Vigla Description and Analysis December Working 2010

WORKING DRAFT. DO NOT CITE WITHOUT AUTHOR’S PERMISSION. © 2010 W. Caraher

1

The Fortified Site of Pyla-Vigla in the Coastal Zone of Pyla, Cyprus

William Caraher, University of North Dakota © 2010

Introduction

Excavations and surface finds from the fortification at Vigla have revealed a

substantial fortified site most likely of Classical to Hellenistic date. This section

provides a basic overview of the evidence for the date, construction style, design,

and function of these fortifications. This includes our interpretation of soundings

in 2008 and 2009.

The location and topography of Vigla offered several advantages. First, its steep

southern, eastern, and western sides made the flat top of Vigla easy to fortify. The

only vulnerable approach was on the north side of the hill and to approach this

side from the coast, on would have to pass in the view the fortifications. The

easily defensible height of Vigla most likely served to monitor the now in-filled

natural embayment along this stretch of coastline. This embayment would have

provided a natural harbor or anchorage. Moreover, in this same area, the main

coastal road east from Kition to Salamis and points west turned inland exposing

coastal land traffic to potential disruption by seaborne forces.1 The prominent

coastal height also provided clear views of almost the entire Larnaka bay from

Cape Pyla in the east to Cape Kiti in the west adding to the strategic value of the

site. At the same time, the presence of Bronze Age and Iron Age material

throughout the region indicates the longstanding value of this area and mitigates

against any interpretation based on a single, particular military contingency or

geopolitical situation. The excavations on Vigla suggest that a settlement on the

hill may have predated the construction of the fortification walls. At the same

time, the position of Vigla near the eastern border of the chora of Kition, the

presence of a local cult site,2 the abundant cultivatable land, and access to a

natural anchorage might have attracted local residents to the defensible height

1 W. Caraher, R. S. Moore, J.S. Noller, and D. K. Pettegrew, “The Pyla-Koutsopetria Archaeological Project: First Preliminary Report (2003-2004 Seasons),” RDAC (2005), 248-250 2 O. Masson, “Kypriaka II: Recherches sur les antiquités de la région de Pyla,” BCH 90 (1966), 1-21.


2

prior to the end of the Cypro-Classical period and the dissolution of the city-

kingdoms. The topographic, geopolitical, and economic potential of the region the

tactical and strategic standpoint, Vigla represented an easy to fortify and useful

position on the coast of Larnaka bay.

Description of the Wall

The fortification wall at Vigla itself encompasses an area of approximately 9900

sq. meters. On the western, southern, and eastern sides of the plateau, the wall

follows the natural contour of the slope. Very little of the wall itself is preserved

today with the longest exposed section along the southern slope of the hill visible

only one course above the level of the surrounding surface. Despite the poor state

of preservation, we traced the wall for over 100 meters, and in numerous places

both faces of the wall was visible indicating a width of 1.7-1.8 meters. In this

section, the wall consisting of faces of locally-quarried, roughly-dress blocks

averaging generally less than 0.5 m in length with a rubble core. There is very

little evidence for mortar.

At the southeastern corner of the promontory, the wall turns to the north and

appears to follow the steeply sloping eastern side of the hill. Erosion appears

quite significant in this area with sections of bedrock having collapsed down

slope. It seems probable that parts of the wall along this side of the height have

fallen down the slope. At the southeastern corner of the wall there is a small,

curved section of wall approximately 0.50 m wide and 2.3 m in length with

conspicuous quantities of white, gypsum based mortar. This wall does not clearly

relate to wall running along the southern face of the Vigla nor does the

construction style fit well with walls elsewhere on the hill. Further north from

this point, the wall does not appear to be visible along most of the eastern side of

the hill, until a 12 m long section of wall reappears approximately 100 m to the

north of the southeastern corner wall. Soundings conducted in 2008 along this

stretch of wall showed that the wall was 1.7 m wide at this point. The wall

consisted of two faces roughly-cut dressed blocks with rubble fill.

