Aegean Elements and Influences in Central European Bronze Age Defensive Architecture: Fact or Fiction? Local or Imported?

15 Pages·2.341 MB·English

by  Alusik T.

Aegean Elements and Influences in Central European
Bronze Age Defensive Architecture: Fact or Fiction?
Local or Imported?
Tomas Alusik, Prague
For Jan Bouzek and Anthony Harding
The presence of big and well-fortified set- Aegean Bronze Age, the author has been
tlements in Central Europe is often given studying the defensive architecture over
as an example of the possible ideological thelastfewyearsandhewillapproachthe
andpracticalinfluenceofadvancedAegean problem from the perspective of the
prehistoric civilizations versus less devel- Aegean prehistory. That is why this paper
opedlocalculturesinCentralEurope.This might be found a little controversial. The
hypothesis was formulated by archaeolo- first part is theoretical, dealing with gen-
gistsspecialisedinlocalCentralEuropean eral questions of mutual influences of dif-
prehistory or by experts in Aegean prehis- ferentcultures.Thesecondpartwillshow
tory,butnotbyspecialistsindefensivear- theconcreteexamplesfromthesitesinthe
chitecture or warfare (see e.g. VLADÁR Aegean and in the former Czechoslovakia.
1973;1975;JUØINA1997).Asaspecialistin
Methodology
Atthebeginning,itisnecessarytofindand ence, architectural influences are not so
getabetterunderstandingoftheelements easilytraceableandareevidentonlyinpar-
thatareconsideredtobeaconsequenceof ticular circumstances. For example, if a
the influence of the Aegean civilizations, buildinghasaspecialformorgroundplan,
and to outline the methodological ques- isbuiltwithaparticulartechnique(typeof
tions. The author is afraid that his simpli- walls or combination of materials)and/or
fiedapproachandimpressionofanAegean has a special element (column etc.).
prehistorian will be presented. According The hypothesis of an Aegean influence
to this approach — and his personal im- is in some cases well grounded, the paral-
pression—manynew,unusual,original,or lels are well documented (e.g. the overall
previously non-existing elements in Cen- designofashrineinUherskýBrodinSouth
tral Europe with not sufficiently clarified Moravia see e.g. BOUZEK 1985; 2005,
origins are very often considered to be di- 83–86, 89, Fig. 29–30). But in author’s
rectly influenced by Aegean civilizations. opinion,toinfersuchinfluenceonlyfroma
(According to the principle “Where to general resemblance would be a method-
trash it?” or “Ex Oriente lux.”) This as- ologicallywrongapproach.Forexample,in
sumptionis,inauthor’sopinion,incorrect cases of bigger centrally located buildings
or at least exaggerated, as he will try to (the ruler’s house or a sanctuary) in East-
demonstrate in this paper. The influences ern Mediterranean, to presume an Aegean
of material culture such as decoration, influence in Central Europe because of a
shapeofpottery,weaponsandequipment, similarprinciple(abiggercentrallylocated
jewellery, etc. are often relatively well evi- megaronoranotherbuilding)wouldbein-
dent (see e.g. BOUZEK 1966; 1985; 1996; accurate.
1997;2005).Accordingtoauthor’sexperi-
M. Jaeger/J. Czebreszuk/K.P. Fischl (eds.) Enclosed Space — Open Society. Contact and Exchange in the Context
11
of Bronze Age Fortified Settlements in Central Europe. SAO/SPEŚ 9. Poznań–Bonn 2012.
Thehypothesisthattheideaofbuilding sary to mention chronological concerns
fortifiedsettlementsintheCzechterritory and questions. The beginning of the
isnotoriginal,butbroughtfromelsewhere Bronze Age in Central Europe is dated to
(see e.g. CTVERÁK et al. 2003, 21), in au- 2300 BC and its end around 750 BC (see
thor’s view, is as well methodologically e.g.JIRÁÒ(ed.)2008,ch.2.3,3.3and4.3).
wrong. Such assumption is a consequence In the Aegean, however, the beginning of
ofapopularconceptinarchaeology“every- theBronzeAgeisdefinedbytheendofthe
thing is interrelated and has its origins 4thmillenniumanditendsinthe1sthalfof
somewhereelse”.Suchconceptisoftenac- the 11th century BC. According to high
curatebutmustbeunderstoodandapplied chronologytheAegeanMiddleBronzeAge
withforethoughttounknownandnotfully isputto2300BCortothe23rdcenturyBC,
exploredcircumstances,similarlytoallba- but in any case before 2000 BC, the Late
sicconcepts.Giventhefactthattheneedof Bronze Age starts around 1700 BC, or in
defence is common to many cultures the 17th century BC (see e.g. MYERS et al.
