The Fortifications of The Early Hellenistic Thracian City of Seuthopolis

Archaeologia Bulgarica the EarlyXII 2008 3 15-56 Sofia The Fortifications of Hellenistic Thracian City of Seuthopolis: Breaking the
Mold
THE FORTIFICATIONS OF THE EARLY HELLENISTIC THRACIAN CITY OF SEUTHOPOLIS: BREAKING THE MOLD
EMIL NANKOV 1. Introduction The city of Seuthopolis, enclosing an area of ca. 5 ha, lies on a low terrace of Sredna Gora, 8 km west of modern Kazanluk in south central Bulgaria (figs. 1-5). It occupies a small, flat peninsula rising to 5 m in height, formed by the steep banks of Toundja river (ancient Tonzos) to south and southwest (fig. 4). The small tributary of Golyama Varovica provides another natural boundary to the east. Thus, only from northwest the city is unprotected by nature (figs. 3, 5). Under the guidance of Prof. D. P. Dimitrov, a Bulgarian team of archaeologists excavated the site during 1948-1954 due to construction works for the Georgi Dimitrov Dam (modern Koprinka). Seuthopolis is not mentioned in the literary sources, and the identification comes from the so-called Great Inscription (SEG XLII 661, lines 31-32) found during the excavations. At present the exposed remains lie at the bottom of Koprinka Dam 1 (fig. 4) . Of all architectural remains excavated at Seuthopolis (fig. 6), the city fortifications traditionally receive the least attention and, even today, they still continue to escape the scrutiny of modern scholarship. Most recently, for example, Zyromski (2004, 243), in a short essay dealing with the urban development of inland Thrace, has devoted a single sentence to the fortifications of Seuthopolis: The defensive walls in Seuthopolis were pentagon in shape. Similarly, in a comparative study examining the influence of Greek architectural models in Seuthopolis, Neapolis (Scythia) and Vani (Georgia), Wasowicz (2004, 8) has briefly noted, without discussing the available data, that Seuthopolis was ringed with fortifications
1
of Greek type. Finally, Stoyanov (2006, 8387) has made no reference to the fortifications of Seuthopolis at all, while making a case for the existence of different models of urbanization in inland Thrace exemplified by the cities of Kabyle, Seuthopolis and Sboryanovo (ancient Helis). The opinions presented above seem to confirm Domaradskis observation (1998, 39), made almost a decade ago, that our knowledge about an essential aspect of the architectural layout of Seuthopolis has imperceptibly reached a stalemate. To a great extent, of course, the reason for this, as he also noted, resides in the fact that the final publication has yet to appear, as a part of the Seuthopolis series, Urban planning, fortification system and architecture, Vol. III (cf. 1984, 10; Archibald 1998, 313, #39). The continuing delay of this important volume, however, has posed insurmountable obstacle before the scholars dealing with the problems of fortification building and urbanization in pre-Roman Thrace ( 1995, 35-43; 1982; 1998, 3940; 2000, 42-44; 2002, 22-23; 2002, 124-125; 2002, 70; Bouzek 2005, 3; 2006, 83-89), who still have to rely on the little evidence derived from the preliminary publications ( 1957, 73-74; 1960, 6-7; Dimitrov/iikova 1978; iikova 1983, 291-292; 1970; 1985, 87-88; 1991, 61). Another difficulty lies in the fact that fresh observations on the extant remains remain impossible because they are currently submerged. In spite of these shortcomings, with all expectations focusing on the long overdue publication, my goal is to show that the available
On account of its proximity to the so-called Valley of the Thracian Kings, where the number of discovered rich tumular burials in built tombs continues to multiply, the municipality of Kazanluk has recently taken steps to make Seuthopolis more accessible to a wider audience. One of the projects proposed by the architect Prof. Z. Tilev, admittedly the most extravagant, considers the possibility of reclaiming the submerged remains from the waters of Koprinka Dam ( 2006, 25).
15
Emil Nankov
data could still provide valuable insights. Strictly speaking, therefore, the present text seeks to acquire the status of an interim study in its own right. 2. The problem of Greek architects That by and large the fortifications of Seuthopolis exhibit the work of non-local vis-vis Greek builders has been a longstanding assumption (Lawrence 1979, 219; 1998, 43; Tsetskhladze 2000, 238; 2002, 125, 166; Wasowicz 2004, 9-10). Except in the way of generalities, though, no serious attempt has been made to distinguish foreign from local traditions, and a detailed analysis of the evidence pointing to Greek influence has always been of great necessity ( 2002, 302-303; 2004, 77). In addition, several studies on the handful of Hellenistic fortifications from inland Thrace have attempted to outline the parameters of what is generally understood as Greek influence ( 1982; 2000, 11-50; 2002), most notably those of Pernik ( 1972a; 1981, 54107; et al. 2003, 39-40; / 2004, 65-66), Philippopolis (Kolarova/Bospatchieva 2005; Bospatchieva 2005, 316-318), Pistiros (Kolarova 1996; Bouzek 1996; Bouzek et al. 2002), Kabyle ( 1991a; 2006) and Sboryanovo (Stoyanov, 1999; Stoyanov 2002; et al. 2006), (cf. fig. 2). Less instructive yet potentially important for this debate are the fortifications of Koprivlen, Gotse Delchev district ( 2002, 91-101), Mandren lake near Burgas ( 1984), Shoumen (useful summaries in 1998, 41-42; 2002, 151-152) Vasil Levski, Karlovo district ( 2004, 51-55), Bosnek, Pernik district (Ljubenova 2005), Kozi gramadi in Sredna gora ( 2006, 24-50) and the rock sanctuary near Tatul, Momchilgrad district ( et al. 2008). Despite the comprehensive treatment on the problems of Thracian fortification building practices offered in these studies, our ways of thinking about the city walls at Seuthopolis have indeed changed very little ( 1995, 35-43; 1998, 39; 2000, 89; 16
2000, 42-44; 2002, 125, 176-177; Zyromski 2004, 243; Wasowicz 2004, 8-10). To complicate matters further, Seuthopolis has always been thought of, in many respects, as an exception on the territory of inland Thrace. At the same time, no compelling historical narrative has been put forward, with special reference to the evidence supplied by the fortifications. Despite citing comparanda from Greece, e.g. Mantineia, Athens and Eleusis, for the mudbrick city walls of Seuthopolis, Dimitrov (1960, 14-15) nonetheless suggested that they developed independently by growing out of the old indigenous building traditions of ancient Thrace. Chichikova (1985, 88) claimed that the fortification system of Seuthopolis, among others, was built by local craftsmen in accordance with the principles of Greek masonry, which became widespread during the early Hellenistic period. According to Taylor (1987, 12, 15), followed by Popov (2002, 125, 166), however, the use of mudbrick, compared with the mudbrick walls of Coofenii din Dos in Oltenia, betrays the work of non-Thracian builders, quite possibly of Greek origin. Along similar lines, Lawrence (1979, 219) has long noted that the numerous finds of iron nails discovered along the curtain walls indicate that the work must have been done by Greeks. In the same vein, Tsetskhladze (2000, 238) asserts that the fortifications are an example of Greek craftsmanship and masonry. On the other hand, for Calder III (1996, 169) employment of Greek architects and builders represents a symptom of Hellenization, while Hoddinott (1975, 93) surmises that these Greek architects probably arrived from a city on the Black Sea, thus accounting for the aid which Seuthes III (330-295 BC) received from Lysimachus (306-281 BC). On a more general note, Owens (1991, 77) points out that Seuthopolis was obviously Greek-inspired, while Cohen (1995, 97) states that, if not a Greek polis, it yet reflects Hellenistic-Macedonian influences. 3. Setting the agenda Since the impression gained, to put it broadly, is one of a highly Hellenized Thracian city, it is unsurprising that the idea of looking for the source of inspiration beyond the borders of an-
The Fortifications of the Early Hellenistic Thracian City of Seuthopolis: Breaking the Mold
Figure 1. Sredna Gora in the background, Koprinka Dam in the middle ground, approximate location of Seuthopolis marked with arrow; looking south (photo: the author).
Figure 2. Map of Bulgaria with the major Thracian sites fortifications of which are discussed in the text (after Dimitrov/iikova 1978, fig. 1).
17
Emil Nankov
cient Thrace has never been questioned. Generations of scholars sought to explain the appearance of Seuthopolis, including the city walls, simply as a result of impersonal foreign influence, generated from the more sophisticated ways of the south a culture with a Mediterranean way of life, which in the mind of the Thracian aristocracy, or at least Seuthes III, the founder of Seuthopolis, were much coveted, as well as considered fashionable. Thus according to Rabadjiev (2002, 10), Seuthopolis, among other things, raises the question of how one draws a line between tradition and influence in Thracian culture. To a great extent, however, this static approach downplays the question of agency, whereby the Thracians living in Seuthopolis are portrayed as recipients of many things Greek, only at times modified to better suit their needs ( 1960, 13). Because of that Popov (2002, 134) has qualified the Greek outlook as superficial, while in some respects Rabadjiev (2002, 14-15) even sees it as Seuthes way to show off. Yet, the city walls seem to break the pattern, since the prevailing opinion admits of the possibility that Greek, not Greek-trained (cf. Taylor 2001, 399) architects (masons) were charged with the task of planning and building the walls. In other words, there is little ground to seek evidence for Greek influence ( 2002, 303), since, as Kisyov (2004, 77) has already remarked, something must reveal the presence of, lets say, Thracian input into the building practices, but clearly the latter have arrived from abroad, and more importantly, remained unchanged in the process of transmission. The problem facing us is therefore twofold: (1) why were the Greek architects prepared to offer their patron, the Thracian ruler Seuthes III, precisely those ideas of city-planning and fortification models that they did, and (2) how did they end up working in the heart of inland Thrace, at Seuthopolis? Since the role of Alexander III and of the Successors in transmitting the Hellenism beyond the fringes of Geek poleis has long been recognized, in the present survey I attempt to put greater emphasis on the Macedonian agency. This is all the more relevant in view of an18
cient testimonia recording the military activity of Macedonian kings and generals in inland Thrace, starting with the campaigns of Philip II during 342-340 BC (Badian 1983, 66-71; Zambon 2000) and ending with the death of Lysimachus, the appointed satrap of Thrace, in 281 BC (Lund 1992, 19-23; 2004). What is of particular significance, however, comes from the assertion that royal patronage in applied mechanics, poliorcetics and military engineering became a contributing factor for the expansion of Macedonia since the time of Philip II (Garlan 1974, 207-211; 1984, 357-360; Shipley 2000, 334-341). More importantly, the trend loomed large during the wars of the Successors, when the founding of new cities and the synoicism of older settlements, instigated by many of Alexanders generals, created a demand for building projects on a larger scale (Lund 1992, 174-177; Shipley 2000, 83-86). As a result, building ex novo in an open terrain according to the so-called , along with designing strong fortification walls and towers suited for artillery, has been recognized as one of the definitive hallmarks of Macedonian town-planning and military engineering (- 1998, 218-233), and, as Lund (1992, 21-22) has pointed out, this is the historical and ethnic background against which the Thracian city of Seuthopolis should be set. In order to provide a wider framework for the study of the urban fortifications I offer (1) a discussion of its structural elements, i.e. curtain walls, towers, bastions and gates. Thus, instead of focusing only on one aspect of the city walls vis--vis mudbrick superstructure, which has been the traditional approach ( 1960, 14; 1982, 51; 2002, 124-125, 166), I widen the scope by laying particular emphasis on the layout and appearance of the towers along with investigating their role in the urban defense. For reasons, which will become apparent later, (2) many elements of the fortifications at Seuthopolis are juxtaposed with closely similar fortifications built under the auspices of the Successors in Macedonia, Greece and Asia Minor. Furthermore, (3) a discussion of the evidence furnished
Figure 3. Topographic map of Seuthopolis. Map drawn by Krasimir Andreev (after 2001 et al. 83).
Figure 4. Morphographic profile of Seuthopolis remains lying on the bottom of Koprinka Dam. Map drawn by Krasimir Andreev (after 2001 et al. 83).
by the artillery projectiles vis--vis stone balls and catapult bolts, which hitherto have never been properly studied, reveal remarkable insights about their strengths, weaknesses and violent destruction. Based (4) on the analysis of small finds such as Macedonian coins, Thasian amphora stamps and imported Greek pottery, stratigraphically associated with the fortifications, I propose an alternative date for their construction. Finally, (5) the suggested lower chronology for the foundation of Seuthopolis, coinciding with the turmoil of events following Alexanders death, as well as the home return
of many military men from his Asian campaign, offers an opportunity for rethinking the ways by which the city came into being. 4. Structural elements of the fortifications At the outset I begin with a very basic, essentially selective, description of the excavated remains at Seuthopolis in order to provide a necessary background for the part which is the heart of this study devoted to the fortifications proper. For more details and completeness, the reader is referred to the literature cited in the introductory section. 19
Emil Nankov
4. 1. City layout The city walls hug the contours of the slightly elevated peninsula surrounded by the steep banks of Tonzos and its tributary, Golyama Varovica (figs. 3, 4). Although the overall plan is of a pentagonal shape, the walls follow a straight line, with a total circumference of 890 m ( 1960, 4). A peculiarity of the city layout is the dominant presence of a forti2 fied citadel, ca. 4620 m , situated in the NE corner, enclosing a monumental building, usually interpreted as the city founders palace (cf. 2002, 20-22 with lit.), with an open facade aligned with an articulated entrance, called a propylon (figs. 3/1, 6). The interpretation of the complex as strictly residential, however, is complicated by the discovery of the Great Inscription (SEG XLII 661, lines 31-32) inside one of the premises, since, in accordance with its specifications, one of the copies was to be deposited in the city sanctuary of the Great Gods (cf. fig. 3/2), ( 2002, 18-24; 2002, 126). Seuthopolis was built on a grid pattern, with 7 longitudinal and 4 transverse streets delimiting the boundaries of residential insulae, the precise number of which is beyond recovery. The excavations exposed, whole or in part, the remains of 12 residential buildings, whose plans and architectural features have been compared to the well-known Greek housing types, with a pastas and a peristyle ( 1991, 6264). Another conspicuous element of the urban landscape is the unusually large in proportion to the built up area ( 2002, 14-15), public space (46 x 48 m), dubbed an agora, which opens up towards the main arteries providing the only access through the city gates with the exterior (figs. 3, 6). Traces of public buildings, however, were never found, except for the stone foundations of what was interpreted as the altar of Dionysus (fig. 3/3) based on the discovery thereof an inscribed dedication made by one of his priests, Amaistas, son of Medistas (IGBulg III, 2, 1732; 2000, 43-44). 4. 2. Free zone peripheral street In addition to the streets intersecting at right angles, it is essential to point out the existence 20