The northern stretch of the wall is almost completely invisible, but it appears to

have followed a slight ridge along the northern part of the Vigla plateau.

Excavations by looters in the early summer or spring of 2010 exposed a small


3

section of the wall’s southern face. Further to the west, more sections of the wall

are visible, but these appear to follow a different course from section exposed by

looters suggesting that the wall changes course at some point near the

northwestern corner. Further north, there are clearly visible remains of an 18-

20 m fosse or taphros cut into the local bedrock. This imposing feature probably

combined the practical contingency of local quarrying with the tactical advantage

of providing defenders of additional height from which to assault attackers

approaching the fortification from the north. The fosse effectively separates the

Vigla promontory from the mass of the Mavrospilos/Kazamas plateau.

The western side of the wall is the least visible on Vigla as it is most likely covered

with soil eroding from the top. Soundings at the northwestern corner of Vigla

exposed a 5 m long stretch of wall that clearly underwent repair. The

northwestern corner appears to be a different construction style than the other

stretches of wall. Significant quantities of a gypsum-based mortar was used to

create a substantial rubble core faced with heavily mortared blocks. It seems

likely that this represents the remains of a tower designed to protect an entrance

to the enciente at the northwestern corner. Further to the south near what must

have been the southwest corner of the enciente, the wall appears once more and

continues for approximately 20 m. While only the external face of the wall is

visible here, it appears similar in construction to the wall that runs along the

southern face of Vigla.

Excavations

In 2008 and 2009, PKAP excavated two units near the perimeter fortification

wall in an effort to establish a stratigraphic basis for dating of the wall and

determine whether the wall was the product of a single phase. The challenge to

excavating the wall was that the significant slope and erosion present along the

wall’s well-preserved southern side made stratified deposits unlikely. As a result,

we focused our soundsing on areas where the wall appeared less effected by local

erosion and had the potential to preserve some local soil depth and local

stratigraphy associated with the construction of the wall.

EU 6 bisected the course of the wall visible the eastern side of Vigla. It revealed at

least three phases of construction, the latest of which was the substantial


4

fortification wall visible on the eastern side of the hill. The earliest feature

present in this trench was a mud-brick wall running across the contour

(5603_F1). This wall featured a fine plaster face but lacked the customary stone

socle suggesting that this wall was not a structural wall or designed to bear

significant weight. This wall appears to have been cut and then incorporated into

the second phase of construction, which consisted of a rough stone wall running

parallel to the edge of the slope (5601_F2). In the final phase of activity in this

sounding was a substantial perimeter wall built parallel to the rough stone wall

(5601_F1). This substantial perimeter wall was 1.7 m in width and built with two

faces of larger, roughly-dressed stones and a cobble fill. It is almost certainly the

eastern side of enciente.

The chronological relationship between the three walls in this sounding is clear.

The mud-brick wall (5603_F1), first to be constructed, must have been an interior

wall, since it had no stone socle making it susceptible to damage from water

leaching in from the soil below; bits of plaster face were found at its base. Despite

this vulnerability, the mud-brick wall still partially preserved when the second

wall in the unit, made of fieldstones stone with a fine plaster face, was built

(5601_F2).3 This wall is associated with a floor (5607) which included bits of

plaster and mudbrick in its packing (5609). The relatively well-preserved plaster

bits adhering to parts of the mud-brick wall indicated that the mud-brick wall was

not exposed to the elements for a long period of time and suggests short interval

between the end of the primary use of the mudbrick wall and the construction of a

stone wall (5601_F2). In fact, the builders of the stone wall used part of the mud-

brick wall in their construction rather than cutting completely away. This stone

wall’s appearance is similar to that of the walls found in soundings elsewhere atop

the Vigla plateau; it is less than 0.5 m in width and made of stacked fieldstones. A

hard packed floor associated with the stone wall (5607) was cut when the far

more substantial fortification wall was built. The presence of well-preserved

fragments of plaster and mud-brick under the surface of the floor through which

the fortification wall cut suggests that all of the walls present in this trench were

erected over a short span of time. The chronological relationship between these

3 For mud-brick see G. R. H. Wright, Ancient Building in Cyprus. (Leiden 1992), 376-381.


5

walls indicates that the events precipitating the construction of the perimeter

wall on the eastern side of the height were sudden.

