the masculine and not neuter (as τὸ τεῖχος) and is accordingly distinguishable from to teichos. An additional difference is that the second letter is an ‘o’ in stead of an ‘e’. On the architectural definition of τοῖχος and examples from epigraphy, see Martin, Manuel, 388 n. 8. For examples from literature, Orlandos and Travlos, Λεξικόν, s.v. τοῖχος. The passages in Diodoros Page 25 of 42

City Walls in the Written Record and the Visual Arts (p. 22 n. 25, above) that describe the reliefs in Egyptian Thebes depicting the battle of Kadesh are an illustrative example where both terms occur. (42) A few examples: Thuc. 7.81.4; ID 97.35 and 98.70; IG XII.7 62. (43) It is possible that both teichos and toichos existed already in the Greek vocabulary of the Myceneans and that they even at this time carried the meaning we find in Homeric poetry and later. Teichodomia or toichodomia is attested in a tablet from Pylos, see M. Ventris and J. Chadwick, Documents in Mycenaean Greek2 (Cambridge 1973), no. 41 and discussion ibid. 174. (44) e.g. Od. 16.164–6: νόησε δέ δῖος Ὀδυσσεύς, ἐκ δ’ ἦλθεν μεγάροιο παρὲκ μέγα τειχίον αὐλῆς, στῆ δέ πάροιθ’ αὐτῆς• ‘… and goodly Odysseus perceived it, and went forth from the hall, past the great wall of the court, and stood before her, …’ (tr. Murray, Loeb) and 16.343–4: ἐκ δ’ ἦλθον μεγάροιο παρὲκ μέγα τειχίον αὐλῆς, αὐτοῦ δὲ προπάροιθε θυράων ἑδριόωντο. ‘… and forth they went from the hall past the great wall of the court, and there before the gates they sat down’ (tr. Murray, Loeb). (45) L. Robert, review of Maier, Mauerbauinschriften 1–2, Gnomon 42 (1970), 579–603, at 600; Nielsen, ‘Phrourion’, 51; Lawrence, Aims, 173. See P. Debord, ‘Le Vocabulaire des ouvrages de défense occurrences littéraires et épigraphiques confrontées aux realia archéologiques’, in Debord and Descat (eds.), Fortifications, 53–61, at 54–5, for this observation in the vocabulary of Xenophon’s Anabasis. (46) 7.59.3: ‘here had been built that royal fortress which is called Doriscus, and a Persian guard had been posted there …’ (tr. Godley, Loeb). (47) Hdt. 5.34.12–13: ‘… and ever more was needful for the siege, they built a stronghold for the banished Naxians, …’ (tr. Godley, Loeb). Teichos is in the plural and the meaning is then that the Persians built walls or a fortification complex for the exiled Naxians. (48) Cf. Leipsydrion, above, p. 15. (49) 9.15, 65, and 70; and 9.98, 102, and 106. (50) This particular use of teichos as a synonym for stratopedon exists from at least Classical times to early Imperial times, A. Favuzzi, ‘Una peculiarità semantica nel lessico militare dioneo’, Chiron 23 (1993), 53–61, at 58. (51) Hdt. 7.108.2: ‘On his march from Doriskos he first passed the Samothrakian forts (teichea), of which the westernmost is a polis by the name of Mesambria’ (tr. M. H. Hansen, in M. H. Hansen, Polis and City-State: An Ancient Concept and Its Modern Equivalent (Copenhagen 1998), 21 n. 5.

Page 26 of 42

City Walls in the Written Record and the Visual Arts (52) Some nucleated settlements called teichos (fort) in our sources were at the same time actually poleis, but this is a problem of a different character. For a discussion, from a different terminological point of view, see Nielsen, ‘Phrourion’. (53) Xen. Hell. 5.3.2: ‘But he, when once he had turned them to flight, did not stop pursuing and killing for ninety stadia, until he had chased them to the very wall of the Olynthians’ (tr. Brownson, Loeb). (54) For a full discussion of this passage and the particular problem of the interpretation of it, P. Flensted-Jensen, ‘Some Problems in Polis Identification in the Chalkidic Peninsula’, CPCPapers 4, 117–28, at 117–21, with refs. (55) See Catalogue entries for Barke, Eretria, and Gortyn. (56) See above, p. 15. (57) See, however, the teichos of the Curetes mentioned in the Iliad (above, p. 13 n. 61). (58) e.g. Strabo 8.6.21, LSJ s.v. σχοινιά II. (59) e.g. Dem. Cor. 300.2, on the walls around the Peiraieus. A specified use by Xen. Hell. 4.4.11: … ἐγγὺς τοῦ περὶ τὸ ἄστυ κύκλου. ‘… near the wall which surrounded the city’ (tr. Brownson, Loeb). The city here is Corinth, and it is accordingly not true as stated by Wokalek that this term was exclusively used about the wall of Athens (see Wokalek, Stadtbefestigungen, n. 177). (60) Thuc. 1.90.2 (r480): (general on Greek poleis outside the Peloponnese) ἠξίουν τε αὐτοὺς μὴ τειχίζειν, ἀλλά καί τῶν ἔξω Πελοποννήσου μᾶλλον ὅσοις εἱστήκει ξυγκαθελεῖν μετὰ σφῶν τοὺς περιβόλους, ‘… So they requested them not to rebuild their walls, but rather to join with them in razing the walls of whatsoever towns outside the Peloponnesus had them standing, …’ (tr. Smith, Loeb). At 1.89.3 about the pre-Persian (480/79) wall around Athens being in ruins after the Persians had left and again 1.93.2 specifically on the Themistoclean wall of Athens. This term was also popular in the Greek literature of Roman times, see e.g. the quote of Pausanias 6.19.11, below, p. 47. (61) Anakreon, quoted in the scholia to Pindar, Fr. 391 = Schol. Pind. Ol. 8 42: ἐπὶ στέφανον τεῦξαι• μεταφορικῶς τὸ τεῖχος. στέφανος γὰρ ὥσπερ τῶν πόλεων τὰ τείχη. καὶ Ἀνακρέων• νῦν δ’ ἀπὸ μὲν στέφανος πόλεως ὄλωλεν. ‘About building a crown. Metaphorical for wall. For the walls of cities are just like a crown. Anakreon also (says) so: “but now the crown of the city is destroyed”’ (tr. R. Frederiksen). We have only got the scholiast’s word for the statement that stephanos is used metaphorically for teichos, but he presumably had access to the whole poem and there is no reason to doubt his interpretation.

Page 27 of 42

City Walls in the Written Record and the Visual Arts (62) As an example from later sources Strabo’s description of Gortyn will suffice (10.4.11): … ὕστερον δ’ ὐποβαλοῦσα τὸ τεῖχος ἐκ θεμελίων καὶ πάντα τὸῦ χρόνον μείνασα ἀτείχιστος; ‘… but later it lost its walls from their very foundations, and has remained unwalled ever since’ (tr. Jones, Loeb). (63) Sparta, Xen. Hell. 6.5.28; Elis, Xen. Hell. 3.2.27. (64) Lawrence, Aims, 121; G. Shipley, ‘Lakedaimon’, in Hansen and Nielsen, 592. (65) Xen. Hell. 6.5.28 and Xen. Ages. 2.24.8, with Diod. 15.83–84 (1363–362 BC) describing how, just before the battle of Mantineia 362, a raid by Epaminondas and his Theban forces took them as far as the suburbs of Sparta where unorganized fighting occurred. The Thebans refrained from advancing far into the city proper (?) of Sparta, because Epaminondas had learned that Agesilaos had prepared a defence, which would probably last until the bulk of the fast returning Spartan army appeared. See below, p. 30 and Polyb. 9.8, who claims that Epaminondas actually entered the city. A logical assumption is that the Thebans did not enter far into the ‘city’ of Sparta, since in Sparta, being a conurbation of villages which probably covered a substantial area, it would have been difficult to conduct organized battle and impossible to assess the numbers and potential of remaining Spartan forces. (66) See below, p. 30 for a full discussion of the potential problem of reference to siege at these cities with no city walls. (67) In Hansen, ‘Introduction’, 137, the number is given as 19, but this figure includes both poleis described in ancient sources as ἀτείχιστος and poleis where archaeologists, despite much investigation, have not found any remains of fortification walls. For other listings of the evidence: W. K. Pritchett, The Greek State at War: Part 1 (Berkeley 1971), 62; Ducrey, ‘Fortifications’, 135–6; Cobet, ‘Mauern’, 265. (68) Thuc. 3.33.2: ἀτειχίστον γὰρ οὔσης τῆς Ἰωνίας μέγα τὸ δέος ἐγένετο … ‘For since Ionia was unfortified, a great alarm arose …’ (tr. Forster Smith, Loeb). (69) For a discussion on these passages of Herodotos on Ionia, see above, p. 32– 3. (70) For this view see Lawrence, Aims, 115; Ducrey, ‘Muraille’, 249. (71) See below, p. 48 for Thuc. on Kos Meropis. (72) See above, p. 22. (73) See Catalogue entries for Gortyn, Naxos Isl., Phagres, and Soloi. (74) See Catalogue entries for Gela and Kyme in Magna Graecia. Page 28 of 42

City Walls in the Written Record and the Visual Arts (75) For this argument used in the example of Athens, see Weir, ‘Wall’, 248 n. 6. (76) Examples from Classical sources: Byzantion (Xen. Anab. 7.1.21); Gergis in Troas (Xen. Hell. 3.1.22); Mende (Thuc. 4.131.3); Pharsalos (Xen. Hell. 6.1.2); Skepsis (Xen. Hell. 3.1.21); and Thebes (Xen. Hell. 5.4.1). (77) e.g. Theog. Eleg. 1.773 (Megara): Φοῖβε ἄναξ, αὐτὸς μὲν ἐπύργωσας πόλιν ἄκρην, …, ‘Lord Phoibe,…, yourazed thewalls ofouracropolis’. Hom. Il. 6.88 (Athens): … ἐν πόλει ὄκρῃ, ‘… on the acropolis, and 7.345 (Troy):. …’ Ιλίου ἐν πόλει ἄκρῃ, … ‘… on the acropolisofTroy …’ (tr. R. Frederiksen). (78) Scully, Homer, 41; cf. Drerup, Baukunst, 101. (79) Lyrnessos is mentioned five times in the Iliad and reference is subsequently made to its destruction (e.g. Il. 2.690–1), but there is no mention of its walls. It has been suggested that the ‘τεῖχος of the Curetes’ (Il. 9.552) was the wall of their city Pleuron, e.g. Drerup, Baukunst, 101. This is possible, but it could also be a fort near Kalydon as we know that some kind of siege was carried out there by the Curetes (Il. 9.530 and 573–4), B. Hainsworth, The Iliad: A Commentary, vol. iii. Books 9–12 (Cambridge 1993), at 9.552. (80) See Catalogue entries for Gortyn, Kalydon, Thebe, Thebes, and Tiryns. (81) See under Elis in Hansen and Nielsen, 492. See also above, p. 10. (82) Il. 2.645–6. Τειχιόεις (-εσσα) is an adjective form of τεῖχος. ‘And of the Cretans Idomeneus, famed for his spear, was leader, they who held Cnossos and Gortyn, famed for its walls, …’ (tr. Murray, Loeb). Here ‘famed for its walls’ is probably chosen by Murray to give the translation a more poetic touch, see Perlman, ‘Gortyn’, 71. (83) Il. 2.559: ‘And they who held Argos and Tiryns, famed for its walls’ (tr. Murray, Loeb). For the special form of τεῖχος and for the translation see n. 82, above. (84) Od. 11.263 (Thebes): … οἳ πρῶτοι Θήβης ἕδος ἔκτισαν ἑπταπύλοιο, … and Od. 14.472 (Troy): ἀλλ’ ὅτε δή ῥ’ ἱκόμεσθα ποτὶ πτόλιν αἰπύ τε τεῖχος, … (11.263) ‘who first established the seat of seven-gated Thebes …’ (14.472) ‘… now when we had come to the city and the steep wall’ (tr. Murray, Loeb). (85) e.g. Il. 5.543: … τῶν ῥα πατὴρ μὲν ἔναιεν ἐϋκτιμένη ἐνί Φηρῇ, … ‘… whose father dwelled in well-built Pherai …’ (tr. Murray, Loeb). See also Il. 2.712 (Iolkos), 21.40 (Lemnos), and 17.611 (Lyktos). (86) See also Strabo’s comment at 8.6.19 on the use of this word in Homer. Strabo quotes Homer and expresses the appropriate choice of the term, since, as he goes on, Kleonai was well fortified (still when he visited it). Page 29 of 42

City Walls in the Written Record and the Visual Arts (87) e.g. Il. 6.391, the streets of Troy. (88) 7.436, 749; 8.533; 9.87; 12.64, 90, etc. (89) Scully, Homer, chap. 3, 41–53; Ducrey, ‘Muraille’, 249. (90) When treating specific Greek mainland sites mentioned in Homer, Drerup, Baukunst, 101, keeps the question open whether there is a real world deducible from Homeric poetry or whether his world can never be separated from one of fantasy. (91) Excavation has uncovered a village in the ‘Unterburg’ in Tiryns dating to C12 and apparently immediately after the destruction of Tiryns, K. Kilian, ‘Ausgrabungen in Tiryns 1976’, AA (1978), 449–70, and K. Kilian, ‘Ausgrabungen in Tiryns 1977’, AA (1979), 379–411. Reuse is also documented in the literary sources. See e.g. the description by Pausanias 7.25.5 of the Argive attack on the Mycenaeans in the Classical period (r468 BC). (92) F. Poulsen and K. Rhomaios, Erster vorläufiger Bericht über die DänischGriechischen Ausgrabungen von Kalydon (Copenhagen 1927), 5; Hope Simpson and Dickinson, Gazetteer, 103 (with refs.). See however R. Hope Simpson and D. K. Hagel, Mycenaean Fortifications, Highways, Dams and Canals (Sävedalen 2006), 103. (93) The obvious alternative interpretation would be as a temenos wall, Hayden, ‘Fortifications’, 12–13 with fig. 1. Here it is rightly stated, however, that the dimensions of the wall are unusual for a temenos wall. The location of the wall, placed 4 m back in relation to the edge of the plateau, is, on the other hand, illsuited for a fortification wall, Perlman, ‘Gortyn’, 60, 71. (94) For recent discussions as to whether Homer describes Bronze Age society, see S. P. Morris and R. Laffineu, Epos: Reconsidering Greek Epic and Aegean Bronze Age Archaeology (Eupen 2007). For the view that the architecture (including fortifications) of the Homeric poems is actually that of the Bronze Age, see I. M. Shear, Tales of Heroes: The Origins of the Homeric Texts (New York and Athens 2000), chap 1, (e.g. p. 28). (95) e.g. K. A. Raaflaub, ‘Homeric Society’, in I. Morris and B. Powell (eds.), A New Companion to Homer (Leiden 1997), 624–48, at 645–8; Perlman, ‘Gortyn’, 71. For a C7 composition of the Homeric poems, W. Burkert, ‘Das hunderttorige Theben und die Datierung der Ilias’, Wiener Studien 10 (1976), 5–21 (Iliad); H. Van Wees, ‘The Homeric Way of War’, Greece and Rome 41 (1994), 131–55, at 138–46; M. L. West, ‘The Date of the Iliad’, MusHelv 52 (1995), 203–19; R. Osborne, Greece in the Making: 1200–479 BC (London 1996), 159. (96) These walls have been tentatively placed before 600 BC in Table 4, below. Page 30 of 42

City Walls in the Written Record and the Visual Arts (97) Thucydides refers to the early history of Gela (founded 689/8 BC) and explicitly comments on fortification … τὸ δὲ χωρίον οὗ νῦν ἡ πόλις ἐστὶ καὶ ὃ πρῶτον ἐτειχίσθη Λίυδιοι καλεῖται (6.4.3). We cannot prove, however, as has been tried by P. Orlandini, ‘La terza campagna di scavo sull’acropoli di Gela’, Kokalos 7 (1961), 137–44, at 143, that Thucydides is actually describing the time immediately after the foundation of Gela. The translation in the Loeb is a bit distorting (Forster Smith): ‘…, but the place where the acropolis now is and which was the first to be fortified is called Lindii’. The Greek text makes no mention of an acropolis, but that Thucydides was actually thinking of one is possible; excavations on the acropolis at Gela have unearthed remains of fortification from C6, see Gela (Cat.). (98) ‘These Colophonian exiles waited for the time when the men of Smyrna were holding a festival to Dionysos outside the walls; they then shut the gates and so won the city’ (tr. Godley, Loeb). That Smyrna changed from being an Aeolic into an Ionic settlement is also supported by change in the physical remains. Whether or not it happened as Herodotos says, as a single action, is hardly confirmable. The change in the material record suggests rather a gradual shift. We cannot date Herodotos with sherds, but it is significant that the pottery at Smyrna is entirely Ionian by C8. A consequence of making this tempting link of the two types of data is to drag the literary evidence far back into the EIA, J. M. Cook, ‘Old Smyrna, 1948–1951’, BSA 53–4 (1958/9), 1–34, at 13; Nicholls, ‘Old Smyrna’, 123. (99) ‘The first Greeks whom he attacked were the Ephesians. These, being besieged by him, dedicated their city to Artemis; this they did by attaching a rope to the city wall from the temple of the goddess, …’ (tr. Godley, Loeb). (100) Hdt. 1.164.1: ‘In such a manner was the Phocians wall fully made. Harpagus marched against the city and besieged it, …’ (tr. Godley, Loeb). (101) Hdt. 6.46.2: ‘For the Thasians, inasmuch as they had been besieged by Histiaeus of Miletus and had great revenues, had used their wealth to build their ships of war and encompass themselves with stronger walls’ (tr. Godley, Loeb). (102) If the comparative is to be read as a real comparative, it is reasonable to assume the existence of an older wall, compared to which the new was stronger. If ischyteron is to be understood in the other possible way, the wall of Thasos was just very strong. See J. N. Madvig, Syntax der griechischen Sprache2 (Copenhagen 1968), § 93b. (103) ‘When Harpagus came to Ionia, he took the cities by building mounds; he would drive the men within their walls and then build mounds against the walls and so take the cities’ (tr. Godley, Loeb).

Page 31 of 42

City Walls in the Written Record and the Visual Arts (104) See P. Flensted Jensen, ‘The Bottiaians and Their Poleis’, CPCPapers 2, 103– 32, at 128–9, for a discussion about this passage and the other few instances of this phrasing in Classical sources. (105) Scranton, Walls, 43. (106) e.g. the description by Herodotos in 1.176 of the disaster at Xanthos in 540 BC and the analogy given to the contemporary destiny of Kaunos. (107) See e.g. Thuc. 3.97.2 where we are told that the inhabitants of Aigition fled from the Athenians and found refuge on the (unfortified) heights near the city. (108) See Catalogue entries for Ephesos, Phokaia, and Samos. (109) e.g. 4.200 (Barke): … ὀρύσσοντές τε ὀρύγματα ὑπόγαια φέροντα ἐς τὸ τεῖχος καὶ προσβολὰς καρτερὰς ποιεύμενοι, … ‘… digging underground passages leading to the walls and making violent assaults …’ (tr. Godley, Loeb); 6.18 (Miletos): … καὶ ὑπορύσσοντες τὰ τείχεα καὶ παντοίας μηχανάς προσφέροντες, … ‘… mining the walls and using every device against it …’ (tr. Godley, Loeb); 5.124 (Myrkinos): … Μύρκινον τὴν Ἠδωνῶν, τὴν Ἱστιαῖος ἐτείχεε παρὰ Δαρείου δωρεὴν λαβών, … ‘… or Myrcinus in Edonia, which Histiaeus had received as a gift from Darius and fortified …’. See also Miletos (Cat.) and Karystos (Cat.). (110) Reference and more detailed accounts of the fortifications can be found in the Catalogue. See also Tables 4–5. (111) Balandier, Fortifications, 20. For this view and for an investigation of sieges based on Thucydides, see Ducrey, ‘Fortifications’, 133–42; Cobet, ‘Mauern’, 253. (112) e.g. Thuc. 8.61.1 (Chios 411 BC): …, ἐν ὅσῳ αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἀστύοχος ἠπόρει ὅπως βοηθήσοι ναυμαχῆσαι πιεζόμενοι τῇ πολιορκίᾳ ῆναγκάσθησαν. ‘… while Astyochus was still at a loss as to how he should bring relief to them, were so hard pressed by the siege that they were compelled to risk a fight at sea’ (tr. Smith, Loeb); Xen. Hell. 1.6.22 (Mytilene 406 BC): …, καί ἀφικομένη εἰς τὰς Ἀθήνας ἐξαγγέλλει τὴν πολιορκίαν. ‘… and on its arrival at Athens reported the blockade’ (tr. Brownson, Loeb). (113) e.g. Dem. 1.18 (Olynthus 348 BC): …, περιέσται τῷ χρόνῳ τῶν πολιορκουμένων. ‘…, until at last he overcomes the resistance of the besieged’ (tr. Vince, Loeb); Isoc. 8.100 (Phleious 380 BC): …, Φλιασίους δ’ ἐξεπολιόρκησαν, ‘… did they not reduce the Phliasians by siege’ (tr. Norlin, Loeb); Thuc. 1.105 (Aigina 460 BC): … καὶ ναῦς ἑβδομήκοντα λαβόντες αὐτῶν ἐς τὴν γῆν ἀπέβησαν καὶ ἐπολιόρκονν Λεωκράτονς τοῦ Στροίβον στρατηγοῦντος. ‘… and having taken seventy Aeginetan ships they descended upon their territory and laid siege to the city’ (tr. Smith, Loeb).

Page 32 of 42

City Walls in the Written Record and the Visual Arts (114) See Catalogue entries for Karystos, Miletos, and Myrina for sources and context. (115) Xen. Hell. 3.2.27. (116) Diod. 14.17.9: Spartan siege lead by Pausanias. There is a general problem with the chronology of Diodoros in these matters of Greek history, and it is generally believed that this campaign is identical with the one mentioned by Xenophon, see Tuplin, Empire, 202–3. (117) Diod. 14.17.9–12. Tuplin, Empire, 202. It never came to a real siege, because the Lakedaimonian forces were attacked at once, and had to withdraw. (118) Diod. 15.83.5 (r363–362 BC): πολλῶν δὲ βοηθούντων τοῖς πολιορκονμένοις καὶ τῆς ννκτὸς καταλαβούσης, ἔλνσε τὴν πολιορκίαν. ‘Then as many came to the assistance of the besieged and night intervened, he desisted from the siege’ (tr. Sherman, Loeb). (119) 15.83.1 and 5. J. Roy, ‘The Perioikoi of Elis’, CPCActs 4, 282–320, at 301; Tuplin, Empire, 202–3. (120) ‘To sit down around (a wall and besiege)’, e.g. Hdt. 1.103.3. (121) To sit down in front of (a wall and besiege)’, e.g. Aen. Tact. 22.1. (122) This goes for other typical indirect references as well, as τειχομαχέω ‘to fight at a wall’, e.g. Thuc. 8.103.2. (123) Herodotos uses the word poliorkia to describe the setting for the Trojan War (2.118), while Thucydides questions whether the presence of the Greeks at Troy actually constituted a siege (1.11). See also Strabo 13.1.35 who describes the Ilion of his time and comments on its topography, comparing it with that of the Ilion of Homer, and gives detailed criticism e.g. about the ‘walled harbour’ of the Greeks. (124) For a discussion of the latter see below, p. 34–5. (125) Winter, 301. Garlan, Poliorcétique, 3–10, does not acknowledge the Homeric evidence and the evidence in Herodotos, because he operates with a narrow definition of siege, namely as a blockade of and assault on a city by all means, opposed to just a blockade, which he seems to regard as normal in the Archaic period. (126) For a discussion about the nature and frequency of sieges in the Archaic period see pp. 91, 96–7, below.

Page 33 of 42

City Walls in the Written Record and the Visual Arts (127) Thuc. 1.126.7: ‘And the Athenians, when they were aware of it, came in a body from the fields against them and sitting down before the Acropolis laid siege to it’ (tr. Smith, Loeb). (128) See above, p. 22. Considerable parts of the fortification of the Athenian acropolis were constructed in Mycenaean times, Travlos, Athens, 52; S. E. Iakovidis, The Mycenaean Acropolis of Athens (Athens 2006), 234–9. A myth referring to the construction of the stronghold of the acropolis is found in Herodotos, who relates how the acropolis got its teichos (Hdt. (quoting Hekataios) 6.137), quoted above, p. 22. (129) ‘…; for as the Milesians had command of the sea, it was of no avail for his army to besiege their city’ (tr. Godley, Loeb). (130) Hdt. 5.64–5 is another rare example where ἐπέδρη appears with πολιορκέω. (131) The campaign must have taken place between 612, when Alyattes took the Lydian throne and 602, or slightly later, when a peace was concluded between Lydia and Miletos, Cobet, ‘Mauern’, 257. (132) Some events described by Herodotos, like the one (7.170) where the ‘men of Crete … beleaguered the town of Camicus …’ are mythological rather than historical. (133) See entries for these cities in the Catalogue. (134) Lawrence, Aims, 53. (135) Isoc. Plat. 57, Panath. 91. Mt Ithome was certainly fortified in the Classical period, Thuc. 1.102. (136) Fr. 23, cf. below p. 36 n. 192. (137) Diod. 9.16.1. (138) See Krisa at Phokis in Hansen and Nielsen, 405. (139) Hdt. 9.58.3. (140) Symeonoglou, Thebes, 89. (141) Weir, ‘Wall’, 249, 247 n. 8, with reference to E. Vanderpool who first introduced the idea (n. 144, below). (142) A weakness of this argument is that even with the ramp, the Persians were kept out for some time, and eventually entered not via the ramp but at the east end (Hdt. 8.53).

Page 34 of 42

City Walls in the Written Record and the Visual Arts (143) See Chap. 8, below for additional sites where fortification has been suggested prior to 600 BC. (144) The particular question of a pre-Persian circuit around Athens is still debated, Winter, 61–4; E. Vanderpool, ‘The Date of the Pre-Persian City Wall of Athens’, in Bradeen and McGregor (eds.), Phoros, 156–60; Lawrence, Aims, 114; Weir, ‘Wall’; J. K. Papadopoulos, ‘The Archaic Wall of Athens: Reality or Myth?’, Opuscula 1 (2008), 31–46; I believe that the following quote from Thucydides settles the matter (1.89.3): τοῦ τε γὰρ περιβόλου βραχέα εἱστήκει καὶ οἰκίαι αἱ μὲν πολλαὶ ἐπεπτώκεσαν, … ‘for of the encircling wall only small portions were left standing, and most of the houses were in ruins …’ (tr. Forster Smith, Loeb). How far back in the Archaic period this wall existed is another question. See also n. 145, below. (145) Attestations of πύλαι (gates) and πύργοι (towers) in the written sources relevant for the Archaic period have not been systematically collected. Such additional investigations would provide an even more complete picture of the nature and spread of Archaic city walls. An example of how such information could be obtained is the πύλαι mentioned by Thucydides (6.54–9) in his account of the murder of Hipparchos by Harmodios and Aristogeiton in 514 BC. Thucydides explains how Hipparchos was waiting ἔξω ἐν τῷ Κεραμεικῷ ‘outside [the walls] in the Kerameikos’ with his guard for the procession to start, and that he was attacked ἔσω τῶν πυλῶν ‘inside the gate’, H. Lauter-Bufé and H. Lauter, ‘Die Vorthemistokleische Stadtmauer Athens nach Philologischen und Archäologische Quellen’, AA (1975), 1–9, at 4. (146) Hdt. 1.162: ‘When he came to Ionia, he took the cities by building mounds; he would drive the men within their walls and then build mounds against the walls and so take the cities’ (tr. Godley, Loeb). (147) Winter, 55 n. 6. (148) Lawrence, Aims, 114. (149) Hdt. 1.17: Miletos, C7l; 1.26: Ephesos, c.560 BC; 1.150.4: Smyrna, before 688 BC. (150) McNicoll, Fortifications, 94. (151) Strabo 14.21. (152) Aen. Tact. 31.6: εἰς Ἔφεσον δ’ εἰσεκομίσθη γράμματα τρόπῳ τοῷδε. The walls of Ephesos are admittedly not mentioned, but chap. 31 in the treatise is dedicated to the question of how to prevent people from smuggling messages in and out of the gates of a besieged city.

Page 35 of 42

City Walls in the Written Record and the Visual Arts (153) The treatise of Aeneas Tacticus is dated to before 350 BC, see D. Whitehead, Aineias the Tactician: How to Survive Under Siege (Oxford 1990), 8– 9. (154) After it had been taken by Lysimachos in 302 BC, Diod. 20.107.4. (155) See below, p. 111 for discussion of archaeological information supporting the general information provided by Herodotos. (156) Passage quoted p. 190, see Soloi (Cat.). (157) ‘There was no end to Themistocles’ avarice; using the same agents whom he had used with the king, he sent threatening messages to the other islands, demanding money, and saying that if they would not give what he asked he would bring the Greek armada upon them and besiege and take their islands’ (tr. Godley, Loeb). (158) We know from other sources that these two poleis were walled in the Archaic period and probably in 479 BC as well, see Catalogue entries for Karystos, Naxos Isl., and Paros. (159) Pol. 1276a 26–7: ‘Suppose a set of men inhabit the same place, in what circumstances are we to consider their city to be a single city? Its unity clearly does not depend on the walls, for it would be possible to throw a single wall round the Peloponnesus’ (tr. Rackham, Loeb). (160) Other examples: Eur. Cyc. 115: Odysseus: τείχη δὲ ποῦ’ στι καὶ πόλεως πυργώματα; ‘But-where’s the city? Never a tower I see’ (tr. Way, Loeb). Thuc. 7.77.7: ἄνδρες γὰρ πόλις, καὶ οὐ τείχη οὐδὲ νῆες ἀνδρῶν κεναί. ‘for it is men that make a state, not walls nor ships devoid of men’ (tr. Smith, Loeb). Isocr. 7.13: καίτοι τὰς εὐπραγίας ἅπαντες ἴσμεν καὶ παραγιγνομένας καὶ παραμενούσας οὐ τοῖς τὰ τείχη κάλλιστα καὶ μέγιστα περιβεβλημένοις, οὐδὲ τοῖς … ‘And yet we all know that success does not visit and abide with those who have built around themselves the finest and the strongest walls, nor with those …’ (tr. Norlin, Loeb). See Cobet, ‘Mauern’, 249–53, with further examples. (161) See below, p. 117. (162) See Scully, Homer, 41–53, for a useful discussion of the city wall in Homer. (163) Il. 4.308: ὧδε καὶ οἱ πρότεροι πόλεας καὶ τείχἐ ἐπόρθεον, τόνδε νόον καὶ θυμὸν ἐνὶ στήθεσσιν ἔχοντες, ‘Thus also did men of olden time lay waste cities and walls, having their breasts intent and heart like this’ (tr. Murray, Loeb). (164) Il. 15.737–8: οὐ μέν τι σχεδόν ἐστι πόλις πύργοις ἀραρνῖα, ᾗ κ’ ἀπαμνναίμεσθ’ ἑτεραλκέα δῆμον ἔχοντες• ‘In no way is there nearby a city

Page 36 of 42

City Walls in the Written Record and the Visual Arts fenced with walls by which we might defend ourselves, having an army to turn the tide of battle’ (tr. Murray, Loeb). Cobet, ‘Mauern’, 250. (165) Il. 21.446–7, ‘I built for the Trojans round about their city a wall, wide and fair, so that the city might never be broken’ (tr. Murray, Loeb). (166) Il. 4.34, ‘If you were to enter inside the gates and the high walls …’ (tr. Murray, Loeb). Cf. Il. 22.507. (167) Although not as frequent as τεῖχος which is used more than 100 times. (168) For the τεῖχος of the Achaioi see above, p. 68. (169) Il. 3.383–4: ‘Her she found on the high wall’ (tr. Murray, Loeb). Πύργῳ ἐφ’ ὑφηλῷ is translated as wall here, probably chosen as a poetic variation. (170) Il. 12.36. Cf. Drerup, Baukunst, 101. (171) Il. 18.490–540. (172) Il. 18.514–5: ‘Their dear wives and young children defended the wall as they stood on it, and with them the men whom old age held; …’ (tr. Murray, Loeb). (173) A quote from M. W. Edwards, The Iliad. A Commentary, V: Books 17–20 (Cambridge 1991), 218, is a good illustration of this view: ‘The scene continues … with the second city, this one under siege; a representation probably chosen by the poet not only because of the tale of Troy, but because it was one of the recurrent circumstances of Greek city life.’ (174) Walls do not have a prominent position in foundation myths of historical poleis, which should cause no surprise since these are not very detailed. Walls are mentioned now and then, e.g. the early (?) wall at Gela mentioned by Thucydides (see above, p. 28 n. 97). In the light of this (negative) observation I will not include e.g. the information from the foundation myth of Megara where fortifications are mentioned since the source is Pausanias alone (1.41.3). Cf. Hölscher, Öffentliche Räume, 68. (175) Od. 6.9: ‘About the city he had drawn a wall, he had built houses …’ (tr. Murray, Loeb). (176) Od. 7.43–5: ‘And Odysseus marveled at the harbors and the shapely ships, at the meeting places where the heroes themselves gathered, and the walls, long and high and crowned with palisades, a wonder to behold’ (tr. Murray, Loeb). Drerup, Baukunst, 100, is clearly misreading Od. 7.43–5. He claims that the walls were mere palisades, but this is inconclusive of the information to be obtained from Od. 7.44. The description includes σκολόπεσσιν (palisades), but Page 37 of 42

City Walls in the Written Record and the Visual Arts also long walls τείχεα μακρὰ, and the only meaningful interpretation is that the palisades were either part of the walls or that they constituted an additional defence line. (177) At Od. 6.262–3 polis is connected with the poetic variation pyrgos (αὐτὰρ ἐπήν πόλιος ἐπιβήομεν, ἥν πέρι πύργος ὑφηλός, καλὸς δέ λιμὴν ἑκάτερθε πόληος, … (178) A. F. Garvie, Homer. Odyssey Books VI-VIII (Cambridge 1994), 24; Scully, Homer, 45–6; G. E. Mylonas, Mycenae and the Mycenean Age (Princeton 1966), 11. (179) ‘Whether a polis be at war or at peace, whether it be “Ionian” or “Mycenaean” in design, no single feature contributes more to the definition of a Homeric city than its city wall’, Scully, Homer, 47. ‘The walled city is common in Homer’, O. Murray, Early Greece2 (London 1993), 63. Cf. Drerup, Baukunst, 101. (180) See above, p. 28 for a brief discussion on the dating of Homer and the ‘Homeric society’. (181) On authorship: F. Solmsen, Hesiod and Aeschylos (Ithaca 1949), 4 n. 2; B. A. Van Groningen, La Composition littéraire archaique (Amsterdam 1966), 303; OCD3 s.v. Hesiod (M. L. West). (182) ‘They have no way out: Poseidon fastened brazen doors thereon, and a wall is driven up to the doors from both sides’ (tr. West, Theogony). (183) ‘…; a vast chasm, whose floor a man would not reach in a whole year if once he got inside the gates, …’ (tr. West, Theogony). (184) Th. 773 and 811. (185) ‘Evil war and dread battle destroyed these, some under seven-gated Thebes …’ (tr. Most, Loeb). Cf. Hes. Asp. 49, for the Seven Gates of Thebes. (186) It is not a problem that only the pylai are mentioned (seven gates) and not the teichos. As argued above, p. 50 the pylai constitute the pars pro toto of the wall. The gates were naturally set into a τεῖχος. (187) Aesch. Sept. e.g. 124–6: ἑπτὰ δ’ ἀγήνορες πρέποντες στρατοῦ δoρvσσoῖς σαγαῖς πύλαις ἑβδόμαις προσίστανται πάλωι λαχόντες. ‘though seven proud chieftains, in arms conspicuous above their martial host, were in act to take before each gate of the seven their allotted posts’ (tr. A. W. Verrall, The Seven Against Thebes of Aeschylos (London, 1887), 149, cf. G. O. Hutchinson, Aeschylos: Septem Contra Thebas (Oxford 1985), 67. (188) Symeonoglou, Thebes, 32–8. Page 38 of 42

City Walls in the Written Record and the Visual Arts (189) Symeonoglou states that the walls of the Kadmeia must have been rebuilt many times from the late Bronze Age and on, and refers to polygonal and isodomic parts seen by Leake, ibid. 118 with ref. See also below, p. 104 n. 21 where circumstantial evidence for a C8 fortification wall of the Kadmeia suggested by Symeonoglou is discussed. (190) ‘At other times again he either destroys those men’s broad army or city wall, or punishes their ships at sea’ (tr. West, Theogony). (191) R. Merkelbach and M. L. West, Fragmenta Hesiodea (Oxford 1967), fr. 33a. 19–21, ‘Nestor killed many men fighting over the τεῖχος of his father, the famous Neleus (tr. Mogens H. Hansen). (192) Berol. 11675 fr. C col. ii = M. L. West, Iambi et Elegi Graeci: Ante Alexandrum Cantati, vol. ii (Oxford 1972), no. 23.5–7, 12/C; Prato, Tyrtaeus (Rome 1968), no. 10.38–42. (193) Alk. fr. 130.15. (194) Alk. fr. 426. (E. Lobel and D. Page, Poetarum Lesbiorum Fragmenta (Oxford 1955), 285), ‘the opinion once stated by Alkaios, the poet, that cities are not stone or timber or the work of carpenters, but both walls and cities are to be found wherever there are men who know how to defend themselves’ (M. H. Hansen). Hansen, ‘Urban Centre’, 52; Camp, Walls, 48. (195) Hansen, ‘Lex Hafniensis’, 22; Camp, ‘Walls’, 48. (196) S137.6–7.] ώσας πόλιν [///]ε δὲ τείχεος[‘having destroyed?) the city … and (…) the wall …’ (tr. Campbell, Loeb). The preservation of the text hardly allows conclusions beyond the observation that the two terms are juxtaposed. (197) Fr. 391 = Schol. Pind. Ol. 8 42. ‘About building a crown. Metaphorical for wall. For the walls of cities are just like a crown. Anacreon also (says) so: “but now the crown of the city is destroyed”’ (tr. R. Frederiksen). (198) See e.g. Cobet, ‘Mauern’, 252 n. 30. (199) Eleg. 949–51, ‘Like a lion sure of its strength, I have drunk not the blood of the fawn my claws seized away from his dam; I have climbed the high walls and yet not sacked the city; …’ (tr. Edmonds, Loeb). (200) See above, p. n. 34. (201) Asp. 237–48: οἳ δ’ ὑπὲρ αὐτέων ἄνδρες ἐμαρνάσθην πολεμήια τεύχε’ ἔχοντες, τοὶ μὲν ὑπὲρ σφετέρης πόλιος σφετέρων τε τοκήων λοιγὸν ἀμύνοντες, τοὶ δὲ πραθέειν μεμαῶτες. πολλοί μὲν κέατο, πλέονες δ’ ἔτι δῆριν ἔχοντες μάρνανθ’• αἱ δέ γυναῖκες ἐνδμήτων επὶ πύργων χαλκέων ἀξὺ βόων, κατὰ δ’ Page 39 of 42

City Walls in the Written Record and the Visual Arts ἐδρύπτοντο παρειάς, ζωῇσιν ἲ κελαι, ἔργα κλντοῦ Ἠφαίστοιο. ἄνδρες δ’, οἳ πρεσβῆες ἔσαν γῆράς τε μέμαρπεν, ἀθρόοι ἔκτοσθεν πνλέων ἔσαν, ἄν δὲ θεοῖσι χεῖρας ἔχον μακάρεσσι, περὶ σρετέροισι τέκεσσι δειδιότες. ‘And beyond these there were men fighting in warlike harness, some defending their own town and parents from destruction, and others eager to sack it; many lay dead, but the greater number still strove and fought. The women of the well-built towers of bronze were crying shrilly and tearing their cheeks like living beings—the work of the famous Hephaistos. And the men who were elders and on whom age had laid hold were all together outside the gates, and were holding up their hands to the blessed gods, fearing for their own sons’ (tr. Evelyn-White, Loeb). (202) These physical characteristics of ‘a town’ are repeated, though without explicit mention of the τεῖχος, in the description of the other town on the shield (270–313). (203) Fr. 103, M. Marcovich, Heraclitus: Greek Text with a Short Commentary (Merida 1967), ‘The people must fight for their city law as though for their city wall’ (Marcovich, ibid.). (204) Cf. the translation by Marcovich in n. 203, above. (205) Drerup is of the opinion that the world Homer describes on the general level is not one of fairyland (‘märchenhaftes Motiv’), Baukunst, 101. R. Osborne, Greece in the Making: 1200–479 BC (London 1996), 158 for a sceptical view about what information the Homeric poems actually contain about the world contemporary with the poem and his early audience. See also above, p. 28. (206) Homer: Smyrna or another Ionian polis, Hesiod: Kyme in Aeolis, Archilochos: Paros, Alkaios: Mytilene. See entries in Catalogue for walls. (207) Stesichoros of Himera and Theognis of Megara came from regions (Sicily and from around the Isthmos) where contemporary fortifications existed, see Catalogue for Corinth and Himera. Tyrtaeus, from Lakedaimon, does not fit in this pattern, see above, p. 25–6 on Sparta. (208) Hansen, ‘Urban Centre, 52. (209) See the discussion above, pp. 28. (210) The few depictions from late Middle Bronze Age Greece and the Aegean represent either contemporary Minoan and Mycenean practices, or adoption of contemporary epic or iconography. The wall on the north frieze of Room 5 of the West House at Thera (S. Marinatos, Excavations at Thera, vol. vi (Athens 1974), 45, pl. 7) is probably an example of the latter situation, while the Siege Rhyton from shaft grave IV of Grave-circle A at Mycenae (R. Hampe and E. Simon, The Birth of Greek Art: From the Mycenaean to the Archaic Period (London 1981), 87, figs. 130–1) is likely to be an example of the former. An informative example Page 40 of 42

City Walls in the Written Record and the Visual Arts from the Hellenistic period is the Megarian relief bowl from Tanagra, dating to C3 or C2f, with the cities of Corinth and Athens depicted as the background for the rape of Helen by Theseus and Peirithoos (Athens, NM 2104, see LIMC IV.1 509 no. 37). In the Hellenistic period walls are more commonly depicted, especially as mural coronations on city deities depicted in various media, see e.g. Cobet, ‘Mauern, 252 n. 30. (211) The Phoenician silver bowls with siege scenes found in Greek contexts of the EIA and the Archaic period, e.g. in Delphi and Amathous, are important because they attest to the distribution of images of walls from neighbouring cultures: G. Markoe, Phoenician Bronze and Silver Bowls from Cyprus and the Mediterranean (Berkeley 1985). See the bowl in Delphi Museum inv. 4463 = G4 (Markoe, 205–6, ill. at 320–1), and the bowl from Amathous in the British Museum, inv. B.M. 123053 = Cy4 (Markoe, 172–4, ill. at 248–9). Since these clearly depict towns from Assyria they are of no value for the present discussion. The same is true of the many representations in the reliefs from Lycia (Childs, City-Reliefs). The rounded merlons of the crenellations of these walls are clearly of eastern type as well, and do not depict Greek cities, see Winter, 127 with n. 9. On the Phoenician bowls, see Nicholls, ‘Old Smyrna, 110. (212) W. A. P. Childs has treated this evidence, most recently in 1991: ‘A New Representation of a City on an Attic Red-Figured Kylix’, in Greek Vases in the J. Paul Getty Museum, vol. 5, 27–40 no. 84. AE.38 (with further references). Nine depictions are listed, in addition to the published kylix. See also Lawrence, Aims, 36 with nn. 58–9. (213) Florence, the Archaeological Museum, inv. 4209. J. D. Beazley, Attic BlackFigure Vase Painters (Oxford 1956), 76; Simon, Vasen, pl. 57; A. Minto, Il vaso Francois (Florence 1960). (214) Simon, Vasen, 75; J. Boardman, Athenian Black Figure Vases (London 1974), 34. (215) Childs, City-Reliefs. (216) Simon, Vasen, 75. (217) This is the most straightforward interpretation of the incised pattern of squares. Squares have also, however, been interpreted as mudbrick, e.g. in the Korkyra Pediment. (218) To reproduce architecture in this way, highly out of scale, is common in ancient art. Human figures normally form the central motives, while buildings provide a secondary meaning for example the indication of a particular location. See also Nicholls, ‘Old Smyrna, 108.

Page 41 of 42

City Walls in the Written Record and the Visual Arts (219) Florence, the Archaeological Museum, inv. 3773. J. D. Beazley, Attic BlackFigure Vase Painters (Oxford 1956), 95–6 no. 8. (220) e.g. A. Stewart, Greek Sculpture: An Exploration (New Haven and London 1990), pl. 64. (221) For the question of proportions between figure and wall see n. 218. As was the case with the panels on vases, the medium, in this case a pediment, determined the space available for the depiction. (222) A. Stewart, ‘Stesichoros and the François Vase’, in W. G. Moon (ed.), Ancient Greek Art and Iconography (Madison 1983), 53–74. (223) Cf. above, p. 34–5. (224) Kleitias decorated the vase in Athens for export to the Etruscan market, two generations before the Iliad was canonized in writing (on Homer see above, p. 27–8). However, considering the many parallels between the scenes depicted on the Crater and the later written version of the Iliad, it seems likely that the version Kleitias knew, written or orally transmitted, contained the descriptions of the walls of Troy as we know them from our version today. (225) The possibility that the scenes all depict one specific wall, i.e. the wall of Troy, must be excluded. (226) See above, p. 22. (227) It is of course impossible to reach a final answer as to how much of the real world we may read in the Archaic wall scenes in painted pottery. Only one scene, a tondo decoration of the Kylix in the Getty Museum mentioned above, n. 211, might be a depiction of real life rather than of mythology. The picure contains no attributes or inscriptions to guide the viewer in the direction of what the scene of the action in the picture actually is. I choose to follow Childs, however, who believes that this scene also is mythological. It is perfectly normal that mythological scenes of the Apollodoros Group—to which this Kylix belongs—are not overloaded with attributes that may help in identifying the scenes, see Childs, City-Reliefs. (228) Winter, 138. (229) See Chap. 4, below for discussion of the preservation of Archaic walls.

Page 42 of 42

Preservation of City Walls

Greek City Walls of the Archaic Period, 900–480 BC Rune Frederiksen

Print publication date: 2011 Print ISBN-13: 9780199578122 Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: April 2015 DOI: 10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199578122.001.0001

Preservation of City Walls Rune Frederiksen

DOI:10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199578122.003.0004

Abstract and Keywords This chapter investigates the evidence of destruction of various walls throughout history in an attempt to look at this study of pre-Classical walls through the right perspective. It covers research about the destruction of walls in modern times caused by new constructions and modern farming activities; destruction in antiquity and Middle Ages by wars and city renovations; destruction prompted by disrepair; and destruction triggered by natural causes. It is important to identify the degree of destruction in order to fully recognize its impact on the remaining city walls. Keywords:   city walls, destruction, Archaic period, pre-Classical walls, Classical Greece, Medieval Greece

As a consequence of the high frequency and monumental nature of city walls in the ancient Greek world, their remains are often the only ruins still visible of many ancient Greek cities.1 Only rarely is a city wall completely invisible on the surface,2 even in areas where heavy silting has taken place. Before excavation was initiated on a broad scale around the Mediterranean, the Greek walls accessible for study were almost exclusively of Classical or later periods, resulting in a distorted impression of the prevalence of later walls in comparison to earlier ones. In many cities large-scale building activities took place continuously from Archaic times and throughout the following centuries; they came to a halt only in the course of the Hellenistic period, and much later in some regions and cities.3 Since an inevitable consequence of urban building activity is the destruction of Page 1 of 18

Preservation of City Walls older buildings, many early monuments must have disappeared completely,4 or have been reduced to so few remains that traces are found only after intensive investigation. It is a fact of archaeology that at any given site most remains will derive from its last major period of activity.5 This circumstance of preservation applies to investigated as well as uninvestigated sites,6 and has greatly biased our knowledge of the early ancient Greek world. A factor adding to this bias is that fitted stone blocks became a widely used building material from the later Classical period only, whereas the preferred materials in the Early Iron Age and the Archaic period were mudbrick, wood, and rubble, materials which either disappear easily or, if preserved, survive only in a very fragmentary state.7 Some types of fortification architecture, such as wooden palisades,8 seem not to have survived at all from the ancient Greek world.9 Remains of wooden stakes from palisades are known from Etruria,10 and either this type of fortification was more popular among the Etruscans or their preservation there as opposed to among the Greeks, is due to coincidence. It is impossible to know precisely the reductive impact of the above-mentioned factors on the numbers of walls (p.42) originally built, but I believe that the numerical difference between the identified and the unidentified ones is enormous. It is unlikely that fortification walls, being by their very nature substantial, should have disappeared completely, and remains of many walls are clearly still undiscovered. At numerous unexcavated cities, ruins of city walls can be seen in the landscape because they form a low serpentine elevation.11 Walls hidden in this way are sometimes spotted more easily from the air,12 and the changing colours of the vegetation sometimes support observations made in this way. This approach may enable us to identify a fortification wall, and its placement in a local landscape, where no excavation has taken place,13 and within the last decades scientific methods have been adopted on a growing scale in topographical research.14 Proton magnetometry is useful for tracing lines of buried walls, if local geological conditions allow it. Positive results from such investigations need to be checked by excavation, as has been done in numerous places, such as Herakleia in southern Italy, Kalydon,15 and Stymphalos.16 At Asea,17 Tegea,18 and Miletos19 the promising results still await confirmation through excavation. In practice different methods often interact:20 the identification of a wall going from the west side of the fortification circuit down towards the sea of Oikonomos at Paros has been confirmed by aerial photography and survey.21 In Stymphalos aerial photography was combined with geophysical soundings and regular survey;22 in Metapontion a combination of magnetometry and aerial photography was used;23 at Itanos in Crete the invesigation combined aerial photography with electromagnetic survey.24 At Black Sea Istros geomorphological soundings were supported by aerial photogrammetry.25

Page 2 of 18

Preservation of City Walls Walls identified by any of the above methods are most likely to be Classical or later, because these methods detect only the uppermost phase of walls. These walls may, however, have older phases below, and excavation remains, accordingly, the only way to retrieve information about construction and chronology.26 Later walls are primarily of interest for the present study, because they open up the possibility of the remains of earlier walls existing underneath them. On the whole it is true to say that it is rare for walls that once existed not to survive,27 but our information (p.43) about ancient monuments depends on a combination of preservation and identification. Some ancient cities and their walls are unattested, because they are completely covered by later constructions.28 In such cases, the walls may or may not be there. Sometimes intensive research, and a general awareness of destruction of various kinds, has led to the conclusion that entire cities and their walls have completely disappeared, without leaving any trace behind, as for example Archaic Ephesos.29 Vanished walls represent what the Germans call a Dunkelziffer, meaning the numerical difference between the number of walls actually attested and the estimated number of walls that once existed. In order to understand the significance of this Dunkelziffer, the entire history of the monuments, from the time of their construction to the present day, has to be taken into account. There are many reasons for walls not to have survived until our time, and the first major distinction to make is that between walls that have survived until recently and walls that disappeared already in antiquity. In this chapter it will be argued that even though huge monuments like city walls are indeed likely to have left traces behind — much more often than other types of monumental architecture — the evidence for their destruction throughout antiquity is so compelling that it must be taken into account, in order to put the corpus of known pre-Classical walls into the right perspective.

Destruction in Modern Times Like other ancient monuments, city walls have obviously suffered from quarrying. This also applies to cities and settlements deserted since antiquity. The ruins of Thronion in East Lokris are reported to have been used for a factory in 1840,30 and the still impressive Classical walls of Amphipolis were used in 1922 for the construction of the nearby village.31 Also in the twentieth century city wall material was reused for huts at Antissa on Lesbos.32 The western part of Wall AA in Miletos was excavated, measured, and published by A. von Gerkan in 1925,33 but had disappeared when research on the Kalabaktepe was resumed later in the twentieth century.34 A similar situation is found at Kyme in Aeolis. Here a stretch of a polygonal wall was identified on the south-east side of the acropolis by E. Akurgal and J. Schäfer in the 1950s, but it had disappeared when investigations were resumed by the Czech expedition in the 1970s.35 The archaeological literature of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries is full of Page 3 of 18

Preservation of City Walls descriptions of monuments that can no longer be observed, because they have been either reused as building material, or covered by other buildings or constructions.36 Walls were clearly used more intensively for quarrying at sites which have remained inhabited from the Archaic and Classical periods through to the present day.37 The (p.44) Archaic city walls of Massalia were heavily decimated both in medieval and modern times,38 the Classical walls of Rhodes were used as a quarry in the Byzantine period,39 and the Classical walls of Mesambria in the Pontic region were destroyed in connection with the construction of a late Roman and Byzantine citadel.40 Sites remotely located since antiquity may have escaped quarrying, but not necessarily demolition: farming has resulted in the destruction of many archaeological sites,41 especially in modern times when deep ploughing has become more and more common.42 The scale of all three kinds of destruction (recycling of building material, new constructions covering old walls, and modern farming activities) becomes apparent when one compares the nineteenth-century accounts of the philhellenes with observations from the twentieth century. The information given by early travellers on walls now gone provides an important addendum to the remains still visible, but the information is mostly relevant for the Classical and later walls since these — just as they are today — were the ones accessible for the early travellers.

Destruction in Antiquity and the Middle Ages Many city walls disappeared in antiquity, either as a result of deliberate destruction, in consequence of war,43 or following regular expansion or remodelling of a city’s layout at some later date.44 Destruction also happened due to neglect or abandonment, often hastened by earthquakes. Many cities suffered destruction several times in antiquity, as well as later in the Byzantine and early modern periods (see below). The way in which a wall is constructed is of major importance for its possible preservation. A stone wall is unlikely to disappear just because of weathering,45 and stone walls that have withstood earthquakes and have not been used for quarrying can stand for thousands of years.46 Mycenaean citadel walls are good examples of this. Conversely a mudbrick wall of the Classical type with a tile roof and plastered surface would always, if not properly maintained, disappear right down to its stone socle, quite soon after it was put up.47 Very few examples of this type of city wall, of which thousands must have been built, have been preserved to this day, and those only in very fragmented state.48

Page 4 of 18

Preservation of City Walls (p.45) War-Related Destruction Destructions of cities and/or their walls are well attested in our sources for the Classical period. There are a few records of destructions in Archaic times, as well as a few examples of aggressors having ordered poleis to demolish their walls, or part of them.49 One example, where the order of destruction was obeyed, is Thasos in the year 491 BC. Dareios ordered the Thasians to tear down their walls and relocate their navy to the harbour of Abdera,50 and so they did: οἱ δὲ Θάσιοι τῷ βασιλέι κελεύσαντι καί τὸ τεῖχος τὸ σφέτερον κατεῖλον καί τὰς νέας τὰς πάσας ἐκόμισαν ἐς Ἄβδηρα.51 A destruction of the city wall of Eretria seems to be implied by Strabo in his account of the victorious Persian siege of the city in 490 BC:52 τὴν μὲν οὖν ἀρχαίαν πόλιν κατέσκαψαν Πέρσαι, σαγηνεύσαντες, ὥς φησιν Ἡρόδοτος, τοὺς ἀνθρώποις τῷ πλήθει, περιχυθέντων τῶν βαρβάρων τῷ τείχει (καί δεικνύουσιν ἔτι τοὺς θεμελίους, …).53 It is not explicitly stated that the Persians destroyed the walls, but this was clearly what happened. Strabo describes how the Persian soldiers were spread along the walls, and mentions the foundations of the old teichos, still visible in his day (… καὶ δεικνύουσιν ἔτι τοὺς θεμελίους …)in the same paragraph in which he describes the destruction. We may assume that not much, apart from the stone foundation, was left after the Persians had finished. New walls were probably constructed soon afterwards, although walls are not documented before 341/0 BC,54 and the material from the old wall is likely to have been reused.55 There are many references in Greek history to the destruction of entire cities, possibly including their city walls, but sometimes the defence circuits only.56 In the latter case the purpose was to make the walls unfit for use57 and to deprive the city of its ability to protect itself, which could often be achieved by tearing down only a part of the wall, a much simpler task than demolishing the entire circuit.58 On the other hand, partial demolition made it easier for the city to reconstruct its wall and re-establish the defence. Despite this, it seems that partial (p.46) destruction was what happened in most cases.59 Even the reputedly total destruction of Corinth in 146 BC was in fact not complete, since sections of the city walls were still standing 100 years later when the city was refounded.60 It is of high importance for the present study that the deliberate destruction of city walls is documented by a superabundance of sources. Many of these events, however, date so far from Archaic times that it cannot automatically be concluded that they were responsible for the destruction of Archaic walls, but it is likely that a number of Archaic walls were lost in the course of such events. Evidence of deliberate destruction as the result of hostile events is not easy to ascertain from archaeological sources alone. The example of Eretria is supported by historical evidence. Numerous destructions are recorded in archaeology, but only rarely can they be tied with certainty to particular events attested in historical sources.61 It must be taken into account that accidents Page 5 of 18

Preservation of City Walls such as large-scale fires must have been relatively common, and responsible for some of the destruction and subsequent reconstruction.

Destruction Due to Expansion or Reconstruction Archaeological and topographical studies provide numerous examples of destruction, or partial destruction, due to urban expansion or reorganization of public space, renovation or the replacement of an old wall with an up-to-date circuit.62 An inscription from Erythrai in Ionia explains how the old acropolis was deliberately demolished in the late 330s BC.63 It is not clear what acropolis means in this context, but a good guess is that it refers to fortification walls on the acropolis. These may have been Archaic, but may just as well have dated from Classical times. Stratigraphic observations made at the excavation of Myrmekeion at the Kimmerian Bosporos have shown how the walls of the sixth-century acropolis, originally a refuge covering 320 square metres, no longer served their original purpose by the middle of the fifth century BC. This was evident because other buildings were constructed directly up against parts of the wall. Studies of material from the trenches placed around the edge of the hill suggest that towards the late fifth century BC this wall had fallen completely out of use: late fifth-century buildings were located on top of the ruined sixth-century wall. Clearly a new circuit was built further down at some time in the fifth century, making the old sixth-century one redundant.64 Similar observations were made on the acropolis walls at Minoa in Amorgos, the destruction of which was due to settlement expansion.65 At Massalia too, archaeological excavation revealed that a fortification wall had been destroyed because of expansion or rebuilding in antiquity.66 At Pergamon both the eastern and western continuation of Mauer 1 have vanished because all the soil and parts of the bedrock were removed, with the result that both the wall and the material in which it was embedded have disappeared entirely.67 From observations during excavation on the western acropolis of Idalion it seems clear that the builders of the second Archaic acropolis wall removed older constructions down to the bedrock, presumably including most of the earlier acropolis wall.68 Athens is often cited as an example of a city in which later activities are responsible for the disappearance of old structures.69 It is obvious that wherever a wall is (p.47) rebuilt, either on a different line or on the same line as the old wall, material from the old wall would have been reused, and this would probably have disappeared entirely in situations where there was a shortage of building material and pressure on public space. The removal of the whole of the wall, even of the socle and/or the foundations, has happened an unknown

Page 6 of 18

Preservation of City Walls number of times, as seems to have been the case with the Archaic wall of Athens.

