Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
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

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2021. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use. Subscriber: null; date: 10 May 2021

Catalogue of City Walls

Catalogue of City Walls

Chapter:
(p.121) Catalogue of City Walls
Source:
Greek City Walls of the Archaic Period, 900–480 BC
Author(s):

Rune Frederiksen

Publisher:
Oxford University Press

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:

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:

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)

Catalogue of City Walls

Fig. 10. Abai, gate with lintel.

‘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.

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:

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)

Catalogue of City Walls

Fig. 11. Abdera, general plan of the site and fortifications. Suggested trace of circuit indicated (dotted line).

the north enceinte/Peribolos II, the course of which has been traced on surface. The coastline has changed since antiquity and paleo-geomorphological 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 parts to the NW are so far away from the acropolis, that it seems 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.

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)

Catalogue of City Walls

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

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. Koukouli-Chrysanthaki, ‘Ανασκαϕή στα αρχαία Άβδηρα‎’, Praktiká (1987), 177–85 (with ill.). Lang, Siedlungen, 260–1. Ch. Samiou, ‘Ancient Ports of Abdera in Aegean Thrace’, TROPIS 5 (1999), 363–5. Ch. Koukouli-Chrysanthaki, The 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. The wall is likely to have run all around the hilltop at the same level as the identified part.

Construction:

Blocks on average 0.5 × 0.5 m tightly fitted in a polygonal style, resting on foundation of flat stones, Fig. 14.

Date:

575–550 BC, by associated finds of potsherds decorated in the Orientalizing style (Korfmann 394–5).

Bibliography:

Cook, Troad, 186. M. Korfmann, ‘Beşik-Tepe, vorbericht über die Ergebnisse der Grabung von 1984’, AA (1986), 303–29 (with ill.). M. Korfmann, ‘Beşik-Tepe 1985 und 1986’, AA (1988), 391–8 (with ill.). Lang, Siedlungen,

Catalogue of City Walls

Fig. 13. Achilleion (Beşik-Yassitepe), general plan of site. Archaic Wall found (A) and suggested trace of circuit indicated (crosses).

(p.125)
Catalogue of City Walls

Fig. 14. Achilleion, outer face of wall (at A).

223. Schulz, Neandreia, 11–12. Hansen and Nielsen, 1003–4 no. 766.

Agios Andreas (A), Siphnos. Fig. 15

Location:

Hilltop, near the coast (6 km), 1.1 ha.

Construction:

Mycenaean wall circuit, consisting of two concentric walls, reconstructed and reused in LG times. It is not entirely clear which elements of the wall belong to what periods (Televantou, 202) and it has been suggested that all structures are in fact Mycenaean (Televantou). Inner wall, W 2.8–4.1 m. Total width with outer wall, c.8 m.

Gates:

Three of axial type. W 1.8, 1.8, and c.2 m respectively (I, II, and III on Fig. 15). The widest gate (III) could only be approached from the NW, which resulted in a defensive effect similar to that of a tangential gate.

Towers:

A number of square towers from the Mycenaean circuit (α-ι‎) are likely to have been reused in G times. The largest, tower α‎ (9 × 8.4 m) is constructed in LG times.

Date:

LG (reinforcement of LH III B system), but see above (Construction).

Bibliography:

C. Tsountas, ‘Κυκλαδικά Π‎’, ArchEph (1899), 73–134, at 130–4, (with ph. and pl.). B. Philippáki, ‘Η ακρόπολις Αγίου Ανδρέον Σίϕνον‎’, AAA 6 (1973.1), 93–103 (with pl. and ph.). Lang, Siedlungen, 33. Televantou, ‘Ayios Andreas’, 191–213 (with dr., ph., and plan).

Aigina (A), Aigina ISL. Fig. 16

Location:

Hilltop and plain, coastal. Wall identified at least at three points: the N bay (A), E of the Basilika (B), and to the S at Aphaiasst and Achilleosst (C). Reconstructed trace in plan 4 enclosing c.52 ha.

Construction:

Socle of double-faced wall in ashlar masonry and polygonal blocks of varying dimensions (Blouet, pl. 46.2–3), W 2.5–3.85 m.

Other Elements:

A wide ditch running along part of the trace on the E side is believed to be a leftover from the quarrying of stones for the wall: W 30 m, D 6–8 m. Position indicated as ‘E’ on Fig. 16.

Date:

Earlier than 480 BC, likely 490–480 BC. Circumstantial argument from topography: latest objects found in (p.126)

Catalogue of City Walls

Fig. 15. Agios Andreas, general plan of the site and fortifications.

graves located inside the wall perimeter date from 490 to 480. This suggests that the actual perimeter, or most of it, was defined at that time (Welter, ‘Aeginetica’; Walter). This theory is supported in broad terms by geological and marine investigations (Knoblauch).

Bibliography:

A. Blouet, Expédition scientifique de Morée, vol. 3 (Paris 1838), pl. 46.2–3. Welter, ‘Aeginetica’, AA (1938), 480–5. G. Welter, Aigina (Berlin 1938), fig. 36. P. Knoblauch, ‘Neuere Untersuchungen an den Häfen von Ägina’, BJb 169 (1969), 104–16. P. Knoblauch, ‘Die Hafenanlagen der Stadt Ägina’, ArchDelt 27.1 (1972), 50–85, at 83–4. T. Figueira, Aegina: Society and Politics (Pennsylvania 1981), 39–40. H. Walter, Die archäologische Geschichte einer griechischen Insel (Munich 1993), 57–8. Hansen and Nielsen, 620–2 no. 358.

Akragas (A), Sicily. Fig. 17

Location:

Plateau, near the coast (4 km). Walls traceable for several hundred metres along the SW edge of the lower plateau (M–U, Fig. 17). The fortified area was 140 ha, based on the assumption that the Hill of Athena to the N of the plateau was actually excluded from the walled space.

Construction:

A wall built in ashlar masonry of local limestone, set in bedrock, cut to receive the blocks.

Gates:

8 or 9 gates, primarily axial. W 2.6–5 m.

Towers:

A number of rectangular towers identified.

Date:

Before C6m. Excavations at Gate 1 (U) and 6 (P), in the trenches cut to receive the wall, revealed pottery dating to before c.550 BC. In the light of the fact, however, that considerable parts of the wall are likely to belong to later building phases, no further analysis of the construction of the wall and its elements is attempted here.

Bibliography:

P. Marconi, Agrigento: Topografia ed Arte (Florence 1929), 32–41. P. Marconi, ‘Agrigento: Studi sulla organizzazione urbane di una città classica’, RivStorAnt 2 (1930), 7–61, at 8–41. Winter, 107 n. 16. Lawrence, Aims, 434 n. 55. R. Romeo (ed.), Storia della Sicilia, vol. 1 (Naples 1979), plan 1. Miller, Befestigungsanlagen, 244–5. Hansen and Nielsen, 186–9 no. 9. (p.127)

Catalogue of City Walls

Fig. 16. Aigina, general plan of the site and fortifications. Walls found (A–C) and suggested trace of circuit indicated (stippled).

Catalogue of City Walls

Fig. 17. Akragas, general plan of the site and fortifications.

Catalogue of City Walls

Fig. 18. Alalie, plan and section of south rampart.

Alalie (A), Corsica. Fig. 18

Location:

In the plain at the mouth of the Rotanos river, on the coast. Remains known as the South Rampart (W part), identified on the S side of the ancient city.

Construction:

Along with the other elements described below, a single-faced wall constructed of huge irregular boulders formed an impressive fortification system more than 20 m wide.

Gates:

An opening (axial?) between the W and the E part of the South Rampart may go back to Archaic times as well. W c.5 m.

Other Elements:

A glacis, W c.8 m, ending in a 2-m-deep ditch and an earth rampart, W c.8 m, were located in front of the wall.

Date:

C6s, based on stratified finds of East Greek and Attic black figured pottery.

Comments:

Alalie ceased to be a Greek polis in 535 BC, after a war with the Phoenicians and Etruscans. Since the South (p.128) Rampart is not dated precisely in relation to this event, it is unclear whether it actually belonged to Alalie as a Greek polis, or to the mixed urban settlement of Etruscan dominance after the war.

Bibliography:

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 (with ill.). Hansen and Nielsen, 163–4 no. 1.

Alope (B), East Lokris

Location:

Hilltop, on the coast. Wall remains identified running around the hilltop, encircling 1.16 ha.

Construction:

Double-faced wall of small limestone blocks shaped and arranged in polygonal style (SE and E side of the hill, Fossey, pl. 60), and ashlar blocks of conglomerate (W and S side, Fossey, pl. 61). Filled with rubble. One fallen ashlar block measured 1.35 × 0.65 × 0.25 m. Fossey, pl. 60–1 (ph.) and fig. 17 (plan).

Date:

C6 (the polygonal stretches), based on historical probability (Fossey).

Bibliography:

Fossey, Lokris, 91–3, 140–1, fig. 17, pls. 59–61 (ph.). Hansen and Nielsen, 666–7 no. 378.

Amathous (A, C), Cyprus. Fig. 19

Location and Course:

Hilltop, plateau, and plain, on the coast. Sections of wall identified at several points, the reconstructed circuit of which encloses 18 ha. See also Balandier, Fortifications, fig. 129, with indications of Archaic walls found.

Construction:

Double-faced wall with compartments constructed of ashlar blocks in soft white local limestone. W 1.4–c.4 m.

Gates:

The trace of the walls on either side of the SW gate structure suggest a gate of the axial plan (at A, Fig. 19).

Towers:

Two towers, B and C, of square type, 7 × 13 and 8 × 12 m (insertion in Fig. 19).

Other Elements:

Bastions and sally ports.

Date:

At M. 201, at the W terrace of the acropolis, a stretch of wall was dated by pottery to Cypro-Archaic II (600–480 BC), according to Aupert (83) more specifically to between 550 and 500 BC. The walls in the SW gate-structure are dated more loosely to the Cypro-Archaic II period.

Catalogue of City Walls

Fig. 19. Amathous, general plan of site and fortifications. Archaic portions (at A–C) and suggested completion of circuit of lower town (stippled).

(C)

Besieged:

Unsuccessful siege by Onesilos 499/8 BC.

Source:

Hdt. 5.105.1: Ὀνήσιλος μέν νυν ἐπολιόρκεε Ἀμαθοντα‎.

Onesilus, then, besieged Amathus (tr. Godley, Loeb).

Bibliography:

P. Aupert, Guide to Amathus (Nicosia 2000), 47–51, 83–5 (pl.). Balandier, ‘Cyprus’, 173, fig. 4. Hansen and Nielsen, 1225 no. 1012.

Ambrakia (A), Akarnania. Fig. 20

Location:

Hilltop and plain. Inland, at river. Sections identified at Porphyriou Mitropolitou St and Rogon St (indicated as one wall stretch next to D on Fig. 20). It has been questioned whether the two stretches uncovered are remains of the same wall. Since, however, the Mitropolitou, Rogon, and Metropolitan churches are in line with each other there seems to be no topographical reasons to doubt this association suggested by Vokotopoulou. As reconstructed in Fig. 20 the wall would have enclosed some 120 ha (stippled by Hammond, triangles by this author). (p.129)

Catalogue of City Walls

Fig. 20. Ambrakia, general plan of the site and fortifications. Suggested line of circuit (triangles).

Construction:

Double-faced wall on stone socle, W 5.60 m, of large orthostates only worked on the outer face. Fill: medium-sized unworked stones.

Date:

C6l–C5e, dated indirectly by dated structures oriented after it.

Comments:

Recent finds of walls have also been made at Markou Botsari St the date of which is so far not established (AR (2000–1), 65).

Bibliography:

Hammond, Epirus, map. 6. I. Vokotopoulou, ‘Άρτα‎’, ArchDelt 30 (1975), chr. B.2, 209–10 (with ill.). Catling, AR (1982–3), 37. Lang, Siedlungen, 296. Hansen and Nielsen, 354–6 no. 113.

Andros (C), Andros ISL

Location:

Coastal.

Besieged:

Unsuccessful siege by Themistokles in 480 BC. It seems that no assault was made on the walls of Andros in connection with this event, cf. discussion above, p. 33–4.

Source:

Hdt. 8.112.1 (cf. 8.111): Οὗτοι μὲν δὴ ταῦτα ὑποκρινάμενοι καὶ οὐ δόντες τὰ χρήματα ἐπολιορκέοντο‎.

So for thus answering and refusing to give they were besieged (tr. Godley, Loeb).

Bibliography:

Hansen and Nielsen, 736–7 no. 475.

Antissa (A), Lesbos. Fig. 21

Location:

Hilltop, on the coast. A stretch of more than 13 m of wall (AC at Fig. 21)identified running on the N side of the acropolis (5 ha?) facing the peninsula. A wall, identified and documented by Koldewey (B at Fig. 21), had already disappeared when the site was examined by Lamb, and walls identified as terrace or fortification walls by Lamb, still on the north side, are apparently not the same. On the peninsula later walls have been identified, and it is likely that this area was fortified in the Archaic period as well (Koldewey and Lamb both mention very ancient (?) walls), in which case the intramural space would have been at least c.18 ha. Further in support of this is the observation that apsidal houses have been found just north of the wall at AC, which would have been outside the walled area, had there not been such an additional wall further down. (p.130)

Catalogue of City Walls

Fig. 21. Antissa, general plan of the site and fortifications. Archaic walls (AC) and suggested trace of circuit (stippled).

Construction:

Double-faced wall (?), of blocks in Lesbian polygonal style bedded on natural rock (Fig. 22). Fill: soil and small stones. The lowest course projects 10–15 cm from the courses above.

Date:

C6, based on a quite possible association between the wall and a (not stratified) horizon of C6 (or earlier) bucchero fragments, documented in the area (Lamb).

Parallels:

Masonry resembles Eresos (Koldewey).

Bibliography:

Koldewey, Lesbos, 19–20, 23, pl. 6. W. Lamb, ‘Antissa’, BSA 32 (1931–2), 41–67, pl. 17. Lamb, ‘Antissa’, 166–72. Scranton, Walls, 159. Lang, Siedlungen, 245. Spencer, Lesbos. Hansen and Nielsen, 1021–2 no. 794.

Apollonia (A), Illyricum. Fig. 23

Location:

Hilltop, near the coast. Stretch of wall on the acropolis, which has an area of 1.27 ha.

Construction:

Double-faced of roughly worked blocks with joints not well fitted, W 3 m.

Date:

C7l, 625–600 BC (Ceka).

Bibliography:

G. Koch, Albanien: Kunst und Kultur im Land der Skipetaren (Cologne 1989), 218–19 (plan). M. G. Amore, ‘Apollonia d’Illyrie (Albanie)’, BCH 119 (1995), at 766 fig. 2. Hansen and Nielsen, 328–9 no. 77. Communication Neritan Ceka.

Argos (A, B), Argolis. Fig. 24

Location:

Hilltops, near the coast (6 km).

A: wall identified on the N side of the Aspis, under a Hellenistic bastion (locations AI, AJ, and AK33 on Touchais 1976, fig. 9), A on plan 24. The Aspis has an area of c.2.5 ha. Since the Larissa — much higher and the principal acropolis in later times — is only 600 m away from the Aspis, it must have been fortified as early as the Aspis. It is further likely that these two fortifications were connected already in the Archaic period. The combined size of the Larissa and Aspis is 4 ha.

B: walls on the Larissa of various construction, corresponding to at least 3 phases, identified at locations L–M, L–K and K–H (Schilbach).

(A)

Construction:

Double-faced wall in blocks of polygonal masonry, W 3 m, filled with smaller stones.

Date:

C6, based on an association between the wall and an Archaic votive deposit. The association is, however, not completely clear (Touchais).

Bibliography:

W. Vollgraff, ‘Les établissements préhistoriques de l’Aspis (Suite)’, BCH 31 (1907), 139–84, at 149–59,

Catalogue of City Walls

Fig. 22. Antissa, elevation of wall.

(p.131)
Catalogue of City Walls

Fig. 23. Apollonia, general plan of the site and fortifications.

pls. 5–6 (plans). G. Touchais, ‘Argos. III. Aspis’, BCH 100 (1976), 755–8. G. Touchais, ‘Argos. III. Aspis’, BCH 104 (1980), 698, fig. 10 (ph.). Lang, Siedlungen, 174.

(B)

Construction:

Double-faced free-standing and terrace walls.

Phase 1: blocks of limestone, c.0.4 × 0.7 m, in polygonal style, arranged in fairly regular courses. Faces of blocks worked.

Phase 2: blocks of light-grey hard limestone in polygonal style with straight joints, arranged in fairly regular courses. L–M and L–K (Schilbach, pl. 3.2).

Phase 3: tooled polygonal, or trapezoidal, with attempt at coursing (Scranton, 64). L–K and K–H (Schilbach, pl. 2.3).

Date:

Phase 1 (A): C7. Phase 2–3 (B): Archaic. The dates of B are suggested by Schilbach based on masonry style, and the local relative sequence of the walls. Some support for such an Archaic date could be claimed from the fact that no objects of C5 were found during excavations at these walls in the 1920s (Schilbach, 18 with refs.).

Bibliography:

Schilbach, Argolis. Scranton, Walls, 63–7. Lang, Siedlungen, 174. Hansen and Nielsen, 602–6 no. 347.

Arisba (B), Lesbos

Location:

Hilltop and plain, near the coast (5 km). Walls identified around acropolis and on the N and S sides of the settlement plateau, comprising a total intramural space of 8 ha.

Construction:

Remains of double-faced wall, W 2 m, in rough polygonal masonry (N wall). Classed as Lesbian by Spencer, which is correct as far as the upper stones go (see Koldewey, pl. 14 nos. 4–5, repr. by Spencer, fig. 21). As the wall appears in these illustrations, however, the majority of blocks and their fitting do not resemble proper Lesbian construction. The blocks appear to be unworked, and the empty spaces between them filled with smaller stones.

Date:

C6? Arisba was depopulated due to an andrapodismos and the territory afterwards incorporated in that of Methymna (Hdt. 1.151.2, cf. Strabo 13.1.21). Since the city ceased to exist, probably in C6, around C5m at the latest, the walls would date prior to that time.

Bibliography:

Koldewey, Lesbos, 29–30 pls. 13–14. Spencer, Lesbos, 25–6, 64 fig. 21. Hansen and Nielsen, 1022 no. 795.

Asine (A), Argolid. Fig. 25

Location:

Hilltop, on the coast. Sections of walls (1–3) on the Barbouna Hill and its N slope, NW of the peninsular acropolis. Wall 3 runs down the slope NNE and may have extended into the plain below. Enclosed area c.9 ha (?, stippled line on figure is hypothetical reconstruction of trace by this author). Remains inside the circuit so far identified are tombs and a sanctuary. The walled area may have been a refuge (see Comments below). (p.132)

Catalogue of City Walls

Fig. 24. Argos, general plan of the site and fortifications. Archaic remains (A), suggested trace of Classical circuit (stippled).

Status:

Unknown before C8l when captured and reduced to a kome by Argos, SEG 19.317 (C4l).

Construction:

Dry rubble walls double-faced of large undressed polygonal blocks with smaller stones filling the interstices. W c.2 m, preserved H 0.5 m. The walls are likely to have been socles for mudbrick superstructures.

Date:

LG, c.725–720 BC. Deposit with datable pottery deliberately placed at the time of the erection of wall (by Wall 2, trench B).

