Emplekton Masonry and 'Greek Structura'

Author(s): R. A. Tomlinson
Source: The Journal of Hellenic Studies , 1961, Vol. 81 (1961), pp. 133-140
Published by: The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/628083

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to The Journal of Hellenic Studies

This content downloaded from

5.77.91.191 on Sat, 13 May 2023 09:02:22 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 EMPLEKTON MASONRY AND 'GREEK STRUCTURA'
OUR knowledge of Greek Architecture depends almost entirely on its actual remains.
Undoubtedly the Greeks themselves were much concerned with its more theoretical
aspects, and in pursuit of this wrote a large number of treatises, descriptive and analytical,
which are frequently referred to by our chief authority for ancient architectural theory,
Vitruvius. Since, with one exception-and that only in part (Philo Mechanicus, named
by Vitruvius vii praef. 14 as an author 'de machinationibus')-none of Vitruvius' Greek
sources survives, we experience considerable difficulty in controlling the information he
gives us about these aspects of Greek architecture, especially when we try to apply his
various theories to the actual remains. First, for all we know, theories and techniques
described with some prominence by Vitruvius may not have had a corresponding promi-
nence in the Greek authorities, or actual practice. Secondly, a theory described by
Vitruvius as apparently universal may actually have been very limited, either in scope or
time. It is in fact true to say that many of Vitruvius' ideas of Greek architecture apply
to the Hellenistic period only. Thus the passage on the spacing of columns (iii 3) must
owe much to Hermogenes, two of whose temples are given as examples.
Such possible misconceptions can often be corrected by reference to the remains. But
at the same time there is a strong temptation to modify Vitruvius' account to accord with
the more tangible evidence the remains provide. This is frequently done unconsciously,
through lack of a proper understanding of all that Vitruvius' account involves-and
misuses of Vitruvius' terms are often hallowed by repetition from authority to authority.
This is particularly true of his account of 'Greek structura' walls, where the three terms he
uses, isodomum, pseudisodomum and emplekton are usually applied to walls which do not seem
fully to agree with his description.
My purpose is to elucidate the true meaning of one of these, emplekton, discuss its proper
application, and investigate the question of 'Greek structura' walls: that is, walls built of
rough stone and mortar, not solid squared masonry (quadratum).
We must begin with Vitruvius himself (ii 8.7; ed. Rose, I899):
Altera est quam irrVAKTov appellant, qua etiam nostri rustici utuntur. quorum frontes poliuntur,
reliqua ita uti sunt nata cum materia conlocata alternis alligant coagmentis. sed nostri, celeritati studentes,
erecta conlocantes frontibus serviunt, et in medio farciunt fractis2 separatim cum materia caementis.
ita tres suscitantur in ea structura crustae, duae frontium, et una media farturae. Graeci vero non ita,
sed plana conlocantes et longtitudines eorum alternis in crassitudinem instruentes, non media farciunt, sed
e suis frontibus3 perpetuam et unam crassitudinem parietum consolidant. praeterea interponunt singulos
crassitudine perpetua utraque parte frontatos quos &ta-rdvovs appellant, qui maxime religando confirmant
parietum soliditatem.
The following translation is deliberately non-committal on points of detail:
'Another type (of structura) is that which they (the Greeks) call lrr'EKTov (interwoven)
which our country people also use. In their (i.e. the Greeks') walls the faces are smoothed,
while the remainder are left in their natural state, laid with mortar and bound together
in alternate joints. But our people, whose object is speed, care only for the faces, placing
(the stones) upright; the middle they stuff with separate layers of broken rubble and mortar.
So in that walling three "skins" are raised up, two faces and a middle one of "stuffing". But

1 I have to thank Dr Plommer for drawing my 3 MSS.frontatis, emended by Marini. Even if this
attention to this problem. is not correct, the sense required must be 'from one
2 One MS. (Sc.) reads farciunt factis, the rest face to the other'.
faciunt factis. But cf. una media farturae and non media
farciunt, immediately below.

