Notes on the Towers and Borders of Classical Boiotia

Notes on the Towers and Borders of Classical BoiotiaAuthor(s): John McKesson Camp, IISource: American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 95, No. 2 (Apr., 1991), pp. 193-202Published by: Archaeological Institute of AmericaStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/505722 .

Accessed: 27/03/2013 20:56

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 ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Archaeological Institute of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toAmerican Journal of Archaeology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 138.16.130.60 on Wed, 27 Mar 2013 20:56:07 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aia

http://www.jstor.org/stable/505722?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Notes on the Towers and Borders of Classical Boiotia JOHN McKESSON CAMP II

Abstract A drawing by Simone Pomardi made for Edward Dod-

well has permitted the rediscovery of a freestanding Clas- sical tower between Livadia and Koroneia at Rhakes. The new find leads to observations on the style and placement of Boiotian military towers, which in turn leads to the reexamination of the towers and forts along the Attic/ Boiotian frontier. The conclusion is drawn that several towers together with the fort at Eleutherai, hitherto rec- ognized as Attic, are better understood as Boiotian.*

DODWELL AND THE RESURRECTION OF THE RHAKES TOWER

On 20 March 1805, as he made his way along the south side of the Copaic basin, Edward Dodwell de- scribed an ancient tower:

We quitted our hospitable landlord at Libadea and in an hour reached a small village called Rhakes; where are the remains of an ancient square tower, of regular construction, composed of large stones. The middle space of the wall is three feet and a half in thickness, consisting of a hard mass of small stones and cement, lined on each side with large blocks; the whole wall forming a thickness of eight feet and a half. No other traces of antiquity are visible at this place; and as its situation corresponds with no ancient town mentioned by Strabo or Pausanias, it was probably one of the Mov- vcv@Qytc or single-towered forts, built to guard the pass: for on one side rises a steep mountain, and on the other the plain of Kopais appears in its full extent.'

Col. W.M. Leake, traveling with W. Gell in early December of 1805, also refers to this same tower:

"Following the road from Livadhia to Thebes, along the foot of the Granitza mountain, we arrive in forty-

seven minutes at a kalyvia of Granitza, on the foot of the mountain. Here stands a single Hellenic tower, about half of which remains."2 W. Gell's account is even more succinct: "The Kalybea of Rachi, where is an ancient Hellenic tower r."3

The tower as such has disappeared since the early 19th century and has been ignored or forgotten by the numerous scholars who in recent years have made Boiotia one of the more intensively studied areas of Greece.4 A hitherto unpublished drawing of Dod- well's now helps put the Rhakes tower back on the

map of Classical Boiotia (fig. 1). The drawing is in pencil and wash, measuring 0.44

x 0.78 m. It shows a square or rectangular tower set on a natural rock outcrop. The view is taken from above the tower, looking northeast over the Copaic basin. The location of the scene is set with certainty by a series of notations along the top, identifying features in the drawing: "Orcomenos, Skripu, Caly- bia, ancient tower between Lividia and Thebes, distant mountains of Eubea, Lake Copais, Village Kamares or Kalamata, modern aqueduct."

The tower as shown is built of large squared ashlar blocks and stands some six courses high on its south, east, and north sides. Much of the west side has col- lapsed, except for the southwest corner, which stands

up to 10 courses, though the top two blocks have shifted somewhat out of place. The southwest corner is shown with drafted edges. Where shown, the walls seem a single block in thickness. The drawing therefore does not conform to Dodwell's description of the tower as having a wall "eight feet and a half thick." We shall return to this point later.

* This article, which has several parts, owes much to friends and colleagues. Hector Catling, former Director of the British School at Athens, made me reexamine old as- sumptions by asking me to lecture on the borders and defense of Attica. Mark Munn and Josiah Ober, both of whom have done excellent work on the defenses of Attica, were generous with their time and constructive criticism, as were W.T. Loomis, Kathryn Morgan, James Sickinger, and an anonymous AJA referee. Alison Adams accompanied me several times and I am indebted also to the schoolmaster of Laphystio, Athanasios Papaliakos, for considerable help in the village. The maps were prepared by Diane Fortenberry. My greatest debt is to the late Eugene Vanderpool, with whom I first began visiting the forts and towers of the northwest frontier in the 1960s.

E. Dodwell, A Classical and Topographical Tour through

Greece during the Years 1801, 1805, 1806 (London 1819) I, 245.

2 W.M. Leake, Travels in Northern Greece (London 1835) II, 133.

W. Gell, The Itinerary of Greece; Containing One Hundred Routes in Attica, Boeotia, Phocis, Locris, and Thessaly (London 1819) 140.

4 See, for instance, the immense bibliography of some 434 items compiled by P. Roesch in La Beotie antique (Paris 1985) 22-32, covering just the last 30 years. Two more international conferences on Boiotia have been held since then, in Munich in June 1986 (H. Beister and J. Buckler, Boiotika, Munich 1989) and in Thebes in September 1986 ('En.Erlwt;S rg; 'EratlEagI BotLwrtxt(v MEAErtv I, 1, Ath- ens 1988). See also J. Fossey, The Topography and Population of Ancient Boiotia (Chicago 1988).

