HESPERIA 75 (2006) FORTIFICATIONS OF Pages 327~356 MOUNT ONEION, CORINTHIA
ABSTRACT
on Recent investigations the Isthmus of Corinth by the Eastern Korinthia a Archaeological Survey (EKAS) have revealed series of relatively humble fortifications situated along the ridge ofMt. Oneion, which forms the south ern boundary of the Isthmus. These Late Classical-Early Hellenistic walls, a were to along with nearby series of later Venetian fortifications, designed access block to the south through several low passes. Controlling the passage was a of northern armies through the Isthmus to the P?loponn?se clearly concern for diverse long-term strategic regional powers.
one The Isthmus of Corinth is of the most strategically important regions in the eastern Mediterranean.1 It lies at the junction of the main north-south sea roads between central Greece and the P?loponn?se and the routes be tween the eastern and the western Mediterranean. The Corinthians, with their imposing citadel of Acrocorinth, traditionally controlled the Isthmus, runs which from the city's western port of Lechaion to its eastern port at numerous a Kenchreai (Fig. 1). At times, however, foreign power such as or to Rome Venice has sought dominate this strategically significant corridor. a area The Isthmus is both relatively fertile, flat agricultural and the natural point of defense for the P?loponn?se against any attack from the at north.2 Only 7 km wide its narrowest point, the Isthmus is cut today by was the Corinth Canal and crossed in antiquity by the Diolkos road. It is
to are to 1.We would especially like to thank also like thank Ronald Stroud, thanks due the many members Merle Daniel Pullen, codirector, and Thomas James Wiseman, and Langdon of EKAS who trudged up and down in Tartaron, field director, of the Eastern for advice and for reading earlier the steep paths of Oneion hot and drafts of the article. Thanks are also sometimes often Korinthia Archaeological Survey dangerous situations, to (EKAS). The 37th Ephoreia of due the anonymous Hesperia referees, carrying heavy equipment. This article who us avoid errors and is Classical and Prehistoric Antiquities helped many primarily the fruit of their labor. and the 4th Ephoreia of Byzantine and infelicities. Holly Cook prepared the 2.Wiseman 1978, pp. 17-21,52 and Karen Soteriou Post-Byzantine Antiquities provided pottery drawings, 56, 81-82; Isthmia V, pp. 7-10; Fowden at the of the Maritsa Vene 1995. cooperation and encouragement prepared plans tian every step of this project. We would fortifications. Finally, special
? The American School of Classical Studies at Athens WILLIAM R. CARAHER AND TIMOTHY E. GREGORY
N
GuffofCorfnth A
Ancfofit Corinth Yirfe???Gont? Voukiana
Xytotortn Saronlc Gulf i
vym
Figure 1.The Isthmus of Corinth, one of a handful of to natural places critical the defense of Greece, along with sites mentioned in the text. eastern W. R. Caraher with the pass ofThermopylai and the western passes of Kithairon Parnes between Boiotia and the Attic-Megarid region.3 Although these areas three have natural features that have made them easily defensible, all of them required complex systems of fortification to prevent the passage of an we new on enemy. Here seek to shed light the southernmost fortifica tions of the Isthmus corridor.
At the southern boundary of the Isthmian plain, the abrupt heights of a Mt. Oneion provide natural defensive line from Kenchreai toAcrocorinth an (Figs. 1, 2). For enemy approaching Mt. Oneion from the north, the a access sheer cliffs and steep slopes present formidable barrier. To gain to 3. Fowden 1995, 550. lands south of the mountain, it is to the Oneion barrier in a p. possible pass 4. For see the Xeropotamos, Wise number of ways 3). The easiest method is to go around it, either to (Fig. man 1978, pp. 81, 88-90; Salmon 1983, the east or the west. The routes of both ancient and modern times principal p. 36. For the Nemea and Longopota to course mos see skirt Mt. Oneion the west, following the of the Xeropotamos rivers, Pritchett 1969, pp. 77 or Wiseman (Leukon) River traversing the valleys of the Longopotamos (Rachiani) 79; 1978, pp. 81,108-110; to Salmon 1983, pp. 36-37; Bynum 1995, and Nemea (Koutsomadiotikos) rivers farther the west.4 The difficulty Pikoulas routes was ran pp. 40-45; 1995, pp. 31-35; with these in the past that they directly within the view of Lolos 1998, pp. 129-132; Marchand the fortifications of often an powerful Acrocorinth, prompting invading 2002, pp. 40-72. to seek an alternative course. army 5. Stroud 1971a, p. 127. For the east a route ran coast near identification of wheel ruts To the along the of the Saronic Gulf the presumably west to to this road a stretch port of Kenchreai, just of the modern coastal highway Epidauros.5 belonging along on route was of exposed bedrock the beach north The disadvantage of this that it passed close to the fortifications of Loutro Elenis, see Kenchreai I, p. 2; of Kenchreai, and these the road narrows between the sea to the beyond Salmon 1983, p. 37. east and the mass of Mt. Oneion to the west.6 Here a small force could 6. Pseudo-Skylax 54; Kenchreai I, an to easily block invader's progress the south. An invader with control of pp. 6-12. FORTIFICATIONS OF MOUNT ONEION, CORINTHIA 329
Figure 2.Mt. Oneion, looking south from the Isthmus. The Maritsa pass center. Photo T. E. is just right of Gregory
sea the would have found it easier to circumvent the defenses along the Saronic Gulf.7 an When invading army found the natural routes around the ends of cross Mt. Oneion blocked, it might attempt to the mountain directly. It so one is possible to do through of several north-south passes, including are the Stanotopi and Maritsa passes, which the particular focus of this article. To attempt either of these passes, located in the eastern part of the an reasons to Oneion range, attacking army must have had serious bypass routes are the easier skirting its eastern and western ends. Not only the a mountain routes arduous, but they would place the attackers in position most well east of Corinth and outside the main routes to the Argolid. The reason at compelling for using these passes would have been that forces tempting to block the Isthmia corridor typically arrayed themselves at the eastern and western ends of the mountain, defending the easy passages and resources maintaining close contact with the and fortifications of Corinth and Kenchreai. An attempt to pass through the center of the mountain ridge, therefore, may have seemed to meeting concentrated 7. E.g., Diodoros (19.54.3) recorded preferable on or that in 316 Kassander avoided a con defenses the Saronic coast in the Xeropotamos valley. were reasons an to access to area frontation with the troops of Polyper There other for invader seek the chon, who held the Isthmus at that routes immediately south of Mt. Oneion and east of the traditional to the men time, by transporting his from at Argolid. Textual and archaeological evidence from the Classical period to see Stroud Megara Epidauros by sea; an tests to the existence of unfortified community at Solygeia in the rolling 1971a, p. 142. 8. see hills south of Oneion I).8 finds have been For Solygeia, Thuc. 4.42-45; immediately (Fig. Archaeological near town on Corinth 1.1, pp. 97-99; Stroud 1971b; reported the of Almyri and the hills of Brielthi and Vigla. Wiseman course 1994, pp. 269-280; 1978, Moreover, in the of geological work conducted by EKAS, scatters 56-58. See pp. Lorandou-Papantou of ancient material in the fields to the west of the modern village of Rhyto excava niou 1999 for N. M. Verdelis's were observed, indicating that the hills south of Solygeia, reached today by tions in 1957-1958; for finds elsewhere, a road south from Galataki, may have had settlement in see Stroud 1971b, p. 238; Wiseman heading significant aswell.9 The of these unfortified settlements 1978, p. 58. antiquity presence apparently 9. Tartaron et coast an either to al., forthcoming. within easy reach of the may have tempted enemy forage 330 WILLIAM R. CARAHER AND TIMOTHY E. GREGORY
0 1.000 2.000 3,000 4,000 Gulf of Corinth N Lechaion Corinth
Isthmia
Ancient Corinth > Feige B Examilia U Saronic Dkeriza Gulf rKenchreai
Figure 3. Routes south through the in their or to out destructive raids on vulnerable centers of vicinity carry Isthmus: (A) the coastal route rural agricultural production. blocked during the Classical period In once an eastern addition, army crossed the mountain's end and by the long walls linking Corinth to ac moved south, it had bypassed the defenses of Acrocorinth and gained its port of Lechaion; (B) the tradi cess to a centers tional route south the complex network of roads leading toward the population following of the southwest Corinthia, such as Tenea, Kleonai, and Phlius, as well as Xeropotamos River; (C) the eastern an coastal road to the east of the Sanctuary of Zeus at Nemea. Thereafter, army could link up with passing routes or move west Stanotopi; (D) the pass; into the Argolid toward the through the uplands of Stanotopi to (E) the Maritsa pass. W. R. Caraher the northeastern P?loponn?se descend into Sikyonia, Arkadia, and an Achaia.10 It also would have been possible for invading army without to substantial naval power proceed south into the Epidauria, although there is little evidence for this actually occurring.11 Furthermore, east-west routes passing immediately to the south of Mt. Oneion would have given an access to army relatively easy the city walls of Corinth in the vicinity of to an unex the southeast gate, allowing the invaders attack Corinth from pected direction.12 we In this article, discuss the archaeological evidence from the Stano to topi and Maritsa passes of Mt. Oneion and the attempts made fortify at two runs them in least distinct periods. The Stanotopi pass just to the
