Post on 16-May-2023
1
Excavations at Utica by the Tunisian-British Utica
Project 2012
Elizabeth Fentress
Faouzi Ghozzi
Josephine Quinn
Andrew Wilson
2
Excavations at Utica by the Tunisian-British Utica Project 2012
Elizabeth Fentress, Faouzi Ghozzi, Josephine Quinn, and Andrew Wilson,
with contributions by Maxine Anastasi, Matthew Hobson, Victoria Leitch, Geoffrey
Morley, Nicholas Ray, Candace Rice, Erica Rowan, Ben Russell and Nichole Sheldrick
Introduction
The second season of the Utica project, a collaboration between the Tunisian Institut
National du Patrimoine and the University of Oxford, directed by (in alphabetical
order) Elizabeth Fentress, Faouzi Ghozzi, Josephine Quinn and Andrew Wilson, took
place from 31st
August to 29th
September 2012, followed by a 4-day geological coring
season, jointly with Jean-Philippe Goiran’s geological team, Hakim Abichou, Imed
Ben Jerbania, Ouafa Ben Slimane and Jean-Yves Monchambert, to determine the
topography of the ancient shoreline. This report summarises the excavations; the
coring will be reported on separately.
The project aims to investigate the urban development and economy of Utica
through a combination of topographic survey, geophysics, coring, excavation,
pottery studies and structural survey. A 2-week pilot season in 2010 laid the
groundwork for our excavations in 2012, establishing a new and more accurate plan
of the city, and demonstrating the potential of geophysical survey to contribute to
understanding city layout and topography.1
In 2012 our project focused on four excavation areas (work in Area 1, investigated in
2010, was not further pursued). Area 2 included a large public building of the Roman
period, almost certainly the city’s basilica, whose foundations cut through earlier
levels, and which was demolished in the late Roman period, with early Islamic
occupation overlying part of it. In Area 3, the Maison du Grand Oecus, work
concentrated on understanding and exposing part of the range of rooms to the north
of the peristyle, partially excavated in the 1950s, with the eventual aim of obtaining
information about the nature and dating of the abandonment of the house and in
preparation for its conservation and presentation to the public. New areas of
excavation were opened up in Area 4, to investigate the urban context of a
topographic feature thought possibly to be a rampart, and where geophysical survey
in 2010 had suggested there might be a kiln; and in Area 5, a complex of tanks
identified on Lézine’s plan as cisterns, but identified in 2010 as fish-salting vats, with
the aim of resolving this question.
1 N. Kallala, E. Fentress, J. Quinn and A. Wilson (2011). Survey and Excavation at Utica 2010. Available
at http://www.academia.edu/1439423/Survey_and_excavation_at_Utica_2010.
3
Area 2: The Basilica2
Elizabeth Fentress, Faouzi Ghozzi, Benjamin Russell
Excavations north of the Decumanus
In 2010, excavations north of the road surface running across the middle of Area 2
exposed the remains of a small early Medieval building, Building 2, sitting on top of
the remains of a much larger Roman structure, Building 1. This earlier building
comprised a wide central nave—now represented by the compact mortar surface,
north of our trench—which was surrounded by a double row of walls, robbed out by
two major robber trenches; these trenches measure roughly 2.50–3 m and 3.50 m
wide respectively, and are 3–3.25 m apart. Between them a mortar preparation
surface for paving was discovered. The working hypothesis is that the inner trench
was dug for the removal the foundations and stylobate of an interior colonnade of
Building 1, while the external one follows the line of the outer wall of the building.
The complex clearly extended to the south, however, where another mortar
preparation surface was discovered, measuring roughly 4 m north–south, separated
from the road by a narrow robber trench approximately 1.50 m wide. At the
moment it is thought that this structure might represent a portico running along the
south side of Building 1, which is perhaps the civil basilica of Utica.
In 2012, work in this area focused on excavating Building 2 and emptying the three
robber trenches associated with the spoliation of Building 1, so as to understand the
original form and final destruction of this monumental structure.
The earliest levels exposed this season were found in the central robber trench,
which cut through some sort of mudbrick structure, with an associated floor located
approximately 0.80 m below the floor of Building 1. Further work in this area in 2012
allowed a number of observations to be made about these features. First, it was
discovered that the mudbrick layer, in the north section of this sondage is in fact a
truncated wall, [2101], at least three courses of which are complete (fig. 1). The
mudbricks used vary in size but are on average 0.25–0.30 m long, 0.15 cm high and
wide. This wall is aligned roughly west-northwest–east-southeast, slightly differently
from the later wall of Building 1 which is closer to east–west. The pale lime surface
identified in the previous season appears, then, to have been a floor associated with
this portion of extant mudbrick wall. This floor surface has not been excavated, but a
fragment of black-glazed fine ware found embedded between two mud bricks has
been tentatively dated to between the fifth and third century BC. This structure is
not the only one revealed in the robber trench. At its eastern end two low walls
2 The team excavating the site included Elizabeth Fentress, Faouzi Ghozzi, Ben Russell, Ismahen Ben Barka, Besma
Huiji, Mouna Hbachi and Julia Nikolaus.
4
Figure 1. Mud brick wall [2101] on the north side of the construction trench for the basilica wall.
(EF)
meeting at a right angle were exposed. Constructed of mudbrick or pisé on a stone
base, these walls were cut by the construction trench of Building 1. Although work in
this area is still on-going, initial examination of the northern section revealed the
truncated walls and floor surfaces of at least three other earlier structures,
destroyed when Building 1 was built. All of these had mudbrick or pisé walls, though
none were as well-preserved as [2101]. Documenting these remains further will be a
project for next season.
The earliest features of Building 1 still extant are the preparation layers of the floor
surfaces (fig. 2). These are all constructed in a similar way out of mortared rubble.
On top of these, degraded mortar surfaces were found. A few fragments of paving
slabs, in grey limestone, were found in place, while the imprints of slabs could be
seen in the mortar surface. These marks indicate that the paving slabs were on
average 1–1.25 m wide and 1.60–2.10 m long, slightly smaller than the slabs used for
the road surface. Interestingly, though, these two interior surfaces lie at roughly the
same height above sea level as the exterior road surface.
