Isthmus Wall, I

The one step never taken in determining the purpose of the 'Cyclopean Wall' was to show that all the segments that supposedly constitute this wall actually are parts of a single structure. Broneer, Simpson, and others all merely assumed that this was true. [1]

Wiseman also accepted Broneer's interpretation of these segments as one structure but he does try to justify why they all should be considered the same structure. [2]

However, the sparse nature of these segments, their frustrating undatability, the cross-purposes at which they seem to operate, as well as the varying construction techniques and peculiar route of their hypothesized reconstruction cast strong doubt on this automatic assumption.[3] 

The discoverer of the first segment, Dr. Kardara, as well as the younger scholars, Morgan, Gregory, Loader, etc. weren't so easily convinced of the unity of this 'wall'. And while they have written clearly on this subject I see no convincing alternative explanations for the nature and location of these several segments.[4]

It is possible to see sections Ro, St, and Sk as having unified significance.[5] It seems that these three segments form a nearly straight-line stretching from the shore of the Saronic Gulf to a spur that leads up to the Mytika plateau. In other words this undoubted single wall (originally) proceeded from the beach, along a rise or bluff over a now-vanished creek, to the closest high ground. This group seems like a straightforward, lowlands coastal defensive wall.

Section Sk
Photo by Dr. Hugo Becker, 10/23.  All rights reserved.

From Ro it is 650 meters before we find the next segment in Broneer's scheme which is Pe. Of that route only about 230 m is shared with the Hexamilion wall.  So, in other words, after Ro, the 'wall' does not pick up again until we reach the other side of the top of the Mytika plateau.[6]

I suspect that Pe, Sp, Zo, Vl, and Pa form a complex of their own and divorced from the purposes of the previous. We might say the following things about this 'complex'.

A) Of all the segments in this group only Pe might realistically be part of a defensive wall based solely on the fact that it rests at or near the edge of the Mytika plateau. Broneer tried to emphasize this by suggesting that the forward extensions of Pe were 'small towers'. But the forward extensions of Pe are not 'towers'. Their small size and small extension (2/3 of a meter) are better interpreted as buttresses.[7]  Segment Pe does sit on moderately sloping ground and this lends support to the idea that these north-ward projections are simply buttresses.  So the attempt to make this stretch a defensive wall is weakened once the 'towers' are disposed of.

It is nearly a kilometer before any other segment (Pa) rises to the top of the terrain and this occurs, in my view, for very different reasons.

B) It is impossible that Sp ever formed part of a defensive wall. The top of Mytika here is about 82 m asl. Segment Sp is at 56 m asl. The difference is 26 m or 85 feet.[8]  In other words, behind Sp stretches a steep slope which is the height of an 8 story building. It simply cannot be that this segment was part of a defensive position.   It cannot be defended and the rule is that a wall that is not defended will fail.  And given the visible trend on both sides of Sp it seems that the course of the wall stayed well below the top of the ridge for a much greater distance.  Dr. Kardara, the discoverer of the first segments on Mytika, asserted her view that Sp was part of a buttress system for a road.[9]  As far as I am aware she seems never to have found a reason for changing her opinion about this.

C) Segment Zo is the odd man out of this group. It appears to have been built for purposes of its own, perhaps it was part of the much later Stadium attached to the Isthmian games. Photographs of Zo taken by an associate of mine dramatically demonstrate how very different its construction is from the other members of this group.[10]

Segment Zo (portion).
Photo by Dr. Hajo Becker. 10/2023. All rights reserved.

D) Vl appears to have been at about the same level as Sp. Not much is known about Vl (it has never been excavated) but, if its elevation was the same as Sp's (and there's no sign of it on the Mytika ridge above where I think it is), then again, it is impossible for it to have been part of a defensive system. I believe that this gives us some weak reason to think that Sp and Vl formed part of the same group. Simpson has suggested that it is obvious that this entire complex formed a defensive structure because it was constructed at the top of (Mytika) ridge. But between Pe and Pa this assertion is simply not true. No one ever built fortifications way BELOW the top of a ridge when a ridge was handy.[11]

E) Just after Vl the valley separating Rachi and Mytika rapidly narrows (from about 100 m to 50 m) and it rises to the level of the Mytika plateau where the Rachi joins it. At this juncture we find the wall segment Pa which seems to have been intended to join the Rachi side to a continuation (no longer to be seen) of Vl.   There is no wall continuation to the N on the Rachi side .

The head of the valley in vicinity of Segment Pa.  Photo faces N.
Rachi on left, Mytika plateau on right.
Photo by Dr. Hajo Becker. 10/2023. All rights reserved.