American Journal of Archaeology 95 (1991) 193



194 JOHN McKESSON CAMP II [AJA 95

6r-% Owl III r wwwwl?? "l, ?k 71,,? NO I W,.llmm*-

All

nq

Fig. 1. Pen and ink drawing of the Classical tower at Rhakes, done 20 March 1805 by Simone Pomardi for Edward Dodwell. View looking northeast. Private collection.

A "P" inscribed in the upper right corner indicates that the drawing is actually the work of Simone Po-

mardi, the Italian artist engaged by Dodwell to accom-

pany him on his travels.5 Both men had a good eye for landscape and, in addition, they usually made use

of a camera obscura, which allowed exact-almost pho-

tographic-drawings in that they were traced from an image projected through a lens.

The precision of this drawing became clear in 1986, when I visited the village of Rhakes, now called La-

phystio, in the company of several members of the

American School of Classical Studies at Athens. It

proved possible to match the topographical features of the Copaic basin with the landscape shown in the

background of the drawing. The original site of the

tower is now occupied by a private house owned by Athanasios Skorliakos (fig. 2). When questioned, he informed us that in his grandfather's day the tower

had been dismantled and the blocks used to build the bell tower of the Church of the Taxiarchs, which lies

just below the house, today heavily plastered and

painted. A few leftover pieces, however, had been built into his stable. Figure 3 shows some of the sur-

viving blocks of the Rhakes tower in their present position in the Skorliakos stable. They are large squared blocks of gray limestone, measuring 0.90- 1.00 m long x 0.60 m thick x 0.45 m high, with hammer-dressed quarry faces. A few have pry holes and anathyrosis; in all, some 27 blocks or fragments of blocks survive. In general the blocks closely match those used in several other freestanding Boiotian towers such as those at Linopyrgos (Evangelistria), Askra, and Mavrovouni.6

There is no independent evidence for the date of the Rhakes tower other than the masonry itself. This is true for all the parallel towers as well, which are

5 Pomardi himself also wrote an account of their travels

together: Viaggio nella Grecia negli anni 1804/6 (Rome 1820), though he makes no specific reference to the Rhakes tower.

The shading of the drawing is peculiar, showing what should be the southern face as shaded, with light on the western face, whereas the drawing was actually done in

morning light. There is a preliminary pencil sketch for this

drawing and it may well be that the finished version was

worked up later, thereby permitting a bit of artistic license. The preliminary sketch and the drawing are in a private collection.

6 For Linopyrgos/Evangelistria: R. Kallet-Marx, "The Evangelistria Watchtower and the Defence of the Zagora Pass," Boiotika (Munich 1989) 301-11. I am grateful to Prof. Kallet-Marx for showing me the manuscript of his article prior to publication. For Askra and Mavrovouni, see infra ns. 11 and 12.



1991] NOTES ON THE TOWERS AND BORDERS OF CLASSICAL BOIOTIA 195

Fig. 2. Modern Laphystio (formerly Rhakes). View looking northeast, showing the site once occupied by the Rhakes tower. The arrow marks the house of Athanasios Skorliakos.

usually dated on the basis of masonry style and/or

general historical considerations to the second or third quarter of the fourth century B.C.

It remains to consider briefly the function of the Rhakes tower. Perched on the shoulder of Mt. La-

phystio, it commands an excellent view of the west end of the Copaic basin and the Kephissos valley where it enters the plain. Looking eastward, it has

good sight-lines with both the fort at Petra and that at Orchalides,7 and northward to Orchomenos. As a lookout, then, it is well situated, though it is poorly placed for signaling to the two nearest towns, Livadia and Koroneia. A more likely function, as suggested by Dodwell, is that it served to guard the road that

passed along the south side of the Copaic basin, the main road from Boiotia and southern Greece to Phokis and northern Greece. It is known that the ancient route closely followed the line of the road used by the early travelers that brought them right by the tower.8 Further, it seems likely that the tower served also to guard the border between Koroneia and Livadia.

A fragmentary inscription found east of the village indicates that the ancient border ran over Mount

Laphystio, apparently from some springs, up a ravine, to an altar of Zeus Laphystios, which Pausanias places on the heights of the mountain.9 The inscription was found with its base and should not therefore have

Fig. 3. Athanasios Skorliakos and worked blocks from the Rhakes tower built into a modern stable

7 For Petra and Orchalides, R. Kallet-Marx (supra n. 6). 8 Paus. 9.33-34 and the Homeric Hymn to Demeter, lines

224-76. 9 SEG XXIII, 297 and SEG XXXV, 406; see also P.

Roesch, Thespies et la conftddration Boeotienne (Paris 1965) 61-63. IG VII, 2792 records another boundary set by the Boiotians, between Kopai and Akraiphnia.

See Paus. 9.34.5 for the altar of Zeus Laphystios on the mountain, 20 stades from Koroneia. No trace of this altar has ever been reported and it may well have been a simple ash altar of the type often used for the worship of Zeus on Greek mountains: M.K. Langdon, The Sanctuary of Zeus on Mount Hymettos (Hesperia Suppl. 16, Princeton 1976).




