The Journal of the American School of Classical

d i n i n g i n t h e s a n c t ua r y o f d e m e t e r a n d k o r e

Hesperia Th e J o u r nal of the Am er ic an Sc ho ol of Cl assi c al S t udie s at Athens Vo l u m e 8 3 2014

Copyright © The American School of Classical Studies at Athens, originally published in Hesperia 83 (2014), pp. 709–746. This offprint is supplied for personal, non-commercial use only. The definitive electronic version of the article can be found at .

1

hesperia Susan Lupack, Editor Editorial Advisory Board Carla M. Antonaccio, Duke University Angelos Chaniotis, Institute for Advanced Study Jack L. Davis, University of Cincinnati A. A. Donohue, Bryn Mawr College Jan Driessen, Université Catholique de Louvain Marian H. Feldman, University of California, Berkeley Gloria Ferrari Pinney, Harvard University Sherry C. Fox, American School of Classical Studies at Athens Thomas W. Gallant, University of California, San Diego Sharon E. J. Gerstel, University of California, Los Angeles Guy M. Hedreen, Williams College Carol C. Mattusch, George Mason University Alexander Mazarakis Ainian, University of Thessaly at Volos Lisa C. Nevett, University of Michigan Josiah Ober, Stanford University John K. Papadopoulos, University of California, Los Angeles Jeremy B. Rutter, Dartmouth College A. J. S. Spawforth, Newcastle University Monika Trümper, Freie Universität Berlin Hesperia is published quarterly by the American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Founded in 1932 to publish the work of the American School, the journal now welcomes submissions from all scholars working in the fields of Greek archaeology, art, epigraphy, history, materials science, ethnography, and literature, from earliest prehistoric times onward. Hesperia is a refereed journal, indexed in Abstracts in Anthropology, L’Année philologique, Art Index, Arts and Humanities Citation Index, Avery Index to Architectural Periodicals, Current Contents, IBZ: Internationale Bibliographie der geistes- und sozialwissenschaftlichen Zeitschriftenliteratur, Numismatic Literature, Periodicals Contents Index, Russian Academy of Sciences Bibliographies, and TOCS-IN. The journal is also a member of CrossRef. Hesperia Supplements The Hesperia Supplement series (ISSN 1064-1173) presents book-length studies in the fields of Greek archaeology, art, language, and history. Founded in 1937, the series was originally designed to accommodate extended essays too long for inclusion in Hesperia. Since that date the Supplements have established a strong identity of their own, featuring single-author monographs, excavation reports, and edited collections on topics of interest to researchers in classics, archaeology, art history, and Hellenic studies. Hesperia Supplements are electronically archived in JSTOR (www.jstor.org), where all but the most recent titles may be found. For order information and a complete list of titles, see the ASCSA website (www.ascsa.edu.gr). The American School of

Classical Studies at Athens, established in 1881, is a research and teaching institution dedicated to the advanced study of the archaeology, art, history, philosophy, language, and literature of Greece and the Greek world.

he s per ia 83 (201 4) Pa ges 7 09 – 74 6

Alinda in Karia: The Fortifications

ABS TRAC T Ancient Alinda in Karia was protected by an intricate system of fortifications that enclose the town and a citadel. Surface survey has contributed significant data to its history. An analysis of the extant remains indicates that construction of this system was begun under the direction of the central satrapal authority of Karia. Before it was finished, the design of the circuit underwent a substantial change and the citadel was excluded. This change could be interpreted to indicate that, while it was still under construction, responsibility for the program shifted to the community of Alinda. Technical, stylistic, military, and historical considerations lead to the conclusion that all these activities took place during the first half of the 4th century b.c., most probably within a few years at most, during the reign of Maussollos of Halikarnassos.

H IS TORY AN D RES E ARC H : AN OVERVIE W

1. Özkaya and San 2003, with further references.

The remains of ancient Alinda extend over the eastern slope of a mountain ridge that rises from the edge of Karpuzlu plain (Fig. 1). The plain’s name derives from a modern rural community, which is situated ca. 50 km southwest of the provincial capital of Aydın, in western Turkey. In antiquity, the fortified town protected an access route into northern Karia, which branched off from the principal north–south artery connecting Tralleis and Physkos (modern Marmaris) at Alabanda (Çine). From Alabanda it proceeded to the west and then followed the Karpuzlu-Çay through the fertile valleys east of the central Latmos mountains, leading to Labraunda and on to Mylasa (Strabo 14.2.29 [C 663–664]). Although the ruins of Alinda are, to a large extent, remarkably well preserved (only a small portion of the lower town, or asty, and the necropolis was built over in modern times or incorporated into modern residential buildings of Karpuzlu), no excavation and only minor research has yet taken place on the site. The only recent exception to this was a field survey conducted between 1997 and 2001 by Özkaya.1 A surface survey at the site, initiated in 2007, continues to take place on an annual basis under the auspices of the Austrian Academy

© The American School of Classical Studies at Athens

0

Z9

Wall preserved Wall lost or dismantled

100

Z3

SOUTHERN EXTENSION

Z2

Z 10 0

30

Z 11

Z5

Z4

Z8

V1

500 m

r

U6

U7 U8

U9

Temenos

b

Theater

ASTY

KARPUZLU

a

0 20

U2

U1 250

Figure 1. Alinda, general plan. Scale 1:5,000. C. Kurze and A. L. Konecny

250

Z6

Z7

INTERMEDIATE FORTIFICATION

U5

U4

200

0

30

CITADEL

0 25

Z1

200

Aqueduct

U3

0 15

Agora

Orta Mahalle

U 10

Basilica 15 0

a l i n d a i n k a r i a : t h e f o r t i f i c at i o n s

711

of Sciences, and has as its aim the complete and detailed documentation of ancient Alinda.2 The corpus of data on which the present article on the fortification system of this ancient town is based has been generated during this ongoing survey. The first modern mention of Alinda occurs in the reports of 18thcentury travelers, and the site was mapped by Landron and Trémaux during the 19th century.3 Alinda’s pre- and early history cannot be precisely defined. Garstang identifies Alinda with Iyalanda, which is known from Hittite texts. His claim has found widespread support; however, material evidence to confirm this theory is lacking.4 According to the tribute lists of the Delian League, Alinda was a party to the treaty from the year of its foundation in 478/7 b.c., together with 40 other communities in the Ionian-Karian region. Initially it was assessed at an annual rate of 1,000 drachmas. Later this rose to 1 talent, then to 1½ talents, and finally to 2 talents. According to this, at some points in its history, the sum levied from Alinda was higher than the obligations of Mylasa or Halikarnassos, which indicates the economic potential of the settlement.5 Magie includes this town in a group with other Karian cities for which he assumes Greek ancestry, despite its distance from the Aegean coast.6 Alinda also belonged to the Chrysaorian League.7 Important information regarding the history of Alinda in Hellenistic times is contained in an honorary inscription that was found at Karakol, a village in the eastern part of the Karpuzlu plain, but which was most likely brought to that place from Alinda.8 The inscription is dedicated to Dionytas and Apollas, subordinates of Olympichos, who governed Karia between 240 and 220 b.c., first as strategos of Seleukos II, and afterward of Philip V, and whose residence was first suspected to have been at Mylasa.9 The inscription mentions an ἐπιστολογραφεῖον, which recent research interprets as a royal office—the king’s commissioner—rather than as a private office held by a dynast.10 The existence of this ἐπιστολογραφεῖον defines Alinda as the official residence of Olympichos and as the administrative center of northern Karia at the end of the 3rd century b.c.11 Moreover, the text mentions the phyle Erechtheis, which is interpreted as evidence for the quick Hellenization of Alinda after the conquest of Karia by Alexander the Great.12 The agora complex defines the commercial center of the Hellenistic settlement. It comprises two large colonnaded halls along its southern and 2. The director of the enterprise is Peter Ruggendorfer. The authors wish to express their gratitude to the Ministry of Culture and Tourism of the Turkish Republic and the General Directorate of Monuments and Museums in Ankara for granting the necessary permits to conduct research at Alinda. The Belediye of Karpuzlu provided invaluable assistance and support during field work. We are especially grateful to Poul Pedersen, who generously provided extremely valuable advice, and to Catherine Leisser, who kindly reviewed the English of this

article. Preliminary reports are found in Ruggendorfer 2009, 2010, 2011; Öhlinger and Ruggendorfer 2010; and http://www.oeaw.ac.at/antike/index. php?id=25 (last accessed November 17, 2012). 3. Pococke 1745, p. 66; Chandler 1817, pp. 163–165; Le Bas and Waddington 1847–1877, pp. 45–46, pl. 62; Trémaux 1858, s.v. Alinda, pl. 1. 4. Garstang 1943, p. 41; Marchese 1986, p. 89; Cornil 1990, p. 35; Bryce 2003, p. 194; 2005, pp. 291, 470, n. 111; Özkaya and San 2003, pp. 104–105; Burney 2004, p. 202.

5. Meritt, Wade-Gery, and McGregor 1939, vol. 1, p. 240; vol. 2, p. 212. 6. Magie 1950, pp. 85, 145–146, 1031–1032. 7. Bean 1974, p. 202; McNicoll 1997, p. 26. 8. Laumonier 1934, pp. 291–298. 9. Kobes 1996, pp. 136–145. For Olympichos and Mylasa, see also Kotsidu 2000, pp. 402–404. 10. Robert and Robert 1983, p. 147; Kobes 1996, pp. 98–100. 11. Errington 1986, p. 162. 12. Laumonier 1934, p. 292.

712

andreas l. konecny and pe ter ruggendorfer

northern flanks and a propylon to the east (Fig. 2). Although the date of its construction is still unknown, the southern stoa (whose remains are the best preserved in the agora) is representative of a type of colonnaded hall that was first seen at the end of the 4th century b.c.13 The northern stoa with its small workshops or shops along its northern side can be typologically related to larger complexes, such as those at Magnesia and Ephesos.14 A sanctuary situated on a plateau above the town’s theater formed the sacral center of the settlement. The central building inside this temenos was designed as a templum in antis, and has close analogies to the Late Archaic Temple of Zeus at Labraunda, as well as to the Temple of Artemis at Amyzon.15 The latter may be regarded as an important representative of the Ionian renaissance of the 4th century b.c. It is not clear to which deity the Alindan sanctuary was dedicated. A votive altar adorned with the relief of a labrys was found in 2008 in a dislocated context south of the agora.16 This piece confirms a consecration to Zeus Labraundos; however, due to the distance of its findspot from that shrine, no information can be gleaned from it concerning the deity who was worshipped in the temple on the plateau. In addition to these public buildings, areas with extensive residential structures are situated in the southwest and the northeast sectors of the asty. These date predominantly from the Roman Imperial period and consist of the remains of rooms that are in some cases particularly easy to trace; there are also the remains of several small peristyle courtyards with adjacent structures. During Roman times, the water supply of Alinda was ensured by natural springs situated on the slopes directly west of the settlement, where two springhouses were located. From there an aqueduct led toward the town (Fig. 3) and was continued by way of a conduit that carried the water to several large underground cisterns situated on the plateau near the sanctuary. From there, the distribution of the water and the supply of the

Figure 2. Agora and adjacent areas, with southern stoa, view from west.

13. Coulton 1976, pp. 55–64, 213– 294; Doruk 1987. 14. Sielhorst 2011, pp. 36–37, figs. 4, 5. For the northern stoa, which was discovered in the Alinda survey

Robert and Robert 1983, pp. 57–92; Hellström 2009, pp. 273–278 (Amyzon). 16. Ruggendorfer 2010, p. 88, fig. 5; Bockisch, Ruggendorfer, and Zabrana 2013.

campaign of 2009, see Ruggendorfer 2011, pp. 211–212, fig. 5. 15. Bockisch, Ruggendorfer, and Zabrana 2013 (Alinda); Hellström and Thieme 1982, pp. 58–74 (Labraunda);

Photo A. L. Konecny


713

Figure 3. Aqueduct bridge crossing the saddle west of the citadel, view from west. Photo A. L. Konecny

respective tapping points in the town must have been organized through a network of secondary water lines.17 Two ecclesiastic buildings (a large basilica and a small, three-aisled church) situated in the lower part of the town can probably be ascribed to the Early Byzantine era.18 The large, three-naved basilica is located to the east of the agora. Its apse is built atop the fortification wall of an earlier date, which clearly indicates that the latter was no longer in use at the time when the church was constructed. Due to the lack of any positive epigraphical evidence, its interpretation as the heart of the episcopal complex of the bishop’s see cannot be proven. Alinda belonged to the diocese of the metropolis Stauropolis/Aphrodisias.19 The first known bishop, Promachios, undersigned at the council in Ephesos in a.d. 431.20 In a.d. 879, a bishop from Alinda is indicated as a participant of the Photian synod in Constantinople, in addition to bishops from other Karian towns, such as Herakleia upon Latmos, Miletos, and Mylasa.21 Documents from a synod in Ephesos in a.d. 1216 record the metropolitan Manuel of Miletos as well as the bishops Michael of Mylasa and John of Alinda.22 Structures in the citadel of Alinda that were built of brick and rubble in mortar beddings attest to the existence of a densely structured, small-scale settlement of Byzantine date.23 Alinda had obviously been relocated to the citadel, probably in middle Byzantine times, a common type of move that also occurred in numerous other towns in Asia Minor.24 17. Ruggendorfer 2012, pp. 70–73, figs. 7, 8. 18. These structures were detected during the Alinda surveys of 2008 (large basilica) and 2009 (small church); see Ruggendorfer 2010, pp. 85–86, fig. 2; 2011, p. 214, fig. 9. 19. Wiltsch 1846, p. 161. 20. Millar 2006, p. 100. 21. Wiltsch 1846, p. 419.

22. Ruggieri 2005, p. 100; Hild 2009. 23. Alinda is mentioned as a town in Thrakesion by Constantinus Porphyrogenitus, De thematibus, Asia 3. 24. Müller-Wiener 1986, pp. 466– 467; Niewöhner 2008, pp. 181–184 (Miletos); Ruppe 2007, p. 280 (Priene); Marksteiner 1997, pp. 81–82 (Trysa, Hoyran), 82 (Tyberissos), 87 (Apollo-

nia), 88 (Dereağzı), 89 (Phellos); 2002, p. 46; see, in general, Foss 1977; Morganstern 1993, pp. 51–54, 57–64; Liebeschuetz 2001, pp. 48–52; Whittow 2001; Marksteiner 2002, p. 46; Zimmermann 2003, pp. 295, 306. For the relocation of the settlement of Alinda, see Ruggendorfer 2009, pp. 39– 40; 2010, pp. 88–91, fig. 6.

714


TH E FO RT IF ICAT IONS Ancient Alinda was protected against attack by an intricate system of fortifications (Fig. 1).25 The aggregate length of the walls that enclose the settlement and areas annexed to it was ca. 2,400 m, of which 2,000 are still extant and visible. The exceptionally fine state of preservation of extended stretches of these fortifications—several towers are still standing to their upper story, and the curtain wall in some places is preserved to a height of 6 m or more—make them a profitable object of study.26 An analysis of the fortification’s defensive, architectural, and stylistic characteristics helps to define a sequence of consecutive building phases in which a manifest change in the tactical layout of Alinda’s defensive system is represented. It also provides clues to a time frame within which the construction of the fortress must have taken place. Nevertheless, linking this relative chronology to what is known of the general history of Karia is subject to massive ambiguities and can only be achieved in a very tentative way. The fortifications of Alinda enclose an area totaling ca. 18 ha of sloping terrain along the eastern flank and crest of a spur-like ridge at the western edge of the Karpuzlu plain. This ridge (conveniently named the Alinda ridge hereafter) rises—gently at first and then steeply—toward the west, until it reaches an altitude of 310 m (ca. 230 m above the plain). The western part of its crest is crowned by an intermediate summit which is separated from the rising mountain to the west by a saddle that is 30 m deep. The ground plan of the fortress consists of two adjacent circuits that are linked to one another by an intermediary fortified area. The larger circuit to the east encloses an area of 14.5 ha, on which the asty of Alinda was located. The second, much smaller circuit encloses a plateau of 1.7 ha on the western summit of the Alinda ridge, occupying the highest elevation of the fortified area, which is called the citadel. The intermediate fortification, which served to connect the asty’s circuit with the citadel, is roughly triangular in plan. It occupies an area of 1.8 ha between the citadel and the asty. The intermediate fortification extends from the crest of the Alinda ridge halfway down its southern slope.

The Ci tadel The citadel proper extends for ca. 230 m along the summit’s plateau of the Alinda ridge. Its walls closely follow the natural terrain features—crests or sheer cliffs—which provide optimum visibility over the territory immediately in front of it. This causes a ground plan of irregular shape, with the 25. The fortifications must have already been noted by the sources of Arrian (in this case obviously Ptolemaios, the man with the military eye, and maybe Aristoboulos as well; see Bosworth 1980, pp. 17–34), from which he drew his characterization of the place: ῎Αδα δὲ ῎Αλινδα μόνον κατεῖχε, χωρίον τῆς Καρίας ἐν τοῖς ὀχυρώτατον (Anab. 1.23.8: “Ada

retained Alinda alone, the strongest

place in Caria,” trans. E. J. Chinnock, London 1884). 26. This potential has been recognized by McNicoll (1997, pp. 26–31), and Pimouguet-Pédarros (2000, pp. 253–259), who treat the walls of Alinda in their respective volumes. Nevertheless, an in-depth study is still lacking. This may be the case because Alinda remained in the shadow of the larger and more prominent sites of

Karia, such as Halikarnassos (McNicoll 1997, pp. 16–22; Pedersen 2010), Kaunos (Schmaltz 1994), and Herakleia upon Latmos (Milet III.2), although it is well preserved and an attractive subject in many respects. One of the aims of the ongoing survey at the site is therefore to reexamine the walls of Alinda, of which the following paragraphs present a preliminary report.


Figure 4. Southern extension, postern gate: (left) interior view from north; (right) exterior view from west. Photos P. Ruggendorfer

27. For a discussion of diateichismata, see Sokolicek 2009a. 28. Ruggendorfer 2009, p. 41, fig. 3.

715

western two-thirds (the upper citadel) separated from the lower citadel to its east. The latter extends up to the eastern crest of the summit’s plateau. The upper and lower parts of the citadel are separated by a diateichisma 27 that crosses the narrowest section of the plateau and faces east, defending the upper against the lower citadel. An additional line of fortifications projects from the southern wall of the lower citadel and encompasses another 0.5 ha of the slope in front of the citadel proper. Communication with this southern extension was achieved through a gateway in the citadel wall, between towers Z 5 and Z 6. In the eastern part of the southern extension a postern gate leads to a hidden exit in front of the wall (Fig. 4). It was cut into the base of a large monolithic rock on top of which a spur-like bastion (Z 11) was located. This was the only means of communication between the southern extension and the terrain in front of its fortifications.28 It remains unclear whether or not this postern gate belonged to the original layout of the southern extension. The main entrance to the citadel must have been situated in its eastern wall. However, later activities have completely obliterated the eastern front of the citadel, which can only be traced along rock beddings. Together with the wall, the presumed gateway has also been lost. Communication between the lower and the upper sectors of the citadel was possible through a gateway in the diateichisma. Along the northern side of the upper citadel another gateway is located in an area formed by two overlapping segments of the wall. It should be noted, however, that the walls which delineate this entrance are constructed of small stones laid in a rich mortar bedding, which stands in stark contrast to the dry masonry of large, rectangular ashlar blocks that is so characteristic of the citadel’s original walls. The use of mortar dates the structure to the Byzantine period. Without an excavation it is impossible to judge whether the gateway is a later addition, or if it reuses an entrance that belonged to the original layout of the citadel. In addition to these documented and possible entrances, a narrow postern gate exists in the western wall. It leads from the ground floor of

716


the southwestern tower Z 2 through a tunnel cut into the solid bedrock of the tower base and opens into a rocky crevice between huge boulders in front of the tower; because of this location the exit of the postern remained hidden from enemy view (Fig. 5). The defensive layout of the citadel fortifications is characterized by the liberal use of towers and bastions along its western, southern, and eastern flanks (Z 1–Z 6). These are spaced at intervals ranging from 13 to slightly more than 60 m. They project in front of the curtain wall, providing the potential for enfilade. Along the wider sectors between these towers the curtain wall follows an indented line, which has the effect of providing additional opportunities for enfilade along the adjacent stretches of wall.

Figure 5. Citadel, tower Z 2, postern gate leading though the tower base: (above) view from east of the tunnel entrance inside the tower; (below) exterior view from southwest. Photos P. Ruggendorfer


29. For the visual effects of ancient fortifications, see Maier 1961, pp. 31– 34; 1986; Lang 1996, pp. 20–22; Hansen and Nielsen 2004, pp. 135–137; Müth 2010. 30. For a definition of pseudoisodomic ashlar and other masonry styles, see Winter 1971a, pp. 69–91.

717

In contrast to this, the northern side of the citadel is altogether lacking in towers or bastions. Enfilade could only be provided through five indentations of the wall, even though the terrain in front is less steep than that along most of the southern front of the citadel. The reason why the builders equipped the southern side of the citadel with towers when it was much better protected by the terrain than its more exposed northern sector, must remain unknown. Perhaps they were more concerned with the visual impact of the wall than with military considerations.29 The wall of the southern extension is flanked by two evenly spaced, projecting towers (Z 9 and Z 10) and the spur-like bastion Z 11 under which the postern exit leads through the wall. The towers and bastions stand on square or rectangular ground plans of between 50 and 80 m2. They all contain single ground-floor chambers, which were accessible by a doorway located inside the fortification. The only exception to this is tower Z 1, where a cross wall divides the ground floor into two chambers of uneven size (Fig. 6:a). Due to the slope of the terrain the floors of the tower chambers are generally elevated several meters above the terrain in front of the buildings, and therefore generate a solidly filled tower base. In one case (tower Z 1), two embrasures, each two courses (1 m) high, opened through the west wall of the ground-floor chamber (Fig. 6:a, b). Another embrasure opened through the south wall, directly into the corner between the tower and the adjacent curtain wall (Fig. 6:a, c). Due to the sorry state of preservation of the north wall, it is impossible to determine whether there was an embrasure on this side as well. The towers appear to have been equipped with an open, upper fighting platform rather than being covered by a roof. This is suggested by a waterspout carved through one of the blocks found in the debris of tower Z 1, which should be allocated to the tower and would have been used to drain rainwater from the upper platform. The walls of the citadel and its southern extension share common technical and stylistic characteristics without being absolutely identical: the curtain wall of the citadel is, on average, 2.0 m wide; that of the southern extension is 2.4 m wide. The walls consist of two faces of pseudoisodomic blocks, quarried from local granite-gneiss and laid in horizontal courses.30 Slightly trapezoidal blocks are occasionally apparent. The two faces of the citadel’s curtain wall are literally bonded together by long headers that run across the whole width of the wall, and project conspicuously from both faces (Figs. 6:a, 7, 8). Alternatively, some headers extend across the fill of the wall until they touch the rear or inner sides of the opposite face (Fig. 9). Along the curtain wall of the southern extension, header blocks are of a lesser length and reach approximately halfway into the curtain wall fill (Fig. 10). These headers appear in a more or less regular distribution after every second or third stretcher in every course of blocks (Figs. 6:b, 8). The fill between the two faces consists of small- and medium-size rubble of the local granite-gneiss embedded in an earth and clay matrix—obviously the debris from the quarrying and shaping of the large blocks. The courses of the curtain wall are between 0.40 and 0.55 m high (Figs. 6:b, c, 8). Stretcher lengths vary greatly between 0.90 and 2.50 m, although most blocks measure between 1.00 and 2.00 m in length. In