around the world, the idea of building a 1992, 33; MANNING 1993; RUTTER 2001,
fortified area (whether it is called fort, 106;SHELMERDINE2001,332; SHELMERDINE
oppidum,townoracropolis)originatedin- (ed.) 2007, 3–7). In this paper, the author
dependently in many places around the comparesthedefensivearchitectureinthe
world,inauthor’sopinion.Thepresenceof formerCzechoslovakiafromtheperiodbe-
fortified settlements in the Bronze Age in tweenthebeginningoftheBronzeAgeand
formerCzechoslovakiadoesnotneedtobe HaA1phase.Sitesandfortificationsdated
explained by foreign inspiration or influ- to the Ha A2 phase (which roughly corre-
ence. In the Bohemia territory there exist sponds with the Submycenaean period)
manyEneolithicfortifiedsettlements,asit wereconsideredtoolateforthisstudy(see
was recently demonstrated by Jan John below).TheyareyoungerthantheAegean
(JOHN 2008). The assumption of an inde- Bronze Age and were not subject to this
pendentlocaldevelopmentandcreationof analysis.
certain elements (including fortifications) Dating fortified sites and fortifications
is also one of the cornerstonesof author’s is problematic in both areas — unfortu-
scepticism concerning a fundamental, de- nately, there are few well-explored sites
fined,anddurableinfluenceoftheAegean andenclosurewalls.Ifasiteand/orfortifi-
defensive architecture to the development cation were not excavated, it is very diffi-
andtheappearanceoffortifiedsettlements cult to date them on the basis of surface
of the Bronze Age in Central Europe. finds. It is also particularly difficult to de-
Before the author moves ahead to con- terminethedateofitsconstructionandits
crete examples of architecture, it is neces- decline in case of long lasting settlements.
Fortified settlements from the area of former Czechoslovakia
A key element of the possible influence of CTVERÁKetal.2003,347–8).Itissituated
the Aegean defensive architecture is the on an oval promontory overlooking the
use of stone as an important or the only Otava river and protected by fortification
onebuildingmaterialinCentralEuropean ontheeasilyaccessiblenorthernside.The
fortifications.Inauthor’sopinion,without steeprockycliffsontheothersideprovide
thisconditionitisnotpossibletoconsider asufficientnaturalprotection.Thefortifi-
anyAegeanorAegean-Anatoliandefensive cation consists of double rampart or dyke
architecture influence at all. In Bohemia, about 60 m long and 25 m wide. A 3 m
stone parts in the fortifications existed widemoatwasdugintotherockbetween
since the turn of the Early and Middle the two dykes. The outer lower dyke was
Bronze Ages. builtfromclayandreinforcedbytworows
Near Vrcovice in South Bohemia (lo- of stakes; it was 2 m wide. On the outer
cality “V Dolní Lipnici”, region Písek) sideithadalowqualitystonefaçade.The
there is a fortified settlement of approxi- higher and stronger internal dyke had a
mately 0.75 ha (FRÖHLICH/MICHÁLEK much more solid foundation and struc-
1978, 112; FRÖHLICH 1997, 216–18; ture. It had a wooden grate with stones
12 T. Alusik
and on the exterior side it had a dry andwasprotectedonbothsidesby6min
unbondstone-wall. diameterroundtowers.Suchamonumen-
Another South Bohemian fortified set- talstonefortificationisintheenvironment
tlement dated also from the turn of the oftheOttomanicultureauniquephenom-
EarlyandMiddleBronzeAges(BA2/BB1 enon.Thatiswhyitisoccasionallydatedto
phases) is located on a promontory over- the later Púchov culture period (JAEGER
looking Vltava river in Všemyslice (local- 2011, 132–137).
ity“Kozívrch“,regionCeskéBudìjovice— The settlement or a cult centre on the
JIRÁÒ1985;BENEŠ/MICHÁLEK/ZAVØEL1999, Skalka hill close to the town of Velim in
77–8, 142, 206; CTVERÁK et al. 2003, CentralBohemia(regionKolín)datesback
348–9).Itssurfaceareaisabout0.5haand to the Middle Bronze Age (HRALA/ŠUM-
isdividedintotwoparts—the“forecastle” BEROVÁ/VÁVRA 2000; CTVERÁK et al. 2003,
(orlowertown,about47×43m)andthe 334–6;HARDINGetal.2007).Multiplefor-
“acropolis”(oruppertown,about17×13 tifications were discovered (designated by
m).Theonlyopensideisinthesoutheast; the letters “A”–“H”) consisting of moats,
the other sides are nearly vertical slopes. rampartsandpalisadesenclosinglargeoval
The perimeter of the lower town is pro- area with an acropolis of Skalka (which is
tectedbyadyke.Itsouterpartwasformed about 10 m higher than the surrounding
byastone-wallfrommid-sizerocksputto- terrain level) located in its centre. The in-
getherwhendry. The rearwall hada form ner moat “A” enclosed the area of around
of a stake palisade. The inner body was 160mindiameter.Theexternalsystemof
made out of clay. In addition, the acropo- fortifications“H”enclosedacomplexwith
lis/upper town was surrounded by a adiameterofabout440to460m.Thissys-
mound with a moat on the south and tem “H” about 60 m wide consists firstly
southeast. from a moat about 10 m wide. Originally,
The fortified settlement Spišský behind the moat there used to be a 1 m
Štvrtok (locality “Myšia Hôrka”, region wide stone-wall that was reinforced in its
Spišská Nová Ves) in Eastern Slovakia is foundation and lengthwise by beams and
also dated to the later phases of the Early posts.Behindthiswalltherewasarampart
BronzeAge,aclassicalperiodoftheOtto- made of wood and soil, more than 5 m
mani culture (VLADÁR 1973; 1975; 1976; wide, adjacent to the main wall. Fortifica-
FURMÁNEK/VELIACIK/VLADÁR 1991, 181, tions of this site probably belong to two
187,192).Thissiteisquiteuniqueforthe different fortification systems, enclosing
territoryoftheformerCzechoslovakia,be- two different areas. The older system that
cause of its architecture and abundant createdthemoat“A”(togetherwithmoats
finds. It is often referred as “Slovak My- “B”, “F” and “G”) probably dates to the
cenae”(seee.g.FURMÁNEK2004,69–70).It earlier period of the Middle Danube
is considered to be one of the best exam- Tumulus culture. The younger system is
ples of Aegean influences in Central Eu- datedlaterandisformedbythecomplexof
rope.Thesettlementofabout6600m2was fortifications “H” and several other moats
heavilyfortifiedonallsides.Itsnorthwest, and palisades.