This content downloaded from

5.77.91.191 on Sat, 13 May 2023 09:02:22 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 134 R. A. TOMLINSON

Greek E'-AAEK0rov is not like that. They pl

with "headers" extending into the thickness
but from their faces they make firm a sing
put in single stones running the entire t
call Sdrrovot. These bind the walls toget
solid.'
Even if the details are obscure, the general meaning of this passage is fairly clear.
Emplekton is essentially a technique involving the use of mortar.4 Both Greek and Italian
emplekton walls are in three sections, two outer faces and a central core. However, not
only are the natures of the two cores different, but while in the Italian walls there is appar-
ently no physical connexion between the three sections, in the Greek walls they are most
carefully bonded together.
The two current explanations of Greek emplekton are each based on one and only one of
the features described by Vitruvius, and both ignore the question of mortar.
Puchstein5 derives the term from the fact that the two faces are 'woven' to the central

core (by means

emplekton is theof theGreek
only headers
walland td-r-ovot).
described Other authorities6
by Vitruvius emphasise
that has a central core:the fact that
to them, an
emplekton wall is any wall with outer faces and a central core.
Puchstein's explanation, the more plausible of the two, fails when we realise that
Vitruvius can attach the same term to Italian walls in which the three parts, far from being
'woven' to each other, are kept distinct. If the essential feature of an emplekton wall was
that the three parts should be woven together, emplekton is the last word that Vitruvius
would use to describe a wall in which the three parts have no connexion with each other
at all. Puchstein's explanation automatically means we must suppose Vitruvius to have
made a stupid and obvious mistake.
The second explanation also is illogical. Granted that emplekton is the only Greek
wall described by Vitruvius that has a central core, there is nevertheless no reason why the
term used to describe such a wall should be 'emplekton'; it bears no relevance, that I can
see, to this essential criterion.' Nor is there any reason to suppose that other Greek varieties
of walls with a central core did not exist simply because Vitruvius does not mention them.
So far as the Greeks are concerned he is professedly selective, not comprehensive (vii
praef. I4).
Neither of these explanations, then, is satisfactory. If we consider the terms applied by
Vitruvius to other types of structura, isodomum, pseudisodomum (both of which terms, whatever
their exact meaning, are concerned with the arrangement of the courses), incertum, reticu-
latum, it seems they could very well refer simply to the surface patterns created by the
various arrangements of the stones. This, certainly, is the only thing 'net-like' about
reticulatum, and at the same time its most characteristic feature.
On this analogy-and it must be remembered that the Greeks were particularly con-
scious of the decorative effect of the surface pattern of walling8-an emplekton wall is one
4 Structura in Vitruvius essentially involves the 6 e.g. Wrede, AM xlix (1924) 220; J. Pouilloux, La
use of mortar: see Boathius in Apadypa i33; Jiingst forteresse de Rhamnonte 50; R. Martin, BCH lxxi/lxxii
and Thielscher, RM li (1936) 164; Scranton Greek 120; F. Krischen, Milet iii.2 9; and LSJ.
Walls 18 n. 19. On the other hand, a non-technical 7 Dennis, op. cit., 8o, attributes a similar interpreta-
author, Livy, describing the walls of Saguntum tion to 'the Italians' 'as though it were derived from
(xxi Ii) which used mud instead of lime as a binding
agent, calls them structurae antiquum genus.
tFtinA~pt
this. or znAitOw, to fill up'. He rightly rejects
5 RE s.v. 'Emplekton'. He is followed by Professor 8 Hence the 'structural' styles of wall painting,
A. W. Lawrence, Greek Architecture 230 (translating and the retention of orthostates in stone walls when
su3tec-ov as 'entwined'), and anticipated by Dennis, all constructional justification for them (as footings
Cities and Cemeteries ofEtruria (third edition) 65, 80 (but for mud-brick walls) had gone.
he takes non media farciunt to mean there was no fill
at all).

This content downloaded from

5.77.91.191 on Sat, 13 May 2023 09:02:22 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 EMPLEKTON MASONRY AND 'GREEK STRUCTURA' 135
whose surface pattern gives the effect of woven material. That is, strictly spe
what we know as 'Flemish bond', a wall whose courses consist of alternating
stretchers, the headers of one course being covered by the stretchers of the next
diagram, FIG. I.

FIG. I.

In Greek walls that made use of headers and stretchers the head
narrow; they look like vertical threads, the stretchers like horizo
to a woven pattern is striking and obvious, and would, I feel,
to the Greeks. The effect of the pattern is not spoilt by the f
Greeks often employed two or three stretchers to every header.9
Vitruvius in fact takes the name for granted, and does not
much more concerned with the technique of construction, and wi
over Roman technique. It is advisable to pay attention to this ques
considering the equally important question whether the term e
applied to any wall with a 'woven' surface pattern of headers and
it was built.
Vitruvius begins his description of Greek structura with isodomum and pseudisodomum
(ii 8.5). They are built of coursed rough stone, laid in mortar much as we lay bricks.
This he considers more stable than Roman structura, which consists basically of a mixture
of unbalanced broken rubble and mortar. The reason for this is that he is suspicious of the
lasting qualities of mortar. He expects it to crumble when dry, and therefore naturally
prefers the coursed Greek structura walls, which would remain standing even if the mortar
dried out, to the unbalanced Roman structura, which would collapse (and quite possibly
did, until the quality of Roman mortar improved). To Vitruvius the strength of a wall
rests in the coursing of its stonework, not in the mortar.
This remains true of emplekton structura. This is distinguished from the other structura
described simply by the fact that it is given a casing of ashlar masonry. Inside there is the
same difference between Greek and Roman, Greek with balanced and bonded courses of
stone, Roman with an unbalanced 'mix' of broken rubble and mortar.
The only similarity between the two is the ashlar facings, but even here the technique
differs. In the Roman walls the stones are placed erecta: this is explained by the contrast
with the Greeks plana conlocantes and perhaps the plana et librata cubilia of isodomic and
pseudisodomic structura. In the Greek walls the stones are greater in width than in height,
so they lie flat and balanced. The Roman stones are either equal in width and height, or
else the height is greater, so that they do not seem to lie flat but upright, and so less stable.
9 For an example, see the outer wall of the three-
and stretchers are typical of the Hekatomnid (fourth
storey stoa at Aegae, Bohn and Schuchhardt, Alter-century B.C.) walls at Labraunda: Jeppesen,
tiimer von Aegae (JdI Erg. Heft ii) fig. 15. Headers
Labraunda i I (The Propylaea) 14.

