The Fortifications of the Early Hellenistic Thracian City of Seuthopolis

The Fortifications of the Early Hellenistic Thracian City of Seuthopolis: Breaking the Mold

15

Archaeologia Bulgarica XII 2008 3 15-56 Sofia

THE FORTIFICATIONS OF THE EARLY HELLENISTICTHRACIAN CITY OF SEUTHOPOLIS: BREAKING THE MOLD

EMIL NANKOV

1. IntroductionThe city of Seuthopolis, enclosing an area

of ca. 5 ha, lies on a low terrace of Sredna Go-ra, 8 km west of modern Kazanluk in south cen-tral Bulgaria (figs. 1-5). It occupies a small,flat peninsula rising to 5 m in height, formed bythe steep banks of Toundja river (ancient Ton-zos) to south and southwest (fig. 4). The smalltributary of Golyama Varovica provides anothernatural boundary to the east. Thus, only fromnorthwest the city is unprotected by nature(figs. 3, 5). Under the guidance of Prof. D. P.Dimitrov, a Bulgarian team of archaeologistsexcavated the site during 1948-1954 due toconstruction works for the Georgi DimitrovDam (modern Koprinka). Seuthopolis is notmentioned in the literary sources, and the iden-tification comes from the so-called Great In-scription (SEG XLII 661, lines 31-32) foundduring the excavations. At present the exposedremains lie at the bottom of Koprinka Dam(fig. 4)1.

Of all architectural remains excavated atSeuthopolis (fig. 6), the city fortifications tra-ditionally receive the least attention and, eventoday, they still continue to escape the scrutinyof modern scholarship. Most recently, for ex-ample, Zyromski (2004, 243), in a short essaydealing with the urban development of inlandThrace, has devoted a single sentence to thefortifications of Seuthopolis: “The defensivewalls in Seuthopolis were pentagon in shape”.Similarly, in a comparative study examining theinfluence of Greek architectural models inSeuthopolis, Neapolis (Scythia) and Vani(Georgia), Wasowicz (2004, 8) has brieflynoted, without discussing the available data,that Seuthopolis was ringed with fortifications

of “Greek type”. Finally, Stoyanov (2006, 83-87) has made no reference to the fortificationsof Seuthopolis at all, while making a case forthe existence of different models of urbaniza-tion in inland Thrace exemplified by the citiesof Kabyle, Seuthopolis and Sboryanovo (an-cient Helis).

The opinions presented above seem to con-firm Domaradski’s observation (1998, 39),made almost a decade ago, that our knowledgeabout an essential aspect of the architecturallayout of Seuthopolis has imperceptibly rea-ched a stalemate. To a great extent, of course,the reason for this, as he also noted, resides inthe fact that the final publication has yet to ap-pear, as a part of the Seuthopolis series, “Ur-ban planning, fortification system and architec-ture”, Vol. III (cf. ��84, 10; Archi-bald 1998, 313, #39). The continuing delay ofthis important volume, however, has posed in-surmountable obstacle before the scholars deal-ing with the problems of fortification buildingand urbanization in pre-Roman Thrace (�� 1998, 39-40; �� !�"�� #$� �� %��&'()*+� �� ,-�.�� /��0��12'�34566�278*�4' rely on the little evi-dence derived from the preliminary publications(��-�� %�� %��%�� /�� /�%��95:54�;'8<�� %�� %�� /0=>?'42*;�@5AA5B(64C� 65*3� 5?� 42*� A7B4� 4274� A;*32'D3*;8745'?3� '?� 4he extant remains remainimpossible because they are currently sub-merged. In spite of these shortcomings, with allexpectations focusing on the long overdue pub-lication, my goal is to show that the available

1 On account of its proximity to the so-called “Valley of the Thracian Kings”, where the number of discovered rich tumularburials in built tombs continues to multiply, the municipality of Kazanluk has recently taken steps to make Seuthopolismore accessible to a wider audience. One of the projects proposed by the architect Prof. Z. Tilev, admittedly the mostextravagant, considers the possibility of reclaiming the submerged remains from the waters of Koprinka Dam (��.��/��0=

��

16

data could still provide valuable insights. Strictlyspeaking, therefore, the present text seeks toacquire the status of an interim study in its ownright.

2. The problem of Greek architectsThat by and large the fortifications of

Seuthopolis exhibit the work of non-local vis-à-vis Greek builders has been a longstandingassumption (Lawrence 1979, 219; �� E3*43+267@)*� �� !��"�� //��F73'15B)� �� 0=GHB*I4� 5?� 42*�17C�'A� J*?*;76545*3�� 42'(J2�?'�3*;5'(3�744*:I4�273�D**?�:7@*�4'�@5345?�J(532�A';*5J?�A;':�6'B76�4;aditions, and a de-tailed analysis of the evidence pointing toGreek influence has always been of great ne-cessity (!�"�� K��L��%%0= In addition, several studies on thehandful of Hellenistic fortifications from in67?@E2;7B*�278*�744*:pted to outline the param-eters of what is generally understood as “Greekinfluence” (�� !�"�� 0�� :'34� ?'47D6Cthose of Pernik (��$�� %�7��1981, 54-107; !�M�� et al. 2003, 39-40; !�M��<N�O�P�� /��//0� Philippopolis (Ko-larova/Bospatchieva 2005; Bospatchieva 2005,316-318), Pistiros (Kolarova 1996; Bouzek1996; Bouzek et al. 2002), Kabyle (�� 7�� /0� 7?@� QD';C7?'8'RQ4'C7?'8��Stoyanov 2002; ,-�.��etal. 2006), (cf. fig. 2). Less instructive yet po-tentially important for this debate are the forti-fications of Koprivlen, Gotse Delchev district(� � �� 0��S7?@;*?� 67+*� ?*7;&(;J73� R�� 0�� Q2'(:*?� R(3*�A(6� 3(::7;5*3� 5?��!�"��0�Vasil Levski, Karlovodistrict (K��L��2004, 51-55), Bosnek, Pernikdistrict (Ljubenova 2005), “Kozi gramadi” inSredna gora RT��-�� 2006, 24-50) and therock sanctuary near Tatul, Momchilgrad district(U��et al. 2008).

Despite the comprehensive treatment on theproblems of Thracian fortification building prac-tices offered in these studies, our ways ofthinking about the city walls at Seuthopolishave indeed changed very little (�� 95,35-43; �� 2000, 89; ��

�� ; !�"�� %/�%%��Zyromski 2004, 243; Wasowicz 2004,8-10). To complicate matters further, Seutho-polis has always been thought of, in many re-spects, as an exception on the territory of in-land Thrace. At the same time, no compellinghistorical narrative has been put forward, withspecial reference to the evidence supplied bythe fortifications. Despite citing comparandafrom Greece, e.g. Mantineia, Athens and Ele-usis, for the mudbrick city walls of Seuthopo-lis, Dimitrov (1960, 14-15) nonetheless sug-gested that they developed independently bygrowing out of the old indigenous building tradi-tions of ancient Thrace. Chichikova (1985, 88)claimed that the fortification system of Seutho-polis, among others, was built by local crafts-men in accordance with t�� !��"�#��$��#�� %�&�� "� #��'��(��)*�� +��(�,,��)�--*��#��!��! �� #��#��! ��.�/�� 0��1�#enia, betrays the work of non-Thracianbuilders, quite possibly of Greek origin. Alongsimilar lines, Lawrence (1979, 219) has longnoted that the numerous finds of iron nails dis-covered along the curtain walls indicate that“the work must have been done by Greeks”. Inthe same vein, Tsetskhladze (2000, 238) assertsthat the fortifications are an example of “Greekcraftsmanship and masonry”. On the otherhand, for Calder III (1996, 169) employment of“Greek architects and builders” represents a“symptom” of Hellenization, while Hoddinott(1975, 93) surmises that these “Greek archi-tects” probably arrived from a city on the BlackSea, thus accounting for the aid which SeuthesIII (330-295 BC) received from Lysimachus(306-281 BC). On a more general note, Owens(1991, 77) points out that Seuthopolis was “ob-viously Greek-inspired”, while Cohen (1995, 97)states that, if not a Greek polis, it yet reflects“Hellenistic-Macedonian” influences.

3. Setting the agendaSince the impression gained, to put it broadly,

is one of a highly Hellenized Thracian city, it isunsurprising that the idea of looking for thesource of inspiration beyond the borders of an-


17

Figure 2. Map of Bulgaria with the major Thracian sites fortifications of �� !�� #��#�2#�(��#��0��#��3��"%�*.

Figure 1. Sredna Gora in the background, Koprinka Dam in the middle ground, approximatelocation of Seuthopolis marked with arrow; looking south (photo: the author).

��

18

cient Thrace has never been questioned. Gen-erations of scholars sought to explain the ap-pearance of Seuthopolis, including the citywalls, simply as a result of ‘impersonal’ foreigninfluence, generated from the more sophisti-cated “ways of the south” – a culture with aMediterranean way of life, which in the mind ofthe Thracian aristocracy, or at least Seuthes III,the founder of Seuthopolis, were much cov-eted, as well as considered fashionable. Thusaccording to Rabadjiev (2002, 10), Seuthopolis,among other things, raises the question of howone draws a line between “tradition and influ-ence in Thracian culture”. To a great extent,however, this static approach downplays thequestion of agency, whereby the Thracians liv-ing in Seuthopolis are portrayed as recipientsof many things Greek, only at times modified tobetter suit their needs (��-��/��0=Because of that Popov (2002, 134) has quali-fied the “Greek outlook” as s(I*;A5B576��1256*5?� 3':*� ;*3I*B43� V7D7@W5*8� R�� 0*8*n sees it as Seuthes’ way to show off. Yet,the city walls seem to break the pattern, sincethe prevailing opinion admits of the possibilitythat Greek, not Greek-trained (cf. Taylor 2001,399) architects (masons) were charged with thetask of planning and building the walls. In otherwords, there is little ground to seek evidencefor Greek influence (!�"��3), since,as Kisyov (2004, 77) has already remarked,something must reveal the presence of, let’ssay, Thracian input into the building practices,but clearly the latter have arrived from abroad,and more importantly, remained unchanged inthe process of transmission. The problem fac-ing us is therefore twofold: (1) why were theGreek architects prepared to offer their patron,the Thracian ruler Seuthes III, precisely thoseideas of city-planning and fortification modelsthat they did, and (2) how did they end up work-ing in the heart of inland Thrace, at Seutho-polis?

Since the role of Alexander III and of theSuccessors in transmitting the Hellenism be-yond the fringes of Geek poleis has long beenrecognized, in the present survey I attempt toput greater emphasis on the Macedonian agen-cy. This is all the more relevant in view of an-

cient testimonia recording the military activityof Macedonian kings and generals in inlandThrace, starting with the campaigns of Philip IIduring 342-340 BC (Badian 1983, 66-71;Zambon 2000) and ending with the death ofLysimachus, the appointed satrap of Thrace, in281 BC (Lund 1992, 19-23; � � � 2004).What is of particular significance, however,comes from the assertion that royal patronagein applied mechanics, poliorcetics and militaryengineering became a contributing factor forthe expansion of Macedonia since the time ofPhilip II (Garlan 1974, 207-211; 1984, 357-360;Shipley 2000, 334-341). More importantly, thetrend loomed large during the wars of the Suc-cessors, when the founding of new cities andthe synoicism of older settlements, instigatedby many of Alexander’s generals, created ademand for building projects on a larger scale(Lund 1992, 174-177; Shipley 2000, 83-86). Asa result, building ex novo in an open terrain ac-cording to the so-called ��

�� !

��"��#��$��%��&��!

��!'��$��

()��* �+,�-!./0��+�-1223�413!4556��asLund (1992, 21-22) has pointed out, this is thehistorical and ‘ethnic’ background againstwhich the Thracian city of Seuthopolis shouldbe set.

In order to provide a wider framework forthe study of the urban fortifications I offer (1) adiscussion of its structural elements, i.e. curtainwalls, towers, bastions and gates. Thus, insteadof focusing only on one aspect of the city wallsvis-à-vis mudbrick superstructure, which hasbeen the traditional approach (��-��/�� !�"��2002, 124-125, 166), I widen the scope by lay-ing particular emphasis on the layout and ap-pearance of the towers along with investigatingtheir role in the urban defense. For reasons,which will become apparent later, (2) many el-ements of the fortifications at Seuthopolis arejuxtaposed with closely similar fortificationsbuilt under the auspices of the Successors inMacedonia, Greece and Asia Minor. Further-more, (3) a discussion of the evidence furnished


19

Figure 4. Morphographic profile of Seuthopolis remains lying on the bottom of Koprinka Dam. Map drawnby Krasimir Andreev (after X�� et al. 83).

Figure 3. Topographic map of Seuthopolis. Map drawn by Krasimir Andreev(after X�� et al. 83).

by the artillery projectiles vis-à-vis stone ballsand catapult bolts, which hitherto have neverbeen properly studied, reveal remarkableinsights about their strengths, weaknesses andviolent destruction. Based (4) on the analysisof small finds such as Macedonian coins, Tha-sian amphora stamps and imported Greek pot-tery, stratigraphically associated with the forti-fications, I propose an alternative date for theirconstruction. Finally, (5) the suggested lowerchronology for the foundation of Seuthopolis,coinciding with the turmoil of events followingAlexander’s death, as well as the home return

of many military men from his Asian campaign,offers an opportunity for rethinking the waysby which the city came into being.

4. Structural elements of the fortifica-tions

At the outset I begin with a very basic, es-sentially selective, description of the excavatedremains at Seuthopolis in order to provide anecessary background for the part – which isthe heart of this study – devoted to the fortifi-cations proper. For more details and complete-ness, the reader is referred to the literaturecited in the introductory section.

��

20

4. 1. City layoutThe city walls hug the contours of the

slightly elevated peninsula surrounded by thesteep banks of Tonzos and its tributary, Golya-ma Varovica (figs. 3, 4). Although the overallplan is of a pentagonal shape, the walls follow astraight line, with a total circumference of 890m (��-��/��0=�>�I*B(6iarity of thecity layout is the dominant presence of a forti-fied citadel, ca. 4620 m2, situated in the NEcorner, enclosing a monumental building, usu-ally interpreted as the city founder’s palace (cf.�� 2002, 20-22 with lit.), with an openfacade aligned with an articulated entrance,called a propylon (figs. 3/1, 6). The interpre-tation of the complex as strictly residential,however, is complicated by the discovery of theGreat Inscription (SEG XLII 661, lines 31-32)inside one of the premises, since, in accordancewith its specifications, one of the copies was tobe deposited in the city sanctuary of the GreatGods (cf. fig. 3/2), (�� !�"�� /0=

Seuthopolis was built on a grid pattern, with7 longitudinal and 4 transverse streets delimit-ing the boundaries of residential insulae, theprecise number of which is beyond recovery.The excavations exposed, whole or in part, theremains of 12 residential buildings, whose plansand architectural features have been comparedto the well-known Greek housing types, with apastas and a peristyle (�� /��/�0= Another conspicuous element of the urbanlandscape is the unusually large – in proportionto the built up area (�� 0�I(D65B� 3I7B*� R�/�H��:0��@(DD*@�7?�agora,which opens up towards the main arteries pro-viding the only access through the city gateswith the exterior (figs. 3, 6). Traces of publicbuildings, however, were never found, exceptfor the stone foundations of what was inter-preted as the altar of Dionysus (fig. 3/3) basedon the discovery thereof an inscribed dedica-tion made by one of his priests, Amaistas, sonof Medistas (IGBulg III, 2, 1732; �� 0=

4. 2. Free zone – peripheral streetIn addition to the streets intersecting at right

angles, it is essential to point out the existence

of a peripheral street or a ring road created bythe empty space left between the city walls andthe built up area. Although the excavation teamsimply acknowledged its existence without fur-ther elaboration – it was covered, like the otherstreets and the agora, with river pebbles (cf.��-�� /�� %�� /�0�42*�15@42� 'A� 4253� 34;**4� 74�Seuthopolis wasnever reported in the publications to date. Theback walls of House 8 and the palace (fig. 6),however, suggest that it was ca. 3-3.50 m wide.Provisioning for a peripheral street was an im-portant byproduct of the �� #�dent from the planning of cities built exnovo. The figure is closely comparable, for in-stance, with those attested at Dion (3 m), Gori-tsa (3.90-4.75 m) and Dura-Europos (5 m)()��* �+,�-!./0��+�- 1223� 11578�%��"��1224�135!1397&�:��122;�296<=�addition,the importance of leaving a space behind thewalls free of architecture, especially from adefensive viewpoint, may not be overstated.The reason why it was necessary to make suchprovisions, as Philo of Byzantium remarks, wasconnected with the ability to easily assist thedefenders on the wall, as well as create addi-tional obstacles for the enemy by building aditch, should a need arise. Philo (1. 10) pre-scribes a distance of 60 cubits, which has beenobserved in the fortification walls of Rhodes(>/?@��A-.�B��C 2004, 74-76), whereasaccording to regulations stated in building in-scriptions from Ephesos (290 BC) and Sco-toussa (197-185 BC) the distance between thehouses and the city wall should be 40 and 12-20feet, respectively (Maier 1959, #71; Missaili-dou-Despotidou 1993, 212-213).

4. 3. Curtain wallsThe curtain walls exhibit uniform building

technique throughout the circuit, consisting oftwo wall facings filled with rubble in-between,and further packed with earth. Nowhere isthere a section of the wall preserved in morethan two courses of stones, which together withthe even top surface has rightly led to the con-clusion that this is a stone socle. From publishedphotographs (��-�� 1960, Y�$. 3) it isclear that its height was within 1.20-1.50 m.Only the stones forming the two courses of the


21

Figure 5. Seuthopolis andtumuli 1, 2 and 3 (after�� 1991, 172).

