DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.47233#0129
CHAP. VI.]
TOWN WALLS AND INTERNAL TOPOGRAPHY.
113
of as much as 120 feet. The name ‘ ’σταΖ? πόρταν ’ or c ’σταΐ$· ττορτί,τζ(η$’ already mentioned, is an
additional proof, if such were needed, that this slope marked the northern limit of the town.
The western boundary is partly indicated by the remains marked ‘B’ and ‘A.’ But north
of ‘ A ’ the direction of the wall is open to some, though not (I think) to any very serious
doubt. It might, that is to say, be maintained, in the absence of any traces of the northern
wall west of the point where the path to Zonati descends to the valley of the Aminius,
that the line of wall left the edge of the hills somewhere near that point, and proceeded to
join the remains ‘A’ by a more direct route than that indicated in my map. But I have re-
jected this idea for three reasons, viz.:—(1) it seems improbable that the designers of the
fortification, having obtained so good a line of defence as the top of an almost precipitous
slope, would abandon it for the sake of a comparatively small saving in the extent of the wall;
(2) by carrying the wall tvestward as far as the chapel of St. George (‘ 1 ’ in the map), a
marked fall of the ground towards the west as well as towards the north could be obtained ;
(3) the direction (y. Map) of the wall ‘A’ points to its having originally crossed the hollow
ground and stream which lie north and north-east of Kasidochori: and the necessity for this
would have been avoided if the wall had cut across more directly to join the northern part of
the fortification near the path to Zonati.
The river-bed raises a question of some difficulty in connexion with the fortification
of the ancient town. Had it been as wide, or even half or a quarter as wide, as it is now, it
would (one would think) have been as prejudicial to any adequate defence as two great breaches
in the wall,—one on the eastern and one on the western side of the city. For even after
heavy rain it is in many places never full of water; and when dry it is a shingly waste,
presenting rather the appearance of a bad road than of a river. But it must be remembered that
the river, which is continually changing its course, encroaches yearly,—indeed, in wet weather,
almost daily,—on one or other of its banks; and the cases in which land, once stolen by the
stream, has been reclaimed (as it has been, in my opinion,24 between ‘ F ’ and the modern bridge)
are comparatively few. We may therefore suppose the river-bed to have been in ancient times
very much narrower than at present; and, supposing the rainfall to have been more regular then
than now, it is not impossible that it was always full of water.
South of the river I have supposed the town wall to have ascended the ridge just
opposite the village of Kasidochori, crossed the path to Kasimi near its highest point, and
thence joined the remains ‘ C, ’ which occupy a little promontory or ridge overhanging the
low ground and stream indicated in the map. So far I cannot be seriously wrong. Again
the restoration of the wall between the remains ‘ D ’ and ‘ E,’ which are almost in line, cannot,
owing to the nature of the ground, be erroneous except in very minor details. But
the positions of that part of the wall which connected ‘ C ’ and ‘ D,’ where it was impossible
for it to keep entirely to the high ground, and of the part between ‘ E ’ and the river, where
a considerable extent of level country had to be crossed, are, I admit, to some extent
conjectural. In each case two alternatives are given in my map; but considerable variations on
these might easily be suggested. Aly chief reasons for preferring the positions which I have
marked in double lines, to those marked by a single line, in the map, are in the first
case (Le. between ‘ C ’ and ‘ D ’) the improbability that so good a vantage-ground as that
crossed by the double lines would be left outside the walls, and in the second (Le. between ‘ E
and the river) the steepness of the hill which is cut by my single line, a steepness so great
as to render the building of a wall upon it extremely difficult. The general extent of the city
eastward is, of course, determined by the fact that the eastern wall must have terminated by
the river at a point opposite, or nearly opposite, the remains marked ‘ F ’ on the northern bank.
This completes my restoration of the ancient circuit. It may be regarded as certain
for nearly the whole of the walls north of the Helisson ; while south of the Helisson, though some of
its details are conjectural, there can be little doubt of its general correctness. It will be
remembered, however, that in discussing this restoration I assumed, on somewhat slender
evidence, that the circuit indicated by the extant remains was one and the same circuit, in
spite of differences of date among the remains themselves; and I remarked at the time that
(2) The river bed.
(3) South of the
river.
Summary.
The assumption
confirmed by
results.
