The Fortifications of Halai:
Description, Classification, and
Dating
Dan McFadden
Senior Honors Thesis
Archaeology Program
College of Arts and Sciences
Cornell University
Submitted April 2001
ã2001 Daniel McFadden
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
ii
ABSTRACT
The
fortifications
at
Halai
are
documented
through
text
and
photographs in an attempt to compile a comprehensive record of the
site's
defensive
features.
Additionally,
those
structures
are
differentiated into four broad phases of construction based on clear
instances
of
superposition
or
structural
addition.
Through
the
application of known factors in site and regional history, those four
phases are dated to distinct periods of construction within the late
7th century, the early 5th century, the middle to late 4th century and
the late 3rd or early 2nd century B.C.
excavation,
which
has
the
Suggestions are made for further
potential
to
refine
or
interpretations of the fortification history and sequence.
iii
alter
these
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I must of course thank Prof. John Coleman for providing me with
the opportunity to do practical archaeological research both on campus
and abroad, for encouraging my inquiry into this topic and for acting
as my advisor on this paper.
Without his help and friendship none of
this would have been possible.
I also thank Prof. Joseph Rife for
taking the time to read and critique this paper.
thanks
go
to
the
Hirsch
Travel
Scholarship
Additionally, my
for
funding
my
transportation to and from Greece.
Of course, I thank the entire team of the
CHELP
2000
study
season, but most especially Frances Spalding, Yuki Furuya and Kerill
O'Neill, who were my close friends and advisors.
Additionally, Leslie
Kirchler and Mary Pearsall helped me greatly in my understanding of
the site.
I thank Krista Longo for her proofreading, her assistance with my
visuals and of course her love and support.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract
iii
Acknowledgements
iv
Table of Contents
v
List of Figures
vi
Chapter I: Introduction and Relevant Terms
1
Chapter II: Description
4
Chapter III: Classification and Relative Dating
50
Chapter IV: Absolute Dating
61
Chapter V: Concluding Remarks
70
Bibliography
72
v
LIST OF FIGURES
1a. Plan of Halai, wall stretches labeled, west portion of site
(adapted from Goldman, 1940, Plate III)
p.5
1b. Plan of Halai, wall stretches labeled, east portion of site
(adapted from Goldman, 1940, Plate III)
p.6
2a. Plan of Halai, geology of walls, east portion of site (adapted
from Merkley, 1990)
p.7
2b. Plan of Halai, geology of walls, west portion of site (adapted
from Merkley, 1990)
p.8
3.
North Gate opening from south
p.10
4.
North Gate area from east (CHELP – all figures so noted are
adapted from the records and research of the Cornell Halai and East
Lokris Project)
p.10
5.
North Gate area from east
p.13
6.
North Gate area from north (CHELP)
p.15
7.
Walls W1, W2 and W3 from north (CHELP)
p.17
8.
Wall W3 from west
p.18
9.
Wall W3 from west
p.18
10. Wall W4 from east
p.20
11. West elevation of Bastion I with cross section of Bastion II
(Adapted from Goldman, 1940, Fig. 82)
p.22
12. Wall W3 and Bastion II from west (CHELP)
p.22
13. Wall W3 and Bastion II from west (CHELP)
p.23
14. Wall W3 and Bastion II from west
p.24
15. Bastion II from south
p.24
16. Bastion I and Wall W5 within Bastion II (CHELP)
p.26
vi
17. Bastion I and Wall W5 within Bastion II
p.26
18. Cross-section of Bastion I from West (CHELP)
p.27
19. Cross-section of Bastion I from West (CHELP)
p.27
20. Cross-section of Bastion I from West
p.28
21. Wall W5 within Bastion II (CHELP)
p.31
22. Wall W6 from west
p.31
23. Walls W5, W6 and W7 from north (CHELP)
p.32
24. Walls W6 and W7 from west (CHELP)
p.32
25. SW Tower from north
p.34
26. SW Tower from east (CHELP)
p.34
27. SW Tower from south
p.35
28. SW Tower from south
p.35
29. Walls S1 and S2 from south (CHELP)
p.38
30. Wall S2 from south (CHELP)
p.38
31. SE Tower A from west (CHELP)
p.39
32. Wall NE1 from east (CHELP)
p.42
33. Wall NE1 from east (CHELP)
p.42
34. Walls NE1 and NE3 from south
p.43
35. "Stairs" in NE Tower A from east (CHELP)
p.46
36. NE Gate area from east
p.46
37. NE Tower C from south (CHELP)
p.48
38. NE Tower C from north
p.48
39a.Plan of Halai, construction types labeled, west portion of site
(adapted from Goldman, 1940, Plate III)
p.51
39b.Plan of Halai, construction types labeled, east portion of site
(adapted from Goldman, 1940, Plate III)
vii
p.52
Chapter 1: Introduction and Relevant Terms
I first became involved with the Cornell Halai and East Lokris
project during the 1999/2000 academic year while working as research
assistant for Prof. Coleman.
During the summer of 2000, I traveled to
Greece to participate in the study season at Halai.
After I had worked for about a week with the site preservation
team, Prof. Coleman asked me to document some of the peculiar features
of the North Gate area.
I began this task, but found it difficult to
draw reliable conclusions.
Ironically, while the fortifications are
the largest continuous piece of architecture on the site, they suffer
most from a lack of documentation.
The primary resource for such
information is the 1940 report on Halai by Hetty Goldman, the original
excavator.
However,
her
interpretation
is
unreliable
in
several
respects.
First of all, Goldman's description of the fortification
structures
is
catalogue
and
often
confused
interpret
her
by
her
finds.
attempts
Second,
her
to
simultaneously
description
and
interpretation obviously cannot include information more current than
1940, such as the CHELP's geological and historical studies and recent
general works on fortifications by authors like A. W. McNicoll, F. E.
Winter and John Fossey.
of
the
site
has
Lastly, and most importantly, the appearance
changed
dramatically
since
Goldman's
excavation
concluded.
Many features that she discussed are no longer visible or
have
damaged
been
recognition.
by
weathering
and
road
construction
beyond
Together, these factors made efforts to investigate the
site's fortifications based on Goldman's report untenable.
1
Consequently, the purpose of my work on the site shifted from the
interpretation of unusual features towards documentation of substance
and
sequence.
I
have
continued
objectives of this thesis.
this
trend
when
defining
the
I hope primarily to generate a single
comprehensive record of Halai's fortifications, a record that will
include
information
from
Goldman's
study,
from
CHELP's
analysis and from my own observations of the site.
geological
Additionally, I
will offer my interpretation of the relative sequence of the materials
and will present information that suggests possibilities for absolute
dating.
I see this as a chance to create a resource that will allow
others to investigate the site's defenses without having to piece
together
information
from
Goldman,
CHELP
and
modern
fortification
studies.
Below is a glossary of technical terms that may of use to the
reader (McNicoll, 1997 Glossary and Scranton, 1941 16-23):
ashlar masonry – construction using rectangular blocks
axial gate – gate opening that meets the wall at a near right
angle
beveled margins – incised angled band running around the edges of
a block face
drafted margins – incised flat band running around the edges of a
block face
emplecton – construction style consisting of two walls connected
by internal cross-members
isodomic – having courses of roughly equal height
jog – short lateral offset in a wall's course
2
lesbian masonry – construction using multi-lateral blocks with
curving sides; often difficult to distinguish from polygonal masonry
polygonal masonry – construction using multi-lateral blocks with
straight sides
postern – small gate
psuedo-isodomic – having courses of differing heights
quarry face – surface finish that reflects little further work
after removal of a stone from the quarry
tangential gate – gate that runs nearly parallel to the course of
a wall
trapezoidal masonry – construction using blocks in which only two
opposing sides are parallel
tooled work – surface finish that reflects significant smoothing
but is not finely polished
3
Chapter 2: Description
Introduction to the Site and Fortifications
Halai, once a small coastal town in East Lokris that spanned the
Archaic,
Classical
and
Hellenistic
Greek
eras,
is
equipped
with
fortifications that exemplify simplicity of design and complexity of
execution.
picture
Since excavation began in 1911, an increasingly complex
has
emerged
of
Halai's
walls
and
other
fortification
first
glance
structures.
The
plan
of
the
fortifications
seems
relatively simple (Fig. 1a, 1b, 2a and 2b).
at
to
be
The inner fortifications
enclose a rectangular area running ca. 160m along a NW/SE axis and of
ca. 70m in width (Coleman, 1992 270).
One or two towers, either
rectangular or semi-circular, guard each corner of the acropolis.
Two
gates, a main gate in the NE corner and a smaller entrance along the
North wall, are immediately apparent, and a large bastion is stationed
on the west wall looking out into the harbor.
suggested
the
presence
of
an
outer
Surface survey has
fortification
perhaps 60,000 square meters (Coleman, 1992 267).
wall
enclosing
Unfortunately, this
simplicity is illusory. When examined in depth, many systems, defined
by varying combinations of 4 masonry types, at least 3 geological
classes and numerous areas of structural addition and modification,
emerge from the network.