This content downloaded from

5.77.91.191 on Sat, 13 May 2023 09:02:22 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 136 R. A. TOMLINSON
This obviously enabled the Romans to build faster, le
given height. Further economy could be achieved
be natural, from Vitruvius' description, to suppos
them. If so, there is some difficulty in explaining w
One possible explanation is that the headers were rep
the surface pattern of headers, but did not extend
that the blocks of these walls were not very long
example-compared with the blocks of Greek walls,
blocks was sufficient to suggest to Vitruvius a comp
walls.
More important is the difference between the fills. The Italians stuff the central space
-farciunt does not simply mean fill-by throwing in alternately layers of broken rubble and
mortar. The Greeks, on the other hand, fill the centre with stones (as opposed to rubble)
carefully placed and balanced in position, though set in mortar (conlocata, as opposed to in
mediofarciunt), and laid in alternating courses exactly like their isodomic and pseudisodomic
walls. But in addition to this, the carefully constructed fill is bonded to the faces of worked
stone by means of the headers of the faces, which extend into it, and the occasional Ji-tovo&
which pass right through the entire thickness of the wall.
We can now see exactly what Vitruvius means by a Greek emplekton wall. It consists
of a solid core of unbroken stones (i.e. not rubble) arranged in courses and set in mortar.
This core is bonded to two faces of worked stone by means of headers and through-stones.
As a result of the use of headers and stretchers the surface pattern of the faces (the only part
of the wall visible when it was complete) resembles that of woven cloth. For this reason
the technique acquired its nickname of emplekton, 'interwoven', which was also given by
Vitruvius to Roman structura walls, which he considered had a similar surface pattern,
though built on a different system.
It is frankly impossible to find actual-and convincing-examples of Vitruvius' Greek
structura. This is equally true of isodomum and pseudisodomum, as well as emplekton. Hence
the use of these terms is modified by modern authorities to agree with the actual archaeo-
logical evidence, and so, for example, they are applied, without excuse or justification, to
walls that do not use mortar. In deciding whether this can be justified we must at the
same time consider what these Greek walls that did use mortar were, and how they came
to be described by Vitruvius.
The difficulty caused by the absence of examples of Greek structura is accentuated by
the fact that Vitruvius' Roman types of structura, incertum and reticulatum, are easily recog-
nised in countless examples up and down Italy." It does seem only natural to suppose
that examples of Greek structura were equally numerous, and therefore, since there are
virtually no Greek walls using mortar, Greek structura, despite Vitruvius, also did not
make use of mortar. This makes nonsense of Vitruvius. Scranton (loc. cit.) saw the
difficulty. He suggests that Vitruvius is referring to purely contemporary conditions, that
is, to Greeks building in the eastern part of the Roman Empire during the second half
of the first century B.c., and that walls of this date have not been recognised by archaeo-
logists as Greek work. This is possible, and theoretically Greek structura does sound like
a combination of Greek and Roman techniques which one might expect to have taken
place about the time of Vitruvius. All the same, it seems to me more than probable that
such walls, if they existed, would have been recognised, if only as a useful criterion for
distinguishing between the Hellenistic and Roman periods in the Greek world. As I
see it, at this period the Eastern Roman Empire either built in its old traditional styles, or
else adopted Roman ideas in their entirety. I do not think there is any real evidence for
10 As at Labraunda, Jeppesen, loc. cit. 11 Numerous examples in Blake, Roman Construction
in Italy.

This content downloaded from

5.77.91.191 on Sat, 13 May 2023 09:02:22 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 EMPLEKTON MASONRY AND 'GREEK STRUCTURA' 137
a period of mingled style, neither one thing nor the other, which is what Scranton's
postulates.
I consider that Vitruvius' notions of Greek structura derive from descriptions in
architectural handbooks rather than from his personal knowledge of Greek w
reason he describes them in such detail is not necessarily because they were importan
widely used by the Greeks, but because he considered that they had marked advantag
Roman structura, which was important, and was widely used. We have already se
he considered these advantages were-the stability of the Greek wall, even if the
crumbled. Vitruvius, we must suppose, started by describing Roman structura, techn
which were evolved by trial and error in Italy itself, and were well known to him. B
he considered them faulty he referred to the Greek handbooks to see if they described
satisfactory technique, and found isodomum, pseudisodomum, and emplekton. Th
course, no direct evidence that the handbooks did describe these techniques. But
that the names of the types of 'Greek structura' are Greek, and the undoubted fact t
handbooks-as we shall see-at least recommended the use of some sort of mortar
it all but certain that they included isodomum, pseudisodomum, and emplekton.
However, there is absolutely no reason to suppose, simply because a techniqu
described in the Greek handbooks, that it was at all widely used by Greek architects.
are two reasons for this. First, it seems clear that there were in Greece marked
traditions of technique, and by and large, the Greeks were reluctant to adopt ne
particularly if they originated in areas outside 'classical' Greece. Thus, though th
barrel vaults was thoroughly understood in late fourth-century B.c. Macedonia (the p
date of the earliest Macedonian vaulted tombs) knowledge of the technique did no
the architecture of mainland Greece at all. Secondly, the handbooks were, it seems, in
habit of copying ideas from earlier authorities, without considering whether th
actually used, or even practical. An example of this is a system of telegraphy, ap
recommended first by Aeneas Tacticus (c. 360 B.C.) in his now lost HapauKevacrr
equally recommended by Philo (c. 200 B.c.) in his IIapagKEvamrtKc,13 and then
condemned as impractical by Polybius.
For both these reasons, then, the handbooks may well have given greater prom
to a technique than it actually merited, if one considered solely the extent to which
used in the Greek world. This seems to be true of mortar.
It is difficult to secure any precise information about the Greek use of mortar. The
Greeks, of course, made widespread use of stucco (which is basically similar to mortar) for
plastering, even at an early date. There is one series of stuccos and mortars, which have
been properly analysed, from Corinth, but there the earlier examples were used not as
mortar but as plaster-in particular for lining waterworks, cisterns and so forth. This is
a highly specialised use. It is remarkable that the composition of this plaster, even in
the later examples, differs from the normal Roman composition. It is, however, almost
exactly the same as that used to line a wash tank at Laureion.'4 Foster suggests that the use
of the Greek formula in Roman times is an example of the Romans learning something from
the Greeks. Rather it is an interesting example of the persistence in a specialised field of
a particularly Greek tradition even into Roman times-and in a Roman colony at that.
Ardaillon also describes the construction of the wash-tanks. Where they are not cut
in the solid rock they are made 'de petites dalles de calcaire ou de schiste, relides par du
mortier, et rapelle, par sa disposition tout au moins, celui des edifices privds de Dilos'.
12 Quoted by Polybius x 44. See Hunter's edition 14 Corinth: Foster, Journal of Chemical Education xi
of Aeneas, Ho2tOpK~TLtKd, note to 8.4. (I934) 223. Laureion: Ardaillon, Les Mines du
13 Philo 90.28 f. All references to Philo are to the
Laurion 65, quoting Ph. Negris, Laveries anciennes du
edition of Diels and Schramm, Abh. Berl. Akad. Laurion, in Annales des Mines, Juillet-Aofit 1881.
phil.-hist. KI. I919, which uses the page and line
numbers of Thevenot's edition.

This content downloaded from

5.77.91.191 on Sat, 13 May 2023 09:02:22 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 138 R. A. TOMLINSON
He does not give an analysis or a more detailed des
struction. At Delos the mortar consists simply
be plaster, as used for the lining, and is to be exp
must in fact be careful to distinguish between th
plaster or mortar, and the development of a re
emplekton implies. Apart from this I know no
cement stones together, at least down to the
examples do exist they must be regarded as pur
not enjoy any widespread vogue.
The earliest real reference to the regular use of
Theophrastus HEp AltOwv in a section (64-6
npos~ TE og OKO8o0LjElara rVC Oor A p'ov 7TEPXEOVPES KL
GavpuLcm-- &U KElL<-q ' r> 1aS O TE y yp ol Alot pj'yvvvU
E' KaU TC .lE 7TE7TTWOKE KaU V;)p'qTc , a a 8 CLvw Kp
Theophrastus attributes the technique particularly
KtWrrpov Kal (PovlKtqv ElK s a 7Ta CTT pAUTra.
describing something out of the ordinary, and no
This, I think, would be sufficient to explain t
adopt this technique: it was something outside
barrel vaults. We still have to explain how the
found its way from the theoretical writings of T
of the architectural handbooks.
Undoubtedly the technique was brought to the attention of the Greeks during,
after, Alexander's siege of Tyre. Arrian, Anabasis ii 21.4 (whose evidence, coming p
sumably from the eye-witness accounts of either Aristoboulos or Ptolemy, must, I think,
unimpeachable) describes the walls of Tyre in the following terms: r'v 8' aVTroL Ka
rElX . . . AtotL~ LEydaOtS EV Y5 p KELIo-otS VVlr7TErT)ydTa. The strength of these walls w
obvious from the resistance they put up to Alexander's siege-engines (contrast this w
the ease with which he breached the walls of Halikarnassos, one of the most up-to-d
examples of purely Greek fortification technique). In fact Alexander could not bre
the walls of Tyre where he first made his assault: KaTd p&v 84-q To XtOLa wprrOUayO/EvaL (sc. al
ruXaval) 8& laXbV 70T TELXOVS o~ O8V vov OP 7L Kal Aodyov dtov. And so he had to atta
them 'in that part that faces south and towards Egypt', that is, from the seaward si
where attack was less likely and the walls consequently weaker (perhaps because ytdos was
not used there ?).
It is only natural to suppose that, once Tyre had fallen, Alexander's military engineers
studied carefully the walls which had provided such exceptional resistance to the Ma
donian siege-train. Arrian's description must, I think, be regarded as proof of the interest
they took in them. It is not in the least surprising that a few years afterwards the Greek
fortifications of Dura-Europos were built in (presumably) the Tyrian technique, lar
stones cemented together with gypsum.16 It is, perhaps, equally significant that this out-
standing example of the Greeks using what was essentially a foreign technique sho
occur more or less in the area where that technique was part of the native tradition, and a
time very shortly after that technique had created a deep impression on military architec
and engineers.

15 Caley and Richards in their recent edition of not therefore attempted to translate the term
have
the HEpl Al0cov point out the difficulties of Theo-
ytWpog where it occurs in a Hellenistic context.
phrastus' account, which seems to confuse under the
16 Cumont, Fouilles de Doura-Europos, 1922-1923
single term yt6pog gypsum (plaster of Paris)4and f. The use of gypsum, as opposed to quicklime, is
of course here certain.
quicklime. It seems probable that in Theophrastus'
time no distinction was made between the two. I

This content downloaded from

5.77.91.191 on Sat, 13 May 2023 09:02:22 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 EMPLEKTON MASONRY AND 'GREEK STRUCTURA' I39
The fame of Tyre and its fortifications must have been sufficient to earn the yv'iog
technique a 'highly recommended' in the Hellenistic handbooks concerned with the con-
struction of fortifications. Since, to the Greeks and Romans, fortification was very much
a part of architecture, it might well have found its way into architectural handbooks in
general. It is not surprising to find references to the use of yv'bos for fortifications in Philo's
HapaUKEvagUTKd. This work survives only in excerpts, and the passage containing the
description of suitable building techniques, if there was one, no longer survives, presumably
because the information it contained was obsolete at the time that the excerpts were made.
But at least twice in the surviving portions he uses the expression TOEVTES Kati oios tOovs
dv ydbp (80.2I, 81.7). I do not find it altogether fanciful to catch an echo of this or some
similar phrase in Vitruvius' reliqua . . . cum materia conlocata. Compare also 79.I, 8EZ..
dpveav~rEs LEXpt ErpasL. . . LOE'va Tobs OELEAlovS EV yv'bp and Vitruvius' version (i 5.')
fundamenta sic suntfacienda utifodiantur si queat inveniri ad solidum et in solido ... et ea impleantur
quam solidissima structura. Here at least it seems certain that Vitruvius' structura represents
the Greek yv'bos- technique.
At the same time we need not consider that the technique was used to any large extent,
simply because it had found its way into the handbooks. Technically the walls of Heraclea-
ad-Latmum, of the early third century B.c. are not influenced by the discoveries made at
Tyre. In fact they conform more to the out-moded local tradition typified by the walls of
Halikarnassos and other Hekatomnid walls. To the Greeks of Greece and Asia Minor the
technique was foreign, and non-traditional, and, if yV'`osT was interpreted as gypsum,
particularly practical where the climate was not predominantly dry.17
It seems clear that Greek structura walls, using mortar, are to be regarded rath
theoretical in origin. This, I think, is borne out by their character, as Vitruvius describ
them. They seem, in fact, to be walls in which the mortar plays a subsidiary, no
essential part, to strengthen, rather than to hold together. As Vitruvius emphasises, th
are quite capable of standing even when their mortar has dried out and crumbled; t
as we have seen, the reason he approves of them. But this very fact suggests in turn th
their original form these walls did not make use of mortar at all, that they are simply
stone walls which the theoretical writers of the Hellenistic period thought suitabl
adaptation to mortar walls. In this they show a marked contrast to the Roman mo
technique, which seems to be a purely natural development, by a system of trial and er
free from outside influence. A Roman mortar wall would certainly not be stable wi
its mortar.
This dry-stone origin seems particularly appropriate to emplekton walls. From com-
paratively early times it was quite a usual practice for the Greeks to build fortification walls
with faces of worked-or, at least, carefully fitted-stone, and a central fill of rubble and
clay. Thucydides i 93 refers to this technique in terms which imply that it was quite normal
in his time.18
Beginning in the fifth century, and developed more particularly in the fourth, we find
various attempts to overcome the chief weakness of such walls, that is, the basic instability
(once the clay had dried out) of the central fill. This, of course, was made all the more
necessary by the fourth-century developments in siege warfare. A good method of achieving
this was to bind the faces to the central core in some way or other, either with headers and
through-stones, or by constructing short cross walls running from face to face, dividing the
interior into a series of 'compartments'. This had the additional advantage of preventing
the collapse of large sections of the wall once a breach had been made. Another method
was to increase the stability of the core itself by using larger stones, laid in courses, rather
17 Caley and Richards, 215, note on section 65. of Cloud-cuckoo city in Aristophanes Birds 839,
IS ivds 6' ofte Xdt$ oi'e ur/6d ~v; i.e. this was
daAtKag GnapaWpdpet, rl72i6v daronog 'pyacaov.
the normal technique, cf. the building of the walls

This content downloaded from

5.77.91.191 on Sat, 13 May 2023 09:02:22 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 140 R. A. TOMLINSON
than rubble thrown in at random.19 All these f
walls20 and it seems only natural to relate the

them. Fv'rosn, in fact, simply replaces (theoret

I think we are justified in considering that the
construction, and that even though they did no
walls. I have already suggested that the name
surface pattern. When this is combined with
walls are theoretical in origin, and not describe
surface pattern could not have been seen on mo
name must have originated with dry-stone w
the name, which could with reason be appli
pattern, should have been restricted to walls wh
Hellenistic theoreticians. The same, of course, a
with the proviso that perhaps the exact significa
were, eludes us.
Great emphasis is often laid on Vitruvius as a
to stress that there are two sides to his work, ev
he had a practical purpose in mind. The two
essentially the result of practical experience
which Vitruvius had a very high respect, but wh
so much from Vitruvius' own personal know
technique, as from the writings of earlier Gr
sources it is virtually impossible to trace the ex
to his Hellenistic predecessors. The real importa
so much in the walls themselves as in the fact t
we are for once able to consider in a little more
R. A. TOMLINSON.
University of Birmingham.

19 So we have large stones, not rubble, used for the Athens, the diateichisma on the Pnyx
fill of the walls of the fourth-century fort at Phyle in (Hesperia xii 303 sq.);
Attica (Wrede, op. cit. in n. 6), while IG ii2 244, the Chalkis, Aetolia (Woodhouse, Aetolia I Io);
specification for the fortifications at Eetioneia and Sounion, the 'Granary' (Wrede, Attische
Mounychia, states categorically that the rubble must Mauern 37);
be removed from inside the round tower, and replaced Gortys in Arcadia (R. Martin, BCH
by stones greater than a certain minimum size. lxxi/lxxii 120).
20 Some examples: (iii) Walls with coursed, large stone fill:
(i) Headers, stretchers (and through-stones) with Phyle (Wrede, loc. cit.; Siiflund, Opusc.
rubble fill: Arch. i 98).
Assos (Clarke et al., Investigations at Assos,(iv) Experimental walls:
189); Corinth, E. city wall (Parsons, Corinth iii 2
Magnesia ad Maeandrum (Humann, Mag- Appendix A 282), fill of unbaked mud-
nesia 19). brick; W. long wall (ibid., 93), fill of
(ii) 'Compartment' walls with rubble fill: packed earth.

This content downloaded from

5.77.91.191 on Sat, 13 May 2023 09:02:22 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms