A Skeletal History of Byzantine Fortification

Author(s): A. W. Lawrence
Source: The Annual of the British School at Athens, Vol. 78 (1983), pp. 171-227
Published by: British School at Athens
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30102803 .
Accessed: 23/01/2014 12:21
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 support@jstor.org.

.

British School at Athens is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Annual of
the British School at Athens.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 193.198.212.4 on Thu, 23 Jan 2014 12:21:25 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

A SKELETAL

HISTORY
OF BYZANTINE
FORTIFICATION
(PLATES

8-21)

T HISseriesof analytical descriptionswas written in the hope it might reveal both how defensive
principles changed and to what extent tradition prevailed, all through the Byzantine centuries.
Ideally the investigation should have been restricted to fortifications of which the exact or
approximate date was known from literature or by inscription, but their number is far too
small to be genuinely representativeeven of major works,which alone tended to be so recorded.
I have therefore included, in addition, fortifications that I thought were built in response to
specific historical circumstances and could thereby be dated within the limits of roughly one
generation. Obviously such ascriptions are bound to be more or less questionable, but I have
assessed their plausibility also on stylistic considerations; however, no monument has been
included solely on grounds of style.
Since this is no balanced account of Byzantine military architecture but a necessary
preliminary, the space allotted to the individual buildings bears little relation to their merits,
or rather to my knowledge thereof. I write briefly of remains already satisfactorilypublished,
but otherwise at whatever length may be requisite to the argument, particularly about ruins
I have myself examined. In the course of many years I saw and made notes on Byzantine
fortifications (some repeatedly) in eight countries, beginning as long ago as 1950 with the aid
of a Leverhulme Fellowship. The infirmities of age have unfortunately prevented recent
checking on the spot.
CONTENTS

I. Heritage from the undivided Roman Empire of late third and fourth centuries
Transition to the fifth century: Corycus and Sparta
3. Constantinople and regional capitals, 412-c. 450
4. Towns with massive proteichisma, mid or late fifth century
5. The reign of Anastasius I, 491-518
6. The reign ofJustinian, 527-565
7. Truncation of the Empire, late sixth and early seventh centuries
8. Small-scale works against the Arabs, mid seventh-early eighth centuries
9. Ancyra/Ankara, seventh-ninth centuries
10. Additions at Constantinople prior to c. 850
I1. Early and mid tenth century: Attaleia, Samothrace, Philippi, Kyrenia
12. Qal'at Sim'an, 979, and smaller beacon-forts
13. End of the tenth century: Paicuiullui Soare, Sahyun, Ohrid, Didyma
14. End of the eleventh century: Zvecan and St. Hilarion
15. Mid and late twelfth century: Constantinople, Pergamon, Miletus
16. The successor states, 1204-c. 1250
17. Last datable works, 1261-1453
Appendix: Some features in vaguely dated monuments
2.

This content downloaded from 193.198.212.4 on Thu, 23 Jan 2014 12:21:25 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

A. W. LAWRENCE

172
I.

HERITAGE

FROM THE UNDIVIDED

ROMAN

EMPIRE

OF LATE

THIRD

AND FOURTH

CENTURIES

The various types of Byzantine fortifications all began by following precedents set when
inability to hold the frontiers had let similar dangers prevail within the Roman Empire. The
first barbarian invasions, during the third quarter of the third century, evoked Aurelian's wall
of Rome and a proliferation of efficient, though less imposing, walls around towns in western
Europe, but generally poor and often small defences in provinces that afterwards became
heartlands of the Eastern Empire. The town wall of Nicaea/IznikI is indeed the only dated
one that can rank with many in France and Spain, and the fact that it was built for an
Emperor (Claudius Gothicus in 268/9) probably accounts for its superiority to other works
which may have depended on local resources of money and skill. It stood, with occasional
minor repairs, for nearly a thousand years before the Lascarids chose Nicaea for their capital
and built an outer wall. The curtains, none of which was less than 3-6o m thick, had previously
been about 9 m high; externally they were interrupted at intervals of 6o-7o m by semicircular,
half-oval, or apsidal towers (scarcely distinguishable at a glance) that projected to roughly
the same distance as their maximum width, 8-9 m, and had originally been little taller than
the curtains. A pair of such towers flanked each of the main gateways, which actually were
ornamental entrances of Roman construction but altered to receive a portcullis. We may
assume that portable catapults were expected to be massed on towers along any threatened
sector of the 5 km perimeter. Throughout the wall, both the stone facing and the core of
cemented pebbles were completely intersected by several levelling-bands composed of four
brick courses, resulting in practically the same effect as the bands of five courses used at
Constantinople more than I50 years later.
In contrast to this imperial enterprise at Nicaea, a reconstruction of the Hellenistic wall
across the Miletus isthmus2 made it defensible with manual weapons. The zigzag planning
had been accentuated by a tower projecting forward from the apex of every pair of curtains,
but these alone were rebuilt; the ruined towers were totally demolished. In Greece the
destructive Herulian raid of 267 gave rise to extremely diverse precautions against a recurrence.
Athens naturally fared best. A massive new wall,3 consisting of reused material and
incorporating fragmentary old buildings, enclosed an area of uneven ground extending far
northward from the acropolis by means of curtains of varied length and rectangular towers
at irregular intervals, but not all was contemporaneous, and most has been demolished for
the sake of revealing classical remains. At Sparta too the town had shrunk. A less formidable,
though quite respectable, wall (FIG. I)4 was built enclosing a stoa on the southern slope of
the acropolis, with a pair of small square towers flanking a gateway, and others like them
amid the straight curtains; pieces of column-shaft were laid horizontally for bonding-perhaps
the earliest instance of an afterwards common practice. Presumably the Herulians also sacked
Aegina, where an extensive town wall5 consists of reused material; it seems to have been almost
devoid of flanking, the one salient preserved being only 2'4 m wide and projecting little over
Unless the length of a source needs to be specified, I cite only
the first of its relevant pages. In addition to editorially
authorized abbreviations, the title stated in n. 27 is shortened
and 'Courtauld' refers to
in subsequent notes to 'Landmauer',
my own negatives, now the property of the Courtauld Institute
of London University; they include all the photographs
illustrated except that of Pergamon, for which I thank the
donor. I also thank the owners of copyrights for permission
to reproduce figures.

1 W.
vonIznik
Karnapp and A. M. Schneider, Die Stadtmauer
(1938).
2 Milet ii
3: A. von Gerkan, Die Stadtmauern
(I935) pl. 14.
3 Thompson, JRS 49 (1959) 6I fig. I; Frantz, Hesperia48
(1979) 202 fig. 3. The wall used to be called Valerian's because
of a misleading statement by Zosimus; most has now been
demolished.
4 Traquair, BSA 12 (1905-6) 417 pl. viii.
Akropo5 Alt. Agina i 2: W. W. Wurster, Die spdtromische

lismauer (1975) 9 Beilage 1-2 pls. 1-2.

This content downloaded from 193.198.212.4 on Thu, 23 Jan 2014 12:21:25 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

It has been demolished to rescue the ancient material of which it consisted.A SKELETAL HISTORY OF BYZANTINE FORTIFICATION 173 -1 T7 . 129 plan 3 pl.212. After the almost total excavation of a very elaborate town wall in north-east Bulgaria. -In 75'e". Sparta. SCALEor . . . 100 . 4.198. The whole enceinte of Abritus is extremely 6 ADelt 162 (I960) Chron. 114000 FIG.. Plan of defences (BSA) a metre.-I -1g S % . . OLIVE TREES 74. T. an English summary is appended to his Bulgarian text.4 OLIV ml N qP r~cc. .4 on Thu. 248. o105a. with the temple of Zeus transformed to a strong point on one corner. Neue deutscheAusgrabungen This content downloaded from 193.. 1. Abritus i (1980). described it exhaustively and dated it to the end of the third century or beginning of the fourth by comparing plans of fortifications all over Europe and some in other continents.. 23 Jan 2014 12:21:25 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . and the list of captions is translated on p. and the back of the south stoa forming the other end of the enclosure.. there were three rectangular towers. METRES . At Olympia part of the sanctuary was converted into a fort6 of trapezium shape.a RO 0. (1959) 276.. . Ivanov's fully illustrated monograph.

4I15-4-50 m wide. there was a larger square tower on the one remaining corner.4 on Thu. There were four main entrances. not all the shapes found in Europe were used by the less venturesome military engineers in Asia or Africa.12 The enclosure (FIG. Three-storeyed corner towers. which were of three storeys connected internally by wooden stairs. 244. fan-shaped. three of them opened between towers. 227-9). had a disused Pharaonic temple for its centre. had long been customary in forts. 619-36. 29.212.Each entrance to the oblong enclosure is flanked by a pair of octagonal towers. The curtains range in length from 19 to 45-6o m.7) is not found in ii (1905) 49 figs. A typical example. all are alike in containing two gateways. the outer grooved for a portcullis. in every other respect the design conforms with precedents known at forts near frontiers or in unruly country. as rebuilt about 350. Qasr Bisheir.8 Of the many forts built under Diocletian. such as could be seen at Abritus. W. Two coins issued between 355 and 36I define a terminuspost quemfor the construction and brief occupation of a frontier fort at Pagnik Oreni on the Euphrates. The fan shape (184 n. AS 21 (1971) 22 (1972) 27. entered from both sides of the towers. and probably this was due to in Salonai fig. is covered by a lintel below a relieving arch.iv 8).9 was approximately square (the sides varying from 54'45 to 57-05 m). the inner with fittings for a two-leaved gate. 10o. Each of the remaining gateways is groovedI' to receive a portcullis. contained a narrow corridor to either side of a central passage. This content downloaded from 193. The existence of at least nine posterns has been verified. 2) pl. 11 W. relying largely on tower Asia or Africa and seems almost confined to the 4th cent. 2-65 m wide and over 3 m high. The castrumat Luxor. made for the purpose. 10 The grooves were cut before the blocks were laid. above which rose tiled roofs on wooden structures (restorations on pp.7 containing dedications of the year 300 to Diocletian and his colleagues. others from towers." The triple entrance. which could have been nearly 13 cm thick.A. The gateway. 7 Monneret de Villard.198. while the fourth stands within a shallow rebate. 30). 15 fig. rectangular (oblong or square).5 and 15 cm. some led through curtains. 34- imitation of a Roman example. 9 R. which are square and almost separate from the curtains. being presumably the quarters for the garrison of Upper Egypt. Procopius records as anomalous its use in a fort built for Justinian in Thrace (Aed. some on the fringes of the Syrian and African deserts must have been familiar to the Byzantine army down to the Arab conquest. Vaulting is the normal method of ceiling--inevitably on this timberless edge of Jordan. LAWRENCE 174 diversified (plan on his p. Briinnow and A. the height probably amounted to 15 or 16 m up to the merlons. Forschungen 12 Harper. although this legionary castrum was unlikely to be attacked. E. with its internal divisions. some I I or 12 m square. Differentiation of corner towers by size. A door in the flank of each tower opened to the surrounding ditch. They carried a walk about io m above ground. with curtains 6-50 m high. and usually by shape also. but so carelessly that the width varies between 13. Gerber. The towers were individually designed but basically of three types: apsidal. and a rectangular tower intervenes on either side between them and the much larger corner towers. however. JRS 6i (1971) I78-218 analyses late Roman fortifications in Europe. though its basic scheme could have been treated as a pattern for exact repetition of features. Perhaps in imitation of Split. Diocletian's palace at Split. the 'Porta Caesarea' at the neighbouring city of Salona was outflanked by octagonal towers. lined with two storeys of rooms surrounding a court. Die ProvinciaArabia shapes. and. Archeologia 95 (i953) 96 8 von Petrokovits.. behind a new wall from which apsidal towers projected singly if at regular intervals but paired to flank gateways. if placed at a corner. which must have been gated at a wooden door-frame fixed into recesses at least 20 cm deep and 38 cm wide-dimensions inconceivable for a portcullis. it occupies half the space between a pair of rectangular towers 6 m wide. 23 Jan 2014 12:21:25 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . 3-95 m wide. is basically like a magnified and sumptuous version of a castrum. project slightly more than 3 m from the curtains. Domaszewski.

but they differ in size and shape. the desert fringe of southern Palestine received This content downloaded from 193. however competent. The curtains. Few of them are appreciably longer than 25 m. 140 m long with a maximum width of 80 m. though all were roofed upon timbers so heavy as to make it necessary to halve the span in each of the wider towers by means of a partition. For protection against less dangerous enemies. with a highly trained nucleus. others apsidal or bent like horseshoes. FIG. so that it allowed of-in fact. not merely for refuge. Plan of excavation (AS) is roughly semicircular.A SKELETAL 1 HISTORY 2 OF BYZANTINE FORTIFICATION 4 3 175 6 5 F Im JI I E I) M Xr VIY I / 1\ N ORENi1971 PAGNiK 'V 0 10 25 M I A 2 x y. formed the boundary of the aggressive Sassanian empire. one is very shallow.212. just below the fort. some 2 m thick. and any army it put across was sure to be enormous. 2. using manual weapons such as stones. Pagnik Oreni. So the designs of the towers were chosen to minimize the effects of siegecraft. All eleven of them are curved. The river. several are semicircular. Only one was walled at the back. 23 Jan 2014 12:21:25 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . and well equipped. but to help keep every embrasure manned (in spite of casualties) throughout an assault. We may confidently assume that the population of the whole neighbourhood was expected to come. called for-a much larger number of defenders than could be stationed within as a garrison.4 on Thu. This shortness (and a monstrous elongation of the whole perimeter) was due to cramming on to the frontage as many towers as possible. may have been quite tall. following contours that would aid defence.198.

names the place Korasionand says it had previously been uninhabited. Die RuinenvonSide (1963) plan in pocket. Mansel. here and there. Alterations of this sort are found. Fortifications against Isaurian raiders are identifiable at two other cities of Pamphylia.176 A. and its Hellenistic wall was no longer defensible. 'the splendid ruler of the Eparchy of the Isaurians'.. The population of Side at this time-probably late in the fourth century--apparently was large enough to man any threatened parts of the wall. whose successors. The steep east shore may already have been preferable as a landing-place when the new town was built at it. LAWRENCE a chain of much smaller forts. The dilapidations were. at En Boqeq.c. W. It measures some 23 X 28 m externally. But more than half the enceinte faced seaward. FIG. But defensive works had surely been undertaken already. since the garrison was liable at any time to vacate the city in order to stop the plundering of some other district.198. are interposed between short aligned curtains or attached solely by a corner to right-angle bends. for the Isaurians soon grew stronger and acquired military expertise.which may have had a less restricted meaning. Four towers always project at right angles from the corners of a square or oblong enclosure (cf. Supposedly about the middle of the fourth century a force of Isaurians came into Pamphylia and began marauding. as is shown by their attempt to capture Seleucia/Silifke about 355.20). The towers. Side would not have been excepted. Letters written in 40 I and the following years vividly describe the terror in which they kept the population in their vicinity. of roughly 6 x 4 m.13 which the Greeks had used since the fourth century B. owing to alluvium. examples of the type archaeologically called a tetrapyrgos. and the gateway 1-70 m wide. This content downloaded from 193. to secure the nearest piece of coast towards the south-east.212. and once even penetrated to Galilee and Phoenicia. Karamania(1818) 147. which has formed an extensive plain around the mouth. M.where new construction sometimes begins at ground level and is apparent all the way up the facing of a tower. made good'5--thoroughly on the landward sectors. Any respite gained by this success must have been of relatively short duration. Most of the interior was left open as a court but a few rooms encroached upon it. so reinforcing their whole structure. The Isaurians remained unsubdued in their mountains for some 230 years after they rebelled against Gallienus. Francis Beaufort. 23 Jan 2014 12:21:25 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . when it first became apparent that large towns might be attacked. some 15 km distant. obviously the guards posted along it could obtain help promptly in case the enemy should mass on a beach outside. tried to keep them innocuous by building a ring of forts. in fact.4 on Thu. One of the Palestinian set that has been excavated. the river was navigable up to Seleucia (now nine miles inland) but this may have ceased to be the case by the 4th cent. which extend for approximately I km. 14 According to Strabo. the wall is 1-75-2 m thick. project only about a metre in one direction but 4 m in the other. 15 A. while they constantly raided far and wide through Asia Minor. Entrances were either partially or completely blocked. late in the third century. The plan is reminiscent of ancient Greek rather than Roman practice. accompanied by shoals on its west side. contained objects datable about 370-400. even in the temporary absence of the garrison. imposed military governors upon it as well as upon two inland provinces through which the route from Isauria passed. towers. however distant from the raiders' homeland. throughout the landward defences. The 13 The word is a grammatically undesirable variant of the Hellenistic tetrapyrgia. by building a fortified town at an inlet suitable to be the harbour for a relieving force. of which no details are known. Pamphylia obviously remained in danger until Leo I. but was annihilated in an attack by the garrison of Side. and received only a minimum of repair although it had originally been less strongly built and must have deteriorated quite as badly. Fear of a recurrence must have induced an imperial official. The Isaurians became more formidable after three generations of independence. a back wall also was added to the towers that originally had none. who reigned from 457 to 474. 6 or 7 m square. which is datable between 367 and 375 by the reigns cited.14His inscription.

The short coast of Rough Cilicia. the destruction of which was not permissible till 391. 17 Ibid. which presumably was built either in the last quarter of the fourth century or near the middle of the fifth. only peasantry can have lived on the way to Korasion. Perga. It was therefore blocked. Keil and A. that date would be a firm terminus post quemfor the construction. relied on its excellent Hellenistic wall. The ashlar facing of the cemented rubble consists very largely of classical blocks. 42.4.17 The manpower required to defend the two lines must have exceeded that previously needed. 9a). But its placing. and are devoid of apertures except at the back. some of which are decoratively studded at half a dozen levels with rows composed alternately of two or three pieces of shaft (PLATES 8b. Niemann. Herzfeld and S. they occur at fairly regular intervals in the curtains and abound in towers. W. TO THE FIFTH CENTURY: CORYCUS AND SPARTA The Eastern Empire was formally separated from the Western in 395. this delapidation is quite likely to imply neglect during not less than a couple of centuries. 18 MAMA ii: E. Miiller-Wiener. MAMA iii:J. when the term 'Byzantine' ceases to be of questionable validity. 11I-14.4 on Thu. Wilhelm. the pagan buildings there were demolished to obtain material for a fortress. but the density was greater in the half nearer Corycus.212. 14) still existed less than a hundred years ago. 133 pl. which has been almost uninhabited during recent centuries. adjoining an artificially shelteredharbour. Castles of the Crusaders(1966) 79 pls.18leaving nothing standing except an arch that became its main gateway.. which is composed of reused blocks. 9 fig. Since a large proportion of the material unquestionably came from temples. it could be maintained in a hostile environment because maximum defensibility had 16 K. Over more than a two-hour walk to the north-east a practically continuous urban population occupied a narrow strip between the sea and the mountains. The original purpose of the fortress. many of them uniform in size and reused unaltered. and Petersen.nearly two hours away. The style too associates the outwork with that period. This content downloaded from 193. 177 etc. the Turkish plan is discussed below with reference to the early Ioth cent. the ruins are almost exclusively Christian.198. StddtePamphyliensundPisidiensi (1890) 33 fig. Guyer. and an extension built on either end.A SKELETAL HISTORY OF BYZANTINE FORTIFICATION 177 administrative capital. but the Roman propylaea in front of the main entrance could have sheltered attackers. for the front was studded with little triangularsalients as in a proteichisma at Salonica. Obviously Corycus was too peripheral to have been a refuge for any but the closest non-combatants. 23 Jan 2014 12:21:25 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . joining the old wall behind. Lengths of column shafts were cut to fit a wall-thickness and laid as stretchers to tie the masonry. Denkmdleraus demRauhenKilikien (1931) 102 fig. Meriamlikund Korykos(1930) fig. and consequently its age. it was now supplemented by a proteichisma. and would not have been available for a later menace than the Isaurians presented. bears an astonishingprofusionof both Roman and Early Christianmonuments. they remain standing to a slightly higher level than their junctions with the curtains. TRANSITION 2. Another predominantly Hellenistic wall (in one part Hadrianic) surrounded Attaleia/Antalya. the most westerly of the ancient cities. can be deduced from its situation and design. considering the general excellence of the structure. Courtauld.north-west towards Seleucia the absence of ruins in the neighbourhood shows that. 49.16Two rectangular towers (PLATE 8a) are conspicuous in this connecting masonry. was ideal for a military outpost at a time when the Byzantinesheld command of the seas. but for the possibility that the emperor may have given special authorization. A vague substitute for a terminus antequemis supplied by the recorded fact that a period of abandonment began so long before I ioo as to have made the fortressthen unserviceable until repaired. at most. much of which (FIG. Lanckoronski. the seaport for Perga. But at Corycus.

