TOWERS AND FORTIFICATIONS AT VAYIA IN THE SOUTHEAST CORINTHIA Author(s): William R. Caraher, David K. Pettegrew and Sarah James Source: Hesperia: The Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Vol. 79, No. 3 (July-September 2010), pp. 385-415 Published by: The American School of Classical Studies at Athens Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40981055 . Accessed: 18/03/2014 10:15

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The American School of Classical Studies at Athens is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Hesperia: The Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:15:35 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions HESPERIA 79 (2010) TOWERS AND Pages 385-415 FORTIFICATIONS AT VAYIA IN THE SOUTHEAST CORINTHIA

ABSTRACT

Althoughrural towers have long been central to the discussion of the fortified landscapesof Classical and Hellenistic Greece, the Corinthiahas rarely figured inthe conversation, despite the historical significance of exurban fortifications forthe territory. The authorsof this article report on therecent investigation bythe Eastern Korinthia Archaeological Survey of two towers and associated fortificationsinthe region of Vayia in the southeast Corinthia. By integrating topographicstudy, intensive survey, and architecturalanalysis, they suggest thatthese three sites served to guardan economicallyproductive stretch of - - theCorinthian countryside and to protect or block majormaritime and landroutes into the region.

Recentwork in theeastern Corinthia has expanded our understanding of theeasternmost parts of the area under the control of the Greek polis of Corinth.1To date,however, much of this research has concentrated on the easternpart of theCorinthian Isthmus and thefar southeastern corner

1. An earlyversion of this paper Vayia.Gregory facilitated our work at This paperhas benefitedfrom was presentedat the110th Annual everystep of the way and helpedus conversationson sitewith Timothy Meetingof the Archaeological Institute obtainaccess to thefacilities at Isthmia Gregoryand Yannis Lolos, and from ofAmerica in Philadelphiain 2009. fora finalanalysis of the finds. EKAS commentsby Michael Dixon, Daniel WilliamCaraher and David Pettegrew and theOhio StateUniversity Excava- Pullen,and Thomas Tartaron. The two areresponsible for the final text of this tionsat Isthmiakindly provided mate- anonymousHesperia reviewers provided article;Sarah James prepared and wrote rialequipment for the investigation, thoughtfuland criticalcomments on thecatalogue. Timothy Gregory pro- and participantsfrom both projects ourinterpretations that contributed to a videda preliminaryanalysis of the helpedus to discover,record, and draw morethorough, nuanced, and balanced potteryin 2003,and Kate Pettegrew thesesites in 2001,2003, and 2008. We presentationof the argument. and SusannahVan Horn illustratedthe areespecially grateful to HollyCook, Finally,we aregrateful to Messiah artifacts. JonFrey, Dimitri Nakassis, Kate Pette- Collegefor supporting Pettegrew's We aregrateful to thecodirectors of grew,Lita Tzortzopoulou-Gregory,and researchwith a HumanitiesEnrich- theEastern Korinthia Archaeological AnthoullaVassiliades for advice and mentFund Travel Grant, and the Survey(EKAS), TimothyGregory and assistancein thefield. The 37thEpho- AmericanSchool of Classical Studies Daniel Pullen,and thefield director, reiaof Classical and PrehistoricAntiq- at Athens,where Caraher prepared his ThomasTartaron, for encouraging us to uitiesprovided cooperation and contributionswhile serving as theRhys investigateand publishthe site of Ano encouragement. CarpenterFellow.

© The American School of Classical Studies at Athens

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:15:35 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 386 W. R. CARAHER, D. K. PETTEGREW, AND S. JAMES

Figure 1. Map of the southeastern of the near and its harbor, There has been territory Sophiko Korphos.2 Corinthia,showing modern and less work on the coastline fromthe comparatively rugged stretching ancientsites, and majorroutes. Isthmusto the bay of Frangolimano(Fig. 1). The neglectof this area is W. R. Caraher understandable.Most scholarshave arguedthat the main ancientroad throughthe southeastern Corinthia bypassed this region, proceeding south to the Epidauriaand Argolidalong the inlandroute through the modern villagesof Galataki and Rhytobefore emerging in the fertileplain near Sophiko(Fig. I).3 Even todaythe area near the village of Katakali is rugged country,relatively undeveloped, and lackingin pavedroads. The difficulty in accessingthis area, compared to thewell-trod Isthmus, has contributed to the relativeneglect of its topographyand antiquities. In 2001 and2003, members of the Eastern Korinthia Archaeological Sur- 2. Forthe Isthmus, see Tartaron et al. 2006; Caraher,Nakassis, and vey(EKAS) conductedfieldwork in thisregion, concentrating their activities Pettegrew2006. Forthe area around nearLychnari Bay and the ofVayia (Fig. 2).4 Although the main goal peninsula Korphosand Sophiko,see Dixon 2000; ofthis work was to documentan Bronze siteon the Early Age Vayiapenin- Tartaronet al.,forthcoming. sula,5EKAS alsoconducted an extensivesurvey of the surrounding territory. 3. Fowler1932, pp. 99-101;Wise- The surveyrevealed three significant, undocumented sites with preserved man 1978,p. 127; Dixon 2000,pp. 61- 62. architectureofLate Classicalto Hellenisticdate, which we havecalled Lych- nari Ano and Kato With the of the 4. See Tartaronet al. 2006 foran Tower, Vayia, Vayia. encouragement overviewof the EKAS aimsand directorsof EKAS, TimothyGregory and Daniel Pullen,and a studypermit methods. providedby the Greek Ministry of Culture, we conducteda shortstudy sea- 5. Tartaron,Pullen, and Noller son in 2008 to completethe documentation of theremains at thesesites. 2006.

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:15:35 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions TOWERS AND FORTIFICATIONS AT VAYIA 387

^^^c===H^^c=i^^H Meters N 0 100 200 300 400 500 a

20-m Contours ^^^

L0UrK'Yl LyCBay" Tower ^'' r^^^XVvi ^V *' ''''' / ' ' ^Vayia <^ ' ''/ ^^^X-^i

2. of and Figure Map LychnariBay In thisarticle, we seekto placethese three newly discovered rural theVayia peninsula. W. R. Caraher installationsinto their local context, with the principal aim of providing specificinformation on the Classicaland Hellenisticlandscape of the easternCorinthia. A carefulreading of the local topography, the ceramic artifactsassociated with the sites, and other fortified sites in the Corinthia providesevidence for the military function of these buildings. Moreover, the sitesnear Lychnari Bay reinforce this stretch of the Corinthian countryside as a productiveand strategically important coastal environment and a sig- nificantcorridor for regional communication. In addition to highlighting thesignificance ofthis micro-region for the Corinthian polis, we alsoaim to contributein a smallway to thebroader discussion of the function of ruraltowers and associated installations in antiquity.

TOPOGRAPHY OF THE VAYIA AREA

TheVayia region occupies a key place within communication and travel net- worksbetween Corinth's proximate chora on theIsthmus and its more distantsouthern coastal territory. The rockyspine of Mt. Oneionforms thedramatic southern boundary to the flat plain of the Corinthian Isthmus (Fig.3), stretchingfrom the imposing rock of Acrocorinth to theharbor townof Kenchreaiin theeast. To movesouth by land along the eastern coastof the Corinthia, avoiding both the city of Corinth and the fortifica- tionsnear Kenchreai, would have required crossing Mt. Oneionthrough 6. Stroud1971a; Caraher and theMaritsa pass, fortified during the Late Classical period.6 Once south of Gregory2006. themountain ridge, there were several routes through the rugged country

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:15:35 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 3^8 W. R. CARAHER, D. K. PETTEGREW, AND S. JAMES

Figure3. Mt. Oneion, viewedfrom of thesoutheastern Corinthia that provided access to cultivablevalleys the north(the Isthmus),showing the andunfortified settlements, roads west into the Argolid and south into the Maritsa pass. PhotoD. K. Pettegrew Epidauria,and several natural embayments. The bayof Lychnariis one of thebest natural inlets on thejagged coastof the eastern Corinthia (Fig. 4; cf.Fig. 2). Whileno evidencefor ancientharbor works has beenfound there, its sheltered aspect and flat beachwould have been well suitedfor ancient ships.7 The peninsula knownas Vayiashields the small bay from the east, and the rocky hilltop ofLychnari protects the bay below from the western wind. Lychnari Bay opensinland onto a broadvalley bounded to thenorth and eastby the coastalridge and to the south by the abrupt mountains of the southeastern Corinthianinterior. The valleybottom (Fig. 5) providesrelatively easy passagefrom the vicinity of Lychnari Bay through the nearby village of Katakalinorthwestward to the low hills south of Oneion, the villages of KatoAlmyri, Loutro Elenis, and Galataki, and the ancient settlement of Solygeia(Fig. 1). Continuingnorth and passing to theeast of the low hill ofStanotopi, the countryside opens onto the Isthmus of Corinth and the harbortown of Kenchreai. Immediatelyto theeast of Lychnari Bay, a small,pebbly beach sits at themouth of the Vayia River, a seasonaltorrent that cuts deeply through thecoastal ridge as itdescends from the mountains of the central Corin- thia(Fig. 6; cf.Fig. 2). Walkinginland from this beach, it is easyto reach LychnariBay by following a corridor south of Ano Vayia.8 Turning to the east(Fig. 6), an ascent up the steep but not unmanageable bank of the Vayia Riveraffords access to a 7) thatruns below and to the south 7. Wiseman1978, p. 132. highpass (Fig. 8. This likethe coastal ofthe coastal ofKaki Rachi/Babouri. This leadseastward to hill, penin- height pass sulaand thesmall bay, is locallyreferred thebay of Frangolimano, from which a travelercan proceed inland, past to as Vayia. thefortified Classical site of Ayia Paraskevi and onward toward the valley 9. Wiseman1978, pp. 127-128; ofSophiko and the Epidauria beyond.9 Dixon 2000,pp. 68-70.

