Diateichisma

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Remains of the Diateichisma in Athens (near Pnyx )

A Diateichisma ( Greek  διατείχισμα "continuous wall", "separating wall") was a wall within the city in the ancient fortifications of the Greeks.

The word Diateichisma has no fixed German translation, otherwise the term could be too restricted. The Greek word διατείχισμα consists of the elements δια (between, through) and τείχισμα (castle, fortress or the listed wall). διατείχισμα can mean both separated and fortified space, wall between two places and transverse wall. A Diateichisma is a fortification wall that lies within the settlement area walled with the city ​​wall and divides it into two parts. Like the city wall, the Diateichisma also consists of the elements curtain wall , gate and tower. However, it does not have as many gates as a city wall and also has no exit gates . Thus it is not suitable to use an attack tactic in the event of an armed conflict, but was probably used as a passive defense mechanism, if used for fortification purposes. The alignment with the city wall is interesting, so that even with the Diateichisma there was an inner and an outer side due to the position of the towers and battlements within the city , so that there must definitely have been a hierarchy within the urban areas, since the inner side is essential offered more protection.

Sources about Diateichisma

In general, it can be said that Diateichisma appears as a word only in ancient Greek and Byzantine literature. This term was not adopted in Latin literature. In terms of content, Diateichisma is mainly used based on its main characteristic. So it stands above all for the separation of common things. It is interesting that the ancient authors often use the word as a metaphor. In this context, for example, the use of Diateichisma at Xenophon's “ Symposion ” should be mentioned, in which it can be interpreted as a barrier that restricts the ability to cognize. For Thucydides , the earliest mention of Diateichismata is available. He mainly uses the word to describe defensive structures. In the military context, mostly hastily erected, smaller protective walls, which are however often razed again in the following. In contrast to these short-term buildings mentioned by Thucydides, there are the Diateichismata that can be found in the Greek inscriptions. There they are described as high-quality buildings that have been planned for a long time and will last for a long time.

Groups of settlements

It can be said that the establishment of Diateichismata in chronological order in relation to the enclosing wall could have arisen either simultaneously with it or after it. Why this distinction needs to be made follows from the study of the development of the settlement area, "since the size and course of the fortifications determine the shape and extent of a settlement". So the Diateichisma settlements are divided into three groups, so that the function of the settlement sub-areas, as well as the expansion and reduction of settlements, can be examined. These three groups are settlements in which diateichismata were built with the walling, settlements with later diateichismas and settlements in which diateichismas arise through enlargement, i.e. a new city wall is placed in front of the old one so that the old one can now be viewed as diateichisma. The last two groups are both cities in which a Diateichisma will not be built until later, but this forms an independent group through city expansion, since this is not a self-sufficient wall. Diateichismata from the 7th to the 2nd century BC To settle. Their heyday, however, is in the 4th and 3rd centuries BC. In spite of everything, it must of course also be mentioned that all of this can only be said with reservations. Most of the dates are very vague and, unless evidenced epigraphically or in another form in writing, can only be expressed as a presumption. The problem also lies in the fact that archaeological almost no Diateichisma can be grasped, since most of them have been razed over time.

The relationship between Diateichisma and the form of settlement

When looking at the relationship between Diateichisma and the form of settlement, it can be seen that Diateichismata, although they primarily had fortification functions, are not only to be found in military facilities because of this, but also or predominantly in poleis without military use. It is interesting that Diateichisma settlements generally have a differentiated settlement area. This naturally leads to the question of whether one can infer the political status of a settlement based on the existence of a Diateichisma. When looking at the civil poleis one can see that Diateichisma can only be established if political independence can be postulated. Should the independence be lost, the Diateichisma is usually not destroyed. When political independence was regained, however, it was mostly razed because the presumably changing leadership wanted to remove the Diateichisma as a symbol of the old rulers from the cityscape. This makes it clear that a Diateichism was also considered a sign of autonomy and power. In the event of a military conflict, however, the outer fortifications were mostly razed as this was considered a loss of independence. In this respect, a Diateichisma cannot be used as a guarantee or as a sign of autonomy.

The fortificatory function of Diateichismata

As already mentioned in the previous sections, Diateichismata primarily have fortificatory functions. The aim is to prevent enemies who have already broken through the outer city walls from advancing within the urban area. In the case of settlements of the first type, it can be assumed that the builders were aware that they had to protect their city better against attacks and conflicts with the effects of violence and that a diateichism was established at the same time. Therefore the fortification function will have played a decisive role, especially when it was built at the same time. In general, it can be said that these settlements were primarily logistically significant points, which were increasingly threatened by aggressors due to their important function. Since the outer areas were mostly only sparsely built up and definitely played a very minor role in comparison to the area closed by Diateichisma, it can be assumed that in times of crisis the protected areas are to be seen as retreat areas in which the residents could seek protection. As a result, the first type almost exclusively contains diateichismata, which are built in strategically favorable positions. Strategic positions, along ridges of hills or below hills, were predominantly chosen. Fortificatory functions can also be assumed in the case of Diateichismata that were subsequently established in order to secure preferred settlement areas. In some settlements it can be seen that the settlement area, which is not enclosed by Diateichisma, has been abandoned. However, complete settlement tasks are rather difficult to prove in the archaeological evidence. These settlement tasks can result, among other things, from the need to save costs or personnel. A. Sokolicek postulates a reduction in the size of the settlement area in order to save costs and personnel for Miletus , Theangela and Herakleia on the Latmos , although these are in turn only assumptions. The fortificatory function of the Diateichisma differs in these cities from those of the first type, since here the complete defense function is taken over exclusively by the Diateichisma. For Diateichisma in the case of city expansion, which were not explicitly rebuilt, the guarantee of defensive strength can be assumed as a function. In addition, the newly won areas were secured by walls, which, however, usually do not have such a high-quality construction.

Diateichismata as a barrier between different population groups

Due to the occurrence of Diateichismata in settlements and regions with populations of different origins, AW Lawrence concludes, using the example of Ai Khanoum , that Diateichismata also functioned as “ethnic boundaries”. So Diateichismata are also used in inner-city conflicts to separate the different parties. An example of this is the Diateichisma in Notion , which separated sympathizers of the Persians from their opponents. This has come down to us through Thucydides. This Diateichisma cannot be clearly identified in the archaeological evidence. AW Lawrence also cites Histria as another example , in which there is a separation of “Greek and Dacian inhabitants” through a Diateichisma. However, one should not succumb to the fallacy that a Diateichisma in a settlement with different ethnological populations is generally a sign of inner-city conflicts and participation or segregation. It may well happen that in settlements with Diateichisma of the first type, different population groups lived there from the beginning, so that they only asserted their right to their own fortification.

Relationship between urban space and Diateichisma

First of all, it should be said that not every Diateichisma has a formal relationship between the wall and the urban space, but that there is nevertheless a correlation between settlement behavior and the fortifications. So it can be determined that in cities or settlements with Diateichisma there are no completely equal parts of the city on both sides of the Diateichisma, but the part protected by the Diateichisma houses the more important facilities or buildings higher in the urban hierarchy, which the survival of the residents secure, such as B. Well systems or food depots. The archaeological findings show that house architecture and fountains, for example, are increasingly found in the area separated from Diateichisma. In this context, for example, Syracuse or Samos should be mentioned. However, public buildings are also separated from the remaining residential buildings by diateichismata. Examples of this can be found in Appolonia in Illyria , in Velia, or in Halos. In port cities on rivers or the sea, it is noticeable that the mercantile areas around the port, which served as a transshipment point for goods, are often demarcated with a diateichism. A. Sokolicek suggests that this demarcation served to ensure that goods did not enter the city unseen and thus duty-free. He cites Lissos and Piraeus as examples , with the demarcated trading area near Piraeus also being handed down in writing by Xenophon . In Rhodes , too , a Diateichisma has been handed down in writing in the port area of Diodorus . After the attack by Demetrios I Poliorketes in 305 BC Have been erected. Due to the detailed description of Diodorus, the Diateichisma can be located as a separating wall between a smaller and a larger port. The function of the smaller port as a military port and the larger as a commercial port has also been handed down, so that Diateichisma takes on a separating function between civil and military areas.

The role of Diateichismata in urban planning

The Diateichisma had to be planned very carefully as it was a strongly defensive fortification building, which in this respect managed without many gates and gates. As a result, such a building also had an impact on the residents. On the one hand, the defensive position of a settlement was sustainably strengthened by the construction and the deterrent factor increased, but on the other hand it also prevented rapid communication between the city quarters. The traffic and trade routes were also severely restricted. The construction was also not easy to implement. In Troizen , for example , which was threatened by an aggressor, the construction of the Diateichisma was approved by an epidosis decree, which made the expropriation of property possible. In Velia, on the other hand, external experts from Stymphalos had to be called in, as the course of the Diateichisma could not be clarified independently due to disputes over property. We know this through a decree of honor in which the residents thank them for the help of the external experts. These examples show that the construction of a Diateichisma always required considerable planning and is closely linked to the design of the settlement and the topography.

Reasons for the establishment of Diateichismata

Diateichismata were used, among other things, to reduce settlements. However, the question arises why such a downsizing of the settlement might have been necessary. At this point it is to be noted, especially at the beginning of the Hellenistic period, that a large number of settlements shrank to a much smaller settlement area. In this context, Herakleia, Miletus or Athens should be mentioned as examples. But Selinunt also stayed with the reconstruction after its destruction in 409 BC. BC by the Carthaginians "restricted to a small part of the old city". All of this points to a demographic decline, coupled with cost-cutting measures. The costs of Diateichismata with settlement downsizing could be kept within limits, since the old settlement areas were often given up and the old walls could be razed and used for Diateichisma. Furthermore, staff was saved by reducing the wall. However, settlement growth can also be seen in some areas at the same time. This growth goes hand in hand with the process of synoikism , among other things . As an example, Tanais and Histria assume that locals settled outside the city gates. A proasteion thus formed in front of the city . These “suburbs” were then mostly incorporated into the city and received their own city wall.

literature

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Sokolicek 2009, 13th
  2. ↑ Sokolicek 2009, 9.
  3. ↑ Sokolicek 2009, 15th
  4. ↑ Xen. Symp. 5.6.
  5. ↑ Sokolicek 2009, 16th
  6. ↑ Sokolicek 2009, 19.
  7. ↑ Sokolicek 2009, 25-28.
  8. ↑ Lawrence 1979, 133.
  9. ↑ Sokolicek 2009, 30.
  10. ↑ Ibid.
  11. ↑ Lawrence 1979, 149.
  12. ↑ Thuk 34, 3, 2.
  13. ↑ Lawrence 1979, 149.
  14. ↑ Diodor, Bibliothéke historiké 20,85,4.
  15. ^ Diodorus 20, 86, 1.
  16. ↑ Inscriptiones Graecae VII 317, 1, 26.
  17. ↑ Sokolicek 2009, 38.
  18. ↑ Mertens 2003, 252.
  19. ↑ Lawrence 1979, 150.