Two Ancient Watchtowers above Aigosthena in the Northern Megarid Author(s): Josiah Ober Source: American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 87, No. 3 (Jul., 1983), pp. 387-392 Published by: Archaeological Institute of America Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/504804 Accessed: 14/09/2010 10:36 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aia. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact
[email protected].
Archaeological Institute of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Journal of Archaeology.
http://www.jstor.org
ARCHAEOLOGICAL NOTES
1983]
Zeus. The presence of Zeus calls attention to the talking oak which Athena built into the Argo (underscoring the significance of the woman-headed finial), and indeed the god's gesture should be interpreted as protectiveness for his own tree. The close correspondences between the New York and Bologna kraters certainly establish the two vases as a pair. Among these correspondences are: (1) the relationship between Jason and the satyr in pose and treatment of body details, (2) the presence of appropriate gods-Zeus and Athena "helping"Jason on one vase, Dionysos with one of his satyrs on the other, (3) the amusing treatment of the Fleece with front on one vase and back on the other, (4) the even more amusing treatment of the snake's head. If these two vases are connected with drama, they both must refer to satyr plays, perhaps the same one.21 A snake with phallos for a head does not seem particularly appropriate for a scene supposedly inspired by a tragedy! CYNTHIA DEPARTMENT WRIGHT DAYTON,
KING
OF CLASSICS
STATE UNIVERSITY OHIO
45435
TWO ANCIENT
WATCHTOWERS
AIGOSTHENA
ABOVE
IN THE NORTHERN
MEGARID (P1. 56) In the classical period, the Megarian ports of Aigosthena, Pagai and Panormos were located on the two drawnto be Zeus and shows little stature,and that the smallerscale of Jason is occasioned by juxtaposition to other elements of the scene. With regardto the firstobjection,the OrchardPainter seems to be a rather uneven artist. With regardto the second,the painter had room to make Jason larger if he had wanted to do so. 21 Alternate titles attested for the Argo of Aischylos include various words which have been interpreted as "rower(s),"but an emendationof "revellers" has been suggested(Aischy(Kwoao'rai) n. 16). See also Bieber (supra n. 8) los, Loeb edition fr. 8, see supra 13-14. The basic argument in Hammond and Moon (supra n. 8), that the rock coveredby the Fleece representsa rock on the east of the orchestrain the Atheniantheaterof the early fifth centuryB.C., is not affectedby this restriction.Supportfor their argumentis the use of a rock for the Fleece's support in place of the significant apple tree in Douris' picture;one thinks of Herakles and the Hesperides as a parallel:Henle (supra n. 14) 70-71. See also E. Simon, "Satyr-playson Vases in the Time of Aeschylus,"in D. Kurtzand B. Sparkeseds., The Eye of Greece:Studiesin the Art of Athens (London 1982) 122-48, esp. 136, n. 94 (the New York and Bologna kraters) and 145-46, pl. 39b (the presence of Zeus in a scene interpretedas an illustration of a satyr play by Sophocles:Pandoraor Sphyrokopoi,Hammerers).
387
easternmost bays of the Gulf of Corinth (ill. 1).1 Aigosthena was on the northern inlet at the site of the modern village of Porto Germeno.2 The bay is flanked to the N by the western foothills of Mt. Kithairon and to the S by the foothills of Mt. Kaliakouda, a western extension of the Karydhi range. Extending eastward from the bay, between the two mountain ranges, is the long narrow Villia valley which rises to join the Mazi plain at Khani Kaza, below the Athenian fortress at Gyphtokastro (Eleutherai). Pagai was at modern Kato Alepochori, on the southern arm of the inlet to the S, the bay of Psatha.3 In between the two, on the N end of the bay of Psatha, was the harbor town of Panormos.4 Aigosthena was separated from Pagai and Panormos and geographically isolated from the rest of the Megarid by the steep foothills which culminate in the Mitka promontory between the two bays. In these foothills, between the promontory and the peak of Kaliakouda, are