To complicate matters, soil buildup since
the original excavation, backfill from subsequent excavations, road
construction (the South wall is now essentially separated from the
rest of the site) and stone erosion due to the corrosive salts of the
4
Fig. 1a
Plan of Halai, wall stretches labeled, west portion of the site
(adapted from Goldman, 1940, Plate III)
5
Fig. 1b
Plan of Halai, wall stretches labeled, east portion of the site
(adapted from Goldman, 1940, Plate III)
6
Fig. 2a
Plan of Halai, geology of walls, west portion of the site
Blue-Conglomeratic Limestone; Green-Oolitic Limestone; Yellow-Other
(adapted from Merkley, 1990)
7
Fig. 2b
Plan of Halai, geology of walls, east portion of the site
Blue-Conglomeratic Limestone; Green-Oolitic Limestone; Yellow-Other
(adapted from Merkley, 1990)
8
maritime environment have all served to obscure the features of the
site.
Since my first objective in writing this paper is to compile a
definitive record of the excavated elements of Halai's fortifications,
it is my intention now to describe to the reader the facts of the case
without including much interpretation or analysis.
For the most part,
this information is drawn from personal observations from my time at
the site.
However, in two instances I will draw upon other sources.
First, many areas of the fortifications that were once visible during
the initial excavations (i.e. the NW tower and portions of the West
Wall) are now obscured by soil or debris, and I was unable to observe
them.
In such instances I will draw largely on the information from
the Goldman excavation.
Second, because my work on the site focussed
on the North and West walls, I will draw on outside sources when
discussing the Sea Wall and the NE Gate area.
The North Gate Area
Comprising
the
North
Gate
and
the
stretches
of
wall
running
immediately to its East and West, the North Gate area serves as a
convenient starting point in an examination of the Halai fortification
structures.
The gate itself is a small axial opening, roughly 1.7m in
diameter, in the northern fortification wall (Fig. 3).
To the East, a wall (designated on the plan as N1) approximately
3.7m thick marks the continuing boundary of the site (Fig. 4).
N1 is
founded on a socle which protrudes roughly 0.15m beyond the rest of
the wall.
The top of this socle (presumably approximate ground level
9
Fig. 3 - North Gate opening from the south
Fig. 4 – North Gate area from the east (CHELP)
10
at the time of construction) is located at 1.60 MASL.
The character
of N1's masonry is variable. East of the gate, the first 6.5m can be
characterized as essentially polygonal (although with some trapezoidal
and lesbian elements) with a quarry face, after which there is a
clearly defined transition to large rubble masonry.
The stones that
compose the corners of the gate entrance itself are noticeably larger
and more carefully shaped than other stones in N1, which tend to be
more rectangular and to have irregular curves rather than precise
polygonal corners. The rubble and polygonal sections of the wall are
structurally integrated with one another, and the core of the wall is
rubble throughout. The polygonal section of the wall is preserved to a
uniform exterior height of 2.75 MASL, while the interior of the wall
is less uniform and is preserved to between 3.25 and 3.40 MASL. CHELP
has identified the geologic composition of N1 as "other", a mixture of
wackstones, packstones and grainstones (Merkley, 1990).
These stones
are very light gray in color, and some have taken on a slightly orange
tint.
To the West of the North Gate lie two distinct stretches of wall;
the stretch closer to the gate opening I will designate N2 and the
further stretch N3.
Wall N2 is roughly 3-3.1m thick, and is founded
on socle of roughly the same proportions of that of N1.
gate
opening,
the
first
4.17m
of
N2
can
be
West of the
characterized
as
essentially the same as the polygonal length of N1 discussed above.
Beyond
the
polygonal
length,
there
is
a
brief
(~0.6m)
stretch
of
rubble masonry, much like the rubble masonry of N1, before wall N2 is
obscured
beneath
unexcavated
soil.
11
It
is
difficult
to
determine
whether or not the rubble portion of N2 continues on under N3 (the
base of N3 is approximately 1.5m higher in elevation than the base of
N2).
Unlike N1, the rubble and polygonal sections in N2 connect to
each other but are not integrated structurally.
had a rubble core.
Both appear to have
The exterior face of the wall is preserved to an
average height of 2.98 MASL and the interior face is preserved to an
average 3.24 MASL.
The geologic composition of N2 also falls into the
"other" category, which in this case represents a mix of packstones
and wackstones (Merkley, 1990).
The stones of N2 are the same color
as those in N1.
West of N2, there is a small lapse of about .2m in length in the
continuity
of
excavation)
the
after
wall
which
(which
the
may
simply
fortification
radically in terms of masonry and elevation.
represent
system
incomplete
changes
quite
As stated previously,
the elevation of the base of N3 is roughly 1.5m higher than that of N2
(Fig. 5).
N3 is not in line with N2, but rather jogs out to the north
about 0.17m.
Additionally, unlike the basically polygonal design of
N1 or N2's masonry, N3 is made up of coursed, roughly rectangular
blocks.
These blocks show very little effort towards finishing their
exteriors, and in some cases could perhaps be classified as rubble.
Wall N3's width is variable, but seems to hover around 2.15 meters.
The interior face of the wall is not present (just elements of a
rubble core), so the original width of the structure cannot be known.
N3 is not founded on any definite socle, although in some areas the
lowest preserved course protrudes up to 0.20m out from the course
above. Merkley has classified the geology of N3 as "other", a mix of
12
Fig. 5 – North Gate area from the east
13
mainly wackstones and packstones with a few smaller stones of other
types included in the rubble core (Merkley, 1990).
Distinctive from
the color of N1 or N2, the stones in N3 are dark gray.
Several stones lie flat at ground level across the North Gate
aperture, and presumably served as a sort of pavement for the gate.
One such stone exhibits an arching trough, apparently for drainage,
cut through its underside in a N/S direction.
Additionally, the upper
face of this stone features two dowel marks, located about a meter
from each other and each about 0.05m across, which may have served as
holders for gate posts.
The stones lying at ground level within the
gate have been identified by Merkley as Oolitic Limestone (Merkley
1990).
Photographs from the Goldman era show that these stones once
served as a platform for large ashlar masonry blocks that were used to
wall off this gate (Fig. 6).
However, Goldman's report provides very
little other information on these sealing stones other than the mere
fact
of
their
existence.
She
asserts
that
the
ashlar
blocks
are
similar to those in the West wall (she actually claims reuse, but
offers no evidence that it is not simply contemporary construction),
but does not specify which section of the West wall or any other
details regarding the blocks (Goldman, 1940 384).
The NW Tower
Stationed on the NW corner of the fortifications, the NW Tower is
today obscured by debris.
Goldman observed that the tower is a semi-
circular construction approximately 6.20m in diameter that would have
passed through the thickness of the North wall and simply abutted
14
Fig. 6 – North Gate area from the north (CHELP)
against
Goldman’s
the
outer
plan
face
seems
to
of
the
West
indicate
the
wall
(Goldman,
existence
of
1940
some
384).
type
of
protruding foundation course, but her written account does not mention
one.
The NW tower’s blocks are wedge shaped and are conglomeratic
limestone (Merkley 1990).
The West Wall and Bastion Structures
The West Wall and its associated structures are some of the most
confused
elements
of
the
fortification
15
network.
The
area
was
obviously
the
site
of
extensive
and
frequent
reconstruction
and
patching, which Goldman attributes to a combination of deep topsoil
(providing
poor
foundation
(Goldman, 1940 385).
stability)
and
frequent
earthquakes
Masonry types and wall stretches exist on top
of, next to, and even within one another.
This area is promising in
terms of developing a sequence of wall construction, but first it must
be sorted into distinct structural units.
Immediately south of the NW tower, three stretches of wall form
the
northern
component
of
the
West
Wall.
Apparently
connected
directly to the NW Tower (in fact passing within the tower), a stretch
of wall, which I will designate as W1, is mentioned in the Goldman
report.
Although no longer visible, W1 was at one time uncovered as a
single course foundation running almost in line with the rest of the
West Wall, but skewed slightly clockwise (Fig. 7).
Goldman’s only
comment on the composition of W1 is that it is similar to other
polygonal stretches on West Wall (Goldman, 1940 385).
Passing slightly to the West of W1, wall stretches W2 and W3
comprise
the
outer
surface
of
the
northern
West
Wall.
W2,
the
northern of the two lengths, is a rubble wall that is a mix of small,
dark gray stones that are completely unworked and larger, light gray
stones that appear to have undergone some shaping and smoothing.
is
currently
preserved
0.5-1.0m
above
ground
level,
and
W2
Goldman’s
photos hint that it may extend at least a small amount below current
ground level.