of a peripheral street or a ring road created by the empty space left between the city walls and the built up area. Although the excavation team simply acknowledged its existence without further elaboration it was covered, like the other streets and the agora, with river pebbles (cf. 1960, 7; 1991, 62), the width of this street at Seuthopolis was never reported in the publications to date. The back walls of House 8 and the palace (fig. 6), however, suggest that it was ca. 3-3.50 m wide. Provisioning for a peripheral street was an important byproduct of the , as is evident from the planning of cities built ex novo. The figure is closely comparable, for instance, with those attested at Dion (3 m), Goritsa (3.90-4.75 m) and Dura-Europos (5 m) (- 1998, 113; Bakhuizen 1992, 183-184; McNicoll 1997, 94). In addition, the importance of leaving a space behind the walls free of architecture, especially from a defensive viewpoint, may not be overstated. The reason why it was necessary to make such provisions, as Philo of Byzantium remarks, was connected with the ability to easily assist the defenders on the wall, as well as create additional obstacles for the enemy by building a ditch, should a need arise. Philo (1. 10) prescribes a distance of 60 cubits, which has been observed in the fortification walls of Rhodes (- 2004, 74-76), whereas according to regulations stated in building inscriptions from Ephesos (290 BC) and Scotoussa (197-185 BC) the distance between the houses and the city wall should be 40 and 12-20 feet, respectively (Maier 1959, #71; Missailidou-Despotidou 1993, 212-213). 4. 3. Curtain walls The curtain walls exhibit uniform building technique throughout the circuit, consisting of two wall facings filled with rubble in-between, and further packed with earth. Nowhere is there a section of the wall preserved in more than two courses of stones, which together with the even top surface has rightly led to the conclusion that this is a stone socle. From published photographs ( 1960, . 3) it is clear that its height was within 1.20-1.50 m. Only the stones forming the two courses of the
Figure 5. Seuthopolis and tumuli 1, 2 and 3 (after 1991, 172).
Figure 6. Seuthopolis with the fortification features discussed in the text. To avoid cumbersome repetition, clockwise, the towers are consecutively numbered from 1 to 7 and the bastions from 1 to 3. Only the curtains, equipped with additional features, are designated by capital letters from A to L. (adapted by the author after Dimitrov/ iikova 1978, fig. 3).
21
Emil Nankov
substructure of T 2 (figs. 6, 10a) were in fact ashlar, while the majority had irregular form with at least one smoothed surface facing outwards (Dimitrov/iikova 1978, 9). On present evidence, it is difficult to substantiate an opinion concerning the coursing, even though the prevailing impression is one of irregular masonry with occasional attempts toward more regular blocks in isodomic appearance. Nevertheless, based on these features alone it would be a stretch to apply the term isodomic ashlar (cf. Scranton 1941, 108-112) to the masonry of the entire circuit, which is the reason why Seuthopolis was excluded from the group of Thracian sites, i.e. Pernik, Tirizis, Philippopolis, featuring fortifications walls built in ashlar masonry or opus quadratum ( 1984, 20-21). An interesting feature of the socle, including the towers, since in inland Thrace this element is rarely attested, e.g., Pernik ( 1972a, 36; 1981, 54), Pistiros (Kolarova 1996, 37) and atul ( et al. 2008, 2 . 2) , is the protruding lowermost course, ca. 0.20 m, forming an offset for the wall at 3 foundation level . Also, at various places small channels serving to drain off the waste and the rainwater away from the city interrupt the walls (Dimitrov/iikova 1978, 14; Lawrence 1979, 270-272). Unlike the stone socle for which we have solid evidence, the one for reconstructing its superstructure is in many aspects still inconclu2
sive. For instance, presence of decomposed mudbrick and rooftiles stratigraphically associated with the houses and the palace in the citadel has convincingly shown that these were composed of mudbrick ( 1957, 144; 4 1960, 10; 1991, 64) . Unlike the fortifications at Vergina ( 1997, 70; / 1999, 121), Pella ( 1987, 767), Kassandreia ( 1992, 359-360), Lete (/ 2005, 158-159, 162, . 38, . 10, 11) and Failaka (Jeppesen 1989, 1323), where some of the mudbrick is actually preserved, the evidence for such covering the stone socle of the fortification walls at Seuthopolis is surmised on the basis of (1) the even 5 top surface of the socle along with (2) the substantial quantity of iron nails found along the 6 whole circuit ( 1960, 7) . Whether one agrees with the claim that the latter were fastening woodwork (Dimitrov 1961, 384), probably in the manner known from Pernik (, 1981, . 10), Pistiros (Bouzek 2002, 347), Sboryanovo ( et al. 2006, 12) and Goritsa in Thessaly (Bakhuizen 1992, 152) where it reinforces the mudbrick in the wall (fig. 7) or, belonging to wooden planks of the roof (fig. 8), as indicated by evidence from Dion (- 1998, 153, . 107-108) and Stymphalos in the Peloponnese (Williams et al. 1997, 61), is irrelevant, since in either case they corroborate the theory that the
Built in good ashlar masonry, the north wall of Building #1, which is currently interpreted as a cult complex of the type heroon, rests on a course of protruding headers. Recent excavations at the sanctuary have obtained stratigraphic data dating the first period of construction to the early Hellenistic period. I am most grateful to Zdravko Dimitrov from the National Institute of Archaeology with Museum at Sofia for the opportunity to read a copy of the excavation report in advance, which is now published. A volume devoted to the results of campaigns 2004, 2005 and 2007 is forthcoming (Z. Dimitrov pers. com.). A plethora of examples are known from Macedonia and Greece, e.g., Dion (- 1998, 98), Edessa ( 1991, 58, . 6), Halos (Reinders 1988, 68), Rhodes (- 2004, 37, 102). The only complete mudbricks recovered from the city (0.50 x 0.40 x 0.09 m) were found near the palace on account of the intense fire that burned down the building ( 1957, 144; cf. / 2008, 340). The use of baked bricks, on the other hand, was restricted to the construction of tombs, drainage channels, wells and pavements ( 1957, 135-138; 2000, 87). Very often stone pebbles, such as the ones attested in Pistiros (Kolarova 1996, 38), used as bedding between the lowermost course of mudbricks and the stone socle, lend additional support to the idea for a mudbrick superstructure. Although, judging from photographs ( 1970, . 8, 12), their existence at Seuthopolis would appear likely, no formal comment has been made. The iron nails are 12-15 cm long. According to Lawrence (1979, 219), they indicate that the work must have been done by Greeks, whereas Dehn (1969, 167) saw the walls building technique as the Hellenistic antecedent of the later murus Gallicus.
22
Figure 7. Tentative reconstruction of the West fortification wall at Pistiros (after Bouzek/Musil 2002, fig. 3.53).
Figure 8. Reconstruction of the roofed gallery of the city wall at Athens (307/6 BC) according to IG II2 463, lines 52-74 (after Caskey 1910, pl. VI).
23
Emil Nankov
superstructure of the wall was not made of stone. An Athenian inscription from 307/6 BC 2 (IG II 463), however, makes the case for fastening woodwork more likely. The document, concerning extensive refurbishments on the city walls, the Long Walls and Piraeus, refers, among other things, to wooden frames consisting of horizontal () and transverse () beams (Vitr. De arch. 1. 5. 3), which served to hold the mudbricks on top of the stone socle together (Martin 1965, 4; Maier 1959, 60). In contrast with restoring mudbrick superstructure, though, is the conspicuous absence of rooftiles, which one would naturally expect to find in association with fortification walls built of mudbrick, e.g., Stymphalos (Williams/ Gourley 2005, 223-225) and Pistiros (Bouzek 1996, 43; 2002, 347; Musil 1996, 58-62). For not only did such walls need subsequent plastering on a regular basis, as is evident from recent discoveries in the fortification walls at Vergina (/ 1999, 121), but also some sort of permanent roofing, thereby ensuring protection from the elements (Winter 1971, 132; Lawrence 1979, 211). Any type of mudbrick wall is bound to quickly disintegrate, if it is not roofed and properly maintained. Despite the deficiencies of the archaeological evidence, the conjecture that the city walls at Seuthopolis were roofed and constructed of mudbrick on a stone socle is still the one having the most merit (Dimitrov 1961, 384; Wokalek 1973, 106). Thus on the basis of parallels with the fortification walls at Pistiros ( 2002, 124) and Athens (figs. 7, 8), it is reasonable to imagine the existence of mudbrick superstructure reinforced with woodwork and a screenwall, most probably equipped with windows ( 1995, 38), as well as a wallwalk covered with a sloping roof ( 1998, 119). While, the conjecture that the curtains may not have exceeded 4-5 m, as Balabanov (2000, 44) has recently suggested,
7
seems unwarranted, it is conceivable that they reached up to at least 6-7 m, as is also the case with the E fortification wall at Pistiros (Kolarova 1996, 35). 4. 4. Towers Square Towers 1-7 and a rectangular Tower-Gate reinforce the NW city wall and the citadel, while rectangular projections (Bastions 1-3) along the SW wall and the SW Gate provide additional points of defense (fig. 6, table 1). To these, another square tower, located in the S corner of the city, should be added, based on traces found during the excavations ( 1960, 7). The restoration of a tower at the E corner of the city (fig. 3; 1970, . 2; Hoddinott 1975, fig. 11; 1995, 37; 2000, . 28) has found no archaeological support (Dimitrov/Ciikova 1978, 9), nor does it seem plausible in view of the natural defense provided by 7 the steep banks of Toundja and its tributary . To date, the available information pertaining to the towers amount only to a few general observations in addition to the state (figs. 9a, 10a) and restored plans of T 1 and T 2 produced by the excavators ( 1970, . 5, 7). Based on the available data a preliminary typology of the tower design is not only feasible, but also profitable for understanding the extent to which the builders were influenced by the ongoing dialogue between defensive and offensive strategies of war during the early Hellenistic period. As in the case of the curtain walls, the discussion greatly benefits from adducing comparanda from neighboring Macedonia. The well-dated urban fortifications of Dion, carefully studied and promptly published (- 1998) as a result of several excavation campaigns conducted by the Greek Archaeological Service, are an essential starting point. More importantly, numismatic evidence obtained from the foundation trenches of the city walls conclusively demonstrated that the circuit was built during the reign of
The same may be said about Chichikovas suspicion that there was a third city gate overlooking the SW gate, on the opposite side of the southwest-northeast avenue (fig. 6). Since no architectural remains of the gate have been recovered, however, all evidence cited to provide support for such a suggestion remains inconclusive ( 1991, 61; 2002, 128). The gate has also appeared on the restored plan of Seuthopolis drawn by the architect D. Mushev, following Chichikovas theory ( 1995, 37).
24
Figure 9. A The West corner tower (T 1) at Seuthopolis, state plan; B Typical corner tower at Dion (after Dimitrov/iikova 1978, fig. 8; - 1998, . 31b).
Figure 10. A The Northwest tower (T 2) at Seuthopolis, state plan; B Typical tower at Dion (after Dimitrov/iikova 1978, fig. 10; - 1998, . 31a).
25
Emil Nankov
Cassander (319-297 BC). Although no account regarding structural details exists, it is clear from the published photographs ( 1970, . 6) that Seuthopolis towers exhibit the same building technique, as the one observed in the curtains (see supra). In the absence of evidence to the contrary ( 1970, 11), it is also safe to assume that the towers bond with the curtain walls (so 2000, 44). A comparison reveals that the towers at Seuthopolis and Dion demonstrate closely similar dimen8 sions and almost identical layout (figs. 9-11). As in Dion, the towers at Seuthopolis have a hollow ground floor accessible from the city, or the citadel, by an axial opening (figs. 10a-b, 11a-b, 12), ca. 1.30 m wide (T 2, T 5, T 6 and T 7), or a narrower L-shaped passage (fig. 9a), ca. 1 m wide (T 1, T 3 and T 4). As in Dion, based on their projection (- 1998, 113-116), the towers may be divided into two types: Type 1 projecting slightly on the inner side, T 2 and T 5 (fig. 10a) Type 2 projecting beyond the curtain wall completely, T 6 and T 7 (figs. 11a-12). In fact, some of the corner towers, i.e. T 1, T 3 and T 4, should belong to Type 1 as well, since, as a result of the inward projection, their chambers only partially extend beyond the outer face of the curtain wall, as do the ones of T 2 and T 5 (figs. 9a, 10a). The first floor of the towers is level with the wallwalk, since communication between different sections of the curtain wall was facilitated via the towers. Only near T 1 and T 4 (figs. 6, 9a) are there preserved stone foundations for solid stairways leading up to the wallwalk ( 1970, . 4, 5). Alternatively, wooden ladders along the curtains and
8
through a trapdoor from inside the towers may have provided additional ways for prompt manning of the fortifications, especially in time of siege. By way of comparison with Dion (- 1998, 115), we assume the existence of a first floor for all the towers, which, as will be demonstrated, may also have been used for artillery installa9 tions. A second floor could also be conjectured based on large size of the Tower-Gate and T 6, as well as thicker tower-walls attested for T 1, T 3 and T 4. The walls of T 1 (fig. 9a), for example, are 1.60-1.80 m thick, while those of T 2 (fig. 10a) 1.50 m ( 1970, . 4, 7). Although the wall dimensions of T 3 and T 4 are not reported in the preliminary publications, they appear as thick as those of T 1 if measured from the scaled city plan published in both volumes of the Seuthopolis series. The thickening of tower-walls observed in the corner towers at Dion was done in order to strengthen areas more liable for attack from the enemy artillery and siege engines (- 1998, 114-115, . 32). As far as Seuthopolis is concerned, further considerations lend support to a similar supposition. For instance, T 3 and T 4 served a double purpose, since they were also a part of the citadel, situated in the most accessible for the would-be attacker area of the city, defending the easy approach from N-NW (figs. 3, 5). In the absence of outworks ( 1960, 10 6), i.e. proteichisma , or a moat along the NW city wall, it seems plausible that these two towers, as well as T 1 and the Tower-Gate, had an extra floor, thereby (1) gaining extra height, (2) increasing the range of the catapults and (3) making the attackers advance towards the city more difficult and trouble11 some . It is clear that, as in the case of Dion,
A typical tower at Dion is a square measuring 7.00 x 7.00 m (- 1998, 248). For Seuthopolis, see table 1. By and large, three-storeyed towers are less common than the one and two-storeyed ones. An inscription from Scotoussa in Thessaly, for example, dated to 197-185 BC, mentions a three-storeyed tower, (Missailidou-Despotidou 1993, 197, 207). For examples of well-preserved multi-storeyed towers in Greece, see (Ober 1987, 586-594, figs. 19, 22, 27 and 29). For example, see the recent discoveries of proteichismata located in vulnerable sections of the early Hellenistic circuits at Stymphalos (Williams/Gourley 2005, 253, fig. 15, pls. 10-11) and Sboryanovo (Stoyanov 1999, 1083). In both cases the excavators suspect that they were used as emplacements for artillery engines.
10
26
Figure 11. A The Southwest citadel tower (T 7) at Seuthopolis, restored plan; B Typical tower at Dion (adapted by the author after Dimitrov/iikova 1978, fig. 3; - 1998, . 31c).
Figure 12. The South corner tower (T 6) of the citadel at Seuthopolis, restored plan (adapted by the author after Dimitrov/iikova 1978, fig. 3).
Figure 13. A The Tower-Gate in the S fortification wall at Failaka, restored plan (adapted by author after Jeppesen 1989, fig. 99); B The Tower-Gate in the NW city wall at Seuthopolis, restored plan (adapted by the author after Dimitrov/iikova 1978, fig. 3); C The tower-gate at Sillyon, Pamphylia (after McNicoll 1997, pl. 64).