Disrepair During the excavations of Old Paphos, it was observed that the eighth-century wall (phase 1) must have been in a partly ruinous state in the sixth century,70 when it was reconstructed (phase 2). The poor condition of the walls is given by Diodoros as the reason why the Carthaginians were able to break through the walls of Selinous in 409 BC,71 and disrepair was again probably the reason why a section of the wall of Messana collapsed in the year 315 BC. The source is again Diodoros,72 who tells us that because of the neglect of the Messanaians, Agathokles of Syracuse seized the opportunity to attack the city while it was in a vulnerable position — without success, however. In 396 BC Messana had been completely destroyed by the Car-thaginians,73 who succeeded in an assault on the walls, again because of their state of disrepair.74 But the walls of Messana were re-erected shortly afterwards, or so it may be assumed, since its inhabitants were able to withstand a siege in 394 BC.75 These walls are probably, but not certainly, the ones that were in a ruinous state some eighty years later. Metapontion was apparently a shadow of its late Archaic and Classical glory already in the third and second centuries, and the once great city was a veritable ruin when Pausanias saw it about 400 years later. Apparently only the city walls (or the remains of them, it is not clear what Pausanias means) and the theatre were recognizable (6.19.11): ἐπ’ ἐμοῦ δὲ ὅτι μὴ θέατρον καί περίβολοι τείχους ἄλλο ἐλείπετο οὐδὲν Μεταποντίου.76 It is not possible to know more precisely what the walls were that Strabo saw in a ruined state on his way up to the acropolis of Corinth (late first century BC — early first century AD): … καί ἡμῖν ἀναβαίνουσιν ἦν δῆλα τὰ ἐρείπια τῆς σχοινίας.77 Schoinia is a synonym for teichos,78 and the wall may have been the one connecting the fortification of Akrocorinth with the circuit of the lower town.79 According to some sources Corinth was completely destroyed by Mummius in 146 BC80 and the city was rebuilt and repopulated after its refoundation by Caesar in 46 BC.81 Strabo probably saw the pre-146 BC walls, but how old they were, is impossible to determine with any certainty. Pausanias is the best single source for the state of monuments in antiquity. The information he provides is largely limited to the regions he visited, but it is reasonable to assume that the general situation described applies to the ancient Greek world as such, bearing in mind that, in Pausanias’ age, some parts of the Greek homeland experienced an economic recession, making it likely that more cities in the homeland were in a ruinous state than in, for example, Italy. Pausanias’82 and Strabo’s descriptions of ruined poleis and other sites attest to the fact that a number of Greek cities had in fact disappeared completely by Roman times.83

Page 7 of 18

Preservation of City Walls (p.48) Natural Destruction Erosion on sloping hillsides is sometimes responsible for the disappearance of walls or sections of walls.84 If the subterranean structures have disappeared as well, there is little chance of verifying the existence of such walls, unless stone blocks of a size and quality typical of city wall architecture, are found in the debris on the hillside85 or below.86 Numerous minor and several major earthquakes occurred in and after antiquity, and caused the destruction of many architectural monuments.87 Because the European and African earth-plates are moving against each other, the Mediterranean has been a seismic active zone for some 25 million years.88 It is difficult to describe precisely what destructive effect these catastrophes have had on our monuments. Earthquakes rarely remove the traces of settlements and their fortifications. If a wall built entirely in stone is subjected to an earthquake, it would only be knocked over, and unless the stones were later removed to be reused for construction elsewhere, they would remain along the site of the collapsed wall. Details and dimension of such walls can be difficult to retrieve, but it would still be possible to say that there was a wall, and possible to reconstruct its course.89 If a wall was constructed of mudbrick, however, its destruction by an earthquake would start a process of rapid decay, leading to complete disappearance except for the stone socle.90 Depending on local conditions an elevation of dissolved mudbrick would remain, and if careful excavation of such an elevation is undertaken, it may be possible to find traces of mudbrick, as has happened in a number of cases.91 Very often, however, mudbrick walls have disappeared entirely without leaving any trace on the surface.92 A number of earthquakes are known from written sources to have damaged or destroyed several Greek cities.93 The earthquake of 426 BC, dated retrospectively by Strabo,94 was reported to have had an enormous impact, damaging many cities around the north gulf of Euboia, in Lokris and Phokis. The castle above Oreos was reduced to ruins and the wall nearest the sea collapsed. Part of the wall of Elateia, as well as one of the towers at Alponos, also collapsed. Thucydides apparently believed that an earthquake was responsible for the destruction of the walls of Kos Meropis in 412 BC (8.41.2),95 but the sequence of events is not absolutely clear.96 The tsunami following in the wake of the earthquake of 373 BC, which had its epicentre in the Corinthan Gulf (Diod. 15.48.3–4),97 destroyed and covered with mud the cities of Boura and Helike on the coast of Achaia. Recent investigations seem to have succeeded in locating Helike, but more research has to be done to clarify the extent of the destruction of the town.98 Most of the walls of the city of Rhodes collapsed during the 224 BC earthquake reported by Polybios (5.88.1). Therma in the Aegean was Page 8 of 18

Preservation of City Walls destroyed in an AD 198 earthquake,99 the Archaic walls of Aigai in Aeolis (p.49) were demolished when a new circuit was constructed in the Hellenistic period, and following an earthquake in AD 17 the city was completely rebuilt.100 If any early structures survived the Hellenistic rebuilding programme, they perhaps did not survive the Roman. Earthquakes have sometimes been given as the reason for destruction observed during excavations of cities, for example the destruction of phase 2 of Smyrna around 700 BC.101 The element of destruction needs to be emphasized, because of its great impact on the number of surviving city walls. This applies to the early periods in particular, since they would have been followed by centuries of building activity, and continuous activity both destroys and conceals (i.e. preserves) architectural remains of earlier periods. Generally speaking, the visible remains are typically to be dated to one of three epochs: (a) the latest major epoch of the polis in question, often contemporary with the last major construction phase of fortification, (b) the epoch (often the same) when it had its largest urban centre, and (c) the epoch when the most durable building materials were used for the walls. The issues of destruction and preservation are extremely important, and their combined effect leaves behind a much higher number of Classical and Hellenistic remains in comparison to those of the pre-Classical period.102 The ‘lost walls’ can to some extent be retrieved by the use of other sources (Chap. 3), as will be discussed in Chapter 8. The archaeological record consists of (1) monuments which without further analysis can be securely identified as city walls, (2) scattered remains of monuments which demand a closer look before they can be identified as remnants of city walls, (3) monuments no longer visible, but seen by early travellers and identified as walls, (4) monuments totally invisible but perhaps identifiable as city walls by future research. The many recently identified walls from the Archaic period, often found under later walls visible on the surface, open up the possibility that many more Archaic walls will be found in the future, at many sites which have not yet been properly investigated.103 P. Leriche was certainly right when he observed that an understanding of the major phases in the development of a locality over time is intimately linked to the knowledge of the sequence of its fortifications.104 Since we apparently are unaware of many early walls, we are forced to elaborate on this view in order to provide a fair picture of the early period. It remains clear that the element of destruction is to some degree responsible for the traditional view that city walls were not a common feature of the Greek poleis before Classical and Hellenistic times. To what extent walls existed, and in what number, are for the coming chapters to clarify.

Page 9 of 18

Preservation of City Walls Notes:

(1) Winter, xi. According to Lawrence Aims, v, the only sign of ancient occupation at many unexcavated sites is a (city) wall. See also Morgan and Coulton, ‘Physical Polis’, 105. (2) Miller, Befestigungsanlagen, 1. (3) Coldstream, Geometric Greece, 303. (4) At Myous in Ionia the walls are completely gone (see below, p. 116). Crete offers many examples of similar character, as does the Dark Age settlement of Vryses (Profitis Elias), Nowicki, Defensible Sites, 113–14. (5) G. Säflund, ‘The Dating of Ancient Fortifications in Southern Italy and Greece’, OpArch 1.1 (1934), 87–119, at 92; Boardman, ‘Material Culture’, 442; Leriche, ‘L’Étude archéologique’, 16, 20. (6) Cf. below, Chap. 5. (7) Coldstream, Geometric Greece, 303. Cf. below, Chap. 8, passim. (8) Known in the literary sources as τὸ χαράκωμά/χάραξ, e.g. Ar. Ach. 1178 (stake in ditch) and SIG3 363.1 (Ephesos, C3). (9) Winter, 269; Miller, Befestigungsanlagen, 57, 59. (10) e.g. at San Giovenale, see L. Karlsson, ‘Excavations at San Giovenale in 1999: Fortifications on the Borgo’, OpRom 24 (1999), 99–116. (11) Miller, Befestigungsanlagen, 1; McAllister, Halieis, 75. (12) As was done in Selinous. A wall ‘was missing’ in Selinous when the topography was interpreted and compared with information from written sources. The wall was found when photos were taken from the air in 1971, see Lawrence, Aims, 133, and Mertens, Selinus, 65, fig. 55. Euesperides was found by aerial photography, and subsequently excavated, see F. Sear, ‘The Architecture of Sidi Khrebish (Berenice)’, in Descoeudres (ed.), Colonists, 385– 403, at 385. Traces of walls running under the surface of water can often be seen clearly from the air, as e.g. Halieis, McAllister, Halieis, 1, 3. (13) Leriche, ‘L’Étude archéologique’, 17. (14) Ibid. 20. (15) The circuit of the lower town has been known for many years, as well as the lower ring around the acropolis. Walls underneath the latest walls of the upper

Page 10 of 18

Preservation of City Walls ring (the citadel) were detected in 2001 and their identification confirmed by excavation in 2002, see Dietz and Stavropoulou-Gatsi (eds.), Kalydon I. (16) H. Williams, ‘Stymphalos: A Planned City of Ancient Arcadia’, EchCl 27 (1983), 194–204, at 202 with ref.; H. Williams, ‘Investigations at Mytilene and Stymphalos, 1983’ (with an appendix by T. Boyd), EchCl 28 (1984), 169–86, esp. figs. 2–3. (17) J. Forsén, B. Forsén, and L. Karlsson, ‘The Walls of Asea’, OpAth 27 (2002), 83–104, at 83; AR (2000–1), 31. (18) AR (2000–1), 32. Walls were identified in four places at Tegea in C19l AD. A recent Norwegian project has confirmed the trace of sections of the wall in different spots, see Nielsen, Arkadia, 593–4; J. Whitley et al., ‘Archaeology in Greece 2006–2007’, AR (2008), at 23–4 (K. 0degârd). (19) At Miletos Archaic walls have long since been identified, but geophysical soundings have played a role in the attempt at establishing the precise course of the portions of the wall no longer visible on the surface, see Miletos (Cat.). (20) Leriche, ‘L’Étude archéologique’, 20. (21) Schilardi, ‘Emergence Paros’, in Luce (ed.), Urbanisme, 229–49, at 233. (22) H. Williams, et al., ‘Excavations at Ancient Stymphalos, 1996’, EchCl 16 (1997), 23–73, at 57. (23) For aerial photography of Metapontion, see D. Adamesteanu, ‘Problemi topografici ed urbanistici metapontini’, AttiTaranto 13 (1973), 153–86, at 156; J. Pecirka, ‘Homestead Farms in Classical and Hellenistic Hellas’, in M. I. Finley (ed.), Problèmes de la terre en Grèce ancienne (Paris and The Hague 1973), 128. Kamarina, see P. Pelagatti, ‘Un decennio di ricerche archeologiche in provincia di Ragusa (1960–70)’, SicArch 3 fasc. 10 (1970), 5–16, at 8. (24) T. Kalpaxis et al., ‘Rapport sur les travaux menés en collaboration avec l’École francaise d’Athènes’, BCH 119 (1995), 713–90, at 731, with figs. 4–5. (25) M. Coja, ‘Les Fortifications grecques dans les colonies de la côte ouest du Pont Euxin’, in Leriche and Tréziny (eds.), Fortification, 95–103, at 97 with refs. (26) Istros is an example of excavation of a completely vanished wall, see P. Dupont et al., ‘Les Enceintes grecques d’Histria: vers une nouvelle approche’, in P. Lévêque and O. Lordkifanidzé (eds.), Religions du Pont-Euxin: Actes du VIIIe symposium de Vani 1997 (Paris 1999), 37–52, at 40–1. (27) Morgan and Coulton, ‘Physical Polis’, 105.

Page 11 of 18

Preservation of City Walls (28) Nafpaktos, Seriphos (Megalo Khorio), Katane (Catania), and Metauros (Petrarce) are just a few examples of poleis of whose remains we know nothing because they are covered by modern towns. (29) Ö. Özyǧit, ‘On the Dating of the City Walls of Ephesos’, in H. Malay (ed.), Erol Atalay Memorial (Izmir 1991), 137–44, at 139. On the Archaic city wall of Ephesos, which has survived in part, and sparse early settlement remains, see below, p. 114–17. (30) W. K. Pritchett, Studies in Ancient Greek Topography. Part IV. Passes (Berkeley 1982), 152–3. (31) K. Lazaridis, ‘Τα τειχή της Αμφίπολέως’, AAA 8.1 (1975), 56–76, at 68. (32) Lamb, ‘Antissa’, 172. (33) von Gerkan, Kalabaktepe. (34) V. von Graeve et al., ‘Grabungen auf dem Kalabaktepe’, IstMitt 37 (1987), 6– 33, at 7. (35) Fortunately another stretch of wall was preserved on the north slope of the acropolis, see J. Schäfer, ‘Zur Topographie von Kyme’, in J. Bouzek (ed.), Anatolian Collection of Charles University: Kyme I (Prague 1974), 201–13, at 208. (36) Further examples: Aigina, H. Walter, Ägina: Die archäologische Geschichte einer griechischen Insel (Munich 1993), 58. Assos, Schulz, Neandreia, 16. Dema Wall in Attica, Munn, Attica, 37. Emporio on Chios, Boardman, Emporio, 4. Hyria, Hysiai, Kopai, and Koroneia in Boiotia, Fossey, Boiotia, 75, 113, 278, 325–6. Athens, H. Lauter-Bufé and H. Lauter, ‘Die Vorthemistokleische Stadtmauer Athens nach Philologischen und Archäologischen Quellen’, AA (1975), 1–9, at 9 (theoretical comment). Boukation in Akarnania, Woodhouse, Aetolia, 192. Eretria, J. Picard, ‘VI: A Topographical Study of Eretria’, AJA 7.4 (1891), 371–89, at 373. Halieis, McAllister, Halieis, 14. Kyme in Magna Graecia, Miller, Befestigungsanlagen, 249. New Smyrna, Nicholls, Old Smyrna, 36. The early wall at Pergamon, W. Radt, ‘Die Archaische Befestigungsmauer von Pergamon und zugehörige Aspekte’, REA 96.1 (1994), 63–75, at 67. Walls of Idalion, Balandier, Fortifications, 238. At Skotoussa remains were seen by Leake in C19e AD at the E side of the acropolis, W. M. Leake, Travels in Northern Greece, vol. 4 (London 1835), 455. Remains have apparently disappeared in the meantime, although I observed some walling in May 1998. Stone was quarried from the walls of Torone to burn lime, and in C19 to construct roads, A. Cambitoglou, ‘Military, Domestic and Religious Architecture at Torone in Chalkidike’, in Stamatopoulou and Yeroulanou (eds.), Culture, 21–56, at 26. Walls were seen at

Page 12 of 18

Preservation of City Walls the Macedonian Herakleion in C19, see L. Heuzey, Le Mont Olympe et l’Acarnanie (Paris 1860), 92–3. (37) For this factor in general, see Lang, Siedlungen, 11–12. (38) H. Tréziny and P. Trousset, ‘Les Fortifications de Marseille grecque’, in M. Bats et al. (eds.), ‘Marseille grecque et la Gaule’, Études massaliètes 3 (1992), 89–107, at 96. (39) M. Filimonos, ‘Rhodos. D. Stadtmauern und Stadtentwicklung’, in Hoepfner and Schwandner (eds.), Haus und Stadt, 52–7, at 52. (40) V. Velkov (ed.), Nessèbre I (Sofia 1969), 31–7. (41) In the case of Koroneia, Fossey blames farming for having been the main reason for the destruction, Boiotia, 325. A comparison of Fossey, ibid., fig. 45, with Maier, Mauerbauinschriften 1, fig. at 129, shows that considerable parts, B and C, of the Koroneian wall disappeared around C20m AD during the time between the visits of Maier and Fossey respectively. (42) Attica is just one such example of the general devastating effect of deep ploughing on ancient sites, see H. Lauter, ‘Some Remarks on Fortified Settlements in the Attic Countryside’, in van de Maele and Fossey (eds.), Fortificationes Antiquae, 77–91, at 82. Corinth is another example, cf. Williams, ‘Urbanization Corinth’, 11. (43) Under some circumstances war has a preserving effect on walls. It is reported from the investigations at Old Paphos that the best preserved parts of the fortification system of Paphos were the ones found under the Persian siege mound, see Maier and Karageorghis, Paphos, 160. At Smyrna, Nicholls suggested, ‘Old Smyrna’, 107, that the only chance that superstructures of the C7 wall, phase 3, might be preserved would be under the Lydian siege mound of 688 BC. (44) Lawrence, Aims, 14, 145; H. Tréziny, ‘Greek Military Architecture in the West’, in G. P. Carratelli (ed.), The Western Greeks: Classical Civilization in the Western Mediterranean (London 1996), 347–52, at 347. During constructions of a new wall around Torone in 422 BC, Brasidas destroyed parts of the old wall and thus incorporated the proasteion (suburbs), which had apparently grown beyond the old wall, within the new fortified circuit, Thuc. 5.2.4. (45) This depends on the durability of the stone. Gypsum and other types of soft lime- and sand-stone are likely to crumble due to wind, sun, water, etc. Erosion can be observed on walls at numerous poleis. Often remains will be better preserved towards the north, because the south side is more exposed to the sun. The sections of wall close to the sea can likewise often be more damaged, because salt, which may react chemically with the stone and speed up erosion, is Page 13 of 18

Preservation of City Walls continually carried in with the wind from the sea. Kalydon can be adduced as an example of the latter situation, see Woodhouse, Aetolia, 100; Müller-Wiener, Bauwesen, 67. (46) Müller-Wiener, Bauwesen, 67. (47) Examples of walls in a ruined state already in antiquity: Corinth, Strabo 8.6.21, the passage discussed below, p. 47. For other observations of ruins in antiquity see below, p. 47. (48) See p. 134 n. 47. (49) For an early example of the latter see the proposal of Harpagos to the Phokaians, below, n. 57. (50) Hdt. 6.46–7. (51) Hdt. 6.47: ‘The Thasians at the king’s command destroyed their walls and brought all their ships to Abdera’ (tr. Godley, Loeb). (52) 10.1.10: ‘Now the old city was razed to the ground by the Persians … the barbarians being spread about the walls (the foundations are still to be seen) …’ (tr. Jones, Loeb). (53) Strabo quotes Herodotos, who does not, however, explicitly mention a destruction of the walls, Hdt. 6.101. Whatever the reason for the deviation we must accordingly treat these as two separate accounts. (54) Documented indirectly via a siege, Philoch. fr. 160. (55) Excavations at the Classical/Hellenistic perimeter south of the West Gate revealed polygonal stones spread about the existing socle. These could be remains of the wall torn down by the Persians. See comments at Eretria (Cat.). (56) Unspecified destructions of Greek cities: Mummius destroyed the walls of the cities that made war against Rome in 146 BC, e.g. Corinth, and the Romans destroyed a high number of other Greek city walls in the period immediately following their annexation of Greece, Paus. 7.16.9, cf. Camp, ‘Walls’, 51. Specific examples from Archaic and Classical times: Ionia (Miletos), Hdt. 6.46–7. The attack on Thasos 491 BC by Histiaios and the dictate by Dareios about dismantling the walls, and Thuc. 1.101.3 on the repeated dismantling in the 460s, this time provoked by the Athenians: Hdt. 6.28. The destructions of Athens 480 BC, Hdt. 9.13.10. Herodotos, 5.77.3, comments on the traces of fire on the walls of the Athenian acropolis stemming from the Persian destruction of Athens in 480 BC, which means that these particular walls were still standing around C5m. The long walls of Athens destroyed as a result of the peace after the Peloponnesian War of 404, Aeschin. 2.77, Lys. 13.8 and 14, Xen. Hell. 2.2.23. Page 14 of 18

Preservation of City Walls Mycenae was destroyed in 460 BC by the Argives, Diod. 11.65.3 and Paus. 7.25.5–6, and apparently so thoroughly that nothing was left of the city wall in Strabo’s time (8.6.10). See, however, C. A. Boethius, ‘Excavations at Mycenae: XI. Hellenistic Mycenae’, BSA 25 (1921–3), 408–28, at 415. Complete destruction of Plataia in 427 BC, Thuc. 3.68.3, rebuilt 387 and destroyed again in 373 BC by the Thebans, Isocr. 14.26. According to Strabo 13.1.38 the walls of Ilion disappeared completely because they were used for building material apparently already in C5 BC. Archaianax of Mytilene used stones from there to build Mytilene. The fortification walls of Kos Meropis were definitely used as building material for walls of the new polis of Kos founded c.366 BC, see C. Kantzia, ‘Recent Archaeological Finds from Kos: New Indications for the Site of KosMeropis’, in Dietz and Papachristodoulou (eds.), Dodecanese, 174–83, at 182. The complete destruction of Thebes is famous (save the Acropolis walls which were to be used by the Macedonian garrison), which carried out after the siege by Alexander the Great, Aeschin. 3.57. Paeonion in Akarnania was torn down completely by Philip V, in order to obtain building material for siege equipment for the attack on Oiniadai, Polyb. 4.65. The Greek walls of Byzantion were destroyed by Septimius Severus, Dio Cass. 75.14.45. See also Miller, Befestigungsanlagen, 35, on the high amount of destructions of poleis in the Greek West in Classical times. (57) Examples are the ‘peace offer’ by the Persian general Harpagos that the besieged Phokaians could consent to tearing down just a part of their wall (… εἰ βούλονται Φωκαιέες προμαχεῶνα ἕνα μοῦνον τοῦ τείχεος ἐρεῖψαι …, Hdt. 1.164), and the original Spartan peace offer after the battle of Aigospotamoi, not accepted by the Athenians, which included that 10 stades of each of the long walls from Athens to the Peiraieus should be torn down (Lys. 13.8). (58) Lawrence, Aims, 115. This may also explain why a place having a wall, but a wall unfit for use, could be classed as ateichistos. See, p. 25–6, above for further discussion of the notion ateichistos and its meaning. (59) Lawrence, Aims, 116. Discussion of the Athenian destruction of the walls of Mytilene in 427 BC in Mason, Lesbia Oikodomia, 47–50. (60) For the sources see below, p. 47 with notes; overestimation of the destruction of Corinth in the ancient sources, see Kolb, Stadt, 87. (61) The capture and destruction of Smyrna by Alyattes in C7l/C6e related by Herodotos (1.150.4) is probably identified in the remains of Smyrna, J. M. Cook, ‘Old Smyrna, 1948–1951’, BSA 53–4 (1958/9), 1–34, at 25–7. At Corinth the link between identified destroyed Hellenistic structures and the known destructive event lead by Mummius in 146 BC, seems quite reliable, C. K. Williams and P. Russel, ‘Corinth: Excavations of 1980’, Hesperia 50 (1981), 26–33, at 27–8. A doubtful example is the association of destroyed walls at Leontinoi with a Page 15 of 18

Preservation of City Walls destruction known from written sources referring to C5, G. Rizza, ‘Dionigi a Leontini’, in N. Bonacasa et al. (eds.), La Sicilia dei due Dionisî: Progetto Akragas, 2 (Rome 2002), 339–41, at 339. (62) Lawrence, Aims, 145; Lawrence, Architecture5, 176. (63) I.Erythrai 21.9–10:… καί τῆς ἀκροπόλεως τὴν κατα[σ]/[κα]φήν, … ‘… and the destruction of the acropolis, …’ (tr. R. Frederiksen). (64) Gorlov and Lopanov, ‘Ukreplenija Akropolja Mirmekija’, 33–6. (65) Marangou, Amorgos, 262–4. (66) H. Tréziny, ‘La Topographie de Marseille antique de sa fondation (600 av. J.C.) à l’époque romaine’, Méditerranée 3.4 (1995), 41–52, at 44. (67) Radt, ‘Frühesten Wehrmauern’, 165. (68) But also incorporated some of the old wall into the new, Stager and Walker (eds.), Idalion, 15. (69) Weir, ‘Wall’, 253–4, argues that it is highly probable that the construction of the early Classical wall was responsible for the destruction of the Archaic circuit. The early Classical wall was built in great haste, and it is clear that all available material was used. This we know from information both in written sources (Thuc. 1.90) and from observations of the wall itself, e.g. findings of grave stelai and other types of reused material. See e.g. Travlos, Athens, 158. (70) Maier and Karageorghis, Paphos, 161. (71) Diod. 13.55.5–8. (72) Diod. 19.65.2. (73) Diod. 14.58.3. Cf. notes below. (74) According to Diodoros the ruinous wall had sapped the courage of the Messanaians to withstand the attacking Carthaginians (14.56.4 and 57.3). (75) The Rhegians with Heloris were driven away by a force of Messanaians and Dionysian mercenaries who made a sortie, Diod. 14.87.1–2. (76) ‘… but to-day nothing is left of Metapontum but the theatre and the circuit of the walls’ (tr. Jones, Loeb). (77) Strabo. 8.6.21: ‘… and when I went up the mountain the ruins of the encircling wall were plainly visible’ (tr. Jones, Loeb). (78) LSJ s.v. σχοινιά II. For τεῖχος see Chap. 3, above. Page 16 of 18

Preservation of City Walls (79) See above, p. 52 n. 22 for the claim that such a wall must have existed. (80) Strabo 8.4.8, 8.6.23; Paus. 7.16.7. See, however, p. 46 n. 60, above. (81) C. K. Williams, ‘The Refounding of Corinth’, in S. Macready and F. H. Thompson (eds.), Roman Architecture in the Greek World (London 1987), 26–37 with refs. (82) Pritchett offers a most comprehensive and useful study of ruins mentioned in Pausanias and other ancient authors of the Roman period, W. K. Pritchett, Pausanias Periegetes, vol. ii (Amsterdam 1999), 195–222. See L. Rubinstein, ‘Pausanias as a Source for the Classical Greek Polis’, CPCPapers 2, 211–19, at 218–19, for an investigation restricted to a list of deserted poleis mentioned by Pausanias. (83) Seneca Epist. 91.10 on Achaia. Pritchett, Pausanius, 196; S. Alcock, Graecia Capta: The Landscape of Roman Greece (Cambridge 1993), 145–7. (84) e.g. the wall on the SW side of the Isthmus at Torone, A. Cambitoglou and J. K. Papadopoulos, in A. Cambitoglou et al. (eds.), Torone I: The Excavations of 1975, 1976 and 1978 (Athens 2001), 72. Walls at Melos, J. F. Cherry and B. A. Sparkes, ‘A Note on the Topography of the Ancient Settlement of Melos’, in Renfrew and Wagstaff (eds.), Island Polity, 53–7, at 53, 55. At Corinth the excavator of the Potters’ Quarter, A. N. Stillwell, observed how part of the west edge of the PQ plateau had collapsed into the ravine below as a result of the earthquake in 1928, taking part of the already excavated C7 fortification wall with it, Stillwell, Potters’ Quarter, 3. (85) As identified at e.g. Emporio, Boardman, Emporio, 4, and Agios Andreas, Televantou, ‘Ayios Andreas’, 195. (86) The converse observation, the lack of stones on the hillside below a wall, is of course used to argue for mudbrick superstructures, as e.g. at Phylla on Euboia, see J. J. Coulton, ‘The Buildings’, in Sakellaraki et al., Phylla, 25 and 28. (87) e.g. Autino, Terremoti; E. Guidoboni (ed.), I terremoti prima del Mille in Italia e nell’area mediterranea (Bologna 1989); E. Guidoboni and A. Comastri, Catalogue of Earthquakes and Tsunamis in the Mediterranean Area from the 11th to the 15th Century (Rome 2005). (88) e.g. D. J. Stanley and F.-C. Wezel (eds.), Geological Evolution of the Mediterranean Basin (New York 1985). (89) As has been done with some stretches of the wall at Phokaia, see Özyıǧıt, ‘Phokaia’, 81. (90) Lawrence, Aims, 116. Page 17 of 18

Preservation of City Walls (91) See below, Chap. 7. (92) Lawrence, Aims, 116–17. (93) For a list of earthquakes reported in ancient sources to have happened in the Greek world in C5 and C4 BC see Autino, Terremoti, 360–8. (94) Strabo 1.3.20, quoting Demetrios of Callatis of c.200 BC. (95) For the event and its historical implications for Kos Meropis, see Autino, Terremoti, 412–15. (96) But the destruction was severe, as emphasized by Thucydides. It is still possible that a wall never existed, however, and that the destruction described by Thucydides refers to the rest of the town only. See p. 26, above for a general treatment of the term ateichistos. (97) Autino, Terremoti, 419–28. (98) e.g. D. Katsonopoulou et al. (eds.), Helike III: Ancient Helike and Aigialeia. Archaeological Sites in Geologically Active Regions (Athens 2005); . (99) A. J. Papalas, Ancient Icaria (Wacounda, Ill. 1992), 122. (100) R. Bohn, and C. Schuchhardt, Altertümer von Aegae, JDI suppl. 2 (Berlin 1889), 59, cf. 15; Lawrence, Aims, 145–6. (101) Nicholls, ‘Old Smyrna’, 124; Cook and Nicholls, Temples, 53. (102) The belief that an actual increase in building activity is reflected in the increase of evidence for it in inscriptions may also have had an effect on the general opinion about the prevalence of city walls in the Classical and later periods as opposed to that of the Archaic, Maier, Mauerbauinschriften 2, 66 with n. 115. (103) Garlan, ‘Fortifications’, 255. As demonstrated above, e.g. pp. 32, 45–7, written sources sometimes help by providing information of a succession of phases of the walls of a city or the demolition of walls. (104) Leriche, ‘L’Étude archéologique’, 9, 13.

Page 18 of 18

The Archaeology of City Walls

Greek City Walls of the Archaic Period, 900–480 BC Rune Frederiksen

Print publication date: 2011 Print ISBN-13: 9780199578122 Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: April 2015 DOI: 10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199578122.001.0001

The Archaeology of City Walls Rune Frederiksen

DOI:10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199578122.003.0005

Abstract and Keywords This chapter deals with the issue of identifying the nature of city walls, particularly the difficulties in classifying those that are poorly preserved. Ancient Greek cities normally establish initial settlements on hilltops, and then move towards hillsides and plains below, forming larger settlements. This shows a chronological continuity within the components of the walls, as well as a significant contrast in their construction and location. The city wall and hilltop fortification wall comprise the two main types of urban fortification architecture. In addition, this chapter elaborates on the elements of the wall consisting of the gates, towers and bastions, along with evidence of additional installations. The existence of at least one of those elements is enough for a wall to be distinguished as a fortification wall. However, if the remains are indefinable then it is necessary to conduct a study of the wall itself, whether through the basis of construction, its topography, or its context. Keywords:   fortification architecture, Greek settlements, city walls, hilltop fortification wall, city gate, fortification tower, bastions

A number of walls are so poorly preserved that their identification is only possible from circumstantial evidence.1 Addressing the problems of identification forms part of a wider exercise of illuminating the topography and archaeological nature of city walls, which is the subject of the present chapter.

Types of Urban Fortification Ancient Greek towns and cities were often centred on a hill, accommodating sanctuaries and old habitation quarters, and encompassed by a hilltop Page 1 of 22

The Archaeology of City Walls fortification wall. Sometimes a city would also include a lower town with additional, or often the main, living quarters and more public institutions, surrounded by a city wall, all of a later date.2 The urban development in the Greek world during the Archaic and early Classical periods, as generally envisaged,3 progresses from hilltop settlements to larger settlements on hillsides and plains below.4 There is a predictable chronological sequence in the different elements of a city’s fortification; since the walls moved downhill to protect the new parts of the settlement, the hilltop fortification would normally be older than the lower and outer circuit. The city wall and hilltop fortification wall, sometimes called acropolis wall,5 cover the two basic types of urban fortification architecture,6 and are distinguished not only by the difference in location, but also by differences in construction.7 The city wall8 is often the outermost permanent architectural element in a fortification system of more than one line, but when a settlement is solely or mostly confined to a hilltop, its walls would run along the (p.51) edge, and the city wall is identical with a hilltop fortification wall (Akragas, Fig. 17). Normally, the city wall extends along the side of a hill and down into a plain as at Amathous, Asine, and Hyele (Figs. 19, 25, and 49); however, it may extend around a city not centred on a hill as at Halai, Megara Hyblaea, and Sicilian Naxos (Figs. 43, 67, and 81) but often there would be a hill, and this would be separately fortified as at

Fig. 3. Section of socle of double-faced or two-shelled wall.

Bouthroton, Eretria, and Halieis (Figs. 26, 33, and 44).9 The city wall is mostly a freestanding vertical structure with a front and a rear surface, constructed as two shells with a filling in the middle, in the literature commonly referred to as a ‘double-faced wall’ (Fig. 3; examples Figs. 12, 28–9, 41, 84, and 103).10

Hilltop fortification walls, which are nearly always located along the edge of hills or plateaus,11 may resemble city walls in construction, being often free-standing and double-faced. But often a hilltop fortification is technically a combination of terrace walls (Fig. 4)12 and double-faced walls in sequence, or double-faced walls built on top of terrace walls.13 A hilltop wall is broken up wherever it is not needed, at steep cliffs or natural projections of rock.14 A fully protected site could thus have a steep hillside on one side and a fortification wall on the other.15 The element of natural ‘defensibility’ is extremely important, determining the location of settlements and cities on hills in the first place.16

Page 2 of 22

The Archaeology of City Walls The wall on a hilltop would run at suitable points along the edge of the hill, enabling guards and defenders of the wall to have an overview of the settlement, and forcing attackers to make their assaults from the steep hillside. The fact that hilltop walls always run along the edge of the hilltop makes it easy to reconstruct the course of such a wall, even when most of it has disappeared as at Antissa (Fig. 21), Euesperides (Fig. 38), Iasos (Fig. 51), and Phaistos (Fig. 92). This fundamental circumstance of course also means that the entire hilltop area in such cases was incorporated in the fortified area. The intramural space was sometimes smaller and sometimes larger than what was needed for the actual settlement at (p.52) a given period in time.17 The general predictability of a wall trace on a hilltop allows one to calculate with a high degree of certainty the size of the intramural space, which may or may not have been entirely covered by public and domestic architectural structures.

A subcategory of hilltop fortification walls deserves a brief comment. This consists of a simple reinforcement of all the outer walls of the houses forming the outer perimeter of Fig. 4. Section of socle of terrace wall. the settlement combined with additional walls in the gaps between them. An obvious example is Lato on Crete, the early date of which is, however, not securely established.18 In Vroulia on Rhodes the houses are built up against the wall, and the roofs of the houses may have been used as extra space by the defenders, but unlike the circuit at Lato the wall was constructed as a single architectural unit. According to Plato, the ideal city was unfortified, but if cities wanted to fortify themselves, the way to do it, says Plato,19 was the one described above, although it seems to have been done only rarely. The traces of city walls running down a slope or in a plain are not as easily reconstructed as hilltop traces. However, when parts of a trace are missing, the local topography sometimes offers locations for the lost parts which are more likely than others. It is often the case, for example, that minor hills below a main hill, where the nucleus of the settlement was located, were included in the fortified area, even when such hills were not used for settlement. As a result the trace of such a wall is determined by the topography, and does not necessarily reflect an urban space which was either entirely built up or intended to become so. This type of layout, named by the Germans as Geländemauern,20 was chosen Page 3 of 22

The Archaeology of City Walls to prevent potential enemies from using surrounding hills as a location from which to stage a siege, and from where an easy shot into the settlement could be made, or from where the internal topography of the city and the potential strength of the defenders could be observed.21 It should always be assumed, therefore, that where traces of fortification have been found on or below the slope of a hill, the hilltop itself was incorporated in the fortification perimeter of the settlement. Whenever walls are found on slopes of a hill or in the plain below and not on the hilltop, the hilltop walls should be regarded as having disappeared. If such walls have been found, and assigned to a later date than the ones on the slope or in the plain below, they are likely to have had older unattested phases, and their dating should be re-examined.22 Whenever topography and strategy were not decisive factors in ancient planning, the trace of a city wall can be assumed to be the result of the need for space — or the expectation of such a need in the future. In short it is generally valid to consider every kind of wall circuit as a compromise between the topography and the need for (p.53) space.23 Developments over time can then be interpreted from changes in the traces of walls, which would reflect changes in planning policy. There are no examples of pre-Classical fortification walls constructed entirely on flat ground without some kind of involvement of a hill or at the very least a low plateau. The only portions of a wall the trace of which could be located more specifically according to the need for space, etc., were parts running from hilltops and hillsides into plains.24 Such walls, not located entirely according to any topographical prerequisites, would often run straight between two points, and accordingly form lower towns of rectangular shape. As a consequence of the limited finds of walls of any length, wall traces in plains will often have to be reconstructed on the basis of the assumption that they are laid out according to these trends, and such reconstructions, and needless to say calculations of intramural space based on them must be taken with a grain of salt. Evidence for wall placement determined by strategic concerns does exist before Classical times. A wall could be laid out in a zigzag plan, the so-called indented trace,25 providing the defenders with the ability to enfilade the enemy, just as they would be able to do with towers or bastions.26

The Wall and Its Elements Every urban fortification wall is composed of a few basic elements, all of which exist in a number of subtypes. Some clarification of the nature and terminology of these elements is required before we can turn to the analysis of the physical remains (Chapter 7).

Page 4 of 22

The Archaeology of City Walls The wall

Since the purpose of a fortification wall was to prevent enemies from entering the settlement,27 it would always form an unbroken and impassable line around the settlement.28 In addition to natural obstacles, as mentioned above, a trace of a wall could be broken up by water, a typical situation for settlements located on peninsulas. Here fortification was sometimes restricted to a wall across the neck of the peninsula, running from coast to coast, and the rest of the settlement was protected by the difficulty of access from the sea.29 Walls extending halfway around a settlement, with no additional obstacles preventing access to the exposed sides, have not to my knowledge been identified in any period of Greek history.30 However, in a discussion of the preserved stretches of wall around the lower town of Hyele in Magna Graecia, V. Gassner et al.31 discuss the possibility that the circuit there was open. Without precisely defining what he means by the term Abschnittsbefestigung M. Miller suggests that many of the western Greek colonies had walls of this partially encircling type in their earliest phases.32 That partial fortification was adopted in ancient Greece cannot be precluded entirely: sites like Agios Andreas, Iasos, and Miletos (Kalabaktepe) have been adduced as examples,33 but the remains at these sites can be interpreted differently. What seems to have happened is that the limited evidence at a number of sites and/or the incomplete excavation of them, have misled scholars into (p.54) taking a purist stand. In fact, not only is it possible to connect the sections of wall found at these sites, but it seems the obvious interpretation to make, rather than to assume that the remains reflect in toto what was originally built. Stretches of wall that cannot be traced all the way around their settlements must be deemed to have been part of a complete circuit, unless an end of a wall is actually found. Walls ending in a tower are known, but they are always found to be radiating from a circuit proper, which would form the necessary complete circuit. Examples are Aetolian Chalkis in Classical or Hellenistic times,34 and a classical addition to the Archaic wall around Samos.35 Only during Roman times do we occasionally find partial fortification; by this date the walls had lost their original practical purpose, and were presumably built for conventional, symbolic, or perhaps even aesthetic reasons.36 By contrast with many temenos or peribolos walls, a defence wall had to be high enough to prevent attacking enemies from climbing over it.37 Due to the poor state of preservation only very limited evidence exists for the superstructures — i.e. everything above the socle — of the majority of urban fortification walls from pre-Classical times.38 Accordingly, the description of many Archaic, as well as later walls, generally only covers the preserved wall socle and, in a few cases, some of the lower courses.39 However, it is often a matter of definition where the foundation stops and the wall proper begins.40 Occasionally the socle, which Page 5 of 22

The Archaeology of City Walls would normally have been constructed with an inner and an outer face irrespective of its height,41 is distinguished by being slightly wider (10–20 centimetres) than the wall immediately above it (as e.g. at Halai and Selinous).42 This change in construction often occurs below or around the ancient surface level, partly for aesthetic reasons and partly, perhaps, to conceal the method of construction from potential enemies.43 Very often the ancient surface level of the ground on either side of the walls cannot be clearly detected, but generally the socle would have been the lowest visible part of the wall, particularly if this was made in mudbrick, which was often the case. Mudbrick walls were as a rule constructed with a stone socle (Figs. 5–6), because groundwater and rain spatter, or water from nearby streams and rivers,44 was likely to dissolve the mudbricks, and stones lifted the mudbricks out of this ‘water danger zone’. Secondly, since stones are far more difficult to remove than mudbrick,45 a stone socle placed below the surface, preferably as far as the bedrock, was a countermeasure against undermining. Despite limited finds, it is believed that Archaic walls, as well as later ones, were normally constructed primarily (p.55) in mudbrick (see below, Chap. 7). Only rarely are mudbrick courses amounting to any significant height preserved.46 Notable exceptions are the impressive late seventh-sixth century (Lydian) walls around the lower town of Sardis and the (Classical) wall at Gela (Capo Soprano); in both cases remains of the plaster or mud-plaster coating are preserved.47 Such coatings are believed to have been widely used for walls constructed of

Fig. 5. Reconstruction of stone socle with superstructure in mudbrick (Eleusis).

mudbrick.48 The surest indication for walls having been constructed in mudbrick is the way the uppermost course of their stone socle is finished. When it forms a continuous horizontal line (Figs. 5–6) it is obvious that the wall proper was constructed in a different material. If such a wall had been built in stone all the way up, the uppermost row of the blocks still preserved would not finish in a clear horizontal line, and, furthermore, some blocks and fragments of blocks would lie scattered about.49 Gates

A wall always had one or more gates, which were left open during daytime to accommodate traffic to and from the city, and through which sorties could be made in time of war. Two basic types of gate are found: the tangential50 and the axial.51 The axial is the simple opening in the wall orientated at right angles to it (e.g. Figs. 65, 71, 77 [Südtor], and 82). The tangential or overlap type gate is Page 6 of 22

The Archaeology of City Walls made by altering the course of the wall on either side of an opening. The outer wall is then extended so that the two wall ends overlap (e.g. Figs. 31, 68, and 77). Generally it was the left part of the wall (when facing the wall from the outside) which was extended, so that attackers would have to expose their unprotected right side to the fire of the defenders on the battlements, when they approached the gate (the shield was always held on the left arm).52 (p.56) Towers and bastions

Towers were built to provide good visibility of the landscape around the city, as well as to facilitate crossfire on advancing enemy soldiers. Towers are therefore higher than the wall, and this distinguishes them from bastions.53 They are placed at intervals along the wall, whereas bastions appear in no particular order, at gates or other vulnerable points along the wall. The Greeks of the Archaic period must have distinguished between towers and bastions with particular terms, but we do not have ancient terminology to

Fig. 6. Stone socle with mudbrick superstructure of wall, Eleusis.

support this.54 A distinction is often made in modern scholarship, when remains are classified, but due to the sparse nature of the remains, classifications are often disputed. Distinguishing between towers and bastions is important, however, because the presence of towers implies a wall constructed as a defence on a larger scale than a simple wall with the odd bastion. Since the evidence from early fortification walls in general is almost exclusively restricted to remains of the base, it is impossible to use height as proof of the existence of a tower.55 Towers tend to be squarish in plan and because of their greater number along a wall, they also tend to be smaller than bastions, which are often rectangular rather than square. Differences in technique of construction may also be found, as the stone courses of the inner wall of a bastion are often bonded into the wall face proper. The tower, on the other hand, is often a more individual construction, built as an addition to the wall face, so that the wall will not collapse with the

Page 7 of 22

The Archaeology of City Walls tower if the latter is destroyed. The way forward in classification is a combination of information from topography and construction. Other elements

Literary sources inform us that walls were often supported by installations in the area in front of the wall.56 A few remains of such outworks, the so-called προτειχίσματα,57 for example ditches, berms, and revetments, are found in connection with Archaic walls and will be discussed below (see Chap. 7).

Wall Identification Just one of the above-mentioned elements is sufficient to identify a wall as a fortification wall. When such elements have not been found, however, identification must be made by study of the wall itself. When a wall is longer than is usual for a building, it may well be a fortification wall.58 Length, however, is not an exclusive characteristic (p.57) of fortification walls. Temenos walls and retaining or terrace walls often extend for dozens of metres, and length can accordingly only be used as a criterion in combination with topographical criteria, for example, if the wall runs along the edge of a hill containing a settlement, which is an obvious location for a fortification wall, or, if it runs where its identification as a temenos or retaining wall is impossible. Identification on the basis of construction

When only a very short stretch of wall is found, there is an obvious possibility that the remains are those of another type of wall. But fortification walls were constructed in a different way from other types of wall, and can under certain circumstances be identified from very few remains. A fortification wall had to be of a certain width in order to sustain the necessary height,59 and it also had to be wide enough to enable the defenders to manoeuvre easily on the wall walk behind the battlements.60 Walls will often taper inwards for structural reasons, and the width at the socle is therefore not necessarily the same as the width of the top. As pointed out above, the width may vary considerably along the same trace:61 walls were often widened to take account of the terrain and sometimes because of proximity to gates.62 Only very few securely identified fortification walls have a width of less than 1 metre,63 whereas Greek walls built for other purposes, namely τοῖχοι,64 hardly ever have a width of over 1 metre. A width of 1 metre is not the lower limit for making a wall with an outer and an inner shell or face, and many toichoi are constructed as double walls — two shells with a fill — as are the majority of fortification walls.65 The alternative to the double-faced free-standing wall is a wall constructed uniformly all the way through, either as a solid mudbrick wall or as a solid wall of rubble (Fig. 72), or of ashlar blocks; such a wall would only exceed 1 metre in width if the blocks were laid as stretchers, but this was not common.66 Stone walls of this type are rare in both Archaic and later times,67 apart from elaborate ashlar walls in the isodomic or

Page 8 of 22

The Archaeology of City Walls pseudo-isodomic style, used mainly in monumental religious architecture, such as temples, or in stoas and propylaia. The width of fortification walls in Archaic times is normally between 1.5 and 3 metres (hilltop), but over 3 metres for walls situated on slopes or in plains.68 According to some scholars, the width in Classical times is more restricted, being between 2.5 and 3.5 metres.69 These dimensions apply to defensive walls only; as mentioned above, toichoi are usually much narrower, and since a very high number of walls are known only from their preserved socles or lower courses, width is clearly fundamental for the possible identification of fortification walls.70 However, identification based on this criterion must be treated with caution if the wall dates from a period and/or a region where city walls were exceptionally narrow.71 At a number of sites on Crete, discussed by Hayden,72 it has been notoriously difficult to distinguish between fortification walls and temenos walls. On rare occasions, temenos walls are found to be 2–3 metres wide, which is usually explained (p.58) by practical circumstances that have nothing to do with fortification.73 The identification of a section of a wall as a fortification wall does not require the preservation of its entire course. In most situations it is a part only, or some parts (of the base), of the circuit which is found. Such fragments are easily identified, even if no more than a few metres long, provided that enough of the width is preserved to exclude other identifications. The case of Old Smyrna

Preservation and publication of only a part of the fortification wall at Old Smyrna (phase 1) have led some scholars to maintain that the wall did not form a complete circuit around the city.74 Partial fortification was rejected above (p. 53–4) as a possibility in Greek fortification, and below I will try to demonstrate that Old Smyrna was not at all special in this respect. The remains are impressive, and extreme care and thoroughness have been shown in all phases of the investigation — including excavation, documentation, and interpretation — by the Anglo-Turkish mission in the mid-twentieth century as well as the later and ongoing Turkish mission at Smyrna.75 Let us sum up the evidence: a number of structures were interpreted by the excavators as Wall 1 (phase 1, Figs. 101, 103). This was c.5 metres wide at the foundation, too wide to be anything other than a fortification wall. Remains from the same period can be identified as the tower-flanked north-east gate, where the wall was reinforced with blocks of grey andesite in a rubble polygonal style.76 The wall itself is constructed with an inner half in mudbrick and an outer half in ‘middle-sized’ stones. No inner face is preserved above the level of the ancient foundation in this phase. The bricks are backed with densely packed stones which served as a terrace, which led F. Lang to interpret the remains as a terrace wall (Stützmauer) and not a fortification wall,77 whereas, in fact, it Page 9 of 22

The Archaeology of City Walls probably was both. Lang suggests that the wall was constructed to support an artificial extension of the mound towards the north and north-east, in order to bring the urban area up to the same level as the old quarters near the centre of the mound. Clearly the construction had this effect as well, but a double function as fortification wall and as a terrace/retaining wall is maintained here, as such a substantial construction would only have been needed if to support an upper structure (i.e. the wall proper) which would not have been needed if the wall was only a terrace wall.78 The wall has an outer face in roughly worked stones of polygonal style laid in irregular courses. This outer face and outermost part of the stones behind are set deeper in the natural layer of clay than the rest of the wall. The date of Smyrna 1 is c.820 BC.79 Further support for the identification of these structures as a fortification wall is the fact that they are situated directly beneath the later walls, phases 2–3, which have been generally accepted as fortification walls. The idea that the south-west edge of the plateau was fortified, earlier only a quite possible theory, is now turning into a fact as the Turkish mission advances around the mound of Bayrakli — the hilltop of Old Smyrna. Recent investigations directed by Merel Akurgal have revealed substantial traces of early fortification on the south-west side of the mound.80 (p.59) The walls of the north-east side are in fact very well preserved, and, as one might expect, more information is available as we move from phase to phase: remains of phase 1 have been found in four places, remains of phase 2 in eight places, and remains of phase 3 in an even higher number of places. The excavation plan shows the high number of trenches cut along the edge of the plateau,81 and this number of trenches with remains of fortification is a point worth noting. Admittedly, there are still unexplored points where remains might or might not be identified. The high number of trenches, however, with relevant structural finds compared to the few trenches without relevant structural finds is quite telling: we would expect to find much more evidence of Smyrna phases 1–3 if the edge of the mound was completely cleared (cf. the recent investigations SW of the mound by M. Akurgal mentioned above). As discussed above (Chap. 4) a major reason why Archaic city walls are often poorly preserved is later architectural activity. This is precisely the case with Old Smyrna, where we have walls virtually tumbling over each other. It is often an open question whether terrace and retaining walls, built to create space and provide communication and access between different levels in hilly towns and cities, also served fortification purposes.82 Examples in addition to Old Smyrna are Kyme in Italy and Leontinoi.83 Hephaistia has a wall which seems to have been double-faced, but it may have been a terrace wall. Waxos Page 10 of 22

The Archaeology of City Walls may provide a further example, and Lawrence suggests a similar interpretation for walls at Kavousi in Crete.84 It seems reasonable to adopt the following approach where the preserved remains are restricted to a few stretches of wall, and no undisputed elements such as towers and gates are found: when a wall is free-standing the width is the decisive criterion, and unless a specific alternative explanation can be offered, we have to identify such a wall as being part of a fortification. With retaining and terrace walls this approach is more problematic, because such walls often do not have a proper constructed internal face. The identification of a fortification function for terrace and retaining walls will have to be decided on the basis of context. Sometimes the archaeological evidence leaves us with another type of fragmentary wall, namely a part of an inside or an outside face believed to be a fortification wall. A good example is Methymna on Lesbos.85 Several stretches of inner and outer faces of a wall in different polygonal styles are preserved, but nowhere do they form a complete section in its entire width. Enough material is preserved, however, to inform us about the construction of the wall. It was a double-faced stone wall constructed in ‘cyclopean’ and other polygonal styles, filled with soil and field stones. The width is not directly attested, but identification was secured by other means, namely construction and topography, and architectural features, such as the length, obtained by adding up the several fragments. Miletos provides a similar example (Fig. 77).86 Here it is clear that the fragmentary outer and inner faces of both the old western part (phase 1, walls A-D etc.) and the later eastern part (phase 2, walls F-P) together formed a double-faced wall of defensive character.87 A quite common feature of the bases of city walls is that the outer face is constructed of larger stones than the inner face (Fig. 3).88 This characteristic is not limited to fortification walls, but can be used with other criteria to identify even poorly preserved walls as such. Of course these basic elements of fortification walls are subject to local and chronological variations, and this will be dealt with in detail below (Chap. 7). Identification from topography

Topography may be used to identify fortification walls in two ways. The first applies to hilltop fortifications: if fragments of a wall, preserved as stretches of the foundation, are located on the edge of a hill, the identification as fortification is compelling; there are so many attested cases that an argument by analogy is valid. The second applies to city walls, and has in fact often been used in attempts to establish the line of a circuit: a stretch of wall (p.60) can tentatively be identified as a defence circuit if evidence of urban activity (houses, streets) is found on one side of the wall only and/or if evidence of extraPage 11 of 22

The Archaeology of City Walls urban activity (cemeteries,89 ‘industrial’ activities, etc.) is found on the other side. This approach must be used with caution, because some activities do not appear consistently either inside or outside urban centres.90 In situations where walls meet the definition as fortification walls from an architectural standpoint, but appear in topographical contexts to be unsuitable for fortifications, it seems reasonable to question the identification of the function of the wall.91 When there is a combination of factors, e.g. a cemetery on one side and houses on the other, the argument from topography seems decisive. One example is Vroulia, where a row of houses is delimited from the area outside to the north by a wall believed to have been a fortification wall. A gate and a tower are also suggested, but what makes the interpretation inescapable is the interconnection between the wall, the houses on the inner side of the wall, and the graves outside the opening (the gate). The wall is only 1.3 metres wide, and thus close to the lower limit of the width of fortification walls.92 If the wall had been all that remained from the settlement at Vroulia, the interpretation as fortification wall would have been more doubtful. Topographical information is often used if the existence of a wall is only assumed, for instance if stretches have disappeared. In order to locate vanished stretches of the perimeter of the city wall of Paros, D. Schilardi stresses that the location of cemeteries on the north-east and south-west sides of the town are important in determining where to search for the remaining parts of the wall.93 Identification from context

Many fortification walls, especially older ones, are identified despite their highly fragmentary state, because they are found beneath later walls of the same type.94 Obvious examples are the Archaic wall fragments under Tower D in Kaulonia, those identified at Lokroi Epizephyrioi, at Smyrna (phase 1 under 2 and 3, Fig. 103), and the foundations of Archaic date under the Byzantine walls on the north hill at Stagiros. Such discoveries can be made only when the location of a circuit remained unchanged in connection with later rebuilds. When a circuit was relocated, usually by an extension of the urban area, the (p.61) early walls disappeared, in most cases without leaving any substantial traces behind.95 If, for example, the remains at Kaulonia had been found in another context, and the approximate location of the wall trace was not known, it is difficult to say how the remains would have been interpreted. Contextual identification may also be possible when a stretch of wall is found on the same line as another, and perhaps differently dated, stretch of fortification wall. Pergamon provides such a situation (Figs. 90–1). The wall is situated on the edge of a hill, so topography as well as the width of the wall (2–>3 metres) suggest that it is a fortification wall. Further support for this identification is the stretch of wall (Mauer II) to the east of Mauer I, which has a gate of the tangential type, and thus is securely identified.96 Since Mauer I is built on the Page 12 of 22

The Archaeology of City Walls same line as Mauer II, this adds to the likelihood that they served the same function. The identification of a wall as a fortification wall is mostly straightforward and there are only a few cases where the classification can be doubted,97 for example Eretria phase 1 and Naxos phase 1. The serious problems connected with the study of pre-Classical city walls revolve around (1) their date, (2) the architecture of the superstructure, and finally (3) the nature of the settlements they enclosed. The chronological problem is discussed in detail in Chapter 6, the architecture in Chapter 7 while the last question is dealt with in Chapter 8. Notes:

(1) It is accordingly no surprise to find definition attempts mostly in the literature dealing with early fortification walls, e.g. Hayden, ‘Fortifications’. (2) e.g. Amathous; Argos; Chaironeia; Eretria; Gela; Haliartos; Hyele; Idalion; Kalydon; Himera; Thasos, see Catalogue. Olynthos is a well-known example from the Classical period, see Hoepfner and Schwandner, Haus und Stadt2, 71, figs. 53–4, and N. Cahill, Household and City Organization at Olynthos (Yale 2002), chap. 2. (3) e.g. E. Kirsten, Die griechische Polis als historisch-geographisches Problem des Mittelmeerraumes (Bonn 1956), 54–5; Winter, 60, 296. (4) That expansion happened in this way was noted by the ancients themselves, e.g. Thucydides 2.15.6 on Athens. (5) Winter, 130; Wokalek, Stadtbefestigungen, 7. On Minoa on Amorgos, Marangou, ‘Minoa on Amorgos’, 301. ‘Acropolis’ is sometimes used synonymously with ‘hilltop’, with the implication that it was fortified. It is preferred here to use ‘acropolis’ in the strict topographical sense, to describe the hill or highest hill within a settlement. (6) Strictly speaking ‘urban fortification’ is an inclusive notion. For the French equivalent fortification urbain, see Leriche, ‘L’Étude archéologique’, 9. For the ancient Greek terminology of urban fortification walls, see above, Chap. 3. (7) These differences are not paralleled in the ancient terminology on fortification walls, see above, Chap. 3. (8) In German (Stadt)-mauer, (Stadt)-befestigung, e.g. Miller, Befestigungsanlagen, 1–12 (with a number of additional synonyms). French: enceinte, fortification, muraille, and rempart, see Leriche, ‘L’Étude archéologique’, 14 and 16.