Towers:

A rectangular structure, 3 × 6 m, at the junction of Walls 2 and 3, is likely to have been a tower.

Comments:

It is very likely that the acropolis, located close by the Barbouna Hill to the SE, was fortified in the C8 as well. It has steep sides, it protrudes into the sea, and would have been much easier to fortify than the Barbouna Hill. The acropolis thus compares much better to other locations of fortified towns of the period. If the acropolis, where C8

Catalogue of City Walls

Fig. 25. Asine, general plan of the site and fortifications. Walls found (solid) and suggested trace of circuit (stippled).

houses have been identified, was fortified as well, the character of the wall on the Barbouna Hill was rather an extension of a much larger circuit, or a refuge in addition to a fortified settled hill.

Bibliography:

B. Wells, ‘Early Greek Building Sacrifices’, in R. Hägg et al., Early Greek Cult Practice (Stockholm 1988), 259–66, at 261–2, figs. 1–2. I. Ratinaud-Lachkar, ‘Insoumise Asine? Pour une mise en perspective des sources littéraires et archéologiques relatives à la destruction d’Asiné par Argos en 715 avant notre ère’, OpAth 29 (2004), 73–88, at 85, fig. 3. Hansen and Nielsen, 600. Communication B. Wells 2007.

Assos (B), Troas

Location:

Hilltop, on the coast. Section of wall identified on the W side of the acropolis, encircling an area of c.1 ha.

Construction:

Wall constructed of blocks of local andesite, arranged in a fine polygonal style, carefully jointed (H at plan 2 in Clarke). Some attempt at coursing (Cook, pl. 34b).

Date:

Archaic (Lang, Schulz). Phase 1 of a local sequence of several building phases. Dated to Hellenistic times by Cook (242–5, quoting letter by A. W. Lawrence).

(p.133) Parallels:

Parallel to the style of construction for the wall at Achilleion (Lang, 223) which is dated to the Archaic period by stratified pottery (see Achilleion).

Bibliography:

J. T. Clarke, Report on the Investigations at Assos, vol. 1 (Boston and London 1882), 79. Cook, Troad, 240–50. Lang, Siedlungen, 223. Schulz, Neandreia, 16. Hansen and Nielsen, 1004–5 no. 769.

Athens (C), Attika

Location:

Hilltop and plain, near the coast (8 km). Acropolis, 4 ha. Unknown area below. The Mounychian Hill and the Peiraieus in a wider sense were also fortified at least from c.510 BC on (see above, p. 11 n. 28).

Wall (lower city): The Kerameikos mentioned as being outside, i.e. outside the walls, and gates are also mentioned, both in connection with the murder of Hipparchus 514 BC, implying that the lower city of Athens was walled by then.

Source:

Thuc. 6.57.1: καὶ ὡς ἐπῆλθεν ἡ ἑορτή, Ἱππίας μὲν ἔζω ἐν τῷ Κεραμεικῷ καλουμένῳ κτλ‎ …

… (3) καὶ ὥσπερ εἶχον ὥρμησαν ἔσω τῶν πυλῶν, καὶ περιέτυχον τῷ Ἱτππάρχῳ παρὰ τὸ Λεωκόρειον καλούμενον‎.

And when the festival came, Hippias was outside [with his bodyguard], in the so-called Kerameikos etc…. and they rushed as they were inside the gates, and met Hipparchus at the so-called Leokoreion (tr. R. Frederiksen).

Sieges (Acropolis): a) Siege of Kylon, c.632 BC. Event discussed above, p. 31. Other sieges, all of which were successful: b) 510 BC, Hippias besieged by the Spartans and some Athenians behind the Pelasgian wall; c) 508 BC, the Spartans, Isagoras, and his fellow stasiotai were besieged by the Athenians on the acropolis; d) 480 BC, the Athenians remaining after the evacuation, were besieged on the acropolis by Xerxes.

Sources:

  1. a) Thuc. 1.126.7 (with 1.126.5), quote above, p. 31.

  2. b) Hdt. 5.64.2: Κλεομένης δέ ἀπικόμενος ἐς τὸ ἄστν ἄμα Ἀθηναίων τοῖοι βουλομένοιτοι εἶναι ἐλευθέροισι ἐπολιόρκεε τοὺς τυράννους ἀπεργμένους ἐν τῷ Πελασγικῷ τείχεϊ‎ (cf. Arist. AthPol 19.5.2–6.1).

    Then Cleomenes, when he and the Athenians that desired freedom came before the city, drove the despots’ family within the Pelasgic wall and there beleaguered them (tr. Godley, Loeb).

  3. c) Hdt. 5.72.2: Αθηναίων δέ οἱ λοιποὶ τὰ αὐτὰ ϕρονήσαντες ἐπολιόρκεον αὐτούς ἡμέρας δύο‎.

    The rest of the Athenians united and besieged them for two days.

  4. d) Hdt. 8.52: Οἱ δέ Πέρσαι ἱζόμενοι ἐπὶ τὸν καταντίον τῆς ἀκροπόλιος ὄχθον, τὸν Ἀθηναῖοι καλέουσι Ἀρήον πάγον, ἐπολιόρκεον τρόπον τοιόνδε‎.

    The Persians sat down on the hill opposite the acropolis, which the Athenians call the Hill of Ares, and besieged them in the following way (tr. R. Frederiksen).

Bibliography:

Lauter-Bufé and Lauter, ‘Vorthemistok-leische Stadtmauer’. Contra: J. K. Papadopoulos, Ceramicus Redivivus: The Early Iron Age Potters’ Field in the Area of the Classical Athenian Agora. Hesp. suppl. 31 (2003), 271–316, at 303. Morris, Burial, 192. Hansen and Nielsen, 626–37 no. 361.

Atrax (B), Thessaly

Location:

Hilltop and plain, inland. Walls identified encircling 15 or 35 ha, depending on whether they extended to the diateichisma (b on plan in Stählin), or whether they ran down to the Pheneios river already at this time.

Construction:

Considerable stretches of double-faced wall, filled with rubble, constructed of roughly carved polygonal blocks. Smaller stones inserted between fittings. W 2.2–4 m.

Date:

Archaic? based on style (Stählin, Lang).

Bibliography:

Stählin, Thessalien, 101–2 (plan). Lang, Siedlungen, 22 n. 35, 277. Hansen and Nielsen, 692 no. 395.

Barke (C), Kyrenaika

Location:

Inland, 20 km from the coast.

Teichos And Siege:

Successfully besieged in 510 BC.

Source:

Hdt. 4.200–3 (at 200.2) (cf. Aen. Tact. 37.6): ἐνθαῦτα δὴ ἐπολιόρκεον τὴν Βάρκην ἐπὶ μῆνας ἐννέα, ὀρύσσοντές τε ὀρύγματα ὑπόγαια ϕέροντα ἐς τὸ τεῖχος καὶ προσβολὰς καρτερὰς ποιεύμενοι‎.

Then the Persians besieged Barke for nine months, digging underground passages leading to the walls, and making violent assaults (tr. Godley, Loeb).

Bibliography:

Hansen and Nielsen, 1240–1 no. 1025.

Boucheta (B), Epirus

Location:

Hilltop, near the coast (7 km). This locality is Rogous in Hammond, Epirus. Walls belonging to three phases identified, corresponding to original circuit (p.134) encircling 0.75 ha, and two extensions (Hammond, Epirus, plan 4).

Construction:

Walls of local hard grey limestone built of ashlar masonry (Hammond, Epirus, pl. 19a), and two different phases of wall of polygonal masonry.

Date:

Archaic? (The first phase [ashlar].) According to Corvisier the site was fortified in the Archaic period, by reference to large quantities of C6 pottery found at the site (cf. Hammond in PECS, references in Corvisier corrupt). According to Hammond the 2nd phase (1st polygonal phase) is the earliest specimen of this style in Epirus, and suggests a date for this between C4e and C4l. The ashlar phase, to which Corvisier seems to refer, would then be earlier, i.e. C5 or C6 (?).

Bibliography:

Hammond, Epirus, 57–61, 713 (ph., pl. 19a, and plan 4). PECS s.v. Bouchation (Hammond). J. N. Corvisier, Aux origines du miracle grecque: Peuplement et population en Grèce du Nord (Paris 1991), 201. Hansen and Nielsen, 342–3 no. 90.

Bouthroton (A), Epirus. Fig. 26

Location:

Hilltop, on peninsula on the coast. Remains of walls identified under the later phases on the hill (inner ring on Fig. 26) comprising a full circuit enclosing 2 ha.

Construction:

Double-faced wall of blocks arranged in rough polygonal style, joints not tight, W c.3.5 m. (Ceka, ‘Fortifikimi’, pl. 18.2, 19.1 [ph.]). Trace of the wall on the S side of hill has zigzag plan, perhaps intended to give the effect of indented trace.

Date:

Around 650 BC with repairs dating to 550.

Bibliography:

N. Ceka, ‘Fortifikimi antik i Butrintit’, Butroti (1988), 115–30, pls., with summary in German, ‘Die antike Wehranlage von Buthroton’, at 131–2. N. Ceka, ‘Städtebau in der vorrömischen Periode in Südillyrien’, Akten des XIII: Internationalen Kongresses für Klassische Archäologie, Berlin 1988 (Mainz am Rhein 1990), 215–29, at 220 (pl.). N. Ceka, Butrint: A Guide to the City and its Monuments (London 1999), 54. Communication N. Ceka. Hansen and Nielsen, 343 no. 91. <http://www.butrint.org/explore_12_1.php>.

Chaironeia (B), Boiotia

Location:

Hilltop, inland. Sections of wall on the acropolis (area 1) extending below on the E slope (area 2), enclosing 15 ha (plan Fossey, fig. 50).

Catalogue of City Walls

Fig. 26. Bouthroton, general plan of the site and fortifications. Sections of inner circuit Archaic.

Construction:

The wall on the acropolis, apparently the earlier phase, is constructed in cyclopean masonry (Sotiriades, fig. 4). The wall on the E slope is constructed of Lesbian masonry in its earliest phase.

Date:

Archaic, based on masonry style (Fossey).

Bibliography:

G. Sotiriades, ‘Das Schlachtfeld von Chäronea und der Grabhügel der Makedonen’, AM 28 (1903), 301–30, at 324, fig. 4 (ph.). Fossey, Boiotia, 376–8, fig. 50 (site plan). Hansen and Nielsen, 439–40 no. 201.

Chalke (B), Islet at Rhodes

Location:

Hilltop, near the coast (2 km). Section of wall preserved on the acropolis.

Construction:

Terrace wall, preserved L 12 m, constructed in polygonal style preserved to H 3 m, Susini, fig. 43 (ph.).

Date:

C6, based on masonry style (Susini).

Bibliography:

G. Susini, ‘Supplemento epigrafico di Caso, Scarpanto, Saro, Calchi, Alinnia e Tilo’, ASAtene 25/ 6 (1963–4), 203–92, at 248–9. Hansen and Nielsen, 738 no. 477.

Corinth (A, B), Corinthia. Fig. 27

Location:

A: Hillside and plateau, near the coast (2.5 km). Wall traced for c.70 m, found at the Potters’ Quarter, at the W edge of the PQ plateau (Figs. 27–9), which may have (p.135)

Catalogue of City Walls

Fig. 27. Corinth, general plan of the site and fortifications.

formed part of a circuit enclosing at least 300 ha. The topographical implication of the wall as well as its date has caused much controversy, see discussion above, p. 75–6.

B: Hilltop, Akrokorinthos, c.25 ha.

Bibliography:

R. Carpenter, ‘The City Walls of Corinth’, in Carpenter and Bon, Defences, 44–83, at 77. Stillwell, Potters’ Quarter, 14–5 (ph. and pl.). Wokalek, Stadtbefestigungen, 25. Williams, ‘Urbanization Corinth’, 15–20, fig. 3 (plan). Salmon, Corinth, 220–1. F. E. Winter, ‘The Chronology of the Ancient Defences of Acrocorinth’, AJA 95 (1991), 109–21; Lang, Siedlungen, 171. For additional information on datable material found in the excavation: 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 58 and n. 97 (with refs.). Hansen and Nielsen, 465–8 no. 227. M. G. Tofi, ‘I santuari del Potters’ Quarter di Corinto’, ASAtene 82.1 (2004), 209–24, at 211.

(A)

Construction:

Figs. 28–9. Mudbrick(?) on a doublefaced rubble stone socle, W c.2.4 m, set on bedrock. Space between inner and outer wall, both c.0.3 m wide, filled with stones and soil, and separated into compartments by intersected walls at an interval of c.5 m.

Date:

C7m/l. Pottery of G–PC style found in the fill indicates a construction date prior to C7m. However, as sherds found in a foundation trench cut in the rock to form part of the S section of the wall are of the late orientalizing phase of the PC class, a date around C7l is to be preferred, unless this particular construction was an isolated reconstruction of an earlier wall (Stillwell, 14–15; Williams, 17).

(B)

Construction:

Several sections of polygonal and cyclopean walls identified on the Akrokorinthos (Carpenter, figs. 25, 26, 28, and 31).

Date:

Archaic, before 480 BC, based on observations of local relative sequence and style (Carpenter).

Bibliography:

Carpenter and Bon, Defences, 1–43 (plan). Scranton, Walls, 56–7.

Dreros (B), Crete

Location:

Hilltops and slopes, inland. Stretches of wall on the E slope of the E hill. Other remains suggest that the W hill may have been incorporated in the 1st phase of fortification as well. Depending on this the walls enclosed an area of 4 or 6 ha (site plan, Demargne and van Effenterre, fig. 2).

Construction:

Terrace and double-faced walls of polygonal, irregular, and regular ashlar masonry.

Date:

Archaic (Marinatos).

Bibliography:

S. Marinatos, ‘Le Temple geométrique de Dréros’, BCH 60 (1936), 214–19 (phs.). P. Demargne and H. van Effenterre, ‘Recherches à Dreros’, BCH 61 (1937), 5–32 (plan, fig. 2). Wokalek, Stadtbefestigungen, 25 (contra identification as fortification walls). Lang, Siedlungen, 188. Autopsy 2001. Hansen and Nielsen, 1157–8 no. 956.

Eleusis (A), Attika. Fig. 30

Location:

Hilltop, on the coast. Wall runs below and around the hill and includes the santuary of Demeter and Kore at the S foot of the hill. Plan arranged with indentation on the S side. (p.136)

Catalogue of City Walls

Fig. 28. Corinth, plan of walls at Potters’ Quarter.

Catalogue of City Walls

Fig. 29. Corinth, socle of seventh century BC wall at Potters’ Quarter.

Status:

Fortified demos. Eleusis was part of the polis of Athens, and possibly a deme from C7l or C6e BC (Clinton; Hansen).

Construction:

Mudbrick wall (brick size av. 0.45 × 0.45 × 0.09 m) on double-faced stone socle (W 2.5 m, H 0.85 m) of grey Eleusinian marble in polygonal style, tending to Lesbian (Fig. 6), resting on foundation of large flattish unworked blocks of limestone.

Gates:

6 gates (W 3 m) and 2 + sally ports (W 1 m), all axial (except for one port which is cutting the wall at 45 rather than 90°), and all located at towers. The trace of the wall at the North Gate, in combination with a protruding tower just E of it, creates an effect not dissimilar to a gate of the overlap type.

Towers:

9 (probably originally 12) towers of square plan of varying dimensions (but on average c.6 × 6 m) at intervals varying between 30 and 70 m, except for the S side which has towers replaced by an indentation.

Date:

C6l. A stretch of the wall is under a Themistoklean retaining wall for the terrace of the telesterion. The retaining wall is founded in the Persian destruction layer of 480 BC (Noack; Wrede). Most of the remainder of the circuit attributed to this phase is constructed in the same fashion.

Bibliography:

F. Noack, Eleusis (Berlin and Leipzig 1927), 69–70. W. Wrede, Attische Mauern (Athens 1933), 7 no. 13, 12 no. 31. Maier, Mauerbauinschriften 1, 84–6. G. E. Mylonas, Eleusis and the Eleusinian Mysteries (Princeton 1961), 91–6, figs. 4, 17, 22, 25 (restoration). K. Clinton, ‘The Sanctuary (p.137)

Catalogue of City Walls

Fig. 30. Eleusis, plan of acropolis and sanctuary with fortification (trace partly reconstructed).

of Demeter and Kore at Eleusis’, in N. Marinatos and R. Hägg (eds.), Greek Sanctuaries: New Approaches (London and New York 1993), 110–24. Hansen in Hansen and Nielsen, 637.

Emporio (A), Chios. Fig. 31

Location:

Hilltop, on the coast. Wall running around the top of the hill enclosing c.2.4 ha.

Construction:

Drystone wall constructed of small roughly worked stones, W c.2 m (Boardman, pl. 3c).

Gates:

One, of tangential type, consisting of an unusually long wall-overlap of at least 25 m, W 3 m.

Date:

Before C7, probably C8. Dated indirectly by relation to the Megaron Hall, which has been dated by stratified pottery.

Comments:

Lack of finds from habitation inside the wall, combined with finds of habitation remains on the W side of the hill extending an area of c.4 ha, suggest that the fortification was a refuge.

Bibliography:

Boardman, Emporio, 3–4, 34–5 figs. 3–4, pl. 3c. Hansen and Nielsen, 1062.

Ephesos (A, C), Ionia. Fig. 32

Location:

Hilltop on peninsula, on the coast. Section of wall on the N slope of the Panayırdaǧı (A, Fig. 32). If continued around this hill the wall would have enclosed approximately 16 ha. Keil classifies as a refuge, rather than settlement (see discussion above, pp. 9, 84).

Construction:

Wall of blocks of polygonal masonry, W 2.1 m.

Date:

Ceramic evidence points to a construction c.500 BC (Keil; the pottery was never published and has since disappeared). The date given by McNicoll is early 1st millennium, while Özyıǧıt ignores suggestions about early fortification at Ephesos.

Bibliography:

J. Keil, ‘XII. Vorläufiger Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Ephesos’, ÖJh 23 (1926), 247–300, at 261. (p.138)

Catalogue of City Walls

Fig. 31. Emporio, general plan of the site and reconstructed trace of circuit.

F. Miltner, Ephesos: Stadt der Artemis und des Johannes (Vienna 1958), 3–4 (ph). Ö. Özyıǧıt, ‘On the dating of the City Walls of Ephesos’, in H. Malay (ed.), Erol Atalay Memorial (Izmir 1991), 137–44. McNicoll, Fortifications, 94. P. Scherrer, ‘The Historical Topography of Ephesos’, in D. Parrish (ed.), Urbanism in Western Asia Minor: New Studies on Aphrodisias, Ephesos, Hierapolis, Pergamon, Perge and Xanthos, JRA Suppl. 45 (Portsmouth 2001), 57–93, at 60, figs. 3–1, 3–4, and 3–9. Hansen and Nielsen, 1070–3 no. 844. M. Kerschner in M. Kerschner, I. Kowalleck, and M. Steskal, Archäologische Forschungen zur Siedlungsgeschichte von Ephesos in geometrischer, archaischer und klassischer Zeit: Grabungsbefunde und Keramikfunde aus dem Bereich von Koressos, 9. Ergänzungsheft zu den Jahresheften des ÖAI (Vienna 2008), 116–18, pls. 39–40.