west and southwest sides are formed by Agoodexampleofafortifiedsiteofthe
steep slopes providinga good naturalpro- YoungandLateBronzeAgescanbe found
tection.Apalisadestandingonstonefoun- near Cernovice (locality “Hradištì/Bur-
dationswasbuiltthere.Fromthenorthern, berg“,regionChomutov—SMRŽ1991,83;
easternandsouthernsidestherewasarel- 1995, 46–47; CTVERÁK et al. 2003, 55–56;
atively good access. To protect them there JIRÁÒ (ed.) 2008, 135). The settlement oc-
was built a massive fortification — a dyke cupies the peak plateau of a hill with ap-
or a rampart up to 7.5 m wide with stone proximately360×190minarea.Astone
façadesupto1.7mwideonbothsides.An- rampartorawallwasbuiltaroundtheset-
other 1.6 m wide outer stone-wall stood tlement.Thepreservedlengthisabout240
about 1 m in front of the dyke. The whole m,preservedwidthfrom3to6mandpre-
fortificationsystemwassurroundedbya6 served height is up to 1.5 m from the in-
m wide and 2 m deep moat. The only en- side.Thefortificationwasformedbyanin-
trancetothefortresswassituatedapproxi- ternalandanexternalwallmadeoutofbig
mately in the middle of the eastern wall stones put together without mortar. The
Aegean Elements and Influences in Central European Bronze Age Defensive Architecture: Fact or Fiction? 13
spacebetweenthemwasfilledwithamix- KØIVÁNEK/KUNA/KORENÝ 2006; KYTLICOVÁ
ture of small stones. No residues of a 2007). With the area of 61 ha, it is one of
wooden structural support grate or a the largest fortified settlementsin Central
wooden inner construction were detected. Europe. Its territory is divided into an ex-
Also striking is the absence of a moat and ternalpart(“lowertown”)andaninternal
theuseofstoneastheonlybuildingmate- part (“acropolis”) with its own fortifica-
rial.MostofthefindsbelongtotheKnovíz tion. The fortification is formed by stone
cultureofBD–HaAphases.Itisverylikely dykes,fastenedbyawoodengrillageanda
thatthefortificationwasbuiltatthattime. palisade.It is about 3930 m long (2400 m
The settlement in Mukov (locality theexternalwall plus 1530 m theinternal
“Hradiš(cid:4)any”, region Teplice) occupies a wall). Another example of settlements
part of a peak plateau of a greystone hill from this period (Ha A2 and later phases)
(ŠOLLE1952; SMRŽ1991, 78–82; 1995, 60; isonŽïárhillnearPavlovsko(WesternBo-
JUØINA1997;CTVERÁKetal.2003,207–209). hemia, region Rokycany — ŠALDOVÁ 1977,
Itisdividedintoacropolis/uppertownand 142; CTVERÁK et al. 2003, 232–235). It is
the forecastle/lower town. Both parts are also divided into the external (“lower
about the same size (i.e. about 3.5 ha). town”)andtheinternal(“acropolis”)parts
Eachhasitsownfortificationinaformofa with separate fortifications formed by
wall that encloses the site (although it is stone dykes. The total preserved length of
protected on all sides by steep slopes or thefortificationisabout900m(660mthe
cliffs). The wall of the acropolis was built externaland240mtheinternalwall).The
fromrelativelybigstonesandwasgarreted fortification is up to 12 m wide at its base.
