ANIMAL CONCEPTUALIZATION IN PUNIC, NEO-PUNIC, AND ROMAN NORTH AFRICA: A RE-INTERPRETATION OF SANCTUARY MATERIALS FROM THE CULTS OF BA’AL HAMMON AND TANIT

A Thesis Submitted to the Committee on Graduate Studies in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Masters of Arts in the Faculty of Arts and Science

TRENT UNIVERSITY

Peterborough, Ontario, Canada

© Copyright Madeline Holder 2012

Anthropology M.A. Graduate Program

May 2013 Library and Archives Bibliotheque et Canada Archives Canada

Published Heritage Direction du 1+1 Branch Patrimoine de I'edition 395 Wellington Street 395, rue Wellington Ottawa ON K1A0N4 Ottawa ON K1A 0N4 Canada Canada Your file Votre reference ISBN: 978-0-494-93844-7

Our file Notre reference ISBN: 978-0-494-93844-7

NOTICE: AVIS: The author has granted a non­ L'auteur a accorde une licence non exclusive exclusive license allowing Library and permettant a la Bibliotheque et Archives Archives Canada to reproduce, Canada de reproduire, publier, archiver, publish, archive, preserve, conserve, sauvegarder, conserver, transmettre au public communicate to the public by par telecommunication ou par I'lnternet, preter, telecommunication or on the Internet, distribuer et vendre des theses partout dans le loan, distrbute and sell theses monde, a des fins commerciales ou autres, sur worldwide, for commercial or non­ support microforme, papier, electronique et/ou commercial purposes, in microform, autres formats. paper, electronic and/or any other formats.

The author retains copyright L'auteur conserve la propriete du droit d'auteur ownership and moral rights in this et des droits moraux qui protege cette these. Ni thesis. Neither the thesis nor la these ni des extraits substantiels de celle-ci substantial extracts from it may be ne doivent etre imprimes ou autrement printed or otherwise reproduced reproduits sans son autorisation. without the author's permission.

In compliance with the Canadian Conformement a la loi canadienne sur la Privacy Act some supporting forms protection de la vie privee, quelques may have been removed from this formulaires secondaires ont ete enleves de thesis. cette these.

While these forms may be included Bien que ces formulaires aient inclus dans in the document page count, their la pagination, il n'y aura aucun contenu removal does not represent any loss manquant. of content from the thesis. Canada Abstract

Animal Conceptualization in Punic, Neo-Punic and Roman North Africa: Implications for Interpretations of the Cults of Ba’al Hammon and Tanit

Madeline Holder

This thesis aims to determine if variation or changes can be identified in animal conceptualization (the relationship between humans, animals, and worship of the gods) between past cultures of North Africa, who have experienced continual direct or indirect interaction over an extended period of time. Animal conceptualization sees human/animal relationships as a continuum and culturally influenced, suggesting that the offerings that are preferred or how animals are depicted may be different, even within the practice of the same cult. For this thesis, faunal remains and animal depictions on stelae from sanctuaries of Ba’al Hammon/Satum and Tanit/Caelestis were compared, focusing on frequency and variation to determine how extensive variation in animal use was, and how this variation may have reflected animal conceptualization. The results showed, to varying degrees, noticeable changes chronologically and geographically in animal conceptualization. This research contributes to the scholarship of culture change in North

Africa through the exploration of an indigenous, Punic, and Roman religious component that reflects social, rather than political, changes.

Keywords: animal conceptualization, ancient North Africa, Ba’al Hammon/Satum, Tanit/Caelestis, Punic, Neo-Punic, Roman, faunal remains, stelae. Acknowledgments

First and foremost, I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr. Jennifer Moore, for her support, guidance, and seemingly endless patience. I have learned so much from her, specifically about how truly amazing ancient North Africa is. Thank you to my other committee members, Dr. Hugh Elton and Dr. Marit Munsen, who have provided valuable insight, both personal and scholarly, and to my external committee member, Dr. James

Rives, for taking the time to read my thesis and providing valuable input.

Secondly I wish to thank the Department of Anthropology, especially Kristine

Williams with her ready supply of conversation and photocopy cards. I would also like to thank Dr. Joseph Greene for taking time to consult with me about a Carthaginian sample of remains, and for the further readings regarding culture change in ancient North Africa.