So, this group (if it is indeed a single group) starts at the edge of Mytika, sinks about 26 m in about 300 m to Sp and continues at this level (but above the valley bottom) until it rises again to end as Pa where the valley itself rises to meet at the juncture of the Mytika plateau and the Rachi. On the facing side of Rachi, for nearly a kilometer, nothing has been recovered until segment Mi. I include here a photograph taken partway down the valley and facing the valley mouth. This will give the clearest possible idea of the nature of the ground and how steep it is on both sides.

Rachi on L,  Mytika on R. 
Taken from  37.907818° N, 22.987935° E and facing N.

Photo by Dr. Hajo Becker. 10/2023. All rights reserved.

This map shows the position from which the previous photo was taken:

This bring us to our final group, Mi and Ge

F) The Mi and Ge sections form a group of their own. They are close together and are clearly parts of the same wall.  At present there is a 980 m gap between Pa and Mi.  In antiquity this gap may have been a bit smaller; sections of Mi seem to have been removed by local farmers. How much has been removed of what was originally built is anyone's guess.  When we plot Mi and Ge on a map we notice that they do not begin until the end of the Rachi has gone back to the valley floor.

There never was any continuation of the wall on the Rachi side to connect Pa and Mi.  In positing such a wall Broneer and Simpson lost sight of something fundamental.  It's not often enough remarked that the Mycenaeans were geniuses at getting hillsides to do their work for them. A good example of this is the draining of Lake Copais in Boeotia. In the thirteenth century BC the powers in charge at Orchomenos (some of this is suppositious but the dikes are the best evidence) wished to enlarge the channel of the Melas as a way to drain the Copais Lake.  (We do know that Lake Copais was drained under the Minyans.) The trick was to drain the Cephissus (a larger river than the Melas) into the channel of the Melas.  They actually did divert the Cephissos river in this way but found that the channel of the Melas wasn't large enough to handle the combined rivers.  So they built an enormous 17 km. dike from Orchomenos, just on the S edge of the Melas, and continuing to Topolia Bay on the east where the combined waters were drained into pre-existing sink holes or katavothrae (e.g., the Grand Katavothra at F857) which ring that bay. The point is that the Mycenaeans built nothing or very little on the north side of the Melas. They didn't need to. They simply let the plunging hills on that side be the other side of their channel. [12]

Segments Mi and Ge do not line up with the NE Rachi hillside but flare outward towards the W.  It was exactly this outward flare which caused Broneer to suppose that the wall might continue all the way across the Isthmus. And this flare to the W seems to find a mirror at Pe which flares eastward in the opposite direction. It is curious that these segments (about 300 m apart in a straight line) and an equal distance from Pa seem to form mirror images of each other.  What sort of walling activity would require that parallel walls should flare away from each other?

Whatever purpose led to the construction of Group 2 on the Mytika side - that purpose was fulfilled on the Rachi side by just utilizing the steep hills already existing and building little or nothing extra. And our hypothetical builders didn't build additional walls on that side until the Rachi itself terminated in the plain and became too low to carry out their purpose.

What purpose?

Footnotes

[1] Broneer [1966] 355.  "It is true that its line can be traced for only two kilometers from the sea, but there can be no doubt that it crossed-or was intended to cross-the Isthmus."  SImpson and Hagel [2006] 125: "Since the Wall has all the hallmarks of a single entity, it is not appropriate to treat it as if it was only a collection of incoherent sections." Simpson here would alllow an exception for segment Zo.  In footnote 63 here he seems uncharacteristically angry that Morgan [1999] doubts that these segments comprise one wall.

[2] Wiseman [1976] 59-60 gives a short description of the wall and his reasons for following Broneer.  And yet, in the course of this description, he makes several somewhat doubtful assumptions, the chief of which is that the projections of segment  Pe are 'A series of towers ... '.  From this assumption he is led ineluctably to the conclusion that the wall must be ' ... a fortification wall.'  Their small size makes it highly improbable that these projections were towers ... and in turn that makes the 'defensive wall' interpretation impossible.  

[3] The lengths of all the known segments, when added, amount to a little less than 10% of the hypothesized route of the wall.  As for the 'peculiar route' the chief problem in interpreting these segments remains the inexplicable plunge to the S after segment Pe and then the equally sudden reversal back to the N after Pa.  This adds a net 1500 m. to the length of the wall.  This 'southern salient' requires an explanation no matter how much Simpson tries to wish it away.  The datability question is addressed at length in Morgan [1999].

[4] Catherine Morgan [1999] provides a careful discussion of all segments of the wall.  She starts by saying "There is no evidence to indicate that it crossed, or was intended to cross, the Isthmus, or that it continued to Corinth and served to connect rural settlements; ... "  Loader [1995] 164-167 shows that some of the segments have widely varying dates.  Timothy Gregory [1993] 4 says " ... there is no evidence to connect these short sections into a great defensive work across the Isthmus; some of the sections might not be Mycenaean at all."