0 .5 1km

Livadia

Rhakes Tower

Find-spot of boundary

a

) inscription Paai AGHIOS IOANNES

Koroneia

C>

1

Fig. 4. Map of Mt. Laphystio, showing the position of the Rhakes tower

traveled very far from its original location.'0 It was discovered ca. 300 m east of the church of Aghios loannes (figs. 4, 5), which is built beside an abundant

source, presumably that referred to in the inscription. The tower is set on a rocky eminence just about a mile

(ca. 1600 m) to the west, well inside what should be the territory of Livadia. It may well be that the tower is the work of the Boiotian confederacy, best understood as part of a system of similar structures that

guarded and/or watched over Helikon (Evangelistria, Askra, and Mavrovouni, fig. 6).

Thus the drawing serves to restore the Rhakes tower to its proper place among the military installa-

:- :-::- i-~---a_-~_~,~:i:i~ii__i:iigii~iia ~_~_~~~~____~______~-----"i":';"::~:-

~--II i-~--I ~-I- 1- 1-11111- 1~~~~1~~~:1 -: - ::::~-----:-:lii: ---i--il-------::i-: :-.-.: ::-:l--i-- ---~~:_: ~~ ---i-: iiiiiiiii--::ij:i:iiiii--ijiiji:iijiiiii i-iiiiiiiijijiiiiii:i-:ii:iiiiiiii:- ::i:ii-iiii-ii:i:i:ii::i-i:: iiiiiii-i i-i--iiiiiiiii:i:i::iii-i-ii-i-ii-i-ii-- :'---- '--~-~---::- : :i- : ~:-~~~~~_~~__~~_~__~

: : -illl-:-ii:1:-111111:Iljli--~j: ~~~~l~-~-~~~~l~~~i~_-~~~__~~~~~~_~___~~ i: i: -.- -.--- : ~ I--~-::i i iiii:~w~l; --~:~-i-iii--ii: .-.-:--" iiiiil :1:1'::::i''''''i-1'I_~l_(l~(~j!l(~_(_l( i!:lii-l:i:l:-ili-:i-i-i: a

i-:;--i-i;:::lj::i::::i - - :-:::::: :i:i-i-- .

:::i::_:: _i j:l; :I Jli___~ __- --: :i :-: i: :-:: ::::: ::: : ::--

II !I i :-i : i:::::::

-:i : -:::::

:I -:-::::: : : : : _~~~~__~_-? 'li; I

:: :.::: :--:iiiiiiiiiiiiiii:~iiiii -ii ::--- i::i~~_':''':'

-:iiiiiii:iiii ii:i::i- i- ii :..:: ii:ilii::i:iii iiiiiiiii-_i~i~ii-

-i- 1 : : iiiiii----:i :i-~~

: :: : :

Fig. 5. The springs at the church of Agios loannis

10 The findspot is discussed in greatest detail by Papadakis in "HneL r6 XaQ6xsLov ii;g Kogwovclag," ArchDelt 1916, 258-59. The name of the village where the tower stood and near which the inscription is said to have been found has changed several times. In Dodwell's day it was known as Raches, a kalyvia of Granitza, which lay higher up on the mountain. Sometime after the War of Independence the inhabitants of the upper village moved to the lower settlement, bringing the name Granitza with them. The third name, Laphystio, was given to the lower village in 1923. The site up on the mountain, now no more than piles of over- grown rubble, is known today as Palaigranitza, linked to the lower village by a narrow cobbled road (calderimi). Interest- ingly enough, P. Kretschmer has noted ("Literaturbericht fiir das Jahr 1911," Glotta 5 [1914] 265) that the early modern (and Mediaeval?) name of the village and the mountain, Granitza, is the Slavic word for border.




Rhakes

Koroneia S Fort Haliartos

Fortified Town he Oropos

Pr

SThespi ae 0 arna Rhamnous

Thisbe Plataia vro uni Kreu.s Krou Tsoukrati Aphidna

a Eleutherai Stavrochoraki Oinoe Kasiid

Velatouri Phyle Dekeleia

Square Tower Aigaleos Round Tower

A Fort t a Hymettos

0 Fortif led Town or Derne Boudoron Athens

L ?Piraeus 0 5 'Okmj

Fig. 6. The Attic/Boiotian frontier, showing position of towns, forts, and round and square towers

tions of Boiotia, serving as it did to guard both the

principal road through central Greece as well as the border between Koroneia and Livadia. The disap- pearance of the tower from the scholarly literature is a sobering indication of how dependent we remain on the visual; clearly a picture is still worth a thousand words.