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:15:35 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions TOWERS AND FORTIFICATIONS AT VAYIA 3^9

Figure4. LychnariBay and theVayia peninsula,viewed from the west (Lychnaritower). Photo K. R. Pettegrew

5. Land routeto Oneion and Figure This routeto thesoutheast from is more the viewedfrom the east LychnariBay suggestedby Isthmus, thanthe alone:there are stretchesof a narrowbuilt (Ano Vayia).Photo W. R. Caraher topography path ascendingthe eastern side of the Vayia River valley toward a highvalley immediatelyto thesouth of thehill of Kaki Rachi(see Fig. 7). Today thishigh valley is thoroughlyterraced, and olive trees continue to be cul- tivated.A cinderblockfield house shares the valley with two abandoned longhouses in theadvanced stages of collapse. Proceeding east through thepass, the path continues along its northern side where it cuts into the

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:15:35 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 39O W. R. CARAHER, D. K. PETTEGREW, AND S. JAMES

I 1 ^^■zzzz^^m=zh«bi Meters ° 200 400 600 800 20-m Contours 1'000 ' N

^^ SaronicGulf

Figure6. Map showingthe pass that runsfrom Vayia Bay towardFrango- limano Bay.W. R. Caraher

Figure 7. Pass towardKaki Rachi/ Babouri and FrangolimanoBay, viewedfrom the west. Photo W. R. Caraher

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:15:35 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions TOWERS AND FORTIFICATIONS AT VAYIA 39I

pine-covered,southern/inland slopes of the coastal ridge.The courseof thepath itself rarely exceeds a gentleslope and graduallydescends toward the largebay at Frangolimano,keeping largely to the lowerslopes of the coastalridgeline.10 Despite thedensely wooded and ruggedappearance of thecountryside, the pass is easyto traverse,and one can walkfrom Vayia to Frangolimanoin a littleover an hour.It is worthnoting that Peppas has identifieda small rubblefortification of medievaldate on the southern slope of Kaki Rachi,which would have been well suitedto block move- mentalong thisroute.11

ANO VAYIA

The mostextensive remains in theregion of Lychnari and Vayiastand atop thehill (156 masl) thatwe havecalled Ano Vayiato distinguishit fromthe siteof Kato Vayiabelow. The siteconsists of a rectangularcomplex, which is orientednorth-south and constructedof rough polygonal masonry, and a circulartower (Fig. 8). The mostimposing feature of the rectangular com- plexis itswestern wall (Fig. 9), whichis overa meterwide and consistsof two faceswith a roughcobble core. The wall is preservedin threecourses and standsto a heightof 1.20 m. The largeststones in thisface exceed a meterin lengthand show signsof havingbeen workedto fitsnugly with theirneighbors; the inner face of the wall is largelyobscured by the tumble ofthe building, but it was apparentlybuilt of smaller stones. In severalplaces along the courseof thewall, it is clearthat the builderscut back bedrock to forma solidbase forthe building and, in some cases,even incorporated bedrockoutcrops into the lower courses of thewalls themselves. This styleof rough polygonal construction is commonto ruralstruc- turesin the Corinthia.We findsimilar masonry at Kephalari station, the site of Are Bartze,the towersat the Hill of the Windmills,and in the substantialwalls at the site of Ayia Paraskevi.12We can contrastthis typeof wall constructionwith the technique used at the squareStanotopi toweron the easternend of the Oneion ridge,where squared blocks are arrangedin moreor less regularcourses.13 The roughquarry- faced blocks of Stanotopihave morein commonwith the carefulashlar construction used in towersin Attica,the Megarid,and the Aegean islands,and rep- resenta morerefined technique than that seen at Ano Vayia.14 At the westernwall's midwaypoint, there is a breakof slightlyover 2.0 m wherethe bedrockwas clearlytrimmed back to createan entrance to an east-westcorridor between the northernand southernparts of the

10. In recent resincollectors times, wide.Peppas's proposal of a medieval byPeppas are necessarily ancient in usedthis and ofthe datefor path, many pine thewalls, however, must be date,but merely noting that possibility. treesshow scars from this The activity. treatedwith some caution, as it appears We wereunable to locatePeppas's remainsof a roughlybuilt stone basin to be basedalmost exclusively on the fortificationin 2008. for resinindicate that this collecting drystoneconstruction style. Elsewhere 12. Wiseman1978, pp. 128-129; was usedin the 20th path early century, in theCorinthia, it is possibleto date Dixon 2000,pp. 64-65; Dixon 2005. ifnot before. similardrystone walls to theClassical- 13. Stroud1971a, pp. 129-133. 11. Peppas1990, pp. 239-241; 1993, Hellenisticperiod on thebasis of asso- 14. See examplesin Morrisand 136, 2. The modestenceinte p. plan ciatedceramic evidence; we arenot Papadopoulos2005, pp. 157-180; consistsof walls1-1.5 m drystone suggestingthat the walls documented Young1956a.

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:15:35 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 392 w- R. CARAHER, D. K. PETTEGREW, AND S. JAMES

the Classical- The structurenorth of the corridor is in theform of an Figure8. Plan of building(Fig. 8). Hellenisticfortifications at Ano irregularrectangle with its north wall running 8.0 m northeastwardat an Vayia. W. R. Caraherand D. K. Pettegrew obtuseangle from the main western wall to takeadvantage of a natural bedrockterrace and severalsubstantial bedrock outcrops. The northern wallof the northern structure averages 0.75 m in widthand is slightly narrowerthan the western wall. At a point4.20 m alongits length, the northwall is joined by another north-south wall running roughly paral- lel to thewestern wall of thecomplex, forming the eastern side of the structure.The onlyclear evidence for a southwall to thisstructure is a poorlypreserved and simple partition wall (7.60 m fromthe north wall) thatcould not have borne significant weight. At thesouthern end of the eastwall, a narrower(0.52 m) and rougherwall runseast, toward the tower,for slightly over 5.60 m.Unlike other walls at thesite, this wall is constructedofroughly stacked fieldstones.The informal construction style

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:15:35 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions TOWERS AND FORTIFICATIONS AT VAYIA 393

9. Sectionof the western wall Figure andthe absence of stonesallow the thatit a at Ano viewedfrom the north- larger possibility represents Vayia, later in theuse ofthe site.15 west.Photo K. R. Pettegrew phase In contrastto the northern structure, the southern structure appears to be moreregular in plan. Its southern wall forms a neat right angle with the mainnorth-south wall of the building. While its eastern wall is obscured in tumbleand vegetation, enough of its course is visibleto indicatethat it was substantialand well defined. Only the northern wall of the southern structuremanifests the same shoddy construction technique seen in the partitionwall and eastern wall of the northern structure. Its width varies fromless than 0.60 m to 1.0 m.The narrower,western parts of the wall do notpreserve any rubble core, which could indicate a laterphase of rebuildingor modification. The corridorseparating the southern and northernstructures runs eastwardto thefoundation of a roundtower with carefully coursed stones preservedwith roughly cut, curved profiles on theirouter faces (Figs. 8, 16 10). Fromthe visible remains, it appearsthat only the lowest and outer courseof the tower remains in situ,suggesting a structure with a diameter of6.20 m. On thetowers western side, a secondcourse of stones may be preserved,but generally the upper courses of the tower have scattered down thesteep northern and easternslopes of the Ano Vayiahill. The round toweris clearlya componentof the rest of the compound, but the exact 15.Young (1956b, pp. 124-126) architecturalrelationship is unclear. The poorquality of the construction describesa similarwall at theCliff ofthe eastern wall fromthe north structure makes it difficult Towernear Sounion. projecting to determinewhether this wall should be understoodas to the 16.The ofthe towers belonging masonry same as thetower and north-south or as a laterwall foundationis similarto therough phase compound, polygonalstyle of the building to the thatmay have served a purposeentirely unrelated to themain phase of west,but it is morecarefully coursed. constructionon thesite.

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:15:35 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 394 W. R. CARAHER, D. K. PETTEGREW, AND S. JAMES

Figure 10. The towerat Ano Vayia, viewedfrom the southeast. PhotoW. R. Caraher

Intensive Survey

In conjunctionwith the initial mapping of the architectural remains at the sitein 2003, members of the EKAS projectconducted a small-scale inten- sivepedestrian survey of theAno Vayiahill (Fig. 11). The goal of this surveywas to samplematerial from the hill, to determinethe extent of thesite, and to produce a dataset comparable with that collected from the mainEKAS transecton theIsthmus. The lastgoal required that we con- ductour survey of the hill using basically the same technique that EKAS employedelsewhere in thesurvey area. As we haveanalyzed many of the advantagesand limitationsof thismethod elsewhere,17 we willinclude hereonly a summaryof the methods employed and focus instead on the resultsof this survey. The mostsignificant obstacle to conducting survey around the site was 17. Caraher,Nakassis, and Pette- thedense vegetation covering the entire hill. Pine trees with low branches, grew2006; Tartaronet al. 2006.

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:15:35 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions TOWERS AND FORTIFICATIONS AT VAYIA 395

11. the Figure Map showing density in particular,made it impractical, if not impossible, to surveythe entire hill- of artifactsaround Ano Vayia. so we decidedto focusour effortson threetransects the Contourinterval 4 m.W. R. Caraher side, descending slopesto the north,west, and southsides of the hill; the eastern slope was too steepto survey.Consistent with our procedure elsewhere, the survey on Ano Vayiainvolved fieldwalkers at 10-m intervalsexamining the surface 1.0 m to eitherside of theirswath through the unit. The walkerscounted everyartifact and collectedartifacts in accordancewith the principles of the chronotypesampling method. This methoddictated that the fieldwalker shouldcollect one exampleof each uniquetype of artifact. In practice,this meansthat a walkercould collectone exampleof a rim,handle, base, and bodysherd of each fabricor surfacetreatment present in their2-m-wide swaththrough the unit.This methodensured that we would produceat least one exampleof each typeof artifactpresent in the unit,and it also providedan informalindicator of the frequencyor densityof particular typesof artifacts present in a unitbecause the walkers could collect as many as fiveexamples of a singlevessel type.18 18. Fordiscussions of the chrono- To makeour samplea bit morerobust than the typical EKAS survey withinthe context of typesystem transect,we unitsthat were smaller(1,300 m2)than the EKAS, seeTartaron et al. 2006, surveyed slightly EKAS unit size: Smallerunits also suitedthe pp. 457-465; Caraher,Nakassis, and typical (median 2,100 m2). Pettegrew2006, pp. 11-13; Pettegrew geologicaland topographicalcomplexity of the environment.We should 2007,p. 752. note thatwe did not systematicallysurvey the buildingson the site,but

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:15:35 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 396 W. R. CARAHER, D. K. PETTEGREW, AND S. JAMES insteadcollected grab samples of diagnostic artifacts visible amid the tumble withoutdisturbing the basic arrangementof the fallenstones. It is perhapsunsurprising that the densestconcentration of material occurredaround the architectureat the top of the hill and that artifact densitiesdeclined dramatically further down the slope.The unitsimme- diatelyadjacent to thecollapsed buildings showed artifact densities of nearly 2,000 artifactsper hectare; this number is comparableto thegenerally high artifactdensity documented by EKAS acrossthe busyCorinthian Isth- mus.19Relatively poor surfacevisibility and hillslopeerosion may partly accountfor the declining artifact densities on the slopes,but therewas no evidencefor ancient or modern construction on theslopes aside from several modernterraces. Despite thedifficulties encountered in thisenvironment and therelatively coarse resolution of our survey, it is clearthat the material in the immediatevicinity of the collapsedbuildings represents a distinct and localizedphenomenon in the landscape.