Lastly, I am especially grateful for the support from my family and friends. My parents, Sandra and Dave, have been instrumental in keeping me going, listening to my concerns, being my bouncing board, and making Peterborough feel less far away.

Thanks to my sister, Jennifer, for making Montreal feel like a second home. Thank you to my dearest Evelyn Nymoen, who has been a fabulously supportive friend, and even providing a few translations for me. To my Peterborough family, thank you to Megan

Bower, always my summer adventure buddy, even if it means helping me rescue a turtle from a fountain over the phone from Newfoundland; to Cara Tremain, whose lovely and bubbly manner has kept me smiling; to Kimberly Jankuta, my constant companion in general mischief, both in Peterborough and soon-to-be in Edmonton. Finally, a special thank you to Robin Coleman: a latecomer in the gauntlet but instrumental in keeping me on my feet. He’s helped me see past the frustration to the future adventures. Table of Contents

Abstract ii

Acknowledgements iii

Table of Contents iv

List of Figures V

List of Tables vii

Chapter One: Introduction 1

Chapter Two: Introduction to the Cults of Ba’al Hammon and Tanit 10

Chapter Three: Method of Data Collection and Analysis 38

Chapter Four: Theory of Animal Conceptualization 60

Chapter Five: Part A - Sanctuary Groups in Context 75

Chapter Five: Part B - Presentation of Data 92

Chapter Six: Cross-Site Comparisons and Interpretations 135

Chapter Seven: Conclusions 165

Bibliography 169

Appendix A: Catalogue of Stelae 184

Figures 224

iv List of Figures

Figure 1.1 Map of the Mediterranean and North Africa. 224

Figure 1.2 Approximate Areas of Major Indigenous Groups. 224

Figure 3.1 Examples of Stele Shapes. 225

Figure 3.2 Common Punic-period Iconography. 225

Figure 3.3 Anthropomorphism of the ‘Sign of Tanit’. 226

Figure 5.1 Location of the Sanctuary at Carthage. 227

Figure 5.2 Location of the Sanctuary atHadrumetum (Sousse). 228

Figure 5.3 Layout of the Sanctuary at Henchir el-Hami. 229

Figure 5.4 Location of the Sanctuary at El-Kenissia. 230

Figure 5.5 Location of the Sanctuary atCirta (Constantine). 231

Figure 5.6 Location of the Sanctuary atThugga (Dougga). 232

Figure 5.7 Location of the Sanctuary atCuicul (Djemila). 233

Figure 5.8 Location of the Sanctuary atThamugadi (Timgad). 234

Figure 5.9 CN 36, 4th to 3rd century B.C.E., Carthage. 235

Figure 5.10 CN 95, indeterminate date, Carthage. 235

Figure 5.11 CN 13, 4th to 3rd century B.C.E., Carthage. 236

Figure 5.12 CN 78, Roman period, Carthage. 236

Figure 5.13 Stele fromHadrumetum (Sousse), indeterminate date. 237

Figure 5.14 CN 152, 2nd to 1st century B.C.E., Hadrumetum (Sousse). 237

Figure 5.15 CN 154, mid 1st century B.C.E. to late 1st century C.E., Hadrumetum

(Sousse). 238

Figure 5.16 CN 160, Neo-Punic period, Henchir el-Hami. 238

v Figure 5.17 CN 162, Roman period, Henchir el-Hami. 239

Figure 5.18. CN 148, indeterminate date, El-Kenissia. 239

Figure 5.19 CN 147, indeterminate date, El-Kenissia. 240

Figure 5.20 CN 102, Punic period, Cirta (Constantine). 240

Figure 5.21 CN 105, Punic period, Cirta (Constantine). 241

Figure 5.22 CN 364, Roman period (?), Thugga (Dougga). 241

Figure 5.23 CN 419, indeterminate date, Thugga (Dougga). 242

Figure 5.24 CN 244, late 1st century C.E., Mactaris (Maktar). 242

Figure 5.25 CN 261, 2nd century C.E., Mactaris (Maktar). 243

Figure 5.26 CN 250, 2nd century C.E., Mactaris (Maktar). 243

Figure 5.27 CN 269, 3rd century C.E., Sitifis (Setif). 244

Figure 5.28 CN 280, Roman period,Sitifis (Setif). 244

Figure 5.29 CN 128, late 2nd century C.E., Cuicul (Djemila). 245

Figure 5.30 CN 135, 3rd century C.E., Cuicul (Djemila). 245