RHAKES AND BOIOTIAN "COMPARTMENT"

TOWERS

As noted, Dodwell's description of the Rhakes tower with a wall "eight feet and a half" thick is not borne out by the drawing, which shows walls the thickness of a single block (fig. 1). There is no reason to doubt Dodwell's observation, however, and it seems likely that lower down, within the tower, the wall was thicker. His description draws our attention to a feature of at least two other Boiotian towers (fig. 7). The first stands at the west end of the Valley of the Muses on top of the conical hill identified as the Acropolis of Askra.1" The tower measures 7.70 m on a side and was entered

through a door in its south face. It is built of trapezoidal limestone blocks with quarry faces. The southern part of the tower was hollow, with a short stairway leading up to the northern half, which is solid, filled with packing. The tower looks over the Copaic basin to the north, Thespiai to the east, and Phokis and Helikon to the west. A similar tower stands at Mav- rovouni, above ancient Siphai."2 It too is square, ca. 6.15 m on a side, with a doorway at the south. It also is of trapezoidal masonry with quarry faces. Like the Askra tower, the southern part was hollow, with short

stairways leading up to the northern half, at least part of which was solid. The tower, which must lie roughly at the junction of the territories of Siphai, Thisbe, and Thespiai, overlooks most of southwest Boiotia and up toward Phokis and Mount Helikon to the north. Thus we have two, and possibly three, Boiotian towers all built in the same characteristic "compartment" style. I know of only two other such towers, both on Mount Parnes, the identity of which should now be considered.

I I G. Roux, "Le Val de Muses et les musees chez les auteurs anciens," BCH 78 (1954) 45-48.

12 E.L. Schwandner, "Die b6otische Hafenstadt Siphai," AA 92 (1977) 518-19.




TSOUKRATI LIMIKO ASKRA MAVROVOUNI

0 0 ~ ~~ -- --- -- --- -- -- DL -

N 0 5m.

Fig. 7. Four Boiotian "compartment" towers

THE TSOUKRATI AND LIMIKO TOWERS13

Nestled into the western outrunners of Mt. Parnes is a fairly large, fertile upland valley, known today as the Skourta Plain. It lies at ca. 500 masl, covering an area of ca. 40-45 km2 and supports five small settle- ments whose modern inhabitants engage in farming and herding. Above its southwest rim, the hill of Kavasala rises to a height of 714 m, its summit crowned by the slight remains of an ancient fort. The identification of the site as the Attic border fort of Panakton has recently been confirmed by the discov-

ery of an inscribed ephebic list of the fourth century, indicating that the fort housed an Athenian garrison.'14

The plain itself was an ancient bone of contention between Athens and Boiotia, as we learn from Thu-

cydides' account of events concerning Panakton in 421 B.C.:

Meanwhile, during these negotiations of the Argives, the Spartan representatives Andromedes, Phaedimus, and Antimenidas were supposed to receive from the Boeotians Panactum and the prisoners, and to restore them to Athens. As for Panactum, they found the Boeo- tians had acted on their own account and had dismantled the fortress on the pretext that at some time in the distant past, when there had been a dispute about the place, oaths had been exchanged between the two peo-

ples that neither should build there, though both should have rights of pasture (5.42; trans. R. Warner).15

To the northeast of the plain, on the hill known as

Pyrgari or Tsoukrati (737 m) stands a Classical tower

(figs. 6, 7). Some 7 km further to the east, at ca. 790 m, stands its twin, in an area known as Limiko (figs. 6, 7). That the two towers were built as a pair was

convincingly argued by Eugene Vanderpool (supra n.

13). They are both square, built of limestone blocks set in a trapezoidal style with their quarry faces left

except for occasional scoring. Inside they are divided into compartments, with half the tower left hollow as rooms, and half built solid. Though most recent commentators have taken these two towers to be Attic, their distinctive form as compartment towers, as well as the use of trapezoidal masonry with quarry faces, suggests that they are better understood as Boiotian.16

On the other hand, of the dozens of towers known in Attica, I am aware of none of this specific type. In-

deed, the numerous examples of Attic watch/signal towers show that they, too, have a distinctive form and construction: they are generally round and of

polygonal or rubble construction, usually but not al-

ways solid in their lower parts. A partial list of towers of this type and function would include Velatouri, the Dema tower, the Aigaleos tower, the Korydallos tower, the Hymettos tower, Stavrochoraki above Marathon,

13 E. Vanderpool, "Roads and Forts in Northwest Attica," CSCA 2 (1978) 240-42.

14 For Kavasala as Panakton, see Vanderpool (supra n. 13) 233-34, and for the new ephebic inscription found by M. Munn, see M. Munn and M. Zimmerman Munn, "The Stanford Skourta Plain Project: The 1987 and 1988 Seasons of Survey on the Attic-Boiotian Frontier," AJA 93 (1989) 274.

15 Note also the reference to cattle raids in this area: Ar., Ach. 1022.

16 J. Ober, Fortress Attica (Leiden 1985) 147-48 and Van- derpool (supra n. 13) are the most recent commentators to argue that the two towers are Attic. Since his original work in the area, M. Munn (Studies in the Territorial Defenses of Fourth-Century Athens [Diss. Univ. of Pennsylvania 1983] 443-44) has changed his views and now regards the two towers as Boiotian for reasons similar to those argued here: 'EEtrErig •g1 'ErtaltEia Botort1xZ v MEAETrdv I. 1 (Athens 1988) 363-7 1. Kahrstedt also opted for Limiko as a Boiotian tower: "Die Landgrenzen Athens," AM 57 (1932) 23.