op. This content downloaded from 193. even after the Isaurian subjugation of the coast towards the east). when the Arab fleet dominated the seas. The design presumes that not less than about a hundred men would always be available to repel assault. 940. and the very fact that the inhabitants remained numerous enough to provide an 'army' implies that they had been relatively untroubled. consisting of 'great unhewn rocks'. with towers. which revets the foot of the cliff till that merges northward into rising ground. when the Arabs won and exploited control of the seas with the result that the harbour (an integral part of the design) must have become worse than useless. in continuation.212.178 A. the south-western along a beach at the mouth of the valley where a harbour has silted up. W. 650-718. The builders took full advantage of a terrace of hard rock. 'about ioo yards long'. and Corycus was irrelevant to later campaigns by land. so the commander could spare a considerable force for expeditions along the coastline or into the foothills. 19 Theoretically. who succeeded his imperial father-in-law in 474 and reigned to 491.4 on Thu. Two lines of defence. the edge of which met the valley inland as an eroded cliff. The plan took for granted that the Empire would always command the sea. in 1811 Beaufort saw it whole. there was a wide gateway through the outer defences at its outset. though it is now truncated and a mere jumble of stone. 22 Migne. and terminated by a mass of cemented rubble behind a stone facing. 23 Jan 2014 12:21:25 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . This was sheltered by a jetty which projects from the south corner of the fortress. so complemented each other that they functioned as a unit. A first indirect reference to the fortress may possibly be recognized in Nicephorus Patriarcha's casual mention22 of an officer as being 'the commander of the army of the Kourikiots'in 697. The date comes within a period.198. which extends far eastward between the wave-riven shore of the open sea and the foothills of the mountains. '2o feet square with pilasters at the corners'. the south-eastern along the sea. Militia at Corycus should have been able to prevent raids on the populous coast between there and the Lamas river. but there was space inside for several times as many. Since the Isaurian menace reached its peak by about 400. and completes a roughly square course by two free-standing sides. had almost certainly been the base of a lighthouse21 to guide ships into port. clearly anticipating that invaders might come by land in much superior numbers and prepared for a determined siege. no others can have been envisaged till the seventh century. several metres high. might have been a corps recruited from the Corycus district and stationed elsewhere. Patrologia Graeca 100 col. especially since he was then in the Cibyrrhaeot theme. the fortressmight have been built at any time between 39 I (or earlierif the emperor had granted special leave for demolitions) and the rise to power of an Isaurian self-named Zeno. Anastasius I then launched the first of the campaigns that crushed the Isaurians. They could safely lie and unload at the jetty. there being no other place suitable for a large force to disembark. then returns to the sea on the east as the lining of the ditch. under a strong guard. on the surface of the terrace was infinitely stronger than the simple outer line. he realized. even under siege. we may assume that the construction of the fortress was not postponed (though it might have been feasible. they cut a ditcho2 with vertical sides across the terrace itself (PLATE9a). this. The main wall. 21 Beaufort. The prospective enemies are identifiable as Isaurians. LAWRENCE been conferred on some I1 hectares of low plateau. This.19 The fortress stands beside a small valley flattened by alluvium. cit. however. 242. looting and destroying towns around Asia Minor and attacking Constantinople. which shelves into the water of a bay (PLATE9b). while the classical arch that forms the corresponding passage through the inner wall is staggered to nearly opposite the middle of the harbour frontage. a few metres apart. 20 The floor of the ditch is all above sea-level but too shelving to have held water unless dammed. but coincides with a lull in its activities.

a city which had formerly been very strong. for the sake of the increased range obtainable from such an elevation. The original main wall not only rose from a higher level than the outer line but was also much taller. contrary to Hellenistic practice. so that there would have been space upon it for several catapults. in any case its utility had gone. If the hundreds of men necessary to defend the Corycus fortress ceased to be locally available. The statement must apply to the fortress. by which time Corycus already belonged to the newly founded Armenian state of Cilicia. the entire northern flank was roughly twice as long as the part exposed. accessible from the wall-walks on both the adjacent curtains. The outer line is the earliest post-classical example of the two kinds of Hellenistic proteichisma. none directly faced the open sea. At the centre of the back (PLATE Ioa. This supposition could explain the abnormally and unnecessarily long inward projection of the tower. so Anna Comnena reports.212. of several periods). The Byzantines regained Cilicia in 965 and held it for over a century. furthest apart beside the harbour. On most of its course it is a free-standing. on the eastern side it revetted the scarp of the. as upon Hellenistic prototypes. because aggression could not be prevented.A SKELETAL HISTORY OF BYZANTINE FORTIFICATION 179 In 831 the fall of Tarsus gave the Arabs control of the entire Cilician plain. ditch and was continued upward free-standing. Probably the first unseemly repairs to the outer line are due to him. This content downloaded from 193. and height. the whole length of the ditch was probably featureless until long after a final Byzantine withdrawal. That occurred in unknown circumstances at some date before 1167. The tallest. b) is a doorway into the upper storey. They found. beyond which are smaller cantilevered blocks forming separate steps to the higher curtain. One almost square tower (on the north-west) is now reduced to two storeys. even in the curtains. nor many slits. just behind the northern extremity. had come in later times to be falling into ruin'. except one at the south-east corner (PLATE8b) that is pentagonal. which ends at the Lamas. They were diverse in width. projection. 23 Alexiadxi IoC. She next records24 that the emperor sent his officer 'Eustathius to occupy Kourikonand rebuild it quickly'. 23 Jan 2014 12:21:25 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . no doubt.4 on Thu. the front of which faces east and is aligned with the adjoining curtain to the south but stands forward from that to the north. Precedents for these two devices are known only in Hellenistic towers. there are no windows on the fronts. the roof was the main or even sole defensive position. featureless wall that probably was not much higher than a man (for the top is late. but the transit of the First Crusade in I 0ooenabled the Byzantines to recover it again. till the Seljuks took it. Early remains are distinguishable in the ruins by their design quite as much as by the presence of classical ingredients. with a beak pointing towards the shoreline beyond the ditch. Eustathiuswas ordered also to restoredefences at Seleucia/Silifke that are likely to have originated before the wars with the Isaurians but been strengthened during them. not to the more ancient and comparatively negligible city wall. leaving a slice intact with a few merlons (perhaps not original). Towers were dispersed unevenly. ioD.23 that 'Kourikon. in addition. close together where attack would be easiest. catapults might have been mounted. which differ considerably in their levels. a row of huge cantilevered blocks (salvaged from a classical cornice) provides a horizontal approach from the lower curtain to the threshold. Although most of them rise only slightly above the curtains. None of the better-preserved towers is very far from square.198. Except for the original tower on the south-east corner where the floor of the ditch shelves into the sea (PLATE8b). and the resultant insecurity in the coastal strip to westward is likely to have caused mass emigration. for a look-out towards the eastern approaches. Its summit was valued. has partially collapsed. the Byzantines would have been obliged to relinquish it. though it must have had at least one more because a column-shaft lies as a stretcher in the present top course of masonry. 24 Ibid. some of which were transferred to later alterations.

212. The entire acropolis was now (FIG. though 3. The towers. as though hurriedly.c. the merlons were extended backward by short traverses. The curtains. First. Corycus was held as an isolated Christian possession. only discontinuous. who made the final additions to the inner line. the Armenians put a drawbridge across. Krischen27 Die Landmauer vonKonstantinopel generalities and drawings restoring original condition of Theodosian walls. and straight. Mayer-Plath and A. and were inadequate against Turks trained to siegecraft. 3. which had again become apposite in the changed conditions of warfare. Most of the circuit (FIGS. which in 1482. partially trained. were not less than Io m high at the wall-walk. concave.25 instead.A. I) enclosed with a new wall except where it incorporated the corner built after 267 (though with the gateway transferred to a slightly different position).198. however. in turn. AND REGIONAL CAPITALS. in 412. it was the headquarters of the army in Egypt.4 on Thu. 5) originated during the (largely nominal) reign of Theodosius II. but some. i (1938) by F. the height of curtains and the size of towers at Corycus exceed the dimensions normal in forts garrisoned by the Roman army. the King of France twice considered whether to use it for the base of a Crusade to liberate them. Historyof Fortification the occasional depletion of the garrison to subdue trouble in the provinces. 4. The designer had also studied Hellenistic remains and may have been the first to revive their practices. in 1448. 408-50. were semicircular and crowded together. most were rectangular and spaced far apart. on the extinction of their dynasty. some 5 m thick. convex. LAWRENCE 18o The subsequent history of Corycus.) After the Muslim conquest of the Armenians. the construction began of a single wall over 7 km long. (1955) 54) could have provided for Toy. here and there. Schneider-piecemeal survey. of two or more periods. For that reason. after five centuries of Roman disuse. and built gateways to serve it through both the outer and the inner line. ii (i943) by B. 450 The walls of Constantinople have been published so elaborately27 that there is no occasion to do more than summarize the general design of each successive scheme-in the past tense to allow for their more or less ruined condition. scanty vestiges. Eventually. they followed precedents in city walls. 26 Cf. W. Most of the salients are in the style of western Europe and must be works of even later owners. on the landward boundary of the city from the Sea of Marmara to the Blachernae suburb (beyond which an older wall was retained to the Golden Horn). a means of reinforcement and shelter for defenders that may have been common ever since the Greeks invented it (probably in the fourth century B. This content downloaded from 193. n. M. obviously added at a later date to a rounded salient. The layout included sectors that were. 412-C. 23 Jan 2014 12:21:25 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . both political and architectural.). and put together badly. and the outer acquired salients that encroached upon the floor. 4. In many respects Corycus is a precursor of Justinianic fortifications. upon which stood a crenellated parapet 2 m high. (The original defences of the sector had evidently been designed to repel unsophisticated enemies. the material was collected from destroyed buildings too soon for it to become weathered. the Seljuks of Karamania contrived to seize the fortress. the Lusignan kings of Cyprus or their Genoese associates. militia. There are. is reserved for a forthcoming issue of Yayla. which likewise were planned for defence by local. which must have been manned principally by civilians. Someone of much less intelligence was responsible for the refortification of Sparta26 shortly after the devastation by Alaric in 396. Here all that need be said is that both lines of fortification along the ditch became more elaborate. CONSTANTINOPLE 25 Exceptional dimensions in the citadel at Old Cairo (S. passed to the Ottomans and was allowed to lapse into ruin. varied in size but all were larger than their predecessors beside the older corner.

3.I m a side. and a postern opened through the right flank.A SKELETAL HISTORY OF BYZANTINE FORTIFICATION 181 inevitably very few examples are preserved. domed. but no military advantage seems to have resulted from this differentiation. which was lined with a crenellated parapet. where the towers were not for military reasons but to add interest to their appearance. Constantinople. Aesthetic hexagonal-probably as well as practical considerations may also have influenced the decision to face the mortared rubble of the wall with limestone blocks or with dark-red brickwork. it was usable for storage or barracks. precisely as is shown in a Roman painting of an amphitheatre. and accompanied by the building This content downloaded from 193. their converging flights. contained a vaulted room lit by windows too far out of reach from the floor to have been intended for defence. a couple of metres wide. interrupted at several levels by bands comprising five courses of pale yellow bricks. The main gateways pierced a curtain between rectangular towers except in the case of the Adrianople Gate. An earthquake in 447 wrecked fifty-seven towers. The lower part of each tower. with an external o9-FIG. spaced usually 60o to 70 m apart. was provided with a variable number of windows for catapults. normally barrel-vaulted or. at the centre of the thirty-metre support.4 on Thu. but the overriding purpose must have been to save material in the structure. Gateways were approached through the tallest arch. it made the appearance more interesting. and octagonal of similar dimensions. opposite the curtains. as is not surprising in view of the size and height of the upper rooms. of Io. which go all the way through for bonding. The towers were alternately rectangular. Towers. An upper room. entered from the walk along the curtains. projected some io m forward from the curtains and rose 5-6 m higher. Plan of Theodosian 50 M system and final ditch (Landmauer) stair up to the roof.198. so great was the thrust that their massive vaulting could exert when shaken. 23 Jan 2014 12:21:25 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . Double staircases (of the type now called Palladian) were bonded to the inward face of the wall. climbed upon arches of graduated heights to a landing level with the walk.212. it was 5 m high. Their restoration was undertaken immediately. if octagonal.

LAWRENCE 182 . Constantinople.4 on Thu. reduced to less 13-50 than 4 m where towers protruded. W. This content downloaded from 193. more resistant to shock.1o FIG. 28 in Parthian times. 4. Section of Theodosian system with rectangular towers (Landmauer) of a low outer wall with small towers.212. of which educated Byzantines must have read. 2 M. for they were described by Herodotus and There is no evidence for recrudescence thick.A.198.28when one of exceptional magnitude was included in the defences of Babylon. No classical precedent for an outer wall is known (unless a free-standing proteichisma at Selinus should so rank because of salients that resembled towers in plan). 23 Jan 2014 12:21:25 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions I130 m . . the outer line at Hatra seems a mere proteichisma. presumably it was intended to minimize the risk that breaches caused by some future earthquake might again invalidate the entire defensive system.C. with only one visible salient. The two walls were separated by a space of m. The Asiatic peoples had built strong outer walls from the Bronze Age to the sixth century B.

around the monastery of Daphni (see at the centre of each arch-gave Appendix).198. Slits through the frontage-one overlapping fields of fire. Section of Theodosian system with octagonal and apsidal towers. stood at a mean height of only 4 m above the interval between the two walls. not Asiatic. Constantinople. 23 Jan 2014 12:21:25 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . FIG. and plans at two levels (Landmauer) later authors.212. The same effect This content downloaded from 193. down to Strabo. The wall was solid to the exiguous thickness of m. and backed with a series of blind arches. in a manner found in both Hellenistic and Roman examples and. though. but a drop in the ground almost doubled it externally. then the dominant power in Western Asia outside the Byzantine territory. the structure at Constantinople followed classical. spanning the 1. . .4 on Thu. The walk. In fact. Only if there were oriental features at Constantinople that could not have been derived from these ancient sources would it be reasonable to postulate an unverified addiction to outer walls in the Sassanian empire. . perhaps contemporaneously. though it was free-standing at the very base of the towers. which projected in their entirety. .30that intervals of 2 m between piers projected 3 m. 4 m wide behind the parapet. with the masonry of the lower part forming a revetment to the curtains. precedents in its most notable features.A SKELETAL HISTORY OF BYZANTINE FORTIFICATION 183 5 9 . 5.

He may conceivably have complied with that practice and set his foundations in a ditch. LAWRENCE would have resulted if a proteichisma that lined the scarp of a ditch had been studded with towers. it was neglected during the Vandal occupation but repaired in 533 by Belisarius. an extraordinarily close spacing compensated for their modest dimensions. but there are scarcely any remains except on the north and east. Two ditches have been found by excavation. This content downloaded from 193. we do not know whether there had been any actual instance of that scheme. particularly height. and were alternately rectangular and apsidal in accordance with the taste for repetitive variation manifested in the original Theodosian system. and its roof platform was the major defensive position.4 on Thu.29 the older was of an undetermined width not less than 18 m. which would have been obliterated when (supposedly c.212. 434-42. replacements. This conjecture could explain why the outer towers were equipped to shoot only slits were provided below a vaulted room entered from the to a fairly long distance-no wall-walk. for the enormous amount of spoil extracted on each occasion seems to have been spread evenly on the intervening space. the towers of the outer wall stood opposite the middle of curtains in the inner wall. 31 Vickers.32 and in other parts the masonry of a Hellenistic predecessor is exposed. as is the case with any scrap of ruin at the pillaged site of Carthage. Topographie his scale has been falsified in reproduction of the Thessalonique. Tourneau. of rubble. They are outside the field of this study. proposed a namesake of the mid fifth century. The perimeter at Thessalonica/Salonica may have been as long as the Theodosian wall of Constantinople. The circuit has commonly been associated with the residence of Theodosius I at the city in 379 and some later years. the later of not less than Io m. chritiens 33 Ch. but the designer clearly was thinking of a proteichisma such as often rose from the floor of a ditch. LesMonuments de de Salonique30-1 14 summarize Tafrali's survey. J. and Belisarius dug a replacement. to direct campaigns against the Goths. and a court was formed. The inner towers all overlooked curtains of the outer wall and bore most of the responsibility for its defence. in the controversy that ensued. iooo) that now visible was given its final dimensions. but the revolutionary character of Theodosian principles could scarcely be better illustrated than by this wholesale contravention of them. and Saladin. The original work includes many bricks with the same stamps as in local churches ascribed to the late fourth or early fifth centuries. 23 Jan 2014 12:21:25 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . or additions. At Carthage. The rectangular towers that project from the north wall of Salona30 were built after 434. the berm.184 A. Makedhonika 32 Tsigaridas. ADelt 28 (1973) Chron. who is stated to have accompanied it with a ditch. 479 fig. Excavations TheBritishMissioni i (forthcoming) 30 J. Dalmatia(1969) 360. plans. 12 (1972) 228. Vickers cited the prevalence of brick-stamps dated to an indiction which could be that of 447-8. revetting the scarp. Wilkes.198. W. bounded on each side by a little two-storeyed building and a door between it and the front of the original flanking tower. At entrances a simple gateway through the outer wall was aligned with that in the inner. 29 AJ 55 (1975) 36. which the Romans had deliberately left unfortified. But the actual course along the north and east of the city33 was at Carthage. Diehl. in 1969. His wall. Silt evidently had so choked the older before 533 that clearance was not worthwhile. 57 (1977) 255. 418.31 Meanwhile one piece of the circuit was found to be merely a thick facing applied to a Roman city wall. was faced with large squared blocks. since Dalmatia then belonged to the Western Empire. a city wall was built in 425. of which the base alone remains. and continued free-standing. An inscription attributes the construction to Hormisdas. which brought the thickness to 3-5 m. BSA68 (1973) 292. who were ravaging the Balkans from sea to sea. opportunities for such economical medleys of old and new may have affected planning to a greater extent than now appears. There was at least one tower. who was identified without question as an official of that time until Vickers. where roughly half consists of medieval and Turkish repairs. I pls. probably before 450.

for a parapet 1.34 there must have been a walk along the top. The Hun invasions of the Balkans gave cause for other precautions. 36 Ivanov. This content downloaded from 193. too. also with the width of the intervening ground and its slope (if any). Ibid. four. could not be exactly repeated throughout. 4. was the mouth. Arheologia15 4 (1973) II. 1-8. because the enemy came in numbers liable to overpower its defenders.A SKELETAL HISTORY OF BYZANTINE FORTIFICATION 185 predetermined. (in French) 276. Nearly all of them were rectangular. behind a crenellated parapet.50 seldom occupied more than 50 cm. the apex. and open to the rear. and brick is interposed in curtains. The predominant building material was rubble. BIABulg23 (1972) 263.) The thickness in Bulgaria was commonly about m. or five m. 5-6. courses) at vertical intervals of A proteichisma. though basically uniform. may have existed wherever the nature of the outside would encourage attack. 374 fig. (in French) 23. two-storeyed. they must have been spanned by removable wooden flooring.35 which may have been regarded as a relatively cheap substitute for an outer wall like that built at Constantinople in or soon after 447. or in superimposed rows of relieving arches. The towers varied in size and height. at least in one instance. 37 38 Ibid. 39 Ibid. but a shallow curvature ADelt 26 (I97i) Chron. and were spaced diversely. At an unflanked entrance to Augusta Traiana/Stara Zagora. but they become progressively stronger above gentler slopes as they approach the north-east corner. quite likely to be I'30-I'50 contemporary. 6). 178 figs. (in French) 34. beside a shallow valley draining to the sea. where the descent is very steep. Arheologia15 4 24.37 the exceptionally thick (2 m) proteichisma keeps barely 4 m distant from the much older wall. from which it would be overshot. like those beside curtains. 14 fig. at Diocletianopolis/Hisar38 the interval is slightly over Io m wide except where older rectangular towers project more than half-way across it (FIG. Occasional V-shaped salients were cheap substitutes for towers. from which the citadel juts out. MID OR LATE FIFTH CENTURY The fragmentary proteichisma to which the preceding sentence refers might conceivably have been later than the wall of Salonica but the likelihood that it was contemporaneous is enhanced by the existence of better-preserved analogies that date from the fifth and sixth centuries. The height must have varied at every town in accordance with that of the wall behind. 23 Jan 2014 12:21:25 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . and about 2 m thick. 4. So the design. 6-8. the defences along the verge can fairly be termed perfunctory. Significance should possibly be attached to the fact that most examples of a thick proteichisma have been found in Bulgaria.212.198. 2. There was clearly a vogue then for this type of outwork. their landings expanding the walk inwards. between out-turned endings of the proteichisma. so. Less untypically. 35 Oviarov. they are even stronger on the east. 4. by the topography. but very little of it has survived. figs. BCH 98 34 (i974) 507 fig. running parallel ground with the curtains at a distance of 13 m. 15 fig. within a few metres. but towers were coigned with brick. men could pass one another on the walk. while at Salonica it was 2 m. The wall on the north overlooks a deep inland valley.34 was incompletely partitioned from the open remainder of the back. a precautionary device of Hellenistic origin. At Vojvoda39 there is a similar interval in front of older curtains. where the prevalence of woodland must have encouraged invaders hurriedly to improvise enough crude ladders for simultaneous escalade all around the frontage. leaving a gap of 3 m to be bridged. Milkev and Damjanov. Stairs rose parallel. either to form bands (composed of three. and the junctions of this interval with the passage were gated. 3. such as the narrowing of old gateways.36 but the predominant need must have been for outworks to impede attack on the wall. TOWNS WITH MASSIVE PROTEICHISMA. (But Salonica is in a treeless neighbourhood. as on the comparatively even terrain at Constantinople. figs.4 on Thu.

though merely to fit with the diverse patterns of the older remains. passing them at a distance of little over 2 m (FIG. defences at entrance (Arheologia) takes the proteichisma outwards and back again around towers of a horseshoe shape. 23 Jan 2014 12:21:25 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions .4 on Thu. This content downloaded from 193. LAWRENCE 186 o'43 0 FIG. at Vojvoda the width had originally been 3'45 m. At all these three sites outer and inner gateways were aligned and given a uniform width of about 3 m. defences near corner (Arheologia). (a) Section of N. the same basic principles governed the new design in every instance. here it was backed by a pair of guardrooms. oo3 o. None is precisely datable. Diocletianopolis. The outward curve is prolonged past the whole front of one such tower.A. 6. and the rear of one was attached to the horseshoe tower while the other's rear met an almost circular tower that projected off a corner of the enceinte. and then the proteichisma continues in a straight line to and beyond its own gateway.212.7). Otherwise the scheme of each proteichisma differs. (b) Plan of N. But the discovery of ninety-two coins at Vojvoda proves that the work there was done not earlier than 457 nor appreciably later than 477. so that together they bounded a court outside the main gateway through the wall.198. W.