several long field walls and two ancient towers which have not been previously described in detail. The first tower (ill. 2; pl. 56, figs. 3-4) is located on the northern slope of the Kaliakouda foothills, an area called Tzamali about 1 km. (in a straight line) S-SE of the(T•apa•ih), akropolis of Aigosthena.5 The tower is situated on a fairly level stretch of a secondary ridge which runs N-NW down to the Villia valley. The tower sits immediately S of and below a small, steep limestone outcrop (pl. 56, fig. 4). The southern end of the outcrop has been cut away to allow more room inside the tower itself. Two well built walls on the NW and SW are preserved to a maximum height of 1.25 m. in four courses of masonry. The NW wall (pl. 56, fig. 3) is 10.3 m. long; the SW wall (pl. 56, fig. 4), 7.3 m. Only a few traces 1 Ill. 1 is based on the 1:100,000 GREECE map, sheets 1.8 and 1.9, publishedin 1943 and 1944. I would like to thankMr. I. Gikas of Villia, who first informed me of the existence of the Mallia Psatha tower and discussedits functionwith me. Specialthanksare also due A. Mayor, who accompaniedme on field trips in the northern Megarid, drew the illustrations,and made a number of valuable suggestions which have been incorporatedinto the text. The field work was made possible by a generousgrant from the American Council of LearnedSocieties. 2 On Aigosthena,see E.F. Benson, "Aegosthena,"JHS15 (1895) 314-24; K. Giannoulidou,"Alydo~-va,"Platon 16 (1964) 143-72; M. Sakellariouand N. Pharaklas, Alydoeeva, 'Epevca Meyapl•,Institute (AncientGreek Cities 14;Athens, Doxiades 1972) app. 2, pp. 4-5; L. Robert, "Hellenica I: Inscriptionsde Pagai en Megaride re1ativesA un arbitrage,"RevPhil 13 (1939) 116-18. On Pagai, see Robert(supra n. 2) 117-18; s.v. Pagai, RE 18.1 (1949) 2283-93 (E. Meyer); Sakellariouand Pharaklas (supra n. 2) app. 2, pp. 3-4, with fig. 33. 4 On Panormos,see Robert (supra n. 2) 118-19; s.v. Panormos, RE 18.2 (1949) 658 (E. Meyer). 5 The tower is easily located. It is 2.1 km. along the dirt road which branchesoff from the Villia-Porto Germenoroad headingS and W for Psatha, about 10 m. off the roadto the N. Severalblocks of the tower and the outcropare visible from the road.
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY
388
<:to
ro Ke+hao
oo00 Ru
41.
Kre, molk ,oooo
[AJA 87
""
wal M-
o .For ...?kFt
co,?
cov
, or G* r.-.o6v ,to
F
•e
,
t
20 0
o*
1
AIGOSTHENA
\3944
IF
x
~PSATHAO
MALLIA 'w",,
8,0* 394-f +' ?--TOWEK
Ka
-t
k*~(\?b"" -•.,
-
7
'I
PANIORMOS
`-
91
't P"
oPANOaM0.
--
'+ 1AwI, ,
;
\,
.
_J" ,s
'0/
---o -to
gO R
I
/
PAGA A'p"Lh~
3
PAGA
.0.0,-it
0w//~6 0y, /•,
Vat~hckorl
-i•"
Korono Mi S~y~,,,;J ~ \iy~,.l/r-r~Y'nip-j;_ ~ nl'C Olt
kor'-
"
,
Ill. 1. Map of the northwesternMegarid remain of a SE wall. No remains of a major NE wall are visible; the end of the outcrop may have taken the place of the wall. The walls are built of large, quarry-faced limestone blocks (average 0.80 x 0.35 x 0.60 m.) in a trapezoidal isodomic style with some small triangular chinking stones along the upper sides of the blocks. A corner block in situ and a fallen corner block are lightly drafted. The tower walls are one block thick. A number of fallen blocks lie W and N of the tower. Besides the massive trapezoidal walls, there are considerable traces of lighter rubble walls that extend the enclosure to the S, and of a crosswall which blocks off the end of the outcrop to the NE. The ruined nature of the SE trapezoidal wall suggests that it was razed when the tower was enlarged by the erection of the SE and SW rubble walls, and it is probable that these walls postdate the trapezoidal phase. On the outcrop itself a small (3.3 m. diameter) platform is formed by a curved retaining wall of well fitted rubble on the NW side. Two other
