|
Abdera
|
Crusader Port
|
Akko
|
|
Akko
|
Dover was a very important Roman government crossing point to the European mainland and it was heavily defended by the Roman navy, the Classis Britannica, who had built forts there in the late 1st and 2nd centuries. These were superseded in the late 3rd century by a Saxon Shore fort, one of a number of later Roman coastal forts around south-eastern England, suggesting that it was the base of a naval fleet that operated during the 4th century until the end of the Roman period in the early 5th century. |
Dover
|
There are two phases of Classis Britannica fort, each surrounded by a defensive stone wall rectangular in plan with rounded corners like a normal Roman military fort. The first fort was unfinished and was probably built not earlier than the late 1st century AD.
The forts include many bricks and tiles stamped CL.BR in their construction. The Saxon Shore fort also had a stone defensive wall, but was built in the late 3rd century. The complete shape of that fort has not yet been revealed. |
Dover
|
According to the ancient sources, the Spartans probably fortified Gytheion, as in 370BC, when the Spartan Epameinondas laid siege to the city was not able to destroy the Spartan ship-sheds. However, there is no archaeological evidence to support the existence of harbour fortifications. |
Gytheion
|
|
Halileis
|
The harbour of Lechaeon was, according to Strabo (VIII, 6, 22) and Xenophon (Hellenica, IV, 4, 5), well fortified and connected to the city of Corinth via ‘long walls’. The eastern portion of the long walls was discovered during the excavations of the American School of Classical Studies (Parsons 1932, 84-125). According to the excavation results, the wall reached the eastern side of the eastern harbour mound (Parsons 1932, Fig. 55). Segments of the west wall were discovered in 1906 by A. Skias, which terminated to the west of the harbour (Skias 1907, 145-166). The harbour was also fortified to the south, as mentioned by Diodorus Siculus (ΧΙV, 86, 4). These walls would have formed a protective ‘H’ shaped fortification on the three sides of the harbour of Lechaeon. It is also possible that the harbour was further fortified by a secondary wall facing the sea, and possibly north of the two mounds. There are still visible remains above the level of the eastern reinforcement wall, at the entrance to the harbour, that may well indicate this sea wall (Fig 11, 3). On the retaining wall of the western’s entrance channel may be seen, according to Pallas (Pallas 1969, 201), a cutting that resembles the niches for a bridge, or possibly a system for the blockage of the harbour. Today, only the grooves that once held the metal clamps, for the connection of the stone blocks, are visible, and can be dated to the first construction phase in the Archaic period. |
Lechaeon
|
|
Leptis-Magna
|
Although the city of Methoni was already fortified during the 5th century BC (Thucydides II.25) there is no positive evidence for the fortification of its harbour until the 15th century BC, when P. Bembo mentions that the Venetians undertook large-scale repairs at the fort and the moat. According to him the Venetians constructed a note-worthy fort at the harbour and created in the sea a dam, which did not let the hostile ships to sail near the city walls. However, they left a small gap that enabled the entrance of a single ship at a time, because for them it was easier to fight a single ship at a time, rather than a lot together (Lianos 1987, 132) According to Lianos (1987, 134), during the underwater survey a gap around 20m wide was located, cut on small lime-stone reefs, on the southern end of the ancient mole, while the fort mentioned in the literature, can probably be identified with an earlier construction phase of the fort, now called Bourtzi. |
Methoni
|
![]() Il porto non ebbe bisogno di essere difeso fino a quando le trasformazioni avviate in tutto l’impero all’inizio del IV secolo incominciarono a ripercuotersi su Roma con una serie di problemi, fra cui quello sostanziale del rifornimento dei generi di prima necessità. Proprio per questa ragione Costantino concesse a Porto, per la sua funzione di deposito annonario, il titolo di civitas e l’autonomia amministrativa da Ostia. ![]() ![]() ![]() Il tracciato delle mura era irregolare perché seguiva una linea spezzata imposta dalla funzionalità: ne rimasero fuori le strutture del porto di Claudio e alcuni edifici di diversa natura. Secondo il sistema tardoantico, per la costruzione si sfruttarono in tutto o in parte alcune preesistenze, che in qualche caso sembravano avere conservato la funzione originaria (per esempio i magazzini cd. severiani). Successivamente, l’aggravarsi della situazione di Roma, con il conseguente calo demografico, e l’intensificazione delle scorrerie resero più prudente il trasporto immediato delle derrate in città, evitando il più possibile gli immagazzinamenti, sempre più difficili da difendere. In quest’ultima fase all’interno del primo circuito di mura se ne eresse un secondo (settore sudorientale), di fatto un vero e proprio castello fortificato a difesa della Fossa Traiana, unico accesso a Roma per via fluviale dopo l’intasamento del Tevere, e secondariamente di quanto rimaneva ancora in funzione dei vecchi impianti. ![]() Le attività residue si concentrarono in questo settore, che sarebbe rimasto fino al medioevo inoltrato il solo nucleo operativo, mentre gli edifici esterni alle mura furono progressivamente abbandonati. Scavi recenti vi hanno infatti evidenziato numerose sepolture non facilmente databili, ma certo successive al V secolo. |
Ostia-Traiano
|
|
Piraeus
|
The naval zone was separated from the rest of the city –in the same way it did in Cantharus’ port – with an enclosure that run across its whole length at a distance of 50m from the coastline, serving in the same time, as the closed wall of the ship sheds’ narrow side. |
Piraeus
|
The gates are the most ancient feature of the Piraeus fortifications while different phases of construction can be identified in the surviving towers. In the remains of the towers that form the western gate, the round towers are attributed to the Themistoclean phase and the reconstruction by rectangular ones to that of Conon. From the walls that surrounded the city from the north, continued on the coastline and extended over the harbour entrances (as it has been described for each pot separately) the westward line of the northern wall, towards the Eetioneian coast, has been confirmed by a series of excavations retaining its solid construction and its width.