Figure 6. Seuthopolis withthe fortification featuresdiscussed in the text. To

avoid cumbersome repeti-tion, clockwise, the towers

are consecutively numberedfrom 1 to 7 and the bastions

from 1 to 3. Only thecurtains, equipped with� �#��#!��

��"��#� ��#��##��&�#��4%�(� ��#� ��#��

�!#��#��0��#��3��"%��*.

��

22

substructure of T 2 (figs. 6, 10a) were in factashlar, while the majority had irregular formwith at least one smoothed surface facin"��!#�� (0��#��3��*%�1��#�� #�� !�#�#��!��#��#��#��"� #�� !��"�� #��!"�� #��"� �� "!��#�� ##��#�� #�� "!�� mic appearance. Never-theless, based on these features alone it wouldbe a stretch to apply the term isodomic ashlar(cf. Scranton 1941, 108-112) to the masonry ofthe entire circuit, which is the reason whySeuthopolis was excluded from the group ofThracian sites, i.e. Pernik, Tirizis, Philippopo-lis, featuring fortifications walls built in ashlarmasonry or opus quadratum (Z�� 1984,20-21). An interesting feature of the socle, in-cluding the towers, since in inland Thrace thiselement is rarely attested, e.g., Pernik (��$��1972a, 36; 1981, 54), Pistiros (Kolarova1996, 37) and �74(6� RU�� et al. 2008,��=��0

2, is the protruding lowermost course,ca. 0.20 m, forming an offset for the wall atfoundation level3. Also, at various places smallchannels serving to drain off the waste and therainwater away from the city interrupt the walls(0��#��3��5 �Lawrence 1979,270-272).

Unlike the stone socle for which we havesolid evidence, the one for reconstructing itssuperstructure is in many aspects still inconclu-

sive. For instance, presence of decomposedmudbrick and rooftiles stratigraphically associ-ated with the houses and the palace in the cita-del has convincingly shown that these werecomposed of mudbrick (��%��-��/�� /�0

4.Unlike the fortifications at Vergina (>�D? �EA122;� ;F7 >�D? �EAG)� � ��B�C?�- 1222�

1416, Pella ()/� �+,�- 123;� ;H;6�Kassan-dreia ()/� �+,EA 1224� 5I2!5HF6� Lete(.J � 0��EG>+?EA4FFI� 1I3!1I2� 1H4�E�<

53��/D<1F�116��K��%�(L�''��1232�15!

456�� $�� $�� % ��

'��#�� #�� #��

stone socle of the fortification walls at Seutho-polis is surmised on the basis of (1) the eventop surface of the socle5 along with (2) the sub-stantial quantity of iron nails found along thewhole circuit (��-��/��%06. Whetherone agrees with the claim that the latter werefastening woodwork (Dimitrov 1961, 384),probably in the manner known from Pernik(��$�� Y�$=� �0��Pistiros (Bouzek2002, 347), Sboryanovo (,-�.��et al. 2006,12) and Goritsa in Thessaly (Bakhuizen 1992,152) where it reinforces the mudbrick in thewall (fig. 7) or, belonging to wooden planks ofthe roof (fig. 8), as indicated by evidence fromDion ()��* �+,�-!./0��+�- 1223� 1I5� M/D<1F;!1F36 ��Stymphalos in the Peloponnese(Williams et al. 1997, 61), is irrelevant, since ineither case they corroborate the theory that the

2 Built in good ashlar masonry, the north wall of Building #1, which is currently interpreted as “a cult complex of the typeheroon”, rests on a course of protruding headers. Recent excavations at the sanctuary have obtained stratigraphic data datingthe first period of construction to the early Hellenistic period. I am most grateful to Zdravko Dimitrov from the NationalInstitute of Archaeology with Museum at Sofia for the opportunity to read a copy of the excavation report in advance,which is now published. A volume devoted to the results of campaigns 2004, 2005 and 2007 is forthcoming (Z. Dimitrovpers. com.).

3 A plethora of examples are known from Macedonia and Greece, e.g., Dion ()��* �+,�--./0��+�- 1998, 98), Edessa(N�-��O��- 1991, 58, M/D. 6), Halos (Reinders 1988, 68), Rhodes (>/?@��A-.�B��C 2004, 37, 102).

4 The only complete mudbricks recovered from the city (0.50 x 0.40 x 0.09 m) were found near the palace on account of theintense fire that burned down the building (�� 1957, 144; cf. ,-�.��<!�"��). The use of bakedbricks, on the other hand, was restricted to the construction of tombs, drainage channels, wells and pavements (��%��%0=

5 Very often stone pebbles, such as the ones attested in Pistiros (Kolarova 1996, 38), used as bedding between the lowermostcourse of mudbricks and the stone socle, lend additional support to the idea for a mudbrick superstructure. Although, judg-ing from photographs (�� 1970, Y�$. 8, 12), their existence at Seuthopolis would appear likely, no formal commenthas been made.

6 The iron nails are 12-15 cm long. According to Lawrence (1979, 219), they indicate that “the work must have been done byGreeks”, whereas Dehn (1969, 167) saw the walls’ building technique as the Hellenistic antecedent of the later murusGallicus.


23

Figure 7. Tentative reconstruc-tion of the West fortification

wall at Pistiros(after Bouzek/Musil 2002, fig.

3.53).

Figure 8. Reconstruction of theroofed gallery of the city wall atAthens (307/6 BC) according to

IG II2 463, lines 52-74 (afterCaskey 1910, pl. VI).

��

24

superstructure of the wall was not made ofstone. An Athenian inscription from 307/6 BC(IG II2 463), however, makes the case for fas-tening woodwork more likely. The document,concerning extensive refurbishments on the citywalls, the Long Walls and Piraeus, refers,among other things, to wooden frames consist-ing of horizontal (��) and transverse(��) beams (Vitr. De arch. 1. 5. 3),which served to hold the mudbricks on top ofthe stone socle together (Martin 1965, 4; Maier1959, 60).

In contrast with restoring mudbrick super-structure, though, is the conspicuous absenceof rooftiles, which one would naturally expectto find in association with fortification walls builtof mudbrick, e.g., Stymphalos (Williams/Gourley 2005, 223-225) and Pistiros (Bouzek1996, 43; 2002, 347; Musil 1996, 58-62). For notonly did such walls need subsequent plasteringon a regular basis, as is evident from recent dis-coveries in the fortification walls at Vergina(>�D? �EAG)� � ��B�C?�- 1222� 1416� ��

�� $� �� '��$��

��'��$��$��(P��

12;1�1547Q��12;2�4116<R��'��

$�� %�� S��%��

��'��'erly maintained. De-spite the deficiencies of the archaeological evi-dence, the conjecture that the city walls atSeuthopolis were roofed and constructed ofmudbrick on a stone socle is still the one havingthe most merit (Dimitrov 1961, 384; Wokalek1973, 106). Thus on the basis of parallels withthe fortification walls at Pistiros (!�"��0�7?@�>42*?3� Rfigs. 7, 8), it is reasonableto imagine the existence of mudbrick super-structure reinforced with woodwork and ascreenwall, most probably equipped with win-dows (�� 1995, 38), as well as a wallwalkcovered with a sloping roof ()��* �+,�-!./0��+�-1223�1126<P��T��

��$��#��U��9!I$��

8�� # (4FFF�996��

��$�� #� ��

��'��H!;$��

�� the E fortification wall at Pistiros (Kola-rova 1996, 35).

4. 4. TowersSquare Towers 1-7 and a rectangular To-

wer-Gate reinforce the NW city wall and thecitadel, while rectangular projections (Bastions1-3) along the SW wall and the SW Gate pro-vide additional points of defense (fig. 6, table1). To these, another square tower, located inthe S corner of the city, should be added, basedon traces found during the excavations (��-��1960, 7). The restoration of a tower atthe E corner of the city (fig. 3; ��1970, Y�$. 2; Hoddinott 1975, fig. 11; �� %�� =� ��0� 273A'(?@� ?'� 7;B27*'6'J5B76� 3(II';4� R95:54�;'8<[��*�� #��!��#��#!�� #��#��'�!� 6�� #��#��!#��

7.To date, the available information pertaining

to the towers amount only to a few general ob-servations in addition to the state (figs. 9a, 10a)and restored plans of T 1 and T 2 produced bythe excavators (��%��Y�$=� �� %0=Based on the available data a preliminary typol-ogy of the tower design is not only feasible, butalso profitable for understanding the extent towhich the builders were influenced by the on-going dialogue between defensive and offensivestrategies of war during the early Hellenisticperiod. As in the case of the curtain walls, thediscussion greatly benefits from adducingcomparanda from neighboring Macedonia. Thewell-dated urban fortifications of Dion, care-fully studied and promptly published()��* �+,�--./0��+�- 1998) as a result of sev-eral excavation campaigns conducted by theGreek Archaeological Service, are an essentialstarting point. More importantly, numismaticevidence obtained from the foundation trenchesof the city walls conclusively demonstrated thatthe circuit was built during the reign of

7 The same may be said about Chichikova’s suspicion that there was a third city gate overlooking the SW gate, on the oppositeside of the southwest-northeast avenue (fig. 6). Since no architectural remains of the gate have been recovered, however, allevidence cited to provide support for such a suggestion remains inconclusive (��/��!�"��0. Thegate has also appeared on the restored plan of Seuthopolis drawn by the architect D. Mushev, following Chichikova’s theory(�� %0=


25

Figure 9. A The West corner tower (T 1) at Seuthopolis, stateplan; B Typical corner tower at Dion (after Dimitrov3��

��"%�� )��* �+,�--./0��+�- 1998, )�. 31b).

Figure 10. A The Northwest tower (T 2) at Seuthopolis, state plan; B Typical tower at Dion(��#��0��#��3��"%�, �)��* �+,�--./0��+�- 1998, )�. 31a).

��

26

Cassander (319-297 BC).Although no account regarding structural

details exists, it is clear from the published pho-tographs (��%��Y�$=�/0� 4274�Seu-thopolis towers exhibit the same building tech-nique, as the one observed in the curtains (seesupra). In the absence of evidence to the con-trary (��1970, 11), it is also safe toassume that the towers bond with the curtainwalls (so ��0=�>�B':I7;5�3'?� ;*8*763� 4274� 42*� 4'1*rs at Seuthopolisand Dion demonstrate closely similar dimen-sions8 and almost identical layout (figs. 9-11).As in Dion, the towers at Seuthopolis have ahollow ground floor accessible from the city, orthe citadel, by an axial opening (figs. 10a-b,11a-b, 12), ca. 1.30 m wide (T 2, T 5, T 6 andT 7), or a narrower L-shaped passage (fig. 9a),ca. 1 m wide (T 1, T 3 and T 4). As in Dion,based on their projection ()��* �+,�-!./0��+�-1223�115!11H6��$�� #��

��'��V

Type 1 – projecting slightly on the inner side,T 2 and T 5 (fig. 10a)

Type 2 – projecting beyond the curtain wallcompletely, T 6 and T 7 (figs. 11a-12).

In fact, some of the corner towers, i.e. T 1,T 3 and T 4, should belong to Type 1 as well,since, as a result of the inward projection, theirchambers only partially extend beyond the outerface of the curtain wall, as do the ones of T 2and T 5 (figs. 9a, 10a).

The first floor of the towers is level with thewallwalk, since communication between differ-ent sections of the curtain wall was facilitatedvia the towers. Only near T 1 and T 4 (figs. 6,9a) are there preserved stone foundations forsolid stairways leading up to the wallwalk(��%��Y�$=� �� 0=�>64*;?7458*6C�1''@*?� 67@@*;3� 76'?J� 42*� B(;475?3� 7?@

42;'(J2�7� 4;7I@'';� A;':� 5?35@*� 42*� 4'1*;3:7C� 278*� I;'85@*@� 7@@545'?76� 17C3� A';I;':I4�:7??5?J�'A� 42*� A';45A5B745'?3�� *3I*�B5766C�5?�4ime of siege. By way of comparisonwith Dion ()��* �+,�-!./0��+�-1223� 11I6��$��U��

�� $��

$��#� �� !

��<R �� 9 could also be conjec-

tured based on large size of the Tower-Gate andT 6, as well as thicker tower-walls attested forT 1, T 3 and T 4. The walls of T 1 (fig. 9a), forexample, are 1.60-1.80 m thick, while those ofT 2 (fig. 10a) – 1.50 m (�� %��=��%0=�>642'(gh the wall dimensions ofT 3 and T 4 are not reported in the preliminarypublications, they appear as thick as those ofT 1 if measured from the scaled city plan pub-lished in both volumes of the Seuthopolis se-ries. The thickening of tower-walls observedin the corner towers at Dion was done in or-der to strengthen areas more liable for attackfrom the enemy artillery and siege engines()��* �+,�-!./0��+�-1223�119!11I�)�<546<R� �� Seuthopolis is concerned, furtherconsiderations lend support to a similar suppo-sition. For instance, T 3 and T 4 served a dou-ble purpose, since they were also a part of thecitadel, situated in the most accessible for thewould-be attacker area of the city, defendingthe easy approach from N-NW (figs. 3, 5). Inthe absence of outworks (��-�� /�,6), i.e. proteichisma

10, or a moat along theNW city wall, it seems plausible that these twotowers, as well as T 1 and the Tower-Gate,had an extra floor, thereby (1) gaining extraheight, (2) increasing the range of the cata-pults and (3) making the attacker’s advancetowards the city more difficult and trouble-some11. It is clear that, as in the case of Dion,

8 A typical tower at Dion is a square measuring 7.00 x 7.00 m ()��* �+,�--./0��+�- 1998, 248). For Seuthopolis, see table1.

9 By and large, three-storeyed towers are less common than the one and two-storeyed ones. An inscription from Scotoussain Thessaly, for example, dated to 197-185 BC, mentions a three-storeyed tower, �� (Missailidou-Despotidou1993, 197, 207). For examples of well-preserved multi-storeyed towers in Greece, see (Ober 1987, 586-594, figs. 19, 22, 27and 29).

10 For example, see the recent discoveries of proteichismata located in vulnerable sections of the early Hellenistic circuits atStymphalos (Williams/Gourley 2005, 253, fig. 15, pls. 10-11) and Sboryanovo (Stoyanov 1999, 1083). In both cases theexcavators suspect that they were used as emplacements for artillery engines.


27

Figure 13. A The Tower-Gate in the S fortification wall at Failaka, restored plan (adapted by author afterJeppesen 1989, fig. 99); B The Tower-Gate in the NW city wall at Seuthopolis, restored plan (adapted by the

author after Dim�#��3��"%��* �C The tower-gate at Sillyon, Pamphylia (after McNicoll 1997, pl. 64).

Figure 11. A The Southwest citadel tower (T 7) at Seuthopolis, restored plan; B�'��#��#��(� ��#� ��#��!#��#��0��#��3��"%�� )��* �+,�--./0��+�- 1998, )�<51�6.

Figure 12. The South corner tower (T6) of the citadel at Seuthopolis, restored

plan (adapted by the author after0��#��3��"%��*.

��

28

the established canon was modified only whenat odds with the strategic requirements of aspot.

Along the same lines, the extremely largeTower-Gate (13.50 x 10.30 m.) puncturing theNW city wall (figs. 6, 13b, tables 1, 3, 5) de-serves special attention. Projecting equally be-yond either side of the curtain, the tower per-formed two important functions; first, it facili-tated the wheeled traffic into the city by direct-ing it along the main northwest-southeast av-enue, and second, it served as a strong artilleryunit on its own in one of the most vulnerable forattack areas. The gate is axial, with two open-ings at the ground level, which probably hadarches and/or lintels spanning the entranceproper (fig. 13c). In addition, the lack of stair-ways in its vicinity shows that the access abovewas possible only through the wallwalk bymeans of the neighboring T 2 and T 3. Thelarger internal dimensions (10.50 x 7.30 m.) alsomake it likely that stone-throwing catapults(lithoboloi) were employed (see infra). Note-worthy is the fact, however, that this type ofcity gates is extremely rare in the Hellenisticworld (Adam 1992; Winter 1971, 232-233), andwhile the Tower-Gate at Seuthopolis displaysonly superficial similarity with the tower-gateat Kabyle (�� 7��/�� 0� 7?@� 42*�S75?\74*�74�Dura-Europos (Von Gerkan 1939, fig.1), it finds an exact parallel in the Tower-Gatein the south wall of the fortified Sacred Enclo-sure on the island of Failaka (figs. 13a, 26),located at the northern edge of the Persian Gulf(Jeppesen 1989, 19-20)12. In addition, the Seu-thopolis Tower-Gate could be usefully com-pared, in terms of restoring its superstructure,to the much later (133 BC) yet exceptionallywell-preserved tower-gates at Sillyon (fig.

13c) and Güvercinlik in Pamphylia (Dornisch1992, 134-136, 138-140, Abb. 17; McNicoll1997, 139-40, fig. 32).

In the same vein, the presence of T 6 and T7 (figs. 11a, 12) is important for a number ofreasons. First, if assault was carried out frominside the city, they would provide the only op-portunity for defense of the citadel (fig. 6).Second, they are the only representatives ofType 2, i.e. towers with complete projection.On the territory of Thrace, T 7 may be com-pared (��1998, 41) with the pro-jecting towers (#2 and #3) from Kabyle (�� 1991a, 56, ��. 1, 8, 9), the so-calledtyrsis near the Mandren lake, Burgas district(��Y�$= 29) and the forti-fied site near Bosnek (Ljubenova 2005, 187-188, Abb. 2-4). The presence of towers withprojection is significant not only because it cutthe traffic on the wallwalk away from the tow-ers, but also because it increased the field offlanking fire along the adjoining curtains (Vitr.De arch. 1. 5. 2). The projection also facilitateseasier handling of the catapults on the first floorof the towers (McNicoll 1997, 13).

On the whole, the defensive potential im-parted in the citadel is striking and markedlycontrast with the provisions made for the restof the circuit. The point deserves further elabo-ration. Since the citadel was situated in the mostvulnerable area of the city, it has often beenclaimed (�� %�� =��0�4274�A';�4253�;*73'?�76'?*54� 173� 27;@6C� 5?4*?@*@� 73� 7� I67B*� A';� lastrefuge. Dimitrov (1958, 697-698) believed thatbefore the city was built a fortified residentialtower, tyrsis, was in existence, which after itsdestruction, was replaced by a tetrapyrgionserving as citadel defending the palace. Oncethe citadel became a part of the new city,

11 One should be aware of the fact that the excavators found scattered traces of habitation immediately outside the NW forti-fication wall. Dimitrov (1960, 5), for example, reported many fragments of rooftiles, arguably the only remains of simplehuts, as well as stone foundations belonging to a building with a circular plan of unknown character. Although none of thesefinds were ever published or mapped out, they have been repeatedly used to substantiate the claim for the existence of poorsuburbs (cf. here fig. 3) associated with the city proper. While Dimitrov thought of the inhabitants of the suburban area aspeople of no great means, Stoyanov (2006, 85), citing the presence of heavy rooftiles, has recently pointed to the possibilitythat these people may have possessed higher economic and social status.

12 The site, which is not only contemporary with Seuthopolis but also the fortification walls exhibit the same building tech-nique – stone socle topped by a mudbrick superstructure, was built by the Seleucids at the beginning of the third century BC(Jeppesen 1989, 76).


29

Fig

ure

14. A

The

Sou

thw

est g

ate

and

Bas

tions

1, 2

, sta

te p

lan;

B A

n en

gine

sta

nd, E

mpl

acem

ent 5

1 at

Her

akle

ia a

t Lat

mos

(ad

a�#� ��

#��!#��#��0��

�#��3��"%�5 �7

�8��"%�)�*

.

A B

��

30

Dimitrov argued, the defensive potential wasstrengthened by the addition of a fifth tower,i.e. T 7 (fig. 6). His theory, however, has notstood the test of time (!�"��2002, 126). If, onthe other hand, the provisions for defensive ar-tillery are taken into account, I see no reasonwhy the defenders would not have felt moreprotected inside. In addition, it is essential toacknowledge that the citadel was in fact facingthe most accessible approach towards the city,an important fact of site’s topography which thecity planners had to consider. Lofty towers (T 3and T 4), allowing greater concentration ofmanpower along the NW fortification wall, in-cluding T 6 and T 7, were meant to deal withthis problem, thereby amplifying the defensivecapability against an enemy attack from allsides, thus making the citadel the most impreg-nable part of the city. In light of these observa-tions, it is difficult to accept the views that itwas hardly designed with the idea of being arefuge (�� 0�� 73� 1*66� 734274�42*�I(;I'3*�'A�T 6 and T 7, designated as“watch-towers”, was to simply enable SeuthesIII “to maintain his power over the nobles in hiscapital” (Stakenborg-Hoogeveen 1989, 182).

In reality, the defenders had to rely on thepresence of the thick-walled and three-storeyedT 3 and T 4, in addition to the more closelyspaced and projecting T 6 and T 7 along theSW citadel wall. For example, if the enemywere to breach and/or scale the city walls, T 6would have been a great vantage point, sinceits location and height secure commandingviews towards the agora, the main southwest-northeast avenue and the smaller northwest-southeast street leading to the propylon of thecitadel (figs. 3, 6). Being a three-storeyedtower, it was not only the second largest in thecity, but also a tower with potential of housinglithoboloi. Furthermore, should the enemy de-cide to advance from the agora towards thecitadel, it could have done so by taking the mainsouthwest-northeast avenue until reaching theintersection with the smaller northwest-south-east street leading to the propylon (fig. 6). Thiswas in no way unlikely course of events, since

regularly planned cities, as Thucydides (2. 1 -2. 5) remarks, are much easier to be capturedby an enemy who has already managed to pen-etrate inside. In the same vein, Aristotle (Poli-tics 1330b) says that unplanned arangement isdifficult for foreign troops to enter and find theirway about in when attacking. In a situation likethis, the fire of the catapults from the windowson the NE and SE faces of the T 6 provided theopportunity to inflict serious damage upon theadvancing forces. It also provided enfiladealong curtains J and I, since T 5 had no poten-tial for defense of the citadel during attack car-ried out within the city (see infra). Thus, whilethe strategic position of T 6 (fig. 12) is re-flected in its larger dimensions (tables 1, 2),its defensive capacity was enhanced by the tac-tical use of artillery.

Envisioning artillery engines inside towers,however, comes about with specific structuralrequirements. It is commonly accepted thattowers needed permanent roofing when han-dling of catapults was planned for the upper-most chamber (Lawrence 1996, 176). Examplesof well-preserved towers from Greece and AsiaMinor, for instance, plus stratigraphic associa-tion with roof tiles, combined with specificationsfrom building inscriptions (IG II2 463), all seemto conform to this, especially in the early Hel-lenistic period. When a good state of preserva-tion of the towers permits it, as in the case ofAigosthena and Messene, it is evident that agabled roof was constructed, consisting ofbeams, rafters, reeds and tiles placed in clay(Haselberger 1979, Abb. 1, 2, 4). For Seutho-polis, we have neither published evidence ofroof tiles in association with any of the towers(��-��/��/�%0��?';�@747�A';�B'I5?J�34'?*3�� 125B2� 1'(6@� 278*� 5?@5B74*@� acrenellated open rooftop (Ober 1987, fig. 30A,30C, 30J). In view of the fact, however, thattheir superstructure was made of mudbrick (seesupra), it seems more likely to conclude thatthe towers at Seuthopolis would have beenroofed13. According to our analysis, the twochambers of T 2, T 5 and T 7 would have hadroughly the same height as the curtain walls,

13 Tower 3 (fig. 6), for example, has been restored with a gabled roof, as shown in the axonomic reconstruction of the palace(�� 0=


31

Figure 15. Reconstructed elevation of: A the Great Battery at Goritsa; B the Acropolis Bastion atStymphalos. Reconstructions by V. P. Tolstikov and H. Brikina (after Bakhuizen 1992, fig. 58A) and B. Gourley

(after Williams et al. 1998, fig. 6).

��

32

ca. 6 m, with a total height, inclusive of theroof, reaching up to at least 6.75 m. The totalheight of the three-storeyed T 1, the Tower-Gate, T 3, T 4 and T 6, on the other hand, mayhave been in the range of 11-12 m14.

4. 5. BastionsThe SW city wall features two rectangular

projections, B 1 and B 2, flanking the SW gate(fig. 14a), in addition to B 3, which is approxi-mately equidistant from B 2 and T 1 (fig. 6,table 2). These are probably better understoodas revetted salients (Lawrence 1979, 393-395)and/or engine stands (McNicoll 1997, 105, fig.53) rather than towers (�� 015 orbastions as suggested by the excavators (��-�� /�� %0=�E2*C� 27@�Irobably openplatforms on top (fig. 14b), thereby ensuringgreater opportunity for defense in one of theleast likely yet vulnerable areas for attack.Along these lines, I would like to point out thatthe topographical position of the SW city wall,rather than its reinforcements holds the key tounderstanding its role in withstanding a siege.Since the S and SW part of the city was moreor less naturally protected by the meanderingcourse of Tonzos, the only land approach in di-rection to the SW gate was made possible by anarrow passage between T 1 and the steepbank of the river, which at this point is some 30m away from the former (figs. 3, 4). Thus, al-most all responsibility during attack in this arearests on the three-storeyed T 1, which if it failedthe fate of the SW gate would have beensealed, given the lack of towers and limited levelof protection provided by the salients along thewall16.

In addition, the importance attached to thiscorner of the urban fortifications is further re-vealed through one structural detail observable

in the design of T 1, namely that SW and NWcity walls abut on the adjacent rather than theopposite sides of the tower (fig. 9a)17. This issignificant since in this way, as Winter (1971,198, fig. 193 A-B) has pointed out, at least halfof the length of these sides would have beenable to provide flanking fire along the curtainwalls leading up to the angle. In terms of ca-pacity for defense, this arrangement is moreadvantageous as opposed to the one observablein T 5, for instance, in which the curtain wallsjoin the opposite sides of the tower while thelatter projects diagonally from the angle (fig.6). The other corner towers of the citadel (T 3,T 4 and T 6) exhibit similar arrangement at theirjunction with the curtain walls, as observed in T1. Tower 3, however, is an exception on accountof its unique position (fig. 6), since at this pointthe SW citadel wall and the NW city wall inter-act, whereas T 3 meets curtains F, G and L atright angle18. In fact, T 3 completely projectsonly beyond the SW citadel wall, and by expos-ing its SE face towards T 7 it creates a widerfront for enfilade along curtain L, whereas theSW and NE sides which in turn extend onlytwo-thirds of their lengths provide lesser oppor-tunity for such along curtains F and G (fig. 6).

4. 6. Standard of measurementThe city walls of Seuthopolis also provide

an opportunity to estimate the standard ofmeasurement employed in their design. Despitethe uncertainties surrounding such inquiries (cf.Robinson/Graham 1938, 45), a few preliminaryobservations may nonetheless prove useful.Moreover, in the case of Seuthopolis the re-sults obtained from the city fortifications alonemay be reconciled with supplementary data.

On the whole, the practice of measuringlength in feet or in cubits seems justified. A

14 One of the best-preserved towers in mainland Greece is Tower L at Messene, consisting of a solid base, two upper chambersand a gabled roof, a total height of 12.50 m (Ober 1987, 575).

15 The reconstruction of the bastions and the SW gate, drawn by the architect D. Moushev (�� 0��32'13�42*D7345'?3�73� 4'1*;3�*](5II*@�1542� 41'�15?@'13�7?@�7?�'I*?�;''A4'I=

16 The possibility, however, of their serving as artillery emplacements should not be underestimated (Lawrence 1979, 393;McNicoll 1997, 105).

17 Vitruvius (De arch. 1. 5. 2) states that the salient angles are to be avoided, since they give advantage to the attacker ratherthan the defender.

18 It communicates with the citadel via a L-shaped passage at ground level, although access may have been possible by awooden ladder from inside the city.


33

Figure 17. Reconstruction of a Roman catapult bolt from Dura-Europos (after James 2004, fig. 128).

Figure 16. Bronze catapult arrow-heads from: A Seuthopolis, M 1:2;

B Olynthus, M 1:1,5(��#��0��#��3��"%�))�

.��"%�-*.

��

34

building inscription dealing with the Hellenisticcity walls of Skotoussa, for instance, gives thedistances in feet or in tens of feet by using theunit akainon, which equals 10 feet (Missaili-dou-Despotidou 1993, 193), while the militarywriter Philo of Byzantium usually reports thelinear measurements in cubits. For the purposesof this study, I assume that the foot was usedas a basic module. Since several standards oflongitudinal measuring were known in antiquity(Büsing 1982, 1-12), the most reliable way toestablish which one was used is by represent-ing the small measurements in exact number offeet and the larger measurements in roundnumber of feet (Robinson/Graham 1938, 46).Following this method, it immediately becomesobvious that the widths of the gates, as well asof the towers, are best represented by the Atticfoot (table 1) that equals 0.296 m (WilsonJones 2000, 75, ##16-17). The state plan of thepropylon�(0��#��3��"%��-*��!#�#�� #��#��"��#��%-��i.e. 10 Atticfeet19. The same may be true for the Tower-Gate (fig. 13b), but since a state plan is cur-rently unavailable the width of the gate openingthere cannot be determined with similar preci-sion. The width of the SW gate (fig. 14a) is2.00 m, close to 7 Attic feet. Dimitrov (1960, 6)states that the thickness of the SW, NW andNE city walls is 2.00 m, whereas that of SE andE are slightly smaller, 1.80 m. The state plansof T 1 and T 2 (figs. 9a, 10a), however, set thewidth of the NW wall at about 2.00-2.05 m. Thevarying thickness of the curtain walls mostprobably correspond to 7 Attic feet (2.07 m)and 6 Attic feet (1.77 m)20, respectively.

That the Attic foot was the basic unit ofmeasurement is further confirmed by the roundfigures of feet obtained for the distances be-tween the towers (table 2). More importantly,the circumference of the city walls is 890 m(��-�� 1960, 4), which is remarkably

close to 888 m, equaling 5 stadia or 3000 Atticfeet. Finally the sizes of the insulae (150 and200 x 60 feet) along with the width of the citystreets (12, 14 and 20 feet) are usually ex-pressed in Attic feet as well (Graham 1980,269; �� /�� [��ikova 1997,234)21.

5. Defensive artilleryAs in Dion ()��* �+,�-!./0��+�- 1223�

14F!1416� = ��$� ��$��

Seuthopolis were designed with the intentionof installing catapults. Besides the archaeologi-cal evidence to which I shall return in a mo-ment, certain features in the architectural lay-out of the towers also seem to tip the scales infavor of conjecturing defensive artillery (Ober1992, 147).

5. 1. Tactical advantagesTo begin with, considering the flat terrain

and relatively easy approach to the city fromN-NW, it is somewhat unusual that the spacingof the towers, especially along the NW fortifi-cation wall, is considerably larger than whatmight be normally expected. Philo of Byzantium(1. 45), for instance, recommends a distancebetween the towers of 100 cubits (ca. 44.40m), while Vitruvius (De arch. 1. 5. 4) says thatthe towers should be set at intervals not morethan a bowshot apart. Comparable examplesfrom elsewhere, and especially from cities situ-ated on a level terrain, clearly indicate increasedconcern for defending the curtain walls byshrinking the distance between the towers.Thus, the intervals between towers range be-tween 25-26 m at Mantineia (Fougères 1898,143), 33 m at Dion ()��* �+,�-!./0��+�-1223�2H6��59$��Halos (Reinders 1988, 82)22,whereas at Seuthopolis, they cluster around43-70 m (table 2)23, closely comparable to theintervals attested at Dura-Europos – 55-60 m(von Gerkan 1939, 6, fig. 28). How are we toexplain this?

19 It is interesting to note that the East gate at Pistiros is exactly 2.96 m wide, i.e. 10 Attic feet (Domaradzki 1996, 19; Kolarova1996, fig. 2.3).

20 A length of 6 feet or 4 cubits may be expressed as 1 orgyia (Xen. Memorabilia 2. 3. 19; Pollux 2. 158), which also repre-sented 1/100 of a stadion (Herod. 2. 149).

21 Some of the graffiti on pithoi denote their capacity in accordance with the Attic-Euboean system (��/��/�0=22 For other examples of circuits with the same range of intervals between the towers, see (Maier 1958, 23, #32).23 For obvious reasons exceptions from this are the citadel walls, i.e. curtains I, J, K and L (fig. 6).


35

Figure 18. Catapult bolts fromSeuthopolis (��$�� 1972b,

Y�$. 73).

Figure 19. Catapult boltsfrom Vergina (after

>�D? �EA 1997, M/D. 1).

Figure 21. Catapult boltsfrom Pistiros, Halos, andSboryanovo; left to right

(after ��///9; Reinders 1988, fig.

114, #35/23; ,-�.�� et al.2006, Y�$. 63/4, 5).

Figure 20. Catapult boltsfrom Ephyra (after Baatz

1982, Abb. 7).

��

36

First, the tactical decision to install artilleryin the uppermost chamber of the towers makesup for the need to position them closer(McNicoll 1997, 10-11; Keyser/Irbie-Massie2006, 259). Thus, the longer range of the cata-pults (McNicoll 1997, 4-5; Marsden 1999, 86-89) would have thwarted the attempts of theattackers to approach the curtains from a dis-tance, and when they tried to batter or scalethe walls, the flanking fire of the catapultswould have been sufficient for defending thelonger distances between the towers.

Second, the lack of posterns in the entire cir-cuit of Seuthopolis – a fact that has never beenpointed out – seems to suggest provisions for apassive defense, a well-established contempo-rary practice discernible in the plans of manyHellenistic fortifications (Winter 1989, 191;McNicoll 1997, 8). With the walls lying on alevel ground, the defensive potential of thewhole circuit normally concentrated in the tow-ers. Thus in the absence of natural heights themain goal was to keep the enemy as far awayfrom the city walls as possible by placing theartillery in lofty towers (McNicoll 1986, 308;Milner 1997, 213). In such cases the crucial roleof defensive artillery is best revealed, since ifthe enemy managed to make its way to thewalls, the defenders would have been at a dis-advantage because the lack of posterns wouldhave left no opportunity for them to organizesorties and fight in close quarters outside thewalls.

Third, towers, such as T 1, T 3, T 4, T 6 andthe Tower-Gate at Seuthopolis (figs. 12, 13b),are usually designed with regard to both with-standing and employing torsion artillery. Thus,their layout (big chambers) and structural fea-tures (thicker walls) reflect the dangers im-posed by the catapults of the besieger, as wellas the advantages of defensive artillery for thetower itself (Ober 1992, 162). On account ofthese traits T 6 and Tower-Gate find closestparallels in grand Hellenistic circuits such asHerakleia at Latmos, Ephesos, SeleukeiaPieria, Samos and Dura-Europos belonging tothe group of the so-called ‘second-generation’

artillery towers dated to 325-285 BC (Ober1992, 152-159; McNicoll 1997, 101-105). Fur-thermore, it is important to note that these wereall royal commissions – constructed under theauspices of Alexander’s Successors, Cassan-der, Lysimachus and Seleucus I Nicator, duringthe last decade of the fourth century BC (ta-ble 5).

That some of the towers from Philippopo-lis, Pistiros and Kabyle in inland Thrace areclosely comparable with the artillery towerslisted in table 5 is somewhat surprising in viewof the opinions that those at Pistiros and Kaby-le, for example, should be pre-Hellenistic indate (Bouzek et al. 2002, 9-10; ��7, 55, !�"�� 5-116,177)24. It is important to note that in Greece andAsia Minor the presence of large, thick-walledtowers coupled with evidence for roofed upperchambers most certainly indicate that a circuitwas (re-) built during the years following thedeath of Alexander III at the earliest (Milner1997, 212-213). The recent discovery of anearly Hellenistic bastion at Kabyle on Zaichivruh confirms this observation (� � ��/�%��=��/0=�^'4�'?6C�7;*�42*?*16C�@53B'8*;*@�D7345'?�74�Kabyle and theE tower at Pistiros large and thick-walled(1.85-1.95 m and 1.55 m respectively), but theyalso yielded data for roofing (� � ��/��S(356� /�� A5J=� �=�0=� _A� 42*�I744*;?3(JJ*34*@� A';� 42*�S*@54*;;7?*7?� 53� B';;*B47?@� 42*� 4'1*;3� A;':� 42*� F� A';45A5B745'?1766�74�Kabyle (excluding the bastion) and theE tower at Pistiros are nonetheless pre-Hel-lenistic, it remains to be explained on whatgrounds they should be an exception (!�"�� 0=

5. 2. Artillery towersIn trying to reconstruct the caliber and type

of artillery engines that could have been housedin the towers at Seuthopolis, one should takeinto account the internal dimensions of thechambers (Winter 1997). The shape of the ap-ertures in the towers, however, is more reliableindicator for assessing the sorts of artillery theywere designed for (Ober 1992, 159-161; McNi-

24 The tower (bastion) at Philippopolis is now assigned to the third building phase of the city fortifications, i.e. the end of thesecond century BC – first century AD (Kolarova/Bospatchieva 2005, 74-75, 81, fig. 1E).


37

Figure 22. Stone balls from the embankment of tumulus 1 near Seuthopolis (after ̀ M$� ��1956, Y�$. 94).

Figure 24. Catapult stone balls associated with the city walls of Seuthopolis(after ��-��1957, ��=�/0.

Figure 23. Catapult stone balls associated with the city walls of Seuthopolis(after a�� %��Y�$=��0.

��

38

coll 1997, 11), but being made of mudbrick, it ishardly surprising that the evidence for theshape of the apertures at Seuthopolis is irre-trievably lost. For this type of analysis, of im-portance are the operational length and width,as well as the weght of ancient catapults (table4), which are normally calculated on the basisof the calibration formula mentioned by Philo ofByzantium (Belopoeica 52. 5), writing underthe Ptolemies during the last quarter of the thirdcentury BC. It must be kept in mind, however,that the figures obtained are highly hypotheti-cal, even methodologically questioned (Rihll2006, 379-383), because the scholars offeringsuch calculations (Marsden 1999, 34-36) do sounder the assumption that the early Hellenisticcatapults remained unchanged until the time ofPhilo. It is therefore obvious that the distribu-tion of catapults in the chambers of Seuthopolistowers presented below should remain a work-ing hypothesis at best.

Based on chamber size, two groups may bedistinguished (table 3). Of these, T 1, T 3, T 4,T 6, as well as the Tower-Gate, could have hada second floor – something inferred from theirlarger dimensions (T 6, Tower-Gate) andthicker walls (T 1, T 3 and T 4). The rest of thetowers (T 2, T 5 and T 7) were probably suitedmore for archers rather than artillery and per-haps did not have a second floor. The internalspace of the latter, i.e. 4.10 x 4.10 m., however,could have still accommodated small calibers ofoxybeleis, e. g. one- and two-cubit engines(Winter 1996, 35). On the other hand, the pro-jection of T 7 would have made the handling ofcatapults possible even on the first floor, unlikeT 2 and T 5, which served as a thoroughfare,since the wallwalk was passing through thechambers. Tower 1, T 3 and T 4 (3.50 x 3.50m.) probably had smaller catapults, e. g. one-cubit and three-span, operating in the upper-most chamber (Winter 1996, 35), whereas thefirst floor was perhaps reserved for archers. In

addition to the oxybeleis housed in the upperfloor of T 6 (7.30 x 7.30 m), which were essen-tially anti-personnel weapons, the tower wouldhave also had the potential to house one five-mina, or one ten-mina lithobolos in the firstchamber (Ober 1992, 162), which Philo of By-zantium (3. 5-6) states is ideal for destroyingthe enemy catapults. Since the presence ofheavy artillery defending city gates accessibleto wheeled traffic was of primary concern(Milner 1997, 212), it comes as no surprise thatthe Tower-Gate provides the largest space forartillery emplacement in the circuit. Thus, con-sidering the internal space of 10.50 x 7.30 m,the first floor may have housed two ten-minalithoboloi (Ober 1992, table 3), whereas thefive-span, two- and three-cubit oxybeleis in theupper chamber increased the offensive poten-tial of the tower (fig. 15a, b)25. Since theground floors of all towers, except the Tower-Gate, were free of traffic and independentlyaccessible, it is also conceivable that, for themost part, the interior space was used for keep-ing the catapults and projectiles in storage(>/?@��A-.�B��C 2004, 107).

5. 3. Artillery projectilesFurther support for the use of defensive ar-

tillery at Seuthopolis may be sought in the find-ings of several projectiles. One is a bronze ar-rowhead with a socketed end and three straightsides ending in sharp barbs (fig. 16a) publishedtogether with four other specimens, all alleg-edly belonging to the “Scythian” type (U$� ��N�� -. #149-153; 0��#��3��"%�))�*

26. As Ogneno-va-Marinova (1984, 166) points out, cat. #152slightly differs from the rest with respect to size(4.1 cm) and inward curving of the sides, whichled her to suggest that it closely resembled thebronze arrowheads with the name of Philip(fig. 16b) found at Olynthus (Robinson 1941,cat. #1907-1912). This is significant for mostscholars agree that the arrowheads from

25 The larger width of the tower (10.50 m) would have permitted enfilade even for a fifteen or twenty-mina lithobolos. This istheoretical, of course, because it is impossible to know for certain whether these were actually employed (but see infra).

26 Recently, similar examples have come to light from Sboryanovo (,-�.��et al. 2006, Y�$=�/�0�7?@�Philippopolis (K��L��-��bbb__=0=�9*3I54*�42*�'D3*;8745'?�4274�42*C�@5AA*;�:7;+*@6C�A;':�42*�3I*B5:*?3�744*34*@�5?�QBC4257RT�O��Y�$=��/0�� they are uncritically referred to as arrowheads of the “Scythian” type (,-�.�� et al.2006, 41; K��L��2004, 21, 28).


39

Figure 25. Restored plans of Dion and Halos (after )��* �+,�--./0��+�- 1998, )�<3H6.

Figure 26. The fortifications of the Sacred Enclosure at Failaka, restored plan (adaptedby the author after Jeppesen 1989, fig. 99).

��

40

Olynthus could in fact represent catapult bolt-heads (Marsden 1977, 213-215; Connolly 1998,283, fig. 6; Snodgrass 1999, 116-117). For ourpurposes, however, it has to be admitted thatthe specimen from Seuthopolis only slightlyresembles the ones from Olynthus (6.6-7 cm),most notably the inward curving of the sides(figs. 16a, b). Nevertheless, on account of itslarger size and similarity with the Olynthian ex-amples, the attribution of cat. #152 to the“Scythian” barbed type may be called into ques-tion. Thus if it is not a regular arrowhead, I sug-gest that it may have been a projectile for cata-pult. Arguably, the small size of the bolt may beassociated with a hand-held catapult known asa gastraphetes, which was similar to a cross-bow (Garlan 1974, 164-166), rather thanoxybeleis (fig. 15b), as shown by the catapultwashers found in Ephyra, (Baatz 1982, 213-225). Its findspot (square c�0�� ;*8*765?J�73�3'B5745'?�1542� 42*�7;*7�where T 7 joins cur-tain K (fig. 6), however, remains insufficient toestablish whether the projectile was fired fromthe attackers or the defenders.

On the other hand, the commonest type ofcatapult bolts attested in the Hellenistic andRoman periods is made of iron, with pyramidalhead and longer (10-20 cm), socketed shaft atthe end (fig. 17). To date, 8 specimens (6.3-9cm long, 1.2-1.4 cm diam. of socket) have beenpublished from Seuthopolis (fig. 18)27, but Ibelieve they were erroneously attributed to themedieval settlement, which existed on top of theruins of the Hellenistic city (��$��%�D�Y�$=�%��M� ��/��Y�$=��=��0=�F256*42*� @534(;D*@� 34;745J;7I2C� 'A� Seuthopolisremains the likeliest source of confusion28, themorphological features of these artillery projec-

tiles are clearly Hellenistic, as suggested by theidentical examples (figs. 19-21) from Vergina(>�D? �EA122;� ;1�M/D< 16�Ephyra (Baatz1982, Taf. 2), Halos (Reinders/Prummel 2003,128, fig. 3.35, 304-305, M38-58), Stymphalos(Williams et al. 1997, 56-57; 1998, 310-311), in-cluding Thracian centers such as Pistiros (��//��d745?�arova 2007, 40,fig. 22, pl. 9), Sboryanovo (,-�.��et al. 2006,Y�$=�/�<4, 5) and the newly-discovered fortifiedsite near the peak “Kozi gramadi”in Sredna Gora(T��-��/�� /�� 029.

Additional evidence for the use of defensiveartillery at Seuthopolis is provided by 6 stoneballs (fig. 22) uncovered in the embankment ofTumulus 1, lying ca. 100 m northeast of the city(fig. 5). Based on the fact that two of the ballswere found still attached, apparently left unfin-ished (fig. 22, top row), the excavator rightlyconcluded that the stone balls were of localmanufacture (`M$� �� /�� 0=� _?3(II';4�'A�4253�2CI'42*353��2*�?'4*@�4274�42*65:*34'?*�'A�125B2� 4hey were made matchedin appearance several stone beds of limestonelocated near the tumuli. The dimensions of theattached stone balls, 6.5 and 6 cm (`M$� ��/�� 0�� 3(JJ*34� 3:766� B765D*;� B747I(643�I'335D6C even less than five-mina (table 4).Although two of the other balls (fig. 22, bottomrow, 3-4) may be of similar size, their diametersare not reported. The rest were probably usedas sling-bullets on account of their smaller di-mensions. A good comparison may be found ina singular example, 3 x 2.8 cm, discovered nearthe city wall of Kabyle (��7�/�� -. #51) and several from Sboryanovo(,-�.��et al. 2006, 44, Y�$=�/�A0=

Since, however, the publications of the tumuli

27 Changova (1972b, 93) reports the existence of no less than 20 specimens, only 8 of which are illustrated.28 The stratigraphy of the Hellenistic remains was to a great extent disturbed by the overlying medieval settlement and graves.

Another factor affecting the original sequence of strata was modern plowing (��-�� 1972, 10).29 The excavator mentions the discovery of several specimens made of iron, with a pyramidal point and a socket, which he calls

“arrowheads”, but without supplying dimensions. Their morphology, however, clearly shows that they are catapult bolts(cf. here figs. 18-21), which in conjunction with the numerous finds of sling-bullets (T��-��/��0��testifiesto the fact that the site sustained an attack by an enemy equipped with slingers and arrow-shooting catapults (oxybeleis).With the evidence for the use of offensive artillery unrecognized, Christov (2006, 52, 72, 79-80) has tentatively suggestedthat the site was destroyed by the army of Philip II of Macedon during his march in Thrace in the summer of 341 BC. A morecareful study on the Macedonian bronzes in the name of Philip II and Alexander III (T��-��/��B74=�ee��0��5?B6(ding the single coin of Seuthes III (T��-��/��B74=�e0� found during the excavations, may downdate thechronology of the destruction.


41

appeared before the preliminary reports on thecity excavations, Zhuglev was deprived of theopportunity to link the stone balls with the artil-lery potential of the larger towers (Tower-Gate,T 6) from the near-by Seuthopolis (tables 1,2). The question of how the stone balls foundtheir way into the embankment of Tumulus 1 isa complex one30. Of importance is the claim(��0� 4274� 42*�@*I'3545'?'A� 42*� 7;B27*'6'J5B76� A5?@3� 5?� 42*� *:D7?+�:*?4�173� J;7@(76�� 7?@�:7C�D*� B'?4*:I'�;7;C� 1542� 42*� A'(?@745'?� 7?@� 3(D3*](*?4*H534*?B*�'A�Seuthopolis (see infra). In lightof these observations, it is conceivable that atleast some of the stone balls may have origi-nally belonged to locally manufactured projec-tiles intended to supply with ammunition thelithoboloi employed on the city walls.

6. Offensive artilleryDirectly related to the destruction of the city,

probably during the march of Antiochos IITheos in southeastern Thrace in 252 BC(�M� �� 7�� %��G:56'8�� %��0�� 53� 42*�(3*�'A� 34'?*�42;'15?J�7;4566*;C�'?�42*�I7;4�'A�42*�D*35*J�5?J� 7;:C=� >� J;*74� @*76� 'A� 7;B27*'6'J5B76*85@*?B*� 5?@5B74*3� 4274�Seuthopolis was be-sieged, taken and violently destroyed. Of these,19 stone balls found in close proximity to thefortification walls are especially compelling(��-�� /�� %�� /0=>4� I;*3*?4�� 42*5;� 35J?5A5B7?B*� 53� 'A� 65:54*@;*6*87?B*�� 1256*� ;*A*;*?B*3� 7;*� sometimeseven inaccurate. For instance, Dimitrov/��(��)�*�� 0��(-��*��#�� #��9�#��:� �� 9;#��"��#��:��#��$� ��##� (�)��*� �� mistaken (figs. 23, 24) when describ-ing them as “fragments of battering rams (?)”.Until a more detailed account becomes avail-able, many questions relating to the specimensfrom Seuthopolis must remain unanswered31 .Still, some basic facts can be established withcertainty on the strength of the two photographs(figs. 23-24) that have since appeared in print.

All are made from limestone and nothingsuggests employment of re-used material.Standardization of sizes, careful finish and al-most spherical shape all militate against the ideathat they were used merely as stones thrownby the attackers from the siege towers. Onewould not normally make the effort to create aperfectly rounded stone ball, if his goal was tosimply throw it by hands. Thus, as already sug-gested by many, such finds are in general prob-ably better understood as artillery projectiles(James 2004, 214). Sometimes, the weight ofartillery balls was inscribed on the surface withletters using the alphabetic or acrophonic nu-merals (H or WXI$��7=��YX1F$��6<

Z��photograph, reproduced here asfigure 24, provides an indication of scale, it ispossible to obtain only approximate measure-ments for some of the balls. At least three dif-ferent sizes may be distinguished with a diam-eter of 10, 11 and 13 cm, probably weighing inthe range of 2-4 kg. Tentatively, they can befurther assigned to lithoboloi using five- andten-mina shot (table 4; Campbell 2006, 117).

That these in fact destroyed the city walls,although point� � �!#� �� (0��#��3��)�*�� !�#�#�� #��#��"�#��#�#��#�� "�#��#� ��#��lithoboloi upon fortifi-cation walls. In 307 BC, for instance, Demetri-us Poliorcetes managed only to clear the wallsfrom its defenders during his siege of Muny-chia at Piraeus (Diod. Sic. 20. 46. 5-7). Againduring his sieges of Cyprian Salamis andRhodes, he placed his petroboloi on the siegetower (helepolis), but instead of using themagainst the wall, he destroyed the personnel ontop of it (Diod. Sic. 20. 48; 86-88). Similarly, in318 BC Polyperchon attacked Megalopolis byhis siege towers, whose catapults cleared thewalls from the defenders, but only after deploy-ing the battering rams did he breach the walls(Diod. Sic. 19. 63).

While during the siege of Seuthopolis itseems likely that the attackers resorted to simi-

30 In fact, the stone balls are omitted from the most recent discussion of the artifacts found in the embankment of Tumulus 1(��/�/�0=

31 The stone balls are currently kept in the storerooms of the Historical Museum “Iskra” in Kazanluk. I am most grateful toEvtimka Dimitrova to whom I owe this information.

��

42

lar tactics, it is hard to establish whether theymanaged to breach the walls by artillery fire orbattering rams. Mudbrick walls also had higherresilience towards artillery fire as opposed towalls of fullheight stonework (Paus. 8. 8. 8).Nevertheless, two of the stone balls (fig. 23),showing traces of breakage, perhaps testify tothe powerful nature of impact. All in all, thestone balls bear witness to the capability to pos-sess and skillfully master an advanced feat ofmilitary engineering, thereby bringing out onceagain the special importance of Seuthopolis,which together with Sboryanovo (Stoyanov1999, 1083, fig. 6; ,-�.��et al. 2006, 41-44,Y�$=� /��/�A0�� 7?@� ;*B*?46C�Pistiros

32 are todate the only fortified sites from inland Thrace,to have yielded evidence for the use of stone-throwing artillery.

In addition, the evidence provided by thestone balls seems well in keeping with recentlyexpressed doubts concerning the involvementof the Celts in the destruction of Seuthopolis(�� D�� /��f(?@� �� >;B25D76@��0�� 42*;*DC� 3(D347?�45745?J�A(;42*;�E7B2*87g3�'I5?5'?�R�/��%��/�� /��0� 4274� 42*� 5@*ntity ofthe unknown besieger of the city should besought among the powerful Hellenistic kingsand most certainly Antiochus II Theos (Peter1997, 175-177). It is therefore conceivable thatthe artillery projectiles found along the curtainswere fired from the lithoboloi brought by theSeleucid king.

Finally, I hope that by reexamining the evi-dence presented above I have convincinglydemonstrated that Seuthopolis belonged to alarger group of Hellenistic cities, heavily-forti-fied and equipped with artillery engines. It alsohelped in disproving, among other things, thebelief that the city walls, as compared withthose of Pernik or Kabyle, for example, maybe perceived as feeble and unreliable for effec-tive defense in case of a siege (��00, 44; �� =��0=�h';'?*��'?*� 32'(6@�?'4� 733(:*� 4274�1274�173

?'� @'(D4� *HI*?358*� I5*B*3� 'A� :7B25?*;C;*:75?*@� 5?�:5?4� B'?@545'?� A';� 73� 6'?J� 73Seuthopolis existed, while it is also conceiv-able that the arsenal of catapults housed in thelarger towers, which in all likelihood were avail-able for the defenders soon after the city foun-dation, may have already gone out of use by thetime of the siege imposed by Antiochus II in252 BC. If this was the case, it would becomeeasier to explain why Seuthopolis was quicklyswept away by the powerful stone-throwingartillery brought over by the Seleucid king.

7. When were the fortifications built?If taken at face value, the numismatic evi-

dence from Seuthopolis can demonstrate con-tinuous habitation in the city, from the time ofPhilip II until the reign of Antiochus II Theos(�M� ��7��0=�9*3I54*� 42*� B'?8*?�5*?B*�7AA';@*@�DC� 42*3*� termini, however, ithas been notoriously difficult to pinpoint the pre-cise date of its foundation. Until very recently,historical and numismatic evidence have beencited in support of the widely held opinion thatSeuthes III founded it some time ca. 320 BC(��-�� 1984, 33; i�M�� 1992, 84), oreven a few years earlier, 330-323 BC�R�� /�� 0� 7?@� �� &[� R��//�� 2002, 51-52). More in-formation, however, as I will demonstrate, canbe obtained by close examination of artifactsfrom the published catalogues of the Greek pot-tery (�� 1984, 102-110), the amphorastamps (�� /�55; Balkan-ska/Tzochev 2008, 194-204) and the coins (��-�� 1984, 48-107; �M� ��1988à; 1988b);a method of research, which have already beenemployed with great effect for Seuthopolis(��D��/� 1998, 56-60).

Despite the shortcomings of the publishedstratigraphy of the site (�� 0�� 54� 53� B6*7;� 4274� 42*�D(6+�'A� 42*� *HB7�874*@� j*66*?5345B� :74*;576� B':*3� A;':� 7@*I42� 'A� �=/��=�� :=� S';*'8*;�� 54� 273D**?� A(;42*;� *347D6532*@� 4274� 4253�173� 763'42*� 6*8*6� 'A� 42*� 34;**43�� 2'(3e floors, stone

32 In the summer of 2006, the Bulgarian team for archaeological excavation at Pistiros discovered a stone ball (artillery projec-tile) within the fortification walls of the emporion. The find is currently exhibited (April 2007) in the Archaeological mu-seum “Prof. M. Domaradski” in the town of Septemvri. I wish to thank Nikolai Angelov from the museum for sharing thisinformation with me.


43

foundations of domestic architecture and forti-fication system, datable to the end of the fourthand the beginning of the third century BC(��-��/��0=�_?�'42*;�1';@3�� 5A�B*;�475?� A5?@3� B7?� D*� 3*B(;*6C� 7335J?*@� 4'� 7;�B254*B4(;76�;*:75?3 from this layer, we shouldbe able to postulate with caution when a certainbuilding was erected. Since in the preliminaryreports, however, no distinction has been madebetween floor deposits and fills from foundationtrenches, this in effect precludes us from estab-lishing more precise chronological termini. In ourcase, of course, the artefacts associated with thecity fortifications are of special priority.

As table 6 demonstrates, a selection ofchronologically diagnostic finds discovered inassociation with the city walls is not only instru-mental but also crucial in the attempt to obtaina date for their construction. The most reliablepiece of evidence provides (item #1) the bronzecoin of Cassander (��-�� -.#252) minted between 311 and 305 BC (Ehr-hardt 1973, 26), which on account of itsstratigraphic position in T 5 can establish a datein the 310s BC. Unfortunately, we do not knowwhether the coin was retrieved from the foun-dation trench of T 5, in which case it wouldhave provided a terminus post quem for itsconstruction. At any rate, the depth of the coin(0.60 m.) suggests a deposition not very longafter the construction of the tower. Althoughthe drachm (item #2) minted in Abydos towardsthe end of Alexander’s III reign (��-��-. #154) is less conducive to provid-ing a fixed chronological point (�M� ��D��0�� 543� 733'B5745'?� 1542� 42*� ;*4(;?� 'A� 42*:*;B*?7;5*3� @53B27;J*@� DC� >6*H7?@*;� 5?�� &[� RE2':I3'?� �� /0� 273'42*;� 5:I';47?4� 5:I65B745'?s, which deservefurther consideration, as I discuss below. On theother hand, the recent revisions of the Thasianamphora stamps (Avram 1996, #307; Garlan2004/2005, 324) facilitate a lower date, i.e. 310-295 BC and 309 BC, for the stamp (item #3)with the name of [\?D/��A(��e8, 121; Balkanska/Tzochev 2008, #10). Ingeneral, the pottery comprising an Attic lamp

(�� %��Rotroff 1997, 495), akantharos (�� //0�� 7� A532I674*R�� %��%�0� 7?@� 7� I674*� R�� %�0� B';roborate this date fur-ther (items #4-7) in accordance with the mostrecent revisions of the traditionally high chro-nology of Attic pottery (Rotroff 1990; 1997;2006, 100-101). Although the chronological gapbetween the red-figure pottery represented bya single fragment of a skyphos (item #8) foundin the city (�� 1965, 36-37; 1984, 69)and the “West slope” ware (Archibald 1998,315, #49) is reflected in their stratigraphy (ta-ble 6), it remains insufficient evidence to sup-port the excavators’ theory for a pre-existingsettlement on the site dating to the reign ofPhilip II (��-��60, 4-5; ��-�� cf. !�"�� 2002, 123; Popov 2004,14; Balkanska/Tzochev 2008, 190).

Historically, the appearance of Seuthes IIIin the literary sources is tantalizingly sporadicand traditionally connected with his military en-counters with Lysimachus in 323 and 313 BC(Diod. Sic. 18. 14. 2-4, 19. 73. 13). In turn,based on historical probability rather than care-ful analysis of the stratigraphy of chronologi-cally diagnostic finds, scholars have long postu-lated that the building of Seuthopolis occurredsometime after the battle of 323 BC. The firstdoubts were cast by Domaradzki’s analysis ofthe coins found in the embankment of Tumulus1 (��%�� %0� '?� 42*34;*?J42�'A�125B2�2*�I(4� A';17;@� 42*�'I5?�5'?�4274�Seuthopolis was founded ca. 310 BC.Although for a long time his claim was disre-garded by Bulgarian scholarship (but see re-cently ,-�.��/�� %0�� 7� recent revisionof the amphora stamps from Seuthopolis andTumuli 1 and 2 has reached similar conclusions.Taking into account the most recent adjustmentsin the chronology of stamped amphorae, Bal-kanska and Tzochev have convincingly shownthat the amphora imports in Seuthopolis startedno earlier than ca. 315 BC, whereas all stampedamphorae deposited in Tumuli 1 and 2 are datedwithin 315-295 BC (Balkanska/Tzochev 2008,190)33. The archaeological data obtained from

33 I am most grateful to Chavdar Tzochev for the opportunity to read a copy of the article in advance, which he co-authoredwith A. Balkanska.

��

44

the vicinity of, and in association with, city wallsand towers presented in table 6 is clearly inagreement with the newly-suggested low chro-nology. This cannot be coincidental. Thus, Mac-edonian coins, Thasian amphora stamps andAttic pottery strongly suggest that the city foun-dation occurred during the last fifteen years ofthe fourth century BC.

8. Historical contextIn sum, I suggest that the decision of Seuthes

III to assert his power by founding a new citywas probably carried out in the aftermath of hissecond encounter with Lysimachus in 313 BCor after the “Peace of the Dynasts” from 311BC (Burstein 1986, 22), rather than in the earlyor late 320s BC. In the years following theagreement on the spheres of influence, it is con-ceivable that some of the Successors decidedto reassert their claims to power by founding, inemulation of Alexander’s practice (Frazer1996, 171-190), new strongholds in their re-spective domains. Here, noteworthy is the factthat in 316 BC the first among the Successorsto found a city receiving his own name (Cohen1995, 95-99) was Cassander (Leschhorn 1984,252-253). In 315 BC he also (re-) foundedThebes (Cohen 1995, 119-120), Thessalonike(Cohen 1995, 101-105), as well as Dion()��* �+,�-!./0��+�-1223�154!159�41H!4136�Halos ()��* �+,�-!./0��+�-1222�1F;1!1F;4�contra Reinders 1988, 180-189) and Goritsa(Bakhuizen 1992, 314). The others quickly fol-lowed in his footsteps. In 316 BC Antigonus theOne-Eyed founded Antigoneia in Bithynia,which was later refounded (301 BC) and re-named by Lysimachus after his wife Nicaea, thedaughter of Antipater (Cohen 1995, 164-165,391-392). In the 310s BC Antigonus the One-Eyed and Lysimachus founded AlexandreiaTroas (Cohen 1995, 145-148) and Lysimacheia(Cohen 1995, 82-87) respectively, Ptolemy Ifounded Ptolemais and Berenike (Mueller2004), Demetrius Poliorcetes (re-) foundedSikyon (Cohen 1995, 126-128) and Demetrias(Cohen 1995, 111-114) in 294 BC (]^?�A

4FFH6��Z�� === ��Seuthopolis(Dimitrov 1961, 386; ��/0=�_432'(6@�D*�I'5?4*@�'(4�2*;*�4274�?'4�only didthese cities grow out of similar political ambi-

tions, but also that most were fashioned in ac-cordance with the latest developments in mili-tary engineering and town-planning. As alreadynoted by Bakalakis (1964, 345), Reinders(1988, 198-202) and Stefanidou-Tiveriou (1998,221-222), the underlying building principle ofSeuthopolis, Dion, Halos and Nicaea (Strabo12. 7. 7; Curtius 7. 6. 25) is remarkably identi-cal, being derived from the so-called�� (figs. 6, 25). To these, asStefanidou-Tiveriou (1998, 227-228, ##91-92)has already pointed out, the fortified SacredEnclosure at Failaka (fig. 26) should also beadded. The following common elements havebeen noted (Reinders 1988, 200; �� /�/�0k

• Location in a plain, or on a flat, gently slop-ing ground

• Square, rectangular or polygonal plan• Connection and fixed distance between

fortifications and built-up area• Axial symmetry• Alignments of gates and main streetsIn addition, a considerable number of tow-

ers from these cities, together with the circuitsbuilt by the Successors in Asia Minor (table 5),clearly demonstrate intention to accommodatedefensive artillery. Of further significance is thecontention that the Hellenistic practice of ap-plying orthogonal planning on a level terrainmay be attributed not only to the architecturalprinciples of Greek city-planning employed byHippodamus of Miletos during the late fifth cen-tury BC (�� /�� 2002, 12), but also to those of fortified campsbuilt by the Macedonians (Reinders 1988, 200-201; )��* �+,�-!./0��+�- 1998, 218-233;Pritchett 1974, 143, 146). For a similar phenom-enon, for example, bespeaks the foundation ofAlexandreia ad Tanaim that was built by Al-exander’s soldiers who surrounded with a wallthe space occupied by his camp (Curtius 7. 6.25). One important observation, emerging fromthe comparison with Dion, Halos and Nicaea,has to do with the possibility of looking intoSeuthopolis not only as a Hellenized Thraciancity, with Greek-style housing, but also as a‘petrified’ military camp, following Macedonianinspiration, laid out on a grid-pattern in accord-


45

ance with the �� 34, as well asheavily fortified with large towers suited fordefensive artillery. Another is the matter ofscale, whereby Seuthopolis’ walls have a cir-cumference of only 890 m (5 stadia), which issurprisingly small as compared to that of Dion,2.6 km (15 stadia), Halos, 2.9 km (16 stadia),Nicaea, 2.8 km (16 stadia) and Alexandreiaad Tanaim 10.6 km (60 stadia)35 .

With Seuthopolis built around 313-310 BC,it is now clear beyond any doubt that its exist-ence saw the turbulent years following thedeath of Alexander III. Downdating its founda-tion, among other things, opens up new ways ofidentifying the source of wealth, which ensuredthe completion of such an enormous buildingenterprise, to which we may now add the ques-tion of defraying the cost for the supply andmaintenance of artillery engines (Winter 1996,35). Here the important observation put for-ward by Domaradzki (1987, 8-9) that significantwealth was accumulated in Thrace towards theend of the fourth and the beginning of the thirdcentury BC assumes special importance. Inaddition, his idea to connect this phenomenonwith the return of the discharged Thracian mer-cenaries (�� 1987, 15-16) clearlycorresponds with the effort made by Rouseva(1988b, 3-8) to explain the arrival of the Alex-ander drachms at Seuthopolis, minted inLampsakos, Abydos and Sardis, as a result ofthe same event36 . At the same time, it is hardto avoid the observation that similar trend ex-isted in neighboring Macedonia, where the out-burst of urban development under the auspicesof Cassander, e.g., Thessalonike, Kassand-reia, Lete, Pella, Vergina, Dion (Touratsoglou

1996, 179), was based on the same influx ofmoney brought back by the numerous Mac-edonian veterans discharged together with the“barbaric” mercenaries from the North Bal-kan countries (] J �+,EAet al. 1992, 69; Tou-ratsoglou 1996, 176; _`��?EAG.�-��?�-122;�444!4496<=�� !

��$�

'��$�� &�� a��

�� S��

��ng military men from the Asian cam-paign of Alexander (Nankov 2007a, 43-44;2007b, 63)? And further, is it not this whatmakes Seuthopolis so exceptional (Doma-radski 1990, 57) and unlike any other Thracianurban center from this period (!�"��0l

Despite the hostility between Seuthes III andLysimachus portrayed in the literary sources,numismatic and epigraphic evidence nonethe-less point to the existence of what Tacheva(2000, 11) has aptly dubbed a “Macedonianlink” in Seuthopolis. It is not unlikely that withthe “Peace of the Dynasts” in 311 BC thingschanged, and one of these changes was thefoundation of Seuthopolis shortly thereafter, asthe new chronology of the Thasian amphorastamps undoubtedly suggests. Another was the‘disappearance’ of the former enemy, Lysima-chus. At the same time, the last decade of thefourth century BC saw the emergence of thepowerful figure of Cassander, whose ties withthe Thracians appear to have been quite close.In 334 BC, for instance, on the crossing toAsia, 900 Thracian and Paeonian scouts (pro-dromoi) in the army of Alexander are under hiscommand (Diod. Sic. 17. 17. 4)37. In 310 BC,

34 It is interesting to point out that Castagnoli (1971, 88) considered Nicaea and the �� U��'��b��%��'��<

35 During the construction of the fortifications of Epipolai outside Syracuse in 401 BC (Diod. Sic. 14. 18. 1-8), Dionysus Iassigned 1 architect, 6 masons, and 1200 workers for each stadion of the wall of 30 stadia, which took 20 days to build.Assuming similar distribution of the workforce at Seuthopolis, the figures would amount to a total of 5 architects, 30 masonsand 6000 workers for a building project on a wall of only 5 stadia. Thus, to assume that the building of the entire circuit,among other things, could have been quite rapid is reasonable (Reinders 1988, 185).

36 Along these lines, Valeva (2005, 165-166) and Delemen (2006, 267-268) independently hinted at the possibility that theOdrysian aristocrats buried in the Ostrusha tomb near Shipka and the chamber tomb in the Ganos Mountain may haveserved in the Alexander’s army during the Asian campaign and successfully returned home after being discharged in 324 BC.

37 Although both Arrian and Curtius have omitted Cassander’s name from their accounts, there is no good reason to doubt theveracity of Diodorus’ statement (Adams 1974, 44-48).

��

46

CITY WALLS CITADEL WALLS

CURTAIN A B C D E F G H I J K L

METERS 53 43 56 45 61 53 53 70 38 15 28 34

FEET 179 145.27 189.18 152 206 179 179 236.4 128.57 50.67 94.59 114.86

Table 2. Length of the curtain walls at Seuthopolis; foot equals 0.296 m (cf. also fig. 6).

TOWERS IINTERNAL DIMENSIONS AREA

Group I 1, 3, 4 3.50 x 3.50 12.25 m2

2, 5, 7 4.10 x 4.10 16.81 m2

Group II 6 7.30 x 7.30 53.29 m2

Tower-Gate 10.50 x 7.30 77.38 m2

Table 3. Distribution of the towers at Seuthopolis based on chamber size.