Eleu Fherai

SMazi on

E

o ~Onoe~m

0 .5 1km 0llllll I

Fig. 8. Detail of figure 6: the west end of the Mazi plain

and the tower at Boudoron on Salamis." There may be chronological distinctions to be worked out but

basically it seems that Athenian watch/signal towers were round and of rubble or polygonal construction, whereas Boiotian towers were half-hollow, half-solid, and of coursed trapezoidal construction. Once one admits the possibility that the towers are in Boiotia, the setting is of interest. Looking south from Limiko one looks up to the peaks of Parnes; to reach Dekeleia, nothernmost Attic deme in this vicinity, one must climb another 350 m to the shoulder of the mountain before descending 600 m to the southern foothills of Parnes. Turning north, one looks down on ridges and

eventually rolling hills over most of southern Boiotia and especially Tanagra. The Tsoukrati tower has a similar view over Boiotia to the north, and overlooks the Skourta Plain to the south and west. Together the towers watch the Boiotian side of Mount Parnes, the common border with Attica, just as the Mavrovouni and Askra towers keep similar watch on the Boiotian side of Mount Helikon, the common border with Phokis. They are all well sited and designed for signaling back into Boiotia.

It might be noted in passing that most of the Attic watchtowers listed above are similarly situated: set well within the Attic frontier, overlooking Attic land, placed high up in a good position for signaling. In

placement, Attic and Boiotian towers follow the same rules; their form and construction set them apart. Placement, form, and construction all favor the identification of Limiko and Tsoukrati as Boiotian.

THE MAZI TOWER, OINOE, AND ELEUTHERAI

West of and below the Skourta Plain a long valley runs east-west, lying at 300 masl at the east and rising gradually to 400 m at the west. In antiquity it carried the ancient road from Eleusis to Plataia and Boiotia. In this valley, roughly along the line of the road, are three prominent ancient sites: Oinoe (Myoupolis), the Mazi tower, and Eleutherai (Gyphtokastro) (figs. 6, 8)'s The identification of the forts of Oinoe and Eleutherai now seems clear, though Eleutherai needs further attention in view of a recent suggestion that the well-preserved fort might be of Boiotian construction, perhaps dated to the time of Epaminondas.'9 This goes against the views of almost all earlier commentators and has recently been challenged;20 yet evidence from Eleutherai itself, as well as a consideration of Oinoe and the Mazi tower, suggests that the idea has considerable merit.

The ancient literary sources concerning Eleutherai indicate that at times it was Attic and at times Boiotian. There can be little doubt that early on it was under Attic control. Herodotos (6.108) describes Athenian

17 For a list of Attic towers, see Munn (supra n. 16) 401- 43 and Ober (supra n. 16) ch. VII.

18 For the identification of Gyphtokastro as Eleutherai and

Myoupolis as Oinoe, see Vanderpool (supra n. 13) 227-45. For a description of Gyphtokastro (though identified as Panakton rather than Eleutherai), see also L. Beschi, "La fortezza ellenica di Gyphtokastro," Atti, VIII Congresso scien- tifico: Les fortifications depuis l'antiquite jusqu'au Moyen-Age dans le monde miditerranden (Athens 1968) 1-19. For the most recent discussion of the literary evidence concerning

Eleutherai see L. Prandi, "Problemi del confine attico-beo- tico. La zona d'Eleutere," Contributi dell'Instituto di storia antica 13 (1987) 50-79.

'9 F.A. Cooper, "Epaminondas and Greek Fortifications," AJA 90 (1986) 195.

20 J. Ober, "Early Artillery Towers: Messenia, Boiotia, Attica, Megarid," AJA 91 (1987) 601-603. I take no position on the fort at Aegosthena, usually thought of as Megarian, which Cooper would ascribe to Thebes, while Ober argues for Athenian construction.




possession of Plataia late in the sixth century, and the Athenian victory over the Boiotians in 506 (Hdt. 5.77) presumably consolidated Athenian control of the area. This control did not, however, include incor- poration of Eleutherai in the Athenian political system, though an attempt at assimilation may be suggested by the introduction of the cult of Dionysos Eleutherios to Athens.21 For the fifth century the evidence is less clear. Semachides of Eleutherai appears at the end of an Athenian casualty list dated in the 440s (IG 12 943, 11.96-97), though that tells us little of the actual status of Eleutherai at that time.22 Against this evidence must be set the fact that both Herodotos (5.74) and Thucydides (2.18) recognize Oinoe-and not Eleutherai-as the limit of Attica. Furthermore, Polemon (fr. 2 = Athenaeus XI, 486C) refers to the sculptor Myron as a member of the Boiotian genos from Eleutherai. We have no specific evidence for Eleutherai in the fourth century or the Hellenistic period, but later sources indicate that there was considerable confusion over its identity.23 Strabo (9.2.31), writing late in the first century B.C., reports that opinion was divided in his time as to whether the town was Attic or Boiotian. Pliny (HN 4.7.26), writing in the first century A.C., lists Eleutherai as a Boiotian town and both Diodoros (4.2.6 and 4.3.1) and Apol- lodoros (3.5.5) refer to it as Boiotian. Pausanias (1.38.8-9), writing in the second century A.C., records that it was Boiotian and then became Attic, with no indication as to the date of the change.

When one turns to the archaeological evidence it is clear that at the very least there was a strong Boiotian

presence at Eleutherai well into the fifth century. A collection of surface sherds found at Eleutherai has

recently been published24 and it includes fragments of 17 typical Boiotian kantharoi in a non-Attic, presumably Boiotian, fabric, dating to the middle of the fifth century B.C.25 Also recently published from Eleutherai is an inscribed fragment of a kantharos

carrying a dedication to Herakles in Boiotian dialect

(hLaQog heQo~LxXog).26 In short, there is nothing in the literary sources or

the archaeological record to justify an assumption that Eleutherai was Attic in the Classical period. On bal- ance, it would seem to have been under Athenian control late in the sixth century and Boiotian for at least parts of the fifth. For the later periods we have no information until the time of Strabo, who was unable to assign the city to either Attica or Boiotia. It would appear that Eleutherai was Boiotian or, like the

Oropia, may well have shifted between Attic and Boio- tian control several times during the fifth and fourth centuries B.C.27

Leaving aside all preconceptions as to its identity, we should consider briefly the evidence adduced by F.A. Cooper for his suggestion that the fortress on the acropolis above Eleutherai is Theban work dating to the second quarter of the fourth century B.C. The

parallels cited, with the walls of Siphai and Messene, seem reasonable. The large coursed trapezoidal ma-

sonry with quarry-faced blocks and the use of consoles at the gates are found in all three forts, and if Siphai and Messene are of Boiotian inspiration and construction then Eleutherai should be as well.28 On the other

21 Paus. 1.38.8 and 1.20.2. Perhaps this represents an attempt similar to Athenian assimilation of Demeter from Eleusis and Amphiaraos from Oropos.

22 Note, for instance, other fifth-century Athenian casualty lists including foreigners: D. Bradeen, Agora XVII: The Funerary Monuments (Princeton 1974) no. 14, line 35; no. 17, lines 25-29 and lines 5-8; no. 22, lines 152-55. For the date of IG II 9432, see W.K. Pritchett, The Greek State at War 4 (Berkeley 1985) 183-84.

23 The fact that the road by Eleutherai was guarded by Athenian peltasts under Chabrias in 379/8 B.C. (Xen. Hell. 5.4.14) describes the military situation but does not, I think, tell us about political control of Eleutherai itself at this time.

24 J. Ober, "Pottery and Miscellaneous Artifacts from For- tified Sites in Northern and Western Attica," Hesperia 56 (1987) 215-20.

25 There is fair mixture of Attic pottery as well, though it should be noted that ceramic trade between Attica and Boio- tia is something of a one-way street. Masses of Attic pottery have been found in the Boiotian cemeteries of Rhitsona, Tanagra, and Akraiphia, whereas almost no Boiotian pottery found its way into Attica.

26 W. Hornbostel, Jahrbuch des Museums fiir Kunst und Gewerbe Hamburg 3 (1984) 176-79 (SEG XXXV, 36); I am indebted to R.S. Stroud for this reference. For the Boiotian

dialect forms, see C.D. Buck, The Greek Dialects (Chicago 1955) 152, nos. 217.6 and 218.2.

27 For the complex history of Oropos see the historical summary in B. Petrakos,' ' QO Q• 6; xaL Tr6 tLE6v TOl

'A4tiacgd6o0 (Athens 1968) 22, 23; and G.D. Rocchi, Fron- tiera e confini nella Grecia antica (Milan 1988) 183-86: late fifth century, Athenian (Lys., Polystratos 5-6); 411 B.C., Independent (Thuc. 8.95.1-4, Lys., vs. Philon 9); 402 B.C., Boiotian (Diod. Sic. 14.17ff.); 387/6 B.C., Independent (Xen. Hell. 5.1.33 and 36); 378/7 B.C., Athenian (Diod. Sic. 15.76); ca. 367/6 B.C., Eretrian, then Boiotian (Schol. Aesch, vs. Ktesiphon 85, Diod. Sic. 15.76); mid-fourth century B.C., Independent (ArchDelt 21 [1966] 45-47: IG VII 4250 and 4251); 338 B.C., Athenian (Paus. 1.34.1); 322 B.C., Inde- pendent (Diod. Sic. 18.56; AE 1952, 169); 313 B.C., Boiotian (Diod. Sic. 19.77); 304 B.C., Athenian (SEG III, 117); ca. 287, Boiotian (IG VII, 2724a).

The Boiotian border was flexible to the north as well, where the town of Larymna was Lokrian in the fourth century (Paus. 9.23.7, Skylax Peripl. 6) and Boiotian by ca. 230 (Polyb. 20.5.7).

28 Note also the similar construction of the Askra, Mav- rovouni, Tsoukrati, and Limiko towers to that at Eleutherai. For Messene as a Boiotian work: Diod. Sic. 16.66.1 and 16.67.1 and Ober (supra n. 20) 572-73, esp. n. 14.




hand, coursed trapezoidal masonry of this type is not a feature of most of the indubitably Attic forts, such as those at Oinoe, Panakton, Phyle, Rhamnous, Tho- rikos, or Sounion,29 nor are similar door consoles known in Attica. In short, Eleutherai as a Boiotian settlement and border fort for much of the Classical

period seems a distinct probability. Further argu- ments may be adduced from a consideration of the two other military installations in the plain, Oinoe and the Mazi tower.

The fort at Oinoe sits on a low ridge in the valley, just over 6 km from Eleutherai. A polygonal limestone socle surmounted by ashlar masonry in conglomerate has led to the suggestion that the fort had at least two

periods. There is no doubt that Oinoe was Attic: it was a deme of the phyle Hippothontis, and sent four

representatives to the boule.30 It was a border deme, the most northwesterly of all, according to both Thu-

cydides (2.18) and Herodotos (5.74). It was the first Attic territory attacked by Archidamos during his first invasion of Attica and, as Frazer noted long ago,3' that alone suggests that Eleutherai was Boiotian at least until late in the fifth century. Equally significant is the fact that Oinoe was fortified. This is a characteristic feature of the border demes along the land frontier, Eleusis, Oinoe, Phyle, Dekeleia, Aphidna, and Rhamnous, as well as of three large coastal demes, Piraeus, Thorikos, and Sounion. To the best of our

knowledge, the remaining 130 or so demes were un- fortified at least until Hellenistic times.32 If a deme was not on the border, it was not fortified; Oinoe, therefore, should represent the northwest limit of Attica.

If one accepts Eleutherai as Boiotian and Oinoe as Attic, then the border between Attica and Boiotia ran somewhere between the two. The logical line would be along the low ridge, Rachi Stratonos (356 m), that

runs northeast into the valley from the south side, partially dividing the plain (fig. 8). If this ridge served as the boundary then we may well have an explanation for the Mazi tower, which has long puzzled topogra- phers. The tower stands less than a kilometer east of the ridge, only 2 km west of Oinoe, and less than 5 km from Eleutherai. Like Oinoe, it has a limestone socle with upper courses of ashlar in conglomerate. The tower lies in a peculiar position, remarkably low down and not well situated for general observation or signaling. This has led to the theory that it may simply be a farm tower of the sort known from elsewhere in Attica and the Greek world.33 Its construction, however, militates against such an explanation. A hollow, square tower measuring 8.80 m on a side, it stood at least five stories high: 32 courses are preserved today, rising to a height of 14.10 m. Its immense size, as well as the use of carefully cut ashlar blocks, suggests that it was a public rather than private endeavor. None of the farm towers of south Attica use anything like the costly style of construction of the Mazi tower nor do they match its great height, and we should probably expect it to have served some military function, de- spite its position.34 Furthermore, Ober has recently shown that the top floor housed catapults, and he has suggested, rightly I think, that the tower guarded the road that ran through the valley.35 If Eleutherai is identified as Attic, however, the tower is robbed of virtually all significance. It is hard to see what function it could have served in such a low position between and within 5 km of two friendly, heavily fortified sites. With Eleutherai Boiotian, however, the tower takes on considerable significance, guarding the road just on the Attic side of the border. This same explanation will perhaps serve also for another Attic tower, at Varnava in northeast Attica. Like the Mazi tower, its construction seems too substantial to have been pri-

29 W. Wrede, Attische Mauern (Athens 1933) passim, with photos. Only part of the fourth-century circuit of Eleusis (pl. x) closely matches the style of Eleutherai.

30 J. Traill, Demos and Trittys (Toronto 1986) 137. 31 J.G. Frazer, Pausanias's Description of Greece (London

1898) II, 517. 32 See J. McCredie, Fortified Military Camps in Attica,

(Hesperia Suppl. 11, Princeton 1966) 91-92. He takes Tri- korynthos, Aphidna, and Dekeleia, all of which have some sort of fortifications, as very early.

33 For farm towers see Munn 1983 (supra n. 16) 30-42 with earlier bibliography; also R. Osborne, Demos: The Dis- covery of Classical Attica (Cambridge 1985) 190-91. For ter- minology concerning towers: Avram and Nistor in Studii i cercetdri di istorie veche 33 (1982) 365-76 (SEG XXXII, 722).

34 It would require the cutting and setting of something close to 900 blocks. The cost of building such a tower would be considerable. While no direct evidence concerning free-

standing towers survives, for the cost of towers in circuit walls see F. Maier, Griechische Mauerbauinschriften (Heidel- berg 1961) II, 66-67, and Munn, Studies (supra n. 16) 77, n. 99. It should be noted that there are several surprisingly large towers along Hammond's "road of towers" in the Me- garid ("The Main Road from Boiotia to the Peloponnese through the Northern Megarid," BSA 49 [1954] 103-22), some of which may be farm towers, but the Megarians were famous for the lavishness of their house construction in antiquity: Isoc. 8.117 and Diogenes the Cynic, in Tert., Apol. 39.14. In addition, the towers are far from Megara or any other convenient fort and so needed to be strongly built. Large towers are also a feature of several Aegean islands (Siphnos, Kea, Naxos). In any event, the known Attic farm towers are not comparable to the Mazi tower in either scale or construction techniques.