27
Emil Nankov
the established canon was modified only when at odds with the strategic requirements of a spot. Along the same lines, the extremely large Tower-Gate (13.50 x 10.30 m.) puncturing the NW city wall (figs. 6, 13b, tables 1, 3, 5) deserves special attention. Projecting equally beyond either side of the curtain, the tower performed two important functions; first, it facilitated the wheeled traffic into the city by directing it along the main northwest-southeast avenue, and second, it served as a strong artillery unit on its own in one of the most vulnerable for attack areas. The gate is axial, with two openings at the ground level, which probably had arches and/or lintels spanning the entrance proper (fig. 13c). In addition, the lack of stairways in its vicinity shows that the access above was possible only through the wallwalk by means of the neighboring T 2 and T 3. The larger internal dimensions (10.50 x 7.30 m.) also make it likely that stone-throwing catapults (lithoboloi) were employed (see infra). Noteworthy is the fact, however, that this type of city gates is extremely rare in the Hellenistic world (Adam 1992; Winter 1971, 232-233), and while the Tower-Gate at Seuthopolis displays only superficial similarity with the tower-gate at Kabyle ( 1982, 55; 1991a, 55-56; 1985, 88) and the Main Gate at Dura-Europos (Von Gerkan 1939, fig. 1), it finds an exact parallel in the Tower-Gate in the south wall of the fortified Sacred Enclosure on the island of Failaka (figs. 13a, 26), located at the northern edge of the Persian Gulf 12 (Jeppesen 1989, 19-20) . In addition, the Seuthopolis Tower-Gate could be usefully compared, in terms of restoring its superstructure, to the much later (133 BC) yet exceptionally well-preserved tower-gates at Sillyon (fig.
11
13c) and Gvercinlik in Pamphylia (Dornisch 1992, 134-136, 138-140, Abb. 17; McNicoll 1997, 139-40, fig. 32). In the same vein, the presence of T 6 and T 7 (figs. 11a, 12) is important for a number of reasons. First, if assault was carried out from inside the city, they would provide the only opportunity for defense of the citadel (fig. 6). Second, they are the only representatives of Type 2, i.e. towers with complete projection. On the territory of Thrace, T 7 may be compared ( 1998, 41) with the projecting towers (#2 and #3) from Kabyle ( 1991a, 56, . 1, 8, 9), the so-called tyrsis near the Mandren lake, Burgas district ( 2000, 49, . 29) and the fortified site near Bosnek (Ljubenova 2005, 187188, Abb. 2-4). The presence of towers with projection is significant not only because it cut the traffic on the wallwalk away from the towers, but also because it increased the field of flanking fire along the adjoining curtains (Vitr. De arch. 1. 5. 2). The projection also facilitates easier handling of the catapults on the first floor of the towers (McNicoll 1997, 13). On the whole, the defensive potential imparted in the citadel is striking and markedly contrast with the provisions made for the rest of the circuit. The point deserves further elaboration. Since the citadel was situated in the most vulnerable area of the city, it has often been claimed ( 1995, 37; 2002, 12, . 11, 22-23) that for this reason alone it was hardly intended as a place for last refuge. Dimitrov (1958, 697-698) believed that before the city was built a fortified residential tower, tyrsis, was in existence, which after its destruction, was replaced by a tetrapyrgion serving as citadel defending the palace. Once the citadel became a part of the new city,
One should be aware of the fact that the excavators found scattered traces of habitation immediately outside the NW fortification wall. Dimitrov (1960, 5), for example, reported many fragments of rooftiles, arguably the only remains of simple huts, as well as stone foundations belonging to a building with a circular plan of unknown character. Although none of these finds were ever published or mapped out, they have been repeatedly used to substantiate the claim for the existence of poor suburbs (cf. here fig. 3) associated with the city proper. While Dimitrov thought of the inhabitants of the suburban area as people of no great means, Stoyanov (2006, 85), citing the presence of heavy rooftiles, has recently pointed to the possibility that these people may have possessed higher economic and social status. The site, which is not only contemporary with Seuthopolis but also the fortification walls exhibit the same building technique stone socle topped by a mudbrick superstructure, was built by the Seleucids at the beginning of the third century BC (Jeppesen 1989, 76).
12
28
Figure 14. A The Southwest gate and Bastions 1, 2, state plan; B An engine stand, Emplacement 51 at Herakleia at Latmos (adapted by the author after Dimitrov/iikova 1978, fig. 14; McNicoll 1997, fig. 53).
29
Emil Nankov
Dimitrov argued, the defensive potential was strengthened by the addition of a fifth tower, i.e. T 7 (fig. 6). His theory, however, has not stood the test of time ( 2002, 126). If, on the other hand, the provisions for defensive artillery are taken into account, I see no reason why the defenders would not have felt more protected inside. In addition, it is essential to acknowledge that the citadel was in fact facing the most accessible approach towards the city, an important fact of sites topography which the city planners had to consider. Lofty towers (T 3 and T 4), allowing greater concentration of manpower along the NW fortification wall, including T 6 and T 7, were meant to deal with this problem, thereby amplifying the defensive capability against an enemy attack from all sides, thus making the citadel the most impregnable part of the city. In light of these observations, it is difficult to accept the views that it was hardly designed with the idea of being a refuge ( 2002, 12), as well as that the purpose of T 6 and T 7, designated as watch-towers, was to simply enable Seuthes III to maintain his power over the nobles in his capital (Stakenborg-Hoogeveen 1989, 182). In reality, the defenders had to rely on the presence of the thick-walled and three-storeyed T 3 and T 4, in addition to the more closely spaced and projecting T 6 and T 7 along the SW citadel wall. For example, if the enemy were to breach and/or scale the city walls, T 6 would have been a great vantage point, since its location and height secure commanding views towards the agora, the main southwestnortheast avenue and the smaller northwestsoutheast street leading to the propylon of the citadel (figs. 3, 6). Being a three-storeyed tower, it was not only the second largest in the city, but also a tower with potential of housing lithoboloi. Furthermore, should the enemy decide to advance from the agora towards the citadel, it could have done so by taking the main southwest-northeast avenue until reaching the intersection with the smaller northwest-southeast street leading to the propylon (fig. 6). This was in no way unlikely course of events, since
13
regularly planned cities, as Thucydides (2. 1 2. 5) remarks, are much easier to be captured by an enemy who has already managed to penetrate inside. In the same vein, Aristotle (Politics 1330b) says that unplanned arangement is difficult for foreign troops to enter and find their way about in when attacking. In a situation like this, the fire of the catapults from the windows on the NE and SE faces of the T 6 provided the opportunity to inflict serious damage upon the advancing forces. It also provided enfilade along curtains J and I, since T 5 had no potential for defense of the citadel during attack carried out within the city (see infra). Thus, while the strategic position of T 6 (fig. 12) is reflected in its larger dimensions (tables 1, 2), its defensive capacity was enhanced by the tactical use of artillery. Envisioning artillery engines inside towers, however, comes about with specific structural requirements. It is commonly accepted that towers needed permanent roofing when handling of catapults was planned for the uppermost chamber (Lawrence 1996, 176). Examples of well-preserved towers from Greece and Asia Minor, for instance, plus stratigraphic association with roof tiles, combined with specifications 2 from building inscriptions (IG II 463), all seem to conform to this, especially in the early Hellenistic period. When a good state of preservation of the towers permits it, as in the case of Aigosthena and Messene, it is evident that a gabled roof was constructed, consisting of beams, rafters, reeds and tiles placed in clay (Haselberger 1979, Abb. 1, 2, 4). For Seuthopolis, we have neither published evidence of roof tiles in association with any of the towers ( 1960, 6-7), nor data for copingstones, which would have indicated a crenellated open rooftop (Ober 1987, fig. 30A, 30C, 30J). In view of the fact, however, that their superstructure was made of mudbrick (see supra), it seems more likely to conclude that the towers at Seuthopolis would have been 13 roofed . According to our analysis, the two chambers of T 2, T 5 and T 7 would have had roughly the same height as the curtain walls,
Tower 3 (fig. 6), for example, has been restored with a gabled roof, as shown in the axonomic reconstruction of the palace ( 1995, 40).
30
Figure 15. Reconstructed elevation of: A the Great Battery at Goritsa; B the Acropolis Bastion at Stymphalos. Reconstructions by V. P. Tolstikov and H. Brikina (after Bakhuizen 1992, fig. 58A) and B. Gourley (after Williams et al. 1998, fig. 6).
31
Emil Nankov
ca. 6 m, with a total height, inclusive of the roof, reaching up to at least 6.75 m. The total height of the three-storeyed T 1, the TowerGate, T 3, T 4 and T 6, on the other hand, may 14 have been in the range of 11-12 m . 4. 5. Bastions The SW city wall features two rectangular projections, B 1 and B 2, flanking the SW gate (fig. 14a), in addition to B 3, which is approximately equidistant from B 2 and T 1 (fig. 6, table 2). These are probably better understood as revetted salients (Lawrence 1979, 393-395) and/or engine stands (McNicoll 1997, 105, fig. 15 53) rather than towers ( 1995, 38) or bastions as suggested by the excavators ( 1960, 7). They had probably open platforms on top (fig. 14b), thereby ensuring greater opportunity for defense in one of the least likely yet vulnerable areas for attack. Along these lines, I would like to point out that the topographical position of the SW city wall, rather than its reinforcements holds the key to understanding its role in withstanding a siege. Since the S and SW part of the city was more or less naturally protected by the meandering course of Tonzos, the only land approach in direction to the SW gate was made possible by a narrow passage between T 1 and the steep bank of the river, which at this point is some 30 m away from the former (figs. 3, 4). Thus, almost all responsibility during attack in this area rests on the three-storeyed T 1, which if it failed the fate of the SW gate would have been sealed, given the lack of towers and limited level of protection provided by the salients along the 16 wall . In addition, the importance attached to this corner of the urban fortifications is further revealed through one structural detail observable
14
in the design of T 1, namely that SW and NW city walls abut on the adjacent rather than the 17 opposite sides of the tower (fig. 9a) . This is significant since in this way, as Winter (1971, 198, fig. 193 A-B) has pointed out, at least half of the length of these sides would have been able to provide flanking fire along the curtain walls leading up to the angle. In terms of capacity for defense, this arrangement is more advantageous as opposed to the one observable in T 5, for instance, in which the curtain walls join the opposite sides of the tower while the latter projects diagonally from the angle (fig. 6). The other corner towers of the citadel (T 3, T 4 and T 6) exhibit similar arrangement at their junction with the curtain walls, as observed in T 1. Tower 3, however, is an exception on account of its unique position (fig. 6), since at this point the SW citadel wall and the NW city wall interact, whereas T 3 meets curtains F, G and L at 18 right angle . In fact, T 3 completely projects only beyond the SW citadel wall, and by exposing its SE face towards T 7 it creates a wider front for enfilade along curtain L, whereas the SW and NE sides which in turn extend only two-thirds of their lengths provide lesser opportunity for such along curtains F and G (fig. 6). 4. 6. Standard of measurement The city walls of Seuthopolis also provide an opportunity to estimate the standard of measurement employed in their design. Despite the uncertainties surrounding such inquiries (cf. Robinson/Graham 1938, 45), a few preliminary observations may nonetheless prove useful. Moreover, in the case of Seuthopolis the results obtained from the city fortifications alone may be reconciled with supplementary data. On the whole, the practice of measuring length in feet or in cubits seems justified. A
One of the best-preserved towers in mainland Greece is Tower L at Messene, consisting of a solid base, two upper chambers and a gabled roof, a total height of 12.50 m (Ober 1987, 575). The reconstruction of the bastions and the SW gate, drawn by the architect D. Moushev ( 1995, 38), shows the bastions as towers equipped with two windows and an open rooftop. The possibility, however, of their serving as artillery emplacements should not be underestimated (Lawrence 1979, 393; McNicoll 1997, 105). Vitruvius (De arch. 1. 5. 2) states that the salient angles are to be avoided, since they give advantage to the attacker rather than the defender. It communicates with the citadel via a L-shaped passage at ground level, although access may have been possible by a wooden ladder from inside the city.
15
16
17
18
32
Figure 16. Bronze catapult arrowheads from: A Seuthopolis, M 1:2; B Olynthus, M 1:1,5 (after Dimitrov/iikova 1978, fig. 55a; Connolly 1998, fig. 6).
Figure 17. Reconstruction of a Roman catapult bolt from Dura-Europos (after James 2004, fig. 128).
33
Emil Nankov
building inscription dealing with the Hellenistic city walls of Skotoussa, for instance, gives the distances in feet or in tens of feet by using the unit akainon, which equals 10 feet (Missailidou-Despotidou 1993, 193), while the military writer Philo of Byzantium usually reports the linear measurements in cubits. For the purposes of this study, I assume that the foot was used as a basic module. Since several standards of longitudinal measuring were known in antiquity (Bsing 1982, 1-12), the most reliable way to establish which one was used is by representing the small measurements in exact number of feet and the larger measurements in round number of feet (Robinson/Graham 1938, 46). Following this method, it immediately becomes obvious that the widths of the gates, as well as of the towers, are best represented by the Attic foot (table 1) that equals 0.296 m (Wilson Jones 2000, 75, ##16-17). The state plan of the propylon (Dimitrov/iikova 1978, fig. 26) puts the width of the opening at 2.96 m, i.e. 10 Attic 19 feet . The same may be true for the TowerGate (fig. 13b), but since a state plan is currently unavailable the width of the gate opening there cannot be determined with similar precision. The width of the SW gate (fig. 14a) is 2.00 m, close to 7 Attic feet. Dimitrov (1960, 6) states that the thickness of the SW, NW and NE city walls is 2.00 m, whereas that of SE and E are slightly smaller, 1.80 m. The state plans of T 1 and T 2 (figs. 9a, 10a), however, set the width of the NW wall at about 2.00-2.05 m. The varying thickness of the curtain walls most probably correspond to 7 Attic feet (2.07 m) 20 and 6 Attic feet (1.77 m) , respectively. That the Attic foot was the basic unit of measurement is further confirmed by the round figures of feet obtained for the distances between the towers (table 2). More importantly, the circumference of the city walls is 890 m ( 1960, 4), which is remarkably
19