Wall
W3,
a
13.4m
stretch
that
runs
up
against
the
structures, is presently preserved 0.5-1.5m above ground level,
16
Bastion
Fig. 7 – Walls W1, W2 and W3 from the north (CHELP)
although Goldman reports that, when completely exposed, W3 stood at a
height of 2.4m (Fig. 8 and 9) (Goldman, 1940 385). The masonry of W3
cannot be easily fit into any established category, for it combines
elements of polygonal, lesbian and trapezoidal masonry types.
The
stones have a quarry face finish, and their shape can be described as
rough polygonal, a melding of the structural simplicity of rectangular
17
Fig. 8 – Wall W3 from the west
Fig. 9 – Wall W3 from the west
18
stones with the stylistic concerns of curvature and irregularity of
shape. The masonry of W3 seems to be a more economical rendition of
the style of N1 and N2.
Geologically, W3 is also much like N1 and N2,
in that its stones are light gray in color and are composed of a mix
of
packstones,
preserved
to
a
wackstones
thickness
and
of
grainstones
0.8-1.6m,
(Merkley
and
the
1990).
inner
face
W3
is
is
the
remains of a rubble and soil core.
To the east of W1, W2 and W3 (within the acropolis) there is a
stretch of wall, W4, which may at one time have formed the inner face
of the fortification structure (Fig. 10).
If that was the case, then
the certain sections of the West Wall may have been as much as 4m
thick.
Preserved to one or two courses in height, W4 is composed of
gray ashlar blocks that are approximately 1m long, 0.45m in height,
and 0.5m thick.
The interior faces of the stones of W4 have drafted
edges of varying width, and many stones have a vertically furrowed
finish.
The exterior faces of W4 are obscured by soil and rubble,
which is either the remains of the fortification wall's rubble core or
simply debris from the rubble core of W3.
The ashlar blocks are
composed of oolitic limestone (Merkley 1990).
Two tower-like structures lie to the immediate south of wall W3
and
are
the
most
striking
features
of
the
West
Wall.
Goldman
designated them Bastions I and II, and I will continue to use those
titles. Bastion I, the rectangular structure whose long axis runs
parallel to the rest of the West Wall, was at some point demolished
down to its foundation, and Bastion II, the roughly square structure,
was built on the remains. Elements of Bastion II pass through gaps
19
Fig. 10 – Wall W4 from the east
torn
at
specific
points
in
the
foundation
remnants
of
Bastion
I.
These features are indicative of the multiple periods of extensive
modification that exist within the site's fortifications.
Bastion II was built to be structurally independent from wall W3.
Paralleling wall W3, part of the bastion overlaps the exterior of that
wall to the west (Fig. 11-14).
three
courses
above
partially buried.
ground
This overlap is preserved today to
level,
although
the
lowest
course
is
Drawings from the Goldman era indicate that the
overlapping stretch of Bastion II stonework is not supported below
that lowest course by any sort of foundation, and it may be assumed
that it simply rested on the soil (Goldman, 1940 431).
significant separation between the overlap and wall W3.
20
There is no
The actual structure of Bastion II is preserved to as many as
nine courses, all of which are visible within its hollow inner area.
Very little debris has collected within that space, so ground level
there
is
now
only
slightly
higher
during the Goldman excavation.
(perhaps
0.5-1.0m)
than
it
was
This is in contrast to the ground
level outside of the bastion, where soil buildup has obscured all but
two to four courses. Bastion II is built of isodomic ashlar blocks of
conglomeratic limestone (Merkley 1990).
The stones possess a very
distinct red coloring and a porous, brittle texture.
These blocks,
those in Bastion II and similar stones elsewhere on the site, have
experienced very heavy weathering and erosion.
However, it is clear
from Goldman's photos and from some well-preserved elements of the
site that the reddish ashlar blocks were generally given a "tooled
work" finish and either drafted or beveled margins (Goldman 1940,
389).
In the case of Bastion II, fully drafted margins are still
visible on many stones (Fig. 15).
The first six courses of Bastion II
are
of
composed
almost
exclusively
headers,
while
courses above that level are exclusively stretchers.
change
in
orientation
was
made
in
order
to
all
remaining
Presumably, this
balance
structural
robusticity with concerns about aesthetics and efficiency of material
usage.
By utilizing headers for the lower section of the bastion, the
structure's architect was able to maximize the stability and strength
of the foundation.
portion
complete
of
Bastion
the
Alternatively, the use of stretchers in the upper
II
structure
reduced
and
the
may
amount
have
of
brought
stone
the
necessary
bastion
compliance with the stylistic and aesthetic norms of the time.
21
A
to
into
Fig. 11 – West elevation of Bastion I with cross-section of Bastion II
(adapted from Goldman, 1940, fig. 82)
Fig. 12 – Wall W3 and Bastion II from the west (CHELP)
22
Fig. 13 – Wall W3 and Bastion II from the west (CHELP)
23
Fig. 14 – Wall W3 and Bastion II from the west
Fig. 15 – Bastion II from the south
24
testament to the stability of the structure, the elevation of the
upper face of the topmost header course (course six) is between 3.65
and 3.70 MASL on all four sides.
Bastion I exists today in three parts: a stretch of wall within
Bastion II, headers south of Bastion II that protrude out of the west
wall, and remnants of the platform that would have rested on the
bastion.
The stretch of wall within Bastion II is preserved to a
maximum of three courses (approximately 1.20m) above present ground
level,
while
the
protruding
courses (Fig. 16 and 17).
headers
are
preserved
to
about
four
In both cases, the isodomic ashlar masonry
of the walls is oolitic limestone, which is gray in color and shows
some moderate signs of weathering and erosion (Merkley 1990).
The
headers, which must have marked the southern boundary of Bastion I,
are not structurally integrated with the wall to their south; they
simply pass through the wall.
Between Bastion II and the Bastion I headers to its south, the
platform that rested within Bastion I is visible in cross section
(Fig. 18-20). Several large gray stones, resting on a bed of rubble
fill, clearly relate to the floor pavement of the structure that abuts
the inner face of the fortification wall in this area.
The floor
pavement is oolitic limestone, like the other elements of the Bastion
I
(Merkley
1990).
At
some
point,
this
platform
extension
was
truncated to bring it flush with the exterior of the rest of the West
Wall, and reddish ashlar blocks like those of Bastion II were placed
on top of the outer remaining edge of the platform.
This construction
generated the interesting cross section, which displays the rubble
25
Fig. 16 – Bastion I and Wall W5 within Bastion II (CHELP)
Fig. 17 – Bastion I and Wall W5 within Bastion II
26
Fig. 18 – Cross-section of Bastion I from the west (CHELP)
Fig. 19 – Cross-section of Bastion I from the west (CHELP)
27
Fig. 20 – Cross-section of Bastion I from the west
28
fill of Bastion I, the gray pavement stones of the Bastion I platform,
and the reddish Bastion II stones which transformed an open space into
a defensive wall.
Complete exposure of Bastion I
revealed
the
calculated
northernmost
its
total
boundary
length
at
during
of
the
11.10m
the
Goldman
excavation
structure,
and
Goldman
(Goldman
1940,
432).
Additionally, Goldman observed two courses of protruding foundation
stones, and that the northern stretch of the Bastion I structure abuts
wall W3, but does not pass through it (Goldman 1940, 432).
Goldman
hypothesized that the platform on and to the east of Bastion I was the
site of the early Classical Temple of Athena (Goldman 1940, 430).
In addition to the two bastions, a stretch of wall, W5, exists
within and to the south of Bastion II.
The main portion of W5,
located to the south of Bastion II, is no longer visible.
However,
Goldman reported that this portion of W5 is 5.70m in length and is
located approximately 3m to the west of the outer face of the West
Wall (Goldman, 1940 386).
Additionally, Goldman observed that this
portion of W5 was composed of a mixture of stone types.
Based on this
mixture of stonework, Goldman concluded that W5 served to stabilize
the soil in the West Wall area and that this wall was not meant to be
visible (Goldman, 1940 386).
Strangely, Goldman failed to document in
writing or on her plan a portion of W5 within Bastion II (Fig. 21).
The stretch of wall is quite clearly visible in several photographs
from the Goldman era, however, and it lines up quite nicely with the
trace of the southern portion of W5 reported earlier.
The northern
element of W5 lies 1.5m west of the exterior face of the Bastion I
29
structure and is approximately 2.5m in length. It is preserved to two
courses,
one
of
which
is
a
socle,
above
present
ground
level.
Although this section of W5 has not been studied geologically, the
stones
that
compose
the
structure
at
least
superficially
resemble
those identified as oolitic limestone elsewhere on the site.
The remaining portions of the West Wall, W6 and W7, have been
heavily obscured and confused by road construction and erosion.
W6,
composed of oolitic limestone isodomic ashlar blocks, is preserved to
about 4.2 MASL, which works out to be four courses above present
ground
level
(Merkley,
1990).
Interestingly,
the
stones
above
approximately 3.2 MASL (two courses above present ground level) are
heavily worn while those below that level show comparatively little
deterioration (Fig. 22). Goldman reported that "the fill of this mend
wall…
contained
terracottas
tile
similar
(Goldman, 1940 385)
fragments
to
those
as
well
as
bits
of
architectural
found
in
the
fill
of
Bastion
II."
W6 runs along the exterior of W7, and Goldman
believed that W6 was designed to prevent the forward collapse of its
counterpart (Fig 23) (Goldman, 1940 385).
Wall W7 is a composite of
two different masonry types, a rough polygonal style similar to that
of W3 and ashlar blocks.
Unfortunately, most of the rough polygonal
section was destroyed by road construction in the southern area of the
site.
What is left has been identified as a mixture of packstone and
grainstone, which fall into Merkley's "other" category, lying on a
foundation of conglomeratic limestone (Merkley, 1990). In some areas
of W7, ashlar blocks of pink, brittle conglomeratic limestone were
positioned on top of the rough polygonal portion (Merkley, 1990).
30
Taken
together,
walls
W6
and
W7
give
the
impression
of
ashlar
modification to stabilize and enhance a preexisting rough polygonal
structure (Fig. 24).
Fig. 21 – Wall W5 within Bastion II (CHELP)
Fig. 22 – Wall W6 from the west
31
Fig. 23 – Walls W5-7 from the north (CHELP)
Fig. 24 – Walls W6 and W7 from the west (CHELP)
32
The SW Tower
To the south of W7, the flight of the West Wall smoothly rotates
about 180 degrees to the east until it finally abuts against the
exterior face of the South Wall.
This forms a protruding (about 2.40m
beyond the flight of the South Wall), semi-circular tower that is
similar in design and construction to the NW tower (Goldman, 1940
386).
The lowest courses of the tower are built of wedge-shaped
blocks of conglomeratic limestone, and upper courses of "other" stones
(in
this
foundation
case
(Fig.
packstone
25)
and
grainstone)
(Merkley,
1990).
lie
atop
Preserved
this
to
distinct
roughly
courses, the stones are dark gray to light brown in color.
two
The
external faces of the stones of the SW tower are strongly reminiscent
of the rough polygonal work previously described, although faces of
the masonry in the SW tower are slightly more uniform and square
shaped than most of the rough polygonal (Fig. 26).
The stones in this
section of the SW tower are remarkably well preserved considering
their constant exposure to salt water and wave action.
In addition to the outer layer of masonry mentioned above, one
area of the SW Tower incorporates an inner layer (Fig. 27 and 28).
In
the western part of the tower, an inner wall of stone mirrors the
curve of the outer tower layer, and a layer of rubble fill between the
two is visible in the scarp.
Merkley identified the inner layer of
stones as conglomeratic limestone, and the color and texture of the
stone closely resembles the pink ashlar found elsewhere on the site
(Merkley, 1990).
The stones of the inner layer appear to be roughly
33
Fig. 25 – SW Tower from the north
Fig. 26 – SW Tower from the east (CHELP)
34
Fig. 27 – SW Tower from the south
Fig. 28 – SW Tower from the south
35
rectangular, although significant erosion has obscured most aspects of
shape and finish.
The South Wall
Running along the coast of the Bay of Theologos, the South Wall
is really the fusion of two distinct wall segments.
Composed of
stones similar to the other rough polygonal work on the site, Wall S1
runs eastward from the SW Tower for approximately 28m before turning
to the northeast into the site itself (Goldman, 1940 386). S1 cuts
diagonally
across
the
SE
corner
of
the
acropolis,
and
its
flight
shifts subtly northward as it retreats from the sea to bring S1 to the
Northeast Gate region.
Merkley has identified the coastal portion of
S1, which is heavily weathered and is preserved to only one course, as
conglomeratic
limestone
(Merkley,
1990).
Alternatively,
Merkley
labels the portion of S1 that retracts in toward the acropolis, a
portion that is preserved to several courses, a mixture of "other"
stones (Merkley, 1990).
This does not represent two distinct types of
construction, but is merely another example (similar to the SW tower)
in the rough polygonal style of the use of conglomeratic limestone for
foundations and other types of stone for wall faces.
Goldman reports
that the width of S1 was roughly 1.8m, except in close proximity to
the NE Gate, where the thickness of S1 increased to 3.40m (Goldman,
1940 388).
S1
near
Additionally, she mentions that the physical qualities of
the
NE
Gate
are
quite
surrounding the North Gate.
36
similar
to
those
of
the
walls
At several points along S1 and to the west of the SW tower, rows
of rectangular foundation stones are visible jutting out into the sea.
Goldman identified these structural remnants as the remains of ship
sheds on the basis of grooves in the stone that she felt would be
useful for dragging ships down to or away from the shoreline (Goldman,
1940 397).
However, since these foundations hug the South Wall and
then diverge westward as the inner fortifications swing north, it
seems possible that such remnants represent the trace of an outer
fortification wall that was forced by the coastline to veer into close
proximity to the inner fortifications (Coleman, 1992 268).
At the point where S1 begins its turn northward, Wall S2 was
constructed in order to enlarge the enclosed area of the acropolis
(Fig. 29).
S2 is built of isodomic ashlar blocks that are arranged
into two layers which were then tied together by headers, a feature
which produces a compartmentalized structure within the wall.
The
hollow compartments were filled with loose rubble stone geologically
similar to that of the wall's ashlar blocks (Goldman, 1940 393).
The
reddish, brittle quality of the stone is similar to that of Bastion
II, and photos from the Goldman era indicate a tooled finish and
beveled margins (Fig. 30) (Merkley 1990).
S2 is on average about 2.7m
thick and its chambers vary in length between 2.7m and 3.5m (Goldman,
1940
393).
Goldman
believed
that
the
ashlar
blocks
used
in
the
construction of S2 were of two standardized sizes, one approximately
1.20m long and another roughly 0.90m in length (Goldman, 1940 393).
A
socle protrudes about 0.35m beyond the face of the upper courses.
Within the 6.5m of S2 closest to S1, S2 is only one layer thick, a
37
Fig. 29 – Walls S1 and S2 from the south (CHELP)
Fig. 30 – Wall S2 from the south (CHELP)
38
fact which Goldman felt indicated the use of part of S1 as the inner
face in order to maximize available resources (Goldman, 1940 386).
The SE Towers
East of S2, the SE corner of the site is marked by two square
towers.
red,
Both towers are constructed of isodomic ashlar blocks of the
brittle
conglomeratic
limestone
(Merkley
1990).
The
more
southern of the two, which I will label SE Tower A, is a 6.30m by
6.30m square (Fig. 31) (Goldman, 1940 393).
The tower walls are built
of stretchers, but the structure appears to have been grounded on a
foundation on one or two courses of headers.
Just to the north of the
NE corner of SE Tower A, Goldman's plan indicates the presence of a
short stretch of ashlar wall, which I have designated SE2.
Goldman
does not mention this stretch in her report, and its composition and
significance remain a mystery.
Fig. 31 – SE Tower A from the west (CHELP)
39
Following
a
short
segment
of
wall
designated
SE1,
which
is
essentially identical to S2 and cuts the SE corner of the site, SE
Tower B is situated slightly north of the corner where SE1 turns
toward the NE Gate.
SE Tower B is a 5.70m by 6.20m rectangle, and is
braced internally by cross walls that intersect each other at a right
angle (Goldman, 1940 393).
Poor preservation and visibility limit the
extent to which SE Tower B can be observed.
The NE Gate Region
The main entrance into the acropolis, the NE Gate, is a quite
complicated area due to frequent reconstruction to protect and enhance
this vulnerable and critical section of the fortifications.
Debris,
fill and erosion have obscured much of this area (with the notable
exceptions
of
westernmost
the
round
walls),
challenging.
thus
tower,
the
rendering
"stairs",
and
description
some
and
of
the
analysis
For this reason, the following description is based
largely on Goldman's writings about the NE Gate area.
As wall S1 runs northeastward through the site, it eventually
makes a sudden turn to the west, a turn that generates the southern
boundary of a gateway.
A large rectangular structure, presumably a
tower or bastion of some sort, was built upon the site of this turn in
order
to
foundation
provide
stones,
flanking
which
protection
have
been
for
the
labeled
gate.
"other"
Only
the
(packstone,
wackstone and grainstone) by Merkley, are still in place, a fact which
makes further description impossible.
40
North of the gateway, Wall NE1 served as the northern boundary of
Gate 1, the existence of which is indicated by a single block with a
gate-post dowel mark (Goldman, 1940 392).
Wall NE1 is founded on a
socle which extends some 0.20m-0.30m beyond the exterior face of the
wall.
The masonry of NE1, geologically composed of a variety of
stones from the "other" category, is unique on the site in that it is
made up of very large (up to a 1m in height) polygonal stones (Fig.
32-34)
(Merkley
1990).
While
many
of
the
larger
stones
have
a
curving, lesbian shape, smaller stones incorporated to fill in the
gaps exhibit a much more polygonal or trapezoidal quality.
The wall
itself is only 1.7m wide, but stone fill was added behind the interior
face
in
order
to
lend
additional
strength
to
the
structure.
Significantly, Goldman mentions that "the few sherds found among the
stones [of the fill behind NE1] were of the Neolithic period," a fact
which suggests that this wall was constructed at the very beginning of
the post-Neolithic habitation of the site (Goldman, 1940 391).
NE1
runs northward for 17.60m before coming into contact with the eastern
extremity of a wall, N4, running in an east/west direction (Goldman,
1940 390).
N4 is not currently visible, and Goldman documented no
further information on that stretch.
south-facing
portion
of
NE1,
a
Connected to the exterior of the
single
stone
bearing
a
gatepost
incision was uncovered during the Goldman excavation (Goldman, 1940
392).
This area is designated Gate 1.
NE
Tower
permutations.
A,
Goldman's
At
first,
the
"pear-shaped
tower
seems
tower",
to
have
circular extension off the eastern periphery of N4.
41
exists
been
in
a
three
roughly
However, at some
Fig. 32 – Wall NE1 from the east (CHELP)
Fig. 33 – Wall NE1 from the east (CHELP)
42
Fig. 34 – Wall NE1 and NE3 from the south
later point a short stretch of wall, NE2, was incorporated to connect
the south boundary of NE Tower A with the outer face of NE1.
composed
of
various
(Merkley 1990).
grainstone
and
types
of
packstone,
grainstone
and
NE2 is
rudstone
Finally, Wall NE 3, again a mixture of packstone,
rudstone,
was
constructed
in
order
to
completely
encapsulate NE Tower A and to extend outward the exterior of the
northern fortification wall.
Stylistically, Wall NE 3 is similar to
the rough polygonal earlier mentioned.
The triangular space left
between walls NE1, NE2 and NE3 was filled with large stones to augment
43
the robustness of the structure (Goldman, 1940 391). Over time, this
tower was expanded into a truly massive bastion.
The most intriguing features of NE3 are the modifications made to
its
western
and
eastern
extremities.
To
the
west,
NE3
modified by the addition of a stretch of ashlar masonry.
has
been
The ashlar
portion is presently preserved to roughly two courses above ground
level, and some of the stones show evidence of drafted margins.
lowest
course
of
this
stretch
of
NE3
is
composed
of
The
oolitic
grainstone, while the courses above that are conglomeratic limestone
(Merkley 1990).
At the interface between ashlar and rough polygonal
masonry within this area of NE3, Goldman uncovered pavement stones
with slots for the insertion of gateposts.
A 2.00m wide opening
situated on a 2.80m wide road, this gate is designated as Gate 2
(Goldman, 1940, 388).
Merkley has positively identified the southern
of the two gatepost stones as oolitic grainstone (albeit slightly less
pure and more durable than the rest of the oolitic grainstone on the
site),
and
the
northern
stone
as
conglomeratic
limestone
(Merkley
1990).
In the eastern area of NE3, two modifications have been applied.
First,
a
set
of
"steps"
was
inserted
into
the
exterior
of
NE3.
Preserved to about five courses, the steps each rise between 0.23m and
0.29m
(Fig.
35)
(Goldman,
1940
392).
Geologically,
the
steps,
composed of packstone, fall into Merkley's "other" category (Merkley,
1990).
Goldman notes that the lowest course of NE3 passes below the
steps, and that the stones of the square tower to the north of the
steps
have
in
some
cases
been
trimmed
44
to
allow
for
the
addition
(Goldman, 1940 388).
Goldman believed that the steps at one time led
up to the top of NE Tower A or to the space between NE1, 2 and 3
(Goldman, 1940 388 and 392).
Thus, according to her analysis, these
steps may have functioned as a peculiar form of postern.
Abutting the steps, a stretch of wall, NE4, covers the exterior
face of NE3 (Fig. 36).
Preserved to two courses, NE4 consists of a
socle of oolitic grainstone placed underneath a layer of ashlar blocks
of "other" stone (in this case, rudstone). Goldman reports finding a
late
Hellenistic
tile
fragment
within
the
structure
of
this
wall
(Goldman, 1940, 395).
As part of the refurbishing that enclosed the SE corner of the
site, extensive modifications were made to the NE Gate and surrounding
areas.
Running north from SE Tower B, Wall E1 protected the region to
the south of the NE Gate.
37.50m long, E1 is composed of ashlar
blocks made from the same reddish conglomeratic limestone as S2 and
the
two
SE
towers
(Goldman,
1940
394).
E1
has
a
compartmented
structure similar to that of S2, and in Goldman's time was preserved
to five courses above a socle (Goldman, 1940 394).
Just south of the
round tower, a short stretch of wall runs eastward from the exterior
of E1 and then turns abruptly to the north.
Its masonry is identical
to that of E1, and Goldman believed that it may have functioned to
support a shelter for sentries (Goldman, 1940 394).
It is currently
preserved to a maximum of three courses above ground level.
Goldman
identified the small aperture in the western wall of this structure as
a limekiln opening made long after Wall E1's original construction and
use (Goldman, 1940 394).
45
Fig. 35 – “Stairs in NE Tower A from the east (CHELP)
Fig. 36 – NE Gate area from the east
46
The round tower, NE Tower C, defends the southern approach to the
NE Gate.
Possessing a diameter of 6.53m, the NE Tower C presently
consists of two courses of headers serving as the socle on which lie
three courses of stretchers (Fig. 37) (Goldman, 1940 394).
Interior
cross-bracing serves to strengthen the tower in a fashion similar to
that of SE Tower B.
This cross-bracing is not structurally integrated
with the rest of the tower's stonework (Fig. 38).
NE Tower C is
composed ashlar blocks, frequently finished with drafted margins, of
pink conglomeratic limestone.
On the NE exterior face of this tower,
an extra layer of oolitic limestone ashlar blocks essentially doubles
the thickness of the tower wall (Merkley, 1990).
Reaching westward, Wall NE5 forms a shallow curve that connected
NE Tower C to the interior gate structure, Gate 3.
It is important to
note that NE5 does not connect to any portion of S1, and so a useful
gate would have to be located between the straightened western portion
of NE5 and the southern face of NE3 or NE4.
Goldman estimates that
such a gate would have been approximately 3m in diameter (Goldman,
1940
395).
Incorporating
reddish
ashlar
blocks
and
inward-reaching
straps, NE5 is geologically and structurally identical to structures
like Wall E1.
NE5 is currently preserved to about two courses and its
curved portion is roughly 9.30m long (Goldman, 1940, 394).
An interior stretch of stone, NE6, forms Goldman's "bench" within
the curve of NE5.
NE6, which in Goldman's time consisted of ashlar
blocks about 0.50m tall and 0.50-0.60m wide (it is now significantly
degenerated),
is
composed
of
a
mixture
of
oolitic
packstone (Goldman, 1940 394 and Merkley, 1990).
47
grainstone
and
It is structurally
Fig. 37 – NE Tower C from the south (CHELP)
Fig. 38 – NE Tower C from the north
48
distinct from NE5.
Goldman felt that this bench was likely a rest
area for travelers awaiting admission at the gates.
Finally, the last element of the NE Gate in need of description
is NE Tower B, the roughly square tower to the north of the gate
opening.
Geologically composed of reddish conglomeratic limestone, NE
Tower B is built of ashlar stretchers which lie on a socle of headers
(Merkley, 1990).
Overlain by a late Roman bathhouse, very little of
this tower is currently visible and even in Goldman's time only one
course existed above the socle(Goldman, 1940 394).
The tower, which
is approximately 6.30m square, ties into the eastern extremity of NE 3
via two straps, which are also founded on socle.
Assuming that this
tower was in use concurrently with NE Tower C, the width of the
opening between the two would have been 3.38m, a distance which would
have widened to 8.85m between NE5 and NE3 (Goldman, 1940 394).
It
should be noted that the walls of NE Tower B do not run parallel to
the
walls
of
E1
or
S2,
but
are
rather
skewed
slightly
counter-
clockwise.
The North Wall
On Goldman's plan, a stretch of wall is visible between the North
Gate and NE Gate areas.
This stretch, N5, is not currently visible,
and no reference is made to it in Goldman's 1940 report.
On the plan,
the structure of the wall looks quite similar to that of N3, S1 and
NE3, but of course it is not possible to draw any concrete conclusions
from this information alone.
49
Chapter 3: Classification and Relative Dating
"Although it may be impossible to find a universally valid
sequence of masonry, it is, I think, probable that in a particular
region at a certain time a sequence can be arranged or a predominant
style identified."
-McNicoll, 1997 p. 3
As is clear from the descriptive element of this paper, the
analysis
of
Halai's
fortifications
immense complexity of the remains.
is
a
daunting
task
due
to
the
However, distinctions of masonry,
material and style within fortifications indicate the presence of four
broad phases of construction.
Additionally, it appears likely that
subdivisions exist within two of those more general phases.
Finally,
certain instances of superposition or structural addition within the
network resolve the various phases of construction into a relative
chronological sequence. This chapter is devoted to such broad patterns
of construction on the site and their implications for a relative
sequence of fortification construction.
Fortification Types
The fortification elements at the site fall into four general
categories, the first of which, Type A, is characterized by rough
polygonal
masonry
made
of
a
stone
types
"other" category (Fig. 39a and 39b).
that
fall
into
Merkley's
Segments N1-5, W1, W3, the
polygonal element of W7, S1, NE1-3, N1, the NW Tower, the SW Tower
50
Fig. 39a
Plan of Halai, construction types labeled, west portion of site
Yellow-A; Green-B; Red-C; Purple-D
(adapted from Goldman, 1940, Plate III)
51
Fig. 39b
Plan of Halai, construction types labeled, east portion of site
Yellow-A; Green-B; Red-C; Purple-D
(adapted from Goldman, 1940, Plate III)
52
(outer layer) and NE Tower A all share those basic characteristics of
masonry style and material.
All towers assigned to Type A exhibit a
roughly circular or semi-circular plan and exist more as extensions of
turning wall traces than as independently conceived structures.
The
curvature of these towers is generally achieved through the use of
wedge-shaped
stones.
Type
A
wall
stretches,
in
general,
shift
direction through slow curves rather than via abrupt corners.
Admittedly, there is some variation among the different Type A
units, but it is attributable mostly to the special needs of certain
intensively utilized areas.
For instance, walls NE1, N1 and N2, which
functioned to defend the entrances to the acropolis and thus greeted
all traffic into and out of the site, do look somewhat different from
the more strictly functional walls in less visible areas of the city.
However, in both cases it is more a difference of degree and skill of
workmanship than of real stylistic intent.
polygonal
stones
that
are
more
N1 and N2 are simply
carefully
shaped
than
their
contemporaries, while NE1 differs from other polygonal work mainly in
that
its
stones.
structure
These
occasionally
differences
can
includes
be
unusually
reasonably
large
polygonal
attributed
to
aesthetic refinement of high-visibility fortification stretches.
the
The
other major variation within the Type A fortification units is the
inclusion of foundation courses of conglomeratic limestone within the
SW tower, the NW tower and Wall S1.
However, these sections comprise
the only visible foundation elements of the Type A portions of the
West and South Walls.
Therefore, it seems quite possible that the
"unusual" conglomeratic limestone foundation is in fact the norm for
53
rough polygonal sections of the western and southern fortifications.
The reason for including such a foundation in the western and southern
Type A elements and not in similar NE Gate and North Gate elements is
uncertain.
Type A masonry frequently manifests several stages of expansion
or additional construction.
Walls NE1-3 and NE Tower A are the most
concrete example of this phenomena, for N2 and N3 are both clearly
examples
of
structure.
the
augmentation
of
the
pre-existing
N1/NE
Tower
A
Wall W3 may have been a modification of or replacement for
W1. The rather bizarre juncture between N2 and N3 and the obvious
overlap of W3 and W1 are both likely examples of modification within a
structural typology.
However, while a history of expansion is clear,
such expansion cannot be differentiated into discrete increments or
phases
based
on
the
available
evidence.
At
most,
based
on
the
alignment of wall flights on the Goldman's plan, one might speculate
that N1, N2, N3 and N5 are related to the construction of NE3.
Type B masonry is characterized by construction using oolitic
limestone ashlar blocks.
This type is found only in the western area
of the site, more specifically in Walls W4, W6, and in Bastion I.
It
is possible that Wall W5 falls into this category as well, as elements
of the presently visible portion of that stretch are composed of gray
ashlar blocks similar to those identified with Type B.
Essentially,
Type B masonry seems to have been applied on the site as a limited
modification to the West Wall and its associated religious areas.
This masonry was used to build a single bastion, and then to reinforce
both the internal and external faces of the nearby walls.
54
Perhaps the most prevalent masonry type still visible on the
site, Type C construction is defined by the use of isodomic ashlar
blocks composed of conglomeratic limestone.
Comprising Bastion II,
the ashlar portion of W7, the interior layer of the SW tower, S2, SE
Towers A and B, SE1 (and probably SE2), E1, NE Towers B and C, and N5,
Type C masonry is relatively consistent throughout the site.
The
ashlar blocks used in construction are generally given a "tooled work"
finish and possess either drafted or beveled margins.
Long stretches
of wall are generally built in the emplecton style, the previously
mentioned system of binding two parallel stretches of wall together
with short cross-members and of filling the resulting compartments
with rubble.
Certain stretches, particularly SE1 and E1, lack the
inner wall face associated with the emplecton style.
Goldman felt
that rising ground level, sloping up into the acropolis, in those
areas precluded the construction of lower courses of such a wall and
that
upper
courses
did
not
survive
exposure
(Goldman,
1940
392).
Thus, this absence may be explained as a problem of preservation.
Towers of Type C construction are usually (SE Tower B is an exception
to this point) founded on a socle of headers, while the upper courses
of the towers are built entirely of stretchers.
Two towers on the
site, NE Tower C and SE Tower B, are equipped with interior crossbracing,
while
the
rest
are
not.
The
blocks
of
the
cross-bracing
appear to abut the inner face of the tower walls rather than pass
through them.
Throughout
the
site,
presumably earlier works.
Type
C
fortifications
are
additions
to
Bastion II is a renovation of the Bastion I
55
and West Wall area, the South Wall, East Wall and associated towers
all comprise a replacement for the less-expansive Wall S1, and NE
Tower B is clearly built as an extension and enhancement of NE Tower
A.
The construction of Type C seems to have been part of a massive
program to refurbish and expand Halai's defensive structures.
It is likely that Type C is in fact representative of several
periods
of
construction.
Most
obviously,
NE
Tower
B
should
be
differentiated from the other Type C elements in the eastern area of
the site on the basis of two observations.
properly
aligned
with
the
trace
of
the
First, NE Tower B is not
East
Wall,
but
is
rather
twisted significantly in a counter-clockwise direction and is located
several
meters
to
the
west
of
its
expected
position.
It
seems
unlikely that within such a carefully planned addition, one tower
would be placed askew.
On the basis of this observation alone, one
could argue that NE Tower B was built either before or after the other
eastern Type C components.
Second, the design of the fortifications
at Halai indicates a particular emphasis on certain lines of sight
throughout all phases of construction.
At the NE Gate, NE Tower A was
built so that it extends eastward of S1 and maintains surveillance
over the coastal area to the south of the site.
When the site was
enlarged with the addition of S2 and E1, two towers were constructed
on the SE corner, again to maintain visual lines of communication with
the coastline.
If the small structure south of NE Tower C actually
functioned as a shelter for sentries or guards, then the layout of its
walls would have protected troops mainly from attack from the south.
The fortification efforts throughout the history of the NE Gate seem
56
dedicated
largely
to
detecting
approaching from the coast.
and
possibly
deflecting
forces
In light of this conclusion, I think it
likely that NE Tower B was built as an eastward extension of NE Tower
A, and thus served to improve detection of and defense against forces
arriving from the sea.
If this is true, then NE Tower B predates the
other Type C construction in the east of the site, as those later
walls and towers obstructed its coastal view.
If there are indeed two periods of Type C construction on the
site, then it is not clear into which Bastion II and the ashlar
portion of W7 should be grouped.
Neither of the two fortification
elements are physically connected to any other Type C elements and the
two periods of Type C construction seemingly cannot be differentiated
based on stylistic observation.
For now, this question must be left
unanswered.
The final type of construction on the site, Type
D,
can
be
described as ashlar blocks of which the lower courses are composed of
oolitic grainstone and the upper courses, where preserved, are made of
stones in the "other" category.
This type includes features NE6, NE4,
and the extra layer of blocks along the NE face of NE Tower C.
This
type of construction seems to have been a limited modification to
strengthen and refine features in the NE Gate area.
Several features cannot be assigned to one of the categories
defined above.
categorized.
Wall W2, a completely rubble construction, cannot be
Since
the
"stairs"
of
the
NE
Gate
are
composed
of
"other" stone and lack other distinguishing features, they could be
assigned to either Type A or D.
57
Relative Dating
Based on the interaction of different types of wall stretches, a
sequence
of
construction
can
be
credibly
defined
at
Halai.
The
earliest construction typology employed at the site is Type A, the
rough polygonal work.
were
externally
For example, the Type A portions of Wall W7
modified
by
Type
B
masonry
(Wall
W6),
and
were
vertically augmented by Type C stones. NE3 also confirms this claim,
as it has been modified by the addition of NE Tower B and NE4, which
represent Types C and D respectively.
Lastly, Wall S1 was clearly
present prior to the addition of S2, a Type C construction.
In no
instance on the site is Type A used to modify or alter elements of
Type B, C or D.
Taken together, these facts confirm that rough
polygonal elements were present on the site prior to all other masonry
types.
Following the Type A construction, the chronological sequence
proceeds in the order of B, C and then D.
