Some Attic Walls Author(s): Merle K. Langdon Source: Hesperia Supplements, Vol. 19, Studies in Attic Epigraphy, History and Topography. Presented to Eugene Vanderpool (1982), pp. 88-98+215-219 Published by: The American School of Classical Studies at Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1353974 . Accessed: 04/09/2013 21:21

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 Supplements.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 63.110.229.170 on Wed, 4 Sep 2013 21:21:44 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions SOMEATTIC WALLS

(PLATES7-11)

"The Attic landscape ... possesses an aris- tocraticgrace and ease: the frugal, arid land, the gracefulcurves of Hymettos and Penteli- kon, the silver-leaved olive trees, the slen- der ascetic cypresses, the playful glare of rocks in the sun, and above all the buoyant diaphanous,completely spiritual light which dresses and undressesall things." N. Kazantzakis,Report to Greco F ROMTHE on the west to the gulf of Euboiaon the east the landwardborders of Atticawere guardedby impressivefortifications in antiquity. Much is known about them, and the very mention of their names-, Oinoe, Phyle, -bringsto mind momentousincidents in the historyof ancientAth- ens, and well-preservedashlar enceintes and towers.Far from these borders,in central and southernAttica, are otherfortifications which do not sharethe limelightwith their morefamous brethren because they are for the most partwithout historical context and are coarse,albeit often substantial,rubble constructions. These rubbleforts have been studiedby J. R. McCrediein a monographwhich is indispensableto topographersand historiansalike.1 For besidespublishing plans and site descriptionsMcCredie provided a historicalreconstruction which plausibly explains about half (13 of 30) the installations in his provisionalcorpus of fortifiedmilitary camps.2 Yet since we are dealingwith simple,rough structures, it is not alwayseasy to distinguishbetween military and non- militarycomplexes. So it is with alternativepossibilities in mindthat I wish to turnboth to McCredie'smonograph, with some possibleadditions and subtractions,3and to a few other little-knownAttic sites, in orderto make an offeringto the great man of Attic

I Hesperia,Suppl. XI, FortifiedMilitary Camps in ,Princeton 1966 (= FortifiedCamps). 'Reviewers of his monographcriticized some of McCredie'sassigments but without presentinggood alternatives.A recent account of the CremonideanWar, Heinz Heinen, Historia,Einzelschrift 20, Unter- suchungenzur hellenistischenGeschichte des 3. Jahrhundertsv. Chr., Wiesbaden 1972, pp. 95-213, presents objectionswhich are too minor to weaken seriously McCredie'scase. 3Severaladditions have alreadybeen made to McCredie'scorpus of Attic camps:Beletsi, borderingthe plain of Aphidnaon the north, possibly belonging to the system of garrisonforts, Y. Garlan, RA 1967, p. 293; Sagani, between Spata and Loutsa, Addition 2 of M. Petropoulakouand E. Tsimpides-Pentazos,'Ap- xaL4E \EXXY)LKE'HK4E ls, 21, 'ATTLKT, OiKl0TlK- cToLXEla-7p07 'KGEa, Athens 1973; Ovriokastro,east of Keratea,possibly to be associatedwith the CremonideanWar, E. Vanderpoolin Thorikosand the Laurion in Archaicand ClassicalTimes (Afiscellanea Graeca, fasc. 1), Ghent 1975, pp. 26-32; Pirgadaki,on the strait of Salamisnorth of ,W. K. Pritchett, Studiesin AncientGreek Topography I, Universityof California Publications:Classical Studies, I, Berkeley and Los Angeles 1965, p. 101. For a map showing these and other sites discussedin this article, see Figure 1.

This content downloaded from 63.110.229.170 on Wed, 4 Sep 2013 21:21:44 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions SOME ATTICWALLS 89

Solts' hamnnous

*Ono.~sTikwt

'k-oTriko Phyl*

irgadaki a ~~~~~~~~~~~~~agani 'Z~~~~~~2 K i~~~~~~~sarii

- .

FVraona

E 5o k.sisnio Anagyroucis~1 St. Dem-ric) ~~~Ovriokds~

Patroklosn Makron~sos I I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Island~ ap I 0 ~ 5 km.