The beak.212. 8. 13 m. Vaulted embrasures diverge from it.198. 23 Jan 2014 12:21:25 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 33- . each is m wide and 2-15 m high till it meets an arched encroachment of masonry. so that the shape would have been attenuated if the rectangular portion towards the rear were not exceptionally wide-about 16 m. and the other. 'D'.40 of which two are still in fair condition (FIG. which is 4 m more than the distance to which the beaks project from the curtains. I. its height was 7-50 m in 'B'. where the wall-thickness is 3 m. Vojvoda. 'B'. Monumentet9 (1975) 5. Externally each has a pronounced (but dissimilar) batter below the upper storey. here constitutes (on average) two-thirds of it. Dyrrhachium. under the wooden floor of the upper room. according to Suidas. 9-80 m in 'D'. Albania I (1925) This content downloaded from 193. The proportions are as extraordinary as the size. 7. 48 cm thick. is still 14 m high. This was practically triangular and measures in each tower almost I o x 7 m. the slanting faces being nearly II m long. 5. 491-518 This emperor. The lower storey is blind. which normally contributes little to a tower's projection. THE REIGN 187 5m Plan at upper level and section of Tower 'D' (Monumentet) OF ANASTASIUS I.4 on Thu. Rey.A SKELETAL 0 HISTORY OF BYZANTINE FORTIFICATION 40 FIG. Plan of defences at entrance and postern (Arheologia) 0 FIG.8) and only one hopelessly ruined.55 frames a tall window. 64 cm wide (enough to expand the range of a catapult and its which 40 Bace. One tower. and surely no one else would have afforded the row of four monstrous pentagonal towers. built new fortifications at his birthplace. (in French) 29. Dyrrhachium/ Durres.

both quite low but especially the outer. 48a. Anastasius reconstructed a barrier-wall (probably less than a century old) all the way between the coasts of the Marmara and Black Seas. This content downloaded from 193. the emperor contravened its terms by the hasty transformationof a place near the frontier in Mesopotamia into a city. more oblique than straight forward. Contemporaryliterature and inscriptionsassign many of these works to Justinian's reign.44and seem generally to have installed a garrison at every inhabited place as well as at some of purely military importance. and those rarely in such detail that Justinianic work can be distinguished from previous or subsequent elements. Bell. One such opens through either flank at right angles to a curtain. The beak was designed for that purpose. a pair through either slanting face of the beak. that is partly because its character differed in each theatre of war in order to match the ability and resources of the specific enemy encountered there. The towers of the inner wall were of faulty construction which could not withstand the weather. and the remains have not been studied to distinguish Anastasius' from later work. to prevent rebellion. wherever feasible. and all these must have been due to a few engineers who expressed the wishes of the successive military governors he appointed. made in 5o6. ii 13 17-18. THE REIGN OF JUSTINIAN.212. passing through the towers and accessible only by stairs within them. b.188 A. W. Procopius42describes alterations by Justinian.4 on Thu. Two means of protection were adopted: the Byzantines built either a town wall or a fort capacious enough to be a refuge. They have left a corresponding abundance of ruins in no fewer than nine modern countries. Allegedly in 512. Diehl. allowing for the windings that took it to militarily advantageous terrain. ii I 4. against enemy beginning their advance. Each enceinte45was built. LAWRENCE arc of fire). had made Roman city walls untenable. others are stylistically related.41it must have been over 50 km long. TheDefenceof ByzantineAfrica (1981) 142 figs. 6. each floor was divided into a large number of rooms. In the brief duration of a truce with the Sassanians. 23 Jan 2014 12:21:25 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . Dara. Some towns actually lay empty. Archaeologia 42 Aed. 45 Data. prior to which there was a continuous walk upon the curtains. L'Afriquebyzantine(1896) fig. 44 An unwalled town. Sufetula/Sbeitla. the extreme mobility of these tribesmen frustratedattempts to crush them and their opportunities for raiding settled communities were unlimited because demolition by the Vandals. and one through the pointed extremity. He gave it43a double circuit of walls. So the disposition provided a minimum of fire-power along the curtains but a concentration. the Byzantines did not restore them. i 1o 13-14. presumably after the model of Constantinople. of reused material and incorporated any older Aeliana447 (1969) 33.198. contained five residentialtowers dispersedon the approachesto the fort. because the area enclosed would have been over-large for a diminished population. but were likely to revive if safe from molestation. He also increased the heights throughout both walls. it soon reverted to its old name. 527-565 The number of fortificationsbuilt or renovated for Justinian surpassed the total in all other Byzantine periods combined. and Justinian was obliged to rebuild or envelop many of them. D. entered through open-fronted porches from a colonnaded court. but relatively few have been studied. which he called Anastasiopolis. whose initial rising came immediately after Belisarius'conquest of the Vandal kingdom and was followed by an interminable series of others. iv 9. 66. plans. Comparatively weak defences could avert attack by the unsophisticated natives of North Africa. 43 Aed. Ch. Pringle. Harrison. The Byzantines long kept it in repair. They vary in size up to some 20 m square and were two or three 41 storeys high. and illustrations were assembled in Diehl.

This content downloaded from 193. 154 pl.) The gateway itself. the lower room being often vaulted but the upper floored with boards. C. It lay behind both the wall and a shallow parallel outwork. A ShortAccountof Early MuslimArchitecture (1958) 178 disputes Diehl's accounts of Thignica/Ain Tounga and Ksar-Bellezma. varied in size for no perceptible reason. Comparatively tiny forts. built in 535 around an area a quarter of that enclosed by its predecessor.198. L'Afriquebyz. Creswell. 6o. op. but it would have entailed no changes.4 on Thu. Diehl. op. Pringle op. L. pl. 155. more often by anticipation of the number of occupants. kinked outward to a triple arch of Caracalla. 47 The deserted town of Bagai regained inhabitants when a somewhat irregular area of over 300 m each side was surrounded by a Justinianic wall. JRS 6i (1971) 202 n. for instance. which was converted into a tower covering a minor gateway. of the conventional tetrapyrgos pattern. growing nothing but scrub. 31-2. 90). 46 It is drawn on the extreme right of Saladin's generally trustworthy restoration (Ch. A. 152. on three sectors it is reduced also between a series of buttresses. an apparent citadel of 74 x 63 m might possibly have been an initial defence for the builders. ii fig. Gsell.. The dimensions he approves for a wall give it a thicknessof not less than 5 cubits (strictly m) and a height of 20 cubits (9'24 m). Manuel d'art byz. 180 fig. Very rarely was part of a town divided from the rest. 2 restores a gateway at Leptis Magna (with lintel) between rectangular towers. was remodelled by the Tunisians in the i6th cent. figs. 34-5 pls. The Byzantine enceinte. cit. a simple op. and S. walls there were either solid (of rubble faced The vary examples 8-o5 Io with cut stone) or else lined with a series of arches. Pringle. which I did not see till my text was unalterable.48showing the lower ends of slits that seem to lost have pierced a set of lost merlons. Towers were occasionally rounded or polygonal.A SKELETAL HISTORY OF BYZANTINE FORTIFICATION 189 structure that could profitably be adapted. op. That no intensive siege was anticipated is obvious from the inadequate wallthickness.written for commanders in any theatre of war. Histoirede l'Afriquedu Nord (I931) fig. 23 Jan 2014 12:21:25 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . were perhaps reserved for a garrison. off the corners of a court (26 m square) that was contained within the citadel and may have formed an inner entrance. cit. is an authoritative historical and archaeological summing-up. 183-5 fig.At Tebessa. 292. cit. Data on Libya were collected by Goodchild. 45. and two-storeyed. Julien. Leschi.46Where a fort occupied part of an ancient city. v-vi. actual 2.3I in Africa from to m. K. whether habitual residentsor temporary refugees. the twenty-one intermediate towers. Diehl. both towersflanking the main gate had 1. Uniquely complex divisions at Bagai are not explicable with certainty. his fig. 18 pls. (The French. cit. op. conceivably for that purpose. One rectangular and three round towers stood at the corners. The side of a basilica was loopholed and battlemented to fit into the wall of Ammaedara (or Ammoudara)/Haidra. Gsell. though actually it is impossible to distinguish between a small town and a large fort. von Petrokovits. 196 figs. which remained. i-iv. iv. before restoration. 5. Most other forts resemble a fortified town except in area. cit. fig. Some principles for details are stated in an anonymous manual known as De Strategicaor Tactica. some by arches. op. preferably those around the forum. of repelling invaders. the city wall of Theveste/Tebessa.47 Unless a deviation to include ancient or recent buildings was worthwhile. 48 Diehl. the walk (often extended by corbelling) might be edged by a curb within. 21. xcvi.212. sometimes these were governed by the topography. cit. Diehl. which is otherwise well preserved. which might have been entered at a little salient in front or else laterally through a tower-like excrescence from the wall. must have been intended only for the same purpose. Corsi di Culturasull'ArteRavennatebizantina13 (1966) 232-43. Leschi. A. apparently by an officer who had served under Belisarius. while the parapet rose about twice as high (to some m) at the merlons as in the embrasures. when surveyed. The site occupies a slight eminence amid a plain. only additions. which are linked to support the walk. No enclosure was given the same dimensions as any other. as a strong fortification in the style then prevalent. cit. This north end of Haidra. suggestive of a proteichisma. as in the cross-wallat Side. L'Alglrieantique(1952) has the best photographs. a fortification normally (terrain permitting) comprised a rectangle of curtain-walls with a much taller tower on each corner and others at fairly regular intervals.. facing the road that ascends to the Algerian frontier. usually rectangular.50their tops before photographs were taken. Pringle. cit. op. all rectangular. because the surrounding country is practically uninhabitable. distinct in outline but so ruined that no gateways were recognizable. Monumentsantiquesde l'Algirie (1901). however. the new wall often did no more than connect several Roman buildings. Probably there was a gateway in the wall midway in the interval (15 m) between a pair of towers (about 7 m square) that projected into the outwork. arbitrarily restored a continuous parapet with a level coping throughout. some by lintels. On the summit.

was no more than 1'70 m thick but backed by a continuous row of seventeen cottages. In Bulgaria a proteichisma is a common adjunct to fortresses built in the sixth century. Coins prove that occupation began in 49 Grand houses near the Syrian Desert were already safeguarded by single machicoulis. which was slewed so that one corner reached within 4 m of the entrance. There is an extreme instance at Sadovsko Kale. and might be thought superfluous in Africa. The street in front of the cottages (and ultimately between them and four more) was entered by a gate between the east facet of the tower and the end of the proteichisma. 50 Welkov. farmerswho also served the Byzantines as militia. and they themselves will defend it. A proteichisma will block the approach of mantlets or rams-unlikely to have been used in Africa-and enable them to be attacked there instead of at the wall. which alone were not adequately protected by a steep drop.9) built for Goths. an example at Taucheira/Tocra has been reduced to a succession of isolated fragments and is recognizable only because they are aligned. xxxi 2. If the town stands on a hill. LAWRENCE arch abutting on the towers. Villesmortesde hauteSyrie34 fig. with a steep side close to each of them. has probably accentuated an original contrast with practice in Africa. No proteichisma can be seen at a vast majority of African sites.212. a proteichisma would. If the ground outside the proteichisma is flat. looting the territory (then Byzantine) which has come to bear their name owing to settlement by their descendants. a ditch should be dug to a width of not less than 40 cubits. may have disintegrated above the present ground level. and the earth from it must be piled in two banks which will hinder enemy approach. the south end is attached to a pentagonal tower. outer wall. The inner wall. a simple gateway through the proteichisma. actually none is known in any country. the author seems to mean that the cutting forms a trench that separates the banks. making a platform that will be higher all along than the enemy position.50a village (FIG. mainly underJustinian (whose successorsare credited only with repairs). Ditches soon become choked and may thereforenot have been as rare in Tunisia and Algeria as now appears. The De Strategica(xii.I90 A. a cutting should be made at a distance of 30 or 40 cubits out from the wall. but in some cases the thin masonry. 5-9) recommends anyone who fortifies a town to enhance its security by means of outworks. apparently two-storeyed. The lasting cohesion of cemented rubble. 6). composed of large reused blocks.4 on Thu. either rectangular or halfcylindrical (J. Attacks with immense numerical superiority should have almost guaranteed the capture of fortressesheld by local militia if the wall was easily approached. and to a greater depth than the base of the wall so that tunnels dug by enemy miners-probably none existed in Africa-will emerge there in the open. there are many in Libya. keeping a straight course regardlessof whether it is parallel with an originally Hellenistic but renovated curtain or passes the beak of a wholly Justinianic pentagonal tower. The earth extracted from the ditch should be carried back and spread between the proteichisma and the wall. probably because natural processes tend to blur the distinctive shape. 2-3. not less than 3 cubits wide. W. An outwork of this kind would have been particularly valuable as an obstruction to mantlets or rams. The Bulgars (who individually were more formidable than Berbers) made seasonal raids in great force southward from the Danube. over 8o m long.198. Germania19 (I935) 149 figs. AASOR 25-8 (1925) 8 fig. 9 pl. for it is I-80 m thick) along the west side and south end. Mattern. close behind it is the doorway of the tower (the ground floor of which was used as a workshop). at least. 13-15- This content downloaded from 193.49of which likewise the base alone remained prior to another misguided restoration. was overhung by a triple box-machicouli. 23 Jan 2014 12:21:25 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . delay access to it. they could scarcely have hoped to defend it but for a proteichisma (or rather. which responded to a very different type of warfare. it will also provide a refuge for people who flee from the countryside and would otherwise congest the town. in fact. the habitual material.

53 While these discoveries tend to modify or controvert Gibbon's assumption. 52 Decline and Fall ch. because sallies by the occupants might otherwise have impeded farming. The capture of a district's fortresses was an indispensable preliminary to conquest and settlement.4 on Thu. must predominantly have been in Bulgaria and Yugoslavia.5 . He seems. confronted by a total he thought preposterous. when the occupants of a fortress could hope it might be ignored while they stayed I b 9 c 18 a I 17 -. leaving their grand castles isolated.16 . Sadovsko Kale.% 15 N14 13 11 \ 12 9 I t-l d 1 ~ s ~6 7 1~2/1~3Ij~4 11 21 10 8 20" 19 fX 18 0 5 10 15 20 25m II FIG. surmised52 that 'the far greater part' of it referred to solitary towers. . centuries later. 149. So. the village was then stormed and burnt by the Avars.198. op. This content downloaded from 193. however. Arheologia 15 4 (1973) 24. 9. a lack of archaeological corroboration scarcely weakens it. the few identifiable sites range as far south as Corinth. has listed the names of over 6oo places in the Balkans at which fortifications were built or improved on Justinian's orders. upon which the aliens would depend for subsistence. Gibbon. each on a piece of ground surrounded by a wall and ditch. (in French) 34.212. like rocks at high tide. because the bank of the lower Danube is a most unlikely environment in which to see recognizable vestiges of little buildings that became purposeless when it ceased to be the frontier. except for one detail. Procopius. writing probably in 554-5. cit. known from no other source. Section and plan (Welkov) safe within it. nearly 1400 years ago. but the rest. His conjecture is still plausible up to a point. Field-work by Bulgarian scholars has revealed a surprising number of fortresses that could have been villages as populous as Sadovsko Kale. Crusaders regained their land after the campaigning season in which a Moslem army had flowed past. 5' Ivanov. there is even a double chain of such ruins within a few hours' walk along either bank of the Vit. to have overestimated the proportion they could have formed. The inhabitants had taken the customary precaution51 of blocking the entrance. But in Justinian's time invaders came only to raid.A SKELETAL HISTORY BYZANTINE OF FORTIFICATION 191 Justinian's reign and continued to shortly after 582. exploration of Cyrenaica has found evidence that supports it. xl. There. 23 Jan 2014 12:21:25 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 53 Welkov. a southern tributary of the Danube. with reference to watching for invaders.

A. W. LAWRENCE

192

almost every hilltop bore a tower, surrounded only by a ditch54 (nor is a wall visible beside
the ditch that encircles Biiyiik Kale, the admittedly later tetrapyrgosand beacon in Bulgaria).
These look-out posts were intervisible, so that intelligence of enemy movements could be
transmitted by a code of signals. Most define the regular frontier of military activity in
wasteland behind the habitable coastline, but some are clustered on the approaches to specific
places. Around the town of Boreum,55walled by Justinian, lie the ruins of at least twelve
towers within a radius of 5 km, and one larger (of 31 x 27 m) stood at a distance of io km.
Procopius' statement that Justinian made Boreum 'as safe as possible, together with the whole
country round about it', dates most, if not all, of them, and hints that they were manned
from the garrison at the town. These systems followed the Roman pattern of surveillance but
with an increased number of outposts; the openness of the arid landscape, of course, invited
such treatment.
Alterations of Byzantine character were made at Salona shortly before Justinian took
possession of Dalmatia. The city wall had been well maintained but was vulnerable to mass
attack, especially by escalade, the ground being practically flat. In 535 additional towers56
were crowded against the curtains, so that untrained inhabitants could share in defence by
discharging missiles from three directions towards the foot of the wall (yet, some eighty years
later, the Slavs and Avars captured Salona and destroyed it). The new towerswere rectangular,
like the earlier ones, but prolonged outwards by solid triangular beaks, which are structurally
distinct entities so that their weight did not affect the stability of the towers. These beaks seem
to have been only high enough to intercept blows from a ram. A single beak starts forward
off the whole frontage of narrow towers, while a pair covers the whole frontage of broader
towers. No excrescences of this kind are visible at any other site.
The old citadel at Pantalia/Kustendil, in south-west Bulgaria, seems to have been almost
entirely rebuilt for Justinian,57 with layers of brick interposed among the stone. It endured
to the fifteenth century, without demonstrable alterations. Round towers (of 64o0-7-6o m
diameter) protruded from the four corners of an irregular enclosure, above slopes of gradients
that made intermediate

towers generally unnecessary; however, a pair of sharp-pointed

triangular salients, on either side 10-50 m long, sprang westward from the wall (at which they
are 9 m apart) and supplemented inadequate outflanking by the adjacent south corner tower.
A little rectangular tower projected beside each of the two gateways, which narrow respectively
from 2-20 to I14o m and from I-80 to i- io m. There were also two posterns, one of which
opened through the flank of another little tower on the opposite side of the fortress.58
While Justinian's main endeavour in the northern Balkans was to provide refuges for small

communities, in the south he hoped to prevent further advance of the barbarian invaders.
He expended most effort on cross-countrybarriers.The longest of them, the 'Wall ofAnastasius'
from the Marmara to the Black Sea, was drastically altered; doorways from towers to the
walk on top were blocked, making it accessible only upon each curtain separately by new
stairs behind.59 We know nothing of the wall across the neck of the Gallipoli peninsula; the
Goodchild, JRS 43 (I953) 7555 Goodchild, JRS 41 (195I) II fig. 3 pl. I, also Corsidi
Cultura(n. 45 above). It is questionable whether the fortified
headland that projects from the town-site was really a citadel;
it might antedate bothJustinian's town-wall and the synagogue
which he converted into a church.
56 E.
d Salonai (1928) 18plan B; W.
Dyggve, Recherches
in Salonai fig. I--plan of 1907.
Gerber, Forschungen
88 fig. 66; Bobcev,
57 Ivanov, BSoclABulg 7 (Ig19-2o0)
54

BIABulg 24 (1961) 115 (an article profusely illustrated with
small plans of fortifications in the Balkans).
58 The tower at the broader entrance was 5-6o m wide
and projected 4'50 m; the other, 5 m wide, projected 3 m. Both
could as easily have been placed on the opposite side of
the gateways instead of on the enemy's left, but the actual
design may have been preferred because it would protect the
unshielded right of sortie parties.
59 Procopius, Aed. v 9 6-II.