Deposits found on top of the floors tell us something about the abandonment and
destruction of Building 1. The surviving fragments of paving were found beneath
large pieces of fallen granite column. It had evidently been too difficult to move these
5
Figure 2. The three robber trenches of the basilica's southern wall, partially excavated at
the end of 2012. (EF)
heavy obstructions to get at the paving below, indicating that the stripping of these
slabs occurred only once the building had collapsed. Layers of ashy rubble,
containing large quantities of pottery, were found on the stripped mortar surfaces
which might represent working surfaces related to the first phase of spoliation of
Building 1, probably in the early Medieval period.
Although none of the walls of Building 1 survives, the location, width and depth of
the robber trenches in this area reveal a lot about the form of the structure and its
later destruction. Following the accumulation of the rubble layers, the earliest
feature that survives is the robber trench running along the north side of the road.
This trench cuts through the rubble layers, the mortar surfaces, and the preparation
layer, but as we will see is overlain by Building 2, which is clearly dated to the late 9th
century AD. This robber trench follows the line of a wall, running parallel to the road,
the foundations of which were built out of limestone ashlar blocks, several of which
remain in place. The fills of this robber trench are yellow and sandy and full of
architectural fragments, including pieces of pilaster, pilaster capital, cornice and
architrave blocks, capitals and wall revetment. The fact that this material was simply
discarded and then used as fill shows that in this early phase of spoliation it was
large blocks for building rather than raw material for lime production that were
being sought out. The dimensions of this robber trench and the ashlar blocks found
6
in it indicate that the removed wall was roughly the same size and form as the front
wall of the shops along the road to the east of our excavation area. This lends some
support to the theory that this was a portico wall, or perhaps the front wall of a row
of small units backing on to the load-bearing south wall of Building 1.
Not long after the back-filling of this trench a small structure was erected over it in
roughly the middle of our excavation area. This building, Building 2, had eastern and
western walls built out of re-used ashlar blocks and granite column fragments,
sitting on low pisé and rubble foundations. This structure probably backed to the
north onto the exterior wall of Building 1, while most of its southern wall, except for
one large column fragment, was removed by the cut made by later excavations along
the north side of the road. Despite these truncations this building is well preserved
(fig. 3). Its first floor was a thin lime plaster surface applied directly on top of the
cleared Roman preparation layer. The building was divided in two by a narrow
partition wall. To the north of this wall a square column fragment, 0.75 x 0.80 m, was
placed in the middle of the room, perhaps to act as a post support or a table. South
of this dividing wall a small hearth was excavated. The ceramics from this first phase
of habitation date predominantly to the 9th
century AD. A second phase of
occupation is revealed by a compact light grey layer containing abundant ash
deposits.
Figure 3. Building 2 from the south. (EF)
To the west of Building 2, a second structure was revealed, now known as Building 5.
The east wall of this building was again erected in a shallow foundation trench, cut
through the rubble and mortar layers down to the level of the Roman preparation
layer. The interior of this building will be explored further next season, but at least in
terms of its construction and level it would appear to be broadly contemporary with
Building 2.
7
Following its abandonment, Building 2 was covered by a succession of deposits,
There are no signs of intensive habitation at this level, except for a post hole, just
west of Building 2, and a shallow trench. These features could be contemporary with
the opening of the large robber trenches to the north.
The exact date of these northern robber trenches and the final phase of spoliation of
Building 1 remains uncertain. These robber trenches cut through all of the Roman
and post-Roman layers exposed to date and are overlain only by topsoil. Their size
and systematic character suggests that they could be as late as the early twentieth
century, though for the moment none of the finds in their fills provides any exact
date. The fact that numerous large column fragments in grey and pink granite have
been recovered from the fills of these trenches (fig. 2) suggests that whoever was
responsible for digging them was primarily interested in recovering large ashlar
blocks, of marble or limestone, for burning into lime, which was sold at the site until
the 1960s. Any whole column shafts that survived the destruction of the building are
likely to have been removed already by this point for re-use elsewhere.
Excavation south of the Decumanus
Excavation south of the road began in 2010 and continued in 2012. The top layers
were relatively hard to read, due perhaps to a certain amount of exploratory
excavation in recent years. The emergence of two medieval buildings, Building 3 on
the east side of the trench next to the road and Building 4 on the west, led us to
expand the excavated area to the south, east and west in 2012. At this point what
was originally taken to be a robber trench on the east side of the trench was
revealed, after the expansion of 1.75 metres to the east, as a modern cut, probably a
sondage by Lézine. This was emptied, and the rest of Building 3 investigated and
removed. To the west, Building 4 was revealed down to floor level, while the first
layers of what was interpreted as agricultural soil were removed.
The earliest layer reached so far is a beige earth layer, faintly compacted, which may
be associated with a building as yet unidentified. This was cut by a silo running under
the south section of the trench, 1.80 m in diameter and 0.80 m deep. This was filled
with relatively clean soil, containing some medieval pottery and a small quantity of
animal bone, largely chicken with some ovicaprids. Next to it a wide, shallow hole,
1.60 m wide and 0.40 m deep, was filled with stone. Over the fill of these two
features accumulated a layer of grey soil around 0.30 m thick. Interpreted as a
cultivation layer, it may in fact have been brought in for the purpose. This soil was
cut by a robber trench just over 3 m wide, running parallel to the road around
0.40 m to the south of it. The trench appears to have robbed a wall with the same
orientation, around 1 m from the road. Hard-packed earth from what may have
been the foundation trench of this wall is visible in the bottom of the cut. Over it a
series of fills built up in the ditch, apparently thrown in from both sides. Several of
these are rather ashy in character, indicating that there was still habitation in the
area. We do not yet know how far this trench continued to the west; indeed, it has
only been observed so far in the section cut by the modern sondage.
8
A structure was built over the filled robber trench that we have found difficult to
interpret, known as Building 3. Of this structure the north, west and south walls
survive, while the east wall was apparently removed by the modern excavation.
Inside the space created by these walls a thick layer of yellow clay plaster was found,
smooth and polished. This was interpreted as a floor surface, on analogy with similar
surfaces at Sétif and elsewhere. It was partially covered by a second, similar surface
on the south side of the structure. What is curious, however, is that neither of these
floors showed traces of a hearth, pits, or other signs of occupation, so their
interpretation must remain in question. The highest layer in this sequence is perhaps
to be interpreted as the collapse of walls in pisé, an interpretation suggested by its
pale yellow colour.
A rather large silo was found outside the northeast corner of the building, 2.35 m
long and 1.60 m wide, oval in shape with a rather irregular bottom, at most 0.60 m
deep. The earth that filled it was relatively clean and dark yellow, with a few bones
and a little pottery.
Figure 4. Area II south of the Roman road, showing ninth century structures. (EF)
To the west of the building a hard yellow surface abutted a rather vague linear
feature of piled-up earth and stones that ran north-south across the trench. This
seems best interpreted as a property boundary, separating Buildings 3 and 4 or,
perhaps, some earlier structures, as it appears to pre-date Building 3. It may have
been topped by a hedge, but it was certainly not a wall. To the west of it a wide,
shallow pit was dug, apparently cutting it. Measuring 2.90 x 2.60 m, the pit was
rounded, and up to 0.50 m deep at the centre. It was backfilled with stones and
earth, without any particular concentration of bone or pottery, and its shape does
not suggest that of a silo. It may have been a pit dug to recover earth for building
9
pisé walls, perhaps those of Building 4. Just to the northwest of this, a second pit had
straight sides, measures 2.40 x 1.70 m and is 0.60 m deep. This appears a more
plausible silo.
Building 4 is found on the extreme western edge of the trench. The north wall was
marked by a large orthostat at its northeast corner. It continues as a masonry socle,
marked by a door around a metre to the west, which was subsequently blocked. It
bonded to the west wall which terminated with a small orthostat, joining it to the
south wall. This wall was very poorly preserved, only 0.30 m wide as it disappeared
under the west section. The door was probably found in the southeast corner, at
least in the second phase, when the north door was blocked. Inside the building the
earliest floor was of beaten earth, with a patch of burning that seem to indicate a
kanoun, or brasier. A small step, 0.10 m high, separates it from a second room, to
the west, with a very hard beaten-earth floor. Over both floors was found a deposit
of ash around 0.1 m thick, perhaps indicating the abandonment of the building. A
deposit of cultivation earth was found south of the building, and abutting it.
Buildings 3 and 4 are not necessarily contemporary. Indeed, if the agricultural soil
that predates both the robber trench and Building 3 is equivalent to that which
postdates Building 4, Building 4 is earlier than Building 3. However, it appears likely
that Building 3 is not the first structure in its immediate area, as the silo to the south
of it very probably relates to another, earlier, building. Like Buildings 2 and 5,
however, the little structures seem to relate to the road, and to sit on small plots
along it. Postholes in the road further to the east seem to suggest a further structure
some 10 m away. The silos of both buildings must relate to grain storage, although
no seeds have yet been identified from them. The bones are almost exclusively of
chicken, indicating a rather lean diet. There is as yet no connection between this
little settlement and the Roman or Byzantine structures beneath it.
The function of the area south of the road in the Roman period remains a mystery. It
is assumed to have been the forum of the city, but neither our excavations nor the
numerous undocumented excavation trenches to the south seem to reveal anything
resembling a unified pavement over the very early Punic tombs exposed in some of
them. We hope to gain a better understanding of this site in the next campaign.
Area 3: The House of the Large Oecus3
Geoffrey Morley and Nichole Sheldrick
The ‘Maison du Grand Oecus’ was partially excavated in 1957 by Alexandre Lézine
and Paul Veyne. The excavations uncovered half of the peristyle court with its central
pool, and parts of the north and west ranges, but were not completed and remain
substantially unpublished. In the 1970s, The Corpus des Mosaïques de la Tunisie
project, led by Margaret Alexander and Mongi Ennaifer, documented the
3 The team who excavated the site also included Geoff Morley, Nichole Sheldrick, Walid Ammouri, Yassin Grami
and Andrew Wilson.
10
Figure 5. House of the Large Oecus: position of 2012 excavation of the Veyne baulk. (NS)
visible remains, focusing especially on the mosaic floors, and carried out some
limited sondages, through which they dated the house to the late 1st
or early 2nd
century AD.4 Our own work in 2010 explored two sondages and aimed at stabilising
the worst of the damage to the mosaic and opus sectile floors that had remained
exposed since their initial uncovering.
The focus of the 2012 season in Area 3 was the excavation of a range of four rooms in
the north part of the house: Rooms XIX, XX, XXI, and XXII. The initial jobs this season
were to remove all the vegetation and the immediate topsoil from the surface of the
site and to clean and re-establish the limits of the earlier excavations.5 The French
excavations had chased and isolated the walls on the north, south, and west sides of
this range of rooms, as well as a strip of the pavements at the north and south ends
of the rooms, leaving a roughly L-shaped ‘island’ of intact stratigraphy within them
(fig. 5). The eastern limit of excavation was deliberately placed with the aim of
creating a half-section of Room XXII.
The southern edge of the baulk was cut back as a single context in order to record
the section and give us a preview into the stratigraphy of rooms XIX, XXI, and XXII. It
also re-exposed the pavements at the south ends of these three rooms, allowing us
4 Dulière, C. 1974. Corpus des mosaïques de Tunisie, vol. I.2. Utique. Les mosaïques in situ en dehors des insulae
I-II-III. Tunis: Institut National d'Archéologie et d'Art. 1-4. 5 Photographs from the Corpus des Mosaïques investigations (Dulière 1974: Plates IX (bottom), X, XI, XIII (top))
show that at that time this cut was closer to vertical (or perhaps was made so during that project); by 2012
subsequent erosion had rounded off the edges and created more of a slope.
11
to re-assess their current conditions. On the north side, the pavement of Room XIX
was also re-exposed during initial cleaning, while those in Rooms XX and XXII were
only partially revealed.6 Given the constraints of time and resources, however, none
of the four rooms was excavated fully to pavement level this season.
Room XIX was paved with a black and white geometric mosaic (No. 160).7 The lowest
levels revealed by excavation in the room were a layer of pisé collapse and a small
deposit of ash located in the southwest corner of the trench. It is hoped that the
finds from these deposits might be able to date the final phase of use in this room
before they were sealed by the remains of the west wall of the room. This was of
opus africanum construction, one of the piers being found amongst the rubble.
The existence of two rooms between Rooms XIX and XXII rather than one had been
correctly surmised by the authors of the Corpus des Mosaïques from the different
pavements found on the north and south sides of the unexcavated area. Room XX
was paved with a black and white geometric mosaic (No 161),8 while Room XXI was
paved in square slate tiles (No. 162).9 Their hypothetical reconstruction of the house
therefore placed a dividing wall at what appeared to be the south edge of pavement
No. 161 in Room XX, approximately 2.4 m south of the rear wall of the building.10
Our excavations located the western end of this dividing wall at approximately 4.5 m
south of the rear wall. It seems probable that mosaic No. 161 therefore only covers
the north part of Room XX, and that the south part is either paved in an as yet
unknown fashion, or not paved at all, as is the case in Room XII just to the west,
perhaps leaving space for a staircase or some type of furniture. This issue will be
resolved in the 2013 season.
As in Room XIX, the earliest layers above the pavement in Room XXI are currently
only visible in the south section (fig. 6). Extending out from the section, just above
the level of the pavement are plastered wall fragments from a wall collapse. Above
this wall collapse appears to be a thick levelling layer of pisé, potentially equal to that
in Room XIX, but now physically separated by robber trench 3120 over the wall
between the two, of which only the foundations remain. In addition to several
fragments of iron cans and other objects, this trench contained multiple small ash
deposits, which have been interpreted as possible remains of fires used by workers
involved in the robbing.
A second trench running eastward from 3120 almost certainly represents the fill of a
robber trench for the E-W dividing wall between Rooms XX and XXI discussed above.
Various intercutting pits were also excavated this season. These may generally be
interpreted as pisé quarries, and contained very little material, although one yielded
a small fragment of 19th
-century glazed ware.
6 The pavements were not given new context numbers during this season and are referred to by the numbers
assigned to them in the Corpus des Mosaïques. 7 Dulière 1974: 13-14, Plate IX (bottom).
8 Dulière 1974: 14, Plate X.
9 Dulière 1974: 15, Plate XI (top).
10 As seen in Dulière 1974: Plan 2, Plate X
12
Figure 6. Contexts in the south section of the baulk. (NS)
An opus sectile pavement of alternating giallo antico and grey marble slabs (No. 163)
formed the floor of Room XXI,11
above which the section shows thick layers of pisé.
Several pit features were cut into this level. The earliest appears to have been 3125
an ashy grey pit or trench, rectangular in section. This was cut at an unknown point by
a deep, bell-shaped pit, 3146 (fig. 7). Its shape indicates that this pit was a silo, but its
fill contained many large stone blocks as well as finely carved marble architectural
fragments. The decorated pieces are
of the same type recovered from the
excavations of Building 1 in Area 2:
perhaps they were intended to
consolidate the hole after it was
emptied. However, they appear to
confirm the dating of the activity on
this site to the same period as the
robbing of the basilica. The site was
probably adjacent to the huts for the
workers on the robbing enterprise,
and further large, rounded pits like
3134 are again to be interpreted as
quarries for the construction of the
huts.
All of these features were overlaid by a single layer, (3113). The finds recovered from
this context range from the 6th
century BC to the 20th
century AD. It has therefore
been interpreted as the spoil from Veyne’s excavations.
11
Dulière 1974: 15, Plate XI (bottom).
Figure 7. Silo filled with architectural fragments from
the basilica. (EF)
13
Area 4: Rampart and Kilns12
Andrew Wilson, Matthew Hobson and Candace Rice
A new area was opened in 2012 to the south-east of the large second-century
Roman baths, with the aim of investigating the nature and topographic context of a
sharp break of slope, thought by Lézine to be part of a circuit of ramparts enclosing
the high ground of the ridge dominating the site. The area excavated included a slot
through the putative rampart, and an area excavation in front of it to examine the
topographic context of what would be the immediate field of fire in front of the
possible fortification; geophysical survey of this area in 2010 had shown that this
zone incorporated a large circular geophysical anomaly and several smaller ones.
Excavation showed that the depth of topsoil covering archaeological features was
very shallow, and that several structures appeared, truncated, directly below topsoil.
The anomaly found by the 2010 geophysical survey proved to be a large lime kiln,
built into the steep side of an embankment. The removal of topsoil in a more gently
sloping 10 x 10 m area to the north confirmed that the smaller anomalies visible on
the magnetometry results were also kilns, perhaps used for the production of
pottery; a large dump incorporating some pottery production waste and repeated
instances of the same ceramic forms was found immediately between them and the
lime kiln. These smaller kilns have a complex relationship with several phases of
building activity. This area was planned in preparation for removing some of the
extensive mud brick or pisé demolition deposits at the beginning of the 2013 season.
The possible rampart
A slot 8 m long and 3 m wide was cut across the line of the sharp break of slope to
investigate whether this was a natural topographic feature or part of a man-made
fortification, either a Punic or a Late Antique rampart. Excavation here revealed
parts of a Roman structure represented by two walls, [4005] and [4006], joining at
right-angles, and overlain by weathered mud-brick or pisé demolition, and then by
topsoil. The building appears to have been truncated by the circular lime kiln
downslope to the NW, but the precise sequential relationship remains to be
confirmed through further excavation. The structure lies partly across the break of
slope and at a 45-degree angle to it. The walls are built of mortared rubble concrete
and the northern face of the structure is covered with a whitish hydraulic plaster
containing some pink crushed terracotta inclusions. The upper part of [4005] is
destroyed at the north-east end but intact towards the south-west, where it is also
sealed by the plaster, suggesting that the structure was an open tank, possibly for
clay preparation associated with the smaller kilns to the east. A terracotta pipe,
exposed just at the south-eastern edge of the trench running against or through wall
12
The team who excavated the site included Andrew Wilson, Matt Hobson, Tyler Franconi, Candace Rice, Maxine
Anastasi and Soumaya Trabelsi.
14
Figure 8. Area 4, Early Roman structure defined by walls [4005] and [4006], and lime kiln
[4003] under excavation, facing S. (AW)
[4005], may provide some support for this view. Wall [4006] continues southwest
beyond the junction with [4005], ending in what appears to be an external buttress
made of sandstone blocks; adjacent to this buttress the northern face of [4005]
slopes sharply as a steep ramp, again plastered. The walls were abutted to the north
by a layer, which underlay the surface that sealed the fill of the construction cut for
the kiln.
Further work is needed to resolve the question of the so-called rampart, but the
discoveries of 2012 seem to exclude the idea that the sharp break of slope in this
area might be a Late Antique rampart. This is because the uppermost (and thus
latest) structures encountered appear to be of Roman date, associated with the
industrial activity of the kilns; they lie partly across the expected line of the rampart;
and even if the rampart was a few metres further uphill, they would interfere with a
clear field of fire in front of any fortifications here and compromise their
defensibility. We cannot at this stage, however, fully exclude the possibility that the
break of slope might represent an earlier, perhaps Punic, rampart. More work on
this question is required in 2013.
The lime kiln [4003]
The circular anomaly shown on the geophysics plot proved indeed to be a large
circular kiln, 6.2 m in internal diameter, cut into the steep bank thought by Lézine to
represent the rampart. The lower part of the kiln was cut into the ground, and built
15
of mud bricks13
bonded with mud mortar
within a backfilled construction cut. The
bricks of the walls had been fired in situ by
the firing of the kiln, having turned greenish
on the inner face, fading to red on the
outside. The internal surfaces were covered
with a thick deposit of yellowish white lime.
Above the ancient ground level the kiln
originally rose as a free-standing structure,
which had survived better on the eastern side
against the slope of the terrain, to the point
where the springing of the dome could just
be made out. Although the interior was not
bottomed in 2012, the internal height
measured from the limit of excavation to the
top of the standing remains where the dome
started to curve over was over 4 m, and the
original height with the dome intact would
have been substantially more.
In the lower part of the kiln the internal diameter is reduced, and the lower part of
the kiln was lined with roughly squared limestone rubble blocks,14
mortared with a
light-whitish grey limestone mortar with small grade aggregate (fig. 9). The
somewhat damaged top of this stepped-in lower lining formed a shelf. The stoke-
hole was on the downhill, north-western side, and sited to catch the prevailing
north-westerly winds as they hit the bank, creating an updraft with excellent
conditions for firing. The rake-out pit in front of it was filled with alternating layers of
ash and lime, each possibly representing a firing of the kiln.15
There are signs of subsequent relinings of the kiln: a second lining of the kiln, in
mudbrick baked in situ and bonded with a friable light yellow mortar, sat on the
stepped-in kiln wall. A separate relining is visible in the northern quadrant, reducing
the interior diameter of the kiln and narrowing the usable shelf width. This relining
was again in mud bricks, with a fill of earth and stones against the original lining; it
too sat on the stone shelf of Phase I. The interior face of both linings, where
exposed, was covered in a deposit of white lime.
A heat-affected reddish deposit appeared completely to surround the kiln, except for
a noticeable break where the rake-out pit was located, and seems to be the fill of the
construction cut for the kiln, not yet fully observed in plan. An exploratory slot
across the rake-out pit also encountered the construction cut for the kiln, located
over a metre away from the kiln wall, and this resulted in the slight overcutting of
13
Sample dimensions 0.08–0.09 m x 0.24–0.23 m. 14
Sample dimensions: 8 x 14–27 x 11 cm. 15
Cf. D. A. Jackson, L. Biek and B. F. Dix (1973), ‘A Roman lime-kiln at Weekley, Northants’, Britannia 4: 128–140.
Figure 9. The lower lining of the kiln. (AW)
16
the rake-out pit at the eastern edge of the slot (fig. 10). This does, however, mean
that we recovered some ceramics from the upper fill of this construction cut.
More secure dating material may be collected next season, as it is possible that
some ceramics from the fills of the rake-out pit 4024 could have become intermixed
with those collected under the number (4023), which related to the construction
deposits. Nonetheless, the prospects for dating the kiln look good, as the fill of the
construction cut is full of large, diagnostic ceramic sherds.
The fill of the kiln was half-
sectioned and the western half
excavated (fig. 10). The lowest fill
reached in 2012 was (4018), a
loose, mid-pinkish brown,
powdery, soft silt, with
occasional inclusions of large
stones and fragment of mud
brick from which the kiln was
constructed. It appears to have
developed as a gradual silting up
of the kiln chamber along with
occasional falling debris of the
weathering structure. This deposit implies abandonment rather than any kind of
deliberate infilling. The layer was overlain by (4016), still predominantly a silt, with
frequent large angular stone inclusions, white powdery degraded mortar, as well as
large solid lumps of mortar. In the centre large chunks of the kiln vault were visible,
with several integrated courses of mud bricks. This must represent the collapse of
the kiln superstructure, and was notably more consolidated than the uppermost fill
over it, (4010), a mid-brown, slightly sandy silt, representing the final filling-in of the
kiln through a process of gradual silting and colluvial action. It was sealed by topsoil.
On the south side of the kiln a deposit very rich in pottery (4015) was identified as
distinct from topsoil but is evidently disturbed and not a good sealed context. Up
slope, on the eastern side of the kiln, an ashy layer, very rich in ceramics, was
observed in the west-facing section of eastern baulk after removal of the topsoil. It
appears to be one of a series of thin layers tipping off the mound created by the roof
of the kiln. Presumably these layers relate to the use-life of the kiln.
The north-eastern part of the trench
On the lower-lying ground to the east of the lime kiln, where before excavation two
shallow sub-rectangular depressions had been visible, the geophysical survey in 2010
showed several black and white anomalies. Here an area 10 m x 10 m was opened
up to investigate these anomalies, that would seem to have interfered with any clear
field of fire in front of the so-called rampart. A series of features and deposits here
were exposed in plan after the removal of topsoil, but their stratigraphic
relationships with each other have not yet been established. They included a dump
Figure 10. The rake-out pit, 4024 and construction cuts for
the kiln. (AW)
17
Figure 11. Half-sectioned fills of lime kiln 4003. (AW)
of ceramic material, a section of terracotta water-pipe, and some remnants of walls
associated with a depression, possibly a tank or collapsed cistern, and some small
kilns, one of which lay entirely within the trench, while the other two were partly
obscured under the northern baulk of the excavation.
One of the geophysical anomalies proved after removal of topsoil to be a small
circular kiln [4022] which appeared to have truncated earlier features (fig. 13).
Immediately west of the kiln the upper part of a masonry feature [4027] was
exposed with plaster on its western and northern faces. It has evidently been
truncated by the kiln, and may form part of the same wall as a mass of rubble, the
top of which was exposed to the east of the kiln.
Kiln [4022] is c. 1.70 m in
internal diameter, with a
wall in mud bricks that had
fired greenish on the inside
and reddened on the
outside. It was surrounded
by a distinct ring of burnt
earth. Immediately to the
south of the kiln, a marked
sub-rectangular depression,
visible even before
excavation. The stratigraphic
Figure 12. Masonry features in the north of the trench. (AW)
18
relationship between these features, the kiln and the remnants of the wall
represented by [4027] has not yet been established.
Parts of two other kiln linings, as yet unexcavated, in the northern corner,
corresponding to other anomalies visible on the geophysics, were visible within the
north and north-eastern part of the trench but extended beyond it.