The finds from this sounding (EU6) date almost exclusively to the Hellenistic

period and earlier save a single sherd of Early Roman, red slip from disturbed

levels (5602.17) near the surface. The sounding produced a number of secure

contexts that allowed us to establish a basic chronology for the depositional

processes and the features in the unit. Units 5204 and 5213 consist of the mud-

brick wall (5203_F1) which was excavated as a single context. The wall featured

medium coarse ware, coarse ware, kitchen ware, and fine ware fragments as well

as shells. The latest, diagnostic material from the mud-brick wall are fragments

of Hellenistic cooking ware (5613.1), Hellenistic fine ware (5613.3), and

Hellenistic coarse ware (5604.3). The builders of this wall presumably added

ceramic fragments unintentionally along with other kinds of organic material as

temper for the bricks which were most likely produced on site.

A group of sealed deposits (5608, 5609, 5611) also exist below the hard packed

floor (5607) associated with the stone wall (5601_F2). Unfortunately no

artifacts were associated with the floor. Like in the mud-brick wall, the latest

material from these contexts dates to the Hellenistic period. This includes

examples of Hellenistic black glaze (5611.10), color coated ware (5608.11), fine

ware (5608.6, 5608.8, 5609.5, 5611.5-6), and amphora (5608.5). The unit also

produced a significant quantity of earlier Iron Age fine ware (5608.9-10, 5609.8,

5611.11) and medium coarse ware.

The rest of the ceramic assemblage from these contexts consisted of less

chronologically diagnostic coarse, medium coarse, and kitchen wares. These

sealed contexts also featured some faunal material including teeth from

sheep/goats (5608.12, 5609.11) and a chicken bone (5611.9) as well as a number

of water worn shell fragments (5609.12 and 5611.18). The over all impression of

this assemblage is domestic activity. Since much of this material appeared in

floor packing or subfloor leveling, it is likely to be local and should perhaps be

associated with contexts associated with the earlier mud-brick wall or earlier

habitation elsewhere on the height. Some of the ceramic material in this area

undoubtedly derived from the fragments of eroded mud-brick found throughout


6

the floor packing. In fact, since the units associated with the mud-bricks tended to

produce material of Hellenistic date, it may be possible to associate the Hellenistic

material with the fragments of mud brick wall and the Iron Age material with an

assemblage deriving from another, albeit local, context.

In 2009, we excavated a section of the fortification wall at the northwestern

corner of Vigla (EU 9) after determining that the soil to the south of this section of

wall was of sufficient depth to preserve possible foundation deposits. The section

of wall present in this sounding also appeared to be a different style of

construction than that visible elsewhere on Vigla. The northern stretch of wall

visible in this area was built using considerable quantities of a gypsum mortar

that is not dissimilar to the mortar fragments found elsewhere in the region

including the Koutsopetria plain to the south, but appears only rarely along other

stretches of wall on Vigla. In contrast, the western wall visible in this area

appeared from the surface to be similar to the wall along the southern or eastern

edge of plateau. It was constructed with two faces of roughly-dressed larger

stones and a cobble fill.

The excavation of this sounding revealed more of the complicated construction

history of the Vigla fortifications. The mortared northern wall (5801_F1) was

built directly on the bedrock, with no sign of a foundation trench or any ceramic

material associated with its construction. The western section of wall (5802_F1),

however, was built directly atop a distinctive layer of red soil (5808) which was

mostly like slope wash postdating the construction and initial use of the mortared

northern wall. Finally, the western wall was partially built atop a section of the

mortared northern wall providing definite evidence for at least two phases of

construction associated with the perimeter wall.