Figure 5.31 CN 138, 4th century C.E., Cuicul (Djemila). 246

Figure 5.32 CN 344, 3rd century C.E., Theveste (Tebessa). 246

Figure 5.33 CN 348, Roman period, Theveste (Tebessa). 247

Figure 5.34 CN 176, 3rd century C.E., Lambaesis (Lambese). 247

Figure 5.35 CN 169, late 2nd century C.E., Lambaesis (Lambese). 248

Figure 5.36 CN 320, Roman period, Thamugadi (Timgad). 248

Figure 5.37 CN 291, early 2nd century C.E., Thamugadi (Timgad). 249

Figure 5.38 CN 296, late 2nd century C.E., Thamugadi (Timgad). 249

Figure 5.39 CN 305, early 3rd century C.E., Thamugadi (Timgad). 250

vi List of Tables

Table 5.1 Chronology of Sanctuary Levels at Carthage. 80

Table 5.2 Chronology of Sanctuary Layers atHadrumetum (Sousse). 82

Table 5.3 Remains in Carthage Urns, as Analyzed by Pallary (1922). 93

Table 5.4 Remains in Carthage Urns, as Analyzed by Schwartz et al. (2010). 94

Table 5.5 Remains in Carthage Ums, as Analyzed by Pallary (1922) and Schwartz et al.

(2010), combined. 95

Table 5.6 Remains in Hadrumetum (Sousse) Ums, as Analyzed by Cintas (1947). 97

Table 5.7 Remains in Henchir el-Hami Ums, as Analyzed by Bedoui and Oueslati

(2007). 98

Table 5.8 Summary of All Stelae Assessed from the PSG and the SSG. 100

Table 5.9 Stelae Assessed from Carthage. 101

Table 5.10 Animals Represented on Stelae from Carthage. 102

Table 5.11 Stelae Assessed from Hadrumetum (Sousse). 106

Table 5.12 Animals Represented on Stelae from Hadrumetum (Sousse). 107

Table 5.13 Stelae Assessed from Henchir el-Hami. 109

Table 5.14 Animals Represented on Stelae from Henchir el-Hami. 110

Table 5.15 Stelae Assessed from El-Kenissia. 112

Table 5.16 Animals Represented on Stelae from El-Kenissia. 112

Table 5.17 Stelae Assessed from Cirta (Constantine). 114

Table 5.18 Animals Represented on Stelae from Cirta (Constantine). 114

Table 5.19 Stelae Assessed from Thugga (Dougga). 117

Table 5.20 Animals Represented on Stelae from Thugga (Dougga). 117 Table 5.21 Stelae Assessed from Mactaris (Maktar). 120

Table 5.22 Animals Represented on Stelae from Mactaris (Maktar). 121

Table 5.23 Stelae Assessed from Sitifis (Setif). 123

Table 5.24 Animals Represented on Stelae from Sitifis (Setif). 124

Table 5.25 Stelae Assessed from Cuicul (Djemila). 126

Table 5.26 Animals Represented on Stelae from Cuicul (Djemila). 126

Table 5.27 Stelae Assessed from Theveste (Tebessa). 128

Table 5.28 Animals Represented on Stelae from Theveste (Tebessa). 129

Table 5.29 Stelae Assessed from Lambaesis (Lambese). 130

Table 5.30 Animals Represented on Stelae from Lambaesis (Lambese). 131

Table 5.31 Stelae Assessed from Thamugadi (Timgad). 132

Table 5.32 Animals Represented on Stelae from Thamugadi (Timgad). 133

viii Chapter One: Introduction

Societies have never been a static entity, existing only in and of themselves; they interact with numerous other societies, either directly or indirectly. This also holds true with their surrounding environment; how members of a society perceive their environment, as well as their place within it, influences how they interact with it. This includes relationships formed with animals, such as how people feel around or about animals or which animals are divine or favoured by the divine. Some societies see animals as equal to humans, existing in nature together, and each connected to each other, such as the Inuit, or the Tukanoan Indians of eastern Colombia (Descola 1996: 89; Ingold

2000). In contrast, other cultures, such as that of Medieval England (Thomas 1984), see humans as hierarchically superior and completely separate from animals, although certain domesticated animals were incorporated into society, as pets, more readily than the rest of nature.