[5] For Sk, St, and Ro regarded as a group, see this.

[6] Between Ro and Pe there are two trial trenches, MW-3, MW-4, and a few scattered finds on the so-called 'Phytobanis' property.  Not enough information is preserved from these areas to support assertions that they form part of any cyclopean wall.  Morgan [1999] 442, nos. 3, 4, and 5.

[7] Even Broneer ([1966] 355) termed them 'miniature towers'.  And see Morgan [1999] 442-3: "Four projections, described as towers (although too small to be used effectively thus, and so perhaps buttresses), are spaced approximately evenly along the preserved, north, face, ... "

[8] A photograph of the steep slope behind Sp can be seen in Morgan [1999] 443, Fig. 8.

[9] Kardara [1971] (no page numbers but final page): "A retaining wall therefore for a road leading from the coast of the Saronic gulf to the main plateau of the Rachi - and hence to the mainland - must be reconsidered, inasmuch as this seems to be a more logical explanation than a defense wall across the Isthmos." And Gregory [1995] 5 "The wall on the slopes of Mytikas probably retained a road, ... "  Wiseman [1978] 60 attacks the idea by saying that the projections on section Pe are towers thus showing the wall's defensive purpose.  He also feels that it is illogical for a road to wind its way in and out of the ravine when it could travel by shorter routes.

[10]  In Blackman et al. [1997] 24 it is suggested that Section Zo may be associated with the later Hippodrome. "Based on the workmanship of the wall, portions of which contain ashlar masonry, it seems more likely that at least this portion of the wall is of Gr date."  Blackman means the Later Stadium.

    The area in and around Zo contains a complex series of ancient walls and it is not easy to determine if any of them are relevant cyclopean work.  Even Simpson felt that Zo might be an anomaly.  In Simpson and Hagel [2006] he says "All the sections of the Wall investigated by Broneer share the same basic characteristics ... with the sole exception of Section Zo."

 And Broneer suggested that "The terrain here slopes gently down along a small streambed, which runs almost straight north, and there may have been a road with a gate through the wall at this point. This could be the reason for the use of squared blocks."

[11] What little is known of Vl is summarized in Morgan [1999] 444: "Here the presence of a 30 meter long stretch of the north face is reported.  No further investigation or artifact collection was made."  See Broneer [1966] 352: "The outer face appears in several places, and one such stretch, on a property of Ioannis Vlassis, is 30 m. long."

[12] For use of cliffs to replace wall-building in game drive systems see Fradley et al. [2022] (online so no page numbers) when they come to discuss desert kites in western Saudi Arabia at Harrat Nawasif: " ..., and the use of slopes and cliffs as part of a natural enclosure. Cliffs were also integrated into the design of kites, possibly to reduce the amount of guiding walls that needed to be built ..."  For the channeling of the Cephissus river see this post.  

Bibliography

Blackman et al. [1997] : Blackman, David with Julian Baker and Nicholas Hardwick. 'Archaeology in Greece 1997-98', Archaeological Reports (44) 1-136. 1997. Online here.

Broneer [1966] : Broneer, Oscar.  "The Cyclopean Wall on the Isthmus of Corinth and Its Bearing on Late Bronze Age Chronology",  Hesperia: The Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens (35:4), 346-362.  1966.  Online here.

Fradley et al. [2022] : Fradley, Michael with Francesca Simi and Maria Guagnin, 'Following the herds? A new distribution of hunting kites in Southwest Asia', The Holocene (32:11). pp. 1121-1131. 2022. Online here.

Gregory [1993] : Timothy, Gregory E., Isthmia V, The Hexamilion and the Fortress. American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Princeton, New Jersey, 1993.  ISBN: 0-87661-935-9.

Kardara [1971] : Kardara, Chrisoula. 'The Isthmian Wall; (A Retaining Wall for a Road)', Athens Annals of Archaeology (4:1), 85-89. 1971.  Online here.

Loader [1995] : Loader, Nancy. The definition of cyclopean: An investigation into the origins of the LH III fortifications on mainland Greece I, Durham theses, Durham University.. 1995. Online here.

Morgan [1999] : Morgan, Catherine.  Isthmia VIII; The Late Bronze Age Settlement and Early Iron Age Sanctuary. The American School of Classical Studies at Athens.  Princeton, New Jersey.  USA.  1999.  ISBN: 0-87661-938-3.

Simpson and Hagel [2006]: Simpson, R. Hope and D.K. Hagel, Mycenaean Fortifications, Highways, Dams and Canals.  Sävedalen 2006, Paul Åströms Förlag.  SIMA CXXXIII.   ISBN: 978-917081-212-5.

Wiseman [1978] : Wiseman, James. The Land of the Ancient Corinthians. Paul Åströms Förlag, Göteborg. ISBN: 91-85058-78-5.