close to 888 m, equaling 5 stadia or 3000 Attic feet. Finally the sizes of the insulae (150 and 200 x 60 feet) along with the width of the city streets (12, 14 and 20 feet) are usually expressed in Attic feet as well (Graham 1980, 269; 1991, 62; Ciikova 1997, 21 234) . 5. Defensive artillery As in Dion (- 1998, 120-121), I assume that most of the towers at Seuthopolis were designed with the intention of installing catapults. Besides the archaeological evidence to which I shall return in a moment, certain features in the architectural layout of the towers also seem to tip the scales in favor of conjecturing defensive artillery (Ober 1992, 147). 5. 1. Tactical advantages To begin with, considering the flat terrain and relatively easy approach to the city from N-NW, it is somewhat unusual that the spacing of the towers, especially along the NW fortification wall, is considerably larger than what might be normally expected. Philo of Byzantium (1. 45), for instance, recommends a distance between the towers of 100 cubits (ca. 44.40 m), while Vitruvius (De arch. 1. 5. 4) says that the towers should be set at intervals not more than a bowshot apart. Comparable examples from elsewhere, and especially from cities situated on a level terrain, clearly indicate increased concern for defending the curtain walls by shrinking the distance between the towers. Thus, the intervals between towers range between 25-26 m at Mantineia (Fougres 1898, 143), 33 m at Dion (- 1998, 22 96) and 34 m at Halos (Reinders 1988, 82) , whereas at Seuthopolis, they cluster around 23 43-70 m (table 2) , closely comparable to the intervals attested at Dura-Europos 55-60 m (von Gerkan 1939, 6, fig. 28). How are we to explain this?
It is interesting to note that the East gate at Pistiros is exactly 2.96 m wide, i.e. 10 Attic feet (Domaradzki 1996, 19; Kolarova 1996, fig. 2.3). A length of 6 feet or 4 cubits may be expressed as 1 orgyia (Xen. Memorabilia 2. 3. 19; Pollux 2. 158), which also represented 1/100 of a stadion (Herod. 2. 149). Some of the graffiti on pithoi denote their capacity in accordance with the Attic-Euboean system ( 1984, 64-65). For other examples of circuits with the same range of intervals between the towers, see (Maier 1958, 23, #32). For obvious reasons exceptions from this are the citadel walls, i.e. curtains I, J, K and L (fig. 6).
20
21 22 23
34
Figure 18. Catapult bolts from Seuthopolis ( 1972b, . 73).
Figure 19. Catapult bolts from Vergina (after 1997, . 1).
Figure 20. Catapult bolts from Ephyra (after Baatz 1982, Abb. 7).
Figure 21. Catapult bolts from Pistiros, Halos, and Sboryanovo; left to right (after 1995, 66/9; Reinders 1988, fig. 114, #35/23; et al. 2006, . 63/4, 5).
35
Emil Nankov
First, the tactical decision to install artillery in the uppermost chamber of the towers makes up for the need to position them closer (McNicoll 1997, 10-11; Keyser/Irbie-Massie 2006, 259). Thus, the longer range of the catapults (McNicoll 1997, 4-5; Marsden 1999, 8689) would have thwarted the attempts of the attackers to approach the curtains from a distance, and when they tried to batter or scale the walls, the flanking fire of the catapults would have been sufficient for defending the longer distances between the towers. Second, the lack of posterns in the entire circuit of Seuthopolis a fact that has never been pointed out seems to suggest provisions for a passive defense, a well-established contemporary practice discernible in the plans of many Hellenistic fortifications (Winter 1989, 191; McNicoll 1997, 8). With the walls lying on a level ground, the defensive potential of the whole circuit normally concentrated in the towers. Thus in the absence of natural heights the main goal was to keep the enemy as far away from the city walls as possible by placing the artillery in lofty towers (McNicoll 1986, 308; Milner 1997, 213). In such cases the crucial role of defensive artillery is best revealed, since if the enemy managed to make its way to the walls, the defenders would have been at a disadvantage because the lack of posterns would have left no opportunity for them to organize sorties and fight in close quarters outside the walls. Third, towers, such as T 1, T 3, T 4, T 6 and the Tower-Gate at Seuthopolis (figs. 12, 13b), are usually designed with regard to both withstanding and employing torsion artillery. Thus, their layout (big chambers) and structural features (thicker walls) reflect the dangers imposed by the catapults of the besieger, as well as the advantages of defensive artillery for the tower itself (Ober 1992, 162). On account of these traits T 6 and Tower-Gate find closest parallels in grand Hellenistic circuits such as Herakleia at Latmos, Ephesos, Seleukeia Pieria, Samos and Dura-Europos belonging to the group of the so-called second-generation
24
artillery towers dated to 325-285 BC (Ober 1992, 152-159; McNicoll 1997, 101-105). Furthermore, it is important to note that these were all royal commissions constructed under the auspices of Alexanders Successors, Cassander, Lysimachus and Seleucus I Nicator, during the last decade of the fourth century BC (table 5). That some of the towers from Philippopolis, Pistiros and Kabyle in inland Thrace are closely comparable with the artillery towers listed in table 5 is somewhat surprising in view of the opinions that those at Pistiros and Kabyle, for example, should be pre-Hellenistic in date (Bouzek et al. 2002, 9-10; 1991a, 55, 2002, 80-83, 115-116, 24 177) . It is important to note that in Greece and Asia Minor the presence of large, thick-walled towers coupled with evidence for roofed upper chambers most certainly indicate that a circuit was (re-) built during the years following the death of Alexander III at the earliest (Milner 1997, 212-213). The recent discovery of an early Hellenistic bastion at Kabyle on Zaichi vruh confirms this observation ( 2006, 97-99, 101-102, . 4, 6). Not only are the newly-discovered bastion at Kabyle and the E tower at Pistiros large and thick-walled (1.85-1.95 m and 1.55 m respectively), but they also yielded data for roofing ( 2006, 98; Musil 1996, 58-59, fig. 3.12). If the pattern suggested for the Mediterranean is correct and the towers from the W fortification wall at Kabyle (excluding the bastion) and the E tower at Pistiros are nonetheless pre-Hellenistic, it remains to be explained on what grounds they should be an exception ( 2002, 82-83). 5. 2. Artillery towers In trying to reconstruct the caliber and type of artillery engines that could have been housed in the towers at Seuthopolis, one should take into account the internal dimensions of the chambers (Winter 1997). The shape of the apertures in the towers, however, is more reliable indicator for assessing the sorts of artillery they were designed for (Ober 1992, 159-161; McNi-
The tower (bastion) at Philippopolis is now assigned to the third building phase of the city fortifications, i.e. the end of the second century BC first century AD (Kolarova/Bospatchieva 2005, 74-75, 81, fig. 1E).
36
Figure 22. Stone balls from the embankment of tumulus 1 near Seuthopolis (after 1956, . 94).
Figure 23. Catapult stone balls associated with the city walls of Seuthopolis (after 1971, . 44).
Figure 24. Catapult stone balls associated with the city walls of Seuthopolis (after 1957, . 6).
37
Emil Nankov
coll 1997, 11), but being made of mudbrick, it is hardly surprising that the evidence for the shape of the apertures at Seuthopolis is irretrievably lost. For this type of analysis, of importance are the operational length and width, as well as the weght of ancient catapults (table 4), which are normally calculated on the basis of the calibration formula mentioned by Philo of Byzantium (Belopoeica 52. 5), writing under the Ptolemies during the last quarter of the third century BC. It must be kept in mind, however, that the figures obtained are highly hypothetical, even methodologically questioned (Rihll 2006, 379-383), because the scholars offering such calculations (Marsden 1999, 34-36) do so under the assumption that the early Hellenistic catapults remained unchanged until the time of Philo. It is therefore obvious that the distribution of catapults in the chambers of Seuthopolis towers presented below should remain a working hypothesis at best. Based on chamber size, two groups may be distinguished (table 3). Of these, T 1, T 3, T 4, T 6, as well as the Tower-Gate, could have had a second floor something inferred from their larger dimensions (T 6, Tower-Gate) and thicker walls (T 1, T 3 and T 4). The rest of the towers (T 2, T 5 and T 7) were probably suited more for archers rather than artillery and perhaps did not have a second floor. The internal space of the latter, i.e. 4.10 x 4.10 m., however, could have still accommodated small calibers of oxybeleis, e. g. one- and two-cubit engines (Winter 1996, 35). On the other hand, the projection of T 7 would have made the handling of catapults possible even on the first floor, unlike T 2 and T 5, which served as a thoroughfare, since the wallwalk was passing through the chambers. Tower 1, T 3 and T 4 (3.50 x 3.50 m.) probably had smaller catapults, e. g. onecubit and three-span, operating in the uppermost chamber (Winter 1996, 35), whereas the first floor was perhaps reserved for archers. In
25
addition to the oxybeleis housed in the upper floor of T 6 (7.30 x 7.30 m), which were essentially anti-personnel weapons, the tower would have also had the potential to house one fivemina, or one ten-mina lithobolos in the first chamber (Ober 1992, 162), which Philo of Byzantium (3. 5-6) states is ideal for destroying the enemy catapults. Since the presence of heavy artillery defending city gates accessible to wheeled traffic was of primary concern (Milner 1997, 212), it comes as no surprise that the Tower-Gate provides the largest space for artillery emplacement in the circuit. Thus, considering the internal space of 10.50 x 7.30 m, the first floor may have housed two ten-mina lithoboloi (Ober 1992, table 3), whereas the five-span, two- and three-cubit oxybeleis in the upper chamber increased the offensive poten25 tial of the tower (fig. 15a, b) . Since the ground floors of all towers, except the TowerGate, were free of traffic and independently accessible, it is also conceivable that, for the most part, the interior space was used for keeping the catapults and projectiles in storage (- 2004, 107). 5. 3. Artillery projectiles Further support for the use of defensive artillery at Seuthopolis may be sought in the findings of several projectiles. One is a bronze arrowhead with a socketed end and three straight sides ending in sharp barbs (fig. 16a) published together with four other specimens, all allegedly belonging to the Scythian type (- 1984, . #149-153; Di26 mitrov/iikova 1978, fig. 55a) . As Ognenova-Marinova (1984, 166) points out, cat. #152 slightly differs from the rest with respect to size (4.1 cm) and inward curving of the sides, which led her to suggest that it closely resembled the bronze arrowheads with the name of Philip (fig. 16b) found at Olynthus (Robinson 1941, cat. #1907-1912). This is significant for most scholars agree that the arrowheads from
The larger width of the tower (10.50 m) would have permitted enfilade even for a fifteen or twenty-mina lithobolos. This is theoretical, of course, because it is impossible to know for certain whether these were actually employed (but see infra). Recently, similar examples have come to light from Sboryanovo ( et al. 2006, . 62) and Philippopolis ( 2004, XXXII.1). Despite the observation that they differ markedly from the specimens attested in Scythia ( 1994, . 3-6), they are uncritically referred to as arrowheads of the Scythian type ( et al. 2006, 41; 2004, 21, 28).
26
38
Figure 25. Restored plans of Dion and Halos (after - 1998, . 86).
Figure 26. The fortifications of the Sacred Enclosure at Failaka, restored plan (adapted by the author after Jeppesen 1989, fig. 99).
39
Emil Nankov
Olynthus could in fact represent catapult boltheads (Marsden 1977, 213-215; Connolly 1998, 283, fig. 6; Snodgrass 1999, 116-117). For our purposes, however, it has to be admitted that the specimen from Seuthopolis only slightly resembles the ones from Olynthus (6.6-7 cm), most notably the inward curving of the sides (figs. 16a, b). Nevertheless, on account of its larger size and similarity with the Olynthian examples, the attribution of cat. #152 to the Scythian barbed type may be called into question. Thus if it is not a regular arrowhead, I suggest that it may have been a projectile for catapult. Arguably, the small size of the bolt may be associated with a hand-held catapult known as a gastraphetes, which was similar to a crossbow (Garlan 1974, 164-166), rather than oxybeleis (fig. 15b), as shown by the catapult washers found in Ephyra, (Baatz 1982, 213225). Its findspot (square 1), revealing association with the area where T 7 joins curtain K (fig. 6), however, remains insufficient to establish whether the projectile was fired from the attackers or the defenders. On the other hand, the commonest type of catapult bolts attested in the Hellenistic and Roman periods is made of iron, with pyramidal head and longer (10-20 cm), socketed shaft at the end (fig. 17). To date, 8 specimens (6.3-9 cm long, 1.2-1.4 cm diam. of socket) have been 27 published from Seuthopolis (fig. 18) , but I believe they were erroneously attributed to the medieval settlement, which existed on top of the ruins of the Hellenistic city ( 1972b, . 73; 1961, 10, . 2. 8, 9). While the disturbed stratigraphy of Seuthopolis 28 remains the likeliest source of confusion , the morphological features of these artillery projec27 28
tiles are clearly Hellenistic, as suggested by the identical examples (figs. 19-21) from Vergina ( 1997, 71, . 1), Ephyra (Baatz 1982, Taf. 2), Halos (Reinders/Prummel 2003, 128, fig. 3.35, 304-305, M38-58), Stymphalos (Williams et al. 1997, 56-57; 1998, 310-311), including Thracian centers such as Pistiros ( 1995, 66, 9; Katinarova 2007, 40, fig. 22, pl. 9), Sboryanovo ( et al. 2006, . 63/4, 5) and the newly-discovered fortified site near the peak Kozi gramadiin Sredna Gora 29 ( 2006, 43, 46, 52, 123) . Additional evidence for the use of defensive artillery at Seuthopolis is provided by 6 stone balls (fig. 22) uncovered in the embankment of Tumulus 1, lying ca. 100 m northeast of the city (fig. 5). Based on the fact that two of the balls were found still attached, apparently left unfinished (fig. 22, top row), the excavator rightly concluded that the stone balls were of local manufacture ( 1956, 133-135). In support of this hypothesis, he noted that the limestone of which they were made matched in appearance several stone beds of limestone located near the tumuli. The dimensions of the attached stone balls, 6.5 and 6 cm ( 1956, 55), suggest small caliber catapults, possibly even less than five-mina (table 4). Although two of the other balls (fig. 22, bottom row, 3-4) may be of similar size, their diameters are not reported. The rest were probably used as sling-bullets on account of their smaller dimensions. A good comparison may be found in a singular example, 3 x 2.8 cm, discovered near the city wall of Kabyle ( 1991a, 63, . #51) and several from Sboryanovo ( et al. 2006, 44, . 64f). Since, however, the publications of the tumuli
Changova (1972b, 93) reports the existence of no less than 20 specimens, only 8 of which are illustrated. The stratigraphy of the Hellenistic remains was to a great extent disturbed by the overlying medieval settlement and graves. Another factor affecting the original sequence of strata was modern plowing ( 1972, 10). The excavator mentions the discovery of several specimens made of iron, with a pyramidal point and a socket, which he calls arrowheads, but without supplying dimensions. Their morphology, however, clearly shows that they are catapult bolts (cf. here figs. 18-21), which in conjunction with the numerous finds of sling-bullets ( 2006, 52-53, 119), testifies to the fact that the site sustained an attack by an enemy equipped with slingers and arrow-shooting catapults (oxybeleis). With the evidence for the use of offensive artillery unrecognized, Christov (2006, 52, 72, 79-80) has tentatively suggested that the site was destroyed by the army of Philip II of Macedon during his march in Thrace in the summer of 341 BC. A more careful study on the Macedonian bronzes in the name of Philip II and Alexander III ( 2006, cat. ##1, 12, 14-19, 2829), including the single coin of Seuthes III ( 2006, cat. #11), found during the excavations, may downdate the chronology of the destruction.
29
40