Page 13 of 22

The Archaeology of City Walls (9) Phigaleia in Arcadia, Winter, 32 fig. 24, is an example from the Classical period. (10) Orlandos, Construction 2, 123–5, with figs. 141B-143; Miller’s ‘Freistehende Mauer’, Befestigungsanlagen, 15; Müller-Wiener, Bauwesen, 68. (11) Lang, Siedlungen, 26. (12) Or retaining walls, Miller’s ‘Hangstützmauer’, Befestigungsanlagen, 14–15. Winter, 146 fig. 120 (Panopeos, Phokis), is a good example of a terracefortification wall. (13) Sometimes preservation is so bad that it is difficult to clarify whether a wall is in fact a terrace wall or a free-standing wall. On this problem on Lesbos, see Spencer, Gazetteer, 59. (14) The trace of walls of Kyme in Magna Graecia and Acragas in Sicily are examples of such combinations, Miller, Befestigungsanlagen, 46 and 244. An illustrative example from the Peloponnese in C4-C3 BC is Asine, J.-P. Adam, L’Architecture militaire grecque (Paris 1982), fig. 109, while Minoa on Amorgos is an early Archaic example from the islands, see Marangou, ‘Minoa on Amorgos’, 301, pl. 79B. (15) e.g. in Amathous around the highest point of the acropolis, P. Aupert, Guide to Amathus (Nicosia 2000), pl. 3, and Siphai in Boiotia on various places along the edge of the highest point of the acropolis, E.-L. Schwandner, ‘Die Böotische Hafenstadt Siphai’, AA (1977), fig. 7, and Herakleia Minoa, see n. 32, below. (16) Winter, 3–46; Miller, Befestigungsanlagen, 34; Lang, Siedlungen, 22–6. (17) Lang, Siedlungen, 26, is quite right in emphasizing that the local topographical factors are so strong that typological, regional, or chronological tendencies hardly exist when it comes to the location of the trace of hill top walls. (18) P. Ducrey and O. Picard, ‘Recherches à Latô, VII: La Rue Ouest. Habitations et défense’, BCH 120 (1996), 721–53; Lawrence, Aims, 127. (19) Plato Leg. 779 A-B; Ducrey and Picard, ‘Recherches’, 753. (20) e.g. Halikarnassos or Phigaleia, Winter, 111–14. (21) See Özyığıt, ‘Phokaia’, 83, for this factor being believed to have determined the trace of the circuit at Archaic Phokaia. Leontinoi is a further example of a hill having been included in the trace of the circuit just as much for strategic reasons as for the need for space.

Page 14 of 22

The Archaeology of City Walls (22) It does not make sense, for example, not to consider the Akrocorinth as having been included in the C7 perimeter of Corinth, although securely dated traces have only been found far below on the plateau at the Potters’ Quarter, see Salmon, Corinth, 220. The reason why the hill must have been part of this circuit is that the settlement below the hill would have been in a very dangerous situation if enemies took possession of the Akrocorinth and made attacks from there, which they could easily have done if the hill was not part of the circuit. Alternatively, the hill would have been separately fortified for the single purpose of hindering enemies in taking it and obtaining a favourable position from where to lay siege to Corinth. See also below, p. 74–6, with discussions on Corinth and Eretria. (23) Seen in a wide chronological and regional perspective, there were great differences. That grazing areas for animals or even areas of arable land were incorporated in the circuit in Classical times is known from written sources, e.g. Xen. Hell. 7.2.8 (on Phleious in the Argolid). (24) The circular circuit design, known from the Classical and Hellenistic periods, e.g. Mantinea, Winter, fig. 26, is therefore unknown in Archaic fortification and city design. (25) Scranton, Walls, 149–57; Winter, 102. (26) Scranton, Walls, 153, cf. below, Chap. 7. (27) Lang, Siedlungen, 22. (28) R. Carpenter made the following general remark on the issue of the essential demands that a city wall must meet, after having worked on Corinth: ‘Since the girdle of a city’s defenses is valueless unless the girdle is complete, there must have been a full circuit of wall from the earliest period.’ R. Carpenter, ‘The City Walls of Corinth’, in Carpenter and Bon (eds.), Defences, 82. (29) Examples are Megara Hyblaea and Zagora, both using wall and sea, Winter, 18. (30) On the existence of partial fortification in Roman times see below, p. 54 n. 36. (31) V. Gassner, F. Krinzinger, and A. Sokolicek, ‘Die Spätarchaischen Stadtmauern von Velia’, in Gassner et al. (eds.), Ägäis, 79. (32) Befestigungsanlagen, 57. When Miller refers to the situation at Herakleia Minoa and Megara Hyblaea he is more precise (p. 46): ‘Einige der Griechenstädte haben allerdings keine umlaufende Mauer’, followed by a description of how the walls of the two cities use the defensive advantages

Page 15 of 22

The Archaeology of City Walls provided by rivers running close by. At Herakleia, as well, the steep cliff towards the sea provided an additional obstacle for access. (33) For the suggestion that Agios Andreas, Iasos, and Miletos (Kalabaktepe) were semi-walled see Wokalek, Stadtbefestigungen, 25. Wokalek uses the wording ‘geschlossenen Mauerkyklos’ (p. 26), which must mean that such a thing as ‘offenen Mauerkyklos’ existed. Kolb, Stadt, 71, suggests basically the same phenomenon, claiming that Eretria was fortified by a series of unconnected towers in the early Archaic period (see discussion below, Chap. 7, p. 74–5). (34) The situation at Chalkis is not entirely clear: two walls radiate from the hill of Hagia Triada, but there seems to have been a circuit around the hill as well, S. Houby-Nielsen et al., ‘Excavations on the Hill of Hagia Triadha’, in S. Dietz et al., ‘The Greek-Danish Excavations in Aetolian Chalkis 1997–1998: Second Preliminary Report’, PDIA 3 (2000), 219–307, at 229–49, fig. 4. (35) On the west side of the west hill, see Kienast, Samos, general plan. See also below, Chap. 7, p. 97. (36) Leriche, ‘L’Étude archéologique’, 11. At the Roman town of Aguntum the walls (C2e AD) surrounded the city at the side visible from the passing main road towards the east only, S. Karwiese, Der Ager Aguntinus (Vienna 1975), 18. By AD 159/60 Aguntum must have had palisades around its remaining parts as the city was attacked by Germans (ibid. 22). (37) It was not a basic demand of a fortification wall to be able to withstand battering rams before these were introduced in the Greek world, which happened not earlier than C5, and thus outside the period under review here. Winter, 85–6, and Lawrence, Aims, 419. (38) A glimpse at the description of the majority of entries of the walls in the Catalogue confirms this. See Winter, 70, and Spencer, Gazetteer, 60, for a general statement of uncertainty as to whether the superstructures of the walls in Lesbos were of stone or mudbrick. (39) This fact is well illustrated in the plans reproduced in the present book. See Chap. 3, above, for the possibility of obtaining information on superstructures from literary sources and iconographic evidence. (40) Winter, 69–73. Wall foundations must have been a distinct architectural element in the Archaic period, although we are not able to point at references to the use of specific terms for foundations/socle in sources earlier than Thucydides. Θεμέλιος is the word used by Strabo in his description of the Persian destruction of the walls at Eretria (at 10.1.10, cf. p. 45) and about the wall foundation at Gortyn (10.4.11, cf. Orlandos and Travlos, Λεξικόν, s.v. Page 16 of 22

The Archaeology of City Walls θεμέλιος). Alternatively the term ἔδαφος was used, a word with a wider meaning in this respect, as e.g. ‘base’, ‘bottom’, or ‘ground’. In the following example, the meaning is probably ‘ground’ (Thuc. 4.109.1): ‘The Megarians tore the long walls down to the base/ground’ (… κατδσκαφαν ἑλόντες ἐς ἔδαφος…), see Orlandos and Travlos, Λεζικόν, s.v. ἔδαφος 1 and 3. (41) Lang, Siedlungen, 28; Martin, Manuel, 375. (42) Clearly visible at Melos, A. Blouet, Expédition scientifique de Morée, vol. 3 (Paris 1838), pl. 26.3. Perhaps also identified at Aigina, but Welters’ description is unclear, see Welter, ‘Aeginetica’, 482. (43) It is only natural that a general would investigate a wall before an attack — if possible. The issue is treated in general terms in the Politica of Aristotle (7.10.8). In mythology there is a fine example, i.e. when Kapaneus counts the number of courses of mudbrick in the wall of Thebes, in order to find out how high it is, Eur. Phoen. 182–4. (44) At Selinous layers of river sedimentation have been observed up against the socle of the wall running in the Cotone Valley, Mertens, Selinus, 395. (45) Nicholls, ‘Old Smyrna’, 107. (46) Maier, Mauerbauinschriften II, 71, with a list of places where mudbricks have been found in excavations; Winter, 71 n. 4. Examples of Archaic city walls with mudbricks found: Eretria phase 2; Eleusis; Euesperides; Halieis phases 1–2; Idalion phase 2; Kaulonia; Massalia; Miletos phase 1; Siris and Smyrna phases 1–3. (47) Sardis: C. H. Greenwalt et al., ‘The Sardis Campaign of 1978’, BASOR 245 (1982), 15–24. Gela: Maier, Mauerbauinschriften II, 74; B. Neutsch, ‘Archäologische Grabungen und Funde in Sicilien von 1949–1954’, AA (1954), 642–6, figs. 91–8. (48) Nicholls, ‘Old Smyrna’, 107; Lawrence, Architecture5, 175; Karlsson, Towers, 69. (49) Winter, 70. An example is Zagora on Andros, Cambitoglou et al, Zagora 1, 66. (50) Popularly known as ‘overlap type’, Lawrence, Aims, 306, or ‘Type II’ at Winter, 208, and ‘Skäisches Tor’, Miller, Befestigungsanlagen, 15–6, and RE III A, 1 s.v. ‘Skaiisches Tor’. (51) ‘Mauerlückentor’, at Miller, Befestigungsanlagen, 15. Winter, 208, adds to this type that it is furnished with flanking towers. Flanking towers are often

Page 17 of 22

The Archaeology of City Walls found with gates of this type, but since examples without exist (cf. Winter, 222), it is more correct to disassociate towers from the term axial gate. (52) Winter, 210; Miller, Befestigungsanlagen, 15. According to Vitruvius, 1.5.2, a tower ought to be placed on the right side of the gate so that the fire on the unprotected (right) side of the attackers could be as heavy as possible. This is often found to be the case, but we do find examples where the tower is located on the left side, e.g. Nisyros in the Classical period, R. M. Dawkins and A. J. B. Wace, ‘Notes from the Sporades’, BSA 12 (1905–6), 151–74, at 165 with 167 fig. 12. (53) Winter, 152. (54) On pyrgos see above, pp. 15, 21, 35–6. (55) Lang, Siedlungen, 32. (56) Thuc. 4.90 and 6.100. (57) See above, p. 23. (58) Of course walls often served more than one function. Terrace walls were needed when slopes of hills in built-up areas were turned into useful space, but they could also serve as fortification, see below, p. 58–9. There are only a very few examples of temenos walls serving fortification purposes, see above, p. 16– 17. Walls also gave shelter against bad weather and the sun, and W. Radt explains how a wall at the acropolis at Pergamon was probably constructed for the purpose of protecting against a specific rough NE wind, W. Radt, Pergamon: Geschichte und Bauten, Funde und Erforschung einer antiken Metropole (Cologne 1988), 74. We may consider protection against the weather as sometimes providing an additional reason for constructing walls, especially on hilltops. (59) At Selinous the south part of the wall running in the Cotone Valley, in the area of the harbour, was twice as thick as its continuation further north, possibly to secure stability as it was founded at this point in swampy grounds, see Mertens, Selinus 1, 394. (60) Winter, 127. (61) Lang, Siedlungen, 26; Lawrence, Aims, 344. (62) Lang, Siedlungen, 32. Examples on widening at gate: Kyme in Magna Graecia and Megara Hyblaea (phase 2) on Sicily. (63) In the Classical period only rarely under 2 m, Martin, Manuel, 376. That the width of fortification walls of other cultures are also more than 1 m is hardly a Page 18 of 22

The Archaeology of City Walls surprise, see e.g. Oakley, Hill-Forts, 11, for Samnite walls being between 1.5 and 2.5 m. (64) See above, Chap. 3 for a definition and discussion of this term. (65) See, below Chap. 7. (66) Winter, 132. (67) For a rare Archaic example see Halieis. (68) See below, Chap. 7 for a detailed presentation and discussion of the evidence. (69) As given by Martin, Manuel, 375, with n. 11 containing a number of examples from C5 onwards. Orlandos gives 27–3.3 m without chronological specification, Construction 2, 124, while Winter, 134, concludes in a more general way that walls tend to become wider from C5l onwards. Winter also keeps to the fact that both wide and narrow walls are found early as well as late. (70) An example of the use of this fundamental identification criterion is early Corinth. Here the width was decisive for the excavators’ hypothesis that the wall was a fortification wall, see Stillwell, Potters’ Quarter, 14. (71) The walls of the EIA settlements of the first category are markedly different in width (between 1 and 2 m) compared to walls of the second category of EIA settlements (4 +, 10, and 10 m), and early poleis (only 2 of the 10 ‘poleis’ with walls dating in C7 have walls as narrow as between 1 and 2 m). See below, Chap. 7. (72) It is thus natural that Hayden, ‘Fortifications’, 2–3, introduces a study on post-Palatial and EIA fortifications on Crete (a period and an area where fortification walls are not particularly wide) by showing extra care in her definition of the criteria. She provides five parameters to define what she believes a fortification wall is. (73) The Archaic sanctuary at Kato Phana on Chios was surrounded by two monumental Archaic peribolos walls up to 2 m and 3 m wide respectively. The excavators suggest that this width was needed as protection against the sea, L. Beaumont and A. Archontidou-Argyri, ‘Excavations at Kato Phana, Chios: 1999, 2000, and 2001’, BSA 99 (2004), 201–55, at 211–13, 253–4, figs. 2–4, 7. (74) e.g. Lang, Siedlungen, 241. Wokalek, who believes in the existence of broken traces/partial fortification, does accept the idea of a complete circuit at Smyrna in C9 BC, Stadtbefestigungen, 25. (75) Nicholls, ‘Old Smyrna’, and Smyrna phase 1–3 (Cat.) with full references. Page 19 of 22

The Archaeology of City Walls (76) In favour of a tower-like structure, Winter, 152. For the acceptance of a gate in Wall 1, see Müller-Wiener, ‘Melie’, 109. Lang, Siedlungen, 241, prefers the interpretation of the gate as being of axial plan rather than tangential, as it is proposed to be by the excavator, see the reconstruction in Nicholls, ‘Old Smyrna’, 15 fig. 3. (77) Lang, Siedlungen, 241. (78) Winter, 130. (79) The details on the chronology are given by Nicholls, ‘Old Smyrna’, 40, 68, 82–4 (esp. 84), 122–3; Müller-Wiener, ‘Melie’, 109. Lang, Siedlungen, 235, refers to Wall 1 as MG. Nicholls’ original date has according to Ducrey been challenged as a result of recent studies, Ducrey, ‘Muraille’, 252. See, however, Smyrna phase 1, (Cat.: Date). (80) M. Akurgal, ‘Alt-Smyrna’, in W. Radt (ed.), Stadtgrabungen und Stadtforschung im westlichen Kleinasien, BYZAS 3 (2006), 373–82, at 377–8. Traces of Archaic (?) walls were actually found on the SW side already by the Austrian mission in 1930, F. Miltner and H. Miltner, ‘Bericht über eine Voruntersuchung in Alt-Smyrna’, ÖJh 27 (Beiblatt 1932), 127–88, at 162; Nicholls, ‘Old Smyrna’, 36. The SW edge was not investigated by the AngloTurkish mission, because it was partly covered by the modern village, Nicholls, ‘Old Smyrna’, 36. The recent investigations by M. Akurgal were a direct result of excavations carried out to prepare for a projected rearrangement of the road system in that area of modern Izmir. (81) Nicholls, ‘Old Smyrna’, pl. 74. (82) Especially when the walls in question are considerably ruined, clear interpretation can hardly be obtained, see Lawrence, Aims, 144; Phoinike in Epeiros is an example where terrace walls have been erroneously interpreted as fortification walls, ibid. 154. (83) Winter, 130. (84) Aims, 111. Not accepted by Nowicki, Defensible Sites, no. 32. For other proposals see Antissa (Cat.: Comments). (85) See Methymna for the relevant references in Buchholz, Methymna. (86) See von Gerkan, Kalabaktepe, pl. 3. (87) The wall at Zagora on Andros is another example. Here either the inner or the outer face can be traced over almost all the length of the wall, see Cambitoglou et al., Zagora 2, 64.

Page 20 of 22

The Archaeology of City Walls (88) See below, Chap. 7. (89) It is commonly believed that cemeteries were normally located outside the built-up area from about C7 onwards, e.g. Athens in the EIA and Archaic times, see Morris, Burial, chap. 4, and the Classical period, see D. C. Kurtz and J. Boardman, Greek Burial Customs (London 1971), 92, and fig. 4. Indeed cemeteries are normally found outside city walls. However, care has to be taken when we operate in the early Archaic period, because this custom had not yet become fully universal, especially when it came to burial of infants/children, who are thought to have been placed intra muros in the urban area. On this topic in general, see e.g. Lang, Siedlungen, 70 with examples. For Athens: Kurtz and Boardman, Greek Burial Customs, 70. Kos Meropis: C. Kantzia, ‘Recent Archaeological Finds from Kos: New Indications for the Site of Kos — Meropis’, in Dietz and Papachristodoulou (eds.), Dodecanese, 174–83, at 182. Taras: Kurtz and Boardman, Greek Burial Customs, 308 (lit. sources). Sparta: Kurtz and Boardman, ibid. 181 (lit. sources). C7 is normally given as the time when graves were beginning to be placed outside the urban area proper, and for some localities this did not apply until even later, see Lang, Siedlungen, 70–2. Corinth is another example where graves of adults are found inside the walls. The principal cemeteries, however, were outside the city perimeter, and there were good practical reasons why burials were still happening inside the walls at a number of places in Corinth right down to the destruction of that city in 146 BC, see Williams, ‘Urbanization Corinth’, 11–2. (90) The location of workshops or artisans’ activities in relation to settlement has not been the subject of a general study. Often workshops seem to be concentrated in the outskirts of settlements, either inside or outside the walls, see Lang, Siedlungen, 135–6 and T. Fischer-Hansen, ‘Ergasteria in the Western Greek World’, in Flensted-Jensen et al. (eds.), Polis and Politics, 91–120, at 114. (91) e.g. the two parallel stretches of wall running NE of the sanctuary of Apollo at Eretria, A. Mazarakis Ainian, ‘Geometric Eretria’, AK 30 (1987), 3–24, at 15, fig. 10. The wall in itself, being double-faced and c.2.5 m wide, could very well have been the socle of a fortification wall. However, before the change of the course of the river, this ran just east of the sanctuary of Apollo and west of the wall mentioned above, between the wall and the sanctuary and the main settlement area. Such a location of a fortification wall, on the outside of a river, is unlikely. The customary way of using a river was as the first line to be transgressed, while the defenders of the city could fire continuously from atop the wall on the other side. This was the way the river was used after its course was transformed to run straight south and was paralleled on its east side by the wall running down to the shore, see Lang, Siedlungen, 29. (92) For the remains at Vroulia, see Kinch, Vroulia, esp. 90–8; Drerup, Baukunst, 51–2; Lang, Siedlungen, 193–4. Page 21 of 22

The Archaeology of City Walls (93) D. U. Schilardi, ‘Paros, Report II: The 1973 Campaign’, JFA 2 (1975), 83–96, at 85 with refs. This idea was already proposed by O. Rubensohn, ‘Paros II’, AM 26 (1901), 157–222, at 181–2. See also D. U. Schilardi, ‘Il culto di Atena a Koukounaries e considerazioni sulla topografia di Paros nel VII sec. a.C.’, in E. Lanzillotta and D. U. Schilardi (eds.), Le Cicladi ed il Mondo Egeo: Seminario internazionale di Studi, Roma, 19–21 novembre 1992 (Rome 1996), 33–64, at 61– 2. (94) Wokalek, Stadtbefestigungen, 8 and 11, for the converse view that many walls are not identified precisely because they are built over by later walls. (95) Pontic Istros (Fig. 53) is an example where it has been possible to identify four phases of city wall (C6 BC-C6 AD) with four different traces, see M. Coja, ‘Les Fortifications grecques dans les colonies de la côte ouest du Pont Euxin’, in Leriche and Tréziny (eds.), Fortification, 95–103; Leriche, ‘L’Étude archéologique’, 21–2. In this case the later walls attest to a reduced fortified area compared to that of the Archaic period. (96) Radt, ‘Frühesten Wehrmauern’, 177. (97) Every disputed case is accompanied by detailed discussions of the treatment of the architecture in Ch. 7, below See also the Catalogue entries on individual walls.

Page 22 of 22

Dating City Walls

Greek City Walls of the Archaic Period, 900–480 BC Rune Frederiksen

Print publication date: 2011 Print ISBN-13: 9780199578122 Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: April 2015 DOI: 10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199578122.001.0001

Dating City Walls Rune Frederiksen

DOI:10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199578122.003.0006

Abstract and Keywords This chapter focuses on the process and challenges of dating city walls. Even in the presence of extensive academic research regarding Greek city walls, there are still numerous undated walls that can't be put into an appropriate historical setting. Nevertheless, there have been a growing number of excavations in the 20th century which is a huge step forward in the field of ancient history and development in city wall research. These excavations have produced external evidences in the form of inscriptions and sculpture remains. Other methods of dating are also discussed such as dating by masonry style, by examining its dimensions, type of architecture, and topography. Keywords:   city walls, city wall dating, city wall excavations, inscriptions, sculpture remains, masonry

A central problem in any kind of research on Greek city walls is that of chronology. Despite the huge scholarly literature on the subject several individual walls are undated1 and accordingly cannot be securely related to other monuments and finds, or be put into proper historical context.2 This is not only a consequence of the particular difficulties with walls as opposed to other types of archaeological monument; the problem lies also with the excavators, whose interest is traditionally directed elsewhere in the ancient Greek cities under their scrutiny.3 Excavations undertaken all over the Mediterranean with increasing intensity during the twentieth century are beginning, however, to change this picture, particularly for early walls. More and better information on chronology is appearing continually, and constitutes a giant step forward in the field of Page 1 of 16

Dating City Walls classical archaeology and ancient history in general, paving the way for a real breakthrough in city wall research.4 The following quote from a study by G. Säflund published in 1934 shows how far research has come within recent years:5 ‘The earliest Greek cities are older than their city-walls. The earliest veritable city-walls are those of the Asiatic Ionians, and these walls were built hastily to meet the Persian invasion in the sixth century BC. Studies from the last decade of the twentieth century not only list dozens of city walls ante-dating the Persian invasion of Asia Minor, but just as importantly they are reported from all parts of the Greek world — not only Archaic Ionia.

Walls Dated by External Evidence The most important evidence for the dating of walls is that provided by excavation.6 The optimum situation is where a clear undisturbed stratigraphy related to the wall or, better, its base or socle, is uncovered, followed by a find of datable objects,7 typically pottery.8 An example is Pergamon Mauer I dated via closed contexts containing (p.63) datable pottery.9 Stratigraphical situations like this provide us with a terminus post quem or a terminus ante quem depending on the precise location of the datable objects in relation to the foundation of the wall. Often, however, stratigraphies, or the circumstances surrounding them, do not allow clear observations of chronology,10 and investigations initiated for the purpose of answering particular questions of dating often fail.11 Generally speaking, trial trenches cut far away from gates are more likely to produce an undisturbed stratigraphy than ones sunk in the neighbourhood of gates, because of intense and continuous activity at gates.12 In a number of situations, and especially at rocky sites, there is no soil at all or only a little at the foot of the wall, leaving limited chances for discovering stratified material. An example is the north slope of the acropolis of Antissa,13 where, however, Archaic sherds have been preserved on the surface. Such finds may be tentatively used as a chronological indicator, preferably combined with additional information, as in fact happened at Antissa. The wall is constructed in the Lesbian style, thought to be a phenomenon of the sixth century BC.14 When an undisturbed stratigraphy is found with datable objects, the finds will often not allow for a dating more precise than within fifty years, or even a century or more.15 Such broad datings may be narrowed down if matched with specific chronological indications obtained from literary sources, which are often precise even as to the individual year. Since, however, it will never be certain that a wall described in a source is the same wall as one attested in archaeology, such precise datings will always be only a remote possibility. Information from stratigraphies requires interpretation, and it will always be possible to point at weaknesses in the interpretation, and to suggest alternatives. However, while completely unambiguous stratigraphical circumstances do not exist, scholars invariably take too sceptical a stand when Page 2 of 16

Dating City Walls considering the reliability of chronological observations made during excavations. An objection to this sceptical view is found in an ‘excavation manifesto’ by P. Leriche.16 He strongly defends the stratigraphical approach and states that the prestige obtained from dating a city wall ranks lower than the prestige obtained from working with religious or more spectacular secular architecture.17 Although sanctuaries and agoras usually produce more finds, scholars are basically faced with the same difficulties when trying to date temples, theatres, stoas, and other types of monumental architecture, as they face when trying to date a city wall. Inscriptions and sculpted reliefs on walls, dated by stylistic criteria, represent two other types of external evidence (Fig. 7).18 Such evidence is rare, and it is unlikely that future investigations will provide much more. Walls dated to preClassical times by excavation constitute the bulk of archaeological evidence treated in this book.19

Dating by Masonry Style A much-used and widely criticized method is dating by masonry style. Walls have been studied and described for centuries, but the landmark effort in doing this for purposes of chronology was made by Scranton in his Greek Walls. The comparative material used for dating by masonry style is not confined to city walls, but is used for all kinds of monumental architecture.20 The stylistic approach is very useful for establishing a relative (p.64) chronology of a particular site or a region, but, by and large, attempts to correlate developments in masonry styles to absolute datings have failed. The classifications and terminology used by Scranton have been severely criticized,21 but the reservations of the author himself are too often overlooked22 and Scranton’s typology, with its broad chronological framework, is

Fig. 7. Stagiros, relief-decorated and inscribed lintel at gate. Late sixth century BC. Left fr. 50 × 54 cm; right fr. 50 × 80 cm.

still widely used23 to suggest dates for walls from all regions of the Greek world. His book remains a fundamental tool in the study of ancient Greek city wall architecture. The scope of the present work allows for only a brief treatment of the main chronological problems of walls constructed of polygonal and Lesbian masonry.24 Such a summary treatment of a controversial topic is justified, since walls dated by masonry style are used in this investigation as secondary evidence only.

By masonry style is meant the way in which the exposed blocks in a wall are shaped and fitted together.25 This may reflect the shape of the blocks through a (skin of a) wall, but wall faces of well-fitted blocks are often built to give the impression of being built in this way all the way through, although in fact the Page 3 of 16

Dating City Walls unexposed rear parts of the blocks, towards the wall centre, are fitted more loosely.26 It makes sense in such cases to speak of a deliberate choice of style, rather than a choice of a particular construction which happens to have this or that visual appearance. The lack of precision in the definitions and in the use of terms is a fundamental weakness in much literature on walls, making a comparative study based on the scholarly literature alone almost impossible.27 Confusion is caused not so much by the handbooks and articles discussing the topic per se,28 but rather by excavation reports and articles on individual sites— where the great majority of the empirical observations are published — in which walls are sometimes treated in passing without precise use of (p.65) the established terminology. A further problem is that a number of walls, perhaps the majority, cannot be described by reference to just a single style.29 Walls constructed in polygonal masonry

The term polygonal is problematic because it is used to describe walls built in very different ways. As many as thirty-two walls of the B category (Table 3) are referred to as polygonal, and most are for that reason dated by previous scholarship to the Archaic period. Others are dated by inferences from historical events, often combined with their place in a relative local chronological sequence of the fortifications on the sites. In Alope a stretch of polygonal wall30 is believed to date to the Archaic period with reference to the history of East Locris in the sixth century.31 A polygonal wall in Argos has been dated to the seventh century because — in the relative sequence of the walls there — this is the ‘first’ after the cyclopean.32 A rough polygonal33 wall at Arisba is dated to the sixth century, since it is thought to antedate the Methymnaian subjection of Arisba which, again, is supposed to antedate the Persian Wars.34 At Assos a wall of fine polygonal masonry is considered Archaic because it is the earliest in the local sequence and because it resembles a wall at Achilleion dated to the Archaic period by means of pottery found in a stratified context.35 In Kyme in Aeolis a stretch of wall in polygonal style has been dated to the Archaic period because it resembles the style used in Tower I in nearby Larisa. The wall here, however, is described as Lesbian polygonal and not just polygonal — and the list could be continued.36 Since the descriptive value of the term polygonal is limited,37 walls referred to in this way must be checked by autopsy, if their classifications are not accompanied with further details and a drawing or photograph. The implication that polygonal walls are Archaic is controversial, because additional information supporting a possible Archaic date is often lacking. An extensive up-to-date survey of the many specimens of polygonal wall across the ancient Greek World is clearly a desideratum. It would enable subdivisions of the category polygonal to be made, which would be of value for uniformity in classification and probably also shed light on chronological matters, at least on a regional level.38 A high number of Page 4 of 16

Dating City Walls category B walls may very well be Archaic, as suggested in previous scholarly literature, but as the evidence stands, the question remains open in many individual cases.39 Walls constructed in the Lesbian style

The Lesbian style of masonry is essentially a subcategory of polygonal40 and is very easily distinguished:41 the stone blocks are polygonal, not laid in courses, and the edges of the blocks are curved and fit nicely with corresponding curves in the surrounding blocks. No further characteristics can be singled out;42 the block faces are sometimes finely finished, sometimes left with a roughly (p.66) quarried or hammered face.43 In addition to the concentration of attestations of the style in Lesbos, a further relationship with the island is suggested by ancient references to a Lesbian technique believed to have been used by masons on Lesbos.44 It is uncertain whether this technique, loosely referred to by Aristotle, was actually employed for walls classified as being of Lesbian masonry.45 The term46 Lesbian has been criticized for being uninformative, and misleading. F. Lang, for instance, takes a quite purist stand when preferring to name the style Kurvenpolygonal47 objecting that the term Lesbian masonry could encourage the erroneous idea that the style is more confined to the island of Lesbos than is actually the case. But since the style is concentrated in Lesbos and the mainland coast of Aeolis and Troas,48 the term makes sense, directing attention to the principal provenance.49 H. J. Mason recently studied the type of stone used for the masonry on Lesbos and by comparing the ancient walls with the modern techniques used on the island, as well as observations made in quarries, he concluded that the peculiarities of the style are due to the way the blocks are shaped when they are quarried.50 Mason’s work is based on ideas which Scranton put forward in his 1941 book. Spencer, after having worked through Scranton’s arguments as well, does not altogether reject this explanation, but moderates it, saying that Scranton’s observations about the natural rock at Eresos did not apply when Spencer visited the site himself.51 The Lesbian style required a great deal of work in the final chopping and fitting, and has therefore been recognized as the most time-consuming and most expensive type of masonry to use for a city wall.52 This circumstance is particularly important when it was chosen deliberately for stylistic or conventional reasons, and less so when the style was chosen for convenience because of the shape of the blocks when quarried.53 The Lesbian is the oldest distinct wall style, after the cyclopean style54 of the Mycenaean era.55 It appears as early as the middle of the eight century (Smyrna, phase 2)56 but is mostly attested in the sixth century.57 From Scranton’s list of the occurrences of the style58 it is clear that well-dated examples from city wall Page 5 of 16

Dating City Walls architecture are rare, that they are from Eleusis and Delphi,59 and that only one example— according to Scranton— post-dates the Persian Wars of 480/79.60 Scranton lists a few additional arguments for dating all walls in the Lesbian style to the Archaic period, the weightiest one being the observation that whenever the Lesbian style appears alongside other styles of construction in a city wall, the Lesbian part is always the oldest in a local sequence (mostly by being built over by walls of other styles). In his study, which includes all relevant sites on Lesbos, Spencer confirms the observation that the style belongs in the Archaic period.61 (p.67) He sums up the evidence from the many excavations carried out on Lesbos after Scranton, and this confirms a general Archaic date for the style.62 The hard evidence for dating Lesbian masonry can be summarized as follows:63 in the ‘homeland’ of the style, sections of city wall are dated by external evidence at (cf. Catalogue): Antissa (sixth century)64 and Smyrna (phase 2, mideighth century). Stagiros provides an additional case (late sixth century).65 The following walls are thought to belong in the Archaic period as well because of their construction in Lesbian style:66 Abai, Arisba, Chaironeia, Eresos, Lamia, Larisa, Larymna, Melos, Methymna, Mytilene, and Pyrrha. Basically two methods — often combined — are used to establish the suggested dates. Some walls are compared with the well-dated specimens mentioned above, and it is observed that whenever a wall is built in more than one style, the courses in Lesbian style are always found below the courses in other styles. The two methods can be described as: (1) the argument from analogy and (2) the argument based on relative sequence. (1) It is often admitted that the comparative method is problematic because we have some examples of the Lesbian or curvilinear polygonal style dating from the fourth century, i.e. in Attica, where masonry of this kind is claimed to have been identified in the Dema wall67 and in a grave in the Kerameikos of Athens.68 However, the wall in the Kerameikos is more likely to be an example of a deliberately archaizing wall,69 in which case there is no chronological problem.70 As for the Dema wall, the wall referred to by Mason as being curvilinear polygonal,71 it is not a clear example of the style. Rather it seems that some blocks just happen to be shaped with curving edges, perhaps because the wall was erected in haste leaving no time for the masons to keep to a specific style. The Lesbian style has been considered to have gone out of fashion by the late fourth century,72 but as mentioned above, this seems to have happened already by the fifth century. The examples from the fourth century seem to be truly archaizing, as argued by Spencer,73 rather than being the last manifestations of a long unbroken tradition of Lesbian construction.

Page 6 of 16

Dating City Walls (2) The argument with reference to local sequence is valid when Lesbian stretches of wall are identified below stretches clearly made in another style. In such cases the Lesbian stretch of wall will be earlier, but how much earlier has to be ascertained from other evidence. Other similar methods contain a high risk of imposing a sequence on walls at a site where it may in fact be misunderstood. When, for example, a Lesbian circuit is found in combination with a circuit further out and away from the city centre constructed in another style, it is tempting to consider the Lesbian as older because Greek poleis mostly grew and enlarged the fortified areas down through the centuries. Since, however, the opposite development is also attested, this argument should be used with caution.74 The dating of the Lesbian style to Archaic times seems convincing. A number of factors need to apply, however, before the style of a wall can be used as evidence of the date: each and every wall must be shown to be a true example of the style. Next the fundamental observations supporting or disproving an early date must be made, i.e. how is the wall placed in the local sequences of fortification walls? Has the site produced any other signs of activity in the Archaic period? Topographical and other circumstantial evidence must point in the same direction before a Lesbian wall can be accepted as Archaic. In spite of the likelihood of Lesbian walls being Archaic, the group of walls listed in the Catalogue are still marked B and not A, for two reasons: first I have not examined all the reported walls in the manner required (p.68) to make sure that they are correctly identified specimens of the style — the classifications are made by other scholars — and secondly, it cannot be excluded that the style was still used for some new walls built in the fifth century.75

Walls Dated by other Means A rough idea of the date of a wall may be obtained from studying its dimensions. It has been claimed that early Archaic walls were wider than later walls,76 which is probably true as a very general observation and for some regions, but, as will be noted later, not all wide walls are early,77 and within the Archaic period, there is a considerable difference in the width of walls.78 A number of the walls of the Early Iron Age are quite narrow,79 so it seems invalid to suggest particular dimensions for particular periods. For establishing a relative chronology for sequences of walls at individual sites, however, this method may turn out to be fruitful. The plan of a wall trace may be indicative of its date, as may the plans of gates and towers.80 So far, typologies for gates and towers are established only for Classical and Hellenistic times, so this method is not, presently, available for Archaic times (which will be clear from the analysis in Chapter 7).81 Similarly attempts have been made to date walls constructed with indented trace, to Archaic or Hellenistic times depending on the local relative chronology of the Page 7 of 16

Dating City Walls wall and other elements. So far this approach has been of limited value; not because a chronological correspondence is not found, but because indented trace is rarely observed before Hellenistic times.82 Other methods based on architecture and topography may allow us to place a wall within a local sequence of development. This has been done in numerous cases, and very often the local relative chronology of different building phases of fortification can be securely established.83 A careful examination of a wall consisting of different types of construction may help to establish a relative chronology, which in some cases can be linked to stretches of wall dated by stratigraphy.84 If the stones of one section of a wall are fitted into another section,85 it follows that the former section must be a later addition. Another kind of relative dating, based on careful examination of the stone blocks, is used by W. Radt in his study of the early walls at Pergamon. Here it was observed that buildings of all periods reuse material from older structures, a practice which was of course common in the ancient world.86 By contrast, not a single block of the early fortification wall Mauer I shows signs of having been used before. It is a reasonable inference therefore that there were no earlier buildings from which to quarry blocks, when this wall was constructed, and it follows that the wall was the first, or one of the first, monumental structures at Pergamon.87 Studying the topographical environment of a wall can also provide circumstantial evidence for its date.88 (p.69) The location of cemeteries with dated finds within a circuit testifies to an extension of the urban centre, and suggests that a wall is later than the latest objects found in the graves.89 An example is Aigina, where graves inside the circuit have objects dating no later than 490–480 BC, which has led to the suggestion that the first identifiable phase of the city wall goes back to the decade preceding the Persian Wars of 480/79.90 Caution has to be shown when a trace of a city wall, and the wall itself, is dated in this way. D. U. Schilardi suggests, as a hypothesis, that the existing wall perimeter of Paros goes back to the late eighth century, because graves dating from that period onwards are found outside the present wall perimeter.91 Such information can be used as an indication, but in the case of Paros it cannot be excluded that the graves were located outside the habitation area at a point pre-dating the construction of a wall proper. It is widely believed that graves cannot be used to identify the city perimeter before the seventh century, and even later in some areas,92 since only from then on did the practice of separating the habitation area from burials become widespread, with proper necropoleis outside the cities emerging everywhere.

Page 8 of 16

Dating City Walls Dating by written sources

Dating walls by the use of literary sources, valid under certain circumstances,93 is dismissed entirely as a method by some scholars.94 A dated event can be linked with a particular phase of a city wall only under specific circumstances, such as the identified Persian siege mounds at Paphos and Soloi (?), and the gate found in the Maltepe Tumulus at Phokaia, in an archaeological context with evidence for a teichomachia.95 That the mounds were actually built by Persians can be seen from the many objects found there such as arrowheads, and if the chronological connection between the mound and phases of the walls is established, it would in my opinion be excessively pedantic to argue that the historical event may have been a different Persian attack not mentioned in our sources. The obvious problem of using literary sources is the difficulty of associating a particular event with a particular wall at a given site.96 Since precise datings are largely unimportant for the questions addressed in this book, this problem is of no real concern here.

Conclusion The observations and interpretations on chronology based on purely stylistical grounds (polygonal or Lesbian), or on stylistic grounds in combination with historical arguments, are generally accepted as useful and valid in this study. Walls for which such information applies (category B) are recorded in the Catalogue where the specific information motivating a date can be found at Date and/or Comment. The more securely dated walls (category A) are separated from the more doubtful B walls — of which a high sample has been collected97— and the separation is kept throughout the analysis in Chapters 7 and 8. The inclusion of category B walls in the Catalogue allows other scholars to form an independent and perhaps different conclusion about wall chronology and ultimately about the architecture and prevalence of pre-Classical walls. I would like to emphasize that the last word on masonry style and building technique has not been said, and much more fundamental research needs to be done before additional city walls can be dated with a high degree of certainty and then put into an analytical frame of time and space. Notes:

(1) A parallel situation is that of the many walls of the late Roman period constructed in Italy when the Empire began to loose its grip on southern Europe. There are numerous sources attesting to the existence of a great number of walls, but only a few individual walls have actually been dated and analysed in detail, see B. Ward-Perkins, From Classical Antiquity to the Middle Ages: Urban Public Building in Northern and Central Italy, AD 300–480 (Oxford 1984), 191.

Page 9 of 16

Dating City Walls (2) Maier, Mauerbauinschriften 1, 93 for a discussion about the need for a basic chronological study before it becomes possible to write a history of the architecture of Greek city walls. (3) Ibid. 93–4; Garlan, ‘Fortifications’, 245; Winter, x; Leriche, ‘L’Étude archéologique’, 17; McAllister, Halieis, 75. (4) According to Miller, Befestigungsanlagen, 38–9, almost all Greek city walls in Sicily and south Italy are now dated by either excavation or by reference to erection or destruction in texts. The Greek West may very well be the best investigated of the areas where the Greek world once spread. (5) G. Säflund, ‘The Dating of Ancient Fortifications in Southern Italy and Greece’, OpArch l.1 (1934), 87–119, at 97. (6) Maier, Mauerbauinschriften 1, 93; Spencer, Gazetteer, 61; Oakley, Hill-Forts, 130 (on Samnite fortifications). (7) Leriche, ‘L’Étude archéologique’, 22. (8) There seem to be no examples of coins having been used to date a fortification wall to Archaic times. From the Classical period, however, there are many, e.g. the 5th and 7th (Classical) phases of Halieis, J. A. Dengate, ‘The Coins: Provenances’, in McAllister (ed.), Halieis, 129, and Mytilene, a stretch of wall found below the modern town dated to C4f, Spencer, Gazetteer, 62. (9) Find-spots 7–9, 14–15, and 17–20, Radt, ‘Frühesten Wehrmauern’, 168. (10) e.g. the trenches at the lower city wall of Idalion in 1972, where the layers at the inner side of the wall were disturbed because of a robber trench cut to below the level of the foundation, while the stratigraphy of the outer trench was unclear for other reasons, A. M. Walker, ‘B. Lower City Excavations: 1. Fortifications’, in Stager and Walker (eds.), Idalion, 45–57, at 45. With these experiences in mind it was decided to cut new trenches in the subsequent years (1972–4), now with successful results (cf. Idalion, Cat.). (11) At the fort at Phylla, in central Euboia, two trenches were cut recently along the circuit with the aim of finding stratigraphies containing datable objects, though none was found, see J. J. Coulton, ‘Excavations’, in Sakellaraki et al., Phylla, 7–9. Other examples: Arisbe on Lesbos, Spencer, ‘Towers and Enclosures’, 210 n. 28. Idalion (above, n. 10); the cyclopean upper wall at Xobourgo on Tenos, Kourou, ‘Tenos-Xobourgo’, in Stamatopoulou and Yeroulanou (eds.), Culture, 255–68, at 258; Zagora, Cambitoglou et al., Zagora 2, 54. (12) Leriche, ‘L’Étude archéologique’, 22. More remote stretches of a wall are on the other hand more likely not to produce any artefacts which could be used for dating, simply because they were rarely visited, Mcallister, Halieis, 75–6. Page 10 of 16

Dating City Walls (13) Lamb, ‘Antissa’, 172. (14) See below, p. 65–8. (15) e.g. Alalie, Amathous, Antissa, and Bouthroton. (16) Leriche, ‘L’Étude archéologique’, 9–27. (17) Ibid. 27. (18) See Catalogue entries for Melie phase 2, Stageira, and Thasos phase 2. (19) Walls of category A in the Catalogue, cf. Tables 1–2. (20) A well-known example is the terrace wall of the temple of Apollo at Delphi, constructed in Lesbian masonry, Lawrence, Architecture5, 167, fig. 274. (21) Maier, Mauerbauinschriften 2, 93, regards excavation or written/ epigraphical evidence as the only trustworthy way to date walls. He regards construction and masonry style as parameters for possible dates. Wokalek, Stadtbefestigungen, 2 (on the Archaic period), is less sceptical and suggests dating on the base of style as the second possibility, adding, however, that the task is difficult due to the lack of Archaic inscriptions. See also Wycherley, Cities2, 46. (22) Walls, 10–13. (23) Martin, Manuel, 377–8; Winter, 80–91. (24) An update of Scranton’s system, preferably covering all regions of the ancient Greek world, is highly desirable. Despite the numerous and often wellillustrated wall studies of C19 and C20 AD, such an investigation cannot be conducted without autopsy of a high number of walls all over the Mediterranean, which constitutes an enormous undertaking and is a project in itself. (25) Martin, Manuel, 377: ‘… la forme et le mode d’appareillage des blocs …’. (26) For this observation in general see also Courtils, ‘L’Appareil polygonal “lesbien”’, 130. (27) For problems caused by lack of precision in the use of central terms in wall studies dealing with the Classical and Hellenistic periods, see Karlsson, Towers, 12. (28) General introductions to masonry styles: Scranton, passim; Maier, Mauerbauinschriften 1, 105–12; Wycherley, Cities2, 46–9; Winter, 80–100; Martin, Manuel, 377–88; Orlandos, Construction 2, 127–84; Camp, ‘Walls’, 42. (29) Camp, ‘Walls’, 42. Page 11 of 16

Dating City Walls (30) The photograph in Fossey, Lokris, pl. 60, is out of focus and the angle between camera and wall makes it hard to tell what we are actually looking at. (31) See Catalogue entry for Alope. (32) Treated under Lesbian and dated to C6 in Scranton, Walls, 34–5, and 160, cf. 63–7, who states that it does not fall readily into the classification system. (33) Classed as Lesbian by Spencer, see Arisba (Cat.: Comments). (34) See Arisba (Cat.: Date). (35) See Assos (Cat.: Date and Parallels). Other scholars, however, date the Assos wall to the Hellenistic period (ibid.). (36) Further discussions under entries for walls of category B in the Catalogue. (37) For this reason Scranton defines the term carefully, see Walls, chap. 3, p. 45. (38) See the subdivision in Müller-Wiener, Bauwesen, 72. The typology of polygonal walls in the (central) Italian material set up by G. Lugli, La tecnica edilizia Romana con particolare riguardo a Roma e Lazio, vols. i–ii (Rome 1957), i. 51–165, at 65–8 in particular, has been successfully adopted by scholars of Italian archaeology in general, see Oakley, Hill-Forts, 11. (39) In a treatment of polygonal walls in Boiotia, Snodgrass, ‘Historical Significance’, 130, mentions the possibility not only that some are Archaic but also that others may be Hellenistic. (40) Winter, 80–91; Wycherley, Cities2, 47; Martin, Manuel, 379–80 (‘L’Appareil polygonal à joints courbes’); Müller-Wiener, Bauwesen, 72 (‘Polygonalmauern mit kurvigen Fugen’); when polygonal is used in the more narrow sense, true polygonal, as defined by Scranton (see above) the polygonal walls constitute a subsequent phase of the Lesbian, replacing these during C6, e.g. Winter, 80–91 and Lawrence, Architecture5, 167. (41) Enough care is not always taken when the label Lesbian is used, however. An example is Fossey, Lokris, pl. 65, who shows a photograph of a wall at Golémi in East Lokris, which he classifies as Lesbian, but for which the broader term polygonal in fact seems more appropriate. (42) Spencer, Gazetteer, 53–4, adds some further observations which apply to the walls at Lesbos only. I hesitate to adopt such refinements if they do not apply to the great majority of walls. But only a global study of all Lesbian walls may bring this issue further. (43) Spencer, Gazetteer, 54.

Page 12 of 16

Dating City Walls (44) Ibid. 53–4; Camp, ‘Walls’, 42; Mason, ‘Lesbia Oikodomia’, 31–2. (45) Arist. Eth. Nic. 5.10.7. Aristotle alludes to lead rulers used by Lesbian masons: τοῦ γὰρ ἀορίστου ἀόριστος καὶ ὁ κανών ἐστιν, ὥσπερ καὶ τῆς Λεσβίας ο᾿ι κοδομίας ὁ μολίβδινος κανών; ‘For what is itself indefinite can only be measured by an indefinite standard, like the leaden rule used by Lesbian builders’ (tr. Racham, Loeb). It is impossible to know exactly what Aristotle means, and we cannot make a link to the masonry style by the use of this phrase alone, Mason, ‘Lesbia Oikodomia’. Furthermore, as no example of the style is known to post-date the Persian Wars of 480/79 there is a considerable chronological gap down to the time of Aristotle (384–322) making any specific links doubtful, Scranton, Walls, 27 n. 5. (46) Used for the first time by Forchhammer around C19m AD, see Scranton, Walls, 27 n. 3. For a recent treatment of the style and its terminology, Spencer, Gazetteer. (47) Siedlungen, 30 n. 94. An attempt at a more precise alternative definition is found in Mason, ‘Lesbia Oikodomia’, 32: ‘closely-fitted polygonal masonry with curvilinear joints’. Spencer, Gazetteer, 53. (48) Mason, ‘Lesbia Oikodomia’, 32; Lang, Siedlungen, 30; Scranton, Walls, 27, to the effect that the style is only found in the Ionic sphere of influence. According to Winter (82) examples of ‘true Lesbian city-walls’ are unknown in the West, but this view may be challenged depending on the definition of walls at Sicilian Naxos and Hyele (Velia), Courtils, ‘L’Appareil polygonal “lesbien”’, 135 n. 54. (49) Courtils, ‘L’Appareil polygonal “lesbien”’, is a recent study which backs up the Aeolic origin and geographic diffusion of the Lesbian style. (50) Mason, ‘Lesbia Oikodomia’, 36–40, cf. Scranton, Walls, 30. (51) Spencer, Gazetteer, 54–6. (52) Wycherley, Cities2, 47; Winter, 85–7; Mason, ‘Lesbia Oikodomia’, 42; Spencer, ‘Towers and Enclosures’, 210–11. It may conversely be argued that this technique is more economical in its use of stone compared to that of squared ashlar blocks cut on a module, which potentially would have created a lot of waste. (53) Winter, 85. (54) For definition of the cyclopean style see Loader, Masonry, 5–39. (55) Scranton, Walls, chap. II; Winter, 81; Lawrence, Aims, 236–7; Camp, ‘Walls’, 42; Spencer, Gazetteer, 61–4.

Page 13 of 16

Dating City Walls (56) Smyrna (Cat.). (57) For a recent summing-up of the chronological issues, see Spencer, Gazetteer, 61–4. That the style was already widely used around the Greek world in C7, Lawrence, Architecture5, 167, is possible, but not entirely evident from the available sources. (58) Scranton, Walls, 33–4, list 159–61, with indication of when a date is based on external evidence and when it is based on historical probability. (59) Scranton, Walls, 159. (60) A C4 monumental grave in the Kerameikos in Athens, see below, p. 67. (61) Gazetteer, 64. (62) Ibid. (63) Ibid. 61. (64) Mason claims, without reference, that Antissa goes back to C8. This must be inspired by the C8 dating of the ‘Second Apsidal Building’ (and not the city wall) a dating that was proposed by Lamb, ‘Antissa’, 47. (65) Spencer lists a handful of walls from Lesbos dated by external evidence (Gazetteer, 61–4). There are no city walls among them, so the evidence presented only provides the general prevalence of the style in the Archaic period on the island and not necessarily the Archaic dating of the city walls in Lesbos constructed in the Lesbian style. For a more optimistic view on the amount of well-dated examples of Lesbian walls, see Spencer, ‘Towers and Enclosures’, 210, with reference to his 1993 thesis. (66) See the Catalogue for these walls. (67) Indirectly dated by associated buildings, the date of which has been provided by pottery, see Munn, Attica, 43–4, cf. fig. 12. (68) Scranton, Walls, 33–34, cf. 27 n. 5; Mason, ‘Lesbia Oikodomia’, 48; Martin, Manuel, 379–80; Winter, 88. (69) The stones in the grave monument in the Kerameikos have bevelled edges. This is not observed in any walls from the Archaic period, see Spencer, Gazetteer, 61. (70) It is securely dated to C4 BC. See Spencer Gazetteer, 53–4. (71) Mason, ‘Lesbia Oikodomia’, 48; Munn, Attica, 43, figs. 12–13. (72) Lawrence, Aims, 237; Winter, 90. Page 14 of 16

Dating City Walls (73) Gazetteer, 54. (74) See above, p. 114 n. 116 (Hellenistic times). (75) An extensive re-examination of all the Lesbian walls would probably give more clarification on this point. (76) Commenting on the exceptional width of the walls at Lamponia in the Troad, Cook (Troad, 262) takes this to be a characteristic of Archaic walls as opposed to later when towers were introduced. (77) See Catalogue entries for e.g. Amathous, Kyme in Magna Graecia, and Naxos phase 3. (78) Winter, 134, is sceptical about using width as an indicator of chronology. (79) See Catalogue entries for e.g. Emporio, Iasos, and Melie. (80) Maier, Mauerbauinschriften 1, 94. Karlsson, Towers, for a combined use of wall technique and type of tower as a means of dating in Classical and Hellenistic times. (81) See below, Chap. 7 for treatments of gates and towers in the Archaic period. (82) See below, Chap. 7 for a fuller discussion with references. (83) Examples are the work by Schilbach, Festungsmauern Argolis, on the walls of Argos, and observations at Atrax in Thessaly. At Herakleia Minoa on Sicily the first phase is dated to C6l because it is observed that it had to be much older than the second phase, dated C4, but it could also be early C6 or of course later, from Classical times, see Herakleia Minoa (Cat.: Date). (84) See Özyıǧıt, ‘Phokaia’, 81, 95–6, on the walls of Phokaia. Here sections of wall have been dated to the Archaic period because courses of masonry of a certain height are similar to the height of courses of well-dated sections, see also Phokaia (Cat.). (85) Examples on such observations are many, and I give just a few: Antissa on Lesbos, Lamb, Antissa, 173 fig. 4. The relation of Mauer A-D to Mauer F-P at Miletos, phase 1 and 2. Palairos (Classical/Hellenistic period, personal communication Dr Judith Ley, thesis DAI Berlin 2004). (86) Amathous in Cyprus, Leriche, ‘L’Étude archéologique’, 23. Classical circuit of Athens, see p. 46. Maier, Mauerbauinschriften 2, 73, on an example from epigraphical sources at Eleusis dated 329/8 BC (Maier no. 20 = IG II/III2 1672 with add. p. 812) where it is described how old mudbricks are to be destroyed and turned into new ones.

Page 15 of 16

Dating City Walls (87) Radt, ‘Frühesten Wehrmauern’, 166. (88) Leriche, ‘L’Étude archéologique’, 17. It has for example been suggested that the stretch of wall preserved inside the later eastern wall of Poseidonia dates to C6m because the wall seems to follow the layout of houses and other buildings in the neighbourhood dated to that period (Miller, Befestigungsanlagen, 264–5 with refs.). (89) Leriche, ‘L’Étude archéologique’, 20. (90) Welter, ‘Aeginetica’, 484; Walter, Ägina, 57, suggesting 490. (91) See p. 60 n. 93. (92) See above p. 60 n. 89. (93) Herodotos, 1.151.2 (cf. Strabo 13.1.21), describes an andrapodismos of Arisba by Methymna. This is likely to have happened in C6 or C5e. The locality Palaiokastro does not seem to have been inhabited and built up again before the late medieval period, see Spencer, Gazetteer, no. 116. It follows that it is highly likely that the walls of Arisba constructed in the Lesbian polygonal style are of Archaic date. See Arisba (Cat.: Date), and above, p. 65. (94) Wokalek, Stadtbefestigungen, 3. (95) Phokaia (Cat.: Date). (96) An obvious example is the problems we face when trying to make Herodotos’ description of the Spartan siege and assault on the wall of Samos 524 BC correspond to the remains of the wall and its elements actually found at Samos, see above, p. 21. Maier, Mauerbauinschriften 2, 93, who does discuss the problems about stratigraphic or historical dating. (97) Such walls are reported at least at 55 poleis, see Catalogue entries of category B (cf. Table 3). This number is not complete but represents the great majority of urban fortification walls dated to Archaic times because of their masonry style or other less secure methods.

Page 16 of 16

Topographical and Architectural Analysis

Greek City Walls of the Archaic Period, 900–480 BC Rune Frederiksen

Print publication date: 2011 Print ISBN-13: 9780199578122 Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: April 2015 DOI: 10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199578122.001.0001

Topographical and Architectural Analysis Rune Frederiksen

DOI:10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199578122.003.0007

Abstract and Keywords This chapter presents an analysis of the topography and architecture of preClassical city walls in an effort to answer questions regarding the manner of constructing the walls, the evolution of city wall architecture at a certain time period, the distinction between Early Iron Age and Archaic city walls, and the nature of settlements within these city walls as influenced by their topography and architecture. It begins with an investigation about Early Iron Age fortification walls which are usually located in coastal areas, followed by 7thcentury walls, middle Archaic city walls, late Archaic city walls. It is necessary to recognize the difference between the Early Iron Age and Archaic city walls in order to thoroughly examine the architectural distinctions and formulate a conclusive generalization about these city walls. Keywords:   Greek topography, pre-Classical architecture, Early Iron Age fortification, 7th-century walls, middle Archaic walls, late Archaic walls

Introduction The present chapter is a synthesis of the data assembled in the Catalogue (p. 121–200) and an attempt at answering a number of important questions related to the architecture and topography of city walls before Classical times. How were the walls constructed? What did they look like? How may the development in city wall architecture of the period be described? In what ways were Early Iron Age and Archaic city walls different from later walls? Do topographical and architectural data provide information about the character of the settlements within the walls?

Page 1 of 62

Topographical and Architectural Analysis The analysis is based on some seventy-four walls at sixty-one Early Iron Age settlements and Archaic poleis,1 walls of category A in the Catalogue (Tables 1– 2).2 To this core of evidence may be added a further fifty-five walls at poleis, category B in the Catalogue (Table 3), the majority of which probably belong to the Archaic period as well (cf. discussion in Chapter 6). A clear distinction between walls of the two categories is essential in order to allow for conclusions on as firm a basis as possible, supported by observations relating to A walls only. However, valuable information from category B walls will be discussed and taken into account when relevant. Information on construction and architecture from Archaic written sources is, unsurprisingly, limited. Detailed evidence on construction is more often found in Classical sources.3 There are, however, a few relevant passages, which have been included in the analysis below. To avoid repetition, most of the evidence from Homer (the description of Troy, the Shield of Achilles, and the polis of the Phaeacians on Scheria) is treated in Chapter 3 above and the reader will be referred there when relevant. To facilitate an overview and show developments over time, the analysis has been subdivided into four periods: (1) Early Iron Age, 900–700 BC, (2) early Archaic, 700–600 BC, (3) middle Archaic, 600–550 BC, and (4) late Archaic, 550–480 BC.4 In cases where the date of a wall overlaps two periods, the wall is treated in the later period.