FIG.1. Map of Attica showing places mentioned in the text

This content downloaded from 63.110.229.170 on Wed, 4 Sep 2013 21:21:44 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 90 MERLEK. LANGDON topography,in partialacknowledgment of devotionfelt and debt owed, for helpingthis writer'sinterests find a home in Athena'sland.

KAISARIANI On KaisarianiBerg near the monasteryof KaisarianiMcCredie rediscovered a wall which had not been seen since early in the 19th century.4He consideredit partof a fortification,but it is, in my opinion,simply an ancientagricultural field wall. A good parallelmay be found in southernAttica on Mont Michel (P1.7:a). On the southern slope of that hill a wall runs for over 100 meters, from near the summitto the lower edge of tree cover where it disappearsin a vinyard(in aboutthe center of Plate 7:a). The wall is 0.90 m. thickand is preservedwith few exceptionsonly level with the slop- ing surfaceof the hill (P1.7:b). It is composedof single blocks of greenstonewhich formthe full widthof the wall.The stones are roughlydressed on each end to give the wall two faces. As with the wall on KaisarianiBerg there are no meansfor dating,nor are there any tracesof buildingsin the immediatearea. If the slopes of Mont Michel were given over to agriculturein antiquity,as I believe, this wouldexplain the absence of ancientremains. The wallcould have servedto demarcatethe landof two individuals or to protectcertain areas from grazinglivestock. Whatever the case, it seems very unlikelythat this remotewall served a militarypurpose. Likewisethe wall on KaisarianiBerg may be given a more fitting explanation. Investigationshave shownthat the southwesternslopes of MountHymettos were heavi- ly cultivatedin antiquitywith the aid of an extensive system of terraces.5Kaisariani Bergis considerablynorth of this, but it too doubtlesslylay withina cultivatedarea and supportedterraces of arableland, thoughtoday the appearanceof the hill is completely differentafter centuriesof erosion.In antiquity,with a plentifulsupply of waterfrom near-bysprings and enoughsoil to allowit, this hill could have been in the midstof a largeagricultural district. The wall on its northand east sides couldhave been builtfor any of severalreasons required by farmingactivity. McCredienoted the similarityof the wall on KaisarianiBerg to other walls with demonstrablemilitary purpose, the Thriasian"Lager" and the Kamaterowall. This similaritycannot be denied.But if it be acceptedthat agriculturalfield wallswere built in ancientAttica and that KaisarianiBerg was situatedin a farmingdistrict, an explana- tion alongthe lines arguedabove is equallypossible.

ST. DEMETRIOSRIDGE In his discussionof the structureon this ridgeMcCredie6 favored explaining it as a lookoutpost or signaltower because it commandsa wide coastalview and is intervisible with the acropolisof Anagyrous.New ceramicfinds suggesta differentfunction. Just west of the structurethe slope of the ridgefalls awaymoderately, and a scatterof pot-

"FortifiedCamps, pp. 50-52. 5For the evidence see John Bradford,AntJ 36, 1956, pp. 172-180, and AncientLandscapes. Studies in FieldArchaeology, London 1957, pp. 29-34 and pis. 7, 8. fi FortifiedCamps, p. 117.

This content downloaded from 63.110.229.170 on Wed, 4 Sep 2013 21:21:44 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions SOME ATTIC WALLS 91 sherds may be seen for some distance down the slope. The sherds are mostly pieces of good black glaze, and they support McCredie's Classical dating of the structure based on previous ceramic evidence. Two inscribedpieces have turned up in the new wash of sherds. One is a fragment of a Corinthian-typeskyphos7 with a graffito broken away at both sides (Fig. 2:a). The reading &vE'IOEK[E immediately comes to mind. The other piece is a body sherd, glazed inside and out, and probablybelonging to a similar type of vessel (Fig. 2:b). Its inscriptionis in two lines the second of which is broken away at

a

FIG.2. Graffitifrom St. Demetrios Ridge. Actual size

the right but not at the left. The obvious restoration is hLEp[ovIwith the first line namingthe divine recipientof the cup, [ToV3'AVr6~oA l oV, [ToV3 ial ov, vel sim. The difficultywith this is that the first line does not seem to be broken away at left or right, as sufficient amounts of uninscribedsurface are preserved to either side as to suggest that the first line is complete. Yet N01 is a word fragment and cannot stand alone. I prefer to regard the letters as the genitive singular ending of the deity honored and to explain their seemingly isolated position as the result of irregularletter spacing, or word division with the rest of the name in a missing line above the preserved letters. What- ever the explanationthe second line certainlyindicates a religious intent for the cup. Based on the evidence of these votive graffiti I suggest that the structure on the ridge of St. Demetrios was a small sanctuaryrather than a military tower. McCredie is convinced that its walls never rose higher than the present highest preserved part, 1.70 m., and that it was not roofed. This would be suitable for the enclosure wall of a small altar.The spill of sherds down the slope could be part of the votive dump.

VRAONA Approachingthe Mesogeia from Brauronearlier investigatorsnormally followed the bed of the Erasinos, which takes a more westerly course than the modern asphaltroad.

7The flaringring foot is chippedaway, and the piece is too batteredto be dated precisely.It appearsto be like B. A. Sparkesand L. Talcott, TheAthenian Agora, XII, Blackand PlainPottery of the 6th, 5th and 4th CenturiesB.C., Princeton 1970, p. 256, no. 305, 6th century.

This content downloaded from 63.110.229.170 on Wed, 4 Sep 2013 21:21:44 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 92 MERLEK. LANGDON

This route led them quite near to the well-preservedmediaeval tower at Vraona and, at a short distance southwest of this, some ancient remains on a rocky knoll (P1. 9:a). Vegetation now greatly obscures the remains, so we depend on Milchhoefer'snotice for an accuratedescription.8 A wall of large, squared conglomerate blocks, 100 Milchhoeferianpaces in length, encloses the knoll. A good stretch is preserved for 6.66 m. along the north side of the knoll (P1. 9:b), but the rest of the reportedlyfive-sided circuit is visible only here and there. The wall is two courses high on the north, with the lower course mostly buried. The total exposed height is 0.80 m., with blocks varyingbetween 0.75 m. and 0.90 m. in length. Elsewhere the wall is preserved only one course high. The full thickness of the wall is nowhere observable. The area enclosed is small, and much of the space is occupied by a rectangular structure which Milchhoefer paced off at seven by ten paces. Presently visible are two sides of the building made of a single row of conglomerate ashlars. The highest pre- served part belongs to the east wall, 1.10 m., where blocks average 0.80 m. in length and 0.45 m. in height (P1. 9:c). No internal divisions can be seen. Sherds and tile frag- ments are few and none gives an indicationof date. Milchhoefer refrainedfrom assigning a function to these remains. He did describe the rectangularstructure as tower-like, but for the enceinte itself he did not commit himself, simply calling it a doppelteUmmauerung, though the only clear traces visible now are the blocks of the one circuit described here. Other fragments of walls of small rubble are preservedin places at the base of the knoll, but they are much later, perhaps modern, and have nothing to do with the ancient walls on top. The suggestion has been made that the remains belong to a grave precinct,9yet the place is a strongpoint.The rock cliffs render access difficult, and the walls, both of the enceinte and the structure inside, are impressivelylarge. It might seem difficultto come up with compelling strate- gic reasons for locating a militaryinstallation here, for the location has no great military value itself, but for the present I am inclined to regardthe remains as militaryin nature and tentatively to include them in the corpus of Attic fortifiedcamps.

KALISIA This mediaeval monastery is located on the southern slope of Mount Pentelikon, below and to the west of the peaks of Mavrovounia (P1. 7:c). The setting is a small rocky shelf which is surroundedby pine forests. Some 300 meters north of the monas- tery, beside a good path, is a tower-like structurethat has gone unnoticed by almost all

8A. Milchhoefer, ErlduternderText to E. Curtius and J. A. Kaupert, Kartenvon Attika, III-VI, Berlin 1889, pp. 7-8 (= Kartenvon Attika, Text). It is doubtful that J. G. Frazerever visited these remains. His account of them reads liked an expanded translationof Milchhoefer:Pausanias's Description of GreeceII, London 1898, p. 446. 9D. R. Theochares in ['epaq KEpajuolrov'Xov, Athens 1953, p. 142, note 4. The remains are also discussed by LudwigRoss, ArchdologischeAufsdtze I, Leipzig 1855, p. 225, but this work is not availableto me.

This content downloaded from 63.110.229.170 on Wed, 4 Sep 2013 21:21:44 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions SOME ATTIC WALLS 93 investigatorsof Attica.10The structureis oriented northwest to southeast and is mostly buried by earth which has washed over it from the slope to the north. Only part of its southeast face (PI. 8:c) and short returns at northeast and southwest are exposed to view. The southeast face is 5.49 m. long and the returns are 1.30 m. on the southwest and 1.42 m. on the northeast. The building material is schist which has weathered and flaked badly. It is therefore difficultto ascertainthe presence or absence of anathyrosis, but I could detect no certain example. Weathering has also damaged the two exposed corners, but at the east corner a vertical drafting seems certain (P1. 8:a). The evidence is fairly clear on the lower block but less so on the return block above, which is shifted out of its originalposition. Individualblocks are of generous dimensions; for example, the upper block of the northeast return measures 1.42 m. in length, 0.73 m. in height, and 0.55 m. in thick- ness. This same block exhibits special preparationsfor the reception of its neighbors on the west. On the upper and inner faces smoothed indented areas extend inward from the outer edge for 0.60 m. and 0.40 m. respectively (P1. 8:b). Similar though less well preserved worked patches are found on the upper block of the southwest return. Such special efforts testify to the care taken to give coherence and stability to the construc- tion. There are, however, no cuttings for clamps. The dimensions of the structure cannot be determined without excavation, al- though surface indicationssuggest that it was a rectangle approachinga square. Several fallen blocks lie around it and show that the building rose higher than the two pre- served courses. We have thus to do with a large, four-sided structure carefully put together of large, worked blocks. The conclusion easily follows that it served as a tower, whether military or agricultural,yet the possibility should not be completely ruled out that it is a grave precinct. Similar monumental burial plots are known from other areas of Attica, though none is located in such seemingly remote circumstances.According to Milchhoefer, however, the region of Kalisia boasts enough ancient remains to qualify as a site.1"Thus the present structurecould belong to a cemetery. If a tower instead, an agriculturalrather than a military purpose seems the better explanation. For the structure controls no vital passes but rather is itself hemmed in by mountains. Only to the south is the way open, and the impression gained on the spot is that this openness was exploited agriculturallyrather than militarily.Milchhoefer notes an extensive sys- tem of agriculturalterraces around Kalisia, and even though their antiquity has been questioned," it is a plausible inference, based on the situation on Mount Hymettos mentioned earlier, that where water and earth were not in too short supply, agriculture was practicedin antiquity,even on what are today non-arablemountain slopes. If such a

'0The single mention of the structurethat I know is unpublished:E. Smith and H. Lowry, "A Survey of Mountain-topSanctuaries in Attica," p. 17, note 28, in AmericanSchool of ClassicalStudies at Athens, SchoolPapers, 1954. 1 Kartenvon Attika, Text, pp. 37-38. "2ByA. Philippson, Die griechischenLandschaften, I, Der Nordostender griechischenHalbinsel, Teil III, Attikauind Megaris, Frankfurt 1952, p. 800.

This content downloaded from 63.110.229.170 on Wed, 4 Sep 2013 21:21:44 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 94 MERLE K. LANGDON set of circumstancesobtained at Kalisiain ancient times, as seems likely to me, then the structurecould be a farm tower like those in southern Attica studied by John Young.13 An excavation inside the structure, made at some past time, has disturbedthe fill with- out producingany clues about its function or date. Further, scientific, excavation would probablyyield the informationneeded for a definite conclusion on the matter.

l~~~~~~~~~- l

r 1:\w'r X

7 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0 1 2 3m.

gMc(7( Dt

FIG. 3. Plan of Gur-i-KukiTower

GuR-I-KuIu(Fig. 3) On this low eminence (height 76 m.; Pl. 9:d, center) just over one kilometer north of Cape Sounion are located the remains of a large rectangulartower. It is built predom- inantly of nicely dressed blocks of soft, red sandstone quarried from just below the hilltop to the southeast. Other materials used in the construction include schist and greenstone for the smaller, less carefullyworked stones. The best preservedwall is that toward the cape, oriented 30 degrees east of north. Its outer face is made of large squared blocks (P1. 10:a) which have neither anathyrosis nor clamp cuttings. Two courses are preserved, to a maximum height of 1.13 m. The wall's full length may be reconstructedas about ten meters. The inner face is composed of smaller stones and is

13Hesperia25, 1956, pp. 122-146.

This content downloaded from 63.110.229.170 on Wed, 4 Sep 2013 21:21:44 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions SOMEATTIC WALLS 95 less well preserved. The other three sides are not well preserved, but they are built in the same technique as the wall toward the cape, except for the northwest side where small stones of miscellaneous material are used exclusively. Of the return sides the southwest is the better preserved.It was originallyjust over eight meters long. Fragments of two crosswallsexist inside the tower. The southeast-northwestcross- wall (P1. 10:b) is preserved for almost four meters. It is 0.59 m. thick and built of small stones. Only a short segment of the northeast-southwestcrosswall remains in place (P1. 10:c). It is 0.92 m. thick and composed of thin slabs of sandstone. An exposed patch of bedrock rises up north of this preservedstretch of wall and is dressed to receive further slabs of a northwardcontinuation of the wall (P1. 10:d). No doorway in either of the crosswallsnor any entrance through the outer wall can be located. Black-glazedsherds are plentiful around the tower and testify to activity in the Classical period. They are mostly body sherds of drinking cups. I found no diagnostic bases or rims nor any ancient tiles. I am in complete agreement with John Young's opinion that the structure was a watchtower." I would go further and claim the site as part of the defenses manned by the ephebic garrisonstationed at Sounion. The tower itself is spacious enough to house men, and there are vestiges of other walls on the hilltop which could belong to other buildings for troops. As a lookout point, although it is dwarfed by higher hills to the north, Gur-i-Kuki does provide a satisfactoryvantage to the south. On the southeast there is a clear view of the open water south of Makronesos and on the southwest a similarly unobstructedview from Patroklos Island to the cape. Thus no seaborne force could approachAttica from a southerly direction without being detected. The higher hills to the north provide an even wider view, but since other watchposts adequately covered both east and west coasts north of the cape, it was only the view to the south which was of concern here. Also, these higher hills have steep slopes and terminate in pointed peaks. They do not provide sufficient space for the construction of large build- ings. For that Gur-i-Kukiwas more suitable, so this much lower site was chosen with- out sacrificingany strategicallyimportant view.

STAVROKORAKI(Fig. 4) The remains of a circular tower lie at the west end of the summit ridge of Mt. Stavrokoraki(height 310 m.) on the north side of the plain of Marathon.The tower is six meters in diameter and built of long thin slabs of limestone that are roughly shaped and only loosely fitted together without clamps (P1. 11:a). Two courses are preserved, to a height of 0.48 m. The entrance was on the west as indicated by the threshold block which lies mostly outside the tower (P1. 11:b). Its dimensions are 1.55 x 1.00 x 0.49

"Young mentions the tower in Hesperia25, 1956, pp. 131-132, and there promises a full description in his plannedmonograph on Sounion that never appeared.Young's fullest discussionof the tower is in his unpublisheddoctoral dissertationwritten for Johns Hopkins University, Sunium:An HistoricalSurvey of an AtticDeme, Baltimore 1942, p. 279, T 1.4. I am indebted to J. H. Oliver for the opportunityto acquirea copy of this dissertation.

This content downloaded from 63.110.229.170 on Wed, 4 Sep 2013 21:21:44 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 96 MERLEK. LANGDON

0 1 2 3m.