appeared before the preliminary reports on the city excavations, Zhuglev was deprived of the opportunity to link the stone balls with the artillery potential of the larger towers (Tower-Gate, T 6) from the near-by Seuthopolis (tables 1, 2). The question of how the stone balls found their way into the embankment of Tumulus 1 is 30 a complex one . Of importance is the claim ( 1998, 58) that the deposition of the archaeological finds in the embankment was gradual, and may be contemporary with the foundation and subsequent existence of Seuthopolis (see infra). In light of these observations, it is conceivable that at least some of the stone balls may have originally belonged to locally manufactured projectiles intended to supply with ammunition the lithoboloi employed on the city walls. 6. Offensive artillery Directly related to the destruction of the city, probably during the march of Antiochos II Theos in southeastern Thrace in 252 BC ( 1988a, 13; 2004, 287-288; Emilov 2005, 327-328), is the use of stonethrowing artillery on the part of the besieging army. A great deal of archaeological evidence indicates that Seuthopolis was besieged, taken and violently destroyed. Of these, 19 stone balls found in close proximity to the fortification walls are especially compelling ( 1960, 5; 1970, 26). At present, their significance is of limited relevance, while references are sometimes even inaccurate. For instance, Dimitrov/iikova (1978, 58) and Danov (1962, 1377) correctly label them stone balls and Steingranaten respectively, whereas Hoddinott (1975, 97) is clearly mistaken (figs. 23, 24) when describing them as fragments of battering rams (?). Until a more detailed account becomes available, many questions relating to the specimens 31 from Seuthopolis must remain unanswered . Still, some basic facts can be established with certainty on the strength of the two photographs (figs. 23-24) that have since appeared in print.
30
All are made from limestone and nothing suggests employment of re-used material. Standardization of sizes, careful finish and almost spherical shape all militate against the idea that they were used merely as stones thrown by the attackers from the siege towers. One would not normally make the effort to create a perfectly rounded stone ball, if his goal was to simply throw it by hands. Thus, as already suggested by many, such finds are in general probably better understood as artillery projectiles (James 2004, 214). Sometimes, the weight of artillery balls was inscribed on the surface with letters using the alphabetic or acrophonic numerals (H or = 5 minas; I or = 10 minas). Since only the photograph, reproduced here as figure 24, provides an indication of scale, it is possible to obtain only approximate measurements for some of the balls. At least three different sizes may be distinguished with a diameter of 10, 11 and 13 cm, probably weighing in the range of 2-4 kg. Tentatively, they can be further assigned to lithoboloi using five- and ten-mina shot (table 4; Campbell 2006, 117). That these in fact destroyed the city walls, although pointed out as likely (Dimitrov/ iikova 1978, 58), is difficult to demonstrate, especially in light of ancient testimonia recording the limited effect of lithoboloi upon fortification walls. In 307 BC, for instance, Demetrius Poliorcetes managed only to clear the walls from its defenders during his siege of Munychia at Piraeus (Diod. Sic. 20. 46. 5-7). Again during his sieges of Cyprian Salamis and Rhodes, he placed his petroboloi on the siege tower (helepolis), but instead of using them against the wall, he destroyed the personnel on top of it (Diod. Sic. 20. 48; 86-88). Similarly, in 318 BC Polyperchon attacked Megalopolis by his siege towers, whose catapults cleared the walls from the defenders, but only after deploying the battering rams did he breach the walls (Diod. Sic. 19. 63). While during the siege of Seuthopolis it seems likely that the attackers resorted to simi-
In fact, the stone balls are omitted from the most recent discussion of the artifacts found in the embankment of Tumulus 1 ( 1998, 56-60). The stone balls are currently kept in the storerooms of the Historical Museum Iskra in Kazanluk. I am most grateful to Evtimka Dimitrova to whom I owe this information.
31
41
Emil Nankov
lar tactics, it is hard to establish whether they managed to breach the walls by artillery fire or battering rams. Mudbrick walls also had higher resilience towards artillery fire as opposed to walls of fullheight stonework (Paus. 8. 8. 8). Nevertheless, two of the stone balls (fig. 23), showing traces of breakage, perhaps testify to the powerful nature of impact. All in all, the stone balls bear witness to the capability to possess and skillfully master an advanced feat of military engineering, thereby bringing out once again the special importance of Seuthopolis, which together with Sboryanovo (Stoyanov 1999, 1083, fig. 6; et al. 2006, 41-44, 32 . 63-64f), and recently Pistiros are to date the only fortified sites from inland Thrace, to have yielded evidence for the use of stonethrowing artillery. In addition, the evidence provided by the stone balls seems well in keeping with recently expressed doubts concerning the involvement of the Celts in the destruction of Seuthopolis ( 1991b, 136; Lund 1992, 32; Archibald 1998, 313-314), thereby substantiating further Tachevas opinion (1986, 31; 2000, 27, 36; 2006, 192) that the identity of the unknown besieger of the city should be sought among the powerful Hellenistic kings and most certainly Antiochus II Theos (Peter 1997, 175-177). It is therefore conceivable that the artillery projectiles found along the curtains were fired from the lithoboloi brought by the Seleucid king. Finally, I hope that by reexamining the evidence presented above I have convincingly demonstrated that Seuthopolis belonged to a larger group of Hellenistic cities, heavily-fortified and equipped with artillery engines. It also helped in disproving, among other things, the belief that the city walls, as compared with those of Pernik or Kabyle, for example, may be perceived as feeble and unreliable for effective defense in case of a siege ( 2000, 44; 2002, 13, . 12). For one, one should not assume that what was
32
no doubt expensive pieces of machinery remained in mint condition for as long as Seuthopolis existed, while it is also conceivable that the arsenal of catapults housed in the larger towers, which in all likelihood were available for the defenders soon after the city foundation, may have already gone out of use by the time of the siege imposed by Antiochus II in 252 BC. If this was the case, it would become easier to explain why Seuthopolis was quickly swept away by the powerful stone-throwing artillery brought over by the Seleucid king. 7. When were the fortifications built? If taken at face value, the numismatic evidence from Seuthopolis can demonstrate continuous habitation in the city, from the time of Philip II until the reign of Antiochus II Theos ( 1988a, 10-12). Despite the convenience afforded by these termini, however, it has been notoriously difficult to pinpoint the precise date of its foundation. Until very recently, historical and numismatic evidence have been cited in support of the widely held opinion that Seuthes III founded it some time ca. 320 BC ( 1984, 33; 1992, 84), or even a few years earlier, 330-323 BC ( 2006, 192) and 325-323 BC ( 1991, 66; 2002, 51-52). More information, however, as I will demonstrate, can be obtained by close examination of artifacts from the published catalogues of the Greek pottery ( 1984, 102-110), the amphora stamps ( 1984, 146-155; Balkanska/Tzochev 2008, 194-204) and the coins ( 1984, 48-107; 1988; 1988b); a method of research, which have already been employed with great effect for Seuthopolis ( 1991b, 134-136; 1998, 56-60). Despite the shortcomings of the published stratigraphy of the site ( 1985, 54-55), it is clear that the bulk of the excavated Hellenistic material comes from a depth of 0.60-0.80 m. Moreover, it has been further established that this was also the level of the streets, house floors, stone
In the summer of 2006, the Bulgarian team for archaeological excavation at Pistiros discovered a stone ball (artillery projectile) within the fortification walls of the emporion. The find is currently exhibited (April 2007) in the Archaeological museum Prof. M. Domaradski in the town of Septemvri. I wish to thank Nikolai Angelov from the museum for sharing this information with me.
42
foundations of domestic architecture and fortification system, datable to the end of the fourth and the beginning of the third century BC ( 1960, 3). In other words, if certain finds can be securely assigned to architectural remains from this layer, we should be able to postulate with caution when a certain building was erected. Since in the preliminary reports, however, no distinction has been made between floor deposits and fills from foundation trenches, this in effect precludes us from establishing more precise chronological termini. In our case, of course, the artefacts associated with the city fortifications are of special priority. As table 6 demonstrates, a selection of chronologically diagnostic finds discovered in association with the city walls is not only instrumental but also crucial in the attempt to obtain a date for their construction. The most reliable piece of evidence provides (item #1) the bronze coin of Cassander ( 1984, . #252) minted between 311 and 305 BC (Ehrhardt 1973, 26), which on account of its stratigraphic position in T 5 can establish a date in the 310s BC. Unfortunately, we do not know whether the coin was retrieved from the foundation trench of T 5, in which case it would have provided a terminus post quem for its construction. At any rate, the depth of the coin (0.60 m.) suggests a deposition not very long after the construction of the tower. Although the drachm (item #2) minted in Abydos towards the end of Alexanders III reign ( 1984, . #154) is less conducive to providing a fixed chronological point ( 1988b, 5), its association with the return of the mercenaries discharged by Alexander in 324 BC (Thompson 1984, 244-246) has other important implications, which deserve further consideration, as I discuss below. On the other hand, the recent revisions of the Thasian amphora stamps (Avram 1996, #307; Garlan 2004/2005, 324) facilitate a lower date, i.e. 310295 BC and 309 BC, for the stamp (item #3) with the name of ( 1984, #8, 121; Balkanska/Tzochev 2008, #10). In general, the pottery comprising an Attic lamp
33
( 1984, 78; Rotroff 1997, 495), a kantharos ( 1984, 66), a fishplate ( 1984, 75-78) and a plate ( 1984, 72) corroborate this date further (items #4-7) in accordance with the most recent revisions of the traditionally high chronology of Attic pottery (Rotroff 1990; 1997; 2006, 100-101). Although the chronological gap between the red-figure pottery represented by a single fragment of a skyphos (item #8) found in the city ( 1965, 36-37; 1984, 69) and the West slope ware (Archibald 1998, 315, #49) is reflected in their stratigraphy (table 6), it remains insufficient evidence to support the excavators theory for a pre-existing settlement on the site dating to the reign of Philip II ( 1960, 4-5; 1984, 33; cf. 2002, 123; Popov 2004, 14; Balkanska/Tzochev 2008, 190). Historically, the appearance of Seuthes III in the literary sources is tantalizingly sporadic and traditionally connected with his military encounters with Lysimachus in 323 and 313 BC (Diod. Sic. 18. 14. 2-4, 19. 73. 13). In turn, based on historical probability rather than careful analysis of the stratigraphy of chronologically diagnostic finds, scholars have long postulated that the building of Seuthopolis occurred sometime after the battle of 323 BC. The first doubts were cast by Domaradzkis analysis of the coins found in the embankment of Tumulus 1 ( 1987, 15; 1998, 57) on the strength of which he put forward the opinion that Seuthopolis was founded ca. 310 BC. Although for a long time his claim was disregarded by Bulgarian scholarship (but see recently 2006, 87), a recent revision of the amphora stamps from Seuthopolis and Tumuli 1 and 2 has reached similar conclusions. Taking into account the most recent adjustments in the chronology of stamped amphorae, Balkanska and Tzochev have convincingly shown that the amphora imports in Seuthopolis started no earlier than ca. 315 BC, whereas all stamped amphorae deposited in Tumuli 1 and 2 are dated within 315-295 BC (Balkanska/Tzochev 2008, 33 190) . The archaeological data obtained from
I am most grateful to Chavdar Tzochev for the opportunity to read a copy of the article in advance, which he co-authored with A. Balkanska.
43
Emil Nankov
the vicinity of, and in association with, city walls and towers presented in table 6 is clearly in agreement with the newly-suggested low chronology. This cannot be coincidental. Thus, Macedonian coins, Thasian amphora stamps and Attic pottery strongly suggest that the city foundation occurred during the last fifteen years of the fourth century BC. 8. Historical context In sum, I suggest that the decision of Seuthes III to assert his power by founding a new city was probably carried out in the aftermath of his second encounter with Lysimachus in 313 BC or after the Peace of the Dynasts from 311 BC (Burstein 1986, 22), rather than in the early or late 320s BC. In the years following the agreement on the spheres of influence, it is conceivable that some of the Successors decided to reassert their claims to power by founding, in emulation of Alexanders practice (Frazer 1996, 171-190), new strongholds in their respective domains. Here, noteworthy is the fact that in 316 BC the first among the Successors to found a city receiving his own name (Cohen 1995, 95-99) was Cassander (Leschhorn 1984, 252-253). In 315 BC he also (re-) founded Thebes (Cohen 1995, 119-120), Thessalonike (Cohen 1995, 101-105), as well as Dion (- 1998, 132-134, 216-218), Halos (- 1999, 1071-1072, contra Reinders 1988, 180-189) and Goritsa (Bakhuizen 1992, 314). The others quickly followed in his footsteps. In 316 BC Antigonus the One-Eyed founded Antigoneia in Bithynia, which was later refounded (301 BC) and renamed by Lysimachus after his wife Nicaea, the daughter of Antipater (Cohen 1995, 164-165, 391-392). In the 310s BC Antigonus the OneEyed and Lysimachus founded Alexandreia Troas (Cohen 1995, 145-148) and Lysimacheia (Cohen 1995, 82-87) respectively, Ptolemy I founded Ptolemais and Berenike (Mueller 2004), Demetrius Poliorcetes (re-) founded Sikyon (Cohen 1995, 126-128) and Demetrias (Cohen 1995, 111-114) in 294 BC ( 2006), while Seuthes III founded Seuthopolis (Dimitrov 1961, 386; 1991, 61). It should be pointed out here that not only did these cities grow out of similar political ambi44
tions, but also that most were fashioned in accordance with the latest developments in military engineering and town-planning. As already noted by Bakalakis (1964, 345), Reinders (1988, 198-202) and Stefanidou-Tiveriou (1998, 221-222), the underlying building principle of Seuthopolis, Dion, Halos and Nicaea (Strabo 12. 7. 7; Curtius 7. 6. 25) is remarkably identical, being derived from the so-called (figs. 6, 25). To these, as Stefanidou-Tiveriou (1998, 227-228, ##91-92) has already pointed out, the fortified Sacred Enclosure at Failaka (fig. 26) should also be added. The following common elements have been noted (Reinders 1988, 200; 1991, 61-62): Location in a plain, or on a flat, gently sloping ground Square, rectangular or polygonal plan Connection and fixed distance between fortifications and built-up area Axial symmetry Alignments of gates and main streets In addition, a considerable number of towers from these cities, together with the circuits built by the Successors in Asia Minor (table 5), clearly demonstrate intention to accommodate defensive artillery. Of further significance is the contention that the Hellenistic practice of applying orthogonal planning on a level terrain may be attributed not only to the architectural principles of Greek city-planning employed by Hippodamus of Miletos during the late fifth century BC ( 1991, 61; 2002, 12), but also to those of fortified camps built by the Macedonians (Reinders 1988, 200201; - 1998, 218-233; Pritchett 1974, 143, 146). For a similar phenomenon, for example, bespeaks the foundation of Alexandreia ad Tanaim that was built by Alexanders soldiers who surrounded with a wall the space occupied by his camp (Curtius 7. 6. 25). One important observation, emerging from the comparison with Dion, Halos and Nicaea, has to do with the possibility of looking into Seuthopolis not only as a Hellenized Thracian city, with Greek-style housing, but also as a petrified military camp, following Macedonian inspiration, laid out on a grid-pattern in accord-