Artifacts and Distributional Data

Systematicsurvey of units around Ano Vayiausing the chronotype system produceda totalassemblage of 90 artifacts,which consisted largely of pot- teryand tile(96%); threeobsidian bladelets and a pieceof medieval-modern glasswere the only nonceramic artifacts noted in thesurvey. Approximately 75.6% (n = 68) ofthe artifacts date specificallyto theClassical-Hellenistic period;these artifacts consist mainly of fragments of coarse utilitarian ves- sels,storage jars, and pithoi(Fig. 12; see also Figs. 13, 14,below). Classical- Hellenisticcoarse and medium-coarsepottery accounts for 31.1% of the totalsurvey assemblage (n = 28: 2 rims,5 handles,21 body sherds);some of thesesherds belong to amphorassuch as CorinthianA and B. Pithos fragments(n = 26) constitute28.9% of the totalartifact count and 38.2% of Classical-Hellenisticartifacts. Otherceramic classes of Classical-Hellenistic date are present in small numbers:kitchenware (n = 6) and rooftiles (n = 6) each make up 6.7% of the total artifactcount and 8.8% of the Classical-Hellenisticmaterial, 19. See Caraher,Nakassis, and whiletwo sherds (2.9% ofClassical-Hellenistic) were identified as semifine Pettegrew2006. is tableware.Overall, the Classical-Hellenistic assemblage predominantly 20. rromthe systematic survey, coarsematerial that originated from storage vessels and variousutilitarian theseinclude an Archaic-Classical A shapes,with small quantities of kitchenware,tiles, and fineware. amphora,Corinthian amphora, and medium-coarse BesidesClassical-Hellenistic pottery, the survey also recordeda small pithosfragment, ware. of sherds to eitherthe Archaic-Classical or the percentage(4.4%) dating 21. Sincethese sherds could date to which eitheran earlier broaderArchaic-Hellenistic period,20 represent eitherthe Archaic or Classicalperiod, who phase at the siteor, more probably, were left by the same inhabitants it is impossibleto narrowdown the depositedthe Classical-Hellenistic sherds discussed above.21 In addition, identificationone wayor another. = As discussedin theartifact it is impossibleto knowwith certainty, several pieces (n 7) of catalogue although noneof the material medium-coarseware also derivefrom the same phase; below,however, may occupational collectedlooks and The specificallyArchaic, the materialis clearlyancient, but otherwiseundiagnostic. survey sincethe at thesite = principalsignature unitsalso produceda smallnumber (n 6) of medievaland modernarti- is Classical-Hellenistic,it is reasonable factsthat accounted for 6.7% ofall artifactsanalyzed from the systematic to inferthat these sherds date to the survey. Classicalperiod.

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:15:35 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions TOWERS AND FORTIFICATIONS AT VAYIA 397

Figure12. Typical assemblage of tiles andcoarse ware from Ano Vayia. PhotoK. R. Pettegrew

In orderto supplementthe systematiccollection of artifactsfrom surveyunits on thehillside around the structure, we collectedgrab samples of diagnosticartifacts visible in the architecturalcollapse itself and in the immediatevicinity of the buildings. This secondsample was biasedtoward featuresherds and diagnosticartifacts, with the aim of gatheringas much informationas possibleabout the function and dateof the buildings. The as- semblageof 61 artifactscollected through grab sampling largely mirrors that collectedfrom the systematicsurvey units. The majorityof materialdates to theClassical-Hellenistic span (65.6%, n = 40), withmeager amounts of Archaic-Classicalsherds (14.8%, n = 9), a fewancient coarse-ware sherds and tiles(13.1%, n = 8), and a singlefragment of a hoppermill (probably of Late Classical-Hellenisticdate; see below).Unlike substantial rural domes- ticstructures of Classical-Hellenistic date elsewhere,Ano Vayiaproduced onlya smallnumber (4.9%, n = 3) of laterartifacts in grabsamples.22 The functionalcharacteristics of the Classical-Hellenisticceramic artifacts(n = 40) generallyreflect the Classical-Hellenisticsurvey assem- blage:a largenumber of pithos sherds (32.5%, n = 13) and medium-coarse sherds(22.5%, n = 9), and verysmall amounts of kitchenware (5.0%, n = 2); no tablewaresin fineor semifinefabrics were collected in thegrab sample. The grabsamples confirm the pictureof an overallassemblage consisting mainlyof storageor utilitywares such as pithoiand transportamphoras. The majordifference between the Classical-Hellenisticassemblages producedby the systematic chronotype collection and thegrab sample col- lectionis thatroof tiles constitute the most frequentartifact class (40%, = 22. The Archaic-Classicalpottery n 16) ofthe latter but only 8.8% ofthe former. The relativelylarger num- collectedas includesone grabsamples berof Classical-Hellenistic tiles relates not to samplingmethod but to the CorinthianA amphorahandle and concentrationof tiles in and aroundthe collapsed itself.The tiles eightpithos sherds. Later post-Classi- building collectedas oftotal include16 and Laco- cal materialincludes a Romanamphora grabs(29.5% grabs) plain painted sherd,a Late Romanstewpot fragment, niantiles of Classical-Hellenistic date and twounslipped Corinthian tiles, and a Late Medievalcoarse-ware sherd. datableby fabricto the Archaic-Hellenisticperiod but clearlyassociated

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:15:35 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 398 w- R- CARAHER, D. K. PETTEGREW, AND S. JAMES withthe building. While 18 tilefragments are not very many for a build- ingof this size, their presence at least demonstrates that the structure was roofed.The dearthof roof tiles in andaround the structure reflects either thestripping of tilesfrom the building during or afterabandonment,23 or thatthey still lie buriedbeneath the rubble debris. The appearanceof Laconianand Corinthiantiles together suggests that there might have beenmultiple phases of construction orthat the building was erected less in accordancewith aesthetics and more in linewith practical concerns.

Interpretation of Artifacts and Architecture

The relativelyinformal construction style of the structures on Ano Vayia suggeststhat these buildings represented a less substantial investment in thelandscape than one might expect for a placeof long-term occupation inuse for a generationor more. The assemblagecollected from the struc- tureat Ano Vayia,as wellas fromthe surrounding survey units, comple- mentsthis interpretation in several ways. First, the ceramic material dates primarilyto a singleperiod (Classical-Hellenistic), and the relatively few piecesof Archaic-Hellenistic pottery can probably be associatedwith the sameepisode of occupation. Evidence for later use ofthe site in theLate Roman,Early Medieval, Late Medieval,and Early Modern eras is scant and suggestsoccasional visits to thearea, not episodes of refurbishment andreoccupation. In sum, the architecture atAno Vayia represents a single periodof occupation sometime in theClassical-Hellenistic era that left a discreteconcentration ofmaterial in thecoastal landscape. Second,the artifact assemblage associated with the building is pri- marilyutilitarian in nature.The predominanceoffragments ofpithoi and amphorassuggests that storage was a priorityat thesite, perhaps in order to compensatefor the apparent lack of cisterns at thetop of the hill. The presenceof cookingwares and a smallhopper mill fragment indicates activitiesrelated to foodpreparation. Fine wares are few, represented only inthe survey sample by two body sherds of semifine fabric. The picturewe havefrom ceramic artifacts, then, is oneof low-intensity occupation that leftcomparatively homogeneous debris in thelandscape. The ceramicartifacts suggest that Ano Vayiawas a habitationsite alongthe Corinthian coast, but that the occupation was neither intensive norof long duration. Ano Vayia did not produce the kind of basic ceramic assemblagethat has cometo be associatedwith rural farmsteads in the Greekworld, with their recognizable quantity and diversity of amphoras, kitchenwares,and finewares.24 Nor is theceramic signature at thissite rural seeWhite- 23. Pettegrew2001, pp. 196-202. amphoras,and fineware. Identifying fining farmsteads, and and 24. bee Pettegrew2001 fora sum- an ancientrural building as a farm- law 1998, Bintliff,Howard, wherethe maryof scholarly discussion about steadwill, of course, always be prob- Snodgrass2007, pp. 39-42, authorsobserve that Archaic-Classical farmsteads,problems of definition, and lematic;the character of artifact as- farmsteadsin Kea and Boiotiahave thetypical rural assemblage, and Pette- semblagessays a greatdeal moreabout land withover 50% fineware, grew2002, for the argument that arti- theintensity and investmentof assemblages and also ofkitchen- factscatters representing "farmsteads" use and occupationover time. For ad- highproportions wares. minimallyproduce a varied"package" ditionaldiscussion of the importance ofartifact types such as kitchenware, offine ware and kitchenwarein de-

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:15:35 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions TOWERS AND FORTIFICATIONS AT VAYIA 399

consistentwith typicaldomestic contexts in the Classical period,which showsubstantial quantities of fine-ware vessels and drinkingcups in both urbanand ruralsettings.25 The paucityof fine ware and kitchenwareat Ano Vayiasuggests instead limited rates of ceramicdiscard as well as a meager systemicassemblage of pots and householdwares.26 In short,the ceramic materialmakes Ano Vayialook muchmore like an occasionallyoccupied ruralbuilding than a typicalfamily farm. Archaeologicalinvestigations in the broaderCorinthia can provide usefulpoints of comparison.The typicalsurface signature of Classical- Hellenistichabitation documented by EKAS, whichfocused on thewell- inhabitedIsthmus, consisted of abundant pithoi, amphoras, storage vessels, kitchenwares,and paintedroof tiles; fine wares were especially numerous. The morehomogeneous assemblage at Ano Vayiafinds local parallelswith assemblagesfrom some ofthe small forts and defensiveoutposts of Classi- cal-Hellenisticdate in Corinthianterritory. Wisemans survey of the fort of Mt. Lysiin theGeranian pass, for instance, yielded only coarse-ware sherds and paintedLaconian tiles,27and the watchtowerat Ayios Sostis in the southernCorinthia produced mainly large coarse-ware vessels and painted Laconian tiles,with only small amounts of black-glazedware.28 Closer to theVayia region, the systematic documentation of the Classical-Hellenistic fortificationsin the Maritsapass on Mt. Oneion recordedan assemblage comparableto the assemblages from Ano Vayia:predominantly tile, abundant amphoras(including Corinthian A and B), frequentcoarse ware, infrequent kitchenware,and negligiblefine ware.29 While a fewCorinthian fortification siteshave produced the diverse array of pottery that one wouldexpect from an ancienthabitation,30 this kind of site generally lacks abundant fine wares. There is no singleceramic signature that can distinguisha Corinthian "fortifiedgarrison" from a Corinthian"farmstead," and we can expectthere to be overlapin the typesof signaturesleft by such buildings.Nonethe- less,the ceramicassemblages at sitesidentified as garrisons,guard posts,