10. to eastern Polyb. 4.13.1-6. The roads of Sikyon the part of the Isth the southwest Corinthia and the passes mus, avoiding Acrocorinth after the into the have been in b.c. Argolid well studied: Battle of Kaphyai 220 Stroud 1971a, p. 128; Bynum 1995, 11. Diod. Sic. 15.69.1; Dixon 2000, pp. 14-27; Pikoulas 1995, pp. 285-288; p. 94. Lolos 182-190. Walbank route 1998, pp. 12. This is the taken by (1957, p. 461) proposed that theAito Dodwell (1819, pp. 196-197). For the a lians may have followed route from gate, see Corinth III.2, pp. 47-54. FORTIFICATIONS OF MOUNT ONEION, CORINTHIA 331
west of the port of Kenchreai, and by traversing it, an enemy could skirt the eastern defenses of the Isthmus and descend into the plain to the south. Stroud has already discussed this passage in some detail.13 The Maritsa pass is some 2 km farther west, between Kenchreai and the modern vil an area or lage of Xylokeriza, in locally called Maritsa Trypeio Lithari. not more Scholars generally have recognized this difficult and remote pass; nevertheless, the remains of substantial fortifications designed to defend was as a it suggest that it perceived viable route south during the ancient and early modern periods.14
MAJOR LINES OF DEFENSE IN THE EASTERN CORINTHIA
Stroud observed that there have always been two lines of defense running a through the Corinthia: freestanding trans-Isthmian wall and the series of fortifications along Mt. Oneion.15 The idea of a trans-Isthmian wall has long commanded the larger share of scholarly attention. Researchers have identified and seriously discussed no less than four trans-Isthmian were to fortifications, all of which designed take advantage of the series terraces of upturned marine extending northwest-southeast through the a Isthmian plain.16 Broneer sought to identify and trace Mycenaean wall that ran from the beach south of the canal near the modern settlement of to Isthmia the neighborhood of the Sanctuary of Poseidon and presumably beyond.17 Wiseman reported fortifications along the Ayios Dimitrios ridge (Fig. 3), arguing that pottery, loomweights, and the masonry itself might identify this wall with the fortifications constructed during the Persian Wars and mentioned in books 8 and 9 of Herodotos.18 He also documented more a wall of Hellenistic date that followed a similar line on the 13. Stroud 1971a. thoroughly Ayios Dimitrios Excavations on this uncovered substantial 14. This pass is not to be confused ridge.19 ridge with the western remains of towers and what to have been barracks.20 While there pass noted by Stroud appear was no (1971a, pp. 129,137). evidence of the Classical wall beyond the top of the ridge, Wise 15. Stroud 1971a, p. 127. man was able to trace the Hellenistic wall as it turned to the northwest and 16. Isthmia V, pp. 4-6. to ultimately the north toward the modern city of Corinth. 17. Broneer 1966; see also Kardara The final trans-Isthmian fortification, and certainly the most impres 1971; Wiseman 1978, p. 60. sive is the constructed in the of the 5th cen 18. Hdt. 8.71, 9.7.1; Wiseman 1978, today, Hexamilion, early years A.D. and rebuilt on occasions are p. 60; see also Isthmia V, p. 5. tury many afterward. Its remains still well 19.Wiseman can 1963; 1978, pp. 59 preserved in many places, and they be traced from the Saronic Gulf 63. See aislo Lawrence 1979, p. 169; to the Corinthian Gulf.21 This formidable fortification, despite periods of n. Isthmia V, p. 5, 35. access disrepair, served to block to the P?loponn?se for over 1,000 years. In 20. Wiseman 1963, pp. 255-256. the last to the lower line of the Hexamilion was 21. Isthmia V fact, attempt fortify during the second of Venetian of the 22. Isthmia V, pp. 150-151; Malte period (1686-1715) occupation P?loponn?se, zou was even senate was to 1978. There talk of refor although the Venetian evidently unable provide the funds the Hexamilion at the time of tifying necessary for its proper repair and defense.22 the Greek War of in the Independence The second line of defense serving to fortify the Isthmia corridor was early 19th century. farther south and took of the Oneion range as a natural barrier 23. Stroud 1971a.Wiseman (1978, advantage n. north-south movement.23 The fortifications this line left the p. 59, p. 77, 91) lists eight instances against along in which Oneion was fortified between plain of the Isthmus undefended and could not protect against an army 369 and 146 b.c. west to enter that moved the P?loponn?se through any of the north-south 332 WILLIAM R. CARAHER AND TIMOTHY E. GREGORY
I t N .o -aoo . 400 . ero . aoo ?JT7i,ooom?>m? . # I a*?*. ^1 ISaron/c
4. The eastern of the were Figure part river valleys. The Oneion fortifications also less spectacular than the Oneion with passes and forti walls of the lower and were erected and ridge, freestanding plain, they apparently fications. Contour interval 20 m. are manned under less dramatic circumstances. They associated with the W. R. Caraher Stanotopi and Maritsa passes (Fig. 4). runs The Stanotopi pass between the principal mass of Mt. Oneion easternmost a crosses and its prominence, hill called Stanotopi. This pass a the mountain at comparatively low elevation, ca. 200 m. The main routes ascend the mountain from the flat land near Kenchreai and descend close to town the modern of Loutro Elenis. The best paths follow two converging cut ravines that into the north face of the mountain. These ravines begin ca. m to 150 the east of the entrance to amodern quarry (which at present consumes the eastern extent of the mountain) and 40 m to the south of the southern fence of a modern Greek army base. One route ascends the western eastern side of the ravine and the other, probably easier, passage runs to just the east. These paths provide access to the top of the Oneion m at an ridge, which is under 250 in elevation this point, and from there army could descend by numerous routes to the south. runs across The Maritsa pass the center of the mountain ridge, ascend ca. 2.4 km west east ing of Kenchreai and 2 km of the village of Xylokeriza. a The best modern path approaches deep ravine from the east, crossing a broad alluvial fan. Ascent from the west would have involved a much east steeper climb. The path from the ascends sharply toward the east side of the ravine before crossing to the west side of a broad saddle that passes across at an over the mountain elevation of slightly 320 m. On the southern to side of the saddle the path breaks the east, crossing the saddle again, and descends south along the spines of any number of alluvial fans toward Galataki and ancient Solygeia. FORTIFICATIONS OF MOUNT ONEION, CORINTHIA 333
Figure 5. Classical-Hellenistic forti fications at Contour interval Stanotopi. 20 m. W. R. Caraher
CLASSICAL-HELLENISTIC FORTIFICATIONS AT STANOTOPI
The Classical-Hellenistic fortifications at Stanotopi have been clearly and to accurately described by Stroud, who dated the architecture the 4th 3rd centuries b.c., with a latest date of 224 b.c., based on the pottery found as most in the vicinity, well as historical probability.24 The impressive ele ment of the fortifications is the freestanding, nearly square tower located on the summit of the relatively low easternmost spur of Mt. Oneion, overlooking Loutro Elenis (ancient Chersonesos). Made of rectangular measures x m ashlar blocks laid in rough courses, it 8.80 9.10 and is pre a m west tower served to maximum height of 1.20 (Fig. 5). To the of the an area x m is the so-called upper enclosure, covering of about 75 125 and cut seemingly surrounded by walls made of rectangular blocks whose pre cise extent cannot be determined.25 Stroud inferred from the thick scatter of pottery and the presence of a cistern that intensive activity had taken place within the enclosure during antiquity.26 The cistern and the ashlar a tower may have supported garrison in the upper enclosure and dem a onstrate significant interest and investment in the fortification of this strategic height. Below and to the north of the tower and the upper enclosure, awall ran a ca. In approximately east-west along the top of steep slope for 600 m.27
see tower. ca. 0.70 m in width. Around 24. Stroud 1971a; pp. 139-145 of the Unfortunately, the mouth length and were one was a scatter for discussion of the date. and shape of this cistern destroyed possible grave large to of Classical-Hellenistic coarse- and 25. Stroud 1971a, pp. 129-135, by the looters, making it impossible the fine-ware that included two figs. 2, 3. determine dimensions with any pottery substantial 26. Stroud 1971a, p. 133. Recent precision. The looting also revealed amphora fragments (11,12; be as in the clandestine excavations have revealed what may tentatively interpreted Fig. 13) apparently disturbed cut into three in the course of the another possible cistern the graves upper enclosure; digging. near corner each to have been ca. 1.80 m in 27. Stroud 3. conglomerate the northeast appears 1971a, pp. 135-137, fig. 334 WILLIAM R. CARAHER AND TIMOTHY E. GREGORY
contrast to the other structures mentioned above, this wall was built with two faces of unworked stones filled with rubble and measured ca. 2.50 m in were traces a thickness. Although there few of wall along the south, Stroud reasonably proposed that this north wall continued around the whole of tower the summit of Stanotopi, with the approximately at its center and a possible gate along the wall's south side. Stroud thought it likely that was an this larger enclosure expansion of the upper enclosure, although he admitted that the chronology could have been reversed.28 two West of this substantial complex, Stroud noted long walls designed to two routes across guard the lowest the Oneion ridge, located west of east Stanotopi and of the hill designated 427 in his figure l.29 These walls crest two run lie along the of the ridge between the heights and roughly ca. east-west. The eastern wall was preserved for 245 m, the western for ca. m. a 255 Built of rubble, in style similar to that of the larger enclosure, were m area the walls 2.40-2.50 thick. Although this is overgrown with dense vegetation and has been disturbed by the bulldozing of a forest road, one can trace nevertheless short fragments of the walls (Figs. 4,5).