718

andreas l. konecny and pe ter ruggendorfer Figure 6. Citadel, tower Z 1: (a) ground plan; (b) western face and adjacent curtain wall; (c) southern face. Scale (a) 1:200; (b, c) 1:100. Drawings A. L. Konecny

c

a

b contrast to this, the faces of the headers are generally less wide than high, with widths ranging from 0.25 to 0.40 m and heights of 0.40 to 0.55 m. The front faces of the stretchers show pillow-shaped, hammer-faced bossage, which projects only slightly (mostly between 0.10 and 0.15 m) and lacks any tooled margin except in very few exceptional instances where one or two blocks in a wall face do have a margin along the edges (Fig. 11). In this case, too, the headers differ markedly, as their rough, quarry-faced ends project conspicuously from 0.20 to 0.40 m in front of the vertical plane of


719

Figure 7. Citadel, northern face, view from southeast along the curtain wall, showing header blocks. Photo P. Ruggendorfer

Figure 8. Citadel, tower Z 6, view from southeast. Photo A. L. Konecny

31. This is a feature which also appears along the walls of Alabanda (P. Pedersen, pers. comm.).

the wall.31 These characteristics apply to the curtain walls of the citadel as well as to those of the southern extension. With regard to their technical and stylistic characteristics, the towers of the citadel are absolutely identical to those of the curtain walls, save for a tooled vertical margin which runs along the corners of the citadel’s towers. The wall thicknesses of the ground-floor chambers vary between ca. 1.20 and 1.60 m. The walls of the towers employ header-stretcher masonry, with all headers crossing the

720


Figure 9. Citadel, southern face, view from west into the curtain wall, showing header blocks. Photo A. L. Konecny

Figure 10. Southern extension, view from east along the curtain wall, showing header blocks. Photo A. L. Konecny

complete width of the walls. Along the corners of the towers double headers are employed regularly, in a highly characteristic manner.32 In most cases the curtain walls are not bonded to the towers, although this is not a rule. It is apparent that most towers were constructed as autonomous structures, and that the curtain walls were built against their flanks.33 For the tower walls, the appearance of the blocks’ surfaces remains unchanged in the areas that were covered by the abutting curtain walls—that is, the bossage continues throughout. There are just two narrow vertical

32. For a description and analysis of this stylistic phenomenon, see Pedersen 2010, pp. 310–311. 33. The fortifications of Halikarnassos are constructed in a similar way; see Pedersen 2001–2002, p. 109.


721

Figure 11. Citadel, tower Z 5, eastern face, with two blocks showing tooled margins along their edges. Photo A. L. Konecny

Figure 12. Citadel, tower Z 5, detail: curtain wall (left) bonded to eastern wall of tower (center and foreground), view from north. Photo A. L. Konecny

34. Although such a method of construction is endorsed by Philon (Poliorketika 1.62), it occurs only very rarely in ancient fortifications. In most cases the curtains and towers are bonded; see Lawrence 1979, p. 221.

bands that are barely recognizable where the outer and inner planes of the curtain wall join the tower flanks. Along these vertical bands the bossage of the tower walls is somewhat worked off so as to secure a tighter fit between the curtain wall and the tower (this is more clearly visible in some towers of the asty circuit; see below).34 There are very few exceptions to this rule: the eastern and western flanks of tower Z 5 are bonded with the curtain wall (Fig. 12), as is the eastern flank of tower Z 2. The citadel and its southern extension are in a generally good state of preservation. The faces of the curtain walls and the towers and bastions remain standing to a height of 15 courses or more, although nowhere does the level of the walkway remain. In most cases the ground-floor chambers of the towers are preserved, together with the doorways leading into them, and sometimes even the threshold has remained in situ. Sections of the original

722


walls have been replaced with, or are superimposed by, walls constructed from small, unworked stones in a rich mortar bedding; this is evident especially along the northern face of the upper citadel, but also along several short stretches of its southern side. This was obviously part of the Byzantine-era restoration of the citadel. The strength of the fortifications in this period is apparent. The elaborate repairs and the restoration of what appears to have been the already badly damaged or ruinous upper citadel were closely connected to the relocation there of the residential quarters in the form of a dense, small-scaled housing complex (Fig. 1).35 The fortification was modified by the addition of a deep V-shaped ditch in front of the eastern wall and a new gateway higher up. Another essential element in this Byzantine stronghold was the well-preserved tower U 1. Originally part of the asty circuit, it was obviously reused as a watchtower and enabled surveillance of the plain and the interurban connections to Alabanda and Labraunda. With several oil presses and six large, brick-lined underground cisterns, the lower citadel accommodated utilitarian facilities for the residential area, but—as with the southern extension—it was not included in the adapted defenses.

The Int e r m ediate Fort ific at ion The northern flank of the intermediate area that linked the citadel to the asty was protected by a wall roughly 190 m in length. This wall is hardly preserved at all. Along its course only a few blocks remain in situ. No traces whatsoever of any tower or bastion can be detected. The only possibility for enfilade was provided by an indentation approximately midway along the extent of the line. The wall ran up against the northern curtain wall of the citadel a few meters to the west of its northeastern corner, again without being bonded to it. The location where this wall joined the asty circuit is lost. The wall is so badly preserved along its whole line that little doubt exists that it was intentionally dismantled down to its rock beddings. The state of preservation of the southern flank of the intermediate fortification is considerably better, at least in its western part, where it stands up to a dozen courses. The line crosses the southern slope of the Alinda ridge until, after 230 m, it terminates against the asty circuit. Along its entire length, the wall is provided with only one tower—V 1 (Fig. 13). Here, the curtain wall continues behind the tower without interruption, and the walls of the tower bond into it. In the western wall of the tower an embrasure two courses high is preserved, through which the curtain wall could be covered by enfilade. Additional enfilade could have been provided through an indentation further to the east. The remainder of the curtain wall lacks any protection by flanking towers or bastions. The wall and tower V 1 are absolutely identical to the citadel fortification in every aspect, with regard to construction technique as well as in stylistic appearance. The only exception to this is a short sector east of the flanking indentation (at point r in Fig. 1), where the curtain wall has been replaced with a wall made of reused blocks placed in a crude and careless fashion. The local topography, which leads to the collection of surface water at this spot, makes it very likely that this obvious repair had been caused by the collapse of the original wall due to torrents washing out its foundation.

35. Compare the restoration of the acropolis fortress at Labraunda in the 13th century; see Karlsson 2010, p. 45.


723

Figure 13. Intermediate fortification, tower V 1, view from west. Photo A. L. Konecny

This repair reestablished the fortification line, which points to the possibility that it was executed while this sector of the defensive system was still in use or under construction. Nevertheless, the careless execution of the repair could alternatively indicate that the wall had already been discarded as part of the fortification (see below) and functioned only as a terrace wall, which would not have deserved rebuilding in such an elaborate manner as had been used in its primary construction. East of tower V 1 the state of preservation of the curtain wall deteriorates until, near its eastern termination, it is visible only in its lowermost courses, if at all.

The Ast y C i r c u i t 36. These will have to be studied in a future campaign and are not discussed here. The trace of wall depicted in Trémaux 1858, pl. 3, and Le Bas and Waddington 1847–1877, pl. 62, makes a rather schematic impression, and it remains doubtful whether this plan was based on actual remains still visible on the surface around the middle of the 19th century, or if it was based on conjecture. 37. A narrow pathway along which there can be seen several patches of pavement preserved in situ leads up along the northern slope of the Alinda ridge to this gate in tower U 1; see Ruggendorfer, in press.

The asty circuit circumvents the lower town, which is situated on the eastern slope of the Alinda ridge, at an altitude of 150 m in the agora to 280 m at the temple on the summit’s plateau (Fig. 1). Its preserved length amounts to ca. 1,300 m; a 300 m long segment can no longer be seen as it lies beneath Orta Mahalle, a district of modern Karpuzlu. There, in the area south and southwest of the agora, a few short stretches of ashlar masonry typical of the fortifications can be found that might belong to the asty circuit.36 Two gateways into the circuit can be discerned. One is situated near the northeastern apex of the circuit, 17 m to the west of bastion U 10. It consists of a frontal opening in the curtain wall, flanked at some distance to the east by the bastion from which the shielded side of a potential attacker could be threatened. The second entrance leads through the western face of tower U 1 into its ground-floor chamber and through the southern face of the tower into the town, at a location 75 m northeast of the temple on the summit’s plateau (Figs. 14–16).37

724


Evidence indicates that a third entrance into the northwestern sector of the asty circuit, between towers U 3 and U 4, had been planned but was abandoned while the curtain wall in this sector was still under construction: on the inner face of the curtain both door jambs are evident with the lintel in situ (Fig. 17:a), whereas on its outer face the wall continues without interruption across the position of the gate (Fig. 17:b). Due to its narrowness, this thoroughfare would obviously have been intended as a postern gate. Neither one of these entranceways can be regarded as the main city gate of Alinda, which was most likely located south of the agora, in the area occupied by the houses of Orta Mahalle.38 One other opening in the asty circuit remains enigmatic. At the southeastern corner of the circuit there is a gateway with its door jambs facing the interior of the town (Fig. 18). This means that the door leafs had to be blocked and opened from outside the fortification. In front of the fortification at this place there is a narrow rocky ledge that is elevated for several meters against the terrain further to the east and south. The ledge can be reached from below only via a ladder or comparable means of ascension. Notwithstanding, this odd gateway would have posed an extremely serious threat to the integrity of the circuit in case of a surprise attack, and, in the case of a siege, it would have had to have been walled up to prevent any enemy from attaining easy entry. Nevertheless, there are

Figure 14. Asty circuit, tower U 1: (left) view from west; (right) northern facade. Scale (drawing) 1:100. Photo P. Ruggendorfer; drawing A. L. Konecny

38. See also Ruggendorfer, in press.


Figure 15. Asty circuit, tower U 1: (above) western and southern facades with connection to curtain wall; (right) southern facade. Scale (drawing) 1:100. Photo and drawing A. L. Konecny

Figure 16. Asty circuit, tower U 1, interior of the western facade: lintel above gateway, ledge for joists, and window above gateway. Photo A. L. Konecny

725

726


a

b no indications whatsoever to be observed in the adjacent masonry that the insertion of the thoroughfare is secondary to the construction of the wall—the opening appears to be original. It is hoped that further research will deliver additional clues to the reasons for the implementation of this peculiar structure. As is the case of the citadel, the asty circuit also makes best use of every local terrain feature so as to provide optimum elevation over the terrain in front of the wall. This is especially evident along the western and the northwestern sectors of the northern front (starting at tower U 3 until point a in Fig. 1); here the wall follows the crests or the edges of steep, often

Figure 17. Asty circuit: (a) walled up interior opening of the projected postern gate in curtain wall between towers U 2 and U 3, view from southeast; (b) exterior view from northwest of the uninterrupted curtain wall. Photo A. L. Konecny


727

Figure 18. Asty circuit, southeastern corner, south of the basilica, gateway facing the wrong direction. Photo A. L. Konecny

cliff-like slopes, which makes it very difficult or even virtually impossible to reach the foot of the wall, still to this day. Further to the east and along the eastern branch of the fortification the terrain in front is less inaccessible, although it still shows a distinctive slope and thus provides considerable elevation to the wall. All along these sectors, quite frequent indentations, situated at distances of between ca. 20 and 70 m, could provide enfilade cover to adjacent sectors of the curtain wall. They are situated in a way that made it possible for defenders standing on the wall’s walkway to look and shoot downhill along the foot of the wall. Towers and bastions are absent with one exception: at the northeastern corner of the asty circuit, east of the gateway described above, the curtain wall projects in the shape of a 10 m wide and 4 m deep bastion (U 10). The terrain is quite different along the western and northwestern front of the circuit (starting at point b, along towers U 9–U 3). Here the fortification runs perpendicular to the southern slope of Alinda ridge, thus forgoing any natural elevation above the terrain in front (Fig. 19). At the point where the wall reaches the crest of the ridge it turns northeast for ca. 60 m. This short sector is anchored between two small, rocky outcrops that both carry towers (U 3, U 5). As the terrain in front is nearly level, it is only along this sector that the curtain wall is equipped with more or less regularly spaced towers. Tower U 4 stands at distances of 16 and 18 m between towers U 3 and U 5, where the level area in front of the fortification necessitated a closer spacing in order to better protect the line against attack. Along the western flank of the circuit, towers U 6–U 9 stand at distances between 40 and 60 m. These towers generally project in front of the curtain wall, though usually only 1.5–2 m. The towers of the asty circuit all stand on square or rectangular ground plans of between 35 and 45 m2, with the exception of tower U 3 which is exceptionally large (80 m2). They are all provided with a chamber on the ground-floor level, accessible through a doorway in the tower’s rear

728


wall. Again tower U 3 is an exception, as an internal cross wall, similar to that found in tower Z 1, divides its ground floor into two chambers of unequal size. There are no traces preserved of staircases or any other means by which to reach the upper story in any of the towers. Accordingly, access must have been gained via wooden contraptions such as ladders or stairs. Most towers are preserved on the ground-floor level or up to the lower courses of their upper story. Two of the towers stand to a more substantial height. Tower U 1 is exceptional in several ways (Figs. 14–16). As mentioned above, it functioned not only as a flanking building to the curtain wall but also as an entranceway, with its external door in its western side. Inside the tower the path turned south and exited through a door located in the rear wall that led onto the plateau above the theater and east of the temple. Both openings could be closed with solid, double wooden doors. Above the ground-floor chamber, the walls of the first story of tower U 1 contain several medium-size windows (1.00 m high by 0.90 m wide), which look out onto the surrounding terrain: three to the front, one to each flank, and two to the rear. Between the rear windows a large doorway (3.05 m high by 1.70 m wide) led from the tower chamber onto a balcony that was supported on wooden beams. The balcony is of course lost, but the sockets for its supports are preserved in situ. This balcony connected the tower chamber with the curtain wall’s walkway, which was bonded to the western flank of the tower. The level of the walkway corresponded to the level of the balcony.39 Inside the tower, the joists of the floor construction above the groundfloor chamber rested on ledges that resulted from a reduction of wall thickness in the upper story (Fig. 16). Although the tower is preserved for six more courses above the lintels of the windows, there are no visible traces of a ceiling. The interior height of the tower chamber thus exceeded 4.75 m.

Figure 19. Asty circuit, view of towers U 8 and U 9, and adjacent sectors, from the southwest. Photo A. L. Konecny

39. The curtain wall is not preserved to the height of the walkway but its level can, upon closer inspection, be inferred from the outlines of the wall and its parapet preserved on the tower flank.


729

Figure 20. Asty circuit, tower U 8: (a) view from east; (b) view from west. Photos A. L. Konecny

a

b Because of this considerable overhead space it seems quite probable that the chamber was directly covered by the tower’s gabled roof.40 The other exceedingly well-preserved tower in the asty circuit is U 8 (Fig. 20). It could be entered at the ground-floor level through a doorway 40. Either as reconstructed by McNicoll (1997, p. 30, fig. 4), with the gable facing southwest, parallel to the curtain wall, or, more likely, with the gable facing northwest, perpendicular to the wall, as at tower L immediately north of the Arcadian Gate at Messene or the tower at the southeast corner of the circuit of Aigosthena (which col-

lapsed due to an earthquake in 1984). Both possessed a gabled roof; see Haselberger 1979, pp. 95–98, pls. 29–31; Lawrence 1979, pls. 32, 88; Adam 1982, pp. 49, 53, fig. 22, pl. 73; Ober 1987, p. 576, fig. 5. The possibility that the tower was covered by a level or slightly inclined ceiling surrounded by a crenellated parapet, which would have

provided an additional fighting platform (cf. the towers along the western sector of the Messene circuit: Haselberger 1979, p. 101, pl. 36; and Siphai, tower 3: Ober 1987, p. 579, fig. 10), seems less likely, as no crenellation capstones could be found anywhere in the vicinity.

730


in its eastern wall that was located high above the surrounding terrain and could only be reached by way of a ladder (Fig. 20:a). Besides this doorway, a small slit in its north wall, one course high and barely 0.1 m wide, is the only other opening preserved in the walls of the ground story. The slit opens onto the area inside the town and therefore cannot have had any defensive function. In contrast to this, a 1 m high embrasure is preserved in the western, frontal wall of the upper tower chamber (Fig. 20:b). Most unfortunately, both of the upper side walls of tower U 8 have collapsed. It is therefore impossible to determine if the tower was roofed in a similar fashion as has been reconstructed for tower U 1, or if it was equipped with an additional open fighting platform as were the towers along the western flank of Messene.41 A fighting platform would have been advantageous, as the tower is situated in such a way that its southern flank projects only ca. 2.0 m in front of the curtain wall, and not at all along the northern flank. This made it impossible to place embrasures on the northern side and almost impossible on the southern side, through which the adjacent curtain walls could have been protected with enfilade. Similar in construction to the citadel and the intermediate fortification sectors, the curtain walls of the asty are in most cases not bonded to the masonry of the towers but simply abut their flanks. The walls are, in some places, preserved to a considerable height; for instance, immediately north of tower U 8 where the wall stands ca. 6 m aboveground. Still, no trace remains of the wall’s walkway; accordingly, the wall must have been higher by at least one more course. Such a wall, 8 or 9 m high and surmounted by numerous towers, will have made for an impressive sight along the western side of the asty.

ANALYSIS S t y li st i c Cons iderat ions Two distinctive sectors can be defined in the asty circuit on the basis of technical and stylistic criteria. Sector one starts immediately to the north of tower U 1 and incorporates all preserved parts of the northern, eastern (with tower U 10), and southern flanks up to tower U 9; it also includes a stretch of curtain wall to the north of tower U 9. Sector two consists of towers U 8–U 1 and the curtain walls between them. On first sight the walls of sector one and sector two look very similar—both are built in near-isodomic masonry with regularly applied headers. Nevertheless, on closer examination a set of highly specific masonry characteristics actually indicate that there were great differences between these two sectors.42 Sector one shows exactly the same stylistic traits as the citadel walls and the intermediate fortification. Among its most characteristic features are pillow-shaped block faces lacking tooled margins except for on one or two blocks, and exceedingly slender headers that project considerably, often up to 0.40 m, in front of the vertical wall planes. In addition to these features there is the very consistent use of the “double bond” technique along the corners of the towers, bastions, and indents, namely, two headers, as narrow as is typical for the citadel wall, placed side by side (Figs. 18, 21, 22;

41. The virtual absence of any battlement cover stones along the circuit is a great hindrance to a successful reconstruction of the upper termination of both the walkway and the towers. For the shape of such blocks, see, for instance, Samos XV, p. 49, fig. 21; Haselberger 1979, pp. 101, 109, figs. 5, 7; Adam 1982, esp. pp. 36–43, 126, fig. 82; Marksteiner 1997, pp. 49–50, figs. 45, 46, pl. 16; Typaldou-Fakiris 2004, pp. 50–53, 87–88, figs. 32:b, 33, 35–37, 64, 65. 42. Differences in masonry style between the citadel and the asty circuit have already been noted by Pedersen 2001–2002, pp. 126–128; 2009, pp. 332–334.


731

Figure 21. Asty circuit, directly north of tower U 1, typical masonry of sector one. Photo A. L. Konecny

43. For a concise description of this conspicuous feature of the walls of Halikarnassos, see Pedersen 2010, p. 311.

cf. Figs. 6:b, c, 8, 11 for the citadel). Typically, the corner header is at the same time the end of the stretcher in the adjoining tower face, and the second, often very narrow header reaches into the fill of the wall without being connected to the inner face of it.43 Together, these factors result in a highly characteristic masonry style. Sector two is built of quarry-faced blocks laid nearly in an isodomic order, similar to that of sector one. It also employs regularly applied headers, but, even if the masonry style has close relations to sector one, the block faces of sector two have a different appearance. Most conspicuous is the fact that the majority of the blocks have tooled margins that are between 5 and 7 cm wide along all four sides framing the roughly hewn bossage (Figs. 14, 15, 20). The headers are slightly wider and generally project in a less accentuated fashion than in sector one. Double headers do occur at the corners of towers, but they were applied less frequently than in sector one. Due to the wider frontage of the headers, they appear squatter and less vertically elongated. A further distinction between sectors one and two can be noted in the execution of the ceiling supports of the respective tower chambers. Whereas the joists in the towers of sector one rested in sockets worked into the inner face of the wall (Fig. 23), the ceiling joists in the towers of sector two were supported by ledges which resulted from the reduction of the wall thickness above the ground floor (Fig. 16). These differences between the two sectors are most probably due to a lapse of time between the construction of the two sectors, which most probably led to the employment of different groups of workmen, or at least of different master masons. This went hand in hand with a major change of design. Sector one and the citadel fortification, its southern extension, and the intermediate sector display absolutely identical masonry styles and techniques. The assumption seems logical that they belong to one phase, representing a single, integrated building program. Besides, the curtain wall of sector one of the asty circuit terminates ca. 38 m north (upslope) of tower U 9, at a point that is situated approximately where the continuation

732


Figure 22. Asty circuit, tower U 9, western face. Scale (drawing) 1:100. Photo and drawing A. L. Konecny

of the intermediate fortification’s southern wall would have met the asty’s wall, if it were not interrupted by the double jog directly east of tower V 1. This is such a conspicuous coincidence that the assumption seems to be legitimate that the southern wall of the intermediate sector was originally intended to follow this course. Such a program would have provided Alinda with a circuit roughly shaped like a triangle, crowned and anchored to the west by the citadel (Fig. 24). Before this program could be finished, the design of the fortification must have been changed. Sector two—between


733

Figure 23. Asty circuit, detail of tower U 9, showing joist sockets for ceiling supports. Photo A. L. Konecny

(and including) towers U 1 and U 8, and a 10 m long stretch of wall south of the latter—was inserted into the plan, and that portion of the southern wall of the intermediary fortification which had not yet been constructed was shifted to a line that continued to the new sector of the asty wall between towers U 6 and U 7 (Fig. 25). The masonry style of the continuation of the intermediary fortification shows that it was constructed by the groups of workmen involved in the building of sector one. This alteration would have cut off the western sector of the Alinda circuit from its much larger, eastern portion and created a separate asty circuit, still linked to the citadel via the intermediate fortification. Nevertheless, while the southern wall of the intermediate fortification still shows the stylistic traits of the original design of the circuit, sector two of the asty circuit, which separates the asty from the citadel, shows its own, different stylistic traits as outlined above. This difference indicates that the interruption in construction of the walls occurred when the south wall of the intermediate fortification had already been finished (or its construction had been abandoned while still unfinished), but the construction of sector two of the asty circuit had not yet commenced. It was likely during this time that the change of master masons and their groups of workmen must have taken place. It was only afterward that construction of sector two started, and the asty circuit was finished. The exact length of time between these two building phases, however, cannot be even hypothetically defined on the basis of the material evidence alone. The asty circuit and the intermediate fortification were meant to communicate via a postern gate between towers U 3 and U 4. Gateway tower U 1 provided a connection between the northern slope of the Alinda ridge and the asty. Nevertheless, the postern gate into the intermediate fortification was abandoned and permanently walled up while sector two of the asty circuit was still under construction, thus eliminating the sole interior connection between town and citadel. It seems apparent that the citadel had become obsolete. It also seems logical to link this subsequent


15

734

0

200

U 10

0

25

20 0

250

ASTY

0

30

Z1 Z2

15 0

?

CITADEL

Z8

Z3


Z7

Z4

Z5

Z9

Z 11 30 0 SOUTHERN Z 10

Z6

EXTENSION

V1 U9

250

0

200

Wall preserved Wall lost or dismantled Wall planned but not executed 100

500 m

150

200

U 10

0

20

0

250

25

30

0

Z2

Z3 Z9

SOUTHERN EXTENSION

Z4

0

?

CITADEL

15

Z1

Z8


Z5

30 Z 10 Z 11 0

Z6

V1 U9

250

100

200

Wall preserved Wall built but lost Wall not yet built 0

ASTY

500 m


735

15

0

200 0

U1

250

U 10

25

U2

20 0

U3 U4

ASTY

0

30

U5 15 0

CITADEL

U6

INTERMEDIATE FORTIFICATION SOUTHERN EXTENSION

U7 U8

30

0

U9

250

0

100

Figure 24 (opposite, above). Original design of the fortification. Sector 1, the citadel, and the intermediate fortification. Scale 1:7,500. A. L. Konecny Figure 25 (opposite, below). Second design with changed line of the south wall of the intermediate fortification, still incorporating the citadel, sector two not yet having been commenced. Scale 1:7,500. A. L. Konecny

Figure 26 (above). Final design of fortification as built. Scale 1:7,500. A. L. Konecny

200

Wall preserved Wall lost or dismantled Discarded sectors 500 m

change of design of the Alinda circuit with the purposeful obliteration of the northern sector of the intermediate fortification. Considering the evidence, it seems that the western part of the original scheme of the circuit was excluded altogether from the fortified territory. Connections were cut off, and the existing northern wall of the intermediate fortification between towers U 3 and U 5 was dismantled with the obvious purpose of depriving any possible attackers of the cover of an intact fortification line that had gone out of use (Fig. 26). It remains unclear to what extent the southern sector of the intermediate fortification was dismantled. Probably the asty circuit was considered to be sufficiently elevated to dominate the wall, and possibly the discarded wall was reduced in height in a way that can no longer be determined due to the depleted state of the sector in question.44 Equally undecided must remain the question as to what extent, if at all, the citadel was dismantled so as not to provide any possible attacker with a welcome strongpoint from which they would have been able to dominate Alinda. The destruction of the parapets and the creation of one or more breaches in the walls may have been considered sufficient to render the works useless, but this can no longer be diagnosed from the available evidence.45 44. Unfortunately, both walls have completely collapsed at the point where the intermediate curtain wall joined the asty circuit and are covered by their own

debris. This severely hampers any further diagnosis without excavation. 45. See the discussion in TypaldouFakiris 2004, pp. 325–326.

736


Chr onol o gic al Cons iderat ion s Due to the complete lack of excavated evidence, any hypothesis concerning the chronological setting of the fortifications of Alinda must depend on alternative considerations. These may be based on certain characteristics of its architecture and its tactical layout, on the style and technique of masonry—especially in comparison with dated parallels—and on the historical evidence available, scant as these sources may be.46 Alinda belongs to the large group of Geländefestungen, typical of 4th- and early-3rd-century b.c. Greek city fortifications.47 The circuit in its primary layout encloses all the terrain from which it could have been dominated. And even after the exclusion of the citadel, the asty circuit put some distance between itself and the ascending slope of the citadel spur. The latter reached the elevation of the new curtain wall at a distance of ca. 75 m. From there an enemy could have shot missiles against the walkway of the asty on a level trajectory, and only from a still greater distance further up the slope could the enemy have shot at the defenders atop the wall from an elevated position. The distances involved were sufficient to take the walkway out of any danger that could have been posed by an enemy armed with bows, but it would have been well within the effective range of catapults, especially the high-performance torsion versions.48 This indicates that at the time sector two was under construction, such weapons were of no concern to the garrison of Alinda. The line must have been planned before the proliferation of torsion artillery took place, which was after the demise of Alexander the Great.49 Nevertheless, the employment, on a small scale, of catapults seems to have been intended by the defenders of Alinda, and they provided a platform for them in tower U 1. The type of windows through which this tower opens onto the surrounding terrain is generally considered typical of early artillery towers in Greek defensive architecture.50 Through these windows the defenders of tower U 1 could shoot catapult bolts at an enemy trying to assault the gateway in the tower’s base, which was a vulnerable point of the circuit.51 The considerable overhead height in 46. For the virtues and limitations of this approach, see, e.g., Wrede 1933, pp. 1–5; Scranton 1941; Maier 1961, pp. 93–112; Winter 1971a, pp. 80–100; Lawrence 1979, p. 235; Konecny 1997, pp. 74–78; Marksteiner 1997, pp. 119– 134, 165–168. 47. For a definition, see Noack 1916, p. 218; Milet III.2, pp. 1–9; Kirsten 1956, pp. 56–57; Samos XV, p. 11; Lawrence 1979, pp. 117–120; Karlsson 1992; McNicoll 1997, pp. 75–105; Marksteiner 1999, p. 415; Mertens 1999; Schulz 2000, pp. 45–79; and, especially for the Karian context, Pedersen 2010, pp. 269–275. 48. For the range of ancient bowshot, see McLeod 1965. For catapults,

see Marsden 1969, pp. 86–98; Winter 1971a, pp. 156, 165–167, 323–324; Bakhuizen 1992, pp. 150–164; Baatz 1994, pp. 135–145; McNicoll 1997, pp. 4–6; Kern 1999, pp. 237–245; Sokolicek 2009a, pp. 46–47. Compare the case of Plataiai in Boiotia, where the southern branch of its fortification line, dated 338–334 b.c., was situated at a comparable distance from the ascending slopes of Mt. Kithairon and was discarded, especially because of the danger of catapults, only a few decades thereafter; see Konecny, Aravantinos, and Marchese 2013, pp. 37, 101, 106– 107. 49. Marsden 1969, pp. 16–47, 60– 72; Garlan 1974, pp. 212–225; Bakhui-

zen 1992, pp. 150–162; Kern 1999, pp. 197–200; Rihll 2007, pp. 106–122; de Souza 2007; Strauss 2007, pp. 241– 242; English 2009, pp. 100–107. See also the powerful argument of E. Kirsten (“Plataiai,” RE XX, 1950, cols. 2255–2332, esp. cols. 2278–2279), for the case of Plataiai. 50. Ober 1987, 1992; Giese 2010, p. 91, n. 56; Müth 2010, p. 73. 51. For windows situated in an identical fashion above two gateways at Siphai, see Schwandner 1977, pp. 528–529, 534–535. This fortification is generally dated to the time of Epameinondas; see Schwandner 1977, pp. 528–529, 534–535; Cooper 2000, pp. 179–183.


737

Figure 27. Block among the debris in front of tower U 5 with groove likely indicating a window sill. Photo A. L. Konecny

the tower chamber could also have been intended to provide the working space required for the shifting of these bulky weapons by way of a hoist suspended under the roof joists.52 The door in the rear wall of the tower is considerably larger than normal tower chamber doors in Greek fortifications53 (and much larger than the entranceways of all other preserved towers along the Alinda circuit). It would most probably have been intended to serve as a loading door, through which the catapults could be hoisted into the tower chamber without the necessity of dismantling them and manhandling the bulky components up over a narrow staircase and through a trapdoor. All together, and especially because of its still relatively small dimensions (ca. 8 × 6 m externally; 5.6 × 3.7 m internally in the catapult chamber), this tower may be assigned to the group of “early artillery towers” as defined by Ober and dated to the first half and middle of the 4th century b.c.54 One more tower might have possessed windows in its upper-story chamber: among the debris in front of tower U 5 there is a slab with a long, linear groove typically found beside the window sills of many Greek fortification towers (Fig. 27).55 This makes it possible to assume that this exposed position of the asty circuit was defended by artillery as well. What little evidence exists of the upper story of the other towers of sector two (for sector one no evidence at all is available with regard to this question) seems to indicate that the chambers were provided with one embrasure facing to the front and, probably, other embrasures facing sideways. These towers were definitely not designed to house catapults. 52. See McNicoll 1997, pp. 186– 188, for the case of Assos. 53. See, as parallels, especially the large openings in the rear of several towers along the circuit of Herakleia on the Latmos (Milet III.2, pp. 30, 33, 38, figs. 23, 26, 30), and the large tower at Assos (Lawrence 1979, pp. 224–226,

fig. 36). For normal-size chamber doors, see Haselberger 1979; Adam 1982, pp. 62–63, 218; Müth 2010. 54. Ober 1987. Tower U 1 appears to be quite similar to the towers of Messene; see Müth 2010, p. 72. Compare this with the impressively large battery towers along Hellenistic fortifi-

cations; see, e.g., Milet III.2, pp. 30, 33, 38, figs. 23, 26, 30 (Herakleia); Marksteiner 1999, pp. 417–419 (Ephesos); Marzolff 1976; Demetrias III, pp. 27– 29, plan IV; Samos XV, pp. 83–90, figs. 45, 48, 49; to name just a few welldocumented examples. 55. Kuhn 2009, with references.

738


The amount of chronological information that can be gathered from the tactical layout of the citadel line and sector one of the asty circuit is negligible. Towers flanking curtain walls occur as a common feature of Greek fortifications from at least the late 6th century b.c., and the employment of indentations as a substitute for towers occurs as late as the Hellenistic period.56 Nevertheless, a striking feature of sector two is the conspicuous negligence of its builders to make more than superficial use of the enfilading potential of the numerous towers. Most of them project in front of the curtain wall for only half of their depth, and there are two instances (U 3 and U 8) where the tower fronts are flush with the adjacent curtain wall(s), thus completely negating their flanking potential. Compared to the (relatively speaking) earlier citadel fortification, the tactical scheme of sector two shows a marked inferiority to that of sector one, which would most probably not have been tolerated after the time of Alexander, making a Hellenistic date of sector two quite improbable. Nevertheless, the basic design of the earlier building phase does carry with it some chronological significance. The layout consisted of the citadel, which was itself divided into an upper and a lower sector, and the large asty circuit. This is a layout typical for fortifications dating to the early or the middle of the 4th century b.c. in southwestern Asia Minor, with instructive examples especially in Lycia:57 Limyra, Trysa, Myra, and several other fortified settlements in this province follow the same basic principle of a detached citadel plus asty circuit. The political relations between Karia and Lycia are documented, and Maussollos seems to have held overlordship of this province by about 370 b.c.58 These obviously close relations likely led to the exchange of architectural designs, especially in military contexts. Two striking parallels to the distinctively additive character of the citadel at Alinda can be found at Tyberissos and in the “Burg” of Trysa. Both are firmly dated to the first or early second quarter of the 4th century b.c.59 This parallel in design may justifiably be interpreted as an indicator of approximate contemporaneity in this case as well. The alteration that resulted in the insertion of sector two and the abandonment of the citadel changed the character of Alinda’s fortifications to that of a clean city circuit of Greek design. This adoption of foreign principles of layout also has close parallels in Lycia.60 The masonry styles seen along the fortifications of Alinda—isodomic ashlar, in some cases with a slight tendency toward trapezoidal block 56. For towers along 6th-century Greek fortifications, see Noack 1927, pp. 75–76; Winter 1971a, p. 110; Lawrence 1979, pp. 376–380. For indented trace in Late Classical and Hellenistic fortifications, see Winter 1971a, p. 102; 1971b; Ruppe 2007, esp. pp. 299–302. 57. The following owes much to discussion with the late Thomas Marksteiner, who first noticed this phenomenon and the parallels between Lycian and Karian fortifications.

58. See Arist. [Oec.] 1348a29–34: one of Maussollos’s officials cajoled “the Lycians” into paying a considerable sum just by threatening that he would order that they have their long hair cut. Even if this story is apocryphal, it indicates that Karia already held sway over Lycia in the second quarter of the 4th century b.c.; see the discussion in Hornblower 1982, p. 17; Pedersen 2001–2002, pp. 124–125; and especially Jacobs 1993. There would have been relatively close relations and exchange between the two

provinces anyway, given their geographical proximity. 59. Marksteiner 1997, p. 82; 2002, pp. 33–45. For a discussion of this type of citadel-plus-settlement fortification, see Marksteiner 1997, pp. 187–191; 2002, pp. 200–205. 60. See the discussions in Marksteiner 1997, pp. 191–193, and 2002, pp. 40–45, concerning the gradual replacement of an autochthonous vocabulary of defensive architecture in Lycia with Greek terms.


739

shapes, hammer-faced, pillow-shaped bossage, with or without tooled margins (depending on the sector)—are not in any way exclusive to the site. Similar or comparable masonry styles may be found at the fortifications of Phyle, Messene, Siphai, Halikarnassos, and Tepesar Kale near Labraunda, which date into the second quarter of the 4th century b.c., as well as at Priene, founded probably around or shortly after 350 b.c., and also at Ephesos, Herakleia upon Latmos, and Miletos, which can all be firmly dated to the Early and Middle Hellenistic periods.61 The so-called double-bond technique along the corners of towers, that is, two headers laid side by side, was employed very systematically. In sector one of the Alinda circuit this principle appears to have been even more strictly adhered to than at Halikarnassos, where it may be assumed that this peculiar way of constructing corners had its origins.62 This feature is very distinctive and does occur at many Karian fortifications, but also along the walls of ancient Samos, Ephesos, Priene, and even Pergamon.63 Nevertheless, as its occurrence continues until the end of the 4th, and obviously even extends into the early to middle 3rd century b.c.,64 this is of negligible help in terms of delineating any reliable chronological parameters for the construction of Alinda’s fortification circuit. A solely stylistic approach, therefore, appears to be not very helpful in determining a precise chronology for Alinda’s fortifications. Even if the evidence is ambiguous, the synthesis of all available indicators as outlined above—general layout, architectural details, tactical conception, regional parallels, and style of masonry—in addition to what is known about the general history of Karia, nevertheless permits the establishment of a hypothetical chronological framework for the construction and alteration of the Alinda circuit. It seems to be more than probable and is now communis opinio that the establishment of extensive settlement fortifications started in Karia only after the accession of Maussollos in 377 b.c., and that such fortifications were part of a grand design developed by the satrap.65 This led to the construction of extensive Geländefestungtype fortifications, a design that had just recently started to proliferate in the 380s b.c.66 The largest circuit of Karia was built at the new satrapal 61. Phyle: Wrede 1924. Messene: Haselberger 1979; Giese 2010; Müth 2010. Siphai: Schwandner 1977. Halikarnassos: Pedersen 2010. Tepesar Kale: Karlsson 2010, pp. 44–45; Karlsson, Blid, and Henry 2011, pp. 20–29. Priene: Ruppe 2007, p. 282. Ephesos: Marksteiner 1999; Sokolicek 2009b. Herakleia upon Latmos: Hülden 2000; Milet III.2, passim; McNicoll 1997, pp. 75–80. Miletos: Milet II.3, passim. 62. Pedersen 2010, p. 311. 63. Pimoguet-Pédarros 2000, p. 486, figs. 4:3, 4:4, 4:6 (Alabanda); p. 508, fig. 26:1 (Asar Tepe); p. 491, fig. 9:5 (Burgaz tower); p. 506, fig. 24:3 (Kaunos); p. 485, fig. 3:1 (Euromos);

pp. 484–485, fig. 2:2 (Herakleia upon Latmos); p. 537, fig. 25:5 (Kavakli tower); p. 489, figs. 7:3, 7:4 (Kuyruklu Kalesi); p. 484, fig. 12:4 (Myndos); p. 487, fig. 5:5 (Teke Kale); Milet III.6, pls. 6, 7, 17, 27, 35, 38, 39 (Latmos); Pedersen 2001–2002, pp. 124–126 (Myndos and Theangela); Karlsson, Blid, and Henry 2011, pp. 20–30 (Tepesar Kale near Labraunda; pottery excavated indicates for this tower a date in the reign of Maussollos); Pedersen 2001–2002, p. 109; Samos XV, p. 68, fig. 32, pls. 24:1, 30:2 (Samos); Winter 1971a, pp. 180, 242, 243, figs. 176, 259, 261 (Ephesos); Ruppe 2007, p. 295, fig. 19 (Priene); Pedersen 2004, p. 427

(Pergamon); see also the discussion in Pedersen 2004, p. 429. 64. Herakleia upon Latmos was built around or shortly after 300 b.c.; see McNicoll 1997, pp. 75–77; Hülden 2000. The fortificatios of Ephesos are firmly dated to the first decades of the 3rd century b.c.; see Marksteiner 1999. 65. McNicoll 1997, p. 15; Pimouguet-Pédarros 2000, p. 217, with bibliography; Pedersen 2001–2002, pp. 124–126; 2010, pp. 273–274. See also the discussion of the date of the Karian town of Latmos in Milet III.6, p. 19. 66. See n. 47, above.

740


residence at Halikarnassos, and there is every probability that Alinda was fortified during Maussollos’s reign as well. This hypothesis is supported by the distinctively non-Greek character of the fortification, especially with regard to its citadel, which finds very close parallels in early-4th-century fortifications of Lycia.67 Nevertheless, the construction of the city circuit of Alinda had stopped while there were still two large gaps in it—between the eventual site of tower U 1 (which had not yet been constructed at that time) and the termination of the north wall of the intermediate fortification, and between the termination of the south wall of the intermediate fortification and a spot 38 m north of tower U 9—which remained unprotected until sector two was inserted. One suspects that these gaps were not left unprotected for very long. Unfortunately, the archaeological evidence available at present offers no help at all in determining how lengthy an interval elapsed between the points in time at which construction of sector one ceased and work on sector two commenced. The only thing that can be stated with any reliability is that it was obviously of sufficient duration to cause a change of masons, as is indicated by the differences in masonry styles between the two sectors.68 The characteristics of the tactical layout of sector two point to a date for this part of the fortification before or around the middle of the 4th century b.c. The towers generally forfeit the potential of covering the adjacent sectors of the curtain walls, and tower U 1, with a gateway leading through its basement that was covered through a window directly above, shows very close similarities to Siphai, which can be dated to the first half of the 4th century b.c.69 These characteristics make a Hellenistic date for sector two highly improbable.70 A Hellenistic fortification would have made proper use of the flanking capabilities of the towers by having them project in front of the curtain walls, and would probably not have placed a gateway in the basement of a tower but rather beside it, or between two towers, so as to provide better protection to the vulnerable thoroughfare.71 Besides, there exists no evidence at all that there had existed any structure that preceded sector two between towers U 1 and U 8. It seems more than illogical to suppose that the city circuit, which could have been completed with rather little effort, would have been left unfinished and open to attack through two large gaps any longer than it would have taken to change the plans and organize the continuation of its construction on the basis of the altered project. As a consequence, the hiatus cannot have been exceedingly long and should, most likely, be measured in months rather than in years. While work was still going on, it was decided to abolish the citadel altogether, to close the planned connection to it, and to dismantle its northern, and possibly also a section of its southern, walls so as to make the asty an independent and unassailable fortress. 67. See the discussion above, and nn. 54–57. 68. For the necessity of masons and/or their crews to be mobile between several places of employment so as to earn a living, see the discussion in

Lawrence 1979, p. 234. 69. Schwandner 1977. 70. As proposed by Pedersen 2001– 2002, pp. 124–126. 71. For the most conspicuous characteristics of Hellenistic fortifi-

cations, see, for instance, Samos XV, pp. 39–55; Lawrence 1979, pp. 232– 245; Konecny 1997, pp. 62–70; Marksteiner 1997, pp. 165–168; McNicoll 1997, pp. 4–6, 75–156; Herda 1999; Pollhammer 2002, pp. 102–104.


741

The reasons for the change in the design of Alinda’s fortifications must be sought in the political history of 4th-century b.c. Karia. The fortress had been designed to provide ample room for a garrison in a citadel separate from the asty. Something happened that first led to the insertion of a wall that separated the town proper from its citadel, and immediately thereafter made it inopportune to retain the citadel at all, even if it was already finished and ready to be occupied. Most obviously, then, it was the garrison that had become superfluous, and the circuit was remodeled to exclude the space that had been designed for it from the area that was still to be defended. There are some indications that Maussollos followed a policy of granting nominal independence to the towns in his realm.72 In the context of such a policy it might be possible that he decided, at an unknown date, yet after the fortification project at Alinda had commenced under his auspices, to relieve the town of its duty to maintain a garrison and to permit it to become “independent.” This would best explain the fact that the first phase of the fortification was never finished. If the change of design took place within the context outlined above and prior to the completion of the fortress, as indicated by the available evidence, this would most probably also have meant that the responsibility for continuing the program would have passed to the local authorities.73 This would probably also have meant that Maussollos’s construction teams were withdrawn and Alinda suddenly had to employ masons and workmen on its own. This would explain the differences in masonry style between sectors one and two without involving the necessity of any considerable temporal hiatus during which the town would have been unprotected. The Alindians would then have decided to discard the citadel and reduce the fortified perimeter to the asty precinct proper. This carried with it two major advantages. First, it removed the likely spot at which, in the future, an enemy garrison might have been stationed. This removal made it somewhat less likely that an outside ruler could directly dominate the town. Second, it shortened the perimeter to be defended by more than 800 m, that is, by one-quarter of its entire length, thus considerably reducing the demands on manpower in case of a conflict.74 Alternatively, the date at which the construction of sector two of the asty circuit might have theoretically taken place is at the time when Pixodaros broke relations with his sister Ada (ca. 340 b.c.), resulting in her retreat to Alinda (Arr. Anab. 1.23.7–8).75 This event might have made it necessary to finish a still-incomplete circuit so as to protect the noble refugee. This 72. See the discussion in Hornblower 1982, pp. 62–65, 67–69, 107– 137. 73. That is, if the town had not already been obligated to finance its own circuit by order of the satrap; cf. the case of Mylasa, which had to provide money for the construction of a fortification. The project, nevertheless, was canceled by Maussolos, allegedly because he reallocated the funds

collected: Arist. [Oec.] 1348a12–15; see also the discussion in Hornblower 1982, pp. 69–70. At the southern summit of Mt. Sodra in Mylasa (modern Milas) there are the remains of a few walls that could be part of this early fortification started under the order of Maussollos; see the discussion in Rumscheid 2010, p. 98, n. 65. The masonry style of this wall—layered polygonal— does not lend itself easily to comparison

with the walls of Alinda or Halikarnassos; see Rumscheid 1996, p. 139, fig. 8. 74. This is among the main reasons cited by modern research for the insertion of a diateichisma or cross wall into the fortification circuits of several cities of Late Classical and Hellenistic date; see Maier 1961, p. 81; Lawrence 1979, pp. 149–155; McNicoll 1986, p. 311; Sokolicek 2009a, pp. 45–48. 75. See Berve 1926, pp. 11–12.

742


would mean, however, that either the fortifications of Alinda remained unfinished for two or maybe even three decades from the time the project had started under Maussollos, or that the fortification of Alinda had not been part of Maussollos’s program but had commenced under the rule of either Idrieus or Pixodaros. The first alternative seems illogical, as it seems inconceivable that a nearly complete circuit would not have been finished for decades, thereby forfeiting the protection it could have provided. The probability of the second assumption is minimized by the characteristics of the circuit that are typical of walls of the second quarter of the 4th century b.c. Additionally, Ada must have chosen Alinda because it was well fortified (Arr. Anab. 1.23.8). Had the fortification been unfinished, would she really have elected to stay there and not at another, better protected settlement? The fact that she decided to take permanent shelter at Alinda strongly suggests that the asty circuit was already functional when she moved there. Although these arguments are of course far from providing certain proof, they do indicate that the Alinda circuit was not built in the years around or after 340 b.c.

CO NCLUSIONS In sum, it seems highly probable that Alinda’s fortifications originated during the late 370s, 360s, or, less likely, during the 350s b.c., on the order of Maussollos. Alinda most likely was part of the satrap’s military building program, which was designed to establish a system of up-to-date defenses all over Karia, of which the construction of the Halikarnassos circuit constituted the mainstay and largest effort. When the Alinda circuit was nearing completion, construction ceased, due to factors that can no longer be determined with any certainty. Nevertheless, work was taken up again shortly thereafter, but obviously by different groups of workmen and following a thoroughly revised ground plan. As this revised design abandoned the citadel and was content with the asty circuit alone, it seems most probable that completion of the task was now achieved under the auspices of the local authorities of Alinda. The result was a fortification strong enough in 334 b.c., after all, to impress the authors who constituted the sources of Arrian’s work. Nevertheless, it remains highly doubtful whether it really would have withstood an attack by the Macedonian army, had it not been voluntarily surrendered by its occupant, Ada, in exchange for a privileged position as a satrap of Karia in Alexander’s newly won empire.


743

REF ERENCES Adam, J.-P. 1982. L’architecture militaire grecque, Paris. Baatz, D. 1994. Bauten und Katapulte des römischen Heeres (Mavors Roman Army Researches 11), Stuttgart. Bakhuizen, S. C., ed. 1992. A Greek City of the Fourth Century B.C. (Bibliotheca archaeologica 10), Rome. Bean, G. E. 1974. Kleinasien 3: Jenseits des Mäander: Karien mit dem Vilayet Mugla, 2nd ed., Stuttgart. Berve, H. 1926. Das Alexanderreich auf prosopographischer Grundlage 2: Prosopographie, Munich. Bockisch, G., P. Ruggendorfer, and L. Zabrana. 2013. “Temple and Altars for Greek and Carian Gods: New Evidence for Religious Life in Alinda during the Late Classical and Hellenistic Period,” in 4th Century Karia: Defining a Karian Identity under the Hekatomnids (Varia anatolica 28), ed. O. Henry, pp. 129– 162. Bosworth, A. B. 1980. A Historical Commentary on Arrian’s History of Alexander 1: Commentary on Books I–III, Oxford. Bryce, T. 2003. Letters of the Great Kings of the Ancient Near East: The Royal Correspondence of the Late Bronze Age, New York. ———. 2005. The Kingdom of the Hittites, rev. ed., Oxford. Burney, C. A. 2004. Historical Dictionary of the Hittites (Historical Dictionaries of Ancient Civilizations and Historical Eras 14), Lanham, Md. Chandler, R. 1817. Travels in Asia Minor and Greece: Or, an Account of a Tour Made at the Expense of the Society of Dilettanti, Oxford. Cooper, F. A. 2000. “The Fortifications of Epaminondas and the Rise of the Monumental Greek City,” in City Walls: The Urban Enceinte in Global Perspective (Studies in Comparative and Early Modern History), ed. J. D. Tracey, Cambridge, pp. 155–191. Cornil, P. 1990. “Liste des noms géographiques des textes hittites: KBo XXIII–XXX, XXXIII, KUB XLV– LVII,” Hethitica 10, pp. 7–108.

Coulton, J. J. 1976. The Architectural Development of the Greek Stoa, Oxford. Demetrias III = P. Marzolff, Demetrias und seine Halbinsel (Demetrias III), Bonn 1980. de Souza, P. 2007. “Naval Battles and Sieges,” in The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare 1: Greece, the Hellenistic World, and the Rise of Rome, ed. P. Sabin, H. van Wees, and M. Whitby, Cambridge, pp. 434–460. Doruk, S. 1987. “Antik Alinda Kentindeki Pazar Yapısı,” Belleten 51, pp. 1117–1137. English, S. 2009. The Army of Alexander the Great, Barnsley. Errington, R. M. 1986. Geschichte Makedoniens: Von den Anfängen bis zum Untergang des Königreiches, Munich. Foss, C. 1977. “Archaeology and the ‘Twenty Cities’ of Byzantine Asia Minor,” AJA 81, pp. 469–486. Garlan, Y. 1974. Recherches de poliorcétique grecque (BÉFAR 223), Athens. Garstang, J. 1943. “Hittite Military Roads in Asia Minor: A Study in Imperial Strategy with a Map,” AJA 47, pp. 35–62. Giese, J. 2010. “Bautechnische Beobachtungen am nördlichen und nordwestlichen Mauerabschnitt in Messene,” in Aktuelle Forschungen zur Konstruktion, Funktion und Semantik antiker Stadtbefestigungen. Kolloquium 9./10. Februar 2007 in Istanbul: Eine Veranstaltung des wissenschaftlichen Netzwerkes “Manifestationen von Macht und Hierarchien in Stadtraum und Landschaft” der Abteilung Istanbul des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts in Zusammenarbeit mit dem Architekturreferat der Zentrale des DAI (Byzas 10), ed. J. Lorentzen, F. Pirson, P. I. Schneider, and U. Wulf-Rheidt, Istanbul, pp. 85–95. Hansen, M. H., and T. H. Nielsen, eds. 2004. An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis, Oxford. Haselberger, L. 1979. “Dächer griechischer Wehrtürme,” AM 94, pp. 93– 115.

Hellström, P. 2009. “Sacred Architecture and Karian Identity,” in Die Karer und die Anderen. Internationales Kolloquium an der Freien Universität Berlin, 13. bis 15. Oktober 2005, ed. F. Rumscheid, Bonn, pp. 267–290. Hellström, P., and T. Thieme. 1982. Labraunda: Swedish Excavations and Researches 1, pt. 3: The Temple of Zeus, Stockholm. Herda, A. 1999. “Die Hafenbefestigung,” in “Loryma in Karien: Vorbericht über die Kampagnen 1995 und 1998,” ed. W. Held, IstMitt 49, pp. 159–196. Hild, F. 2009. Rev. of V. Ruggieri, La Caria bizantina: Topografia, archeologia ed arte: Mylasa, Stratonikeia, Bargylia, Myndus, Halicarnassus, JÖB 57, pp. 375–378. Hornblower, S. 1982. Mausolus, Oxford. Hülden, O. 2000. “Pleistarchos und die Befestigungsanlagen von Herakleia am Latmos,” Klio 82, pp. 382– 408. Jacobs, B. 1993. “Die Stellung Lykiens innerhalb der achämenidisch-persischen Reichsverwaltung,” in Akten des II Internationalen Lykien-Symposions, Wien, 6.–12. Mai 1990 (DenkschrWien 231), ed. J. Borchhardt and G. Dobesch, Vienna, pp. 63–69. Karlsson, L. 1992. Fortification Towers and Masonry Techniques in the Hegemony of Syracuse, 405–211 B.C. (ActaAth 4°, 49), Stockholm. ———. 2010. “Labraunda: The Sanctuary of the Weather God in Heaven,” in Mylasa Labraunda: Archaeology and Rural Architecture in Southern Aegean Region (= Milas Çomakdağ: Güney Ege Bölgesi’nde Arkeoloji ve kırsal mimari), ed. F. Kuzucu and M. Ural, Istanbul, pp. 10–63. Karlsson, L., J. Blid, and O. Henry. 2011. “Labraunda 2010: A Preliminary Report on the Swedish Excavations,” OpAthRom 4, pp. 19–68. Kern, P. B. 1999. Ancient Siege Warfare, Bloomington. Kirsten, E. 1956. Die griechische Polis als historisch-geographisches Problem des

744


Mittelmeerraums (Colloquium geographicum 5), Bonn. Kobes, J. 1996. Kleine Könige: Untersuchungen zu den Lokaldynasten im hellenistischen Kleinasien (323–188 v. Chr.) (Pharos 8), St. Katharinen. Konecny, A. 1997. Hellenistische Turmgehöfte in Zentral- und Ostlykien (Wiener Forschungen zur Archäologie 2), Vienna. Konecny, A., V. Aravantinos, and R. Marchese. 2013. Plataiai: Archäologie und Geschichte einer boiotischen Polis (Sonderschriften des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes 48), Vienna. Kotsidu, H. 2000. TIMH KAI ΔΟΞA: Ehrungen für hellenistische Herrscher im griechischen Mutterland und in Kleinasien unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der archäologischen Denkmäler, Berlin. Kuhn, G. 2009. “Zur Funktion rinnenförmiger Löcher in Brüstungen und Fensterwänden griechischer Wehrbauten,” AM 123, pp. 341–380. Lang, F. 1996. Archaische Siedlungen in Griechenland: Struktur und Entwicklung, Berlin. Laumonier, A. 1934. “Inscriptions de la Carie,” BCH 58, pp. 291–380. Lawrence, A. W. 1979. Greek Aims in Fortification, Oxford. Le Bas, P., and W. H. Waddington. 1847–1877. Voyage archéologique en Grèce et en Asie Mineure: Fait par ordre du gouvernement français pendant les années 1834 et 1844, Paris. Liebeschuetz, J. H. W. G. 2001. Decline and Fall of the Roman City, Oxford. Magie, D. 1950. Roman Rule in Asia Minor, to the End of the Third Century after Christ, Princeton. Maier, F. G. 1961. Griechische Mauerbauinschriften 2 (Vestigia 2), Heidelberg. ———. 1986. “Inschriften und Festungsbau,” in La fortification dans l’histoire du monde grec. Actes du Colloque International, La Fortification et sa place dans l’histoire politique, culturelle et sociale du monde grec, Valbonne, décembre 1982 (Colloques internationaux du Centre national de la recherche scientifique 614),

ed. P. Leriche and H. Tréziny, Paris, pp. 299–304. Marchese, R. T. 1986. The Lower Maeander Flood Plain: A Regional Settlement Study (BAR-IS 292), London. Marksteiner, T. 1997. Die befestigte Siedlung von Limyra: Studien zur vorrömischen Wehrarchitektur und Siedlungsentwicklung in Lykien unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der klassischen Periode (Forschungen in Limyra 1), Vienna. ———. 1999. “Bemerkungen zum hellenistischen Stadtmauerring von Ephesos,” in 100 Jahre österreichische Forschungen in Ephesos. Akten des Symposions Wien 1995 (DenkSchrWien 260), ed. H. Friesinger and F. Krinzinger, Vienna, pp. 413–420. ———. 2002. Trysa: Eine zentrallykische Niederlassung im Wandel der Zeit: Siedlungs- architektur- und kunstgeschichtliche Studien zur Kulturlandschaft Lykien (Wiener Forschungen zur Archäologie 5), Vienna. Marsden, E. W. 1969. Greek and Roman Artillery: Historical Development, Oxford. Marzolff, P. 1976. “Zur Stadtanlage von Demetrias,” in Demetrias I, ed. V. Milojčič and D. Theocharis, Bonn, pp. 5–16. McLeod, W. 1965. “The Range of the Ancient Bow,” Phoenix 19, pp. 1–14. McNicoll, A. W. 1986. “Developments in Techniques of Siegecraft and Fortification in the Greek World ca. 400–100 b.c.,” in La fortification dans l’histoire du monde grec. Actes du Colloque International, La Fortification et sa place dans l’histoire politique, culturelle et sociale du monde grec, Valbonne, décembre 1982 (Colloques internationaux du Centre national de la recherche scientifique 614), ed. P. Leriche and H. Tréziny, Paris, pp. 305–313. ———. 1997. Hellenistic Fortifications from the Aegean to the Euphrates, Oxford. Meritt, B. D., H. T. Wade-Gery, and M. F. McGregor. 1939. The Athenian Tribute Lists, 4 vols., Cambridge, Mass.

Mertens, D. 1999. “Die Landschaftsfestung Epipolai bei Syrakus,” in Stadt und Umland: Neue Ergebnisse der archäologischen Bau- und Siedlungsforschung. Bauforschungskolloquium in Berlin vom 7. bis 10. Mai 1997 veranstaltet vom ArchitekturReferat des DAI (Diskussionen zur archäologischen Bauforschung 7), ed. E.-L. Schwandner and K. Rheidt, Mainz, pp. 143–149. Milet = Milet: Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen und Untersuchungen seit dem Jahre 1899, Berlin. II.3 = A. von Gerkan, Die Stadtmauern, 1935. III.2 = F. Krischen, Die Befestigungen von Herakleia am Latmos, 1922. III.6 = A. Peschlow-Bindokat, Feldforschungen im Latmos: Die karische Stadt Latmos, 2005. Millar, F. 2006. A Greek Roman Empire: Power and Belief under Theodosius II (408–450) (Sather Classical Lectures 64), Berkeley. Morganstern, J., ed. 1993. The Fort at Dereağzı and Other Material Remains in Its Vicinity: From Antiquity to the Middle Ages, (IstForsch 40), Istanbul. Müller-Wiener, W. 1986. “Von der Polis zum Kastron: Wandlung der Städte im ägäischen Raum von der Antike zum Mittelalter,” Gymnasium 93, pp. 435–475. Müth, S. 2010. “Fortifikationskunst und Repräsentation an der Stadtmauer von Messene,” in Aktuelle Forschungen zur Konstruktion, Funktion und Semantik antiker Stadtbefestigungen. Kolloquium 9./10. Februar 2007 in Istanbul: Eine Veranstaltung des wissenschaftlichen Netzwerkes “Manifestationen von Macht und Hierarchien in Stadtraum und Landschaft” der Abteilung Istanbul des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts in Zusammenarbeit mit dem Architekturreferat der Zentrale des DAI (Byzas 10), ed. J. Lorentzen, F. Pirson, P. I. Schneider, and U. WulfRheidt, Istanbul, pp. 57–84. Niewöhner, P. 2008. “Sind die Mauern die Stadt? Vorbericht über die siedlungsgeschichtlichen Ergebnisse neuer Grabungen im spätantiken

a l i n d a i n k a r i a : t h e f o r t i f i c at i o n s und byzantinischen Milet,” AA, pp. 181–201. Noack, F. 1916. “Befestigte griechische Städte in Aitolien und Akarnanien,” AA 31, pp. 215–239. ———. 1927. Eleusis: Die baugeschichtliche Entwicklung des Heiligtums, Berlin. Ober, J. 1987. “Early Artillery Towers: Messenia, Boiotia, Attica, Megarid,” AJA 91, pp. 569–604. ———. 1992. “Towards a Typology of Greek Artillery Towers: The First and Second Generations, c. 375– 275 b.c.,” in Fortificationes antiquae. Including the Papers of a Conference Held at Ottawa University, October 1988 (McGill Monographs in Classical Archaeology and History 12), ed. S. Van de Maele and J. M. Fossey, Amsterdam, pp. 147–169. Öhlinger, B., and P. Ruggendorfer. 2010. “Alinda: Development and Transformation of a North-Karian Settlement (= Alinda: Bir Kuzey Karia Yerleşiminin Gelişimi ve Dönüşümü),” in Mylasa Labraunda: Archaeology and Rural Architecture in Southern Aegean Region (= Milas Çomakdağ: Güney Ege Bölgesi’nde Arkeoloji ve kırsal mimari), ed. F. Kuzucu and M. Ural, Istanbul, pp. 139–150. Özkaya, V., and O. San. 2003. “Alinda: An Ancient City with Its Remains and Monumental Tombs in Caria,” RÉA 105, pp. 103–125. Pedersen, P. 2001–2002. “Reflections on the Ionian Renaissance in Greek Architecture and Its Historical Background,” Hephaistos 19–20, pp. 97–130. ———. 2004. “Pergamon and the Ionian Renaissance,” IstMitt 54, pp. 409–434. ———. 2009. “The Palace of Maussollos in Halikarnassos and Some Thoughts on Its Karian and International Context,” in Die Karer und die Anderen. Internationales Kolloquium an der Freien Universität Berlin, 13. bis 15. Oktober 2005, ed. F. Rumscheid, Berlin 2009, pp. 315– 348. ———. 2010. “The City Wall of Halikarnassos,” in Hellenistic Karia. Proceedings of the First International

Conference on Hellenistic Karia, Oxford, 29 June–2 July 2006, ed. R. van Bremen and J.-M. Carbon, Bordeaux, pp. 269–316. Pimouguet-Pédarros, I. 2000. Archéologie de la défense: Histoire des fortifications antiques de Carie (époques classique et hellénistique), Paris. Pococke, R. 1745. A Description of the East and Some Other Countries 2, pt. 2: Observations on the Islands of the Archipelago, Asia Minor, Thrace, Greece, and Some Other Parts of Europe, London. Pollhammer, E. 2002. “Das Kap Kolonna—Eine Festung der Attaliden auf Ägina,” in Temenos: Festgabe für Florens Felten und Stefan Hiller, ed. B. Asamer, P. Höglinger, C. Reinholdt, R. Smetana, and W. Wohlmayr, Vienna, pp. 99– 108. Rihll, T. 2007. The Catapult: A History, Yardley, Pa. Robert, J., and L. Robert. 1983. Fouilles d’Amyzon en Carie, Paris. Ruggendorfer, P. 2009. “Survey Projekt Alinda: Die Kampagne 2007,” 26. AST 2008 3, Ankara, pp. 37–44. ———. 2010. “Die Ergebnisse der Feldforschungen in Alinda 2008,” 27. Araștırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 2009 3, Ankara, pp. 83–95. ———. 2011. “Untersuchungen zur städtebaulichen Entwicklung und zur Geschichte von Alinda 2009,” 28. Araștırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 2010 3, Ankara, pp. 207–220. ———. 2012. “Ergebnisse der städtebaulichen Untersuchungen in Alinda 2010,” 29. Araștırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 2011 2, Ankara, pp. 67–81. ———. In press. “Alinda 2011 şehir planlaması gelişim araştırmasının sonuçları,” 30. Araștırma Sonuçları Toplantısı. Ruggieri, V. 2005. La Caria bizantina: Topografia, archeologia ed arte: Mylasa, Stratonikeia, Bargylia, Myndus, Halicarnassus, Catanzaro. Rumscheid, F. 1996. “Milas 1995,” 14. Araștırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 1, pp. 123–140. ———. 2010. “Maussollos and the ‘Uzun Yuva’ in Mylasa: An Unfinished Proto-Maussolleion at the

745

Heart of a New Urban Centre?” in Hellenistic Karia. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Hellenistic Karia, Oxford, 29 June–2 July 2006, ed. R. Van Bremen and J.-M. Carbon, Bordeaux, pp. 69–102. Ruppe, U. 2007. “Neue Forschungen an der Stadtmauer von Priene: Erste Ergebnisse,” IstMitt 57, pp. 271– 332. Samos XV = H. J. Kienast, Die Stadtmauer von Samos (Samos XV), Bonn 1978. Schmaltz, B. 1994. “Kaunos 1988– 1991,” AA 1994, pp. 185–237. Schulz, A. 2000. Die Stadtmauern von Neandreia in der Troas (Asia Minor Studien 38), Bonn. Schwandner, E. L. 1977. “Die böotische Hafenstadt Siphai,” AA, 1977, pp. 513–551. Scranton, R. L. 1941. Greek Walls, Cambridge, Mass. Sielhorst, B. M. A. 2011. “Hellenistic Agorai: Formation, Reception, and Semantics of an Urban Space,” in The Agora in the Mediterranean from Homeric to Roman Times. International Conference, Kos, 14–17 of April, 2011, ed. A. Giannikouri, Athens, pp. 31–46. Sokolicek, A. 2009a. Diateichismata: Zu dem Phänomen innerer Befestigungsmauern im griechischen Städtebau (Ergänzungshefte zu den Jahresheften des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes in Wien 11), Vienna. ———. 2009b. “Zwischen Stadt und Land: Neues zum Magnesischen Tor in Ephesos: Erste Ergebnisse,” ÖJh 78, 2009, pp. 321–347. Strauss, B. 2007. “Naval Combat and Sieges,” in The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare 1: Greece, the Hellenistic World, and the Rise of Rome, ed. P. Sabin, H. van Wees, and M. Whitby, Cambridge, pp. 223–247. Trémaux, P. 1858. Exploration archéologique en Asie Mineure comprenant les restes non-connus de plus de quarante cités antiques, Paris. Typaldou-Fakiris, C. 2004. Villes fortifiées de Phocide et la III e guerre sacrée, 356–346 av. J.C., Aix-enProvence.

746


Whittow, M. 2001. “Recent Research on the Late-Antique City in Asia Minor: The Second Half of the 6th-c. Revisited,” in Recent Research in Late-Antique Urbanism ( JRA Suppl. 42), ed. L. Lavan, Portsmouth, R.I., pp. 137–153. Wiltsch, J. E. T. 1846. Handbuch der kirchlichen Geographie und

Statistik von den Zeiten der Apostel bis zu dem Anfange des sechszehnten Jahrhunderts, Berlin. Winter, F. E. 1971a. Greek Fortifications, London. ———. 1971b. “The Indented Trace in Later Greek Fortification,” AJA 75, pp. 413–426. Wrede, W. 1924. “Phyle,” AM 49, pp. 153–224.

Andreas L. Konecny Kar l-Franz ens-Univ ersität Graz institut für ar c häol o gie univ ersität spl atz 3/ii a-8010 graz austr ia andreas.konecny@uni-gr az.at

Peter Ruggendorfer Inst it ut f ür Kult ur ge sc hic hte der Ant ike österreic hisc he akademie der wissensc haf ten bäc kerstraße 13 a-1010 vienna austr ia peter.r uggendor f [email protected]

———. 1933. Attische Mauern, Athens. Zimmermann, M. 2003. “Hafen und Hinterland: Wege der Akkulturation an der lykischen Küste: Vorbericht über die Feldforschungen in den zentrallykischen Orten Tyberissos und Timiussa in den Jahren 1999–2001,” IstMitt 53, pp. 265–312.