Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T16:13:45.540Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Excavations at Carthage, 1975: Second Interim Report

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 November 2011

Henry Hurst
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

In the second season of excavation by a British team participating in the UNESCO Save Carthage project it was found that the topography of the island in the circular harbour underwent a radical change in the fourth century B.C., after which there appear to have been first timber and then stone ship-sheds and other installations associated with the Punic naval harbour. The Roman quaysides were found both on the island and on the mainland and much new information obtained, partly from underwater survey, about the bridge or causeway which linked the island with the mainland. A reconstruction was attempted of the presumed Roman pharos. Apart from modern features, the latest stage in the archaeological sequence on the island was a series of burials in stone cists at the centre and another, of apparently uncoffined inhumations, at the north edge, both groups dating not earlier than the sixth century A.D. On the Circular Harbour, North Side an 18 m.-wide strip was cleared across the insula between kardines XV and XVI and north of the quay wall, but excavation of the stratigraphical sequence is still in its early stages. At the Avenue Habib Bourguiba, Salammbo, immediately north of the city wall a sequence of a building, probably of the sixth–early seventh century A.D., followed by a period of burials, followed by another building, may span the change from the Byzantine to the Arab occupation of Carthage. South of the city wall there are signs of a metalled berm and defensive ditch, which could belong to the time of Belisarius, the presumed ditch being at least partly filled in before the construction of a building aligned on the so-called Gracchan centuriation.

Type
Articles
Information
The Antiquaries Journal , Volume 56 , Issue 2 , September 1976 , pp. 177 - 197
Copyright
Copyright © The Society of Antiquaries of London 1976

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 177 note 1 The first interim report, on the 1974 excavations, was published in Antiq. Journ. lv (1975), 11–40.Google Scholar

page 177 note 2 Their 1973 survey was published in The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology and Underwater Exploration, iv (1975), 85Google Scholar ff.; preliminary summary of the 1975 work in Ibid. v (1976), 173–5; further report forthcoming Ibid.

page 178 note 1 Ant. Journ. lv (1975), 22.Google Scholar

page 178 note 2 Ibid., 17–18.

page 180 note 1 From samples taken along its length it can be described as basically a marine sand with a small proportion of fine silt. Although the particle size distribution in all the samples was uniform, and therefore appropriate to a layer formed in natural conditions, it seems most probably to be an artificially redeposited layer on account of its archaeological context.

page 180 note 2 All pottery identifications and dates kindly supplied by members of the ceramic unit.

page 181 note 1 Antiq. Journ. lv (1975), 20–2.Google Scholar

page 181 note 2 Bulletin Archéologique du Comité (1909), pl. vi.

page 182 note 1 On the Circular Harbour North Side this was widened to 140–50 cm. opposite the ends of the two kardines; in the south-east part of the Ilôt de l'Amirauté there was a similar widening for a length of c. 3 m.

page 182 note 2 See Bartoccini, R., Il porto romano di Leptis Magna (Rome, 1958), fig. 2.Google Scholar

page 182 note 3 See the account in the previous report, op. cit., 25–7.

page 185 note 1 Ibid., 27–9.

page 185 note 2 Ibid., 29. For Dover see Arch. Journ. lxxxvi (1929), 29–46.Google Scholar

page 186 note 1 Debergh, J., ‘Le port punique de Carthage sur une intaille du musée du Bardo ?’ in Latomus, xxxiv (1975), 212–20. For the original discovery see Bulletin de la Societé nationale des Antiquaires de France (1922), 292–5.Google Scholar

page 186 note 2 Drawing of the gem in Bull. Soc. Ant. (op. cit.) reproduced by Debergh (op. cit.) and by Cintas (op. cit. below); photograph of original with further note by Debergh in Latomus (forthcoming).

page 186 note 3 Op. cit. Dr. M. Henig kindly confirmed this and made other helpful observations.

page 186 note 4 Cintas, P., ‘Le Port de Carthage’: extrait du Manuel d'Archéologie Punique, ii (Paris, 1973), pp. 41–6.Google Scholar

page 186 note 5 It might be argued that the scene is a view northward from the bay of Kram with a large rectangular structure on the Quadrilateral of Falbe in the foreground.

page 186 note 6 See the reconstruction, Bartoccini, op. cit., tav. B (opposite p. 92).

page 186 note 7 Meiggs, R., Roman Ostia (1956), pl. XVIII.Google Scholar

page 186 note 8 Op. cit.

page 186 note 9 On these, see particularly Libya Antiqua, v (1968), 45–54.Google Scholar

page 186 note 10 It is shown in Merlin's plan in B.A.C. (1909), pl. VI.

page 186 note 11 Antiq. Journ. lv (1975), 26, fig. 9.Google Scholar

page 187 note 1 Ibid., 30.

page 188 note 1 Including F. 478, not shown on the present plan.

page 188 note 2 The Period 1 construction of pier F. 476 was traced down to –2.5 m. (below present sea level), The bottom of the harbour adjacent to this is currently at –1.5 m.; the probe penetrated soft deposits for a further 2·5 m. below this, but these may post-date the recent dredging.

page 189 note 1 There was generally a gap of some 16 cm. between the planking and the side of the Period 1 pier, presumably because at a lower level the prefabricated timberwork directly abutted the Period 1 offset. But at the southern face of the pier the mortar continued up to the Period 1 masonry, sealing in the broken ends of the planks.

page 189 note 2 Antiq. Journ. lv (1975), 19, 22, 25.Google Scholar

page 189 note 3 Ibid., 26–7.

page 190 note 1 This assumes the upper offset was intended to be visible: it is difficult to be certain because of probable disturbance during dredging.

page 190 note 2 Fouilles à Carthage (Paris, 1861), pp. 87–118.Google Scholar

page 190 note 3 Ibid., p. 98.

page 191 note 1 For last year's results see Antiq. Journ. lv (1975), 30–2.Google Scholar

page 193 note 1 Ibid., 33, fig. 12.

page 193 note 2 I am indebted to Prof. A. Carandini for his comments. A full study of the head will appear in the final report.

page 194 note 1 Antiq. Journ. lv (1975), 36 and fig. 13.Google Scholar

page 196 note 1 Ch. Julien's, André statement (Histoire de l'Afrique du nord, Paris, 1931, p. 323) that Carthage was more or less deserted when the Arabs took it refers to the situation after the population had fled the approaching army.Google Scholar