The coastal walls that surrounded the peninsula of Piraeus are preserved today in quite good condition and to a length of approximately 2.5 kilometers from the entrance of the port of Zea to the entrance of Cantharus. The walls constructed by Themistocles (493-404 B.C.) were shorter in length than the surviving Cononian walls that were extended in order to cover the entire, perimeter of the peninsula, and avoid any possibility of landing. The cononian walls were constructed at a distance of 20-40m from the sea and was a lot narrower (3.10-3.40m) than that of the northern fortification of the city and the solid construction of the former was replaced by the "emplecton" method according to which, the two sides of the wall are constructed with blocks of carved stone and the inner part is filled with mud and rocks.
|
Piraeus
|
The military port was enclosed in ancient times within a marine wall, which formed part of the land wall. During the excavation a segment of the Byzantine wall was located 0.50m under the sea surface at the SE cove of the port. It was established that the foundation lies on top of the foundation fill of the ancient wall. Two segments were revealed, the first is made of three layers of transversal and horizontal limestone blocks, 4m wide, the second segment 1m underneath the foundation of the Byzantine wall is made of 17 transversal limestone blocks in two layers, 13m long. The second segment is thought to be the outer face of the marine wall that closed from the south the ancient military port. |
Samos
|
In the area between the points D-F the excavators estimate that the continuation of the marine wall is to be found and as a result they place the entrance of the port in the area between the points C-D. The restricted opening of the entrance at this point, namely 20m, would also account for the use of the term ‘kleistos’, translated enclosed or closable, in the ancient sources. It is very usual at this period to place the entrance of the military ports at an angle. On the side of the ancient agora the excavators place another stress of the wall that separated it from the harbour area and through gates communicated with it. During the Early Christian Times the plan of the port changes and the entrance is shifted to the point where it stands today. During this period a new part of the mole is constructed (points C-D and D-E) from architectural members in second use and roughly made columns. Its one end (point E), underneath the modern red light, is made of spolia joint with hydraulic concrete and is founded on an ancient construction, which consists of transversal and horizontal stone blocks joint with axe tenons (two have preserved the lead fill). Lasting the excavation the already known mole of the commercial port, situated outside the fortification wall, was partially explored. It follows an E-W direction, is 115m long and 18-30m wide. At its W end it forms a semicircular area with a diameter of 20m. It is built with two rows of worked stone blocks, of greater size on the windward side, with central fill of marble and schist splinters. The superstructure is made of marble blocks, which were found misplaced or fallen on top of or round the mole. It is estimated that the mole was also fortified and that on the southern part there must have been a quay at the base of the fortification wall. The semicircular end is supposed to be a tower. During the Hellenistic period the fortification wall of the closed military harbour was reinforced with circular towers at its angles. The existence of three of these towers is archaeologically attested. They form part of the general reinforcement program of the city instigated by the progress made during this time in the besiege techniques. The tower at point G, with a diameter of 8m at its base, is preserved at the height of 6 layers made of marble blocks (height of layer from bottom to top: 0.40, 0.25, 0.15, 0.35 and 0.50m). Its interior has been filled with small stones and the excavators believe that there was no arrangement for interior free space. The tower was a donation of proxenos Heracleodoros, as is stated on an inscription associated with the building material of the tower (Et Thas V, 376). The tower at point B, 10m in diameter, is today submerged. It is preserved at a height of three layers made of trapezoidal schist blocks (average length 2m/0.50-0.80m and average height 0.30-0.45m) and is founded on small stones. The excavators have traced an entrance at the point of its joint with the wall of the 5th c BC, where a differentiation in the masonry is observed. The tower at point C, 9.60m in diameter, is preserved at a height of two layers in shallow water. It is built with schist blocks of similar dimensions to those of the tower at point B, the lower of which, 0.35m high, projects 010m. Its position was associated to the existence of the entrance of the harbour at that point. It is also suggested that towers B and C had interior arrangements for war machines, i.e. catapults etc. The existence of a tower at point F, which is mentioned in the preliminary reports of the excavation, is considered, according to new evidence yielded through additional research, to be uncertain. |
Thasos
|
|
Ventotene
|