FIG. 4. Plan of StavrokorakiTower m. and its upper surface is 0.55 m. above the present ground level. The block has not been dislodged from the tower but is in situ with other blocks beneath it. There are no cuttings on the threshold's upper surface, so the door must have been simple, perhapsa hide suspended from the lintel. Originallythe interior may have been hollow, but it is now filled with small rubble which also spills over and obscures several blocks of the circumference.There are some displacedslabs lying around the tower, but they do not permit an estimation of its originalheight. I saw only one datable sherd, a fragmentof a black-glazedkantharos, 4th or 3rd century B.C. The tower is markedon BlattXIX of the Kartenvon Attika, but it is discussed neither by Milchhoeferin the ErlduternderText nor, to my knowledge, by any other commentator on Marathon except H. W. Lolling."5Its function was obviously military, though it is difficultto go much beyond that statement. The view of the plain of Marathonis unim- peded, but the normal land and sea approachesare not seen to advantageas other peaks rise to block them from view. Thus it does not seem likely that the tower was built as a watchpost.It is tempting instead to see here a signal tower and to look northeastwards,to Rhamnous. Rhamnous itself is not visible from our tower, but from any height just west of there a communicationlink is made between the coastal fort, the tower on Stavroko- raki, and the plain of Marathon.I know of no remains on a height west of Rhamnous which could be part of another signal tower, something requiredby my supposition, but

'5AthMitt1, 1876, p. 82.

This content downloaded from 63.110.229.170 on Wed, 4 Sep 2013 21:21:44 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions SOMEATTIC WALLS 97 considering the unsuitabilityof the tower on Stavrokorakias a watchpost some such linkage, almost obviously with Rhamnous, seems the best explanation.16 Lolling calls the tower a Wartturmand stresses the visibility from it of the whole plain and long stretches of side valleys. Yet the valleys which are affordedgood visibili- ty from the tower are those leading into the plain from the north, not those which provide the most importantlandward approaches, on the south and west. The latter are visible from our tower, but the view is remote and of doubtful utility when the object is to watch for an advancing enemy. Lolling also proposed a signaling function for the tower, but between Marathon and Trikorynthos, not Rhamnous. He supposes that in antiquitythe tower was tall enough to be visible from Trikorynthos.While the possibili- ty of such a link should not be ruled out, in my opinion one between Marathon and Rhamnous would have been considered much more important,and it is for this reason, I believe, that the tower on Mt. Stavrokorakiwas built.

LIMIKO(MESOGEIA) About four kilometers northeast of Markopouloin the Limiko region of the Attic Mesogeia stand the remains of a substantial tower on a low knoll (P1. 11:d). Milch- hoefer briefly described the structure, which does not appear to have suffered further deterioration since his time.17 It is rectangular, 11.05 m. x 8.20 m., and built of a double row of large, carefully worked blocks of soft which are now considerably weathered. A pry-cuttingwas made in the top surface of each block, though some do not preserve it due to their weathered state. There are no cuttings for clamps. Only one course remains, with considerable gaps, except in the middle of the southeast side where there are six courses of alternatingheaders and stretchers (P1. 11:e). The height of each course is 0.42 m. There are no indicationson the inner face of the higher seg- ment (P1. 11:c) for beams to support a second floor, but this is probablyfortuitous, as such a large tower very likely did have more than one floor. Rubble and undergrowth render it impossible, without clearing, to determine the interior arrangement or the position of the entrance. The tower appearsto have been an independent, freestanding structure;no other ancient Greek remains are visible on the knoll. A great quantity of sherds and small stones from decomposed walls litter the knoll, but they belong to Roman and mediaeval times. The purpose of this tower might at first glance seem easy to explain. Its generous dimensions and strength suggest a militarypost, and this is the explanationadopted by Milchhoefer. Ernst Meyer18goes further and explains it as a watchtoweron the IEL- ptaKTJ 666 which may have passed by it. There are no visible traces of an ancient road in the area, and even if there were, it seems unlikely that the tower and road would be

16There is epigraphicalmention of two guardposts (4vkaKTrpta) in the territoryof Rhamnous, but they are not located more precisely:SEG XXIV, 154, line 14. If one of them occupied a height west of the coastalfort, it could have playeda partin the relayingof signals to points furtherinland. 17 Kartenvon Attika, Text, pp. 10- 1. 18RE, s. v. Steiria.

This content downloaded from 63.110.229.170 on Wed, 4 Sep 2013 21:21:44 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 98 MERLE K. LANGDON connected.I know of no evidencefor roadsfortified with towersin Attica, at least in the interior.19 In my opinionthe immediateenvironment of the Limikotower, extensivearable land in Attica'smost importantagricultural district, more readilysuggests a different function,that of a farmtower. It is enoughto cite againthe studyof JohnYoung (foot- note 13 above) in orderto documentthe indispensablerole of towersin the agrarian life of ancientAttica. The Limikotower is considerablylarger than the farmtowers of Sounionstudied by Young,but for this thereare possibleexplanations, perhaps the best being that this towerreflects the extent of the landedestate of its owner.The area of Sounionhas only limitedagricultural land, so that farmsteadstended to be small.In the Mesogeia,on the other hand, landedestates attainedgreat size.20The Limikotower couldbelong to one such manor. In arguinga militaryfunction for the Limikotower Milchhoefercited as parallels the towersat Mazi and Varnavain northernAttica. The lattermay be a watchtower, while the formermore closely resemblesthe Limiko tower in being very large and situatedin cultivableland rather than on a heightwith a commandingview. The Mazi toweris positionednear a line of importantforts, and it may have had some function connectedwith them, but the same cannotbe said for the Limikotower, which is not locatednear a majorfort. In any case, for both towersit is theirsize alone whichseems to forcea militaryexplanation. I wouldurge, however,that size not be used as a crite- rion to excludeother possiblefunctions.21 Thus to my mind, at least the Limikotower shouldbe addedto the list of farmtowers which in variedshapes and sizes dottedthe -ancientcountryside.22

MERLEK. LANGDON UNIVERSITYOF WASHINGTON Departmentof Classics Seattle, WA 98195

19Theborder area is another matter. Some of the towers in northern Attica may have guarded roads near the frontier.If tower-fortifiedroads had existed elsewhere in Attica, the mining districtof Laurionis one place where they should be found, yet for all the well-preservedremains of ancient roads there, none shows any evidence of having been guarded by towers. Recently, however, H. Lauter, "Ein Lindliches Heiligtum HellenistischerZeit in Trapuria(Attika)," AA (Jdl 2), 1980, p. 243, raised the possibilitythat the a&0TLK-q'6&8i from Laurionto Athens was guardedby at least one fortifiedpost, near . 201fthe assignmentof the deme Kytherosto the inland trittys of Pandionisis correct, the largestAttic estate, that of Phainippos,was in the Mesogeia:cf. G. E. M. de Ste. Croix in AncientSociety and Institutions, StudiesPresented to VictorEhrenberg on his 75th Birthday,Oxford 1966, pp. 109-114. De Ste. Croix also mentions the second largestknown Attic estate, of Alcibiades,also in the Mesogeia. 21A note by J. H. Kent is the only publishedcitation I know that expresses the possibilityof an agri- culturalfunction for the northernAttic towers: Hesperia10, 1941, p. 345, note 1. Certainlythe matter is worthyof furtherresearch and should be left open for the present. 22Thereis nothing approachinga complete list of towers in Attica, farm towers or otherwise. John Young, op. cit. (footnote 13 above), p. 144, numbers five in addition to those which he publishes, and PaulaSpitaels adds a few more in Thorikos1970/1971, VII, Ghent 1978, p. 107, note 48. This takes care of most of the publishedexamples, but there are numerous unpublishedtowers still to be reported.

This content downloaded from 63.110.229.170 on Wed, 4 Sep 2013 21:21:44 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions PLATE 7

4~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~t4

3'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Z _ri _ mA, gO 0

This content downloaded from 63.110.229.170 on Wed, 4 Sep 2013 21:21:44 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions PLATE 8

16 ~ 41 Or~~~~~~~~~~~~~I

I-~~~~~~~~~~~~~V

U, z~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Cd~~~~~~ - 0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i Cd~~~~~~

This content downloaded from 63.110.229.170 on Wed, 4 Sep 2013 21:21:44 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions PLATE 9

IC

0

> Dz...... 0 7 w#4A

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~cs5

This content downloaded from 63.110.229.170 on Wed, 4 Sep 2013 21:21:44 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions PLATE 10

y*. l.

GoA.

z

This content downloaded from 63.110.229.170 on Wed, 4 Sep 2013 21:21:44 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions PLATE 11

t~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i

X ,= fin ~~~~~~ _ rii

V-1~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-

cis

A .

ip ~ ~ ~ / ~ .

This content downloaded from 63.110.229.170 on Wed, 4 Sep 2013 21:21:44 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions