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.

28