(C)

Teichos and Siege:

560 BC. Ephesos referred to as polis in the urban sense.

Source:

Hdt.1.26.2: ἔνθα δὴ οἱ Ἐϕέσιοι πολιορκεόμενοι ὐπ᾿ αὐτοῦ ἀνέθεσαν τὴν πόλιν τῇ Ἀρτέμιδι, ἐζάψαντες ἐκ τοῦ νηοῦ σχοινίον ἐς τὸ τεῖχος‎.

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).

Eresos (B), Lesbos

Location:

Hilltop and plain, on the coast. Sections of wall on the acropolis, which, if connected, would encircle 5 ha (site plan, Koldewey, pls. 8 and 9).

Construction:

Double-faced wall with blocks of Lesbian style, filled with soil and small stones, W 2.2 m (Koldewey, dr. pl. 10).

Bastion:

W 2.26–3.7 m.

Date:

Late Archaic, based on masonry style (Koldewey).

Parallels:

Masonry resembles in general Antissa, Methymna, and Mytilene. Closer to Methymna than to Mytilene, and perhaps Eresos presents a chronological stage between Methymna and Mytilene (Koldewey).

Bibliography:

Koldewey, Lesbos, 5, 22–6, pls. 8–10 (dr. and plan). Spencer, Lesbos, 29–30. Hansen and Nielsen, 1023–4 no. 796.

Eretria (A, B, C), Euboia. Fig. 33

Location:

Hilltop and plain, on the coast. Several stretches of wall on the acropolis (A, B) encircling 1.3–1.4 ha, and (A) sections of combined dyke and fortification wall (?) in the plain, in the area of the later West Gate and running E and later S (indicated by parallel lines on Fig. 33). Walls of phase 1 may have enclosed c.18 ha including the acropolis (suggested trace indicated with crosses and solid line on Fig. 33), and from phase 2 as much as 81.5 ha, based on the assumption that the course of the circuit at that time was identical to the one visible today (Classical–Hellenistic, dotted on Fig. 33). Eretria has been subject to numerous excavations and investigations on the acropolis as well as in the area of the lower town, and all the evidence has recently been treated in a dissertation by S. Fachard (University of Lausanne and the Swiss School in Athens).

Bibliography:

Winter, 61. Krause, Westtor, 7–28, 59–60 (figs. pls.). Hansen and Nielsen, 651–5 no. 370. Communication S. Fachard and C. Krause 2009.

(A) phase 1. Figs. 34, 35 (reconstruction).

Construction:

Walls A–G near and under the later West Gate, and walls at plots 740 and E/600. Mudbrick (circumstantially deduced) next to and on a double-faced socle of (p.139)

Catalogue of City Walls

Fig. 32. Ephesos, general plan of the site and fortifications. Archaic wall remains (A), and suggested trace of circuit (solid squares).

undressed stone blocks, W 1.5–4.5 m. The walls certainly served as a dike, while the additional function as a fortification is much disputed, see discussion above, p. 74–5. Krause observed in a N–S profile (P 7/54) that a zone running parallel to wall F1–G (marked ‘Fortification wall?’ in Fig. 34), 4 m wide measuring from the S face of the wall, showed no sign of levels with clear traces of ancient activity (Gehniveau, traffic); such Gehniveaus, however, were clearly observed beyond this zone (dotted on Fig. 34). It seems reasonable to assume that this zone must have been covered by a structure, the dimensions of which indeed fit those of contemporary fortification walls, and at the same time are unnecessarily wide for a dike of this type. It seems to be beyond dispute that what was built up against wall F–G to its south, adding a ‘structure’ of more than 5 m in width, was a re-enforcement.

Further remains of the dike at plot 740 c.300 m to the E of West Gate (Themelis), and c.100 m N of plot 740, at E/ 600 (Schmid), cf. Fig. 33.

Comments:

The river was later (c.550 BC?) diverted to run

S from the point of the West Gate, on the outside of the later city wall, also running in that same direction from that time and on (Eretria phase 2), cf. indication on Figs. 34, 36–7.

Date:

C7.

Bibliography:

Krause, Westtor, 13–21, plan 2, figs. 2, 3–4, pls. 9–26. P. Themelis, ‘Ανασκαϕή Ερέτριας‎’, Praktiká (1979), 40–55, at 43–50, figs. 4–5. A. Mazarakis Ainian, ‘Geometric Eretria’, AK 30 (1987), 3–23, at 15–16, fig. 6 (refs. n. 21). V. Parker, Untersuchungen zum Lelantischen Krieg und verwandten Problemen der frühgriechischen Geschichte (Stuttgart 1997), 34–6. K. G. Walker, Archaic Eretria (London 2004), 91–8, map 4. For the view that the dike did not serve as a fortification: 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 (with refs.). B. Blandin, Les Pratiques funéraires d’époque géométrique à Érétrie, Eretria XVII (Lausanne, 2007), 33–4. (p.140)

Catalogue of City Walls

Fig. 33. Eretria, general plan of the site and fortifications. Suggested trace of southern perimeter in C7 (crosses) and trace of later walls (dotted line).

(A) Phase 2, Figs. 36, 37 (reconstruction).

Construction:

First undisputable phase of the West Gate proper. Walls around gate (West Gate), e.g. the wall H–L–P–Q. Mudbrick on socle of undressed stone, W 2.7–5 m. Mudbrick preserved at R.

Gates:

‘Distorted’ axial type with tower, W c.3 m.

Towers:

(At gate), base not massive. Structures immediately to the S of the gate opening and 90 m further south, are interpreted by Krause as indirect remains of regular towers.

Date:

c.550 BC, based on stratified pottery. The pottery is being re-examined by S. Fachard of the Swiss School at Athens, which may change the chronology. However,

Catalogue of City Walls

Fig. 34. Eretria, West Gate area phase 1.

until new results are released, the observations of Krause stand.

Parallells:

Halai, NE Gate Phase A (compare Figs. 36–7 to Fig. 43).

Comments:

C. Krause excavated a stretch of wall on the NE corner of the acropolis in 1969, which was dated by pottery to the late Archaic period (which would make it phase 3). The wall is inside the trace of the Classical wall, it has two faces, the outer shell being of a more substantial construction than the inner. I have consulted plan and section kept in the archive of the Swiss School, but as long as the research remains unpublished, it is only mentioned briefly here and not included in the analysis.

Bibliography:

Krause, Westtor, 22–9, plan 3, fig. 5, pls. 27–41. C. Krause, ‘Brunnentürme in der archaischen Stadtmauer Eretrias’, AK 25.1 (1982), 39–43. (p.141)

Catalogue of City Walls

Fig. 35. Eretria, reconstruction/interpretation of walls at West Gate area phase 1.

Catalogue of City Walls

Fig. 36. Eretria, West Gate area phase 2.

Catalogue of City Walls

Fig. 37. Eretria, reconstruction/interpretation of walls at West Gate area phase 2.

(B)

Construction:

(acropolis), period 1:terrace wall of polygonal blocks backed with smaller stones, W 2.1 m. Period 2–4: terrace wall of ashlar masonry, with superstructure of mudbrick, backed with soil, W 2.6 m.

Date:

Archaic, C7 (Wokalek). Recent excavations on the acropolis did not produce stratigraphical proof for the Archaic date proposed for these walls (Friedemann). Friedemann is, however, of the opinion, also maintained by a number of other scholars, that the acropolis of Eretria was fortified in C7 (ibid. 110 n. 8).

Bibliography:

J. Picard, ‘VI. A Topographical Study of Eretria’, AJA 7.4 (1891), 371–89 (plan, phs.). Wokalek, Stadtbefestigungen, 25. P. Friedemann, ‘Nouvelles données sur la préhistoire d’Erétrie: L’Apport des investigations 1994 sur l’acropole’, AK 38 (1995), 108–19 (with ill.). Lang, Siedlungen, 285–7, 292–3. P. Ducrey et al. (eds.), Eretria: A Guide to the Ancient City (Fribourg, 2004), 177–85.

(C)

Teichos:

491 BC. Eretria referred to as polis in the urban sense.

Source:

Hdt. 6.101.2: οἱ δέρετριέες ἐπεζελθεῖν μὲν καὶ μαχέσασθαι οὐκ ἐποιεῦντο βουλήν, εἴ κως δὲ διαϕυλάξαιεν τὰ τείχεα, τούτου σϕι πέρι ἔμελε, ἐπείτε ἐνίκα μὴ ἐκλιπεῖν τὴν πόλιν‎.

(p.142) The Eretrians had no design of coming out and fighting; all their care was to guard their walls, if they could, seeing that it was the prevailing counsel not to leave the city (tr. Godley, Loeb).

Euesperides (A), Kyrenaika. Fig. 38

Location:

Plateau, near the coast. Wall found on the NE side of the low tell Sidi Abeid (areas H, N, and Q) possibly encircling 1 ha (suggested trace stippled on Fig. 38, cf. Gill and Flecks, fig. 22.2). According to A. Wilson (personal communication) the fortified area may have extended 300 m further S of the identified sections of wall comprising a fortified area of some 9 ha.

Construction:

Rubble masonry core with outer face of mudbrick (bricks on average 0.10 × 0.44 × 0.44 m), W c.1.5 m. Superstructure of mudbrick (on average 0.09 × 0.41 × 0.14 m). Fig. 39.

Catalogue of City Walls

Fig. 38. Euesperides, general plan of the site and fortifications. Archaic walls found (H, N, and Q) and suggested trace of circuit (stippled).

Towers:

A square structure, 5 × 3.6 m, of mudbrick on socle of limestone blocks, is identified as a tower, and is probably contemporary with this phase of the wall. Fig. 39.

Date:

C7l or C6e, based on a stratigraphically dated destruction (C6m) of a building located inside (to the S) of the fortification wall. As the building is oriented after the wall and therefore likely of later date, it is reasonable to assume a C6f date for the wall. But the wall could, of course, be older.

Bibliography:

A. Buzaian and J. A. Lloyd, ‘Early Urbanism in Cyrenaica’, LibStud 27 (1996), 129–52, at 143–6 (pl., ph). J. A. Lloyd et al., ‘Excavations at Euesperides (Benghazi): An Interim Report on the 1998 Season’, LibStud 29 (1998), 145–68, at 145–50. P. Bennett et al., ‘Euesperides (Benghazi): Preliminary Report on the Spring 2000 Season’, LibStud 31 (2000), 121–43, at 128. Hansen and Nielsen, 1241–3 no. 1026. D. Gill and P. Flecks, ‘Defining Domestic Space at Euesperides, Cyrenaica: Archaic Structures on the Sidi Abeid’, in Westgate et al. (eds.), Building Communities, 205–11 (with figs.). Communication A. Wilson 2007.

Gargara (B), Troas

Location:

Hilltop, on the coast. Wall around hilltop, and additional wall enclosing ridge immediately to its NW, together enclosing >1 ha. As more walls are identified towards the NW, the walled area may have been larger.

Catalogue of City Walls

Fig. 39. Euesperides, plan of Area H and N with wall.

(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:

Cook, Troad, 258–9. R. 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:

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

Catalogue of City Walls

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

(p.144)
Catalogue of City Walls

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

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.

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:

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).

Catalogue of City Walls

Fig. 42. Gela, outer face of fortification wall.

(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:

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:

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).

Catalogue of City Walls

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

(p.146)
Catalogue of City Walls

Fig. 44. Halieis, plan of the site and fortifications. Archaic walls found (A and B). Reconstructed trace of two circuits (stippled) and hypothetical traces of Archaic sections combining the two (crosses).

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:

Hilltop and plain, on the coast. Stretch of wall identified on the acropolis, and at a number of spots at the lower town remains of an earthern embankment 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:

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)

Catalogue of City Walls

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

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:

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.

Catalogue of City Walls

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

(p.148)
Catalogue of City Walls

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

Catalogue of City Walls

Fig. 48. Hephaistia, general plan of the site and fortifications.

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.

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.

Construction:

Double-faced socle of unworked boulders, filled with smaller unworked stones. W c.5 m.

Date:

Said to be Archaic (Wokalek, Bonacasa, and Miller), but no proof is presented in the works of Bonacasa, and neither is there a proof for the stratigraphy mentioned by (p.149)

Catalogue of City Walls

Fig. 49. Hyele, general plan of the site and fortifications.

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 1963–1965 (Palermo 1976), 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:

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)

Catalogue of City Walls

Fig. 50. Hypsele, general plan of the site with indication of line of wall.

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 grecques’, 241. F. Krinzinger, ‘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:

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:

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.

Catalogue of City Walls

Fig. 51. Iasos, general plan of the site and fortifications. EIA walls found (3, g) and suggested trace of circuit indicated (stippled).

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). D. Levi, ‘Le campagne 1962–1964 a Iasos’, ASAtene n.s. 27–8 (1965–6), 401–546, at 432–43. D. Levi, ‘Gli scavi di Iasos’, 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

Catalogue of City Walls

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

(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:

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). Double-faced 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.

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 (<www.pio.gov.cy/>).

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).

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)

Catalogue of City Walls

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

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).

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

Catalogue of City Walls

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

(p.154)
Catalogue of City Walls

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

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.

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.).

Catalogue of City Walls

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

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).

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:

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)

Catalogue of City Walls

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

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.

…; 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:

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,

Catalogue of City Walls

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

(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.

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.

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:

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)

Catalogue of City Walls

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).

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:

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:

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.

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 <7 m, preserved H 6 m.

Gates:

One principal gate identified in E wall of lower perimeter.

Date:

Archaic (Schulz), on account of width and local sequence (Cook).

Bibliography:

Schulz, Neandreia, 22 (with refs.), 28; Cook, Troad, 261–4 (plan), ph., pl. 38c. Hansen and Nielsen, 1011 no. 783.

Larisa on Hermos (B), Aeolis

Location:

Hilltop, near the coast (8 km), 1.5 ha. Considerable sections preserved on the acropolis.

Construction:

Double-faced of Lesbian polygonal masonry with tooled face, resting on bedrock, W 2.2–2.65 m. A horizontal band of a single face of slim blocks runs across the wall at Towers I, IV, and V.

Towers:

A number of towers of rectangular plan identified, e.g. Tower I, 9.7 × 7.2 m.

Date:

C6l (Schefold).

Comments:

There is an older phase of fortification wall probably also of the Greek period.

Bibliography:

K. Schefold, ‘Arbeiten in Larisa 1932 und Frühjahr 1933’, AA 48 (1933), 141–58. J. Boehlau and K. Schefold, Larisa I (Berlin 1940), 44–56. Lang, Siedlungen, 224–6. Hansen and Nielsen, 1045–6 no. 818.

Larisa On Pheneos (B), Thessaly

Location:

Hilltop, inland. The inner wall of two concenric circuits on the Gremnos hill.

Construction:

?

Date:

Archaic (Milojčić).

Bibliography:

V. Milojčić, ‘Vorbericht über di Ausgrabungen auf den Magulen von Otzaki, Arapi und Gremnos bei Larisa’, AA (1955), 182–231, at 219. D. Leekley and N. Efstratiou, Archaeological Excavations in Central and Northern Greece (New Jersey 1980), 139. Hansen and Nielsen, 695–7 no. 401.

Larymna (B), East Lokris

Location:

Hilltop, on the coast. Walls identified at a number of locations around the acropolis, 1.5 ha. if the fortified area also expanded into the plain below, as in later times, the walled area would have comprised 9 ha altogether.

Construction:

Stretches of wall at locations D, F, H, and N, of two construction types. One cyclopean (Schäfer, figs. 2 and 3), the other Lesbian polygonal (Schäfer, fig. 6).

Date:

Archaic (Schäfer).

Bibliography:

J. Schäfer, ‘Beobachtungen zu den seeseitigen Mauern von Larymna in der Lokris’, AA 82 (1967), 527–45 (plan and ph.). Fossey, Lokris, 22–5, fig. 4 (plan with indication of location of the different masonry styles). Lang, Siedlungen, 282–3. Hansen and Nielsen, 668–9 no. 383. (p.159)

Catalogue of City Walls

Fig. 60. Leontinoi, general plan of the site and fortifications.

Leontinoi (A, C), Sicily. Fig. 60

Location:

Hilltops and valley in between, inland. A 110-m stretch of wall identified on the E side of the Hill of S. Mauro, and in the valley below at the South Gate (‘la prima opera a tenaglia’). Since the wall continues down the valley between the Hill of S. Mauro and the Metapiccola Hill to the E, this latter hill must have been fortified at this time as well, making the total area enclosed 40 ha.

Construction:

Terrace wall constructed in ashlar isodomic masonry, set in trench cut in bedrock (Rizza, Rilievi, pls. 1–3, pl. 8 G–G1). Block dimensions: L 0.7–0.8, H 0.4–0.5 m. Preserved to H c.3.4 m. The wall inclines 7°, giving a buttress-like effect (Fig. 63). Blocks for socle layed as stretchers. The continuation towards the E down to the South Gate preserved as cuttings in the rock and two blocks out of context (Rizza, Studi, fig. 7, Rilievi, pl. 2).

Gates:

Fig. 61. The Syracusan Gate or South Gate. Axial and pincer-like in plan. W 3.6 m. The gate has a depth of 7 m towards the E, since the wall proper turns towards the SE (Rizza, Studi, fig. 7, Rilievi, pl. 2).

Towers:

Fig. 62. Semicircular tower on S. Mauro, D 4.8 m (Rizza, Studi, fig. 4, Rilievi, pl. 3), pl. 34b. Square tower between the gate and the Metapiccola Hill, 4 × 4.5 m (Rizza, Studi, fig. 7, Rilievi, pl. 2).

Bastions:

The continuation of the wall to the E of the gate forms a 90° angle creating a bastion effect (Fig. 61).

Date:

C6f documented via stratigraphied pottery at e.g. A1 at the gate (Rizza, ‘Leontine. Campagne di scavi’, 369–70, figs. 52–3, and Rizza, Studi, 59–60).

Parallels:

Tréziny (‘Fortifications grecques’, 243 n. 10) refers to similarities (no specification) between the walls at Leontinoi and Megara Hyblaea, and adds that this points to an Archaic date, perhaps of C7, for the walls of Leontinoi (see Comments).

Catalogue of City Walls

Fig. 61. Leontinoi, wall with gate and tower between the S. Mauro Hill and the Metapiccola Hill.

(p.160)
Catalogue of City Walls

Fig. 62. Leontinoi, wall with tower at the east side of S. Mauro Hill.

Comments:

There are indications for an even earlier phase which only encircled the Hill of S. Mauro (Rizza, ‘Leontine. Campagne di scavi’), perhaps dating to C7 (Tréziny, ‘Fortifications archaïques’, 297). The wall above the terrace-fortification wall (trace F2[16] to H1[15]) was earlier thought to be part of a separate fortification of the Hill of S. Mauro. According to Tréziny, ‘Techniques grecques’, id., ‘Military Architecture’, 347, and id., ‘Fortifications grecques’, 243 n. 10, however, masons marks on a number of the stones on this wall indicate that this wall is not older than Classical times.

Bibliography:

G. Rizza, ‘Leontini. Campagne di scavi 1950–1951 e 1951–1952: La necropoli della Valle S. Mauro; le fortificazioni meridionali della città e la porta di Siracusa’, NSc (1955), 281–9, 346–76. Winter, 132. Wokalek,

Catalogue of City Walls

Fig. 63. Leontinoi, wall on east side of S. Mauro Hill.

