THE CANAL OF XERXES IN NORTHERN GREECE: FACT OR FICTION? RECENT GEOPHYSICAL AND GEOARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS

• B. S. J. Isserlin (University of Leeds, UK)
• M. Arvanitis (Geodynamics Institute, National Observatory of Athens, Athens, Greece)
• R. E. Jones (Department of Archaeology, University of Glasgow, UK)
• V. Karastathis (Geodynamics Institute, National Observatory of Athens, Athens, Greece)
• St. P. Papamarinopoulos (Laboratory of Geophysics, Section of applied Geology and Geophysics, Department of Geology, University of Patras, 261 10 Patras, Greece)
• P. Stephanopoulos (Laboratory of Geophysics, Section of applied Geology and Geophysics, Department of Geology, University of Patras, 261 10 Patras, Greece)
• G. Syrides (Department of Geology, University of Thessaloniki, 540 06 Thessaloniki, Greece)
• J. Uren (Department of Civil Engineering, University of Leeds, UK)

(authors' names are in alphabetical order, apart from the first author)

The ancient Greek historian Herodotus describes how a canal was constructed in northern Greece on the orders the Persian King Xerxes in around 480 BC to allow the Persian fleet safe passage into the Aegean in advance of its invasion of Greece; he records that it was some 2 km long and was wide enough for two triremes to pass side by side. If this account is true, its construction must have been a remarkable engineering operation for its time. Until now, no archaeological fieldwork has been carried out to verify whether indeed it was a canal, or whether, as some have postulated, there was instead a slipway (diolkos) across the isthmus.

Over the last decade a British-Greek team has carried out a non-invasive investigation at the supposed site of the canal (on the Athos peninsula of the Chalkidiki) to resolve this question. Geophysical and topographic surveys and analysis of sediments from boreholes have demonstrated the veracity of Herodotus' account: the powerful combination of seismic refraction survey in conjunction with sediment analysis revealed the presence of a canal now buried some 15 m below present ground surface; the canal seems to have been short lived (Jones et al 2000; Karastathis et al 2001).

This paper has two main aims: first to demonstrate the role of integrated input from geophysical survey and analysis of sediments from cores, and second to present the results of the last phase of the project. In the latter, seismic survey again coupled with sediment analysis found no obstacle to the canal meeting the sea at its southern end, contrary to one ancient writer who recounts that the ground was too rocky to allow construction of the canal there. At the northern end of the canal, a 3-D and 2-D seismic refraction tomography survey successfully detected the canal, following a course that differs from that expected. This course is compared with what is observed in a LANDSAT image of the area.

R.E. Jones, B.S.J. Isserlin, V. Karastathis, S.P. Papamarinopoulos, G.E. Syrides, J. Uren, with I. Balatsas and Ch. Kapopoulos, 2000, Exploration of the Canal of Xerxes, Northern Greece: the role of geophysical and other techniques, Archaeological Prospection, 7, 147-170.

V. Karastathis, S.P. Papamarinopoulos and R.E. Jones, 2001, 2-D Velocity structure of the buried ancient canal of Xerxes: an application of seismic methods in archaeology, Journal of Applied Geophysics 47-1, 29-43.