This content downloaded from 193.198.212.4 on Thu, 23 Jan 2014 12:21:25 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

A SKELETAL

HISTORY

OF BYZANTINE

FORTIFICATION

I93

latest of its three recorded predecessors had been built as early as 399 B.C. and cannot have
left many usable remnants. IfJustinian's barrier at Thermopylae has been rightly identified,60
it was achieved by rebuilding a Hellenistic wall and towers, behind a proteichisma. Procopius
says it had 'double battlements', meaning that a second row of embrasures was added above
those at the former top, which would have then been completely framed with masonry. The
latest of the former projected or completed barriers across the Isthmus of Corinth, ascribed
by Zosimus (an unreliable author) to the middle of the third century, had become ruinous
by Justinian's time;61 scraps of it appear to be incorporated in his wall,62 which for the last
300 m before it met the eastern shore ran upon a Mycenaean predecessor. There were 153
towers; those extant are rectangular, of such dimensions as 4 m projection by 6 m width, and
occur at very irregular intervals to suit the ground. Where the ground was fairly level
a proteichisma, 70 cm thick, is found 6 m outwards; it was preceded at a distance of 3 m by
a ditch, a couple of metres deep. The garrison for the eastern sectors was quartered in a
fortress63 that extended far inwards from a great bend in the wall and was fortified in the
same manner, with towers along the outline some 550 m to the rear.
The grandest extant piece of Justinianic fortification is one of which Procopius merely
includes the bare name, Nicopolis,64 along with his 6oo-odd others. The previous history of
the place is relevant. Augustus founded the city to commemorate the battle of Actium, giving
it a perfunctorily walled area of a square mile to receive an enormous number of conscripted
settlers. But there was no possibility of an adequate livelihood for so many. The soil was poor,
the chances of becoming a commercial centre for the hinterland were restricted by the distances
to and between fertile districts, while the one outstanding asset, the fact that the overseas
trade of Epirus necessarily passed that way (just as, long afterwards, it went through Preveza),
cannot have yielded much of a revenue. Decline was inevitable. An appeal to Julian alleges
that Nicopolis had almost wholly 'fallen into lamentable decay, the public buildings were
roofless, water supplies had broken, dust and rubbish lay everywhere'. Conditions are likely
to have worsened till nearly two centuries later, when the barbarian invasions of the Balkans
conferred strategic importance upon Epirus as a southward route for them and upon Nicopolis
because Byzantine communications by sea with Epirus could not be kept open unless the
neighbourhood of its port were safeguarded. Justinian therefore fortified the north-east quarter
of the Augustan city, separating it from the derelict remainder by building a new wall on the
west and south, while on the other two sides he reconstructed the original wall.65 The fortress,
though conventionally termed 'the citadel', presumably contained the whole town of his time
as well as space for troops.
The ground both in and around the fortress is practically flat, except on the east where it
descends gently from the wall. The design may not have provided outworks but in other
respects greatly (and no doubt consciously) improved on the Theodosian at Constantinople.
Only on the west side (PLATES I I, 12, I3a) is the wall preserved to a fair height and almost
intact in parts.66 It appears of one build throughout its straight length of 600 m. Two layers
of brick, each composed of several courses, ran through curtains and towers alike. Each end
60 Bhquignon, RA 4
(I934) i8; Mackay, AJA 67 (1963)
241, 252.
61
Zosimus i 29; Aed.iv I 27.
62
Broneer, Antiquity32 (1958) 80 fig. i.
63 Illustratedreportson American excavationsin the fortress
become more informative after I967.Jenkins and Megaw, BSA
32 (1931-2) 68 pl. 26.
64 RE xvii.i
(1936) s.v. cols. 513-14--plan; cf. sketch-plans

by W. J. Leake, Travelsin NorthernGreecei (1835) 187 and
Chris. Wordsworth, Greece(1839) 230.
65 The Roman wall on the north seems to have been rebuilt
to match the new west side. The irregular Roman wall on the
east may have been left almost unaltered; outworks would
have been advisable, it being mainly without towers, but none
has been noticed.
66 EA
1961 44; Courtauld.

This content downloaded from 193.198.212.4 on Thu, 23 Jan 2014 12:21:25 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

194

A. W. LAWRENCE

was covered by a round corner tower, rectangular towers project intermediately at intervals
of about 33 m, and a horseshoe-shaped pair outflanks the main entrance. An unusually
well-preservedintermediate tower is 7.15 m wide and projects 6-5 m; a tall slit opens through
the front and each flank on the upper storey. The curtains now stand as high as the intermediate
towers, but the walk they bear passed through the horseshoe towers on which the parapet
was attached midway between the stone crazy paving of the walk and the roof. Each horseshoe
tower contained a room 4 m wide with a maximum length of nearly 5 m, enclosed by masonry
2-65 m thick. An arched embrasure in the northern-the southern is ruined-opens straight
through the centre of a presumed mezzanine centre of the lower storey, between two that
slant through the cheeks, and there are other embrasureson the upper storey, diversely placed
so as not to weaken the structure. All the embrasures are splayed at so mild an angle that
their extreme contraction, 2 m outwards, leaves room for a man to stand behind a frame,
65 cm thick, that reduced the mouth to a slit (at any rate on the lower storey).
A brick arch on masonryjambs led to the main entrance of the fortress,a space 3-5 m wide
and 4 m deep, covered by a vault of which only the edges remain. A portcullis travelled in
grooves 15 cm wide and deep; the winch was operated on the lost floor of a vaulted room
above. The wall-walk passed through that room, which was accessible by an arch in the flank
of the southern tower, and by an extant tunnel through the entire back of the northern tower,
lit by windows on the inward side (PLATE I2b). Where the walk emerges from the tower, the
top of the curtain is broadened towards the rear by a landing at the head of a staircase,
1-2 m wide, which rests upon arches of graduated height. A narrower double stair, now
dilapidated, rose in the same manner (PLATEI3a) upon two blind and two open arches; the
tallest, in the centre, both supported a landing at the stairhead and gave access underneath
to the doorway of a tower that has fallen. The lower arch ends externally against a postern close
to the attachment of the tower flank; half of the broken lintel is preserved, below the fill of
a relieving arch.
Probably Justinian did not wall villages far away from the frontier zone. The little fort at
Plataea-a

place he refortified according to Procopius-might

have been a refuge for local

peasants, but since they could escape invaders by retiring to Mount Cithaeron with their
animals, a more likely purpose was to enable a detachment of soldiers to remain in safety,
watching and reporting enemy movements in the low undulating country overlooked from
that position on the north edge of a plateau. Defensibility against manual weapons was assured
by the rectangular towers that project in every direction, but the structure is abysmal.67The
fort was erected, rather than built, by superimposing blocks taken from the city wall of
Alexander's time; most of these are rectangular, but some had originally been keyed together
by fitting a protrusion on one into a rebated corner of another, and the Byzantines did not
reinstate them in the same order. (On PLATEI3b, a photograph of the exterior of a tower,
daylight shows beneath two blocks, each rebated at a corner.) Haste alone would excuse such
casual treatment, and a barbarian thrust towards Corinth was presumably the emergency
that impelled it.
In Justinian's reign, defences far behind the Balkan frontier were needed against enemies
of immense numerical superiority but incapable of maintaining a protracted siege; any
barbarian horde that had penetrated deeply into Byzantine territory must have relied on
foraging for subsistence, and so was bound to move from each district in turn when no more
supplies could be found there. The emperor's expenditure on barrier-walls is comprehensible
67 Washington, AJA' 6 (1890) pl. 33; Courtauld A63/3590o.

This content downloaded from 193.198.212.4 on Thu, 23 Jan 2014 12:21:25 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

the result. where there was too narrow a walk. while the succession of (unexcavated) forts along the 'Wall of Anastasius' may also have been usable in the like circumstances. ii 6 10-13. A.4 on Thu. spreading panic throughout the army. sophisticated opponents presented Justinian's officers with a different set of problems. probably before Belisarius' recall from Italy. that the Roman sustaining wall of the former acropolis at Ardea was hurriedly repaired and extended by a solid beaked salient that projects II m. and fled on horses. and advanced. a ditch. The City Wall of Imperial Rome (1930) 264. ibid. Chosroes. In two other theatres of war. As for the little fort at Plataea. it could unquestionably be captured. widely dispersed attacks (which might be delayed by lack of scaling-ladders.A SKELETAL HISTORY OF BYZANTINE FORTIFICATION 195 only if he assumed that danger would. as a rule. is said to have been quite deep. the strength of the contiguous fort was clearly intended to enable even a few surviving defenders to retreat to it and hold out till the enemy had gone away. beyond which began the ancient road through the Megarid whereby armies had always travelled to or from the Isthmus. where Belisarius landed in 536. especially in the treeless region of Thrace). and it crashed to the ground.212. since no loot could be expected. Procopius. opposed only by young Antiochenes 68 Procopius. he explains.7o and added traverses. Io. The Sassanian king. his force was so outnumbered by the troops of the Gothic kingdom that he was besieged in Rome for a whole year. 69 71 Lawrence. which are extremely scarce in both regions. as though readers would be unfamiliar with the technicalities of fortifications. be transient.iv 9. There he attacked the wall73 from a rock-mass equal in height and within short range. the only feasible route southwards in Epirus towards Corinth does not run through Nicopolis but passes 32 km away to the north-east. and the tops are lost (PLATE I5a). Bell."6 Provision. It can only have been during this war. became a scene of much combat in 537. Richmond. was to mount a row of catapults along each side (PLATE towers of unusual width and height were added to the city wall at I4b). Lugli Auxur-Terracina. In Italy. Ibid. because frontages of such length were untenable against a series of persistent."9 The unprecedentedly formidable design of Nicopolis could express anticipation of a determined siege. but the weight of the men who came on to the timber proved more than the ropes could bear. the berm. no doubt. Courtauld. and there invaders could advantageously be brought to battle. Finding Aurelian's wall in bad condition. which Procopius took care to describe. The defenders tied a wooden balcony to the towers at either end of the curtain opposite. and the height of a fort at Thermopylae was increased. commanding a view of the invasion route where that approached an exceptionally defensible pass. initiated six years of war in 540 by leading an army through the Byzantine fringe of the Mesopotamian steppe and onwards to Antioch. however. was made for the eventuality that a barrier might be overrun. Justinian diminished the risk to the 'Wall of Anastasius' by dividing the previously continuous wall.71 the purpose. Rectangular Terracina. was that the soldier defending an embrasure was protected from missiles thrown by enemies fighting on his left. Bell.i G. he restored it. but is equally comprehensible if we suppose that the garrison might be depleted to fight elsewhere. OpusculaRomana4 44. v 14 15. If the interpretation as a signalling post be accepted. a wide expanse between it and Aurelian's wall. 70 I. it was ideally sited. on the Isthmus of Corinth. 9. Aed. Soldiers guarding nearby towers thought the noise was due to a collapse of the wall itself. 72 FormaItaliaei/I.72 conversion into dwellings has obscured their fenestration and internal divisions. Boethius.198. The Persians then climbed over. Another significant feature. 36 figs. as well as containing barracks. 8 819- This content downloaded from 193. but at the cost of such heavy casualties as might deter assault. iv 2 5. The solutions they devised are known from Procopius more than actual remains. 23 Jan 2014 12:21:25 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . 73 Procopius.

composed mainly of women and children. op.. no doubt. The ascent itself is the one lost sector of Antioch for which there exist fully intelligible data. are illustrated on the same view and (with trifling discrepancies) on one by Bartlett. Their morale was. 7s Ibid. probably that was the 'gate' which gave rise to the modern name. iii (1838) 11. owing no loyalty to the Empire. and perhaps that was one of the motives that impelled the building of some that were of gratuitously ostentatious excellence. Bartlett engraved for Fisher'sViews(J. again by Bartlett. LAWRENCE who had been trained to arms in the habitual fighting between rival factions at the chariot-races. trampling over the crowd.78from the Orontes bridgehead. it would seem. or if their pay were in arrears. H. only two rather narrow windows interrupt masonry that stands like a sheer cliff over the arch through which the stream can flow. W. published in 1838.75Seen from without. when he had burnt as much of the city as he could and depopulated it. i 7. The garrison of 6. From their appearance. The engraving of a drawing by Cassas76is the sole authority for the fortifications along the outward edge. Although Chosroesleft the wall intact. but a forest of towers stood in the flat valley below till an earthquake in 1872 destroyed the town. It appears in the background (FIG. looking straight upwards. in both Arabic and Turkish. the Antioch revived by Justinian was newly fortified.212. Syria. where an iron grille must have been fixed in accordance with old Greek usage.. This content downloaded from 193. of which very little is preserved.TheHolyLand. i (1836)24. they were always ready to join the Persian army instead.198. and Antioch became another shortly after Chosroes retired to his own realm. I I) of both the illustrations. which was rebuilt with their material. around much or possibly all of the immensely long perimeter. cit. Chesney was written before I868. xiii I. a description by Col. Carne. the 'Iron Gate'. it was built across the deep ravine cut by a seasonal torrent (FIG. the thickness of the masonry is reduced to form a ledge that carries the wall-walk. which command a view downstream. A low outwork seems to have been a proteichisma. as usual. The towers contained 74 Probably Justinian did not appreciably alter this entrance. The inner portion resembled Theodosian entrances to Constantinople except for a greater thickness of the flanking towers and an inward prolongation of the passage by means of spurs. (1797-9) xi I. and the width of the walk upon the cornice as 8 or Io feet. i (1836) 63). who was the last emperor to build on a grand scale at Antioch. doubled to contain two successive archways.4 on Thu. The stark boldness of the concept is in keeping with Justinian's taste (e. op. particularly on comparison with Terracina. none of these towers can have been appreciably earlier than Justinian. and the great height is consistent with his habit of raising unsatisfactorilylow fortifications.g.Asia Minor. of these Nicopolis is an example.77inwards towards the ascent. At the back. they stood on a natural terrace where the wall turned to climb the mountain. have been mercenaries recruited from barbarous peoples. 77 Carne. who were rightly even more anxious to escape the impending horrors. Voyagepittoresque de la Syrie.79He estimated the height of the curtains as 50 to 60ofeet. 79 I know of Chesney's account only from quotations by some Victorian author. 23 Jan 2014 12:21:25 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . The one spectacular remnant of the whole enceinte is now called. These soldiers would. as manifested in Ayia Sophia). Some lost towers on a very important sector of Antioch were exceptionally tall. F. 76 Cassas. Cassas. xiii 2.Io).ooo men rode to the main gate74and forced a way through. R.etc. if taken prisoner. cit. at its highest when they were behind uncommonly strong fortifications. and beyond reasonable doubt they can be ascribed to him. where twin towers rose two or three storeys above an intervening curtain that was intact up to a cornice which must have extended the wall-walk. 75 Over-romanticized in the sketch by W. Natural causes and robbery of stone long ago reduced it to fragments on the mountain. F. not merely at the weak point where the Persians had entered but. beside the two windows. also in a distant lateral view. to judge from the engravings of views from both back and front by L. Two other towers.196 A.

212. projecting both forward and backward 'so as to defend the interior side as well as the exterior face of the wall'. 'about 30 feet square'. it included the crests of three hills. low doors to the walk along the curtains had the effect that it could be regarded as connecting 'a chain of small castles'. and Chesney confirms the uniformity of construction. 23 Jan 2014 12:21:25 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 2-12. Antioch. improved by his successor. remains in fairly intelligible though ruinous condition. where its exits presumably were covered by the little excrescences represented by both draughtsmen. when the city was twice captured by the Persians but recovered by the Byzantines. Crow. The double enceinte of Anastasius I was rebuilt stronger by Justinian.198. if not all the towers. They have made plain that most.4 on Thu. The gradient was so steep that the walk composed 'a succession of steps between the towers. This content downloaded from 193. and presumably the designer had also taken care that they should be out of reach of missiles coming at a low trajectory. of course. Chesney would. and presumably repaired or restored later. The basic 80 Procopius. ii I 14-25. and the whole site is intersected by a small river. resembled in style those on the terrace. Bell. which are very near each other. which periodically overflowed through arches that were gridded for security (in accordance with ancient Greek practice). and have a storey rising above the wall. 10. . an internal staircase. to protect the intervening portions from the commanding ground outside'. Barely half the perimeter of Dara. must have continued to the 'stone platform' of the roof. mentioned by Chesney.80 which was almost 3 km long. rayla 4 (1981) 12 figs. ii 13 17-18. and a small cistern in the base. Aed.A SKELETAL HISTORY OF BYZANTINE FORTIFICATION 197 FIG. 'Iron Gate' (after Bartlett) three storeys resting on brick arches. have been able to verify that the wall-walk and tower platforms could not be overlooked from anywhere on the upper part of the slope.

4 on Thu. LAWRENCE FIG.198.212. W. I I. Detail of engraving (Cassas) This content downloaded from 193. 23 Jan 2014 12:21:25 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions .198 A. Antioch.

defenders of the corridor were thereby able to send missiles along the face of the wall without incurring serious risk to themselves. There were defensive positions at three levels in towers and two in curtains. no doubt. there follows the masonry of the frontage. The height at Dara seems to have been altogether exceptional. and the frontage presumably ended by forming protrusions of its crenellated parapet. Justinian also thickened and raised the outer wall. interrupted by a slit opposite the centre of each arch. the capital of an Arab principality subject to Justinian. another from the corridor to the floor above. often only about 50 m apart and 81 Aed. they were divided into three approximately equal sections. midway between every two towers. subject to modification to suit differences of terrain) must be due to Justinian. 23 Jan 2014 12:21:25 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . Slits in the lowest room served merely for light and ventilation. and then. We know from Procopius that Justinian's endeavour to prevent the inner wall being overlooked from elephants. Procopius writes as though the dimensions he records for Martyriopolis. in most parts.4 on Thu.212. ii 9 3-9. The purpose can be deduced from the fact that a slit existed in each flank as well as in front. the townspeople put their cattle and other animals there whenever a Sassanian force obtruded. he replaced it by one82 calculated to resist the full might and offensive skill of the Sassanian empire. described below). except by causeways to the gates. with its wall 2-40-2-50 m thick. though only for a distance equal to the span of the arch behind. and a simple doorway from the open wall-walk to the third storey.198. the curtains are joined to it. Die Stadtmauer vonResafain Syrien(1976). above. a feature at Sergiopolis. Justinian added a third line of defence by cutting a ditch with vertical sides in hard rock. some at least with windows in a circular lower storey which is sturdily domed at curtain level. they total some I-9 km. which he backed with a roofed 'stoa'. But. had been surrounded by a wall proof against Beduin only. resulted in still greater height than at Antioch00oofeet in towers and 60ofeet in curtains. An oblong expanse of sloping ground was enclosed within four straight sides. iii 2.s8 another city on the Sassanian frontier. so far in advance of the outer wall that a proteichisma must have existed to overlook it. it provided huge apsidal towers. 82 Ibid. which thus suddenly becomes 5 m wide within the enclosing masonry. 3-20 m. while at intervals of not more than 20 m were interposed rectangular turrets.40 m external diameter.A SKELETAL HISTORY OF BYZANTINE FORTIFICATION 199 scheme (which was. Intermediate towers are disposed somewhat irregularly. At each corner stands a completely circular tower. with a surrounding bank and ditch (which at the downward end holds rain) to impede access. were startling enough. its height seems to have been about 3 m to the walk. which seems to have been no thicker than a parapet. These little salients appear to have been no taller than the curtains in general: the roofing carried the wall-walk. and there must have been embrasures in corresponding positions above. A ponderous arcade runs along the inward face. making it a really serious obstacle to the advance of siege-engines. vaulted at roughly the same level. and between them runs a passage at ground level. formerly of I2-I2. The curtains were 0o-I I-50 m high to the open walk. no longer visible (cf. In the lower half they are solid. and even from siege-mounds. The layout of the towers at Sergiopolis took account of the corridor. This content downloaded from 193. 5 m long. not vice versa. The space between the two walls was not less than 50 feet wide. Sergiopolis/Resafa. giving light to a vaulted corridor. projects 3 m and supports an outward expansion of the corridor. although only a breastwork. Karnapp. Justinian there increased the thickness of the wall from 4 to 12 feet and the height from 20 to 40 feet. all of which differ in length. Where feasible. W. those in the upper storeys were accessible through deep vaulted embrasures. a piece of frontage. where the old battlements had been reduced to slits beneath 30 feet of added masonry. about 3 m thick.

they project to the customary II m. La Tracede Romedans le disert de Syrie (1934) pls. which opens on to the Syrian Desert. F.86 the capital of Cyprus. Karnapp. or Spain. A. however. 85 Bullough. and extremely serious.198. Presumably these discrepancies were enforced by the needs of traffic. each gate was approached through a court bounded externally by a wall almost as thick as the curtain.A. others are backed by double staircases of converging flights. The corridor passes behind some towers. less than 4 m square but 16 m high. nor. of 9-Io m a side. menace arose upon the Arab creation of a fleet to convey expeditionary forces. there was a fair chance of stopping the advance of the Lombards by placing forts at strategic points. The arched gateway was put at the centre of a curtain that links two rectangular towers. In the Balkans they seem to have made repairs at a few fortifications and to have blocked (at least partially) some gateways. set back from a tall concrete base above which it is faced with stone. They were the more needed because solid masonry rose to their level. iv-plan questioned by Karnapp's AnnArchSyrie n. This content downloaded from 193. There is a main entrance to Sergiopolis on each of its four sides. 84 But T. lay abandoned inside a ruined wall until Justinian revived it as a garrisoned fortress. 7. North Africa. cit.ii 8 8-25. Its first recorded exploit. After the barbarians poured in.85 No innovations are visible in Africa after Justinian's reign. 285. but larger by wooden flooring. and should perhaps be visualized as continuous covered balconies. 8. Poidebard. 86 Geo. Details of the scheme vary at every entrance. which makes them pentagonal. the courses alternate between half and full height as was customary in north Africa. three are similar in every respect but for a beak. Ioo-9. 27 figs. and there is a major difference at both the southern and the northern in that their courts are broader (I9-2o and 21 m instead of about 14 m) because the towers are narrower. 82-4. could any benefit have resulted. Salamis(1966) 5.212. Short spans were covered by vaults.4 on Thu. the loss of territory became so rapid that there would not have been time to construct new defences. 99. Hill. this is aligned with the outward faces of the towers at the east and south entrances but at the northern turns back to join the corners of the towers. BSR 24 (1956) 14 pl. 23 Jan 2014 12:21:25 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . SMALL-SCALE WORK AGAINST THE ARABS. resting on arches. In Italy. Lauffray. the Arabs thereby obtained some 83 Aed. Most of them are rectangular. op. in or shortly before 649.84 while the frontier still held. TRUNCATION OF THE EMPIRE. Except on the west side. whether they differed much in size has not been ascertained. LATE SIXTH AND EARLY SEVENTH CENTURIES The immediate successors of Justinian (who had exhausted the treasury) built very little. and the discontinuous ruins of one have probably been discovered at Filattiera. Egypt. The towers appear to have all been rectangular. i (1951) 41 pl. The arrangements of storeys and slits are practically the same as in the corner towers. 248). a small town of Palmyrene origin on the Euphrates. and extended it up a hill that had overlooked it. was the capture and sack of Salamis/Constantia. Antiquities Dept. MID SEVENTH-EARLY EIGHTH CENTURIES A new.83 He widened the area that had been enclosed. they cannot have resembled the improvised overhang that collapsed at Antioch earlier in the reign. The only distinct feature is a tower. History of Cyprus i (1940) 284. LAWRENCE 200 never as much as ioo m. Zenobia. 326-9. uninterrupted even by slits. Ivanov ascribes to Justinian the total blocking of three out of the four main entrances and of all the posterns yet found at Abritus (Abritusi 239. in general. set on corbels. Nothing is known of any attempt to build obstacles to Arab conquest in Syria. On sectors overlooked from cliffs he added structures called 'wings' (ptera) which 'looked as though they hung off the wall'. 241. v. W. where he built a fortlet on the summit and scarped the slopes to make it difficult of access from outside.

Rhodes was plundered in 653. This content downloaded from 193. An unimpressive fortification. Since all shipping between Syria and Rhodes naturally kept inshore while passing Lycia. The rest of the cross-wall was tall and sturdy. Die Hafenanlagen unddie Seemauern vonSide (Ankara 1977)-not seen. as though it had flanked a lost gateway. then a rich city. Knoblauch. Courtauld. The corresponding junction towards the open sea has fallen. The wall. plan in pocket. but apparently the defences there that had repelled the Isaurians were believed to be still adequate. and again captured Salamis. each by the speedy method of renovating an ancient acropolis. suitable for a very capacious refuge (or perhaps to contain the whole town) if converted into an inner fortress. P. leaving it no special asset apart from a reduced trade in timber from its hinterland (where travellers of the nineteenth century rode for hours through oak forest). In the piece towards the open sea are two almost square towers. A shrunken population could not man all the long perimeter of the old enceinte. the stage of the theatre was replaced by a thin barrier.212. rises from the plain an hour's 87 A. at the head of a deep inlet.198. reused as building material. limited to the central part of the ancient city. That city had been prosperous on account of its shipping. Die RuinenvonSide40. with facets of over 8 m which differ in being equipped either with slits alone or both slits and windows on one or two of their three storeys still preserved to heights of 12-15 m. opportunities to loot places of no political consequence would scarcely have been neglected. Even the first capture of Salamis appears to have been accompanied by horrors. which must have dwindled owing to the Moslem conquests of so many Byzantine provinces. however.89 has mistakenly been thought to date the wall. except at Side. figs. one of which is an arch that was narrowed to become the main gateway. Mansel. anschlieflenden 88 The junction with the harbour wall is thickened into forming a miniature tower.A SKELETAL HISTORY OF BYZANTINE FORTIFICATION 201 measure of control over the whole island. 90 Brook. as on such occasions. where a gap of some 330 m had intervened between the Hellenistic defences along the open sea and beside the harbour. consists of reused material and incorporates stretches of buildings that were already ruined. One is at Telmessus/Fethiye. the auditorium rises 9 m to the highest bench and so would have provided dominating positions on both sides of the orchestra. 89 Foss. it names a comes.90 presumably it formed an advanced base for the attempts to capture Constantinople in 674 and 678. the earliest Byzantine fortifications on or near that coast should have originated during the third quarter of the century. The cross-wall8' was about 20 m longer because it took a tortuous course (PLATE I4a) incorporating Roman structural remains. and the killing of inhabitants allegedly proceeded during forty days. The Arab fleet soon undertook annual expeditions to greater distances.) Midway between the two shores. as had long been a regular practice. M.Philippus Attius.88 (An inscription of the third or fourth century.4 on Thu. which is said to have endured seven years. Though the fleet was used primarily. especially characteristic ofJustinian's officers in Africa. JHS 18 (1898) 187. 23 Jan 2014 12:21:25 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . which this time was more thoroughly destroyed. Although no ruin is datable from archaeological or (so far as I know) literary evidence. probably in readiness for this second attack-the earlier may have been unexpected. had been built hastily. it included a low promontory. 12. Zeitschrift far Papyrologieund Epigraphik26 (1977) 172. and this was effected simply by building a cross-wall on the neck. The fleet returned in 653/4 to crush a revolt. 24-5. which they compelled to pay tribute. and twenty years later received an Arab settlement. another. The news must immediately have caused profound apprehension along the opposite coast of Asia Minor. we may unhesitantly assume that the first precautions included the provision of strong refuges. into which the Isaurians had been unable to penetrate because of the mountainous interior. at Myra. the nearest port to Rhodes. of which very little is now exposed. to promote grand strategy.

would have enabled untrained occupants to repel attack. 21. LAWRENCE walk from the coast. therefore. though eventually from Turks.212. AE 1979 Parar. IstMittii (1961)86 fig. Although the cities on the west of Asia Minor had lost much of their prosperity.98 it 91 J.96 The tall back of the theatre supplied one side. 21. and their population was declining. 2 Beil. op. This peculiar stronghold must.. at the site called Emporio. 94 Hood. resulting from extension as well as restoration among the rock outcrops on the hilltop. the three others were of new construction and from them projected quadrangular towers or solid salients. and upon their floors lay coins datable between the limits of 6oo and 670. 98 Miiller-Wiener.93 The direct route to Constantinople took the Arabs past Chios. though clearly that was not its sole function. details are uncertain owing to a much later reconstruction when the fort was extended. That danger from the Arab fleet might extend far inland is shown by the crude fortification of a refuge in the centre of Samos. 95 Miiller-Wiener. Myra (1975) 45 fig. as well as one small semicircular tower. I pls. they are not recorded.92 Approximately triangular in outline.198. W. destroyed by the newly invented 'Greek Fire' during an attack on Constantinople. 96 Id. it measures only some 25 x 29 m. the great height of the ancient remains. IstMitt II (1961) 36 fig. of the smallest there has remained only the solid base. 8. ILN Jan. I I. 4. only on the side facing the shore (PLATE I5C). 87 fig. It could have been used for signalling. in all probability first from the Arabs. Foss. varying in size. and none could have been made in great strength for at least a decade after the loss in 688 of many ships. have been intended for a refuge. Borchhardt."9 (There is no foundation for a belief that another wintered there in 715-16. which had flourished under the Romans and been endowed with many imposing monuments. 7992 Ibid. slightly below the summit. The three towers differed in size. F. and the destruction of a community there was certainly due to them. which they invaded repeatedly from inland between 663 and 678 and again between 7o9 and 715. 1-2. some i -8o m thick. EphesusafterAntiquity(1979) 192. The very irregular perimeter at Myra9l was inevitable. the back was too steep to need more than perfunctory defences. when an Arab army plundered it. but elsewhere was accompanied by a proteichisma that revetted a terrace paved with large pebbles.) A town wall that wriggled between derelict and preserved buildings may have been built either before or after 668. to a height of over 150 m. IstMitt 17 (1967) 282 fig. Miletus.202 A. AR 1981-2 50 fig. cit. 30 1954 159 figs. in the others there was preserved a little of the hollow interior. The fortification of a hilltop had not long been completed before it proved an unavailing refuge for the inhabitants of the small town on the coast. the pottery found is compatible with the seventh century. on the other hand.4 on Thu. On the much lower ridge at Telmessus there are sturdy curtains and towers. commanding a view of the whole district. 35- This content downloaded from 193. 5. 5.95 It contained too little free space to have been a garrison fort. 97 Cl. C. Another refuge can perhaps be identified at the nearest old city. when consolidated by the Byzantine additions (now demolished). and adjoined the corner tower of an already irreparable acropolis upon a ridge 6oo m high. 23 Jan 2014 12:21:25 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . Ephesus.km inland (near Yukari-Beymelek). of stones and concrete: in part it stood upon cliffs overlooking the sea. on Mount Lazarus. Foss. The enormous Hellenistic temple at Didyma had been converted into a fortress long before damage caused by earthquake necessitated reconstruction in 988. I. there was still plenty to attract the Arabs in Ionia. 93 Tsakos. I-II. must still have been important in 668. fig.94 Excavation has shown that the wall was a poor structure. Perhaps from almost the same time villagers of the Myra plain had a crude refuge of their own. on the hill into which fits the auditorium of the theatre. If any raids from the sea occurred.

about 7oo.A SKELETAL HISTORY OF BYZANTINE FORTIFICATION 203 constantly made abrupt turns but only three or four towers are known to have existed. Certainly Michael III felt no shame over reverting to the traditional method of facing. be incomplete owing to the construction of the Turkish citadel. 23 Beil. projecting 70 cm inwards and 85 cm wide). 23 Jan 2014 12:21:25 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . during and on its return from their last siege of Constantinople. their remains100 are in bad condition. Die Stadtmauer von Iznik (1938) 12. 102 fig. The defences would.4 on Thu. which should mean that it was built before 740. Here stood four rectangular towers and three triangular salients. In or about 718 the Arabs lost practically the whole of their invasion fleet.198. iiiiii 101 Altertismervon Pergamon i 2 I 305 pl. and perhaps a stronger motive was to emphasize the military reliability of the Isaurian dynasty. 102W. but precisely resembled them. chiefly while repairing damage caused by an earthquake in 368. for he put inscriptions on other towers to commemorate his restoration of them. An example of local enterprise far inland (in the vicinity of Iconium/Konya) was pathetically crude. An effective Byzantine countermeasure could have been to garrison a reconditioned acropolis or a new fort built for the purpose. like their predecessors. and may not all be contemporaneous. and they never regained command of the seas. A town wall at Pergamon101 was inadequately recorded before its demolition by excavators. the surviving population abandoned the ancient city and settled outside it. facing them with ashlar instead of the previous alternate bands of stone and brick. The retention of a scheme so antiquated is not really comprehensible unless the wet ditch that confronted assailants in Io97 had already existed for several centuries. with flanking only at a few abrupt turns. which were filled solid. The course seems to have followed contours as closely as possible. 545 fig. 130 years later. apart from a pair of very small towers beside a gateway. I6 fig. and the towers still terminated with a low room entered from the wall-walk. L. 5103W.103 It was an attempt to make a small 99 So called because of mistaking the subject of an earlier relief built into the arch. Even as late as 1204 the curtains did not exceed their original height (modest by Justinianic standards). in any case. which had been modified only in minor respects since the third century. as an antidote to the frenzy aroused by Constantine's iconoclasm. it was probably undertaken soon after the Arabs destroyed the nearby town. Along the south end are visible three rectangular towers (actually oblong beside the frontage of the wall) between one that is half-oval and a short (probably solid) triangle. iii Beib. the twin towers flanking the 'Gate of the Persecution' were made fit for war by adding beaks to the square ends. and is known by the name of that site. 62. John. who attributed it to Leo III (717-41). on the hill now called Ayasuluk. Probably at the same time. Ramsay and G. one older feature was preserved. 542. Subsequent effort from Syrian or Egyptian ports was limited to small-scale forays or mere piracy. Defile. This wall ceased to be used following one or other of the Arab incursions. 100 Miiller-Wiener. The change of material conferred only a slight practical benefit. and few data were recorded by excavators intent on revealing the Roman monuments. replacements for lost merlons were backed. the summit of which was ringed for the purpose with a strong fortification. Instead.212. M. an additional tower had at some date been inserted midway between every two along the curtains. by a short traverse102 (when measurable. In 727 Leo III and his son (afterwards Constantine V) renovated some towers at Nicaea. M. Karnapp and A. Schneider. the ornate 'Gate of the Persecution'"99that had formed the entrance to the precinct of the Church of St. Neither Leo's programme nor his affected the basic design. IstMitt 11 (1961) 97. Recent excavations on an eastern sector are said to have dated it to the eighth century. -2.I17- This content downloaded from 193. when Leo III broke the military power of the Arabs. one somewhat larger tower overlapped a corner. Bell. The Thousandand One Churches(1909) 152.

when ancient buildings at Olympia were linked to make a fort composed entirely of reused materials. Unless Heraclius ordered the construction within the next year or two. so identifying him with Michael III (who also put inscriptions on towers he restored at Nicaea). The original citadel. Probably their capture of the town in 654 (after which they withdrew) induced him to found the citadel. Byzantion4 445- This content downloaded from 193. including practically the entire north end. three centuries earlier).4 on Thu. A covered passage from the summit to the foot of the ravine seems genuinely Byzantine. 16. Apart from improvements at its entrances. there can have been no occasion for it till the reign of Constans II (641-68). The citadel was held by various enemies from 872 to I ioI. here some towers are replacements but the remainder are beaked pentagons except for one that was square. no doubt. Farther north. which begins at the opposite end of one church. 9. when the Arabs made frequent raids into Asia Minor. and when this was completed it created a ward equal in area to the original citadel. including. and perhaps half the projected length of another wall. The original citadel consists predominantly of reused stone. A complete set of nineteen beaked pentagons 104 Jerphanion. Milanges de l' Universit6 S. 17). a succession of Turkish towers stepped down into a ravine. as also is the Degile ruin. 144. 23 Jan 2014 12:21:25 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . ANCYRA/ANKARA. Mamboury. when the Crusaders captured and returned it to the Byzantines. where the wall keeps slightly below the sinuous verge. but there is only one complete wall. Inscriptions on a barbican outside the main entrance. The exterior bristled with salients. is elongated. but it fell to the Seljuks before 1127 and was never regained. as well as to form a refuge for the townspeople. which almost doubled the length that needed to be manned. who may well have known the precedent of stepping at Antioch. joining two churches. W. Joseph 13 (1928) general plan. It began as a single enclosure. perhaps after 797. so extending the protection conferred by a steep descent beneath the east side. they stand on masonry which looks Byzantine but could have resulted from the conservatism of local builders employed by Moslems. Subsequent Arab invasions necessitated repairs and alterations-by Leo III in 720 or 740. Courtauld.104 greatly extended on various occasions and often repaired. remained the principal stronghold of upland Asia Minor well into the Ottoman period (PLATES I5b. Many features are Seljuk or Ottoman replacements. but in its case they were assembled very carelessly. by Nicephorus Phocas in 805. SEVENTH-NINTH CENTURIES The so-called citadel at Ankara. which must have been collected from the city destroyed by the Persians in 620. AnkaraGuide Touristique(1923) 73 with 105 Gregoire. obviously for the purpose of directing the maximum of fire-power towards a gulley straight ahead. name an Emperor Michael responsible for their building or rebuilding at a date which has been interpreted105 as corresponding to 859. LAWRENCE 204 refuge. a fairly large proportion of local civilians (as had obviously been essential for the same reason at Pagnik Oreni. before the campaigns by which he reduced Persia to impotence. E. no later additions or major alterations can be recognized as definitely Byzantine. The concept followed precedents going back to the third century. less than 40 m long. which was directed by Harun al-Rashid in person. An outer ward. and especially after the siege of 8o6. An undated programme of reconstruction made preparation for an outer wall to be attached.212. and on the south-west corner tower. on the uneven summit of a hill. which is Byzantine of later date. a fort so large (if only to exploit natural defences) as to be perfectly serviceable for a military base rather than merely to house a garrison. was presumably built almost solely to amplify the space for refugees after the population had increased. apparently intended to be triangular.A. it was equivalent to a secret postern.198. The defenders must have numbered some thousands.

sometimes as many as two or three slits were provided. too. alternate with brickwork of similar height. large or small. But greater importance should be attached to the probability that only a very small number of forts would ever hold enough defenders to man such a wilfully lengthened perimeter. where they are closed except for a narrow slit. thrown from both sides and from the curtain. usually of 8-12 m. Ankara. strongly bound with lime mortar and brick dust. with constant difference in proportions. and surrounded by a larger number of embrasuresthat end at windows suitable for catapults. I12) at the middle of the south end has been accepted without demur 106 Whenever these passages opened high above ground they must have been reached by wooden steps or a fixed ladder. the dense massing of towers in alignment must have allowed an abnormal concentration of cross-fire against any distant target from catapults mounted on each beak and outward portion of a flank. particularly stones. sometimes there was only one on a single flank. the length and angles of each beak were specifically ordained so that oblique fire from the flank of the next tower would pass clear of it towards some lateral area that offered vantage to the enemy. This content downloaded from 193. The exceptionally narrow space between almost every couple of towers was. bands of small stones.A SKELETAL HISTORY OF BYZANTINE FORTIFICATION 205 (although at least two are reconstructions) remains on the west side (PLATE I7a). at most of 14 m. One of the few still intact and accessibleis 85 cm wide. The barbican (FIG. dead ground to all catapults. Each vault supported an upper room. in the upper part. which contract just before the exterior. tunnelled longitudinally within the thickness of the curtains. perhaps. The lower part. and a flat roof at the same level covered each tower. a doorway in the back opens off a corridor. more or less level with the top of the block facing but over 2 m inwards from it on the flanks and roughly 3 m inwards from the beak. and 5'35 m long to the inner face of the thick vault. the exterior described must have been singularly ugly. and are placed at extraordinarilyshort intervals. was certainly pre-eminent for strategic value. often laid in three courses. behind a facing of great blocks.for instance. 23 Jan 2014 12:21:25 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . rising from a height of 10-I2 m above the steep eastern side but 14-16 m over gentler slopes.I2) along the south end but for the interposed projection of the barbican. which is straight behind for its whole length of over 300 m. accounting for more than half the height. which is more spacious. but abnormally subject to manual weapons. Embrasures. repeated over and over again along the west. presumably to fit the requirements of the ground. which was strong by nature). is solid and consists of rubble. covered by a taller vault. of course. and east of the citadel (though apparently not on the north. that may in part explain why no other fort except Pagnik Oreni is known to have been so amply equipped with towers.4 on Thu.The single basic pattern of alternate beaked tower and short curtain. A low vault covers a little room. These advantages were obtained at an inordinate cost of construction. with one or two on each flank. south. This was overlaid by an exposed walk. A crenellated parapet seems to have bordered curtains and towers alike.198. was exceptionally practical because adherence to it was compatible with variation in the size. It is extended by embrasures. In general. are variously sited for no reason that is now intelligible. however. the contours of which have since changed through erosion and the accumulation of refuse. 2 m wide.106which maintains the same thickness behind the towers as between them. on the other hand. Although the horrid medley of the facings would not have shown through a coating of plaster and limewash. and there would have been another straight row of six instead of the extant four (FIG. on which there is space only for two smaller towers. The towers of full siz. The whole of each tower stands forwardfrom a continuous wall. large enough for a man to stand within.evary between 6 and 8 m in width. Each of these rooms was entered separately.212. shape and placing of features. by a passage tunnelled straight through from the inward face of the wall.

206 A. LAWRENCE O 10 0 I 20 5 I 40m 30 10m I MAISONTURQUE FIG. Plan of refronted polygon.212.4 on Thu. and entrance (Jerphanion) This content downloaded from 193. W.198. 12. Ankara. barbican. 23 Jan 2014 12:21:25 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions .

2-50-2-80 m thick. exceeding 5 m at the ruinous top. and Mogul barbicans of the same type followed the tradition of that region. except in the most westerly facet. The shape is unparalleled (FIG. encloses a roughly oval space of some 15 X 20 m which was never roofed (and if it contained any buildings. 200 (W. The barbican at Ankara was not as tall as the old wall behind. their missiles would inevitably have fallen well past its foot. 25 fig. which he can have done no more than repair or partially reconstruct. supplementing closer fire off the barbican itself and its two little beaked towers. Additional masonry was applied also along the contiguous beginning of the east side (PLATE17a). io. where a knob of rock rose above all its surroundings and was completely enveloped by slightly taller masonry. Then followed a court. the exposed walk alongside has vanished owing to the collapse of its support. whatever their relative dates may be. A. Descriptions of the Round City of Baghdad.4 on Thu.198. Every entrance to Hatra was approached through a comparable barbican. even with oblique aim. There is no other Byzantine example of such a barbican. 12. It is a representative of a very ancient oriental typeo07 which persisted in Asia for several millennia. which would have put the entrance in the outward face. acting as a horizontal arch from the ground upwards. Creswell. C. 30-2). this immediately preceded a wider two-leaved gate covered by a vault. the outward face has been concealed ever since the ninth century. which could be raised into the gap between two lintel blocks made from column shafts. The front was thicker.s08 from which defenders could shoot over it. spacious enough for a cart to turn at right angles into a vaulted passage through masonry 5'25 m thick. which was completed about 766. merely because one of two inscriptions of an Emperor Michael claims credit for it. The whole area lies within the outer ward. so as to afford space for traffic to turn at right angles between two gateways. in the east flank. 92) misrepresents the height relation of barbican and main wall. probably before A. An irregular polygon. the outward edge of which is still bordered by masonry 2 m thick containing embrasures. 23 Jan 2014 12:21:25 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . PLATESI6b.212. and therefore was refronted (as shown on the plan by hatching) with additional masonry. There is some reason to think that the wall (unlike the curtains) was solid below that level. the vault that covered the corridor. the actual gateway was so overlooked from three directions that attack with manual weapons or with a ram would have been extremely hazardous. of which the outer was entered laterally. The chief or even sole purpose of the back may have been to buttress the front. The crenellated parapet has left recognizable tatters. I7a). the other does the like for the south-west corner tower. The barbican thus gave far greater protection than if it had been of the regular Byzantine type. which was treated in continuation of the adjoining curtains. they have left no trace). This content downloaded from 193. Andrae.A SKELETAL HISTORY OF BYZANTINE FORTIFICATION 207 as an addition of the ninth century. EarlyMuslimArchitecture (1958) 162). the width is always greater than the depth. No other Byzantine structure is in any way comparable with that at the south-east corner. Many undated instances in Soviet Turkestan are relevant because of the initial unity of the Islamic conquests. of seven external facets and two more forming the back. rather in the manner of the shell-keeps built in France and England shortly before and after I200.D. On the west face of the polygon (PLATEI6b) the 107 For barbicans of the Assyrian period see my GreekAims in Fortification (I979) 23. which ended at another two-leaved gate. because there are no doorways in the inward face. up to a somewhat greater height than previously (but the new top no longer exists). where it composed a small new tower and a new exterior to an old larger salient. are grooved (PLATEI8b) for a portcullis. 25-7. That his work on the barbican was similarly limited may be assumed in view of the precise resemblance in technique and in shape of towers to definitely original portions of the citadel. while the enemy had scarcely any chance of bringing a catapult to bear. 108 Jerphanion's restoration (his pl. The jambs of the outer gateway. Presumably the rest of it had suffered damage that could not safely be remedied by usual methods of repair. indicate that some such work existed outside one or more of its entrances (K. Die Ruinenvon Hatra ii (I912) figs.

This content downloaded from 193. which stands directly south of that corner. one of the merlons. In the towers flanking the main gateway. while their height was enough to make escalade precarious. entirely with reused stone below a brick parapet. keeping roughly parallel with the west side of the original citadel at an average distance of slightly over Ioo m. Since neither the facing of the polygon nor the wall of the outer ward suffered any appreciable damage during the remainder of the Byzantine period. led to a walk along the lost first curtain (where. interspersed among the curtains. capture should have entailed such heavy casualties 109 No valid argument can be based on the fact that the stone facing of the entire wall came from buildings destroyed in 630. which nearly succeeded. more than half-way up. though little more than half as thick (in fact. if not at first. from which a track climbed to the barbican. in which former embrasures were sometimes converted into windows. LAWRENCE addition begins with a rectangular protrusion against which the wall of the outer ward was intended to abut. proving that the increase in height dates from a time of Byzantine tenure.only an open platform. usually project about 8 m and tend to be some Io m wide. while the curtains always terminated with an exposed walk. Even after all improvements. just like the polygon. Rectangular towers. but also ran a weak extension eastward upon it to meet the original north-west corner and continued below the north end in a manner suggestive of a proteichisma (so far as can be seen in spite of Turkish alterations). on the photograph. and at first none was carried up to include a room above it. occasionally more than four times. one of which (PLATEI7b) has a diameter of I3-50 m and projects i i m. its gateway is grooved for a portcullis. with a thin cross-wall in Byzantine technique between the straight flanks of the towers. These divergencies from the methods of the original citadel all made for quicker and cheaper construction. where the gradient must have become exceptionally steep. but the last remains now stop 45 m short of it. is carved with a cross. which was blocked up. could not easily be breached. interrupts a short piece of wall between two apsidal towers. a house stands). the fortification remained poor compared with the original citadel. forming a court 5-6o m deep. The builders presumably worked southward from the lip of the ravine. The wall enclosing the outer ward is faced. a blocked doorway. The wall climbed some 60om along a course of 700 m to join the original citadel. they are spaced nowhere less than twice as far apart as in the original citadel. the room was floored well above the level of the former parapet. but was by no means weak. and for this there were doubtless more precedents than now exist. a series of gentle bends follows on the way up towards the polygon. more brickwork was afterwards imposed to form a room. but their greater width enabled a larger number of catapults to be mounted--eventually.212. and resulted in a less formidable barrier although the terrain generally was less defensible by nature.4 on Thu. almost opposite one through the west side of the original citadel. The towers are solid to the same height. W. New parapets were then built. It began the definite ascent when it came west of the old south-west corner. about 3 m). and then swung further outward to the main gateway. on a tower flanking a minor gateway. For. If properly defended. derived from Roman examples (such as at Babylon/Old Cairo).198. both must date'09 after the siege of 8o6. Semicircular towers flanked a minor gateway. 23 Jan 2014 12:21:25 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . the curtains.208 A. At some later date this entrance was strengthened by a barbican of the habitual Byzantine type. The main gateway. because these must have been 500 m distant from the new town and there was no reason to clear away their ruins except when need arose for the material. leaving the edges of merlons visible as vertical joints in the added brickwork. its one unusual feature was the magnitude of the apsidal towers beside the main entrance. After the southward wall leaves the ravine it first traverses more or less flat ground. The whole design of the outer ward was traditional. although the parapet had enclosed.

23 Jan 2014 12:21:25 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . 366. 491 fig.212. there are six on as many exposed facets of the heptagon. Each tower ends bluntly with three facets of a hexagon or. The earliest of them-it already existed in 626-was a broad salient called The Pteron (i. 40. Perhaps it resembled one in central Asia Minor. But the population of the town is likely to have increased greatly under the protection of the citadel. projecting forward from the Pteron. with rather small rectangular towers. the worst drawback of the outer wall was the inordinate length of perimeter that might simultaneously be liable to real or feint assaults. 110 Landmauer ii I18pl. For the defenders. In the siege of 1204 the towers were raised by two or three wooden storeys. five on those of the intermediate hexagon. and recaptured by Nicephorus in 807. at a point where it must have joined older defences. The solution adopted (FIG. The proteichisma cannot have been much taller than a man. 113 Landmauerii fig. 32 pls. which is otherwise Io-I m distant on an upper level. This content downloaded from 193. captured by the Arabs in 8o6. the fact that Leo held an exalted position in his army may be relevant. these were gradually superseded during the next few centuries by a succession of new fortifications'10that allowed the city to expand. its flanks projected at least 200 m. Heraclius' wall above the Golden Horn was built in 626-7. or was already in process of improvement. But Leo's proteichisma seems to have been a feeble obstacle.13) went to the extreme of building three towers1a3 to a height of some 26 m. The existing ruin (FIG. 40-2.4 on Thu. one alone at the centre of the other (Tower 15) which overlaps the western return of the proteichisma. we do not know whether it remained entirely his work till that time. Hence the top would have been overshot by missiles discharged from the wall on any trajectory. 112 Ramsay and Bell. 10. so that catapults on the third storey could shoot across the whole outwork although that had been not only strengthened but also raised. where they would bear the brunt of engagements at close quarters by throwing stones and using any other manual weapons. in the case of one attached to a bend. which was fortified by Nicephorus I in 805. to the corner of an oblique return to the wall. 850 The Theodosian double line ends almost I km short of the Golden Horn. Between 813 and 820 Leo V added an outwork in front of the Pteron. the least imperfect relic of the earliest stage among the meagre ruins at Seg Kalesi. especially if catapults had failed to hold the enemy at a distance. Spacious embrasures lead to slits. ADDITIONS AT CONSTANTINOPLE PRIOR TO C.A SKELETAL HISTORY OF BYZANTINE FORTIFICATION 209 as might deter the enemy from proceeding upwards against the original citadel.198. The front is straight along the 50 m preserved.e. of a heptagon in which part of the back stood free for shooting towards the rear. 'Wing') which enclosed a large part of the Blachernae suburb. and its front is extraordinarily distant from the Pteron wall (well over 20 m at most points). conventional design. in numbers that might compensate for lack of proficiency. but surely altered details of the scheme and possibly modified the course.112a hilltop site conjecturally identified with Thebasa. and was given a simple. the masonry being only about a metre thick. 13) can be recognized as a tall proteichisma. before the Crusadersattacked from shipboard. It is so placed that it normally incurred comparatively little danger. and probably most took refuge in the outer ward. Emperorsin several centuries undertook renovations which may have been general or limited to parts only. knowing that far more seriouslosses would be incurred in attacking it. 111 Geoffroy de Villehardouin states that the Byzantines spent most of Lent adding these wooden storeys to the towers. Apparently within a couple of decades after Leo's death in 820 the Blachernae proteichisma was thought untenable against determined assault because it could not sufficientlybe overshot. cit. raised by vaulting instead of solid masonry. op.111 use of this ancient device could have been anticipated by Heraclius.

20 30m Plan of part of outwork and Pteron with towers (Landmauer) The second of Leo's successors.4 on Thu. reproduced by the Curator of the Antalya Museum. Inscriptions dated to 912 and 916 record shortening by means of cross-walls (together with a simpler. 13. Considerable though fragmentary remains of both are sketchily attested in a plan that Austrian archaeologists published in I890. This calamity would have been enough to rouse both the reigning emperor. EARLY AND KYRENIA MID TENTH CENTURY: ATTALEIA. In 904 Moslem pirates raided Salonica. and allegedly carried off 22. W. which was not published till shortly before Turkey discarded the Arabic alphabet in 1928. and the regent for his infant successor to the danger that threatened another seaport. Theophilus (829-42). on an incompetently drawn plan of uncertain date (FIG. barrier along the harbour).212. 17 above. whose age appeared to be at 114 See n. Antalya Livasi Tarihi.000 saleable inhabitants together with the inanimate loot. Attaleia/Antalya. II. repaired or rebuilt many towers of the wall along the shore. in his book on the monuments of the province. Fikri. This content downloaded from 193. because its shrunken population could not hope to defend the long Hellenistic perimeter. LAWRENCE 210 IZ O 10 FIG.198. S. SAMOTHRACE. PHILIPPI. except for a few severely ruined stretches or actual gaps. perhaps still largely Hellenistic. Constantinople. Leo VI (who died in 911). 14). mention of 'the second wall' implies that one had already been completed during a first stage of the programme. Fikri.A. where their design was appropriately unenterprising.114 And the entire course of each is marked as clearly visible. Few survived unaltered to 1453. 23 Jan 2014 12:21:25 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions .

198. FiG.212.4 on Thu.A SKELETAL HISTORY OF BYZANTINE FORTIFICATION 211 ISMA WALLS WALL NA RUINED PROTEICH CITY INNER 50m 0 (Fikri) defences late of Plan Attaleia. -SEA: This content downloaded from 193. 14. 23 Jan 2014 12:21:25 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions .

On it the two wallsl15 are stylistically distinguished. Attaleia. Sketch-plan of gatehouse (Author) least seventy in 1950. if not also on the west.212 A. who operated constantly from their base in Crete until the Byzantines took it in 960. meaning an internal fortress (though its defences on the north and east. told me then how he had watched with impotent regret the progressive destruction of walls throughout his life (and. 15) of the larger enclosure and a piece of one adjoining curtain. He would certainly have corrected any flagrant errors in the plan. LAWRENCE O lm FIG. Lewis and ProfessorSeton Lloyd for kindly reading the third line of the Turkish key as 'I Kale'.4 on Thu.212. 15. the inner one (towards the north) seems to have been the more formidable. 116 Hesperia 37 (1968) 204- This content downloaded from 193. W. the other had been broken off. A little fort on Samothracell6 must have been built against Moslem pirates. This bent entrance is not shown on the Fikri plan. were formed by the city wall). My photographs of the gatehouse from northwest and south-west (CourtauldA5I/408-9) are foreshortened. an intact Hellenistic tower beside the harbour was demolished in my own presence). was intended for a citadel that could be used as a last refuge. A barrel-vault covers the square portion of the interior between the arches over the outer and inner gateways and the alcoves of the other two sides. In 1950 I could find no remnant of either wall apart from the ponderous tower-gatehouse (FIG. formed by it and a piece of Hellenistic city wall.198. some months later. G. Excavation uncovered 115 I am indebted to Dr. L. 23 Jan 2014 12:21:25 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . which marks only an ordinary tower (probably the third or fourth from the west end of the south Byzantine cross-wall). as befitted the purpose if the small and compact enclosure.

. The wall. in conjunction with which they delimited a court of some 45 x 23 m in a corner of the summit enclosure (which was roughly diamond-shaped with a maximum length of 160 m and width of 70 m).198. no doubt.7b' .00 s A10 o .00.7J-~. probably accessible in one case from a curtain of the enceinte. 3 m wide. ivA.1-48 j? fPOfRE. It filled the gap between two partition walls that project at right angles to one another from the enceinte. 6p-/64 CHAPELLE A . . with the so-called 'keep' (FIG. Plan of fort on summit (BC(H) During. neither communicated with the intervening 'keep'.A . could have carried a parapet and a walk of generous width. I(-vLI- i~Z~~i6 /2270 V-98 . which lay in the foundation fill. Travellers had much specious justification for applying the term 'donjon' or 'keep' to the tower which. retained its purely military function. constituted the kastronwhich Nicephorus Phocas renovated..9?.~~ 10J~ r- '20P/62' . according to his inscription of the year 963. from which all the material was derived. the summit./9 cI"I-EoN~E. BCH 42 (1938) 4 pls. 76. project 4 m southward from the corners of the south side. the end of the enceinte along its outward face includes less masonry of large blocks (then already 1300 years old) than rubble obviously of two periods. The exterior is roughly square (36-8 m each side) except that two towers. Each partition was thick enough to carry a parapet and a walk. one of them. one of which might be his. one may suppose. the fourth-sixth centuries a thorough reconstruction was completed of ancient walls that both surrounded Philippi and intersected it at various levels of the great hill.o~ 4s PNE e^w [POT.0oo .2~ ~FP ~. 17)-a bring lasting honour to the emperor who associated his name with it. I6. Philippi.. Qi]j .'. is walled with 117 Ducoux and Lemerle. in the former acropolis.O ( . 16) of the enclosure.rr.o to 20 130 FIG.28. C~is2 O 0.. 2 1. was issued between 919 and 944. in the other through the Byzantine encasement of an ancient tower.212.. but for a careless layout.A SKELETAL HISTORY OF BYZANTINE FORTIFICATION 213 four coins of the tenth century. some 2 m thick. However that may be. 29/. /O fP:140 u _389. This content downloaded from 193. vi vii. 23 Jan 2014 12:21:25 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions ."' It alone. probably at no great height./Vj. The site is on a plateau just above the uppermost outskirts of the pagan Sanctuary.4 on Thu. would have been about 12 m square.. and may have been balanced by a lost pair on the north. he surely constructed the internal court feature that could not fail to (FIG.~: p:P?..

23 Jan 2014 12:21:25 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions .A. LAWRENCE 214 C 2nd storey 3rd storey t3ra k ' _S9. W.qo Ist storey FIG.4 on Thu. Plans and section of 'Keep' (BCH) This content downloaded from 193. I 7. Philippi.198.212.

A replacement for its south wall may therefore be ascribed (though not confidently) to the tenth century. part of it still rises 12 m above ground. 6 m square. ready for emergency. The rainfall on both tower and barracks must have been conserved in the cistern between them. 118 The masonry was tied by many wooden beams laid flat in chases packed with cement. the rooms could have been used as dormitories or for refuge. therefore not a keep. KyreniaCastle(1961) 81. and could be only original doorway119 opens 1.118 and was taller than any other structure in sight. and there is no reason to think it had been repaired during the Arab period that followed.A SKELETAL HISTORY OF BYZANTINE FORTIFICATION 215 unusually good rubble nearly 3 m thick.212. but storage is the likely purpose. 123 G. however. provided with apertures for shooting in all directions. The m above the present external ground level. 23 Jan 2014 12:21:25 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . while the position near the centre of the enclosure gave a comprehensive view of the entire summit. with its sturdy apsidal towers which may have been built under Arab as well as Byzantine influence. they are thick enough for men to have congregated on it. thanks to the tower. Simeon the Stylite. Evidently the garrison of the enclosure lived here. at most.123 re-established by the Byzantines after three and a half centuries of disuse under Muslim rule. And the court would have been capable of continued resistance. 209. and two more.122 It was evidently far superior. though alike in design and execution. The lost top floor was. QALCAT SIM'AN. the Armenian city wall at Ani. though somewhat reduced in height (FIG. must not be accepted as representative of the age. AND SMALLER BEACON FORTS Insufficiency of data prohibits any attempt to describe a great work. and some or perhaps all of these ended at slits. Tchalenko. up to the height preserved. Some of the old buildings must still have been serviceable (at least. even of large blocks. prevalence in late Byzantine walls may be deduced from use in the medieval Ottoman castle at Kalecik.120 The chief motive for building the tower was unquestionably to safeguard the inner court.4 on Thu. utilizing the shorter of the partitions for a side-wall.121 It was thicker than its predecessor. but there was always a risk of surprise). of which the remains can still be seen in the otherwise Frankish and Venetian castle beside the harbour there. floored with wood-were rather larger. both partitions could be enfiladed. proves that the tower was not residential. 120 Food for several months could have been stored in the tower. to a contemporary Byzantine fortress of rather similar scale. the lower two were lit through only two or three embrasures apiece. The upper rooms-one on the flat top of the dome. with a minimum of repair). 122 The defences of Ani were repeatedly altered between the terminal dates of 783 and 1312. which has been adequately studied. for it was hurriedly contrived in 979 to protect the monastery of St. these could have held at least fifty beds in double rows and a few more for higher ranks in a single row beside the gate. one of which would inevitably have been Kyrenia. and investigation has been restricted owing to the proximity of the Soviet frontier. This. and from it projected three pentagonal beaked towers. The dimness of the interior. Courtauld. That method of reinforcement had been common in Hellenistic walls. Fallen tiles indicate the material (though not the shape) of the roof. no doubt. 82. close together. 12. ii pls. 979. I7). winding stair ascends beside it in the thickness of the wall and must have cast a glimmer of light in the ground floor. 79. The Byzantine recovery of Cyprus in 965 was doubtless consolidated by fortifying the best landing-places. through from the inward to the outward face. But Venetian additions above have left no really precise data on them. should have been impregnable against overt attack. 119A later doorway formed the sole entrance to a chapel that was added. in which the back of the enceinte is lined with barracks. mainly of 979-89. 121 Antiquities Dept. This content downloaded from 193. Villagesantiquesde la SyrieduNord (1953) i 242.198. which is covered by a dome on pendentives. properly defended. A fort. if the enemy had penetrated into the enclosure (which. may have stood till 688 when a treaty obliged the Byzantines to demilitarize the whole island.50 A held closed by a massive draw-bar.