Early Iron Age Fortification Walls Walls dating to the ninth and eighth centuries are found at thirteen town sites (Tables 1–2 and Map 1), for example (p.71) Asine in the Argolid, Melie 1 and Smyrna 1–2 in Ionia, Paphos 1 and Salamis on Cyprus, Phaistos on Crete, as well as a handful of Cycladic sites.5 Topography

Common to this early group is a coastal location or a location very near the sea. Agios Andreas and Phaistos at some 6 and 7 kilometres from the coast are hardly exceptions to this rule. All thirteen settlements are located on an eminence, either an actual hilltop as at Asine, Agios Andreas, Emporio, Hypsele, and Minoa, or a plateau as at Paphos, Salamis, and Smyrna. Some are located on peninsulas, either on a hill encircled by a wall as at Iasos, or with a wall across the neck of the peninsula, as at Vathy-Limenari and Zagora. In the case of Paphos at least part of the intramural space — which may or may not have been built up — seems to have been included for strategic reasons (Geländemauer). Sites KA and KB, where the wall runs, are actually on small hills beyond the edge proper of the plateau where Paphos was located (present-day Kouklia), and this location of the wall seems to have been chosen to avoid low visibility of the immediate terrain around Paphos, or to avoid providing an enemy with the opportunity of taking up an elevated position fairly close to the front of the wall.6 The wall is in this respect an early Geländemauer.

Page 2 of 62

Topographical and Architectural Analysis It seems that the concept of city wall in the basic topographical sense has been fully developed by this time: all walls are free-standing independent structures serving the sole purpose of protecting the settlement. Hypsele, which has a circuit in this sense, may be an exception, because houses outside the wall are built stronger, and connected to towers, similar to the arrangement at Lato.7 Information on the nature of the fortified space is varied. Some sites show remains of houses, often tiles, and/or concentrations of pottery attesting to the existence of settlements within the walls. The fortified hilltops at Emporio and Melie seem to be exceptions, with a function divided between sacred space, perhaps residences for local rulers, and refuges of the settlements immediately outside the walls. Asine may have been a similar case, although the local topography strongly suggests a different interpretation.8 The size of the settlements enclosed by fortification walls in the Early Iron Age, which is more or less identical to the size of the settlements, varies considerably (Table 6). If size is correctly understood and calculated from the remains, and further if comparison of size between these settlements is valid, three types of settlements emerge from this relatively modest set of data. Around half are quite small, between 0.5 and 3 hectares. A group of four are between 5 and 9 hectares, while two Cypriot sites, Paphos and Salamis, are considerably larger, having an estimated intramural space of 45 and 70 hectares respectively (Figs. 85, 95).9 While it is hardly a surprise that most intramural areas are quite modest in size, it is worth noting that at least two sites, Hypsele and Minoa, were fortified hilltops with an additional line of fortification, which at both sites protected additional settlement. The considerable size of the two Cypriot sites may indicate that huge and powerful settlements existed in Cyprus in the eighth century. But it must be borne in mind that the intramural space of both sites is an estimate based on interpretations of the topography in interplay with the walls found on one side only of the two plateaus at Paphos and Salamis respectively.10 Construction and architecture

The walls of the Early Iron Age show great variation in terms of dimensions and construction, but there are also common features. Since almost all the settlements were located on hilltops, plateaus, or hillsides, bedrock often constitutes the ancient surface, or lies close to the surface. For that reason the preference for founding walls on bedrock can be explained first of all by convenience. The (p.72) walls themselves are often poorly preserved, which makes it difficult to determine if the preserved structures are the lowest part of walls that would have been constructed in the same manner all the way up to the battlement, or if they are socles constructed differently from their superstructures, which could have been constructed of stone, mudbrick, or perhaps wood. These circumstances also make it hard to assess the original height of these walls.

Page 3 of 62

Topographical and Architectural Analysis The wall of Salamis is placed on the base of an earlier wall (LBA/PG), which again is placed on bedrock, and at Paphos the foundation of the wall is made by rough blocks of limestone laid in clay, also resting on bedrock (Fig. 87). Smyrna 1 was an exception, as the foundation was set in river silt. The foundations of Smyrna 2 were set in debris of Smyrna 1, and both foundations only reached between 1 and 2 metres below the ancient surface level (Fig. 103). There is an obvious connection between the width and the type of construction of the walls proper (Table 7), which allows for the definition of three basic types of construction. A few quite narrow walls, like Melie and Emporio, are constructed as drystone walls with no clear separate inner and outer shell. Other walls, like Asine, Iasos, part of Minoa, Phaistos, and Zagora, tend to be wider, and are constructed as double-faced walls, of roughly dressed irregular stone blocks, filled with rubble and soil. In both groups, however, the stones of the outer side of the walls are generally bigger than the stones on the inner side facing the settlement. This feature, also to be observed in Archaic and later fortification wall construction, reflects the nature of the upper wall, which would be stronger and higher on the external side than on the internal. The inner wall shell only needed to be strong enough to keep the infill in place, and to carry the wall walk for patrolling guards and defenders. Internal buttresses at Melie and Minoa were either an actual response to narrow and somewhat instable walls, or should perhaps be connected to (unfounded) lack of confidence in freestanding fortification walls, which are likely to have been a new phenomenon to some communities. Paphos 1, Salamis, and Smyrna 1–2 show similarities in construction detail and dimensions in their preserved socles. In Smyrna 2 (Fig. 103) and Paphos 1 (Fig. 87) we find double-faced stone walls on a core of mudbrick or mudbrick and stone. The outer face at Smyrna and the faces at Paphos are constructed of roughly worked polygonal stones, and the surface of the walls towards the settlement at both sites has been dressed in order to obtain a more or less even surface, an attempt which can hardly be explained as anything but aesthetic. At Smyrna the stones of this inner face (phase 2) are of hammer-dressed Lesbian style, which makes Smyrna the earliest attestation of this particular style.11 At Salamis the construction is a clay-pack with transverse ashlar walls, which brings the later compartment walls to mind.12 The wall at Salamis is reinforced by an additional rampart of clay in front of it, resulting in a total width of about 10 metres, the same as Smyrna 2; Paphos is half as wide, a little more than 4 metres. Circumstantial evidence gives an idea of the construction and height of walls in a few cases. At Zagora, for example, stones fallen from the wall were recovered in excavation trenches next to it, and judging from these blocks, the original height of the wall was estimated to have been between 4 and 5 metres. Page 4 of 62

Topographical and Architectural Analysis Assuming a proportional relationship between width and height, the walls of Salamis and Smyrna 2, being much wider, would perhaps have been as high as 10 metres. Gates

The available information about gates in the Early Iron Age is sparse (Table 7). Most frequently attested are gates of axial plan, a few metres wide, but they tend to be wider at walls of greater width. In Smyrna 1, a gate possibly of the tangential plan is identified, and later, in Smyrna 2, there are two gates — the north-east and south-east gates (Fig. 100).13 The remains of the north-east gate and the walls around it are sufficient in phase 2 to allow for its classification as tangential. Further to phase 2 were added flanking and reinforcing towers or bastions, the north-east one of quadrangular plan, whereas at Paphos a gate of the axial type existed (Figs. 86, 88). The approach to this gate was 12.5 metres long and reinforced (p.73) with bastions or towers, while the opening itself was 4.5 metres wide. Because of the reinforcing structures, the depth of the gate was some 20 metres. As at the southeast gate at Smyrna 2, large threshold blocks were found at Paphos, but here in situ. The north-east gate in the acropolis wall at Minoa is only 0.72 metres wide, and defensibility seems to have prevailed here over monumentality; the latter would have been developed in the lower circuit, the entrance proper to the town. The stone used around the acropolis gate is, however, different from that of the wall itself, and may be seen as an attempt at elaboration and monumentality, but only on a much smaller scale than that of Paphos and Smyrna. The occurrence of gates of either axial or tangential plan does not seem to be determined by chronology, topography, or width (or height) of walls. The tangential type, which is the less common of the two, may have been a local eastern Greek phenomenon in this period, as it is found in Emporio, Smyrna (1?)-2, but the statistical basis of this observation is of course limited. Towers

As pointed out above (Chap. 5), the distinction between towers and bastions has to be made from the preserved plans or at best from the lower parts of walls. For convenience I will refer to structures as towers unless a plan points to the identification as a bastion. In support of this approach is the fact that towers, pyrgoi, are often spoken of in Archaic written sources in connection with walls.14 This is relevant not only for the Early Iron Age, but throughout Archaic times, when no towers are preserved to the height above the wall proper,15 and are therefore not identifiable as true towers by that single parameter. Even though the plans of the gates with their towers at Smyrna cannot be reconstructed with certainty, it is likely that at least the north-east tower was Page 5 of 62

Topographical and Architectural Analysis quadrangular. Part of it certainly forms an obtuse angle (Fig. 102),16 and at exactly this point we find the only evidence at Smyrna that at least part of the superstructure of the wall was built in a stone different from that used in the socle.17 This wall is highly elaborate18 and an early example of finely worked (apparently chiselled and then saw-cut)19 ashlar masonry of soft limestone, perhaps imported.20 This ashlar work is earlier, not only than any of that attested in temple architecture, but in architecture of any type.21 As mentioned above, a regular quadrangular tower (7.9 × 7.5 metres) projects from the Paphos wall 40 metres east of the eastern gate-bastion (Figs. 86, 88), while at Salamis a bastion of Enceinte I was probably reused in the Iron Age phase. ‘Tower A’ at Agios Andreas (Fig. 15) seems to be the only element of the fortification wall there to have been added to the already existing Mycenaean circuit. It measures 9 × 8.4 metres, roughly the same as the Paphos tower. A rectangular structure measuring 3 × 6 metres identified at Asine is likely to have been a tower, whereas a square tower is reported from the upper wall at Minoa measuring 3.3 square metres (D on Fig. 79), which is quite small. A tower of triangular plan, in the wall of the lower town of Minoa measuring 7.19, 5.9, and 4.74 metres is unparalleled in Greek city wall architecture. If the long northwest wall at Minoa belongs to the early phase this wall will be the only (late) Early Iron Age wall with ‘true towers’.22 It is worth noting, first of all, that towers are not an essential element of Early Iron Age fortification walls. Only at Paphos and Minoa, if the date of the northwest wall at the latter is in fact Geometric, do towers seem to have served the function they do later, namely as projecting platforms occurring at certain intervals, and from which defenders could fire on attackers. The evidence from Salamis is not substantial enough, and the tower at Agios Andreas was probably a bastion, located as it was at the easiest point of access to the hilltop. The lack of proper towers is certainly connected with the type of warfare practised at the time. Towns or cities of the Greek world during the Early Iron Age were not likely to be attacked by huge armies able to undertake long sieges with siegemounds and machines.

(p.74) Seventh-Century City Walls Thirteen fortification walls have been identified from the seventh century (Map 1, Table 1).23 Before analysing these in detail, a handful of individual cases will be discussed, as their identification as fortification walls is not universally accepted. At Eretria finds of walls, first of all beneath the remains of the Archaic West Gate (Figs. 33–5), have led to the suggestion that Eretria already had a fortification wall in the plain between the acropolis and the harbour in the seventh century. The details on these much-disputed walls are presented in the Catalogue,24 while the essence of their interpretation is provided here: (Fig. 33) the walls Page 6 of 62

Topographical and Architectural Analysis clearly served as a dike, which ran from the (later) West Gate, towards the east and further on south, directly through what may have been the settlement area in the seventh century (see, however, below). Could these walls have served as fortifications as well?25 Such a double function has largely been rejected by recent scholarship on early Eretria.26 However, the construction of the dike walls seems to be far too substantial27 for what would have been needed for such an installation.28 The problem with an interpretation as fortification is the unlikelihood of having it running through the settlement, rather than on one side of it. It is worth noting, however, that the house and grave remains often pointed out as being on both sites of the dike/fortification, are not contemporary with it, and, therefore, there is not necessarily a topographical problem. If there was such a fortification in the plain below the acropolis of Eretria in the seventh century BC, more or less based on the dike, how may we suggest, hypothetically, its course? Petros Themelis, as a result of his find of remains of the dike,29 believed that there was a fortification circuit restricted to the Eretrian plain (and not including the acropolis) encompassing some 5 hectares — a not impossible but unlikely hypothesis. The acropolis, located less than 500 metres towards the north, would have been a much more obvious part of the city to fortify, and if the acropolis was fortified in the seventh century as well, it would have been connected with this suggested circuit only a few hundred metres below (as it was in later times) — and the circuit in the plain would have been secondary. If the acropolis was unfortified, it would have formed a possible strategic position close to the plain circuit for attacking enemies, a situation which was always avoided throughout the history of ancient Greek fortification. It is crucial for the interpretation that we do not know the extension of the settlement in the seventh century, or even where its centre was. Was it located towards and on the acropolis, or towards the harbour?30 I believe we may hypothesize the former, i.e. the entire space on the south slope of the acropolis, which was of course never flooded and thus better suited for habitation. Would the dike, a huge communal undertaking, have been constructed in order to convert the plain into active urban space if there were many hectares of unused space just north of it towards the acropolis? Constructing such a dike, assuming it went through contemporary settlement, was an (p.75) unusual undertaking for a Greek town, not only at this point in history but also later. It would have divided the settlement, which had to be connected again with bridges, which must have been very unpractical — unless of course such a division served an additional practical purpose as a fortification. While I acknowledge that problems remain with the interpretation of walls A–G (Fig. 34) and the rest of the dike as having served a fortification purpose, the interpretation as a dike only, also remains problematic. I suggest that the acropolis was fortified in the seventh century, that walls ran down from it and connected to the river and later to walls A–G, continued with the dike east for Page 7 of 62

Topographical and Architectural Analysis 400 metres, before the dike turned down towards Plot 740, and that the fortification continued west for another 300–400 metres before turning back towards the acropolis. The main part of the settlement may at this time have been within this suggested line of fortification (Fig. 33, trace indicated by crosses).31 The river was used as an extra obstacle for access towards the west and south, as is seen elsewhere, in the dry summer as a ditch and in the wet winter as a moat. In support of this theory is the fact that the mid-sixth-century wall, where identified, followed the trace of the earlier wall, down to the West Gate, after which it followed the river which by that time had been diverted south, to end at the coast by the harbour. The earlier turn of the river was transformed into a gate (mid-sixth century, phase 2, Figs. 36–7) and the entire area east of the new wall, all the way in the southern direction towards the harbour, became part of the urban intramural space. The seventh-century wall at the west edge of the Potters’ Quarter at Corinth (Fig. 28–9) has caused much controversy since its publication by Agnes Stillwell (Potters’ Quarter). The wall is often ignored entirely in treatments of early Corinth,32 or it is interpreted as a fortification wall around what is considered to be a part only of the settlement area of Corinth,33 rather than a circuit enclosing the bulk of the settlement. While it remains true that our evidence for the nature of settlement in Early Iron Age and Archaic Corinth points to a number of clusters of houses rather than to one large settlement,34 it seem highly unlikely that only one such cluster, the one at the Potters’ Quarter, was fortified.35 This has, however, often been suggested, and it has been argued that all the individual clusters were separately fortified. The latter situation is unattested in the history of Greek fortification, and the former is improbable, because if only a part of early Corinth was fortified, it would certainly have been the Akrokorinthos, on which walls that are likely to be Archaic have actually been found.36 This hilltop fortification would then have been connected with a wall enclosing part of the plateau below.37 Charles K. Williams and others argue in favour of a real circuit in the seventh century with a trace more or less coextensive with the later Classical one.38 Since the hard evidence is restricted to the stretch of wall at the Potters’ Quarter, this is of course just a hypothesis, but more likely than the theory of a settlement with partial fortification. In support of this idea I suggest that the fortification of Corinth was already one single circui comprising the north slope of Akrokorinthos, the Akrokorinthos itself, and part of the plain below from the Potters’ Quarter to the south-east gate of the Classical circuit, consisting of a fortified area of around 300 hectares in total (Fig. 27). This grand circuit does not necessarily contradict the existence of clusters of houses rather than one densely built urban unity, but it seems worth noting that the evidence for dispersed settlement at Corinth mostly dates to before the seventh century.39 The theory about an early circuit is not easily challenged by (p.76) other circumstantial evidence, such as the location of graves and cemeteries. Archaic graves are indeed found well inside the line of Page 8 of 62

Topographical and Architectural Analysis the later fortification circuit of the fifth century, but burial inside the walls is in fact found at more than one location down to the second century BC.40 There seem therefore to be local exceptions to the general practice in ancient Greek Early Iron Age and early Archaic topography,41 that is, the formation of burial plots into necropoleis and the separation of those from the urban core of the poleis. The early topography of Corinth, one of the most significant ancient Greek cities, is still a moot point. Despite decades of research, the area outside the Roman agora has received surprisingly little attention,42 and direct evidence for the urban development of Corinth in the Early Iron Age and the Archaic period is still — and may remain — patchy.43 The identification of Mauer I at Pergamon (phase 1) as a fortification wall has been questioned,44 partly because the construction does not resemble other known Archaic fortification walls. Since it has a width of 2 to >3 metres (Fig. 91) and follows a course closely resembling the classical (and unambiguously identified) wall Mauer II, I find it hard not to believe in the identification proposed by W. Radt.45 A real problem is whether Pergamon was a Greek settlement in the seventh century. The evidence for its being a polis does not antedate the fifth century,46 but most of the ceramic evidence from the Archaic period consists of Greek orientalizing wares and grey Aeolian ware.47 This does not necessarily identify the place as a predominantly Greek settlement at that time, and we may assume, although there is no evidence, that the site was inhabited by a mixed population.48 Archaic Pergamon is therefore included in this study, following the inclusive approach set out in Chapter 1 (p. 6–7). At Naxos in Sicily, the emergence of fortifications constructed by the Greek settlers is traditionally dated to the sixth century (Figs. 81–2, walls E and D).49 A stretch of Bronze Age wall, c.30 metres running north-south, approximately 20 metres north of Castello di Schisò (Fig. 81), was probably reused in the Geometric period,50 and the Greek settlement of this period may have been confined to the area between Castello di Schisò and Capo Schisò, comprising some 10 hectares (Fig. 81).51 The walls around the sanctuary of Hera (B–G), in the south-west corner of the city, are traditionally interpreted as temenos walls and dikes (Fig. 67). However, the width of wall B (c.3 metres) is unusually wide for a temenos wall52 and wall C (W 1.5–2.2 metres) is around the norm for a number of Archaic city walls.53 The interpretation of walls B, C, and F (Fig. 82) as parts of a seventh–century fortification wall is admittedly theoretical. The prevailing identification as part of a temenos wall is supported by the topography, since the area enclosed was a sanctuary, and what is suggested here is a double function. Both the wall stretch G and Tower 2 are late sixth-century (phase 3) reinforcements of the earlier sixth-century walls C and D (phase 2), and given the contextual argument, in casu that G and Tower 2 are located on the same spot as C and D, it is reasonable to suggest that C and D were fortifications in (p.77) the early sixth century as Page 9 of 62

Topographical and Architectural Analysis well. More significant, however, is the fact that wall E, flanking the city proper, forms a perfect continuation of B, which then could be envisaged as the last remains of an earlier version of E (contemporary with B and C) which ran all along the south-east side of Naxos. This new interpretation of C and E seems to gain further weight when one considers the likelihood that the settlement was fortified in the Geometric period. Distribution and topography

The fortified sites of the seventh century BC54 are spread around all areas of the Greek world except for Italy, the Black Sea coast and the North African coast (Tables 1–2, Map 1).55 Compared to those of the ninth–eighth centuries, the seventh-century sites are found in the same areas, but mainland Greece and the western mainland presence are new. The north-east Peloponnese adds two sites to Asine of the Early Iron Age, and Thrace and Sicily also enter the scene.56 Except for Pergamon, all sites are situated on the coast or close to it, which must have been a highly contributing factor for why communities fortified themselves. Naxos, Megara Hyblaea, and Smyrna were situated in plains or low plateaus, and so were at least parts of the settlements enclosed by the early walls at Abdera and Eretria. At both these latter sites the acropoleis must have been fortified as well, but evidence to support this is only available for Eretria.57 At Corinth the identified wall is situated on the plateau between the acropolis (Akrokorinthos) and the plain, and at Miletos the wall runs along the foot of the hill (the Kalabaktepe). The remaining sites were situated on hilltops and hillsides encircled by walls. It is worth noting that a hilltop location was no longer the primary location for fortification walls, and this must reflect the general topographical development of settlements. If the catalogue of fortifications presented in this book has any statistical significance for the Early Iron Age and seventh century, we can conclude that already at this early point in the history of Greek settlements, the seventh century, settlements in general expanded from on top of a hill and down its slopes into the plain below. When settlements were situated entirely or partly on level ground, a river would often be used as an extra obstacle for access to the settlement on one side, and such rivers were found in connection with fortifications at Eretria, Naxos, and Smyrna.58 The fragmentary preservation of wall circuits in this period means that the size of the intramural space must be ascertained by interpreting the surrounding topography. Oikonomos is a straightforward case, since the wall can be traced along its entire circuit, encompassing less than 1 hectare (Fig. 84, Table 8), and at Apollonia, the early wall is very likely to have followed the same trace as the later now visible wall, which follows the edge of the acropolis hill (Fig. 23). For Page 10 of 62

Topographical and Architectural Analysis Miletos, however, we have to assume that the fortified area enclosed the entire Kalabaktepe hill (6 hectares), since walls have only been found on one side of it (Figs. 76–7). At Halieis, walls on the acropolis and below the later wall of the lower city suggest an area of 7 hectares59 (Fig. 44), and at Smyrna the most obvious connection of walls found on the east and west side of the settlement suggests an intramural space of 5 hectares (Fig. 100). At Pergamon the intramural space must have been at least 18 hectares (Fig. 90), if the entire area above the fortification is included, which is the same as at Eretria, assuming the interpretation of the situation at that site in the seventh century is correct (see above, p. 74–5). In the case of Naxos (Fig. 81) and Megara Hyblaea (Fig. 67), situated more or less on flat ground, the enclosed area seems to have been c.35 and 70 hectares respectively. This is inferred from seventh-century remains found at later and better identified traces of wall attesting to these measures. At both sites there is nothing in the local topography to suggest a different, either smaller or more extensive, trace of the seventh-century walls. At Melie the wall below the hill of Kaletepe is only identified on the east side, but even a conservative reconstruction of the trace allows for an estimate of the intramural space of as much as 50 hectares (Fig. 70). The supposition that the walls of Abdera enclosed an area of 110–20 hectares (Fig. 11),60 is based on the physical extent of various settlement elements. This line of argument (p.78) is not entirely satisfactory, since at all times in Greek history, settlements and cities expanded beyond their fortifications, and would often at some later stage in history have included the expanded habitation quarters in a new and larger circuit. Written sources, as well as archaeology, tell us that suburbs, in the sense of urban quarters outside the walls, existed at least from the early fifth century onwards.61 The estimate for the intramural space at Abdera may still be correct, however, since the identified traces of wall, at the north-west corner of the city, are situated far away from the acropolis, which must have formed part of the early settlement and have been included in the early fortification as well. A similar interpretation of the evidence and circumstances is necessary for early Corinth (discussed, above, p. 75–6) suggesting an impressive figure for the intramural space, namely 300 hectares (Fig. 27). Construction and architecture

With thirteen walls dated to the seventh century, information about details of construction is more plentiful than that of the Early Iron Age. Walls are preferably set on bedrock, which is sometimes worked to receive the blocks (Corinth and Pergamon). No foundation has been identified at Miletos 1 and at Halieis 1 (see Halieis, phase 3). Smyrna 3 is founded on debris from Smyrna 2,

Page 11 of 62

Topographical and Architectural Analysis and its depth is no more than 1–2 metres below the ancient surface level (Fig. 103). The preferred construction for the walls themselves is a double-faced base of more or less worked blocks, mostly comprising one or just a few courses,62 normally not more than 1 metre high. Smyrna 3 is an exception with its inner and outer courses, preserved up to a height of ten courses reaching more than 5 metres (Fig. 103). Normally the outer shell is made of larger stones than the inner (Abdera, Miletos, Oikonomos, Pergamon, and Smyrna), but at Corinth both the inner and outer faces are c.30 centimetres in width (Figs. 28–9). The wall at Halieis 1–2 is unique, being built entirely of mudbrick. At Melie 2 the wall is constructed as a solid entity, without clear inner and outer faces. The stones of the exterior part tend, however, to be larger than the stones of the interior. At Corinth cross-walls some 40 centimetres wide intersect the wall at intervals of about 5 metres, a method of construction which recalls the later compartment construction of the stone superstructures of Classical and Hellenistic city walls.63 Here, however, as at Salamis (cf. above), the compartment construction is not likely to have been continued in the superstructure, unless perhaps in some kind of wooden construction. The width of seventh-century walls varies considerably (Table 9). The 1.45 metre wall at Oikonomos belongs at the narrow end, as does part of wall C at Sicilian Naxos, which is between 1.5 and 2.2 metres, while B (the continuation of C towards the west end of Temple B) is around 3.5 metres (Fig. 82). At Halieis the wall on the acropolis has a width of 1.75–1.8 metres (between 2.55 and 2.95 metres when reinforced in phase 2). Corinth fits in this group with a width of 2.4 metres, along with Apollonia, Melie, and Pergamon. Abdera and Miletos seem to form a group with walls of around 4 metres (3.15–4.5 metres and c.4 metres respectively). Around the lower town of Halieis and around Megara Hyblaea, there seem to have been earthen ramparts, c.9 and 6–8 metres wide respectively, while the wall at Smyrna shows an exceptional width ranging from 10 to 18 metres. Although seventh-century mudbricks have been found only at Halieis, Miletos, and Smyrna, the walls at Abdera, Corinth, and Oikonomos presumably had superstructures of mudbrick too. The typical construction in this period is a stone base with a superstructure of mudbrick.64 The wall at Melie 2 (Fig. 72) is constructed as a dry rubble wall of limestone, preserved to a height of 2.5 metres, and this construction may have continued all the way up. Naxos and Pergamon may also have been built entirely of stone, but this is pure guesswork, partly based on the fact that stone was at hand in abundance at both localities. At Pergamon, limited finds of mudbrick in general may offer further support for this theory.65 The earth rampart at Megara Hyblaea is preserved to a height of 1 metre, but could have been some 6 metres high, according to the angle with which both the (p.79) inside and outside taper inwards. Evidence for similar tapering at the base is found at Halieis, but as for the construction of Page 12 of 62

Topographical and Architectural Analysis the greater part of the superstructures at both sites — since no remains have been found — we can only theorize that both walls were constructed of soil and furnished with wooden stakes. Some of the seventh-century walls were perhaps constructed of stone, but due to the limited preservation the description of masonry style applies to the base only, or at best the lower parts of the walls. Smyrna 3 had a monumental base both inside and outside. The inner side of Smyrna 2 was reused in this phase and the outside is described as constructed of rubble polygonal blocks with a coarse hammer-dressed surface. Like Smyrna, the blocks of the outer faces at Miletos, Naxos, Oikonomos, and Pergamon are described as polygonal. In Miletos the stones are well fitted (walls A–D) and the surface worked as in Smyrna 2–3,66 while Naxos (walls B and C) and Pergamon are constructed of rough polygonal blocks with no or only a rough treatment of the surface. The blocks used for the wall at Oikonomos are described as lightly worked. Gates are identified at Miletos (Figs. 76–7), Oikonomos (Fig. 84), and Smyrna. In Smyrna the tangential northeast gate of the previous phases is refurbished, and the two walls inside and outside the opening are increased in width resulting in a substantial reinforcement around the gate. At Oikonomos the south gate was probably of tangential type and 3.5 metres wide, and in Miletos, too, we find a gate of this type, the Südwesttor, also with an opening width of 3.5 metres. The inner wall (A–A) widens only slightly, and cannot have had the same bastion effect as the wall ends in Smyrna. In Miletos there is also a gate of axial type, further towards the east, with a width of 3.4 metres. No regular towers, apart from reinforcements at gates, are identified among the walls of the seventh century.67 The interpretation of the remains at Smyrna as being those of towers, reinforcing the north-east gate (phases 1–2), is accepted here, but the fragmentary state of the remains precludes any description in detail. It seems, however, that at least the north-east tower was quadrangular in phases 1–2. Except for Smyrna 3, no seventh-century towers are reported (Table 9), leaving us with a problem of explanation similar to that of the gates, of which only a few are reported from this century. I believe that particular architectural elements, like gates and towers, at these sites, at this particular time, are more affected by ancient destruction than any other feature. Eight of the thirteen Early Iron Age settlements were abandoned before Archaic times, bringing building activities, and destruction other than plain decay, to a halt, which may explain why we still find remains of them. All the seventh-century sites, on the other hand, were continuously occupied throughout antiquity, and their fortifications are likely to have been rebuilt a number of times.68 The few seventh-century sites that were in fact abandoned (Oikonomos and Smyrna)69 are precisely the ones where details of gates and towers are actually preserved. This focus on the few examples preserved of course does not prove the existence

Page 13 of 62

Topographical and Architectural Analysis of towers elsewhere. But it should not, I believe, be flatly concluded that towers suddenly stopped being part of city wall construction in the seventh century. At Megara Hyblaea a ditch is identified running outside the phase 1 wall. It is at least 3 metres wide and 1.5–2 metres deep, and the soil excavated from it was used as building material for the wall,70 thus creating two fortification elements by one flow of work. One would expect this convenient and efficient way of managing the resources to have been applied wherever possible.71 Among the numerous references in the Iliad to the wall (teichos) around the camp of the Achaioi at Troy,72 there are also some details about construction and fortification: (p.80) the wall had a ditch (τάϕρος) in front of it, described as wide and deep (ἔκτοσθεν δὲ βαθεῖαν ἐπ᾿ αὐτῷ τάϕρον ὄρυξαν, εὐρεῖαν μεγάλην, …),73 and we are also told that wood and earth were used.74 While the expedition of the Achaioi may be mythical, and a long siege operation anachronistic in the ‘Homeric universe’ of eighth-seventh-century Greece, the wall itself with the elements described — an earthen embankment fronted by a taphros — does fit the finds at Megara Hyblaea and Halieis. The passage Il. 12.258–64 provides further details: κρόσσας μὲν πύργων ἔρυον, καὶ ἔρειπον ἐπάλξεις, στήλας τε προβλῆτας ἐμόχλεον, ἃς ἄρ᾿ Ἀχαιοὶ πρώτας ἐν γαίῃ θέσαν ἔμμεναι ἔχματα πύργων. τὰς οἵ γ᾿ αὐέρυον, ἔλποντο δὲ τεῖχος Ἀχαιῶν ῥήξειν· οὐδέ νύ πω Δαναοὶ χάζοντο κελεύθου, ἀλλ᾿ οί γε ῥινοῖσι βοῶν ϕράξαντες ἐπάλξεις βάλλον ἀπ᾿ αὐτάων δηΐους ὑπὸ τείχος ἰόντας.75 Krossai and epalxion (in the plural)76 are the battlements, and from the first occurrence we can only deduce that these formed part of the superstructure of the wall.77 In the latter instance the epalxeis may be interpreted as a crenellated parapet, since it is related that the Greeks put ox hides in between them, i.e. in the merlons.78 Details about the shape or construction of the crenellation of the teichos of the Greeks are, however, not given in the Iliad. Fortunately we gain some information about this particular matter when we turn to the visual arts, depictions on Archaic pottery (see above, p. 38–40). From these depictions it is clear that the crenellation on Greek walls were square.

Middle Archaic City Walls Twenty walls are listed from the period 600 to 550 BC (Table 1),79 four at sites which had phases in the seventh century as well.80 In contrast to the seventh century, the identification of fortification walls at Eretria 2 and Naxos 2 are now generally accepted (both phase 2). In the cases of Metapontion and Idalion, the preserved remains are too scanty to allow for straightforward identification. Arguments based on construction and context, however, strongly suggest that the walls were indeed fortification walls.81 In two other cases the evidence for dating is questionable.82

Page 14 of 62

Topographical and Architectural Analysis Distribution and topography

The geographical distribution is shown in Map 2 (cf. Table 2). Among the fourteen new localities are Euesperides and Taucheira in Libya,83 putting the North African coast on the map. New sites in the East are Achilleion in Troas, Phokaia in Aeolis, and Klazomenai in Ionia. Eretria, and Halai in East Lokris, attest to fortification of poleis on Euboia and the central Greek mainland, while Bouthrotos in Epirus attests to fortifications in western mainland Greece. Halieis in the Argolid remains active with phase 3, Xobourgo in Tenos adds to the Cycladic evidence, and in the Greek West, Sicily provides three examples with Akragas, Leontinoi, and Naxos 2. The easternmost wall constructed (p.81) in this period is Idalion 1 on Cyprus, and at Vroulia on the southern tip of Rhodes, a wall is also found. The preferred location for settlements with walls in this chronological group is coastal, except for Akragas and Metapontion, both situated a few kilometres from the coast, and Idalion and Leontinoi which are situated even further inland. Again, the majority of the settlements (eleven)84 were situated on hills, hillsides, or hills extending down into plains, while eight are found in plains or on low plateaus.85 Even though the preservation of walls gets better as we move down in time, the trace of individual walls will still have to be deduced from the local topography and the trace of later walls. As was the case for Early Iron Age and early Archaic walls, the intramural space given for these walls (Table 10) are estimates. The case of Eretria is typical. Interpreting the c.550 BC remains — the West Gate being the first generally accepted lower town fortification (in this book regarded as phase 2) — we may assume first of all that the fortified area incorporated the acropolis. The argument for this assumption is the same as the one used for Eretria in the seventh century (see above, p. 74–5). Of the plain perhaps as much as from the West Gate and all the way down to the sea was included as well. The wall itself is only attested in part between the West Gate and the sea, so this is hypothetical, but the river is diverted to go south towards the sea, and parallel to it on the side of the settlement and on line with remains of the later wall, structures identified as ‘well towers’ have been found at least as far south as 90 metres from the West Gate, a clear indication that the wall was running in this direction. Acknowledging that the figures given in Table 10 only roughly reflect the topographical reality of these Archaic walled settlements, it seems reasonable to assume that the broader picture provided by these estimated figures is correct. The sites fall into three groups. The first group consists of nine sites with tiny or small intramural areas, between 0.5 and 9 hectares; the second of five sites with

Page 15 of 62

Topographical and Architectural Analysis areas between 35 and 81.5 hectares, and the third of three sites having as much as 100 to 145 hectares within the walls. Construction and architecture

When possible, walls were set on or close to bedrock also in this period. This is observed at Akragas, Halieis, Idalion, Leontinoi, Phokaia, Taucheira, and Xobourgo. Specific information on this, however, is not always provided in the literature. No walls identified in plains are among the ones listed, simply because such walls were difficult to found on bedrock, which was located much deeper in plains than on hilltops. At a sequence of the wall investigated in the Cotone Valley at Selinous only the outer face of the socle was brought to a significant depth, probably to secure the foundation, as the nearby river made the grounds swampy and soft. Walls

The socles of the walls in this group are constructed in several different ways. The wall at Leontinoi is a singleshell retaining wall not only on the east side of the S. Mauro Hill, where such a construction is to be expected, but apparently also in the valley below (Fig. 61).86 The stretches here, however, are not very well preserved. The wall at Metapontion (Fig. 74) could be interpreted as part of an embankment, with a single wall shell towards the outside consisting of a stone base, rather than as having been the outer face of a double faced wall, as suggested here. (p.82) At Eretria 2,87 Euesperides, and Taucheira, the base is a massive layer of unworked stones and boulders. At Euesperides a line of mudbricks formed an outer face of the remaining part of the base (Fig. 39). At least six of the remaining walls can be described as double-faced at the base, with a fill of rubble and soil. At Italian Kyme 1 the core seems to be an earth wall, and the construction of the wall phases ashlar blocks in tufa laid in isodomic style. At Phokaia both faces are also made of ashlar blocks in tufa, at Xobourgo they are a combination of ashlar blocks and small unworked stones (Fig. 113), while at Selinous the outer face is of ashlar blocks and the inner of blocks of a more irregular character. At both Naxos 2 and Halai, the blocks are of polygonal form, at Halai they are more roughly finished than at Naxos. At Halai and Selinous the lower courses protrude a little and likewise, at Italian Kyme 1, the outer face is founded on two courses of rectangular blocks protruding slightly in relation to the courses above. At Halieis 3 the change in relation to phase 2 is the addition of a silicon socle added under the standing mudbrick wall88 and at Achilleion the foundation is flat stone slabs. The width of walls is rarely constant in this period, and may vary dramatically along the same trace. Euesperides, Halieis, Taucheira, and Vroulia have rather narrow walls, between 1.5 and 3 metres, and since they show unusual Page 16 of 62

Topographical and Architectural Analysis construction (at least in part of their traces), it may be that there is a connection between smaller dimensions and idiosyncratic construction. In accordance with this observation, walls having a width ranging from 3.5 to 4.9 metres (Halai, Italian Kyme 1, Naxos 2, Phokaia, Selinous, and Xobourgo) are constructed as double-faced walls with fill. It is logical that larger dimensions required more solid constructions, but the reason why doublefaced construction was often chosen was probably also because it was economical. The alternative would have been a more expensive construction with a socle of stone blocks throughout its width. Finds of mudbrick at Eretria 2, Euesperides,89 Idalion 1, Halieis 2, Metapontion, Taucheira, and Vroulia indicate that the superstructures of the walls at these sites were of this material, and it is very possible that the superstructures at Achilleion, Halai, Selinous, and Xobourgo were of mudbrick as well. At Achilleion the masonry style of the socle is described as fine polygonal work (Fig. 14), at Halai as roughly hewn polygonal work, while Selinous and Xobourgo had walls of ashlar or partly ashlar construction. The rest of the walls in this group of middle Archaic walls is constructed in stone. At Leontinoi the stretch of wall at the east side of the S. Mauro hill is of ashlar blocks in isodomic style, and the wall inclines 7 degrees. This construction style and the inclination are also found at Italian Kyme phase 1. A detailed study of the walls of Akragas still remains to be carried out, in order to clarify the phases of construction and their chronology. An ashlar construction has been identified along the base and lower courses of the wall, but we do not know for sure whether this was also used for the upper part of the wall in the early sixth century BC. At Naxos 2, Wall E is constructed of polygonal lava blocks with a smoothed surface. It is unclear how high this wall was, and whether the upper courses were constructed in the same way. The remains of the wall at Phokaia are singularly impressive. The section at the Maltepe Tumulus (Fig. 94) reveals a part of the wall preserved to a height of more than 5 metres. The outer face consists of ashlar blocks alternating between two high courses (54–70 centimetres) and one low (29–32 centimetres), in fact a variation of the pseudo-isodomic style. The principle behind this construction is the use of blocks of the same dimensions which in every third course are laid flat instead of on edge up. Whereas Herodotos is a valuable and reliable source for the existence of fortifications of individual cities, he is less informative about the construction of walls. Apart from some descriptions of ‘barbarian’ cities,90 the most detailed account we have from his hand is of the walls of Phokaia 1.162–4 (1.163): μετὰ δέ, ὡς τοῦτό γε οὐκ ὄπειθε τοὺς Φωκαιέας, ὁ δὲ πυθόμενος τὸν Μῆδον παρ᾿ αὐῶών ὡς αὔξοιτο, ἐδίδου σϕι χρήματα τεῖχος περιβαλέσθαι τὴν πόλιν, ἐδíδου δὲ ἀϕειδέως· καὶ γὰρ καὶ ἡ περíοδος τοῦ τείχεος οὐκ ὀλίγοι στάδιοι εἰσί, τοῦτο Page 17 of 62

Topographical and Architectural Analysis δὲ πᾶν λίθων (p.83) μεγάλων καὶ εὖ συναρμοσμένων,91… We are told that the wall was long, made entirely of big stones, fitted well together. The wall of the Phokaians is described as having προμαχεῶνα, a word translated as breastwork, battlement, or bastion.92 From this description it is clear that προμαχεών, at least in the context here, must be understood as a part of the wall: battlement may be excluded as we know from other contexts that Herodotos used the term epalxis to signify this,93 leaving us with either bastion or breastwork. The evidence for the height of the wall at Phokaia can be supplemented by an interesting observation made at Selinous, where the height of the wall at a particular spot has been estimated to have been 6.5 metres (8.5 metres at the battlement side).94 The Phokaian wall was probably just as high on the exterior side. Herodotos’ description of the Phokaian wall encourages speculation as to whether the entire wall was constructed in the same way as the preserved parts at the Maltepe Tumulus. His description could also mean that the wall was an exception among its contemporaries, which seems to be the case. Herodotos praises the length of the wall, which was by no means the longest in the Greek world at the time (Table 10), but it certainly stands out among the walls of the eastern poleis, with which Herodotos was obviously better acquainted. Gates

Evidence of gates is more substantial in this period than it was for walls of the seventh century, probably because of the higher number of preserved walls (Table 11). Gates have been identified in connection with at least eleven of the walls of this period. The axial plan is dominant, as the tangential has only been identified at Teichioussa (Fig. 107) and perhaps at Vroulia. At Eretria 2 and Halai (North East Gate), however, the plan is not truly axial, but a hybrid between the axial and the tangential (compare Fig. 37 with Fig. 43). These two gates are similar in plan as well as in dimensions, and both have a width at the opening of c.3 metres. Although not identical,95 it is tempting to claim that the design of one gate was inspired by that of the other. Of axial gates the north gate at Halai is 2 metres wide, the south gate at Naxos phase 2 is 3.7 metres and the gate at Phokaia (Maltepe Tumulus) is 3.8–4 metres wide. The South Gate at Leontinoi has an opening width of 3.6 metres, and at Akragas the eight preserved gates are mostly of axial design and vary in width between 2.6 and 5 metres. The East Greater Gate at Selinous 1 has an axial bipartite opening, each spanning c.3 metres (Fig. 98). The length of this gate is more than 9 metres, which is considerable, whereas the gate at Phokaia is c.5 metres long. Like some of the gates of the early Archaic period, at least three walls of the middle Archaic period have towers located next to gates; Eretria 2 and Halai’s North East Gate have already been mentioned. Leontinoi is another example, but here the protection is provided by a bastion-like edifice created by Page 18 of 62

Topographical and Architectural Analysis a 90-degree turn of the wall (Fig. 61). Because of the width of the wall around the gate at the Maltepe Tumulus at Phokaia, c.5 metres, it has been suggested that the gate was reinforced by towers/bastions, just as in Early Iron Age Paphos (see above, p. 72–3).96 Towers

Apart from towers at gates, regular towers at intervals along the wall trace have been identified in a number of cases (Table 11). Several towers of rectangular plan exist at Akragas, and at Euesperides a quadrangular structure (5 × 3.6 metres) has been interpreted as a tower (Fig. 39). At Halai the wall was reinforced by circular towers and rounded bastions (Fig. 43), and at various places along the trace of the wall at Phokaia rock cuttings for embedding wall blocks attest to much wider dimensions than the wall proper. Some of these may date back to the circuit of the first half of the sixth century, and are probably evidence for towers. At Leontinoi both a circular and a rectangular tower are found (Figs. 61–2). At (p.84) Eretria indirect archaeological evidence attests to the existence of regular towers south of the West Gate towards the harbour. Other elements

A ditch is observed in front of the wall at Vroulia, and it is likely that ditches existed at a number of the middle Archaic walls, in particular at settlements located on fairly flat land, as at Megara Hyblaea 2, where a ditch was identified in phase 1, and Metapontion and Selinous. At the Maltepe Tumulus (Phokaia), a glacis was added at the west face (Fig. 94). It is not known how far down this glacis goes as the structure has not been fully excavated. It is at least 3.36 metres high and slopes down from the face of the wall at an obtuse angle. The external faces of the walls at Italian Kyme and Leontinoi incline as well, but this is too insignificant to have been created intentionally as a glacis.

Late Archaic City Walls From the period 550 to 479 BC, evidence of city walls is found at twenty-nine cities, seven of which have walls attested in earlier periods as well (Table 1).97 The comparative analysis of these walls is prefaced by comments relating to identification of settlements, classification of wall types, and dates of walls of individual sites. At Alalie on Corsica, the remains of an impressive Archaic fortification system are dated broadly by pottery finds to the late sixth century (Fig. 18), leaving open the question whether the settlement was actually a Greek city at the time when the wall was constructed. Alalie ceased to be a predominantly Greek settlement after 535 BC when the city was defeated by a combined Etruscan and Phoenician force.98 If the wall was indeed constructed before 535, it was an Archaic Greek city wall, if later then probably an Archaic Etruscan one. Associating this fortification system with the period before 535, with reference Page 19 of 62

Topographical and Architectural Analysis to Herodotos’ account, and claiming that the Alalians would have needed fortification in the conflict of 535, and that the wall found therefore must be the one, is of course a circular argument. As the evidence stands the precise date and the question of the ethnicity of the settlement remain open.99 When identifying a wall from its construction particular care must be taken if the wall is only 1 metre wide, like the wall of Myrmekeion (Fig. 80 at no. 1). This wall seems, however, to be legitimately identified as a fortification wall, since it encircles a settlement on the top of a hill, and, further, since there is a sharp turn in the wall which seems to have been either an indented trace or a bastion.100 The wall on the north slope of the Panayιrdaǧ at Ephesos (Fig. 32) is not widely accepted as the fortification wall of an Archaic settlement,101 mainly due to the lack of observed settlement remains.102 Recent surveys have, however, identified remains of houses which may date to the Archaic period.103 In addition, and in contrast to the hilltop fortification at Myrmekeion, the hill at Ephesos could easily have accommodated the major part of the population of a settlement, and it is therefore assumed here that at least a large part of the Archaic settlement was on this hill. Settlement remains from the eighth–seventh century are found below the hill (see above, p. 9). Several fragmentary walls belonging to this period are identified by the contextual argument. One example is Kaulonia. The wall fragments M9 and M11 are found directly under the Classical circuit at Tower D, and for this reason they have been interpreted as remnants of a forerunner of the Classical wall.104 At Aigina the situation is admittedly a little more circumstantial, as the date is obtained from topographical evidence. The latest objects (pottery) found in graves located within the estimated perimeter belong to the (p.85) decade 490–480 BC, which suggests that the present location of the wall around the urban centre of Aigina goes back to the late 480s.105 Thasos, too, belongs to this group of late Archaic walls, as recent investigations, based on external evidence, place it around the middle of the sixth century.106 Distribution and topography

Twelve of the walls are found at cities in the Greek West (Map 2, Tables 1–2). Five of these, Gela, Heloron, Kamarina, Naxos, and Megara Hyblaea are in Sicily, the last two each with two earlier phases (see above). Five walls were also constructed in Magna Graecia in this period: Hyele, Kaulonia, Kyme, Lokroi Epizephyrioi, and Siris; and late Archaic walls have also come to light at Massalia and at Alalie in Corsica.

Page 20 of 62

Topographical and Architectural Analysis The central Greek homeland (Map 2) has four cities with walls from this period, Ambrakia, Kalydon, Aigina, and Argos, as well as one deme (Eleusis), and north Greece four, Abdera 2, Stagiros, Pistyros, and Thasos. Further towards the north-east, in the Black Sea area, walls are attested for the first time, at Istros on the west coast and Myrmekeion at the Kimmerian Bosporos. In the East Greek area walls are found at Antissa on Lesbos and at Ephesos. On Cyprus there are walls at Amathous, Idalion, and Paphos, of which the last two had walls earlier in the Archaic period as well (see above). Twenty-four of these late Archaic walled cities are situated directly on the coast, four of them on peninsulas, namely Ephesos, Istros, Massalia, and Stagiros. Three of the remaining, Kalydon, Paphos 2, and Siris, are situated within 5 kilometres of the coast. Ambrakia and Idalion 2 are the only true inland locations. Nine walls were directly associated with hilltop settlements (e.g. Ephesos and Stagiros), while six covered an elevated plateau (e.g. Kamarina, Paphos, and Pistyros). As many as twelve walls are found to have incorporated both a hill and part of the plain below. Only Alalie and Naxos (phase 3) were built on flat ground or low plateaus close to sea level. The reliability of estimates of the intramural space in late Archaic cities improves as a consequence of greater numbers and better preservation of individual sites (Table 12). However, much of the information is still based on interpretation of the topography, and extrapolation from traces of later walls. All walls enclosing an area of less than 20 hectares are located on hilltops or plateaus, and among those we find nine sites with an intramural space of less than 6 hectares, while three are between 9 and 18 hectares. There is then a big group of eleven, of between 35 and 80 hectares, e.g. Istros 60 hectares (Fig. 53), Hyele 64 hectares (Fig. 49), Thasos 70 hectares (Fig. 108), and Kyme in Magna Graecia with 80 hectares (Fig. 59). In this group we find the first attestations of walls that extend from a hill into the plain below, for example Idalion 2 (Fig. 52), Kaulonia (Fig. 58), and Massalia (Fig. 66). Finally there is a group of five with intramural areas between 110 and 240 hectares. Abdera (Fig. 11) and Miletos (Fig. 76) both seem to have covered around 110 hectares in their second phase, Ambrakia 120 hectares (Fig. 20), Kamarina 140 hectares (Fig. 57), and Lokroi Epizephyrioi perhaps as much as 240 hectares (Fig. 64). Even though the source material for this period is so much better than that for the Early Iron Age and earlier Archaic periods, there do seem to be obvious errors in the data, and the figures (Table 12) should not be compared on an individual basis. It may, for example, be suspected that the data are incorrect for some of the small hilltop settlements simply because they are too small in comparison with what we would think reasonable at this time. If the size of the Page 21 of 62

Topographical and Architectural Analysis fortified area is related to the standing of a given settlement or city, we would have to place Gela and Ephesos among the small poleis, which hardly fits the general significance of the two cities in the late Archaic period, not only when viewed in isolation, but also when compared with others of the period. We have to conclude, as we assume a broad relationship between intramural space and the actual size of the urban build of the city, either that more fortifications remain to be found at these two cities or that walls already identified, but undated or dated to Classical or later times, must belong to the Archaic period. But this is for future research to confirm or reject. It is important that already at this time a number of poleis incorporated huge areas within their city circuits and, even though large amounts of space within those (p.86) areas may not have been covered by actual settlement, there seems to be no escape from the conclusion that a number of poleis with very large urban centres existed in the period between 550 and 480 BC. The frequent attestation of hilltop or plateau fortifications for category B walls (cf. Table 3) obviously means that the sizes of towns incorporated by such walls are modest. As many as 54 per cent of these walls enclosed an area of less than 10 hectares, and therefore encircled either small towns, towns of which only the part located on the hill was fortified, or they were simply refuges. Another 25 per cent enclosed between 10 and 30 hectares, while 25 per cent enclosed between 30 and 100 hectares. Construction and architecture

As noted in previous periods, walls on hills and plateaus often rest on bedrock, e.g. Antissa, Gela, Idalion 2 (areas CW and D), and Megara Hyblaea 3.107 The outer face of the wall in the plain of Idalion 2 (area A) also rests on bedrock. Mostly, however, walls in plains are set in an excavated trench some metres below the ancient level, and not on bedrock, since this is often lying too deep. Many of the walls in this period run in plains close to the sea and rivers often ran close by, a situation invariably creating sedimentation several metres thick. Under such circumstances the base or socle is founded directly in the soil, as at Kaulonia and Heloron, or a fill, for example of sand, may be added in the trench before the foundation is laid down, as at Istros. Walls

The data obtained from these twenty-nine late Archaic city walls, many of which are poorly preserved and therefore hard to analyse, allow for the following account of the construction and architecture of the period. At Antissa, Myrmekeion, and Kaulonia, the walls are preserved as a single shell only. The first two may originally have been constructed as terrace walls, either without or with only a modest inner face. The same explanation does not apply to Kaulonia. Here remains of the inner face have either disappeared, or, Page 22 of 62

Topographical and Architectural Analysis alternatively, the construction was that of an agger wall, as at Alalie, where part of the fortification system consisted of an embankment fronted with a stone wall. At Istros the base is a massive construction of irregular rocks of green slate. At Siris the base is also massive, but made of gravel. At Paphos the old wall (phase 1) was reinforced by phase 2, both inside and outside (Figs. 86–7, and compare Figs. 88–9). The new interior consisted of roughly dressed blocks of limestone on a core of water-worn boulders, while the new exterior was a row of stones laid on the outer face of phase 1. Part of Naxos 3 was also a reinforcement of an older wall, G to D of phase 2 (Fig. 82). No fewer than fifteen walls were constructed with double-facing, and in seven cases there is no (or no reported) difference between the construction of the inner and outer face. At Kamarina the construction is a combination of ashlar blocks and smaller stones, and at Naxos 3 both the inner and the outer face of wall A has a width of 1.8 metres. In a handful of cases, however, there is a marked difference between the outer and the inner face. At Massalia the evidence is not entirely clear, but it seems that the blocks forming the outer part of the foundation are laid with more care and better fitted together than the blocks of the rest of the socle. At Gela the outer face is described as being of large regular blocks of limestone, while the inner consists of stones in the same material but smaller and of a more irregular shape (Fig. 42, outer face towards north). The wall at the west acropolis of Idalion (phase 2) has both an inner and outer face of coursed ashlar limestone blocks, but the outer face blocks are mixed with blocks of sandstone. At Ambrakia the only noted difference between the faces is that the blocks of the outer face have been worked on their surface. Whenever there is a difference between outer and inner face, it is the outer which is more elaborately constructed, and often, when possible, set deeper than the inner, preferably down to bedrock, as e.g. Idalion (phase 2). One example of the opposite, however, is Heloron, where the inner face is set deeper than the outer. At Kyme in Magna Graecia the wall trace on the acropolis is a combination of single-faced terrace walls and double-faced walls. At Amathous the wall is double-faced too, but with cross-walls dividing the wall into compartments just as the seventh-century wall at Corinth. The fill of walls of double-faced construction is mostly soil and rubble. Sometimes the rubble consists of smaller irregular stones of the same material as that used for the blocks of the wall shells, an indication that the fill was (p. 87) partly made up of leftovers from the (final) cutting of the blocks which was executed in situ. The width of the late Archaic walls varies considerably (Table 13). This is also true of the width of the individual walls (Amathous, Istros, and Thasos); typically Page 23 of 62

Topographical and Architectural Analysis the sections close to a gate are wider than the rest of the wall (Italian Kyme 2), as in the early Archaic period. Three walls are less than 2 metres wide, Gela (1.9 metres), Hyele (1.8 metres) and Myrmekeion (1 metre), while a width of between 2 and 3 metres is found in eleven cases, e.g. Stagiros and Thasos (2 metres), Lokroi Epizephyrioi and Massalia (2.5 metres), and Kamarina (3 metres). Ten walls are wider than 3 metres, and six of these are wider than 4 metres. Naxos (phase 3 wall A) is 4.6 metres wide, at Paphos the reinforced wall (phase 2) has an average width of 5.65 metres, similar to that at Ambrakia. At Idalion (phase 2) and Italian Kyme phase 2, widths of 10.75 and 7 metres respectively are reported, but at Kyme the measurement was taken close to a gate of the lower town, and at Idalion the excavators stress that the excavation trench might have cut into a bastion inadvertently and accordingly the width of 10.75 metres may not necessarily be the width of the wall proper. As was the case with walls of the Early Iron Age and earlier Archaic phases, it remains notoriously difficult to establish whether the remains of a wall are those of a base or socle, or of the lowest part of the superstructure. In a few rare cases, the description of building technique can be divided into separate treatments of socle and superstructure: the wall socles of Eleusis, Istros, Massalia, and Siris (see above), were clearly different from the superstructures of the walls proper, which are known to have been constructed of mudbrick throughout. The following general description covers the socles of the walls. It seem reasonable to assume that the superstructures were normally of mudbrick, not only because remains of mudbrick are attested (e.g. at Eleusis, Hyele, Kamarina, and Idalion 2), but also because most walls are only preserved to a height of a few courses. If the superstructure had been of stone, many more stone blocks of the upper part of the walls would have been preserved in situ or scattered around the wall socles. At Ephesos and Hyele the masonry of the socle is described as polygonal. As already noted108 the information value of this term is low, and in the two cases mentioned here, the term actually means stone blocks of mostly quadrangular shape of different dimensions. Some walls described as polygonal are not very different from other walls in this group, whose masonry is described as plain ashlar or as orthostates, e.g. the walls of Aigina, Ambrakia, Gela, Megara Hyblaea 3, Miletos 2, and Lokroi Epizephyrioi. Often blocks are laid rather like distinct courses, alternatively described as irregular courses (e.g. Miletos). Poorly fitted blocks are adjusted by the insertion of small stones in the cavities between them (e.g. Kamarina). The polygonal style

Page 24 of 62

Topographical and Architectural Analysis of wall A at Naxos 3 (local class δ) is a more distinct wall style, as the blocks, although quite large and roughly hewn, are well fitted. At Antissa, Eleusis, and Stagiros walls in the Lesbian style are attested, and at Stagiros, and to a restricted extent at Kalydon, walls are constructed with coursed masonry of blocks in trapezoidal style.109 At Amathous, Idalion 2, Heloron, and Kyme, ashlar masonry of a good quality is attested, and at Italian Kyme 2, it is sufficiently well preserved to enable its classification as isodomic (in places preserved to five courses); the style at Heloron is pseudo-isodomic. At Idalion the inner face of the wall at the acropolis (phase 2) is preserved to an impressive height of 5.1 metres. The eighteen courses are described as coursed ashlar work. The wall at Idalion seems to have been plastered, although plastering is normally considered to be the cover for mudbrick walls (see above, p. 55). Gates

Gates, or indications for the existence of gates, are attested in connection with thirteen walls (Table 13). The axial type is attested at Lokroi Epizephyrioi (Fig. 65), Miletos (Fig. 77), Naxos (Fig. 82), Paphos (Figs. 86, 89), Stagiros and Thasos (Figs. 104, 109), while the possible existence of the type is reported from Alalie, Amathous, Heloron, and Italian Kyme phase 2.110 In Abdera, too, we may assume the existence of an axial gate.111 Here (Fig. 12) the western (p.88) part of the preserved stretch takes a 90-degree turn and ends as the west part of the gate. The parallel east part is likely to have run towards the east, in which case the gate would be of axial plan, and c.4 metres wide, which is the distance between the parallel walls. There are a few more examples of gates located where a wall takes a 90-degree turn, such as the Haupttor of Miletos 2, and Leontinoi of the previous period. The effect created is one similar to a tower or a bastion, in the sense that the defenders can fire efficiently from a longer part of the wall, and from much closer to the attackers. A single gate of the tangential type is found at Megara Hyblaea (Fig. 68). The late Archaic gate at Paphos is a refurbishment of phase 1 (Figs. 86, 88). Stone blocks were added in order to reinforce the gate, a new threshold was constructed, but the dimensions were basically identical to the previous phase. However, the west bastion was extended towards the east, so that the approach to the gate proper became narrower (Fig. 89). The width of the actual opening was kept at 4.5 metres, while at Lokroi Epizephyrioi the Porta Portuense was 3 metres, at Miletos the Haupttor 3.9 metres, at Naxos the gate at Strada N–S 2 c. 4 metres, at Stagiros 2.5 metres,112 and at Thasos the Gate of Parménon was 2.1 metres wide. The opening width of the tangential gate at Megara Hyblaea is 3 metres. The Great East Gate from Selinous 1 with bipartite plan was also part of

Page 25 of 62

Topographical and Architectural Analysis the phase 2 wall, and the porta mediana at Italian Kyme 2, may have been a second example of this particular gate arrangement in this period. It may be concluded that the standard width of gates was between 2 and 4 metres. Two metres might seem rather narrow, but in fact it would have been wide enough for a wagon of standard dimensions to pass through.113 Towers

Ten cities of this late Archaic group were encircled with walls furnished with towers or bastions (Table 13). The normal plan for towers is rectangular, and dimensions are fairly uniform. No fewer than three walls with towers are found on Cyprus, at Amathous (Fig. 19, towers B and C, 7 × 13 and 8 × 12 metres), Idalion (at location 13, 10 × 11.5 metres) and Paphos, where the tower from phase 1 was reused (7.9 × 7.5 metres, Fig. 89, and compare Figs. 86 and 88). At Naxos excavations have uncovered two towers (Fig. 82, torre 1 and 2) of more modest dimensions, 5 × 3 metres and 5 × 2.5 metres. At Selinous a rectangular tower (5 × 8.5 metres) was added in the late Archaic/early Classical refurbishment phase, and at Megara Hyblaea (Figs. 68–9) five of a series of semicircular towers with diameters between 7 and 8 metres are located along the wall trace at intervals of c.40 metres. Eleusis forms a special case with a series of square towers in the north and east sides at 30–70-metre intervals, and three of which, located at gates, protrude from the wall. Bastions are found at Idalion 2 (4.5 × 8 + metres),114 Miletos 2 (Fig. 77, 12.15 × 4.2/4.7 metres), Amathous and Myrmekeion. Five ditches are attested in this period. A ditch 2 metres deep formed part of the fortification at Alalie (Fig. 18), a situation paralleled at Paphos (Figs. 86 and 89, 12–14.5 metres wide at the upper edges). The ditch in front of the west wall at Megara Hyblaea phase 3 (10 + metres wide and 1. 9 metres deep) may have run in front of the entire trace on the landside of Megara Hyblaea. At Aigina a ‘ditch’ ran along some sections of the wall, especially towards the east (30 metres wide and 6–8 metres deep). The ditch at Siris was of a more modest size, 4 metres wide and 1.5 metres deep. Other elements

At Alalie, Paphos, and Thasos, additional features were introduced to supplement the walls and ditches, resulting in impressive fortification systems at these sites. The wall at Alalie was fronted by an earthen rampart (8 metres wide), a ditch, and finally a glacis (also of 8 metres). The entire system was more than 20 metres wide (Fig. 18). At Paphos a berm 12.5 metres wide, the ditch, and a glacis 23 metres wide, constitute a fortification system with a total (p.89) width of more than 50 metres. At Thasos the system was more modest, as wall 4 was fronted by a 5.5-metre-wide glacis of soil covered by flags of gneiss.