The latest chronologically diagnostic artifacts found in the layer running beneath

the western wall (5808) date to the Hellenistic-Early Roman period. This context

clearly continued under the western wall (5802_f1) and therefore we can say

that it represented a single depositional event and a secure stratigraphic context.

The assemblage includes Classical-Early Roman fineware (5808.10), Hellenistic

fine ware (5808.9), Hellenistic black glaze (5808.4-6), and Hellenistic to Early

Roman kitchen ware (5808.2). There are also two fragments of Iron Age medium


7

coarse ware (5808.7-8). The Hellenistic – Early Roman material provides a

terminus post quem for the western wall.

A much broader terminus ante quem for this wall comes from the material from

the layers (5805, 5806, 5807) that directly abut the wall. This assemblage, as

one might expect, is far more diverse and includes examples of Late Roman fine

ware (5806.13), Kopetra-type rooftiles (5805.1-2), and Early Roman fine wares

including ESA (5806.11), and more generic Roman red slips (5806.8, 5805.9).

The western wall functioned as a terrace holding back these depositional layers

meaning that at least some of the wall was visible above the surface as late as the

Late Roman period. Unfortunately the existing stratigraphy could not provide a

terminus post quem for the northern wall in this trench. Since the western wall

overlaps the northern wall, it was certainly constructed earlier, but since it was

founded on the bedrock, we were not able to assign a date based on stratigraphy

alone.

The final excavated section was uncovered by looters in the time between the

2009 and 2010 field season. Their work revealed a significant part of the

perimeter fortification wall just beneath the plowzone. The southern, or inner

face of the wall was preserved in several irregular courses and to a height of over

1.5 m. The blocks in the wall show a similar construction style to those along the

southern face with the largest blocks nearing 1 m in length. Neither the outer

face of the wall nor the core was visible in the irregular and illegal excavated hole.

There were no artifacts visible in the crudely excavated “trench”.

Our efforts to date the circuit wall based on the results of these excavations were

inconclusive. The excavated eastern section of the wall suggested a date of the

Classical or Hellenistic period. At the same time, the southwestern corner of the

wall indicates that the fortification had at least two phases of construction and

repair. In this area, Hellenistic artifacts found in slope wash running under the

western wall and against a section of the northern wall built directly on the

bedrock would seem to indicate that this wall dated to before the erosion of

material datable to the Hellenistic period. A subsequent repair of the western

section of the wall which was built atop both the same slope wash and the

northern wall indicates that at least some sections of the wall were repaired later


8

than the Hellenistic material eroding from the slope. Unfortunately the paucity of

highly diagnostic material from excavated areas near the wall make more precise

dating of the fortification impossible on archaeological grounds alone.

Construction style

Lacking clear stratigraphic dates for the fortifications on Vigla, we hoped that

construction style would provide some basic indication of the chronology of the

fortification. Unfortunately, the relatively poor state of knowledge regarding

monumental architecture and fortifications from the Classical to Hellenistic date

in Cyprus presents a significant difficulty in establishing comparanda for

construction styles.4 True ashlar construction, for example, typical in other parts

of the Greek world is rare in fortification on Cyprus in the historical era.5

Moreover, such elaborate and diagnostic construction techniques would be

unwarranted on a rural fortification such as this and unsuited to the relatively

porous local (pouropetra) limestone.6 The wall construction, then, along the best-

preserved sections of the fortification at Vigla offers only modest insights into the

absolute chronology of the fortification, but nevertheless does not contradict the

dates provides by the soundings.

