new radiocarbon dates from carthage: bridging the gap between history and archaeology?

NEW RADIOCARBON DATES FROM CARTHAGE: BRIDGING THE GAP BETWEEN HISTORY

AND ARCHAEOLOGY?

Roald F. DOCTER Ghent University — Department of Archaeology

Blandijnberg 2, Ghent 9000, BELGIUME-mail: [email protected]

Fethi CHELBI Institut National du Patrimoine, Conservation de Carthage

Tunis, TUNISIA

Boutheina MARAOUI TELMINI Université 9 avril Tunis I — Département d’Histoire

9 Rue Commandant Béjaoui, Carthage Dermech 2016, TUNISIAE-mail: [email protected]

Albert J. NIJBOERUniversity of Groningen — Groningen Institute of Archaeology

Poststraat 6, 9712 ER Groningen, THE NETHERLANDSE-mail: [email protected]

J. VAN DER PLICHTCentrum voor Isotopen Onderzoek, University of GroningenNijenborgh 4, 9747 AG Groningen, THE NETHERLANDS

E-mail: [email protected]

Wim VAN NEERRoyal Belgian Institute for Natural Sciences

Rue Vautier 29, 1000 BrusselsE-mail: [email protected]

Karin MANSELFreien Universität Berlin — Institut für Prähistorische Archäologie

Altensteinstr. 15, Berlin 14195, GERMANYE-mail: [email protected]

Soumaya GARSALLAHUniversité de Sfax, 3029 Sfax

INTRODUCTION

Ancient tradition, through Timaios of Taormina (c.350–260 BC), seems clear inestablishing a foundation date for Tyre’s colony, Carthage, in 814/813 BC. It has often

been stressed that Carthage holds a special position among the Phoenician settlementsin the West.1 Foundation dates may be calculated for other (and apparently earlier)settlements, like for example Utica and Gadir/Cádiz, but in the case of Carthage thisfoundation date is closely connected with a foundation myth, a story that may con-tain some historical elements. This story of princess Elisa of Tyre (the Vergilian queenDido), who founded the city on Byrsa Hill after having bought a ‘small’ piece of landfrom the Libyans, is too well known to need full rephrasing. An ox hide, cut intostripes, delimited the confines of the future city. The traditional foundation date hasnever been corroborated by archaeological finds; neither in the necropoleis, nor in thetophet (sanctuary annex children’s burial place), nor in the settlement. The conven-tional dates of the Greek Late Geometric pottery imported into Carthage suggestPhoenician presence on the site not earlier than c.760 BC.2 This leaves a gap of morethan 50 years between the traditional and the conventional archaeological dates.

In 2000, Nijboer of Groningen University approached the team of the Universityof Hamburg excavations in Carthage with the request of collaboration in a radiocar-bon-project. One year later, the first calibrated C14 dates of cattle bones — notablybred animals with a relatively short life span — that had been found in the earliest lay-ers of the Carthaginian settlement below the decumanus maximus, yielded ratherhomogeneously calibrated (absolute) dates of just before 800 BC.3 These highly sug-gestive dates posed some difficulties, since two of the five samples came from archae-ologically problematic contexts. For that reason, the new bilateral excavation project ofthe Institut National du Patrimoine (INP; Tunis) and Ghent University has contributedtwo more series of bone samples for radiocarbon dating. The first series has in themeantime been analysed and seems to confirm the early dates of the Hamburg excava-tion.4 The second series, stemming from a deep pit below the bastion of Trench 4, iseven more promising, since here direct links could be made between the bone mate-rial and Greek Geometric pottery fragments within the same contexts. In the presentcontribution, this series of radiocarbon dates is presented in relation to a selection ofthe pottery found in the archaeological contexts.

[Docter, Chelbi, Maraoui Telmini, van Neer]

THE TRENCH 4 STRATIGRAPHICAL SEQUENCE

The Bir Massouda site in the centre of present-day Carthage has been the scene ofextensive fieldwork since 1979 and is probably one of the best investigated areas of

F. DOCTER, F. CHELBI, B. MARAOUI TELMINI, A. J. NIJBOER,312 J. VAN DER PLICHT, W. VAN NEER, K. MANSEL & S. GARSALLAH

1 Niemeyer 1989.2 Docter in Niemeyer, et al., 2006, pp. 453–491.3 Docter, et al., 2005; Nijboer and van der Plicht 2006, p. 33, table 2.4 Chelbi, et al., forthcoming.

Punic Carthage.5 For the Punic period alone one may list the excavations by the Ger-man Archaeological Institute in 1983 on the north western part called Ben Ayed plot,6

those of the University of Hamburg below the decumanus maximus between 1986 and1995,7 of the INP in 1988,8 the University of Amsterdam in 2000 and 20019 and thebilateral ones of the INP and Ghent University between 2002 and 2005.10

In 2003, 2004, and 2005 a series of three trenches was excavated in the west partof the site, adjacent to the TGM railroad.11 In one of these, Trench 4, a part of the for-tification system was encountered in the shape of a bastion or a tower.12 In the rectan-gular space defined by the tower’s walls, a deep sounding was made in order to estab-lish its construction and the level of the virgin soil or bedrock. After excavating therather thick levelling layer BM04/4448, the limestone bedrock was reached in thesouthern part of the sondage at 8.85m above sea level (BM04/4454). It turned out,however, that archaeological deposits continued to the north to an even greater depth(part of BM04/4448 and layer BM04/4455). For reasons of logistics (evacuating soiland finds) and security only part of the stratigraphical sequence below the southernbedrock level could be excavated. The sterile dark brown virgin soil was finally reachedat 7.58m above sea level, that is to say c.6.20 m. below the present surface.

For the present contribution, the nine layers or archaeological contexts are discussedthat lie below context BM04/4455. As is the case with the stratigraphy above, all lay-ers seem to have been deposited more or less horizontally, albeit with a slight inclina-tion towards to north. Unfortunately, given the limited working space, it could not beestablished how far these layers continued farther north, nor what the exact functionof the pit or deep depression in the bedrock had been. The sequence is interpreted asa gradual filling of a natural or man-made (stone-quarrying?) depression, over a longerperiod of time, partially with deposits of garbage. The fact that some fragments showtraces of ‘street patina’ suggest that they had been in contact with faeces in the deposit(e.g. cat. 3). The site may probably still have been extra muros at this time.

The stratigraphical sequence is presented here from the bottom up:BM04/4466 is the lowest layer and did not contain any finds (sterile).BM04/4465 is a greyish layer with charcoal fragments, ash, bone fragments and very

few pottery fragments (Figs 1, 8; cat. 1–4).

NEW RADIOCARBON DATES FROM CARTHAGE 313

5 Docter, et al., 2006, p. 38, fig. 1.6 Vegas 1984; Rakob 1984, pp. 2–12, pls 19–20.7 Niemeyer, et al., 2006.8 Chelbi 1988.9 Docter 2004; Docter, forthcoming.10 Docter, et al., 2003, 2006; Chelbi, Maraoui Telmini and Docter 2004; Chelbi, Maraoui Telmini

and Docter 2006.11 Docter, et al., 2006, p. 38, fig. 1.12 Maraoui Telmini, Chelbi and Docter, forthcoming.

BM04/4464 is a yellowish to orange sandy layer with no pottery, only animal bonefragments.

BM04/4463 is a rather thin greyish layer with ashes and charcoal fragments and somebone fragments. It contained no pottery (Fig. 9).

BM04/4462 is a very light brown sandy layer, which looks like infiltrated sand; sterile. During the excavation it was suggested that it may perhaps form a layer ofabandonment.

BM04/4461 is a light brownish sandy layer of rather loose nature with some pottery(Figs 2, 13; cat. 5–23).

BM04/4460 is an ochre sandy layer with many pottery and bone fragments (Figs 3,4, 5:1–4, 13; cat. 24–52).

BM04/4459 is a greyish layer with many pottery and bone fragments (Figs 5:5–7, 9;cat. 53–59)

BM04/4458 is a light brown loose sandy layer with many pottery and bone fragments(Figs 5:8–9, 9; cat. 60–61).

[Docter, Chelbi, Maraoui Telmini, Garsallah]

THE RADIOCARBON DETERMINATIONS

Bone samples of cattle and donkey, found in six of the archaeological contextsdescribed above, have been dated with the radiocarbon method.13 The results of thesesix determinations and their calibrations with Oxcal v3.10 are given in Table 1 andFigs 8–13. The interpretation of these results has to include an assessment of the qual-ity of the radiocarbon determinations.

The quality of the radiocarbon determinations is high: the error of the analysis islow (± 25 years to ± 40 years) and the quality parameters of the bone samples such asthe organic content and d13C value are fine.14 The results obtained are therefore goodas far as the radiocarbon method is concerned. The calibration of these radiocarbondeterminations indicates that the bones date from 850 to 510 BC. This time range istoo large for archaeologists and is caused by a plateau in the calibration curve, the so-called Hallstatt plateau. Unfortunately the six radiocarbon results move into thisplateau, causing uncertainties in calendar years from 800 to 400 cal BC. The graduallowering of the six radiocarbon results and its effect on the calibration, except for thethree 14C determination around 2600 ± 20 BP, is well illustrated (Figs 8–13). How-ever, a seventh and sixth century BC date for the sequence and its contents can beexcluded on archaeological grounds. This narrows the date of these six radiocarbondeterminations from 850 to 730 cal BC.


13 See Nijboer 2005a, pp. 534–537; Nijboer and van der Plicht, forthcoming.14 Cf. Nijboer and van der Plicht, forthcoming; Lanting 2004.

The Groningen radiocarbon project on the Iron Age in the Mediterraneanresulted, amongst other things, in five 14C sequences from Huelva and Carthage, intime ranging from 2800 to 2600/2500 BP, calibrated in the range from the tenth toeighth centuries BC. Each of these five sequences is associated with Phoenicianexploits or artefacts in the western Mediterranean. The data obtained demonstratethat the Phoenicians travelled the entire Mare Nostrum, from Tyre to Tartessos, fromthe tenth century BC onwards.15

During much of the period from 950 to 800 BC, Greek pottery appears to have beenof little relevance in long-distance exchange. Coldstream provides us with an indirectargument for this statement. For decades, he has requested Geometric Greek pottery inthe Levant from closed archaeological contexts in order to be able to tie this type of pot-tery with the more historical accounts of the Near East. So far he has been disappointedby the quantity and quality of the data obtained.16 Long-distance Euboean/Greek tradeappears to become established during the ninth century BC but especially from 800 BConwards judging from the quantities of Late Geometric ceramics recovered in gatewaycommunities such as Al Mina in northern Syria and Pithekoussai in Campania, Italy.17

Prior to 800 BC the Euboeans probably maintained a more regional, Aegean, tradingnetwork. In case one prefers to maintain the conventional absolute chronology, the 800BC mark given has to be lowered to 770–750 BC.18

The six determinations of this paper represent the lowest results of the Groningenradiocarbon project and need to be related to the foundation of Carthage, a perma-nent, Phoenician settlement in the West. Especially the three radiocarbon resultsaround 2600 ± 20 BP and their content would imply that the Greek pottery presentin these layers need to be dated to the first half of the eighth century BC, if notbefore. As mentioned above, the conventional absolute chronology dates PhoenicianCarthage from 760 BC onwards. This still leaves a gap of at least a few decadesbetween the radiocarbon dates and the conventional absolute chronology of the GreekLate Geometric sequence. Once more it is implied that the absolute chronology of theLate Geometric sequence needs to be raised. However, before doing so, the authorswould prefer to add to this debate a chronological sequence of high-quality radiocar-bon determinations of samples from Greek tombs containing only Middle Geometricand only Late Geometric pottery.

Another topic that is relevant in this chronological debate is the accuracy that canbe obtained. The radiocarbon method gives ranges of at least ± 25 years in combina-tion with an assessment of the archaeological data available. It dates samples from


15 Nijboer and van der Plicht 2006; Nijboer and van der Plicht, forthcoming; see for additionalradiocarbon dates in the western Mediterranean, Torres, et al., 2005.

16 Coldstream 1998, p. 364; Coldstream and Mazar 2003; Dickinson 2006, especially pp. 196–218.17 Ridgway 1994; Ridgway 2000; Luke 2003; Niemeyer 2006; Boardman 2006.18 Nijboer 2005b.

specific archaeological contexts, irrespective of cultural paradigms. Using the radiocar-bon method instead of a ‘historical’ approach, produces a reversal of the evidenceemployed for chronological constructs. There is a fundamental difference betweenboth methods used to achieve an absolute chronology in archaeology. The conven-tional or traditional absolute chronology is essentially historical and relates ancienttexts mentioning years with the archaeological record. It depends on surviving literarydocuments from the past — the prerequisite is ancient history. A radiocarbon date hasthe opposite approach since it essentially dates a local event independent of externalhistorical concepts. It will lead to regional absolute chronologies that might deviatesomewhat from previous constructs of cultural assimilations. On the other hand, theconventional historical absolute chronology for the period discussed here is based onstylistic analysis of Greek Geometric pottery that at times claims an accuracy of ± 10years. This type of pottery is sampled from all over the Mediterranean and subse-quently placed in an ‘ideal’ stylistic sequence, mostly without regarding the archaeo-logical contexts from which these ceramics derive. It is questionable whether an accu-racy of ± 10 years can be obtained for the period examined, especially if the biographyof archaeological artefacts is taken into account. We would like to argue for flexibilityconcerning absolute chronology in archaeology. It might be sensible to obtain firstsome kind of accord on ranges of ± 25 years before debating ranges of ± 10 years.

One of the most striking conclusions of the Groningen radiocarbon project on theIron Age in the Mediterranean is the correspondence between the radiocarbon datesand some historical events mentioned in ancient literature.19 Thus the project substan-tiates a late ninth century BC date for the foundation of Phoenician Carthage. It alsoconfirms accounts in the Biblical scriptures mentioning King Hiram I of Tyre underwhose reign the Phoenicians made long-distance sea voyages, to, among other destina-tions, a region called Tarshish that can be identified as the region known as Tartessosin South West Spain, on the Atlantic. Moreover the radiocarbon dates from Carthagevalidate Thucydides as an accurate chronographer because he wrote that the Phoeni-cians were already occupying coastal promontories and islets before the arrival ofGreek communities.20 Furthermore, the foundation of Carthage in the late ninth cen-tury BC supports Thucydides’ account of the Phoenician presence in Sicily before thearrival of Greek communities.21

The second important outcome of the project is that the radiocarbon data createsome problems for the conventional absolute chronology of the Greek Geometricsequence, especially for the ninth and eighth centuries BC.

[Nijboer, van der Plicht]


19 Cf. Nijboer 2005b; Nijboer and van der Plicht 2006; Nijboer and van der Plicht, forthcoming.20 Thucydides 6:2, 6.21 Nijboer 2005b.

BM04/4465 — the pottery contents:The context consists of four fragments only, belonging to three handmade and one

wheel-turned vessels. All belong functionally in the sphere of food preparation.

LOCAL HANDMADE WARE

Cat. 1: BM04/43351, profile fragment of a basin (Fig. 1:1)The rim fragment is to be attributed to a vessel type known from various Phoeni-

cian sites in North Africa and Spain.22 These basins occur in contexts of the secondhalf of the eighth century BC onwards and are morphological related to the fryingpans,23 from which they are distinguished particularly by the carefully burnished innerand outer surfaces. Cat. 1 has only a carefully burnished inner surface, but the outersurface of the rim has simply been smoothed; the surface of the base remained roughand unworked. Basins are already present in the earliest Phoenician horizon in theWest, in the Phoenician emporium of Huelva.24

Cat. 2: BM04/43350, wall fragment of an unspecified vessel (Fig. 1:2)The red surface is burnished at both sides. It is typical of handmade pottery that

the surfaces are not evenly coloured, but light brown and black spotted.

Cat. 3: BM04/60064, wall fragment of a tabouna (Fig. 1:3)Mansel has recently discussed this well-known household furnace type.25 The type

was made both in the Handmade Ware, as the present one, or in a coarser version ofthe local Plain Ware.26 The date of tabounas is problematic, since they had been in usefrom the eighth century BC onwards. The fragment shows traces of ‘street patina’,indicating that it had been in contact with faeces.

LOCAL PLAIN WARE

Cat. 4: BM04/60063, wall fragment of a cooking pot (Fig. 1:4)The fragment cannot be assigned to a particular pot type, but the typical clay

and surface treatment show that it must have been a wheel-turned vessel. In view of the traces of burning on the exterior surface and part of the interior, one is prob-ably dealing with a cooking pot, found in contexts from the second half of the


22 Mansel in Niemeyer, et al., 2006, pp. 434–435, fig. 228:2703–2706.23 Mansel in Niemeyer, et al., 2006, pp. 433–435, fig. 228:2700–2702; Mansel 1999, pp. 228–231,

fig. 5:47–48.24 González, Serrano and Llompart 2004, pp. 1170–1178, pl. 28:14–20.25 Mansel 1999, pp. 231–233, fig. 5:56–58.26 Bechtold in Niemeyer, et al., 2006, pp. 448–450, fig. 237, pls 40:2801, 47:2805.


Fig. 1:1. Fragment of handmade frying pan from context BM04/4465: cat. 1 (drawing K. Mansel; inked by S. Renette). 2–3. Two fragments of handmade pottery

(cat. 2–3; photo W. D. J. van de Put). 4. One wheel-turned vessel from contextBM04/4465 (cat. 4; photo W. D. J. van de Put).

eighth century BC onwards.27 In Vegas’ more general typology, these pots are listedas Form 60.1 and Form 61.28

[Docter, Garsallah, Mansel]

BM04/4461 — the pottery contents:The context consists of 50 pottery fragments of which 19 are discussed below in

some detail. Apart from these, 31 ‘undiagnostic’ fragments have been inventoried:three wall fragments of open vessels in the local Red Slip Ware, one wall fragment ofa closed vessel in the local Smoothed Plain Ware, two wall fragments of amphorae, fivewall fragments of cooking pots, and two joining wall fragments of a cooking stand, allin the local Plain Ware, two wall fragments of locally made tabounas, seven wall frag-ments of (three) pots and two wall fragments of open vessels in the local HandmadeWare, six wall fragments of Nuraghic amphorae, and one wall fragment of anamphora CdE 1 (CdE is an abbreviation for Circuito del Estrech).

The assemblage appears to be rather typical for early assemblages of theCarthaginian settlement. By conventional dating of the individual pieces in the con-text, one would date the assemblage to the second half of the eighth century BC oronly slightly earlier. No less than 28% of the 50 fragments were imported. Amongthese imports, one notices the presence of fine wares from the Levant (cat. 17–18,Fig. 2:10), the Circuito del Estrecho (cat. 19), perhaps Cyprus (cat. 21), and Greece(cat. 22–23). The presence of a Greek krater fragment (cat. 22) is remarkable, sincehitherto the shape had been virtually absent in Carthage.29 The stratigraphicalsequence of Trench 4 has even yielded a second one in context BM04/4460 (cat. 51,Fig. 5:4). The percentage of Greek vessels within the whole assemblage (4%) iscomparatively high. Unfortunately, the two Greek fragments are rather small andhence do not contribute anything to the establishment of a chronology for the con-text. Of the 13 fragments of transport amphorae, nine come from Nuraghic Sar-dinia, two from the Circuito del Estrecho (CdE) and only two from Carthage itself.Even when the statistical basis is rather small, the absolute dominance of Nuraghictransport amphorae may be significant.30 When looking at the locally produced ves-sels in isolation, one sees that 36% of these have been handmade. In combinationwith high numbers of Nuraghic transport amphorae this is rather typical of the ear-liest Carthaginian settlement contexts, which are conventionally dated to the secondhalf of the eighth century BC.


27 Bechtold in Niemeyer, et al., 2006, pp. 402–408, figs 210–212.28 Vegas 1999a, pp. 189–193, figs 96, 98.29 Cf. Docter in Niemeyer 2006, p. 456.30 Cf. Docter in Niemeyer 2006, pp. 633–635, fig. 345.

LOCAL RED SLIP WARE

Cat. 5: BM04/43344: rim fragment of a plate (Fig. 2:1)Cat. 6: BM04/51729, carinated wall fragment of a plate (not illustrated)

The rim fragment, cat. 5, is of Peserico’s plate type p1. I,31 which is dated mainlyto the second half of the eighth and the first half of the seventh century BC. The inte-rior surface is covered with Red Slip, conforming to Peserico’s decoration type a.32 Cat.6 probably belongs to a similar plate. In Vegas’ typology, comparisons for cat. 5 maybe found among her rather heterogeneous Form 1.1.33

Cat. 7: BM04/43343, rim fragment of a carinated bowl (Fig. 2:2)The fragment is easily attributed to a carinated bowl of Peserico’s type CCr5, dated

to the second half of the eighth and the first half of the seventh century BC.34 The lowcarination and rather vertical upper part suggest that the fragment is of her subtypesIIa or IIb. In Vegas’ typology, based upon the contextual evidence from the GermanDAI excavations, the shape is encountered as Form 4.1 and assigned the same daterange as that of Peserico’s dataset.35

Cat. 8: BM04/43346: rim fragment of a lid (Fig. 2:3)The fragment may perhaps have been the base of a lid covering ‘table amphorae’

that are regularly found in funerary contexts. Only rarely are such lids found inCarthaginian settlement contexts. Most of the Carthaginian examples are executed inthe Plain, Bichrome, and Painted Wares.36 A rare Red Slip version such as the presentone has been published from the Rue Septime Sévère in a context dated generally tothe late seventh or sixth century BC.37

Cat. 9: BM04/51728, wall fragment with handle attachment from a closed vessel withhole made before firing (Fig. 2:4)

In view of the small size of the fragment, the original shape of the vessel remainsunknown. The pierced wall at the lower attachment of the handle is an equally puz-zling element. It is, however, not impossible that what we interpret to be a handle


31 Peserico 2002, pp. 21–27, fig. 4, pl. 3; Peserico in Niemeyer, et al., 2006, pp. 272–275, fig. 108,pl. 36:1600.

32 Peserico 2002, p. 22, pl. 4.33 Vegas 1999a, pp. 135–136, especially fig. 24:334 Peserico 2002, pp. 40–41, 46–49, fig. 9, pl. 8; Peserico in Niemeyer, et al., 2006, pp. 291–294,

fig. 123.35 Vegas 1999a, p. 143, fig. 32:2–4.36 Docter 1997, §VII.2.1.5, figs 287, 581d, table 52; Bechtold in Niemeyer, et al., 2006, p. 345,

fig. 163:2058.37 Vegas 1989, pp. 239, 241, fig. 6:106; Vegas 1999a, p. 175, fig. 81:2.


Fig. 2. Selected pottery from context BM04/4461 (drawings by S. Garsallah and M. Achour; inked by S. Renette).

root, is in fact the start of a wide spout. In that case, the hole would find a logicalexplanation. The Red Slip painting of a triangle or lying hourglass may be comparedwith the geometric decorative schemes found in the handle zones of funerary vesselsin the Carthaginian necropoleis and tophet (see also cat. 33–34). These schemes arerather typical of the earliest phases (‘Tanit 1’) of the tophet.

LOCAL BICHROME WARE

Cat. 10: BM04/43345, rim fragment of a plate (Fig. 2:5)Open vessels in local Bichrome Ware are rather uncommon in Carthaginian settle-

ment contexts. Peserico only listed 120 diagnostic fragments among a total of c.1610open vessels in the local fine wares found in the Hamburg excavations below thedecumanus maximus; a mere 7.5%.38 The fragment belongs to Peserico’s type P1, theRed Slip versions of which are mainly dated to the second half of the eighth and thefirst half of the seventh century BC (see cat. 5, above). Vegas does not mentionBichrome Ware examples in the published record of the German DAI excavations.39

The few published Bichrome plates of this type show decorative schemes that are quitecomparable to the present piece, limited to the rim and upper zone of the interior.40

This scheme is directly taken over from contemporary Levantine prototypes, such as,for example, the one attested in the present stratigraphical sequence (cat. 40, Fig. 4:3,below). They seem to have the same date range as the Red Slip versions.

