In Simpson [1981] we read the following
"The wall ... is sited wherever possible in such a manner as to force attackers from the north to approach over steeply sloping ground. Indeed a very wide (and expensive) loop was made in the central part of its preserved length ..., adding about 2 kilometres of "extra" walling, obviously in order to maintain the desired elevation and to take advantage of the steep slopes." [1]
Dr. Simpson is quite mistaken about this. Section Pe does sit on the top north edge of the Mytika plateau but segment Sp, the very next segment and some 230 m to the S of Pe, sits some 26 m. below the top of the ridge. In 230 m, therefore, this 'defensive' wall has descended the height of an 8-story building from Pe. That is clear in the next picture:
 |
| Segments Pe, Sp, and Zo. Facing SE. The blue 'fence' is a reconstruction of the route of the supposed wall. |
The descent from Pe to Sp is clear in this picture. The fact that a steep ridge sits immediately behind and above Sp and that Sp is actually embedded in the ridge makes it impossible that this segment was ever part of a defensive wall.
 |
| Segment Sp. A steep ridge (in which Sp is embedded) rises just behind and makes it impossible to defend. |
The very next segment, Zo, is at the same elevation as Sp but, because of the ground, sits on a level plain easily approachable to any 'attacker' coming up the valley.
Simpson is correct that the southern salient (and the extra 1800 m of walling) requires an explanation. An attempt 'to maintain the desired elevation and to take advantage of the steep slopes' is not that explanation.
Footnotes
[1] Simpson [1981] 35, 'A 61 Isthmia'.
Bibliography
Simpson [1981] : Simpson, Richard Hope. Mycenaean Greece. Noyes Press. 1981. ISBN: 0-8155-5061-8.
No comments:
Post a Comment