Observations of human and animal relationships have not been limited to modem scholars. From the ancient Mediterranean, many writings preserved from philosophers and other writers, such as Aristotle(History o f Animals) and Plutarch (On the Cleverness o f Animals), provide some insight into how they believed these relationships had formed, or even how they ought to be. Through these writings, we can gamer the ways in which some ancient Mediterranean cultures perceived how animals fit into the world alongside the humans who heavily depended upon them for labour, by-products (e.g. wool, milk), and religious ritual.

The modem study of human-animal relationships began during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries with a cultural evolutionary approach, which saw the religious use of animals as intrinsically connected to cultural development (Gilhus 2006:

2). Since then, scholars have begun to question the cultural and moral value of animals to ancient and contemporary peoples alike, as well as the ideology and social structures that produced these mindsets. (Leeds and Vayda 1965; Toynbee 1973; Clark 1977; Douglas

1990; Singer 1990[1975]; Sorabji 1993; Midgley 1995). One particular branch of human-animal relationship studies, known as ‘animal conceptualization’, developed through the anthropological discipline. It recognized common characteristics in how cultures identified and related to animals, yet acknowledged that these common characteristics were not mutually exclusive. (Descola 1996; Ingold 2000; Viveiros de

Castro 2004). This allowed the recognition of minor and major variations in the expression of human-animal relationships between cultures exhibiting similar overarching characteristics. These relations also affected which or how animals were used in a spiritual or religious setting, such as their use as mediators between humans and the divine, as sacrifices, for divination, reverence (spirit guides), or as deities in their own right (Gilhus 2006: 22-23).

Animal conceptualization has, so far, only been applied to modern-day cultures.

Other forms of studying human-animal relationships in archaeological populations have been limited to static generalizations or observations of major cultural and religious changes, such as the transition from polytheistic to a monotheistic religion (Palsson 1990;

Ingold 2000; Fowler 2004). Therefore, the purpose of this thesis is to determine whether changes in animal conceptualization can be detected through material remains in an area that experienced extensive multi-cultural interaction over an extended period of time. The area which I have selected to assess this concept is ancient North Africa, for

several reasons. First, it was an area that experienced extensive direct and indirect

cultural interaction between the indigenous North African population and the incoming

Phoenicio-Punic and Roman populations. Second, the offerings recovered from

sanctuaries dedicated to the prominent Punic gods, Ba’al Hammon and Tanit, included

the incinerated remains of children and animals, as well as votive stone monuments,

called stelae (s. stele), some of which have animals as part of the symbolic composition.

The volume of incinerated remains (faunal and child) and stelae were unparalleled in

sanctuaries dedicated to other ancient North African gods. Third, sanctuaries of Ba’al

Hammon and Tanit have been identified all across North Africa, in towns and cities of

indigenous Punic, and Roman origins, during three historically-identified periods: Punic

(fifth century B.C.E. to 146 B.C.E.), Neo-Punic (146 B.C.E. to late first century C.E.) and

Roman (late first century to late fourth century C.E.) periods.

Despite these favourable factors, the animal-related evidence from the sanctuaries has been often overlooked by scholars who instead focused on the incinerated child remains and the ancient claims of Carthaginian child sacrifice. As these cults were multi­ cultural, multi-regional, and extended over the three identified periods, the animal-related evidence provides a unique opportunity to determine whether changes in animal conceptualization can be identified through archaeological materials. Theoretically, if two populations practiced the same cult, the representation of animals found within the sanctuaries might reveal variations as a result of differences in animal conceptualization.

The following section provides a brief introduction to the complexity of cultural interactions in ancient North Africa. Study Area: Ancient North Africa

As the Phoenician traders sailed their way across the Mediterranean from present- day Lebanon to the Atlantic, they eased their trips by establishing small port or trading post settlements across the Mediterranean coast (Figure 1.1), such as at Motya (off present-day Sicily), Nora (in present-day Sardinia). Utica (in present-day Tunisia), Lixus

(in present-day Morocco), and Gades (in present-day southern Spain). Carthage (in present-day Tunisia) was one such post, which, according to legend, was established by

Phoenicians from Tyre in 814 B.C.E. Its Phoenician name, “Qart-Hadasht”, meant “new city”, indicating the purpose of a political center (Moscati 1968:116). The Phoenician settlers of North Africa became known to Romans, and subsequently to modem scholars, as ‘Punics’ (Livy, History o f Rome, XXII.14.5, 23.7, 33.4; Plautus, Poenulus 111-113) in recognition of the independence of the western culture from its Phoenician homeland.1

For the first two centuries Carthage remained loyal to Tyre, as indicated by the yearly embassy sent with a portion of Carthage’s annual profits to Tyre (Quintus Curtius

Rufus,Historiae Alexandri Magni IV.2.10). When Tyre and other Phoenician cities fell under the control of the Assyrians, then were subjugated by Nebuchadnezzar in the 570s

B.C.E., Carthage took control over the Phoenician settlements across the Mediterranean

(Moscati 1968:23; Lancel 1997:81). As Carthage’s power increased, Carthaginians also increased their territory within North Africa, spreading their control and influence further into the interior (Lancel 1997:195).

This expansion of Carthaginian power across the Mediterranean and North Africa brought the Punic people into contact with the expanding Roman Republic, which

1 For further discussion on the use o f ‘Punic (Poenus)' and ‘Carthaginian ( Carthaginiensis)' as interchangeable synonyms, refer to G.F. Franko 1994. resulted in the Three Punic Wars (264-241, 218-201, and 149-146 B.C.E. respectively), which ultimately ended in disaster for Carthage. In 146 B.C.E., Carthage was completely destroyed by Rome, and its territory made into a Roman province; then by the first century C.E., nearly all of North Africa had been incorporated into the Roman Empire

(Brett and Fentress 1996:41). Between the first century B.C.E. and the first century C.E.,

Rome began creating colonies for its veterans and the Roman population and influence began to grow across North Africa. Punic elements, however, continued in some areas in such aspects as the perpetuation of Punic town magistrates, calledsuffetes (Picard 1957:

39-40), the use of stelae in sanctuaries (not as common in Roman religion), and the continued use of the Punic language (Lancel 1997: 436-438).

The pre-existing indigenous groups or tribes of North Africa were not a homogenous group, although there were many similarities between them. According to legend, when Carthage was established there was a treaty between the Phoenicians and the local surrounding indigenous group, the Maxitani (Justin VI. 1, as cited by Lancel

1997: 23-24), limiting Carthaginians to a strip of land (Livy, History o f Rome 34.62.11-

13). However, by the third century B.C.E., Carthage had grown to control most of northern Tunisia and northeastern Algeria (Lancel 1997: 259). This expansion into indigenous territory resulted in the unification of indigenous tribes into three kingdoms: the Masaesyli of northern Algeria, the Massyli of southern Algeria and southern Tunisia, and the Mauri of northern Morocco (Brett and Fentress 1996: 25). Their approximate territories are shown in Figure 1.2. During the Second Punic War (218-201 B.C.E.), the

Masaesyli and Massyli kingdoms were in contest, and had sided with the Punics and the

Romans, respectively. King Masinissa of the Massyli, with the backing of Rome, defeated and annexed the Masaesyli kingdom, thereafter renaming it Numidia (Camps

1980:150). Despite the fact that the Numidian kingdom had been formed in opposition to

Carthaginian political and territorial expansion, the royal court was a mix of indigenous and Punic elements: the language and religion of the court was Punic, yet the title of political positions remained indigenous (Brett and Fentress 1996:27).

The cults of Ba’al Hammon and Tanit, first practiced by the Phoenicio-Punic population, were found at Phoenician colonies in Sardinia and Sicily, and especially in

North Africa (Figure 1.3). The cults did not appear to continue in importance outside of

North Africa after the fifth and fourth centuries B.C.E. (Ribichini 1997: 132). In contrast, in North Africa during the fifth and fourth centuries B.C.E., the cults of Ba’al

Hammon and Tanit spread in tandem as Carthaginian power and influence encompassed previously established Phoenician settlements and neighbouring indigenous territories

(Aubet 1993:199; Lancel 1997:195). This process had become widespread by the second century B.C.E. The cults continued to be practiced well into the Roman period, up until the end of the fourth century C.E. By 1966, over 160 such sanctuaries had been identified and catalogued (Le Glay 1961; 1966a), and many more have since been identified (e.g., Ferjaoui and M’Charek 1990; Norman 2002; Feijaoui 2007).2