rubble walls run along the outcrop on the same side, retaining the rocky slope. It is likely that the original way up to the tower lay along this side, between the retaining walls, and that the original doorway into the tower was formed by the E end of the NW wall and the face of the rock outcrop itself. It thus seems likely that the three retaining walls are contemporary with the trapezoidal walls. Just outside the SW trapezoidal wall is a round well or cistern; a rubble wall curves around it. A rubble wall bonded with cement to the W of the tower and a few poorly built rubble structures to the SE are probably relatively modern. Northeast from the outcrop a wall which averages 1.8 m. in thickness, built with two faces of large rubble with small rubble fill, but nowhere preserved to more than 0.50 m. in height, runs downhill along the crest of the ridge, or slightly E of the crest, for at least 175 m. until it is lost in the underbrush. Another section of the same wall, about 30 m. in length, is visible across the road SW of the tower. A number of glazed rooftiles
ARCHAEOLOGICAL NOTES
1983]
and unglazed coarseware sherds are scattered on the surface in and around the tower, particularly to the SW, but no securely datable sherds were observed. The site was obviously a watchpost. Although the view from the tower itself is blocked by the outcrop, from the small terraced platform on the outcrop, which is easily accessible from inside the tower, it is excellent. The position was certainly chosen for the unusually extensive outlook offered by the outcrop of rock and the platform was terraced to provide a comfortable lookout post. The tower itself was probably never high enough to overlook the outcrop, but rather served as a place of residence for the garrison. From the platform, one can see to the N the akropolis of Aigosthena, the N long wall which connected the akropolis with the sea, and the S slopes of Kithairon (pl. 56, fig. 1);to the NW the entire bay of Porto Germeno and the island group off the northern shore of the Corinthian Gulf are in view; to the E both the N and S slopes of the Villia valley are visible to a distance of about 8 km. (pl. 56, fig. 2).
straight line) W of the peak of Kaliakouda and less than 400 m. E of the modern road to Psatha. Just S of the crest of Mallia Psatha, an old roadway leads E-SE from the modern road past a well. The old road is about 3 m. wide and is retained on its downhill (S) side by a well built rubble retaining wall over 1 m. in height. After about 300 m., the road zigzags NW and then returns SE to arrive at the SW foot of the knoll, at which point it becomes a mere footpath (ill. 3). This road closely resembles other ancient roads and was probably part of the ancient way from the Megalo Vathychori to Aigosthena (ill. 1).6 The Mallia Psatha tower is on the very peak of the knoll. Only two blocks of the round tower remain in situ (pl. 56, fig. 6) and, apart from two other blocks on the hilltop, all the rest have fallen down the hill, mostly to the NW. The diameter of the tower was originally ca. 6.5 m. The blocks are limestone and 0.90-1.30 x 0.50 x 0.50-0.65 m. in size. All visible blocks are ashlar; some are striated on their outside surfaces. The sides of the hill and its summit are littered with glazed rooftiles and coarseware; a few body sherds of black-glazed fineware were noted. About 100 m. W of the tower, at the foot of the knoll, are remains of several ancient buildings, now
The second tower (ill. 3; pl. 56, figs. 5, 6) is located on a prominent knoll on Mallia Psatha, the central ridge of the western Kaliakouda foothills, about 2.25 km. (in a
Cemented
wall
Retaining
Trapezoidal
wall
walls
.
'`
-
II
-
I _ . .. _-__._._-".. Rublwall
,
t',
Iri
V
; 11.•
=
"lU,,,'
a
r
.
r
I---
-,
,7 0. \\\ 0_.. ..,"........."'"... .'/1\\\.//// 2".Ta'I" Ill.
,,Aplan .it,
twer,.1
rM
Iii.er
389
.,..
\\\
2. Tzamal towr, : la
zmhtower,
"•;;Illl.2
6 Cf. a brief note on the tower by A. Muller and J. des Courtils, BCH 104 (1980) 587. On the characteristicsof ancient roads, see
W.K. Pritchett, Studies in Ancient Greek Topography 3: Roads
planl'x
(California Publications in Classical Studies 22, Berkeley 1980) passim.
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY
390
ern end of the Villia valley, are visible to the N. To the S all of the bay of Psatha and the Perachora peninsula are in view, including the sites of Pagai and Panormos (pl. 56, fig. 5). To the SE the tower overlooks the hilly region S of Kaliakouda and the extreme W end of the Megalo Vathychori.