CLASSICAL-HELLENISTIC FORTIFICATIONS AT MARITSA
The second fortress on Oneion, above the Maritsa pass, is also datable to the Late Classical-Early Hellenistic period. It has three parts: a fortress, or enceinte, and two independent shield walls, all apparently constructed at same on the time (Fig. 6). The fortress encloses the highest point the eastern a part of the mountain and consists of large enclosure with two major spur walls. The shield walls, one to the northeast and the other to the west, served as additional defenses for the main enclosure. The Maritsa and are Stanotopi fortifications similar in organization, suggesting comparable functions and dates of construction. a The Maritsa fortress has commanding view of the central Isthmia corridor to the north and the ravine-dissected hill country to the south around modern Galataki and ancient Solygeia. The Gulf of Corinth and are the Saronic Gulf clearly visible to the north, although part of the ancient harbor of Kenchreai is obscured by the eastern heights of the mountain. seen The Saronic Gulf may be to the south and east, along with the coast on from Loutro Elenis to the village of Almyri and the site the suggestively or named hill of Vigla (meaning lookout post watch), which has evidence to for occupation from prehistory the Byzantine period.30 Immediately to tower as the east, the hill of Stanotopi with its is visible well. The modern villages of Examilia and Xylokeriza, along with much of Acrocorinth, fall within the fortification's view to the west. seems While it likely from the arrangement of shield walls that the secure an fortress served to the heights of Oneion against enemy from the north, it also would have controlled the southern approach to the In fact, anyone an ascent of Mt. Oneion from the south pass. beginning 28. Stroud 1971a, p. 137. in the of the Maritsa would fall out of the general vicinity pass quickly 29. Stroud 1971a, p. 128. never 30. view from Stanotopi, but from the view of the fortified heights of Wiseman 1978, p. 58. FORTIFICATIONS OF MOUNT ONEION, CORINTHIA 335
6. Figure Classical-Hellenistic forti fications above the Maritsa pass. Contour interval 20 m. W. R. Caraher
Maritsa. It is possible that Maritsas favorable position obviated the need a as one on for watchtower such the found Stanotopi and elsewhere in the Corinthia.31
The Oneion ridge dominates the Isthmia/Examilia basin, and if the fortification walls stood higher in antiquity, which they almost assuredly did, they would have been visible from the Isthmus. From the south the fortress also would have been visually impressive.
Main Enclosure
The walls of are a the main enclosure largely preserved. They surround treeless an area over rocky, mostly peak covering of 5,000 m2. The peak rises to the east a gently toward Stroud's hill 427; today Hellenic Army Geographical Service geodetic marker with an elevation of 423.99 m stands at just inside the enclosure wall its easternmost point (Fig. 6). The enclosure has amaximum east-west 110 m a length of and maximum width, roughly north-south, of 72 m. The course of the enclosure wall is visible for almost the entire circuit. 31. Watchtowers are not uncommon are The walls constructed of roughly cut stones laid in two faces with a on elevated locations in the Corinthia; rubble fill the same construction that Stroud noted at are at (Fig. 7), Stanotopi. there examples Kefalari (Wise There is no evidence for the use of mortar or blocks. In a num man 1978, pp. 118-119, figs. 166-168) rectangular ber of both faces of the wall are itmeasures 1.80-2.00 m in and along the Epidaurian border places visible; over (Dixon 2000, pp. 51-93). thickness. At its greatest height the wall is preserved to just 1m, and it 32. Pritchett (1974, 133-146) is that stone not course pp. possible the walls did stand much higher. Along the some has proposed that low stone walls are of the wall numerous large fragments of Lakonian and Corinthian tiles may have served as anchors for wooden (discussed below), and these may indicate that the upper part of the wall palisades. The preponderance of tiles, was constructed of mudbrick with a of tiles to it.32 however, suggests that these low walls covering protect were The main enclosure is an socles for upper walls made of irregular polygon, with its walls taking ad mudbrick. as as vantage of the local topography much possible. The north and east WILLIAM 336 R. CARAHER AND TIMOTHY E. GREGORY
?SMm^?
Figure 7. Typical section of the main enclosure wall of theMaritsa fortifi
cations. Photo T. E. Gregory
are sides the least accessible, as they lie at the top of steep cliffs. The west a wall is built along slight ridge of bedrock. The easiest way to travel from to the pass the main enclosure is to ascend the gradual western slope, but no a west evidence for gate exists along the wall. The only other approach would be from the south, albeit over much steeper terrain. In the middle of to to its course, the south wall protrudes slightly the south take advantage of a local increase in slope.33 In general, however, the gentler slope of the south access to was face of the mountain suggests that the main enclosure gained our from that direction, which agrees with understanding that defensive to forces would have sought primarily hold the Isthmus against invaders seems from the north. It reasonable to imagine that the fortifications at over both Maritsa and Stanotopi, standing guard the northern approach to the P?loponn?se and the southern reaches of Corinthian territory, were to designed be resupplied from the south.
Western Shield Wall
runs a ca. m The western shield wall north-south along ridge 200 west m a of the main enclosure. It extends 220 from bedrock outcropping at to an con its northern terminus abrupt drop at the south. It is similar in to a a struction the walls of the main enclosure, with rubble fill and rough was facing without mortar. The western shield wall thicker, however, m reaching nearly 3 in some places. As with the walls of the main enclosure at were and those Stanotopi, Lakonian and Corinthian tiles occasionally
33. to the east of this a route to a Just southward of gate, however, and the this imply the presence of gate in the diversion is the only, very meager, evi part of the southern wall would be south wall. Stroud (1971a, pp. 134, dence for a At this wall a at gate. point the quite steep. The presence of major 137) noted that the fortifications seems to and several wall from the are most stop abruptly, spur projecting southwest Stanotopi easily approached uncut stones courses corner as possibly laid in of the enclosure's circuit suggests from the south side well, and the the eastern side of a that the of this a was on may represent gate. protection southern only evidence for possible gate There is no evidence a western was a for side flank priority, and this might also the southern flank of the north wall. FORTIFICATIONS OF MOUNT CORINTHIA ONEION, 337
course. a found along its In places the western shield wall stands to height of 1.20 m.
To the west of the wall, the ground falls away steeply toward the north-south ravine that forms theMaritsa pass through the mountain. The area more or immediately to the east of the wall is less level, and scattered concentrations of broken pottery are visible there. Farther to the east, the now en rocky ground, heavily wooded, rises to the west wall of the main closure. The western shield wall does not connect directly with the main enclosure. The steep northern and southern faces of the mountain would an area have made it difficult, if not impossible, for army to ascend to the between the western shield wall and the main enclosure.