24 Cf. §. 2. (1).
G G
TOWN WALLS AND INTERNAL TOPOGRAPHY.
113
of as much as 120 feet. The name ‘ ’σταΖ? πόρταν ’ or c ’σταΐ$· ττορτί,τζ(η$’ already mentioned, is an
additional proof, if such were needed, that this slope marked the northern limit of the town.
The western boundary is partly indicated by the remains marked ‘B’ and ‘A.’ But north
of ‘ A ’ the direction of the wall is open to some, though not (I think) to any very serious
doubt. It might, that is to say, be maintained, in the absence of any traces of the northern
wall west of the point where the path to Zonati descends to the valley of the Aminius,
that the line of wall left the edge of the hills somewhere near that point, and proceeded to
join the remains ‘A’ by a more direct route than that indicated in my map. But I have re-
jected this idea for three reasons, viz.:—(1) it seems improbable that the designers of the
fortification, having obtained so good a line of defence as the top of an almost precipitous
slope, would abandon it for the sake of a comparatively small saving in the extent of the wall;
(2) by carrying the wall tvestward as far as the chapel of St. George (‘ 1 ’ in the map), a
marked fall of the ground towards the west as well as towards the north could be obtained ;
(3) the direction (y. Map) of the wall ‘A’ points to its having originally crossed the hollow
ground and stream which lie north and north-east of Kasidochori: and the necessity for this
would have been avoided if the wall had cut across more directly to join the northern part of
the fortification near the path to Zonati.
The river-bed raises a question of some difficulty in connexion with the fortification
of the ancient town. Had it been as wide, or even half or a quarter as wide, as it is now, it
would (one would think) have been as prejudicial to any adequate defence as two great breaches
in the wall,—one on the eastern and one on the western side of the city. For even after
heavy rain it is in many places never full of water; and when dry it is a shingly waste,
presenting rather the appearance of a bad road than of a river. But it must be remembered that
the river, which is continually changing its course, encroaches yearly,—indeed, in wet weather,
almost daily,—on one or other of its banks; and the cases in which land, once stolen by the
stream, has been reclaimed (as it has been, in my opinion,24 between ‘ F ’ and the modern bridge)
are comparatively few. We may therefore suppose the river-bed to have been in ancient times
very much narrower than at present; and, supposing the rainfall to have been more regular then
than now, it is not impossible that it was always full of water.
South of the river I have supposed the town wall to have ascended the ridge just
opposite the village of Kasidochori, crossed the path to Kasimi near its highest point, and
thence joined the remains ‘ C, ’ which occupy a little promontory or ridge overhanging the
low ground and stream indicated in the map. So far I cannot be seriously wrong. Again
the restoration of the wall between the remains ‘ D ’ and ‘ E,’ which are almost in line, cannot,
owing to the nature of the ground, be erroneous except in very minor details. But
the positions of that part of the wall which connected ‘ C ’ and ‘ D,’ where it was impossible
for it to keep entirely to the high ground, and of the part between ‘ E ’ and the river, where
a considerable extent of level country had to be crossed, are, I admit, to some extent
conjectural. In each case two alternatives are given in my map; but considerable variations on
these might easily be suggested. Aly chief reasons for preferring the positions which I have
marked in double lines, to those marked by a single line, in the map, are in the first
case (Le. between ‘ C ’ and ‘ D ’) the improbability that so good a vantage-ground as that
crossed by the double lines would be left outside the walls, and in the second (Le. between ‘ E
and the river) the steepness of the hill which is cut by my single line, a steepness so great
as to render the building of a wall upon it extremely difficult. The general extent of the city
eastward is, of course, determined by the fact that the eastern wall must have terminated by
the river at a point opposite, or nearly opposite, the remains marked ‘ F ’ on the northern bank.
This completes my restoration of the ancient circuit. It may be regarded as certain
for nearly the whole of the walls north of the Helisson ; while south of the Helisson, though some of
its details are conjectural, there can be little doubt of its general correctness. It will be
remembered, however, that in discussing this restoration I assumed, on somewhat slender
evidence, that the circuit indicated by the extant remains was one and the same circuit, in
spite of differences of date among the remains themselves; and I remarked at the time that
(2) The river bed.
(3) South of the
river.
Summary.
The assumption
confirmed by
results.
24 Cf. §. 2. (1).
G G