Ba’al Hammon and Tanit were not the only gods to have received sanctuaries or offerings. What made their cults unique were the incinerated child remains buried in ums, often marked by stone monuments, in several Phoenicio-Punic sanctuaries, such as at Carthage and Hadrumetum in Africa, Motya and Lilybeum in Sicily, and Nora, Sulcis,

Tharros, and Monte Sirai in Sardinia (Whitaker 1921; Fedele 1979; Moscati 1987; Brown

2 The two-volume work of Marcel Le Glay, Saturn Africain: Monuments (1 - 1961, II - 1966a) outlines most of the sanctuaries, including bibliographies, from modern-day Tunisia and Algeria. 1991; Aubet 1993: 202-208; Ribichini 1997:133). These physical remains, in conjunction with many ancient testimonies of child sacrifice to Ba’al Hammon and Tanit, has led to an overwhelming amount of modem scholarship that have debated the possibility of child sacrifice having been a major element of the cult (see Chapter Two).

However, the child remains were not the only remains recovered from these sanctuaries. There were also incinerated faunal remains buried in the sanctuaries, sometimes in the same urn as the remains of a child. Scholars linked early all analyses of the faunal remains with the supposition of child sacrifice (see Chapter Four). This thesis, therefore, aims to study the overlooked animal-related evidence from sanctuaries, divorced, when possible, from the child-sacrifice concept. The continued practice of these multi-cultural cults of Ba’al Hammon and Tanit over an extended period of time, an expansion in territory, and during changes in political control make the animal-related evidence intriguing. Animal conceptualization operates on the premise that societies vary in their relationships with animals, which, in turn, affects the way in which specific animals are used in religious settings. If an indigenous culture related to animals differently than the Punic or Roman populations, then the offerings or depictions of animals on stelae presented to the gods might differ; so too, might there be variation across chronological or geographic divides. Thus, the objectives of this thesis are stated as follows:

To identify the modes of identification and relations that the indigenous, Punic, and Roman people had with animals, and how these relationships could be reflected in their worship of the gods.

To test for any standardized way in which animals were represented in the sanctuaries, and determine whether variations are linked to cultural, temporal, and/or geographic factors. 8

To determine if the changes were a result of shifts in animal conceptualization, through the examination of any changes in the roles that animals played within the sanctuaries

Taking an animal conceptualization approach will allow an examination of the overlooked animal-related archaeological evidence from within the sanctuaries: faunal remains and depictions on stelae. The animal-related evidence from these sanctuaries will be examined to determine if animal conceptualization can be recognized, and if the known variation was a result of changes in animal conceptualization.

Thesis Outline

This thesis is divided into five chapters. Chapter Two presents the background to the cults of Ba’al Hammon and Tanit, explaining who these gods were and what typical offerings were given to them. The animal attributes associated with the gods during the

Punic, Neo-Punic and Roman periods are also described. In addition, Chapter Two outlines perceptions of the cult by scholars and writers from both Rome and Greece

(unfortunately, no Carthaginian writing survived discussing the practices of the cult).

How these ancient conceptions have shaped modem scholarly and public perceptions of the cults is also addressed.

In Chapter Three, the methods employed here for data collection and guidelines for analysis of faunal remains and stelae iconography are outlined. Temporal, regional, and cultural elements of stelae, as identified by previous scholars, are presented, in order to provide context for how stelae are attributed here to the Punic, Neo-Punic, and Roman periods. Chapter Four presents the developing theory of animal conceptualization and the characteristics of the modes of identification and relation. It concludes with hypotheses regarding which modes of identification and relation the cultures of ancient

North Africa were likely to exhibit.

Chapter Five is divided into two parts. Part A serves to provide cultural, temporal, and excavation contexts for each site in the Primary Sanctuary Group (PSG) and the Secondary (comparative) Sanctuary Group (SSG). Part B encompasses the presentation of the data for faunal remains and stelae, separated according to site. Chapter

Six then analyzes these data and provides the discussion of any noticeable patterns and general trends found through the animal-related evidence from the sanctuaries.

Interpretations of animal conceptualization inferred here are made through the regional, temporal, or cultural variations, or lack thereof.

