A considerable amount of analysis has been undertaken on the defences at Dura and the evidence for the fall of the city to the Persians c. 256/257. The earliest attempt to provide a detailed analysis of the defences was made by Cumont, but the more detailed analysis undertaken by von Gerkan in the 1930s was the most comprehensive early contribution.296 Cumont attributed most of the construction of the defences to the early Seleucid period, but von Gerkan thought that the Parthians and Romans made considerable additions to them.297 Von Gerkan’s schema suggested that in the Seleucid period the west wall was built of mud brick with a stone socle, while the walls on the tops of the north and south wadis were built only of
Figure 4.28 Crenellations partly surviving adjacent to the remains of the Sasanian siege ramp constructed between towers 14 and 15.
Mudbrick.298 He concluded that the main (Palmyra) gate was built at a later stage. According to von Gerkan considerable work was done on the walls in the early Parthian period with the rebuilding of the towers and curtains in stone over the whole circuit wall. Later Parthian work on the walls saw the construction of internal walls in some of the towers and a strengthening of the socle of the west wall. The work of the Roman period was minimal, according to von Gerkan, until the very last years of the city’s existence. Earlier in the Roman period, the sentry-go was raised and stairs were built up to it with an unidentified structure built outside the Palmyra Gate. The most important Roman impact on the walls was the construction of enormous interior and exterior embankments against the west wall with interior embankments also built against the north and south walls. The embankments of the west wall were enlarged over a number of stages and mudbrick extensions were constructed along the top of the west wall.
It is now thought that the stone ramparts were mostly constructed in the late Seleucid period of control of Dura.299 This includes the construction of the Palmyra Gate.300 It seems that the Parthians did little to the walls during the period in which they controlled the city.301 A secondary gate in the west wall, approximately 70 metres to the south of the Palmyra Gate, shows evidence of mining and countermining that is attributed to the Roman capture of Dura c. 165.302 The Romans then repaired damage done to a section of the wall in the northern part of the west wall.303 The study of the work done on the breach indicates ongoing work on the west wall by the Romans, with the last evidence of this activity appearing to date to the reign of Severus Alexander on the basis of numismatic evidence.304
Figure 4.29 One of the mines built by the Sasanians under the west wall at Dura Europos and the assault ramp adjacent to tower 15.
The construction of the internal and external embankments against the walls belongs to the last months of the city’s existence when it came under threat of attack from the Sasanians. This is concluded on the basis of numismatic evidence. The suggestion of two sieges of Dura, one in 252/253 and the final one c. 256/257, is discussed in Chapter 3.
The construction of the embankments, and activity associated with the siege, has been discussed and analysed many times since the archaeological discoveries were first made in the 1930s; the details of these analyses are summarized well by James.305 Considerable reinterpretation of the Yale discoveries, combined with the more recent discoveries of the Franco-Syrian team, has shed much light on the details of the siege.306 Dura was not immediately abandoned by the Sasanians after its capture as there is some evidence for a brief Sasanian occupation of the city.307 The evidence from Dura confirms the broader literary evidence for the Persian invasions of the 250s, which indicates that the Sasanians did not retain the cities and territories they captured for very long. The siege evidence from Dura demonstrates that the garrison was well aware that the city’s defences were inadequate to meet an invading army, as the walls were effectively buried. This supports the idea that the Roman military presence on the middle Euphrates and Khabur rivers was not necessarily focused on defence against invasions.
World History