Stadtbefestigungen, 77–9. G. Rizza, ‘Leontini nell’VIII e nel VII secolo a.C’, CronCatania 17 (1978), 26–37. H. Tréziny, ‘Les Techniques grecques de fortification et leur diffusion à la périphérie du monde grec d’occident’, in Leriche and Tréziny (eds.), Fortification, 185–200, at 186–7. Miller, Befestigungsanlagen, 254–6. Tréziny, ‘Military Architecture’, 347. Tréziny, ‘Fortifications grecques’, 242–3. Rizza, Studi, 21–32, 57–74, with Rizza, Rilievi Rilievi (plates). Autopsy 2001. G. Rizza, ‘Dionigi a Leontini’, in N. Bonacasa et al. (eds.), La Sicilia dei due Dionisî: Progetto Akragas, 2 (Rome 2002), 339–41. Hansen and Nielsen, 209–11 no. 33.

(C)

Siege:

490 BC. Leontinoi (referred to with toponym) subdued by Hippocrates of Gela.

Source:

Hdt. 7.154.2. See Kallipolis above, p. 153.

Lindos (C), Rhodes ISL

Location:

On the coast.

Siege:

r490 BC. Lindos, referred to as polis in the urban sense, succesfully besieged by a Persian force under Datis. Lindos was not taken by assault, but chose to make peace with the Persians.

Source:

C. Blinkenberg, Lindos: Fouilles de l’Acropole 1902–1914. Inscriptions 2.1 (Berlin and Copenhagen 1941), no. 2, D I 1 ff. (at 9)/FGrHist 532 D.1: καταπλαγέντων δὲ τῶν κατὰ τὰν χώραν τὰν ἔϕοδον τῶν Περσᾶν καὶ σνμϕνγόντων μὲν ἐς (p.161) πάντα τὰ ὀχυρώματα, τῶν πλείστων δὲ ἐς Λίνδον ἀθροισθέντων, ποθε δρεύσαντες ἐπολιόρκευν αὐτοὺς τοὶ βάρβαροι, ἔστε οὗ διὰ τὰν σπάνιν τοῦ ὕδατος τοὶ Λίνδιοι θλιβόμενοι διενοεῦντο παραδιδόμειν τοῖς ἐναντίοις τὰν πόλιν‎. The people of the countryside, terrified by the Persian attack, had fled together to all the fortified places, but most of them were gathered together in Lindos, where the Barbarians had taken position and were laying siege to them, until the point where the Lindians, because of lack of water, became desperate and began to think of handing over the city to the enemies (tr. R. Frederiksen).

Bibilography:

Hansen and Nielsen, 1202–4 no. 997.

Lipara (B), Lipara ISL

Location:

Hilltop and plain, on the coast. Stretch of wall identified at Piazza Monfalcone. The trace incorporated the lower town, 6–8 ha, and it is unknown whether the acropolis was separately fortified (Benabò-Brea, plan).

Construction:

Described as polygonal masonry of large blocks of lava stone.

Date:

C6l, based on stylistic comparison to the Archaic walls at Naxos (Bernabò-Brea).

Bibliography:

L. Bernabò-Brea, ‘Le Fortificazioni greche di Lipari’, in S. Benedetti et al. (eds.), Saggi in onore di Guglielmo de Angelis d’Ossat (Roma 1987), 19–24 (plan). Tréziny, ‘Fortifications grecques’, 242. Miller, Befestigungsanlagen, 256–57. Hansen and Nielsen, 211–12 no. 34.

Lokroi Epizephyrioi (A), Magna Graecia. Fig. 64

Location:

Hilltop and plain, coastal. Walls identified under the Classical trace running through the Marasà and Centocamere areas along the shore. The walls enclosed 240 ha, if they followed a trace identical to the later one, the course of which is almost entirely known (indicated Fig. 64).

Construction:

Socle W c.2.5 m, of ashlar blocks of sand-and limestone, average dimensions 1.1–1.2 × 0.4–0.6 × 0.6 m, arranged in alternating courses as headers and stretchers throughout the wall width. Superstructure of mudbrick (?)

Gates:

Fig. 65. Porta Portuense, axial, W c.3 m.

Date:

C6s, based on stratified pottery.

Bibliography:

G. Foti, ‘La topografie di Locri Epizefirii’, AttiTaranto, 16 (1976), 343–62. Miller, Befestigungsanlagen,

Catalogue of City Walls

Fig. 64. Lokroi Epizephyrioi, general plan of the site and fortifications.

Catalogue of City Walls

Fig. 65. Lokroi Epizephyrioi, the gate Porta Portuense as reconstructed.

257–8. M. Barra Bagnasco, ‘Fortificazioni e città a Locri Epizefiri, alla luce delle più recenti scoperte’, RM 103 (1996), 237–74 (ph., pl.). M. Barra Bagnasco, ‘Spazi interni ed esterni alle mura nella zona costiera di Locri Epizefiri: Un (p.162)
Catalogue of City Walls

Fig. 66. Massalia, general plan of the site and fortifications. Wall found (A) and suggested trace of circuit (stippled).

esempio di pianificazione integrata’, Orizzonti 1 (2000), 11–33. Autopsy 2001. Tréziny, ‘Fortifications archaïques’, 298 n. 136. Hansen and Nielsen, 273–8 no. 59.

Massalia (A), Southern France. Fig. 66

Location:

Hilltops and plain, on peninsula. Remains of wall at the ancient harbour towards E, ‘L’Enceinte archaïque de la Bourse’ (A on Fig. 66), found under remains of the Hellenistic fortification wall. The suggested course of the wall, c.3.5 km long, incorporates the hills Carmes, Moulins, and Saint-Laurent, equivalent of 40 ha (stippled on Fig. 66).

Construction:

Socle of double-faced (?) wall, preserved H 0.9 m, of square blocks in white limestone (Hermary, fig. at p. 43). Outer face clearly identified, W c.2.5 m. Remains of mudbrick from superstructure.

Date:

510–500 BC, based on stratigraphy with Attic pottery and local amphorae.

Comments:

Structures dating to C6f, identified by A. Hesnard as structures of the old harbour, could be even older remains of the fortifications of Massalia (communication H. Tréziny). In addition to this, a third and even earlier hypothetical circuit has been suggested, from which there are no remains.

Bibliography:

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. 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 43–5 and 50–1. A. Hermary, ‘Le Tissu urbain, les fortifications, les espaces publics’, in A. Hermary et al. (eds.), Marseille grecque. La cité phocéene 600–49 av. J.-C. (Paris 1999), 41–5. Tréziny, ‘Fortifications grecques’, 241–2. 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, 406. A major publication on the topography of Massalia is being prepared (communication H. Tréziny, July 2006). Hansen and Nielsen, 165–7 no. 3.

Megara Hyblaea (A, C), Sicily. Fig. 67

Location:

Two low plateaus, on the coast. Three major phases of pre-Classical fortification identified. Remains of phase 1 under the West Wall and at the S edge of the S plateau (at ‘chantier 6’, A on Fig. 67). Phase 2 identified at the S edge of the S plateau (e.g. at ‘chantier 5’, B on Fig. 67). Remains of phase 3 at the S plateau, the West and North walls, and perhaps on the E side (Arenella area). Only on the N side, no walls earlier than C6l have been identified; the natural steep slope towards Valle de Cantera may have solved the need for protection in the periods of phases 1–2. Phases 1 and 3, and likely phase 2, enclosed an area of 70 ha.

Bibliography:

P. Orsi and F. S. Cavallari, ‘Megara Hyblaea’, MonAnt 1 (1889), 723–47, pl. 1, 2. H. Broise et al., ‘Mégara Hyblaea: Bilan des fouilles récentes sur le Plateau Sud (1977–1982)’, MEFRA 95.2 (1983), 647–50. G. Vallet, et al., Megara Hyblaea 3. Guida agli scavi. Introduzione alla storia di una città coloniale d’Occidente (Rome 1983), 97–101. Miller, Besfestigungsanlagen, 258–9. Tréziny, ‘Military Architecture’, 347. Tréziny, ‘Fortifications grecques’, 241–2. Tréziny, ‘Fortifications archaïques’, 237–301. Hansen and Nielsen, 213–15 no. 36.

Phase 1 (‘le rempart primitif’).

Construction:

Finds made at various points inside the phase 3 West Wall are likely to be remains of an earthern rampart, constructed mainly of the excavated soil from a ditch in front of it. W 6–8 m, preserved H 1 m.

Other Elements:

A ditch identified at the S edge of the S plateau (at ‘chantier 6’). W 3 + m (excavations have as yet not reached the exterior side), depth 1.5–2 m.

Date:

After C8l (pottery) and before c.625 BC, when the ditch was filled in (pottery).

Phase 2 (‘l’enceinte archaïque ancienne’).

Construction:

Wall in ashlar masonry, which is the inner face of the socle of a double-faced wall, the outer face of which may not have been constructed in stone (‘sondage 94’ and ‘chantier 5’). (p.163)

Catalogue of City Walls

Fig. 67. Megara Hyblaea, general plan of the site and fortifications. Walls found (A, B, C, West Wall) and suggested trace of circuit (stippled).

Date:

c.600 BC.

Phase 3 (‘les enceintes archaïques en grand appareil’).

Construction:

West Wall (Figs. 67–9): stretch of c.250 m investigated. Double-faced socle of ashlar masonry, resting on layer of broken stone levelling the bedrock. Up to three courses preserved of outer face, average L of blocks is 1 m, with alternating height of 60 and 25 cm, inclining 15–25. Inner face preserved to the height of four courses, each set back 15–17 cm creating a stepped inclination. Fill: rubble around a core of beaten soil. Av. W 8–9 m.

North Wall: Identified section under Hellenistic gate (C on Fig. 67). Double-faced wall of square blocks (av. dim. 1.4 × 0.68 × 0.47 m), W 5.4–5.8 m. Outer face resting on bedrock, dressed to receive the stones. A high number of blocks found scattered in front of the socle, may be remains of the superstructure, of which there are no other preserved remains.

Gates:

West Gate (Fig. 68): Tangential, W 3 m. Wall widens to between 8 and 10 m, creating a bastion effect (Tréziny, ‘Fortifications archaïques’, fig. 269).

Towers:

West Wall (Fig. 67): Five semicircular towers (Fig. 69), all identified N of the West Gate, placed at an interval of c.40 m. Diam. varies from c.7 to c.8 m. The wall running S of the gate has still to be properly investigated.

Other Elements

A ditch in front of the West Wall, W 10 + m, depth c.1.9 m.

Date:

C6l, stratified pottery.

Parallels:

The system of ashlar blocks of alternating height and inclination is also found at Phokaia.

(C)

Siege:

483 BC. Megara referred to with city ethnic.

Source:

Hdt. 7.156.2: Μεγαρέας τε τοὺς ἐν Σικελίῃ, ὡς πολιορκεόμενοι ἐς ὁμολογίην προσεχώρησαν, τοὺς μὲν αὐτῶν παχὲας‎, …

And when the Megarians of Sicily surrendered to him on terms after a siege, he took the wealthier of them, … (tr. Godley, Loeb).

Melie (A), Ionia. Figs. 70–1

Location:

Hilltop and hillside, on the coast. Walls from two construction phases identified. Phase 1 runs around hilltop (Kale Tepe), enclosing 1.5 ha (Fig. 71). Phase 2 is (p.164)

Catalogue of City Walls

Fig. 68. Megara Hyblaea, West Gate and Tower 5.

identified to the E and N of the hill, ending at steep cliff on the coast, and formed part of a lower circuit enclosing perhaps as much as 50 ha (suggested continuation marked with crosses on Fig. 70).

Bibliography:

W. Müller-Wiener, ‘III. Melie: B. Der Burgberg (Kaletepe)’, in Kleiner et al., Melie, 97–127, at 100–16. (pl.). P. Hommel, ‘III. Melie: A. Geschichte auf Grund der Quellen und des Grabungbefundes’, in Kleiner et al., Melie, 78–97, at 83. P. Hommel, ‘C. Inscriften. a. Die archaische Inschrift vom Burgtor’, in Kleiner et al., Melie, 127–32 (pls.). Drerup, Baukunst, 57. Lang, Siedlungen, 29, 196–7. Hansen and Nielsen, 1060 (Karion).

Phase 1, Fig. 71.

Construction:

Dry rubble wall of limestone blocks laid as solid pack throughout its width. Blocks towards the outside bigger than the ones on the inside, W 1.682.27 m. Finds of red clay suggest a superstructure of mudbrick (Müller-Wiener, figs. 49, 60–10). Inside the wall, to the SE, a foundation for a staircase and a number of steps are preserved, allowing for a reconstruction of 19 steps and following reconstruction of the H of the wall, at this point, to c.3.6 m (at B in Fig. 71).

Gates:

Three of axial type, E 2.21, W 1.63, and S 2.19 m.

Towers:

Tower S of E gate, W 3.85, L 5.85/6.00 m.

Other Features:

Ten rectangular structures, average W 2 m, projecting inwards from the wall seem to have been buttresses.

Date:

G, partly based on finds of LG ceramic (dated to c.800) accummulated up against the inner face of the wall. The date may be supported by a parallel in building technique to Iasos (see below).

Parallels:

Masonry style parallel to Iasos (Hommel, ‘Melie, Geschichte’, 83).

Phase 2, Fig. 72.

Construction:

Dry rubble wall of blocks laid as solid pack throughout its width, set on uneven bedrock, preserved H <2.5m. Blocks larger towards the outside, W 2.5 m (Müller-Wiener, figs. 46–7).

Date:

C71, based on pottery excavated on the inside of the wall.

Comments:

The reuse of the circuit on the hilltop (phase 1) as a fortification wall in the Archaic period, is attested by the find of an in situ inscription (discussed above, p. 21 and n. 17). (p.165)

Catalogue of City Walls

Fig. 69. Megara Hyblaea, circular tower in late Archaic wall (phase 3).

Catalogue of City Walls

Fig. 70. Melie, general plan of the site and fortifications. Suggested continuation of trace of lower circuit (stippled).

Melos (B), Melos ISL

Location:

Hilltops and plain, on the coast. Several stretches of wall on the acropolis and in plain below, enclosing c.15 ha.

Construction:

Lesbian and polygonal masonry (Blouet, pl. 26.2–3: drawing of polygonal masonry and section; Cherry and Sparkes, plan).

Date:

C6l–C5e? (Reger, in Hansen and Nielsen).

Bibliography:

A. Blouet, Expédition scientifique de Morée, vol. 3 (Paris 1838), pl. 26.2–3 (with text). J. F. Cherry and B. A. Sparkes, ‘A Note on the Topography of the Ancient Settlement of Melos’, in C. Renfrew and M. Wagstaff (eds.), An Island Polity: The Archaeology of Exploitation in Melos (Cambridge 1982), 53–7 (fig. 5.3, plan). Hansen and Nielsen, 758–60 no. 505. (p.166)

Catalogue of City Walls

Fig. 71. Melie, plan of upper acropolis (Kale Tepe) with fortifications.

Catalogue of City Walls

Fig. 72. Melie, outer face of lower wall.

Mesambria (C), Thrace

Location:

Coastal.

Teichos:

480 BC. Mesambria referred to as polis in the urban sense.

Source:

Hdt. 7.108.2: παραμείβετο δὲ πορευόμενος ἐκ Δορίσκου πρῶτα μὲν τὰ Σαμοθρηίκια τείχεα, τῶν ἐσχάτη πεπόλισται πρὸς ἑσπέρης πόλις τῇ οὄνομά ἐστι Μεσαμβρίη‎.

On his road from Doriskos he first passed the Samothracian fortresses, whereof that one which is builded farthest westwards is a town called Mesambria (tr. Godley, Loeb).

Bibliography:

Hansen and Nielsen, 934–5 no. 687.

Metapontion (A), Magna Graecia. Fig. 73

Location:

Plain, near the coast. A stretch of wall, traced for more than 40 m identified at the SW periphery of the city (at A on Fig. 73), another one at the N (at B). The size of the fortified area in C6m, 140–5 ha, is based on the assumption that the C6m wall followed the same trace as the later wall identified all around Metapontion (as indicated on Fig. 73).

Construction:

SW stretch: Socle of wall of rectangular blocks of equal size (on average 0.8 × 0.45 m) in white limestone (carparo) with a rough finish, laid as headers in one course. The wall changes its course to form indented trace, perhaps too insignificant to be true indentation (Fig. 74). The stretch on the N side of the city is of similar stones, more roughly finished. The interpretation of these stretches of wall as being the outer face of a city wall (Adamesteanu, ‘Problems’ and ‘Fortificazioni’) has not (p.167)

Catalogue of City Walls

Fig. 73. Metapontion, general plan of site with fortifications. Walls found (A, B).

Catalogue of City Walls

Fig. 74. Metapontion, West wall with sally port.

been entirely accepted (held as possible by Tréziny, ‘Fortifications grecques’, partly ignored by Miller), but the arguments seem convincing: The stones (of the W wall) are laid clearly to form a straight face towards the W and E, away from the city. The dimensions used and the rough dressing are typical of socles of city walls at this time (Adamesteanu ‘Fortificazioni’). The inner face is not preserved, probably because it was set lower in the ground, and therefore more likely to disappear completely as a result of later quarrying; alternatively it may have been constructed of mudbrick. Based on the strength of the preserved wall, Adamesteanu (‘Fortificazioni’) suggests, as a hypothesis, a width at its base of 2.8–3 m, which is the width of sections elsewhere around Metapontion, where both faces of the (later) walls are preserved. Superstructure: Remains of washed-away mudbrick (at W wall) strongly suggest that the entirely vanished superstructure was constructed of this material.

Gates:

A small sally port at the point where W wall shows slight indentation, depth: c.1 m (Fig. 74).

Date:

The N stretch C6m (stratified pottery), whereas the W stretch has been circumstantially dated by a votive depot found on its outside and by masons’ marks carved on blocks, similar to the ones found on the Archaic temple A2 foundation (Adamesteanu, ‘Fortificazioni’). The masons (p.168) marks suggest a C6l date, whereas the earliest figurines of the depot (ranging from C7l to C4l), are found up against the blocks, which means that if the depot was filled over time, the wall may be as early as C7l/C6e.

Bibliography:

D. Adamesteanu, ‘Problemi topografici ed urbanistici metapontini’, AttiTaranto 13 (1973), 153–86, at 173 (pl. 36). D. Adamesteanu ‘Le fortificazioni’, in D. Adamesteanu et al., Metaponto I. NSc suppl. 29 (Rome 1980), 240–89, at 257–64, figs. 272–8. Tréziny, Kaulonia, 129. Miller, Befestigungsanlagen, 260–6. Tréziny, ‘Fortifications grecques’, 242. Tréziny, ‘Fortifications archaïques’, 298 n. 136. M. G. Liseno, Metaponto: Il deposito votivo Favale (Rome 2004), 25–7. Hansen and Nielsen, 279–82 no. 61.

Methymna (B), Lesbos. Fig. 75

Location:

Hilltop and plain, on the coast. Sections preserved below the acropolis and towards W on the peninsula (A, B, C on Fig. 75; Buchholz, 61 cat. A3–4, fig. 1, pls. 4e, 5b). Reconstructed trace 1.7–1.9 km and, depending on the inclusion of the harbour, which Buchholz holds possible (46, 48–9), enclosing 20 ha.