25. The of et al. and Foxhall2001. archaeologicalsignature Jones 1973; 29. Caraherand Gregory2006, and 26. One could thatthe brothels,houses, industrialspaces argue site pp. 340-345. was one ofthe themes in therecent was strippedof its occupational as- 30. At theLate Classicaltower and "Housesof 111 The or afterabandon- colloquium Repute: semblageduring enclosureat Stanotopion Mt. Oneion, of and ment,but in leave Archaeology Brothels,Houses, occupationdid, fact, forexample, Stroud (1971a, pp. 130- Tavernsin theGreek World" at the a in theform of numerous signature 131) recordedblack-glazed fine-ware 110thAnnual ofthe Archaeo- coarse-wareand in Meeting pithosfragments vessels(oinochoe, skyphoi, kantharoi), Instituteof America in Philadel- and aroundthe structure. Since fine logical CorinthianA and B amphoras,Corin- In that Kath- wareand are phia(2009). colloquium, cookingware, moreover, thiantiles, and paintedLaconian roof leen discusseda Late Archaic muchmore thancoarse wares to Lynch likely tiles,although this diversity can be ex- Athenianhousehold com- and we assemblage, fragment generatesherds, plainedby longer use or moreinten- itwith the rural Dema and Vari wouldhave to findsome paring expected siveoccupation. In his examinationof a housesas wellas withurban houses at sherdsfrom these wares at thebuild- Late Classicalfortified garrison station 2009). One conclu- ifit had been fora Olynthos(Lynch ing occupied signifi- at KephalariStation, located on a pass sionof that and in theen- cant oftime. The offine paper, fact, length rarity leadingfrom Ayios Vasilios in theCo- tire was thatfine and wareand kitchenwaremost session, wares, likelyrep- rinthiato Mycenae,Wiseman (1978, are resents and specificallydrinking cups, propor- sporadicoccupation not pp. 118-120) recordednumerous sur- dominantin Archaicand intensivedomestic habitation. tionally facesherds, including coarse wares and Classicaldomestic See 27. Wiseman 20-22. assemblages. 1978,pp. severaltypes of fine wares (e.g., Corin- alsoJones, Sackett, and Graham 28. Wiseman 114-116. 1962; 1978,pp. thian,Argive, and black-glazedAttic).

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:15:35 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 4OO W. R. CARAHER, D. K. PETTEGREW, AND S. JAMES and fortsdo tend to be simplerand moreuniform than those foundin specificallydomestic contexts (with their diverse array of fine ware). Or, to putit anotherway, Corinthian fortifications typically produce less diverse and robustceramic signatures because theyrepresent less intensiveand shorter-termepisodes of habitationin the landscapethan is typicallythe case forfarmsteads. In lightof these observations,we can associatethe assemblagefrom Ano Vayiamore closely with the assemblagesof Clas- sical and Hellenisticmilitary buildings and fortsin the Corinthiathat have a predominantlycoarse-ware signature and provideevidence for short-termoccupation and use. As we arguebelow, however, this inter- pretationof Ano Vayiaas a kindof garrisonbuilding finds support from additionalforms of evidence,such as the natureof othersites in the area, Corinthiantopography, and the generalcontext of 5th-4th- century b.c. Corinthianhistory.

Catalogue

The originalstudy of theAno Vayiaceramics in 2001 and 2003 by mem- bers of EKAS placed most of the materialwithin the broad periodsof Archaic-Classicalor Archaic-Hellenistic.In 2008, a restudyof the pot- terywas undertakenby SarahJames, resulting in the followingcatalogue. The itemsincluded in the catalogueare intendedto representthe overall assemblagein termsof chronologyand rangeof typesusing the available data.The catalogueis based on a small sampleof artifactsbrought back to theIsthmia Excavation House. Many otherartifacts that were analyzed accordingto chronotypeprocedures (see above) wereleft in the field,and forthese we retainedthe date and identificationassigned at the timeof the originalanalysis; they were not partof thisrestudy. As notedabove, the assemblageis markedby the presenceof a large pithos (with fournonjoining pieces) and severalamphoras. The pithos (4) rimprofile and fabrichave tentativelybeen identifiedas datingto the Hellenisticperiod. A predominanceof CorinthianB amphorasherds and handlessupports a datefrom the 5th to 3rdcentury b.c. Additionalchrono- logicalindicators are the numerous roof tiles, which are the typical Classical- Hellenistictype (6), and thefragment of an andésitehopper mill slab (8). Hoppermills are most common in the4th-3rd century b.c. in theCorinthia andArgolid, which suggests a Hellenisticdate for this piece.31 In thevirtual absenceof fine ware, it is difficultto datethis material more precisely than to withina coupleof centuries. Note thatall cataloguemeasurements are in meters.

1 Cookingpot Fig-13 7615-510.RL. 0.054,est. Diam. (rim)0.120. 31. Karduliasand Runnels1995, Medium-coarseyellowish red (5YR 4/6) claywith frequent small-large pp. 110,121. More generally,hop- silver inclusions, largewhite angular inclusions, and few large sparkling frequent permills were in use throughoutthe voids. Aegeanfrom the late 5th century to Ancient the1st century b.c., but they were most popularin theEarly Hellenistic period; 2 Laconiancover tile see,e.g., Pulak et al. 1987,pp. 41-42, 11. 7612-4.Max. près. dim. 0.059. no. HW 38, figs.10,

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:15:35 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions TOWERS AND FORTIFICATIONS AT VAYIA 4OI ^T~ r Figure13. Potteryfrom Ano Vayia: cookingpot 1, CorinthianA am- phora3, and pithos4. Scaleca. 1:4. K. R. S. Van Drawings Pettegrew, Horn, ' andW.R.Caraher 4 '

Figure14. Artifactsfrom Ano Vayia. Clockwisefrom upper left: pithos 4, hoppermill fragment 8, Corinthian pan tile7, CorinthianA amphora3. PhotoA. Porter

Medium-coarseyellow-red clay (5YR 5/6) withfew small to medium-sized black and white inclusionsand rare sparklinginclusions. Worn black paint on exteriorand edge. Archaic-Classical

3 Corinthian A amphora Figs. 13, 14 7615-507. Th. (body) 0.010. Coarse reddishyellow (7.5YR 7/6) claywith a darkgray core. Rare medium to verylarge angular gray and browninclusions and rarevery large voids. Cf. examplein Koehler1978, pl. 14, no. 12. Mid- 6th centuryb.c.

4 Pithos pigs. 13, 14 7615-501. Est. Diam. (rim) 0.50, Th. (body) 0.022. brown Coarse, verypale clay (10YR 7/4) with commonlarge to verylarge red angular inclusionsand manyvoids in its pocked surface.Squared rim. Hellenistic?

5 Table amphora 7615-517. Est. Diam. (rim)0.20, max.près. dim. 0.034 x 0.051. Medium-coarse,pale yellow (2.5Y 7/4) fabricwith few small to medium black and red inclusions. Classical-Hellenistic

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:15:35 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 4-O2 W. R. CARAHER, D. K. PETTEGREW, AND S. JAMES

6 PaintedLaconian tile Figure 15 (opposite,top). The Lych- nari viewedfrom the north. 7614-502. RL. 0.107, p.W. 0.074, Th. (edge) 0.021, Th. (body) 0.017. tower, PhotoK. R. Pettegrew Coarse reddishyellow (7.5YR 8/6) fabric,pocked and eroded.Frequent me- diumto largered and whiteinclusions. Worn black paint. Slightly thickened edge. Figure 16 (opposite,bottom). Plan Classical-Hellenistic of the Classical-Hellenistictower at W. R. Caraherand D. K. 7 Corinthian tile 14 Lychnari. pan Fig. Pettegrew 7605-1. P.L. 0.158, p.W. 0.094, Th. 0.025. Coarse,pale brownfabric (10YR 7/4),cracked and pocked.Frequent very large black and grayinclusions with rare, angular, red and whiteinclusions. Archaic-Hellenistic.

8 Hopper mill Fig. 14 7612-502. P.L. 0.07, Th. 0.03. Lower slab fragmentwith diagonally incised lines. Andésite from Nisyros. Cf. Pulak et al. 1987, pp. 41-42, no. HW 38, figs.10, 11. Probably4th-3rd century b.c.

LYCHNARI TOWER

The second site documentedby EKAS lies on the hill of Lychnari,im- mediatelyto thewest of the bay with the same name (Figs. 6, 15-17). On its easternside, some 20 m to the southeastof a geodeticmarker, are the remainsof anotherround tower. Like the fortificationsat Ano Vayia,the towerhas coursed,rough polygonal masonry that includes stones of mas- sive size. The walls are verywell preserved,with an outerface of larger stonesand an innerface of smaller,but stillsubstantial, stones and witha cobble corebetween the faces.The outerface is traceablefor two-thirds ofthe circuit and measuresover 8.0 m in diameter,with walls over a meter in width.The innerface stands to a greaterheight than the outer face and givesthe remains the appearance of a weddingcake's stepped construction. There is no reason,however, to thinkthat this reflects the originaldesign of the tower,as the top coursesof the outerface are not finishedand in severalplaces reachthe same heightas the innerface. Unfortunately,the preservedwalls have a maximumheight of only 1.5 m (Fig. 17), so littlecan be said regardingthe originalelevation of thetower. Youngs informalestimate of heights for these towers, however, suggeststhat their height could be 2-2.5 timestheir diameter.32 If thisis even a roughindicator, the towermay have stood to over15 m in height. Some indicationof the originalheight of the towermight come fromthe low moundof materialassembled around the base of the nearbygeodetic marker.The markerstands ca. 2 m high on an artificialmound of earth and largestones. Among these stonesare numerousblocks of pink and around grayconglomerate. It seemsprobable that these stones were piled theartificial mound for the geodetic marker both to preventerosion and to elevatethe markerabove thelevel of the ruinedtower. If thesecut blocks originallycame fromthe tumbleof the nearbytower, they would suggest 134-135. thatthe towerstood to a considerableheight. 32. Young1956b, pp.