It is important to note that this shield wall does not block the pass itself. It is situated to overlook the Maritsa pass, and can be seen today a from the southern end of the pass below. Moreover, it stands at place access that is already difficult to from the pass; although the 1:5,000 maps a indicate modern path running from the pass to the wall, this would be or was useful only for shepherds resin collectors. The western shield wall a on therefore probably intended to discourage direct assault the main a enclosure from the pass and to protect stretch of level high ground from a which the pass itself could be controlled. It would have provided barrier on course behind which guards could hide. Depending the precise of the was m ancient route through the pass, the wall between 200 and 300 distant, placing it at the margin of the effective range of ancient projectiles.34 The on pottery the level ground immediately to the east of the wall may reflect the use of this level area for troop quarters.
Northern Shield Wall
runs a m The northern shield wall for distance of 300 along the top of the same as northern slope of the mountain. It is of the construction the western on m shield wall, but it is average only 2.50 thick. The eastern part of the runs m a wall for 80 almost north-south along rocky spur projecting from m the face of Mt. Oneion. It then turns sharply to the southwest for 80 m. before turning west, following the contours, for nearly 130 Its western end seems to be in the rocky and wooded northern face of Oneion, 40 m to the north of the northeastern wall of the main enclosure. most an The distinctive feature of this wall is abrupt, right-angle turn some m 100 from its eastern end. To the south of this sharp turn, there a is natural depression in the exposed bedrock that may have provided a level for a tower. There no concentra place are, however, exceptional or more tions of pottery additional tumble that might indicate intensive no activity here than elsewhere along the wall. Nevertheless, there is reason topographical for the well-defined right-angle turn in the wall, was as a and it is possible that the natural depression in the bedrock used 34.Mcleod notes that the (1965) a tower some or foundation for of sort, perhaps constructed of mudbrick range of archers rarely exceeded 200 m, even wood. and Echols (1949-1950) suggests a ancient was visible on the surface between the northern shield wall and similar range for the sling; Pottery see also 31-32. the east wall of the main enclosure. tiles of various kinds were Baitinger 2001, pp. Although WILLIAM R. CARAHER AND TIMOTHY E. GREGORY 338
were predominant, there also pithos and amphora fragments, suggesting that the defenders used this area for storage or habitation. As in the case of the western shield wall, the exact tactical purpose of this wall is difficult to discern. Less than 200 m to the north of the wall are a steep cliffs, making direct ascent from the plain below perilous. Perhaps an the wall served to guard the main enclosure from army ascending the route. north face ofMt. Oneion from the east?a difficult, if not impossible, area on It may also have protected the relatively flat top of the Oneion ridge where troops presumably camped.
FORTIFICATIONS BETWEEN STANOTOPI AND MARITSA
East of the Maritsa peak and the main enclosure, the ground drops down a to to high, relatively flat saddle and then rises another very small peak an at elevation of 393.80 m, according to the topographic maps of the Hellenic Army Geographical Service. A series of walls guard the ascent are stones to this peak. These not well preserved; many of their have been a incorporated into large mandra (goat fold) immediately southeast of the to highest point (Fig. 8). In their current condition they appear primarily have blocked ascent from the east and south. It is difficult to evaluate the an a possibility of eastern ascent, since large modern quarry has destroyed much of the topography of this part of the mountain. To judge from the was 1:5,000 maps, produced almost 40 years ago when the quarry much seems to smaller, however, it probable that the easiest route of ascent this part of the mountain was from the south; the eastern slopes of the mountain are quite steep and interrupted by sheer cliffs. The highest peak between Stanotopi and Maritsa may have received course more substantial fortifications. A short of roughly trimmed stones an is arranged in east-west line along the steep northern slope immedi
on the eastern face Figure 8.Walls of Mt. Oneion. Contour interval 4 m. W. R. Caraher FORTIFICATIONS OF MOUNT ONEION, CORINTHIA 339
Figure 9. Trimmed stones on the northern face of Mt. Oneion. Photo T. E. Gregory
10. Niches cut in the south Figure ern face of the mountain east of the
Maritsa pass. Photo T. E. Gregory
to ately below the high point of the ridge (Fig. 9). This wall is flanked the north by another east-west line of stone, producing what could well be an an entrance to upper enclosure similar to what Stroud argued for the stones were Stanotopi fortifications. The in these walls quarried from the are mountain itself, and several quarry cuts evident in the exposed bedrock of the ridge. two not Although these short, isolated walls do provide evidence for a on full-fledged ashlar fortification the Oneion ridge, they might sug an a more gest attempt to fortify the mountain in permanent way. On the southern side of this peak (see the "Quarried Area" in Fig. 8), several are niches have been cut in the rock (Fig. 10). These semicircular in shape 340 WILLIAM R. CARAHER AND TIMOTHY E. GREGORY
are and raised above the modern ground level. They may have been cut a uncommon for the placement of votives in fashion not in antiquity (see, on area e.g., the Sanctuary of Aphrodite the 'Iepoc 'O?o? at Daphni). The has been extensively used by shepherds over the centuries, and no other a traces of antiquity survive, but it is not impossible that small sanctuary existed at this spot. Just to the east of this peak is another, somewhat lower, outcropping as m on (shown 355.00 the Greek army map) just above the western edge were on of the modern quarry. No fortification walls discovered this peak, a are no but there is thick scatter of tile and pithos fragments. There other area nor remains of architecture in this any evidence for foundation cuttings. a Nevertheless, there may have been structure here roughly contemporary now with the fortifications at Stanotopi andMaritsa, although it is impos sible to be certain.
FINDS FROM THE ANCIENT FORTIFICATIONS AT MARITSA
In 2001 EKAS carried out an intensive investigation of the area around the Maritsa Classical-Hellenistic fortifications. This involved the de
tailed description of the architectural remains and artifacts (mostly pottery) on were our the surface of the ground. There two impediments to task. on First, the very irregular visibility of artifacts due to the dense vegetation our to the Oneion ridge limited ability sample the surface systematically. Second, the relatively remote and rugged location of the fortifications on our we imposed limitations the size of survey team and the time that our could spend there. These difficulties, combined with commitment remove a to low-impact archaeology and the decision to only few arti our facts from the area, affected the nature of investigation. Description, were out photography, and illustration of artifacts carried in the field, and were were the vast majority of the objects left where they found. Only small representative samples were brought back to our study area for fur was ther analysis. This approach deemed appropriate from both ethical as were and scientific perspectives, the finds generally similar throughout the area.35 was Our survey technique similar to that used in the course of the EKAS high-intensity, gridded collections of Localized Cultural Anomalies a over (LOCAs).36 We established flexible grid the entire site and sampled sections of the grid where visibility permitted. The goal of this method was was or to determine whether there substantial functional chronological variation on the of the hill. The surface made 35. For this which is present top poor visibility approach, traditional calculations irrelevant. consistent with the methods density essentially adopted by were EKAS the area, see Overall, 757 artifacts recorded using the chronotype system.37 throughout survey et were Tartaron al., forthcoming; Gregory The artifacts chronologically homogeneous. All datable premodern 2004. material could be assigned to the Late Classical and Early Hellenistic 36. Tartaron et al., 1 a most common in forthcoming. Table summary of the finds order 37. see periods. provides For the chronotype system, of These finds are now stored at the facilities of the Ohio State frequency. Given and Knapp 2003, pp. 14-16; 2004. Uniyersity Excavations at Isthmia in Kyras Vrysi. Gregory FORTIFICATIONS OF MOUNT ONEION, CORINTHIA 341
TABLE 1. FINDS FROM THE MARITSA FORTIFICATIONS
Percent Chronotype Quantity
Tile, Lakonian, Classical-Hellenistic 207 27.3 163 21.5 Tile, painted, Classical-Hellenistic Amphora, Corinthian B 124 16.4 Tile, Greek Corinthian pan tile, yellow slip 82 10.8 Pithos, orange and blue core 63 8.3 Medium coarse ware, Classical-Hellenistic 31 4.1 4.0 Tile, Lakonian, painted, Classical-Hellenistic 30 Kitchen ware, Classical-Hellenistic 17 2.3 Amphora, Corinthian A 13 1.7 Undiagnostic 27 3.6
or ca. The overwhelming majority of artifacts found (482, 64% of the were total sample) Lakonian and Corinthian tiles, many of them slipped. common were Also storage and transport vessels, especially Corinthian B were amphoras, and fragments of pithoi. Classical-Hellenistic cooking pots on were frequent finds the surface of the site. Few examples collected of or fine ware the semifine (plain ware) pottery commonly associated with domestic assemblages in the Corinthia. common The following catalogue provides examples of finds from the are Maritsa main enclosure. All measurements given in meters.