on its both sides. Originally, it was 3 m The sites of this group are problematic
wide(todayafterbeingdestructedis4–5m from the chronological point of view. To
wide), 2 m high, conically tapered up- date these sites is very precarious, espe-
wards. The wall of the lower town pro- cially in the case of Plešivec. It is dated,
trudesoutofthewestwalloftheacropolis based on a few findings, to the Young
andrevolvesaroundthenorthernwallata Bronze Age (bronze artefacts) and/or to
distanceof170m,thenrejoinsitagainon the Late Bronze Age (the majority of the
the eastern part. It was constructed using pottery). Unfortunately, it is not possible
the same building technique but is gener- to date the fortifications. The major prob-
ally narrower. On the west side in front of lem is the lack of chronological consecu-
the lower-town wall, the settlement itself tion. The main settlement and architec-
isdividedfromtherestofthepeakplateau tural (incl. the fortifications) horizons of
by a transverse gap. This gap might have these settlements are dated to the end of
fulfilled the function of a moat and multi- the2ndmillennium(11thcenturyBC)andat
ply the effects of the fortification. Several the beginning of the 1st millennium BC.
interruptions in both fortification systems However, the majority of Aegean fortified
are considered to be entrances, hypotheti- settlements (including the large Mycena-
cally there were gateways in the form of eancitadelsontheGreekmainlandandin
“pliers”. Knovíz culture people inhabited Crete)atthattimehadalreadybeenruined
the settlement. for100yearsormore.ManyruinedAegean
Many settlements with stone fortifica- siteswerenotresettledforalongerperiod
tions in Bohemia that are dated from the andtheirfortificationswerenotrebuilt.As
LateBronzeAge(HaA2andlaterphases) will be shown below, possible contempo-
areconsideredtobebuiltundertheAegean raryAegeanmodelsthatcouldhaveserved
influence.Oneexampleofsuchsitescanbe asexamplesforCentralEuropeanfortified
foundonPlešivechill(654ma.s.l.)near sites during that time were actually miss-
Rejkovice (Central Bohemia, region ing (non-existing).
Pøíbram — CTVERÁK et al. 2003, 272–8;
14 T. Alusik
The situation in the Aegean
IntheterritoryoftheformerCzechoslova- enclosure walls, eventually reinforced by
kia and mainly in Bohemia, the first forti- towersorbastions,isneitherfrequentnor
fiedsettlementsappearinthelaterphases architecturally exquisite. We know only
of the Early Bronze Age, or at the turn of about eight sites on the Greek mainland
theEarlyandMiddleBronzeAges.Aegean where fortifications were dated to the
influencesareconsideredanddiscussedin MH–LH I phases, but there are no sites
Slovakia in the environment of the Otto- with fortifications from the LH II phase.
mani culture, especially in Spišský Thebestexamplesofenclosurewallsfrom
Štvrtok(seeabove)andBarcanearKošice the period in question can be seen in
inEasternSlovakia.Thesettlement(KABÁT Argos-Aspis(inArgolid),inBrauronand
1955; 1955a; FURMÁNEK/VELIACIK/VLADÁR inKiaphaTiti(both in Attica).
1991, 179–180, 182; TOCÍK 1994) of Barca The top of Aspis hill at Argos is sur-
is compared with Aegean ones because of rounded by two concentric walls with a
its very massive fortifications (although possible defensive function (BCH
consisting only of moat and a rampart 31/1907, 141, Fig. 1, plan 5; ALIN 1962,
madeofwoodandclay)andbecauseofits 42–43; SCOUFOPOULOS 1971, 24; KALOGE-
urbanism that was too sophisticated for ROUDIS 2008, 215; BCH 133/2009,
Central Europe of that period. Given that 567–580;ALUSIK2010,886).Botharebuilt
no stones were used to build the walls, in from massive stone blocks without any
author’sopinion,itisnotpossibletocon- kindofmortar.Theouterwallismoremas-
sider any Aegean influences in this case. sive and up to 2.6 m wide. Although no
Neither it is possible to find any corre- properevidenceaboutthetimeoftheirori-
spondingparallelsintheAegeandefensive ginhasbeenpublished,theyaredatedinto
architecture. MH period. On the northern side of the
According to the recent publications acropolis of Brauron there was found a
(JIRÁÒ (ed.) 2008, ch. 3.3), the turn of the sectionofamassivewallbuiltfromsmaller
EarlyandMiddleBronzeAgesinBohemia stones and preserved up to 2 m high
isplacedaround1700BCorinthe17thcen- (ERGON 1957, 20–26, Fig. 22; BCH
tury BC. If under the term “turn of a cen- 80/1956;SCOUFOPOULOS1971,17,24;AAA
tury”weconsider50–100yearsbeforeand 10/1977, 270–2; KALOGEROUDIS 2008,
after, we arrive at the absolute dates be- 213–214; ALUSIK 2010, 886). Without
tween 1800/1750 and 1550/1500 BC. closer differentiation, it is usually deter-
ThesedatesintheAegeanchronologycor- mined as MH but its chronology remains
respondtothefollowingstagesofthetran- unclear (more probable is LH date).
sition from the Middle to the Late Bronze ProbablythebestexampleofMH–LHI
Age: fortification(datedtoMHIII–LHIbecause
Fig. 1. Gla (Boiotia), general
– on the Greek mainland the end of the of pottery from its base levels) can be
view of the site (photo by
MHII,especiallyMHIIIandLHI(and found on the hilltop at Kiapha Titi (MA- author)
LHIIA—SHELMERDINE2001,332;SHEL-
MERDINE(ed.) 2007, 4–5),
– inCretapartofMMIII,especiallyLMIA
and IB — nearly the entire Neopalatial
period (see e.g. MYERS et al. 1992, 33;
SHELMERDINE(ed.) 2007, 4–5),
– ontheCycladesthemiddleandnamely
the final phase of MC, LC I (see e.g.
WARREN/HANKEY 1989, 169; SHELMER-
DINE(ed.) 2007, 4–5),
– Troy VI (Troy VI = 1900/1850 —
1300/1280,TroyVId=LHI—seee.g.
KORFMANN/MANNSPERGER1998;LATACZ
et al. (eds) 2001).
However, in the Aegean in this period
the defensive architecture in the form of
Aegean Elements and Influences in Central European Bronze Age Defensive Architecture: Fact or Fiction? 15
the slope. Between outer and inner façade
insidethewallthereisclearlyvisiblefilling
layer from the small stones and dirt.
Therearepracticallynoenclosurewalls
intheformofamassiverampartarounda
whole settlement during the Neopalatial
period in Crete. There exist several sites
though, which are supposed to have had
such walls/fortifications for a period of
time but their interpretation and chronol-
ogy are very problematic. In Listis (South
East Crete), for example, the remains of
walls across the gap are preserved. Across
this gap was the only possible access, be-
causethesitewassituatedonacliffabove
theLibyansea(BATTEN1997,10–11,Fig.3,
Fig. 2. Gla (Boiotia), detail of RAN 1992; KALOGEROUDIS 2008, 190–192; no. 1, pl. VII:1, 3; ALUSIK 2007, 87). The
the fortification wall (photo ALUSIK 2010, 886–887). On the perimeter functionofthewallsisnotveryclear(itis
by author)
also thought that it might be a wall of a
of the lowest terrace of the hilltop, sc.
building, otherwise destructed). The
Lower Castle, approximately 145 m long
wall/fortification in question is usually
section of a quite massive wall with re-
dated to MM III–LM IA, based on the ma-
mainsofagate(2.2mwidepassage),two
jority of the pottery found on the surface.
towers (5 and 6 m wide) and several but-
At Palaikastro — a big Minoan town on
tressed corners was found. The wall is
theeastcoastwheretheexistenceofsome
2–3.1 m wide; on places with buttressed
palatial structure is presumed — several
corners 3–5 m wide. Its inner façade is
long segments of walls built of massive
formedbytworowsofmiddle-sizedstones
stone blocks and reinforced with three
with rubble filling in some places. Outer
towersorbastionswerediscovered(ARep
façade consists from relatively big hewn
flat stone blocks which are either built in 1983/84, 66; MACGILLIVRAY et al. 1984,
the wall (and thus form the outer façade), 137, 157, pl. 9C; ZIELINSKI 1998, 222–3,
eitherstandasorthostatesinfrontofitand 226 (cat. nos. 4H, 4I, 4O); ALUSIK 2005,
2007, 45). They are interpreted as town
coverthebaseofthewall(andthuspartly
fortifications that in a certain period en-
cover the outer façade). These orthostates
closedatleastthecentralpartofthetown.
are especially on spots where the base of
It is problematic to determine the period
the wall (of the outer façade) does not
Fig. 3. Midea (Argolid), whentheywerebuilt.Inmostcasesthepe-
standonthebedrockandthereforeispro-
fortification wall (photo by
riods MM I–II are supposed, with a possi-
author) tected by orthostates from sliding down
ble reconstruction in the Neopalatial pe-
riod. Recently, two lines of fortification
were documented in the harbour of
Gournia (a big Minoan palatial centre in
East Crete) consisting of massive
stone-wallsreinforcedwithbastionsorto-
wers. On the basis of its location and sur-
facefindsitissupposedthattheouterline
was built in the Protopalatial period and
the inner line (walls) during the Neopa-
latial period only (WATROUS2012).
The most elaborated and one of the
largest fortifications from that period in
the entire Aegean lies probably in Troy in
theAsiaMinor(seee.g.KORFMANN/MANN-
SPERGER 1998; LATACZ et al. (eds) 2001;
KALOGEROUDIS 2008, 208–9, 331–7). The
period in question, delimitated by years
16 T. Alusik
1800/1750–1550/1500 BC falls approxi-
mately in the middle phases of Troy VI.