Page 26 of 62

Topographical and Architectural Analysis However, the total width, including wall 4, of more than 10 metres, was still quite substantial. A number of walls in the late Archaic period must have been of considerable height, particularly the group just mentioned (see below).

General Conclusions The overview of the distribution and topography of the category A walls presented below, will be supplemented with a conclusion based on all sources in Chapter 8. The present conclusion is devoted first of all to architectural aspects of Early Iron Age and Archaic city walls. The conclusions are based on the seventy-five walls of category A at sixty-two cities and smaller settlements listed in the Catalogue (cf. Tables 1 and 2). Observations based on walls of an additional fifty-six settlements, walls of category B dated mainly by masonry style (Table 3), will be referred to and commented on separately, since their chronology remains uncertain. Walls of category B are usually dated broadly to the Archaic period, and if a date is more specific it is normally given as the sixth century. The group of category B walls will therefore be considered en bloc as belonging to the sixth century. Location and topography

From the ninth century to the early fifth century, the majority of walled towns and cities were located on the coast. There is no indication of any change to that pattern over time. In the seventh century Pergamon is the only example of an inland fortified site, and in the middle Archaic period inland location is attested only in the cases of Idalion and Leontinoi. Finally, in the late period, two sites, Ambrakia and again Idalion, are located inland. The continued dominance of coastal sites becomes even more apparent when we take into account the fact that the number of fortified settlements was continually growing. The locations of all the cities with Archaic fortifications attested by literary sources (category C in the Catalogue, cf. Table 4) are known, except for one, Kallipolis in Sicily. Almost all are located on the coast (Map 3), and this ties in with the distribution pattern of towns and cities with category A walls (Maps 1– 2).115 Of the city walls surmised from reference to a siege (Table 4), twenty-two are on the coast, or near to it, while three are located inland. Of the cities referred to as having had a teichos, eighteen are located on or near the coast, while four are located inland (Tables 4–5). Walls of category B, however, testify to a different pattern (Map 3): no fewer than twenty settlements with walls dated by masonry style are located inland.116 Seven are found near the coast, while twenty-eight are true coastal sites. A nearshore position still dominates, but the trend is much less pronounced. At present I have no explanation for this difference in distribution.

Page 27 of 62

Topographical and Architectural Analysis The fact that most attested fortified Archaic poleis were located on the coast does not necessarily reflect a difference in fortification practice from those poleis located far from the coast, because most Greek poleis were situated on the coast, especially before Hellenistic times.117 The coastal location was the one that gave access to most resources. Communities located on the coast had a hinterland for agricultural produce, the sea for the marine commodities, and potential access to mercantile goods from the entire known world. But the coastal location was at the same time dangerous: pirates and Greek or foreign enemies constituted a constant threat, and it was completely necessary to be prepared for sudden hostile visits. Insofar as the location of fortification walls broadly reflects the location of their settlements, we may conclude from the information we have on category A walls, that in all four periods walls that enclosed both a hilltop and its slopes, and walls built in the plain, are just as commonly found as walls located on a hilltop alone.118 Literary sources largely fail to produce detailed information (p.90) on this aspect of city wall topography,119 but we may again compare the information obtained from walls of category B. Here fourteen sites are described as being hilltop fortifications, sometimes including the slopes and the plain below. Not one single site with category B walls is situated in a plain, while as many as thirty-nine are described as being walls enclosing a hilltop or a plateau alone.120 As stated above, the distinction between plateau and hilltop is somewhat artificial, but it should be stressed that twenty-one sites with category B walls are hilltop settlements of less than 5 hectares, and therefore to be considered either as small towns, or as towns with a wall enclosing part of the built-up area only. In the Early Iron Age the type of fortification which structurally includes houses existed apparently in one example only, namely at Hypsele. The type recurs in the late period in Vroulia, and such construction should be considered a rare product of some small communities, rather than a product of a particular region or period. The Geländemauer phenomenon has been identified in a few cases, dating from the very beginning in the eighth century (Old Paphos) to the very end of the Archaic period (Hyele), and suggested in a number of further cases, such as Leontinoi and Phokaia.121 It is interesting that it appears as a phenomenon in the Archaic period,122 but hardly surprising that we find the early attestation in Cyprus, yet another sign that it was the potentially strong and capable enemy in a given region, in this case powers from the East, that determined a number of aspects of Greek fortification and their development, rather than trends specific to particular times. The secure identification of a Geländemauer at a particular pre-Classical site is often difficult, due to the limited finds of the urban build in

Page 28 of 62

Topographical and Architectural Analysis general in the period. Their potential existence means, therefore, that caution has to be shown in the interpretation of intramural space. With regard to intramural space and its development over time, the following picture emerges (compare Tables 6, 8, 10, and 12). In the Early Iron Age (Table 6) more than half of the settlements have an intramural space of less than 3 hectares, half as many are approximately twice as big, while two may have been as large as 45 and 70 hectares. The preserved Early Iron Age material is probably only a fraction of the total number of settlements in existence in the period, and conclusions must be made with caution. But if it is argued that an unknown number of significant unfortified settlements have disappeared, the same could be said of fortified ones. The conclusion is that small settlements dominate, which is hardly a surprise. It is of great significance, however, that at this early point in Greek history larger fortified areas such as Paphos and Salamis on Cyprus seem to have existed. In the seventh century (Table 8) a clear change in the data can be observed. Settlements of the small size typical of the Early Iron Age still exist, but there are just as many of between 5 and 7 hectares, and as many as five are as big as the largest Early Iron Age ones. Finally two show impressive intramural spaces of more than 100 hectares: Abdera between 110 and 120 and Corinth perhaps comprising as much as 300 hectares.123 The data on the individual sites do not represent precise true figures, but the general pattern seems clear: intramural spaces increase considerably in the seventh century when compared to the Early Iron Age. By the middle Archaic period (Table 10) this tendency is even more clear. Small sites still exist, but there is a group of five settlements (35–81.5 hectares) on average larger than the middle group of the seventh century (18–70 hectares), and there are three between 100 and 145 hectares. The late Archaic period (Table 13) is again a step further in this direction with eleven settlements of between 35 and 80 hectares, and as many as five between 110 and 240 hectares. The main conclusion following from this comparison, however, is not the unsurprising one that there was a general increase in settlement size between 1000 and 500 BC, but rather that a number of settlements seem to have been of a considerable size already by the seventh century. Information about particular city walls and their topography may enable us discover more about the nature of some of the cities themselves. As mentioned earlier we (p.91) cannot equate intramural space with settlement size. Walls on hilltops follow the edge of hills for logical topographical reasons, and settlements within them may take up only part of this intramural space or may expand beyond it. Walls that extend onto the hillside or into the plain below, Page 29 of 62

Topographical and Architectural Analysis however, must have done so because the settlements extended as well. Kyme in Magna Graecia is a good example. The acropolis is huge, and yet already by the early sixth century, a considerable area in the plain below was encircled by walls. This means that at least by this time the entire acropolis was occupied by settlement — including public secular and sacred spaces — as well as an unknown but most probably huge part of the plain as well. Construction and architecture

It has to be borne in mind that not one single Archaic wall is preserved in its entirety, in fact almost all walls are known through mere fragments only of what they once were. It is possible, however, to make surprisingly convincing generalizations about city wall architecture before the Classical period on the basis of the collected data. Walls

The preference for building walls on bedrock in the Early Iron Age continues in the Archaic periods, judging from information on walls on hilltops or slopes. Often, however, particularly for walls in the plains, we lack information about the depth of the foundations in relation to ancient ground level.124 Herodotos’ description of the Persian nine-month siege of Barke in 510 BC does include a detailed account of Persian undermining and the successful countermining by the Barkeians. Archaeological evidence for siege operations on a large scale, involving a siege mound, and countermeasures appears for the first time at Paphos at site KA, dating to c.500 BC. The mound, mines, and countermines below the wall, are clearly remains of the Persian attack of 498 BC, referred to by Herodotos in general terms as the Persian campaign at Cyprus. According to Herodotos, mines were also the reason why the Persians defeated Soloi after four months of siege.125 The Persian–Cypriot conflict mirrors the situation at Barke in 510 BC, and since all three siege events, and the Paphian wall, clearly attest to the existence of sophisticated defence structures and large-scale sieges in late Archaic times, it may have been the case that Paphos responded to the Persian threat in the way they did because they knew the Persians would resort to a siege. One can easily imagine the events at Barke to have been present in the minds of the Cypriots when they realized that the Persians were on their way. Maybe Soloi acted in the same way as Paphos, the long siege of four months indicates that they did, but for the time being the evidence is restricted to Herodotos. The wall in the plain at Idalion was founded on bedrock, perhaps also in response to the Persian invasion. It seems, however, that battering rams and undermining were not used in siege operations on a regular basis in the Greek world before the fifth century,126 and so we should not expect walls to have been constructed to withstand such attacks before that time.127 The lack of great numbers of attested sieges before the late Archaic period fits with this general picture (see above, p. 31). The depth to which walls were set in the Early Iron Age and Archaic periods must for Page 30 of 62

Topographical and Architectural Analysis that reason have been dictated by construction requirements, for example the weight of the wall itself, or a marshy or damp ground at a location where a fortification wall had to pass. Indented trace is observed with at least six walls, two on hilltops (Bouthroton, seventh century, and Myrmekeion, second half of the sixth century), two on low plateaus (Halai, first half of the sixth century, and Naxos) and two in plains (Metapontion and Taucheira, both middle Archaic). Indented trace has also been observed at the lower wall at Abai and at the south and west trace of the wall at Samothrake, both of which are of category B. These walls date from the middle of the seventh century to the middle of the sixth century, i.e. the period in which towers and bastions begin to reappear as elements in Archaic city walls after a halt in the early seventh century.128 Scranton argues that the (p.92) limited use of indented trace in the fifth and fourth centuries could be explained by a new trend in military architecture, where architects seem to have focused almost exclusively on the efficiency of towers.129 It may be that during the sixth century the tower and bastion were considered to be particularly successful in providing cover for flanking fire. However, the indented trace experienced a renaissance again in the Hellenistic period. No single type of wall construction ever dominated completely in the period from the ninth to the early fifth century. It is nevertheless clear that walls tended to be constructed as free-standing, double-faced structures, the wall shells being two parallel rows of stones, often only a few courses high, the outer normally of larger and better fitted blocks than the inner. The outer face was often set deeper in the ground, probably first of all due to the greater weight of the construction of the external side. The building material used for the blocks at the socle, as well as for the superstructure — on the rare occasion when this was in stone — is always local stone, which means that this part of the wall was highly variable in durability, structure, and colour. The typical material is local limestone, but variations are many. At Minoa the walls were made of local gypsum, schist, and red poros, at Neandreia the local granite was used, while at Siphnos and Thasos the local marble was quarried into blocks for the walls. The infill between the faces is normally soil and rubble.130 Often the remains from the final cutting of the stones were used. Alternatively, or in addition, material excavated from a ditch could be conveniently used. It is logical to assume that socles were generally visible, since they served the purpose of elevating the (mudbrick) wall itself from the surface. Also, whenever particular care was taken in dressing the blocks of the socle, it can be inferred that the wall in question was above ground.

Page 31 of 62

Topographical and Architectural Analysis To give an idea of the range of variations to the basic type of construction, a number will be discussed in the following pages (see also the individual entries in the Catalogue). The early period socle wall of Halieis (phase 1) was constructed entirely in mudbrick, whereas the middle period walls at Eretria (phase 2), Euesperides, and Taucheira had bases, which were not constructed as two shells with infill, but as massive entities of unworked stones and boulders. At Euesperides, however, a line of mudbrick on the outside of the wall formed a face separate from the inner or main part. In Istros and Siris in the late Archaic period, uniformly constructed massive bases are also found. Single-faced walls serving the combined function of terrace and fortification walls are not restricted to hillsides. One example is at Leontinoi (middle Archaic), where the stretch of wall which extended into the valley at the Syracusan Gate, at the side of S. Mauro, was a terrace fortification wall, quite typical when located in such a place. Another example is at Kyme in Magna Graecia, where the walls were also partly constructed with a single face in the late Archaic period. A freestanding and double-faced wall, however, was the common choice for construction for walls in plains. The earliest example of the method, in double-faced walls, of connecting the inner and outer faces with crosswalls (on socle level), is Salamis, which, however, is not constructed with stone faces. In the seventh century Corinth provides another example, and in the late period the technique is observed at Amathous. A wall made in this way is usually termed a compartment wall, a technique believed to have been introduced in the early Classical period, perhaps from the East.131 Since such cross-walls are only attested in connection with the socles in the Archaic period, the existence of compartmented constructions of the walls proper in the Archaic period remains speculative, and when reference is made to this phenomenon in the Early Iron Age and Archaic periods, ‘compartment socle’ is the correct term. The suggestion that this type of construction was introduced from the East is not impossible, although it is worth noting that apart from Bronze Age Anatolia, compartmentalization is known in fortifications from central Greece of the same period,132 and therefore it should not be excluded that inspiration for this type of construction came from Greece itself. When walls began to (p.93) be constructed in stone all the way up, crosswalls were used to support and stabilize the construction and strengthen its resistance to siege engines.133 Apart from the seventh-century period walls at Naxos (phase 1) and Pergamon, which may have been constructed entirely in stone, mudbrick is found at Early Iron Age and contemporary walls at Paphos, Salamis, and Smyrna, and it was used for a number of the seventh-century walls as well. Superstructures as a rule seem to have been constructed in mudbrick and wood. Finds of mudbrick in

Page 32 of 62

Topographical and Architectural Analysis walls of the middle and late Archaic periods, support the view that this was the preferred material throughout the Greek world. In the middle Archaic period there is some evidence for what may have been allstone walls (e.g. Akragas and Phokaia). The remains of the late Archaic period do not represent an increased frequency of high stone walls, the clearest example being Idalion 2. It may be argued that the reason why Herodotos stresses the fact that the Phokaian wall was built entirely in stone is because this was unusual (see above, p. 26–7, 82–3).134 However, Herodotos may have wished to stress the fine fitting of the stones, rather than the use of the stones themselves. The walls at Paphos 1 and Smyrna 1–2135 are impressive early examples of monumental Archaic fortifications. They are exceptionally wide and must have been equally impressive in height as well, high, well built, and faced with dressed blocks both towards the settlements and the outside. The wall at Smyrna has from its first phase a high, exposed socle. Here, interestingly, we find the earliest attestation of a wall executed in a recognizable masonry style, namely hammer-dressed Lesbian style, characterized by a distinct way of fitting the blocks and of treating the surface. The monumental aspects of some of the walls of the Early Iron Age are not found to the same extent in the seventh century, but this may be due to the chance of preservation and it must be kept in mind that the Early Iron Age walls are spread over at least two centuries.136 In the seventh century Smyrna 3 still dominates in the field of elaborate fortification architecture. In Miletos the surfaces of the polygonal blocks are described as worked, but in Naxos and Pergamon the walls are just described as polygonal. In the middle Archaic period various polygonal styles are observed (e.g. Achilleion and Halai), as well as walls in ashlar masonry, occurring either in isodomic (e.g. Kyme and Leontinoi) or pseudo-isodomic courses (Phokaia). These walls attest that construction with quadrangular ashlar blocks existed in the period,137 and may be seen as part of the early ‘petrification’ in architecture, attested contemporaneously in temple architecture of the early sixth century. The growing trend to build walls of stone does not mean that distinct masonry styles developed everywhere: a number of walls in the late period constructed with stone socles defy classification into a particular well-defined style, such as Kalydon. Other walls in the late period are built in polygonal style (e.g. Ephesos and Naxos 3), some in Lesbian polygonal style (Antissa, Eleusis, and Stagiros). The late period also provide examples of isodomic (Kyme) and pseudo-isodomic styles (Heloron).

Page 33 of 62

Topographical and Architectural Analysis Assessing the original appearance of these walls is difficult since they are in a ruinous state. Furthermore the evidence of plastering at Idalion forces us to take into account that many walls — both those constructed in a distinct masonry style and those for which less care is taken in the construction — may indeed have been plastered. It is clear that there is a connection between the dimensions of walls and their basic construction and, ultimately, masonry style. A narrow and not particularly high wall is more likely to be built with a stone socle of loosely fitted blocks of varying size. The wider and higher the wall, the more attention must be given to the stone socle and/or lower parts of the wall. Well-fitted stones obviously provide a firmer and more durable base for a wide and high wall. Twenty-eight of the walls in the B group are described as polygonal, and the remaining walls are either Lesbian (p.94) or ashlar isodomic. As pointed out in Chapter 4, a thorough study of masonry is required before it may be established that all these walls, or some of them, are in fact Archaic.138 Forty walls of category B are not constructed in a distinct masonry style, but are described as of polygonal stones or loosely as of stone plates, massive drystone constructions, etc. These walls are rarely wider than 3 metres and this could support the suggestion that large dimensions lead to monumentality and elaboration, and perhaps to a more clear sense of style. On the other hand, most of the elaborately worked Lesbian walls are in fact less than 3 metres in width. So if this observation is correct, it does not apply to all walls as a sine qua non. Different types of stone do not generally seem to have been decisive for the choice of style,139 but in some cases a style may have been influenced by the shape of stone fragments quarried from a specific type of rock.140

Wall Width and Location As observed above there is a connection between the width of a wall and the way it is constructed.141 Walls of minimum and maximum width are attested in all four periods (compare Tables 7, 9, 11, and 13), and this fact supports the observation that no single type of construction ever came to dominate completely.142 While there is no absolute chronological progression from narrow walls in the Early Iron Age to wide walls in the late Archaic period, there is a general tendency towards wider walls over time.143 The Early Iron Age saw a majority of quite narrow walls and a few wide ones (Table 7). The sample is admittedly limited, but it seems worth noting that the wider walls are all situated in regions under foreign influence, Smyrna being close to Lydia, and Paphos and Salamis being vassals of Assyria. The remaining sites are primarily located in the Greek islands and the Peloponnese, and their more modest walls (seven between 1 and 2.5 metres) seem to be a response to a different type of enemy, which may primarily have been fellow Greeks.

Page 34 of 62

Topographical and Architectural Analysis With the seventh century particularly wide walls continue to appear in regions of the Greek world bordering ‘barbarian’ territory (Megara Hyblaea 1 and Smyrna 3). Seven walls are between 2.5 and 4.5 metres, whereas in the Early Iron Age we have evidence only for seven between 1 and 2.5 metres. In the middle Archaic period the situation seems to stabilize, while the late Archaic period sees both a continuation of seventh-century trends and also a considerable increase in the number of wide walls. Nine are between 2.5 and 3.5 metres and nine wider than 3.5 metres.144 The widest walls are found at the ‘barbarian interface’, such as Alalie, Kyme in Italy, Megara 3, Naxos 3 on Sicily, and Paphos 2. It is traditionally held that increasing width and height as well as durable construction are responses to innovations in siege technology, and this is certainly true of city walls after the Archaic period.145 The development during this period, however, shows that other influences were at work as well. There is, for example, a strong topographical factor affecting the width of walls. Walls between 1.5 and 3 metres are usually found on hilltops, plateaus, or hillsides, while walls of more than 3 metres are invariably situated on edges of low plateaus or in plains.146 Most of category B walls are between 2 and 3 metres wide, and the majority of them form part of hilltop fortifications. In other words, a major reason for the change in wall width over time is that more and more walls were being built in plains.

(p.95) Wall Height Frederick Winter proposes that in the early period very few walls were higher than between 3.5 and 4.5 metres,147 but this may be too low if we judge from the few walls about which we have reliable information on height: for Early Iron Age Zagora the height was estimated to have been 4–5 metres, in the middle Archaic period the wall at Phokaia is preserved to a height of more than 5 metres, the contemporary one at Selinous (by interpretation of stairway) to 6.5 metres (8.5 metres on the external side), and a similar height (6.5 metres) is suggested for the late Archaic wall at Megara Hyblaea (phase 3).148 Phokaia is the only wall still standing, but the estimated heights of the others are all based on careful observations of the remains (see above). While walls before Classical times were not built to withstand assaults from siege engines — except for Cypriot walls and perhaps some Ionian ones — they still had to be high enough to prevent storm by infantry, and wide enough to allow for defenders to manoeuvre as necessary. We should perhaps add as much as 2 metres to Winter’s average figure of 4 metres, and I propose 6 metres as a likely average for city walls before Classical times.149 As noted earlier, the height of a wall depends on the width. Since walls running in plains were wider than walls running on hilltops or hillsides, we can surmise that they were higher too; higher walls were needed in plains where assaults Page 35 of 62

Topographical and Architectural Analysis were carried out more easily compared to those against hilltop fortifications.150 The greater width of walls in the plain made higher concentrations of defenders possible at strategic points and defenders could move more easily from one part of the wall to another.151 The greater width would also have discouraged attackers from undermining the wall or attacking it with battering rams.

The Wall Top Since walls are narrower at the top than at their socle, the width at the bottom would need to be subtracted with this difference in order to establish the width at the top. The lack of preserved superstructures of Archaic fortification walls can to some degree be compensated by depictions of walls in contemporary art and by information about walls in literary sources (see above, Chap. 3).152 From such sources it may be concluded that walls of the Archaic period were normally furnished with battlements of square crenellation. Gates

Of the two basic types of gate, the axial is far more common than the tangential,153 but both types occur early as well as late (compare Tables 7, 9, 11, and 13), and no clear regional preferences emerge from the data.154 By the middle Archaic period, however, the axial has become the preferred type and its predominance is even more marked in the late period,155 in which the only attested gate of the tangential type is that of Megara Hyblaea 3.156 Since the tangential type is attested in dated Classical period walls as well,157 it would be wrong to describe this gate type exclusively as an Archaic phenomenon. The suggestion that axial gates are found at or between hills and gates of the tangential type mostly on flat ground158 is not supported by the evidence. A tangential gate is found at Early Iron Age Emporio located on a hill, (p.96) and Miletos 1 and possibly Oikonomos, also on hills, had tangential gates in the seventh century, and Smyrna in both periods. Megara Hyblaea 3 seems in fact to be the only example of a wall on relatively flat terrain equipped with a tangential gate. Lack of representative data may give a distorted picture of the situation — for example the almost complete absence of axial gates in the seventh century — but the data still do not suggest any obvious topographical explanation for the choice of gate type.159 The two types occur together in the same circuit at Miletos 1, and it seems reasonable to assume, since they are contemporary, that it was the finer details of the local topography, rather than the different properties of the gate types, which were the deciding factor behind the choice of gate type.160 In the middle Archaic period two gates, Eretria 2 and Halai (North East Gate), constitute a kind of hybrid between the two types, here called distorted axial type. Since the two gates are quite alike in plan and dimensions, it is tempting to cite the proximity of the two cities as the reason for the similarity.

Page 36 of 62

Topographical and Architectural Analysis The general preference for axial gates is clear, and may be due to its more simple design. It may also have conformed more to the aesthetic ideals of what a polis ought to look like when approached from afar.161 In depictions in the visual arts walls are always shown frontally — depictions of tangential gates are unknown.162 The axial approach and entry are more in keeping with the proper presentation of a city; on axial entry the visual experience of a city would change from being a high wall and perhaps a few temple roofs, to suddenly being the city itself, a change that the visitor would experience immediately on entry. Entering a tangential gate would mean that the visual impact of the city itself would only become apparent to the visitor when he reached the end of the gate ‘tunnel’, the space between the two overlapping walls, and turned 90 degrees clockwise around his own axis.163 The width of gate openings varies, but openings are generally narrower in the Early Iron Age, on average around 2 metres, as compared to the Archaic period when the average width is between 3 and 4 metres (compare Tables 7, 9, 11, and 13).164 In the middle and late periods a few gates are less than 3 metres, the Gate of Parmenon at Thasos is only 2.1 metres. As noted above, 2 metres is still wide enough for ordinary wagons to pass through. Some of the narrow gates may have been sally ports, such as the ones in the middle Archaic wall at Metapontion, late Archaic Amathous, and in particular Eleusis. Since the function of sally gates was to provide the defenders with the opportunity to make sudden assaults on a besieging force, their sparsely attested numbers support the view that sieges were few and far between before late Archaic times165 (see discussion above, p. 31). The difference in width between gates in the pre-Classical period is probably to be explained by the different needs of communities. Some settlements were small, others proper cities, and their gates would have accommodated highly diverse types of traffic, with varying numbers of pedestrians and carriages. The length of a gate, that is, the distance from the wooden gate placed near the inner face of the wall and to the outer face of it, is normally at least equal to the width of the wall.166 In some cases, however, the depth of the gate was extended to create a longer approach. An extension is normally obtained by placing bastions or towers at either side of the gate, and the depth of the opening is then equal to the depth of these structures plus the wall width. Gates of the tangential type, and gates where the wall around them is arranged to obtain a similar effect as that of a tangential gate (e.g. Abdera 2, Eretria 2, and Halai167), often have a long fortified approach as well. The purpose was clearly to expose attackers to as strong a fire as possible and for as long a time as possible. Gates are identified with a number of category B walls as well. The axial type is the most frequently attested. The axial gate at Abai in Phokis deserves special mention because it is one out of very few Archaic gates preserved with a lintel.168 The height of this gate is, however, (p.97) unknown, since it protrudes Page 37 of 62

Topographical and Architectural Analysis from unexcavated fill of unknown depth. Thasos’ Gate of Parménon (or gate no. 11), is another example, also with lintel but not excavated to the bottom either. Written sources attest that city walls usually had more than one gate. It is apparent from Homer that Troy had a number of gates, and they had individual names.169 The many references to seven-gated Thebes170 shows that the more gates a city had, the more significant and glorious it was. The world of archaeology, however, gives a more diverse and complex picture than the ideal and glorious world of poetry. Towns located on promontories separated from the mainland with just one stretch of wall, could manage with one gate; typically, they were also small, like Vroulia and Zagora. Towers and bastions

Towers and bastions, attested for five of the Early Iron Age walls (Table 7), were mostly installed at gates. The tower at Paphos 1 remains the only proof of a regular tower — possibly just one out of a sequence of towers along the Paphian wall.171 It was quadrangular in plan, like other Early Iron Age towers and bastions. After a pause in the seventh century, the evidence for towers and bastions reappears in the middle Archaic period (Table 11). Towers or bastions protecting gates are found in at least three cases, and towers along the wall trace in at least five cases. Most are of square plan, but towers of circular plan occur as well (Halai and Leontinoi).172 In the late Archaic period the common plan of towers is still the quadrangular one — a series of towers with circular plan at Megara Hyblaea is an exception. In Cyprus no less than three cities have quadrangular towers with an average size of 10 × 10 metres. Towers and bastions at walls of category B are all quadrangular in plan, and deserve no special comment in the present context, except for tower no. 36 at Samos, which is located on the inside of a stretch of wall.173 This at first glance seems unusual,174 but another wall runs c.100 metres to the east of the wall from which this tower protrudes, and this other wall has towers, some of which project several metres into the space between the two walls. It seems as if it was expected that enemies might penetrate into this area, and if this happened tower 36 would be on the correct side of the wall. Towers were clearly a feature of city walls from the Early Iron Age onwards.175 What is not entirely clear is when towers began to occur at regular intervals along wall curtains. Late Archaic Megara Hyblaea (phase 3) is the only undisputed example of this practice, widely attested from the Classical period onwards.176 But it has to be remembered that individual towers are attested along wall traces, and not only at gates, and the fragmentary state of Archaic city walls may be the reason for the lack of attestations of this particular feature. On the other hand, if the situation was that of the odd tower and bastion, they Page 38 of 62

Topographical and Architectural Analysis would have been erected for the purpose of keeping watch and to facilitate communication, and perhaps to strengthen the defence provided by the regular battlements, in the long proto-siege era preceding Classical times.177 Glacis

A glacis is found at Paphos 2, whereas at Phokaia and Thasos similar installations are so small that they are perhaps rather external buttresses, so the glacis is not common in Archaic fortification architecture — yet another sign that walls before Classical times were rarely constructed to resist major assaults and sieges, dangers that would not impact on the Greek world on a general level before the fifth and especially the fourth century BC. Outworks

Outworks of any kind are not attested before the seventh century,178 the oldest being the ditch in front of Megara (p.98) Hyblaea 1.179 The evidence for ditches is still poor in the middle Archaic period, only Vroulia provides additional information. Not before the late Archaic period do ditches gain favour, with five attested cases, i.e. Alalie, Aegina, Megara Hyblaea 3, Paphos, and Siris. The dimensions vary considerably. The ditch at Aigina is as wide as 30 metres on the east side of the city and 6–8 metres deep, while the one at Siris is more modest, at 4 × 1.5 metres. It is notoriously difficult to determine whether a trench in front of a wall is just a depression left after the quarrying of building material, or whether such a trench served as a proper ditch (both are likely to have been true in most cases, see above, pp. 79, 92).180 The ditch, as a feature of Archaic city walls apart from appearing in Homer’s description of the wall of the Greeks at Troy, is only attested in Herodotos. He relates how Polykrates used Lesbian captives to dig the ditch around the wall at Samos c.525 BC: οἳ τὴν τάϕρον περὶ τὸ τεῖχος τὸ ἐν Σάμῳ πᾶσαν δεδεμένοι ὤρυξαν.181 Remains of what is very likely to be this ditch are identified outside the west wall of Samos. Ditches are often mentioned in connection with walls in Classical times,182 and it seems reasonable to infer that they were common in that period.183 Whether this was also the case in Archaic times cannot be decided on the basis of the sparse written evidence (on taphroi see above, pp. 22, 36). Ditches are of course far more likely to disappear, by being filled up, than the walls themselves, so from the five archaeological attestations it must be concluded that ditches did occasionally form part of late Archaic fortifications.184 Interestingly, the attested archaeological examples, however, suggest a considerable geographical spread, and almost all are found at cities bordering barbarian territories. This may reflect a tendency, but the scarcity of the evidence precludes any firm conclusions.185 The river by the eastern side of the wall at Smyrna would have had the function of a moat at this point.186 Later in the Archaic period, at Eretria 2, Naxos, and

Page 39 of 62

Topographical and Architectural Analysis Selinous in Sicily, rivers serve as an extra line of defence against approaching enemies.187 At Alalie and Paphos unparalleled new fortification elements were added in the late Archaic period. At Alalie the entire fortification system was more than 20 metres wide and at Paphos more than 50 metres. The only example of outworks relating to category B walls is the ditch at Samos. One explanation why there are even fewer in connection with this category is undoubtedly that these walls were mainly hilltop fortifications, where outworks were either unnecessary or impossible to construct, but it must also be borne in mind that many of the walls, and their immediate surroundings, have not yet been thoroughly investigated. Differences between early and later walls

While there is some truth in A. W. Lawrence’s statement that Greek city walls were rather simple until the later Classical and Hellenistic times,188 it is worth outlining how early walls differed from the later ones. A typical mudbrick circuit of the fifth century would not necessarily have been different from one of the sixth century. This is not to say that a lot did not happen in the fifth century; inventions occurred in particular in offensive military technology and architecture, for example in construction of siege walls, and it is clear that new walls made in the fifth century were on average of greater dimensions than their predecessors of the Archaic period. The major developments, after what we have seen in the Archaic period, happened from the fourth century onwards, which had mainly to do with the dramatically growing sizes of mercenary armies and siege technology of Hellenistic tyrants and kings.189 Cities trying to prepare themselves for the new possible dangers would more often than earlier construct Geländemauern,190 so as to include elements in the landscape around the city which might constitute advantage points (p.99) for attacking enemies. The walls themselves were built with even greater width and height than before,191 towers were set at regular intervals, they had more tiers constructed to receive heavy defence machines and ammunition, which was a new invention of the fourth century.192 Finally the fourth century saw a boom in the number of walls constructed with an inner and an outer face of coursed masonry. These were often of the compartmented type and blocks of the compartment walls were built into the inner and outer face, the so-called emplekton technique, to gain stability and strength.193 While it is true that gates reinforced by towers are more frequently found from the fourth century onwards,194 they did however occur from an early point as demonstrated above, and are not an invention of later times. Sophisticated gate systems existed already in the Bronze Age,195 but were not taken up again before the late Classical and Hellenistic times, the heyday of advanced gate systems.196 Gates of the Early Iron Age and Archaic periods were generally simpler in plan and dimensions. The evidence for ditches in front of walls is much better for the Classical period than for the pre-Classical Page 40 of 62

Topographical and Architectural Analysis one, and unless this has to do with the nature of our sources, this element attests to a general increase not only in efficiency, but also complexity of city wall construction. The Classical city wall with most of its elements, was a continuation of developments that had already taken place in the Archaic period. It is important for our understanding of urban fortifications to note that these features and the terms used to describe them recur in descriptions of walls of the Classical period;197 there is no change in terminology, only an expansion of it.

City Walls and early Monumental Architecture City walls belong to the category of monumental architecture,198 which is characterized by grand dimensions intended to impress; construction to endure; elaboration beyond what is necessary for function (sometimes by choice imported materials); prominent location in relation to landscape or to other buildings. The city walls of the Early Iron Age and early Archaic periods do not necessarily meet all these criteria, but do they meet enough to justify being labelled monumental architecture? And, if so, how do they compare to other types of early monumental architecture? City walls make an early and impressive entry on the stage of ancient Greek architecture with Smyrna 1, dated to c.820 BC. The wall was almost 5 metres wide (excluding the platform on the inside), and is likely to have been at least as high. At Paphos 1, from the eighth century, the 4-metre-wide gate is flanked by bastions, resulting in a 20metre-long approach, clearly an impressive architectural construction. Paphos 1 and Smyrna 1 were certainly monumental from the point of view of scale, regardless of this parameter being partly or entirely determined by the fortificative function of the walls. As mentioned earlier there is a clear relationship between dimensions, elaboration, and proportion, as for example the proportional connection between gate and wall width (above, p. 96); it was the dimensions of city walls, combined with their topographical nature — anyone being in or near an ancient Greek town could hardly avoid noticing its city walls — which made them monuments of considerable visual impact. At Smyrna the socle of rugged polygonal stones was contrasted by the flat uniform face of the plastered mudbricks above. The tower wall of the North East Gate (Fig. 102) had a few courses of well-fitted ashlar blocks inserted between the socle of roughly cut stone and the mudbrick superstructure. This design, with three horizontal rows in different materials and colours, must have been striking: the bright white stone, nicely cut, standing out against the darker and rougher layer below and the light brown (?) plastered mass above. This was clearly elaboration beyond the necessary. No other type of building from (p. 100) the ninth or eighth century in the Greek world was constructed with this level of architectural sophistication.199

Page 41 of 62

Topographical and Architectural Analysis In the eighth-century walls of Smyrna 2 and Paphos 1, elaboration is also observed on the inside of the walls facing the settlements, reflecting the increasing awareness of the presence and significance of buildings in everyday urban surroundings. Unsurprisingly, the aesthetic response to walls led to a monumentalization which was not necessarily identical on both sides of the walls. On the inside, the aim would have been to make them aesthetically appealing, but also to radiate safety and comfort for the people living within them. These properties applied to some extent to the outside face as well, but here an additional factor was in play: walls had to appear impressive, unassailable, and awe-inspiring towards the outside world, so that potential enemies would think twice before attacking the city.200 The narrow gate into the acropolis wall of Minoa was also constructed with more care and in different materials than the wall proper,201 but whereas this example clearly attests to architectural elaboration of a city wall, the small scale and location of this gate (it was not the gate one saw on approach to the town of Minoa) may declassify the gate as proper monumental architecture. At Agios Andreas the wall system, more than 8 metres wide, would definitely have had a monumental effect on the beholder, and in this context it does not matter that the wall was Mycenaean rather than Early Iron Age. The large tower on the site was certainly of the latter period, and monumentality of reused arechitecture counts as much as monumentality of freshly erected architecture. At Zagora the ninth–seventh-century wall (phases 1–3), an entity of stone more than 100 metres long and some 5 metres high, must have been the completely dominating feature of the town of Zagora to anyone approaching it from the land side, and most of the remaining Early Iron Age walls are likely to have had the same visual effect — perhaps apart from the minute Vathy Limenari. The seventh century sees the massive reconstruction phase of Smyrna 3, and a few walls which may have been made completely of stone (Melie 2, Naxos 1, and Pergamon). A number of walls (or wall socles) are constructed in distinct masonry styles, or at least of blocks that are dressed and fitted, which attest to a desire for durability and for appearance. A few walls of entirely different construction were also built in the seventh century, such as Halieis (lower town) and Megara Hyblaea 1, which had earth embankments possibly topped with wooden stakes. These would have been monumental because of their size, perhaps more than for the care in execution of detail, but it is not possible to judge the latter aspect because of the poor preservation of the embankment structures. In the middle Archaic period walls at Akragas, Kyme, Leontinoi, and Phokaia were constructed of ashlar masonry, at least in part, and ashlar construction, which is monumental almost by definition, becomes one of the main elements in city wall architecture for centuries to come, first as part of the lower portions of walls, later used for walls throughout their height.

Page 42 of 62

Topographical and Architectural Analysis As was demonstrated above (Chap. 3) written sources are not particularly informative about details of walls; but from general statements, however, walls seem indeed to have been conceived of as monumental from an early point onwards. Theognis202 speaks of the well-built walls of Thebes (…, πόλιν δ᾿ εὐτείχεα Θήβην) and a similar adjective is found in Pindar (cf. above, p. 23). Epithets like beautiful and/or strong, found in Homer too (see above, Chap. 3), fit on a general level the monumentality apparent from what we can make of most of the walls themselves today. City walls were, from the beginning in the Early Iron Age, often huge constructions, taking up an enormous amount of space, visually as well as spatially. They required a great deal of planning, resources, and care in execution, and their aesthetic potential must have been recognized from the beginning. Indeed elaborate wall faces are found from the earliest times, especially in connection with the largest and most monumental walls.203 These early walls challenge the general belief that monumental architecture emerged and developed first of all with religious architecture, i.e. the temples.204 (p.101) The oldest temples,205 understood as horseshoe-shaped structures with a stone-socle cella wall and a wooden pteron,206 may have been erected as early as 800 BC.207 Monumentality in temples is constituted by grand dimensions, cella walls in ashlar masonry, and tiled roofs, elements which are attested in temples for the first time in the seventh century BC at Samos, Corinth, and Isthmia.208 The earliest temples with stone pteron and entablature are at Korkyra c.580 BC,209 Corinth (575–550 BC),210 and perhaps Syrakousai.211 The example of Old Smyrna is illustrative, as the first monumental temple, Athena phase 2, dates from 630–600 BC, roughly 200 years later than the phase 1 monumental city wall.212 City walls are an even earlier manifestation of monumental architecture and, as secular architecture, they counterbalance the traditional emphasis on the connection between monumental architecture as such and religion in the early Greek polis.213 An intriguing question is, of course, from where or from whom the Greeks got the inspiration for the different elements of monumental architecture, such as for example ashlar masonry. As mentioned above, they must have known elaborate fortifications erected in the late Bronze and Early Iron Ages by their eastern neighbours.214 The connection with the Near East has in fact been suggested for some of the wall elements, in particular the towers.215 Egypt is often mentioned as a possible source of inspiration in the seventh century,216 and there is most probably some truth in this, although from a strict chronological point of view the earliest truly monumental Greek temples (early seventh century, see above) antedate the first known Greek ‘contact’ with Egypt.217 Inspiration for the monumental features of early city walls should be Page 43 of 62

Topographical and Architectural Analysis sought in the neighbouring civilizations towards the East, e.g. those of the Lydians, Phrygians, and Assyrians.218 This is only logical since it is among the Greeks in these regions we find the earliest monumental walls.219 It is unlikely that early settlers from Greece used specific skills inherited from the Mycenaeans; the century-long pause in masonry construction between the eleventh and late ninth220 centuries must (p.102) have meant a loss of tradition.221 What is possible, in fact very likely, is that eighth-century Greeks would have studied Mycenaean ruins for inspiration in more general terms. Agios Andreas, Naxos in Sicily, and Xobourgo are just three examples of Early Iron Age and Archaic reuse of late Bronze Age fortifications, which in itself proves a direct relationship; the Greek East also produces some examples.222 The sloping buttress identified at the wall at Phokaia may have been inspired by a similar element identified in the great mudbrick wall of Sardis,223 although the masonry is entirely different, and in Sicily bastions perhaps existed earlier at indigenous fortifications than at both Greek and Phoenician fortifications.224 The Phoenician fortifications in Sicily were definitely quite advanced, which can be seen for example in the layout of curtains with grand rectangular towers at certain intervals and the use of gates supported by towers, but with these we are not further back than the early sixth century.225 The question of origin is linked to the question of the extent to which Greek fortifications were planned and executed with features clearly different from those of neighbouring cultures. With regard to some details it is occasionally possible to recognize, the other way around, a non-Greek tradition, like towers of oval plan, which never became particularly common in the Greek world.226 Another example is the shape of merlons on battlements, which are always square when depicted in ancient Greek art, while in the Assyrian, Hittite, and Persian traditions they take different shapes.227 The Phoenician tradition is also different, as is apparent from depictions in Assyrian art, for example in the shape of upper storeys of towers, which were built with a projection and the shape of the merlons which were triangular.228 It may be that the story of origin lies somewhere between inspiration from Late Bronze Age walls and the adoption of contemporary living foreign traditions, and, of course, one should not forget invention. That the Smyrnaians built the ‘first’ monumental city wall in the Greek culture as a result of a combination of pressure and inspiration from their ‘barbarian’ neighbours, seems logical, and does not make their enterprise less Greek. It comes as no surprise that a new cultural element is introduced at the interface with neighbouring civilizations. Notes:

(1) At some sites more than one phase of wall has been identified.

Page 44 of 62

Topographical and Architectural Analysis (2) The architecture of Archaic city walls was also treated by Lang, Siedlungen. The part of Lang’s study devoted to architecture and construction comprises 20 sites only. Lang, Siedlungen, 21–54, with n. 23, presents the evidence according to her criteria. (3) Argos in 417 BC (Thuc. 5.82.5–6); Athens after 479 BC (Thuc. 1.93); Athens in C5 (Eur. Phoen. 182–4); Athens in the 330s BC (Aesch. 3.236, Dem. 18.299); Corinth (Xen. Hell. 4.4.18); Mykalessos C5l (Thuc. 7.29.3); Rhodes 305 BC (Diod. 20.84.5); Syracuse 401 BC (Diod. 14.18). (4) Table 1 provides an overview of walls according to period. (5) Cf. discussion of Smyrna phase 1, above, p. 58–9, and Paphos and Salamis on Cyprus above, p. 18. (6) Maier, Nordost-Tor, 17. (7) See above, p. 52. (8) See discussion at Asine (Cat.). (9) Parts of the trace of the wall at Paphos can be detected by the elevated line it has left in the landscape, and the rest of the trace can be surmised because of the local topography and the location of cemeteries in particular to the N, E, and S sides of the urban centre, F. G. Maier and M.-L. von Wartburg, ‘Reconstructing History from the Earth, ca. 2800 B.C.-1600 A.D.: Excavating at Palaepaphos, 1966–1985’, in V. Karageorghis (ed.), Archaeology in Cyprus 1960–1985 (Nicosia 1985), 153–5, at 152. (10) Remains of settlements, if searched for, may never be uncovered to any impressive extent because of destruction in later periods, F. G. Maier, ‘Palaipaphos and the Transition to the Early Iron Age: Continuities, Discontinuities and Location Shifts’, in M. Iacovou and D. Michaelides (eds.), Cyprus: The Historicity of the Geometric Horizon (Nicosia 1999), 79–93, at 79. (11) Coldstream, Geometric Greece, 304, offers a more wordy and hence precise description: ‘huge hammer-dressed blocks of approximately polygonal shape; although the crevices contain a few small stones, there is already some attempt to fit the blocks together’. (12) The construction of the superstructure of the wall at Salamis is not known, but given the character of the foundation and the lack of displaced stones around the wall it is not likely that the wall is an early specimen of the much later emplekton-‘compartment’ walls. See Karlsson, Towers, 67–95, for an exhaustive and clarifying treatment of the term emplekton and types of construction using compartments.

Page 45 of 62

Topographical and Architectural Analysis (13) For discussion of gate remains, see Smyrna phase 2 (Cat.). (14) See above, Chap. 3. (15) Winter, 153, already noted that the evidence for true towers is unimpressive before C6s. (16) Found at section κ–κ1, see Nicholls, ‘Old Smyrna’, fig. 32, pl. 74. (17) Ibid. 97–8. (18) Ibid. 68–75, figs. 18–19 and pl. 17c; Winter, 79 with n. 27; Coldstream, Geometric Greece, 261 and 303. (19) Nicholls, ‘Old Smyrna’, 70. (20) Ibid. 96. (21) Winter, 82. For more on this see below, p. 99–101. (22) Minoa (Cat.: Comments). (23) Leontinoi is dated to C6e in this book, although a C7 fortification phase is often referred to, see Leontinoi (Cat.: Comments). Siris, likewise often referred to as being C7, is treated as late Archaic, see Cat. (24) Limited finds made Kolb suggest (Die Stadt, 71) that the fortification of the lower city consisted of isolated fortified towers. For the view that the city had a real circuit wall in C7: Lauter-Bufé and Lauter, ‘Vorthemistokleische Stadtmauer’, 1; J. Boardman, ‘The Material Culture of Archaic Greece’, CAH2 III. 3 (Cambridge 1982), 442–61, at 444; I. Morris, Burial and Ancient Society: The Rise of the Ancient Greek City-State (Cambridge 1987), 192; Winter, 61. For recent accounts of the debate which engage with the evidence, Lang, Siedlungen, 24 n. 45; Schmid, ‘Zwischen Mythos und Realität’; S. Fachard, ‘L’Enceinte urbaine d’Érétrie: Un état de la question’, AK 47 (2004), 91–109, at 94–6; A. Mazarakis Ainian, ‘Geometric Eretria’, AK 30 (1987), 3–23, at 15–16. (25) Rivers or canals serving as moats (or ditches when dry) at or close to walls are not uncommon in the Archaic period, e.g. Sicilian, Naxos, Selinous, and Old Smyrna. (26) The excavator of the West Gate, Clemens Krause, who originally suggested the posibility of a double function, has also abandoned this idea (pers. comm., see Cat.). (27) The wall is not of uniform width, which does not in itself speak for one interpretation rather than another, in particular in light of the fact that the wall

Page 46 of 62

Topographical and Architectural Analysis was of course used as a quarry for later Eretrian building, see Schmid, ‘Zwischen Mythos und Realität’, 112. (28) Dikes are for example identified at the Heraion at Samos and the Artemision at Ephesos. The stone-built parts of their terrace walls are constructed of considerably smaller stones and they are not wider than 1 m, see G. Gruben, ‘Die Südhalle’, AM 72 (1957), at 58–60, pls. 4–5 (Heraion), and M. Kerschner, ‘Ein Stratifizierter Opferkomplex des 7. Jhs. v. Chr. aus dem Artemision von Ephesos’, ÖJh 66 (1997), Beiblatt 85–226, at 94–9, figs. 5, 14. (29) P. Themelis, Ἀνασκαϕή Ερέτριας’, Praktiká 1979, 40–55, at 43–50, figs. 4–5; K. G. Walker, Archaic Eretria (London 2004), 91–8, map 4; A. Mazarakis Ainian, ‘Geometric Eretria’, AK 30 (1987), 3–23, at 15–16 fig. 6 (refs. n. 21). See (contra) S. Fachard, ‘L’Enceinte urbaine d’Érétrie: Un état de la question’, AK 47 (2004), 91–109, at 94–6 (with refs.). (30) A third option would be that the wall ran through the settlement as a sort of diateichisma. This option, however, is not very likely, as diateichismata are not attested elsewhere in this period. (31) The area between the West Gate and the acropolis is largely unexplored, and evidence for C7 settlement may well turn up in future excavations. (32) H. S. Robinson, The Urban Development of Ancient Corinth (Athens 1965); C. Roebuck, ‘Some Aspects of Urbanization in Corinth’, Hesperia 41 (1972), 96– 127, refers to the C7 fortification wall in quotation marks (at 125). (33) Stillwell, Potters’ Quarter, 14, 62; Winter, 64; Boardman, ‘Material Culture’, 444; Lang, Siedlungen, 25; J. M. Hall, A History of the Archaic Greek World, ca. 1200–479 BCE (Oxford 2007), 73; F. de Polignac, ‘Forms and processes: Some Thoughts on the Meaning of Urbanization in Early Archaic Greece’, in R. Osborne and B. Cunliffe (eds.), Mediterranean Urbanization 800–600 BC (Oxford 2005), 45–69, at 47. (34) Morgan, ‘Sacral “Landscape”’, 122. (35) Salmon, Corinth, 220 n. 137. (36) See Corinth (Cat.). (37) Salmon, Corinth, 220. (38) Salmon, Corinth, 220–1, Williams, ‘Urbanization Corinth’, 15–16, followed by Lauter-Bufé and Lauter, ‘Vorthemistokleische Stadtmauer’, 1 with n. 8, and Morris, Burial and Ancient Society, 192. Morgan and Coulton, ‘Physical Polis’, 106, with a cautious stand.

Page 47 of 62

Topographical and Architectural Analysis (39) The distribution of wells and of paths has been used also to argue that early Corinth was composed of individual settlements and did not have an urban centre in the EIA; but this argument applies to Corinth in C8 and earlier, and not to the city in C7 and later, Cf. Salmon, Corinth, 78. (40) Cf. Dickey below, n. 41. (41) The general change towards extramural burial is claimed to have taken place at Athens c.700 BC, Morris, Burial, 67–8. The development at Corinth too at the same time, or in fact a little earlier, is evident from use of the North Cemetery which is re-enacted in the MG II period, K. Dickey, Corinthian Burial Customs, ca. 1100 to 550 BC (Diss. Bryn Mawr 1992), 129. See ibid. 121–34 for a detailed discussion of graves and early topography of Corinth and n. 15 on the exception of C6 burials in the Agora. (42) Salmon, Corinth, 78–80. (43) The centenary volume of the American Expedition has only one reference in a footnote to the C7 wall at the Potters’ Quarter, A. B. Brownlee, ‘Workshops in the Potters’ Quarter’, in C. K. Williams and N. Bookidis (eds.), Corinth, the Centenary 1896–1996 (Princeton 2003), 181–94, at 181 n. 1. (44) Lang, Siedlungen, 234. See comments at Pergamon (Cat.). (45) Lang’s reservation, Siedlungen, 234, about the Archaic dating is rather pessimistic and theoretical. It seems unlikely that the pottery presented by Radt should be a secondary deposit or examples of ‘intruders’ from higher up the hill. The theoretical point of Lang is valid, but when the situation is presented as an ‘accumulation of pottery on the inner side towards the urbanized area’, we must assume that it would have been noticed during the excavation if one of the circumstances suggested by Lang are likely to have occurred. (46) Attested as a polis in the urban and political sense at Xen. Hell. 3.1.6. (47) Radt, Pergamon, 24. (48) The population of Geometric and Archaic Pergamon was mixed, and the majority may even have been non-Greek, Radt, Pergamon, 24. (49) Miller, Befestigungsanlagen, 263–4; s.v. ‘Nasso’ in BTCGI 12, 279–8 (P. Pelagatti). (50) M. C. Lentini, ‘L’abitato proto-arcaico di Naxos di Sicilia (scavi 1998–1999)’, in M. C. Lentini (ed.), Le due città di Naxos: Atti del Seminario di Studi Giardini Naxos 29–31 Ottobre 2000 (Giardini Naxos 2004), p. 39 figs. 2 and 7.

Page 48 of 62

Topographical and Architectural Analysis (51) P. Pelagatti, ‘Bilancio degli scavi di Naxos per l’VIII e il VII sec. A. C.’, ASAtene 59.1 n.s. 43 (1981), 294–311, at 297; Lentini, L’abitato protoarcaico di Naxos di Sicilia, 28–34, at 34. (52) See above, p. 57–8. (53) See Corinth, Halieis, and Pergamon (Cat.). (54) See Table 1 for building phases. (55) This observation fits the fact that these areas were not settled by Greeks before C7m/C7s, Hansen and Nielsen, 924–8, 1233. (56) Sicily is perhaps on the map already in C8, as the ‘rempart primitif or phase 1 at Megara Hyblaea may date back to C8l, see Megara Hyblaea (Cat.). (57) See above, p. 74–5, and Eretria wall B (Cat.). (58) Lang, Siedlungen, 26, mentions rivers as one of several factors to be included when the dimensions of walls were decided. (59) Halieis (Cat.: Location). (60) Abdera (Cat.: Location). (61) Proasteion incorporated in new circuit at Torone C5l, see p. 111 n. 43. (62) The double-faced wall is then an earlier phenomenon than was suggested by Martin, Manuel, 376, who claimed that double-faced walls are not found before C6m, perhaps C7l; he seems to have had walls built entirely in stone in mind. His suggestion (ibid.). that the double-faced construction is a necessary development following the increased practice of using stone as a material during the Archaic period is obviously correct. (63) Karlsson, Towers, 36; Winter, 135–6 with n. 36. (64) Winter’s ‘first construction group’, Winter, 69. (65) On the limited use of mudbrick in Pergamon in general, Radt, ‘Frühesten Wehrmauern’, 165, with n. 5. (66) Müller-Wiener, Bauwesen, 74, describes both the walls at Smyrna and Miletos as ‘real’ ashlar masonry, with horizontal courses and square blocks. Coldstream, Geometric Greece, 304, considers the wall at Miletos and the wall at Antissa (treated as late Archaic in this study) as ‘much-improved’ compared to Smyrna phases 2–3.