LOCAL PLAIN WARE, SMOOTHED

Cat. 11: BM04/60067, wall fragment of an open vessel (not illustrated)Smoothed Plain Ware vessels of open shape have not been treated by Peserico,

because the numbers in the material from the Hamburg University excavations belowthe decumanus maximus were too low and moreover the pieces themselves are too frag-mentary.41

LOCAL PLAIN WARE

Cat. 12: BM04/43348, rim fragment of a lamp (Fig. 2:6)These double-nozzled lamps, commonly known as ‘lamps Deneauve Type III’ are

the archetypical lamps of Archaic Carthage. They have recently been discussed byBechtold on the basis of the material from the Hamburg excavations below the


38 Peserico in Niemeyer, et al., 2006, p. 272.39 Vegas 1999a, p. 135.40 Peserico in Niemeyer, et al., 2006, pp. 301–302, fig. 129:1677–1679.41 Peserico in Niemeyer, et al., 2006, p. 272.

decumanus maximus, where they occur from Layer IIIa onwards, that is to say from the first quarter of the seventh century BC onwards.42 Vegas lists these lamps as herForm 86.1.43 Lamps in the local Handmade Ware occur remarkably enough in earliercontexts of these excavations (see below, cat. 13–14). In the context under discussionhere, they are found side by side. An early comparison has recently been publishedfrom Trench 7 of the Bir Massouda site, stemming from the fill in ‘fosse 4’.44 Thematerial in this fill is generally dated to the second half of the eighth and the firstquarter of the seventh century BC.

One should remark in this connection that the material published by Bechtoldfrom the Hamburg excavations also contains two rim fragments that are very similarin shape to cat. 12. She lists them as flat bowls or plates in the local Plain Ware, datedto the last quarter of the eighth and seventh centuries BC:45 layers IIb to IVc. Oneshould not dismiss the possibility that these rim fragments, such as the one under dis-cussion, are to be attributed to lamps as well.

LOCAL HANDMADE WARE

Cat. 13: BM04/43349, nozzle fragment of a lamp (Fig. 2:7)Cat. 14: BM04/48479, rim fragment of a lamp (Fig. 2:8)

The two lamps apparently are of the type with two nozzles, which is the most com-mon type in Archaic Carthage (see above, cat. 12). In the material excavated by theUniversity of Hamburg below the decumanus maximus, the versions in the local Hand-made Ware occur in earlier contexts than their wheel-turned Plain Ware companions,starting in Layer IIa, c.740–725 BC.46 One exceptional piece from these excavationshas three nozzles (Mansel’s cat. 2709), whereas Mansel suggested a single-nozzled ver-sion for another fragment (her cat. 2711).

Cat. 15: BM04/51726, rim fragment of a bowl (Fig. 2:9)Large conical bowls have been recently discussed on the basis of the stratigraphical

material from the Hamburg excavations below the decumanus maximus.47 The hand-made bowls published by Mansel have been found in the contexts of Layers IIa andIVa, generally dating to the second half of the eighth and the first half of the seventhcentury BC.


42 Bechtold in Niemeyer, et al., 2006, pp. 596–599, figs 319–320:5100–5105.43 Vegas 1999a, pp. 216–217, fig. 130:1–2.44 Chelbi, Maraoui Telmini and Docter 2006, p. 18, fig. 10, cat. 11.45 Bechtold in Niemeyer, et al., 2006, pp. 340–341, fig. 158:2035–2036.46 Mansel in Niemeyer, et al., 2006, pp. 436–437, fig. 229:2709–2711, pl. 40:2709, but see com-

ments in cat. 12.47 Mansel in Niemeyer, et al., 2006, p. 438, fig. 231:2715–2716

Cat. 16: BM04/51727, rim fragment with knob of a cooking stand (not illustrated)The rim fragment of a cooking stand finds parallels in the handmade pottery reper-

toire of the second half of the eighth to the first half of the sixth century BC.48 Simi-lar and contemporary versions are also found in the local Plain Ware. These have beenlisted by Vegas as her Form 85.1.49 Recently, Bechtold discussed the occurrence ofthese Plain Ware cooking stands in the Hamburg excavations below the decumanusmaximus.50 They occur in contexts of Phase I onwards.51 A Plain Ware profile frag-ment from Trench 8 of the Bir Massouda excavations has been published in an eighthto seventh century BC context.52

IMPORTED RED SLIP WARE (‘FINE WARE’), LEVANT

Cat. 17: BM04/60065, wall fragment of a plate or flat bowl (not illustrated)On the exterior surface of this wall fragment two sets of three incised lines have

been preserved. Similar decoration is typical of Levantine Red Slip plates (Fine WarePlates 2 and 3) of Tyre Strata II–III.53 Bikai dates these strata to around 740–700 BC.Recent excavations in Trench 7 of the Bir Massouda site yielded rim fragments of Lev-antine Red Slip plates in the fills of the funerary ‘fosse 5’ and ‘fosse 8’.54 The samecontext of ‘fosse 8’ also contained two fragments of Levantine Red Slip bowls.55 Thematerial found in these fills is generally dated in the second half of the eighth and thefirst quarter of the seventh century BC.

IMPORTED BICHROME WARE, LEVANT

Cat. 18: BM04/43347, wall fragment of a trefoil mouth jug or mushroom jug(Fig. 2:10)

A very similar Bichrome decorative scheme consisting of a Red Slip zone framed bytwo black lines, centrally placed on the belly, is known on a larger jug from Tyre Stra-tum III.56 In his thorough study of these jugs, Briese lists more items with this kindof decoration, not only from Tyre Stratum III,57 but also from Hazor Area B, Layer IVof the late eighth and middle of the seventh century BC,58 Akhziv Grave 17 of the


48 Mansel 1999, pp. 231–232, fig. 5:54–55.49 Vegas 1999a, pp. 214–215, fig. 128:1–2.50 Bechtold in Niemeyer 2006, pp. 450–452, fig. 239:2806–2810.51 See Docter, et al., 2005, pp. 562–564 on this context KA93/183.52 Docter, Chelbi and Maraoui Telmini 2003, pp. 53–54, fig. 8f, cat. 13.53 Bikai 1978, pp. 26–28, pl. 11A.54 Chelbi, Maraoui Telmini and Docter 2006, pp. 19, 22–23, figs 14, 17, cat. 22, 31, 33.55 Chelbi, Maraoui Telmini and Docter 2006, pp. 19, 23, figs 18–19, cat. 32, 34.56 Bikai 1978, pl. 5:3; Briese 1985, pp. 106–107, fig. 29:7.57 Briese 1985, pp. 106–107, fig. 29:8; Bikai 1978, pl. 5:4.58 Briese 1985, pp. 108–109, fig. 30:7.

second half of the seventh century BC,59 and Sarepta Sondage X, Layer 10 of the seventh century BC,60 to mention only the closest parallels.

IMPORTED RED SLIP WARE, CIRCUITO DEL ESTRECHO

Cat. 19: BM04/60070, wall fragment of an oinochoe or mushroom jug (not illus-trated)

The fabric of this wall fragment can be attributed to the Circuito del Estrecho(CdE), and more precisely to the area around Málaga. It may have belonged to a RedSlip trefoil mouth jug or mushroom jug, of which a few other examples have beenfound on the Bir Massouda site. The excavations of the University of Amsterdam inTrenches 1 and 8 yielded fragments of two such vessels in contexts BM00/8016.61

These vessels are well-known in contemporary settlements and necropoleis of the Cir-cuito del Estrecho area, as for example in Toscanos.62 Recent excavations in Trench 7of the Bir Massouda site yielded a wall fragment of a Red Slip plate from the CdE inthe fill of ‘fosse 7’.63 The importation of these fine table wares to the Carthaginian set-tlement (see also cat. 42, Fig. 4:5, below) must be considered as coming in the slip-stream of a more substantial trade in basic foodstuffs, like those carried in the far morenumerous transport amphorae of class CdE 1 (see cat. 20).

IMPORTED PLAIN WARE, CIRCUITO DEL ESTRECHO

Cat. 20: BM04/60071, wall fragment of an amphora (not illustrated)The wall fragment of a South Spanish transport amphora belongs to a class recently

defined as CdE 1. The fabric shows a clear affiliation with the production area aroundMálaga. The importation of the class to Carthage falls predominantly within the firsthalf of the seventh century BC, but starts already in the second half of the eighth.64

IMPORTED PLAIN WARE, CYPRUS?

Cat. 21: BM04/60068, tiny wall fragment of a jug (not illustrated)The fragment has a whitish clay and a ribbed exterior surface. The clay could be

compared to that of a Cypriot amphora found in the excavations of the Hamburg


59 Briese 1985, pp. 110–111, fig. 31:5.60 Briese 1985, pp. 110–111, fig. 31:8.61 Docter in Docter, forthcoming, §3.1.1, cat. 466 and BM00/1111; Bechtold in Docter, forthcom-

ing, §3.1.2, cat. 489.62 Maass-Lindemann 1982, pp. 55–57, 103–104, pls 12:396–406, 13,407–411.63 Chelbi, Maraoui Telmini and Docter 2006, pp. 19, 22, cat. 2764 Docter 1997, §VI.1.3.4, table 18, figs 542–543; Docter in Niemeyer, et al., 2006, pp. 618–620,

646–651, figs 335–338, 352–355, cat. 5431–5451

University below the decumanus maximus.65 The Cypriot origin of the latter piece hasbeen kindly confirmed by Núñez (Barcelona) after an examination of a fragment.

IMPORTED PAINTED WARE, GREECE

Cat. 22: BM04/60066, wall fragment of a krater (not illustrated)The fragment can be attributed to large open vessel, probably a krater, on the basis

of the size and estimated diameter of the wall. The exterior surface has a white calcar-ious covering, which may be post-depositional. Kraters are very exceptional inCarthage,66 and it is, therefore, highly surprising that the present stratigraphy hasyielded no less than two fragments of two different kraters (see below, cat. 51,Fig. 5:4).

Cat. 23: BM04/60069, very small wall fragment of an open vessel (not illustrated)The exterior of the fragment shows traces of black paint, which does not help par-

ticularly in establishing an attribution to a particular stylistic period.[Docter, Garsallah, Mansel]

BM04/4460 — the pottery contents:Context BM04/4460 consists of no less than 645 pottery fragments, 34% (221) of

which belonging to imported vessels. Of the 424 locally produced vessels, 23% ishandmade. Such relatively high percentages are rather typical of settlement contexts,which are conventionally dated to the second half of the eighth century BC. The sameholds for the high percentage of Nuraghic transport amphorae that make up for 69%of the c.177 amphora fragments. The extremely low percentage of 1.1% for transportamphorae of the Circuito del Estrecho is also typical of eighth century BC contexts,especially for contexts dating to before c.725 BC. On the other hand, the estimated29% of local transport amphorae would be somewhat more typical for a context of thelast quarter of the eighth or the first quarter of the seventh century BC. It is thereforeto be regretted that the statistics of the local Plain Ware wall fragments of the contextdid not distinguish between transport amphorae and other shapes (see here below, andalso cat. 36–37).

The nine fragments of Greek pottery in the assemblage comprise 1.4% of the total,which is still to be considered a comparatively high percentage. It is perhaps notwithout significance to look at the provenances of the Greek pottery in the context.East-Greece, Euboea and perhaps the Greek mainland (Attica? and Corinth?) are


65 Niemeyer, Rindelaub and Schmidt 1996, p. 49, no. 6.66 Docter in Niemeyer, et al., 2006, p. 456.

represented. The early Greek colonial production site of Pithekoussai is conspiciouslyabsent in the context. The comparatively high number of nine Greek fragments inthe context may perhaps indicate that this absence is hardly coincidental.

Apart from the representative selection of 29 vessels discussed below into somedetail, the following pottery fragments have been inventoried. The local Red Slip Wareis represented with 20 rim fragments and three base fragments of plates, two rim frag-ments of carinated bowls, one rim fragment of a bowl, 46 wall fragments of open ves-sels, two double-reeded handle fragments of oinochoai, and 14 wall fragments ofclosed vessels; the local Smoothed Plain Ware with one base fragment of a plate, 12wall fragments of open vessels, and 30 wall fragments of closed vessels; the localBichrome Ware with one rim fragment and one wall fragment of bowls, two base frag-ments and one wall fragment of plates, one wall fragment of an open vessel, one wallfragment, probably of a vase à chardon, one wall fragment of an urn; the local PlainWare with four rim fragments of lamps, one hollow base fragment of a jug, one han-dle fragment of a transport amphora, two wall fragments of jugs, 64 wall fragments oftabounas, and 159 unspecified wall fragments. The last-mentioned wall fragmentsmay have belonged to transport amphorae or to open and closed Plain Ware vessels.Since the exact partition has not been recorded, it is estimated on the basis of thenumber of diagnostic Plain Ware fragments: 30% transport amphorae and 70% othervessels. The local Handmade Ware is represented with five wall fragments of largeclosed vessels, one wall fragment of a closed vessel, one profile fragment, one base frag-ment, and four wall fragments of frying pans, one rim fragment and seven wall frag-ments of tabounas, six rim fragments and 27 wall fragments of open vessels, one rimfragment and eight wall fragments of cooking pots, 13 small wall fragments of unspec-ified vessels, two rim fragments of wide bowls, one rim fragment of a bowl withincurved rim, one rim fragment of a basin with imprints on rim, one rim fragmentwith lug handle of a basin (?), one rim fragment of basin (?), two base fragments ofbasins, one rim fragment and one base fragment of plates, eight base fragments ofpots, one handle fragment of a jug, two handle fragment of closed vessels, and onewall fragment of a closed vessel with hole cut before firing. The Levant contributedthe following vessels in the Plain Ware: two rim fragments, 12 wall fragments, andone hollow base fragment of jugs, one wall fragment of a transport amphora, two rimfragments of lamps, and one wall fragment of an open vessel. Plain Wares from theCircuito del Estrecho consist of one wall fragment and one shoulder fragment withtransition to rim of transport amphorae. Nuraghic Sardinia is represented with 121Plain Ware fragments: two rim fragments, three handle fragments, and 116 wall frag-ments of transport amphorae. Of unknown provenances one wall fragment of a closedvessel in the Red Slip Ware and three wall fragments of open vessels in the SmoothedPlain Ware have been inventoried. The context contained also four fragments of abronze needle, a lump of bronze and two lumps of iron.


LOCAL RED SLIP WARE

Cat. 24: BM04/43159, rim fragment of a plate (Fig. 3:1)Cat. 25: BM04/43146, rim fragment of a plate (Fig. 3:2)Cat. 26: BM04/43142, rim fragment of a plate, secondarily burnt (Fig. 3:3)

The three rim fragments belong to the three subtypes of Peserico’s earliest plate typeP1,67 which is dated mainly to the second half of the eighth and the first half of theseventh century BC. Cat. 24 is of her subtype P1.II (Fig. 3:1), cat. 25 of her subtypeP1.III (Fig. 3:2), and cat. 26 of her subtype P1.I (Fig. 3:3, cf. cat. 5, Fig. 2:1, above).The interior surfaces are covered with Red Slip, conforming to Peserico’s decorationtype a.68

Cat. 27: BM04/43196, rim fragment of a bowl (Fig. 3:4)The flat bowl, decorated with a Red Slip zone on the rim’s interior and sometimes

exterior, is hitherto known in Carthage by only few examples. Vegas lists the shape asher Form 3.1, which is exclusively found the earliest contexts of the German DAI exca-vations, dating to the eighth century BC.69 She did not exclude the possibility thatamong the items catalogued by her, there are some genuine Levantine imports. Thisseems all the more likely since in an article of some years later, Vegas mentions fiveexamples of Levantine ‘Plate 9’ of Bikai’s typology as well as three examples of ‘FineWare Plate 6’, all coming from the German DAI excavations.70 It is exactly from Bikai’sPlate 9, found in the Tyre stratigraphy from Stratum VII to IV — hence dated fromc.800 to shortly after the middle of the eighth century BC — that the present type offlat bowl develops.71 Except for the item illustrated in Bikai’s plate XVI:39, which hasa decorative scheme similar to cat. 27, these vessels seem to be executed in a Bichromedecoration. The excavations in the Tyre-Al Bass necropolis on the mainland of Tyrehave produced a good parallel to the present piece. An isolated find from Square 0yielded a bowl that was classed by Núñez as ‘Bowl with an externally thickened rimCP10’.72 In the discussion concerning the chronology of the shape, Núñez seems toaccept more or less the date range proposed by Bikai. In Carthage, the excavations ofthe University of Hamburg below the decumanus maximus did not yield any examplesof this shape, hence the type is missing in the typology of Peserico.73 Among the LateArchaic and Middle Punic successors of this shape in Carthage (Vegas’ Form 3.3) one


67 Peserico 2002, pp. 21–27, fig. 4, pl. 3; Peserico in Niemeyer, et al., 2006, pp. 272–275, fig. 108.68 Peserico 2002, p. 22, pl. 4.69 Vegas 1999a, 140–141, fig. 29:6–7.70 Vegas 2002, pp. 135–136, 143, 145, fig. 5:43–45; see also cat. 40, below.71 Bikai 1978, p. 24, pls 16:39–42, 18:4–6.72 In Aubet 2004, pp. 197, 343, figs 112:P25, 222.73 Peserico 2002; but see an example with greyish painted rim included in type CsC4, Peserico in

Niemeyer, et al., 2006, pp. 302–303, fig. 130:1687


Fig. 3. Selected pottery from context BM04/4460 (drawings by S. Garsallah, inked by S. Renette).


may encounter items that are quite comparable to cat. 27.74 Nonetheless, such a latedate for this piece may be excluded on stratigraphical grounds. The present contextcontained three other fragments of this early rim type, one of which is in BichromeWare (cat. 32, Fig. 3:9, below).

Cat. 28: BM04/43157, rim fragment of a carinated bowl (Fig. 3:5)The fragment is easily attributed to a carinated bowl of Peserico’s type CCr5, dated

to the second half of the eighth and the first half of the seventh century BC.75 The lowcarination and rather vertical upper part suggest that the fragment is of her subtype IIa(see also above, cat. 7, Fig. 2:2).

Cat. 29: BM04/43133, base fragment of an incense burner, traces of heat damage(Fig. 3:6)

Incense burners are rare in settlement contexts. Only two base fragments in theSmoothed Plain Ware have been published from the Hamburg excavations.76 Withless certainty, a Red Slip Ware base has been attributed to this vessel type.77 A compa-rable base fragment in the Red Slip Ware has recently been published from the fill of‘fosse 8’ in Trench 7 of the Bir Massouda site.78 It differs from the ones found in theHamburg excavations and the present one by the fact that it is completely hollow onthe inside, from the base upwards. The material found in the small funerary pit hasbeen dated generally to the second half of the eighth and the first quarter of the sev-enth century BC.79

Cat. 30: BM04/43165, rim fragment of a bowl (Fig. 3:7)The rim belongs to a deep rounded bowl, recently classed by Peserico as type

CsC1.I.80 Type CsC1 dates to the second half of the eighth and the middle of the sev-enth century BC, decreasing in popularity thereafter. In Vegas’ classification, the shapeis listed as Form 2.1.81 In the German DAI excavations in Carthage, on which Vegasbases her typology, it is found only in the earliest contexts. Also the other parallels shecites seem to refer to a type of the second half of the eighth century BC. It should beremarked that cat. 30 constitutes a rather large version of the type.

74 Vegas 1999a, pp. 142–143, fig. 31:1.75 Peserico 2002, pp. 40–41, 46–49, fig. 9, pl. 8; Peserico in Niemeyer, et al., 2006, pp. 291–294,

fig. 123.76 Peserico in Niemeyer, et al., 2006, p. 300, fig. 128:1676a–b.77 Peserico in Niemeyer, et al., 2006, pp. 274–275, fig. 108:160578 Chelbi, Maraoui Telmini and Docter 2006, pp. 19, 22, fig. 15, cat. 30.79 For a general survey of these vessels see Njim 2006.80 Peserico 2002, pp. 28–36, 67, fig. 5, pl. 5; Peserico in Niemeyer, et al., 2006, pp. 278–280,

fig. 112:1618.81 Vegas 1999a, p. 139, fig. 27.


LOCAL BICHROME WARE

Cat. 31: BM04/43167, rim fragment of a bowl, secondarily burnt (Fig. 3:8).This rim may belong either to the very rare bowl of type CsC1.III in Peserico’s Red

Slip typology,82 with hemispherical body, or to an equally rare carinated bowl of hertype CCr2.83 The former bowl is present in the Hamburg excavations below thedecumanus maximus in Layers I to IIIa by a smaller version. The latter type in the RedSlip series occurs in the Hamburg excavations also in layers of the eighth century BC.To the best of our knowledge, Bichrome versions as cat. 31 have not yet been pub-lished.

Cat. 32: BM04/43197, rim fragment of a bowl (Fig. 3:9)The rim of a flat bowl is comparable in shape to the Red Slip version cat. 27

(above, Fig. 3:4), which is hitherto represented in Carthage by only few examples.The shape is Form 3.1 in Vegas’ classification, which is exclusively found in the earli-est contexts of the German DAI excavations, dating to the eighth century BC.84

Bichrome versions do occur among the examples listed by Vegas.85

Cat. 33: BM04/42947, wall fragment of an urn (Fig. 3:10)Cat. 34: BM04/42946, wall fragment of an urn (Fig. 3:11)

The two wall fragments are but a few of several Bichrome Ware fragments of largerclosed vessels in the context: urns, large jugs or table amphorae. The geometric deco-ration in black paint or Red Slip on a reserved zone is found especially in the early con-texts of the Carthaginian tophet (‘Tanit I’), the necropoleis, and the Bir Massoudaarea.86 The frequent occurrence of these vessels in the last-mentioned area has beeninterpreted as being the remains of reworked grave inventories, belonging to an earlyextra muros necropolis on the site.87 Elsewhere in the settlement, these vessels are ratherunder-represented in the assemblages, as is the case in the contemporary Levantine set-tlements as, for example, Tyre,88 although some contexts seem to have yielded morethan usual numbers of these shapes.89 This phenomenon, which might be related to theperipheral position of the respective sites (Rue Ibn Chabâat and Hamburg site below

82 Peserico 2002, pp. 28–30, fig. 5, pl. 5; Peserico in Niemeyer, et al., 2006, pp. 278–280, fig. 112:1620.83 Peserico 2002, pp. 40, 43–45, fig. 8, pl. 8; Peserico in Niemeyer et al., 2006, p. 289, fig. 121:1646.84 Vegas 1999a, 140–141, fig. 29:1,6–7.85 Vegas 1999a, fig. 29:1–2.86 Docter, Chelbi and Maraoui Telmini 2003, pp. 51–52, fig. 7a–c, cat. 5–7, with full references.87 Docter, et al., 2003, p. 46–48, 52; Chelbi, Maraoui Telmini and Docter 2004, pp. 222–223,

figs 18–20; Docter 2004, pp. 128–130, fig. 9; Chelbi, Maraoui Telmini and Docter 2006, pp. 16–23,figs 3–18; Docter, et al., 2006, pp. 42–45, figs 11–13.

