A

BC1DEF1F2

C2

A SUGGESTED RECONTRUCTIONThe most important starting point is the Great Wall, in particular its height and the marked inward leaning of the upper portion. The height of approximately seven metres has been interpreted by everybody up to now as theoriginal height on account of the existence of three projecting blocks taken to be elements of the crowning cornice. The excavations led to establishing the presence of a filling between the two curtains of the first and the secondphase up to a height of metres 4.50 from the ground plan the two curtains themselves. The marked inclination of the Great Wall in that part where the infill is missing, brought away by marine erosion, underlines the structuralimportance of the ‘emplekton’ (infill) which probably must have reached a height near to that of the Great Wall and served as a wide platform for patrolling sentries. The presence of this platform would presuppose the existenceof a system of slits in the wall that would allow defenders to observe activity outside the walls while remaining, themselves, under cover. The suggested height of the sentry platform coincides, approximatly with the penultimatecourse still in existence; this takes into account the problems of establishing sight lines from the cornice projection, the height of the parapet and the width of the ditch. The elevation of the outer curtain should have consisted ofat least two more courses for the battlements set immediately above the cornice. This suggested arrangement raises an important question with regard to the system of access to the sentry platform. In this regard, it is importantto take into account the fact that the defensive structure, in its final stages, incorporated the previous fortifications which, according to the current interpretation, was simply made up of the external curtain with its ditch and therubble ‘aggere’ supported at its two parallel walls. This interpretation poses considerable problems with regard to the functionality of the structure. The rubble ‘aggere’ should have had such a steep slope as to deny easy accessto its top; if we consider that the outer curtain must have been higher than it is at the moment, the original angle of slope must have been even steeper. It is equally difficult to come up with an adequate interpretation of the rolesof the two parallel walls (F1 – F2) at the base of the ‘aggere’. If we can accept the hypothesis that the inner one of the two walls served as a retaining wall for the ‘aggere’, we cannot easily accept the same function for the outerone, above all, on account of the infill of earth and stone which would threaten its structural stability. Furthermore, in a more northerly stretch, these walls appear to reach a height of approximately 1.30 metres, thereby presentingan obstacle to anyone wishing to reach the top of the ‘aggere’. These considerations have brought us to formulate the hypothesis that wall F1 was in fact the inner curtain of the rubble ‘aggere’ and not just a retaining wall. Theouter wall F2 would seem to be the underpinning for an access ramp to the top of the fortifications; in other words, the remains that we see today could have, in reality, been the support for the staircase or ramp. The fact thatitems D, E and F1 – F2 all date from the same period allows us to place this ramp in the context of the first phase of construction and therefore deduce that it must have been part of the first defensive system. This fortiticationstherefore consisted of - a ditch (C2) an outer curtain about 6 metres high including battlements (D), the rubble infill or ‘emplekton’(E) serving as a sentry platform, an inner curtain (F1) and a ramp to the sentry platform (F2)(Fig. 3). Understood in this way, the intire structure in its final version appears to be made up of a system of ‘terraces’, where the first difensive structure, already equipped with access ramps, is used as a support system for thedefenses of the second phase, which are similar to those of the first phase with a similar function, more impressive (Fig. 3). These two terraces could have then been connected by a simple ladder (Fig. 4).

INTRODUCTION. The Salento, a country in southern Italy, that the Greeks called Messapia,presented in pre-Roman period a complex system of settlements. The space occupied byeach these settlements was circumscribed by walls constructed of blocks of local stone. Formany of the thirty known Messapian centres, the walls are the only archeological remainsvisible above ground. Only some Messapian centres are mentioned in Greek or Romanliterary sources; among these is Egnatia. This paper presents the results of a VirtualArcheology project based on technology of the modern Computer Graphics application. Itis part of Link Proiect (P. 17), aimed at a better exploitation of the archeological heritage ofthe Ionian-Salento area in the field of “cultural tourism”. It results consist in a three-dimensionalreconstruction of the northernmost stretch of the Egnatia fortifications.

NOTES ON THE WALLS OF EGNATIA: A CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS KNOWLEDGE OF MESSAPIAN FORTIFICATIONSF. GABELLONE – M.T. GIANNOTTA C.N.R.-ISCOM, C/O VILLA TRESCA, CAMPUS UNIVERSITARIO – VIA MONTERONI, 73100 LECCE – ITALY

ARCHAEOLOGICAL DATAThis reconstruction makes use of data found in the literature or in the archives of theArcheological Superintendancy, and of data obtained through on-site observation. Beforeexamining the documentary evidence that forms the basis of the 3D reconstruction, we willremind ourselves briefly that the northernmost stretch of the fortification still visible on-siteseems to be made up as follows. Starting from the oustide of the city, there seems to havebeen a wide ditch A, then a first curtain of blocks B, then an infill C, then a second curtainwall D, and finally a rubble ‘aggere’ E held in place by two parallel walls F1-F2 (Figs.1, 2,3). The outer curtain B is executed in double-headed isodomic format and is laid out onfootings of cut rock sloping down towards the sea. In 1978 the Archeological Superintendancyconducted a stratigraphical excavation on a spot located some 37 metres from the northenedge of the Great Wall, a trial trench (A-78) drawing at right angles to the difensive structure.On the basis of excavations results, archaeologists have hypothesised two distinct phasesof construction for the defensive structure. In the first phase, which can be placed in the IVth

century BC, the fortification was simpler. It consisted of the ditch C, the curtain D, and therubble ‘aggere’ E sustained by the two parallel walls F1-F2. In the second phase, to be datedat the end of IVth century BC, a complete restructuring of the old defensive line was feltnecessary. The original ditch was filled in, a second block curtain (“Great Wall”) was builtand a second wider ditch was dug.

3er Congreso Internacional "Ciencia y Tecnología Aplicada a la Protección del

Patrimonio Cultural en la Cuenca Mediterránea"ALCALÁ DE HENARES - ESPAÑA 9-14 JULIO 2001

FIG.1

stratigraphical section A-78 with reconstruction overlap

FIG.2 stratigraphical section A-78 virtual reconstruction

FIG.3SECTION A-A’:graphic reconstruction of defensive structures

first phase

second phase

FIG.4the virtual rencostruction

AA’

EGNAZIA

web: www.iscom.le.cnr.it