Thissettlementwasdividedintotwoparts
— “upper town” or “acropolis” on the Hi-
sarlik hillock (approximately 20 000 m2)
and“lowertown”(approximately180000
m2) on the plateau to the southwest from
the “upper town”. The fortifications were
built of massive, carefully hewn stone
blocks.Theyarepreserveduptothewidth
4–5 m and the height of 6 m. On the top,
they inclined slightly inwards. On the top
ofthestone-wallthereprobablyusedtobe
a brick extension. The even line of the
outer façade was churned up by little pro-
trusions, most likely only for a decorative
purpose,andbyrectangulartowers.Inad-
importantfor theresearchon thepossible Fig. 4. Mycenae (Argolid),
dition, the lower town was enclosed by a Aegean influence is the period BD–Ha A1 general view of the site
stone-wall and a ditch on its outer side. (photo by author)
(i.e. 1250–1100 BC in absolute chronol-
Thereasonwhythesefortificationsremind
ogy). This period conforms to the follow-
us of the Central European ones is that
ing phases in the Aegean:
theynarrowastheygoupwardsandincline
– on Greek mainland end of LH IIIB and
inwards; which was a common practice in
majority of the LH IIIC (see e.g. SHEL-
Central Europe as well.
MERDINE 2001, 332, SHELMERDINE (ed.)
As it was shown on actual Aegean ex-
2007, 4–5),
amples, enclosure walls are not very fre-
– inCretetheendofLMIIIBandmajority
quent in that period in the entire Aegean
of LM IIIC (see e.g. MYERS et al. 1992,
area. In addition, they don’t have practi-
33; SHELMERDINE(ed.) 2007, 4–5),
cally any common features with the Cen-
– TroyVIIa(ca.1300/1280–1180BC)—
tral European enclosure walls (except for
VIIb (ca. 1200/1180–1000 BC; see e.g.
some vague ones, like usage of massive
KORFMANN/MANNSPERGER 1998; LATACZ
stoneblocksornarrowingupwards).Con-
et al. (eds) 2001).
sequently it is hard to assume that the
TowardstheendofLHIIIBontheGreek
Aegeandefensivearchitecturesignificantly
mainland the fortification of majority of
influencedtheoccurrence,appearanceand
the Mycenaean citadels were in their last
shape of Central European fortifications
architectural phase (or reconstruction at
from that period. Fig. 5. Tiryns (Argolid),
least), for example: Mycenae, Tiryns, fortifications of the “Lower
DuringtheadvancedCentralEuropean
Midea (all in Argolid), Teichos Dymaion Citadel” (photo by author)
Middle Bronze Age fortified settlements
aremuchlessfrequent.Theyaremorefre-
quent at the end of the Tumulus Cultures
intheMiddleBronzeAgeandculminatein
theYoungandLateBronzeAges,mainlyin
Bohemia(especiallyinthehorizonBD–Ha
A). Aegean influences are considered and
discussedinfortifiedsettlementsofthelat-
ter period in particular. The last synthesis
of the prehistory of Bohemia (JIRÁÒ (ed).
2008, ch. 4.3) defines the limit absolute
dates as 1250–1025 BC (although accord-
ingtotherecentresearchinsomeotherar-
easofEurope(e.g.inGermany)thebegin-
ning of the Young Bronze Age should be
shifted to the 14th century BC; Harding
(HARDING et al. 2007) suggests this date
also for Bohemia — see below). The most
Aegean Elements and Influences in Central European Bronze Age Defensive Architecture: Fact or Fiction? 17
tification system approximately 2.8 km
long and 5.4–5.8 m wide was built during
theLHIIIA2periodinthesiteofGla(Fig.
1–2; see e.g. IAKOVIDIS 1998; 1999, 201–2,
pl. XXXIXA; 2001; KALOGEROUDIS 2008,
302–9).Massiveenclosurewallswithfour
gateways were built in the “Cyclopean”
technique and they embraced the whole
hillstandingoriginallyinthemiddleofthe
KopaisLake(itwasdrainedinLHIIIbyus-
inganingeniousdehydratingsystem).The
fortressprobablyservedtokeepcontrolof
thedehydratingsystemoftheKopaisarea,
and maybe was also used as a refuge area
for local inhabitants. During LH IIIB com-
pletelynewfortificationsgrewupinMidea
(Fig. 3; Massive “Cyclopean” enclosure
Fig. 6. Tiryns (Argolid), (Achaia — see e.g. KARAGEORGHIS 2001, wallsapproximately450mlongand5–7m
entrance gate to the citadel 7–9; KALOGEROUDIS 2008, 184–6), Gla wide were built from huge non-hewn or
(photo by author) (Boiotia)orAthens(Attica).Fortifications sometimesveryroughlyhewnblocks.Cer-
inthesesiteswerebuiltgraduallyfromthe tain enlargements, remaining of bastions,
LH IIIA period on. The first architectural are traceable in its corners — see e.g.