88 Cf. Vegas 1999a, pp. 154–156, figs 50–52, Forms 19–20; also Maass-Lindemann 2005, p. 108.89 Vegas 1999b, Vegas 2000; Briese in Niemeyer, et al., 2006, pp. 312–324, especially figs 138,

142–143; Docter 2007, p. 48, context 82.


the decumanus maximus), and therefore to the possibility of re-worked necropolis mate-rial getting mixed into fills used to raise floor levels, needs to be further investigated onsound statistical bases for the contexts concerned.

LOCAL PLAIN WARE

Cat. 35: BM04/43128+43187, 2 joining rim fragments of a lamp, with graffito postcocturam (X) (Fig. 3:13)

The lamp is a very fine and carefully executed, a relatively thin-walled version of atypical Carthaginian lamp (see above, cat. 12). Although it cannot be ruled out thatthe fragments belonged to a one-nozzled form, it seems statistically more likely thatwe are dealing with a more common two-nozzled example. The graffito incised in therim of the vessel may have been an owner’s mark, but escapes any palaeographic orotherwise meaningful interpretation, as Amadasi Guzzo (Rome), who saw the draw-ing, kindly commented.

Cat. 36: BM04/43135, rim fragment of an amphora (Fig. 3:12)Cat. 37: BM04/43134, rim fragment of an amphora (Fig. 3:14)

The two amphorae, made in the local Plain Ware, could be seen as the earliestattempts at amphora production in and around Carthage. Their rim shapes fall com-pletely outside of the very clear and linear typological development of the Carthagin-ian transport amphorae of class ‘Karthago 1’ that was established on the basis of theHamburg decumanus maximus stratigraphy.90 In particular, cat. 37 finds a relativelygood comparison in an exceptional piece from the Archaic settlement.91 These rimshapes seem to relate more to the ‘un-standardised’ rim profiles of the Nuraghic classesof transport amphorae (see below, cat. 43) than to the ‘canonical’ early rim shapes ofsubclass ‘Karthago 1 A1’.92 Since these canonical rim shapes are missing in both thiscontext and in the underlying stratigraphy, and the fact that BM04/4460 is indeedone of the earliest contexts hitherto excavated in Carthage, one is tempted to see theseexamples as a kind of prototypes, made in small numbers before the standardisedtransport amphora production took off. Such standardised production is closely linkedto the agrarian exploitation of the immediate hinterland (the later Megara) ofCarthage. If this reasoning proves to be correct in future investigations, this will offerimportant evidence for the chronological relationship between early Carthaginian andNuraghic amphorae. The latter would then have influenced the former, rather thanvice versa.

90 Docter 1997, chapter VIII; Docter in Niemeyer, et al., 2006, pp. 620–629.91 “Sonderform”: Docter 1997, §VIII.1.2.7, fig. 371; Docter in Niemeyer 1996, pp. 627–628,

fig. 342:5346.92 Docter in Niemeyer, et al., 2006, 621–623, fig. 339, 5300, 5306–5312.


LOCAL HANDMADE WARE

Cat. 38: BM04/42943, rim fragment of a large bowl with finger imprints on rim(Fig. 4:1)

A comparable large bowl of this shape has been recently published among the strat-ified material of the Hamburg excavations below the decumanus maximus.93 It has avery similar decoration of finger imprints on the rim, although these are more linearin shape than those of cat. 38. The Hamburg piece was found in Layer VIIa (425–390BC), where it was most likely in a secondary position.

IMPORTED RED SLIP WARE, LEVANT

Cat. 39: BM04/43147, rim fragment of a plate (Figs 4:2, 6:1)The clay of the present piece clearly suggests a Levantine metropolitan origin, but

no exact parallels for a plate with such an angular rim profile have been found in theLevantine Red Slip repertoires. The shape of the plate is found in the Plain Warerepertoire of Tyre Stratum III with Bikai’s Plate type 2.94 The angular rim shape is like-wise found in some Plain Ware examples of the Tyre-Al Bass necropolis.95

IMPORTED BICHROME WARE, LEVANT

Cat. 40: BM04/43164, rim fragment of a plate (Figs 4:3, 6:2)Morphologically, the rim looks like Levantine plate or flat bowl types that are char-

acterised by “mostly very narrow, square-cut rims slanting inwards. The small stepbetween rim and bottom is not apparent on the outside, so that the contour is unin-terrupted”.96 These, however, are commonly executed in the Plain Ware. One may citein particular the most common bowl subtype CP 4a in Núñez’ recent typology of thepottery from the Tyre-Al Bass necropolis.97 This bowl is comparable to Plate 7 inBikai’s typology, of which two burnished Red Slip examples are also known.98 One ofthese has been found in Tyre Stratum IV, dated to shortly after the middle of theeighth century BC.

The rim fragment has been decorated in a scheme that is also encountered withlocal Carthaginian Bichrome Ware plates (see cat. 10, Fig. 2:5, above). The scheme,consisting of a Red Slip zone in the mouth (both inside and outside) bordered on the

93 Mansel in Niemeyer, et al., 2006, p. 438, fig. 231:2717; see also cat. 15, above.94 Bikai 1978, p. 22, pl. 8, especially 30, 32.95 Aubet 2004, pp. 160, 193, figs 75:20, 108:34, 37. Núñez lists these as bowl CP 6c, in Aubet

2004, pp. 338–339, figs 215, 218.96 Maass-Lindemann 2005, pp. 110, 112, especially fig. 2f from Tyre-Al Bass.97 In Aubet 2004, pp. 336, 339, figs 203, 218.98 Bikai 1978, p. 23, esp. pl. 15:9.


Fig. 4. Selected pottery from context BM04/4460 (drawings by S. Garsallah, inked by S. Renette).

inside by double black bands, is known from other open shapes in the Levant, as forexample in the necropolis of Tyre-Al Bass,99 the settlement of Tyre from stratum VII,so c.800 BC onwards,100 and in Carthage on two more imported Levantine plates ofBikai’s type ‘Plate 2’ from the Rue Ibn Chabâat excavations.101

IMPORTED PLAIN WARE, LEVANT

Cat. 41: BM04/43138, upper part of a trefoil mouth jug (Fig. 4:4)Comparable trefoil mouth jugs are known from several contexts in the Levant, most

have a straight plain rim. The secondary burials in Tomb T.C.4 of the southern ceme-tery at Achziv, dated by the excavators to the tenth and ninth century BC, yielded afine example.102 In the settlement of Tyre, this kind of jug (or pitcher) has been classedas Jug 6, occurring in Strata II and III, that is to say from c.740 to 700 BC.103 Jug cat.41, however, shows an externally slightly thickened rim, which the cited examplesseem to lack. One has to look to Sarepta for published examples with such rim pro-files; here they occur as type DJ–11.104 Also the recent deposit in the Phoenicianemporium of Huelva has yielded such trefoil mouth jugs.105 The authors find furthercomparisons for these jugs in the miscellaneous group of Bikai, occurring in TyreStrata VIII–IX, X and XIV.106 The date should consequently be set between c.1200and 800 BC. Given that the oldest example in Tyre, from Stratum XIV,107 in particu-lar, is close in shape to cat. 41 from Carthage, it is probably best to conclude thatthese jugs are long-lived and not very helpful in dating the Carthaginian stratigraphy.

IMPORTED PLAIN WARE, CIRCUITO DEL ESTRECHO

Cat. 42: BM04/43127, profile fragment of a lamp, traces of heat damage on rim andnozzle (Fig. 4:5)

The fabric of the large lamp fragment clearly points at a production in the Málagaarea of the Circuito del Estrecho (CdE). The lamp is of the standard Central and West-Mediterranean version with two nozzles, which is also typical of Carthaginian lamps(see above, cat. 12 and 35). A very similar lamp fragment from the same provenance


99 Aubet 2004, pp. 161, 334, figs 76:4, 200; Maass-Lindemann 2005, p. 112, fig. 2l.100 Bikai 1978, pls 16:41, 18:4–5.101 Vegas 2002, pp. 135–136, 143, 145, fig. 5:44–45.102 Mazar 2001, pp. 26–27, fig. 9:6.103 Bikai 1978, p. 35, pl. 6:12.104 Anderson 1988, pp. 208–211.105 González, Serrano and Llompart 2004, pp. 60–61, pls 11:10–13, 50:4–6; 2006, pp. 15–16,

fig. 2.106 Bikai 1978, pls 20:7–8, 25:8, 39:8.107 Bikai 1978, pl. 39:8.

has been found in a disturbed Archaic context in the Hamburg excavations below thedecumanus maximus.108 Another lamp with the same provenance has been publishedfrom the German DAI excavations.109 The importation to Carthage of such lamps andother fine wares, as for example oinochoe cat. 19 above, accompanied a wider com-merce in food items (see cat. 20). Strangely enough, the present context only containedtwo fragments of such transport amphorae (see above). Apart from these importedCdE lamps, one imported lamp from Motya has been published from the Carthagin-ian settlement.110

IMPORTED PLAIN WARE, NURAGHIC SARDINIA

Cat. 43: BM04/43189, rim fragment of an amphora (Fig. 4:6)The rim belongs to a handmade amphora of the subclass Nuraghic 1, formerly

known as ‘ZitA 1’.111 The class as a whole originated in Nuraghic Sardinia and consti-tutes the largest single group of transport amphorae in the early Carthaginian settle-ment, especially in the eighth century BC. Already in the first quarter of the seventhcentury BC, the class had diminished in numbers in the published settlement con-texts. The early deposit of the Phoenician emporium of Huelva also contained severaltransport amphorae of this class.112

IMPORTED PLAIN WARE SMOOTHED, ATTICA?

Cat. 44: BM04/49317, wall fragment of a closed vessel (not illustrated)Attic fine ware pottery is exceptionally rare in Carthage before the fifth century

BC.113 The only exceptions are found in the Hamburg excavations below thedecumanus maximus: a wall fragment probably from a Late Geometric pyxis found in adisturbed layer and two wall fragments from two large open vessels, one of which is akrater, came from one context in layer IIa, dated to c.740–725 BC.114 Attic transportamphorae of the SOS and à-la-brosse/1501 types, on the other hand, are fairly frequentin the Carthaginian settlement from the second half of the eighth century BC (typo-logically) or alternatively c.700 BC (stratigraphically) onwards.115 The present fragment


108 Docter in Niemeyer, et al., 2006, pp. 589–590, fig. 315:4708, with references for Spain.109 Vegas 1989, p. 227, no. 26.110 Docter in Niemeyer, et al., 2006, pp. 590–591, fig. 316:4709.111 Docter in Niemeyer, et al., 2006, pp. 632–639, figs 345–346, with full references.112 González, Serrano and Llompart 2004, pp. 70–71, pls 14:1–9, 52:9–17; 2006, pp. 18–19,

fig. 13:1–2.113 Bechtold in Niemeyer, et al., 2006, pp. 493–528. 114 Docter in Niemeyer, et al., 2006, 485–486, fig. 260, pl. 43:4261, 4263.115 Docter in Niemeyer, et al., 2006, pp. 617, 655–658, figs 334, 358, with full references for

Carthage.

that, with certain reservations, is attributed to Attica would, therefore, not be an iso-lated phenomenon in Carthage. In this context, it is perhaps not without significancethat in the recently published, early deposit in the Phoenician emporium of Huelva,that Attic fine wares figure with nine pieces of the Attic Middle Geometric II periodamongst the early imports.116

IMPORTED BLACK PAINTED WARE, EAST-GREECE

Cat. 45: BM04/42942, base fragment of a closed vessel (Figs 5:1, 6:3, 7:3)The fragment has been seen by Lemos from Oxford (18.07.2006), who confirmed

that it is East-Greek, probably originating in the North Aeolian islands. Generallyspeaking, closed shapes are amongst the earliest East-Greek vessels imported to the set-tlement of Carthage; they are also much rarer than drinking vessels from the sameprovenance.117

Cat. 46: BM04/43205, wall fragment of an amphora (not illustrated)On the basis of its size, the fragment belongs most likely to an East-Greek black

painted transport amphora (see also below, cat. 55–57, Fig. 5:7). This class hasrecently been discussed in the context of finds from Toscanos, Cerro del Villar(Guadalhorce), Huelva, Carthage, and Tocra.118 Hitherto, Carthage has contributedwith only three wall fragments of these amphorae, occurring in layers of the secondhalf of the seventh and sixth century BC of the Hamburg excavations below thedecumanus maximus. In the South Spanish Phoenician settlement of Toscanos, how-ever, the class belongs to the earliest imports, occurring already in Phase I of the Ware-house area, that is to say at the end of the eighth century BC. Moreover, in Spain theclass seems to be much more numerous.

