DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.47233#0126
110
TOWN WALLS AND INTERNAL TOPOGRAPHY.
[CHAP. VI.
possible (taking both its structure and its position into consideration) that it may have served some
different purpose and be of later date ; but on this and similar points it is of no use to dogmatize.
‘ B.’ B.—Remains of a wall similar in plan to ‘ A,’ but without the third wall δ. The walls a and
β appear to be slightly thicker than the corresponding walls in‘ A; ’ but it must be remembered that
the thickness of these rough walls, in their present dilapidated state, can never be measured with
absolute precision, and therefore the figures which I give must be regarded as approximate.
Approximately, then, the walls a and β in the remains under consideration are, each of them, 2 feet
6 inches thick; and the total width of the two walls, with the interval between them, is about 8 feet.
The bond γ should be noticed. It will be remembered that ‘ A,’ probably owing to the small extent
of the wall a which is extant, furnished us with no example of a bond between a and β.
Limestone and conglomerate are here used indifferently. This mixture of materials has its
parallel in two other portions of the fortification wall of the earlier period, viz. those indicated by
the letters F and G.
The remains ‘ B ’ are situated on a well-defined ridge which runs down from the high ground
occupied by ‘A’ to the river,—a position altogether unsuitable for any but a boundary-wall.
Besides the portion shown in Fig. 1, it will be seen from the map that numerous, but very
fragmentary, remains are scattered along the ridge, both above and below ‘ B.’
‘ C.’ C.—Remains of a wall built entirely of limestone, on a ridge about equally far west with ‘ B,’
but on the opposite side of the river. This ridge connects the high ground traversed by the path to
Kasimi with the valley of a small stream south of it. The remains are precisely similar in structure
to either of the walls a and β in the remains previously described ; but the stones employed are
considerably larger, so that the wall attains a thickness of about 4 ft. instead of 2 ft. 6 in. This
difference in thickness was probably intended to compensate for the absence of a second wall parallel
with it; for no trace of a second wall has been found, and the nature of the ground makes it improb-
able that there ever was one.
‘ D.’ D.—A wall exactly like a or β in the remains ‘ A ’ and ‘ B,’ and about 2 ft. 6 in. in thickness,
situated not on a ridge, but on the extreme edge of a plateau from which the ground falls away
almost precipitously towards the south. Whether a similar wall, parallel with it, has disappeared, or
whether the position, at the top of an almost precipitous slope, was considered so strong as to render
a second wall unnecessary, it is at present impossible to say.
Four large stones (marked ‘t’ in the map), a little eastward of ‘D ’ and nearly in line with
it, evidently belong to the fortification wall; and the same may probably be said of some large
stones, not in situ, which lie scattered in the low ground between ‘ D ’ and ‘E.’
‘ E.’ E.—A single row of very large blocks of limestone, in a bank, roughly but not exactly in
line with ‘ D.’ The outside of these stones, which alone was visible when I first saw them, is so
rough that I doubted their being in situ ; but a small trench dug in the bank in which they were
buried revealed that the north side (that facing the town) had been hewn to an approximately
even surface. Hitherto I have failed to find any parallel walls inside (i.e. north of) them.
If, as I suppose, such walls once existed, it is not impossible that remains of them still lie buried
in the unexcavated parts of the bank ; but it is equally likely that they have entirely disappeared.
In any case the wall ‘ E ’ must, I think, be regarded as corresponding to δ in ‘ A,’ to which
it is precisely similar.
‘F.’ F.—•Remains situated on a small eminence near the north bank of the Helisson. Though
Altered position the eminence in question does not at the present day form part of the actual river bank, it was
of river bank, probably otherwise in ancient times ; for the low ground, which separates the high bank of which
it forms a part from the present river-bed, has every appearance of having been reclaimed. Some
parts of these remains are in a very dilapidated state, a few stones alone remaining to indicate
their former position. These parts are distinguished in the plan (Fig. 1) by dotted lines.
The walls a and β are of the same structure as those similarly marked in the plans of ‘ A ’
and ‘ B ’; but they are thicker—about 3 feet and 4 feet in thickness respectively, with an interval
of 4 feet 6 inches between them. The total thickness of the fortification at this point is therefore
11 feet 6 inches. The material is, for the most part, conglomerate; but some blocks of limestone
are also used. One bond is clearly visible at γ. A single stone probably marks the position of
another bond, which I have accordingly indicated in dotted lines.
Possible tower at The wall η forms a right angle with the other walls, thus showing that there was either a
change of direction at this point, or a tower. The latter would be quite in place on the river
bank; but the question whether it existed or not must remain unsettled, since η is on the
TOWN WALLS AND INTERNAL TOPOGRAPHY.
[CHAP. VI.
possible (taking both its structure and its position into consideration) that it may have served some
different purpose and be of later date ; but on this and similar points it is of no use to dogmatize.
‘ B.’ B.—Remains of a wall similar in plan to ‘ A,’ but without the third wall δ. The walls a and
β appear to be slightly thicker than the corresponding walls in‘ A; ’ but it must be remembered that
the thickness of these rough walls, in their present dilapidated state, can never be measured with
absolute precision, and therefore the figures which I give must be regarded as approximate.
Approximately, then, the walls a and β in the remains under consideration are, each of them, 2 feet
6 inches thick; and the total width of the two walls, with the interval between them, is about 8 feet.
The bond γ should be noticed. It will be remembered that ‘ A,’ probably owing to the small extent
of the wall a which is extant, furnished us with no example of a bond between a and β.
Limestone and conglomerate are here used indifferently. This mixture of materials has its
parallel in two other portions of the fortification wall of the earlier period, viz. those indicated by
the letters F and G.
The remains ‘ B ’ are situated on a well-defined ridge which runs down from the high ground
occupied by ‘A’ to the river,—a position altogether unsuitable for any but a boundary-wall.
Besides the portion shown in Fig. 1, it will be seen from the map that numerous, but very
fragmentary, remains are scattered along the ridge, both above and below ‘ B.’
‘ C.’ C.—Remains of a wall built entirely of limestone, on a ridge about equally far west with ‘ B,’
but on the opposite side of the river. This ridge connects the high ground traversed by the path to
Kasimi with the valley of a small stream south of it. The remains are precisely similar in structure
to either of the walls a and β in the remains previously described ; but the stones employed are
considerably larger, so that the wall attains a thickness of about 4 ft. instead of 2 ft. 6 in. This
difference in thickness was probably intended to compensate for the absence of a second wall parallel
with it; for no trace of a second wall has been found, and the nature of the ground makes it improb-
able that there ever was one.
‘ D.’ D.—A wall exactly like a or β in the remains ‘ A ’ and ‘ B,’ and about 2 ft. 6 in. in thickness,
situated not on a ridge, but on the extreme edge of a plateau from which the ground falls away
almost precipitously towards the south. Whether a similar wall, parallel with it, has disappeared, or
whether the position, at the top of an almost precipitous slope, was considered so strong as to render
a second wall unnecessary, it is at present impossible to say.
Four large stones (marked ‘t’ in the map), a little eastward of ‘D ’ and nearly in line with
it, evidently belong to the fortification wall; and the same may probably be said of some large
stones, not in situ, which lie scattered in the low ground between ‘ D ’ and ‘E.’
‘ E.’ E.—A single row of very large blocks of limestone, in a bank, roughly but not exactly in
line with ‘ D.’ The outside of these stones, which alone was visible when I first saw them, is so
rough that I doubted their being in situ ; but a small trench dug in the bank in which they were
buried revealed that the north side (that facing the town) had been hewn to an approximately
even surface. Hitherto I have failed to find any parallel walls inside (i.e. north of) them.
If, as I suppose, such walls once existed, it is not impossible that remains of them still lie buried
in the unexcavated parts of the bank ; but it is equally likely that they have entirely disappeared.
In any case the wall ‘ E ’ must, I think, be regarded as corresponding to δ in ‘ A,’ to which
it is precisely similar.
‘F.’ F.—•Remains situated on a small eminence near the north bank of the Helisson. Though
Altered position the eminence in question does not at the present day form part of the actual river bank, it was
of river bank, probably otherwise in ancient times ; for the low ground, which separates the high bank of which
it forms a part from the present river-bed, has every appearance of having been reclaimed. Some
parts of these remains are in a very dilapidated state, a few stones alone remaining to indicate
their former position. These parts are distinguished in the plan (Fig. 1) by dotted lines.
The walls a and β are of the same structure as those similarly marked in the plans of ‘ A ’
and ‘ B ’; but they are thicker—about 3 feet and 4 feet in thickness respectively, with an interval
of 4 feet 6 inches between them. The total thickness of the fortification at this point is therefore
11 feet 6 inches. The material is, for the most part, conglomerate; but some blocks of limestone
are also used. One bond is clearly visible at γ. A single stone probably marks the position of
another bond, which I have accordingly indicated in dotted lines.
Possible tower at The wall η forms a right angle with the other walls, thus showing that there was either a
change of direction at this point, or a tower. The latter would be quite in place on the river
bank; but the question whether it existed or not must remain unsettled, since η is on the