ance with the , as well as heavily fortified with large towers suited for defensive artillery. Another is the matter of scale, whereby Seuthopolis walls have a circumference of only 890 m (5 stadia), which is surprisingly small as compared to that of Dion, 2.6 km (15 stadia), Halos, 2.9 km (16 stadia), Nicaea, 2.8 km (16 stadia) and Alexandreia 35 ad Tanaim 10.6 km (60 stadia) . With Seuthopolis built around 313-310 BC, it is now clear beyond any doubt that its existence saw the turbulent years following the death of Alexander III. Downdating its foundation, among other things, opens up new ways of identifying the source of wealth, which ensured the completion of such an enormous building enterprise, to which we may now add the question of defraying the cost for the supply and maintenance of artillery engines (Winter 1996, 35). Here the important observation put forward by Domaradzki (1987, 8-9) that significant wealth was accumulated in Thrace towards the end of the fourth and the beginning of the third century BC assumes special importance. In addition, his idea to connect this phenomenon with the return of the discharged Thracian mercenaries ( 1987, 15-16) clearly corresponds with the effort made by Rouseva (1988b, 3-8) to explain the arrival of the Alexander drachms at Seuthopolis, minted in Lampsakos, Abydos and Sardis, as a result of 36 the same event . At the same time, it is hard to avoid the observation that similar trend existed in neighboring Macedonia, where the outburst of urban development under the auspices of Cassander, e.g., Thessalonike, Kassandreia, Lete, Pella, Vergina, Dion (Touratsoglou
34
34
1996, 179), was based on the same influx of money brought back by the numerous Macedonian veterans discharged together with the barbaric mercenaries from the North Balkan countries ( et al. 1992, 69; Touratsoglou 1996, 176; / 1997, 222-224). Is it not then reasonable to argue that we are dealing with one and the same phenomenon in both Macedonia and Thrace brought about by the wealth acquired by the returning military men from the Asian campaign of Alexander (Nankov 2007a, 43-44; 2007b, 63)? And further, is it not this what makes Seuthopolis so exceptional (Domaradski 1990, 57) and unlike any other Thracian urban center from this period ( 2002, 134)? Despite the hostility between Seuthes III and Lysimachus portrayed in the literary sources, numismatic and epigraphic evidence nonetheless point to the existence of what Tacheva (2000, 11) has aptly dubbed a Macedonian link in Seuthopolis. It is not unlikely that with the Peace of the Dynasts in 311 BC things changed, and one of these changes was the foundation of Seuthopolis shortly thereafter, as the new chronology of the Thasian amphora stamps undoubtedly suggests. Another was the disappearance of the former enemy, Lysimachus. At the same time, the last decade of the fourth century BC saw the emergence of the powerful figure of Cassander, whose ties with the Thracians appear to have been quite close. In 334 BC, for instance, on the crossing to Asia, 900 Thracian and Paeonian scouts (prodromoi) in the army of Alexander are under his 37 command (Diod. Sic. 17. 17. 4) . In 310 BC,
It is interesting to point out that Castagnoli (1971, 88) considered Nicaea and the as an exception in the Greek city planning. During the construction of the fortifications of Epipolai outside Syracuse in 401 BC (Diod. Sic. 14. 18. 1-8), Dionysus I assigned 1 architect, 6 masons, and 1200 workers for each stadion of the wall of 30 stadia, which took 20 days to build. Assuming similar distribution of the workforce at Seuthopolis, the figures would amount to a total of 5 architects, 30 masons and 6000 workers for a building project on a wall of only 5 stadia. Thus, to assume that the building of the entire circuit, among other things, could have been quite rapid is reasonable (Reinders 1988, 185). Along these lines, Valeva (2005, 165-166) and Delemen (2006, 267-268) independently hinted at the possibility that the Odrysian aristocrats buried in the Ostrusha tomb near Shipka and the chamber tomb in the Ganos Mountain may have served in the Alexanders army during the Asian campaign and successfully returned home after being discharged in 324 BC. Although both Arrian and Curtius have omitted Cassanders name from their accounts, there is no good reason to doubt the veracity of Diodorus statement (Adams 1974, 44-48).
35
36
37
45
Emil Nankov
FEATURE Tower-Gate Tower 6 Tower 1-5, 7 Bastion 1, 2 Bastion 3 Citadel propylon Southwest gate
METERS 13.50 x 10.30 10.30 x 10.30 7.10 x 7.10 6.20 x 4.00 6.60 x 4.00 2.96 2.00
FEET 45.94 x 34.79 34.79 x 34.79 24 x 24 20.94 x 13.51 22.29 x 13.51 10 7
Table 1. Dimensions of towers, bastions and main gates at Seuthopolis; foot equals 0.296 m. CITY A B C D 53 43 56 45 179 145.27 189.18 152 WALLS CITADEL WALLS E F G H I J K L 61 53 53 70 38 15 28 34 206 179 179 236.4 128.57 50.67 94.59 114.86
CURTAIN METERS FEET
Table 2. Length of the curtain walls at Seuthopolis; foot equals 0.296 m (cf. also fig. 6).
Group I Group II
TOWERS 1, 3, 4 2, 5, 7 6 Tower-Gate
IINTERNAL DIMENSIONS 3.50 x 3.50 4.10 x 4.10 7.30 x 7.30 10.50 x 7.30
AREA 2 12.25 m 2 16.81 m 2 53.29 m 2 77.38 m
Table 3. Distribution of the towers at Seuthopolis based on chamber size.
LENGTH OF BOLT WEIGHT OF SHOT 1-cubit 3-span 2-cubit 5-span 3-cubit 5-mina 10-mina
OPERATIONAL LENGTH 1.54 m 2.32 m 3.09 m 3.86 m 4.63 m 5.05 m 6.37 m
OPERATIONAL WIDTH 0.87 m 1.31 m 1.75 m 2.19 m 2.62 m 2.53 m 3.18 m
WEIGHT 9.4 kg 32.5 kg 79 kg 133 kg 265 kg 406 kg 813 kg
Table 4. Calibers of arrow-shooting (oxybeleis) and stone-throwing catapults (lithoboloi) (after Bakhuizen 1992, 159 and Marsden 1999, 44-47).
46
SITE Seuthopolis Pistiros Philippopolis Kabyle Herakleia at Latmos Ephesos Samos Dura-Europos
TOWERS Tower 6 Tower-Gate E Tower Tower (bastion) Tower-Gate Bastion Tower 18 Tower 44 Tower 2 Tower 41 Tower 5 Tower 10 Towers 15-24
DIMENSIONS REFERENCE 10.30 x 10.30 Dimitrov/iikova 1978, fig. 3 13.50 x 10.30 9.02 x 10.40 Kolarova 1996, fig. 2.3 10.00 x 10.00 Kolarova/Bospatchieva 2005, fig. 1E 16.50 x 12.00 2000, . 26 13.30 x 7.80 2006, . 6 10.00 x 10.00 Krischen 1922, Abb. 24, 26 11.30 x 11.30 9.20 x 10.90 McNicoll 1997, fig. 20 14.60 x 14.60 Bendorf 1899, fig. 6 8.94 x 8.94 Kienast 1978, Abb. 45 10.64 x 10.64 10.50 x 10.50 von Gerkan 1939, fig. 28
Table 5. Large towers from Hellenistic Thrace compared with artillery towers from circuits built by the Successors in Asia Minor, ca. 310-290 BC; dimensions in meters.
ITEM 1. Bronze coin Cassander Pella 2. Drachm Alexander III Abydos 3. Amphora stamp Thasos 4. Lamp 5. Kantharos
FINDSPOT NE Tower (T 5) SW city wall (Curtain B) Between SW city wall and House 3 (Curtain B) On street near E city wall (south of T 5) SW citadel wall (Curtain L) Inner face of SW city wall (Curtain B) Near NW city wall (Curtain E) SW citadel wall (Curtain L)
DEPTH DATE 0.60 311-305
REFERENCE 1984, . #252 Ehrhardt 1973, 26-27
0.70
324-323 310-295
0.60 ca. 309 0.60 0.80
1984, . #154 Thompson/Bellinger 1955, #16 1984, . #8 Avram 1996, #307 Balkanska/Tzochev 2008, #10
ca. 300 1984, 78, . #III.100 Rotroff 1997, 495 325-260 1984, . #III.21
6. Fishplate
0.70
310-290
1984, . #III.85 Rotroff 1997, 146-149, #13 1984, . #III.44 1984, . #III.24
7. Plate 8. Skyphos Kerch style
0.60 1.00
310-290 375-350
Table 6. Diagnostic finds in association with the city walls at Seuthopolis; all dates are BC (fig. 6). 47
Emil Nankov
after aiding the Paeonian king Audoleon in his struggle against the Autariatae, Cassander settled the Paeonian children and women (20 000) 38 beside Mt. Orbelos (Diod. Sic. 20. 19. 1) . At the same time, the disenfranchisement of 12 000 Athenians by his father, Antipater in 322 BC, who were offered an opportunity to settle in Thrace (Diod. Sic. 18. 18. 4-5; cf. Polyaen. Stratag. 3. 15) has its own merit needing further assessment (Baynham 2003). Finally, in 310 or 298 BC, Cassander is also mentioned to have stopped an incursion of the Celts led by Kambaules in Haemus mountain (Paus. 9. 19; Pliny, NH 31. 53). Most recently, based on the abundance of 39 Cassanders coins , Tacheva (2000, 10; 2006, 198-201) has drawn the attention to the possible role he and his father, Antipater, may have played even in the establishment of Seuthes III 40 as a ruler . Assuming that his marriage to Berenike was a part of the same treaty, one wonders if it was not followed by the building of a new center at Seuthopolis as well. The construction of mudbrick walls reinforced with woodwork, as well as the use of the Attic foot, revealing the work of Greek architects (Lawrence 1979, 121; Tsetskhladze 2000, 238; 2002, 125, 166), may be seen as one illustration of this political act ( 1998, 43). The close similarities with Dion, Halos and Nicaea, on the other hand, all laid out on a grid-
pattern in accordance with the , provide an opportunity of perceiving Seuthopolis not only as a Hellenized Thracian city, but also as a petrified fortified camp following Macedonian inspiration. Thus it is hardly surprising that the orthogonal layout of the city and advanced design of the urban fortifications, along with the provisions for defensive artillery, speak of non-Thracian building practices, but rather of city-planning and fortification models circulating among military engineers and architects patronized by the Successors. And if those who worked on the walls of Seuthopolis were previously employed by Cassander, as the striking similarities with the fortifications of Dion seem to suggest, the supply of foreign architects may be seen as yet another proof for the existence of a historically unrecorded treaty con41 cluded between Seuthes III and Cassander . Acknowledgments The basic research and much of the writing of this article was completed while the author was an Associate Student Member of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens during 2006-2007. I wish to express my gratitude to the staff of Blegen library, which made my work easier. I would also like to thank Dr. Yannis A. Lolos from the Department of History, Archaeology and Social Anthropology at the University of Thessaly who suggested improvements on an earlier draft of the text.
38
In the context of these events the presence of Cassander has been linked with the coin hoard from the village of Rezhantsi, Pernik district (IGCH 411; 2005, 555-559) and with the building of the fortress at Pernik ( 1990, 27; Archibald 1998, 309-310; 1982, 48; 1998, 32-35; 2002, 138). For the problems surrounding the modern identification of Mt. Orbelos, see Domaradzki 1983, 43-45. The total number amounts to 119, of which 64 are overstruck by Seuthes III ( 1984, 42). The three tetradrachms of Philip II minted by Cassander in Amphipolis ( 1984, cat. #7-9) should also be added to this number (Touratsoglou 1996, 181). It is also noteworthy that the excavations at Pernik, Kabyle, Pistiros (Taneva 2002, 255-258) and Koprivlen (Prokopov 2002, 247) constantly increase the number of coins minted in his name ( 2001, 48). For the problem posed by the large number of Cassanders bronzes found in Seuthopolis, see ( 1992, 95, #262; Nankov forthcoming). A coin minted by Casander was also found in the dromos of the tomb under the Golyama Kosmatka tumulus ( 2006, 173-174), now identified as the royal burial of Seuthes III (Kitov 2005, 52-53). According to Tacheva (2000, 11), the numismatic data strengthens the long-standing claim about the Macedonian origin of Berenike, Seuthes III wife, mentioned in the Great Inscription (SEG XLII 661, lines 2, 7, 17, 36), which she considers to be a relative of Cassander or Antipater ( 2006, 189). For other alternatives, see (Elvers 1994, 259; 2002, 41-42; 2004, 321). It has been recently suggested (Nankov forthcoming) that the large number of Cassanders bronzes in Seuthopolis may account for the presence of Macedonian troops, most probably as a result of mutual agreement between Seuthes III and Cassander who decided to join forces against the Celtic threat from the north (Paus. 9. 19; Pliny, NH 31. 53).
39
40
41
48
BIBLIOGRAPHY ABBREVIATIONS 2 IG II Inscriptiones Graecae II et III: Inscriptiones Atticae Euclidis anno posteriores, 2nd edn., Parts I-III, (ed.) J. Kirchner. Berlin. 1913-1940. IGCH Thompson, M, Mrkholm, O., Kraay, C. M. 1973. An Inventory of Greek Coin Hoards. New York: ANS Publications. SEG XLII Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum. Vols. 42-44, (eds.) H. W. Pleket, R. S. Stroud, J. H. M. Strubbe. Amsterdam. 1995-1997. , . 2002. . In: , . / , . . . 53-80. , . 2000. . In: , ./ , ./ , . . . 11-50. , . 1984. . VII, 11-37. , A. 1984. . In: , . 1. . . 115128. , . 1984. Opus quadratum (V . . . . - IV . . .). 26, 23, 15-30. , . 2006. . In: . 1. . 23-25. , . 2006. . In: , V -, 9-11 2005. . 97104. , . 2004. . . . . , . . 1972. . 3, 6-13. , . . 1960. . 2, 3-15. , . . 1958. . In: . . . . 684701. , . . 1957. (V- . . . .). In: . . 63-92. , K. 1990. (340270 . . . .) II . 2, 20-38. , K. 1984. . In: , . 2. . . 9-107. , . 2000. . In: , 87-90. , . 1998. . In: , . 2. . 11-127. , M. 1991. . In: , . 2. . 54-82. , . 1991b. . In: . , , 125143. , . 1987. . 4, 4-18. , . 1985. , . 1. 2, 54-55. , M. 1982. IV-II . . . e. In: , 1. . 44-60. , . 2001. . a 2: III . . , . 1993. . . , . 1956. 1 , . 2. , - XLIX, 1955, 2, 135-221. , . 2006. III. In: . 1. . . 173-174. , ./, ./, ./, . 2001. . . , . 2004. . . . . , ./, ./, ./ , . 2008. . , . 2007 . XLVII . . 542-549. -, . 1984. ,
49
Emil Nankov
, . In: , . 1. . 159-223. , . 2005. . , (IGCH 411). In: Stephanos Archaeologicos in honorem Professoris Ludmili Getov. Studia Archaeologica Universitatis Serdicensis Suppl. IV. Sofia. 555-562. , ./, ./, . 2003. , . . 2002 . XLII . . 39-40. , ./, . 2004. . , 2003 . 2003. XLIII . . 6466. , . 2002. VI-I . . . . , . 2002. . . . , . 1961. XII-XIII . 2, 8-14. , . 1988a. . 2, 9-15. , . 1988b. . 3, 3-12. , . 2006. , . In: , V -, 9-11 2005. . 79-96. , ./, ./, ./ , ./, . 2006. . 20 . . , ./, . 2008. . In: Phosphorion: Studia in honorem Mariae iikova. . 340-347. , M. 2000. , (341-252 . . .) . . , M. 1986. . 2, 31-37. , . 2006. . . . , . 1995. . . , . 1994. . 3, 49-64. , . 2006. , (V-IV . . .). . . , M. 1971. . . , . 1981. . . . . In: , . 1. . 52-107. , . 1972. . 4, 33-41. , . 1972b. . . , M. 1991. . In: . . . 60-71. , M. 1985. T ( ). 77, 1984, 85-93. , M. 1984. . In: , . 1. . 18-114. , M. 1970. . . , M. 1965. . 2, 34-42. , M. 1957. IV . III . . . . XXXI, 129-150. , . 1992. . . , . 1964. . 19, , 344-348. , . / , . 1997. . . , ./, ./, . 1992. . . , . 2006. : . In: . 27. 2 2.3 2003, . . . 171-183. , . 1987. . In: . , . . 765-786. , . 1992. . , 3, 1989, 357-371. -, . 1999. : . In: Ancient Macedonia VI, 2, Papers read at the Sixth International Symposium held in Thessaloniki, October 15-19, 1996. Thessaloniki. 1065-1074. -, . 1998. , 1. . . , / , . 2005. . .
50