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:15:35 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions TOWERS AND FORTIFICATIONS AT VAYIA 403

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:15:35 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 4O4 W. R. CARAHER, D. K. PETTEGREW, AND S. JAMES

17. Sectionof the tower wall Anotherfeature of thistower is worth The tumblethat fills Figure noting. at Lychnari,viewed from the south- thecentral part of the tower forms a smallrounded depression (1.0 x 0.60 west.Photo W. R. Caraher x 0.30 m). Similarfeatures have been notedin otherrubble structures in the Corinthia.A possibleparallel to thisdepression is foundin the cairns documentedby Dixon near the harborof Korphos some 10 km to the southof Lychnari.33Dixon suggestedthat these features could be hollows thatserved as bases forherms or stelaimarking the borderbetween the Corinthiaand the Epidauriaduring the Hellenisticperiod.34 Across the bay of Lychnari,however, EKAS teamsnoted similardepressions in the cairnson the ridgeof Vayia,which have been dated to the EarlyBronze Age on thebasis ofmaterial embedded in thecairns and themeasurement of'rillenkarren on the stones.35The cairnsat both Korphosand Vayiavary in diameterfrom 5 to 10 m, as do the centraldepressions. Considering the differencesin size, function,and date among the cairns,for now we can onlyregard this common feature on a case-by-casebasis; at Lychnari, the depressionin the centeralmost certainly relates to a postdepositional processthat caused stonesto be removedafter the tower'scollapse. The towerat Lychnarican be datedto theClassical-Hellenistic period on the basis of potteryembedded in the building'stumble (Fig. 18) and scatteredaround the generalarea. The assemblage,which due to permit restrictionswe could not document in detail, included fragmentsof 33. Dixon 2000,pp. 87-89. Corinthiantiles, and tiles.36This pithoi,amphoras, painted chronologi- 34. Dixon 2000,p. 89. cal rangewould be consistentwith the roughpolygonal masonry style, 35. Tartaron,Pullen, and Noller and we can note forcomparanda a similartower documented by Lolos 2006,p. 151. at the site ofTsakouthi in Sikyonia.37The Tsakouthitower is 8.30 m in 36. We observedonly one later ceramic in the ofthe diameter,with a double wall 1.30 m in width.Like the fragment vicinity approximately a Broneer XXVIIA towerat theTsakouthi tower was builtin a rusticconstruction tower, type lamp Lychnari, (latelst-early 2nd centurya.D.); see withfew drafted and a combinationof and style, edges rough polygonal CorinthIV.2, pp. 90-102. trapezoidalblocks. Lolos datesthis tower on thebasis of itsconstruction 37. Lolos 1998,pp. 233-234. styleand the artifactsin the area to afterthe 5th centuryb.c.38 38. Lolos 1998,p. 234.

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:15:35 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions TOWERS AND FORTIFICATIONS AT VAYIA 405

Figure18. Typical assemblage of tiles andcoarse ware from Lychnari. PhotoK. R. Pettegrew

KATO VAYIA

The finalgroup of architectural remains that is likelyto dateto theClas- sical-Hellenisticperiod is locatedat KatoVayia on theVayia peninsula, whichprojects northwestward into the SaronicGulf and sheltersthe easternside of the harbor of Lychnari (Figs. 4, 19,20). The remainson thepeninsula are so poorlypreserved that it is notpossible to determine theircomplete plan. They exist amid a scatterof ceramicmaterial that is verysimilar to theutilitarian and coarsematerial found around Ano Vayiaand the tower at Lychnari.Moreover, the rubble construction style is similarto thatof the fortifications documented at bothStanotopi and on theheights of Mt. Oneion. The mostclearly defined features at KatoVayia are a seriesof long rubblewalls and extensivepiles of tumble. The best-preservedwall runs fornearly 40 mfrom southeast to northwest, curving slightly to follow the naturalcontours of the ridge and bounding the western side of the level areaalong the top of the Vayia peninsula. This western wall is constructed ofunworked, local gray limestone stacked in irregular courses to form two facesapproximately a meter apart, with cobble fill between the faces. The stretchof tumble eventually emerges as anotherclearly defined wallextending for close to 50 m,east to west, across the northern side of theridge (see Fig. 20). Likethe western wall, this wall follows the contours ofthe ridge and runsimmediately above the steep slope that forms the northernside of the ridge. Unlike the western wall, however, this wall is morecarefully articulated, showing clear right-angle turns that suggest buildingsor rooms amid long stretches of tumble. The mostwell-defined structureoccurs about midway along the northern wall, where a small,ir- regularlyshaped building projects 3-3.5 m to thesouth. The wallsof this smallstructure are 0.75 m wideand of the same construction style as the wallselsewhere on theridge. About 4 m to theeast of this building, the east-westwall takes a sharpturn toward the north and, after another 4 m, returnsagain to the east. It ispossible that the small building in conjunction

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:15:35 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 4°6 W. R. CARAHER, D. K. PETTEGREW, AND S. JAMES

Figure 19. Typicalsection of rubble wall at Kato Vayia,viewed from the west.Photo W. R. Caraher withthis abrupt zigzag in thewalls coursecould represent an entranceto an enclosureon thetop of theridge, although its western and southernsides arepoorly preserved and itseastern wall is representedonly by an extensive scatterof tumbled9Three walls of similarconstruction style mark out the remainsof another small building measuring approximately 3.0 x 7.0 m in size,which abutted the northern side ofthe southern wall ofthe enclosure. While it is impossibleto offera definitiveinterpretation of thiscom- plexof walls at Kato Vayia,the uniformity of the ceramicsassociated with 39. The densevegetation and carpet of needlesobscure the course of the structuresand the extensivesystem of rubblewalls again suggesta pine theeastern wall. The onlyplace where fortificationofthe Classical-Hellenistic period. The closestanalogy in the theremains are clearly articulated is on Corinthiafor this kind of informal construction are the walls on Stanotopi thesouthern side of the ridge. and Oneion,which are similarly constructed of rubble masonry and situated 40. Caraherand Gregory2006; atop strategicallysignificant heights.40 Stroud1971a.

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:15:35 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions TOWERS AND FORTIFICATIONS AT VAYIA 4°7

0 ' 10 20 30 ^^40 50 a SG

' L^-^" ^s. | ¿*^^

* ' (ii iiti/

e° - 1 "~'~ i ---_.__ "--., mini Possible Wall ~~"~~ ■-■----___ "'-.^ >T»T> Tumble " Wall ^ 4-m Contours

Figure20. Plan ofthe Classical- Hellenisticfortifications at Kato DISCUSSION: FUNCTION, TOPOGRAPHY, Vayia. W. R. Caraherand D. K. Pettegrew AND HISTORY

Over thelast several decades, regional programs of archaeological research havepopulated the Greek countryside with Classical and Hellenisticfarm- steads,buildings, monuments, and places associatedwith the ephemeral activitiesof rural life. Among the most debated types of sites are rural tow- ers,which recent scholarship has associatedwith guard stations and com- municationbeacons, fortified farms, and outpostsfor intensive agricultural activitiessuch as slave-drivenmining endeavors.41 In these assessments, outlinedin the recentsweeping study by Morris and Papadopoulos,42 Corinthiansites have remainedconspicuously absent. This reflectsthe paucityof towersin the Corinthiancountryside as well as the difficult natureof the written sources for the regions economy, settlement structure, and militaryorganization. Despite the absenceof scholarlydiscussion on

41.The worksof Young and Fracchia studyof towers in theArgolid: Young (pp. 157-167),the authors propose establishedthe basic criteria for as- 1956a,1956b; Fracchia 1985. See also thatmany rural towers served to house sessingthe function of tower sites in Osborne1986, 1992. slaveswho worked with high-labor theGreek countryside. Young focused 42. Morrisand Papadopoulos2005. and high-valuecrops such as vines,or hiswork on towersin southeastern In additionto synthesizingand com- in minessuch as thosein southeastern Atticaand theisland of Siphnos,and pilingresearch on a widevariety of Attica. Fracchiaextended his argumentsto her Greektowers and ruralinstallations

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:15:35 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 4O8 W. R. CARAHER, D. K. PETTEGREW, AND S. JAMES ruralinstallations in theCorinthia, it is neverthelessclear from epigraphic sourcesand also froma growingbody of data producedby archaeological surveysthat Corinthians did livein thecountryside, often at somedistance fromthe urbancore of Corinth.43 The fortificationsnear Vayia and Lychnaricontribute to our under- standingof the Corinthiancountryside as well as to the broadertopic of fortifiedrural structures in Greece.A carefulexamination of the remains at Vayia and aroundLychnari Bay offersseveral reasons for concluding thatthese sitesfunctioned to guardthis agriculturallyrich and strategi- callysignificant stretch of the Corinthiancoastland. These argumentsare based upon the associatedartifact assemblage, architectural design of the buildings,and theirplace withinthe local topography. As we have alreadyseen, the artifactassemblage from Ano Vayia indicateslow-intensity habitation in thecountryside. The Lychnaritower and the rubblefortification at Kato Vayia also producedceramic objects consistentwith this assessment. The sitesmay have accommodatedsome short-liveddomestic activities, but these were not sustained or permanent. Most critically,the sites near Vayia producedceramic assemblages that bearlittle resemblance to thosefrom long-term rural habitations identified elsewherein the Corinthiaor to thosefrom typical Classical-Hellenistic farmsteadsin Greece.On the otherhand, the artifactsfrom these build- ingsdo have immediatecomparisons with material from Corinthian sites identifiedas fortificationsand towers.For this reason, along with the reasons discussedbelow, we favorinterpreting the sitesat Vayia as buildingsfor smallgarrisons around Lychnari Bay. The location of these towersin the local topographyprovides ad- ditionalreason to concludethat they were principally used forprotection and defenserather than domesticand agriculturalenterprises. At the highestpoint in theirlandscapes, the Lychnariand Ano Vayia towers (Fig. 2) werenot positionedto facilitatethe economicexploitation of the local landscape.The towersare some distanceremoved from tillable land and cannottherefore be easilyunderstood as partof intensiveagricultural investment(e.g., viticulture) or the kindof intensivecultivation necessary - to supportrural industries such as mining as scholarshave positedfor towersin otherparts of the Greek world.44 Indeed, throughout the eastern Corinthia,the EKAS projectdemonstrated that Classical-Hellenistic rural habitationtends to be concentratedon the mostagriculturally productive land (e.g., the plain of the Isthmus)rather than on moremarginal lands (e.g.,the lower slopes of Oneion).45In thisrespect, it is interestingto note thelack of substantial Roman reuse of the sites of Lychnari and Ano Vayia,