phase in Tiryns (Fig. 5–6; wall of stones DEMAKOPOULOU/DIVARI-VALAKOU 1999;
0.6–0.7 m large enclosing sc. Upper Cita- KALOGEROUDIS2008,293–6)andinAcrop-
del, which is the area around the highest olisofAthens(Besides“Cyclopean”walls
pointofthehill)datestoLHIIIA1(seee.g. therewasacisterncarvedintherockinside
JANTZEN (ed.) 1975; IAKOVIDIS 1999; theenclosedarea—seee.g.WRIGHT1994;
SHELMERDINE 2001, 335–7; KALOGEROUDIS MOUNTJOY 1995, 40–41, Fig. 52–53;
2008, 250–72). The oldest documented KALOGEROUDIS 2008, 296–302). In Tiryns
fortificationsinMycenae(Fig.4)dateonly the fortifications were at first enlarged in
to LH IIIA2 and they enclosed a smaller LHIIIB1(originallysc.MiddleCitadeland
area than fortifications from later periods LowerCitadelwereenclosedbyawallwith
(see e.g. IAKOVIDIS 1999; SHELMERDINE a stone basement and an extension from
2001, 333–5; FRENCH 2002, 52–6, 77–82, unburnt bricks) and they got their final
84–5, 92–5; KALOGEROUDIS 2008, 272–96). shape in LH IIIB2. The entire castle is en-
The main gateway was situated in the closed by massive “Cyclopean” walls
Fig. 7. Juktas (Crete), general northwest corner but it faced southeast 4.5–17mwide.Theyhave38innergaller-
view of the site with the
enclosure wall in middle (the entrance was from the opposite side ies, so-calledcasemates,and a tower adja-
distance (photo by author) onlyduringlaterperiods).Thelongestfor- cent to the southwest corner. The
“Cyclopean”fortificationsinMycenaedes-
ignatedas“WestExtension”wereenlarged
inLHIIIB1.Atthesametimesc.GraveCir-
cle A was added and a new gate, sc. Lion
Gate was built (the entrance to this gate
wasalreadyfromnorthwest).Thesections
of fortifications built in this period were
constructed with much more advanced
technique. The walls are straighter and
cracksarefilledwithstones.Thewallshave
stable foundations because the rock was
levelled with soil and rubble and the
“Cyclopean”blockswerepiledonthissup-
portingbase.IntheendofLHIIIB2(orLH
IIIB/C) the 7–7.5 m wide enclosure walls
wereenlargedagain,thistimetowardsthe
northeast(sc.North-EastExtensionwhich
18 T. Alusik
includedalsoacistern),andanothernorth-
erngatewasbuilt.Allthesitesmentioned
aboveweredestroyedattheveryendofLH
IIIB2(orLHIIIB/C,around1200BC).The
majority of them were never inhabited
again and the fortifications were not re-
newed.
Inaddition,inCreteduringLMIIIBthe
number of fortified sites was rapidly in-
creasing, among them some very spacious
“citadels“werebuilt,forexample:Kastro-
kefala, Juktas, Kritsa Kastello (or Za-
kros Gorge Kato Kastello — Fig. 13–14;
see e.g. VOKOTOPOULOS 1997–98; NOWICKI
2000, 46–8, Fig. 8.2, pl. IB; ALUSIK 2007,
55–6). Unlike the mainland, during LM
IIIB/C and LM IIIC periods fortified sites
blocks and the nucleus from smaller Fig. 8. Juktas (Crete), the
were still inhabited or built. Their enclo-
stones. A gap is preserved approximately outer façade of the enclosure
surewallswereoftenbuiltwiththe“Cyclo- wall; scale = 0,4 m (photo
40 m from the southern end of the wall.
pean” masonry technique, but the dimen- by author)
Probably, it had been a gateway, protected
sionsofusedstones(notlongerthan1m)
by a protrusion (apparently formerly a
and the total length and width was much
tower or a bastion). A massive enclosure
smallerincomparisonwiththemainMyce-
wall probably from LM IIIB/C (or at least
naeancitadels.EventhoughsomeMycena-
rebuilt in that period) is preserved also in
eanandAnatolianinfluencesarevisible.In
Juktas (Fig. 7–9; North Central Crete —
Kastrokefala (North Central Crete, LM
IIIB/C) there is the largest number of no- see e.g. HAYDEN 1988, 10–12, Fig. 12–13;
ticeable Mycenaean influences, primarily NOWICKI 2000, 44–5, Fig. 6; ALUSIK 2007,
70–1, Fig. 51–4). As of todayit is 3–3.5 m
its general concept including topography
wideand2.5–3.6mhighwithsixpreserved
and fortifications (see e.g. HAYDEN 1988,
irregular courses of masonry. It was built
3–5, Fig. 2–4; NOWICKI 2000, 42–4, Fig.
fromupto1.3mlongunhewnblocksofthe
4–5,pl.IA;ALUSIK2007,73–4,Fig.55–61).
local limestone. This wall was probably
Its enclosure walls, dating probably from
alsobuiltinseveralmeterslongsections—
the very end of LM IIIB, are about 480 m
casemates.
long and are preserved to the height of
0.2–2.5m;onsomespotstheyreachupto InTroy,afterthedestructionofTroyVI, Fig. 9. Juktas (Crete), the
the fortifications of its acropolis were re- enclosure wall with the
3.5 m. They were built from massive
entrance (an interruption in
constructed during the beginning of the
unhewnblocksupto1mlong.Thenorth- the wall) in the middle
ern wall is enlarged in its corners. These next phase, Troy VIIa (KORFMANN/MANN- (photo by author)
spots are probably foundations of towers
orbastionswhichprotrudedinfrontofthe
wall line — it is apparent especially in the
western “bastion”. Both its front façades
werebuiltfromsuchblocksandwerefilled
with smaller stones. In Kritsa Kastello
(Fig. 10–12; East Crete) there are notice-
able remains of a massive fortification
about100mlongand4–6mwide,datedto
LMIIIC(seee.g.NOWICKI2000,120–3,Fig.
57–59;ALUSIK2007,86–87,Fig.68–71).It
is evident from the transverse (or “sec-
tion”)wallsthatitwasbuiltsectionbysec-
tion.Eachsectionwasseveralmeterslong
(This specific feature is considered to be
Anatolianinfluence—seebelow).Itsexte-
rior was built from massive “Cyclopean”
Aegean Elements and Influences in Central European Bronze Age Defensive Architecture: Fact or Fiction? 19
SPERGER 1998; LATACZ et al. (eds) 2001; fourrectangularbastionsprotrudingabout
KALOGEROUDIS 2008, 208–9, 331–7). No 1minfrontofthelineofthefrontfaçade.
newenclosurewallswerebuiltasitusedto Itsconstructiontechniqueisveryinterest-
be done in previous periods. This phase is ing. The façades (1–1.25 m wide) were
oftenreferredtoasHomericTroy.Itcontin- built from big stone blocks. The spaces in
uedwithoutanynoticeablebreakfromthe between both faces (1.85–2.15 m wide)
previoussixthphase.Attheenditwasde- weredividedbytransversalwallsintoindi-
stroyedbyfire.Thefortificationshadiden- vidualcellulesorcasematesandfilledwith
ticalforemostfeaturesastheonesfromthe littlestones.Thisconstructionmethod,re-
TroyVIperiod.Anotherpossiblesourceof ferredtoasa“casematestechnique”,origi-
inspirationfordefensivearchitectureofthe nates from the Hittite architectural tradi-
surrounding areas could be the fortifica- tion in Central Anatolia. The site where it
tioninMiletosontheAsiaMinorcoastline isvisiblethebestaretheenclosurewallsof
(see e.g. MALLWITZ 1959–60, 70–5, Fig. the Hittite‘s capital Boghazköy (see e.g.
1–2; VOIGTLÄNDER 1975, 33–4; NIEMEIER MACQUEEN1975,105–8,Fig.48–51;BITTEL
1998, 35, 38, Fig. 11). Remains of a mas- 1986, 59–72, 90–5, 99–105, Fig. 30–7,
sive wall dated to LH IIIB/C were discov- 53–6, 61–3; SEEHER2002).
eredthere.Theyare4.25–4.4mwidewith
Architectural analysis and conclusion
Described Aegean fortified sites from detailedarchitecturalanalysisthishypoth-
LH/LM III and Troy VII are contempora- esis cannot be maintained.
neous with the Central European ones. In SincetheNeolithicthemainmaterialof
several Aegean sites the oldest architec- all Aegean enclosure walls is stone. In up-
tonic phase falls into the 14th century BC, perpartofthewalls,bricksorwoodcould
soitevenprecedestheexistenceofCentral have been used but there are no explicit
European fortified settlements of the provesaboutit.Ontheotherhand,enclo-
Young Bronze Age. (In case of applying surewallsofCentralEuropeanBronzeAge
newhigherchronologyforthebeginningof fortified settlements were mostly built of
the Young Bronze Age — 14th century BC, soilandwood,thatiswhytheyaremoreof-
see above — the above-mentioned fortifi- ten called dykes. Stone is mostly an addi-
cations in both areas are contemporary). tionalmaterialusedforbasementsorasex-
Theoretically — even according to that teriorfaçade.Thereexistalargenumberof
high chronology — the appearance and suchfortifiedsettlementsinBohemia(e.g.
shapeoftheCentralEuropeanfortifiedset- Early Bronze Age fortified settlement at
Fig. 10. Kritsa Kastello
tlements in question might be a conse- BøeznonearLouny,fortifiedbyadykewith
(Crete), general view of the
site (photo by author) quence of Aegean influences. But after a a palisade and a moat — see e.g. SMRŽ
1992), Moravia (e.g. Early Bronze Age de-
fensive settlement at Zelená Hora near
Vyškov—seee.g.STAÒA1986;LateBronze
Age defensive settlement at Brno-Obøany
—seee.g.ADÁMEK1961)andSlovakia(e.g.
fortifiedsettlementatBarcanearKošice—
see above, or Early Bronze Age defensive
settlement at Vráble — see e.g. TOCÍK
1983).Fortifiedsettlementsusingstoneas
themainbuildingmaterialaresignificantly
fewer, the examples from the former
Czechoslovakia territory were mentioned
above.
In the Aegean the most frequent con-
struction technique was the “Cyclopean”
or “megalithic” masonry which was built
withmassivestones(LOADER1998;ZIELIN-
20 T. Alusik