, 17, 2003, 155-172. , . 1997. . . , 10 , 1996, 69-78. , / , . 1999. . 1997. . , 11, 1997, 121-128. -, . 2004. . . . , . 1991. . , 2, 1988, 55-68. Adam, J.-P. 1992. Approche et dfense des portes dans l monde hellnis. In: Van de Maele, S. / J. M. Fossey (eds.) Fortificationes Antiquae. Gieben. 5-43. Adams, W. L. T. 1974. Cassander, Macedonia, and the Policy of Coalition, 323-301 BC. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Virginia. Archibald, Z. H. 1998. The Odrysian Kingdom of Thrace. Orpheus Unmasked. Oxford. Avram, A. 1996. Les timbres amphoriques 1. Thasos Histria. Les rsultats des fouilles VIII.1. Bucharest/ Paris. Baatz, D. 1982. Hellenistische Katapulte aus Ephyra (Epirus). Mitteilungen des deutschen archologischen Instituts, Athenische Abteilung 97, 211-233. Badian, E. 1983. Philip II and Thrace. In: Pulpudeva IV. Semaines philippopolitaines de lhistoire et de la culture thrace, Plovdiv, 3-17 Octobre 1980. Sofia. 51-71. Bakhuizen, S. C. 1992. A Greek City of the Fourth Century B.C. by the Goritsa Team. Rome. Balkanska, A./Tzochev, Ch. 2008. Amphora Stamps from Seuthopolis Revised. In: Phosphorion: Studia in honorem Mariae iikova. Sofia. 188-205. Baynham, E. 2003. Antipater and Athens. In: Palagia, O./Tracy, S. (eds.) Macedonians in Athens 323-229 B.C. Proceedings of an International Conference held at the University of Athens, May 24-26, 2001. Oxbow. 23-29. Bendorf, O. 1899. Topographische Urkunde aus Ephesos. Jahreshefte des sterreichischen Archologischen Instituts in Wien 2, 22-25. Bospatchieva, M. 2005. New Data about Philippopolis until the Establishment of the Roman Rule in Thrace. In: Heros Hephaistos. Studia in honorem Liubae Ognenova-Marinova. Veliko Turnovo. 316-330. Bouzek, J. 2005. Urbanization in Thrace. In: Bouzek, J./Domaradzka, L. (eds.) The Culture of Thracians and their Neighbours. Proceedings of the International Symposium in Memory of Prof. Mieczyslaw Domaradzki, with a Round Table Archaeological Map of Bulgaria. British Archaeological Reports, International Series 1350. 1-7. Bouzek, J. 2002. Addenda to Pistiros I. In: Bouzek, J./Domaradzka, L./Archibald, Z. H. (eds.), Pistiros II. Excavations and Studies. Charles University. Prague. 343-348. Bouzek, J. 1996. The Position of the Pistiros Fortification in the Development of Ancient Poliorcetics and Stonecutting Techniques. In: Bouzek, J./Domaradzki, M./Archibald, Z. H. (eds.). Pistiros I. Excavations and Studies. Charles University. Prague. 43-46. Bouzek, J./Domaradzki, M./Domaradzka, L./Taneva, V. 2002: Fortification and Urban Planning of the Emporion Pistiros (Adzijska Vodenica). Archeologia 52, 2001, 7-18. Bouzek, J./Musil, J. 2002. Adijska Vodenica II, 1994-1998: Excavations Report by the Czech Mission. In: Bouzek, J./Domaradzka, L./Archibald, Z. H. (eds.). Pistiros II. Excavations and Studies. Charles University. Prague. 37-111. Burstein, S. M. 1986. Lysimachus and the Cities: The Early Years. Ancient World 14, 19-24. Bsing, H. 1982. Metrologische Beitrge. Mitteilungen des deutschen archologischen Instituts, Athenische Abteilung 97, 1-45. Calder III, W. M. 1996. The Seuthopolis Inscription. In: Wallace, R. W./Harris, E. M. (eds.), Transitions to Empire. Norman/Okla. 167-178. Campbell, B. 2006. Besieged: Siege Warfare in the Ancient World. London. Caskey, L. D. 1910. The Roofed Gallery on the Walls of Athens. American Journal of Archaeology 14, 298309. Castagnoli, F. 1971. Orthogonal Town Planning in Antiquity. Cambridge. Massachusettes. iikova, M. 1997. s. v. Seuthopolis. In: Enciclopedia dellArte classica e orientale. Sec. Suppl. 1971-1994, V. Roma. 234. iikova, M. 1983. The Thracian City of Seuthopolis. In: Poulter, A. (ed.) Ancient Bulgaria: Papers presented to the International Symposium on the Ancient History and Archaeology of Bulgaria, University of Nottingham, 1981. Nottingham. 293-310. Cohen, G. M. 1995. The Hellenistic Settlements in Europe, the Islands, and Asia Minor. Berkeley/Los Angeles. Connolly, P. 1998. Greece and Rome at War. London/ Pennsylvania. Danov, Ch. 1962. s. v. Seuthopolis. In: Real Encyclopdie, Suppl. IX, cols. 1370-1378. Dehn, W. 1969. Noch einmal zum Murus Gallicus. Germania 47, 165-168. Delemen, I. 2006. An Unplundered Chamber Tomb on Ganos Mountain in Southeastern Thrace. American Journal of Archaeology 110, 251-273.
51
Emil Nankov
Dimitrov, D. P. 1961. Das Entstehen der thrakischen Stadt und die Eigenart ihrer stdtebaulichen Gestaltung und Architektur. In: Atti del Settimo Congresso di Archeologia Classica, vol. I. Roma. 379-387. Dimitrov, D. P./iikova, M. 1978. The Thracian City of Seuthopolis. British Archaeological Reports, International Series 38. Oxford. Domaradzki, M. 1996. Interim Report on Archaeological Investigations at Vetren-Pistiros, 1988-94. In: Bouzek, J./Domaradzki, M./Archibald, Z. H. (eds.), Pistiros I. Excavations and Studies. Charles University. Prague. 13-34. Domaradzki, M. 1983. Ograden and the Strumenica Valley in the Second Half of the First Millennium B.C. In: Sliwa, J./Domaradzki, M. (eds.) The Lower Strumenica Valley in Prehistoric, Ancient and Early Medieval Times. Krakow. 43-65. Domaradski, M. 1990. Kabyle and the Thracian Cities. Terra Antiqua Balcanica IV, 49-60. Dornisch, K. 1992. Die griechische Bogentore. Frankfurt am Main. Ehrhardt, C. 1973. The Coins of Cassander. Journal of Numismatic Fine Arts 2, 25-32. Emilov, J. 2005. The Galatians and Cabyle. A Fragmentary Inscription and Its Context. In: Stephanos Archaeologicos in honorem Professoris Ludmili Getov. Studia Archaeologica Universitatis Serdicensis Suppl. IV. Sofia. 324-332. Frazer, P. M. 1996. Cities of Alexander the Great. Oxford. Fougres, G. 1898. Mantine et LArcadie orientale. Paris. Garlan, Y. 2004/2005. En visitant et revisitant les ateliers amphoriques de Thasos. Bulletin de Correspondence hllnique 128-129, 269-329. Garlan, Y. 1984. War and Siegecraft. In: Walbank, F. W. /Astin, A. E. / Frederiksen, M. W./ Ogilvie, R. M. (eds.) The Cambridge Ancient History, VII1 (2nd edition). Cambridge. 353-362. Garlan, Y. 1974. Recherches de poliorctique grecque. Paris. Graham, J. W. 1980. Review of Dimitrov, D. P./ iikova, M. 1978. The Thracian City of Seuthopolis. Journal of Hellenic Studies 100, 269. von Gerkan, A. 1939. The Fortifications. In: The Excavations at Dura Europos. Preliminary Report of the Seventh and Eighth Seasons of Work 1933-1934 and 1934-1935. New Haven. 4-61. Haselberger, L. 1979. Dcher griechischer Wehrtrme. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archologischen Instituts, Athenische Abteilung 94, 93-115. Hoddinott, R. F. 1975. Bulgaria in Antiquity. An Archaeological Introduction. London/Tonbridge. James, S. 2004. Excavations at Dura Europos 19281937. Final Report VII: Arms and Armour, and other Military Equipment. London: British Museum Press. Jeppesen, K. 1989. Ikaros The Hellenistic Settlements 3: The Sacred Enclosure in the Early Hellenistic Period. Aarhus. Katinarova, D. 2007. Survey along the Main Street from the Eastern Gate of the Emporion inwards and in the Sector of the Eastern City Wall. In: Bouzek, J./ Domaradzka, L./Archibald, Z. H. (eds.) Pistiros III. Excavations and Studies. Charles University. Prague. 35-61. Keyser, P. T./Irbie-Massie, G. 2006. Science, Medicine, and Technology. In: Bugh, G. (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to the Hellenistic World. Cambridge. 241264. Kienast, H. 1978. Die Stadtmauer von Samos. Samos, XV. Bonn. Kitov, G. 2005. The Newly discovered Tomb of the Thracian Ruler Seuthes III. Archaeologia Bulgarica IX, 2, 39-54. Kolarova, V. 1996. Study on the Section of the Emporiums Fortress, Discovered by the End of 1994. In: Bouzek, J./Domaradzki, M./Archibald, Z. H. (eds.) Pistiros I. Excavations and Studies. Prague. 35-43. Kolarova, V. /Bospatchieva, M. 2005. The Fortress Walls on the Nebettepe, Plovdiv, before the Establishment of Roman Rule in Thrace. In: Bouzek, J./ Domaradzka, L. (eds.) The Culture of Thracians and their Neighbours. Proceedings of the International Symposium in Memory of Prof. Mieczyslaw Domaradzki, with a Round Table Archaeological Map of Bulgaria. British Archaeological Reports, International Series 1350. 69-83. Krischen, F. 1922. Die Befestigungen von Herakleia am Latmos, Milet III, 2. Berlin/Leipzig. Lawrence, A. W. 1996. Greek Architecture (5th ed.), revised by R. A. Tomlinson. New Haven/London. Lawrence, A. W. 1979. Greek Aims in Fortification. Oxford. Leschhorn W. 1984. Grnder der Stadt: Studien zu einem politisch-religisen Phnomen der griechischen Geschichte, Palingenesia 20. Stuttgart. Ljubenova, V. 2005. Das Heiligtum zu ebener Erde in einem der Trme der hellenistichen Festung beim Dorfe Bosnek Kreis Pernik. In: Bouzek, J./Domaradzka, L. (eds.) The Culture of Thracians and their Neighbours. Proceedings of the International Symposium in Memory of Prof. Mieczyslaw Domaradzki, with a Round Table Archaeological Map of Bulgaria. British Archaeological Reports. International Series 1350. 187-190. Lund, H. S. 1992. Lysimachus. A Study in Early Hellenistic Kingship. London/New York. Maier, F. G. 1959. Griechische Mauerbauinschriften. Texte und Kommentare, vol. I. Heidelberg. Maier, F. G. 1958. Die Stadtmauer von Thisbe.
52
Mitteilungen des deutschen archologischen Instituts, Athenische Abteilung 73, 17-25. Marsden, E. W. 1999. Greek and Roman Artillery. Historical Development, II (2nd ed.). Oxford. Marsden, E. W. 1977. Macedonian Military Machinery and Its Designers under Philip and Alexander. In: Ancient Macedonia II, Papers read at the Second International Symposium held in Thessaloniki, 19-24 August, 1973. 211-223. Martin, R. 1965. Manuel darchitecture grecque I. Matriaux et techniques. Paris. Milner, N. P. 1997. Conclusions and Recent Developments. In: Mcicoll, A. 1997. Hellenistic Fortifications from the Aegean to the Euphrates. Oxford. 207223. Missailidou-Despotidou, V. 1993. A Hellenistic Inscription from Skotoussa (Thessaly) and the Fortifications of the City. Annual of the British School at Athens 88, 187-217. Mcicoll, A. 1997. Hellenistic Fortifications from the Aegean to the Euphrates. Oxford. Mcicoll, A. 1986. Developments in Techniques of Siegecraft and Fortifications in the Greek World ca. 400100 B.C. In: Leriche, P. /Treziny, H. (eds.) La Fortification dans lhistoire du monde grecque. Paris. 305-313. Mueller, K. 2004. Dating the Ptolemaic city-foundations in Cyrenaica. A Brief Note. Libyan Studies 35, 110. Musil, J. 1996. Roof Tiles. In: Bouzek, J./Domaradzki, M./Archibald, Z. H. (eds.), Pistiros I. Excavations and Studies. Charles University. Prague. 46-62. Nankov, E. forthcoming. The Circulation of Macedonian Royal Bronzes in Seuthopolis: A Reappraisal. A paper read at the XI Symposium on Mediterranean Archaeology, April 24-29, 2007. Istanbul Technical University. British Archaeological Reports, International Series. Oxford. Nankov, E. 2007a. An Ivory Scabbard Chape from Seuthopolis Rediscovered: Evidence for a xiphos from Early Hellenistic Thrace. Archaeologia Bulgarica XI, 1, 37-46. Nankov, E. 2007b. Toward the Thracian Religion in the Early Hellenistic Period: A Terracotta Figurine of Kybele from Seuthopolis Reconsidered. Archaeologia Bulgarica XI, 3, 47-67. Ober, J. 1992. Towards a Typology of Greek Artillery Towers: the First and Second Generations (c. 375275 B.C.). In: Van de Maele, S./J. M. Fossey (eds.) Fortificationes Antiquae. Gieben. 147-169. Ober, J. 1987. Early Artillery Towers: Messenia, Boiotia, Attica, Megarid. American Journal of Archaeology 91, 569-604. Owens, E. J. 1991. The City in the Greek and Roman World. Routledge. London/New York. Peter, U. 1997. Die Mnzen der thrakischen Dynasten (5.-3. Jahrhundert v. Chr.). Hintergrunden und Prgung. Berlin. Popov, Ch. 2004. Zur Frage der Siedlungskontinuitt der Stadtzentren in Thrakien und Illyrien whrend der Eisenzeit. Archaeologia Bulgarica VIII, 1, 13-24. Pritchett, W. K. 1974. The Greek State at War. Part 2. Berkeley. Prokopov, I. 2002. The Coin Finds from Koprivlen. Hellenistic and Early Roman Coins. In: Bozkova, A. / Delev, P. (eds.) Koprivlen, vol. I. Rescue Archaeological Investigations along the Gotse Delchev-Drama Road 1998-1999. Sofia. 247-257. Reinders, H. R. 1988. New Halos, a Hellenistic Town in Thessalia, Greece. Utrecht. Reinders, H. R/Prummel, W. (eds.) 2003. Housing in New Halos: A Hellenistic Town in Thessaly, Greece. Taylor & Francis. Rihll, T. 2006. On artillery towers and catapult sizes. Annual of the British School at Athens 101, 379-383. Robinson, D. M. 1941. Excavations at Olynthus, Part X. Metal and Minor Miscellaneous Finds. Baltimore. Robinson, D. M./Graham, J. W. 1938. Excavations at Olynthus, Part VIII. The Hellenic House. A Study of the Houses Found at Olynthus with a Detailed Account of Those Excavated in 1931 and 1934. Baltimore. Rotroff, S. I. 2006. Hellenistic Pottery. The Plain Wares, The Athenian Agora XXXII. Princeton/ New Jersey. Rotroff, S. I. 1997. Hellenistic Pottery. Athenian and Imported Wheelmade Table Ware and Related Material, The Athenian Agora XXIX. Princeton/New Jersey. Rotroff, S. I. 1990. Athenian Hellenistic Pottery: Toward a Firmer Chronology. In: Akten des XIII internationalen Kongresses fr klassische Archologie, Berlin 1988. Mainz. 174-178. Scranton, R. L. 1941. Greek Walls. Cambridge, Massachusetts. Shipley, G. 2000. The Greek World after Alexander 323-30 BC. London. Snodgrass, A. 1999. Arms and Armour of the Greeks. (2nd ed.). Baltimore/London. Stakenborg-Hoogeveen, J. 1989. Mycenaean Thrace from the Fifth till the Third Century B.C. A Summary. In: Best, J. G. P. / De Vries, N. M. W. (eds.) Thracians and Mycenaeans: Proceedings of the Fourth International Congress of Thracology, Rotterdam, 2426 September 1984. Leiden/Sofia. 181-190. Stoyanov, T. 2002. The Getic Capital at Sboryanovo (North-Eastern Bulgaria). Talanta 32-33 (2000-2001), 207-221. Stoyanov, T. 1999. New Light on the Relations between NE Thrace and Macedonia in the Early Hellenistic Times. In: Ancient Macedonia VI, 2, Papers read at
53
Emil Nankov
the Sixth International Symposium held in Thessaloniki, October 15-19, 1996. Thessaloniki. 1075-1089. Taneva, V. 2002. Coins of Macedonian Rulers Found in Pistiros. In: Bouzek, J./Domaradzka, L./ Archibald, Z. H. (eds.) Pistiros II. Excavations and Studies. Prague. 255-268. Taylor, T. 2001. Thracians, Scythians, and Dacians 800 BC-AD 300. In: Cunliffe, B. (ed.) The Oxford Illustrated History of Prehistoric Europe. Oxford. 373-410. Taylor, T. 1987. Aspects of Settlement Diversity and Its Classification in Southeast Europe before the Roman Period. World Archaeology 19, 1, 1-22. Thompson, M. 1984. Paying the Mercenaries. In: Festschrift fr Studies in honor of Leo Mildenberg. Wetteren. 241-247. Thompson, M./Bellinger, A. R. 1955. Greek coins in the Yale Collection, IV: A Hoard of Alexander Drachms. Yale Classical Studies 14, 3-45. Touratsoglou, I. 1996. Die Baupolitik Kassanders. In: Hoepfner, G. / Brands, G. (eds.) Basileia: Die Palste der hellenistischen Knige. Internationales Symposion in Berlin vom 16.12. 1992 bis 20.12. 1992. Mainz am Rhein. 176-181. Tsetskhladze, G. R. 2000. Pistiros in the System of Pontic Emporia (Greek Trading and Craft Settlements in the Hinterland of the Northern and Eastern Black Sea and Elsewhere). In: Pistiros et Thasos. Structures conomiques dans la pninsule balkanique aux VII e II e sicles avant J.-C. Opole. 233-246. Valeva, J. 2005. The Painted Coffers of the Ostrusha Tomb. Veliko Turnovo Wasowicz, A. 2004. Influence de lurbanisme grec sur lhabitat indigne du Pont-Euxin. Archeologia 54, 7-15. Williams, H./B. Gourley 2005. The Fortifications of Stymphalos. Mouseion 5, 213-259. Williams, H./Schaus, G/ Price, S.-M. C./ Gourley, B. /Hagerman, C. 1998. Excavations at Ancient Stymphalos, 1997. Echos du Monde Classique 42, 261-319. Williams, H./Schaus, G./Price, S.-M. C./Gourley, B./ Lutomsky, H. 1997. Excavations at Ancient Stymphalos, 1996. Echos du Monde Classique 41, 23-73. Wilson Jones, M. 2000. Doric Measure and Architectural Design 1: The Evidence of the Relief from Salamis. American Journal of Archaeology 104, 73-93. Winter, F. E. 1997. The Use of Artillery in FourthCentury and Hellenistic Towers. Echos du Monde Classique 41, 247-292. Winter, F. E. 1996. Problems on Tradition and Innovation in Greek Fortifications in Asia Minor, Late Fifth to Third Century B.C. Revue des tudes Anciennes 96, 1994, 29-42. Winter, F. E. 1989. Arkadian Notes II: The Walls of Mantinea, Orchomenos, and Kleitor. Echos du Monde Classique 33, 189-200. Winter, F. E. 1971. Greek Fortifications. Toronto. Wokalek, A. 1973. Griechische Stadtbefestigungen. Studien zur Geschichte der frhgriechischen Befestigungsanlagen. Bonn. Zambon, E. 2000. Filippo II, Alessandro il Grande e la Tracia: note sulla conquista e listituzione della strategia di Tracia. Anemos 1, 69-95. Zyromski, M. 2004. Some Important Features of Towns Development in Thrace (the examples of Seuthopolis, Kabyle and Philippopolis). In: Thracians and Circumpontic world. Vol. II. Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Thracology, ChisinauVadul lui Voda, 6-11 September 2004. Chisinau. 241-246.
: () , (. 1-6; 8 , ), , -, . , (. 6) . , . . , , . II , , . - , -
54
(. 25), , (. 15), . , , , : 1. , , .. , (. 9-11, . 3), (. 14), (. 12, 13b). , , , 29,6 , .. (. 1, 2). , , , - (. 9-11), , , . , , , , , . , , , , , . , , . , . , , . , , , (. 7, 8). 2. , , , (. 5). , , , , , . , , , - , - , . , , , , V . . . 3. , . , , (. 18). , , , (. 19-21). , 1 (. 22) , , , , (. 4). , , . , 19 (. 23, 24) , , -
55
Emil Nankov
II 252 . . . . . 4. , , (. 6), - . , , , ( ), , IV . . . III 313 311 . . . 5. , (, , , , ), (, ), (), I () (). , , . . . . , , , , , . , - , , ( , ), , . , , . . , (), () (). , , , , . , . , . . , , , - . , , , , . , , . , . , . , . , , III , , . Emil Nankov, Ph.D. Candidate Department of History of Art and Archaeology Cornell University USA-Ithaca, NY 14853 ehn2@cornell.edu
56

The Fortifications of The Early Hellenistic Thracian City of Seuthopolis

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

The Fortifications of The Early Hellenistic Thracian City of Seuthopolis

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Archaeologia Bulgarica the EarlyXII 2008 3 15-56 Sofia The Fortifications of Hellenistic Thracian City of Seuthopolis: Breaking the

Figure 5. Seuthopolis and tumuli 1, 2 and 3 (after 1991, 172).

Figure 18. Catapult bolts from Seuthopolis ( 1972b, . 73).

Figure 19. Catapult bolts from Vergina (after 1997, . 1).

FEET 45.94 x 34.79 34.79 x 34.79 24 x 24 20.94 x 13.51 22.29 x 13.51 10 7

CURTAIN METERS FEET

AREA 2 12.25 m 2 16.81 m 2 53.29 m 2 77.38 m

Table 3. Distribution of the towers at Seuthopolis based on chamber size.

OPERATIONAL LENGTH 1.54 m 2.32 m 3.09 m 3.86 m 4.63 m 5.05 m 6.37 m

OPERATIONAL WIDTH 0.87 m 1.31 m 1.75 m 2.19 m 2.62 m 2.53 m 3.18 m

WEIGHT 9.4 kg 32.5 kg 79 kg 133 kg 265 kg 406 kg 813 kg

DEPTH DATE 0.60 311-305

REFERENCE 1984, . #252 Ehrhardt 1973, 26-27

0.60 ca. 309 0.60 0.80

7. Plate 8. Skyphos Kerch style

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen