THISBE Kastorion - 2007

Thisbe (Kastorion). A. Dunn (BSA/Birmingham) and E. Gerousi (23rd EBA) report on the 3rd season of survey of anc. Thisbe and Byz-Frankish Kastorion, in collaboration with V. Aravantinos (Θ' ΕΠΚΑ).

Cleaning in 2006 in preparation for the magnetometer survey in the extramural survey zone, and subsequent processing of the results of that survey, led to the recognition of a spolia-built structure on an E−W orientation to the W of locus 5, which becomes locus 77. The surroundings of locus 77 were resurveyed in 2007. Completing the search for visible traces of the line of the fortifications between the upper and lower acropoleis and the recording of all in situ remains around the upper acropolis (‘Palaiokastro’) led to the discovery of 3 more features.

Locus 78: a fragmentary socle of monumental coursed trapezoidal masonry extending outwards from the N side of the upper acropolis across the narrow valley that defines this side of it; apparently a ‘single skin’ wall; Cl−Hel. Locus 79: several rectangular Graeco−Rom spolia set on end on an E−W orientation on flat ground within Palaiokastro resemble the foundations of Thisve-Kastorion’s Byz-Frankish churches. Locus 80: a significant stretch of the W city wall (curtain wall and a tower front) was located N of the projecting tower discovered in 2006. It confirms the course taken by the W city wall between Neokastro and Palaiokastro and is in exactly the same masonry as the rest of the lower city’s walls. In addition, locus 81: the Graeco−Rom rock-cut necropolis which is situated just outside the line of the W city wall, on the S slopes of Palaiokastro, was recorded topographically.

Palaiokastro (locus 23). Palaiokastro’s multi-phase fortifications were a major object of study. Each identified phase of the fortifications was recorded as a separate exercise in 6 topographic layers, from ‘Cyclopean’ to ‘Byz-Frankish’. At 2 points a phase of construction characterized by massive coarsely hewn quarried pieces of limestone up to 0.9m l., apparently define an earth embankment or ‘core’ whose other face is buried within later phases. They are clearly distinct from, and not functioning as, mod. agricultural terraces (of which there are examples on Palaiokastro). This is provisionally called the ‘Cyclopean phase’.

Three Ar−Cl and Cl−Hel masonry styles are apparent on Palaiokastro itself (excluding new locus 78): (a) roughly dressed polygonal masonry forming the front of an approximately rounded bastion; (b) masonry of trapezoidal and rectangular blocks with smooth abutting facets and rough exposed facets; (c) ashlar masonry which is either immured within post-Rom work and only visible in top plan or, where visible in elevation, has been lime-mortar bonded (although not certainly disassembled first). Anc. masonry (b) is stylistically identical to that of the lower acropolis and the intermediate city walls; lost stretches of walls running up the slopes of Palaiokastro were likely constructed in the same technique. In this most important phase of activity single enceinte, with projecting towers, enclosed the heights known as Palaiokastro and Neokastro. Masonry (c) survives on the W-facing side of Palaiokastro, but its design is obscured by post-Rom phases.
The next discernible phase of activity in the walls of Palaiokastro is LRom−EByz. A utilitarian opus incertum, combining undressed quarried limestone with small spolia and bonded with lime mortar, is used to create an enclosed citadel for which there is no earlier evidence. The W, relatively vulnerable, side is defended by a simple forewall without towers and an inner wall with rectangular towers which may be Cl or Hel in origin, partly built in anc. masonry (c). Forewalls on vulnerable aspects are typical of 5th−6th Ct AD fortresses in the Balkans. The S side, which is poorly preserved, is also defended by a line of towers in the last stages of disintegration. The N side is also poorly preserved. Fragments of the line of the N enceinte (without preserved evidence of towers) are traceable, but its NE ‘return’ is well preserved: massive spolia built lime-mortar bonded foundations perhaps belonged to a bastion which only projected on one axis. The short E side, the most accessible to stone robbers, is untraceable on the surface.

Despite its enclosed design, this phase of activity on Palaiokastro does not mean that the city walls were abandoned. It is likely to be one of the phrouria (forts or fortresses) built, according to Procopius, by Justinian in Boeotia in the 550s at the sites of earthquake-damaged ‘settlements’.

Either one or 2 later phases of activity are apparent on the better-preserved W side of Palaiokastro: a lime-mortar bonded opus incertum which encases the Cl−Hel ashlar phase as reused in L antiquity; and, at the SE corner of the citadel, remains of a rectangular building characterized by engaged external piers (buttresses) in a diagnostic MByz−Frankish masonry which overlies the LRom−EByz phase at this point.

The 3-D laser-scanner was employed at several locations, sometimes in combination with geophysical and EDM survey. The laser-scanner was used at: locus 25, a Byz−Frankish redesign and reconstruction of a Hel tower at the SE corner of Neokastro; locus 3 and locus 74, Ag. Loukas and its monumental N annexe, which include Graeco−Rom spolia; locus 24, the Hel walls at Neokastro (the ‘lower acropolis’). Resistivity survey was also carried out.