Catalogue
1 Stamped Attic black-glazed bowl Fig. 11 9008-146-1. PL. 0.025; p.W. 0.017; Th. 0.003. Fine red clay (2.5YR 5/8) with few voids. Fragment preserves small part of the base and the attachment for the missing ring foot. Shiny black glaze interior on the bottom interior. and exterior, stamped (rouletted) marks
2 Semiglazed bowl Fig. 11 9008-157-101.
P.H. 0.030; est. Diam. (foot) 0.05. Fine pink clay (7.5 YR 7/4) with some small voids. Bowl with low ring foot. Cf. Corinth VII.3, pp. 28-29; probably 4th century as the ring foot is higher in the 3rd century.
3 Blister ware jug Fig. 11 9008-157-102. P.H. 0.034; Diam. (neck) 0.029. Relatively fine pink clay (5YR 7/4) with a few small brown inclusions and small voids, fired gray on the surfaces. Small jug with vertical neck and flaring rim.
coarse or 4 Medium jug pitcher Fig. 11 9008-130-101.
P.H. 0.064; est. Diam. (rim) 0.10. 342 WILLIAM R. CARAHER AND TIMOTHY E. GREGORY
^
\L
\ \
Figure 11. Typical ceramic finds Reddish yellow clay (5YR 7/6) with small-medium brown and black and from the Maritsa main enclosure. Scales 1:1 (1) and 1:2 (2-5). H. Cook some sparkling inclusions. Large jug or pitcher with tapering neck and flaring, thickened rim; lipwith a broad groove on the upper surface.
5 Medium coarse jug or pitcher Fig. 11 9008-166-101.
P.H. 0.060; est. Diam. (rim) 0.12. identical to that rim is with a shallow Description 4, except pointed, groove on the exterior.
12 6 Coarse mortarium Fig. 9008-183-101.
P.H. 0.061; est. Diam. (rim) 0.29. Coarse reddish yellow clay (5YR 7/6) with many large white, black, and vertical a broad brown inclusions and small voids. Mortarium with plain rim; toward the exterior and cut horizontal ridge, tapering sharply back, probably served as a handle.
7 Corinthian B amphora toe Fig. 12 9008-145-105.
P.H. 0.058; max. Diam. (toe) 0.051. Relatively fine reddish yellow clay (5YR 6/6) with small black and red inclusions toe round on bottom. and voids. Bulbous amphora with distinct impression
8 Pithos with molded decoration Fig. 12 9008-162-5. P.W. max. Th. 0.022. 0.112; p.H. 0.096; Coarse red clay (10R 5/8) with many medium-large angular blue-gray stone inclusions and voids, fired gray at core. Body sherd is broken all around; two one rounded in thin black raised horizontal bands, rectangular, the other section; on exterior. slip
9 Slipped Lakonian tile Fig. 12 9008-153-1. FORTIFICATIONS OF MOUNT ONEION, CORINTHIA 343
t?
T r
10
Figure 12. Typical ceramic finds from the Maritsa main enclosure. P. dims. 0.140 x 0.112; Th. 0.026. Scales 1:2 (7) and 1:4 (6, 8-10). H. Cook coarse Medium reddish yellow clay (5YR 6/6) with many medium-large brown small and inclusions, gold sparkling inclusions, many small-large voids. Lakonian tile with chamfered and on concave edge deep groove side; orange slip also on concave side.
10 Slipped Lakonian tile Fig. 12 9008-150-1. P. dims. 0.198 x 0.148; Th. 0.021. coarse Medium light red clay (2.5YR 6/8) with few medium white, red, and gold sparking inclusions and few medium voids. Tile with slighdy chamfered edge; on concave rather thin; dark red slip side.
The assemblage is consistent with what one would expect from a forti area fied occupied for short periods of time. It is understandable that the inhabitants made extensive use of storage vessels, as there is no evidence for a local water supply. Cooking vessels also would have been required by soldiers on encamped the mountain for any length of time. The assemblage as as lacks any artifacts recognizable potentially religious in nature, such or miniatures, figurines, lamps. Chronologically, the finds generally fit best in the second half of the 4th century b.c., but it is possible that many of them would still have circulated in the 3rd century. 344 WILLIAM R. CARAHER AND TIMOTHY E. GREGORY
11 12
Figure 13. Two amphora rims from the Oneion Scale 1:4. H. Cook OTHER FINDS FROM THE ONEION RIDGE ridge.
to In addition the intensive collection conducted during the 2001 field we season, also collected nonsystematic, judgmental samples of highly areas diagnostic sherds from other of the Oneion ridgeline. Two well one one preserved amphora rims, Corinthian A and Corinthian B, were a on recovered from hole that probably had been dug by looters Stanotopi hill.
Catalogue
11 Corinthian A amphora Fig. 13 ST1. PH. 0.128; Diam. (rim) 0.122; Diam. (handle) 0.036. Coarse red clay (2.5YR 5/8) with many small-large red, brown, and black inclusions and voids. Typical Corinthian A amphora with heavy pointed folded rim and oval handles.
12 Corinthian B amphora Fig. 13 ST 2. PH. 0.128; est. Diam. (rim) 0.15. Hard light red clay (2.5YR 6/8), fairly fine with few small voids. Small part a of the shoulder, half of the neck, and about quarter of the rim. Vertical neck with broad wheel ridges on the interior; flaring, pointed rim, horizontal on the a vertical oval handle below the rim. top. Attachment for just
On the outcrop immediately to the west of the modern quarry, we ob served several well-preserved examples of painted Lakonian tiles identical to those found in the vicinity of the Maritsa fortress. At the same spot, a a large fragment of particularly elaborate Classical-Hellenistic pithos body was no sherd also found. At place along the entire length of the Oneion was a ridge there any concentration of pottery from period other than the Classical-Hellenistic era. In an area such as the Corinthia, which is a generally characterized by carpet of chronologically variable artifacts, the uniformity of these finds is truly remarkable and most likely testifies to the exceptional circumstances under which this nearly inaccessible mountaintop was fortified and used. FORTIFICATIONS O F M0?NT ONEiON)COrinthi? 345
Figure 14. Density of finds in the Figure 14 shows the findspots and the gridded density of artifacts vicinity of theMaritsa fortifications. Contour interval 4 m. W. R. Caraher from theMaritsa fortifications. Although the dense ground cover around our many parts of the fortifications certainly affected ability to recognize seems was artifacts, it that the archaeological material concentrated pri areas: one marily in two along the western wall of the main enclosure, at eastern the other its edge and down the slope, especially to the north and northeast. Counts were certainly far lower in the central area of the enclosure. This disparity may be the result of the use of tiles to cap a pos sible mudbrick superstructure on the stone foundations of the fortification walls. In addition, it is possible that the inhabitants of the fortifications more spent of their time along the walls than they did in the central part of the defensive area.