Construction:

Double-faced wall of trachyte blocks in cyclopean and other polygonal masonry styles, filled with soil and stones. Inner faces mostly of polygonal blocks more rounded than oblong, with fittings not as tight as in the

Catalogue of City Walls

Fig. 75. Methymna, general plan of the site and fortifications. Walls found (A, B, and C), suggested trace of circuit (stippled).

walls of Mytilene (Buchholz). A short stretch of the outer face is described by Buchholz as true Lesbian polygonal work (Buchholz, 44, cat. A5).

Date:

C6s and earlier, based on masonry style (Buchholz, Spencer).

Parallels:

The wall cat. A4 similar to C7 Lesbian wall at Smyrna (Nicholls, Smyrna, 93, pl. 20c, not securely identified as part of the city wall), Buchholz, 44 and Lang, 247. According to Koldewey, Baureste Lesbos, 23, the style of the walls of Methymna is similar to that of the walls of Eresos. This cannot be verified by the illustrations in the main publications, and will need verification by autopsy.

Bibliography:

Buchholz, Methymna, 40–7, 61 (with 21 fig. 1, and 34 fig. 4, plan and phs.). Spencer, Gazetteer, 64. Lang, Siedlungen, 247. Hansen and Nielsen, 1024–6 no. 797.

Miletos (A, B, C), Ionia. Fig. 76

Location:

Hilltops and plain, on the coast. Phase 1, a c.250-m wall trace (A on Fig. 76, and walls A-D on Fig. 77) running on S side of the hill Kalabaktepe, W of square bastion, encircling c.6 ha (if continued around this hill). Phase 2, hills and plain, comprising 110 ha (suggested continuation stippled to meet preserved stretches of main city wall, B and C, Fig. 76; part of the stipulated trace, at C, has been confirmed by geophysical soundings (Schröder (p.169)

Catalogue of City Walls

Fig. 76. Miletos, general plan of the site and fortifications. Walls found (A, D, and E) and suggested trace of circuit (stippled).

et al.)). Bastion and the wall (D, Fig. 76, and walls F–P on Fig. 77) running from it in NE direction, taking a 90° turn to run 150 m SE away from Kalabaktepe. Remains of fortification walls, some of which certainly, and others probably, belong to phase 2, are identified 70 m E of F–P (E on Fig. 76), and at various spots from the Heiligen Tor and further towards N, along the same trace as the Classical and later walls enclosing the peninsula (see Phase 2, Comments).

Bibliography:

Gerkan, Kalabaktepe, 27–38. A. von Gerkan, Die Stadtmauern: Milet II.3 (Berlin and Leipzig 1935), 10–11, 118–20. W. Müller-Wiener, ‘Bemerkungen zur Topographie des archaischen Milet’, in W. Müller-Wiener (ed.) Milet 1899–1980: Ergebnisse, Probleme und Perspektiven einer Ausgrabung. Kolloquium Frankfurt am Main 1980 (Tübingen 1986), 95–104, at 95–8, fig. 24. V. von Graeve et al., ‘Grabungen auf dem Kalabaktepe’, IstMitt 37 (1987), 6–33. V. von Graeve et al., ‘Die Grabung am Südhang des Kalabaktepe’, IstMitt 40 (1990), 44–50. B. Schröder et al., ‘Geowissenschaftliche Umfelderkundung’, in V. von Graeve, ‘Milet 1992–1993’, AA (1995.2), 195–333, at 238–44 (239–40, figs. 40–4). Lang, Siedlungen, 199–201, 214–16, figs. 71–3 and 88. Cobet, ‘Mauern’, 249–84. V. B. Gorman, Miletos, the Ornament of Ionia: A History of the City to 400 B.C.E. (Ann Abor 2001), 122, 166–8, 204, map 5. A. M. Greaves, ‘The Shifting Focus of Settlement at Miletos’, CPCPapers 5 (2000), 57–72. Hansen and Nielsen, 1082–8 no. 854.

Phase 1, Fig. 77.

Construction:

Walls A-D. Double-faced, W c.4 m, no foundation identified. outer face in polygonal blocks of gneiss in varying sizes (wall A: Fig. 78). Well-fitted, attempt at coursing. inner face of smaller blocks and mudbrick. Fill: leftover from dressing the gneiss-blocks, field stones and soil.

Gates:

‘Südwesttor’, tangential: W 3.5 m., ‘Südtor’, axial: W 3.4 m

Date:

C7m. Destruction dated by latest G ceramic c.650 BC. Confirmed by recent stratigraphic soundings of the reorganization of the houses inside the wall orientated after this (von Graeve et al., ‘Grabungen’, ‘Grabung am Südhang’).

Phase 2, Fig. 77.

Construction:

Walls F–P. Double-faced, of ashlar blocks of gneiss in irregular courses. W c.4 m.

Date:

Late Archaic. Style of construction of wall different from phase 1. Traces of wall A behind and below the bastion,

Catalogue of City Walls

Fig. 77. Miletos, walls at Kalabaktepe.

(p.170)
Catalogue of City Walls

Fig. 78. Miletos, Kalabaktepe, wall AA, outer face.

shows that A possibly preceded B east of the bastion (see Gerkan, Kalabaktepe, pl. 3).

Gates:

At Kalabaktepe: Haupttor, bastioned axial type at 90° turn of wall, W 3.9 m.

Bastions:

Square. 12.15 × 4.20/4.70 m.

(B)

Comments:

The possible existence of an Archaic circuit of Miletos, apart from the one (in two phases) identified around the Kalabaktepe, is debated. The ‘Heiligen Tor’, the ‘Löwentor, and the wall between (or a predecessor likewise located) is likely of Archaic date, since these elements together form a natural continuation of the part of the Archaic wall phase 2 running away from Kalabaktepe, the purpose of which is hard to see if not interpreted in this way (stippled on Fig. 76). Further remains of a tower under the theatre and remains on the Theatre Hill dated by pottery, and a section on the Humeitepe, form likewise a natural continuation of these. According to Gorman (167) it is not entirely clear if Humeitepe/N Hill was included in the trace. it is likely that it was, since this hill would otherwise have formed a too obvious landing spot for enemies, and further, an alternative trace running straight from the Theatre Hill to the E side of the peninsula seems unlikely (Greaves, 67). For detailed arguments contra Archaic fortification other than Kalabaktepe, see Lang, 214–16.

(C)

Teichos and Siege:

610–602 BC (1): It is clear that the urban centre of Miletos is spoken of, Miletos is named as a toponym, but in addition the Milesians’ access to the sea is mentioned (cf. discussion above, p. 31).

494 BC (2)Hdt. 6.18.1: Miletos mentioned as toponym and polis in the urban sense.

Source:

(1)Hdt. 1.17.1–3 (quoted and translated above, p. 31).

(2) Hdt. 6.18.1:01 Οἱ δὲ Πέρσαι ἐπείτε τῇ ναυμαχίῃ ἐνίκων τοὺς Ἴωνας, τὴν Μίλητον πολιορκέοντες ἐκ γῆς καὶ θαλάσσης καὶ ὑπορύσσοντες τά τείχεα καὶ παντοίας μηχανὰς προσφέροντες, αἱρέουσι…‎, την πόλίν‎, …

When the Persians had vanquished the Ionians by sea, they laid siege to the Miletus by sea and land, mining the walls and using every device against it, … they took the city… (tr. Godley, Loeb).

Comments:

(1) This passage Hdt. 1.17.1–3 is discussed above p. 31.

Minoa (A), Amorgos. Fig. 79

Location:

Hilltop and slope, on the coast. Three enclosed areas. The hilltop (A on Fig. 79) 0.5 ha, the lower town on the S slope (B) 2.5 ha, and an area (C) of more than 20 ha on (p.171)

Catalogue of City Walls

Fig. 79. Minoa, general plan of the site and fortifications. Walls found and suggested trace of circuit (crosses).

the N slope and the steep E side towards the sea (see Comments).

Construction:

Acropolis wall: 40-m-long trace of wall in blocks of local schist founded on bedrock, partly as a double-faced wall, and partly as a packed wall with blocks laid throughout its width, W 0.8–0.9 m. Outer face constructed of large irregular blocks, inner face of smaller stones, with yet smaller stones filling the interstices. Preserved H 3.5 m.

Gates:

Acropolis wall: A narrow gate (W 0.72 m) identified at the NE side, next to the NE tower (D, Fig. 79). Blocks framing the gate are well worked and in contrast to the wall itself made of limestone.

Lower wall: W Gate made of schist and red poros.

Towers/Bastions:

One square tower (NE tower) and one rectangular tower or bastion (SE tower) at acropolis wall. NE, H 2.4, W 3.3, and L 3.3 m.

Triangular tower in two storeys in lower wall: H 3.35 m. S wall: L 7.19, E: L 5.90, and N: L 4.76 m. E and N: W 0.900.92 m, and S: W 1.60–1.76 m.

Other Elements:

Stepped buttress on inner face of wall close to NE gate.

Parallels:

Buttress like the ones identified at Melie.

Date:

C8l-C7e. This date, based on datable pottery found in accumulated strata up against the foundation on the inside of the wall, certainly applies to the hilltop/acropolis wall. Recent investigations suggest that the walls on the S slope, as well as the walls running down to the sea towards the N and E (below), date to C8l/C7e as well.

Comments:

A wall with towers and bastions running for more than 600 m from the acropolis and down towards the sea to the NW, is visible in plans (Fig. 79). Further details, and dating, must be sought in coming publications. It seems that the vast area to the N of the hill towards the bay, within this long wall, was not used for actual settlement, but as a safe enclosure for livestock and to provide safe access to the sea in critical times.

Bibliography:

Marangou, Αμοργός‎, 250–78 (figs. pls.). Marangou, ‘Minoa on Amorgos’, 295–316, at 301–3 and 311–16, fig. 1. Marangou in: Praktiká (1983), 328–33, fig. 7, pl. 222B; (1984), fig. 9 at 372; (1985), 182–4, pl. 1; (1990), 236–70, pl. 169a–b; (1992), 189–91, fig. 2; Ergon (2000), 83–7 (pl.). Lang, Siedlungen, n. 23, fig. 53. Hansen and Nielsen, 735 no. 473.

Myrina (B, C), Lemnos

Location:

Hilltop, on the coast. Stretch of wall identified on the acropolis, which has an area of 25 ha.

Construction:

Wall of polygonal masonry, with tendency to coursing (Fredrich, fig. 2, Sealy, fig. 1).

Date:

Archaic (Lang).

Bibliography:

C. Fredrich, ‘Lemnos’, AM 31 (1906), 241–56, at 243–6, figs. 1 and 2. F. L. W. Sealy, ‘Lemnos’, BSA 23 (1918/19), 159–74, at 159–61, fig. 1. Lang, Siedlungen, 249. Hansen and Nielsen, 757 no. 502.

(C)

Siege:

c.500 BC. Event described in context with the Myrinaians (city ethnic). It can safely be assumed that the siege in question was of the urban centre. If it were of something else, e.g. a fort in the Myrinaian territory, such a distinction would have been made by Herodotos. In addition, Herodotos ends the description of the events by saying that the Athenians had control of Lemnos after the Myrinaians had given in (i.e. to discontinue the defence of their fortified city under siege).

Source:

Hdt. 6.140.2: Ἡφαιστιέες, μέν νυν ἐπείθοντο, Μυριναῖοι δὲ οὐ συγγινωσκόμενοι εἶναι τὴν Χερσόνησον Ἀττικὴν ἐπολιορκέοντο, ἐς ὃ καὶ οὗτοι παρέστησαν‎. (p.172)

The men of Hephaistia, then, obeyed him; but they of Myrina would not agree that the Chersonese was Attic land, and they stood a siege; but in the end they too submitted (tr. Godley, Loeb).

Myrkinos (C), Thrace

Location:

Inland, at the Strymon river.

Teichos:

509 BC. Myrkinos attested as polis elsewhere in Herodotos (5.11).

Source:

Hdt. 5.23.1 (cf. 5.11, 5.124): ἅτε δὲ τειχέοντος ἤδη Ἱστιαίον τοῦ Μιλησίου τὴν παρὰ Δαρείου αἰτήσας ἔτνχε μισθὸν δωρεὴν φυλακῆς τῆς σχεδίης‎, …

Now as Histiaeus the Milesian was by this time fortifying the place which he had asked of Darius as his reward guarding the bridge, … (tr. Godley, Loeb).

Bibliography:

Hansen and Nielsen, 862 no. 633.

Myrmekeion (A), (Cape Karantinnyi), the Black Sea. Fig. 80

Location:

Hilltop, on the coast. Sections of wall preserved around the acropolis, 6 ha? (e.g. at 1 on Fig. 80). This small hilltop fortification only protected part of the settlement, most of which dispersed directly outside the wall below on the slopes of the hill. See above, p. 84 for discussion about the identification and date of these remains.

Construction:

Wall 37, W 1 m (1 on Fig. 80). Base of large rough blocks of limestone set on bedrock faced with smaller stones, superstructure possibly of mudbrick. Walls 57 and 58 are two faces of the same wall.

Bastions:

Indented trace (?) or bastion identified (Wall 37). Another possible bastion located towards the E.

Date:

Wall 37 is constructed immediately after a destruction of the site c.550, i.e. C6s (by associated pottery). Walls 57 and 58 are not contemporary. The elder one, 57, is a stylistical and structural parallel to 37 (and possibly contemporary), the younger is constructed C6l/C5e.

Parallels:

Part of Wall 37 shows close similarities to a section on the SW side of the plateau of Portmeion.

Bibliography:

M. Ju. Vakhtina and Ju. A. Vinogradov, ‘Ešče raz o rannej Fortifikacii Bospora Kimmerijskogo’, in V. Ju. Zuev et al. (eds.), Bosporkij Fenomen: Kolonizacija regiona. Stanovlenie polisov Vozniknovenie gosudarstva (St Petersburg, 2001), 41–5. Gorlov and Lopanov, 33–6. 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, fig. 1. Hansen and Nielsen, 947–8 no. 703.

Catalogue of City Walls

Fig. 80. Myrmekeion, general plan of the site and fortifications. Archaic wall identified (1) and suggested trace of circuit (stippled).

(p.173) Mytilene (B), Lesbos

Location:

Hilltop and plain, on peninsula and the plain and hill behind, coastal. 140 ha.

Construction:

Several stretches of double-faced wall constructed of fairly small Lesbian polygonal blocks of marble and trachyte (plan, Koldewey, pls. 1–2, dr. pl. 3 no. 5 and 6). Fill: soil and small stones. W c.3.8 m.

Date:

Archaic? (Spencer).

Bibliography:

Koldewey, Lesbos, 3–15, pls. 1–3. Spencer, Gazetteer, 62, 64. Hansen and Nielsen, 1026–30 no. 798.

Naxos (A, C), Sicily. Fig. 81

Location:

Plain, coastal. Several stretches of wall identified around the Archaic and Classical city, from the torrent S. Venera in the W to the Castello di Scisò at the NE (wall on NW side not identified), encircling at least c.35 ha (inferred sections stippled on Fig. 81). Geometric reuse of LBA wall (suggested trace indicated with hollow dots on Fig. 81), and of the Archaic walls, discussed above, p. 76–7. A stretch of more than 80 m between the Castello and the museum, phase 3 (?), has been laid out with indented trace.

Bibliography:

P. Pelagatti, ‘Naxos: Relazione preliminare delle campagne di scavo 1961–1964’, BdA 49 (1964), 149–65. P. Pelagatti, ‘Naxos II: Ricerche topografiche e scavi 1965–1970. Relazione preliminare’, BdA 57 (1972), 211–20. 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. M. C. Lentini, ‘Naxos: Esplorazione nell’abitato proto-arcaico orientale — casa a pastas N. 1’, Kokalos 30–1 2.2 (1984–5), 809–38, at 810–14. Miller, Befestigungsanlagen, 263–4. Tréziny, ‘Fortifications grecques’, 242. 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), 28–34. Hansen and Nielsen, 218–20 no. 41. M. C. Lentini, ‘Naxos of Sicily: The First Colonial Settlement’, ASAtene 84 ser. 3, 6 (2006.1), 455–69.

Phase 1, Fig. 82.

Construction:

Walls B, C, and F (Fig. 83), double-faced of polygonal lava blocks, rough surface, local masonry classification: α‎. B, W c.3.5 m, C, W 1.5–2.2 m. Pelagatti, ‘Naxos: Relazione preliminare’, figs. 4 and 17.

Date:

C7s, based on stratified pottery.

Comments:

Discussion of interpretation of walls B, C, and F, above, p. 76–7.

Phase 2, Fig. 82.

Construction:

Wall E: Double-faced of polygonal lava blocks, smoothed surface, local masonry classification: β‎, W 3.5 m (Pelagatti, ‘Naxos II’, figs. 23–4). Wall D: Doublefaced of polygonal lava blocks, smoothed surface, local

Catalogue of City Walls

Fig. 81. Naxos (Sicily), general plan of the site and fortifications. Suggested trace of circuit (stippled) and suggested line of western late BA-EIA wall indicated (hollow dots).

(p.174)
Catalogue of City Walls

Fig. 82. Naxos (Sicily), Archaic walls at South-west corner of town and sanctuary of Hera. Phase 1: B, C, F. Phase 2: E. Phase 3: A, G.

masonry classification: β‎, W 1.1 inclining to 0.9 m (Pelagatti ‘Naxos II’, figs. 22, 25–6. Pelagatti, ‘Naxos: Relazione preliminare’, fig. 4).

Gates:

South Gate, axial type, W c.3.7 m.

Date:

575–550 BC, based on stratified pottery.

Catalogue of City Walls

Fig. 83. Naxos (Sicily), wall F at the south-west corner of the city.

Phase 3, Fig. 67.

Construction:

Walls A and G (Pelagatti, ‘Naxos: Relazione preliminare’, fig. 4). A: Double-faced of large roughly worked polygonal lava blocks, local masonry classification: δ‎. Width of both external and internal shell 1.8, total W 4.6 m. Miller interprets this wall as an aggermauer. However, there are no indications for the outer face having been higher than the inner, or other indications for this having been a wall constructed specifically as an ‘agger type’ wall. G: Reinforcement of wall D (of phase 2).

Gates:

At the S end of strada N-S 2, between the temenos of Hera (ex Aphrodite) and the settlement. Axial, double E-shaped in plan, W c.4 m.

Towers:

Tower 1 and 2 of rectangular plan, viz. at the S end of wall A (next to B), 5 × 3 m, and the S end of wall C, 5 × 2.5 m.

Date:

c.500 BC, based on stratified pottery.

(C)

Siege:

490 BC. Sieged by Hippocrates of Gela (Naxos appears with toponym).

Source:

Hdt. 7.154.2 (see Kallipolis, above p. 153).

Naxos (C), Naxos ISL

Location:

Coastal.

Teichos and Siege:

c.500 BC, unsuccessfully besieged by Aristagoras of Miletos (it is clear from the description (p.175) that the urban centre of the polis of Naxos is spoken of).

Source:

Hdt. 5.34.1: ἐπεὶ μέντοι ἐπύθοντο, αὐτίκα μὲν ἐσηνείκαντο τὰ ἐκ τῶν ἀγρῶν ἐς τὸ τεῖχος, παρεσκενάσαντο δὲ ὡς πολιορκησόμενοι καὶ σῖτα καὶ ποτά, καὶ τὸ τεῖχος ἐσάξαντο‎.

Howbeit, when they learnt the truth, straightway they brought within their walls all that was in their fields, and stored both meat and drink against a siege, and strengthened their walls (tr. Godley, Loeb).

Bibliography:

Hansen and Nielsen, 760–3 no. 507.

Neandria (B), Troas

Location:

Hilltop, inland. Walls identified at W side of the Çigri Daǧ, 8 ha.

Construction:

Double-faced wall in blocks of granite, carved in polygonal style, W 2.1–2.5 m.

Gates:

Two, of axial type.

Towers:

Two, of rectangular plan.

Date:

C7? and C6 (Schulz, based on technical parallel to the temple [C6] and other walls). For the view that walls at Neandreia do not antedate C5, see Maischatz.

Bibliography:

Lang, Siedlungen, 232. Schulz, Neandreia, 66–77 (pls., ph., and dr.). Hansen and Nielsen, 1012 no. 785. T. Maischatz, Neandreia: Untersuchungen zur Bebauung und Stadtentwicklung (Bonn, 2003), 82–3, esp. n. 294.

Nisyros (B), Nisyros ISL

Location:

Hilltop and plain, coastal. Wall stretch on the S side of perimeter. It encloses 10 ha, on the assumption that the trace of Archaic times was as the later and better preserved wall.

Construction?:

 

Date:

Archaic (Hoepfner, fig. 3). Allegedly based on masonry style and/or the sequence of the building phases.

Bibliography:

W. Hoepfner, ‘Griechische Kleinstaaten’, in E.-L. Schwandner and K. Rheidt (eds.), Stadt und Umland: Neue Ergebnisse der archäologischen Bau-und Siedlungsforschung (Mainz am Rhein 1999), 28–32, at 30–1. Hansen and Nielsen, 763–4 no. 508.

Oikonomos (A), Islet Off Paros. Fig. 84

Location:

Low hilltop on an islet at island. Wall of 250 m circumference, enclosing < 1 ha.

Construction:

A double-faced socle of large and roughly dressed polygonal blocks (Schilardi, ‘Emergence Paros’, 85), preserved to a height of 1.05 m. Tendency to larger blocks in outer face. Filled with small stones and soil, W 1.45 m. Superstructure of mudbrick (?).

Gates:

Gate on the S side, possibly of tangential type. W 3.5 m. Smaller gate on N side (blocked at unkown later time).

Date:

C7e, based on sherds from pithoi, the simplicity of the plan and the masonry style of the wall (esp. Schilardi, ‘Emergence Paros’, 233 n. 21).

Parallels:

Rectangular building against the wall on the inside, similar to but not as clear as the same identified at Melie and Emporio.

Bibliography:

D. U. Schilardi, ‘A Fortified Acropolis on the Oikonomos Island of Paros’, AAA 6 (1973), 260–5 (ph.). D. U. Schilardi, ‘Αρχαιολογικαί έρευναι εν Πάρω‎’, Praktika (1975 A), 197–211, at 205–11 (fig. 3, plan). Schilardi, ‘Emergence Paros’, in Luce (ed.), Urbanisme, 229–49, at 232–6. Hansen and Nielsen, 764.

Catalogue of City Walls

Fig. 84. Oikonomos, general plan of the site and fortifications.

(p.176) Oiniadai (B), Akarnania

Location:

Hilltop, on the coast. Sections at gate 8, at S side of circuit. It is logical to assume that the area fortified was 59 ha as in C5, equivalent to the area of the hill-plateau which was in fact an island in antiquity, or at least with sea on one side and marshy lands on the other.

Construction:

Stretches of wall constructed in dry rubble masonry.

Date:

Archaic since first in local sequence, most of which is Classical and Hellenistic (Scranton).

Bibliography:

B. Powel, ‘Oiniadae I: History and Topography’, AJA 8 (1904), 137–73, at 155–6. Scranton, Walls, 17 fig. 2, 60, 185 (list E no. 25). Hansen and Nielsen, 367–8 no. 130.

Oisyme (B), Thrace

Location:

Hilltop, on the coast. Walls identified on the acropolis, as well as below this extending the fortified area towards the N, comprising a total intramural space of 14 ha.

Construction:

Acropolis wall of two construction types, one of irregular polygonal masonry, the other of ashlar masonry.

Date:

Acropolis walls are pre-classical, the extension phase C5f (Giouri, based on construction).

Bibliography:

D. Lazaridis, Thasos and its Peraia. AGC 5 (Athens 1971), figs. 66–7. E. L. Giouri, ‘Οισύμη‎ (Νέα Πέραμος‎)’, ArchDelt 30 (1965), 447–51, pls. 521–4. Lang, Siedlungen, 272. Hansen and Nielsen, 864–5 no. 635.

Old Paphos.

See Paphos, Old.

Old Smyrna.

See Smyrna, old.

Olynthos (C), Chalkidike

Location:

Near the coast (5 km).

Siege:

479 BC, besieged by the Persians. Olynthos referred to with toponym.

Source:

Hdt. 8.127.1 (cf. 8.128.1): ὑποπτεύσας δὲ καὶ τοὺς Ὀλυνθίους ἀπίστασθαι ἀπὸ βασιλέος, καὶ ταύτην ὲπολιόρκεε‎.

And suspecting that Olynthus too was plotting revolt from the king, he laid siege to this also, … (tr. Godley, Loeb).

Bibliography:

Hansen and Nielsen, 834–6 no. 588. Winter, Stadtspuren, 235.

Opous (B), East Lokris

Location:

Hill plateau, inland. Wall stretch identified on the acropolis.

Construction:

Double-faced of polygonal blocks, W 1.5 m.

Towers:

A tower described as half-round (3 × 2.9 m) seems in fact square and pointed in plan (Dakoronia, pl. 124a).

Date:

Late Archaic (Bouyia).

Bibliography:

F. Dakoronia, ‘Αταλάντι. Οδός Μεταξά‎’, ArchDelt 43 B1 (1988), 220–2, at 222 (ph.). P. Bouyia, ‘Archaische Befestigungen in Polygonalmauerwerk in der opun-tischen Lokris, in Krinzinger (ed.), Ägäis, 70. Fossey, Lokris, 68–74 (ph.). Hansen and Nielsen, 670–1 no. 386.

Orchomenos (B), Boiotia

Location:

Hilltop, inland. Sections of walls found on S and N sides of the acropolis, which if combined into a reconstructed circuit would enclose 40 ha.

Construction:

Polygonal masonry.

Date:

Archaic, based on local sequence and masonry style (Fossey).

Bibliography:

Fossey, Boiotia, 353 (with refs.). Hansen and Nielsen, 446–8 no. 213.

Oresthasion (B), (Anemodouri Arkadia

Location:

Hilltop, inland. Walls encircling 0.13 ha, identified on the hill of Groumourous, probably the acropolis of oresthasion.

Construction:

Walls made of rough unworked blocks.

Date:

Archaic (pre-Classical), based on building technique and on a high quantity of Archaic sherds on the surface of the hill.

Bibliography:

Y. A. Pikoulas, Η νότια Μεγαλοπολιτική χώρα από τόν‎ 8°. ώς τόν‎ 4°. μ. Χ. αιώνα‎ (Athens 1988), 104. Hansen and Nielsen, 525 no. 287.

Pagasai (B), (Soros), Thessaliy

Location:

Hilltop, on the coast. Walls encircling c.3.5 ha identified on the acropolis, which also includes a separately fortified keep. (p.177)

Catalogue of City Walls

Fig. 85. Old Paphos, general plan of the site and fortifications. Walls found (KA, KB), suggested line of circuit (crosses).

Construction:

Wall made of long flat blocks of limestone, W 1.5–4 m (Arvanitopoullos, figs. 11–13).

Date:

Before C5e (local sequence, Arvanitopoullos).

Bibliography:

A. S. Arvanitopoullos, ‘Ανασκαφαί εν Θεσσαλία‎’, Praktiká (1909), 131–71, at 162–70 (identifies site as Amphanes). P. Marzolff, ‘Antike Städtebau und Architektur in Thessalien’, in Dekapente Chronia, 256 with fig. 1. Lang, Siedlungen, 275 (identifies site as Amphanes). Hansen and Nielsen, 699–700 no. 407.

Paphos, Old (A), Cyprus. Fig. 85

Location:

Plateau circuit, near the coast (1.5 km). Stretches of wall on edge of pleateau of two construction phases, identified below the Marcello Hill (site KA) and further S at Hadji Abdullah (site KB, see Comments). The entire circuit may have encircled c.45 ha, as interpreted from the shape of plateau and the location of cemeteries (suggested course indicated with crosses on Fig. 85). While avoiding an actual reconstruction of the trace Maier (Nor-dost-Tor, 144) implies something along the lines of the suggestion on Fig. 85, by stating that the fortified area must have been larger than the modern village on the site (Kouklia).

Bibliography:

F. G. Maier and V. Karageorghis, Paphos: History and Archaeology (Nicosia 1984), 159–66. 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. <http://www.hist.unizh.ch/ag/paphos/project/index.html>. Hansen and Nielsen, 1228–9 no. 1019. Maier, Nordost-Tor.

Comments:

The wall(s) at site KB date from 600 to c.475 BC, and show many similar construction features to those at KA. It is therefore here considered to be of the same circuit. Preliminary publication J. Schäfer, ‘Ein “Perserbau” in Alt-paphos?’, OpAth 3 (1960), 155–75; cf. Maier, Nordost-Tor, 144–6.

Phase 1, Fig. 86.

Wall:

CW1 and CW2 (see Date) (at site KA), form a c.110-m-long double-faced socle of roughly worked boulders, on a foundation of roughly shaped lumps of limestone bonded in clay, resting on bedrock. The foundation of

Catalogue of City Walls

Fig. 86. Old Paphos, wall at site KA.

(p.178)
Catalogue of City Walls

Fig. 87. Old Paphos, section of wall at B-B.

Catalogue of City Walls

Fig. 88. Old Paphos, reconstruction of phase 1.

CW2 is higher than CW1. Up to 10 courses of mudbrick of the superstructure preserved, W 4.1–4.2 m. Some stones of the inner face (CW2) are roughly dressed. Section, Fig. 87, reconstruction, Fig. 88.

Gates:

One, axial, flanked by rectangular bastions, 8 × 14 m. W 12.5 m, opening W 4.5 m. D: c.20 m. Threshold slabs and cornerstone with cuttings and socket-hole found. Reconstruction, Fig. 88.

Towers:

One, square, 7.9 × 7.5 m. Reconstruction, Fig. 88.

Date:

C8l (Cypro-Archaic I/750–700 BC). CW1 and CW2 are in reality two different building phases, but the actual time separating their construction has been estimated to be of such limited duration that it makes sense to describe them as one.

Parallels:

The construction of the foundation for the wall (stones in clay) is paralleled in Smyrna, phases 1–3.

Bibliography:

Maier and Karageorghis, 159–61, 166. Balandier, Fortifications, 411–22. Maier, Nordost-Tor, 18–32.

Phase 2, Fig. 86.

Wall:

Interior and exterior reinforcements of phase 1 at area KA (CW3 and CW4). Reconstruction, Fig. 89.

CW3: roughly dressed blocks of limestone, on a core of waterworn boulders and pebbles, mixed with soil. New average width 5.65 m.

CW4: stone blocks set in front of the outer face of CW1 to protect the mudbrick from water (see Other elements).

Gates:

Reuse from phase 1. Worked stones added at the corners for reinforcement and elaboration. New threshold and other stoneblocks from the gate preserved. Reconstruction, Fig. 89.

Towers:

Reuse of Phase 1 tower.

Other Elements:

A berm (W 12.5 m), a ditch (W at bottom: 6–9.5 m, at upper edge: 12–14.5 m), and a glacis more than 23 m wide were added in this phase. These elements formed, in addition to the city wall proper (CW 1–4), a highly sophisticated defence system.

Date:

C6l, Cypro-Archaic II. Based on the meagre silting in the ditch it seems quite reasonable to suggest that this new complex was completed only shortly before the siege operations started (498 BC).

Comments:

The highly significant siege ramp, dated to c.500 BC by a number of associated finds, strongly suggest that it was built by the Persians during their Cypriot campaign following the Ionian revolt (Hdt. 5.115.2, Paphos is, however, not explicitly mentioned). Herodotos refers broadly to all the poleis of Cyprus, except for Salamis, to (p.179)

Catalogue of City Walls

Fig. 89. Old Paphos, reconstruction Siege mound

have been besieged and taken by the Persians. Passage quoted at Soloi, p. 190.

Bibliography:

Maier and Karageorghis, 161–6. Balandier, Fortifications, 423–33. Maier, Nordost-Tor, 32–9.

Paros (B, C), Paros ISL

Location:

Hilltop and plain, on the coast. Sections of wall found at various points along what is believed to be the trace of the wall around the lower town, encompassing 50 ha.

Construction:

Double-faced in cyclopean masonry of gneiss.

Gates:

Two gates of axial type, identified along the E side of the trace. The jambs are still standing, kept in place by stones of a much younger construction phase. W 2.84 m.

Towers:

Square 6 × 8 m (Rubensohn, fig. at 185 and Zapheiropoulou, ADelt 45).

Date:

C7/C6, based on style of masonry, topography, and historical probability. Since all attested graves dating from C8l onwards are located outside the present perimeter, it is believed that the present perimeter was established at C7f (Schilardi, ‘Culto di Atena’, 61–2, discussion above, Chap. 6 p. 69). Berranger (65) regards a date in C7 for certain (reference to Praktika (1950), 266, is corrupt), and scholars generally regard the walls of Paros to be of C7 or C6 date (communication Schilardi, Feb. 2003).

Bibliography:

O. Rubensohn, ‘Paros II’, AM 26 (1901), 157–222, at 181–94. D. U. Schilardi, ‘Paros, Report II: The 1973 Campaign’, JFA 2 (1975), 83–96, at 83–8 (with figs.). D. U. Schilardi, ‘Αρχαιολογικαί έρευναι εν Πάρω‎’, Praktika (1975), 197–211, at 197–203 (pl., ph.). Lawrence, Aims, 434 n. 56. D. Berranger, Recherches sur l’histoire et la prosopographie de Paros a l’époque archaïque (Clermont-Ferrand 1992), 62–5. Ph. Zapheiropoulou, ‘Ανασκαφικές εργασίες. Πάρος‎’, ADelt 42 (1987 [1992], vol. B2 Chronika), 490–1. Ph. Zapheiropoulou, ‘Ανασκαφικές εργασίες. Πάρος‎,’ ADelt 45 (1990 [1995], vol. B2 Chronika), 402–3 (plan and ph.). 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. Schilardi, ‘Emergence Paros’, 229–49, at 239–49. Hansen and Nielsen, 764–8 no. 509.

(C)

Teichos and Siege:

490 BC. Unsuccessfully besieged by Miltiades. Paros is referred to as a polis in the urban sense.

Source:

Hdt. 6.133.2. Ephoros. FrGH 2a, 70, F.63=Steph.

Byz.v. Hdt. ἀπικόμενος δὲ ἐπ᾿ ἣν ἔπλεε ὁ Μιλτιάδης τῇ στρατιῇ ἐπολιόρκεε Παρίους κατειλημένὸυς ἐντὸς τείχεος‎, …

Having come to the place to which he sailed, Miltiades with his army drove the Parians within their walls and there besieged them (tr. Godley, Loeb).

Pergamon (A), Aeolis. Fig. 90

Location:

Inland, hilltop. c.70-m stretch of wall preserved on the S side of the lower acropolis, above the Gymnasium and the Terrace of Hera. The intramural space comprised c.18 ha, including the upper acropolis, above the theatre.

Construction:

Double-faced socle for a wall (‘Mauer I’, Fig. 91)set directly on bedrock, following its contour, but the rock has also been carved in places to receive the wall. W c.2–>3 m. The blocks are large in the outer face, smaller in (p.180)

Catalogue of City Walls

Fig. 90. Pergamon, general plan of the site and fortifications.

the inner, and are rough, unworked, not laid in courses. The fill is soil and small stones. The vanished superstructure was most likely of stone (Radt, ‘Frühesten Wehrmauern’, pls. 24.1, 25.1–4 and Beilage 2).

Date:

C7 or earlier, due to pottery dating no later than C7 found in layers deposited at the inner side of the wall. Since the layers are clearly accumulated after the construction of the wall, the dating is terminus ante quem. On the other hand Radt informs (‘Archaische Befestigungsmauer’) that some sherds (dating C7/C6e), were found in the wall, suggesting that the wall could date from C6e. However, the exact amount of pottery, as well as the full circumstances of their context, must be entirely clarified before this find can be considered as overruling the earlier one.

Comments:

F. Lang does not fully accept either the identification as fortification wall or the date of it. Clear defining factors like gates and towers are admittedly lacking, but the main objection of Lang is that the wall in some points has three faces, and appears as superimposed terrace walls. At the W half (Fig. 91) a small front wall is indeed identified. This, however, is not enough to class the entire trace of the wall as having been constructed with three faces, which would in fact be a highly uncommon if not unique construction. Perhaps the walls represent stages of repair/reinforcement. Admitting that interpretation is not absolutely straightforward, it seems hard to interpret a wall of such dimensions as anything else but a fortification wall (Radt, ‘Frühesten Wehrmauern’, 168, illustrated Radt, ‘Archaische Befestigungsmauer’, 67, fig. 4), also considering the fact that the later (Classical) securely identified wall runs in exactly the same place.

As for the date I find Radt’s report sufficient. He would have been more explicit on this issue if there was a high possibility that the strata in question (the layers behind the wall) had formed part of a secondary deposit, rather than having been accumulated as cultural layers corresponding to actual stages in the history of the site of Pergamon. See further discussion above, p. 76.

A section of polygonal wall in the NE area of the city earlier considered to be Archaic is now associated with the later C5 wall, Mauer II (Radt ‘Archaische Befestigungsmauer’, 71).

Bibliography:

Radt, Pergamon, 24. Radt, ‘Frühesten Wehrmauern’, 165–71 (ph., pl.). W. Radt, ‘Die archaische Befestigungsmauer von Pergamon und zugehörige Aspekte’, REA 96.1 (1994), 63–75. Lang, Siedlungen, 233–4. Hansen and Nielsen, 1048 no. 828.

Phagres (C), Thrace

Location:

Near the coast.

Teichos:

480 BC. Phagres is not explicitly called a polis until the C4l, whereas coinage is attested from C4e. Phagres is very likely to have been a polis in the Archaic period, but under strong influence from Thasos in C6.

Source:

Hdt. 7.112.1: Παραμειψάμενος δὲ ὁ Ξέρξης τὴν εἰρημένην, δεύτερα τούτων παραμείβετο τείχεα τά (p.181)

Catalogue of City Walls

Fig. 91. Pergamon, plan of walls 1–2.

Πιέρων, τῶν ἑνὶ Φάγρης ἐστὶ οὔνομα καὶ ἑτέρῳ Πέργαμος. ταύτῃ μὲν δὴ παρ᾿ αὐτὰ τὰ τείχεα τὴν ὁδὸν ἐποιέετο‎, … Passing through the land aforesaid Xerxes next passed the fortresses of the Pierians, one called Phagres and the other Pergamus. By this way he marched under their very walls… (tr. Godley, Loeb).

Bibliography:

Hansen and Nielsen, 865 no. 636.

Phaistos (A), Crete. Fig. 92

Location:

Hilltop, inland (7km from coast). Wall identified on the S side of the Acropoli Mediana (Middle Hill) of Phaistos. Assuming the wall continued all around the hill at this point, it would have enclosed 0.5 ha. It is likely that at least the Palace Hill to the E of the Mediana acropolis, where remains of C8 and C7 settlements are identified, was included in the intramural area in the G period. Also it is likely that the westernmost hill — the Affendi Christos Hill — was fortified at this time, since its top is higher than the Mediana acropolis and situated less than 400 m from it. Fortification walls dating to Hellenistic times (?) were indeed constructed on this hill (A. Minto, ASAtene 4–5 (1921–2), 161–75, fig. 2; Cucuzza, ‘Festòs, 293).

Construction:

Wall of the LM IIIA period (Borgna, fig. 3 no. A) reused and extended towards N in the G period (Borgna, fig. 3 no. B). The G wall is curving and constructed

Catalogue of City Walls

Fig. 92. Phaistos, general plan of the site and fortifications. Wall identified and suggested further trace of circuit indicated (crosses).

(p.182) with double-facing of large irregular blocks towards the exterior and smaller stones towards the interior, filled with rubble and soil. W c.2.3 m.

Date:

Pottery found during excavations at the base of the G wall dates to PG–G, c.1000–725 BC (see Borgna for a recent study of the chronology of the LM III wall).

Bibliography:

D. Levi, ‘Attività della Scuola Archeologica Italiana di Atene nell’anno 1955’, BdA 61 (1956), at 214. Hayden, ‘Fortifications’, 5–6. L. Vance Watrous, ‘A Survey of the Western Masara Plain in Crete’, Hesperia 62 (1993), 191–248, at 229. N. Cucuzza, ‘Geometric Phaistos: A Survey’, in W. G. Cavanagh et al. (eds.), Post-Minoan Crete. BSA Studies 2 (London 1998), 62–8, fig. 6.1. D. Palermo, ‘Il periodo protogeometrico e geometrico a Festòs: La documentazione ceramica’, in E. Greco et al. (eds.), I cento anni dello scavo di Festòs (Rome 2001), 299–354, at 303–4. E. Borgna, Il complesso di ceramica tardominoico III dell’acropoli Mediana di Festòs (Padua 2003), 51–3. Sjögren, Locations, 33, 130. N. Cucuzza, ‘Festòs Post-Minoica”: Note di topografia e di storia’, CretAnt 6 (2005), 285–335, at 292–3. Hansen and Nielsen, 1180–1 no. 980.

Pharsalos (B), Thessaly

Location:

Hilltop, inland. Section of the E wall.

Construction:

Lesbian polygonal masonry (Katakouta and Touphechis, fig. 5).

Date:

Archaic (Bouyia).

Bibliography:

S. Katakouta, and G. Touphechis, ‘Τα τείχη της Φαρσάλου‎’, in Dekapente Chronia, 189–200, at 193, fig. 5, 197–8. P. Bouyia, Archaische Befestigungen in Polygonalmauerwerk in der opuntischen Lokris’, in Gassner et al. (eds.), Ägäis, 74. Hansen and Nielsen, 702–4 no. 413.

Phokaia (A, C), Ionia. Fig. 93

Location:

Hilltop and plain, on the coast. Wall remains identified at three points along a 8–9-km trace. In addition to the actual remains found, the identification of the course is based on rock cuts for foundations, and reconstructed by Özyığıt, to have incorporated the peninsula with its hill, as well as the land behind it, with an additional number of hills, an area comprising c.50 ha in total (reconstruction of trace completed with crosses by this author, Fig. 93).

Construction:

Double-faced of large ashlar blocks in local tufa, with internal fill of rubble, set on bedrock, W 3.4–>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 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

Catalogue of City Walls

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

(p.183)
Catalogue of City Walls

Fig. 94. Phokaia, elevation of wall and buttress at the Maltepe Tumulus.

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.), Velia: Atti del 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:

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

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).

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

Catalogue of City Walls

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).

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:

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.

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.

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.

Catalogue of City Walls

Fig. 96. Selinous, general plan of the site and fortifications. Walls (A, B), trace of circuit (stippled, Mertens) and further suggested trace of circuit (crosses, Mertens with further interpretation Frederiksen).

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), 87–154, at 138–9, fig. 11, pls. 24–5. D. Mertens and A. Drummer, ‘Nuovi elementi della grande urbanistica di Selinunte’, Kokalos 39–40, 2.2 (1993–4), 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)

Catalogue of City Walls

Fig. 97. Selinous, Small Eastern Gate.

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 <1.25 m), blocks in inner face smaller and irregular, set in soil. Lowest course of external face protrudes c.15 cm. Stone is the local red and local yellow limestone. Outer face, which is set deeper in the ground, is preserved to 6 courses, H of c.3 m. Fill: sandy soil and stones.

The identification of the foundation for steps, originally leading up to the wall walk (at section H 93), allows for a quite unusually reliable reconstruction of the height and width of the wall at this particular point. The wall was c.6.5 m high on the inside, probably 8.5 m on the outside, and c.1.8 m wide at the level of the wall walk.

Gates:

‘Small Eastern Gate’ axial, W 4 m (at A Fig. 96, Fig. 97). ‘Greater Eastern Gate’, axial, bipartite (at B Fig. 96, Fig. 98), W 3 and 3 m respectively. Depth >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:

C6l-C5e refurbishment phase.

Catalogue of City Walls

Fig. 98. Selinous, Greater Eastern Gate.

(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).

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:

J. K. Brock and G. M. Young, ‘Excavations in Siphnos’, BSA 44 (1949), 1–92, at 2 (plan pl. 1, ph. pl. 3.3).

Catalogue of City Walls

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

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).

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:

Hilltop, inland. Wall identified running around the hilltop, <1 ha. Site plan, cook, fig. 14.

Construction:

Wall in polygonal masonry, preserved to H 1.5 m (ph. Cook, pl. 48b and 49a).

Date:

Archaic (Schulz).

Comments:

This site might have been the primary urban centre of Skepsis before the refoundation in C5e. According to Strabo (13.1.52), this hill was the earlier Skepsis before this was relocated 60 stades away in a less elevated place. There is, however, confusion about the location of Skepsis from reading Strabo. See Cook (302) for a discussion of other passages in Strabo, where Skepsis is located elsewhere. Skepsis was Aeolic in Archaic times and the population seems to have been mixed, while the Greek part was strengthened after the refoundation and possible Milesian influx.

Bibliography:

Cook, Troad, 300–2 (plan). Schulz, Neandreia, 24, 28. Hansen and Nielsen, 1014–15 no. 792.

Smyrna Old (A, C), Ionia. Fig. 100

Location:

Coastal plateau circuit, c.5 ha. Sections of walls from three main construction phases, Walls 1–3, identified on the N and E side of settlement. There is an interim phase between 2 and 3, ‘Wall 2–3’ (Nicholls, 124–6). A section of wall likely to date to the Archaic period has been identified on the SW side of the plateau.

Bibliography:

F. and H. Miltner, ‘Bericht über eine Voruntersuchung in Alt-Smyrna’, ÖJh 27 (1931) Beiblatt, 127–88, at 162. J. M. Cook, ‘Old Smyrna 1948–1951’, BSA 53–4 (1958–9), 1–34. Nicholls, ‘Old Smyrna’, 35–137, at 120–37 for the individual phases with internal references to passages in Cook and Nicholls, Temples, 1–120 (with figs.). Akurgal, Alt-Smyrna. Lang, Siedlungen, 235–41. Hansen and Nielsen, 1099–101 no. 867. M. Akurgal, ‘Alt-Smyrna’, in W. Radt (ed.), Stadtgrabungen und Stadtforschung im westlichen Kleinasien, BYZAS 3 (2006), 373–82. M. Akurgal, ‘Hellenic Architecture in Smyrna 650–546 B.C.’, in J. Cobet et al. (eds.), Frühes Ionien. Eine Bestandaufnahme. Milesische Forschungen 5 (Mainz am Rhein, 2007), 125–36 (with focus on C7 phases).

Catalogue of City Walls

Fig. 100. Old Smyrna, general plan of the site with fortifications and suggested completion of circuit (stippled).

Parallels:

The stones laid in a layer of clay as the foundation for the Phase 1 wall (and reused in subsequent phases) is paralleled in Paphos (phase 1).

Phase 1 (Wall 1).

Construction:

Remains found at section μ-μ1, at sections in the NE Gate area κ-κ1 and at section λ-λ1 (Fig. 103). Inner half of mudbrick, outer half of small river boulders laid in clay mortar, faced with wall of roughly worked blocks arranged in a polygonal style (Nicholls, pl. 10a). The entire wall is backed with a wide platform of pebble. W (without platform) 4.75 m. The outer part of the wall is set deeper in the layer of natural clay (river silt), than the inner parts.

Gates:

The NE Gate (Fig. 101), tangential (?), W unknown. The existence of a gate is interpreted from a wall structure, f, found in the NE Gate area (Fig. 102), presumably a corner of a wall end working as a tower. The wall is made of finely worked (saw-cut) ashlars of soft white limestone, laid in even courses, on a socle of unworked grey andesite stones, set in a white clay mortar. Nicholls suggested (71) that the wall at this point may have been constructed in white limestone all the way up to the battlements, but this assumption rests on the observation that no displaced parts, of different material, were observed.

Towers:

Reinforced wall end (see above) as part of tangential gate (?).

Date:

MG, c.820 BC. Associated pottery finds of EG and some MG style (Nicholls, esp. 84). The early date has been confirmed by soundings made by Akurgal (Alt-Smyrna, 25), (p.189)

Catalogue of City Walls

Fig. 101. Old Smyrna, NE Gate area.

cf. however Murray, Early Greece, 63–4, and Ducrey, ‘Muraille , 247 with n. 4, 252. Ducrey refers to recent unpublished reports, suggesting a lower date. In Cook and Nicholls, Temples, 44–6, however, the date of Wall 1 is confirmed and even specified to c.820 BC.

Phase 2 (Wall 2).

Construction:

Remains found at e.g. section μ-μ1, at sections in the NE Gate area and at sections ι-ι1 and λ-λ1 (Fig. 103). Mudbrick on double-faced stone socle. Inner face hammer-dressed Lesbian masonry (Nicholls, pls. 10b–c, 19b–c), outer face hammer-dressed blocks in andesite in rubble polygonal style, backed with pebble laid in clay mortar around a core of mudbrick, W 9–10 m.

Gates:

The NE Gate and the SE Gate, both of tangential type. The identification of the NE and SE Gates in this phase, and their architectural details, are based on a very careful examination of the fragmentary remains by the excavator, and the presentation stands as generally quite convincing. The NE Gate in this phase is interpreted from

Catalogue of City Walls

Fig. 102. Old Smyrna, plan and elevation of Wall 1 Tower (phase 1) at NE Gate.

fragmentary structures found in the NE Gate area. The structures d, u, y, and h on Fig. 101 (which are partly from the tower and partly from the wall itself), and the relation between them, indicates a wall that overlaps itself, having a tower at the outer ending. This, the NE tower phase 2, changed its orientation more towards the N in relation to phase 1.

The SE Gate is interpreted from two huge out-of-place lintel-blocks, reused in Wall 3, identified in the SE corner of the city (Nicholls, fig. 2k). These can hardly stem from anything else than a gate. Furthermore, the fragments of Wall 2, found in the same area, indicate that the wall had a distorted trace at this point, which again indicates the existance of a gate of the tangential type (Nicholls, 53). W unknown.

Towers:

Reinforced wall end as part of tangential gate (?).

Date:

LG, C8m.

Phase 3 (Wall 3).

Construction:

Remains found at e.g. section μ-μ1, ι-ι1, at sections in the NE Gate area, and at λ-λ1 (Fig. 103). Constructed as Wall 2, but much wider, 10–18 m. Outer face hammer-dressed Lesbian construction, preserved to a height of over 5 m (Nicholls, pls. 12c, d, and 16a, c). Partial reuse of inner face of Wall 2.

Gates:

The NE Gate (?). (p.190)

Catalogue of City Walls

Fig. 103. Old Smyrna, section of Wall I–III (phases 1–3) at λ-λ1.

Towers:

Reinforced wall end as part of tangential gate (?).

Date:

C7L

Comments:

Recent investigations directed by M. Akurgal have revealed a 75-m stretch of fortification wall likely to be of this phase, running from the fountain house on the W side of the mound and in a W direction. In addition, a long new stretch of wall was identified ouside the wall on the E side of the mound. The final publication of these highly significant finds are likely to change our ideas about the size and nature of Smyrna (for the preliminary results, see M. Akurgal, above).

(C)

Teichos:

Before 688 BC. Smyrna referred to with city ethnic, and from the context clearly as a polis in the urban sense.

Source:

Hdt. 1.150.1: μετὰ δὲ οἱ ϕνγάδες τῶν Κολοϕωνίων ϕυλάξαντες τοὺς Σμυρναίους ὁρτὴν ἔξω τείχεος ποιευμένους Διονύσῳ‎, …

These Colophonian exiles waited for the time when the men of Smyrna were holding a festival to Dionysus outside the walls;… (tr. Godley, Loeb).

Soloi (C), Cyprus

Location:

Coastal.

Teichos and Siege:

498/7. Referred to as polis in the urban sense.

Source:

Hdt. 5.115.2: τῶν δὲ ἐν Κύπρω πολίων ἀντέσχε χρόνον ἐπὶ πλεῖστον πολιορκενμένη Σόλοι, τὴν πέριξ ὑπορύσσοντες τὸ τεῖχος πέμπτῳ μηνὶ εἷλον οἱ Πέρσαι‎.

Of the Cyprian cities that which longest stood a siege was Soli; the Persians took it in the fifth month by digging a mine under its walls (tr. Godley, Loeb).

Bibliography:

Hansen and Nielsen, 1220 no. 1011.

(p.191) Catalogue of City Walls

Stagiros (A), Thrace (Khalkidiki). Fig. 104

Location:

Hilltop, coastal. The socle of the Byzantine walls on the N Hill, 3–4 ha, identified as the first phase of the city fortification (A, Fig. 104, suggested completion of trace stippled).

Construction:

Double-faced wall of blocks in irregular trapezoidal and Lesbian masonry, W 2 m.

Gates:

Axial. A fragment of a lintel decorated with a boar and a lion in relief, accompanied by an Archaic boustrophedic inscription, documents that the first identified phase is Archaic (Fig. 7). The W of the gate was possibly c.2.5 m, the dimensions of the lintel-fragment in AR (2001–2) are ambiguous.

Date:

C6l, based on the inscription and the style of the relief on the lintel (Fig. 7).

Bibliography:

K. Sismanides, Ἁναοκαϕές στην αρχαία Σκιώνη και στα αρχαία Στάγειρα κατά το‎ 1991’, AErgoMak 5 (1991), 319–33. A. Pariente, ‘Chronique des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques en Grèce en 1993’, BCH 118 (1994), 762. K. Sismanides, Ἁρχαία Στάγειρα‎ 1990–1996’, AErgoMak 10A (1996), 279–96. Camp, ‘Walls’, 44. AR (2000–1), 92. AR (2001–2), 77–8. K. Sismanides, Ancient Stageira: Birthplace of Aristotle (Athens 2003), 62–9, figs. 13, 60–4. Hansen and Nielsen, 844–5 no. 613. (p.192)

Catalogue of City Walls

Fig. 104. Stagiros, general plan of the site with fortifications. Wall found (A), and suggested trace of fortification (stippled).

Sybrita (B), Crete

Location:

Hilltop and slope, inland. Terrace wall as socle for circuit preserved on the N slopes of the Kephala hill, c.1 ha (Kirsten, pl. 106.2).

Construction:

Wall of ashlar masonry preserved to at least 6 isodomic courses, W 2.7 m (Kirsten, pl. 119.3, and Belgiorno, fig. 5).

Date:

Archaic/C6, based on finds of pottery and terracottas made outside the wall. One terracotta head (Kirsten, pl. 118. 1–2) is emphasized, but it is doubtful if this can actually be used to date the wall. First the association between the head and the wall is unclear, and next the primitive rendering of the head might be without chronological significance.

Bibliography:

E. Kirsten, ‘Siedlungsgeschichtliche Forschungen in West-Kreta’, in F. Matz (ed.), Forschungen auf Kreta 1942 (Berlin 1951), 144–8 (pl.). M. R. Belgiorno, ‘Ricognizione nello Territorio dell’ Antica Sybrita’, in L. Rocchetti (ed.), Sybrita: La Vale di Amari fra Bronzo e Ferro (Rome 1994), 201–27, at 209 and 213–14 (with ill.). Sjögren, Locations, 26–7, 150 no. W48. Hansen and Nielsen, 1187–8 no. 990.

Syrakousai (C), Sicily

Location:

Coastal.

Siege:

490s BC. Syrakousai referred to with toponym.

Source:

Hdt. 7.154.2 (see Kallipolis above, p. 153).

Bibliography:

Hansen and Nielsen, 225–31 no. 47.

Taucheira (A), Kyrenaika. Fig. 105

Location:

Plain, on the coast. Wall α‎, traceable for c.40 m along the shore on the N side of the city (B, Fig. 105). According to A. Wilson the wall may have turned towards SE at points 7 and 8 (at A and B, Fig. 105 respectively), to reach a wall parallel to the N wall c.200 m further S (suggested trace stippled on Fig. 105), suggesting a fortified area of some 4 ha.

Construction:

Constructed partly as a wall of split river boulders, not closely packed (plan of wall, Fig. 106), and as a double-faced wall of large angular boulders, facing a rubble core. Set in trench cut in bedrock (fossil dune deposit), with a superstructure of mudbrick, W c.2.25–2.6 m. A change in the course, resulting in a Z-shaped plan, may be a deliberate attempt at creating indented trace, but the effect would have been very limited (Fig. 106).

Towers:

A rectangular (?) tower, at the N wall which is the continuation of wall α‎ (A, Fig. 105). Socle constructed of rubble stone, laid in 5 courses, comprising a height of c.1 m. Mudbrick preserved on top, at least 7 courses, H c.0.4 m.

Date:

C6e. A construction date in the decades preceding 565 is very possible, since material deriving from section 8, and the fill of the wall itself, is not younger than 565 BC.

Bibliography:

J. Boardman and J. W. Hayes, Excavations at Tocra, 1963–1965. The Archaic Deposits I. BSA suppl. vol. 4.1 (Oxford 1966), 9–11, 13, pl. 1, fig. 4. 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. P. Bennett et al., The Effects of Recent Storms on the Exposed Coastline of Tocra’, LibStud 35 (2004), 113–22, at 118–22, figs. 2, 7. Hansen and Nielsen, 1247 no. 1, 029. Communication A. Wilson.

Teichioussa (A), Şapliadasi, Ionia. Fig. 107

Location:

Peninsula, 8 ha. Wall runs around periphery of peninsula.

Construction:

Double-faced wall of stone blocks, filled with small stones and soil on massive stone socle. Marble and conglomerate, W 2–3 m.

Gates:

West gate, tangential. W 2 m. East gate, axial. (p.193)

Catalogue of City Walls

Fig. 105. Taucheira, general plan of the site with fortifications. Walls found (A, B) and suggested trace of circuit (stippled).

Catalogue of City Walls

Fig. 106. Taucheira, plan of wall.

Bastion:

NE bastion.

Date:

The site existed from late C8 (pottery) until relocated in C5l(?). The fortification wall has more than one construction phase, latest possible construction c.550 (pottery infill).