35 Ober (supra n. 20) 589-91 and Ober (supra n. 16) 156- 57.



202 JOHN McKESSON CAMP II

vate. Also like Mazi, it is set surprisingly low to have served primarily as a watch/signal tower, and it lies at the outer limit of Attic territory, beyond fortified demes (Rhamnous and Aphidna). Finally, it sits on the downhill (Attic) side of a ridge that may well have served as a border, in this instance between Attica and

Oropos.36 It has recently been argued by Ober that many of

the installations discussed here (Limiko, Tsoukrati, Mazi, Oinoe, and Eleutherai) were built by the Ath-

enians as part of a defensive "system" of towers and forts designed to protect Athenian territory in the fourth century B.C. In particular, Eleutherai and Mazi are cited in a hypothetical reconstruction of how the system might have worked.37 As noted above, however, if Eleutherai is Attic, then the Mazi tower is

essentially useless. Ober's suggestion is that it served as a staging area for Athenian troops on their way to relieve a besieged Eleutherai. Any relief troops, however, could gather and organize as well (or better) at the fort of Oinoe, only 2 km away over level ground. Rather than suppose that the Mazi tower was built to defend an Eleutherai that might fall into enemy hands, it is surely more likely that the Mazi tower was built because Eleutherai was in enemy hands.

The historical context of the fort at Eleutherai is also worth considering briefly. All recent commentators-Ober, Munn, Cooper, and Lawrence-have ac-

cepted a date in the second quarter of the fourth

century B.C. for its construction. This corresponds to the period of aggressive Theban expansion, not just against Sparta and Thessaly, but also against Athens and Athenian interests. Athens herself was threat- ened, and Oropos was lost in 367/6 B.C.38 Even more

significant, for our purposes, the Thebans took Plataia in 374/3 B.C. and expelled its entire population, thereby removing an Athenian ally and a potential threat from the vicinity.39 Theban policy in the Pelo-

ponnese was to hem in Sparta with a series of forts set just outside her borders: Messene, Megalopolis, and Mantinea. The fort at Eleutherai may well have served the same Theban purpose vis-a-vis Athens.

In conclusion, I would suggest that an analysis of the military installations along the Attic/Boiotian frontier permits us to consider the following typology of towers: "compartment" towers in trapezoidal masonry are Boiotian watch/signal towers, whereas round towers in rubble or polygonal masonry, often with a solid base, are Attic signal towers. At least two hollow

square towers in coursed masonry (Mazi and Varnava) were used to mark the Attic side of the border, along a road, and presumably housed a small garrison. Fur- ther, from the position of these various towers and

nearby forts it seems likely that the Attic/Boiotian border ran through the Skourta Plain, a traditional no-man's-land, watched from Panakton on the Attic side and from Tsoukrati on the Boiotian side. To the west, the boundary ran between Oinoe and Eleuth- erai, just north of the Mazi tower. Such an arrange- ment explains both the construction methods and the

positions of all the various forts and towers and leads to the conclusion that throughout much of the Clas- sical period Eleutherai was Boiotian.

AMERICAN SCHOOL OF CLASSICAL STUDIES

54 SOUIDIAS STREET

ATHENS 106 76 GREECE

36 Note the placement of similar towers in comparable positions elsewhere in Greece: at Alyzeia in Akarnania (W. Murray, The Coastal Sites of Western Acarnania [Diss. Univ. of Pennsylvania 1982] 83-86); at Hysiai in the Argolid (W.K. Pritchett, Studies in Ancient Greek Topography 4 [Berkeley 1989] 110); at Karakolithos in eastern Phokis (J. Fossey, The Ancient Topography of Eastern Phokis [Amsterdam 1986] 59- 61); and perhaps at least one of the towers overlooking the eastern approaches to the Megarid (Doskouri: Ober [supra n. 16] 176). Ancient inscriptions recording arbitrations of border disputes indicate that the Greeks generally used the natural, obvious boundaries such as ravines and ridges to delimit territory. Note that the towers under consideration here are set below whatever ridges or peaks form the natural boundary. In such instances it seems clear to me that a tower is more likely to be built in one's own territory than the

enemy's. 37 Ober (supra n. 16). Although, for the reasons outlined

here, I feel Limiko, Tsoukrati, and Eleutherai are better understood as Boiotian, it is not my intention to argue for or against Ober's basic thesis. For a contrary view, see P. Harding, "Athenian Defensive Strategy in the Fourth Cen- tury," Phoenix 42 (1988) 61-71, and Ober's reply: "Defense of the Athenian Land Frontier 404-322 B.C.: A Reply," Phoenix 43 (1989) 294-301. The hypothetical reconstruction is on p. 205.

38 Threats against Athens: Aesch. 2.105; Paus. 9.14.7; Plut. Mor. 193d-e; and Polyaenus, Strat. 3.9.20. For the loss of Oropos, see supra n. 27.

39 Paus. 9.1.8. and Diod. Sic. 15.46. The Plataians were not able to return until after the Battle of Chaironeia in 338 B.C.: Paus. 9.1.8 and 4.27.10.



Notes on the Towers and Borders of Classical Boiotia

Documents

Transcript of Notes on the Towers and Borders of Classical Boiotia