IMPORTED BLACK PAINTED WARE, EAST-GREECE?

Cat. 47: BM04/49321, wall fragment of a skyphos (not illustrated). Painted on theexterior and interior; partly worn off.

The fragment has been seen by Lemos (18.07.2006), who tentatively suggested thatit is East-Greek. In the material from the Hamburg excavations below the decumanusmaximus, East-Greek drinking vessels are predominant, but only from a relatively late


116 González, Serrano and Llompart 2004, pp. 82–86, pls 18:1–9, 55–56; 2006, pp. 19–20, figs 17–20.117 Docter 2000, pp. 77–78, fig. 12; Docter in Niemeyer, et al., 2006, pp. 487–490, especially

fig. 263.118 Docter 2000, pp. 66–67, 70–72, 83, figs 1–3, 9, with full references.


Fig. 5. Greek pottery from context BM04/4460 (a–d), 4459 (e–g), and 4458 (h–i)(drawings by R. F. Docter, inked by S. Renette).


Fig. 6. No. 1, cat. 39; no. 2, cat. 40; no. 3, cat. 45; no. 4, cat. 50; no. 5, cat. 48; no. 6, cat. 60; no. 7, cat. 61.


Fig. 7. Nos 1–9, Greek pottery from context BM04/4460; nos 10–11, cat. 53–54.

period, viz. the last thirty years of the seventh century BC, onwards.119 Only recently,an East-Greek kotyle from Trench 8 from the Bir Massouda site was published, whichcould generally be dated to the seventh century BC.120

IMPORTED PAINTED WARE: EUBOEA

Cat. 48: BM04/42941, wall fragment of a closed vessel (Fig. 5:2, 6:8, 7:3)Cat. 49: BM04/43204, wall fragment of an amphora or closed vessel (not illustrated)

The fragments have been seen by Lemos (18.07.2006), who confirmed that theyare Euboean. In particular, the large white lime grit in the fabric of cat. 48, which hadsplit off part of the original surface, is typical of some of the Euboean products. Thefact that two Euboean closed vessels occur in this context is quite remarkable in viewof the absolute predominance of Euboean drinking vessels, mainly skyphoi, in theCarthaginian settlement (see below, cat. 50). From the German DAI excavations inthe Rue Ibn Chabâat come the two only other Euboean closed vessels known to date:a shoulder fragment of a large amphora with multiple concentric circles above threepainted lines and an unspecified fragment of another amphora.121 One of the nextcontexts (BM04/4458) contained a further closed vessel of probable Euboean origin(see cat. 60, below). The two black painted fragments, cat. 48–49, do not offer anyclues concerning precise dating.

Cat. 50: BM04/42940, wall fragment of a skyphos (Figs 5:3, 6:4, 7:7)Lemos (18.07.2006) has also suggested that this fragment could be Euboean. The

Carthaginian settlement has yielded at least 52 published Euboean skyphoi, to whichone may add only one piece from the necropoleis; other open shapes are muchrarer.122 As to the decoration of cat. 50, one can identify the start of a hatched doublezigzag line framed at the sides by triglyphs. This kind of continuous motif seems to berather early in the sequence, perhaps even earlier than the start of the Late Geometricperiod. The shape of the wall and start of the rim find many parallels amongst thepublished Euboean skyphoi and hint at a rather deep bowl.123


119 Docter 2000, pp. 77–83, figs 14–16, 17e–f, 18; Docter in Niemeyer, et al., 2006, pp. 487–489,fig. 262, with full references for Carthage.

120 Docter, Chelbi and Maraoui Telmini 2003, p. 53, fig. 8b, cat. 10.121 Vegas 1989, pp. 216–217, fig. 1:9; 1997, 351–352, n. 1, 6; 2002, pp. 134, 138–139, fig. 2:12.122 Docter in Niemeyer, et al., 2006, pp. 456–460, fig. 242–243, pl. 41:4104, 4109, 4121, with full

references for Carthage.123 Andrioménou 1984, pp. 39, 45, 60, figs 2, 13, 39.

IMPORTED PAINTED WARE: EUBOEA? / EAST-GREECE?

Cat. 51: BM04/49320, wall fragment with handle stump from a krater (Fig. 5:4)Although the fragment was examined by Lemos (18.07.2006), she was not

absolutely sure that it was Euboean, tentatively suggesting East-Greece as a possibleprovenance. Unfortunately, the small size of the fragment does not allow for a detailedassessment of its chronology. On the scarcity of imported Greek kraters in Carthage,see also, cat. 22 and 44 above.

IMPORTED PAINTED WARE: CORINTH (?)

Cat. 52: BM04/43191, wall fragment of an open shape (?) (not illustrated)This badly preserved fragment of an extremely thin-walled vessel has been seen by

Lemos (18.07.2006), who suggested that it might perhaps be a Corinthian produc-tion. Corinthian pottery constitutes the single largest group within the early importedfine wares of the Carthaginian settlement.124 The group is mainly made up of drink-ing vessels, dated from the Early Protocorinthian period (c.715–685 BC) onwards.Corinthian fine ware pottery also figures in considerable numbers in the Carthaginiannecropoleis, but less so in the tophet.125 The Corinthian transport amphorae ofKoehler’s type A accompany these fine wares during most of the late eighth, seventhand sixth centuries BC, albeit in rather modest numbers.126

[Docter, Garsallah, Mansel]

BM04/4459 — the pottery contents:Only a limited selection of pottery, in casu the Greek pottery, is discussed here,

since context BM04/4458 lies rather high in the stratigraphical sequence and, more-over, the inventory and study of this context had not yet been fully completed at the time of writing this contribution. It is from this context on that we encountercolonial Greek and particularly Pithekoussan pottery in the stratigraphical sequence ofTrench 4.

IMPORTED PAINTED WARE, PITHEKOUSSAI (?)

Cat. 53: BM04/43229, base fragment of kotyle or skyphos (Figs 5:5, 7:10)Pithekoussan pottery has been imported in Carthage in relatively considerable num-

bers, as the published material from the German DAI excavations and the Hamburg


124 Docter in Niemeyer, et al., 2006, pp. 460–469, figs 245–249, pls 41–42, with full references.125 Docter in Niemeyer, et al., 2006, pp. 460–461, n. 59, with full references.126 Docter in Niemeyer, et al., 2006, pp. 618, 654–655, figs 335–336, 357, with full references for

Carthage.

excavations below the decumanus maximus shows.127 Cat. 53 is probably a Pithekoussankotyle version of the so-called Aetos 666 type with a black painted lower wall.128 FromTomb 161 in the Valle di San Montano necropolis in Pithekoussai a good example ofthe type has been published.129 The Aetos 666 type of kotyle must have been quite pop-ular in Carthage, because several locally made versions are known.130 The Hamburgexcavations of the Carthaginian settlement yielded a base fragment that is almost iden-tical to cat. 53.131 As with that fragment, we have to consider that the present piece mayoriginally have belonged to a Late Geometric, Thapsos type skyphos (on this class seebelow, cat. 61). In both cases, a date in the second half of the eighth century BC wouldseem appropriate.

IMPORTED PAINTED WARE, PITHEKOUSSAI OR COLONIAL GREECE (?)

Cat. 54: BM04/43248, shoulder fragment of a jug with transition to neck (Figs 5:6,7:11)

The jug finds good comparisons in the colonial Greek pottery repertoire of the LateGeometric period. One may cite a jug or olpe in tomb 3089 of the Necropoli delPicentino at Pontecagnano.132 It dates to phase IIB of the necropolis, or to 750–730BC in absolute terms. As to the repertoire of jugs in Pithekoussai, one can say in gen-eral that multiple horizontal lines form one of the most regular patterns on the Pithek-oussan pottery.133

IMPORTED BLACK PAINTED WARE, EAST-GREECE (?)

Cat. 55: BM04/43243, wall fragment of an amphora (not illustrated)Cat. 56: BM04/49304, neck fragment of an amphora (Fig. 5:7)Cat. 57: BM04/49306, shoulder fragment of an amphora (not illustrated)

On this class of transport amphorae, see above cat. 46.


127 Docter and Niemeyer 1994; Docter in Niemeyer, et al., 2006, pp. 469–475, figs 250–252, pl.42:4190,4194, 4197, 4203, 4209.

128 On the type, Docter in Niemeyer, et al., 2006, pp. 470–471, fig. 250:4192–4195.129 Buchner and Ridgway 1993, p. 204, pl. 63:3.130 Docter, Chelbi and Maraoui Telmini 2003, pp. 48, 50, fig. 6b, cat. 2, with references.131 Docter in Niemeyer, et al., 2006, p. 471, fig. 250:4196, with full references.132 Bailo Modesti and Gastaldi 1999, pp. 60–61, fig. 16, pl. 4:7, cat. 42:1.133 Buchner and Ridgway 1993.

IMPORTED PLAIN WARE, GREECE (?)

Cat. 58: BM04/49312, wall fragment of an amphora (not illustrated)Cat. 59: BM04/49307, wall fragment of an amphora (not illustrated)

The fact that the interior surface of cat. 58 is heavily pitted suggests that we aredealing with an oil container. This is hardly surprising, given that among the earliestimports of transport amphorae, we recognise mainly olive oil containers.134

[Docter, Garsallah]

BM04/4458 — the pottery contents:Only a selection of pottery, in casu part of the Greek pottery, is presented here,

because context BM04/4458 constitutes only the most recent deposit in the strati-graphical sequence. Moreover, the inventory and study of the entire context had notyet been fully completed at the time of writing this contribution.

IMPORTED PAINTED WARE, EUBOEA (?)

Cat. 60: BM04/42944, rim fragment of a juglet (Figs 5:8, 6:6)The rim fragment may be attributed to a small juglet of probably Euboean origin.

The scarcity of closed vessels from Euboea has already been discussed above (see cat.48–49). The typical decoration consisting of multiple lines around the body and neckis a well-known Late Geometric feature, also encountered in the colonial Greek pot-tery repertoires of Euboean inspiration (see cat. 54, Fig. 5:6, above).

IMPORTED PAINTED WARE, PITHEKOUSSAI OR COLONIAL GREECE

Cat. 61: BM04/42945, carination fragment of a skyphos (Figs 5:9, 6:7)The skyphos is clearly of the Late Geometric Thapsos type, but the clay points at a

provenance in the Greek colonial environs of Pithekoussai or perhaps the Italian main-land. The decorative scheme places the skyphos in Neeft’s ‘panel type’.135 The occur-rence of the Thapsos class in Carthage has recently been discussed on two occasions,so one may refer to these publications for full references.136 Also an Italian version ofa Thapsos skyphos of the ‘Plain Type’ has been found in the Hamburg excavationsbelow the decumanus maximus.137 Pithekoussan fine ware pottery is a relatively fre-quent find in Carthaginian settlement contexts (see cat. 53–54, above). Although the


134 Docter 2000, pp. 83–86.135 Neeft 1981, pp. 11–12, 20–29, figs 1, 6–7.136 Docter, Chelbi and Maraoui Telmini 2003, pp. 48, 50–51, fig. 6c, cat. 3; Docter in Niemeyer, et

al., 2006, p. 460, fig. 244:4124.137 Docter in Niemeyer, et al., 2006, pp. 455, 475–476, fig. 253:4213, pl. 42:4213, with references.


Fig. 8. Calibration with the Oxcal v3.10 program of the radiocarbon date from context BM04/4465 (GrA–28584).