The best-preserved elevation of wall occurred along the northern side of the Vigla

fortification overlooking the rock cute fosse. The course of the wall in this section

suggest that parts of the wall featured uncoursed masonry with roughly dressed

facing with smaller stones acting as chinking. The relatively well-ordered

arrangement of stones, however, suggests some interest in ascetics and may

indicate that this face of the wall would be visible. This approach, moreover, is

4 Wright, Ancient Building, 254-255 simply claims that it large scale fortification did not exist, which is possible, but this appears contradicted by the catalog produced by C. Balandier, “The defensive network of Cyprus at the Hellenistic period and during the first centuries of the Roman Empire (3rd century B.C.- 3rd century A.D.)” RDAC (2002), 323-337. 5 Wright, Ancient Building, 252 for the ashlar fortifications at Nea Paphos which might be among the only properly ashlar fortification wall on the island. 6 Wright, Ancient Building, 358-360


9

more or less compatible with the construction of better-preserved walls of

Hellenistic date from the nearby site of Panayia-Ematousa.7

The evidence for the sequence of construction at the site presents little evidence

for absolute dating. The seemingly rapid sequence of local building preserved in

the wall’s eastern side initially suggested that the wall was built in response to a

particular episode. Other evidence from Vigla, however, remains difficult to

reconcile with that reconstruction of events. For example, the rock cut fosse

represents a significant investment in the fortification although it is impossible to

associate this feature with a particular phase of building. Moreover, the evidence

for repair at the walls northwestern corner indicates that the wall remained in

use for more than a single event. The seemingly hasty construction of the eastern

wall, then might best represents a repair to this section of wall brought about by

local erosion which caused part of the wall tumble down the steep eastern face of

Vigla.

The mortared foundation present at the southwest corner would seem to

represent the more substantial and monumental foundation required for a tower

or protected entrance. The apparent shift in the line of the northern wall between

the section exposed by looters and the wall visible to the west would be consistent

with a kind dogleg designed to provide additional protection for the entrance to

the fortified enciente on Vigla and would reinforce the association of the mortared

foundation at the southwestern corner with fortified entrance. The wall exposed

at the northern side of the northwestern corner made extensive use of a gypsum

based mortar which was particularly well-preserved at the wall’s lower courses

which were below the ground level. The mortar was only visible on the exterior of

the wall, and places stones approximately 0.20 cm in length are evident within

the mortar matrix. There was no evidence for facing stones and there was no

evidence for coursed masonry at the walls lowest levels. Higher on the wall, the

mortar appears to have eroded from the parts of the wall above ground level, and

exposed large, thin stones stacked to provide leveling courses. A similar stacking

technique appears at the nearby site of Panayia-Ematousa in walls dating to the 7 E.g. Wall 21 in L. W. Sorensen, “Architectural Analysis,” in L. W. Sorenson and K. W. Jacobsen, Panayia Ematousa: A Rural Site in South-Eastern Cyprus. (Athens 2006), 71-73


10

Hellenistic period, but these walls lack gypsum based mortar and do not appear

designed to carry any substantial load.8 On a more monumental scale, thin

stacked stone appear to have served as leveling courses at the sanctuary of

Apollo Hylates at Kourion.9 The leveling courses from Vigla may have added

stability to walls which seems to consist largely of fieldstones set into a gypum

mortar. Gypsum mortar has existed on Cyprus since at least the Archaic period

and was known from Idalion. The use of courses of stone labs and mortar would

have provided structurally stability suitable for the foundations of a tower.10

In sum, the various construction styles present at Vigla fit comfortably within the

Archaic to Hellenistic periods. The absence of mortar in visible sections of wall

most likely indicates that the wall is of pre-Roman date where mortared

fortifications become more common. The presence of gypsum mortar at the walls

southwestern corner could indicate a Roman period addition to the wall when the

use of mortar and concrete became more common, but the limited stratigraphy

available in our soundings suggest that this mortared section of wall could just as

easily date to the Classical or Hellenistic period.

Design

The study of rural fortifications in the Eastern Mediterranean remains in its

infancy and on Cyprus is particular undeveloped.11 C. Balandier’s recent efforts to

catalogue and analyze ancient fortifications on Cyprus provide a point of

departure for comparative study.12 Her work brought together the evidence for

the fortified sites on Cyprus including a group of little know rural fortification

that would seem to provide the best comparanda for our site at Vigla. While most

rural fortifications are towers or are not published in sufficient detail for analysis,

two larger scale fortifications at the sites of Paleokastro and Kornos on the

8 See Sorensen, “Architectural Analysis,” 67-85 for similar wall construction without mortar; 9 Wright, Ancient Building, 416. 10 Wright, Ancient Building, 249, 394-395; Get Idalion citation. 11 The standard work on rural fortifications in the Eastern Mediterranean remains J. R. McCredie Fortified Military Camps in Attica (Hesperia Suppl. 11), Princeton 1966. 12 Balandier, “The Defensive Network of Cyprus”


11

Kormakiti peninsula in the Kyrenia district near the site of Melabon provide

useful comparanda for our rural site.13

Originally identified by the Cyprus Survey, an Italian mission documented these

sites more systematically in the 1970s before their work was interrupted by the

Turkish invasion. The site of Kornos features a significant fortification wall

fortifying a steep outcrop above the main settlement area. The full course of the

wall is not preserved, but it is traceable for over 200 m. The wall is built with two

faces of dry stones, stacked in irregular courses and the space between them filled

with loose stones and, presumably, mud mortar. At the site of Paleokastro, a

fortification wall encircles an area of approximately 3.5 ha on a gentle coastal

rise.14 Principle access to the fortified enciente is from the inland, southern side

of the fortification and this side received the most substantial fortifications with a

pair of towers protecting a central gate.15 The construction style of the walls

appears similar to that of the walls at Kornos and Vigla, although the entire

structure appears more monumental in both size and design. The walls feature

two faces of roughly-dressed stone with a loose stone and mud-mortar fill between

them. While it was not possible to systematically publish the chronology of these

fortified sites, excavations of the settlement in the interior of the enciente date

the wall at Paleokastro to the start of the Hellenistic period (4th-3rd centuries).

Neither of these fortifications appear to contain the most striking feature of the

walls on Vigla: the 18 to 20 m wide fosse cut into the bedrock although a series of

possible earthworks which are now highly eroded may have provided a similar

type of fortification for the fortress at Paleokastro.16 The only published

comparanda for the rock cut fosse derives from Nea Paphos.17 The early

Hellenistic walls around the newly established city which were likely built by

Nikokles or by Ptolemy I shortly thereafter and would date to the late 4th century.

13 L. Quilici and S. Quilici-Gigli, “Ricerche intorno a Melabron,” RIASA 19-20 (Rome 1972/1973), 7-102 (especially 13-19 and 38-49) 14 Quilici and Quilici-Gigli, “Ricerche,” 39. 15 Quilici and Quilici-Gigli, “Ricerche,” Tav. 1. 16 Quilici and Quilici-Gigli, “Ricerche,” 41. 17 Wright, 183; K Nicolaou, “The Topography of Neapaphos,” in Me ́langes offerts a ̀ Kazimierz Michałowski. (Warsaw 1966), 516-601 (pp. 567-578).


12

This date would be consistent with the date assigned to Paleokastro and provides

a plausible date for the foundation of the fortifications at our site.

Historical Situation

There have been efforts elsewhere in the Mediterranean to associated rural

fortification with particular historical situations.18 The historical situation in

Cyprus from the 4th to 2nd century BC was unsettled politically and, at times,

militarily.19 As a result, the island saw significant investment in military

activities at various points over these centuries. Nikokles fortification of his new

capital in of Paphos represented some of the earliest responses to the island wide

conflicts that emerged as the imperial aspirations of the Diadochi fueled local

political rivalries. It is possible that the last dynastic kings of Kition fortified

Vigla both to defend a major route into the city as well as a vulnerable stretch of

coastline. This would be consistent with Balandier’s suggestion that the

Antigonids sponsored the first wave of post-Classical fortification on the island in

an effort to forestall a Ptolomaic reconquest.20 Moreover, this would be in keeping

with the early Hellenistic date for the fortification at Paleokastro which may have

served as a regional power base and as a convenient stopping point on the

dominant sea route from Alexandria to Rhodes.21 If this fortification was

Antigonid inspired, it was unsuccessful in preserving the political integrity of the

kingdom of Kition. By 312, however, the Ptolemaic forces had executed the last

king of Kition and, despite some initial military success following the siege of

18 W. Caraher, D. K. Pettegrew, S. James, “Towers and Fortifications at Vayia in the Southeast Corinthia,” Hesperia 79 (2010), 385-415; Caraher and T. E. Gregory, “Fortifications of Mount Oneion, Corinthia,” Hesperia 75, 327-356; M. H. Munn, The Defense of Attica: The Dema Wall and the Boiotian Ware of 378-375 B.C. (Berkeley 1993); J. Ober, Fortress Attica: Defense of the Athenian Land Frontier, 404-322. (Leiden 1985); McRedie, Fortified Camps. 19 For a good summary see: A. Avraamides, “Studies in Hellenistic Cyprus 323-380 B.C.” diss. University of Minnesota 1971, 5-39; G. Hill, A History of Cyprus. Vol. 1 (Cambridge 1940), 164-211. 20 Balandier, “The Defensive Network,” 326-330. 21 Balandier, “The Defensive Network,” 332; L. Quilici “La Mission Italienne a Ayia Irini (Kyrenia),” in Archaeology in Cyprus 1960-1985. Edited by V. Karageorghis (Nicosia 1985), 190.


13

Salamis in 315, the Antigonid efforts to secure control of the island receded in the

early 3rd century.22

The eventual suppression of local dynasties and rise of Ptolemaic power shifted

the institutional structure of the military presence on the island. Bagnall and

Mitford made efforts to reconstruct the shifting military and political

administration of the island over the course of the 3rd and 2nd centuries.23 While

the entire island fell under the command of a strategos, local military

organization most likely followed older civic organization of the island with

hegemones serving as the local military administrators.24 There is evidence for a

hegemon at Kition including an inscription referring to the office from around

Ormidhia.25 As Balandier noted, this time of administrative re-organization

would have been suitable for the construction of fortifications across the island

designed to accommodate garrisons and mercenaries under the command of

newly created administrative officers.26 Unfortunately textual sources for the

political and military situation on the island during the 3rd century are scant

making it impossible to assign the activities on Vigla specific threats or defensive

requirements.

There is some evidence from the site that might suggest military activity at the

site of a third century date. Unauthorized metal detector activities at the site in

the 1970s produced a series of lead sling bullets (see Appendix XX for a complete

discussion of these objects). An inscribed group of these sling bullets featured the

name Boiskos.27 A man of the same name appeared on a dedicatory inscription

from Kition accompanied by the Poseidippos, who is named as the phrourarchos

of the city of Kition and hegemon of the “citadel” and the city.28 While the text is

now lost and parts of the inscription are restored, a reference to Bernike the wife

22 Avraamides, “Studies,” 14; Diod. 19.56-57 23 R. Bagnall, The Administration of the Ptolemaic Possessions outside of Egypt. (Leiden 1976), 38-79; T. B. Mitford, “Seleucus and Theodorus,” Op. Ath. 1 (1953), 130-171. 24 Bagnall, Adminsitration, 49-57. 25 SEG 6.823; Bagnall, Administration, 52 26 Balandier “The Defensive Network”, 333 27 I. Michaelidou-Nicolaou, The Prosopography of Ptolemaic Cyprus. (Goteborg 1976), s.v. “B.10,” 47-48, Poseidippos, s.v. “P. 41,” 100-101; For Boiskos: Avraamides, 42 and for Poseidippos: Avraamides, 45. 28 SEG 20.132, CIG 2614; OGIS 20; Yon, Kition Dans Les Textes. (Paris 2004), 2015


14

of Ptolemy Euergetes I dates the text to between 246-221 BC. While the name

Boiskos appears elsewhere in the epigraphy of Kition specifically and Cyprus,

more broadly, the presence of a Boiskos with a specific military function make the

third century Boiskos a likely candidate for the name on the inscribed sling

pellets. Moreover the presence of these objects at a fortified site would fit within

the presumed responsibilities of the hegemon who would have commanded the

garrisons stationed at cities and, mostly likely, at crucial rural sites.

Mitford argued that by the middle decades of the 2nd century, these hegemones

largely commanded mercenary forces organized by ethnic group.29 There is

evidence some slight evidence for the presence of mercenaries on the height of

Vigla. An inscribed game board, perhaps dating the 3rd century, includes the

inscriptions for Lakon and Thassalos.30 Elsehwere on the board and in a different

hand are the words Salaminia, Kitias, Sidonia, and Aradia. These four words

might either refer to the names of women, or, more likely perhaps considering the

fortified nature of the site, to ethnic names for garrisons from those places.31 This

would add context to the words Lakon and Thessalos and suggest that these are

foreign names as well. The presence of foreign names may provide some evidence

for mercenaries at the site and hint at the organization of these mercenary

groups around their ethnic names. Nicolaou dated the inscription of the beginning

of the 3rd century on the basis of letter forms, but this is a rather inexact method

made more problematic by the informal character of the text itself.

The presence of repairs to the fortifications datable to some point after the

beginning of the Hellenistic era indicates that the fortification was not a single-

use construction but maintained for some time. Balandier suggested that sites

initially fortified under the Antigonids, like Paleokastro on the Kormakiti

peninsula, saw renewed activity in the 3rd or 2nd century,32 and it seems possible

that Vigla would follow this pattern. The continued strategic importance of the

coastline at Vigla would have allowed the fortifications to continue to play a role

in the defense of the island throughout the dynastic intrigues of the Ptolemies in

29 Mitford, “Seleucus and Theordorus,” 130-171; Bagnall, Administration, 54-55 30 I. Nicolaou, “Table a jeu de Dhekelia (Chypre)” BCH 89 (1965), 122-127. 31 Nicolaou, “ Table a jeu,” 127. 32 Balandier, “Defensive Network,”


15

the second century. Moreover, it is difficult to imagine that the fortification

remain in use and were maintained during the Roman period. In fact, the

presence of numerous cut blocks throughout the plain of Koutsopetria may show

that the fortifications were quarried for building material by the Late Roman

period.

Ultimately the best indicator for the date of the fortification at Vigla might derive

from the historical situation on the island of Cyprus. The island saw a systematic

program of external garrisoning over the course of the Hellenistic era, and it

seems plausible to associate the fortifications at Vigla with this process.

Conclusions

The fortifications at Vigla mark the second major wave of fortifications in the

coastal zone of Pyla. The first fortifications date to the Late Bronze age and

appear to encircle an area that may have approached 10 ha on the coastal height

of Pyla-Kokkinokremos. The second wave involves the fortification of the smaller

height of Vigla. It is notable that Kokkinokremos saw little activity during the

Classical or Hellenistic periods and the center of activity appears to have shifted

to the west as early as the Iron Age. The fortification of Vigla complemented the

western center of activity in the region. Moreover, the smaller area of Vigla may

have provided a more easily fortified feature than the larger Kokkinokremos.

The absence of significant quantities of cut block atop Kokkinokremos may

indicate that the site was quarried for cut stones during the contruction of Vigla.

It is also worth considering the role of memory in the decision to fortify Vigla. We

have no idea how Iron Age age, Classical, or Hellenistic residence of the Pyla

littoral regarded the fortifications present on Kokkinokremos, but the absence of

evidence for significant activity on the hill prior to the Roman period suggests

that the ruins of the Late Bronze Age settlement did not make up part of their

regular activity area.

Vigla Description and Analysis December Working 2010

Documents

Transcript of Vigla Description and Analysis December Working 2010