Atkinson, Thomas [Mitarb.]
Excavations at Phylakopi in Melos — London, 1904

Seite: 256
Zitierlink: 
http://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/diglit/atkinson1904/0276
Lizenz: Creative Commons - Namensnennung - Weitergabe unter gleichen Bedingungen Nutzung / Bestellung
0.5
1 cm
facsimile
25G

DUJSTCAN MACKENZIE

In the history of early Settlements, however, it will generally be found
that defence in the way of fortification is always resorted to whenever the
need for it comes to be feit. Thus at the primitive stage uirprotected
Settlements givc place gradually to fortified towns and cities, not as a rule
vicc-versä, as is the case und er changed conditions in our modern world.
From this point of view it is instructive to find that Mr. Tsountas has
discovered at Chalandriane in Syros a fortified town, of the same general
age, as the First, unfortified, City at Phylakopi in the period represented
by the earlier house-remains and floor-deposits. At Hagios Andreas in
south-east Siphnos the same explorer has discovered another fortified
scttlement which marks a further stage of development and is of later
date. The fortified settlement in Syros, the one in Siphnos, and the fortified
Second City at Phylakopi exemplify stages in the history of Aegean
fortification. We are, however, not as yet able to fill up the gap in develop-
ment between the open Settlements and the fortified towns, for we have
Seen that contemporarily with the open First City at Phylakopi we have
a town in Syros with a style of fortification of so advanced a character that
it in turn must have had a long history.

In the present state of the evidence it is hard to think that such a
style of fortification can have originated in the Aegean itself, and we must
ask whether at this early period it was not the mainland that furnished
the prototypes for such strong walls as those of Syros and Siphnos. Impulse
from that quarter would explain the fact that the Syros fortification is of
more primitive character and of earlier date than that of more distant
Siphnos, and that the Siphnos fortifications are in turn only a preparation
for the greater security of the citadel of Melos. That is to say, if there was
mainland impulse it extended gradually into the Aegean and reached as far
as Melos. In that case, however, it did not go further, for the Minoan cities
of Crete, so far as afc present known, remained unfortified throughout their
history. The fortification of cities is contingent upon circumstances of
greater or less necessity, and we have the true course of development under
differing circumstances illustrated for us in the fact that mainland Mycenae,
Tiryns and Troy are fortified citadels, and that Aegean Cnossos, in complete
contrast, is an open city with unfortified palace.1

That the fortifications in Syros, in Siphnos and in Melos show close
analogies and represent stages in development is made clear by one feature :
the outside breast-work which is common to all three of them.2

The one in Syros has opposite the tower 7 an outside doorway with
strong doorjambs, indicating a solid door shutting out and commanded only

1 On the other hand Furtwängler's excava-
tions have brought out the fact that
Minyan Orchomenos was an unfortified
city.

- 'E<p. 'Apx- 1899, 118 ; external to the
towers a—c on the sketeh, in a similar
position in Siphnos, ib. 127 and in A 5,

B. C. D. 5-6 at Phylakopi. The analogy
between tlie breastworks of Syros and
Siphnos and that of Phylakopi has been
already pointed out by Mr. Tsountas, ib. 134,
note 1. Like these the outwork at Phylakopi
was a regulär wall with two faces.
loading ...