In the centre of the trench, a large ashy deposit (4009), very rich in pottery, may
represent a dump from the usage of the smaller kilns, assuming that these were
indeed pottery kilns. Topsoil directly over the dump was notably rich in pottery and
this material was separately collected, as it was suspected of being disturbed
material from the deposit below; it included a few wasters of cooking and coarse
wares, but there were also a notably large number of the same kinds of forms, all in
local (northern Tunisian) fabrics, including amphora rims of Van der Werff 1, and
Hayes 191 and 194 cookwares. In association with black-glazed Campanian wares,
this begins to suggest local production of cookwares and fish-product amphorae in
the first century BC/early first century AD.
Uphill from the small kilns, and over
much of the central area of the trench,
thick deposits of pisé demolition clearly
derive from a series of stone-footed
buildings oriented on the main city
grid, as the geophysics indicates and
the surviving walls confirm. Two
sections of terracotta water pipe run
across the centre of the trench directly
below topsoil and cutting much of the
pisé demolition: these are [4048],
described above in relation to the
possible tank, and [4047], which is
represented by a nearly complete
length of pipe and the female flange of
the next section immediately downhill
(fig. 13).
It thus appears that this area was in early Roman times a suburban industrial
quarter, on the western edge of the main residential zone (to the north-west, a
series of mausolea flanking a road heading west out of town, and the large second-
century AD baths, built where space was available on the edge of the city, confirm
the suburban nature of the area). The apparent co-location of pottery and lime kilns
is interesting, and perhaps results from the deliberate exploitation of the topography
and wind conditions. Such co-location is paralleled elsewhere, for example at
Weekley (Northamptonshire, UK).16
16 D. A. Jackson, L. Biek and B. F. Dix (1973), ‘A Roman lime-kiln at Weekley, Northants’, Britannia 4: 128–140.
Figure 13. Terracotta pipe [4047]. (AW)
19
Area 5: Excavation of the fish-salting vats17
Erica Rowan and Nicholas Ray
In 2010 a series of six tanks was
identified by Ouafa Ben Slimane and
Andrew Wilson as fish-salting vats
(fig. 14). Only the eastern, western
and southern walls of the three
northern vats (4, 5, 6) have survived
and thus these vats do not contain
any material due to collapse and
erosion. The northern wall of the
southern vats (1, 2, 3) has survived to
varying heights and these vats
contained accumulated material.
During the 2012 season, we carried
out a very limited exploratory
excavation, cross-sectioning vats 1–3 in order to confirm the fish-salting hypothesis
and to determine the sequence of events that led to their abandonment and
subsequent filling. The area within and around the vats was also cleaned and all
vegetation removed. Environmental samples were taken from within the vats for
sieving and flotation for the recovery of small fish bones and fish scales.
The six vats are arranged in two lines of three units (fig. 16) and were all built as a
single masonry construction. The walls and floors of the vats were then coated with
a plaster lining and a lip at the intersections of floor and wall was then applied. The
presence of the lip makes it impossible to ascertain if the wall plaster overlies that of
the floor, but this is the most probable interpretation of the sequence. The only vat
not to possess this format is vat 5, which has been re-floored with opus spicatum
and the walls coated with a coarser plaster. This vat is connected to vat 6 just above
floor level by a lead pipe running through the wall dividing these vats.
The dimensions of the vats are as follows:
N–S Dimension
(m)
E–W Dimension
(m)
Minimum
Depth
(m)
Approx.
Minimum
Volume (m3)
Vat 1 2.9 3.9 2.2 24.9
Vat 2 3.0 1.6 2.2 10.6
Vat 3 3.0 5.0 2.2 33.0
Vat 4 2.3 5.0 2.3 26.5
Vat 5 2.2 1.5 2.2 7.3
Vat 6 2.4 4.1 2.2 21.6
Total 123.8
17
The team excavating the vats included Erica Rowan, Nick Ray, Julia Nikolaus and Soumaya Trabelsi.
Figure 14. The fish-salting vats. (EF)
20
Figure 15. Schematic plan of the vats.(ER)
Vat 1 is located in the south western corner of the structure and was connected to
vat 6 by an opening approximately 0.4 m wide in the central portion of the north
wall. Although the actual total depths for each of the vats are unknown, because the
original top of the walls is nowhere preserved, the minimum depth of this vat is 2.2
m, giving a minimum volume of approximately 24.9 m3. The eastern wall, which
divided vat 1 from vat 2, was badly damaged and only survived to a height of about
0.6 m.
The excavation and cleaning of the earliest levels confirmed that the gap between
vats 1 and 6 was an intentional connection between the two vats and was part of the
original construction. This was verified by the lining lip, which continued seamlessly
around the eastern and western corners of this opening. The floor of vat 1 had been
damaged and little of the original floor lining survived. The plaster lining of the walls
was also badly damaged. Samples were taken from the fill layer just above the floor
of the vat but they produced little in the way of fish scales and bones. The damage to
the floor in vat 1 indicated that there had been post-abandonment use of this tank.
Against the north wall of the vat, east of the connection with vat 6, was a shallow cut
into the floor, filled with an ashy deposit, suggesting a shallow fire pit (sheltered by
the north wall from wind). The pottery from these floor layers, as well as from those
in vat 3, indicate that the vats were re-used sometime between the 9th and 12th
centuries AD as temporary shelters, with no other activity being evident.
The remaining fill layers do not show any signs of occupation and indicate a gradual
accumulation of material over time. The 15–20 cm of soil above the floor of vat 1
consisted of a sandy fill with evidence of wall collapse. This suggests that the
northern and western walls had begun to collapse shortly after the vats went out of
use. Above this deposit, a layer of very loose, almost sterile, windblown sand filled
the eastern end of the vat. This context also stretched across vat 2 and the western
half of vat 3, indicating that by this time the side walls of vat 2 had collapsed to their
present height.
Vat 2 is the south-central vat, situated between vats 1 and 3. The northern and
southern walls survived to heights of approximately 2.2 m. The late destruction of its
21
eastern and western walls, in combination with its small size, meant that vat 2 had a
different depositional history from vats 1 and 3. The floor plaster of vat 2 was very
well preserved and did not contain any cuts as in vats 1 and 3. This suggests that this
vat did not undergo the same post-abandonment activity seen in the larger vats,
probably due to its small size. The plaster lip lining was almost entirely intact and the
wall plaster was preserved up to the height of the eastern and western wall
collapses. Unlike the floor cuts in vats 1 and 3, the well preserved floor in vat 2 suggests
that it was left abandoned after the fish salting tanks went out of use.
On-site sieving during the excavation of this tank produced fish scales and so the
layer immediately above the floor was sampled extensively for fish scales and fish
bones. Within the southern baulk of vat 2 was a whitish-grey mortar collapse with a
brown organic layer beneath. The location of the mortar suggests that it comes
from the southern wall of the vat. The brown organic layer extends to the floor of
the vat which means that it was there prior to the intrusion of the windblown sand.
It is thus likely that the excavation of the southern portion of the vat will provide
more information about the chronology of the collapse of the southern wall of the
vats.
Vat 3 is located in the south-eastern corner of the structure and is similar in form to
vat 1, complete with a connecting channel (approx. 0.4 m wide) to vat 4 in the
central portion of the north wall. It is not possible to tell whether this connection
continued to the full height of the walls, or whether there was a ceiling to it, because
the wall at this point reached no higher than 0.4 m (the same was the case for vat 1).
As with the other vats, the actual total depth for this vat is unknown, although the
minimum depth of 2.2 m provides a minimum volume of approximately 33 m3,
making it the largest of the 6 vats. The total capacity of this complex would have
been in excess of 120 m3.
Despite systematic sieving and environmental sampling, little was recovered in the
way of fish bones and scales, even at floor level. This was most likely a result of
prolonged exposure to the elements once the vats no longer functionally served for
fish salting, combined with post-abandonment occupation. This occupation was
most apparent in the eastern end of the vat, with several cuts into the floor. These
appear to have served two functions: a fire pit, suggested by the ashy deposit
contained within it, and a circular cut that did not contain an ashy fill, suggesting
that it was designed to support a jar or similar vessel. One further, roughly
rectangular cut was found in the floor, this time within the channel connecting vats 3
and 4. The ash in the fill again suggests that it was intended for a hearth.
An interesting post-abandonment feature is a probable game cut into the floor in the
west of the vat, comprising three rows of approximately ten to twelve small divots
(the exact number is uncertain because of the degraded state of the plaster surface).
Over this a sequence of deposits accumulated, again suggesting abandonment and
windblown material. The early levels again provided ceramics dating to the 9th–12th
centuries within 10 cm of the floor level.
22
Pottery Report
Maxine Anastasi and Victoria Leitch
General aims and methods
The 2012 September season at Utica aimed to set up a recording system and
methodology for the following seasons, and to record all the pottery from the 2010
season and as much material from the 2012 excavations as time permitted.
The pottery was recorded in an Excel spreadsheet. In addition, drawings, marked as
‘Featured Vessels’ with individual numbers, were done in order to have a record of
the most datable and common forms, and to start to build a typology of the
unknown forms, mainly local Roman and Islamic-period coarse wares. A programme
of research into the fabrics has also been undertaken: small chips were taken from
each of the Featured Vessels, and photographs taken to show the surface
treatments. The plan is to match the samples to existing information on fabrics, such
as Peacock’s Carthage fabric series, and also to start to isolate the local fabrics, with
particular reference to the forms that came from the kiln site in Area 4. A catalogue
of drawings with their fabric chips attached has been created, and work comparing
fabric and forms, and starting an Utica typology will be carried out ahead of the next
season. Such preparation will considerably speed up the work on site in future and
give us a better idea about the volume of local pottery in the area and the diversity
of imported forms and fabrics over time.
Area 2: pottery and interpretation
This large area had seen major robbing in antiquity and later, and was thus full of
contaminated contexts, with material stretching from the Punic to Islamic periods.
An examination of the pottery was useful, however, for informing us about the
general chronology of the area and the types of pottery being circulated. The
contexts linked to the Islamic houses revealed some known types dating from the
8th to 12th centuries, such as yellow and brown glazed pots and strainer jugs (Figs
16.1 and 16.2). Also, many ribbed amphorae sherds with a similar rim and neck
(D’Angelo B1/2—Fig. 16.4), which are common from the 10th to 12th centuries, plus
jug forms (D’Angelo E1/2) of a similar date (Fig. 16.3). Interesting to note is the
absence of late Roman ARS, suggesting a possible hiatus in the occupation of the
site, which future investigations may confirm. Also of interest is the dating of the
early structures before the basilica, with a find of a sherd with black gloss, which is
linked to the early occupation, somewhere between the fifth and the third century
BC.
23
Figure 16.1. Strainer jug, Area 2, 2013. 16.2. Fragment from a strainer jug, Area 2, 2214, possibly
10th
- to 12th
-century or earlier. 16.3 D'Angelo E1/2,Islamic jar, Area 1, 1004, similar to examples
from Area 2. 16.4. D'Angelo B1/B2 Islamic jar, Area 2, 2037. 16.5. Consp. B3.12–19, with stamp
'ACPE' in planta pedis with barred toes, OCK stamp 2585.149 vessel no. 25724, provenance Pisa or
Arezzo. Area 3, 3041.
An examination of the tiles from the
basilica deposits was carried out, using
weights for the 12 different fabrics
examined. Of these, three can be
recognized macroscopically as Italian in
origin and account for 58% of the total.
A further three types are probably also
Italian, accounting for another 18% of
the total, though scientific analyses are
required to further clarify these
numbers.
Figure 17. Tyler Franconi sorting tile fragments.
24
Area 3: pottery and interpretation
The pottery in Area 3 was all from contexts contaminated by recent archaeological
investigations, with material in the same contexts ranging from 600 BC to the
present. All the pottery from the 2010 excavations and most but not all of the
pottery from the 2012 season has been studied. Despite the mixed contexts, the
pottery from this area was useful for showing the range of material in use around
the site in general and thus its chronological history. Of special interest are several
instances of Van der Werff 1 amphorae, which may have been produced around
Area 4. The earliest pottery consists of some Campanian wares (250–1 BC), Punic red
slip bowls and an askos jug (600–400 BC); then from the Roman period Italian
Sigillata (40 BC–AD 100, Fig. 16.5), African Red Slip ware from the beginnings of
production in the mid 1st century AD up to the 5th century (Hayes 91, AD 450–500),
but with no late forms, which is also true of the lamps, with no examples of the
typical large African Christian lamps of the later 5th century onwards. We then jump
to early glazed pottery, though very little from the 8th to 10th centuries, but more
numerous Islamic amphorae forms of the 10th to 12th centuries, as well as strainer
jugs and bifid rim bowls. For these we do not yet have accurate dates, but they
certainly appear in North Africa from the 10th century if not before. There is also an
absence of local handmade pottery, with seemingly more examples of handmade
wares from Pantelleria.
Area 4: pottery and interpretation
At this kiln site, the insecure surface-level contexts, despite being contaminated,
produced pottery datable from a fairly limited timespan, so were in fact useful for
giving us an early idea about both the possible products of the kilns and the dating of
this important site. The pottery generally suggests use in the Republican to early
Roman imperial periods: there is a strong presence of Campanian black gloss pottery
of early Republican date (Fig 18.1), while amphorae and ARS suggest that the area
was in use up to the 2nd century AD. Two amphorae sherds, an Africana IID and a
IIIC place the latest topsoil disturbances in the area to the beginning of the 4th
century.
Context 4023, into which the lime kiln was constructed, is composed of generally
Late Republican-period material (Adriatic thick-walled and Campanian black sand
amphorae), with one Hayes 185 lid, no African cooking wares and a handful of
Republican fine wares (ITS, ESA and Campanian Black Slip). What is apparent is that
there are many more mid-Punic-period forms with their distinct red painted
decoration in this context than in the others seen. The only anomaly in this layer is a
simple bowl which is coated with a crazed green slip or glaze (UT 994). Further
comparisons into this form’s identification need to be drawn before more can be
concluded.
The three contexts (from stratigraphically earliest to latest: 4018, 4016 and 4010)
which make up the fill of the lime kiln (4003) are composed of a similar range of
forms to the topsoil layers and date to the Late Punic and mid-Roman period;
however, the appearance of two possible Islamic jar rims (UT982 and 983) in 4018
25
and body sherds belonging to a LRA2 in 4016 suggest that we may be dealing with a
case of ‘reverse stratigraphy’ whereby the lime kiln was partially filled during or after
the Islamic period with material taken from a series of stratified refuse dumps close
by.
An ashy dump (4009) near the kilns yielded coarseware wasters, presumably fired in
a nearby kiln, including a probable jug handle, which, though difficult to date, was
found with other pottery of the early Republican period. Additional significant
evidence is a rim of a Hayes 194 casserole found in the lining of the lime kiln [4004];
a terminus post quem of around the mid-first century AD can thus be given for this
kiln.
In general the pottery at this site was surprisingly homogenous, with a very limited
number of form types, which points towards production, probably in kilns yet to be
uncovered. The common forms included Hayes 191 casseroles (1st century BC to 1st
century AD, Fig. 18.2), and Hayes 194 casseroles (Fig. 18.3), a later development of
the 191 (though no examples of the Hayes 19, the slipped version of Hayes 194,
were found), up until now dated from the mid to late 1st century AD—though if they
were being produced in this kiln it might be possible to push this date back. In
addition, many variants of the Van der Werff 1 amphorae forms were found, dated
from 200 BC to AD 1 (Fig. 18.4), opening up the possibility of amphorae production
in the area, which fits in with recent research that suggests amphorae were largely
produced and fired alongside cookwares. Some amphorae body sherds also had a
very green fabric and outer surface, characteristic of underfired pottery. In addition,
a number of unguentaria were uncovered near the small kiln, and next season, when
this kiln is excavated, it is hoped that it can be confirmed whether or not they were
fired there (Figs 18.5, 18.6). The pottery confirmed that ceramic production was
carried out in this area with wasters and under- and over-fired coarse wares,
probably in the Republican period, and up to the 2nd century AD. It remains to
investigate the small circular kiln and other kiln-like features or anomalies in the area
to confirm, if possible, what sort of pottery was produced. Further geophysics work
on the surrounding slopes may, it is hoped, indicate whether or not there are more
kilns that could be linked to the cooking wares and amphorae finds.
26
Figure 18. 1. Campanian ware bowl, with detail of the foot, 2nd century BC, similar to Morel 2132,
Cales, 3rd–mid-2nd century BC' from Area 4, 4000. 18.2 Hayes 191 casserole, Area 4, 4008. 18.3.
Early Hayes 194 casserole, Area 4 4008. 18.4. Van der Werff 1 amphora, Area 4, 4008. 18.5.
Unguentaria, Area 4, 4008. 18.6. Unguentaria, Area 4, 4008.
27
Area 5: pottery and interpretation
The fills of the vats contained a mixture of pottery, ranging from Punic amphorae to
Islamic strainer jugs; the Roman material included Campanian A and C wares, ITS,
ARS; early Roman lamps, and sherds of Dressel 1 and Dressel 2/4 amphorae. Much of
this material is clearly residual.
The material used in the opus signinum lining of the walls of the vat complex, mainly
crushed amphorae, included sherds of Roman amphorae, significantly some with
volcanic inclusions, probably from Campania. Imports from this region were most
common between 150 BC and 150 AD. Thus, a best guess for the dating of the
structure at this point is probably around the 1st century BC to the 1st century AD.
Summary and Future Aims
The pottery in Areas 2 and 3 demonstrates a complex history of robbing, destruction
and rebuilding, reflected in the very mixed contexts, many of which contained
material from the Punic to Islamic periods. Notable in these areas in particular is the
seeming rarity of late Roman forms, with no datable material between the 6th and
the 8th centuries. Area 5 is more straightforward and suggests an early Roman date
for the structure, with evidence of occupation in that zone more generally into the
Islamic period. The pottery from Area 4, which happily seems not to have been
contaminated with later material from robbing or subsequent activity, suggests that
this production zone was principally occupied in the Republican period and up to the
2nd century AD. Future excavation might, it is hoped, reveal sealed contexts and
dumps that could allow the dating and identification of the products being fired in
this area, and which kilns these dumps are associated with. With very few excavated
pottery production sites in North Africa, and even fewer well excavated and published
examples, this site is of huge importance to the question of the organisation of
ceramic and lime production in the Roman period, and in this case also the link to
previous Punic traditions.
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to the Institut National du Patrimoine and in particular to its Director,
Adnan Louhichi, and the director of the site of Utica, Imed Ben Jerbania, for their
support of this project. We owe a great debt of gratitude to our sponsor, Baron Lorne
Thyssen. At Utica, Naceur Soltani and Hedi Silini make our lives and the excavation
easy, for which we are profoundly grateful.
The project is directed by (in alphabetical order) Elizabeth Fentress, Faouzi Ghozzi
(INP), Josephine Quinn (University of Oxford), and Andrew Wilson (University of
Oxford).
The image on the first page relates to the Tunisian-French-British coring season that
took place in October 2012, and will be reported on elsewhere.