Page 49 of 62

Topographical and Architectural Analysis (67) It is unclear what made Winter refer to ‘true towers’ at Miletos in C7l?/C6e, Winter, 153. The existence of towers is suggested hypothetically for the early wall at Megara Hyblaea, Gras et al., Mégara Hyblaea 5, 300. See also comments at Halieis (Cat.). (68) Six of the twelve C7 fortification walls have at least one more building phase in the Archaic period alone (Table 9). (69) Miletos almost counts as a relocation, as the later and main part of the urban history of the city unfolded itself N of the Kalabaktepe, and not on and around it, from the Archaic period onwards. (70) Miller, Befestigungsanlagen, 45, 258, is of the opinion that the trench may indeed have been a leftover from material used to build the wall, but thinks that the trench is not at all deep enough to have served as a ditch. (71) Nicholls, ‘Old Smyrna’, 118, suggests a direct link between the use of mudbrick and a ditch appearing as a result of the dug-out mudbrick. It is not always clear whether the effect of the quarrying was sufficient to create a ditch (cf. n. 70, above). (72) e.g. Il. 7.449, 8.179, 8.336. (73) Il. 7. 440–1: ‘And without they dug a deep ditch hard by, wide and great, …’ (tr. Murray, Loeb). (74) Il. 12.256–64. Drerup, Baukunst, 101. (75) ‘They tore at the projections on the outworks, and broke down the battlements and shook with levers the jut of the buttresses the Achaians had stuck in the earth on the outer face to shore their defenses. They tore in these, in hope of breaking down the Achaians’ wall, but now the Danaans did not give way in front of them, but they, fencing the battlements with the hides of oxen, hurled from the wall at the enemy who came beneath it’, R. Lattimore, The Iliad of Homer: Translated with an Introduction (Chicago and London 1951). (76) LSJ, s.v. κρόσσαι and ἐπάλξιον. (77) It has to be admitted that the exact meaning of krossai is unclear at this point, cf. the commentary by Murray in the Loeb translation. Krossai seem to have formed part of the superstructure, Il. 12.444. Nicholls, ‘Old Smyrna’, 110 n. 167. (78) Another passage (Il. 12.430) which mentions the epalxeis of the wall of the Greeks is not more informative as to the exact meaning of the term. They are mentioned along with pyrgoi (towers), however, and thus were likely elements of the wall (as the towers). Herodotos uses the word once (9.7), and from this Page 50 of 62

Topographical and Architectural Analysis context (the wall built by the Lakedaimonians and their allies on the Isthmus 480 BC) it is clear that epalxeis were constructions near or on the top of the superstructure of the wall. (79) On Klazomenai, see Cat. (80) Eretria, Halieis, Megara Hyblaea, and Naxos. (81) Metapontion and Idalion phase 1. See the discussion about contextual identification above, p. 60–1. (82) The dating of Eretria phase 2 may be challenged due to a recent reexamination of pottery found in the original excavation, Eretria phase 2 (Cat.: Comments). The circumstances around the dating of wall AA at Xobourgo in Tenos are slightly unclear, see Xobourgo (Cat.: Date). (83) The presence of the Greeks in these parts seems to have started with the foundation of Kyrene c.630 BC, Hdt. 4.150–8, and Eusebios ed. Hieronymos, s.v. 632 BC, R. Helm, Eusebius Werke, VII: Die Chronik des Hieronymus (Berlin 1956), 96b. New poleis were founded relatively fast thereafter: Barke c.550 BC, Hdt. 4.160. The chronological inference is that the brothers of Arcesilaos, king of Kyrene from 570 BC, founded Barke as a result of a conflict with him (i.e. the foundation is likely to have taken place in C6m). Euesperides was founded c.550 BC. This date is proposed on the basis of information from excavations at the site, F. Sear, ‘The Architecture of Sidi Khrebish (Berenice)’, in J. Descoeudres Colonists, 385–403, at 385. The time of the foundation of Taucheira is unknown. Greek presence is attested from C7l and it seems that the foundation of Taucheira preceded that of Barke, J. Boardman, ‘Evidence for the Dating of Greek Settlements in Cyrenaica’, BSA 61 (1966), 149–56, at 153–5; Boardman and Hayes, Tocra 1, 12–5, 170; J. Boardman, ‘Settlement for Trade and Land in North Africa: Problems of Identity’, in G. R. Tsetskhladze and F. De Angelis (eds.), The Archaeology of Greek Colonisation: Essays Dedicated to Sir John Boardman (Oxford 1994), 137–49, at 144. See also Taucheira in Hansen and Nielsen, 1247, no. 1029. For the dating of the Greek settlements in the Kyrenaika in general (historical dates correlated with finds of pottery) see Boardman, ‘Evidence’. (84) Achilleion, Akragas, Bouthroton, Halieis, Idalion, Kyme, Leontinoi, Phokaia, Selinous, Xobourgo, and Vroulia. (85) Eretria, Euesperides, Halai, Megara Hyblaea, Metapontion, Naxos, Taucheira, and Teichioussa. (86) Leontinoi phase 1 was earlier thought to consist of the stretch above the one acknowledged here (the left of the two parallel walls on the E side of S. Mauro, pl. 34a). For the documentation see Rizza, Fortificazioni, and Rizza, Fortificazioni Page 51 of 62

Topographical and Architectural Analysis rilievi, pl. 1 nos. 5–23. The wall is a solid stone wall entirely constructed of headers. There is now agreement that the date of this wall is C4, see comments at Leontinoi (Cat.). This construction is more in accordance with the later Classical tradition where many walls, especially in Sicily and Magna Graecia, were reinforced with an extra face of blocks laid as headers (e.g. Rhegion, the stretch on the waterfront, and Heloron phase 2, E. Militello, ‘Eloro: III.— Relazione degli Scavi del 1958–1959’, MonAnt 47 (1966), 299–335, fig. 62). (87) At Eretria (Fig. 36) the remains show different types of construction. The wall L–P–Q–H has two faces; the outer face of larger stones than the inner. The core was of mudbricks (pres. to 7 courses). Wall M–N seems to have had a solid base of boulders and minor stones. (88) Lang, Siedlungen, 29, suggests that the socle (of silicon) was added between the rock (conglomerate) and the mudbrick in this phase because the mudbrick would easily disintegrate due to moisture coming from the rock. (89) Not to be confused with the row of mudbricks actually found but located in front of the wall at Euesperides (Fig. 39). (90) See above, p. 22 n. 25. (91) ‘… and then, when he could not persuade them to do that, and learnt from them how the Median power was increasing, he gave them money to build a wall round their city therewith. Without stint he gave it; for the circuit of the wall is of many furlongs, and all this is made of great stones well fitted together’ (tr. Godley, Loeb). (92) LSJ s.v. προμαχέων I. The translation of promacheona at Hdt. 1.164 (Godley, Loeb) is bastion. (93) Hdt. 9.7. The wall on the Isthmus. (94) Selinous (Cat.). (95) Lang, Siedlungen, 35. (96) The location of a main road just west of the gate prevents further investigations at the moment, see Phokaia (Cat.) with references. (97) A number of walls are excluded from this investigation, because either their Archaic date or their identification as fortification walls is not documented sufficiently. An example is Torone with walls A, B, and C: A. Cambitoglou and J. K. Papadopoulos, in A. Cambitoglou et al. (eds.), Torone I: The Excavations of 1975, 1976 and 1978 (Athens 2001), 68–76, and communication J. Papadopoulos 2007.

Page 52 of 62

Topographical and Architectural Analysis (98) Hdt. 1.165.1 and 1.166.3. (99) J. and L. Jehasse, ‘Alalia/Aléria après la “victoire à la cadméenne”’, PP 37 (1982), 247–55, at 255. See A. J. Domínguez, ‘Focea y sus colonias: A propósito de un reciente coloquio’, Gerión 3 (1985), 357–77, at 376–7 for archaeological evidence that can be used for arguing both in favour of Greek and Etruscan presence on the site in C6s. (100) See above, p. 53–8 for the discussions of width and wall elements in the identification of fortification walls. (101) See Ephesos (Cat.). (102) Coldstream, Geometric Greece, 261. (103) M. Kerschner in Biblio. for Ephesos (Cat.). (104) For other examples see Catalogue entries for Heloron, Hyele, Idalion phase 2, Kalydon, Kamarina, Lokroi Epizephyrioi, Massalia, Stagiros, and Thasos. (105) See Aigina (Cat.: Comments). (106) See Thasos (Cat.): dated to C7l/C6e in NP vol. 12/1 s.v. Thasos col. 244 (A. Külzer), probably inspired by C. Fredrich, ‘Thasos’, AM 33 (1908), 215–46, at 217. F. Blondé et al., ‘Thasos in the Age of Archilochos’, in D. Katsonopoulon et al. (eds.), Archilochos and His Age (Athens 2008), 409–25. (107) Megara Hyblaea is not located on a hill, but on low plateaus, and bedrock happens to be close to the surface. (108) For discussion of the term polygonal see above, p. 65. (109) The wall at Kalydon is not a proper example of the use of this style, but rather an example of occational use of trapezoidal blocks in an ashlar wall, see Fig. 55. (110) For the existence of a gate at Ephesos in this period, see Ephesos (Cat.: Comments). (111) In accordance with the interpretation of the excavator. Followed by Lang, Siedlungen, 37. See Abdera (Cat.: Gates). (112) See, however, Stagiros (Cat.: Gates). (113) The standard gauge between the wheels of wagons seems to have been 1.4 m in many parts of ancient Greece. This is known from observations in the landscapes of a number of regions, where wheel-ruts or grooves are often found as remains of ancient roads. They are, however, not easily dated, W. K. Pritchett, Page 53 of 62

Topographical and Architectural Analysis Studies in Ancient Greek Topography. Part III. Roads (Berkeley 1980), 195; Y. A. Pikoulas, ‘The Road-Network of Arkadia’, in CPCActs 6, 248–319, at 306–9. At Haliartos in Boiotia wheel-ruts are preserved in blocks in situ in front of a gate, R. P. Austin, ‘Excavations at Haliartos, 1926’, BSA 27 (1925–6), 81–91, at 84–5, figs. 1–2. A wider standard may have applied in the Greek West; in Syracuse, on Ortigia, wheel-ruts 1.60 cm apart, were found in a street dating back to c.700 BC. I am grateful to Dr Thomas Patrick, Bristol, for drawing my attention to these Ortigian ruts. (114) Cf. above, p. 87 for another possible bastion at Idalion. (115) See the individual category A entries in the Catalogue for this information. (116) See the individual category B entries in the Catalogue for this information. (117) Evident from Pseudo-Skylax who has the occasional comment ‘there are also some poleis inland’ (e.g. 34, 35, 36, 46, 61, 63, 64), and from Plato Phaedr. 109b and Thuc. 1.7. Hansen, Polis, 34. (118) According to Miller, Besfestigungsanlagen, 188, cities in Magna Graecia in C6 and C5 were more often surrounded by city walls running in plains because they were typically not founded on hills, than cities in the Greek homeland, which on the other hand more frequently relied on a fortified acropolis. There may be some truth in this observation, although quite a number of the former actually are located on or in proximity to an acropolis or a high plateau (Akragas, Gela, Heloron, Hyele, Kaulonia, Kyme, Leontinoi, and Siris) and a number of the latter actually did have city walls running in the plain or on the sides of low plateaus (Abdera, Corinth, Eretria, Halai, and Halieis). (119) See above, p. 50–3. Examples where topographical details are given: the siege of Samos (Cat.) and the sieges of the Athenian acropolis (Cat.). (120) See the individual entries of category B walls in the Catalogue for this information. (121) See p. 52 n. 1. (122) Sokolicek, ‘Architettura e urbanistica’, 196. (123) For discussion about Corinth, see above, p. 75–6, cf. Corinth (Cat.). (124) The view expressed by Winter, 133, that this information is scarce because only a few walls are excavated to the bottom, still largely applies. (125) Soloi (Cat.). (126) Winter, 155.

Page 54 of 62

Topographical and Architectural Analysis (127) Ibid. 133. (128) Depending on the exact date of these walls Halai is not necessarily the oldest known example of this particular phenomenon, cf. Lang, Siedlungen, 26; with the attested specimens given above we can now prove that indented trace occurs as an early phenomenon. Scranton, Walls, app. II, launched the early date as a theory, arguing that there was a similarity between the earliest walls at Abai and Samothrake and this particular type of plan, see Winter, 102–3 with discussion and refs. (129) Scranton, Walls, 154–6, for a few examples and traces comparable to indented trace from C5 and C4. (130) Lang, Siedlungen, 28. Filling is general for double-faced walls as such in Greek architecture, cf. Müller-Wiener, Bauwesen, 68. Fill is sometimes called emplekton in the scholarly literature, e.g. Mertens, Selinus 1, 69; for a discussion see D’Agostino et al., Cuma, 24 with n. 4. (131) Lawrence, Aims, 37. (132) Loader, Masonry, 5–7. (133) The remark by Pausanias 8.8.7, to the effect that mudbrick walls in fact withstood battering rams better than stone walls is of course interesting, but even if Pausnias is generally right, it does not nullify the explanation for crosswalls in all stone walls. (134) Cf. Plato Leg. 778 D–E. Lawrence, Aims, 35, and Lang, Siedlungen, 28, to the effect that mudbrick on a stone socle was the most popular type of construction in late Archaic and Classical times. Cf. Müller-Wiener, Bauwesen, 66. (135) On Smyrna, Winter, 129. (136) The restricted source material of Lang, as well as the rather poor evidence on elaborate stone-face walls in C7, are the reasons why descriptions of wall styles play a minimal role in the work of Lang, cf. Siedlungen, 28. (137) Wycherley, Cities2, 48; Winter, 132; Müller-Wiener, Bauwesen, 72. (138) In the present discussion about wall styles and dimensions, the walls of category B can be used for the purpose of analogy; if the connection proposed above between dimension and elaboration exists, it will exist in C5 as well, and it does not matter for this particular issue if a number of category B walls are actually Classical. (139) Wycherley, Cities2, 46. Page 55 of 62

Topographical and Architectural Analysis (140) See p. 66, above. (141) Lang, Siedlungen, 26. (142) Lang, ibid., concludes that walls with extreme dimensions, both very wide and very narrow, are more characteristic before C6 than later. This is true only to a limited extent and the conclusion is more influenced by the lack of walls that have ‘normal’ dimensions in the early period than the lack of walls with extreme dimensions in the later period. (143) Not observed in previous scholarship, because of less data available, e.g. Lawrence, Aims, 345. Lang, Siedlungen, 26, provides a different picture. (144) Lawrence, Aims, 344–5, followed by Lang, Siedlungen, 27, suggested on the basis of a much more restricted pool of evidence that walls of the late Archaic period are normally between 2 and 2.5 m wide. (145) Lang, Siedlungen, 26; Winter, 157. (146) The restricted number of walls in the investigation of Lang seems to be the reason why she has not been able to detect this difference in the material. Lang, Siedlungen, 26, gives 2–3.5 m as average width. (147) Winter, 130. (148) Tréziny, ‘Fortifications archaïques’, 248–9 fig. 277. (149) It should also be kept in mind that many walls almost certainly would have had superstructures partly constructed in wood, as evidenced by finds of considerable amounts of wood in the C7l–C6m enormous wall around Sardis, C. H. Greenwalt et al., ‘The Sardis Campaign of 1978’, BASOR 245 (1982), 15–24, at 2. The use of wood adds an unknown factor in the calculation of height and width in the (many) cases where we do not know the details of the superstructure, because wood as a building material is light and can be extracted as solid strong beams many metres long. (150) Cf. Lawrence, Aims, 344–5. (151) It is reasonable to conclude, with Vitruvius (De Arch. 1.5.3), that the wall walk had to be wide enough to allow two armed men to pass one another easily, cf. Lawrence, Aims, 345. (152) Cf. Lawrence, Aims, 421. (153) If the category B wall at Hyettos in Boiotia is Archaic a further tangential example from central Greece can be added.

Page 56 of 62

Topographical and Architectural Analysis (154) Lang, Siedlungen, 39, suggests that the tangential type is an eastern preference, which is a valid observation given Lang’s restricted source material. (155) Ibid. (156) The observation by Lawrence, Aims, 434 n. 54, and Lang, Siedlungen, 39, that there is no chronological difference in the appearance of the two types, must be due to the restricted data compared to the data available to the present author. (157) e.g. Mantineia and Stymphalos in the Peloponnese, Winter, figs. 216 and 218, and the fort at Sounion, A. K. Orlandos,‘Σουνίου ανασκαϕαί’, ArchEph (1917), 172–5, pl. 4. (158) F. Fratta, ‘Per una rilettura del sistema di fortificazioni di Cuma’, in B. d’Agostino and A. d’Andrea (eds.), Cuma: Nuove Forme di Intervento per lo Studio del Sito Antico (Naples 2002), 62. (159) A more nuanced description of the relationship between type of gate and the surrounding topography is provided by Winter, 209. (160) Lang, Siedlungen, 39. (161) Ibid. 39–40. (162) Cf. Chap. 3, above. (163) Deliberate architectural layout within the walls in accordance with an approach through gates of tangential type is apparent in the location of temples and ‘rulers dwellings’ in e.g. Emporio and Smyrna, as the monumental buildings in these cases were placed so that they could be seen on entry. (164) Cf. Lang, Siedlungen, chart at p. 40. (165) See however ibid. 41, for the suggestion that the lack of sally gates can be blamed on lack of research. (166) Miller, Befestigungsanlagen, 15. (167) Lang, Siedlungen, 39. (168) This is of course only true if the wall is in fact Archaic, see Abai (Cat.). (169) e.g. the ‘Scaean Gates’, Il. 3.145; 6.237; 11.170. (170) See above, pp. 27, 36. (171) Depending on whether or not the wall at Minoa running NW towards the sea is actually of EIA date, it forms an additional example. Page 57 of 62

Topographical and Architectural Analysis (172) Megara Hyblaea (late Archaic) is thus neither the earliest nor the only example yielding towers of circular plan in the Archaic period, Lawrence, Greek Aims, 36. (173) Lang, Siedlungen, 32, prefers the term bastion for the structure at Samos. (174) An example from Classsical times is the second phase of the wall at Hipponion, see M. T. Iannelli, ‘Una difesa monumentale’, in M. T. Ianelli and V. Ammendolia (eds.), I volti di Hipponion (Catanzaro 2000), 37–50, at 38–9 (plan). (175) Towers are not a phenomenon of the late Archaic period, Lawrence, Aims, 35. (176) Lang, Siedlungen, 32 and 35. (177) This is the explanation for the lack of towers in the Archaic period proposed by Lang, ibid. 35. (178) Ditches are known from the Mycenaean period, e.g. the one constructed at Agios Andreas on Siphnos, Televantou, ‘Ayios Andreas’, 200–1. (179) The function of this ditch is debated, see above, p. 79. (180) Lang, Siedlungen, 41. (181) Hdt. 3.39: ‘it was they who, being his captives, dug all the fosse round the citadel of Samos’ (tr. Godley, Loeb). The translation should be city wall instead of citadel. (182) C5s Plataia (Thuc. 3.22.1); Argos C4f (Xen. Hell. 4.7.6); C4m–s Athens (Dem. Phil. 2.23–4, 18.248, Lycurg. Leoc. 44.3, Aeschin. 3.236); rC4l Megalopolis (Diod. 18.70.2). From the readings of Aeneas Tacticus it is clear that the ditch was a completely normal phenomenon in combination with city walls, e.g. 37.1. (183) Lang, Siedlungen, 41. (184) Ditches were accordingly not necessarily as absent from the Archaic period as Winter indicates, 270. (185) Ibid. 269–70. (186) Nicholls, ‘Old Smyrna’, 118. (187) Selinous seems to have been such a case, as the Modione (the ancient Selinous) ran just outside the wall running in the Cotone Valley, Mertens, Selinus, 233. (188) Garlan, ‘Fortifications’, 251; Lawrence, Architecture5, 174. Page 58 of 62

Topographical and Architectural Analysis (189) Marsden, Artillery, 73–83; Winter, 112. (190) Winter, 111–14. (191) Marsden, Artillery, 73; Winter, 323. (192) Winter, 323. (193) R. A. Tomlinson, ‘Emplekton Masonry and ‘Greek Structura’, JHS 81 (1961), 133–40; Winter, 323. (194) Miller, Befestigungsanlagen, 201. (195) Tiryns in particular, Winter, 205–6; S. Iakovidis, ‘Late Helladic Fortifications’, in R. Laffineur (ed.), Polemos: Le Contexte guerrier en Égée à l’âge du bronze, 199–204, at 201. (196) At, e.g. Messene, Selinous, and Syrakousai. See Winter, 217, 228; Miller, Befestigungsanlagen, 202–3. (197) Walls of stone and/or mudbrick are evident from Classical times, e.g. Plato Leg. 778 E. For ditches in the Classical period, see Winter, 270–7; bastions, ibid. 152–4; battlements, ibid. 126–7, 138–41. (198) For a good general introduction to early Greek monumental architecture, see Coulton, Architects, 30–50. See also M. H. Hansen and T. Fischer-Hansen, ‘Monumental Political Architecture in Archaic and Classical Greek Poleis: Evidence and Historical Significance’, in CPCPapers 1, 23–90, at 23 n. 2. (199) It seems then too pessimistic to set 700 as a terminus post quem for walls that can be regarded as real architecture, Lang, Siedlungen, 31. (200) Ibid. Generally on the monumental impact of city walls (without chronological specification), see Wycherley, Cities2, 46: ‘The Greek architects preferred to give fortification walls an appearance of rugged strength,…’ (201) Cf. Mazarakis Ainian, Rulers’ Dwellings, 364. (202) Eleg. 1.1209. (203) On this general connection between dimension and elaboration, see MüllerWiener, Bauwesen, 71. (204) Barletta acknowledges the wall at Smyrna, but concludes on cut-stone blocks in the early monumental architecture that ‘their use is generally restricted to public works, especially structures dedicated to the gods’, B. A. Barletta, The Origins of the Greek Architectural Orders (Cambridge 2001), 27. More balanced views are found at Lawrence, Architecture5, 174, who stresses Page 59 of 62

Topographical and Architectural Analysis the much earlier evidence from city walls in comparison to temples, and Winter, 82, who concludes that the evidence for ashlar masonry for fortification walls is at least as old as that of temples. (205) For early temples in general: Drerup, Baukunst; Mallwitz, ‘Architectur’; A. Mazarakis-Ainian, ‘Contribution à l’ étude de l’architecture religieuse grecque des Âges Obscurs’, AntCl 54 (1985), 5–48, and R. Felsch, ‘Drei frühe Phasen des dorischen Tempels: Delphi — Kalapodi — Mykene’, Jdl 116, (2001), 1–15. (206) Fehr, ‘Greek Temple, 166. (207) The Heraion of Samos was not a temple before the pteron was added, which happened in C7, see Lawrence, Architecture5, 63; E. R. Gebhard, ‘The Archaic Temple at Isthmia: Techniques of Construction’, in M. Bietak (ed.), Archaische griechische Tempel und Altägypten (Vienna 2001), 41–61, at 59. (208) Coulton, Architects, 35; Lang, Siedlungen, 68; Fehr, ‘Greek Temple, 166; Höcker, ‘Architektur, 48–51; R. Felsch, ‘Drei frühe Phasen des dorischen Tempels: Delphi - Kalapodi - Mykene’, Jdl 116 (2001), 1–15; Hellmann, L’Architecture grecque, 2, 35, 43. (209) Based on the style of the pedimental sculpture, Lawrence, Architecture5, 77. (210) Monumental temple architecture in Corinth from C7 is treated by R. F. Rhodes, ‘Early Corinthian Architecture and the Origins of the Doric Order’, AJA 91 (1987), 477–80. It is important to note, however, that the predecessor of the standing Doric temple is only known indirectly, e.g. from the poros blocks not in situ, roof terracottas, etc., H. S. Robinson, ‘Excavations at Corinth: Temple Hill, 1968–1972’, Hesperia 45 (1976), 203–39, at 224–35. The date rests on the following observation: working chips of fine poros in a stratum of late Geometric and early Protocorinthian pottery which allows for a construction date to c.700 BC of a building constructed on the spot where the great monumental stone temple was erected 30–40 years later. This was most likely a temple, Robinson, ibid. 211–12. (211) Lawrence, Architecture4, 149 with n. 9; R. R. Holloway, ‘Architect and Engineer in Archaic Greece’, HarvStClPhil 73 (1969), 281–90. (212) The point is made clear in an article by R. V. Nicholls, ‘Early Monumental Religious Architecture at Old Smyrna’, in D. Buitron-Oliver (ed.), New Perspectives in Early Greek Art (Hanover and London, 1991), 151–71, at 151. Cf. Coldstream, Formation, 18. (213) The relation between early walls and early temples is also discussed below, p. 110.

Page 60 of 62

Topographical and Architectural Analysis (214) Coldstream, Geometric Greece, 304. (215) Lawrence, Aims, 35. (216) Coulton, Architects, 32–5; Müller-Wiener, Bauwesen, 67. (217) Coulton, Architects, 35. (218) Lydian: Camp, ‘Walls, 44, referring to C. Greenwalt’s work at Sardis. The great Lydian fortification of Sardis is so far not dated earlier than C6 BC, G. M. A. Hanfmann, ‘Sardis, Old Smyrna and Pyrgoi: New Light on an Old Problem’, Anatolia 22 (1981/3), 239–53; C. Ratté, Lydian Masonry and Monumental Architecture at Sardis (University of Berkeley diss., 1994), 244, and monumental architecture as such not attested at Sardis before C6, passim. See also C. H. Greenwalt, ‘Sardis’, in W. Radt (ed.), Stadtgrabungen und Stadtforschung im westlichen Kleinasian (Istanbul 2006), 359–72, at 362 (fig. 1). Phrygian: Kerkenes Dag, G. D. Summers, ‘The Identification of the Iron Age City on Kerkenes Dag in central Anatolia’, JNES 56 (1997), 81–94, fig. 7; N. Baturayoğlu, ‘The Survey and Documentation of the City Wall and Cappadocia Gate of the Iron Age Settlement on Kerkenes Dag in Central Anatolia’, in Proceedings of the 18th International Symposium CIPA 2001, 18–21 September 2001 (Potsdam 2001), 100–7. Generally on inspiration from the East, Wokalek, Stadtbefestungen, 25–6. See also Chap 8. (219) Evidence for Lydian masons working at Smyrna is seen at a later (Archaic) date, by mason’s marks in the foundation blocks for the Temple of Athena, Akurgal, ‘Archaic Period Wall of Smyrna’, at 86 (which by Akurgal is interpreted in the opposite way, i.e. as Smyrnaian influence on Sardis). (220) Dressing huge monolithic sarcophagi at Corinth with the adze, can now be dated back into C9 BC, C. A. Pfaff, ‘Geometric Graves at the Panayia Field’, Hesperia 68 (1999), 55–134, at 130–1. (221) Coulton, Architects, 31. (222) Coldstream, Geometric Greece, 304. Lawrence, Aims, 30, claims continuity in the technique and design of fortifications in Asia Minor from Mycenaean to Classical times, because ‘so many Classical cities in Asia Minor occupied the sites of Mycenaean walled settlements’. An example is Larisa in Aeolis, where the Aeolic inhabitants for a long time used a fortification probably antedating the foundation of the colony. K. Schefold, ‘Ausgrabungen in Larisa am Hermos im Frühjahr 1934’, AA (1934), 363–92. Lawrence, Aims, 32, identifies elements in the plans of Old Smyrna, Melie, and ‘Kalabaktepe’ that seem to be inspired from Mycenaean defence architecture. Mycenaean fortifications have been identified at Miletos, near the theatre (east) harbour, A. Mallwitz, ‘IV. Zur Mykenischen Befestigung von Milet’, IstMitt 9–10 (1959–60), 67–76. Page 61 of 62

Topographical and Architectural Analysis (223) Akurgal, ‘Archaic Period Wall of Smyrna’, 86. (224) Miller, Befestigungsanlagen, 203. At Leontinoi, however, (Greek) bastions may actually date back just as early as indigenous bastions in the region; so in this case we cannot determine whether bastions were (1) an indigenous invention, (2) were carried through in Greek fortification from the Bronze Age, or (3) were invented precisely as a result of West Greek and ‘barbarian’ friction. (225) Erice and Mozia, Miller, Stadtbefestigungen, 202, 204. (226) A clear example is the indigenous settlement Baou de Saint-Marcel 7 km from Massalia, dating back to the first quarter of C6 BC, C. Guichard and G. Rayssiguier, ‘Baou de Saint-Marcel’, in H. Tréziny etal. (eds.), Voyage en Massalie:100 ans d’archéologie en Gaule du Sud (Marseilles, 1990), 46–53 (ill.). (227) Lawrence, Aims, 21. See also above, p. 38 n. 211. (228) Lawrence, Aims, 21–30; G. E. Markoe, Phoenicians (London 2000), 80–3.

Page 62 of 62

The Prevalence of City Walls in Early Iron Age and Archaic Greece

Greek City Walls of the Archaic Period, 900–480 BC Rune Frederiksen

Print publication date: 2011 Print ISBN-13: 9780199578122 Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: April 2015 DOI: 10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199578122.001.0001

The Prevalence of City Walls in Early Iron Age and Archaic Greece Rune Frederiksen

DOI:10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199578122.003.0008

Abstract and Keywords This chapter analyses the evidence on the existence of fortification walls during the Early Iron Age and Archaic period. The analysis is divided into two segments: one is the collection of evidence from the period before 600 BC or the Mycenaean period, and the other is from 600 BC to 479 BC or the Archaic period. The chapter examines the city walls in terms of geographical distribution and the number of settlements and walls along with its corresponding type of source. The affirmation of these evidence of early city walls may not entirely determine the emergence of the polis (city-state) but they may be used to detect the existence of early urbanization. Keywords:   Early Iron Age, Archaic period, Mycenaean period, city walls, fortification walls, polis

The present chapter is an analysis and discussion of the occurrence and distribution of fortification walls in the Early Iron Age and Archaic periods based on the evidence presented in the Catalogue, as well as on the circumstantial evidence discussed in Chapters 3–6. In order to obtain an overview and trace developments over time, the analysis and discussion is divided into two sections, one before 600 BC and one from 600 to 479 BC. The general problems of settlement classification are addressed elsewhere,1 and below, whenever the size and political nature of fortified sites are not discussed in particular, such sites are for convenience simply called towns, when they are discussed in the first section, and poleis or cities in the second. While this distinction does not necessarily classify an individual settlement correctly, it does pretend to reflect Page 1 of 34

The Prevalence of City Walls in Early Iron Age and Archaic Greece the general development in urbanization and social organization over those centuries in the ancient Greek world.

The Period Before 600 BC Fortified settlements are known from prehistoric Greece2 and they played a significant role in the Mycenaean period.3 Here the common type was the castle, used as a residence by the Mycenaean elite.4 The larger part of the settlement was often situated outside the walls,5 but regular habitation quarters were located within the walls as well, both at Mycenae6 and at Tiryns,7 at least in the (p.104) LH III period.8 As the evidence stands there is a gap in attested fortifications in the Sub-Mycenaean period,9 before fortification walls begin to reappear in the Early Iron Age. Crete may have witnessed the earliest fortified sites, for example Kastrokephála, Ioúktas, and Oreinó Kastrí,10 but the Aegean and Cyprus are also candidates.11 A central problem is, however, the exact date of these sites and their fortifications12 — most dates are given in centuries — and it is therefore difficult to prove if there really was a period in the Early Iron Age when no fortifications were built.13 It is possible that some settlements were fortified right from the start when new communities took over from the Mycenaeans,14 but the eighth-century dating of most of the thirteen Early Iron Age fortifications treated in this book15 does not support the case for fortifications having been widespread in the tenth–ninth centuries.16 The thirteen fortified Early Iron Age towns (Table 1) are found on the Greek islands, including Crete, and in Ionia (Map 1). Old Smyrna, Vathy Limenary, Zagora, and perhaps Salamis on Cyprus go back to the ninth century, Iasos and Melie are dated to around 800, and those remaining date to the eighth century. Seen in isolation this evidence is not particularly impressive.17 Moving down to the seventh century, thirteen additional walled towns are attested (Table 1, Map 1), and this evidence points to an even wider geographical distribution than during the Early Iron Age. Before turning to an interpretation of the geographical pattern, fortifications attested in written sources must be taken into account. Named fortified poleis of the early Archaic period occur but rarely in (Classical) prose, for example Athens, Miletos, and Smyrna.18 For the earlyArchaic period, and before 600 BC, a number of fortified towns are attested in contemporary poetry. Taken as a whole the written sources supply us with a list of nine poleis attested as having been walled by 600 BC (Tables 4–5, Map 1),19 and altogether direct evidence attests to as many as thirty towns and poleis having been fortified before 600 (Tables 1, 4–520).21 The geographical distribution is considerable (Map 1): walled towns are found in Sicily, the east Adriatic coast, south-west mainland Greece, the north-east Peloponnese, Euboia, the (p.105) Cyclades, Crete, the south coast of Trace, Ionia, and Cyprus; fortified towns are simply attested in most regions of the Greek world at this time,22 while Magna Graecia and Libya, however, are not on the map.23

Page 2 of 34

The Prevalence of City Walls in Early Iron Age and Archaic Greece To obtain as complete a picture as possible of fortified towns before 600 BC, however, we must recognize that fortifications built in Mycenaean times were reused, particularly in the first centuries of the Early Iron Age, alongside new ones.24 As A. M. Snodgrass stressed, the economic benefit from such reuse is so obvious that we must regard it as having been a normal occurrence.25 But reuse is not easy to prove;26 it is only positively attested when Mycenaean walls are found to have been reconstructed in the Early Iron Age,27 or when settlement is identified inside Mycenaean walls, documented by either houses or large concentrations of pottery of the Early Iron Age.28 We shall return to this matter shortly. Geographical distribution: the problem of central Greece

By the seventh century, walled towns are found in almost all areas of the Greek world, including central Greece (Map 1). It is traditionally held that the distribution of fortified towns changed between the Late Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age: the Mycenaean centres are located in central Greece and the Peloponnese,29 while fortifications of the Early Iron Age are found on the islands and in Asia Minor (and not in mainland Greece30).31 Mainly because no other major architectural undertakings are known to have taken place in the Greek world,32 the appearance of Early Iron Age towns is understood as an independent development in relation to what happened on the mainland. This view, however, is becoming increasingly outdated — Asine came on the map after excavation in 198433 — and can be challenged further for the following reasons: (1) it does not take literary sources into serious consideration, or, when it does, only selectively or incorrectly; (2) it does not acknowledge that the settlements on the mainland developed in a completely different way from the settlements on the islands and in Ionia, a fact which had a crucial effect on their preservation. Regarding the first point: H. Drerup claimed, with reference to Thucydides, that the early (i.e. Early Iron Age) settlements on the mainland were not fortified.34 (p.106) The reference to Thuc. 3.94.4, however, specifically concerns Aetolia:35 τὸ γὰρ ἔθνος μέγα μὲν εἶναι τὸ τῶν Αἰτωλῶν καὶ μάχιμον, οἰκοῦν δὲ κατά κώμας ἀτειχίστους, καὶ ταύτας διὰ πολλοῦ,… The period referred to by Thucydides in this context is in fact the later fifth century, not the ‘old days’,36 and the settlements in question are komai, villages, and not poleis. No fewer than nine fortified poleis are known from literary sources and, as shown in Table 4, four are from mainland Greece and the Peloponnese (Map 1). Three are known from Homer: Kalydon, Thebes, and Tiryns, while Athens is attested in Thucydides. He describes the (short) siege in c.632 of the Acropolis, conducted by the Athenian people against Kylon, who had occupied it. As pointed out above (Chap. 3), the walls mentioned in Homer were probably walls of the Bronze Age reused in the Early Iron Age, and occasionally later on. We can only adduce a theoretical argument for the Homeric walls being newly built in the Early Iron Age.37 In Athens, Mycenaean walls on the acropolis were probably reused in the Page 3 of 34

The Prevalence of City Walls in Early Iron Age and Archaic Greece same way as Mycenaean walls are believed to have been, for example, in Thebes.38 If the focus is exclusively on the question of whether towns were fortified or not, the ones reusing old Mycenaean fortifications are much the same as towns that built entirely new fortifications. A major difference, however, is that the construction of a fortification wall is a huge undertaking that proves the existence of community organization at a high level. On the second point the claimed and partly proven fact of reuse fits well with an important circumstance relevant for the entire group of towns identified as having been fortified in the Early Iron Age: the reason why so many of them are preserved in the first instance, is that they were all abandoned during the late Geometric period.39 This also applies to two of the three remaining Early Iron Age towns, the ones which are later known to have developed into poleis (Smyrna and Paphos) — with the difference that relocation happened later here.40 As it happened, the relocated settlements were placed at a distance from — and not on top of — the ruins of the old settlements. Therefore the ruins of the original location stood a much better chance of being preserved, although they, too, have often been used as quarries.41 It seems that early relocation occurred far less frequently in mainland Greece.42 Of course, examples of a settlement moving from a hilltop and into the plain exist,43 but the distance is often so short that the buildings on the hilltop would have been near enough to serve as a quarry. Often the old hilltops were turned into sanctuaries, as happened at Emporio, Hypsele, and Zagora, and old domestic buildings no longer in use were probably removed. On the mainland, settlements seem mostly to have been inhabited continuously from the Bronze Age to the end of antiquity, and often beyond. At least the major sites were thus continuously inhabited, and hence continuously changing through the remodelling of houses, walls, and temples.44 This applies to the Homeric sites of Kalydon and Thebes, but also to Argos, Athens, Corinth, Eretria, etc., sites which are generally believed to have been of great significance in the Early Iron Age and early Archaic periods, but where only sporadic evidence of the urban fabric has so far been identified. None of these sites were relocated (in the Greek period), and therefore we may assume that subsequent building activities, both in antiquity and later, are responsible for the lack of preservation (p.107) of architectural remains of the Archaic period.45 The history of Tiryns is different. The city was destroyed in 468 BC, it ceased to be a polis, and was never resettled.46 In Kalydon47 the oldest buildings are in the extra-urban sanctuary of Artemis Laphria.48 Excavation has only been carried out in the urban area proper to a limited extent, but in contrast to the situation in, for example, Tiryns, Kalydon experienced more than 500 years of continuous habitation after the fifth century.49 Excavation on the acropolis in 2002 (west of ‘A’ on Fig. 54) did not uncover early structures, which should cause no surprise, however, since the bedrock is close to the surface and this particular site was probably the only place at Kalydon where settlement was continued in the Roman and Byzantine periods.50 Page 4 of 34

The Prevalence of City Walls in Early Iron Age and Archaic Greece An illuminating parallel to this way of incorporating the activities on a site and regarding its impact on preservation as crucial can be found in an article by Nicolas Coldstream.51 Commenting on why Early Iron Age temples are more plentiful in Crete than on the mainland, Coldstream argues that it was because they were not destroyed in Crete whereas early mainland temples were pulled down and replaced with their huge successors of the Classical period.52 The settlement at Lefkandi

Lefkandi is a site similar to other Early Iron Age settlements of the islands and Ionia insofar as it was abandoned before or in the early part of the Archaic period, probably around 700 BC, and never reinhabited.53 Conditions for preservation of all sorts of structures are therefore optimal. Since no fortifications have been found,54 despite these good conditions, the site is often cited as an example of an unfortified settlement from the Early Iron Age.55 However, we cannot be sure that the settlement was unfortified. The lack of identified fortification has to be seen in the light of the nature of the site and of the excavations. First, it is worth noting that it was unnecessary to fortify the south slope of the site (hill of Xeropolis), because it was steep enough to serve as a natural barrier.56 The slopes to the north, east, and west were more accessible, but it is likely that inlets of the sea offered some natural protection, at least to the north-east.57 Secondly, it is stressed by the excavators themselves that ‘only a very small part of the whole settlement was excavated’.58 Remembering all the examples of fortifications that have disappeared entirely or have been covered up, one can easily imagine that remains of palisaded earthworks may be found in the future if deliberately looked for, maybe on or below the north-east side of the hill of Xeropolis.59 In the campaigns of 2006–8 a wall more than 70 metres long turned up at exactly this side of the settlement, on the plateau. The wall, dating from LH IIIC and into the Early Iron Age, is too narrow to fit readily into the fortification category, but on the other hand it is in the right place, near the edge of the hill, and it forms an uninterrupted closure towards the outside for as far as it has been (p.108) cleared. Unless we are looking at something which is very different from what it originally was — the wall perhaps had a back and/or superstructure in wood — the wall at Lefkandi may in fact be a protofortification wall, and may have served practical purposes like keeping animals in, or out, of the settlement. And still, given the nature of warfare in this period, even a 1.5-metre-high and 1-metre-wide wall would have provided some protection, and necessitated some planning and organization on the side of potential attackers. Homer and Greece

If the information in Homer about fortified centres in mainland Greece, the Peloponnese, and Crete is accepted as evidence for Bronze Age walls having been reused in the Early Iron Age60 — keeping in mind that preservation conditions are highly problematic in central Greece because of continuous habitation — it makes sense to argue that there may well have been fortified Page 5 of 34

The Prevalence of City Walls in Early Iron Age and Archaic Greece towns in mainland Greece in the Early Iron Age too, in addition to the one actually attested, Asine, and the ones that reused Bronze Age walls.61 However, until more walls are found this remains a hypothesis. The lack of evidence has been taken to mean that the Early Iron Age settlements in the Greek homeland were, to a large extent, unfortified. This conclusion has had a great impact on the general view of settlements of the Archaic period, which have largely been regarded as having been unfortified as well. An alternative interpretation of the archaeological evidence is advocated here, inspired to a great extent by written sources; I believe that the dearth of fortifications in central Greece in the early period, is largely due to the fact that no serious search for them has been undertaken. Archaeologists working in mainland Greece must be encouraged to look for fortifications of the Early Iron Age at settlements or early poleis where there may be a chance that remains have not been entirely destroyed by later activity.62 Number of walls and settlements

In order to assess whether thirty-three fortified towns and poleis before c.600 BC (Tables 1, 4–5) testify to scarcity or abundance, the figure must be compared with the number and geographical distribution of all settlements antedating 600. But neither the number nor the distribution of Early Iron Age and Archaic settlements has ever been investigated on an ancient Greek world-level by historians or archaeologists,63 and it can be questioned whether the evidence allows for any kind of quantification.64 Estimates of the number of sites with architectural remains and their distribution have been presented in studies by Drerup65 and Mallwitz,66 and Drerup lists fifty-five localities with monuments ranging from the Protogeometric period to the early seventh century from the Greek world (excluding the West and Cyprus). A somewhat similar figure (just under fifty) is reached by (p.109) Coldstream, who states that in most cases the evidence is a few potsherds found in later contexts.67 Because of problems of identification and dating Mallwitz believes the number of sites to be less than forty.68 By and large, however, these studies have been superseded by Franziska Lang,69 whose work is the closest we get to a comprehensive overview of settlements and fortifications in the Early Iron Age and Archaic period.70 Lang lists 134 settlements for the period of the late eighth to the late sixth century BC. However, her results are not directly comparable with those presented in this book.71 The criteria used by Lang for including localities as settlements are: houses, (city) walls, workshops, water pipes, etc.72 She rightly disregards concentrations of pottery on the surface alone, as evidence for a settlement,73 and correctly distinguishes between settlement, sanctuary, and cemetery.74 It is not entirely clear, however, on what basis exactly the number of 134 settlements is Page 6 of 34

The Prevalence of City Walls in Early Iron Age and Archaic Greece reached.75 It must be stressed that the varied and often poor physical remains of sites of Early Iron Age Greece are extremely difficult to classify. By and large, however, Lang’s investigation is an extremely useful tool for establishing a general overview. Since the chronological framework of Lang’s work is different from the period specifically under consideration here (the period before 600), an analysis of the relation between fortification and settlement on the basis of the data presented by Lang exclusively is one feasible way forward. According to Lang 58 out of 134 settlements were walled in the period from the late eighth to the late sixth century, which is a quite impressive figure, especially when the varied character of the evidence is taken into account. Next it is worth taking a closer look at the numbers of the different types of architectural structure which are accepted as evidence for settlement. The following figures were obtained by adding up the evidence reported under the individual sites. Twenty-four of them have remains of houses dated some time between the late tenth and the sixth century,76 sixteen localities are listed as having some kind of water installation or structure in the period between the eighth and the sixth century,77 while in the same period nineteen localities are listed as having some kind of workshop.78 Fortification walls are accordingly the most frequently attested type of architectural structure of early settlements. In order to obtain a faithful picture of the situation one must ask whether fortifications are more likely to survive than houses or workshops. Houses and workshops were constructed in wood and mudbrick and were ‘rather primitively built’ before the late Classical and Hellenistic periods, and are therefore likely to have disappeared on a large scale.79 On the other hand, many early walls are preserved as fragments under later walls, which means that fragmentary remains of early houses and workshops are likely to be found as well, if carefully searched for. Due to the early monumentalization of city walls (cf. Chap. 7) they may have been preserved to a higher degree, but a more precise judgement of the situation is not possible on the present evidence; a fundamental research project on early settlements in the Greek world has yet to be realized. In assessing the ratio between walled and unwalled settlements, the emphasis may be put differently,80 and a concluding statement could be that walled settlements (p.110) were quite common in the period of the late eighth to the late sixth century. In Lang’s own words the wall was not part of the standard equipment of a settlement. However, considering that the fortification wall is the most frequently found structure in sites classified as settlements, it follows that, if anything, it must have been the wall that was the standard feature of a settlement. This conclusion is based on Lang’s own figures.

Page 7 of 34

The Prevalence of City Walls in Early Iron Age and Archaic Greece An indirect method of assessing the ratio between fortification and settlement before 600 BC, is to compare attestations of walls with attestations of (urban) temples. Much has been written about the architecture of the early temple,81 but so far no survey has been made of the number and geographical distribution in the Greek world of temples dating from the eighth and seventh centuries.82 Unfortunately, the magnificent study by A. Mazarakis Ainian83 does not include the seventh century, and thus covers no more than the first part of the period under review here. Most importantly, however, he observes that urban temples are unattested before the mid-eighth century.84 In order to compare the occurrence of walls with that of temples, I have drawn up a preliminary list, which covers the entire Greek world (Table 14). It comprises six temples dated to the eighth century and twenty-three to the seventh century. An attempt to distinguish between urban temples and temples found at extra-urban sanctuaries is necessary, since extra-urban temples did not form part of a settlement (e.g. Delos, Delphi, Isthmia, and Thermon). If we exclude the nine extra-urban temples,85 and another five whose identification or date is not firm,86 the remaining number is sixteen temples from the eighth and seventh centuries. In comparison the number of fortified towns antedating 600 is thirty-three (Tables 1, 4–5), but this figure includes nine walls attested in literary sources only, and they must be omitted in this comparison since the listed temples stem from archaeological sources only. We are left with twenty-four walled settlements, a figure which is higher that the sixteen temples. This comparison suggests that it was the fortification wall rather than the temple, which was the most frequently constructed monumental structure in ancient Greek towns before 600.87 This is a preliminary conclusion, since the impact on the data due to the different circumstances of preservation is unknown, and since more temples might turn up if searched for, to the same degree as the walls which have been searched for in this study.88 What seems reasonably safe to conclude is, however, that fortification walls are just as early and just as common as temples in the Early Iron Age and early Archaic periods in the Greek world. In the scholarly literature on the early polis, it is taken for granted that the building of monumental temples was one of the main factors behind the emergence of the polis,89 and that the temple was one of the essential features of the Archaic polis. Walls are also often singled out as a major public undertaking and it is often maintained that they must have been among the most expensive monuments a polis could construct.90 In the Classical period we hear of craftsmen specializing in the construction of city walls, as well as in the construction of temples.91 Just as a temple might serve as the demarcation of the territory of a polis,92 so the city wall served as the demarcation of its urban centre. The wall also testifies to a definition of the urban space, regardless of the

Page 8 of 34

The Prevalence of City Walls in Early Iron Age and Archaic Greece extent to which the space within the walls was actually built up or how it was organized. (p.111) On the basis of the above comparison between early city walls and early temples before 600 BC, one could argue that the city walls were an essential characteristic of the early Archaic polis,93 perhaps even a constitutive factor behind polis-formation.

The Period 600–480/79 BC By 600 BC the evidence allows us to speak of poleis in the Classical sense, and reference from now on is to settlements of this type.94 The term city wall also makes more sense, although some communities perhaps were towns rather than cities. In this period the number of securely dated remains of city walls grows considerably (Table 1). Fourteen are attested for the first time in the period between 600 and 550, twenty-one between 550 and 479. The number of new walled settlements, attested as category A walls, thus totals thirty-five. Furthermore, we know from literary sources (Tables 4–5) that eleven poleis had city walls in the sixth century, and eighteen other poleis are attested as walled during the period 500 to 479 BC. Eleven of these twenty-nine overlap with the thirty-five from category A, and accordingly the number of fortified poleis attested during the period 600 to 479 BC adds up to fifty-three (Tables 1, 4–5). Assuming that the eight not-abandoned towns attested as fortified prior to 600, with no proven later fortification phases, were fortified in the period 600–479 as well, which seems plausible, they should be added to the fifty-three already mentioned. The evidence from written sources provides six additional poleis, after overlaps have been subtracted, and the total number of fortified poleis between 600 and 479 adds up to sixty-seven. Both the archaeological and the written sources testify to a growing number of walled poleis as the sixth century progresses. The increase in the number of city walls dated to c.500–479 cited in literary sources is particularly dramatic: more than half the fortified poleis mentioned are attested in connection with events of those two decades. This is generally interpreted as reflecting an increase in the number of fortified poleis in the late Archaic period, again leading to the view that city walls at this time had become a standard feature for the first time in ancient Greek history.95 An alternative, and in my view preferable, explanation is to interpret this dramatic increase as a result of the preservation of Herodotos’ work, which describes the conflict between the Greeks and the Persians, from the Ionian revolt in 499 to the Greeks’ conquest of Sestos in 479. In Books 7 and 8 Herodotos informs us about the walls of many of the poleis which the Persian army either passed on its way or conquered and destroyed, but he does not convey the impression that these walls had been built recently to protect cities against the Persian attack. There is nothing to suggest that the walls had not been built long before, and simply happen to be mentioned for the first time in Herodotos’ histories. The archaeological evidence does suggest a gradual Page 9 of 34

The Prevalence of City Walls in Early Iron Age and Archaic Greece increase in the numbers of walls from the eighth to the late sixth century, which supports the idea that the data in Herodotos’ work reflects a situation which was much more general. Some walls of category B (see above, p. 70) are commonly placed in the sixth century without further specification.96 As mentioned above, some are tentatively dated to the seventh century, or later in the middle and late Archaic period (600 to 479). I prefer to treat all these walls as one group belonging to the period 600–479. The number of walled settlements in this group (B) comes to fifty-six, of which two are found at settlements already attested through category A walls, and five overlap with walls attested in literature (category C). Eretria appears in all three categories (Tables 1, 8–9, Fig. 8). This means that fortyseven additional walled poleis can be added to the sixty-seven already attested from category A and C. Provided that the category B walls do indeed belong in the Archaic period, a total of 121 towns and poleis are known to have had fortifications in the entire period before 480 BC (Fig. 8). Geographical distribution

By comparison with the period before 600 BC, city walls are found throughout the Greek world in the period (p.112) 600–479, an observation which also applies to the evidence from the category B walls.

Comments on the geographical distribution of walls are already given in Chapter 7, but the conclusions will be recapitulated here with inclusion of the written sources and walls of category B. The bar chart (Fig. 9) shows the distribution of city walls according to type of source.97 A total of nine poleis with A walls (Table 2) were situated in central and northern Greece, while the number of poleis in the same regions with C walls is ten.98 From the islands and Crete there are four A and four

Fig. 8. Venn diagram with intersection of sets, showing numbers of fortified towns and poleis according to type of source.

C walls,99 whereas from the Greek East and Cyprus the numbers of C and A walls are ten100 and eight respectively.101 The situation is different in the West; here the information Page 10 of 34

The Prevalence of City Walls in Early Iron Age and Archaic Greece obtained from excavation is paramount (A: fifteen,102 C: seven103). No literary sources inform us about fortifications in the Pontic region,104 whereas physical remains of citywalls are found at two poleis.105 In Kyrenaika there are two city walls attested archaeologically (A) as against one known from written sources (C).106 Numbers of city walls and types of source

The numerical relation between the three types is illustrated in the Venn diagram (Fig. 8) where the overlaps indicate city walls known from two or, in one case, even three types of source. The substantial overlap between source types A and C confirms, unsurprisingly, the situation explained in the listings above.107 It is only to be expected that remains of walls securely dated to the Archaic period are those mentioned in written sources dealing with the Archaic period. The small overlap between types B and C requires comment. It may be due to the fact that some of the walls dated from masonry style have been incorrectly dated. One would expect more of the city walls of type B in central Greece and Asia Minor to have left their mark in Herodotos or in other written sources. The fact that only five are so attested108 may indicate that dating by masonry style alone is unreliable and that numerous city walls built in what looks like an Archaic style were in fact erected in the Classical and/or Hellenistic period. An alternative explanation is that many of these city walls enclosed poleis of secondary importance, that is, poleis which have not left their mark in our written sources. An attempt must be made to explain the differences in the numbers of walls attested in the various regions of the Greek world, and the reason for the regional variations in the type of source whereby they are attested.109 Twice as many walls are attested from excavation than from literature in Sicily and Magna Graecia, probably because (1) there has been a very high degree of archaeological activity in Italy from the nineteenth century to the present day;110 and (2) Herodotos’ Histories mention the western poleis to a much lesser extent than those in eastern and central Greece (p.113)

Page 11 of 34

The Prevalence of City Walls in Early Iron Age and Archaic Greece (above Chap. 3). The situation is precisely the opposite in the East: here there is a lower degree of excavation, and eastern poleis were very much the focus of Herodotos’ interest. An additional factor may be that there was more destruction in the East, especially in the Hellenistic Age when many urban centres were destroyed and/or rebuilt.111

As stated above there is a significant overlap between the Archaic walls dated by excavation or other external evidence (category A) and those Fig. 9. Bar chart of geographical known from written sources distribution of types of source for Archaic (category C). That this overlap city walls. is not higher is entirely due to a dearth of sources. An interesting question is whether ‘perfect’ sources would also provide evidence about a number of hitherto unattested polis walls, and seen in that light it may be worth reflecting on the sources we do have. Why have no physical remains been found of two-thirds of the walls known from written sources? — This applies both to category A and category B walls (Fig. 9). The obvious answer is that these walls are either not preserved — the likelihood of this being the case in a number of instances has been argued at length in Chapter 4 — or that they have not been properly searched for. It is first of all this group of evidence — walls attested in literary sources but not paralleled in the physical evidence — which must be examined in order to shed light on the question of the number of preserved walls in relation to walls now lost. Almost all the walls attested in literary sources are known from Herodotos. Since his Histories deal almost exclusively with the regions affected by the Persian Wars, there is a bias in the information he provides. Surviving remains show that walls existed more or less everywhere (p.114) in the Greek world by the seventh century. They are found in the Peloponnese,112 the Greek West, and in all the colonial areas which are not mentioned in Herodotos. Had we had Herodotian histories of these regions at our disposal, the number of known walls from the Archaic period would have been considerably higher. As mentioned earlier, only a modest number of walls have been excavated or been the subject of detailed examination which could produce new information about their date. Excavation of some category B walls would probably lead to their transfer to category A, and some of the walls seen by nineteenth-century travellers, which have disappeared today, are likely to have been Archaic. The Page 12 of 34

The Prevalence of City Walls in Early Iron Age and Archaic Greece problem with the latter group is that the source material has disappeared and cannot therefore be revisited.113 It is important for any study of the occurrence and distribution of Archaic city walls to emphasize that many are simply not found because all traces have vanished beyond recovery, many already in antiquity, due to construction of new walls or deliberate destruction, natural decay, etc. These factors have been described in detail (Chap. 4), and I believe they have had a considerably distorting effect on our sources. Let us briefly recapitulate: it is clear that the majority of poleis had to adopt the numerous new developments in wall technology, which took place in both Classical and Hellenistic times, following the changing methods of warfare.114 Furthermore, for most poleis we must assume a continuous population growth from the Archaic to the Hellenistic periods,115 the result of which normally was a continuous expansion of the urban centre, accompanied by reconstruction of houses and monuments, including city walls. Where the city wall formed the limit of the built-up area, it had to be replaced with a new fortification circuit located further away from the centre.116 At poleis where no such expansion took place, new walls are still likely to have been needed because of wear and tear, and material from older walls would have been reused whenever possible. This was not only practical — huge amounts of building material were always needed for fortification walls — but necessary, because the old wall would otherwise have taken up valuable intramural space that was needed for other purposes. These considerations are obvious explanations of the sparse or missing remains of early walls at localities where earlier phases of a wall circuit are found.117 The fact that a number of Archaic walls lie hidden under later walls, and that a number of walls may remain at locations completely covered by modern urbanized areas, must also be taken into account. Perfect sources would therefore not only result in a complete overlap of walls of categories A and C, but also provide us with information about a substantial number of hitherto completely unknown Archaic city walls. Three regions will be analysed here in order to put the above considerations to the test: the Greek West, Ionia, and the Black Sea. The Greek West and the Pontic region illustrate the development in the colonial part of the Greek world, while Ionia is the easternmost part of the Greek homeland. As the evidence stands, no similar investigation can be conducted of a region in Greece itself. The case of the Greek West

In the Greek homeland it is often difficult to ascertain whether a polis of the Classical period has a history that reaches back into the Archaic period. The situation is different in the colonies: for almost all of them a foundation date is known from the sources and/or can be established through archaeological evidence. Furthermore, there is a case for arguing that a colony established in the Archaic period was either founded as a polis or became a polis fairly soon Page 13 of 34

The Prevalence of City Walls in Early Iron Age and Archaic Greece after its foundation. I shall therefore focus on the colonies (poleis) founded in the western colonial area, and investigate how many of these were fortified in the Archaic period (Table 15). The investigation covers France, Corsica, Sicily and south Italy, and the numbers show that out of the forty-two Archaic poleis at least twenty-five (60 per cent) are attested as fortified by the end of the Archaic period, while we have no information about the remaining seventeen. The dates of the walls vary within the Archaic period, but that is of less importance here. Since we cannot expect to have found all the walls which once existed, the total of 60 per cent is quite impressive. But the situation becomes even more (p.115) remarkable when we consider in detail the seventeen poleis which — so far — have revealed no traces of Archaic fortification walls either archaeologically or in the written sources. At Emporion in Spain the urban centre was substantially altered, first in the Classical period and later in the Hellenistic. On both occasions, a new city wall was constructed, which in the Hellenistic period meant that the Classical walls were demolished and the building material reused for the new walls. The same may have happened when the Classical walls were constructed and, accordingly, it cannot be precluded that Emporion was fortified in the Archaic period.118 Akrai in Sicily has produced very few remains from the Archaic period. The hilltop settlement was in itself a stronghold, and as Akrai was originally laid out as a Syracusan fortress in 664 BC,119 the presumption is that the natural defences were strengthened by walls at this time.120 Later destruction may very well be the reason why no remains of such walls are left.121 More than one candidate for the unlocated Euboia has been suggested, most recently the site of Monte San Mauro close to Caltagirone.122 Remains here could easily have vanished due to the proximity of the modern city of Caltagirone. Herakleia was razed to the ground by the Carthaginians at some unknown date,123 and its precise location has never been established. Katane is covered by present-day Catania and very few finds have been made from the Greek era. The site was also heavily inhabited in Roman times.124 Literary sources tell us that Katane was fortified by the fifth century at least.125 No structural remains of the Archaic or Classical city of Mylai have been found, nor of the Classical defences mentioned in literary sources.126 Kroton has remains of what was once a vast Classical/ Hellenistic circuit, encircling an area of more than 600 hectares.127 Remains of older walls could remain underneath the later walls or elsewhere under modern Crotone.