see and 43. Forarguments based largely on 44. Generally,see Morrisand Papa- Isthmus, Caraher,Nakassis, Tartaron epigraphicaland literaryevidence, see dopoulos2005. Moreover,a number Pettegrew2006, pp. 14-21; 494-513. See also Stroud1968; Salmon1984, pp. 413- oftowers in theArgolid and southern et al. 2006,pp. of 419; Stanton1986; Dixon 2000, Corinthiado notoccupy advantageous Caraheret al. 2009,for discussion thedistributional data in the of pp.291-293. Forrecent discussions of or superiortopographic positions; see, valley where Classicalsettlement in theeastern Co- e.g.,Lord 1938,1939; Lord,Frantz, Lakka Skoutara,near Sophiko, is com- rinthia,see Caraher,Nakassis, and Pet- and Roebuck1941; Hjohlman,Pent- Classical-Hellenisticmaterial monin the but below tegrew2006, pp. 14-21;Tartaron et al. tinen,and Wells 2005. valleyitself, stops the 2006,pp. 494-513; Caraheret al. 2009. 45. ForClassical settlement on the slopes.

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:15:35 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions TOWERS AND FORTIFICATIONS AT VAYIA 409

which could indicatethat later inhabitants viewed the locationof these buildingsas too marginalfor agricultural exploitation.46 The locationsof the Lychnariand Ano Vayiastructures in no way excludetypical agricultural - - activities as thepresence of the hopper mill fragment suggests butthese buildingswere clearly not positionedto maximizesuch activity. The visibilityof thesetowers also complicatestheir identification as fortifiedhomesteads for family farms. While theirpositions on top of the Lychnariand Ano Vayiaridges afforded commanding views of the land- scape,they also increasedtheir visibility and vulnerability from the principal land and maritimeroutes that they overlooked (see below). If the func- tion of thesetowers was solelyfor local landownersto protecttheir own humanor materialproperty, there are moreobvious locations that would have providedbetter views toward the land withless exposureto danger fromthe sea. We can contrastthe towers near Lychnari with the pyramidal towersin theArgolid, which, as Fracchiaobserved, lacked the kind of com- mandingview appropriatefor a watchtower.Notably, the towersin the Argolid also differedin the presenceof dense scattersof ceramicsand agriculturalprocessing equipment consistent with rural habitation.47 The locationof the towers and buildingsat Vayia,however, does make senseif they functioned as militaryinstallations guarding agricultural land, transportationcorridors, and coastalzones. The Lychnaritower is located at thetop of the Lychnarihill and seemsto be positionedto overlookthe bay and the northerncoast of the Corinthia(Figs. 4, 5), while the Ano Vayia toweroverlooks the pass fromFrangolimano as well as the Vayia Rivervalley (Figs. 6, 7). Indeed, both towerswere clearlyintervisible (Figs. 2, 6) and presumablywere placed to work togetherto monitor activitiesin the area of Lychnariand Vayia.The towerat Ano Vayia overlookedmovement through the pass fromFrangolimano as well as agriculturalland to the south,but the heightof the coastalridge of Kaki Rachi compromisedits view of the northerncoast of the Corinthiaand theSaronic Gulf islands. The toweron Lychnari,in contrast,did notoffer a clearview of thepass butprovided a good view of the northerncoast of the Corinthia,including most of the SaronicGulf and islands.Together, the fortificationscould have functioned to hinder,block, or prevent enemy passagethrough two of thebest natural harbors of the easternCorinthia, Lychnariand Frangolimano. In thisrespect, we see twoplausible purposes served by the structures at LychnariBay. The firstis thatthe towersfunctioned within a broader systemof Corinthiandefense aimed at preventingsystematic incursion intothe Corinthian chora by guarding or evenblocking significant land and maritimetransportation routes. Small garrison units stationed at Lychnari 46. (Late) Romanreuse of rural and over90% oflarger sites) show evi- Classical-Hellenisticbuildings and dencefor Roman-period reuse. The towersis commonin very Greece reuseof sites is notonly economically generally(see Hjohlman,Penttinen, sensible,as it continuesthe material andWells 2005; Pettegrew2006) and investmentin buildingson theland, in theCorinthia specifically, where the butit maintainsand renewssocial ties majorityof Classical-Hellenistic sites to placesover centuries. ofEKAS units = (75% [n 561 of 750] 47. Fracchia1985, p. 688.

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:15:35 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 4IO W. R. CARAHER, D. K. PETTEGREW, AND S. JAMES orAno Vayiawould, of course, have been no matchfor a full-scaleinvading army,but theycould at least have communicatedwith forces positioned closer to the Isthmus(at Stanotopi,Oneion, and Kenchreai,and even Acrocorinth)and therebyprovided an earlywarning signal of imminent dangerto land closerto Corinth.48Since theseother sites lacked a clear view of the baysalong the southerncoast of the Corinthia,the towersat LychnariBay could have provideda firstwatch. While it maybe hardto imaginean invadingarmy choosing this route for an attackon Corinth,it would have been foolishto leave the pass unguarded,for a forcelanding at Lychnarior Frangolimanoand movingwest into Corinthianterritory wouldhave been completelyhidden by the coastal heights and out ofview of Corinthianpositions near Oneion and the Isthmus. The roleof towers in guardingpasses and establishingregional military communicationnetworks iswell documented in nearbyregions of the Greek mainland.49Ober and Munn haveboth shownhow ruraltowers in Attica belongedto networksof routes,towers, and fortifiedsites that functioned togetherfor local defensein the Late Classical world.50Recently, Lolos and Marchandhave demonstrated the close link between towers and roads, arguingthat city-states used towersto controltraffic through the country- side.51As notedabove, Lolos documenteda toweratTsakouthi in Sikyonia thatis similarin size and constructiontechnique to theround tower on the heightof Lychnari; he arguedthat it overlookeda significantroadway link- ingthe Sikyonian plain to theregion around Stymphalos.52 In these contexts, ruraltowers functioned mainly as signalstations across the countryside, connectingmilitary forces, rural communities, and polis centersseparated by long distancesand rockyterrain. The impressiveviews affordedthe Lychnariand Ano Vayiatowers must have extendedthe influenceof any forcestationed in thefortifications on theVayia peninsula. The fortificationsofVayia and Lychnarialso findgood parallelsin Co- rinthian(and theirallies') effortsto guard or block vulnerablepasses in the mountainousregions of Corinth.Wiseman, Smith,and othershave associateda networkof towerswith the road networkthat passes from thesouthern Megarid into the Corinthiavia eitherthe Kaki Skala or over passesthrough Mt. Geraneia.53Further south, the large and complexforti- fiedsite of Ayia Paraskevi, near the modern village of Sophiko,overlooks a fertileplain and severalmajor lines of communicationand travelthrough the southeasternCorinthia.54 While this site could representa fortified outpostfor a villageof the Corinthianinterior, its positionalso suggests a militaryfunction not unlikethat of the "borderforts" along the Attic- Boiotianfrontier.55 Similarly, the impressivearray of rubblefortifications haveallowed it to monitor 48. Wiseman1978, p. 58. Marchand2009, pp. 130-137. whichwould its more see 49. Althoughthe military interpre- 52. Lolos 1998,pp. 233-234. neighborhood effectively; Drxon2005. Forthe "border forts" of tationhas beencritiqued and has often 53. Wiseman1978, p. 17; Smith Atticaand see Ober 1983, beenreplaced by agricultural explana- 2008,pp. 24-25. ForGeraneia, see Boiotia, tions,it stillworks well for certain Wiseman1978, pp. 24-26; Smith2008, 1985,1987a, 1987b; Cooper 1986, and Munn 1993. regions.For summary of recent work, pp. 31-32. 2000; Camp 1991; ForCorinthian tribes and see see Morrisand Papadopoulos2005, 54. See n. 2, above. trittyes, thatthe for- Stroud Salmon1984, 413- pp. 157-167. 55. Thereis evidence 1968; pp. 1986. 50. Ober 1985;Munn 1993. tificationat AyiaParaskevi even had 419; and Stanton 51. See Lolos 1998,pp. 242-244; peripheralfortification in the area,

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:15:35 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions TOWERS AND FORTIFICATIONS AT VAYIA 4II

alongthe ridge of Oneion mustrepresent efforts to controlpassage across the easternridge of the mountainand throughthe ruggedinterior of the - Corinthia evenif those walls should represent a temporary occupation by a foreignpower.56 In thisrespect, it is worthnoting the frequency of Clas- sical-Hellenisticrural towers and buildingsof militaryfunction at higher elevationsin the easternCorinthia. Such a consistentpattern highlights theclose connectionof the region with travel corridors and theinterest in guardingits territory.Whether this impetus for fortifying the southeast Corinthiawas essentiallycentralized (from the stateof Corinthitself) or decentralized(depending on groupsof local landowners)is beyondthe thresholdof our evidence. A second plausiblepurpose served by the fortificationsin the Vayia regionmay have been to housesmall garrisons stationed to provideimmedi- ate and effectiveresponse to small-scaleraids and banditryon agricultural landswest of the bay. In thisscenario, soldiers stationed in fortifiedcamps such as that at Kato Vayia could have forestalledopportunistic raiding episodes thatwould damage local agriculturalendeavors and domestic facilitiessuch as farmsand storagefacilities. Protection of thissort would have been particularlyimportant during certain seasons, such as the late springgrain harvest and the late fallolive harvest.57We can also expect thatsuch fortificationscould have providedprotection both for and from forcesengaged in navalactivities in the SaronicGulf (see below). Use ofthe site at Kato Vayiato housegarrisons makes sense in viewof theinformal yet substantial rubble walls found there. The sitefinds parallels withthe so-calledfortified camps in Atticadocumented by McCredie,58 such as the hastilyfortified positions at Koroni.59Both Koroniand Vayia standon a coastalpeninsula with easy access to a protectednatural embay- ment,and in construction,both share a casematestyle of architecture with smallrooms constructed in drystonemasonry stacked against a fortification wall.60While theprecise function of the substantial fortified site of Koroni is disputed,61the small size and informalconstruction style of the Vayia fort wouldfit McCredie's criteria for fortified camps. A forcestationed at Kato Vayiawould havebeen able to respondquickly to smallforces attempting to come ashorein LychnariBay or the VayiaRiver delta or pass through thevalley from the east. The imprecisedates for the ceramic material at Vayiaand thepaucity of literarysources that deal directlywith Corinthian affairs during the Classical and Hellenisticperiods make it difficultto do morethan speculate on the occasionfor the constructionof the fortifications.62On the one hand,the