HISTORY, TOPOGRAPHY, AND FUNCTION OF THE ANCIENT FORTIFICATIONS
Wiseman and Stroud have ably discussed the literary evidence for the on fortification of the Isthmus during antiquity. They focus primarily the a Late Classical and Hellenistic periods, when the Isthmus became high way for the forces of outside powers such as Attica, Thebes, and Mace don seeking to intervene among the rival and recalcitrant cities of the P?loponn?se.38 Political conditions dictated that almost every occasion for the defense of Mt. Oneion was connected with the movement of a north ern moun 38.Wiseman 1963; Stroud 1971a, army south into the P?loponn?se. The strategy of fortifying the 139-145. a pp. tain and allowing large stretch of fertile Corinthian land to remain AND 346 WILLIAM R. CARAHER TIMOTHY E. GREGORY undefended reflects the interests of foreign (non-Corinthian) powers in defending the Isthmus.39 The function of the fortifications documented in this article is highly relevant to debates on whether we should understand Greek fortifications as a local, in this case Corinthian, defensive response or as the work of non as or local powers such Athens, Thebes, Sparta, Maced?n.40 As Wiseman assume and Stroud have argued, it is not necessary to that the mountain was fortified by the Corinthians simply because it is located in Corinthian a territory. The presence of second rough fortification above the Maritsa not s pass does substantially challenge Stroud conclusions regarding the us defense of the Isthmus along the Oneion line. It does, however, allow to offer several modest contributions to previous discussions of the history and topography of this region. To understand the fortifications onMt. Oneion, it is necessary to review briefly the ancient understanding of the topography and communication network in the area.While numerous scholars have studied the roads in
the southwestern Corinthia and the passes to the Argolid, the eastern area Corinthia, particularly the immediately south of the Isthmus, has as not received much systematic attention.41 Nevertheless, Stroud, Wise man, and Dixon provide general treatments of the historical topography of the larger region, establishing the importance of Mt. Oneion within this context. are no on There explicit references to military activity Mt. Oneion in the century before 366 b.c. The unsettled conditions of the second half of the 4th century, coinciding with the establishment of Macedonian power, along with the evidence from the finds associated with the walls, make it were certain that these passes used and defended during this time. Stroud thus established a sound historical terminus post quern of ca. 350 b.c. for the on fortification based archaeological and historical data. The best insights into the intended function of the fortifications and their respective passes, an however, derive from earlier period, 370-366 b.c., whenTheban armies under Epaminondas moved north and south through the Isthmus.42 The accounts of the Theban wars inXenophon describe the efforts of various forces to block the eastern routes over Mt. Oneion without permanent fortifications. These efforts and the regularity with which Epaminondas to breached the Isthmus at this point might have led the fortification of the mountain sometime after 350 b.c. not The humble walls at Stanotopi andMaritsa do feature prominently sources in the literary from later periods. One passage, already noted by an to Stroud and others, may make oblique reference the presence of forti fications in the proximity of Kenchreai and the Oneion ridge. In 315 b.c., son 39. Stroud (1971a, pp. 139-145) during theWars of the Successors, Alexander, the of Polyperchon, a of the vari provides careful summary to hold the Corinthia Kassander. Diodoros (19.63.4) tells sought against ous who the Isthmus, us parties garrisoned that Kassander in and the Oneion line particular. 40. Lauter-Bufe 1988; Kai t? U?v %copav E.g., rcpcoTOvKeyxpe?? enoXiopKX\oaq ??ficoae xfjv McCredie 1966. tcov KopivO?cov, l?ela ?? Tama o?o 9po?pia koct?c Kpocxo? ?X?v ' 41. An exception isDixon 2000. 1)71 TO?? A?,?^av8pOD Ka0?OTOCU?VOD?(ppODpOU? U710O7COV?0U? 42. Stroud 1971a, pp. 139-142, with ?(pf?K?V. sources. FORTIFICATIONS OF MOUNT CORINTHIA ONEION, 347
first took Kenchreai and plundered the fields of the Corinthians. Then, after taking two fortresses by storm, he dismissed under truce the garrisons that had been placed in them by Alexander.43
Just one year earlier, these troops had forced Kassander to take his sea troops from Megara to Epidauros by (Diod. Sic. 19.54.3). Although the passage lacks any detail concerning the two fortifications, Stroud thought on that the fortifications Stanotopi, near Kenchreai, were reasonable can as were didates they "in the vicinity of the heaviest fighting."44 Following this logic, and considering that Diodoros puts the conquest of the two we fortifications directly after the siege of Kenchreai, believe it is plausible to two are suggest that the fortresses those of Stanotopi and Maritsa. While the exact date and specific function of these defenses remain seems most on unclear, it likely that the enclosures Stanotopi and Maritsa were a fortified camps designed to provide protection and base of opera to tions for forces assigned hold these important passes.45 Their simple architectural style, limited evidence for long-term occupation, and strategic as placement find parallels in other strategic settings, such the fortifications more at the Dema Gap nearThermopylai and the better-built, substantial Dema Wall between Mt. Aigaleos and Mt. Parn?s.46 Moreover, the recur rent instances of foreign detachments being stationed in the Corinthia during the Late Classical and Hellenistic periods help to explain the presence of modest fortifications suitable for short-term defensive deploy ments. It is worth noting that, in contrast to the Dema Wall in Attica, not serve to seems these fortifications did block the pass itself. It likely that were to a they designed allow force responsible for blocking the pass to a on occupy fortified position high ground in the immediate vicinity. Fol on we lowing Stroud's interpretation of the walls Stanotopi, conclude that on at to a the fortifications Mt. Oneion the Maritsa pass belong growing corpus of humble fortifications that served to complement and reinforce more the sophisticated and substantial examples of military architecture found throughout the Greek world.
VENETIAN DEFENSES ON MOUNT ONEION
were The Stanotopi and Maritsa passes also fortified during the Second sets were Venetian period. Both of fortifications designed to cut the north-south routes between the Isthmus and the area south ofMt. Oneion. were They constructed of identical masonry, with exterior walls of irregular mortar. blocks filled with rubble and The exterior blocks were roughly on a hewn their outer surface to make relatively smooth face. The outer
43. Trans. R. M. Lawrence 160 Geer, Cambridge, pp. 133-146; 1979, pp. discussion of the complex fortifications 1947. 167. For some recent around Mass., dissenting opin Thermopylai, many of which 44. Stroud see n. are to 1971a, p. 143; 7, ions, particularly regarding the forti very similar in construction the above. Cf. Perlman 2000, pp. 148-149. fications at Korone, see Lauter-Bufe walls on Mt. Oneion, see Pritchett For numerous see 45. examples from 1988. For the Dema Wall, Munn 1958,1994; MacKay 1963; Cherf 1996, see throughout the Greek world, 1993. pp. 56-59. McCredie 1966; Pritchett 1974, 46. For the sometimes acrimonious WILLIAM R. CARAHER AND TIMOTHY E. GREGORY 348
were a mortar surfaces covered by coat of that has mostly disappeared but was over presumably applied the entire face. The exterior faces of the walls a or a have significant upward taper battering, characteristic of military construction in this period. In the first quarter of the 20th century, Fowler a observed finished top made of triangular-shaped blocks at several points are no along the Stanotopi wall. The wall tops longer preserved at either location today.47 a a Each fortification complex is barrier wall with fighting platform a along the interior, terminating in rectangular tower (hypothesized for as was Stanotopi, the western end destroyed by quarrying during the past crosses 30 years). In each case, the wall the road through the pass relatively on a low the mountain, about third of the way to the top, at a point where course eva the road itself changed and the natural lay of the land made was an sion difficult (see above, Fig. 4). The purpose of the tower to block across evasion downhill, while permitting enfilading fire back up the road. The fortifications at theMaritsa pass continued up the mountain above the an or tower, to further prevent army from ascending the pass from position ing itself behind the fortifications, where the defenders would have been was more unprotected. The design of the Stanotopi fortifications complex ran a (Fig. 15). The wall between series of natural heights, each of which was a were defended by bastion. The eastern and western bastions open in was the rear, while the central bastion pentagonal, evidently designed to cover the stretch of wall both east and west. no were We have idea whether these two fortifications actually used to defend the P?loponn?se at the time of the final Ottoman attack. Probably on they were not, because their usefulness depended the Venetians being able to hold the main lines of attack at the Hexamilion, the coastline near Kenchreai, and the Xeropotamos Valley. Finlay reports that in late July of 1715, the Ottomans, under the command of Ali Kumurgi, descended into a the Corinthia with force of 70,000 men, while the Venetians had only 8,000 soldiers.48 The Venetians placed their hopes in the local Greek popu lation and elected to defend only five of the fortresses in the P?loponn?se; the Venetian Senate ordered the dismantlement of the rest. Accordingly, the Venetians offered no resistance at the Hexamilion and, after a short on siege, Acrocorinth surrendered August 3.49 By August 11, the Ottomans were was moot. in the Argolid and the defense of Oneion As is common at Venetian fortifications elsewhere inGreece, virtually or were no pottery other finds associated with the period of use found in or around the Venetian defenses. Only two pieces of undiagnostic medium no coarse pottery were found just outside the tower atMaritsa, while pot tery at all was seen within the fortifications at Stanotopi. In part this may cover at be attributable to the dense ground both locations, but itmay also indicate that the defenses were never used or inhabited.50
47. Corinth 104. LI, p. 50. Alternatively, certain groups 48. 217-222. in Finlay 1877, pp. of people the Venetian period may was the use 49. The aftermath famous not have made great of ceramic slaughter of many Venetians and vessels; see Vroom 1998; 2003, pp. 85 Greeks, portrayed vividly by Byron in 86. his epic poem "The Siege of Corinth." FORTIFICATIONS OF MOUNT ONEION, CORINTHIA 349
Figure 15. Venetian fortifications at Contour interval 4 m. Stanotopi. W. R. Caraher
The Fortifications at Stanotopi
was Fowler the first to mention the Stanotopi fortifications, and his descrip even a tion, without plan, has long been considered sufficient and accurate.51 sowe His interpretation remains fundamentally correct, and proceed from his were routes observations. The fortifications designed to block two through westernmost Mt. Oneion in the Stanotopi area, representing the of the pas sages also guarded by the Classical-Hellenistic fortifications (Fig. 15). These passes followed the course of two ravines that descend to the plain in the were vicinity of the modern army camp. The Venetian fortifications originally were made up of three bastions. The bastions at the ends designed to block a the roads. The bastion approximately in the center sits at height above the was other two. It is noteworthy that this fortification complex built in the an overcome age of gunpowder, when enemy could any defense simply by at a are in placing artillery nearby higher elevation. The fortifications today a eastern relatively good condition, although section of the wall above the a bastion has recently been bulldozed for construction of forest road, while the western bastion has been completely destroyed by the modern quarry
Eastern Bastion
The eastern bastion is a three-sided fortification without a wall protect eastern runs some ing its southwestern, upslope exposure. Its wall for m course 20 parallel to the of the ravine. This wall is pierced by three drains, to run out which allow water accumulating inside the bastion toward the turns runs ravine (Fig. 16). At its southern end, it almost 90 degrees and some 15 m to the southwest. At its northern end, this wall also turns at m a 90 degrees and extends nearly 50 uphill, also in west/southwest direc 51. Corinth 104-105. Cf. LI, pp. tion. The wall of the bastion is to a maximum of n. preserved today height Stroud 1971a, pp. 137-138, 9; Pep 2.62 m above the on the exterior (at the southeast corner). On the pas 1990, pp. 51-57 and plan 36; 1993, ground there is a ca. 1.45 m to pp. 142-143. interior, fighting platform wide; according Fowler, was m 52. Corinth 1.1, pp. 104-105. this once 1.25 below the top of the wall.52 The northeast and 35o WILLIAM R. CARAHER AND TIMOTHY E. GREGORY
Figure 16. Venetian fortifications at east wall eastern Stanotopi: of the bastion, from the northeast. Photo T. E. Gregory
southeast corners of the eastern bastion are better made than the rest of were the fortifications. They constructed of headers and stretchers laid in a characteristic of the in some alternating courses, masonry contemporary as Venetian castles such the Palamidi at Nauplion. eastern a The bastion guards path extending along the western side a a two of shallow ravine. It stands above point where the ravine splits in directions, either of which would have provided access to the summit of to Stanotopi and beyond the land south of Mt. Oneion. Presumably, or however, any traveler attacking army intending to reach the top of the mountain would not have walked at the bottom of the ravine, as at many points the floor meets impassable, nearly vertical walls of bedrock. eastern nar Like the Maritsa fortifications, the bastion at Stanotopi route over rowed the the mountain rather than blocking it totally, leaving a area to small, relatively level the southeast of the bastion wall. It is also notable that the bastion is not closed on its southwestern side. The south ern as as wall is not long the northern wall, and the bastion overall has the a shape of partially open rectangle. Like the earlier Greek fortifications, the were Venetian fortifications apparently designed to be resupplied from the rear, presumably from the main Venetian power base south of the Isthmus, at Nauplion.53
Central Bastion
The northern wall of the eastern bastion continues west up the hill in an approximately straight line and then turns to the northwest to the top of a the ridge, where well-built pentagonal bastion occupied the high point between the ravines. In the middle of the southwest side (the continuation a ca. m of the main wall) is doorway, 1.50 wide, leading into the bastion. ca. m The fighting platform is 1.50 wide on the northern face of the main to was ca. m wall, and according Fowler, it 0.50 below the top of the wall.
53. to on were Andrews (1953, pp. 237-238) Argolid from Nauplion Drepanon, the fortifications Mt. Oneion discusses the Venetians' concern with to Porto Heli, and Poros. The historically part of the larger strategy defend this attested protecting Nauplion, by close relationship between the ports of stretch of coastline. coast fortifications along the of the the Saronic Gulf makes it likely that FORTIFICATIONS OF MOUNT ONEION, CORINTHIA 351
m west a Approximately 15 of the central bastion is doorway through the wall, the same width as that in the bastion. On the southeastern side of a the doorway series of steps, parallel to the wall, provided access to the on fighting platform the interior.
Western Bastion
From the central bastion, the fortification wall descends for about 100 m a curves to in line that slightly the north and reaches the point where the a once ran. western ravine and road undoubtedly Today the wall terminates a an enormous abruptly here, cut by modern road and quarry. Originally, even on however, and in Fowlers time, the wall extended up the slope the western side of the ravine for about 40 m, then turned north and again west-northwest until it reached a cliff. It is difficult to understand the course of the wall in this area, largely because the topography has been thoroughly disrupted by the quarry. It is possible that the western end of a the wall, which would have turned sharply to the east before ending at as an rear large rock, served another bastion with open exposure. Fowler describes the arrangement to allow water to pass under the wall, but these remains have since been destroyed.54
The Fortifications at Maritsa
same The Venetian fortifications in the Maritsa pass display many of the as at same characteristics those Stanotopi. They may have been built at the same crews. are time and perhaps by the work They located astride what must have been the main road into the pass, along the eastern side of the are on ravine, and they relatively low the side of the mountain, beginning at an ca. m a elevation of 236 (Figs. 17,18). The main defense is rectangular ca. x m on on a tower, 8.80 11.20 the exterior (Fig. 19), built rock outcrop to tower at a that adds the elevation of the point where the original road must a turn have made along the side of the ravine. No rectangular blocks were were used in the fortification, although the stones roughly finished to a on make relatively flat surface, especially the exterior. The stones used seem ca. m to have been 0.30 in length and 0.20 m in height, but many were larger stones also employed. Both the exterior and the interior of the were walls originally covered with stucco. The interior face of the walls is vertical, but the outer face is battered. The walls of the tower vary between ca. 0.90 and 1.15 m thick at their preserved height, although they certainly would have been thinner are as m higher up. They preserved much as 3 above the lowest level of the are bedrock inside the tower, although there places where the bedrock is actually higher than the preserved tops of the walls. Inside the tower is a ca. m fighting platform, 1.00-1.25 wide, with its original surface preserved in several places. In keeping with the declining level of the bedrock outside the tower, the fighting platform of the north and south walls descends east to a noticeably from west, creating ramplike effect. Interestingly, there seems not to have been any doorway into the tower; instead, access must have been from the level of the fighting platform of the curtain wall behind 54. Corinth 1.1, pp. 104-105, fig. 73. the tower. 352 WILLIAM R. CARAHER AND TIMOTHY E. GREGORY
Figure 17. Venetian fortifications at the Maritsa pass, from the south. Photo T. E. Gregory
Figure 18. Venetian fortifications at the Maritsa pass, from the southeast; tower is visible at the the rectangular center. Photo T. E. Gregory
To the southeast, the mountainous terrain directly behind the tower was rises precipitously. The original roadway presumably located just be tower was hind the and blocked by the wall running uphill from the tower. went a ca. This wall first in southeasterly direction for 10.50 m, and then more east m a directly for about 50 before reaching huge outcrop of rock. This curtain wall was, like the walls of the tower, ca. 1.10 m wide; itwas to a ca. m attached fighting platform 1.30 wide. The original surface of the platform is relatively well preserved at many points and is sometimes even higher than the curtain wall itself. The surface of the ground inside one the fortifications is very irregular, but at point the fighting platform is ca. 1.40 m above the surface. ca. Over the total length of the wall, 60.50 m, the elevation rises by ca. an 21 m, creating average slope of about 35%. In order to allow the to a soldiers go up and down this slope with relative ease, series of steps ' 238.53
>.02 10M 240.50
240.58 ?
241.30 Av.
19. Plan of the Venetian fortifications at the Maritsa K. D. Soteriou Figure pass. 354 WILLIAM R. CARAHER AND TIMOTHY E. GREGORY were constructed at points of rapid rise, and these survive in the fighting are not to platform today. The fortification walls preserved their original m on at height, but they stand about 2.30 above the surface the exterior to east. the highest preserved point, just beyond the jog in the wall the At a seems point midway along the eastward stretch of wall, another structure on to have been built flush against the fighting platform the interior of us the wall. This is not well enough preserved to allow to be certain of its a function, but it may have been stairway up to the level of the fighting platform from the ground below. are a These relatively modest fortifications far cry from the imposing castles built elsewhere in Greece by the Venetians at this time and known from the plans executed for Francesco Grimani, the governor.55 Nonethe less, they must have been designed by military engineers who understood as the local topography and who employed sophisticated flourishes such arrangements for routing the flow of water through the bastion walls.