LENGTH OF BOLT OPERATIONAL OPERATIONALWEIGHT OF SHOT LENGTH WIDTH WEIGHT

1-cubit 1.54 m 0.87 m 9.4 kg

3-span 2.32 m 1.31 m 32.5 kg

2-cubit 3.09 m 1.75 m 79 kg

5-span 3.86 m 2.19 m 133 kg

3-cubit 4.63 m 2.62 m 265 kg

5-mina 5.05 m 2.53 m 406 kg

10-mina 6.37 m 3.18 m 813 kg

Table 4. Calibers of arrow-shooting (oxybeleis) and stone-throwing catapults (lithoboloi)(after Bakhuizen 1992, 159 and Marsden 1999, 44-47).

FEATURE METERS FEET

Tower-Gate 13.50 x 10.30 45.94 x 34.79

Tower 6 10.30 x 10.30 34.79 x 34.79

Tower 1-5, 7 7.10 x 7.10 24 x 24

Bastion 1, 2 6.20 x 4.00 20.94 x 13.51

Bastion 3 6.60 x 4.00 22.29 x 13.51

Citadel propylon 2.96 10

Southwest gate 2.00 7

Table 1. Dimensions of towers, bastions and main gates at Seuthopolis; footequals 0.296 m.


47

ITEM FINDSPOT DEPTH DATE REFERENCE

1. Bronze coin NE Tower ��-��-. #252Cassander (T 5) 0.60 311-305 Ehrhardt 1973, 26-27

Pella

2. Drachm SW city wallAlexander III (Curtain B) 0.70 324-323 ��-��-. #154

Abydos Thompson/Bellinger 1955, #16

3. Amphora stamp Between SW city 310-295 ��-. #8[\?D/��A wall and House 3 0.60 Avram 1996, #307Thasos (Curtain B) ca. 309 Balkanska/Tzochev 2008, #10

On street near E4. Lamp city wall 0.60 ca. 300 ��%��-. #III.100

(south of T 5) Rotroff 1997, 495

5. Kantharos SW citadel wall 0.80 325-260 ��-. #III.21(Curtain L)

Inner face of SW6. Fishplate city wall 0.70 310-290 ��-. #III.85

(Curtain B) Rotroff 1997, 146-149, #13

Near NW city7. Plate wall 0.60 310-290 ��-. #III.44

(Curtain E)

8. Skyphos SW citadel wall 1.00 375-350 �� -. #III.24“Kerch style” (Curtain L)

Table 6. Diagnostic finds in association with the city walls at Seuthopolis;all dates are BC (fig. 6).

SITE TOWERS DIMENSIONS REFERENCE

Seuthopolis Tower 6 10.30 x 10.30 0��#��3��"%��Tower-Gate 13.50 x 10.30

Pistiros E Tower 9.02 x 10.40 Kolarova 1996, fig. 2.3

Philippopolis Tower (bastion) 10.00 x 10.00 Kolarova/Bospatchieva 2005, fig. 1E

Kabyle Tower-Gate 16.50 x 12.00 ��Y�$=��/Bastion 13.30 x 7.80 � � ��/� ��=�/

Herakleia at Latmos Tower 18 10.00 x 10.00 Krischen 1922, Abb. 24, 26Tower 44 11.30 x 11.30

Ephesos Tower 2 9.20 x 10.90 McNicoll 1997, fig. 20Tower 41 14.60 x 14.60 Bendorf 1899, fig. 6

Samos Tower 5 8.94 x 8.94 Kienast 1978, Abb. 45Tower 10 10.64 x 10.64

Dura-Europos Towers 15-24 10.50 x 10.50 von Gerkan 1939, fig. 28

Table 5. Large towers from Hellenistic Thrace compared with artillery towers from circuitsbuilt by the Successors in Asia Minor, ca. 310-290 BC; dimensions in meters.

��

48

after aiding the Paeonian king Audoleon in hisstruggle against the Autariatae, Cassander set-tled the Paeonian children and women (20 000)beside Mt. Orbelos (Diod. Sic. 20. 19. 1)38. Atthe same time, the disenfranchisement of 12000 Athenians by his father, Antipater in 322BC, who were offered an opportunity to settlein Thrace (Diod. Sic. 18. 18. 4-5; cf. Polyaen.Stratag. 3. 15) has its own merit needing fur-ther assessment (Baynham 2003). Finally, in310 or 298 BC, Cassander is also mentioned tohave stopped an incursion of the Celts led byKambaules in Haemus mountain (Paus. 9. 19;Pliny, NH 31. 53).

Most recently, based on the abundance ofCassander’s coins39, Tacheva (2000, 10; 2006,198-201) has drawn the attention to the possi-ble role he and his father, Antipater, may haveplayed even in the establishment of Seuthes IIIas a ruler40. Assuming that his marriage toBerenike was a part of the same treaty, onewonders if it was not followed by the buildingof a new center at Seuthopolis as well. Theconstruction of mudbrick walls reinforced withwoodwork, as well as the use of the Attic foot,revealing the work of Greek architects (Law-rence 1979, 121; Tsetskhladze 2000, 238; !��"�� 2002, 125, 166), may be seen as one illus-tration of this political act (��1998,43). The close similarities with Dion, Halos andNicaea, on the other hand, all laid out on a grid-

pattern in accordance with the �� '��#�� ''�� '��#��

Seuthopolis not only as a Hellenized Thraciancity, but also as a ‘petrified’ fortified camp fol-lowing Macedonian inspiration. Thus it is hardlysurprising that the orthogonal layout of the cityand advanced design of the urban fortifications,along with the provisions for defensive artillery,speak of non-Thracian building practices, butrather of city-planning and fortification modelscirculating among military engineers and archi-tects patronized by the Successors. And if thosewho worked on the walls of Seuthopolis werepreviously employed by Cassander, as the strik-ing similarities with the fortifications of Dionseem to suggest, the supply of foreign architectsmay be seen as yet another proof for the exist-ence of a historically unrecorded treaty con-cluded between Seuthes III and Cassander41.

AcknowledgmentsThe basic research and much of the writing

of this article was completed while the authorwas an Associate Student Member of theAmerican School of Classical Studies at Ath-ens during 2006-2007. I wish to express mygratitude to the staff of Blegen library, whichmade my work easier. I would also like to thankDr. Yannis A. Lolos from the Department ofHistory, Archaeology and Social Anthropologyat the University of Thessaly who suggestedimprovements on an earlier draft of the text.

38 In the context of these events the presence of Cassander has been linked with the coin hoard from the village of Rezhantsi,Pernik district (IGCH 411; !�M��0�7?@�1542�42*�D(56@5?J�'A�42*�A';4;*33�74�m*;?5+�R��-��%��>;B25D76@��, 309-310; �� 1998, 32-35; !�"��0=�h';�42*�I;'D6*:3�3(;;'(?@5?J42*�:'@*;?�5@*?tification of Mt. Orbelos, see Domaradzki 1983, 43-45.

39 The total number amounts to 119, of which 64 are overstruck by Seuthes III (��-�� 1984, 42). The three tetradrachmsof Philip II minted by Cassander in Amphipolis (��-�� 1984, cat. #7-9) should also be added to this number(Touratsoglou 1996, 181). It is also noteworthy that the excavations at Pernik, Kabyle, Pistiros (Taneva 2002, 255-258) andKoprivlen (Prokopov 2002, 247) constantly increase the number of coins minted in his name (��$�� 2001, 48). For theproblem posed by the large number of Cassander’s bronzes found in Seuthopolis, see (i�M�� 1992, 95, #262; Nankovforthcoming). A coin minted by Casander was also found in the dromos of the tomb under the Golyama Kosmatka tumulus(X�� /��%��%�0��?'1�5@*?45A5*@�73�42*�;'C76�D(;576�'A�Q*(42*3�___�Rd54'8��0=

40 According to Tacheva (2000, 11), the numismatic data strengthens the long-standing claim about the Macedonian origin ofBerenike, Seuthes’ III wife, mentioned in the Great Inscription (SEG XLII 661, lines 2, 7, 17, 36), which she considers tobe a relative of Cassander or Antipater (�� /��0=�h';�'42*;�764*;?7458*3��3**�RG68*;3�� 0=

41 It has been recently suggested (Nankov forthcoming) that the large number of Cassander’s bronzes in Seuthopolis mayaccount for the presence of Macedonian troops, most probably as a result of mutual agreement between Seuthes III andCassander who decided to join forces against the Celtic threat from the north (Paus. 9. 19; Pliny, NH 31. 53).


49

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ABBREVIATIONSIG II2 Inscriptiones Graecae II et III: Inscriptiones

Atticae Euclidis anno posteriores, 2nd edn., Parts I-III,(ed.) J. Kirchner. Berlin. 1913-1940.

IGCH Thompson, M, Mørkholm, O., Kraay, C. M.1973. An Inventory of Greek Coin Hoards.New York: ANS Publications.

SEG XLII Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum.Vols. 42-44, (eds.) H. W. Pleket, R. S. Stroud, J. H. M.Strubbe. Amsterdam. 1995-1997.

�� 2002. n�� -��O�- �-M��o�� p �� -=�_?k�K�-��n=�<�#$� ��=�Zq� � �� -��P��-��O ��$�.=�,�Y�.. 53-80.�� 2000. K� "��-��-��- ��-��

�� .=� _?k��!=<��.� � ��,=<�M� r��s=�K� "��-��-��- ��-��"��q�$��- �t ��=�,�Y�.. 11-50.�� 1984. ��P��.-�-u��t�

��M�$��=�o�vt� �-�.��Mt �- ��-�u$��t-��q�$��.�w__��%=�� 1984. #�Y��Y��" ��-�=

_?k�, �-�"��-=�=��-��M�-M��=�,�Y�.=��=�� 1984. Opus quadratum ��q�$��-

t ��Rw��=�"�=��=� =��_w��=��=� =0=�o�#�O ��$�.��/�� =�� 2006. , �-�"��o��x��t��

�� "� �� t$�� y��-�� -��P��- �x�� z=� _?k�!�� t�� .��-��P��-��M�-M��=��=�K�t��q�=��=�� 2006. X�P��qO�� -�� -�

M�� "�- ��- ��K�� =� _?k�!�� p � ��-� �� .�� {w� � �M�� "�t�M�|��K�� s� �� =� |��=� %��=�� 2004. c�t��O=�}�� - -��t��

- ��-��y,�=�K�� -�UO��z=�,�Y�.=�� 1972. ��t�� -��

��-��#� P��-��t��"��- ��, �-�"��=�o�#�O ��$�.��/��=�� 1960. n��M�-��P�-��

O�- �-M�� -��P��.� $�� , �-�"��=� o#�O ��$�.��=��. �� 1958. X��M�� " ��- ��

t�� x��M�-��- ��"� ��-�� "�O�=�_?k�vt�� .�� -��=��=�� =�,�Y�.=�/��%�=�� 1957. N�- ��-��M�-M��

��t�M�-��-��-��- �"� t��-�� -�� "�O��R{w�{{{��=�"�=��=� =0= In: #�O ��$�� -��-�.��q�$��.=�,�Y�.=�/��=�� 1990. ��t��-� ��-q�$��-

�-��r ��.� �� -�� .� R��%��=�"�=��=� =0��"�� -�- ��-�-�"�� y~��"__z��y#� ��q��Z ��z=�o�v�-�� "� $�� =�� 1984. #�-�� -��-�, �-��

"��=�_?k�, �-�"��-=��=�#�-�� -�=�,�Y�.=��%=�� 2000. }"�-� ��-��-MO��-�

��"� ��.=�_?k�vt� �-�.��x��.��-�� Mt P�Nc�3;!2F<�� 1998. ��P��-��M�-M��

"� O��q�� -�� -�� "�O�=�_?k��"��!��-��-=��=�, "- ��=��%=�� 1991�=�X�"�� "��-��- �

��$��K�� =�_?k�K�� -=��=�,�Y�.=��=�� 1991b. KM�-M��-��-��-

"� t��q�� .t��-�� "�O��K�t��qr��.��P=_?k�,�=��P��-��M�-M��"� t� ��-�� -�� "�O�� K�t��qr��.� ��P�� K�t��q�� =�� 1987. N.�-�-��M��t��-��

��- ��"��M��.-��-��P��-��M��-M��-��q�� .t��-�� "�O�=�o�sM��t��-��4-18.�� 1985. � x �t�.��, �-�"��

-=�=�o�#�O ��$�.��=�� 1982. ��P��- �M�� "�- ��

��q��q ��.�_w�__��=�"�=��=�*=�_?k�!�� p �� -��.��=�|��=��/�=�� 2001. N�� -�- �� -

x�� = �7�-� �k�U-�~��"� ___�#�� P� ��! �� P=|��=�� 1993. N�� -�� -��K�� =

,�Y�.= !�� 1956. ��t��"��"��M��.��

$��o�K�"��=��=�o�n��r��,�Y�P��.�}�� - -��~��Y��v�-�� ~��M�- -�bf_b��-221."�� 2006. N�� -�- ��-�$��x�-��, �-

___=� _?k�!�� t�� .��-��P��-��M�-M��=��=�vt��- ��-��yv��-�z=�K�t��q�=%��%�="�� #�� #�� $�#�� %�

2001. ��-��t�- ��-��P��- �� - ��=�!��=��&�� 2004. ��P��-��M�-M�� $��

��!��- � �� -�� ,-�.��"� t�-��-��"��{�O��=�!�=�T�=�,�Y�.='�� (�#��)� �� #�� "�#

*�+�� 2008. #�O ��$�� "��M�� -��p �"��=��-M��N��$��=o�#U��"� t��%�$=�bfw__�s�x��O ��$�� Y � �x�.=�,�Y�.= 542-549.'� � ��,�� *� 1984. �� O��

��

50

- ��-��M�"-M��=�_?k�, �-�"��-=�=�,�Y�.=��=�! ��%� 2005. X��-��-�- ��-�� -��-�

�q��p ��-��=�� x��! ��r��RIGCH 411).In: Stephanos Archaeologicos in honorem ProfessorisLudmili Getov. Studia Archaeologica UniversitatisSerdicensis Suppl. IV. Sofia. 555-562.�! ��#�-��#��./��0� 2003.

#�O ��$�� "��M�� Oq��K��$�=! ��=�o�#U��"� t��$=�bf__�s�x��O ��$�� Y � �x�.=�,�Y�.=��=�! ��#��./��0� 2004. #�O ��$��

��t��"�� "��--��=�K��$��! ��"� t��$=�o�#U��"� t��$=�bf___�s�x��O ��$�� Y � �x�.=�,�Y�.=�/��//=��1��2� 2002. }��t�x�.-��q��q-� r��-

��P��.��v��.�"� t�w_�_��=�"�=�T�=�,��Y�.=3��)�� 2002. ��- ��

��.=�U"�-�t��O ��$�� "��-=�,�Y�.=3!��3� 1961. Zq�OM�- O��$�.-��.��

� t��"� �� -��-�b__�b___��=�o�#�O ��$�.��=3!�� 1988a. #�-�� -��-�, �-�"��

��- �"� -�x�.=�o�sM��t��-��=3!�� 1988b. #�-�� -��-�, �-�"��

��- �"� -�x�.=�o�sM��t��-��=�� 4� 2006. K�� , �-�"��T ��

o�-��-��M��t�� -�� .=� _?k�!�� p �� -��.�� {w� �M�� "�t�M�� |��K�� s� ��=�|��=�%�/=�� 4�#��./�� #(��#�(��,

��#�� 2006. n -��-��-��x��,��.��=��$��"��M��.=�,�Y�.=�� #��1��2�� 2008. s�� .

t��M"�-� ��-��"��"� ��.=�In:+��<� ;#! �� 7�� .,�Y�.= 340-347.4�� 2000. , �-�{{{��, �-�"��K��

R��52 $=�!�=�T�=0��"�� "�$��Y��- ��M��t��-��- ��=�,�Y�.=4�� 1986. !��"�� t�� $�� -��

, �-�"��=�o�sM��t��-��%=4�� 2006. a�� - � �� .=

K��$��"q��=�,�Y�.=4� ��*. 1995. n��M�-��P�-��-��"��q�$��

��- �t ��"� t��-��--�=�,�Y�.=2�.��5� 1994. ,��Y�� $��- ��

��-��u�,� �� P��"�=�o��P��.��O ��$�.��/�=2��6� 2006. ��P��-� ��-��-��P��

t�� x�.�� "��-�� -��p ��- �x��

��,� ��$��Rw�_w��=�"�=�T�=0=�Z=��q��=7� �� 1971. TM�� -� ��-�� -��

��-��P��- �t ��=�,�Y�.=8 ��9� 1981. ��P��-�� p ��-�{�O��=

"�=��=� =�_?k�! ��-=�=�,�Y�.=��%=8 �� 9� 1972�=� ��P��-�� p � ��

Oq��yK��z��$��! ��=�o�#�O ��$�.��=8 �� =�%�D=�,� �� -�� p

��-��P��.�$��, �-�"��=�,�Y�.=8�� 1991. s��u� ��.��q�OM�$��

M�-��P�-��-��O�- �-M��-��, �-�"��=�_?k,�=��P��-��M�-M��"� t� ��-�� -� "�O��K�t��qr��.��P=�K�t��q�=�/��%=8�� 1985. T��P��.-�$�� R"��

O ��$�� 0=�o�n,}v~�%%��=8�� 1984. #�-�� =�_?k�, ��

-�"��-=�=�,�Y�.=��=8�� 1970. , �-�"��=�,�Y�.=8�� 1965. n�qx��-�� -�, ��

-�"��=�o�#�O ��$�.��=8�� 1957. !�.��M"�-� ��-MO��

-��-��-��- � ��- ��M�-��- ��.��_w��=��___��=�"�=��=� =�o�vt� �-�.��#�O ��$�� .�v��-�-M-�bbb_��=:�!��9� 1992. N�� -�- ��-��P��-

"� � �� - ��=�,�Y�.=�� 1964. d� D *@ Y+�-< e

d�� /�?��/DO�Y�?�+��12�N��/D��599!593<

�� 1997. f/��*�/��-Y��0��+�-<dg@� <

�� !�� "��#$�� %��

1992. f�C�0�A�EAh/D@/ �EA<dg@� <�&�� 2006. YE�E��/�A�E_� ?+ D / �E�

W�?�BO��E�V i/ -�D�/�/D@ B��`��/E< =�V

d�� /�?��/DOj��_� ?+ AD /)��AM??�, A<

W� D�/D��B/�E��/D@A-��EEAkO?�A4;<4e4<5

4FF5��<c<kO?�A<1;1!135<

'��!�� (� 1987. . ��+�E �EA W`?? A< =�Vdil.f)<./�E�/DOA�O��A�/ ��D gE�E�@i �O?E

d�,�O�/D��cc<_� ?��+DE<;HI!;3H<

'��!�� %� 1992. d� D *@�E�W��+, / <o.�d�� /�?��/DOj��Ei D�,��+ D /_��DE�5�

1232�5I;!5;1<

'�)��!��*��+��!�� 1999. Y+��D /\?�AVY-�h` m�+� � �EAMB��@A��-m ��,��-<=�VR��

&��n=�4�o�'�� Z�U��=��

Z�$'��$�� a��%��p�� 1I!12�122H<

a��%�<1FHI!1F;9<

)��* �+,�-!./0��+�-�_<1223<d� D *@Y+�-�1<l

��C��E<_� ?��+DE<

� ��+�� %� �� ,!�� %� 2005. j��-��A ��/D/�OD /� ��D�� *�+ �EA �� + A]E�@A<W�^��A

�D�/�@�/A<o.�d�� /�?��/DOj��Ei D�,��+ D /


51

_��DE�1;�4FF5�1II!1;4<

,�� 1997. k��+� < f ��-��/DOA

B��+0�?�AD /E D�OB�?E<e.�d�� /�?��/DOj��

�E

i D�,��+ D /_��DE�1Fd�122H�H2!;3<

,�� '�� 1999. k��+� <d� D *@ D�OB�?EA122;<q* ��-��+ D /0 *�+ <

e.�d�� /�?��/DOj��Ei D�,��+ D /_��DE�11�

122;�141!143<

,��-�� *�� (� 2004. l M??E�/�/D@f�C��E�EArO,�-<rO,�A c<dg@� <

.��/��0� 1991. h�O��A`��-��A��-��+��-A�EAj,� A<e.�d�� /�?��/DOj��Ei D�,��+

D /_��DE�4�1233�II!H3<

Adam, J.-P. 1992. Approche et défense des portesdans l monde hellénisé. In: Van de Maele, S. / J. M.Fossey (eds.) Fortificationes Antiquae. Gieben. 5-43.

Adams, W. L. T. 1974. Cassander, Macedonia, and thePolicy of Coalition, 323-301 BC. Unpublished PhD The-sis, University of Virginia.

Archibald, Z. H. 1998. The Odrysian Kingdom ofThrace. Orpheus Unmasked. Oxford.

Avram, A. 1996. Les timbres amphoriques 1. Thasos– Histria. Les résultats des fouilles VIII.1. Bucharest/Paris.

Baatz, D. 1982. Hellenistische Katapulte aus Ephyra(Epirus). – Mitteilungen des deutschen archäologi-schen Instituts, Athenische Abteilung 97, 211-233.

Badian, E. 1983. Philip II and Thrace. In: PulpudevaIV. Semaines philippopolitaines de l’histoire et de laculture thrace, Plovdiv, 3-17 Octobre 1980. Sofia. 51-71.

Bakhuizen, S. C. 1992. A Greek City of the FourthCentury B.C. by the Goritsa Team. Rome.

Balkanska, A./Tzochev, Ch. 2008. Amphora Stampsfrom Seuthopolis – Revised. In: +��<�;#! �� 7��. Sofia. 188-205.

Baynham, E. 2003. Antipater and Athens. In: Pala-gia, O./Tracy, S. (eds.) Macedonians in Athens 323-229B.C. Proceedings of an International Conference heldat the University of Athens, May 24-26, 2001. Oxbow.23-29.

Bendorf, O. 1899. Topographische Urkunde ausEphesos. – Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäo-logischen Instituts in Wien 2, 22-25.

Bospatchieva, M. 2005. New Data about Philippo-polis until the Establishment of the Roman Rule in Thra-ce. In: Heros Hephaistos. Studia in honorem Liubae Og-nenova-Marinova. Veliko Turnovo. 316-330.

Bouzek, J. 2005. Urbanization in Thrace. In: Bouzek,J./Domaradzka, L. (eds.) The Culture of Thracians andtheir Neighbours. Proceedings of the InternationalSymposium in Memory of Prof. Mieczyslaw Doma-radzki, with a Round Table “Archaeological Map of Bul-garia”. British Archaeological Reports, International

Series 1350. 1-7.Bouzek, J. 2002. Addenda to Pistiros I. In: Bouzek,

J./Domaradzka, L./Archibald, Z. H. (eds.), Pistiros II.Excavations and Studies. Charles University. Prague.343-348.

Bouzek, J. 1996. The Position of the Pistiros Fortifi-cation in the Development of Ancient Poliorcetics andStonecutting Techniques. In: Bouzek, J./Domaradzki,M./Archibald, Z. H. (eds.). Pistiros I. Excavations andStudies. Charles University. Prague. 43-46.

Bouzek, J./Domaradzki, M./Domaradzka, L./Tane-va, V. 2002: Fortification and Urban Planning of the Em-porion Pistiros (Adzijska Vodenica). – Archeologia 52,2001, 7-18.

Bouzek, J./Musil, J.� �,,�%� & =�6�� >� �� ??�5��<�@2��#��A��#�� #��.B��7��%?�<�C�!B��D%/Domaradzka, L./Archibald, Z. H. (eds.).Pistiros II. Excavations and Studies. Charles University.Prague. 37-111.

Burstein, S. M. 1986. Lysimachus and the Cities: TheEarly Years. – Ancient World 14, 19-24.

Büsing, H. 1982. Metrologische Beiträge. – Mittei-lungen des deutschen archäologischen Instituts, Athe-nische Abteilung 97, 1-45.

Calder III, W. M. 1996. The Seuthopolis Inscription.In: Wallace, R. W./Harris, E. M. (eds.), Transitions toEmpire. Norman/Okla. 167-178.

Campbell, B. 2006. Besieged: Siege Warfare in theAncient World. London.

Caskey, L. D. 1910. The Roofed Gallery on the Wallsof Athens. – American Journal of Archaeology 14, 298-309.

Castagnoli, F. 1971. Orthogonal Town Planning inAntiquity. Cambridge. Massachusettes.

�� 1997. s. v. Seuthopolis. In: Enciclopediadell’Arte classica e orientale. Sec. Suppl. 1971-1994, V.Roma. 234.

�� 1983. The Thracian City ofSeuthopolis. In: Poulter, A. (ed.) Ancient Bulgaria: Pa-pers presented to the International Symposium on theAncient History and Archaeology of Bulgaria, Univer-sity of Nottingham, 1981. Nottingham. 293-310.

Cohen, G. M. 1995. The Hellenistic Settlements inEurope, the Islands, and Asia Minor. Berkeley/LosAngeles.

Connolly, P. 1998. Greece and Rome at War. London/Pennsylvania.

Danov, Ch. 1962. s. v. Seuthopolis. In: RealEncyclopädie, Suppl. IX, cols. 1370-1378.

Dehn, W. 1969. Noch einmal zum “Murus Gallicus”.– Germania 47, 165-168.

Delemen, I. 2006. An Unplundered Chamber Tombon Ganos Mountain in Southeastern Thrace. – Ameri-can Journal of Archaeology 110, 251-273.

��

52

Dimitrov, D. P. 1961. Das Entstehen der thrakischenStadt und die Eigenart ihrer städtebaulichen Gestaltungund Architektur. In: Atti del Settimo Congresso di Ar-cheologia Classica, vol. I. Roma. 379-387.

Dim�� . 1978. The ThracianCity of Seuthopolis. British Archaeological Reports,International Series 38. Oxford.

Domaradzki, M. 1996. Interim Report on Archaeo-logical Investigations at Vetren-Pistiros, 1988-94. In:Bouzek, J./Domaradzki, M./Archibald, Z. H. (eds.), Pis-tiros I. Excavations and Studies. Charles University.Prague. 13-34.

Domaradzki, M.��%�1"��= �� #��;#�!��E��>�� #��;�� $�� #��F��#�7��!�C%.%�?�<�;��D%30�� B��7%�(� �%*�'��4��;#�!�mešnica Valley in Prehistoric, Ancient and Early Medi-eval Times. Krakow. 43-65.

Domaradski, M. 1990. Kabyle and the Thracian Cit-ies. – Terra Antiqua Balcanica IV, 49-60.

Dornisch, K. 1992. Die griechische Bogentore.Frankfurt am Main.

Ehrhardt, C. 1973. The Coins of Cassander. – Jour-nal of Numismatic Fine Arts 2, 25-32.

Emilov, J. 2005. The Galatians and Cabyle. A Frag-mentary Inscription and Its Context. In: StephanosArchaeologicos in honorem Professoris Ludmili Getov.Studia Archaeologica Universitatis Serdicensis Suppl.IV. Sofia. 324-332.

Frazer, P. M. 1996. Cities of Alexander the Great.Oxford.

Fougères, G. 1898. Mantinée et L’Arcadie orientale.Paris.

Garlan, Y. 2004/2005. En visitant et revisitant lesateliers amphoriques de Thasos. – Bulletin de Corre-spondence héllénique 128-129, 269-329.

Garlan, Y. 1984. War and Siegecraft. In: Walbank, F.W. /Astin, A. E. / Frederiksen, M. W./ Ogilvie, R. M.(eds.) The Cambridge Ancient History, VII1 (2nd edi-tion). Cambridge. 353-362.

Garlan, Y. 1974. Recherches de poliorcétique grec-que. Paris.

Graham, J. W.� �,%� A�� 0��#�� 0%� +%3��7%��%�'��'��.�#��;�!#��%�GD�!��$��;#! ��,,��-%

von Gerkan, A. 1939. The Fortifications. In: The Ex-cavations at Dura Europos. Preliminary Report of theSeventh and Eighth Seasons of Work 1933-1934 and1934-1935. New Haven. 4-61.

Haselberger, L. 1979. Dächer griechischer Wehrtür-me. – Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen In-stituts, Athenische Abteilung 94, 93-115.

Hoddinott, R. F. 1975. Bulgaria in Antiquity. An Ar-chaeological Introduction. London/Tonbridge.

James, S. 2004. Excavations at Dura Europos 1928-

1937. Final Report VII: Arms and Armour, and otherMilitary Equipment. London: British Museum Press.

Jeppesen, K. 1989. Ikaros – The Hellenistic Settle-ments 3: The Sacred Enclosure in the Early HellenisticPeriod. Aarhus.

�� 2007. Survey along the Main Streetfrom the Eastern Gate of the Emporion inwards and in theSector of the Eastern City Wall. In: Bouzek, J./Domaradzka, L./Archibald, Z. H. (eds.) Pistiros III. Exca-vations and Studies. Charles University. Prague. 35-61.

Keyser, P. T./Irbie-Massie, G. 2006. Science, Medi-cine, and Technology. In: Bugh, G. (ed.) The CambridgeCompanion to the Hellenistic World. Cambridge. 241-264.

Kienast, H. 1978. Die Stadtmauer von Samos. Sa-mos, XV. Bonn.

Kitov, G. 2005. The Newly discovered Tomb of theThracian Ruler Seuthes III. – Archaeologia BulgaricaIX, 2, 39-54.

Kolarova, V. 1996. Study on the Section of the Em-porium’s Fortress, Discovered by the End of 1994. In:Bouzek, J./Domaradzki, M./Archibald, Z. H. (eds.)Pistiros I. Excavations and Studies. Prague. 35-43.

Kolarova, V. /Bospatchieva, M. 2005. The FortressWalls on the Nebettepe, Plovdiv, before the Establish-ment of Roman Rule in Thrace. In: Bouzek, J./Domaradzka, L. (eds.) The Culture of Thracians andtheir Neighbours. Proceedings of the InternationalSymposium in Memory of Prof. Mieczyslaw Doma-radzki, with a Round Table “Archaeological Map ofBulgaria”. British Archaeological Reports, InternationalSeries 1350. 69-83.

Krischen, F. 1922. Die Befestigungen von Herakleiaam Latmos, Milet III, 2. Berlin/Leipzig.

Lawrence, A. W. 1996. Greek Architecture (5th ed.),revised by R. A. Tomlinson. New Haven/London.

Lawrence, A. W. 1979. Greek Aims in Fortification.Oxford.

Leschhorn W. 1984. “Gründer der Stadt”: Studien zueinem politisch-religiösen Phänomen der griechischenGeschichte, Palingenesia 20. Stuttgart.

Ljubenova, V. 2005. Das Heiligtum zu ebener Erde ineinem der Türme der hellenistichen Festung beim DorfeBosnek Kreis Pernik. In: Bouzek, J./Domaradzka, L.(eds.) The Culture of Thracians and their Neighbours.Proceedings of the International Symposium in Memoryof Prof. Mieczyslaw Domaradzki, with a Round Table“Archaeological Map of Bulgaria”. British Archaeo-logical Reports. International Series 1350. 187-190.

Lund, H. S. 1992. Lysimachus. A Study in Early Hel-lenistic Kingship. London/New York.

Maier, F. G. 1959. Griechische Mauerbauinschriften.Texte und Kommentare, vol. I. Heidelberg.

Maier, F. G. 1958. Die Stadtmauer von Thisbe. –


53

Mitteilungen des deutschen archäologischen Instituts,Athenische Abteilung 73, 17-25.

Marsden, E. W. 1999. Greek and Roman Artillery.Historical Development, II (2nd ed.). Oxford.

Marsden, E. W. 1977. Macedonian Military Machin-ery and Its Designers under Philip and Alexander. In:Ancient Macedonia II, Papers read at the Second Inter-national Symposium held in Thessaloniki, 19-24 Au-gust, 1973. 211-223.

Martin, R. 1965. Manuel d’architecture grecque I.Matériaux et techniques. Paris.

Milner, N. P. 1997. Conclusions and Recent Devel-opments. In: Mch��R<122;<s��K��!�� $ ��R�� t�'��<pU��. 207-223.

Missailidou-Despotidou, V. 1993. A Hellenistic In-scription from Skotoussa (Thessaly) and the Fortifica-tions of the City. – Annual of the British School at Ath-ens 88, 187-217.

Mc123455��6� 1997. Hellenistic Fortifications from theAegean to the Euphrates. Oxford.

Mc123455��6� 1986. Developments in Techniques ofSiegecraft and Fortifications in the Greek World ca. 400-100 B.C. In: Leriche, P. /Treziny, H. (eds.) La Fortifica-tion dans l’histoire du monde grecque. Paris. 305-313.

Mueller, K. 2004. Dating the Ptolemaic city-founda-tions in Cyrenaica. A Brief Note. – Libyan Studies 35, 1-10.

Musil, J. 1996. Roof Tiles. In: Bouzek, J./Domaradzki,M./Archibald, Z. H. (eds.), Pistiros I. Excavations andStudies. Charles University. Prague. 46-62.

Nankov, E. forthcoming. The Circulation of Mac-edonian Royal Bronzes in Seuthopolis: A Reappraisal.A paper read at the XI Symposium on MediterraneanArchaeology, April 24-29, 2007. Istanbul Technical Uni-versity. British Archaeological Reports, InternationalSeries. Oxford.

Nankov, E. 2007a. An Ivory Scabbard Chape fromSeuthopolis Rediscovered: Evidence for a xiphos fromEarly Hellenistic Thrace. – Archaeologia Bulgarica XI,1, 37-46.

Nankov, E. 2007b. Toward the Thracian Religion inthe Early Hellenistic Period: A Terracotta Figurine ofKybele from Seuthopolis Reconsidered. – Archaeolo-gia Bulgarica XI, 3, 47-67.

Ober, J. 1992. Towards a Typology of Greek Artil-lery Towers: the First and Second Generations (c. 375-275 B.C.). In: Van de Maele, S./J. M. Fossey (eds.)Fortificationes Antiquae. Gieben. 147-169.

Ober, J. 1987. Early Artillery Towers: Messenia,Boiotia, Attica, Megarid. – American Journal of Ar-chaeology 91, 569-604.

Owens, E. J. 1991. The City in the Greek and RomanWorld. Routledge. London/New York.

Peter, U. 1997. Die Münzen der thrakischenDynasten (5.-3. Jahrhundert v. Chr.). Hintergrundenund Prägung. Berlin.

Popov, Ch. 2004. Zur Frage der Siedlungskontinui-tät der Stadtzentren in Thrakien und Illyrien währendder Eisenzeit. – Archaeologia Bulgarica VIII, 1, 13-24.

Pritchett, W. K. 1974. The Greek State at War. Part 2.Berkeley.

Prokopov, I. 2002. The Coin Finds from Koprivlen.Hellenistic and Early Roman Coins. In: Bozkova, A. /Delev, P. (eds.) Koprivlen, vol. I. Rescue Archaeologi-cal Investigations along the Gotse Delchev-DramaRoad 1998-1999. Sofia. 247-257.

Reinders, H. R. 1988. New Halos, a Hellenistic Townin Thessalia, Greece. Utrecht.

Reinders, H. R/Prummel, W. (eds.) 2003. Housing inNew Halos: A Hellenistic Town in Thessaly, Greece.Taylor & Francis.

Rihll, T. 2006. On artillery towers and catapult sizes.– Annual of the British School at Athens 101, 379-383.

Robinson, D. M. 1941. Excavations at Olynthus, PartX. Metal and Minor Miscellaneous Finds. Baltimore.

Robinson, D. M./Graham, J. W. 1938. Excavations atOlynthus, Part VIII. The Hellenic House. A Study of theHouses Found at Olynthus with a Detailed Account ofThose Excavated in 1931 and 1934. Baltimore.

Rotroff, S. I. 2006. Hellenistic Pottery. The PlainWares, The Athenian Agora XXXII. Princeton/ NewJersey.

Rotroff, S. I. 1997. Hellenistic Pottery. Athenian andImported Wheelmade Table Ware and Related Material,The Athenian Agora XXIX. Princeton/New Jersey.

Rotroff, S. I. 1990. Athenian Hellenistic Pottery: To-ward a Firmer Chronology. In: Akten des XIIIinternationalen Kongresses für klassische Archäolo-gie, Berlin 1988. Mainz. 174-178.

Scranton, R. L. 1941. Greek Walls. Cambridge, Mas-sachusetts.

Shipley, G. 2000. The Greek World after Alexander323-30 BC. London.

Snodgrass, A. 1999. Arms and Armour of the Greeks.(2nd ed.). Baltimore/London.

Stakenborg-Hoogeveen, J. 1989. MycenaeanThrace from the Fifth till the Third Century B.C. A Sum-mary. In: Best, J. G. P. / De Vries, N. M. W. (eds.)Thracians and Mycenaeans: Proceedings of the FourthInternational Congress of Thracology, Rotterdam, 24-26 September 1984. Leiden/Sofia. 181-190.

Stoyanov, T. 2002. The Getic Capital at Sboryanovo(North-Eastern Bulgaria). – Talanta 32-33 (2000-2001),207-221.

Stoyanov, T. 1999. New Light on the Relations be-tween NE Thrace and Macedonia in the Early Hellenis-tic Times. In: Ancient Macedonia VI, 2, Papers read at

��

54

the Sixth International Symposium held in Thessaloniki,October 15-19, 1996. Thessaloniki. 1075-1089.

Taneva, V. 2002. Coins of Macedonian Rulers Foundin Pistiros. In: Bouzek, J./Domaradzka, L./ Archibald, Z.H. (eds.) Pistiros II. Excavations and Studies. Prague.255-268.

Taylor, T. 2001. Thracians, Scythians, and Dacians800 BC-AD 300. In: Cunliffe, B. (ed.) The Oxford Illus-trated History of Prehistoric Europe. Oxford. 373-410.

Taylor, T. 1987. Aspects of Settlement Diversity andIts Classification in Southeast Europe before the RomanPeriod. – World Archaeology 19, 1, 1-22.

Thompson, M. 1984. Paying the Mercenaries. In:Festschrift für Studies in honor of Leo Mildenberg.Wetteren. 241-247.

Thompson, M./Bellinger, A. R. 1955. Greek coins inthe Yale Collection, IV: A Hoard of Alexander Drachms.– Yale Classical Studies 14, 3-45.

Touratsoglou, I. 1996. Die Baupolitik Kassanders.In: Hoepfner, G. / Brands, G. (eds.) Basileia: Die Palästeder hellenistischen Könige. Internationales Symposionin Berlin vom 16.12. 1992 bis 20.12. 1992. Mainz am Rhein.176-181.

Tsetskhladze, G. R. 2000. Pistiros in the System ofPontic Emporia (Greek Trading and Craft Settlements inthe Hinterland of the Northern and Eastern Black Seaand Elsewhere). In: Pistiros et Thasos. Structures éco-nomiques dans la péninsule balkanique aux VII e – II esiècles avant J.-C. Opole. 233-246.

Valeva, J. 2005. The Painted Coffers of the OstrushaTomb. Veliko Turnovo

Wasowicz, A. 2004. Influence de l’urbanisme grec surl’habitat indigène du Pont-Euxin. – Archeologia 54, 7-15.

Williams, H./B. Gourley 2005. The Fortifications ofStymphalos. – Mouseion 5, 213-259.

Williams, H./Schaus, G/ Price, S.-M. C./ Gourley, B./Hagerman, C. 1998. Excavations at Ancient Stympha-los, 1997. – Echos du Monde Classique 42, 261-319.

Williams, H./Schaus, G./Price, S.-M. C./Gourley, B./Lutomsky, H. 1997. Excavations at Ancient Stymphalos,1996. – Echos du Monde Classique 41, 23-73.

Wilson Jones, M. 2000. Doric Measure and Archi-tectural Design 1: The Evidence of the Relief from Sala-mis. – American Journal of Archaeology 104, 73-93.

Winter, F. E. 1997. The Use of Artillery in Fourth-Century and Hellenistic Towers. – Echos du MondeClassique 41, 247-292.

Winter, F. E. 1996. Problems on Tradition and Inno-vation in Greek Fortifications in Asia Minor, Late Fifthto Third Century B.C. – Revue des Études Anciennes96, 1994, 29-42.

Winter, F. E. 1989. Arkadian Notes II: The Walls ofMantinea, Orchomenos, and Kleitor. – Echos du MondeClassique 33, 189-200.

Winter, F. E. 1971. Greek Fortifications. Toronto.Wokalek, A. 1973. Griechische Stadtbefestigungen.

Studien zur Geschichte der frühgriechischen Befesti-gungsanlagen. Bonn.

Zambon, E. 2000. Filippo II, Alessandro il Grande ela Tracia: note sulla conquista e l’istituzione della stra-tegia di Tracia. – Anemos 1, 69-95.

Zyromski, M. 2004. Some Important Features ofTowns’ Development in Thrace (the examples ofSeuthopolis, Kabyle and Philippopolis). In: Thraciansand Circumpontic world. Vol. II. Proceedings of theNinth International Congress of Thracology, Chisinau-Vadul lui Voda, 6-11 September 2004. Chisinau. 241-246.

}K��!v��csv�� ,�U��`�sv|� s#�#ssU�cvsv,�v��,Kv|

��#Kv�,Kv�n�#��%�4'�'*6�:�#X�}!Z#s��s#�K#c�!#

%�� ( ��

(� tu� 0

,� ��"��M��.-�, "�� - ��O�- �-M��-��-��P��.�$��1�� (��. 1-6; ��t�"��-�K�t��q�� q��-��.t��K�"��z), ��- �� -� �.��M�� "�- ��- ��q��q ��.��-��t��- ��- " ��"��t��-�� "��q� ��p��-��t��.� ��"��"q��- ��"M��x�.=�Z��q�$��-��M �� t��-��$��Y�.�-�� M-�q�� O��p�� -�� $��- �- ��(�� P�-��=�Z�� tM�-�-�� $��t��"��x �� t�x�.�� t�� P��- �"�� -�� Y��-�-q��.��"�� p�� -��.�� "��-��-��- ��=� ,qp �� "�-q-� �� M�-��"��tO��q- ��q- ��t"��-�� -��M ��.�� -�� .t��-��"��-��O ��$�� "�� =

Z�-q�� qt�� "q-�p�� $��-�"�� q��q-� r��.��-��q-��-�.p�-��-�-�.��qp��" x�� q��OM��.-��#� ��q��Z �� O�- �� t�� t"��-�� -�� -��M�-M��" ��Y ��.-�� .��.-=��"�� "�-�� q-�� - �� - ��-�� -��~��"�__�� -� �� "� ��qp�� -�� r��p�- �Y��-��t��t��-� -��"�� -�� O�� -�� -��"�� -��-�� tr��.�� -��N�� .=��t��- �� x�.�"��q� ��"��$�� p��"�� -��P��- �� M��O�- ��


55

$�-�� -��- ��-��-�� $�� -�$��"�� -��-��(�� q� �-��t$�� -��M��-��, "� �� p��M"�-� ��-��-�� .� (��, t�� -.��=��qP��-��.�-�-��1�� - ��-�t��Y �� -��t�� t��- ��- " ��-��q-�"� ��$��t�-��"M��M��- ��q�� r��-��- �� qt�� -�t�� $��-��-M�� t�� q�� -��-�M�-M��k

1. ,��- � �� t� �� -�M�-M��- � � �� -�, �q�-��.��p��M�� "�- ��- ��q��q ��.��$��-= =��M�-��M��(�� ,��-�� (��, "��-��(��. }�-�� M�q-�"�� "��-��- ��-��-��M�� "�- ��- ��q��q ��.��"��"�� -�t��t�"��t��"��"�� -�� p��- ��-��M��x�- �� /��-= =� ��-�� -q"�� (��. #��tq-�"��t�� M��- ��.��-��-��-�� -� ��p��P��tq��$� �� M��- � �-�� (�� 9� ��, �� "��-�M�x��, ��M p��-��t��t�p�-��"�� -��M" ��-�M�x�.��-��t��qt�� M��.�t� �t"��t�� t�p�-��-�� .=�X��t��-�� $�r��- ��"�-�� -q��.-��O��-�� "��-��- ��- �� ,�� , %�� K�x�Y ��r��-M��M"��-� ��-�� "�� q�OM� �� x��q�� M��x ��$�� "�� "q�� -�"�q�-�� q�� "� ��-�� Y�� x��O��1�� M�� " ��$�� -��q� ��N�� .��"��-�� "�� -� ��K��q�=�X��q �� "�- �x��q-��"�� - �"�� $�� -�Y��-�� - " �-��t�"��t ��-��"�� -��M" ��-�M�x�.��- ��- ��M��- ��1��, t��t��-�-�t�� $��-�� Z �$�� *�� t��- ��=� v�- � �� "��q�-�� -�� q�$�� t��$��t� ��-��$�� -�� "�� "��- �� -�� "��-��- � �- ��-��"�� #=�c��q�� - ��-��-�� -��- ��-��-�� t�q�r ��-� ��P�-��=�!��.�� .-��-��$��t� �- ��"��q��$� ��- ��q�� - ��M p��t��t��t��.�� -��"�� -��M" ��-�M�x�.=�K��-��$��-�t��-��- ��"��-��"�� "��-��- ��- ��! ��,��.��n��x�� #-�� (��.

2. ��t� ��- �� "��-��- ��M�� 1�,��, "�� " ��"�� -��q-� r��.��q"��-�� q��O��-��, "��-�� "�� $��-��O�- �"��t�"��-��P�� N��#t�.�(��. s��Y��-�� "��- �� r ��., t�� - ��-��

"�� M��- � ��1��, "��t-��-� ��-�� -�M ��-�� M-��t�� qt� P�-�� -�� "��-��, ��t"��$�p��-�� .��-��-� �� -�� "��$M��qt�� -�� " ��-��-�$��- � -� ��- ��M��=�v��- � �� -��u� �� "�� -��"��t�- ��-��$�� t� �� x��q��M��x ��$�� "��-�M��x�.��M��-��-��-�~��"�"��t-��-��M�� M��-��"��-��t�"��-�� "��-��- ��qp��-��.�-��$�M�"�-��-��t�P�� $�� -�� "��-��- ��M�� M�� -� � ��q�� -�� -�� "�O�=�Z�-�t��qt��r��-�� "� ��.� � �� -�� "��q$q��$��, ��t"�� -��qt��r �� X�P��qO, ��-�� -�� "��-��M�� – "�� -�� – "��t��"��- $�� O��--��t�"��-�� "��-��- ��"�� -�� O��-�-��-�"� ��t$� �� -��-��t�-��-��M��-��x��-��.��q��"�� -�� -�q�-��V �=�"�=�T�=

3. X��"q��"q-��"��t$� ��O ��$�� - �"��-��t��-�"M�-��-� �� -�"��-��1��, �� - ��-��p��t��t"��t�� -��t�p�-��"��- ��-�� .=�,� ��- t��O�� $M� ��-�x�.-��t��"� ��-�� -�� -�� -�� "��O��-�"M�-��- ��-� ��-��"��-��x�.��q�t��q�� -�� p , �� -��.��1�� (��. �� "�� " ��- ��-��-�x �-�� N�� .��-�� O��, "��tO� ��p��-��, ,��.��-��-�.�M�� " �-��P�� x �-q��q�O��yK�t��$��z ��PT��(�� . Kq��-.O�� "��.-�� - �-�"��, �-��-��"��$��(�� P��1��, �.��-��-��"� ��M��P��-��"�"�� "�q�--�, �� -$��"��-�M"�� -��$��.��"��"��.�� .-��-��"�� q�� -��-�"��M�x�., ��.��p��M��x�� -��- ��-�"M�-��1�� (��. !� �� .-��t��- t��.��M-��- ��"��.�t��$�� O��p�� -��"�� -�� "��-��-��- ��1�� Y�x��-�� $M��"��-��r �� qt�� -�- �� -�� "� ��$�� t� Y �-��t�p�-��"�� -M�� "�� =�U-��M$��-�� -�� -�"�� (��q� ��-�� "��-��- �- ��O�q��.�� -��q�OM��-�, �� $�� -��1��P�� .-��"��"�O��

��

56

��#�-��O�__�� "� t��$=�"�=�T��o� ��O�"�- �t��t�p�-��"��q� �� -�� -�.��-"��Y=�N=�� =

4. Zqt��O ��$�� O��-�� -�� -�� Y��" ��-�� $�qx�� -��-�$��Y�� - ��-�� "��-��- ��- �� (�� $M� �-�� "��q��-��-.O��-��"��-��.�� . ��O�- �-M��.-��t��M�� "�- ��- ��q��q ��.��"� �� p��M"�-� ��-��t��p�-��-�� .��-��-��p�- ��O��,��q�t��-.O (�� -��"� ��-�� -��-��- ��Y��" ��-��t� �� .��-�0, "��t��-�� "��-��.�� -��$��-�.�� "��-��- ��"�� - �" -�� -$��_w��=�"�=�T�=�� r �� -��, �-___�� $��"�"��- ��-��-�"��-�� q��-�.�� -�� .��M��q��q��c�t��O�"� t��yN�� -�- z��-�1 $=�"�=�T�=

5. Zqt�� -��1�� -��-�t�� -�� M��P�� q"��-��q��O��-��"�.�� x��"� M�-�� $�� $ ��,� ��t �� -�"��"�-�� K��q��R�� , 4��, �� 2�� n��x�0��#�-�$��.R(�� 4��), c�t��O� R*�;��,.��), !-�� P�_�R��) �� -��P�!�� -�R��). ��t��qt�� -�� t��-��q�� -� �.t��p �� -��-��q��- �.��t��"��- �"��Y=��=�!=��-��=�c�$�� "� �"�� $��- �� yN�� -�- z��t"� � ��.p��Y ��- ��.�� M��O�- ��t��-�-.O�� r��-��"��$M�.-�"� - �x��- ��t��q�O�� -�� P��"��-��-��#� ��q��Z ��"�� -�� -�� M�� " ��x �-�� - ��- - ��-�� .=�U-�� t�� u� �� -�� -��- t��$�� "��t-��-��O��- �� "��-�� x��p�� t��-�� -��"��$�� -�� -�, "�� "��-�� - �Y��-�Y��x��"��x�"��R�M��-��"��$�� t��M"�-� ��-� �� -�� -��-��"M�-�0��O��- ��t�� -�� -�� "��O��-��"� �"��-�� -��-�$��$��

��M�-��P�-� ��O ��=Z�-�t��qt�� M-�� - ��

-��qt�� -�t��-q��M�� -�$��-�"��, �t"��t��-��-��- ��- ��,1��, "��P��-��-� �.t��-��M �� t��-��$��Y�.��t��-��"�� .��-=��=�y- -��$��O ��z��t�� - ��-��"��$�� - �� RN�� .0��2�� R� ��.0��(�� RZ�-��.0=�,qp �� - t��$��$�-.��-��r�- �"� ��-��t��O�- �-M��.��1��, ��P-��$q�� t�$� �� -��-��P��$��"�� -�� -� �� M�� " �� $ �, "��-�� "�� t x=

#�x �-��P�� -�� " ��" �-�� "��"�� t��t��-��-��=�c�t��!=�� =��M��x�$�M�O�"�- t�� q$��.-�t��- ��.-�Y�� M��, �� -�t��q��- �� -�#t�.�#� �� - ��, ��"��.�t��t$�� -��qt�-��.�� -��"��-�� M��-�� x �-�� N�� ."�� $��-��K��q�=�K�-��"�� t��-��"�� , 4�� Z �$��*�� =�!��"�� -M�� .$��-��"��r ��- ��- ��qt�� -��-��- , t��q�� -��t��-��-��"��.��#� ��q��-� �.t��t��"q��"q-��q�$��-��-��$��Y�.��-�N=��-�� -M��-��.�"��"��-��.�� -��,��1��. Zq"� �� -��-�� "��-��"��-��-� �.t��-��Y��$��t��-�� "��-��- ��M�� q��O��"�- t�-��t�� "�� -��"��-��- ��-��-��- t��1��. , ��t ��$M�� -�� P��"�� "��$��.��-�� -��t�� -��K��q�, �-��-��$��=s � ��t��u� �� t�� -��K��q��, �-�___�� O�- �-�"��-��qut�� $��, �� -�� -��-��M�� -�� -��"��-��.�� -��1��.

Emil Nankov, Ph.D. CandidateDepartment of History of Art and ArchaeologyCornell UniversityUSA-Ithaca, NY [email protected]

Documents

The Fortifications of the Early Hellenistic Thracian City of Seuthopolis