Page 14 of 34

The Prevalence of City Walls in Early Iron Age and Archaic Greece The locations of Archaic Laos and Pandosia are unknown, and at Medma remains are few due to its location under present-day Rosarno. Similarly, Metauros is covered by modern Petrarce. Pithekoussai was founded on the promontory of Monte di Vico on the north-west coast of the island of Ischia, a site defended by natural steep slopes on all sides. Additional fortification might therefore have been considered superfluous, or may remain undetected — the settlement itself has never been properly excavated. At Poseidonia walls that might date to the Archaic period are found in the southern periphery of the city site.128 Pyxous is covered by modern Policastro; walls dating from the first half of the fifth century have been found, and they may in fact be late Archaic.129 Rhegion is largely covered by modern Reggio di Calabria. Walls from the Classical period have been found, and the existence of Archaic walls has in fact been suggested.130 At Taras long stretches of walls of the Classical period have been found, and it has been suggested that the acropolis was surrounded by an ashlar wall in the sixth century.131 If remains are uncovered in the future, they are unlikely to be impressive; continuous urban activity at Taranto since antiquity is an obvious reason for walls not to have survived. Temesa is unlocated, but the colony may be connected with the sporadic archaeological evidence recently found on the fertile plain of Campora S. Giovanni, near the coast in the Savuto valley: the evidence is, however, inconclusive, although the cultural context is indeed Greek dating from the second half of the sixth to the first half of the fifth century.132 To sum up: six of the seventeen poleis, for which no fortifications are attested, have been so completely destroyed that their location is not even known. Eight of the remaining eleven are covered by modern towns or (p.116) cities and fortification from later times is actually attested. For the last three either similar arguments can be adduced as to why walls have not been found, or possible remains from the Archaic period have actually been found. It cannot be precluded that every single Archaic polis in the West was in fact protected by a defence circuit before the end of the Archaic period. The case of Ionia in the sixth century BC

Twelve Archaic Ionian poleis are mentioned by Herodotos at 1.41: Miletos, Myous, Priene, Ephesos, Kolophon, Lebedos, Teos, Klazomenai, Phokaia, Samos, Chios, and Erythrai. There were of course many more poleis in Ionia, some with a history going back to the Archaic period.133 The twelve are singled out by Page 15 of 34

The Prevalence of City Walls in Early Iron Age and Archaic Greece Herodotos as having a share in the Panionian sanctuary at Mykale. How many of them were fortified in the Archaic period? Herodotos explicitly refers to Ephesos, Miletos, Phokaia, Samos, and Teos as having been either besieged or fortified,134 and, as stated above (pp. 33), it is reasonable to assume that he had the remaining seven in mind when he referred to the Ionian cities collectively as being fortified.135 If so, we can infer that Erythrai, Klazomenai, Kolophon, Lebedos, Myos, Priene, and Chios were fortified too. Three of these Ionian poleis are already in the Catalogue with attested walls or are mentioned elsewhere in Herodotos (see Ephesos, Klazomenai, and Phokaia). The same is true for Samos and Teos, both of which may date to Archaic times. Circumstantial evidence can be adduced for the early fortification of two of the poleis where remains have not been found (Erythrai and Chios),136 and at the remaining two sites (Myous and Priene) specific aspects of the state of preservation may explain why no traces of Archaic fortification have been found: the inscription from Erythrai mentioning the ‘destruction of the acropolis’ has already been discussed (p. 46), and it remains possible that Archaic fortification walls were destroyed at the same time at this act of deliberate demolition in the late 330s BC. A similar event seems to have taken place at Kolophon. Here an inscription dated to the late fourth century refers to the destruction of the old urban centre in connection with the reconstruction of the city at that time.137 Remains of a seventh-century settlement have been found on the slope of the acropolis, but the location and extension of the Archaic settlement as such has not yet been established.138 In Herodotos’ description of the conquest of Kolophon by Gyges, he does not say whether the city was fortified. But we do know that it had an urban centre.139 Myous was incorporated in the polis of Miletos in Hellenistic times, and was never resettled. Myous was so thoroughly used as a quarry for constructions at Miletos that it has been difficult to find a single worked block in the area, although excavations were carried out on two occasions in the twentieth century.140 If stone walls existed in Myous, they were simply torn down, and have left no apparent traces. Archaic Priene is still unlocated although the remains of it are probably to be found underneath late Classical and Hellenistic Priene.141 Chios was forced by Athens to tear down its new walls in 425/4.142 Thucydides tells us that the Chians ‘demolished the new wall’ … τὸ τεῖχος πεpιεῖλον τὸ καινὸν… The repeated article emphasizes the adjective new (καινόν), presumably to contrast this wall with an older one.143 This older wall may date back to Archaic times.144

Page 16 of 34

The Prevalence of City Walls in Early Iron Age and Archaic Greece It may be assumed from Herodotos that walls existed at Erythrai, Kolophon, and Chios while, at the same time, there are good explanations why no walls have survived at Priene and Myous.145 This survey of the twelve principal Ionian poleis does not allow us to conclude that all poleis in the region were (p.117) fortified in the Archaic period. But it seems reasonable to assume from the evidence we have that at least the majority of the larger poleis of Ionia were fortified in the sixth century. The Black Sea in the sixth century BC

Until very recently it was widely agreed that the poleis around the Black Sea were unfortified before the Classical period,146 but the reason for this has recently been demonstrated to be sheer lack of interest in fortifications by scholars specializing in the archaeology of the Pontic region, and a very strong case has been made that this view must be revised.147 Vakhtina and Vinogradov refer to recently identified walls at Myrmekeion and the Pantikapeian teichos Portmeion,148 and they further emphasize that a deliberate search for walls in the Pontic area has never been undertaken before. Only future research can determine whether the majority of poleis in the Pontic region were fortified in the Archaic period. Because of the late emergence of the Greek polis in that area,149 fortifications, if they existed, must have been built in connection with the founding of the colonies. It seems worth pointing out that Archaic walls were in fact found at two settlements where they were deliberately searched for.

The Prevalence of City Walls in Archaic Greece The views of the Classical Greeks on pre-Classical fortifications do not form a coherent picture. In his Politics, Aristotle seems to refer to an ongoing debate in which one side took the ‘old fashioned view’, talking against fortification and in fact holding an ideal opposed to it,150 relying on the strength of men:151 Περὶ δὲ τειχῶν, οἱ μὴ ϕάσκοντες δεῖν ἔχειν τὰς τῆς ἀρετῆς ἀντιποιουμένας πόλεις λίαν ἀρχαίως ὑπολαμβάνουσιν,… This view is found in Plato, who criticizes the negative impact walls have on the morale of citizens, and cites Sparta as the ideal.152 However, Plato makes it clear indirectly that fortification formed part of poleis in general. For, as he says, if men really do wish to build fortifications, they should include them wisely in the planning of the polis from the start, in accordance with the layout of the other architecture. This last part of Plato’s statement is often disregarded,153 and only his opinion on Sparta is referred to, the aim being to compare the ideal cities of Plato and Aristotle. Furthermore, the ideal that the ‘best’ polis has to be unfortified, is one held by the Spartans,154 who were indeed unusual in this respect and, for better and worse, were believed to hold old-fashioned views (on Sparta see above, p. 30).

Page 17 of 34

The Prevalence of City Walls in Early Iron Age and Archaic Greece Thucydides also discusses ‘the old days’, and in his Archaeology gives the following account of why cities were unfortified (in the period before the first thalassocracy under King Minos):155 Οἱ γὰρ Ἕλληνες τὸ πάλαι… ἐτράποντο πρὸς λῃστείαν… καὶ προσπίπτοντες πόλεσιν ἀτειχίστοις καὶ κατὰ κώμας οἰκουμέναις ἥρπαζον… The context is a description of how, in the old days, piracy was a problem and a threat to ‘cities that were unprotected by walls’, and Thucydides adds ‘consisted of a group of villages’.156 It is perfectly clear from καὶ κατὰ κώμας οἰκουμέναις that Thucydides is specifically referring to poleis without a single primary urban (p.118) centre, as distinct from those poleis that had such an urban centre, and which were not ἀτείχιστοι, which means that they were in fact walled. A. von Gerkan’s view on the Hellenic world in general was that fortification of cities became a common feature during the second half of the sixth century,157 but he is still pessimistic about the number of fortified cities in the fifth century even after the Persian Wars of 480/79, and believes that the Lakedaimonian reaction to the Athenian fortification plans in 479/8 reflected the general situation that only a few poleis were fortified at the time. He quotes the following passage in Thucydides158 …ἠξίουν τε αὐτοὺς μὴ τειχίζειν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν ἔξω Πελοποννήσου μᾶλλον ὅσοις εἱστήκει ξυγκαθελεῖν μετὰ σϕῶν τούς περιβόλους,… But in fact there is nothing in this passage which indicates that the norm was not to have a city wall. Rather the opposite.159 What the passage does show is that the unwalled polis was a Spartan ideal which the Spartans wanted to impose on the rest of Greece. In the case of the Greek West I have tried to show that fortification was the norm for the Greek poleis at least in the sixth century. The same can be said of Ionia with the proviso that the poleis attested in Herodotos are not all the poleis, but only those that had a share in the Panionian. In the Black Sea area the picture is different, but that is because the area was colonized later, and because — at most poleis — extensive archaeological investigations have not yet been undertaken.160

Conclusions How common was the city wall in Archaic times? We have an astonishing number of well-dated walls, a fairly good number of walls attested in literary sources, and the city walls play a significant role in contemporary Archaic written sources. The impact of the sources is strengthened by (a) interpreting the chance of survival of Archaic walls, of which many must have disappeared completely due to the growth of cities in the subsequent periods, and (b) the fact that Herodotos has provided specific information for a number of regions. If further accounts of the Archaic history of other regions had survived, we would undoubtedly know of many more city walls. The total number of securely attested city walls dating from the Archaic period is 75 or 121, depending on the inclusion of walls dated by masonry style. If we assume the maximum number of Page 18 of 34

The Prevalence of City Walls in Early Iron Age and Archaic Greece Archaic poleis to be c.1000,161 it follows that city walls are attested at about 10 per cent of all poleis. This percentage is quite impressive, but is it sufficient to confirm the findings from Archaic poetry that the city wall was an integral part of the Archaic polis? It is tempting to answer this question positively and point towards walls not yet attested to fill the gap. There is no method, however, by which we can assess the number of Archaic walls yet to be identified, that is, walls that are still covered by earth or by later structures, as well as demolished walls that may be discovered in the future by more sophisticated means of investigation. Physical remains of new Archaic city fortifications will continue to appear, and it is not unlikely that a new trend in urban archaeology will have a positive effect on the quantity of sources at our disposal.162 The recent change in the focus of interest shown by the most distinguished scholars of Black Sea archaeology may serve as an example. Having thus evaluated the direct evidence and the statistical significance of the sources, we may approach the matter by asking whether it is likely that, in a given Greek region, some poleis were walled while others were not? Along the same lines we may ask whether in colonial areas it is likely that some poleis had a city wall and others not? In such areas the potential threats came not only from other Greeks but also from indigenous peoples and (p.119) other colonizers like the Phoenicians. For all the coastal cities it should also be borne in mind that piracy was a constant threat in the Mediterranean down to the first century BC;163 would it be prudent to leave a polis situated on the coast unwalled?164 In the light of the evidence listed and the added circumstantial arguments, the conclusion is first of all that the evidence for city walls in the Archaic period is far better than generally believed. Furthermore, much circumstantial data points towards the conclusion that Archaic poleis as a rule were fortified. This is, however, a controversial finding, and contradicts even the most recent opinions on the matter.165 I believe it is correct to speak of a gradual increase in numbers of fortified poleis from the seventh to the early fifth century, but this gradual increase cannot be accounted for by an increasing preference for fortification. Rather, it simply reflects the growing numbers of poleis as such in the Greek world during the seventh and sixth centuries BC. While the large number of late Archaic walls attested in literature is related to the nature and the preservation of Herodotos’ work, the high number in archaeological sources in the late sixth and early fifth centuries probably has to do with a combined effect of more and more poleis being active, and the fact that these are late, with a much shorter period of settlement activity and destructive activity.

Page 19 of 34

The Prevalence of City Walls in Early Iron Age and Archaic Greece The earliest indisputable evidence for poleis in the Classical sense is from the mid-seventh century but for most individual poleis the evidence for their polis status is often much later.166 Given that the polis emerged between the ninth and sixth centuries, we must turn to archaeology, not only to gather the information about the development in urbanization of individual sites, but also to identify the social dynamics behind this development. The prevailing theory about the ‘proto-polis’ or ‘the early polis period’ is that the re-emergence of civilization after the Bronze Age took place in close connection with religion, as is attested not only by early temple architecture but also by cult activities at numerous sanctuaries. Early temples have been adduced as a proof of the existence of politically organized communities and even as a proof of state formation.167 Since, however, fortification walls are in fact more commonly attested than temples before the sixth century, that they sometimes occur at sites before temples, and that the defence circuit in fact is found more often than any other type of architectonical monument before Classical times, it seems valid to suggest that the polis developed just as much as a secular as a religious community. The temple is an indirect indicator of urbanization, while the fortification wall is a direct indicator of the same, since the wall implies a community living in a certain spot, so large and resourceful that it needed, and was able to erect, a fortification wall. The temples, on the other hand, prove that the gods were present all along from the beginning, and it is not the intention here to diminish the importance of temples or religion in the early Greek world. What I want to stress is that the evidence for city walls should be acknowledged because it opens up a new perspective in this crucial formative period in the history of the Greek city-state culture. The early walls cannot be used to date back the existence of the polis in the Classical sense, but they may be used to date back urbanization and the incentives behind it. Later on, when written sources emerge, the city wall is already an important element in the Archaic concept of polis, and it follows that the city wall must have been among the basic elements which constituted the Greek city, both in the Early Iron Age when the earliest nucleated settlements emerged and later when urbanized poleis developed. This fact fits the picture of the Greek world as a network of numerous interacting poleis, a network which was based on communication on sea rather than over land.168 (p.120) Although it may be accepted that the walls are indicators of early urbanization, we are often left with meagre remains of the most important thing — the cities proper. Private houses, streets, wells, and public monumental architecture are not preserved or documented on a sufficient scale to directly substantiate the claim that the Greek world in general was settled with fortified fully urbanized towns or cities by the seventh century BC. As I believe to have shown, however, most of this evidence has been destroyed as well, just like many city walls, by building activity later in the Archaic period and/or in the Classical Page 20 of 34

The Prevalence of City Walls in Early Iron Age and Archaic Greece and Hellenistic periods. We are forced to shed light on this matter by using circumstantial evidence. It is generally acknowledged that the Greek world in the seventh century was dotted with a considerable number of highly organized polities. This view is based on inferences from colonization, regional types of pottery of a high quality, cemeteries with numerous graves, temple building, etc. The vivid activities of the ninth–sixth centuries are unthinkable without a high number of settlements or urban centres of some size: the best evidence we have so far of these settlements seems to be the many contemporary fortifications classified as city walls in the present book. Notes:

(1) The main discussions on fortification and settlement classification are provided above, p. 8–19 and 50–3. See also below, p. 108–11. (2) e.g. the Neolithic settlements at Dimini and Sesklo, C. Tsountas, Αι Προïστορικαί ακρόπολεις Διμηνίου και Σέσκλου (Athens 1908); C. N. Runnels et al., ‘Warfare in Neolithic Thessaly: A Case Study’, Hesperia 78.2 (2008), 165–94. Well-known examples from the Bronze Age are Lerna at Myloi in the Argolid (EH II) and Malthi in Messenia (MH/LH?), see Simpson and Dickinson, Gazetteer, 46– 7, 174, with refs. (3) Some Mycenaean centres may have been unfortified, however, and the Middle Bronze Age Minoan culture in Crete is traditionally believed to have built no fortifications. Concerning the latter, a pax minoica has been spoken of, an epithet inspired from the much later Roman era, see e.g. J. F. Cherry, ‘Polities and Palaces’, in C. Renfrew and J. F. Cherry (eds.), Peer Polity Interaction and Socio-Political Change (Cambridge 1986), 19–45, at 25. New research in Crete has, however, revealed fortified sites from the Minoan Age and the view that the Minoan Age was entirely a peaceful one is currently being revised, e.g. Hayden, ‘Fortifications’, 1–21. (4) Mylonas, Mycenae, 11; Y. Garlan, ‘Fortifications et histoire grecque’, in J.-P. Vernant (ed.), Problèmes de la guerre en Grèce ancienne (Paris 1968), 247, 253– 4; Lawrence, Architecture5, 3; G. Hiesel, s.v. Mykenische Kultur und Archäologie no. 4, NP 8 (2000). (5) Mylonas, Mycenae, 11, 44; Lawrence, Architecture5, 43; Simpson and Dickinson, Gazetteer, 42 (Tiryns). (6) The area within the walls at Mycenae comprised 3.85 ha in LH IIIB, but it seems that most of the settlement in the LH period was outside the fortified citadel, Simpson and Dickinson, Gazetteer, 32. (7) Ibid. 42.

Page 21 of 34

The Prevalence of City Walls in Early Iron Age and Archaic Greece (8) The function of Gla in Boiotia is not entirely clear. The intramural space covers several hectares, but an interpretation as fortress or refuge rather than a fortified settlement is preferred in the research literature, see Simpson and Dickinson, Gazetteer, 239–40; S. E. Iakovidis, Gla and the Kopais in the 13th Century B.C. (Athens 2001), 3–5, 149–57. (9) e.g. Snodgrass, ‘Historical Significance’, 125–6. See Lawrence, Aims, 30, for the view that there may have been an uninterrupted development in the Greek area of Asia Minor. (10) The evidence of fortified sites from LH III and EIA Crete has been collected and discussed by Hayden, ‘Fortifications’, and supplemented by K. Nowicki, ‘Fortifications in Dark Age Crete’, in van de Maele and Fossey, Fortificationes Antiquae, 53–76. (11) Walls A and AK at Xobourgo, Tenos, are circumstantially dated to LBA or PG times. The socle for the C8 wall at Salamis has been dated to LBA/PG times. (12) In Crete there is a particular problem of chronology, as the LM IIIC phase is difficult to separate from the beginning of the EIA, Nowicki, Defensible Sites, 16. (13) For an outline of the development in Crete, see Nowicki, Defensible Sites, 70–5. (14) For theories about the changes resulting in the establishment of the Iron Age culture in the Greek world, see V. R. d’ A. Desborough, ‘The end of Mycenaean Civilization and the Dark Age’, in CAH3 II.2 (Cambridge 1975), 658– 77, and for a recent outline see Nowicki, Defensible Sites, 15–18, and Karageorghis and Morris, Defensive Settlements. An outline of the process of change in C12 in the entire Mediterranean is described by Nowicki, Defensible Sites, 256. For Crete separately, Nowicki, ibid. passim. For the belief that there is continuation from the Bronze Age in Crete, see e.g. Camp, ‘Walls’, 48. (15) See Table 1 for individual sites and dates. (16) A more explicit pessimistic view of the occurrence of city walls between the Mycenaean period and the Iron Age is held by Lang, Siedlungen, 41, who believes that the earliest post-Mycenaean walls date to C8l or perhaps even C7. (17) At least two other settlements, Megara Hyblaea and Kyme in Magna Graecia, have early fortification walls possibly dating back to C8. According to L. Marangou, ‘Τειχισμένοι οικισμοί των Γεωμετρικών χρόνων 9ος — 8ος π.Χ. αιώνας’, PAA (1988), 80–92, at 91, remains at Aigiale and Arkesine in Amorgos, indicate that they also, like Minoa, were fortified in the EIA. Further sites that have recently been claimed to have been walled in the EIA: Acanthus and Kastelli (Sithonia) in Chalkidice, and Kastro in Thasos, as well as a number of

Page 22 of 34

The Prevalence of City Walls in Early Iron Age and Archaic Greece sites in Macedonia, see E. Trakosopoulou-Salakidou, ‘Aspects of the Excavations at Acanthus’, MA 19/20 (2006–7), 45–54, at 47 with refs. (18) Gela may be another example, but the circumstances are not clear (Cat.). (19) A number of the walls dated to Archaic times by masonry style (category B in Catalogue) may well antedate 600, e.g. Abai, Argos, Eretria, Haliartos, Kasmenai, and Neandria. This method of dating walls within phases of the Archaic period is, however, too unreliable for the purpose of the present analysis, and this group of walls will be treated together with category B walls dated to the period after 600 BC. (20) The sources overlap in the case of Miletos and Smyrna. (21) It has been suggested that fortification existed at a number of other sites at this time. One example is Selinous where remains of monumental structures dating to c.600 BC were found in the Cotone valley. The remains are orientated as the course of the later Archaic city wall, which may indicate that the city wall had an earlier phase which remain undetected, or which may in fact be the c.600 BC monumental structures themselves, Mertens, Selinus, 393. Another example is Thebes. Here the argument is that the Kadmeia was no longer used for burial in the Geometric period. In the view of Symeonoglou, Thebes, 89, this indicates that the Kadmeia was fortified sometime between 800 and 700 BC. Circumstantial argument of this sort is interesting and in some cases convincing evidence for Archaic walls, but as no walls are actually found, this way of arguing is too hypothetical to allow for an entry for Thebes on these grounds. As it happens, Thebes is included in this investigation for other reasons (literary evidence for early walls) (see Cat.). (22) It can thus not be maintained that fortifications do not occur on the Greek mainland and in north Greece before C6, as stated by Lang, Siedlungen, 41. (23) The wall at Siris is often referred to as belonging to C7, but this date does not stand after a closer analysis of the pottery in strata linked to the wall, which was found to have included C6 material. The date of the wall at Euesperides in Kyrenaika is given as C7l/C6e, and thus just as likely C6 as C7. (24) Snodgrass, ‘Historical Significance’, 130 (mainland). (25) Ibid. (26) Ibid. 126. An example of a fortified Mycenean settlement thought to have been reused in the EIA: Koukounaries on Paros, D. U. Schilardi, ‘The Decline of the Geometric Settlement of Koukounaries at Paros’, in R. Hägg (ed.), The Greek Renaissance of the Eighth Century B.C.: Tradition and Innovation (Stockholm 1983), 173–94, at 177; V. Karageorghis, ‘Patterns of Fortified Settlements in the Aegean and Cyprus’, in Karageorghis and Morris (eds.), Defensive Settlements, Page 23 of 34

The Prevalence of City Walls in Early Iron Age and Archaic Greece 1–12, at 4–5 (for the early settlement) and esp. Hayden, ‘Fortifications’, 2 with n. 11. (27) Examples: Agios Andreas on Siphnos is primarily a Mycenean fortification. Reuse is proven by the addition of Tower A in the LG period (see Agios Andreas), see however Lang, Siedlungen, 33. Haliartos in Boiotia may be viewed as another example, see Fossey, Boiotia, 303–4 with further refs. Cf. I. Morris, Archaeology as Cultural History: Words and things in Iron Age Greece (Oxford 2000), 206–7. (28) On the example of Tiryns with actual Iron Age settlement within the walls, see above, p. 28. A section of a Mid–Late Bronze Age fortification wall with associated late Geometric pottery at Sicilian Naxos may have been used by the colonists in the early years after Naxos was founded, M. C. Lentini, ‘L’abitato proto-arcaico di naxos di Sicilia (scavi 1998–1999)’, in M. C. Lentini (ed.), Le due città di Naxos (Naxos 2004), 34 figs. 2 and 7. The site at Kandia in the Argolis is a further example, where houses and pottery of Geometric date have been found on the lower terrace, within the LH III cyclopean fortification, A. Foley, The Argolid, 800–600 B.C.: An Archaeological Survey, together with an Index of Sites from the Neolithic to the Roman Period (Gothenburg 1988), 182 no. 44. (29) e.g. Mylonas, ‘Mycenae’, 44–5. (30) e.g. Camp, ‘Walls’, 49; Ducrey, ‘Muraille’, 248; A. M. Snodgrass, The Dark Age of Greece (Edinburgh 1971), 298; Snodgrass, ‘Historical Significance’, 126. (31) Lang, Siedlungen, 41. (32) Snodgrass, ‘Historical Significance’, 127–8; Camp, ‘Walls’, 48. (33) For Asine see Catalogue. Agios Athanasios in Phokis has been suggested as a fortified site of the EIA as well, so far without general acceptance, Lang, Siedlungen, 41 with references. (34) Drerup, Baukunst, 100. He refers to Thuc. 1.10, but must have had 1.5.1 in mind. (35) ‘The Aetolians, they explained, were, it was true, a great and warlike people, but as they lived in unwalled villages, which, moreover, were widely separated…’ (tr. Forster Smith, Loeb). (36) Cf., however, 1.5.3 where Thucydides points out that the Aetolians still lived in the old-fashioned way. (37) Gortyn in Crete might be an example of precisely this. See above, Chap. 3. (38) See pp. 6, 36, above. Page 24 of 34

The Prevalence of City Walls in Early Iron Age and Archaic Greece (39) In the introduction to the publication of Zagora on Andros the positive conditions for obtaining information about architectural remains at abandoned sites in general are underlined, Cambitoglou et al., Zagora 1, 5. (40) Old Paphos was relocated in C4l to the location of present-day Paphos 16 km NW from Old Paphos, s.v. in NP (R. Senff). Smyrna was refounded also in C4l on the site of present-day Izmir, s.v. in NP (G. Petzl); Cook and Nicholls, Temples, 183. (41) e.g. Smyrna, Nicholls, ‘Old Smyrna’, 36; my emphasis here is more on the fact that the site was not covered when examination began just before C20m AD. Another example of a site situated in an isolated position for centuries and still being used as a quarry in antiquity is Myous in Ionia (cf. below, p. 116). (42) Nichoria in Messenia, a Mycenaean settlement, reoccupied from sometime in C11, was abandoned around 750 BC, rather than relocated, W. A. McDonald and W. D. E Coulson, ‘The Dark Age at Nichoria: A Perspective’, in W. A. McDonald, W. D. E. Coulson, and J. Rosser (eds.), Excavations at Nichoria in Southwest Greece: vol. 3, Dark Age and Byzantine Occupation (Minneapolis 1983), 316–29; N. H. Demand, Urban Relocation in Archaic and Classical Greece: Flight and Consolidation (Oklahoma 1990), 14–22. (43) e.g. the relocation c.700 BC of the three Geometric settlements from the hills of Gortyn to the plain below is a clear Cretan example, see Perlman, ‘Gortyn’, 71. (44) Continuous habitation means that finds of architectural remains from the Geometric period are rare, not only in central Greece, but also in the Aegean islands, Cambitoglou et al. Zagora 1, 5. (45) Coldstream, Geometric Greece, 303; Lang, Siedlungen, 11; I. Morris, ‘The Early Polis as City and State’, in J. Rich and A. Wallace-Hadrill (eds.), City and Country in the Ancient World (London 1991), 25–57, at 29. (46) Except for the impressive fortress from Mycenean times, which was probably used also in the EIA and the Archaic period, little evidence of structural remains of any significance have been found there. This is probably, however, more due to lack of research than destruction in antiquity, see Hansen, ‘Urban Centre’, 39. On destruction see above, Chap. 4. (47) F. Poulsen and K. Rhomaios, Erster vorläufiger Bericht über die DänischGriechischen Ausgrabungen von Kalydon (Copenhagen 1927), 5. (48) E. Dyggve, Das Laphrion: Der Tempelbezirk von Kalydon (Copenhagen 1948), 223 (Tempel A), and 271–6 (Building D). At some point walls on the acropolis of Kalydon were held to be parts of a Mycenaean fortification, G. Sotiriadis, ‘Ανασκαϕαί εν Αιτωλία και Ακαρνανία’ Praktiká 1908, 95–100, at 99– Page 25 of 34

The Prevalence of City Walls in Early Iron Age and Archaic Greece 100; Simpson and Dickinson, Gazetteer, 103. The Mycenaean portions of the walls, suggested by Sotiriadis and Simpson and Dickinson, have not been confirmed by the present Danish–Greek investigation on the site of Kalydon, Dietz and Stavropoulou-Gatsi (eds.), Kalydon I. (49) It has generally been held that the Greek poleis of Aetolia were depopulated and their populations resettled at Nikopolis after the battle of Actium in 31 BC. The archaeological investigations at Kalydon do not confirm this general conclusion, as substantial evidence for habitation continues at least to AD 50, see S. Dietz, ‘Kalydon and Pausanias’, PDIA 6 (2009), 217–21. (50) In contrast to the excavations of the 1930s, the resumed project at Kalydon (2001–7) is concentrating on the city. So far it seems that there was never any serious reinhabitation of the city after the site was abandoned in C1. See Dietz (forthcoming). (51) Coldstream, ‘Temples’, 69. (52) Cf. also Coldstream, Geometric Greece, 303. (53) Popham et al., Lefkandi, vol. 2, 8. (54) Ibid., vols. 1–2. (55) Snodgrass, ‘Historical Significance’, 126; Snodgrass, ‘Archaeology’, 8; J. Boardman, ‘Plates to volume III’, CAH2 III (Cambridge 1984), 195–289, at 265. (56) Popham et al., Lefkandi, vol. 2, 2. (57) See however J. Boardman, ‘The Islands’, CAH2 III.1 (Cambridge 1982), 754– 78, at 757, who is of the opinion that the peninsula where the settlement was located is ‘not wholly suitable for defence…’. (58) Popham et al., Lefkandi, vol. 2, 8. (59) The director of the excavations at Lefkandi, Irene Lemos, kindly invited me to study this wall on site on a number of occasions during the summer of 2008. (60) Drerup, Baukunst, 101, takes the fortified poleis in Homer at face value — at least as far as the eastern evidence is concerned — and suggests a more open attitude towards the evidence about the mainland poleis (Kalydon, Pheia, Pleuron, Theben, and Tiryns). (61) The following quote from Coldstream, Geometric Greece, 303, seems to contradict the previous lines, where it has just been explained how almost nothing except for a few deposits in wells has been preserved from the Geometric period at cities like Athens, Corinth, and Argos due to huge overlay of Archaic, Classical, Hellenistic, Roman, and more recent periods: ‘… and in each Page 26 of 34

The Prevalence of City Walls in Early Iron Age and Archaic Greece case it seems that the eighth-century city still consisted of a group of detached and unfortified villages, without any obvious centre of public life’. If all we have left are deposits in wells, it seems that the possibilities are many, and not just the one suggested by Coldstream, in particular when we remember how little we often know about the early Greek world because of destruction and/or lack of research. (62) It seems to be a common belief that central Greece has been ‘completely excavated’, see e.g. Mazarakis Ainian, Rulers’ Dwellings, 340. This is of course true in some respects, but the focus on sanctuaries has had such a tremendous impact on archaeological activities that it actually makes good sense to speak of a general omnipresent paradigm that has not left much room for e.g. excavations at fortifications. (63) Coldstream, Geometric Greece, 386–91 (with map fig. 117) has collected the number of geometric sites and arrived at 247. These represent evidence of a quite varied character, and do not all reflect settlement. The number of Archaic poleis has never been assessed. For suggestions of numbers and distribution from Archaic and Classical times together see the preliminary studies by E. Ruschenbusch: Untersuchungen zu Staat und Politik in Griechenland vom 7. — 4. Jh. v. Chr. (Bamberg 1978), and ‘Die Zahl der griechischen Staaten und Arealgrösse und Bürgerzahl der “Normalpolis”’, ZPE 59 (1985), 253–63. More comprehensive treatments by M. H. Hansen, ‘Poleis and City-States, 600–323 B.C.: A Comprehensive Research Programme’, CPCPapers 1, 9–17 at 14. The general study by E. Kirsten, Die griechische Polis als historisch-geographisches Problem des Mittelmeerraumes (Bonn 1956), esp. 115–33, offers no opinion either. Hansen, ‘Lex Hafniensis’, 22, refrains from giving an estimate of the number of poleis at the time of Alkaios (i.e. 600 BC). The inventory of Archaic and Classical poleis, Hansen and Nielsen, lists a total of 1034 Greek cities in those periods. (64) Discussion of this topic based on Arcadia, Nielsen, Arcadia, 163–76. (65) Drerup, Baukunst, 3–4, fig. 1. (66) Mallwitz, ‘Architectur’, 600. (67) Coldstream, Geometric Greece, 303. (68) Mallwitz, ‘Architectur’, 600. He does not give any specific reasons for excluding the 14 remaining sites. (69) Siedlungen. (70) In a recent article, A. M. Snodgrass, ‘The Rise of the Polis: The Archaeological Evidence’, CPCActs 1, 30–40, at 30 with n. 2, a study by A. Coucouzeli is referred to, which lists 176 sites with domestic remains, dating Page 27 of 34

The Prevalence of City Walls in Early Iron Age and Archaic Greece from the EIA and Archaic periods. A publication of these results would form an additional point of departure for an estimate of the numbers of settlements in early Greece. (71) Lang, Siedlungen, 12, 14, fig. 1 for a map with the localities included in her investigation. Lang’s investigation does not include written sources, and excludes the Greek West as well as the Black Sea and Kyrenaika. (72) In the words of Lang, Siedlungen, 12: ‘Häuser, Mauern, Werkstätten, Wasserleitungen usw’. (73) Ibid. 12–13. (74) Ibid. 13 and the table p. 19. In the catalogue, however, some entries are based on temple structures alone (e.g. Neapolis no. 75.). (75) The number of entries in the catalogue is 119, Siedlungen, 152–301. The site list p. 14–15 includes 137 numbers. In the table (p. 19) a total of 148 settlements (Siedlungen) from the Archaic period are enumerated, of which no less than 13 settlements are assigned to Attica, but in the list on p. 151 only 3 sites figure under the heading ‘Attika’, viz. Athens, Aigina, and Megara. The only evidence from Megara, however, is a C5e spring (Lang, no. 3). I do not wish to raise doubt as to whether Megara was an important polis in the Archaic period, but this information does not fit Lang’s own criteria. (76) Lang, Siedlungen, table at pp. 81, 89, 95 and 100 (correlated). (77) Table, at ibid. 125. (78) Ibid. 136 table. (79) T. Fischer-Hansen, ‘Ergasteria in the Western Greek World’, in FlenstedJensen et al. (eds.), Polis and Politics, 92. (80) Siedlungen, 54: ‘Es konnte darüberhinaus für die Siedlungen an Hand des archäologischen Befundes und auch des Quellenmaterials in dieser Untersuchung plausibel gemacht werden, dass die Stadtmauer nicht zur ‘Standardausstattung’ einer Siedlung gehörte…’, 141: ‘Wie anhand der archäologischen Befunde gezeigt werden konnte, wurden die Siedlungen nicht zwingend mit Beginn ihrer Gründung ummauert.’ Cf. discussion below. (81) See above, p. 99–102, with refs. (82) Lang, Siedlungen, 68. The survey by M. Voyatzis of Archaic and Classical temples in Arkadia is an exception, M. E. Voyatzis, ‘The Role of Temple Building in Consolidating Arkadian Communities’, in CPCActs 6, 130–68. This survey showed that temples, or temple-like structures, existed at 5 localities in C8–C7, Page 28 of 34

The Prevalence of City Walls in Early Iron Age and Archaic Greece and that at least 17 localities had temples in C6 (p. 153–9). We would know a lot more about temples, religion, and settlement if the entire Greek world was studied in the way Voyatzis studied Arkadia. (83) Mazarakis Ainian, Rulers’ Dwellings. (84) Ibid. 340. (85) The italicized temples in Table 14. (86) The temples marked with a question mark in Table 14. (87) Contrast with Lawrence, Architecture5, 61: ‘But in the early Hellenic period almost every building that has left a trace was a temple.’ (88) There does not seem to be an abundance of evidence for Archaic temples in the Archaic literature. Temples are virtually absent from, for example, the writings of Homer. (89) e.g. Snodgrass, Geometric Greece, 24; A. M. Snodgrass, Archaic Greece: The Age of Experiment (London 1980), 58; F. de Polignac, Cults, Territory, and the Origins of the Greek City-State (Chicago 1995), 153–4; Coldstream, ‘Temples’, 68; Coldstream, Formation, 10; W. Burkert, ‘The Temple in Classical Greece’, in M. V. Fox (ed.), Temple in Society (Winona Lake 1988), 27–47, at 36–45; Lang, Siedlungen, 68–70. (90) e.g. Lang, Siedlungen, 141; Camp, ‘Walls’, 46. (91) The temple builders, architects, and engineers can be traced back to the Archaic period, see R. R. Holloway, ‘Architect and Engineer in Archaic Greece’, HarvStClPhil 73 (1969), 281–90. (92) The main point in de Polignac, Cults, Territory, and the Origins of the Greek City-State (Chicago 1995). (93) On p. 141 (Siedlungen) Lang explicitly places the wall after the temple in the development of the early polis. In a number of cases, however, the opposite can in fact be demonstrated to have been the case: Smyrna phase 1 was older than the first phase of the temple of Athena dated to 725–700 BC, Nicholls and Cook, Temples. At both Emporio and Zagora the wall is older than the temple, Boardman, Emporio, 5. (94) For other types of fortified settlement in the Archaic Greek world, see above, Chap. 2. (95) e.g. Morgan and Coulton, ‘Physical Polis’, 106, who cautiously put the date when most cities were fortified as late as C5l.

Page 29 of 34

The Prevalence of City Walls in Early Iron Age and Archaic Greece (96) e.g. Lawrence, Aims, 434 n. 56: ‘Datings before the end of the sixth century are plausible for a number of city-walls,… (97) The bar chart Fig. 9 includes the evidence from before 600. (98) Table 3. (99) Tables 2–3. (100) Tables 2–3. (101) Tables 2–3. (102) Table 2. (103) Table 3. (104) Tolstikov, ‘Fortifications’, 188. (105) Table 2. (106) Tables 2–3. (107) The very insignificant overlap between categories A and B is to be expected, since individual walls are either one or the other. There are of course a number of sites where walls of both category A and B are recorded, but only at some sites has this information been recorded and repeated in this book, since it is the number and distribution of walled cities before Classical times which is its focus and not the numbers of individual walls at cities. (108) This is if we accept that the walls found at the poleis in question are in fact the walls mentioned directly or indirectly in our sources. (109) Cf. the discussion comparing Sicily with Magna Graecia below. (110) See e.g. Miller, Befestigungsanlagen, 1–3. (111) Roman supremacy was followed by an almost complete cessation of new building as well as maintenance in some categories of building. This goes for city walls in particular. Keeping walls in a functional state must, however, have been allowed for poleis particularly vulnerable to pirate raids down to 65 BC. As Roman conquest happened about 80 years earlier in the West (Sicily 212 BC) than in the East (133 BC), this factor alone can be said to have had the effect that more building activity took place in the East. This major difference in historical circumstance may simply have meant that a number of city walls in the East underwent an additional phase of reconstruction compared to walls in the West.

Page 30 of 34

The Prevalence of City Walls in Early Iron Age and Archaic Greece (112) But only in the NE Peloponnese. So far no Archaic walls are known from Achaia, Elis, Triphylia, Arkadia and Lakedaimon. For the possible exception of Tegea see p. 42. (113) See above, Chaps. 1 and 4 for examples of the quality of the information in the writings of the philhellenes. (114) Garlan, ‘Fortifications’, 251. (115) W. Scheidel, ‘The Greek Demographic Expansion: Models and Comparisons’, JHS 123 (2003), 120–40. (116) Sometimes, however, the size of the fortified area was reduced in Hellenistic times, see Winter, 58–9. (117) See Chap. 4, above for an extensive treatment of this issue. (118) E. Sanmartí, ‘Els íbers a Emporion (segles VI-III a.C.)’, in ‘El poblament ibèric a Catalunya’, Laietania 8 (1993), 87–101, at 88–9. (119) Thuc. 6.5.2. (120) Tréziny, ‘Military Architecture’, in Carratelli (ed.), Western Greeks, 347–52, at 347. (121) Earthquake in 1693 and reuse in buildings on the site in the medieval and later periods, BTCGI s.v. Palazzolo Acreide. (122) M. Frasca, ‘È anonima la città siculo-greca di Monte San Mauro di Caltagirone?’, PP 52 (1997), 407–17. (123) Diod. 4.23.3. Oldfather, Loeb, s.v. note 1. (124) BTCGI s.v. Catania. (125) Thuc. 6.51.1 and Diod. 14.15.2–3. (126) Thuc. 3.90.3 (ἐρύματι), cf. the siege mentioned by Diod. 12.54.4 (r427). Mylai was still fortified in C4l (Diod. 19.65.3 [r315]). (127) R. Spadea, ‘La topografia’, AttiTaranto 23 (1983), 119–66, at 158–61. (128) Miller, Befestigungsanlagen, 264–5. (129) C. Bencivenga Trillmich, ‘Pyxous-Buxentum’, MEFRA 100 (1988), 701–29. (130) From a general impression of the topography of Rhegion E. Carando holds it very probable that Rhegion was fortified in C8–7: ‘XIV. Topografia di Rhegion’,

Page 31 of 34

The Prevalence of City Walls in Early Iron Age and Archaic Greece in M. Gras et al. (eds.), Nel cuore del mediterraneo antico (Rome 2000), 207–21, at 211. (131) F. G. Lo Porto, ‘Topografia antica di Taranto’, AttiTaranto 10 (1970), 343–83, at 359. (132) G. de Sensi Sestito and G. Valentini, ‘Sulla tracce di Temesa? Materiali greci arcaici da Campora S. Giovanni’, in (no editor indicated), A sud di Velia: Ricognizioni e ricerche 1982–1988 (Taranto 1990), vol. 1, 133–49, at 137–42. (133) See the chapter on Ionia in Hansen and Nielsen, 1053–107 (L. Rubinstein). (134) Ephesos, Miletos, Phokaia, Samos, and Teos. (135) Hdt. 1.141. See above, p. 33 for a full discussion of this passage. (136) C. Roebuck, Ionian Trade and Colonization (Chicago 1984), s.v. Chios and Erythrai. (137) PEP Kolophon 6.26 (311–306 BC). (138) L. B. Holland, ‘Colophon’, Hesperia 13 (1944), 91–171. (139) Hdt. 1.15.1:…, καὶ Κολοϕῶνος τὸ ἄστυ εἷλε ‘…, and he took the city of Kolophon’ (tr. Godley, Loeb). (140) G. E. Bean, Aegean Turkey (London 1966), 246. Excavations at the site, H. Weber, ‘Myus: Grabung 1964’, IstMitt 15 (1965), 43–64. (141) N. H. Demand, Urban Relocation in Archaic and Classical Greece: Flight and Consolidation (Oklahoma 1990), 140–6. (142) Thuc. 4.51.1. (143) On this particular use of adjectives with the article, J. N. Madvig, Syntax der griechischen Sprache2 (Copenhagen 1968), §9a. (144) Ancient Chios is located directly below modern Chios. In C20m J. Boardman et al., ‘Excavation on the Kofina Ridge, Chios’, BSA 49 (1954), 123–8, at 126, discussed possible remains of city walls at Chios and concluded that there were no certain remains from any period. (145) See also Coldstream, Geometric Greece, 261, for the general argument that a number of factors may explain why remains are scarce at e.g. Miletos and Ephesos compared to Smyrna. (146) Wokalek, Stadtbefestigungen, 7; Tolstikov, ‘Fortifications’, 209, 228–9.

Page 32 of 34

The Prevalence of City Walls in Early Iron Age and Archaic Greece (147) Leriche, ‘L’Étude archéologique’, 20; Vakhtina and Vinogradov, ‘Esche raz o rannei fortifikatsii Bospora Kimmeriiskogo’, 41–5. The traditional view is maintained by G. R. Tsetskhladze, ‘Ionians Abroad’, in G. R. Tsetskhladze and A. M. Snodgrass (eds.), Greek Settlements in the Eastern Mediterranean and Black Sea (Oxford 2002), 81–96, at 83. Tsetskhladze accepts Histria, but raises doubt as to the correct interpretation of the remains at Myrmekeion and Porthmeion (ibid.). Tsetskhladze refers to the lack of comprehensive publication. I believe, however, that sufficient information is provided by Vakhtina and Vinogradov to sustain their interpretation (ibid.). Tolstikov, ‘Fortifications’, 209 n. 34, does not take a stand on the question of dating but refers to Vakhtina and Vinogradov. (148) Vakhtina and Vinogradov, ‘Esche raz o rannei fortifikatsii Bospora Kimmeriiskogo’. (149) From about 700 BC, R. Drews, ‘The Earliest Greek Settlements on the Black Sea’, JHS 96 (1976), 18–31; A. Avram, J. Hind, and G. Tsetskhladze, in Hansen and Nielsen, 924–8. (150) Plato cites — approvingly — an unnamed poet, probably Alkaios (fr. 426), see below. (151) Pol. 1330b33–5: ‘As regards walls, those who aver that cities which pretend to valour should not have them hold too oldfashioned a view …’ (tr. Rackham, Loeb). (152) Leg. 778D–E. Leriche, ‘L’Étude archéologique’, 11. (153) Cobet, ‘Mauern’, 250. (154) Pl. Leg. 778d; Plut. Mor. 210E (Agesilaos); 217E (Antalkidas); 228E (Lykourgos), cf. Thuc. 1.90.2. (155) Thuc. 1.5.1. (156) (tr. Forster Smith, Loeb). (157) Above, p. 3. (158) Thuc. 1.90.2: ‘So they requested them not to rebuild their walls, but rather to join with them in razing the walls of whatsoever towns outside the Peloponnese had them standing,…’ (tr. Forster Smith, Loeb). (159) Pritchett interprets the passage somewhere between the two views above. He suggests that Thucydides wanted to say that the Peloponnesian cities were normally unfortified prior to the Persian wars, see W. K. Pritchett, Studies in Ancient Greek Topography. Part VIII (Amsterdam 1992), 120–1.

Page 33 of 34

The Prevalence of City Walls in Early Iron Age and Archaic Greece (160) Vakhtina and Vinogradov, ‘Esche raz o rannei fortifikatsii Bospora Kimmeriiskogo’. (161) This estimate is probably too high, given that there was the same number in the Archaic and Classical periods together at any given time, but we may keep this high number to include an unknown number of unattested poleis from the Archaic period. See above, p. 108 n. 63. (162) Garlan, ‘Fortifications’, 255, advocated this view already in the late 1960s. Having the old (C7) fortification of Eretria (phase 1) in mind, he believes that more walls of that period would see the light if they were searched for at the neighbouring poleis, putting it in this way (255): ‘Des faits analogues pourront, à mon avis, être constatés sur bien d’autres sites le jour où les archéologues s’appliqueront à une étude minutieuse et systématique des fortifications préclassiques.’ (163) It was Pompey who, having been entrusted imperium infinitum by the senate, made a combined campaign with 270 warships and 100,000 troops, going over the entire Mediterranean with a fine-toothed comb, P. De Souza, Piracy in the Graeco-Roman World (Cambridge 1999), 149–78. (164) One such polis, Kamiros, is explicitly classified as unfortified (ateichistos) by Thucydides in 412 BC (8.44.2). It is possible, however, that the reason for Kamiros being ateichistos was the same as for Kos Meropis, also classed as ateichistos by Thucydides; an earthquake is apparently given as the reason for the wall there to have been destroyed (see above, p. 26 n. 71), and the year is the same (412 BC) as the year Kamiros was unwalled. It is reasonable to suggest that Kamiros was in this unfortified condition for a short period only. (165) Above, p. 2 n. 12. (166) See above, p. 6–7. (167) The following quote from Coldstream, ‘Temples’, 72, about the Samian Heraion illustrates this interpretation of the role of early temples: ‘Its erection implies careful planning by the sovereign polis of Samos, situated one hour’s walk away along the island’s shore.’ Cf. also Shipley, Samos, 28. (168) The difference between contact over land and by sea cannot be emphasized enough, and is not just about how long a time transport took, but also about what could be transported at all (over land) and what not. Traffic over land must have constituted an almost exclusively local character even until very recent times, whereas traffic by sea almost anywhere had an international potential.

Page 34 of 34

Catalogue of City Walls

Greek City Walls of the Archaic Period, 900–480 BC Rune Frederiksen

Print publication date: 2011 Print ISBN-13: 9780199578122 Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: April 2015 DOI: 10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199578122.001.0001

Catalogue of City Walls Rune Frederiksen

Note on the Catalogue Each entry is a presentation of data of fortification walls at Early Iron Age towns and Archaic poleis of the Greek world, dating to before the Persian Wars of 480/79 BC. The catalogue is arranged alphabetically by name of town or polis, followed by region. Ancient toponyms not universally accepted are accompanied with modern place name italicized and in brackets. Settlements with no known ancient name have italicized (modern) names. The capital letters A, B, and C following the place names, indicate the type of evidence for fortification walls listed. A stands for actual walls found and dated by external evidence, mainly produced by excavation; B are walls found and mainly dated by masonry style, while C are walls attested by literary sources. Each entry is arranged under the following categories: Location: The location of the settled place in relation to the sea, in relation to the local topography, and the wall in relation to the settlement. If the intramural area can be ascertained with any degree of probability this is indicated in hectares. If there is not an almost preserved trace or a specific topographical situation which makes the interpretation of the line of unpreserved stretches of a wall straightforward, the intramural area may be ascertained from other specific circumstantial information which will be explained in the individual case. Status:

Page 1 of 140

Catalogue of City Walls Most often the status of the walled town or city in question is not discussed. For most places, in particular the later ones, evidence for them having been poleis (either contemporaneously or later) is documented, and the information can be found in Hansen and Nielsen. The status of earlier (mainly pre-650 BC) towns are only occasionally discussed, and their status as towns (or in some cases at least settlements of first order), is a general inference, see the discussion in Chapter 2 (pp. 9–10). Construction: Major features of the plan, construction, and dimensions of the wall in question insofar as such information has been retrievable. Elements of the Wall: Such as, Gates, Towers, and Bastions: information on numbers, types, and dimensions of such elements. Other Elements: Information on elements that are not structurally part of the wall but still part of the fortification, such as ditches and other outworks. Date: The date of the wall in question and its justification. Walls dated as C5f, for example via a pottery context, thus placing the walls in question as possibly dating on one or other side of the Persian Wars 480/79, are included in this investigation. Parallels: Any relevant parallels relating to construction of walls or type of masonry, which are not considered to be major trends (which are otherwise treated in the discussion of the book, mainly Chapter 7). Sources: For fortifications known from written sources, the source is quoted and translated. The nature of the fortified place as it appears in the source is also given, whether as a polis, a toponym, or a city ethnic, often collective (known from elsewhere to have been (or to have had) a polis). It is only explicitly stated if a siege was unsuccessful. Bibliography:

Page 2 of 140

Catalogue of City Walls This provides the basic literature on the wall in question in chronological order. sometimes a general bibilography is provided after the topographical part, and additional bibliographies specifically aimed at individual phases of the wall are provided when required. ‘Dr.’ = drawing, (p.122) ‘ill.’ = illustration, and ‘ph.’ = photograph. Occasionally the bibliography also includes information about author’s autopsy and communication of important unpublished information.

Abai (B), Phokis Location: Hilltop, inland. Circuit encompassing two hills. The southern and larger hill with additional (third) wall further below its S slope. 16 ha. Site plan Yorke, pl. 14.

Fig. 10. Abai, gate with lintel.

Construction: Double-faced wall filled with rubble. Two different styles identified by Scranton: a, polygonal tending to Lesbian style (Scranton, 31, 161, fig. 6) and, b, proper Lesbian style (Scranton, 160, 37; Yorke, fig. 1). It is difficult to apply these to distinct chronological phases because they appear side by side in the walls (Scranton). Indented trace used for the lower wall on the S slope of the S hill. Gate: Gate preserved with lintel in situ (Fig. 10). Greatest W (below) is c.2 m, and sides taper inwards towards the centre of the gate creating a trapezoid-shaped opening (Yorke, fig. 2 [plan]). The gate has not been excavated, so the width below and the height of the gate are not known. Date: Wall b C6m based on masonry style (Scranton). See Parallels. Parallels: Lawrence refers to Smyrna Wall 3, dating to C7l, as being a stylistic parallel to Abai type b (Lawrence refers in particular to masonry adjoining the gateway). The accessible information is not sufficient to confirm or refute this. Bibliography: Page 3 of 140

Catalogue of City Walls W. M. Leake, Travels in Northern Greece, vols. 1–4 (London 1835), vol. 2, 164. V. W. Yorke, ‘Excavations at Abae and Hyampolis in Phocis’, JHS 16 (1896), 291– 312, at 291–302. Scranton, Walls, 37–8. Lawrence, Aims, 34–5. F. Ntasios, ‘Συμβολή στήν τοπογραϕία της αρχαίας Φωκίδας’, Fokika Chronika, 4 (1992), 18–95, at 47. D. Müller, Topographischer Bildkommentar zu den Historien Herodots. Griechenland (Tübingen 1987), 446–8. J. M. Fossey, The Ancient Topography of Eastern Phokis (Amsterdam 1988), 78–81. Hansen and Nielsen, 408–9 no. 169.

Abdera (A), Thrace. Fig. 11 Location: Plain at coast. Walls from two phases identified at ‘Valta Zambaki’ 1.5 km N of the acropolis, forming part of (p.123) the north enceinte/Peribolos II, the course of which has been traced on surface. The coastline has changed since antiquity and paleogeomorphological soundings suggest that the W walls were close to the sea, and that the Archaic city, with the identified parts of city wall, was located 1 km further inland than the Classical city. Remains of Archaic shipsheds up against the phase 2 wall, prove that the wall, at least in part, protected the harbour. The trace of the Archaic circuit is not entirely known, but the excavated Fig. 11. Abdera, general plan of the site parts to the NW are so far away and fortifications. Suggested trace of from the acropolis, that it seems circuit indicated (dotted line). reasonable to suggest a fairly large intramural space in the Archaic period, at least as big as the area of the relocated Classical city — or perhaps even larger, amounting to as much as 110–20 ha(?); compare A and B on Fig. 11. Phase 1, Fig. 12.

Construction: Wall running W–E for more than 60 m making a 90° turn, and continuing N for 30 m, ending at W side of gate. Double-faced stone socle filled with soil and smaller stones, resting on bedrock. W 3.15–4.5 m. Outer face in roughly worked stones of varying dimensions (Chrysanthaki in Moustaka et al. (eds.), fig. 8). Superstructure likely of mudbrick.

Page 4 of 140

Catalogue of City Walls Gates: A gate is formed by the end of the wall section running N after the 90° turn, together with a 10-m-long wall E of and parallel to this, creating a gate of axial plan with an opening W of c.4 m. A third wall, being the continuation of the wall proper, seems to run from the short wall towards E. Date: C7m–C7l on the basis of a C7l/C6e destruction layer — dated by pottery and figurine — in a building built up against the wall. Phase 2, Fig. 12.

Construction: Reconstruction of phase 1, following its course (at this investigated section). Founded on bedrock when not on phase 1. Double-faced stone socle, filled with rubble. W 2.7–3 m. Outer face in large rectangular flat blocks in isodomic courses (Chrysanthaki in Moustaka et al. (ed.), fig. 22). Inner face constructed of small stones, less carefully arranged. superstructure likely of mudbrick. Towers/Bastions: The preserved wall terminates towards the W in a tower, 8 × 8 m. It is not known if the wall, which also protected the harbour at this point, terminated in water or if it continued further towards the W (communication Ch. Chrysanthaki Nov. 2006). (p.124) Date: C6l on the basis of the dating of earliest material in a small sanctuary outside the wall which must post-date the wall. Bibliography: Ch. Koukouli-Chrysanthaki, ‘Ανασκαϕές στα αρχαία Άβδηρα’, AErgoMak 1 (1987), 407–13 (with ill.). Ch. KoukouliChrysanthaki, ‘Ανασκαϕή στα αρχαία Άβδηρα’, Praktiká (1987), 177–85 (with ill.). Lang,

Fig. 12. Abdera, phases 1-2 of wall at gate.

Siedlungen, 260–1. Ch. Samiou, ‘Ancient Ports of Abdera in Aegean Thrace’, TROPIS 5 (1999), 363–5. Ch. Koukouli-Chrysanthaki, The Page 5 of 140

Catalogue of City Walls Archaic City of Abdera’, in A. Moustaka et al. (eds.), Klazomenai, Teos and Abdera, 235–48. Hansen and Nielsen, 872–5 no. 640.

Achilleion (A), Troad (Besika Burnu/Beşik-Yassitepe). Fig. 13 Location: Hilltop, coastal. Part of wall at location RS 16 (A on Fig. 13) on the E side of the hill, 1 ha. As more walls are identified towards the NW, the walled area may have been larger. (p.143) Construction: Double-faced wall of roughly hewn and Tréziny, ‘Fortifications grecques’, 242. Hansen and Nielsen, fitted polygonal blocks, W 2–3 m (ph. Cook, pl. 37a). 192–4 no. 17. Date: C6, motivated by construction and finds of Archaic tiles and pottery on surface (Schulz). Bibliography: Fig. 39. Euesperides, plan of Area H and Cook, Troad, 258–9. R. N with wall. Stupperich, ‘Ein archaisches Kriegerrelief aus Gargara’, Asia Minor Studien 16 (1995), 127–38, at 127–9, fig. 1 (plan). Schulz, Neandreia, 17, 28 (plan and ph.). Hansen and Nielsen, 1007–8 no. 775.

Gela (A, C), Sicily. Fig. 40 Location: Hilltop, on the coast. Wall preserved to a length of 12.8 m near N side of acropolis (Fig. 40). The area of the acropolis in Archaic times is believed to have been 6 ha (suggested trace stippled on Fig. 40). Construction: Double-faced base of wall of limestone, filled with soil and rubble, resting on bedrock (Fig. 41). Outer face in large rectangular blocks (Fig. 42), inner face of smaller and more irregular stones. W 1.9 m. Date:

Page 39 of 140

Catalogue of City Walls C6l, based on stratified pottery associated with the wall (phase 1). Bibliography: P. Orlandini, ‘La terza campagna di scavo sull’Acropoli di Gela’, Kokalos VII (1961), 137–44 (with ill.). P. Orlandini and D. Adamesteanu, ‘L’acropoli di Gela’, NSc XVI (1962), 340–7, pl. 1. Wokalek, Stadtbefestigungen, 25. G. Spagnolo, ‘Recente scavi nell’area della vecchia stazione di Gela’, QuadMess 6 (1991), 55– 70, pl. 27, fig. 1. Miller, Befestigungsanlagen, 250–1. Tréziny, ‘Fortifications grecques’, 242. Hansen and Nielsen, 192–4 no. 17.

(C) Teichos: rC7? (see Comments). Gela referred to as polis in the urban sense. Source: Thuc. 6.4.3: καὶ τῇ μὲν πόλει ἀπὸ τοῦ Γέλα ποταμοῦ τοὔνομα ἐγένετο, τό δὲ χωρίον οὗ νῦν ἡ πόλις ἐστὶ καὶ ὃ πρῶτον ἐτειχίσθη Λίνδ ιοι καλεῖται· The city got its name from the river Gela, but the place where the acropolis now is and which was the first to be fortified is called Lindii (tr. Forster Smith, Loeb). Comments: The date of this early fortification event is not known. A reasonable guess is that the earliest fortification at Gela was constructed at — or a very short time after — the foundation, i.e. C7. See Discussion above, p. 28 n. 97.

Gonnos (B), Perrhaibia (Thessaly) Location: Hilltop, inland. Wall enclosing the NE hill, 0.5 ha. Construction: Double-faced wall of small, flat, roughly squared slabs of sandstone, laid in fairly regular courses. In places preserved to a height of several metres. Date: C6/5 (Wokalek). Bibliography: T. S. MacKay, PECS, s.v. Gonnos, 359–60. B. Helly, Gonnoi. I. La Cité et son histoire (Amsterdam

Page 40 of 140

Catalogue of City Walls (p.144) 1973), plan 1. Wokalek, Stadtbefestigungen, 71. Lang, Siedlungen, 278. Hansen and Nielsen, 723–4 no. 463.

Gortyn (C), Crete Location: Inland. Teichos: C8f. Gortyn referred to with toponym.

Fig. 40. Gela, general plan of the site and fortifications. Suggested trace of circuit (stippled).

Source: Hom. Il. 2.645–6: Κρητῶν δ᾿᾿ Ιδομενεὺς δουρικλυτὸς ἡγεμόνευεν οἳ Κνωσόν τ᾿ εἶχον Γόρτυνά τε τειχιόεσσαν,… And of the Cretans Idomeneus, famed for his spear, was leader, they who held Cnosus and Gortyn, famed for its walls, … (tr. Murray, Loeb). Comments: See discussion of LBA/EIA (?) fortification remains, above, p. 28. Bibliography: Hansen and Nielsen, 1161–5 no. 960.

Gyrton (B), Thessaly Location: Hilltop, inland. Walls at the acropolis and the lower town, encircling c.20 ha. Construction: Flat irregular blocks. Date: Page 41 of 140

Fig. 41. Gela, plan of wall and other structures on acropolis.

Catalogue of City Walls Archaic (Stählin). Bibliography: J. L. Ussing, Griechische Reisen und Studien (Copenhagen 1857), 29. A. S. Arvanitopoulos, ‘Ανασκαϕαί εν Θεσσαλίας’, Praktiká (1911), 280–356, plan at 336. Stählin, Thessalien, 88–9 (site identified as Elatia). (p.145) Wokalek, Stadtbefestigungen, 71–2. Lang, Siedlungen, 278. Hansen and Nielsen, 693 no. 397.

Halai (A), East Lokris. Fig. 43 Location: On level ground, 4 m above sea level, on the coast. Wall enclosing 1.1 ha. Construction: Fig. 42. Gela, outer face of fortification wall.

Double-faced wall of roughly hewn polygonal blocks, W 3–3.7 m (Mcfadden, type A), set on slightly protruding stone socle. Part of W wall arranged with indented trace. Gates:

North Gate, axial (McFadden, fig. 1a), W c.2 m. NE Gate, ‘distorted’ axial type with tower/bastion (ibid., fig. 1b), W c.3 m. Towers: Circular towers/and rounded bastions, D 6.5 m. Date: C7l/C6e, based on the combination of stratigraphic observation and historical probability. It was observed that only Neolithic pottery, and no Archaic pottery, was found in the fill behind Wall NE1, suggesting that fortification was introduced contemporary with the (re-)settlement of the site in the Iron Age, which assumingly took place C7l/C6e. Parallells: Eretria, West Gate phase 2 (compare Fig. 43 with Eretria, Figs. 36–7). Bibliography:

Page 42 of 140

Catalogue of City Walls H. Goldman, ‘The Acropolis of Halae’, Hesperia 9 (1940), 381–514, at 381–97, 430 (plan). Lang, Siedlungen, 281–2 (n. 489). D. McFadden, The Fortifications of Halai: Description, Classification, and Dating (Cornell Thesis 2001), esp. 41, 62. Hansen and Nielsen, 667–8 no. 380.

Haliartos (B), Boiotia Location: Hilltop, inland. Walls run around the acropolis, enclosing an area of c.4 ha (site plan, Fossey, fig. 41, circuit marked PPP). Construction: Double-faced?, constructed of well-jointed heavy polygonal blocks of blue limestone (Scranton: Lesbian, tooled work, A2), set on foundation of large flat square blocks (Austin Wall 3/Scranton phase 1). Date: Wall 3 (Austin): C6/C5e (Austin, Scranton C6). Austin’s Wall 2, which he suggests is C7, is probably later than Wall 3, perhaps c.400 BC (Scranton, followed by Fossey). (p.146)

Fig. 43. Halai, general plan of the site and Archaic sections of fortification.

Page 43 of 140

Catalogue of City Walls Bibliography: R. P. Austin, ‘Excavations at Haliartos, 1926’, BSA 27 (1925– 6), 81–91. Scranton, Walls, 160, 171. Fossey, Boiotia, 301–8 (plan). Lang, Siedlungen, 282. Hansen and Nielsen, 441–2 no. 206.

Halieis (A), Argolis. Fig. 44 Location: Fig. 44. Halieis, plan of the site and Hilltop and plain, on the coast. fortifications. Archaic walls found (A and Stretch of wall identified on the B). Reconstructed trace of two circuits acropolis, and at a number of (stippled) and hypothetical traces of spots at the lower town remains Archaic sections combining the two of an earthern embankment (crosses). have come to light. McAllister suggests that the acropolis, including the Industrial Terrace (1.5 ha), and the lower town (3.5 ha +), constituted two separately fortified units, comprising a total fortified space of some 5 ha (McAllister, fig. 32). This is an unlikely situation, as the distance between the two units would have been c.150 m only. Being otherwise unparalleled in the history of Greek fortification, I suggest that they were connected, resulting in a total fortified space of roughly 7 ha (suggested trace combining the two areas indicated with crosses on Fig. 44). A relative sequence of three phases are identified for the acropolis wall in the Archaic period, 1 and 2 are treated as one below (phase 1). Bibliography: M. J. Jameson, ‘Excavations at Porto Cheli and Vicinity, Preliminary Report, I: Halieis, 1962–1968’, Hesperia 38 (1969), 311–42, at 319. T. D. Boyd, and M. H. Jameson, ‘Urban and Rural Land Division in Ancient Greece’, Hesperia 50 (1981), 327–47 (pl.). Lang, Siedlungen, 176. McAllister, Halieis, vol. 1, 17–19, 76–7. C. Dengate, J. A. Dengate, M. H. Jameson, David S. Reeve, and C. K. Williams II, The Acropolis and Industrial Terrace, the excavations at ancient Halieis, 3, pt 1 (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, forthcoming): the Halieis project kindly agreed to provide the relevant information by personal correspondence through the editor Christine Dengate. Hansen and Nielsen, 608– 9 no. 349. Phases 1–2.

Construction: Page 44 of 140

Catalogue of City Walls Acropolis (A at Fig. 44): Mudbrick on bedrock (conglomerate), W 1.75–1.8 m. Reinforcement (phase 2), new W 2.55–2.95 m. Lower town (B on Fig. 44): Embankment of soil, W 9 m, identified under the Classical wall SW of the E tower/ tower 10, resting on a base of fist-sized stones spread over sterile earth, and sloping down on either side at a gentle angle. The embankment is interpreted as a rampart, perhaps originally faced with stakes. Date: C7? Phases 1–3 before C6e (destruction), and it may be reasonably assumed that phases 1–2 date to C7. Comments: Lawrence’s reference to the base of a mudbrick wall with a hollow tower, dating to before 600 BC (Aims, 34), is a misunderstanding (McAllister, 17). Phase 3.

Construction: Acropolis: Socle in blocks of sandstone set under phases 1–2, between the conglomerate bedrock and the mudbrick. Date: C6e, destruction of phase 3. (p.147)

Heloron (A), Sicily. Fig. 45 Location: Plateau, on the coast. Section of wall (‘Archaic section’ on Fig. 45) on the NW side of the plateau, comprising an area of 9 ha. Construction: Double-faced wall of grey limestone ashlar blocks, arranged in pseudo-isodomic courses, filled with rubble. Bedded in soil, inner face deeper set than outer, W 2.8 m. Figs. 46–7. Gates: Page 45 of 140

Fig. 45. Heloron, plan of the site and fortifications.

Catalogue of City Walls The interruption of the wall to the S (Fig. 46) is possibly evidence of an (axial?) gate. Date: 550–525 BC, based on stratified pottery. For the view that this wall may date to C5, see S. Rizza, who also suggests a re-examination of the pottery. Bibliography: E. Militello, ‘Eloro: III. — Relazione degli scavi del 1958–1959’, MonAnt 47 (1966), 299–335, at 310–14, (ph. and pl.). Tréziny, ‘Fortifications grecques’, 242. Rizza, Fortificazione, 73. Autopsy Sept. 2001. Hansen and Nielsen, 195 no. 18.

Hephaistia (A), Lemnos. Fig. 48 Location: Hilltop on peninsula, on the coast. Section of wall identified in 2004 in ‘area 17’ (As on Fig. 48). If this wall followed the same trace as the later wall (Bs on Fig. 48), the course of which can be traced for several hundreds of metres, the intramural space would have been c.34 ha (suggested trace stippled on Fig. 48). If it was part of a wall cutting off the peninsula, rather than a circuit wall, the intramural space would have been even greater. Construction: Terrace wall traced for L 3.6 m and preserved to H of 1.5 m, of large irregular blocks laid in irregular courses, with small stones filling gaps. At c.3.3 m to the N of this wall, a row of stones has been interpreted as an inner face, or foundation for an earth embankment of the agger type. Total W c.4 m. Date: C7s, based on radiocarbon dating of shells on stones quarried at the sea for the wall, and stratified pottery in excavation. Bibliography: E. Greco, ‘Hephaestia 2004’, ASAtene 82.2 (2004), 809–21, figs. 1, 2, 4a, 10a. Hansen and Nielsen, 757–8 no. 503. Communication E. Greco 2007.

Herakleia Minoa (B), Sicily Location: Hilltop, on the coast. Walls enclose 60–70 ha.

Page 46 of 140

Catalogue of City Walls (p.148)

Construction: Single-faced wall of ashlar masonry, made of relatively small blocks. W 1.1–1.3 m. Date: C6? The wall is ‘much earlier’ than the 2nd phase, which dates to C4 (Miller). The wall could, however, still be Classical.

Fig. 46. Heloron, plan of wall on northwest side of plateau, including (outer face) of Archaic wall and later reinforcement in front.

Bibliography: E. De Miro, ‘Eraclea Minoa’, EAA, 2nd suppl. 1971–94 (Rome 1994), 480–1. Lawrence, Aims, 434 n. 55. Miller, Besfestigungsanlagen, 252–3. Hansen and Nielsen, 196–7 no. 20.

Himera (B), Sicily Location: Hilltop/plateau, near the coast. Remains of wall at S edge of plateau, which has an area of 32 ha.

Fig. 47. Heloron, wall on northwest side of plateau, including (outer face) of Archaic wall and later reinforcement in front.

Construction: Double-faced socle of unworked boulders, filled with smaller unworked stones. W c.5 m. Date: Said to be Archaic (Wokalek, Fig. 48. Hephaistia, general plan of the Bonacasa, and Miller), but no site and fortifications. proof is presented in the works of Bonacasa, and neither is there a proof for the stratigraphy mentioned by (p.149)

Page 47 of 140

Catalogue of City Walls Miller. According to the present excavator, N. Allegro, no archaeological material has been produced to support such a date (communication N. Allegro, Apr. 2003).

Bibliography: Wokalek, Stadtbefestigungen, 10. R. M. Bonacasa Carra, ‘Le fortificazioni ad aggere della Sicilia’, Kokalos 20 (1974), 92– 118, at 110–11. N. Bonacasa, Himera II: Campagne di scavo Fig. 49. Hyele, general plan of the site 1963–1965 (Palermo 1976), and fortifications. 645–6. Miller, Befestigungsanlagen, 253–4. Tréziny, ‘Fortifications grecques’, 242. Autopsy Sept. 2001. Tréziny, ‘Fortifications archaïques’, 298 n. 136. Hansen and Nielsen, 198–201 no. 24.

Hipponion (B), Magna Graecia Location: Hilltop, 8 km from coast. Wall identified at Trappeto Vecchio. Assuming that the wall followed the same trace as that of the Classical, which is known, it would have enclosed 80 ha (site plan, Ianelli 69). Construction: Double-faced wall of rough unworked blocks (Ianelli, phase 1). Date: C6s/C5e (Ianelli). Bibliography: M. T. Iannelli, ‘Una difesa monumentale’, in M. T. Ianelli and V. Ammendolia (eds.), I volti di Hipponion (Catanzaro 2000), 37–50, 69. G. Säflund, ‘The Dating of Ancient Fortifications in Southern Italy and Greece: With Special Reference to Hipponium’, OpArch 1.1 (1934), 88–107. Autopsy 2001. Hansen and Nielsen, 261–3 no. 53.

Hyele (A), Magna Graecia. Fig. 49 Location:

Page 48 of 140

Catalogue of City Walls Hilltop and plain, near the coast. Walls identified on the acropolis and in the plain, encircling an area of 64 ha. The parts of the entire circuit belonging to the Archaic period are difficult to establish, but section A has a C5f phase (see below). Parts of the wall, perhaps from the Archaic period, include areas which were apparently not used for habitation, which suggests that some walls of Hyele were constructed as Geländemauern. Construction: Mudbrick in and on double-faced socle of polygonal blocks of sandstone, W 1.8 m. Date: Based on stratified pottery. Section A: C5f. Recent soundings at the walls and comparison of pottery recovered from these with that of older excavations have made the Austrian team downdate the first phase of the fortification from C5f to probably towards C5m; but until these results with fine-tuning of the dating are fully published, Hyele counts as an Archaic fortified city (see the criteria for including walls dated in the later Classical period, p. 121). (p.150) Parallels: Parallels in construction: stone faces on a core of mudbrick also observed in Asia Minor, at Old Smyrna (phase 1)and Miletos (Phase 1). Bibliography: Tréziny, Kaulonia, 129. Miller, Befestigungsanlagen, 278–9. Tréziny, ‘Fortifications Fig. 50. Hypsele, general plan of the site grecques’, 241. F. Krinzinger, with indication of line of wall. ‘Die Stadtmauern von Velia’, in Leriche and Tréziny, Fortification, 121–4, at 122. V. Gassner et al., ‘Die spätarchaischen Stadtmauern von Velia’, in Krinzinger (ed.), Ägäis, 77–80 (figs.). V. Gassner, ‘Neue Forschungen zu den frühen Stadtmauern von Velia’, in F. Blakolmer and H. D. Szemethy (eds.), Akten des 8. österreichischen Archäologentages (Vienna 2001), 81–90 (figs.). Autopsy 2001. Hansen and Nielsen, 263–5 no. 54. Sokolicek, ‘Architettura e urbanistica, 196. Communication Gassner and Sokolicek 2009.

Hyettos (B), Boiotia Location:

Page 49 of 140

Catalogue of City Walls Hilltop, inland. Walls identified on the acropolis, encircling 2–3 ha. Site plan: Etienne and Knoepfler, fig. 9. Construction: Double-faced wall of polygonal masonry with curved joints/Lesbian (Etienne and Knoepfler), W c.2.5 m (Etienne and Knoepfler, fig. 54). Gates: Gate B, tangential type. Etienne and Knoepfler, fig. 16. Bastions: 4.5 × 2.2 m. Other Elements: Sally port, W 1.5 m. Date: Pre-C5e, assuming that the use of the Lesbian style pre-dates C5e. Bibliography: R. Etienne and D. Knoepfler, ‘Hyettos de Béotie et la chronologie des archontes fédéraux entre 250 et 171 Avant J.-C.’, BCH suppl. III (1973), chap. 3. Fossey, Boiotia, 294. Hansen and Nielsen, 442–3 no. 207.

Hypsele (A), Andros ISL. Fig. 50 Location: Hilltop, on the coast. Sections of wall identified around the hilltop, encircling 0.6 ha. Houses with strong walls connected to free-standing walls at the lower town, indicates that this was fortified as well (5.4 ha). Construction: Constructed with double-facing (?) of large flat rectangular blocks of schist, W c. 1.2 m (measured from Televantou, ‘Ο αρχαίος οικισμός της Υψηλής στην Άνδρο’, fig. 1), preserved H 1.5 m, Televantou, ‘Ανδρος. Ο Γεομετρικός Οικισμός της Υψηλής’, pl. 3 (ph.). Gates: A gap in wall on E side of hill was probably a gate (axial). Date:

Page 50 of 140

Catalogue of City Walls C9 to C7l. Buildings of the settlement are dated by pottery to 875–850, and the fortifications must have been erected between C9 and C7l, when the settlement was no (p.151) longer inhabited. As at Zagora, activity continued in the Archaic period at the temple on the Acropolis. Bibliography: Ch. A. Televantou, ‘Άνδρος. Ο Γεομετρικός Οικισμός της Υψηλής’, Andriaka Chronika 21 (1993), 187–208, figs. 1–2, pl. 3. Ch. A. Televantou, ‘Andros: l’antico insediamento di Ipsili’, in E. Lanzillotta and D. Schilardi (eds.), Le Cicladi ed il mondo egeo: Seminario internazionale di studi (Rome 1996), 79–100. Ch. A. Televantou, ‘Ο αρχαίος οικισμός της Υψηλής στην Άνδρο’, Andriaka Chronika 29 (1998), 31–55, fig. 1. Hansen and Nielsen, 737.

Iasos (A), Karia. Fig. 51 Location: Hilltop on peninsula. Wall running on upper part of highest point, identified in at least two places (‘3’ and ‘g’ on Fig. 51). The stretch on the E side (3) is preserved to a length of more than 80 m. The hilltop comprises at this level c.3 ha (suggested trace stippled on Fig. 51). Construction: Double-faced wall of roughly shaped large rectangular blocks laid on bedrock. W 0.8–1 + m, filled with rubble, preserved to a height of 1.5 m. Date: c.800 BC, based on finds of PG and G pottery stratified against the inner face. Parallels: Stylistic parallel in masonry style to Melie, P. Hommel, ‘III. Melie: A. Geschichte auf Grund der Quellen und des Grabungbefundes’, in Kleiner et al., Melie, 78–97, at 83. Bibliography: D. Levi, ‘Le due prime campagne di scavo a Iasos (1960–1961)’, ASAtene n.s. 23–4 (1963), 527–36 (ph. and plan). Page 51 of 140

Catalogue of City Walls D. Levi, ‘Le campagne 1962– Fig. 51. Iasos, general plan of the site 1964 a Iasos’, ASAtene n.s. 27–8 and fortifications. EIA walls found (3, g) (1965–6), 401–546, at 432–43. and suggested trace of circuit indicated D. Levi, ‘Gli scavi di Iasos’, (stippled). ASAtene 29–30 (1967–8), 537– 94, pl. C. D. Levi, ‘Venticinque anni di scavi a Iasos’, in C. Laviosa (ed.), Studi su Iasos di Caria: Venticinque anni di scavi della missione archeologica italiana, suppl. BdA no. 31–2 (1985), 1– 17, at 4. Hansen and Nielsen, 1117–19 no. 891.

Idalion (A), Cyprus. Fig. 52 Location: Hilltop (Ambelleri) and plain, inland. Remains of phase 1 identified as Wall 039 (see Comments) in area D at the NW side of the W terrace of the acropolis. It is obvious for topographical reasons (Stager et al.) that the fortified area must have included the entire W terrace, as well as the West Acropolis comprising 2 ha (marked with crosses on Fig. 52). Walls on the E acropolis (Moutti tou Arvili) may date to this phase as well (Balandier’s ‘enceinte B’: Fortifications, 248). Phase 2 is identified by more walls on the acropolis (below) and by remains in the plain (wall at area A, Fig. 52). The intramural space in (p.152) phase 2 comprised 40 ha, assuming that the trace in this phase was identical with the later and better preserved circuit (Stager and Walker, Idalion, fig. 2).

Bibliography: L. E. Stager et al., ‘I. Excavations at Idalion, 1973– 1980: A. West Terrace Excavations’, in Stager and Walker (eds.), Idalion, 5–44. L. E. Stager and A.M. Walker, ‘Summary’, ibid. 462–3. A. M. Walker, ‘B. Lower City Excavations. 1. Fortifications’, ibid. 45–57. Balandier, Fortifications, 230–54. Hansen and Nielsen, 1225–6 no. 1013. Phase 1.

Construction:

Page 52 of 140

Fig. 52. Idalion, general plan of the site and fortifications. Suggested trace of acropolis circuit (crosses).

Catalogue of City Walls Section of a double-faced wall (?), set close to bedrock, made of rough ashlar blocks and cobbles of limestone (W?). Finds indicate a superstructure of mudbrick. Date: C7l/C6e, equivalent to late Cypro-Archaic I (destruction in Cypro-Archaic II). Comments: The location of Wall 039, on the edge of the hill, and the fact that it was replaced directly by walls that were clearly fortification walls (Walls 037, 040, etc.), makes a strong circumstantial case for the identification of Wall 039 as having been a fortification wall as well. Bibliography: Stager et al. (above). Balandier, Fortifications, 240–7. Phase 2.

Location: Walls identified on the acropolis, at locations CW and D (Fig. 52). Construction: Acropolis: Double-faced wall identified at areas CW and D. Inner face: roughly worked ashlar masonry of limestone, laid in regular courses, preserved to the height of 18 courses (5.10 m). Outer face also coursed ashlar masonry of limestone and sandstone, founded on bedrock. The structure of limestone is plastered. Fill between faces of limestone rubble, and finds indicate a superstructure of mudbrick, W 10.75 m. The excavators state that the wall need not have had this extraordinary width throughout its course; i.e. the investigated section may be a bastion. New investigations (M. Hadjicosti) on the West Acropolis raise doubt as to the interpretation of the 2nd phase of fortification. The walls, though still being of fortification character, might have been part of the palace rather than fortification walls for a part of the settlement of Idalion. Plain: Area A at the Western Lower Wall (location indicated in Fig. 52). Doublefaced wall in rough ashlar blocks in limestone. W c.2 m. Outer face set on bedrock. Date: Cypro-Archaic II/Cypro-Classical I, c.500 BC.

Page 53 of 140

Catalogue of City Walls Towers: Square tower identified at loc. 13 at the NE corner of the West Acropolis, 10 × 11.5 m, constructed in blocks of limestone, with superstructure of mudbrick (Hadjicosti). Other Elements: Bastion identified in the plain, made of solid rubble faced with blocks in sandstone, 4.5 × 8 + m. Bibliography: Stager et al. (above). Walker (above). P. Gaber, ‘The Pottery from Idalion’, in G. K. Ioannidi and S. A. Hatzistilli (eds.), Πρακτικά τον τρίτον διεθνούς Κυπρολογικού Συνέδριου (Λευκωσία, 16–20 απρίλιου 1996). Τομ. Α. Αρχαίον Τμήμα (Nicosia 2000), 471–84. D. Christou, ‘Chronique des fouilles à Chypre en 1993’, BCH 118 (1994), 677–8. D. Christou, ‘Chronique des fouilles à Chypre en 1994’, BCH 119 (1995), 821–2. E. Hercher, ‘Archaeology in Cyprus’, AJA 99 (1995), 274–5. Balandier, Fortifications, 248–54. The Republic of Cyprus Press and Information Office Server ().

Issa (B), Issa ISL. Illyria Location: Hilltop, on the coast. Wall identified on S side of the hill. It enclosed 11 ha, on the presumption that the course of this wall is identical to that of the later and better preserved Hellenistic trace. Construction: Wall constructed of polygonal masonry. Date: Archaic (Kirigin). Bibliography: B. Kirigin, ‘The Greeks in Central Dalmatia’, in Descoeudres (ed.), Colonists, 291–321, at 303. Hansen and Nielsen, 331–2 no. 81.

Istros (A), The Black Sea. Fig. 53 Location: Hilltop on peninsula and plateau, on the coast. Walls identified at a number of spots at the W and S edge of the plateau (As, Fig. 53), encircling 60 ha (suggested trace stippled on Fig. 53).

Page 54 of 140

Catalogue of City Walls Construction: Socle of irregular green slate blocks bedded on sand, W 2.2–3.3 m. Superstructure possibly of mudbrick. Date: C6l/C5e, based on stratified pottery. Previous excavations dated this phase of the circuit to 575–550 BC (Coja). Bibliography: P. Dupont et al., ‘Les Enceintes grecques d’Histria: Vers une nouvelle approche’, in P. Lévêque and O. Lordkipaniazé (eds.), Religions du Pont-Euxin: Actes du VIIIe symposium de Vani 1997 (Paris 1999), 37–52 (pl.). M. Coja, ‘Les Fortifications grecques dans (p.153)

Page 55 of 140

Catalogue of City Walls les colonies de la côte ouest du Pont Euxin’, in Leriche and Tréziny (eds.), Fortification, 95– 103. A. Avram, ‘Histria’, in D. V. Grammenos and E. K. Petropoulos (eds.), Ancient Greek Colonies in the Black Sea, vol. 1 (Thessaloniki 2003), 279–340, at 281–2. Hansen and Nielsen, 932–3 no. 685. Oppermann, Westpontischen Poleis, 20 with n. 164.

Kallipolis (C), Sicily Location: Unlocated. Siege: 490s BC. Kallipolis referred to with toponym. Outcome of siege unknown. Source: Hdt. 7.154.2: πολιορκέοντος γάρ Ἱπποκράτεος Καλλιπολίτας τε καὶ Ναξίονς καὶ Ζαγκλαίονς τε καὶ Λεοντίνους καὶ πρὸς Σνρηκοσίονς τε καὶ τῶν βαρβάρων συχνούς,… For Hippocrates besieging Callipolis and Naxos and Zancle and Leontini, nay, Syracuse too and many of the foreigners’ towns, … (tr. Godley, Loeb).

Fig. 53. Istros, general plan of the site and fortifications. Walls found (As) and suggested trace of circuit indicated (stippled).

Bibliography: Hansen and Nielsen, 202 no. 27.

Kalydon (A, C), Aetolia. Fig. 54 Location: Hilltop, near the coast (6 km). Wall identified on the S side of (A) the central acropolis (40 × 50 m). The central acropolis was certainly separately fortified in late Classical/Hellenistic times. While fortification may have

Page 56 of 140

Catalogue of City Walls (p.154) been confined to the same limited area in C6m–l, it is more likely that the entire acropolis proper (B) was fortified by then as well, i.e. an area of c.5 ha.

Construction: Terrace wall of ashlars laid in fairly even courses, with a few blocks of trapezoidal shape, Figs. 55–6. Date: Cultural layers accumulated behind the (terrace) wall, are dated C6l/C5e, which suggests at least a contemporary dating of this wall, or more likely a few decades (or more) earlier. The excavation that took place both on the inside and outside of the wall in the summer of 2002 was not brought to bedrock.

Fig. 54. Kalydon, general plan of the site and fortifications. Wall found at A.

Bibliography: The wall of the central acropolis was excavated in June–July 2002 by the author, at the mission directed by S. Dietz and Y. Moschos. See Dietz and Stavropoulou-Gatsi (eds.), Kalydon I. Hansen and Nielsen, 384 no. 148.

(C) Teichos: C8f (Hom.).

Page 57 of 140

Fig. 55. Kalydon, outer face of fortification wall, central acropolis, south side (A).

Catalogue of City Walls Source: Homer, Il. 9.550–2 with 9.530: ὄϕρα μὲν οὖν Μελέαγρος ἀρηίϕιλος πολέμιζε, τόϕρα δὲ Κουρ ήτεσσι κακῶς ἦν, οὐδ᾿ ἐδύναντο τείχεος ἔκτοσθεν μίμνειν πολέες περ ἐόντες. Now so long as Meleager, dear to Ares, warred, so long it went ill with the Curetes, nor were they able to remain outside the wall, though they were many (tr. Murray, Loeb).

Fig. 56. Kalydon, outer face of fortification wall, central acropolis, south side (A).

Kamarina (A), Sicily. Fig. 57 Location: Plateau, near the coast. Wall identified on various spots along the edge of the plateau. Examined spot, Wall A, on N side. Assuming the course was identical with the later and better preserved Classical wall, the intramural space would have been 140 ha. Construction: Mudbrick on double-faced stone socle, constructed as a combination of ashlar masonry and small stones, filled with rubble. W 2.5–2.6 m. Date: C6s, based on finds in strata accumulated at inner wall face. Oldest level C6l (Pelagatti). For a C6f date: A. M. Buongiovanni and P. Pelagatti, Camarina, BTCGI (1985), 286–314, at 295. NP s.v. Kamarina (G. Falco et al.). Bibliography: P. Pelagatti, ‘Un decennio di ricerche archeologiche in provincia di Ragusa (1960–1970)’, SicArch 3 fasc. 10 (1970), 5–16. Miller, Befestigungsanlagen, 246– 7. Tréziny, ‘Fortifications grecques’, 242. Hansen and Nielsen, 202–5 no. 28.

Karystos (C), Euboia ISL Location: Coastal. Siege:

Page 58 of 140

Catalogue of City Walls 490 BC. The reference to the devastation of the land olis, south side (A). of the Karystians implies that they had withdrawn within (p.155) their walls. For this interpretation and for its implication of late Archaic walls at Karystos, see Winter, 298.

Source: Hdt. 6.99.2…, ἐνθαῦτα τούτους ἐπολιόρκεόν τε καὶ τὴν γῆν σϕέων ἔκειρον, ἐς ὃ καὶ οἱ Καρύστιοι παρέστησαν ἐς τῶν Περσέων τὴν γνώμην.

Fig. 57. Kamarina, general plan of the site and fortifications.

…; wherefore the Persians besieged them and laid waste their land, till the Carystians too came over to their side (tr. Godley, Loeb). Bibliography: Hansen and Nielsen, 658–9 no. 373.

Kasmenai (B), Sicily Location: Plateau, inland. 70 ha. Construction: Double-faced walls of large unworked stones, W 3 m. Towers: Three rectangular towers. Date: Dated by historical probability. Archaic (Lawrence). C7 (Wokalek, Tréziny). C6l (motivated by construction, Miller). Comments: Autopsy Oct. 2001: Walls hardly discernible. Kasmenai is traditionally believed to have been founded as a fort in 644 BC (Thuc. 6.5.3) and is therefore very likely to have had a wall from its very beginning. This may be the one of which remains have been found. Bibliography: Page 59 of 140

Catalogue of City Walls A. di Vita, ‘La penetrazione siracusana nella Sicilia sud-orientale alla luce delle più recenti scoperte archeologiche’, Kokalos 2 (1956), 177–205, at 189–96 (with arial view of site). G. Rizza, ‘Giarratana (Ragusa): Resti di fortificazione greca su Monte Casale’, NSc 82 (1957), 205–7. Wokalek, Stadtbefestigungen, 25. Lawrence, Aims, 434 n. 55. Miller, Befestigungsanlagen, 261. Tréziny, ‘Fortifications grecques’, 243. Tréziny, ‘Fortifications archaïques’, 298 136. Hansen and Nielsen, 205–6 no. 29.

Kaulonia (A), Magna Graecia. Fig. 58 Location: Hilltops and plain, on the coast. Structures found under the Classical and Hellenistic phases of the fortification wall in the plain to the N, at Tower D (at D, (p.156) Fig. 58). The preserved structures may have formed part of a wall with a course, identical to the better preserved Classical one (Miller). This goes for the N lower area, as well as the hills (cf. Tréziny, Kaulonia, figs. 1 and 81). An estimate of the intramural space may be made either from the Classical circuit or from the greater Hellenistic one, i.e. 35 or 46 ha.

Construction: Two fragments (M9 and M11) of the outer face of a socle constructed of unworked river boulders, with a superstructure of mudbrick (stratum IVa interpreted as dissolved mudbrick). W unknown, but estimated at c.3 m.

Fig. 58. Kaulonia, general plan of the site and fortifications. Archaic wall found (D) and suggested completion of circuit indicated (dotted).

Date: C6m/l. Destroyed/abandoned C5e. Stratigraphic interpretation: Str. IVa (dissolved mudbrick from superstructure), str. IVb (associated with M9) contained no objects later than C5e. Below again there were sterile strata (Tréziny, Kaulonia, fig. 16). Parallels: According to Tréziny, Kaulonia, 129, this mudbrick on stone socle construction, has a technical resemblance to the wall identified at Siris. Page 60 of 140

Catalogue of City Walls Comments: Stratigraphical observations suggest that an even earlier circuit may have existed; but this is still to be proven by future investigations (communication, H. Tréziny). Bibliography: Tréziny, Kaulonia, 23–33, 129, 156, figs. 1, 7, 14–21, 71, 81. Tréziny, ‘Fortifications grecques’, 241. Miller, Befestigungsanlagen, 248–9. Hansen and Nielsen, 265–6 no. 55.

Klazomenai (A?), Ionia Location: Settlement on the coast (?) Excavations in 2005 revealed remains of an archaic fortification wall at Humei Tepe close to the shore on the mainland site of Klazomenai. The ‘embankment on a single-course footing’ identified by Cook encircling one of the hills further in, is probably a temenos wall rather than a fortification wall (correspondence 2003, Dr Y. Ersoy). This wall, partly covered by modern terraces, is dated to C6e–546? (level II) and C6m–494? (level I). The levels represent backfill excavated behind a part of the wall to the S. The two levels are dated by decorated pottery (Mellink). Bibliography: J. M. Cook, ‘The Topography of Klazomenai, ArchEph (1953–4), 149–57 (topographical plan). M. Mellink, ‘Archaeology in Asia Minor’, AJA 87 (1983), 427–42, at 440; Hansen and Nielsen, 1076–7 no. 847. The 2005 finds at Humei Tepe will be published in a future issue of Kazi Sonuçlanι Toplantιsι.

Kyme (B, C), Aeolis Location: Hilltop and slope, on the coast. Stretches of wall on the SE and the N side of the acropolis, which comprises an area at this level of c.5 ha. Construction: SE side: wall in blocks of polygonal style (this wall has since disappeared, Bouzek et al.). N side: blocks of irregular polygonal style, loose fitting with small stones in interstices (Lagona, fig. 7). Date: Archaic (Schäfer and Schläger). Parallels: Page 61 of 140

Catalogue of City Walls SE wall very close in construction style to Tower I of the acropolis wall of Larisa at Hermos (Schäfer and Schläger). Comments: ‘The Archaic walls’ found below the Hellenistic city walls (M. H. Gates, ‘Archaeology in Turkey’, AJA 98 (1994), 274) are not fortification walls (communication S. Lagona). Bibliography: J. Schäfer and H. Schläger, ‘Zur Seeseite von Kyme in der Aeolis’, AA (1962), 42– 57 (plan). J. Schäfer, ‘Zur Topographie von Kyme’, in J. Bouzek (ed.), Anatolian Collection of Charles Universiy: Kyme I (Prague 1974), 201–13, at 211 (plan). J. Bouzek et al., The Results of the Czechoslovak Expedition: Kyme II (Prague 1980), 18, 141, and 147. S. Lagona, ‘Studi su Kyme Eolica’, CronA 32 (1993), 19– 33, at 26. Lang, Siedlungen, 224. Hansen and Nielsen, 1043–5 no. 817.

(C) Siege: 550–530 BC (?) Potential siege. Kyme referred to in context with city ethnic and toponym. Source: Hdt. 1.160.1 (cf. 1.157): Ταῦτα ὡς ἀπενειχθέντα ἤκουσαν οἱ Κυμαῖοι, οὐ βουλόμενοι οὔτε ἐκδόντες ἀπολέσθαι οὔτε παρ᾿ ἑωυτοῖσι ἔχοντες πολιορκέεσθαι, ἐκπέμπουσι αὐτὸν ἐς Μυτιλήνην. When this answer was brought to the hearing of the Cymaeans they sent Pactyes away to Mytilene; for they desired neither to perish for delivering him up nor to be besieged for keeping him with them (tr. Godley, Loeb).

Kyme (A, C), Magna Graecia. Fig. 59 Location: Hilltop and plain, on the coast. Wall of at least two pre-Classical phases identified on the SE side of the acropolis, and at various points of the circuit of the lower town. The trace of the latter seems to have been unchanged from the Archaic period and into Roman times, in total encircling 80 ha. Phase 2 has been identified on the SE side of the acropolis (Wall 1), in the lower town at two points (p.157)

Page 62 of 140

Catalogue of City Walls along the N, and one at the S course of this trace (N side RMP21007 at the ‘porta mediana’ (1), RMP11015 at the ‘porta orientale’ (2), and MR23001 at the S wall (3)). Although phase 1 has only been identified at 1 and 2 along the N trace, it is believed to have had the same trace as phase 2 (and later phases). The acropolis must have been part of the fortified area in the first phase as well.

Comments:

Fig. 59. Kyme, general plan of the site and fortifications. Archaic walls (1, 100, and at 1–3) and suggested trace of circuit indicated (stippled).

Kyme may have been fortified already from C8. Pottery of C8 was found in association with Wall 100 on the acropolis — only known from diaries of C20e AD — just N of the santuary of Apollo (Fig. 59). This wall is of a similar construction as Wall 1. Bibliography: Tréziny, Kaulonia, 129. Miller, Befestigungsanlagen, 249–50. Tréziny, ‘Fortifications grecques’, 241. F. Fratta, ‘Per una rilettura del sistema di fortificazioni di Cuma’, in B. d’Agostino and A. d’Andrea (eds.), Cuma: Nuove forme di intervento per lo studio del sito antico (Naples 2002), 21–73. Hansen and Nielsen, 270–2 no. 57. B. d’Agostino, F. Fratta, and V. Malpede, Cuma: Le fortificazioni, 1. Lo scavo 1994–2002 (Naples 2005). Phase 1 (fase Ib).

Construction: Double-faced wall constructed in isodomic blocks of tufa covering a core wall of soil, W 4.9 m. D’Agostino et al., pl. 2A–B. The blocks of the outer face are recessed so that the outer face tapers inwards. The outer face is set on two courses of flat blocks protruding slightly from the face of the wall proper. The phase 1 wall has been covered by phase 2. Gates: At least one, ‘la porta mediana’. The wall itself has only been preserved on the S side of the gate, but a clear 90° corner is observed. It is probable that the gate in this phase was of axial type. Date:

Page 63 of 140

Catalogue of City Walls C6e, based on pottery in the fill and in the foundation trench of the wall. Bibliography: D’Agostino et al., 23–9, 179–80. Phase 2 (fase Ic).

Construction: Acropolis: 60 m stretch of a retaining wall built in tufa blocks (Wall 1 terrazzamento-fortificazioni) partly single-faced, partly double-faced, filled with tufa rubble. Lower town: double-faced wall constructed in isodomic blocks of tufa covering a core wall of soil, W 7.3 m. D’Agostino et al., pl. 2A. The outer face is set 1.3 m deeper than the inner. At the S trace (RMP23001) the wall reaches a height of at least five courses, almost 3 m. Both the inner and outer face tapers inwards, and the W at the base is 3.4 m, and at the (preserved) top 2.8 m. The socle of the inner face consist of one course of flat stone blocks. Gates: The ‘mediana’ gate of axial type may have been axial bipartite in this phase, as it is in C1 AD (and most likely in the post-Archaic part of the Greek period). The gap in the wall, where the gate was, may have been as wide as 10 m in this phase, which only makes sense with a twin opening. Date: C6l–c5e. From stratified pottery. Parallels: The (possible) bipartite type of gate is paralleled in Selinous. (p.158) Bibliography: Fratta (for the acropolis). D’Agostino et al., 29–44, 180–3, 214–20.

(C) Teichos: 524 BC. Kyme referred to as polis in the urban sense. Source: Dion. Hal. 7.3.4: νείμαντες δέ τὴν ἐν ἀκμῇ δύναμιν ἅπασαν τριχῇ, μιᾷ μέν τὴν πόλιν ἐϕρούρουν, τῇ δ᾿ ἑτέρᾳ τὰς ναῦς εἶχον ἐν ϕυλακῇ, τῇ δὲ τρίτῃ πρὸ τοῦ τείχους ταξάμενοι τοὺς ἑπιόντας ἐδέχοντο. Page 64 of 140

Catalogue of City Walls And having divided all their youth into three bodies, with one of these they defended the city, with another they guarded their ships, and the third they drew up before the walls to await the enemy’s attack (tr. Cary, Loeb).

Lamia (B), Malis Location: Hilltop, inland. Wall on the N side of acropolis, with an area of 1.5 ha. Construction: Blocks of polygonal style/Lesbian tooled work (Scranton). Date: Archaic C6 (Lauffer), C5 (Stählin). Bibliography: Stählin, Thessalien, 213–17. Scranton, Walls, 91, 160. Lauffer, Lexikon, 365–6. Hansen and Nielsen, 712–13 no. 431.

Lamponeia (B), Troas Location: Hilltop and plain, near the coast (3 km). Stretches of wall on acropolis and lower town, enclosing an area of c.25 ha. Construction: Double-faced in blocks of highly varying size of irregular polygonal and trapezoidal shape, well fitted (Cook, pl. 38c), W 3.9 m, inclining upwards to 2.4 m. Blocks of the outer face larger than the inner ones. The excavated section at the Maltepe Tumulus (Fig. 94) is constructed in pseudoisodomic masonry, two courses (54–70 cm high) alternating with a single course (29–32 cm), adding up to a preserved height at the gate of 5.22 m. Towers: Rock cuttings of greater distance between them than the estimated average width of the base of the wall, indicate the existence of towers. The width of the wall (c.5 m) around the gate in Maltepe Tumulus, has led to the suggestion that

Page 107 of 140

Catalogue of City Walls the gate was in fact flanked by towers/ bastions, 5 m deep. The immediate surroundings are, however, disturbed by the construction of a modern road. Gates: At the Maltepe Tumulus, axial, W 3.8 — 4 × 5 m (?) Date: Before C6m (destruction), i.e. C6f. Remains attesting to a battle was identified at the gate on Maltepe Tumulus. Different types of ceramic of C6f on the floor inside the gate, as well as exclusively Archaic material found in the fill piled up in front of the the gate at the inside, suggest a date around C6m. Persian arrowheads found in and around this gate, suggest that the destruction was the Persian one of 546 BC, mentioned by Herodotos (1.162–4). The construction of the gate is later than that of the wall, which means that the construction of the wall goes further back in C6. Based on historical probability Özyığıt suggests the decade 590–580 BC. Other Elements: At the Maltepe Tumulus section, a buttress is identified in front of the wall at its W face (Fig. 94). It is at least 3.36 m high (not excavated to the (p.183)

Fig. 93. Phokaia, general plan of the site and fortifications. Walls found (As) and suggested trace of circuit indicated (crosses).

Page 108 of 140

Catalogue of City Walls bottom) and slopes down from the wall in an obtuse angle. The blocks used are smaller than the ones in the wall proper. See elevations pl. 49b, and Özyığıt, ‘Phocée’, pl. 2.2.

Parallels: The system of ashlar blocks of alternating height and inclination is also found at Megara Hyblaea phase 2. Bibliography: Ö. Özyığıt, ‘The City Walls of Phokaia’, REA 96 (1994), 77– 109. Ö. Özyığıt, ‘Nouvelles recherches archéologiques a Phocée’, in G. P. Caratelli (ed.), Fig. 94. Phokaia, elevation of wall and Velia: Atti del buttress at the Maltepe Tumulus. quarantacinquesimo convegno di studi sulla Magna Grecia (Taranto 2006), 9–22, at 13–5, pl. 2.2. Hansen and Nielsen, 1090–1 no. 859.

(C) Teichos and Siege: 546 BC. Reference is made to the city ethnic. Source: Hdt. 1.164.1: Τὸ μὲν δὴ τεῖχος τοῖσι φωκαιεῦσι τρόπῳ τοιῷδε ἐξεποιήθη, ὁ δὲ Ἃρπαγος ὡς ἐπήλασε τὴν στρατιήν, ἐπολιόκεε αὐτούς, … In such a manner was the Phocaians’ wall fully made. Harpagus marched against the city and besieged it, … (tr. Godley, Loeb).

Pistyros (A), Pontolivadou, Thrace Location: Plateau, on the coast. Stretch of wall, at the NE corner. Construction: Ashlar blocks arranged in isodomic courses. Date: Page 109 of 140

Catalogue of City Walls C6l, based on stratified pottery. Bibliography: Ch. Koukouli Chrysanthaki, ‘Αρχαία Πίστνρος’, ADelt 27 B2 (1972), 529 (ph., pl. 463a–b). Ch. Koukouli Chrysanthaki, ‘Ποντολιβάδον. Αρχαία Πίστυρος’, ADelt 28 B2 (1973), 451. Hansen and Nielsen, 866–7 no. 638.

Poiessa (B), Keos Location: Hilltop, on the coast. Stretches of walls identified on N and S side of the acropolis, comprising 18 ha. Construction: Double faced of ashlar blocks in green slate, W 1.2–1.4 m. Date: C6l (Galani et al.). Bibliography: F.-G. Maier, ‘Stadtmauern auf Keos’, AM 73 (1958), 6–16, at 11–13, plan [no scale], phs. G. Galani, L. Mendoni, and Ch. Papageorgiadou, ‘Επιφανειακή έρευνα στήν Κέα’, Archaiognosia 3 (1981–4), 237–43, at 239. Hansen and Nielsen, 751 no. 494.

Poteidaia (C), Khalkidike (Pallene) Location: Coastal. Siege: 480 BC. Potidaia referred to with toponym. Source: Hdt. 8.127.1 (cf. 8.128–9; Aen. Tact. 31.25–7): Ἐνθαῦτα δὴ Ἀρτάβαζος ἐπολιόρκεε τὴν Ποτίδαιαν. Thereupon Artabazus laid siege to Potidaea; … (tr. Godley, Loeb). Bibliography: Hansen and Nielsen, no. 589.

Prinias (B), Crete Page 110 of 140

Catalogue of City Walls Location: Hilltop, inland. A wall, L c.40 m, identified at the W side of the plateau of the acropolis of Prinias (Patela hill), 11.5 ha, at the point of the main access to it. Construction: Base of terrace wall of roughly dressed polygonal blocks of limestone (Pernier, pl. 2, fig. 4); wall seems to incline. Date: Archaic (S. Rizza), C6 (Sjögren). (p.184) Comments: Another wall in the valley to the W of the Patela hill (Sjögren, 119 C20f), part of a defence system defending settlement below, is more likely to have been part of a Hellenistic construction (S. Rizza) rather than an Archaic, which has been suggested by previous scholarship. Investigations aiming specifically at producing more information on the construction of the wall on the hill have been projected (S. Rizza). Bibliography: L. Pernier, ‘Vestigia di una città ellenica arcaica in Creta’, Memorie dell’Istituto lombardo, Accademia di scienze e lettere 22 (1910–13), 55, pl. 2, fig. 4. G. Rizza, ‘Priniàs: Scavi degli anni 2002 e 2003’, ASAtene 81 (2003), 803–7, at 807, fig. 1, no. 3. Sjögren, Locations, 32 fig. 3, 119 cat. C20e. Communication L. Grasso and S. Rizza. Hansen and Nielsen, 1147 (Patela).

Pyrrha (B), Lesbos Location: Hilltop, on the coast. Sections of wall identified around the hill, enclosing 9.5 ha. Construction: Stretch of a double-faced wall in Lesbian polygonal masonry (Koldewey, pl. 12, no. 4). Date: Archaic (Spencer). Parallels: Masonry as Mytilene (Koldewey).

Page 111 of 140

Catalogue of City Walls Bibliography: Koldewey, Lesbos, 27. Spencer, Gazetteer, 64. Hansen and Nielsen, 1030–1 no. 799.

Salamis (A), Cyprus. Fig. 95 Location: Low plateau, on the coast. Wall stretch of c.60 m, partly excavated, running E–W towards the E edge of plateau. Only additional excavation will confirm the assumption that the trace of this period follows the edge of the plateau all the way around, enclosing c.70 ha (stippled on Fig. 95). Construction: Socle, W 6 m, constructed of clay and stones, placed directly on bedrock (tufa). Transverse walls, L 4 m, W 1 m, of orthostates of local red Enkomi stone, set at intervals of 4 m. Superstructure in mudbrick, W 3 m. Other Elements: Towards the SE finds indicate that the wall was reinforced by steep rampart of clay, W 3–4 m, and the total width of the fortification at this point adds up to 9– 10 m. The reinforcement may have served as a bastion (Jehasse). Date: The socle of the wall is LBA/PG, while the superstructure is C8, or between the time of the abandonment of

Page 112 of 140

Catalogue of City Walls a group of Phoenician children’s graves of C9/C8 on the external side, and the destruction of the wall in C6f. Bastion (?) constructed in PG, destroyed C6f.

Bibliography: J. A. R. Munro and H. A. Tubbs, ‘Excavations in Cyprus, 1890’, JHS 12 (1891), 59–158. J. Jehasse, ‘Le Rempart méridional de Salamine’, in M. Yon (ed.), Salamine de Chypre: Histoire et archéologie (Paris 1980), 147–52. Balandier, ‘Cyprus’, 169, 171, fig. 3. Hansen and Nielsen, 1229 no. 1020.

Samos (B, C), Ionia Location:

Fig. 95. Salamis (Cyprus), general plan of the site and fortifications. Wall and suggested trace of circuit (stippled) and suggested trace of later circuit (dotted line).

Hilltop and plain, on the coast. Sections of circuit identified e.g. at locations G, K, and L. This circuit may have had the same trace as the later almost entirely preserved trace, enclosing c.103 ha. Construction:

Double-faced wall of blocks in polygonal masonry (e.g. Kienast, pls. 12.1 and 15.2), W 2.36–5.2 m, average W 3 m. Towers: Square, inside wall, 9.75 × 7.5 m (no. 36). (p.185) Gates: Gate A of simple type. C, D, K, and L also of axial type, may have been sally ports. Gate G is of tangential type, the inner wall end reinforced by bastion. Other Elements: Two stretches of a ditch along the West Wall are preserved, possibly from the first construction phase, W 5 m.

Page 113 of 140

Catalogue of City Walls Date: 1st phase C6, 550–525 BC, based on construction style and historical probability (Kienast). Bibliography: Kienast, Samos, 40–2, 99–103 (pl., ph., and fig.). Lang, Siedlungen, 218–19. Hansen and Nielsen, 1094–8 no. 864.

(C) Siege: 524 BC. Samos referred to with toponym. Source: Hdt. 3.54.1 (cf. Hdt. 3.39.1): Λακεδαιμόνιοι δὲστόλῳ μεγάλῳ ὡς ἀπίκοντο, ἐπολιόρκεον Σάμον. προσβαλόντες δὲ πρὸς τὸ τεῖχος τοῦ μὲν πρὸς θαλάσσῃ ἑστεῶτος πύργον κατὰ τὸ προάστειον τῆς πόλιος ἐπεβησαν, … The Lakedaimonians then came with a great host, and laid siege to Samos. They assailed the fortress and made their way into the tower by the seaside in the outer part of the city, … (tr. Godley, Loeb). Comments: Godley’s translation of τεῖχος as fortress and not city wall is discussed and rejected above, p. 21.

Samothrake (B), Samothrake ISL Location: Hilltop, on the coast. Walls identified on the hilltop extending below around the city enclosing 20 ha. Construction: Double-faced wall constructed mainly of large polygonal blocks, some tending to be rectangular, W 2.3–4.3 m. Indented trace towards the S and W. Date: C7/6 (Lazaridis), C6 (Ehrhardt, Scranton). Scranton’s date is based on the local sequence, in which this wall is the earliest, and on the fact that the wall shows influence from Lesbian masonry. Lazaridis mentions an analogy to Thasos, but no details are given, and the reference to Guide de Thasos2 (1968), 9, has no mention of this analogy.

Page 114 of 140

Catalogue of City Walls Bibliography: H. Seyrig, ‘Sur l’antiquité des remparts de Samothrace’, BCH 51 (1927), 353–68 (with ill.). Scranton, Walls, 31, 154, 161. D. Lazaridis, Σαμοθράκη και η περαία της, AGC no. 7 (Athens 1971), 19, 93 n. 56, plan. H. Ehrhardt, Samothrake: Heiligtümer in ihrer Landschaft und Geschichte als zeugen antiken Geisteslebens (Stuttgart 1985), 24–31 (unscaled plan, ph.). Hansen and Nielsen, 769–71 no. 515.

Selinous (A), Sicily. Fig. 96 Location: Plateaus and plain, coastal. Trace of wall identified in the Cotone valley, between the acropolis and the Manuzza plateau to the W, and the major sanctuary to the E (A and B, Fig. 96). The wall seems to have encircled both the Manuzza plateau and the acropolis, a total area of 110 ha (Fig. 96 with reconstructed trace, stippled (Mertens), crosses (this author), the latter in part based on walls identified by geophysical surveys). Bibliography: D. Mertens, ‘Die Mauern von Selinunt’, RM 96 (1989), 87– Fig. 96. Selinous, general plan of the site 154, at 138–9, fig. 11, pls. 24–5. and fortifications. Walls (A, B), trace of D. Mertens and A. Drummer, circuit (stippled, Mertens) and further ‘Nuovi elementi della grande suggested trace of circuit (crosses, urbanistica di Selinunte’, Mertens with further interpretation Kokalos 39–40, 2.2 (1993–4), Frederiksen). 1479–91. Miller, Befestigungsanlagen, 269–72. Tréziny, ‘Fortifications grecques’, 241–2. Mertens, Selinus, 65–79, 226–8, 233–5, 283–396. Hansen and Nielsen, 220–4 no. 44. (p.186)

Page 115 of 140

Catalogue of City Walls Phase 1.

Construction: Section of double-faced wall, W 2.4–5 m. Outer face in ashlar blocks (average H 0.36–0.45, W 0.55–0.65, and L 9 m. A semicircular bastion protected the gate towards the N. Towers: Rectangular tower 6.52 × 4.05 m, projecting from the wall 9 m S of the Greater Eastern Gate (Fig. 98). Date: C6f, based on stratified pottery. Phase 2.

Construction: The inner phase of phase 1 wall restored in many places. Towers: Square tower 50 m S from the Small Eastern Gate. Date: Page 116 of 140

Catalogue of City Walls C6l-C5e refurbishment phase.

(p.187) Sigeion (C), Troas Location: Coastal. Teichos: rC6. Sigeion referred to with toponym. Source: Strab. 13.1.38 Ἀρχαιάνακτα γοῦν ϕασι τὸν Μιτυληναῖον ἐκ τῶν ἐκεῖθεν λίθων τὸ Σίγειον τειχίσαι. At any rate, Archaeanax of Mitylenê is said to have built a wall round Sigeium with stones taken from there (tr. Jones, Loeb).

Fig. 98. Selinous, Greater Eastern Gate.

Context: Toponym (polis in the urban sense implied). Bibliography: Hansen and Nielsen, 1014 no. 791.

Siphnos (B), Siphnos ISL Location: Hilltop, on the coast. Walls identified on the acropolis, encompassing 0.5 ha. Plan (Brock and Young, pl. 1). Construction: Wall of ashlar blocks of marble, arranged in isodomic courses (ph., Brock and Young, pl. 3 no. 3). Date: Archaic, based on historical probability (Brock and Young). Bibliography: Page 117 of 140

Catalogue of City Walls J. K. Brock and G. M. Young, ‘Excavations in Siphnos’, BSA 44 (1949), 1–92, at 2 (plan pl. 1, ph. pl. 3.3). Hansen and Nielsen, 772–3 no. 519. K. A. Sheedy, ‘The Marble Walls of Siphnos’, MA 19/20 (2006–7), 67–74.

Siris (A), Magna Graecia. Fig. 99 Location: Plateau, near the coast (5 km). Stretch of wall preserved at the N side of the acropolis (Policoro) of Siris (A, Fig. 99), encircling 5–6 ha (if reconstructed to run around the hill).

Fig. 99. Siris, general plan of the site and fortifications. Wall found (A).

Construction: Mudbrick on a base of gravel, W >2.6 m. Other Elements: A ditch attested on the E side, W 4 m and 1.5 m deep, and the plateau was accordingly either fortified by a combination of two complete circles of wall and ditch, or combinations of the two in a single line. Date: Between C7e and C6, by stratified pottery. Destroyed 560 BC(?) According to Hänsel the date must be C7e, but Adamesteanu lists pottery also of C6 in his description. The square shape of the mudbrick is a supplementary argument for the high (C7) date (Hänsel and Miller). Bibliography: B. Hänsel, ‘Scavi eseguiti nell’area dell’ acropoli di Eraclea negli anni 1965– 1967’, NSc 27 (1973), 400–92, at 429–41 and 491–2 (pl., ph., and dr.). D. Adamesteanu, ‘Siris: Il problema topografico’, AttiTaranto 20 (1980), 61–93. (p. 188) Tréziny, Kaulonia, 129. Miller, Befestigungsanlagen, 266–7. Tréziny, ‘Fortifications grecques’, 242–3. Tréziny, ‘Fortifications archaïques’, 298 n. 136. Hansen and Nielsen, 293–5 no. 69.

Skepsis? (B), Küçük İkizce, Troas Location:

Page 118 of 140

Catalogue of City Walls Hilltop, inland. Wall identified running around the hilltop,