CONCLUSION
The geography of the Isthmus and the geopolitics of Greece have long demanded the fortification of this vital north-south corridor into the are ex P?loponn?se. The Hexamilion and its predecessors well-known a amples of such defenses. The presence of complex, secondary system some of fortifications, however, suggests that during periods formidable freestanding barrier walls guarding the Corinthia and the P?loponn?se serve or did not the strategic tactical purposes of those wishing to fortify the Isthmus. The Late Classical and Hellenistic periods and the Second Venetokratia were times when limited resources and the pace of events encouraged the reinforcement of existing natural defenses to prevent the movement of armies to the south. The simple fortifications ofMt. Oneion a awareness reflect keen of local topography and sound tactical reasoning. were Both sets of defenses designed to prevent the enemy from occupying were local high ground, and both positioned to take advantage of reinforce ment from the south.
Although both fortifications required local knowledge for their shrewd a placement and construction, they also demonstrate genuinely regional conception of defense. The southern border of the Isthmus represented a a the last point at which force could mount concerted defense of the numerous to an P?loponn?se. Farther south, the routes open invading army even narrow run made the defense of any single point, the Dervenaki pass to or ning south the Argolid, insufficient to block the northern southern passage of a determined foe. The various fortifications of the Isthmus, ranging from the fortress atAcrocorinth to the humble walls of theMaritsa and Stanotopi passes, endeavored to seal off the entirety of southern Greece from any northern aggressor moving overland. They would have served the a more needs of regional defense far effectively than the interests of the was local Corinthians, whose territory effectively split between the exposed area 55. Andrews 1953. north of the Isthmus and the protected southern valleys. FORTIFICATIONS OF MOUNT ONEION, CORINTHIA 355
REFERENCES
K. 1953. Castles ed. E. and Andrews, oftheMorea, Athanassopoulos L. Princeton. Wandsnider, Philadelphia, Baitinger, H. 2001. Die Angriffswaffen pp. 15-36. aus V = E. Hexa Olympia {OlForsch29), Berlin. Isthmia T. Gregory, The milion and the Princeton Broneer, 0.1966. "The Cyclopean Fortress, Wall on the Isthmus of Corinth 1993. on 1971. "The Isthmian and Its Bearing Late Bronze Kardara, C. P. 85-89. Age Chronology," Hesperia 35, Wz\[y"AAA4, pp. = pp. 346-362. Kenchreai I L. Ibrahim, R. Scranton, R. 1995. in and R. and Bynum, "Studies the Topog Brill, Topography Archi of the Southern Corinthia" Leiden 1976. raphy tecture, H. 1988. "Die (diss. Univ. of California, Berkeley). Lauter-Bufe, Festung Cherf,W. J. 1996. ThermopylaeMyth auf Koroni und die Bucht von Porto and in 480 Ein zur Reality b.c., Chicago. Raphti: Beitrag Geschichte = Results Excavations Athens im 3 v. in Attische Corinth Corinth: of Jh. Chr," zum Conducted by theAmerican School of Festungen: Beitr?ge Festungswe at sen und zur vom 5. Classical Studies Athens Siedlungsstrucktur = LI H. N. Fowler and R. Still bis. zum 3. Jh. v. Chr., ed. H. Lauter, and H. and H. well, Introduction, Topography, Lauter-Bufe, Lohmann, 67-102. Architecture, Cambridge, Mass. Marburg, pp. 1932. Lawrence, A. W. 1979. Greek Aims in = Oxford. Ill.2 R. Carpenter and A. Bon, Fortification, and the Y. 1998. "Studies in the The Defenses ofAcrocorinth Lolos, Topog of Univ. Lower Town, Princeton 1936. raphy the Sikyonia" (diss. = VII.3 G. R. Edwards, Corin of California, Berkeley). Hellenistic R. 1999. thian Pottery, Princeton Lorandou-Papantoniou, 1975. loMyeia: HavacKacr? 1957-1958,
Dixon, M. 2000. "Disputed Territories: Athens. in 1963. De Interstate Arbitrations the North MacKay, P. A. "Procopius' west ca. P?loponn?se, 250-150 b.c." Aedificiis and theTopography of (diss. Ohio State Univ.). Thermopylae," AJA 67, pp. 241-255. Dodwell, E. 1819. ^i Classical and Maltezou, C. 1978. "BevexciaviKe? Tour Greece too Topographical through 2, ?icO?oxi? yiot ttjv ox?pcoori London. 'IoGuo? xfjc Kop?vOoi) axa xekr\ Echols, E. C. 1949-1950. "The An Toi 17o\) a?c?va," in xov ' UpaKxiic? A A cient Slinger," CW43, pp. 227-230, ledvov? Ivve?piov TleXonov 245. vrfcriaKcov Znov? v 3, Athens, G. 1877. A Greece 269-276. Finlay, History of pp. Its the Romans to 2002. "Well-Built Kleo from Conquest by Marchand, J. Present Time nai: A the 5, Oxford. History of the Peloponnesian Roman on a the Fowden, G. 1995. "Late City Based Survey of Vis a Achaea: Identity and Defence," ible Remains and Study of the JRA 8, pp. 549-567. Literary and Epigraphic Sources" of Given, M., and A. B. Knapp. 2003. (diss. Univ. California, Berkeley). The Sydney Cyprus Survey Project: McCredie, J. 1966. FortifiedMilitary Social to Ar in Approaches Regional Camps Attica {HesperiaSuppl. 11), chaeological Survey (Monumenta Princeton. W. "The archaeologica 21), Los Angeles. Mcleod, 1965. Range of the 2004. is Phoenix 1-14. Gregory, T. E. "Less Better: Ancient Bow," 29, pp. M. 1993. Attica: The Quality of Ceramic Evidence Munn, The Defense of from Archaeological Survey and The Dema Wall and theBoiotian War Practical for 378-375 Proposals Low-Impact of b.c., Berkeley. in a 1990. Survey Mediterranean Con Peppas, Y. MeaaicoviK?? aeX? inMediterranean text," Archaeolog ?e? xrj? Apyo?iSo?, Apica?ia?, ical Current Landscapes: Issues, KopivOia?, Axxiktj?, Athens. AND 356 WILLIAM R. CARAHER TIMOTHY E. GREGORY
-. 1993. B. 1983. a MeaccKoviic?? aeM?e? Salmon, J. Wealthy Corinth: Methods for Dynamic Land Athens. A the to 338 rrj? KopivQ?a?, History of City b.c., scape," Hesperia. P. 2000. and Oxford. Perlman, City Sanctuary Vroom, J. 1998, "Early Modern Ar inAncient Greece: The Theorodokia R. 1971a. "An Ancient Fort on in Central Greece: Stroud, chaeology in the Mount The P?loponn?se, G?ttingen. Oneion," Hesperia 40, Contrast of Artefact-Rich Kai Pikoulas, Y. 1995. Ooik? S?ktvo pp. 127-145. and Sherdless Sites," JMA11, pp. 3 Ano aro -. a?vvcc: vr?v K?pivSo ?pyog 1971b. "Thucydides and 36. Kai Athens. the Battle -. 2003. Ceramics rr?v ApKcco?a, of Solygeia," CSCA4, After Antiquity: on Pritchett, W. K. 1958. "New Light pp. 227-247. and Society in theAegean from the -. 1994. and Cor 7th to the 20th Leiden. Thermopylae," AJA 62, pp. 203-213. "Thucydides Century A.c., -. 1969. Studies inAncient Greek inth," Chiron 24, pp. 267-302. Walbank, F.W. 1957. A Historical Com of California T. T. E. D. on Oxford. Topography (University Tartaron, F, Gregory, J. mentary Polybius 1, Publications in Classical Studies 4), Pullen, J. S. Noller, R. M. Rothaus, Wiseman, J. 1963. "A Trans-Isthmian L. L. R. L. Fortification Berkeley. J. Rife, Diacopoulos, Wall," Hesperia 32, -. at 1974. The Greek State War 2, Schon, W. R. Caraher, D. K. Pette pp. 248-275. and D. Nakassis. Forthcom -. 1978. Land the Ancient Berkeley. grew, The of -. 1994. in Greek "The Eastern Korinthia Ar Essays History, ing. Corinthians, G?teborg. Amsterdam. chaeological Survey: Integrated
William R. Caraher
University of North Dakota
department of history
BOX 8096 GRAND NORTH DAKOTA FORKS, 58202 096
Timothy E. Gregory Ohio State University department of history
106 dulles hall
23o west 17th avenue ohio columbus, 4321o-1367