The enclosure wall at Poliochne is a work of public character and of manifold importance, linked inextricably with the structures and the organization of the Early Bronze Age settlement.

It was brought to light in the course of the first excavations by the IASA, between 1933 and 1936, and was investigated in sections, which the excavators distinguished on the basis of differentiation of the masonry, change of direction, as well as the time of their uncovering. The best-preserved and most thoroughly investigated part of the enclosure wall, of length 130 m, surviving height 4.50 m and thickness ranging from 0.70 m to 2.80 m, is that which defines the west and south sides of the hill of Poliochne. Correspondingly, on the northeast and the east seaward side of the settlement only sporadic remnants of the enclosure wall have been revealed and it is still uncertain whether this side of the hill was delimited by a continuous enclosure wall or whether the sea functioned as a natural protective boundary, as is the rule. The possible course of the enclosure wall to the northwest is a matter for speculation, as this side of the settlement remains unexcavated.

The enclosure wall was first constructed during the Late Blue phase (EBA I, 2900-2700/2650 BC), which is when the settlement began to acquire its proto-urban organization and spatial planning. The building of the enclosure wall secured the creation of a new space for habitation, with the horizontal expansion of the settlement, and protected the hill from flooding by the torrents. Concurrently, it functioned as a retaining wall for the unstable west and south slopes of the hill.

In its first phase the enclosure wall was possibly double-faced, constructed in the so-called emplecton system: it has a carefully-built uniform superstructure, consisting of successive horizontal courses of oblong slab-like and cuboid stones, and clay mortar. In the same period, the casemate walls technique was applied in the construction of the enclosure, namely the creation of quadrilateral spaces reinforcing the slopes, such as the “Bouleuterion” and the “Granary”, formed on the southwest and the west side of the hill respectively. This technique, known in the Aegean region and the East Mediterranean, secured the creation of terraces upon which public or private buildings and fortifications were erected. Casemates are impressive public works of retaining function, which presuppose a high level of architectural planning and construction technology.

The second building phase of the enclosure wall corresponds to the period of the settlement’s heyday and expansion, mainly southwards and westwards, and dates from the Early Green phase to the Early/Middle Red (EBA ΙΙ/ΙΙΙ ca 2650-2200 BC). The enclosure wall does not appear to have had an inner face but to be interwoven with the architectural remains of the settlement. During this period new sections were built, a propylon was created and a central gate/entrance arranged, while the height and thickness of the existing sections, from the previous construction phase, were increased. This new building phase seems to have been determined largely by the need, once again, to create a new space for habitation, probably due to a population increase within the community, but also to the geological phenomenon of subsidence to the south and west. At first the enclosure wall continues to be distinguished by the excellent application of the emplecton system of construction but later this degenerates into a looser masonry.

After the end of the second building phase no other kind of technical intervention in the enclosure wall is observed, except for the building of some structures extra muros during the Yellow settlement phase (EBA ΙΙΙ 2200-2000/1900 BC). By this period the greater part of the enclosure wall had been buried from its outer south and west sides by the dense concentration of buildings now focused in the central sector of the settlement. Its function as a retaining-cum-fortification wall on this side of the settlement ceased and it was a barely visible architectural remnant, as a kind of spatial demarcation, without the practical use of a retaining wall.