Fig. 9. Calibration with the Oxcal v3.10 program of the radiocarbon date from context BM04/4463 (GrA–28581).


Fig. 10. Calibration with the Oxcal v3.10 program of the radiocarbon date from context BM04/4458 (GrN–29278).


Hamburg excavations only yielded two uncertain Pithekoussan versions of Thapsostype drinking vessels,138 Vegas published no less than five Pithekoussan pieces of cer-tain Thapsos type from the German DAI excavations.139 Originals of the Thapsos classmay be dated to the period 750–700/690 BC.

[Docter, Garsallah]

ARCHAEOLOGICAL COMMENTS

The comments concerning the pottery fragments from the contexts presented abovederive for the better part from the present notion of absolute dating based on typol-ogy-chronology. The conventional dates for Carthaginian pottery as well as Nuraghicand South-Spanish (CdE) pottery, and even part of the Levantine pottery were mainlyestablished through the stratigraphical analyses of the Hamburg excavations below thedecumanus maximus.140 The dates of these stratigraphical layers and phases have beenbased, in their turn, upon the conventional dates of Greek pottery, viz. Greek LateGeometric pottery for the earliest levels. Elsewhere, we have elaborated upon theadvantages, shortcomings and limitations of this procedure that uses the conventionalGreek dates to establish the absolute dates of the Carthaginian stratigraphicalsequence.141 Similarly, other scholars working on the settlement contexts of Carthage,notably Vegas, have underpinned their chronological notion of Carthaginian potterybasically and ultimately upon the conventional dates of Greek (Late Geometric) pot-tery.142 The same holds for those working in the Carthaginian necropoleis and tophet.Only recently, have Levantine imports been introduced into the typology-chronologydebate concerning the absolute dates for Carthaginian assemblages.143

Despite all of their potential shortcomings, these pottery typologies, based uponstratigraphical and contextual sequences, have one thing in common. They have pro-vided us with a coherent picture of the chronological assemblages for Carthage. Theseassemblages not only consist of local Carthaginian pottery, but also and consistently ofspecific types of imports. We, therefore, cannot deny the fact that the earliest assem-blages of Carthage contain certain types of Phoenician pottery (mostly represented inthe selection published above) in combination with a standard set of Greek and Lev-antine imports (equally represented in the above selection). Unfortunately, these asso-ciations have not often, hitherto, been published as entire contextual assemblages,hence the statistical basis is still rather weak and in need of precision. That this holds


138 Docter in Niemeyer, et al., 2006, pp. 470–472, fig. 250:4191, 4196; see also here, cat. 53.139 Vegas 1997, pp. 352–353; Vegas 2002, pp. 134, 138–139, fig. 2:20 = her cat. 19.140 Peserico 2002 and the various authors in Niemeyer, et al., 2006.141 Docter and Niemeyer in Docter, et al., 2005, pp. 560–562142 E.g. Vegas 1999a.143 Vegas 2002, pp. 133–136, 143, fig. 5:43–48.

particularly for the very earliest period of Carthage’s existence may be grasped fromthe recent collection of all published settlement contexts of Carthage.144 Only towardsthe end of the eighth century BC, do we witness a considerable increase in the num-ber of artefacts.145 Despite the still imperfect basis, we have to work with the evidenceat hand. Thus, when looking at the earliest Carthaginian artefact assemblages hithertopublished and particularly, those more fully presented here, one gets a fairly consistentpicture. The artefact assemblages find good comparisons within the repertoires ofStrata II–III and even IV–V in the settlement of Tyre146 and the tomb and urn groupsattributed to Period IV of the Tyre-Al Bass necropolis.147 Moreover, the earliest phasesof Carthage compares favourably with the pottery horizon of Morro de Mezquitillaphase 1a.148 When one compares the artefact assemblages with the recently publisheddeposit from the Phoenician emporium of Huelva,149 however, one finds only a fewmatches (Nuraghic transport amphorae, Nuraghic askoi, and Levantine jugs typeDJ–11). In general the material of Huelva, which was studied by one of the presentauthors (Docter) in 2005, goes unrepresented in the earliest Carthaginian assemblages.Rather, it corresponds to material found in Tyre Strata X to IV.

The apparent problem raised already in the introduction and in the section con-tributed by Nijboer and van der Plicht, is that the coherent artefact assemblages ofCarthage are consistently associated with animal bones yielding radiocarbon dates thatare at least some decades earlier. Earlier, in this case, means earlier than the conven-tional absolute dates based upon associations with Greek and Levantine pottery foundin historical event-related deposits, mainly in the Levant. For Carthage this is poten-tially even more acute, since the dates provided by the radiocarbon determinationstally well with the date of the historical foundation of the city. So, the inevitable ques-tion is, which date is to be accepted? The historical plus scientific radiocarbon one(late ninth plus beginning of the eighth century BC) or the conventional artefact-asso-ciated and context-based one (c.760 – early seventh century BC)?

The answer for the moment will be rather inconclusive. The present stratigraphyoffers a very neat sequence that on the one hand shows a succession of chronologicallydistinct artefact classes (e.g. the different Greek imports) and on the other seems toform a more or less homogeneous horizon of early artefact assemblages. In the Ham-burg stratigraphical sequence one sees a similar pattern. If one would have to subdi-vide its Archaic sequence into two horizons, the first one would comprise the layers ofPhases I to III and the second, those of Phase IV.150


144 Docter 2007.145 Docter 2007, p. 40, figs 3–4.146 Bikai 1978.147 Aubet 2004.148 Maass-Lindemann 1998.149 González, Serrano and Llompart 2004; González, Serrano and Llompart 2006.150 Cf. also Docter, et al., 2005, p. 561.

The inconclusiveness is, of course, frustrating, but we are not equipped to judgeany possible technical limitations or inconsistencies (or rather consistent deviations)inherent in the radiocarbon method involved. In an earlier joint study on the contentsof six urns from the Carthaginian tophet in Leiden and Amsterdam, the radiocarbondeterminations proved to be very successful, falling well within the proposed dateranges based on typological comparisons of the individual tophet urns.151 What we areable to judge are the archaeological data. Here, we see no reason, for the time being,to drastically alter the paradigms of archaeological dating.152 This does not mean thatwe oppose an upgrading of archaeological dates for some classes (as for example theskyphoi with one bird and metopes that are attested in Carthage and are now seen tostart already by the end of Middle Geometric, cf. Pontecagnano) and, hence, for thefoundation of Carthage. What we do not wish to do is have such a re-dating basedsolely upon the present Carthaginian stratigraphy. In presenting the archaeologicalmaterial from the contexts from which the early radiocarbon dates came, we hope tohave contributed the pillars on which a future bridge may be constructed.

[Docter, Chelbi, Maraoui Telmini]

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We gratefully acknowledge the generous support of the Fund for Scientific ResearchFlanders (Belgium: FWO-Vlaanderen).


151 Docter, et al., 2003.152 As e.g. in Brandherm 2006, with full references.

Table 1. Radiocarbon dates of the Bir Massouda Trench 4 stratigraphical sequence: 14C datesand quality parameters (13d, %C) for six Carthage animal bone samples (mainly cattle).

Sample Lab nr. 14C age error 13d CarbonGrA/GrN (BP) (1s) (‰) (%)

Carthage GrA-28584 2620 35 - 19.57 45.2BM04/4465

Carthage GrA-28581 2590 30 - 18.09 42.1BM04/4463

Carthage GrN-29278 2580 25 - 18.83 43.8BM04/4458

Carthage GrN-29279 2520 25 - 19.73 50.4BM04/4459

Carthage GrN29281 2520 25 - 19.27 44.2BM04/4461

Carthage GrN-29280 2520 40 -20.68 37.9BM04/4460

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ANDERSON, W. P. 1988 Sarepta I. The Late Bronze and Iron Age Strata of Area II, Y. Beyrouth: The Uni-

versity Museum of the University of Pennsylvania excavations at Sarafend.ANDRIOMÉNOU, A.,

1984 “Skyphoi de l’atelier de Chalkis (fin Xe – fin VIIIe S. av. J.-C.).” Bulletin deCorrespondance Hellénique 108: 37–69.

AUBET, M. E. (editor)2004 The Phoenician Cemetery of Tyre-Al Bass. Excavations 1997–1999. BAAL (Bul-

letin d’Archéologie et d’Architecture Libanaises, hors-série I). Bierut: Ministérede la Culture, Direction Générale des Antiquités.

BAILO MODESTI, G. and GASTALDI, P.1999 Prima di Pithecusa. I più antichi materiali greci del golfo di Salerno. Catalogo

della Mostra – 29 Aprile 1999 Pontecagnano Faiano. Naples: Museo Nazionaledell’Agro Picentino.

BIKAI, P. M.1978 The Pottery of Tyre. Warminster: Wilts, Aris and Philipps Ltd.

BOARDMAN, J.2005 “Al Mina: notes and queries.” Ancient West and East 4(2): 278–291.

BRANDHERM, D. 2006 “Zur Datierung der ältesten griechischen und phönizischen Importkeramik auf

der iberischen Halbinsel. Bemerkungen zum Beginn der Eisenzeit in Süd-westeuropa.” Madrider Mitteilungen 47: 1–23.

BUCHNER, G. and RIDGWAY D. 1993 Pithekoussai I. La necropoli: tombe 1–723 scavate dal 1952 al 1961, Monumenti

Antichi serie monografica 4. Rome: Bretschneider.CHELBI, F., MARAOUI TELMINI, B. and DOCTER, R. F.

2004 “Bilan des fouilles du terrain Bir Massouda (Carthage): Campagnes 2002 à2004.” Africa, new series, Séances Scientifiques 3: 207–225.

2006 “Découverte d’une nécropole du huitième siècle av. J.-C. à Carthage Bir Mas-souda. Rapport préliminaire sur les fouilles de l’Institut National du Patrimoine(Tunis) et l’Université de Gand.” CEDAC Carthage 21: 13–25.

CHELBI, F., MARAOUI TELMINI, B., DOCTER, R. F., NIJBOER, A. J., VAN DER PLICHT, J. andVAN NEER, W.

(Forthcoming) “Radiocarbon Dates from Early Contexts in Carthage,” in Proceedingsof the VIth Congress of Phoenician and Punic Studies (25 September–1 October2005), edited by A. M. Arruda. Lisbon.

COLDSTREAM, N. 1998 “The first exchanges between Euboeans and Phoenicians: who took the initia-

tive?,” in Mediterranean Peoples in Transition, edited by S. Gitin, A. Mazar andE. Stern, pp. 353–360, with discussion, pp. 361–366. Jerusalem: Israel Explo-ration Society.

COLDSTREAM, N. and MAZAR, A. 2003 “Greek pottery from Tel Rehov and Iron Age chronologie.” Israel Exploration

Journal 53: 29–48.DICKINSON, O.

2006 The Aegean from the Bronze Age to Iron Age. Routledge, London.DOCTER, R. F.

1997 Archaische Amphoren aus Karthago und Toscanos. Fundspektrum und Formen-twicklung. Ein Beitrag zur phönizischen Wirtschaftsgeschichte. Amsterdam: Uni-versity of Amsterdam.


2000 “East Greek fine wares and transport amphorae of the 8th – 5th century B.C.from Carthage and Toscanos,” in Ceràmiques jonies d’època arcaica: Centres deproducció i comercialització al Mediterrani occidental, edited by P. Cabrera Bonetand M. Santos Retolaza, pp. 63–88, Actes de la Taula Rodona celebrada aEmpúries, els dies 26 al 28 de maig de 1999. Barcelona.

2004 “The topography of Archaic Carthage. Preliminary results of recent excavationsand some prospects, TALANTA.” Proceedings of the Dutch Archaeological andHistorical Society 34/35, (for 2002–2003): 113–133.

2007 “Published settlement contexts of Punic Carthage.” Carthage Studies 1 (Gent):37–76.

DOCTER, R. F. (editor)(Forthcoming) Carthage. The Excavations at the Bir Messaouda site 2, Volume I.

DOCTER, R. F., CHELBI, F. and MARAOUI TELMINI, B. 2003 “Carthage Bir Massouda: Preliminary Report on the first bilateral excavations

of Ghent University and the Institut National du Patrimoine (2002–2003).”BABesch. Annual Papers on Mediterranean Archaeology 78: 43–70.

DOCTER, R. F., CHELBI, F., MARAOUI TELMINI, B., BECHTOLD, B., BEN ROMDHANE, H.,DECLERCQ, V., DE SCHACHT, T., DEWEIRDT, E., DE WULF, A., FARSI, L., FREY-KUPPER, S.,GARSALLAH, S., JOOSTEN, I., KOENS, H., MABROUK, J., REDISSI, T., ROUDESLI CHEBBI, S.,RYCKBOSCH, K., SCHMIDT, K., TAVERNIERS, B., VAN KERCKHOVE, J. and VERDONCK, L.

2006 “Carthage Bir Massouda: Second preliminary report on the bilateral excava-tions of Ghent University and the Institut National du Patrimoine(2003–2004).” BABesch. Annual Papers on Mediterranean Archaeology 81:37–89.

DOCTER, R. F. and NIEMEYER, H. G.1994 “Pithekoussai: The Cartaginian connection. On the archaeological evidence of

Euboeo-Phoenician partnership in the 8th and 7th centuries B.C.,” inAPOIKIA. I più antichi insediamenti greci in occidente: funzioni e modi dell’orga-nizzazione politica e sociale. Scritti in onore di Giorgio Buchner, edited by B.D’Agostino and D. Ridgway, pp. 101–115. Annali sezione di archeologia e sto-ria antica. Dipartimento di studi del mondo classico e del Mediterraneo anticoNS 1 [1995]. Naples.

DOCTER, R. F., NIEMEYER, H. G., NIJBOER, A. J. and VAN DER PLICHT, J. 2005 “Radiocarbon dates of animal bones in the earliest levels of Carthage, in Ori-

ente e Occidente: metodi e discipline a confronto. Rifflessioni sulla cronologia del-l’età del ferro italiana, edfited by G. Bartoloni, F. Delpino, R. de Marinis andP. Gastaldi, pp. 557–577. Mediterranea. Quaderni Annuali dell’Istituto diStudi sulle Civilta Italiche e del Mediterraneo Antico del Consiglio Nazionaledelle Ricerche I, 2004 (2005). Rome: Istituti Editoriali e Poligrafici Inter-nazionali.

DOCTER, R. F., SMITS, E., HAKBIJL, T., STUIJTS, I. L. M. and VAN DER PLICHT, J., 2003 “Interdisciplinary research on urns from the Carthaginian tophet and their con-

tents.” Palaeohistoria 43/44 (for 2001/2002): 417–433.GONZÁLEZ DE CANALES CERISOLA, F., SERRANO PICHARDO, L. and LLOMPART GÓMEZ, J.

2004 El emporio fenico precolonial de Huelva (ca. 900–770 a.C.). Madrid: BibliotecaNueva.

GONZÁLEZ, F., SERRANO, L. and LLOMPART, J.2006 “The precolonial Phoenician emporium of Huelva ca. 900–770 BC.” BABesch.

Annual Papers on Mediterranean Archaeology 81: 13–29.


LANTING, J. N.2004 “Ross Island: radiocarbon dates and absolute chronology,” in Ross Island, Bronze

Age Studies 6, edited by W. O’Brien, pp. 305–316. Galway: National Universityof Ireland.

LUKE, J.2003 Ports of Trade, Al Mina and Geometric Greek Pottery in the Levant. Oxford:

Archaeopress.MAASS-LINDEMANN, G.

1982 Toscanos. Die westphönikische Niederlassung an der Mündung des Río de Vélez.Grabungskampagne 1971 und die importdatierte westphönikische Grabkeramik des7./6.Jhs. v. Chr. Madrider Forschungen 6,3. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

1998 “Die Zeitbestimmung der frühen phönikischen Kolonien des 8. Jhs. v.Chr. inSpanien,” in Archäologische Studien in Kontaktzonen der Antiken Welt, edited byR. Rolle, K. Schmidt and R. F. Docter, pp. 539–544. Veröffentlichung derJoachim Jungius-Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften Hamburg 87 [= Festschrift H. G. Niemeyer]. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht.

2005 “Tyre al Bass and the western colonies. A comparison of funeral offerings and burial customs,” in Atti del V Congresso Internazionale di Studi Fenici e Punici.Marsala-Palermo, 2–8 ottobre 2000, edited by A. Spanò Giammellaro, pp. 107–114.Palermo: Universita degli studi di Palermo, Facolta di lettere e filosofia.

MANSEL, K.1999 “Handgemachte Keramik der Siedlungsschichten des 8. und 7. Jahrhunderts

v.Chr. aus Karthago. Ein Vorbericht,” in Die deutschen Ausgrabungen inKarthago (Karthago III), edited by F. Rakob, pp. 220–238. Mainz a.R: Philippvon Zabern.

MARAOUI TELMINI, B., CHELBI, F. and DOCTER, R. F.(Forthcoming) “Les fouilles Tuniso-Belges du Terrain Bir Massouda (2002–2005):

contribution à la connaissance de la topographie de Carthage à l’époquearchaïque,” in Proceedings of the VIth Congress of Phoenician and Punic Studies,(Lisbon, 25 September – 1 October 2005), edited by A. M. Arruda.

MAZAR, E.2001 The Phoenicians in Achziv. The Southern Cemetery. Jerome L. Joss Expedition.

Final Report of the Excavations 1988–1990. Cuadernos de Arqueología Mediter-ránea 7. Barcelona: Laboratorio de Arqueología. Universidad Pompeu Fabra deBarcelona. Carrera Edició.

NEEFT, C. W.1981 “Observations on the Thapsos Class.” Mélanges de l’École Française de Rome 93:

7–88.NIEMEYER, H. G.

1989a Das frühe Karthago und die phönizische Expansion im Mittelmeerraum. Alsöffentlicher Vortrag der Joachim Jungius-Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften gehalten am31. Mai 1988 in Hamburg. Veröffentlichung der Joachim Jungius-Gesellschaftder Wissenschaften Hamburg 60. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht.

NIEMEYER, H. G.2005 “There is no way out of the Al Mina debate.” Ancient West and East 4(2):

292–295.NIEMEYER, H. G., RINDELAUB, A. and SCHMIDT, K.

1996 Karthago. Die alte Handelsmetropole am Mittelmeer. Eine archäologische Grabung,Hamburg: Hamburger Museum für Archäologie und die Geschichte Harburgs.


NIEMEYER, H. G., DOCTER, R. F., SCHMIDT, K., BECHTOLD, B., et al.2006 Karthago. Die Ergebnisse der Hamburger Grabung unter dem Decumanus Max-

imus. Hamburger Forschungen zur Archäologie 2. Mainz a.R: Philipp vonZabern.

NIJBOER, A. J.2005a “La cronologia assoluta dell’età del Ferro nel Mediterraneo, dibattito sui metodi

e sui risultati,” in Oriente e Occidente: metodi e discipline a confronto. RifflessioniSulla Cronologia Dell’età Del Ferro Italiana (Mediterranea, edited by G. Bar-toloni, F. Delpino, R. de Marinis and P. Gastaldi, pp. 527–556. QuaderniAnnuali dell’Istituto di Studi sulle Civilta Italiche e del Mediterraneo Anticodel Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche I, for 2004. Rome: Istituti EditorialiPoligrafici Internazionali

2005b “The Iron Age in the Mediterranean: A Chronological Mess or Trade before theFlag, Part II.” Ancient West and East 4(2): 255–277.

NIJBOER, A. J. and VAN DER PLICHT, J.2006 “An interpretation of the radiocarbon determinations of the oldest indigenous-

Phoenician stratum thus far, excavated at Huelva, Tartessos (south-westSpain).” BABesch. Annual Papers on Mediterranean Archaeology 81: 31–36.

(Forthcoming) “The Iron Age in the Mediterranean: recent radiocarbon research at theUniversity of Groningen,” in Proceedings XV Congress of the International Unionfor Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences (UISPP), held in Lisbon, 4–9 September2006, Session C53 A New Dawn for the Dark Age? – Shifting Paradigms inMediterranean Iron Age Chronology, edited by D. Brandherm and M. Trachsel.

NJIM, A.2006 “Survivance d’un type de vase à feu dit vase étagé trapu.” REPPAL 13:

183–200.PESERICO, A.

2002 Die offenen Formen der Red Slip Ware aus Karthago. Untersuchungen zurphönizischen Keramik im westlichen Mittelmeerraum. Münster, Hamburg, Lon-don: Hamburger Werkstattreihe zur Archäologie 5.

RAKOB, F.1984 “Deutsche Ausgrabungen in Karthago. Die punischen Befunde.” Mitteilungen

des Deutschen Archäologischen Institut Römische Abteilung 91: 1–23.RAKOB, F. (editor)

1999 Die deutschen Ausgrabungen in Karthago (Karthago III). Mainz a.R: Philipp vonZabern.

RENFREW, C.1973 Before Civilization: the Radiocarbon Revolution and Prehistoric Europe. New

York: Knopf/Random House.RIDGWAY, D.

1994 “Phoenicians and Greeks in the West: a view from Pithekoussai,” in TheArchaeology of Greek Colonisation. Essays dedicated to Sir John Boardman, editedby G. R. Tsetskhladze and F. de Angelis, pp. 35–46. Oxford: Oxford UniversityCommittee for Archaeology 40.

2000 “The first western Greeks revisited,” in Ancient Italy and its Mediterranean setting. Studies in honour of Ellen Macnamara, edited by D. Ridgway, et al., pp. 179–191. London: Accordia Research Institute.

TORRES, M., RUIZ-GÁLVEZ PRIEGO, M. and RUBINOS, A.2005 “La cronologia de la Cultura Nurágica y los inicios de la Edad del Hierro y de

las colonizaciones históricas en el Mediterráneo Centro-Occidental. Una aprox-iminación desde la cronología radiocarbónica y el registro arqueológico,” in


Territorio Nurágico y paisaje antiguo. La Meseta de Pranemuru (Cerdeña) en laEdad del Bronce, edited by M. Ruiz-Gálvez Priego, pp. 169–194. Madrid: Uni-versidad Complutense de Madrid.

VEGAS, M.1984 “Archaische Keramik aus Karthago.” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen

Institut Römische Abteilung 91: 215–237.1989 “Archaische und mittelpunische Keramik aus Karthago. Grabungen 1987/88.”

Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Institut Römische Abteilung 96:209–265.

1997 “Der Keramikimport in Karthago während der archaischen Zeit.” Mitteilungendes Deutschen Archäologischen Institut Römische Abteilung 104: 351–358.

1999a “Phöniko-punische Keramik aus Karthago,” in Die deutschen Ausgrabungen inKarthago (Karthago III), edited by F. Rakob, pp. 93–219. Mainz am Rhein: vonZabern.

1999b “Eine archaische Keramikfüllung aus einem Haus am Kardo XIII in Karthago.”Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Institut Römische Abteilung 106:395–438.

2000 “Ceramica cartaginese della prima metà del secolo VII,” in La ceramica feniciadi Sardegna. Dati, problematiche, confronti. Atti del Primo Congresso Inter-nazionale Sulcitano Sant’Antioco, 19–21 Settembre 1997, edited by P. Bartoloniand L. Campanella, pp. 355–370. Collezione di Studi Fenici 40. Rome: Con-siglio Nazionale delle Ricerche.

2002 “La céramica de importación en Cartago durante el período arcaico,” inCartago fenicio-púnica. Las excavaciones alemanas en Cartago 1975–1997, editedby M. Vegas, pp. 133–145. Cuadernos de Arqueología Mediterránea 4 (for1998). Barcelona: Laboratorio de Arqueología. Universidad Pompeu Fabra deBarcelona. Carrera Edició.


new radiocarbon dates from carthage: bridging the gap between history and archaeology?

Documents