4 on Thu. two of which were either entirely or predominantly composed of empty spaces (perhaps to receive pilgrims. while others (or parts of them) were incorporated in new walls (FIG. Qal'at Sim'an. Beacon marked B but many were demolished for the sake of their material.18).212. with a width usually between ioo and 150 m. then rulers of both Egypt and Syria. Fortress and monastery at end of tenth century (Tchalenko). on occasion. when the Fatimids. A further Byzantine occupation ended in 10o7. the beginning of the downward slope was the most advantageous position for defence. and its boundary with the middle ward was made tortuous in order to include them all. from a path that led up from a village. or. inside that end. And the gateway from the southern to the middle ward stood between a pair exclusively of internal projection. they not only surrounded the site but also divided it into three wards. - FIG. And the north ward. troops). along the uneven surface of a ridge bounded by deep valleys. LAWRENCE 40 O 00 m. at the north end. and therefore more strongly fortified than the rest. These walls (PLATEI8) are crudely composed of scavenged blocks or even scarped out of rock. rectangular towers project at short intervals from all its faces. There is no later historical mention of the place. was itself peculiar. but the south end was entered between a pair. as were two others dispersed along the same boundary. although many existing gaps in the poorer masonry might have resulted from natural This content downloaded from 193. whereas the boundary between the middle and southern wards is straight. The north ward was really a citadel. 23 Jan 2014 12:21:25 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . The enclosed area extends 400 m from north to south. i8. Qal'at Sim'an (as the fortified monastery was already called) fell to an Aleppine force in 986 after a three-day siege. it was full of buildings (largely of the fifth century). W. Probably the victorious army dismantled it to prevent reuse. Few towers were needed elsewhere along the exterior of the fortress because the ground descends quite rapidly. for a peculiar reason. made two attacks. and fortifications were so placed except. and the second succeeded.198.216 A.

the beacon was renovated later. since it must have been intended to give warning of Bulgar raids. A sketch-plan with no scale has been published (FIG. are known in Greece and Bulgaria. from which one may look across to Crete. so one man at a time could walk. 126 Velkov. rose above the core to form a parapet along either side of a corridor. the slant at which the corridor-wall projects let its entire length be enfiladed from that tower and also commanded from another. 19). though. Moreover. (in French) 183. but has perished except for fragmentary ruins (FIG. its view includes a wide arc of the skirts of the mountain towards the Afrin valley. The same identification as windmills has been accepted by Welsh countrymen to explain a chain of much smaller ruins that were actually the bases of beacons to give warning of pirate Cambrensis raids in years around 6oo (Lloyd. a lengthy wall projecting obliquely to a tower-like base. a ditch encircled the whole site. 124 Kevin Andrews. lop-sided tetrapyrgos. though scarcely for reinforcements to go up to Qal'at Sim'an. above a slope. they operated at sea increasingly till 960. 13. which is within a day's walk of Aleppo.125 The first mention of the fort at Monemvasia is by Idrisi. like other sectors.212. which exploded in 1689. and aligned with the corner of a tower runs the connecting wall. 23 Jan 2014 12:21:25 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions .A SKELETAL HISTORY OF BYZANTINE FORTIFICATION 217 causes. It was a little. This content downloaded from 193. Perhaps. GNMP/Annuairedu Musle National Plovdiv ii (1950) 176.' The observant seafarer who was the source of this information would not have known of the beacon because it must have long been disused. The connecting wall is composed of cemented rubble between thin faces of masonry which. each shooting against one side of it. which evidently bore a circular hollow structure. One was on the summit of the promontory of Monemvasia. slanting out to a foundation about io m square (but rounded at the corners). Castlesof the Morea (1953) 206 figs. 20). 125 The roughly contemporary Venetian plan calls the hollow structurea mill. Each is attached to a fort that seems to have existed for no other purpose than to service its beacon. the main function of the beacon was to alert the populous region. the military advantage of overlooking attackers was sacrificed in order to leave space enough for the buildings within to escape sparks. 2. The fire would have signalled warning of enemy troop-movements in time for countermeasures to be organized in the low country.198. and beside the verge of a steep descent. to cope with the North African recrudescence of piracy. although no one would have transported grain so far across uneven rocky ground when there was a wind-swept cliff-top immediately above the town. This stands on slightly higher ground than the north end. at the top. fig. The present scatter of masonry suggests that total destruction resulted.4 on Thu. 218-19 pl. for it was so well preserved after Venice annexed Monemvasia as to be converted into a powder-magazine. the eighth century is the earliest plausible dating for a fort on the Sakar Mountains. 36-Venetian plan. between a tower of the north end and the beacon. only intentional demolition can readily account for the break in an exceptionally sturdy wall at its very outset (PLATEI 9a) where it left the flank of a tower on the north end to run some 45 m obliquely outwards and join a square structure identifiable as the lofty base for a beacon. It might conceivably have been built in the eighth century when the Arab fleet dominated the seas.126 The ruin. On historical grounds. is shown as a square tetrapyrgos with a wall protruding from the corner of one tower and ending at a large square foundation.40 m thick in the existing lowest courses and 75 m long. sheltered from missiles. called BiiuyuiikKale (Turkish for 'Big Castle').124 It is represented complete on a small-scale Venetian plan. Archaeologia I13 (1964) I50). And the value attached to it is demonstrated by the siting of the north end of the fortress in a depression instead of. but cannot have been desperately needed till the Muslim pirates who seized Khania in 823 had subdued all Crete. Adjuncts of the same type. who finished his geographical compilation in I154: 'a castle very high above the sea.

and changed the system of defence (FIG. where only a fraction of the fort has escaped destruction by the river. Pacuiul lui Soare. W. 6. CastlesandChurches of theCrusading Kingdom (1967) 49. was presumably undertaken soon after. 20.198. where a portcullis moved in grooves 16 cm wide. In 975 John Tzimisces captured Sigon/Sahyun from the Aleppines. and at the inner end.'27called Saone. a base for his own navy on a long island. 51. The wall beyond the corner runs straight inland to a break 50 m onward. 44. where there are holes for a locking-bar.4 on Thu. as though to present less of an obstacle to ice-floes.A. Monemvasia.212. Pacuiullui Soare(1972) by P. and stands to a height of over 4 m. when the place became a fief of the Crusaders'Principality of Antioch. Boase. END OF THE TENTH CENTURY: PACUIUL LUI SOARE. G. Smail. where towns of Roman DITCH N N . projecting Io m from the wall behind. fig. The determinant feature is a stepped landing-place that measures nearly 24 m between a pair of towers that bounded it. Miiller-Wiener. R. The passage contracts to 3-60 m both at the mouth.Q4/ 0 a 30m A FIG. OHRID. 12-13. S. R. The construction of the French-style castle. It includes another entrance. with a resume and list of illustrations in French. LAWRENCE 218 13. in the centre of which is a gateway. His Balkan conquests brought the frontier into the delta of the Danube. 21 ). through a tower that projectsnearly 9 m forward and slightly inward. interprets the ruins. Castlesof theCrusaders 96-7 pls. Sketch-plan of fort with beacon (Velkov) origin were being attacked by the Russian fleet. 17-19- This content downloaded from 193. 3-90 m wide externally but expanding to 4-20 m within. About Ioo m downstream the wall turns sharply at a tower that has one side curved but the other straight and placed at an obtuse angle. 127 T. CrusadingWarfare(1956) 236 (1966) 10. He is presumed to have built. a monograph in Romanian. BuiyiikKale. slits that open obliquely through the masonry alongside probably held cables for mooring shipping. 19. DIDYMA John Tzimisces greatly extended the Byzantine territory in both Europe and Asia. W. 23 Jan 2014 12:21:25 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . and the Byzantines retained ownership into the beginning of the twelfth century. in or soon after 972. Sketch-plan of fort with beacon (Author) FIG. SAHYUN. Vilceanu. Diaconu and D.

but connected by a rock-cut ditch of astonishing dimensions. is still generally sound in spite of its far from glamorous appearance. the outer arch. or even BYZANTINE before 975. some parts of it. However. Courtauld. Deroko. This content downloaded from 193.CrnojGorii Makedoniji(1950) i94 figs. A second ward started on top of the hillock. probably one motive for making the ditch so immense was to quarry from it. long and narrow. The structure.A SKELETAL HISTORY OF BYZANTINE FORTIFICATION 219 The site occupied a tongue of plateau above the confluence of two streams that had worn ravines in the limestone. Plan of castle (Boase) representative of its own time. in that respect. but we can be sure that Samuel. now broken. beyond which a third IsLJO ward. BYZANTINE KEEP comparison with an isolated European keep is justifiable.4 on Thu. gradually descends to the extremity WALL POSTERN of the tongue. The stone extracted must have been used for building the castle. Samuel (976-1014). At BYZANTINE WALL !CISTERN some such date as 990 he moved his capital to Ochrida/Ohrid. before the accession of the last Tsar but one. no doubt. enclosed by a wall so rambling and perfunctory CISERN as to suggest that it might have originated earlier than any ARAB CONSTRUCTIONS other feature at Sahyun. 40. The second ward extended to another little ditch. and built it an entrance (PLATE20a) that is. But the principal Byzantine fortifications. were habitable but others fit only for storage. of pure Byzantine style. of unfaced cemented rubble. Where these are 750 m distant from the eroded cliff that forms the extremity of the tongue. . between Ioo and 200 m inwards from the POSTERN abyss. 21. composed in turn of a masonry-lined counterscarp. and masonry that lined the scarp and rose free-standing over it upon the slope up a natural hillock. Sahyun. it is I8 m wide with practically vertical sides. they became redundant when Crusader improvements obstructed hostile approach. designed rather like an DITCH JPILLAR unsymmetrical tetrapyrgos.198. 36. EO ySSTASB where he resided in an enclosure128 subsequently called the KEEP GREAT DITCH. 27 m deep to a flat bottom.PILLAR Upper Serai. would not have accepted an obsolete design. The Byzantines put a triple barrier across the tongue. which bears the confused ruins of a small fort. looks as though it had . they are 120 m apart. The height of the position gave command over both wards. 23 Jan 2014 12:21:25 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions .212. except for Macedonia. it might have been either Scale In metros an imitation of an individual older monument or else genuinely FIG. but differences in execution outweigh the resemblance. though POSTERN in bad condition.7y7/ 128 A. those that surely go back to just after 975.MINARET / The Byzantines had reconquered almost all the territory seized by the Bulgarians. because there are remnants (PLATE I9b) of at ARAB least one Byzantine cross-wall (possibly two) among the starkly impressive Frankish works that restricted entry from LOWER COURT the bridge. There is some reason to suspect that a comparaCRUSADER tively shallow cutting existed before the Crusade. who campaigned over much of the Balkans. can still be seen. S 50 100 ENTRY inevitably. Srednjevekovni Gradoviu Srbiji. a shallow ditch.

95 above. 23 Jan 2014 12:21:25 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions .4 on Thu. no less than a hectare of this was therefore enclosed as an outer ward. This content downloaded from 193.131 A monastery seems first to have occupied the twin peaks of a mountain called Didymus. a French corruption of the name Didymus to Dieudamour then came into use. where the Byzantine wall runs straight uphill in traditional manner. LAWRENCE been a Turkish replacement. being too easily accessible from the peaks' joint southward slope. and expressed no opinion on whether it was homogeneous or of diverse ages. though the scope for them was severely limited. this may possibly have introduced modifications. Starinar 13-14 (1962-3) 137. one is a beaked pentagon. A pair of rather small oval towers129 flanks the passage. There were four towers. which also communicated with the walk along the curtains.212. at least. an arch spans a single wide doorway. The excavators of the temple removed all the defensive work they found. fig. W. The design was uniform on both west and south. they probably built it to support their incursions into Byzantine territory from Io91 onwards. 131 Zdravkovi' and Jovanovid. d'tudes byz. and Lusignan restorations are practically confined to its vicinity. Ohlrid9g6 ii (1964) 423 fig. An earthquake in 988 damaged the fortress into which the great temple at Didyma had been transformed (probably in the seventh century). residential wards. apart from the imposition of a European-style barbican. Hilarion. END OF THE ELEVENTH ZVECAN Anna Comnena records Serbian defeats of Byzantine troops in 1093 and I Io6 near Sphentzanion/Zvetan.132 The purpose of the fort must have been to station a garrison for controlling the pass between the north coast and the central plain of Cyprus. The dimensions of the rooms within vary in each tower. and by the piers of the gateway at the inward end. while the other has only three exposed facets (one of them slanting) in order to suit the angles of the adjacent curtains. which rises abruptly 6 km inland from Kyrenia to a height of over 700 m.198. is likely to have originated all three fortresses on the northern watershed. but were barely defensible. where it followed a contour. higher up. which is about 42 m wide except where contracted by this outer arch for the purpose of masking a portcullis. instead. A hundred years later the fort proved able to withstand Frankish attacks but eventually surrendered. The buildings may have needed little alteration to convert rooms into barracks. (in French) 150. mostly of some 30 m. transforming the site to a Lusignan castle now known as St.130 and an inscription records some measure of rebuilding. the steepness of the rock made it unnecessary to link with either peak. the defences of the outer ward escaped drastic alteration. The style is. and much rebuilding followed. and a Byzantine tunnel still forms the entrance to the lower one. typical instances of maximum length m and 3'45 x and breadth measure 2-70 x m. and along the south. from which steps ascended to the other. Actesdu XII Congrlsinternat. St. 2. but we may.220 A. but later work predominates at Buffavento and Kantara as well as in these upper. Few towers are backed by solid masonry. internal length 5 m and width 3 m. Jovanovi'. purely Byzantine. of course. The outer ward was fully enclosed only on the west. Alexius Comnenus. 6. HILARION 14. HilarionCastle(1950). or a pair of arches springs either side of a pier. two are approximately rectangular. CENTURY: AND ST. 130 See n. However. feel assured that it had met the standards required for security in the 990s. the emperor. It stands on a conical hill. height (slightly reduced) 13 m. 132 Antiquities Dept. as would have become obviously advisable in view of a rebellion in io92. Roughly semicircular towers (PLATE 2ob. 2 Ia) occur at fairly regular intervals. one of which retreats. where a fort was then held by the Serbs. 5 m width. The portcullis was operated inside a room overlying the broadest piece of the passage and accessible from both towers. within masonry at that level 75 cm 2"25 2"70 129 The maximum dimensions of the towers are approximately: 6 m projection.

MILETUS Manuel II Comnenus (I I48-80) built a long salient to include part of the Blachernae suburb to which the imperial residence had been transferred. A main gateway on the south of the hill was flanked by rectangular towers and opened into an inner court.2 307 Beib. dated to I 186-7. 28-9. Hilarion for the resemblance to be dismissed as coincidental. x-xi. 23 Jan 2014 12:21:25 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . 16. IstMitt 17 (1967) 285 fig. one rectangular at a slight outward bend. of which much is still preserved up to the base of the parapet. CONSTANTINOPLE. PERGAMON. 134 Landmauer i (1885) pl.134 spaced at intervals as short as 18-35 m. they spared only a few towers on the south (PLATE 21b) which had been attached to a terrace wall of the ancient gymnasium.198. the doorway was from 2. between I161 and I173 according to Nicetas Choniatis.212. within sight on the opposite coast of Asia Minor. Ramps (PLATE20C) lead to both upper floors of Tower '18'. which must gradually have disseminated knowledge of European methods outside the 133 Another apsidal tower with an emphatic taper is apparently the only Byzantine relic in the otherwise Seljuk fortressat Anamur. was confirmed by the building of baronial castles. i.4 on Thu. i. it stands next to the gateway (Courtauld A51/354). 15. I204-C. Crude plans and sketches drawn at the time of destruction represent a line of five square (or at any rate rectangular) towers on the north together with a minor gateway formed by an overlap and secluded behind a simple barbican. It must have been built as a defence against Moslem aggression. perhaps rather earlier than 1092. and one circular at an abrupt corner. the Frankish annexation of most of the Greek mainland and islands. The curtains. ii figs. or approximately square. MID AND LATE TWELFTH CENTURY.133 aided by set-backs of some 15 cm beneath the two upper storeys and the parapet. Altertiimer 9. were 15-18 m high. THE SUCCESSOR STATES. The wall in general seems to have been uninteresting. but looks too like the towers of St. AM 29 (I904) pls. The embrasures in towers are about 75 cm high. 3. I 250 A by-product of the Fourth Crusade. and splay to 30-45 cm from not more than 25 cm at the mouth of the slit. and presumably was inserted for the sake of closer spacing. or curved beyond a semicircle. 136 Miiller-Wiener. viii. 63-4. This content downloaded from 193. Here too an entrance was flanked by approximately square towers. and an element of ostentation can also be discerned in his wall. The towers.I7 the upward curtain was probably in the lost back of the second storey. were calculated to attract attention by a wanton diversity of shape even more than by their scale and massiveness. but he may afterwards have added more. Some of Manuel's towers must date early in his reign. An oval outline was reasonable in the case of one that projects from an outward bend. but no particular advantage resulted from the differentiation of others that are semicircular.I vonPergamon 135 AR 1978-9 67. Internally they are vaulted. iii. The wall was visible on both north and south sides of the hill135 until about I88o when it was almost entirely demolished by excavators in order to free Hellenistic remains. The slope of the acropolis at Pergamon had been deserted for several centuries till Manuel II refortified it and encouraged the growth of a new town. it was demolished for the excavation of classical remains. The exterior tapers upward. The seventh in the sequence bears an inscription of Isaac II Angelus. A hypothetical dating to the same period for a town wall at Miletus136 is too plausible to be ignored. 3-75 m thick and buttressed within. He was a paladin credited with martial exploits of incredible audacity.A SKELETAL HISTORY OF BYZANTINE FORTIFICATION 221 thick. In Tower '19' on the west slope (PLATE21a) the second storey m high and floored 2-10 m above the walk on the downward curtain. with alcoves extended by embrasures that ended at slits. which stands at the south-west corner. On the gymnasium terrace stood four approximately semicircular towers. and even parts of the Asia Minor coast. or polygonal with a varying number of facets.

3-7. the height is 3 or 4 m to the walk.4 on Thu. and its fortifications must incorporate relics of many centuries. they were miserable substitutes for the towers of the Theodosian outer wall. the Lascarid Empire of Nicaea. The outwork blanketed the defenders' fire from the wall. Schneider. it was usually straight but on occasion curved outwards to pass the towers that encroached on the intervening space. featureless except for bends that divided towers from recesses. 31. Janssens.e. like turrets. 7-10 pls. Trdbizonde en Colchide(1967) 238 figs. There had been many precedents around the fifth century for such a tall and massive proteichisma. Even from its present dilapidated condition we can see that in I204 it was a virtual museum of restoration continued throughout all its periods. At Nicaea. Two of these. Moreover the chances of collapse under bombardment were increasing owing to the development of the trebuchet. Some of them are enclosed. the supposedly Byzantine citadel is not datable.140 in that sector it involved only rectangular towers (now mostly demolished). W. When the type was revived at Nicaea. and so diverse a fabric was almost certain to be unreliable in some parts. Trapezus/Trebizond had been the seat of a provincial governor before it was chosen as the capital of a successor empire. 56. but not at all in others. apsidal or horseshoe-shaped. which lasted 257 years. 4b. in the various successor states. but presumably the utmost that could be afforded for repetition in such quantity. The dissemination of the weapon should have been rapid because of the simplicity of both its construction and its operation. 14. 16-17 pl. it surrounded the whole city except where the wall accompanied the lake-shore. Hoepfner. the frontier town towards Nicaea. and its capital. the outwork bulges opposite the middle of each curtain into a slightly taller salient that is externally semicircular and 5 m wide. but internally only 2 m. probably in France. Trebizond and Epirus. which slung unprecedentedly heavy missiles. at Heraclea Pontica/Eregli. JHS 52 (1932) 47. The expedient adopted by the Lascarids in 1204-22 was to build an outworka38 that also acted as a buffer. where a rather small tower stands opposite the middle of each curtain of the main wall. must have seemed at constant risk from the Franks. whether off the roof or through an embrasure inside. however sound in others. which was therefore raised by 2'50 m in the towers.198. but in a more 137 The trebuchet was developed by a gradual process of improvement. is unlikely to have regained full strength after siege and capture in og97. LAWRENCE areas occupied. were remote from the public view. Altogether. the thickness was i-6o-2 m and on every sector included a varying number of embrasures ending with slits. HerakleiaPontike-Eregli (1966) 42-5 figs. 23 Jan 2014 12:21:25 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions .'39 But the topography required them to be like cliffs of masonry. above which two more should be allowed for the parapet and merlons. E. These salients were really stands for shooting.i. and separated from the wall by a few metres or as much as ten.212. plan at end. The fall of Constantinople itself led to an outburst of fortification. and probably this formed part of a general renovation of the city wall.222 A. Die Stadtmauer Iznik figs. but the third. the distance from the wall is 13-16 m apart from encroachment by towers. 'Western'. there are no indications of date unless parapets are preserved (and these may have been replacements). One of the Arabic names means 'Frankish mangonel' while the other calls it the maghrabi. The Byzantines merely transliterated the word into Greek. Gateways through the outwork are flanked by taller and somewhat broader turrets. an inscription records the rebuilding of a tower in 120o6-7. defensible from a walk on top. 140 W. However. Karnapp and A. 139 Talbot Rice. but most had an open gorge. initially pure Byzantine in style. with embrasures opening from the room. This content downloaded from 193. mangonel. but with inaccurate aim (a drawback besiegers of Nicaea might have found of comparatively slight consequence on the flat terrain). less in some curtains. von 138 W. with the city wall dating from the third century. But an improvement on this fifth-century scheme was evidently inspired by the Theodosian double system at Constantinople. this Lascarid transformation at Nicaea was an unsatisfactory makeshift. M.137 a siege-engine that anyone could make. 13.

at centre.but then risesto a slightpeak at the centreof the enclosure.which bends in curtainsbut runs straightacrossthe backsof the towers. 23 Jan 2014 12:21:25 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . and an archeddoorwaythroughthe enceinte.however. The curtainsform an octagon.4 on Thu. Orlandos.The groundbehind the enceinteis flat (and bare) throughoutto a distance of severalmetres. and Turkishalterationscannothave left much else of that first Despot'swork.the date of constructionis likelyto be earlier. My description was written after a visit in 1979. each is over 7 m wide. The towers.and I failedto checkwhetheran archedrecessin the flankof one. renovationin 1357.141 Arta. on average.wheretherewas abundantopportunityfor greatprotrusion. which the Despot of Epirusacquiredabout the year I214 but his successorrelinquishedin 1257.were basicallysimilarin being two-storeyed.keepingalong the crestof fairlysteep slopeswhich descend.198.though considerablyreducedin height. and the rubbleabove it is dividedby a band of a few coursesof pale yellow brick. composingarches.eitheractuallyor almostsquareinternally.the fronthas fallenoff two towers. The mortaredrubble.projectingrespectively9-50 and I I7o m.All exceptthe entrancetowerare likely to have conformedwith the scheme. eight towersrisefromthemto the sameheightas the curtains. Tattered remnants of the upper storey in several towers suggest that wider apertures existed high above the slits in the lower room.but there is no visibletraceof its other end.two beaked polygonsstand.of having a slit roughlya metretall in the centreof each forwardwall.they do not taperlike stonevoussoirs. Dodoni6 (I977) 201.for a cross-walldivergesat rightanglesfromthe curtainfarthestfromthe main entrance. The greatestlength seems to have been obtainedat a cornerwhich perhapswas separated fromthe rest. In another instance. and manifestlythe dividingfloorin each waswooden.some 20 m apart.Consequentlythe diameter of the interioris difficultto estimatebut.212. But a month-longsiege in 1303. The enceinte is formed by one continuousstructure. This content downloaded from 193.None can have been vaultedat top.143 obviouslybuilt to contain a garrisonin the reasonableexpectationof being enabled therebyto control the southernhalf of the island. Red bricks. The Despotateof Epirusused the old acropolisof Ambracia.including that which containsthe main entrance.had given access to a slit which would be exceptionallynear inner ground level.On the thirdtowertowardsthesouthis a brickmonogram.The site chosenwas a hillockin the otherwiseflat-bottomedvalley that intersectsa narrowpiece of the island. half-buriedin rubbish.than 1220. 141A. presumablyat the base of the second storey. on average.142 now long abandoned.likewiseon the outwardside alone. At Gardhikion Corfuis a small fortress.the ends of theirside-wallsare bondedto the exterior of the curtains.forits administrative the initialsof MichaelAngelosDukasComnenus.A SKELETAL HISTORY OF BYZANTINE FORTIFICATION 223 dangerousposition.preservedwhen a lower storey is complete.who died in 1215.runsacrossthefrontof theentrancetowerexternally. Buchetium)gave a morecomplicatedplan to Rhogoi/Rogous. seem from below to be approximately 30 cm tall and broad. standseverywhereto not less than 5 m and is over a metrethick. A well-preservedexampleof restorationto an ancient site (possiblythat of whichwas a populoustown.undera dense coveringof brushwoodwhich may concealthe ruinsof buildings.convertedinto the citadelof centre.runningstraightfor some io m with a uniformthicknessof abouta metre.with a lengthof severalmetres each side.A singlecourseof greatblocks. Archeiontjn Byzantin5nMnimeihntis Ellados 2 (1936) 151- 142 143 Dakaris. where the base alone of the upper storey is preserved. a curved encroachment upon the thickness of the front.may not appreciablyexceed ioo m. slightlybelow the upperfloorwithin.not muchover5 m.probablytakenfromsome buildingnot laterthantheRomanperiod.not later.

the less steep slope to the east was given one small tower of slight projection along a course of nearly 200 m. where the main entrance is m wide. 23 Jan 2014 12:21:25 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions BSA 23 (I919-20) 98. Neither claim could safely be made for Angelokastro. 4. upon which their lives might depend. the Genoese improved the hurriedly built wall of their Galata trade-post and so demonstrated the Italian style of fortification to the court itself. where the threshold also has been lost. were built by Andronicus the Younger. but this one was concave (and seems to have been plastered. bounded by the three cessions and the purchase of Geraki. He restored towers there which the Franks had allowed to decay.212.144 which is known to have existed by 1294. and the Franks began hostilities in the same year. LAST DATABLE WORKS. Michael VIII Palaeologus. which have recently been replaced from the ground upwards in modern brickwork. encountered perils into the next century. which in Slavonic means 'woman'. which would designate the room as a chapel. The width of the enclosure is about 30 m 144 Orlandos. Courtauld. through a tower that generally resembles the others. The drop towards the west was too steep for the wall to need still visible. 17. 9 (I961) 54 figs. . indescribable in its present state of ruin. perhaps into the form of a shell). The entire fortress as Gardhiki is of one build. so that it needed to be supported on the tops of thick jambs. And. and so probably was that to the north. 2. It pierces the curtain that adjoins the main entrance.145 Historically of immense consequence was an acquisition of territory from the Frankish ruler of the Peloponnese. while the outer doorway pierces the extremity of the right flank. early in the fourteenth century. of such great strength as to withstand enemy siege-engines'. he was the rebel governor of Thrace for a few years before his reign of 1328-41. Gynaecocastron was easily approached only from the south.4 on Thu. Other examples were visible on Aegean islands that Michael recovered. both the wall around Gynaecocastron/Avret-Hisar and its 'immense tower. and purely Byzantine in style.A. an incidental result must have been that officers sent from the capital studied fortifications inherited from the Franks. these were duly handed over in 1262. The main entrance bends. The ruinsl46 crown a rugged limestone bluff that rises over Ioo m above a river called the Zena or apparent derivatives of that word. 145 ii 17. According to Cantacuzenus (who was adult at the time). and ransomed himself from captivity by swearing allegiance to Michael and ceding three fortresses (Mistra. unaccompanied by slits. The only other entrance was a postern. op. But the Pope pronounced that the oath of allegiance was invalid.198. Monemvasia. and Maina/Tigani) at extremities of Laconia and Mani. who had been on a visit to Constantinople at the time of the coup. This content downloaded from 193. from the outer doorway of which it is fully visible some 20-30 m distant.6 any towers throughout its length of nearly 200oom. cit. where all masonry has fallen. But Cantacuzenus thought the castle owed its name to a saying that it would be impregnable even if garrisoned by women. Landmauer 146 Woodward. Frankish or South Italian influence may be suspected in this tiny fort. LAWRENCE 224 looks as though it had belonged to an internal apse. still intact except at the foot. about 3. but the doorway at the back is wider and its arch overlies a plain tympanum of thin bricks. the simple arch springs from the straight edges of a rubble aperture. I26I-I4453 In 1261 a revolution at Constantinople delivered it to the emperor of Nicaea. W. Here too the arch has an unusually wide span and overlies another brick-filled tympanum. The new Byzantine province. It stood on a low ridge overlooking a track which leads to the ford of the Achelous immediately east of the ancient site called Palaiomanina.

and the thickness of its outer walls is approximately I-4o m. No doorways are preserved. 33. 12. Known as the Hexamilion because of its six-mile length. the fall of the north-east corner of the lower west room. Starinar2 (1950) 59. he can scarcely have been other than the Serbian husband of Angelina Palaeologus. They withstood a siege by Murad II throughout the summer of 1422. and the Turks overcame it in the next year. the western retains traces of a vault which rose to about 4-5 m above the floor. I30-I pl. His praise was fully justified. op. figs. but inscriptions document extremely thorough restoration of towers 150 during several years up to 1440. and there was an upper storey. A. This content downloaded from 193. 353Guidede Thasos(1967) 16. The extensive view over central Macedonia has changed owing to the drainage of Lake Arjani. in an enclosure equivalent to two wards. the damage inflicted must have been repaired quite soon. 23 Jan 2014 12:21:25 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . was due primarily to the cannonade that in seven weeks wrecked much of the outer Theodosian wall and breached a few portions of the inner one.149 a wall across the Isthmus of Corinth. another to the south. it was undertaken by the viceroy of Mistra in 1396. the tower of which Cantacuzenus wrote. after which the Turks demolished it so effectively that it did not obstruct their subsequent invasions of the Peloponnese. in 1407-1o (Deroko. in 1428-30 (Deroko 147 148 figs. of either incomparable loot or else eternal enjoyment of the carnal pleasures awaiting every martyr for Islam. He died in 1451. A fort beside the harbour of Thasos148 had square towers. The north frontage was prolonged by the shorter cross-wall. 21). Unquestionably the tower was an imitation of a Frankish keep. and in 1446 held out against artillery for a week. No vestiges have been recognized. which must have contained one. one is mentioned in a will of I384. cit. Its success. however. so barring direct access to the hill from the north. in which there are said to have been 150 towers. which consisted of small regular blocks (Landmauer ii pl. Courtauld). which I saw reaching as far as Chauchitsa.4 on Thu. its width nearly 9 m. 1413-21. if not also of earlier predecessors. The rectangular north end was divided from the rest of the enclosure by two echeloned pieces of cross-wall (the longer containing a gateway) and. presumably utilized remnants of Justinian's. over which is inscribed the name Thomas (spelt with an omicron). made no further attempt on the city.198. The remains are now inconsiderable. between them. the Turks took only one day to capture it. the south frontage by the other. Internally there were twin rooms on the ground floor. 139-41 pls. which must have covered both rooms. Despot of Epirus 1367-84. It was again restored. and ultimately to the overwhelming number of assailants fired by the promised alternatives. 149 Italian as well as Byzantine influence on the Despots of Serbia (a Turkish vassal-state) resulted in two imposing fortresses:the wall around Manasija monastery at Resava. The last great work. A tower of Yannina castle147 is entered at the back through a remarkably tall arch. ADelt 19 (1964) B3 314 pl. in 1453. A slit opens to the west. whereupon Mehmed II started preparations for the final siege. the eastern one has collapsed. and 7-8 (1956-7) 18I. may effectively have localized damage caused by impact. W. leaves no indication whether it was placed at the back or in the partition leading to the east room. A fireplace and its flue stand between them. for its length was I2-5 m.212. 30. Murad. LAWRENCE Dakaris. Courtauld). 14. The defences of Constantinople were strengthened while amicable relations prevailed with the Emir Mehmed I.A SKELETAL HISTORY OF BYZANTINE FORTIFICATION 225 at the north but expands in conformity with the rock to Ioo m at the south end. and the city wall and castle at Smederevo. 150 It is arguable that the style of facing adopted by the Palaeologi. and then attempted its destruction. it was restored by order of the emperor during twenty-five days of 1415.

The curtains of the outer defences revetted the scarped rock. of solely inward projection. while five contained an upper storey with embrasures to slits. LAWRENCE 226 APPENDIX: SOME FEATURES IN VAGUELY DATED MONUMENTS The monastery of Daphni/Dhafni in Attica was enclosed within a free-standing wall.) Procopius records the bare fact that some monasteries inside walled towns in Africa were built or rebuilt as fortresses. 23 Jan 2014 12:21:25 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . W. it stands almost complete 100oo on the north. which are I'4 m wide. the arches. xi. A. Courtauld. as surely implies that the master mason was a Greek. 3 m wide and about 50 cm deep. The site is an artificially isolated outlier of the coastal plateau. was so large that it probably needed all the peasant militia of the district to man it and could have formed a refugefor their dependants. 1i90-2'50 m thick.) The outer entrance was situated at the north-west corner. L'Afriquebyz. the remainder being adequately safeguarded by the height of buildings. An alternation of blind arcading and tall buildings continued to be the favourite method of fortifying the perimeter of monasteries that had originally been defenceless. Mnimeilntis Ellados2 (1955-6) 68.212. Actually more than half the perimeter of an early monastery inside Theveste/Tebessa was enclosed. BIABulg I (1937) 17I).) An underground passage could maintain communication with the countryside at a small town near Arif in Lycia (AS 31 (1981) 199). of some such period as the eighth or ninth century (Velkov. Orlandos. by a glass factory in the ninth century. from which towers projected free-standing. Pottery found within resemblesthat in a neighbouring defenceless village. BIABulg ii (I937) 120. where the ditch was narrowest and may have been bridged. is ascribed to the sixth century (Harrison and Lawson.198. Latmus were so treated. A castle with concentric defences stood behind the beach nearest to Paphos until an earthquake destroyed it in 1222. Milet iii I). Plovdiv2 (1950) 174. a corridor led thence between the outer and the inner defences. in the extreme south of Bulgaria. and some of the larger were pierced to serve as entrances. they are of all the shapes accepted by Byzantine tradition. to suit the terrain. carry a protruding parapet. La Monastere de Daphni(1899). varying from a semicircle to nearly a complete circle. (The empire lost Cyprus in I I84 to a rebel official. probably no earlier than I176.A. Those on Mt. roughly square. (in French) 183). This content downloaded from 193. and were in two cases solid. about m square. who was deposed after eight years by Richard Cceur de Lion. the ruins are called SarandaKolones('Forty Columns') because of the many Roman shafts that were laid flat as stretchers. Salients were unevenly distributed. probably in the sixth century. all are rounded. The arcades were consolidated by little rectangular towers or turrets. after passing half-way round the perimeter. Part of the site had been occupied post quem. and AnnuaireMus. against Seljuk raids. and turned inward through a wide arch of Romanesque voussoirs. (Diehl. which perhaps originated in the fifth or sixth century. (1896) 430 pl. of extremely simple design with a few rectangular towers.4 on Thu. including a newly discovered entrance. Nat. Millet. and the Lusignan dynasty took over from I193. (G. not far from Adrianople. Archeiont5nByz. The wall. by the addition of a wall backed with blind arcading. rather than at the first threat of Muslim attacks (as was presumed in their publication. The rubble wall. and one at a corner rose two storeys (both with slits) above the blind ground floor and basement (Rasenov. encloses a steep-edged plateau and may have been about 6 m high. Yayla2 (1979) 13)- A fort at Mezek. Towers project outwards. and that fact gives the only reliable terminus a 'fort' in which a man was held prisoner about I I60 could have been elsewhere in the extensive area of Paphos. whoever his employer may have been. It is backed by a continuous arcade over buttressing piers.

212.on which I spent three days. 457 fig.with little relevanceto the historyof fortification. and sawno Byzantine featuresat Platamon.AD1921-2. I disagreewith prevalenttheoriesthat the fortressesat Serresand Platamonare Byzantine: I believeSerresto be Turkish.(Megaw. Limeskongresses plan Pagnik (1977)453. Internat.RDAC1982 210.No one Orthodoxis likely to have seen these but the conceptprobablywas widespread.but includesno specificallyByzantine features.W. A. when the Copts in the Wadi Natrun are known to have separatedit in some instancesby a removablebridge. This content downloaded from 193.probablya workof MuradI (136o-89). Page 197: The same article describes(p.on Athos and (for a Bulgar patron in 1335) at Rila. where Diocletian'stowerswerereplacedby largerJustinianictowersat longerintervals.198. 23 Jan 2014 12:21:25 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions .L. Page 21o:The printingof Fikri'sbookwascompletedin AHI340.The subsequentdevelopmentof monastictowersbegan slowlyand did not reachits acme till the thirteenthand fourteenthcenturies. ADDENDA desio.4 on Thu. 2) the town wall at Dibsi Farij. high above ground. Harperhaskindlysentme an offprintof hisarticlein Vortrdge a and its with contoured of Oreni setting.) A towerhad becomea habitualcomponentof monasterieslong beforethe ninth century. P.R. Page 174:Mr. But these are fine architecturalworks.A SKELETAL HISTORY OF BYZANTINE FORTIFICATION 227 The rest of the inner line is in very poor condition.its inner buildingseemsto me definitely Turkishand not particularlyearlyat that.

198.(b) tower SE.4 on Thu.212. 23 Jan 2014 12:21:25 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . (a) (a) This content downloaded from 193. OF(b) tower. HISTORY added of Back SKELETAL A Perga. and ditch of FORTIFICATION Mouth BYZANTINE Corycus.

A. 23 Jan 2014 12:21:25 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 9 . (b) Corycus. lagoon in foreground This content downloaded from 193.. 78 PLATE (a) (b) A SKELETAL HISTORY OF BYZANTINE FORTIFICATION (a) Corycus.B.S.. From W.4 on Thu.212.198. ditch behind curb in foreground. From N.

PLATE B.4 on Thu.S. 78 10 (a) (b) A SKELETAL HISTORY OF BYZANTINE FORTIFICATION (a) Corycus.A. Path outside N.198.212. tower. 23 Jan 2014 12:21:25 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . N. tower. steps of path to right This content downloaded from 193. (b) Corycus.

(a) This content downloaded from 193.212. of W. Nicopolis.198. HISTORY entrance. side. and (c) entrance flanking tower lost of entrance FORTIFICATION flanking attachment tower side. (b) W. (c) (a) (b) SKELETAL flanking A tower to side W. 23 Jan 2014 12:21:25 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions .:I:-:: -_%:F_ postern.4 on Thu. BYZANTINE OF interior Nicopolis. Nicopolis.

W.PLATE B. 78 12 (a) (b) A SKELETAL HISTORY OF BYZANTINE FORTIFICATION (a) Nicopolis. 23 Jan 2014 12:21:25 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . W. side. exterior of flanking tower and entrance.4 on Thu. (b) Nicopolis.A.212.S. back of entrance and lights of passage to portcullis room This content downloaded from 193.198. side.

212. 23 Jan 2014 12:21:25 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 13 .4 on Thu.198. side. (b) Plataea. W.S. back with stair-arches over postern (left) and doorway to ruined tower (centre).B. Front of tower This content downloaded from 193.A. 78 PLATE (a) (b) A SKELETAL HISTORY OF BYZANTINE FORTIFICATION (a) Nicopolis.

212.198. Front of cross-wall.PLATE 14 B.A. (b) Ardea. 78 (a) (b) A SKELETAL HISTORY OF BYZANTINE FORTIFICATION (a) Side.4 on Thu. 23 Jan 2014 12:21:25 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions .S. Projection of beaked tower This content downloaded from 193.

) frontage This content downloaded from 193.212. Outer gateway of barbican. (c) Telmessus.198.4 on Thu.S. Flank of tower. 78 PLATE (b) (a) (c) A SKELETAL HISTORY OF BYZANTINE FORTIFICATION (a) Terracina. (b) Ankara.A. 23 Jan 2014 12:21:25 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 15 . Seaward (W.B.

4 on Thu.198. W.A.212. face of inner ward.S. Polygon from W.PLATE 16 B. (b) Ankara. 23 Jan 2014 12:21:25 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . This content downloaded from 193. 78 (a) (b) A SKELETAL HISTORY OF BYZANTINE FORTIFICATION (a) Ankara.

face of polygon (left). SE. 78 PLATE (a) (b) A SKELETAL HISTORY OF BYZANTINE FORTIFICATION (a) Ankara.S. E.212.B. 23 Jan 2014 12:21:25 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 17 .A. (b) Ankara.198. and postern This content downloaded from 193. postern.4 on Thu. added tower. Tower flanking entrance of outer ward.

(b) Qal'at Sim'an. 23 Jan 2014 12:21:25 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . wall and SE. 78 (a) (b) A SKELETAL HISTORY OF BYZANTINE FORTIFICATION (a) Qal'at Sim'an.4 on Thu. S. Rock-cut S.198.S. tower This content downloaded from 193.PLATE 18 B.212. face of middle ward.A.

78 PLATE (a) (b) A SKELETAL HISTORY OF BYZANTINE FORTIFICATION (a) Qal'at Sim'an.4 on Thu.198.S.A. (b) Sahyun.212. Corridorto beacon.B. Byzantine curtain and tower This content downloaded from 193. 23 Jan 2014 12:21:25 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 19 .

Tower '18' seen from barbican. Hilarion. Hilarion.198. 23 Jan 2014 12:21:25 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . Entrance.S. (b) St.4 on Thu.212. Tower '18' seen from '19' This content downloaded from 193.A. 78 PLATE 20 (a) (C) (b) A SKELETAL HISTORY OF BYZANTINE FORTIFICATION (a) Ohrid. (c) St.B.

4 on Thu.212. (a) This content downloaded from 193. OF (b) '19'. St.(b) tunnel Hellenistic beside FORTIFICATION Tower BYZANTINE Pergamon. Tower HISTORY of Back SKELETAL A Hilarion. 23 Jan 2014 12:21:25 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions (a) .198.