The building of Bastion II,
a Type C structure, over the demolished remains of Bastion I, a Type B
structure, obviously places Type B earlier than Type C in the sequence
of construction.
Similarly, NE6 and the Type D portion of NE Tower C
are both small modifications to Type C structures, and thus indicate
that Type D elements were built after Type C structures were already
in
existence.
Type
C
fortification
elements
never
appear
to
be
constructed before Type B or after Type D.
Using this sequence, a definite series of events emerges from the
varied network of Halai's walls and towers.
58
The initial configuration
of
the
site's
fortifications
was
trapezoidal,
defined
by
rough
polygonal walls (Type A) and bounded by towers in the NE, NW and SW
corners.
A tangential gateway guarded the eastern entrance to the
acropolis, while a small axial gate allowed access from the north.
Over time, several modifications, such as W3, NE2 and NE3, were made
in a similar style of construction but did not alter the basic layout
of the site.
addition
of
structures.
The first major alteration to the initial plan was the
the
A
Type
B
portion
elements,
of
the
Bastion
West
I
Wall
and
was
its
associated
removed
and
the
rectangular bastion was inserted along with several other walls (W6
and W4).
This modification was limited in scope to the religious
center in the west of the site.
Following that addition, a series of
much more extensive alterations were undertaken in the Type C style,
largely in the eastern area of the site.
As previously stated, I
believe that NE Tower B was built prior to the construction of the
addition (S2 and E1) to the SE portion of the site. Bastion II was
erected on the razed remains of Bastion I, although it is not clear
whether this was undertaken as part of the first or second stages of
Type C construction.
Following the Type C modifications, the plan of
the site became essentially rectangular.
Lastly, Type D construction
was undertaken in the area of the NE Gate.
work,
two
bench
like
structures
and
a
These products of that
slight
thickening
of
one
quadrant of NE Tower C, enhanced slightly the functionality of the
gate region but did not significantly alter the overall attributes of
the site's fortifications. The addition of the stairs in the NE Gate
region,
the
filling
of
the
North
59
Gate
with
ashlar
masonry
blocks
(although the use of ashlar masonry would suggest Type B, C or D) and
the
construction
of
rubble
wall
W2
within this sequence.
60
cannot
be
assigned
a
location
Chapter 4: Absolute Dating
There are a variety of ways to pursue absolute dates for the
fortifications
at
Halai.
For
instance,
specific
elements
of
the
site's history, such as periods of construction and destruction, are
quite relevant to the dating of the defensive network.
Broader in
scope, regional trends of masonry or architecture often shed light on
the
patterns
developments
structural
observed
in
the
application
to
of
a
history
responses
acknowledged
in
to
be
of
three
or
locality.
Greek
improving
more
these
single
less
Lastly,
defensive
siege
systems
warfare
universal.
perspectives
such
techniques
The
yields
certain
a
as
are
cooperative
fairly
reliable
absolute chronology of fortification development at Halai.
Site-Specific Information
Obviously, the first event in the site's history that is relevant
to the fortification chronology is the founding of the settlement.
This event is made especially pertinent by the fact that Goldman found
only Neolithic sherds within the structure of Wall NE1 (Goldman, 1940
391). Such a lack of later pottery remains suggests that fortification
began
concurrently
with
or
soon
after
the
establishment
of
first
millenium habitation.
After
finding
few
items
dated
prior
to
600
B.C.,
Goldman
concluded that the both the fortifications and internal elements of
the
city
were
first
constructed
century (Goldman, 1940 430).
in
the
earliest
years
of
the
6th
In doing so, she acknowledges that a few
61
items found on the site predate that time period, but explains their
presence as the importation of objects some years following their
fabrication.
presence
of
Wren, a later student of Archaic Halai, adds that the
a
few
seemingly
7th
century
artifacts
may
also
be
attributable to a delay in the artistic development in rural areas
(Wren, 1996 57).
However, Wren suggests that due to this evidence the
settlement of Halai should be dated to the late 7th century, slightly
earlier that Goldman's conception (Wren, 1996 57).
Taken together,
these two estimates suggest that the founding of the site, and thus
the construction of earliest elements of the Type A fortifications,
occurred somewhere around the turn of the 7th and 6th centuries B.C.
Bastion I, with its Type B construction style, supports a stone
platform
known
establishment
as
of
the
that
site's Type B elements.
Second
platform
Temple.
reflects
Clearly,
the
the
date
of
the
probable
date
of
the
According to Wren, construction of the Second
Temple occurred relatively soon after the destruction of the First
Temple ca. 480 B.C., and possibly as early as 470 B.C. (Wren, 1996
47).
However, that latter date is based on a pottery find that Wren
felt was questionably stratified and perhaps not entirely reliable.
Goldman concluded that the Second Temple collapsed in the catastrophic
earthquakes of 426/425 B.C., so the window for the construction of
Type B masonry seems to be between 480 and 425 B.C. and is quite
possibly between 480 and 470 B.C. (Goldman, 1940 454).
Several pieces of evidence from the site point to a 4th century
date for the Type C fortification elements.
Goldman reports finding a
piece of white-painted Gnathia ware, dated no earlier than the middle
62
of the fourth century B.C., within the structure of Wall S2 (Goldman,
1940 394). Additionally, she found that the earliest sections of the
roadbed layer associated with Type C construction contained fifth and
fourth century pottery.
Coupling these pottery finds with a fourth
century terracotta figurine encountered within NE Tower C, Goldman
concluded that the Type C fortifications were built ca. 350 B.C. and
not after 325 B.C. (Goldman, 1940 396).
Fossey, who has written
several texts cataloguing the fortifications and settlement patterns
of large numbers of Greek archaeological sites, generally agrees with
Goldman with regard to this date for the Type C expansion (Fossey,
1990 40).
walls
or
However, he points out that an artifact within the circuit
roadbed
must
function
as
a
terminus
post
quem
indicates only the earliest possible date for construction.
and
thus
From this
data, it appears that the Type C fortifications associated with Walls
S2 and E1 were constructed some time in the latter half of the 4th
century B.C.
The main site-specific evidence for dating Type D construction
also comes in the form of roadbed pottery finds.
Goldman
notes
that
road
pavement
associated
with
In this case,
Type
D
elements
contains finds such as Boiotian coins dating from 215-167 B.C. and
late Hellenistic pottery (Goldman, 1940 396).
Additionally, a late
Hellenistic tile was found within Wall NE4 (Goldman, 1940 395).
These
finds suggest a date between the late third and early second centuries
B.C. for the construction of the site's Type D elements.
Regional Trends
63
The
regional
territories
of
histories
Boiotia
suggested above.
and
of
East
Phokis
Lokris
generally
and
of
confirm
the
the
nearby
sequence
In those areas, polygonal masonry fortifications
(similar to Halai's Type A) were built sometime in the 6th or 5th
centuries B.C., and were frequently modified in the 4th century through
the addition of ashlar masonry (Type C) towers and wall stretches.
In
East Lokris, this sequence is verified in the relative sense by the
sites of Larymna and Nyikhori.
Within Larymna's fortifications, one
seaside tower, designated Tower 5 by Fossey, is in fact composed of a
semi-circular tower of polygonal masonry that has been covered by an
outer layer of isodomic ashlar stones (Fossey, 1990 22).
the
otherwise
polygonal
masonry
fortification
system
At Nyikhori,
features
the
addition of three rectangular isodomic ashlar masonry towers (Fossey,
1990 58).
Unfortunately, the absolute dating of these features in
East Lokris is less clear.
The polygonal work is essentially undated
outside of that which was uncovered at the Halai excavation, and the
only non-Halai date for the ashlar work, which comes from the site of
Kynos,
cannot
date
its
construction
any
more
concretely
than
to
sometime within the Hellenistic period (Fossey, 1990 139).
While the
fortifications
terms
of
East
Lokris
don't
offer
much
help
in
of
absolute dating, they at least verify the relative sequence that I
have proposed.
One of Fossey's more interesting observations concerning East
Lokris deserves mention at this point.
He proposes that the ashlar
modifications to earlier fortification systems were part of a regional
construction program designed to refurbish local defenses.
64
In support
of this claim, he points out that all isodomic ashlar work in the
region is built of conglomeratic limestone (also called poros) and
that most of the ashlar elements are similar in terms of probable date
(mid-4th
century)
Although
Fossey
and
supplementary
attributes
this
function
(Fossey,
wide-spread
1990
renovation
to
140).
fear
following the Macedonian destruction of Phokian cities ca. 346 B.C, it
also possible that this represents the efforts of Philip II of Macedon
to refortify the cities in Central Greece in the decades following
(Fossey, 1986 128 and Lawrence, 1979 120).
The fact that Halai is not
mentioned on Scylax's roster of East Lokrian cities from ca. 350 B.C.
indicates that the later date is more probable (Haas 1998, 14).
Boiotia is unfortunately somewhat less helpful in this attempt to
date the Halai fortifications.