56. Stroud Caraherand 1971a; fortificationson both Oneion and ancillarywalls seems more appropri- 2006. Gregory Stanotopl.This patterncould suggest ate ifwe considerthis building to 57. Morrisand short-term Papadopoulos2005, responseto someemergency havebeen occupied episodically rather 158-163. pp. or strainedmilitary or politicalcircum- thanin a systematicor consistent 58. McCredie 1966. stances.The evidencefor later repair fashion. 59. Vanderpool,McCredie, and or modificationis evenmore informal 61. See Lauter-Bufe1989; Caraher 1962. than Steinberg thatfor the building's original and Gregory2006, p. 347. 60. The absenceof evidence for construction,suggesting that the ad hoc 62. See commentsin Stroud1971a, stonesto fitin thewall trimming may natureof the structure carried through pp. 139-145; 1971b;Caraher and indicate constructionat both its hasty entirelife span. The shoddycon- Gregory2006, pp. 345-347. Koroniand Vayia,comparable to the structionof the apparent repairs and

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:15:35 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 412 W. R. CARAHER, D. K. PETTEGREW, AND S. JAMES coarsearchaeological dating means that the fortifications discussed in this articlecan onlybe broadlydated to the 5th to 3rd centuriesb.c., and may havebeen used and developedepisodically over these three centuries. It is possible,then, that more than one ofthe scenariosproposed here apply to the siteas it was used overtime. On the otherhand, the general dearth of textualevidence for exurban activities provides the greatestchallenge for anyscholar intent on advancingan argumentabout the function of towers in theGreek countryside. Textual evidence can providesuitable background - - contexts contemporarypolitical or militaryconditions againstwhich the archaeologicalremains stand out. Despite thelack of specificity in thetextual sources, we do havea body offragmentary literary evidence that provides potential context for the in- formalrural fortifications documented around Lychnari Bay. Throughout the Classical and Hellenisticperiods, there were numerousopportunities and reasonsto erectfortifications along the Saronic Gulf. In the5th century, thesesites protected the Corinthian coast against opportunistic raids by sea, suchas theAthenian sack of Solygeiain 425 b.c.,which demonstrated the vulnerablestate of Corinthian territory south of the Isthmus.63 Thucydides also describesa clash in 412 b.c. betweenAthenian and Peloponnesian forcesin the SaronicGulf at the desertedharbor of Speiraion,north of the Corinthia-Epidauriafrontier.64 In that account, Athenian naval forces stationedon a Saronicisland followed a Peloponnesianfleet of three dozen ships,attacking them in theharbor and on thebeach. The Peloponnesians despairedof guarding their ships in sucha desertedplace, and evenconsid- eredburning them, but eventually resolved to pulltheir entire fleet high onto drylandand stationtheir troops nearby. Corinthians and otherneighboring inhabitantsarrived the followingday to reinforcethem, and the Pelopon- nesianfleet shortly thereafter made a sallyand escapedto Kenchreai.While therewould be problemsin identifyingSpeiraion with Vayia,65 this account suggestsanother possible scenario for the origin of fortified garrisons along the southernCorinthian coast, and showsthe way in whichneighboring 63. For Solygeia,see Thuc. 4.42- troops(rcpóoxcopoi) were useful for defending even relatively isolated harbors. 45; Fowler1932, pp. 97-99; Stroud 1994, 269-280;Wiseman By the4th century, Corinth was fullyengaged in thetumultuous poli- 1971b; pp. 1978, 56-58. ticsof internecinewarfare, and the movementof troopsthrough Corin- pp. 64. Thuc. 8.10-15,20. See Wise- thian demonstratedboth the of the choraand territory vulnerability city's man 1978,pp. 136-140; Salmon the In for the need to fortifyspecific corridors through territory. 370/69, 1984,pp. 5-7, 336-338; Stroud1994, example,Theban troopsunder Epaminondaspassed easilythrough the pp.297-299; Dixon 2000,pp. 77-78. 65. Wiseman and easternpart of the Corinthia.66In 366, the Argivegeneral Peisias moved (1978,p. 140) Salmon haveidentified from to the ofOneion therolling hills north (1984,pp. 5-7) troops Argos heights through withthe harbor of a viableroute from the that Speiraion Korphos, of Solygeia,showing (and into) Péloponnèse furtherto thesouth. Dixon (2000, concentrationof Corinthian fortifications around bypassedthe traditional p. 78) has suggestedthat the neighbor- of the polis center.67Such exampleshighlight how the regularmovement hood forcesmight have been stationed towerof Ara Bartze. troopsthrough the Corinthianchora in the early4th centuryprecipitated at thenearby See Stroud an increasedeffort to maintain fortifications,and forcesin the 66. Xen. Hell 6.5.50-52. guards, Caraherand We for thatas as 366 b.c. theAthenians 1971a,p. 139; Gregory countryside. know, example, early 346. weresoon 2006,p. placedgarrisons throughout the Corinthian countryside, which 67. Xen. Hell. 7.1.42. bee Stroud betweenthe two replacedby Corinthianforces when politicalrelations 1971a,pp. 140-141. statessoured.68 We can easilyimagine that these forces could have con- 68. Xen. Hell 7A AS. See Stroud structedrubble fortifications such as thosenear Vayia. 1971a,p. 140.

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:15:35 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions TOWERS AND FORTIFICATIONS AT VAYIA 413

There werealso occasionsfor fortification throughout the earlyHel- lenisticperiod. Stroud asserts that Philip of Macedón probablyfortified key parts of the Corinthia,even if we have no idea about the specific locations.69At the end of the 4th century,Alexander, son of Polyperchon, seemsto havefortified points in theeastern Corinthia to preventKassander fromtaking the city.70Diodorus Siculusreports that there were two forts nearthe port town of Kenchreai;Stroud and othershave associatedthese withthe informal rubble fortifications on Mt. Oneion.71The fortifications mentionedin thissurvey reveal the challenges facing any effort to linkthe fragmentarytextual sources for the history of Corinth's territory to specific sitesduring the later 4th and 3rdcenturies. At thesame time, these sources indicatethat there were more episodes of fortifying the Corinthia than we can securelyidentify in thearchaeological record. It is reasonableto believe thatsome of theseefforts to fortifythe Corinthiainvolved garrisons who constructedinformal outposts to guard the countrysideand the coastal inletsto the territory. The textualevidence for placing garrisons and fortsin thecountryside providesmore than one plausiblecontext for the construction of fortifica- tionsaround Lychnari Bay. As we suggestedabove, these structures, which sharewith otherCorinthian towers a similarplace in local topography, design,and constructionstyle, represent efforts to safeguardthe Corin- thianchora, the garrisons stationed on thecoast, and themajor routes into the region.If theirrough construction and irregulardesign indicate a less significantinvestment in the countrysidethan the ruraltowers typically studiedby scholars,these featuresare neverthelessconsistent with the episodiccharacter of ruralCorinthian fortifications in general. Historicalevidence for Corinthian fortification during the Classical- Hellenisticperiod has tendedto focuson effortsto block militaryforces frommoving through the Isthmus.72Generally, the variousstates that soughtto fortifythe Isthmuswere not concernedwith defending Corin- thianterritory and interestsper se. In contrastto thesebetter-known forti- fications,the towers and sitesat Vayiadid littleto protectthe Péloponnèse generally,for armies moving southward could easily bypass them by sea and land in thevicinity of Epidauros, where there was a moreconvenient point of access to the Peloponnesiancenters at Argos and furthersouth.73 It is logicalto readthe sitesat Vayiainstead as installationsof the Corinthian stateor local Corinthiancitizen landowners, whose aim in fortifyingwas to preventepisodic but destructivelocal raidsand to guardagainst incur- 69. Stroud 142. 1971a,p. sionsdeep into Corinthianterritory. The ease withwhich an could 70. Diod. Sic. 19.63.4.See Stroud army pass northfrom the bay at Lychnarior even and the 1971a,p. 142. Frangolimano ravage Corinthianchora, or continuenorth to Oneion and the 71. Stroud1971a, p. 143; Caraher Isthmus,made the and Gregory2006, pp. 346-347. fortificationof this coastlinea crucialcomponent of any strategyto 72. Wiseman1963. protectCorinthian territory, and turnedthese informal fortifications into 73. Diod. Sic. 19.54.3. a significantfeature of Corinth'slandscape.

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:15:35 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 414 W. R. CARAHER, D. K. PETTEGREW, AND S. JAMES

REFERENCES

BintliffJ.,P. Howard,and A. Snod- RecentWork and Future Perspectives. Lord,L. E. 1938."The 'Pyramids'of grass.2007. Testingthe Hinterland: Proceedingsofthe Athens Symposium, Argolis,"Hesperia 7, pp. 481-527.

TheWork of the Boeotia Survey (1989- 18-20 May 2001, ed. N. M. Kennell . 1939."Watchtowers and For- 1991) in theSouthern Approaches to andj. E.Tomlinson(Publications tressesin Argolis,"AJA 43, pp. 78- theCity ofThespiai (McDonald In- ofthe Canadian Archaeological 84. stitutefor Archaeological Research, Instituteat Athens4), Athens, Lord,L. E., M. A. Frantz,and C. Roe- Monographs),Cambridge. pp. 137-145. buck.1941. "Blockhouses in the Camp,J. McK, II. 1991."Notes on Fowler,H. N. 1932."Corinth and the Argolid,"Hesperia 10, pp. 93-112. theTowers and Bordersof Classical Corinthia,"in CorinthI.I, pp. 18- Lynch,K. 2009. "Potteryfrom a Late " Rniotia AlA^ nn 1 Q^-90? 114. ArchaicHouse bythe Numbers," Caraher,W. R., andT. E. Gregory. Foxhall,L. 2001. "Colouringin the ArchaeologicalInstitute of America, 2006. "FortificationsofMount Countryside:Response to David K. 110thAnnual Meeting Abstracts 32, Oneion,Corinthia," Hesperia 75, Pettegrew,'Chasing the Classical Philadelphia,pp. 163-164. pp. 327-356. Farmstead,'/M414.2 (December Marchand,].C. 2009. "Kleonai,the Caraher,W. R.,T. E. Gregory,D. K. 2001) "JMA14, pp. 216-222. Corinth-Argos Road, and theAxis Pettegrew,and L. Tzortzopoulou- Fracchia,H. M. 1985."The Pelopon- ofHistory,'" Hesperia 78, pp. 107- Gregory.2009. "BetweenSea and nesianPyramids Reconsidered," 163. Mountain:The Archaeologyof a AJA89, pp. 683-689. McCredie,J. R. 1966.Fortified Military 20th-century'Small World' in the Hjohlman,J., A. Fenttinen,and Campsin Attica {Hesperia Suppl. 11), UplandBasins of the Southeastern B. Wells.2005. Pyrgouthi.'ARural Princeton. Korinthia"(paper, Modern Greek Sitein theBerbati Valley from the Morris,S. P.,and J. K. Papadopoulos. StudiesAssociation, Symposium 21, EarlyIron Age to Late Antiquity: 2005. "GreekTowers and Slaves: Vancouver2009). Excavationsby the Swedish Institute An Archaeologyof Exploitation," Caraher,W. R., D. Nakassis,and D. K. atAthens, 1995 and 1997 {SkrAth4°, Pettegrew.2006. "SitelessSurvey 52), Stockholm. Munn,M. H. 1993. TheDefense of and IntensiveData Collectionin an Jones,J. E., A. J.Graham, L. H. Sack- Attica:The Dema Walland the Boio- Artifact-RichEnvironment: Case ett,and M. I. Geroulanos.1973. tianWar of 37 8-37 5 b.c.,Berkeley. Studiesfrom the Eastern Corinthia, "AnAttic Country House below Ober,J. 1983. "Two AncientWatch- Greece^JAM 19, pp. 7-43. theCave ofPan at Vari,"BSA 68, towersabove Aigosthena in the Cooper,F. A. 1986."Epaminondas pp. 355-452. NorthernMegarid," 4//f 87, and GreekFortifications," AJA 90, Jones,J. E., L. H. backett,and A. J. pp. 387-392.

p. 195 (abstract). Graham.1962. "The Dema House . 1985.Fortress Attica: Defense . 2000. "The Fortificationsof in Attica,"BSA 57, pp. 75-114. ofthe Athenian Land Frontier,404- Epaminondasand theRise ofthe Kardulias,P. N., and C. N. Runnels. 322 b.c.(Mnemosyme Suppl. 84), GreekCity," in CityWalls: The 1995."The LithicArtifacts: Flaked Leiden. Towers: UrbanEnceinte in GlobalPerspec- Stoneand OtherNonflaked Lith- . 1987a."Early Artillery tive(Studies in ComparativeEarly ics,"in Artifact and Assemblage: The Messenia,Boiotia, Attica, Megarid," ModernHistory), ed. J. Tracy, Findsfrom a RegionalSurvey of the AJA91, pp. 569-604. Southern ed. C. N. . 1987b. and Miscella- Cambridge.o Argolid,Greece, "Pottery fromFortified Sites Corinth= Corinth:Results of Excavations Runnels,D. J.Pullen, and S. Lang- neousArtifacts andWestern Conductedby the American School of don,Stanford, pp. 74-139. in Northern Attica," "CorinthianA Hesfieria56, - op. 197-227. ClassicalStudies at Athens, Cam- Koehler,C. G. 1978. J. x x R. 1986."Island Towers: The bridge,Mass. and B TransportAmphoras" (diss. Osborne, LI = H. N. Fowlerand R. Still- PrincetonUniv.). Case ofThasos," BSA 81, pp. 167- well,Introduction, Archi- Lauter-Bufe,H. 1989. Die Festung 178. Topography, tecture,1932 aufKoroni und die Buchtvon Porto . 1992."Is It a Farm?'The IV.2 = O. Broneer,Terracotta Raphti:Ein Beitragzur Geschichte Definitionof Agricultural Sites Lamps,1930 Athensim 3 Jh.v. Chr.,"in Attische and Settlementsin AncientGreece," inAncient Greece. Dixon,M. 2000. "DisputedTerrito- Festungen:Beiträge zum Festungs- inAgriculture ries:Interstate Arbitrations in the wesenund zur Siedlungsstruktur Proceedingsofthe Seventh Interna- at theSwedish NortheasternPéloponnèse, ca. 250- vom5. biszum 3. Jh. v. Chr.(Attische tionalSymposium 7 150 b.c."(diss. Ohio StateUniv.). Forschungen3, MarbWPr1988), Instituteat Athens, 16-1 May, and ed. B. Wells . 2005. "Epigraphyand Topo- ed. H. Lauter,H. Lauter-Bufe, 1990, {SkrAth4°, 42), 67-102. 21-28. graphicalSurvey: The Case ofthe H. Lohmann,Marburg, pp. Stockholm,pp. in the Y. 1990. Corinthian-EpidaurianBorder in Lolos,Y. A. 1998."Studies Peppas, MeaaiœviKeçaeAiòeç theHellenistic Period," in Ancient Topographyof Sikyonia"(diss. Univ. rriçApyoAíôoç, ApKocôíaç, Kopiv- Athens. Greeceat theTurn of the Millennium: ofCalifornia, Berkeley). 6íaç,Attikijç,

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:15:35 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions TOWERS AND FORTIFICATIONS AT VAYIA 4IÇ

. 1993. MeaaicoviKsçaeXíÔeç Smith,P. J. 2008. The and Tartaron,T. F., D. J.Pullen, and J. S. Archaeology íl me KonivOíac.Athens. Epigraphyof Hellenistic and Roman Noller.2006. Rillenkarrenat Vayia: Pettegrew,D. K. 2001. "Chasingthe Megaris,Greece (BAR-IS 1762), Geomorphologyand a New Class ClassicalFarmstead: Assessing the Oxford. ofEarly Bronze Age Fortified Formationand Signatureof Rural Stanton,G. R. 1986."The Territorial Settlementin SouthernGreece," Settlementin GreekLandscape Tribesof Korinth and Phleious," Antiquity80, pp. 145-160. Archaeology,"/^ 14,pp. 189- Vanderpool,E., J.R. McCredie,and 209. Stroud,R. S. 1968."Tribal Boundary A. Steinberg.1962. "Koroni: A

. 2002. "Countingand Color- Markersfrom Corinth," CSC A 1, PtolemaicCamp on theEast Coast ingClassical Farms: A Responseto pp.233-242. of Attira."Hpî-hpria 31 . nn 3n-n1

Osborne,Foxhall, and Bintliff . 1971a."An Ancient Fort on Whitelaw,T.1998. "Colonisation and et ú.?JMA 15,pp. 267-273. MountOneion," Hesperia 40, Competitionin thePolis of Keres-

. 2006. "Refurbishingthe Farms: pp. 127-145. sos:The Developmentof Settle-

The Reuseof the Rural Landscape . 1971b."Thucydides and the mentin North-WestKeos from in Late RomanGreece," in Common Battleof Solygeia,"CSCA 4, theArchaic to theLate Roman Ground: Archaeology,Art, Science, pp. 227-247. Periods,"in Kea-Kythnos:History andHumanities. TheProceedings of . 1994."Thucydides and Cor- andArchaeology. Proceedings of the16th International Congressof inth,"Chiron 24, pp.267-302. an InternationalSymposium, Kea- ClassicalArchaeology, Boston, August Tartaron,T. F, T. E. Gregory,D. J. Kythnos,22-25 June1994 (Melete- 23-26,2003, ed. C. C. Mattusch, Pullen,J. S. Noller,R. M. Rothaus, mata27), ed. L. G. Mendoniand A. A. Donohue,and A. Brauer, J.L. Rife,L. Tzortzopoulou- A. J.Mazarakis Ainian, Paris, Oxford,pp. 33-35. Gregory,R. Schon,W. R. Caraher, pp.227-257.

. 2007. "The BusyCountryside D. K. Pettegrew,and D. Nakassis. Wiseman,J. R. 1963."A Trans-Isthmian ofLate RomanCorinth: Interpret- 2006. "The EasternKorinthia FortificationWall: Noteson Helle- Ceramic ing Data Producedby ArchaeologicalSurvey: Integrated nisticMilitary Operations in the RegionalArchaeological Surveys," Methodsfor a DynamicLand- Corinthia,"Hesperia 32, pp.248- Hesperia76, pp. 743-784. scape,"Hesperia 75, pp. 453-523. 275. R. F. C. G. Koeh- Pulak,C, Townsend, Tartaron,T. F, D. J.Pullen, R. K. . 1978. TheLand ofthe Ancient andM. B. Wallace.1987. "The ler, Dunn, L. Tzortzopoulou-Gregory, Corinthians(SIMA 50), Göteborg. Hellenistic Shipwreckat SerçeLi- A. Dill, andJ. I. Boyce.Forth- Young,J. H. 1956a."Ancient Towers mam,Turkey: Preliminary Report," coming."The SaronicHarbors on theIsland of Siphnos,"4/^60, 4/¿/91, pp. 31-57. ArchaeologicalResearch Project pp. 51-55. Salmon,J. B. 1984. WealthyCorinth: (SHARP): Investigationsat Myce- . 1956b."Studies in SouthAt- A the to Historyof City 338 b.c., naeanKalamianos, 2007-2009," tica:Country Estates at Sounion," Oxford. Hesperia80. Hesperia25, pp. 122-146.

WilliamR. Caraher SarahJames University of North Dakota University of Texas at Austin department of history department of classics centennial 276 drive i university station c34oo merrifield hall, stop 8096 austin, texas 78712-0308 grand forks, north dakota 582oi [email protected] [email protected]

David K. Pettegrew Messiah College department of history one college avenue BOX 3051 GRANTHAM, PENNSYLVANIA IJO2J [email protected]

This content downloaded from 71.168.218.10 on Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:15:35 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions