is. The history of those straight and massive walls does not yet concern us, except in so far as it makes us realise that they are artificial in plan, and do not follow the natural contours of the hill. The rock is, however, naturally precipitous on all sides except the west. The south side must always have been practically inaccessible; but there are some difficult approaches on the north that were in part utilised for posterns. At either side, east and west, there was a shallow depression in the middle, facilitating a possible access.

The oldest works of fortification are still standing in some places. The story goes that the early Athenians employed the Pelasgians to fortify the Acropolis for them with those gigantic walls, of which some remains are still to be seen. In size and character these walls are similar to the fortifications of Tiryns and of Mycenæ.

In the case of both these towns also the building of the walls is attributed to a foreign people; the foreigners, however, are not the Pelasgians, but the Cyclopes, a race of mythical giants from Lycia. The divergence of tradition is a curious one; for the primitive walls of all three cities are associated with fragments of pottery and other remains which all testify to a similar civilisation and handicraft. Under these circumstances the attribution of the building of the walls to a foreign people in each case, but to different foreigners, seems to imply nothing more than that the matter was mystery to the later inhabitants, and is of no more historical value than the attribution of somewhat similar megalithic monuments to giants or to the devil with

which we are familiar in northern Europe. Of course the whole question of the Pelasgians in early Greece cannot be dismissed so lightly; but the tradition of their building the walls of the Acropolis is precisely analogous to the similar tradition about the Cyclopes from Lycia at Mycena and Tiryns; and that tradition has not as yet

received any confirmation from archæological evidence, though it would be rash, in view of the unexpected and startling discoveries of recent years, to deny that such evidence may possibly be discovered by future investigation. We shall come across the Pelasgians again at Athens, and especially in relation to the Pelasgicon, or Pelargicon, which was probably a kind of outwork at

the west end of the Acropolis. But, in relation to the great fortification wall that crowned the craggy summit of the Acropolis, this name gives us little help.

The fortification, as has been said, follows the natural contours of the rock much more closely than the later wall; and its chief purpose was evidently defence. Its course may be followed on the plan; it survives on the south, east, and west sides in fragments that suffice to indicate its whole run. On the north side its position is more conjectural, chiefly because the later wall in this part follows the natural contours more closely, and therefore conceals its predecessors. The shallow depression in the rock at the east end is cut off by a massive wall,

built right across it, of which the lower courses still survive. Indeed, the early fortress must practically have presented the appearance of a large tower at each corner. The main entrance, as in later times, was at the west end, and was flanked, as is usual in early Greek fortresses, by a projecting bastion on its left, to which the right or shieldless side of an attacking enemy must be exposed. In addition to the main entrance, there was a postern approached by a long internal staircase, toward the eastern portion of the north side, in a position analogous to the posterns of Mycena and Tiryns. There is also another very curious means of access, concealed in a natural cave, which is of great interest in later times; but there is nothing to show whether it was taken into account in the earliest fortifications.

At the west end, in front of the main entrance, was a kind of terraced outwork called the Pelasgicon, or Pelargicon; it was also known as the Enneapylon, or enclosure of the Nine Gates. How these gates were placed there is no definite evidence; but the most probable conjecture is that they were set one within another in a series of bastions or terraces; a strong confirmation. of this view is to be found in the Frankish and Turkish fortifications of this same slope, which have now been entirely demolished. These fortifications certainly did not follow the lines of the primitive ones, of which all trace had disappeared and all tradition was lost; but they were dictated by similar conditions; and old plans of the Acropolis show that in Turkish times the ap

proach led gradually up to gate within gate, just as it must have done in the old Pelasgic outwork. Why it was called the Pelasgicon or Pelargicon is a very obscure question.

The name may

be due to the

tradition

same

that

attributed

the walls of the

Acropolis to the
Pelasgians. But

the other form,
Pelargicon,

which is perhaps the better

at

place is not, indeed, in itself a likely one for storks to frequent; certainly none are to be seen there now. But several tribes of early Athens took their name from