While Boiotia contains several cities
fortified with the quarry faced polygonal style (Type A), only one
such instance has been reliably dated.
of
Haliartos,
the
polygonal
date
In that instance, at the site
could
only
be
narrowed
down
to
somewhere within the 6th or possibly early 5th century (Fossey, 1988
492).
Ashlar
Haliartos
and
masonry
Khostia
fortifications
have
recently
in
been
the
Boiotian
assigned
within the 4th century B.C. (Fossey, 1988 494).
dates
cities
of
somewhere
This data does not
conflict with the proposed Halai construction chronology, but is not
particularly enlightening, either.
The
regional
fortification
chronology
applicable to the dating of Halai.
of
Phokis
is
quite
The sites of the region are
generally protected by walls of some combination of lesbian/polygonal,
coursed
polygonal,
coursed
trapezoidal
65
or
psuedo-isodomic
ashlar
masonry (Fossey, 1986 128).
The ashlar masonry is a bit unusual in
that it incorporates both slanted and vertical joints between blocks.
The
lesbian/polygonal
fortification
construction
dates
to
ca.
600
B.C., although it is worth noting that this date is derived primarily
through
stylistic
comparison
rather
than
through
(Fossey, 1986 127 and McInerney, 1999 341).
direct
evidence
Sites in the region which
are fortified in the coursed trapezoidal style, which is not present
at Halai, are linked to dates in the mid-fourth century and do not
incorporate other masonry styles into their network.
Alternatively,
coursed polygonal masonry (also not represented at Halai) is almost
always
associated
with
ashlar
masonry.
The
ashlar
is
utilized
exclusively to build towers along the flight of the otherwise coursed
polygonal walls (Fossey, 1986 128).
Interestingly, Fossey mentions
only one instance in which a coursed polygonal wall fails to exhibit
ashlar
towers.
distinguished
In
from
that
case,
other
the
Phokian
site
in
question,
settlements
in
that
Belesi,
its
is
pottery
record indicates that it did not recover from the victory of Philip II
over Phokis in 346 B.C. (Fossey, 1986 128).
Fossey
argues
that
the
coursed
polygonal
From this information,
and
coursed
trapezoidal
masonry structures in the Phokis region are products of the wars of
the early 4th century, while the ashlar towers date to Macedonian
fortification efforts in the latter third of the 4th century following
the battle of Chaironeia in 338(Fossey, 1986 131).
In
his
book
on
the
history
of
the
Phokis
region,
McInerney
disputes Fossey's interpretation on the grounds that no literary or
historical
evidence
exists
to
indicate
66
Macedonian
reconstruction
efforts in Phokis (McInerney, 1999 348).
Rather, he asserts that all
Phokian fortifications are representative of either local construction
prior to the Phokian defeat in 346 or of hasty restoration by Athens
and Thebes in 339-338 in preparation for impending Macedonian invasion
(McInerney,
1999
349).
This
intriguing
theory
allows
for
the
possibility that ashlar construction (Type C at Halai) in Central
Greece may exist as both a defense against or a product of Macedonian
authority.
Prevalent Construction Techniques
Several general aspects of the Type C fortifications at Halai
help
verify
their
4th
century
origins.
First,
the
emplekton
construction style, characterized by headers running back into the
wall's fill at relatively even intervals, of Wall S2 indicates a date
of 4th century B.C. or later (Winter, 1971 138).
Second, the inclusion
or addition of internal cross-walls within towers (such as SE Tower B
and NE Tower C) and the thickening of the external walls of towers
(such as the Type D portion of NE Tower C) can be interpreted as
Hellenistic techniques for improving the stability of tower artillery
weapons and the resistance of a tower to developing siege techniques
(Winter, 1971 180).
Lastly, and most interestingly, the NE Gate's
open fronted court yard (open fronted in that only the courtyard's
inner aperture is closed by a gate) suggest that it was built no later
than the third quarter of the 4th century (Winter, 1971 227).
Taken
together, these facts indicate that the Type C fortifications on the
site date from the middle to late 4th century B.C.
67
Conclusions
This
evidence
chronology
for
the
of
absolute
dating
fortifications
at
suggests
Halai.
As
the
following
indicated
by
the
approximate timeframe of Halai's founding, the lack of Archaic pottery
within NE1, and the approximate dates of nearby sites, the initiation
of Type A construction can be reliably assigned to the late 7th or very
early 6th century B.C.
Later phases of Type A construction cannot be
dated, but it is very likely based on arguments of relative chronology
that they conclude prior to the Type B construction phase.
Based on
the dating of the Second Temple, that Type B construction may be
assigned to the early 5th century B.C. (probably between 480 and 470).
Type C site elements may be associated with the third quarter of the
4th century based on aspects of associated material, gate structure and
the analysis of Phokian fortifications.
In my relative chronology, I
called into question whether or not NE Tower B (and possibly Bastion
II) should be grouped with Type C elements of the South and East
Walls.
The data from Phokis, while not conclusive, does at least
imply regional fortification programs were initiated both before and
after the Macedonian conquest of Greece.
Might not NE Tower B, which
mimics the site's earlier fortification concept, have been built as a
last minute response to the Macedonian threat while the other eastern
Type C elements, which were both physically and conceptually a massive
departure from the site's earlier design, were constructed as postinvasion
restoration?
Finally,
associated
material
and
Winter's
general observations place Type D fortification elements somewhere in
68
the later Hellenistic period, possibly within the late 3rd of early 2nd
century B.C.
69
Chapter 5: Concluding Remarks
The main intent of this thesis is to generate a resource for
future
investigation
considerable
light
of
on
Halai's
the
defenses.
history
and
Such
inquiry
function
of
could
the
shed
site.
I
recommend the following steps:
Excavation should be undertaken at the juncture of N2 and N3, in
the
general
region
of
SE2,
in
undisturbed
previously untouched portions of S1.
wall
a
buried
portion
of
N2,
a
and
along
In the North Gate area, the
relationship between N2 and N3 remains confused.
over
fill
situation
N3 may in fact run
which
would
be
of
considerable importance to differentiating periods of addition within
Type
A
construction.
Goldman's
photos
indicate
that
she
did
not
excavate this juncture, so investigation here would yield valuable new
data.
Like this North Gate feature, SE2 is also something of a mystery.
Might it be the remnants of a wall that predates SE1, SE Tower B, E1
and NE Tower C?
considerable
If such a relationship could be proved, it would lend
support
to
the
idea
that
two
stages
of
Type
C
construction, one before and one after the arrival of the Macedonians,
exist on the site.
Additionally, it might prove useful to examine some of the rubble
fill that Goldman left unexplored within N1 and N2.
This material may
contain potsherds or other remains that will help date the building of
the North Gate. While the North Gate is under examination, it would be
easy to track down and classify the ashlar blocks that Goldman removed
70
from the gate opening.
That would definitely indicate the date at
which the North Gate and its associated street fell into disuse.
Lastly,
and
most
importantly,
Goldman
excavated
only
small
fragments of Wall S1 as it runs from the shoreline to the NE Gate.
This leaves a long stretch of Type A wall undisturbed and ready for
modern excavation.
At the very least, I would expect such an effort
to yield pottery finds that would further pin down Type A's initial
date of construction.
The fortifications of Halai will continue to provide new insight
into the history and development of the site.
I sincerely hope that
the investigation and excavation of these structures will carry on
well into the future.
71
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Coleman, John E. "Excavations at Halai, 1990-1991."
265-288.
Hesperia 61 1992:
Fossey, John M. The Ancient Topography of Eastern Phokis.
J.C. Gieben, 1986.
Fossey, John M.
Topography and Population
Chicago: Ares Publishers inc., 1988.
Fossey, John M.
The Ancient
Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben, 1990.
Goldman, Hetty.
Haas,
Topography
"The Acropolis of Halae."
of
of
Amsterdam:
Ancient
Boiotia.
Opountian
Lokris.
Hesperia 9 1940: 381-514.
Jason C.
Hellenistic Halai: An Analysis of the Historical
Sources, Stratigraphy, and Ceramics.
Masters Thesis, Cornell
University, 1998.
Lawrence, A.W.
1979.
Greek Aims in Fortification.
McInerney, Jeremy.
The Folds of Parnassos.
Texan Press, 1999.
Oxford, Clarendon Press,
Austin: University of
McNicoll, A.W.
Hellenistic Fortifications from the Aegean to the
Euphrates. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997.
Merkley, P.
Unpublished Geologic Research, CHELP, 1990.
Quinn, Kathleen M.
Late Antique Halai: A Study of the Roman and
Byzantine Remains at the Site of Halai, Greece, as Recorded in
the Field Journals of Hetty Goldman and Alice L. Walker. Masters
Thesis, Cornell University, 1996.
Scranton, Robert L.
Press, 1941.
Greek
Walls.
Winter, F.E.
Greek Fortifications.
Press, 1971.
Wren, Patricia S.
1996.
Archaic Halai.
Cambridge:
Harvard
University
Toronto: University of Toronto
Masters Thesis, Cornell University,
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83