S Traces of ancient buildings
from
Fallen
blocks
[AJA 87
.
ruined. Great numbers of glazed tiles and coarseware sherds are scattered about. A few ashlar blocks lie among the rubble; one (0.40 x 0.40 x 0.75 m.) has a preserved joist hole of 0.10 x 0.10 x 0.12 m. From the SW side of the knoll a rubble wall of 1.2 m. in thickness, well built with two faces and rubble packing and in places preserved to over 1 m. in height, projects to the NW for at least 50 m. Near the W end of this wall is a small (1.25 x 1.0 m.) cistern cut in the rock. About 500 m. to the E of the tower, another double-faced rubble-packed field wall runs along the ridge for about 175 m. It averages 1.2 m. in thickness, except for a 25 m. section, about 50 m. from the E end of the wall, which broadens to 4.0 m. At its E end, the wall turns to the S for about 50 m. and then returns to the W for about 15 m. until it is obscured by brush. A few bits of coarseware were noticed along the length of the wall. Faint traces of one other rubble wall, also 1.2 m. in thickness, can be seen along the ridge, about 350 m. W of the tower, just above the modern road. A few fragments of glazed rooftiles and coarseware were observed nearby. Like the Tzamali tower, the Mallia Psatha tower must have served as a watchpost; its view is impressive. Aigosthena and the Tzamali tower, as well as the west-
Although neither tower can be independently dated, they can both be linked by masonry style and by function to the great fort at Aigosthena. The trapezoidal masonry of the Tzamali tower (which was probably never very high) is similar to the trapezoidal curtain walls at Aigosthena, while the ashlar of the Mallia Psatha tower (which may have risen to a considerable height, judging by the number of fallen blocks) is reminiscent of the strict ashlar of the Aigosthena towers. The Tzamali and Mallia Psatha towers were most probably constructedby the builders of the fortifications at Aigosthena as lookout and signal stations. The approaches by land and sea must have been a matter of concern to the Aigosthena fort builders. The tremendous walls and towers on the akropolis demonstrate that the town was liable to attack by a superior force. Furthermore, the presence of long walls from the akropolis to the bay shows that the town expected aid or supplies to arrive by sea; the corollary is, of course, the fear that a hostile army might besiege the town and force the inhabitants to depend on the long walls to preserve access to the port.7 Ample advance warning of the approach of friendly or hostile fleets or armies was therefore an absolute necessity.8 The two towers undoubtedly provided the lookout posts necessary for Aigosthena's security. The Tzamali tower watched both the bay of Porto Germeno and the northern land approaches. Any ship sailing up the Gulf of Corinth would be spotted from the tower well before it entered the bay. An army approaching the town by any of several land routes would be seen from the tower as well. From the S, Hammond's "Road of the Towers," a major thoroughfare between the Peloponnesos and Boiotia, ascends the W slopes of Karydhi, crests the ridge, and drops into the Villia valley about 5 km. E of the tower.9 An invading army turning W after reaching the valley would soon be spied from the tower, as would any
7 The most completedescriptionof the fortificationsis still Benson (supra n. 2). The N long wall with its 8 towers is largely intact and the westernmosttower is now washed by the sea. The S long wall has completelydisappeared.Benson (321-23) believedit originally lay on the southernside of the streambed(see Benson'sPlan II) which runsjust S of the akropolisto the sea. It seemsmorelikely that the wall ran along the northernbank of the streambed,a position which would forceattackingtroopsto crossthe streamin order to approachthe wall. Assuming this to be the case, the wall presumablytumbledinto the streambedduring an earthquakeand the blockswere later cartedaway for reuse;most of the older buildings in Porto Germenouse blocksfrom the fort in their foundations. 8 No other watchtowersassociated with Aigosthena have been published. Neither of the two well preserved ashlar towers de-
scribed by H.J.W. Tillyard, "Two Watchtowersin the Megarid," BSA 12 (1905-1906) 101-108 (towers "C"and "F";the latter is shown on ill. 1), nor any of the sites N.G.L. Hammond ("The Main Road from Boeotiato the Peloponnesethroughthe Northern Megarid,"BSA 49 [1954] 108-11) called road control towers can be consideredwatch or signal stations. None of these structureshas an extensive view and none is intervisiblewith Pagai, Panormos, Aigosthena, Megara, or the Tzamali or Mallia Psatha towers. Most of the sites describedby Hammond were probablyfarms or refuges; "C"and "F" may have served as guardpostsof some sort. See the author's abstract "Ancient Farms on the Attica-Megara Border:A Reconnaissanceof the Megalo and Mikro Vathychoria," AJA 86 (1982) 280. 9 See Hammond (supra n. 8) 103-22.
.' .