Comments:

Teichioussa was probably a dependent polis to Miletos, and certainly a kome from C4.

Bibliography:

W. Voigtländer, ‘Umrisse eines vor-und frühgeschichtlichen Zentrums an der Karisch-Ionischen Küste. Erster Vorbericht — Survey 1984’, AA (1986), 613–67. W. Voigtländer, Teichiussa: Näherung und Wirklichkeit (Rahden in Westfalen 2004), 146–8. Hansen and Nielsen, 1062, 1082–3.

Teos (B, C), Ionia

Location:

Hilltop and plain, coastal. Walls on the acropolis and in the plain towards E, encircling 80 ha, on the assumption that the trace in this early phase is identical to the Hellenistic, which is better known. (p.194)

Catalogue of City Walls

Fig. 107. Teichioussa, general plan of the site and fortifications.

Construction:

Double-faced, of limestone blocks in polygonal style, W 1.4 m.

Date:

Archaic/Classical (Lang). The attack by Harpagus c.544 BC mentioned by Herodotos may be yielded in support of an Archaic date.

Bibliography:

Y. Béquignon and A. Laumonier, ‘Fouilles de Téos’, BCH 44 (1925), 281–321, at 284–6, pl. 7. McNicoll, Fortifications, 159–60 (plan). Lang, Siedlungen, 222. <http://www.izmirturizm.gov.tr/e_suburb_seferihisar.html>. Hansen and Nielsen, 1101–2 no. 868.

(C)

Date:

c.544 BC.

Source:

Hdt. 1.168.1: ἐπείτε γάρ σϕέων εἷλε χώματι τὸ τεῖχος Ἅρπαγος‎, …

When Harpagus had taken their walled city by building a mound, … (tr. Godley, Loeb).

Thasos (A, C). Thasos ISL. Fig. 108

Location:

Hilltop and plain, on the coast. Remains (phase 1) identified between the phase 2 wall and the

Catalogue of City Walls

Fig. 108. Thasos, general plan of the site with fortifications. indications of excavated Archaic sections (A, B).

Theatre (A, Fig. 108), and at the Gate of the Charites at the harbour (Wall M4, B at Figs. 108, 109). Phase 1 may have encompassed the NE half of the city only, extending SW as far S as the Artemision. Remains of phase 2 identified at numerous spots, indicating that the phase 2 trace was identical to the presently visible (Classical) 4km trace, encompassing c.70 ha.

Bibliography:

C. Fredrich, ‘Thasos’, AM 33 (1908), 215–46 (plan and ph.). Y. Grandjean and F. Salviat, Guide de Thasos (Paris 2000), 119–21, 197–8. F. Blondé, A. Muller and D. Mulliez, ‘Les Abords Nord-Est de l’agora (terrain Valma)’, BCH 124.2 (2000), 516–20. 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 (figs.). 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, figs. 88–9. Hansen and Nielsen, 778–82 no. 526.

Phase 1, Figs. 108, 109.

(p.195)

Catalogue of City Walls

Fig. 109. Thasos, Gate of the Charites.

Construction:

Wall M4: single shell wall of irregular stone blocks, tightly fitted, set parallel to the older Wall 3, together forming a wall more than 5 m wide.

Towers:

Remains at Theatre (6 × 2.8 m) may be a tower.

Gates:

Gate of the Charites, axial, W 3 m. Turned into the ‘Passage des Théores’ in early C5.

Other Elements:

A glacis of soil covered by flags of gneiss, in front of Wall M4, W c.5.5 m, preserved H 2.5 m. Flags placed upright along the edge at the base. With Wall M4 the entire width of the fortification system at this point would have been more than 10 m.

Date:

Before phase 2, probably C6m. Stratigraphic investigations behind the Theatre, and at the Gate of the Charites, suggest that the parts found here pre-date the late Archaic phase 2 wall (Vivier, 71–7). A. Külzer, NP, vol. 12/1 s.v. Thasos, col. 244, refers to a circuit constructed in C7 or C6e BC (?). Fredrich was also in favour of such an early date (217), but hard evidence for a Thassian city wall older than c6m–l has yet to be produced.

Phase 2.

Construction:

Several stretches of double-faced wall, constructed of marble and gneiss, filled with soil and rubble, W c.2 m.

Gates:

A number of the gates at Thasos are definitely Archaic, such as the Gate of Parmenon, of axial type, W 2.1 m (Fig. 110).

Date:

C6l-C5e, on the basis of stratified pottery, epigraphy, and style of sculpture (relief).

1) Late Archaic inscriptions, e.g. IG XII.8 356: Ζηνὸς καὶ Ζεμέλης καὶ Αλκμήνης τανυπέπλο| ἑστᾶσιν παῖδες τῆσδε πόλεως ϕυλακοί‎. Zeus, Semele, Alkmene with the flowing robe stand guard both for the daughters and for the city (tr. R. Frederiksen), and IG XII.8 390a.1, C6l [located at the Gate of Herakles and Dionysos=Fredrich Gate 9]: Παρμένων με ἐπο[ίησεν]‎. Parmenon made it (tr. R. Frederiksen).

2) Reliefs in late Archaic style, e.g. at Gate 8 (Fredrich’s system). Fredrich’s suggestion that the reliefs are Archaistic — and much later than the wall itself — has not met with much support by other scholars.

(C)

Teichos:

491 BC. Thasos referred to with city ethnic.

Source:

Hdt. 6.46.1: Δευτέ ρῳ δέ ἔτεϊ τούτων ὁ Δαρεῖος πρώτα μέν Θασίους διαβληθέντας ὑπὸ τὼν ἀστνγειτόνων ὡς ἀπόστασιν μηχανᾡατο, πέμψας ἄγγελον ἐκέλενε σϕέας τὸ τεῖχος περιαιρέειν καὶ τὰς νέας ἐς Ἄβδηρα κομίζειν‎.

In the next year after this, Darius first sent a message bidding the Thasians, of whom it was falsely reported by their neighbours that they were planning rebellion, destroy their walls and bring their ships to Abdera (tr. Godley, Loeb).

Thebai (B), Ionia

Location:

Hilltop, near the coast. Several stretches of wall preserved around the acropolis (Wiegand and Schrader, fig. 579 [plan]), c.0.5 ha.

Construction:

Constructed partly as terrace walls and partly as free-standing double-faced walls, in polygonal and rectangular blocks of varying size (Wiegang and Schrader, fig. 578 [ph]).

Date:

Archaic (Wiegand and Schrader). (p.196)

Catalogue of City Walls

Fig. 110. Thasos, plan and section of the Gate of Parmenon.

Bibliography:

T. Wiegand and H. Schrader, Priene (Berlin 1904), 469–74. Hansen and Nielsen, 1102–3 no. 869.

Thebe (C), Aeolis

Location:

Inland, 10 km from the coast.

Teichos:

C8f (Hom.). Thebe referred to with toponym.

Source:

Hom. Il. 2.688–91: κεῖτο γὰρ ἐν νήεσσι ποδάρκης δῖος Ἀχίλλεύς κοὺρης χωόμενος Βρισηΐδος ἠϋκόμοιο, τὴν ἐκ Λυρνησσοῦ ἐζείλετο πολλὰ μογήσας, Λυρνησσὸν διαπορθήσας καὶ τείχεα Θήβης‎, …

For he was lying idle among the ships, the swift-footed, noble Achilles, angered because of the fair-haired girl Briseïs, whom he had taken from Lyrnessus after much toil, when he destroyed Lyrnessus and the walls of Thebe, … (tr. Murray, Loeb).

Bibliography:

Hansen and Nielsen, 1050 no. 834.

Thebes (C), Boiotia

Location:

Inland.

Teichos and Siege:

C8f (Hom.). Referred to with toponym. 480/79 BC (Hdt.). The asty of the Thebans is referred to.

Source:

Hom. Il. 4.378 (cf. Il. 2.691; 4.404; Hdt. 9.41.9, 66.16, 86.10): οἱ δὲ τότ᾿ ἐστρατόωνθ᾿ ἱερὰ πρὸς τείχεα Θήβης‎, …

for at that time they were waging a war against the holy walls of Thebes, … (tr. Murray, Loeb).

Hdt. 9.58.3: Ἀρταβάζον δὲ θῶμα καὶ μᾶλλον ἐποιεύμην τὸ καὶ καταρρωδῆσαι Λακεδαιμονίους καταρρωδήσαντά τε ἀποδέξασθαι γνώμην δειλοτάτην ὡς χρεὸν εἴη ἀναζεύξαντας τὸ στρατόπεδον ἰέναι ἐς τὸ Θηβαίων ἄστυ πολιορκησομένους.‎

But I marvelled much more at Artabazus, that he should be so sore affrighted by the Lacedaemonians as to give us a craven’s advice to strike our camp, and march away to be beleaguered in Thebes (tr. Godley, Loeb).

Comments:

The discussion between the Persian generals describes a hypothetical situation of siege at Thebes. This is just as good indirect evidence for the city of Thebes having been walled as if there was an actual siege.

Bibliography:

Hansen and Nielsen, 454–7 no. 221.

Tiryns (C), Argolis

Location:

Near the coast, 3 km.

Teichos:

C8f (Hom.). Tiryns referred to with toponym.

Source:

Hom. Il. 2.559: Οἳ δ᾿ Ἄργος τ᾿ εἶχον Τίρυνθά τε τειχιόεσσαν‎, …

And they who held Argos and Tiryns, famed for its walls, … (tr. Murray, Loeb).

Bibliography:

Hansen and Nielsen, 614–15 no. 356.

Vathy Limenari (A), Dhonousa ISL

Location:

Hilltop on peninsula. A wall to the NE, observed to have existed in three phases, cuts the peninsula off from the rest of Dhonousa. The settlement (village) has a maximum surface area of 0.36 ha (plan, Zapheiropoulou, Γεωμετρική οχύρωσις εις ΚυκλάΟας‎, fig. 1, and Zapheiropoulou, Ὁ Γεομετρικός Οικισμός της Δονούσας᾿‎, fig. 3).

Construction:

Phase 1:W 0.85–0.95, small unworked stones. Lowest course projects. Phase 2: W 0.9–1.0 m, at one spot W 1.3–1.5 m, of larger stones in two faces, filled with smaller stones preserved to H 0.85 m. Phase 3: addition on E part of the N end, on ruined part of phase 2, W 0.8–1.5 m.

(p.197) Date:

The three phases are dated to the period 850 to early C8 after which time the settlement was abandoned.

Gates:

Gate identified (phases 1–3), W 2.5 m.

Towers:

Structure that might have been a tower identified in phase 1. In phase 3 a structure that might be a bastion is identified, L 11 m, external part preserved to H 1.25 m.

Comments:

The excavator suggests that the site was a trading post or otherwise civil habour located on a strategically important point between the Aegean and the SE, rather than a village sustained by the local farming (permanent settlement), with a harbour.

Bibliography:

F. Zapheiropoulou, Γεωμετρική οχύρωσις εις Κυκλάδας‎, AAA 4 (1971), 210–15 (figs.). F. Zapheiropoulou, Ἁπό τον Γεωμετρικόν συνοικισμόν της Δονούσης᾿‎, AAA 6.2 (1973), 256–9. F. Zapheiropoulou, Ὁ Γεομετρικός Οικισμός της Δονούσας᾿‎, in A. Michopoulou and A. Bakalou (eds.), Διαλέζις‎ 1986–1989: Ίδρυμα Ν.Π. Γουλανδρή‎ (Athens 1990), 43–54, figs. 2–3. Mazarakis Ainian, Rulers’ Dwellings, 194–5, fig. 343.

Vroulia (A), Rhodes. Fig. 111

Location:

Hilltop, on the coast. Wall identifed cutting off the S tip of Rhodes, creating an intramural space of 1.8 ha.

Catalogue of City Walls

Fig. 111. Vroulia, general plan of the site with wall.

Construction:

Socle of irregular flat blocks of white limestone, W c.1.3 m. Superstructure possibly in mudbricks (clayish soil found at the base of the outer face of the wall).

Gates:

The location of the tower (below), as well as a concentration of graves found outside the wall at this point, indicate the existence of a gate. It has been suggested that the gate was of tangential type, since the traces of the wall on either side of the opening would not meet if extended. An additional theory is that this tangential gate was replaced by an axial in a second building phase (Melander).

Towers:

A structure, identified as a tower, Le tour principale, is located at the right flank of the proposed gate (above). Unusual rectangular shape, 13.48 × 6.74 m. The location of the structure, and the fact that it has no openings according to the plan, hardly inspires a different and more meaningful interpretation (contra: Lawrence, Aims, 34).

Other Elements:

Ditch in front of wall.

Date:

Pottery found at the site dates to between c.700 BC and C6m, when the site is believed to have been abandoned, which means that the site as such, and therefore also the fortification, is to be dated to C6m.

Bibliography:

Kinch, Vroulia, 90–8 (plan, unnumbered). Drerup, Baukunst, 51–2. T. Melander, ‘Vroulia: Town Plan and Gate’, in Dietz and Papachristodoulou (eds.), Dodecanese, (p.198) 82–7, figs. 1, 3–4. Lang, Siedlungen, 193–4. Hansen and Nielsen, 1198.

Waxos (B), Crete

Location:

Hilltop, inland. Walls identified at various spots on the acropolis, ha.?

Construction:

Stretches of free-standing double-faced and terrace walls, made of mostly polygonal blocks, carefully jointed (Taramelli, fig. 6 [ph]).

Date:

Before Classical times. Stone blocks with Archaic inscriptions found on the acropolis, presumably derive from one of the walls (e.g. Guarducci II.V. 10 (p. 48)). It remains unclear, however, from which walls the inscriptions derive, and it is furthermore unclear whether the inscriptions were made after the erection of the walls, or whether blocks with inscriptions were reused for them.

Parallels:

The joints are similar to masonry on the acropolis (Larissa) of Argos (Taramelli).

Bibliography:

A. Taramelli, ‘Ricerche archeologiche cretesi’, MonAnt 9 (1899), 312 (ph.). M. Guarducci, Inscriptiones Creticae. Opera et Consilio Friderici Halbherr Collectae. II. Tituli Cretae Occidentalis (Rome 1939), 48. Lang, Siedlungen, 188. Autopsy Oct. 2001. Hansen and Nielsen, 1153–4 no. 950.

Xobourgo (A), Tenos ISL. Fig. 112

Location:

Hilltop, near the coast (5 km). Two enclosed areas. A Mycenaean fortification wall (A and AK), below the medieval castle of Xobourgo to the S, reconstructed and reused in Archaic times (see Comments) comprising 0.5 ha. The course is reconstructed partly based on cuttings in bedrock. An Archaic circuit (AA, Figs. 112–13) adjacent to the S, extends towards wall B; the remainder of the trace is unknown.

Construction:

Walls A and AK: preserved to the height of one or two courses, for a length of 25 m, and constructed as a double-faced wall of large cyclopean boulders of local granite, filled with soil and small stones, W 2.9–3 m.

Catalogue of City Walls

Fig. 112. Xobourgo, general plan of the site with fortifications.

(p.199)
Catalogue of City Walls

Fig. 113. Xobourgo, Wall AA.

Wall AA (Fig. 113): c.25-m stretch of wall constructed with double facing in polygonal masonry, made of blocks of limestone and smaller stones in combination. Some cyclopean granite boulders fallen from the upper and older circuit are reused in this wall, and have been trimmed to match the masonry of the remaining part of the Archaic wall. Founded on bedrock. W c.3.5 m.

Gates

Gate of axial plan in S wall of cyclopean circuit reused in Archaic times.

Towers

Tower built next to reused gate.

Date:

Walls A and AK: dated circumstantially to the LBA/ PG period, by surface finds within the wall circuit and by style of construction (cyclopean).

Wall AA: C6m. Dated by decorated and inscribed pottery, and a silver coin found in the foundation of the wall. Kourou states (Defensive Settlements, 177) that systematic research and pottery study prove that Wall AA was built in C6m. It is not completely clear whether this statement is to be covered by the ref. (ibid.) to Kourou, Ἁνασκαϕές στο Ξωμπούργο Τήνον‎, (1995–1996)’, or whether new information is published in Kourou, ‘Tenos-Xobourgo: A New Defensive site’. From Kourou’s earlier publication it is only clear that the wall dates to post quem C7.

Comments:

A number of graves from the G period found outside Wall A on the terrace AA, and under Wall AA, indicate that the Mycenaean fortification was reused for habitation in the Geometric period.

Bibliography:

N. Kourou, Ἁνασκαφές στο Ξωμπούργο Τήνου‎ (1995–1996)’, Praktika (1996), 261–70 (pl., ph.). N. Kourou, ‘Tenos-Xobourgo: From a Refuge Place to an Extensive Fortified Settlement’, in Stamatopoulou and Yerou-lanou (eds.), Culture, 255–68, figs. 1–3. N. Kourou, ‘Tenos-Xobourgo: A New Defensive Site in the Cyclades, in Karageorghis and Morris (eds.), Defensive Settlements, 171–89 (ph.). Hansen and Nielsen, 776–8 no. 525.

Catalogue of City Walls

Fig. 114. Zagora, general plan of the site with fortifications.

Zagora (A), Andros. Fig. 114

Location:

Plateau on peninsula. Wall of at least three construction phases, of the ‘peninsula type’, cutting off the plateau, c.7.5 ha, from the island towards NE. The plateau is naturally fortified by steep slopes to the N, S, and W. An additional fortification wall to the NW, supporting a stone fill, functioned also as terrace wall supporting an area of houses.

Wall:

Stretch of double-faced wall, L 110 m, constructed in blocks of schist and marble. Fill: heavy marble boulders and schist. W between 2 and 7.25 m. Interpreting the amount of stone fallen from the wall, recovered in excavation trenches, the original height of the wall is estimated by the excavators to between 4 and 5 m.

Gates:

One of axial type, at S end of wall, W 2.5 m.

Date:

At least three phases of construction identified, dating from EG to LGI, c.850 to C7e at the latest. The early date is (p.200) based on EG pottery from layers accumulated up against face Z of the wall, excavated at Trenches FW 4–6, and the late date is a terminus ante quem, as the site was abandoned. The bulk of the structures on the hill dates between C8s and C7e, as does the lower roadway (trench FG6), and other dated buildings that are oriented after the wall. The fact that the temple might be younger (C6) does not necessarily suggest a downdating of the wall, although, admittedly, the people using the C6 (?) temple could have built the wall as a refuge. The present wall seems to have been in use from the beginning of activity at this settlement.

Bibliography:

A. Cambitoglou et al., Zagora 1: Excavation of a Geometric Town on the Island of Andros (Sydney 1971). A. Cambitoglou, Ἁνασκαϕή Ζαγοράς Άνδρου‎ (1971)’, PAE (1972), 251–73, at 257–8, 269–73. A. Cambitoglou, Ἁνασκαϕή Ζαγοράς Άνδρου‎, PAE (1974), 163–80, esp. 180. A. Cambitoglou et al., Zagora 2: Excavation of a Geometric Town on the Island of Andros (Athens 1988), 51–67. Hansen and Nielsen, 737.

Zankle (C), Sicily

Location:

Coastal.

Siege:

490s BC. Referred to with toponym.

Source:

Hdt. 7.154.2, see at Kallipolis above, p. 153.

Bibliography:

Hansen and Nielsen, 233–6 no. 51.