0
10
"
?2 5'/'-
,
/
Ill. 3. Mallia Psatha tower, plan
1983]
ARCHAEOLOGICAL
NOTES
391
force coming down the valley from the Attic Mazi plain. From the N and NW of Aigosthena a difficult road, which was, however, passable by an army, made its way around the flanks of Kithairon from Boiotian Kreusis.1' The Tzamali tower watches this route as well. The Mallia Psatha tower duplicates some of the view of the Tzamali tower to the N, but its primary function was probably to watch toward the S. All the land routes in the area S of Aigosthena can be seen from the Mallia Psatha tower. The three paths branching off from Hammond's road and leading to the sites of Aigosthena, Pagai and Panormos come into view as they leave the western Megalo Vathychori. The paths which, until the construction of the Psatha road, connected the site of Panormos with Pagai and Aigosthena are visible, as is the N end of the road which leaves Pagai for Megara. Although none of these paths is demonstrably ancient, the routes in antiquity must have been similar, if not identical. To the SW all possible seaward approaches to the bay of Psatha are also watched. Perhaps most importantly, the Mallia Psatha tower provided direct visual communication between Aigosthena and the two ports to the S, to some degree alleviating Aigosthena's physical isolation from the rest of the northern Megarid. Together the two towers overlooked all possible land and sea approaches to Aigosthena and served to link the town with Panormos and Pagai. The close relationship of the two towers with Aigosthena seems to justify the hypothesis that they were contemporary with the great circuit there; unfortunately, there is little agreement concerning the date of the fortifi-
cations at Aigosthena. It was once thought that they dated to the early 4th c.1"This date is unlikely since the large windows, which until the earthquakes of 1981 were preserved on the topmost storey of the SE tower of the akropolis, suggest the use of catapults. The use of this device would exclude at least the first decades of the 4th c., since the catapult was invented in Sicily in ca. 399 B.C. and towers especially designed to house artillery could hardly have been built in mainland Greece before the 370s.'2 It has recently been argued that Aigosthena's fortifications were built by Demetrios Poliorketes." The existence of the long walls to the sea implies that the fort was built by a sea power, so an association with Demetrios is possible.'4 The fortifications, however, need not necessarily be so late as the last decade of the 4th c.'5 Probably because of advances in siegecraft, long walls seem to have gone out of style by the latter part of the 4th c. and no new construction (as opposed to repairs of existing walls) of long walls can be securely dated to after the 340s.'6 A possible alternative to the era of Demetrios is the summer of 343 B.C. when, as a result of an alliance, the Athenians built a new set of long walls from Megara to the port of Nisaia. A contemporary building program at Aigosthena would have provided the Athenian navy with a safe port on the Corinthian Gulf from which to guard against further encroachments by Philip II.17 It seems safe to date the fortification walls at Aigosthena, and consequently the Tzamali and Mallia Psatha towers, to between 350 and 275 B.C. The function and date of the rubble field walls which lie near the towers remain a matter for speculation. It is
10 This route was used by the Spartanarmy in 378 and 371 (Xen. Hell. 5.4.17-18; 6.4.18), but was never favoredas a military road becauseof its difficultyand exposureto the wind. 1 R.L. Scranton,Greek Walls (Cambridge,Mass. 1941) 81, 176. 12Accordingto Diodorus Siculus, 16.42.1, the catapult was invented by technicians hired by Dionysios I of Syracuse. This ac-
undertakenat Demetrios'instigation. 15 The masonry at Aigosthena demonstrates no characteristic Hellenistic refinementssuch as complex header-and-stretchersystems, string courses, pseudo-isodomiccoursing, or decorativesurface treatment.On the characteristicsof Hellenistic fortifications,
count is accepted by E.W. Marsden, Greek and Roman Artillery 1
(Oxford 1969) 48-64. Just how rapidlythe availabilityof catapults influencedfortificationdesign is debatable.Marsden (129-37) argues that the first two-storeytowers with windows for catapults(as opposed to enlarged arrow slits) should date to ca. 350-320 and that the three-chamberedSE tower at Aigosthena representsthe next stage of development.Marsden (134-36) thereforeproposesa date for Aigosthenain the last quarterof the 4th c. or "moreprobably" in the first quarterof the 3rd c. There is, however,little reason to suppose that fort builderswere so slow in adaptingto the use of catapults.Athens, for example, had them as early as 371/0 (IG II2, 1422, lines 8-9). If A.W. Lawrence, Greek Aims in Fortification
(Oxford 1979) 382-83, is correctin datingthe well preservedtower E of the ArkadianGate at Messene to ca. 369, Marsden's general chronologycould be raised by about twenty years. 13 Lawrence, (supra n. 12) 388-89, suggested Demetrios as the builder on the basis of his "maniafor the gigantic"and an inscription (IG VII, 1) which demonstratesthat Demetrios garrisoned Aigosthena. 14A.W. Parsonsin R. Carpenterand A. Bon, Corinth3.2 (Cambridge, Mass. 1936) 122-23, suggests that both the rebuilding of Athens' city and long walls in 307/6 (IG II2, 463) and the rebuilding of Corinth's long walls, which Parsons dates to ca. 300, were
see F.E. Winter, Greek Fortifications (Phoenix Supplement 9, To-
ronto 1971) 324-34. 16Lawrence, (supra n. 12) 155-58, 419, notes that the original phases of the long walls at Athens, Megara, Corinth, Argos and Patrai all fall within one generation(ca. 459-417 B.C.). With the probableexceptionof Corinth, all were built under Athenian auspices. Long walls by their very nature presentedan extended line across relatively open terrain and probably could not stand up against the new types of siegecraftperfectedby Alexander III and Demetrios:see Lawrence,loc. cit.; Winter (supra n. 15) 111. 17 The rebuilding of the Megarian long walls is mentioned by Plutarch,Phokion 15. This was a genuinelynew undertaking,not a mere repair, since Megara's original long walls had been razed to the ground in 422 (Thuc. 4.109) and had never been rebuilt. N.G.L. Hammond and G.T. Griffith, A History of Macedonia2 (Oxford 1979) 497-98, suggest summer343 as the date of the rapprochementbetween Athens and Megara. See also Hammondand Griffith (496-504) for Athenian-Macedonian relations in that year;cf. R.P. Legon, Megara (Ithacaand London 1981) 289-94. It is worth noting that the acquisitionof a porton the CorinthianGulf had been a majorgoal of Athenianstrategyin the First Peloponnesian War and the Atheniansactually controlledPagai from 461 to 446 (Thuc. 1.103, 115).
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY
392
[AJA 87
At the end of his historical account of Rome's water supply, immediately after describing the Aqua Claudia and Anio Novus, Frontinus proudly compares the construction and technology of Rome's aqueducts, indispensable structures carrying so many waters (tot aquarum tam multis necessariis molibus), to that of the pyramids or the architectural achievements of the Greeks (Aq. 16, hereafter cited without title).' His enthusiasm should not surprise us. The Claudian aqueducts were the keystone of the imperial water system; as the lines introduced most recently into the city, they effectively dwarfed all earlier aqueducts in their capacity and height, which made possible distribution of their water throughout Rome (Pliny HN 36.122). Although Claudius' aqueducts were separate lines, drawing from different sources, Frontinus describes both of them as a single project or joint work (quod opus) begun by Gaius in A.D. 38 and completed by Claudius in 52 (13.1-2). The arrangement adopted for their entry
into Rome, that of carrying multiple conduits on a single bridge, was unusual but not without precedent: Marcus Agrippa had brought the Aqua Tepula, which he had extensively reworked, and the Aqua Julia from the modern Capannelle into Rome on the bridge of the Aqua Marcia. The result was an arcade of three conduits, each stacked on that of an earlier line (19.1-5). Claudius' engineers chose the same route for the final course of his aqueducts and constructed an impressive bridge of 6491 passus to carry both channels from Capannelle NW into the city at Spes Vetus (14.4, 20.1). The specus of the Anio Novus, constructed in concrete, rode atop that of the Claudia built in ashlar masonry of peperino, carried on rusticated piers of the same material.2 The disparity in construction techniques indicates that the Anio Novus was built separately and added as an afterthought to the Claudia, which had already been planned and constructed. This arrangement no doubt saved time and expense during construction itself, but it also complicated the operation and maintenance of the two lines, a problem Frontinus acknowledges (124).3 Flavian inscriptions on the present Porta Maggiore, the section of the arcade that carried both conduits over the Via Labicana and Via Praenestina, attest to repairs undertaken as early as A.D. 71 by Vespasian and A.D. 81 by Titus. Vespasian's inscription (CIL VI 1257) states that the Claudia had been interrupted or at least malfunctioning for nine years, since A.D. 62 (aquas Curtiam et Caeruleam, perductas a divo Claudio et postea intermissas dilapsasque / per annos novem...). Titus' repairs appear to have ended a shorter interruption perhaps caused by flooding near the Claudia's sources in the upper Anio Valley.4
18Other field walls and a rubblecircuitfartherE on the slopes of the Kaliakouda-Karydhiridge (ill. 1) have been identifiedas an-
be arable, but it is not impossible that the walls defined grazing grounds.
tempting to postulate that they are ancient military barrier walls, perhaps parts of a larger system of field works.18 The walls may, however, be medieval or even modern, and their function need not necessarily have been military.19 JOSIAH OBER DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY AND PHILOSOPHY MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY BOZEMAN, MONTANA 597I7
NERO'S ARCUS CAELIMONTANI*
cient by C.N. Edmonson, The Topography of Northwest Attica
(Diss. University of California at Berkeley 1966) 60-62, 75-77. One might speculate that all were part of a system of defensesto protect the Megarid from invasion at the time when Aigosthena was held by enemies of Megara to the N. Robert, (supra n. 2) 119-20, suggests that Aigosthena was in fact in opposition to the rest of the Megarid in 192 B.C., when Aigosthenaremainedpart of the Boiotian Confederacyafter Megara and Pagai left to join the AchaianLeague. The Boiotians,presumablyusing Aigosthenaas a base, invadedthe Megarid and besiegedthe city of Megara (Polyb. 20.6.7-12). Assuming the invaderscame by land, they would have had to cross the Kaliakouda-Karydhiridge; the field walls might have been built in an ultimatelyfutile attemptby the Megarians to hold the ridge. 19Hammond, (supra n. 8) 111, suggests a medieval date for a wall across the Road of the Towers on the N slopes of Karydhi. Edmonson (supra n. 18) 75-77, however, considersthe wall ancient. Other occasionsfor building military walls might be sought in more recent history; local inhabitants have informed me that during World War II the German army burned the forests of the Karydhi-Kaliakoudaridge in an attempt to stop partisans from operatingin the area. D. Keller has kindly informedme that he has found long field walls in the Karystos area of southern Euboia which he suggests may have marked ancient property lines. The land throughwhich the Mallia Psatha walls run does not appearto
* I am gratefulto L. Richardson,jr., for commentson an earlier draft of this note. 1 All citations are from the Teubner edition of C. Kunderewicz (Leipzig 1973). The following abbreviationsare used: Ashby
T. Ashby, The Aqueducts of Ancient Rome (Ox-
Colini
ford 1935) A.M. Colini, MemPontAcc7 (1944)
Grimal
P. Grimal, Frontin, les aqueducs de la ville de
Hainzmann
M. Hainzmann, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Verwaltung der stadtrimischen Wasser-
Rome (Paris 1944)
Jordan Lanciani Van Deman
leitungen (Diss. Graz 1973) H. Jordan and C. Huelson, Topographie der Stadt Rom im Alterthum (Berlin 1907) R. Lanciani, I commentarii di Frontino intorno le acque e gli acquedotti (Rome 1880) E.B. Van Deman, The Building of the Roman
Aqueducts(Washington1934) 2 For a full description of this well known bridge, see Ashby 224-42; Van Deman 237-50. 3Ashby 191-92; Grimal 74 n. 36; Hainzmann 125. 4 Lanciani 135. Cf. Van Deman 258: "no certain traces of the work of this period have been identified,apart from a few doubtful groups of brokenremainsin the upper sectionsof the course..."
PLATE
56
OBER
:-:::: :_:-:i:::
::::M k:?:
: :: :: :--ii_ -::-::??:::::::----;:-:~r :_i: ::_::.:_::
v
:--:;: ::':::::;,-:-: ..... .....::::::
:-:::i::~ar~ii:.-::-:i: _:i---: ?%i~:-:-i~
FIG. I. Porto Germeno bay and site of Aigosthena to NW from the Tzamali tower
,•!:i •i•'i• ! iii•,,
... ii~~??.
... r;t •• . ..... ?i • ???
FIG. 2. Villia valley to E from Tzamali tower
• • : / ..
??
?led ! ?o4i
.•
ii??
FIG.4. Tzamali tower, SW wall and outcrop
FIG.3. Tzamali tower, NW wall
?: -:1-:_;-:_: -_:::
.....: ......
A&
::?::;:: .
. .
.4
FIG. 5. Psatha bay, with sites of Pagai and Panormos to SW from the Mallia Psatha tower
FIG. 6. Mallia Psatha tower, foundation block in situ