Chapter Seven concludes this thesis and places the observations of animal conceptualization from ancient North Africa in relation to broader events occurring in the

Mediterranean world. An evaluation of the animal conceptualization approach is given, along with suggestions for further areas of study. 10

Chapter Two: The Cults of Ba’al Hammon and Tanit

What makes the sanctuaries of Ba’al Hammon and Tanit attractive to study animals is that animals were represented in ways that are not commonly attested in the sanctuaries of other North African gods. The remains of animals were ritually buried independently or with child remains, and stelae dedicated to Ba’al Hammon and Tanit were erected, some of which had animals in their composition. In addition, these cults of

Ba’al Hammon and Tanit were practiced for over a thousand years, spreading inward from coastal Punic cities, such as Carthage andHadrumetum (modem Sousse), into the interior of North Africa. As a result, the recovered faunal and stelae remains may reveal a discemable evolution of cultic practices and animal conceptualization over time and space. This chapter, as a prelude to such investigations, summarizes what is known about the cults of Ba’al Hammon and Tanit, and why animals, despite their prominence, received minimal attention before the present study.

The Gods

In order to understand the role of animals within the cults of Ba’al Hammon and Tanit, it is necessary to understand who these two gods were. This section presents a brief outline of the supreme divine couple of North Africa, in terms of their origins, divine realms, animal attributes, and their transition from their Punic forms to their Roman forms.

Ba ’al Hammon/Satum

Ba’al Hammon was originally a Phoenician god, and one of the supreme gods in the Phoenician city of Tyre, the mother city of Carthage. Ba’al Hammon’s popularity in

Phoenicia was surpassed by the fifth century B.C.E. by that in North Africa, where he 11 was worshipped alongside his consort, Tanit. Their realm of power in North Africa included the celestial, chthonic, agrarian, and fecund (Halsberghe 1984: 2208). During the beginning of the Roman period (late first century C.E.), Ba’al Hammon underwent the process known asinterpretatio romana, whereby Romans equated the Punic god with their god, Saturn. As the dominant language changed from Punic/Neo-Punic to Latin, the name Ba’al Hammon was replaced in dedications with ‘Saturn’, and his portrayal transitioned into a more Roman style, eventually replacing the Punic characteristics of the god (Cadotte 2007: 39) (see below). This association of Ba’al Hammon with a god from another culture was not new to North Africans, as Ba’al Hammon had also been identified by the Greeks as Kronos (equivalent to the Roman Saturn) as early as the fifth century B.C.E., based on their similar agrarian functions (Pseudo-PlatoMinos 315B-C;

Cleitarchus, cited in Scholia to Plato’sRepublic 337A, as cited by Soren, Khader and

Slim 1990: 128).

The name, ‘Ba’al’ and the epithet ‘Hammon’ create some confusion when trying to differentiate his Phoenician form from other, originally Phoenician gods. ‘Ba’al’ (B’L in transliterated Punic writing) could have been a title meaning ‘lord’ or ‘master’, and may have been used as a title for other gods (such as Ba’al El or Ba’al Melqart), or linked to places, such as ‘Ba’al of Tyre’ or ‘Ba’al of Saphon’ (a mountain south of the Orontes)

(Clifford 1990: 57; Lancel 1997: 195; Ribichini 1997: 123). Hammon (HMN) may have meant ‘incense burner/altar of incense’, and so Ba’al Hammon would have been the ‘lord of perfumes’ (Charles-Picard 1954: 59). However, Fantar has argued that if the Punic word was read as two components instead of one (HM-N), then it would become, ‘to our protector’ (Fantar 1995: 73). In the Punic world, Ba’al Hammon was known as the storm 12

god whose realm was both the sky and the underworld; thus a protective-type epithet

would be fitting (Halsberghe 1984: 2208). A scholarly consensus concerning the

translation of ‘Hammon’ has yet to be reached.

Ba’al Hammon/Satum’s animal attributes or associations, recognized through

statuettes and other imagery, included the bull, ram, and lion; these were also shared with

Tanit/Caelestis, his consort (Le Glay 1966b: 80; Halsberghe 1984: 2207; Cadotte 2007:

47-48). These three associations had both Phoenician and North African origins

(Charles-Picard 1954: 11-12; Le Glay 1966b: 133). The bull as a symbol was the male

expression of power and fertility, and could be found in the art and divine symbolism of

agrarian societies across the Mediterranean (Rice 1998: 297); the ram symbolized

prosperity and rain; and the lion symbolized the sun or celestial elements, and could be

found in Numidian tombs (Charles-Picard 1954: 11-12; Le Glay 1966b: 133-141). The

strong ram association with Ba’al, and the epithet ‘Hammon’ have led some scholars to

suggest a level of syncretism with the indigenous Libyan ram god and the Egyptian god,

‘Ammon’ (thus ‘Hammon’), as both were celestial and chthonic gods with the ram as a

totem animal (Mattingly 1995:38-39; Lancel 1997:196).

Although Ba’al Hammon had an anthropomorphic form, he was not often represented in Punic art (Ribichini 1997: 123; Moore 2000: 25). When Ba’al Hammon

was depicted during the Punic and Neo-Punic periods, he was usually portrayed with

Phoenician characteristics: a bearded, robed male sitting on a throne, sometimes flanked

by sphinxes, wearing a coned hat or crown, with right palm open and holding a staff

(Cintas 1947: 14-16; Lancel 1997: 198). Two iconic examples include a stele from

Hadrumetum dating to the Punic period (fifth or fourth century B.C.E.), and a terracotta statue from the Roman period (first or second century C.E.) found Thinissutat (near Bir- bou-Rekba) (Lancel 1997: 198). Despite the second example being from the Roman period, the similarities between the stele and the statue are noteworthy. The difference lies in the conical head-dress on the Punic-period stele versus the crown of plumes on the

Roman-period statue. While only a small number of depictions of Ba’al Hammon are known, in the Roman period Saturn’s anthropomorphic form appeared on many stelae.

He was also depicted as a bearded male, but instead of being fully clothed, he was often portrayed wearing a robe that covered his head (a visual marker of participation in a religious ritual in Roman religion) and lower body, but left his chest bare. He wore no hat or crown, and could be displayed as a bust, standing, enthroned, or reclining on one of his animals.

While the transition from Ba’al Hammon to Saturn is well-attested across much of

North Africa, there were some places where Saturn did not become the dominant god in the Roman period; rather Jupiter was dominant, or Jupiter and Saturn were combined, such as near Cirta (modem Constantine) and Theveste (modem Tebessa) (Cadotte 2007:

59-60). Furthermore, not all Punic and Neo-Punic period sanctuaries to Ba’al Hammon underwent the change to Saturn during the Roman period. Some sanctuaries, such as at

Hadrumetum, were abandoned before such a transition could take place. The latest level of the sanctuary atHadrumetum, dates to the second century C.E., with few stelae depicting Roman characteristics, and no inscriptions naming Saturn (Foucher 1964: 34-

39). There are also some cases in which the cult of Saturn, worshipped in the tradition of

Ba’al Hammon, appeared where there was no pre-established cult of Ba’al Hammon, 14 such as in newly-established Roman cities, such as Sitifis (modem Setif) and Lambaesis

(modem Lambese), as evidenced by the dedicatory stelae (McCarty 2010: 36).

Tanit/Caelestis

Tanit/Caelestis’ origins are hazier, and to date, archaeological and epigraphic evidence do not entirely match. However, by the fifth century B.C.E., Tanit, alongside

Ba’al Hammon, was the supreme goddess at Carthage, sharing the same realm of power as her partner. After the fall of Carthage, and around the same time as Ba’al Hammon transitioned into Saturn, Tanit transitioned into Caelestis. At that time, Caelestis was also given her own sanctuaries and temples at most sites, no longer sharing them with Ba’al

Hammon/Satum. Caelestis was worshipped in some cities where Saturn did not have a large following, such as atThuburbo Majus (modern-day Henchir Kasbat, interior of northern Tunisia) and Oea (modern-day Tripoli, northwest Libyan coast), and was also worshipped outside of North Africa (Haslberghe 1984: 2206; Cadotte 2007:65). That is, the cult of Tanit/Caelestis, unlike that of Ba’al Hammon/Satum, has been found in Dacia,

Britain, Gaul, Germany, and Rome (Cadotte 2007: 65).

When first attested at Carthage during the fifth century B.C.E., Tanit was named on stelae as being ‘Lady, pene [face of] Ba’al’, confirming her status as Ba’al’s consort and the other half of Carthage’s divine couple. The hundreds of inscriptions on stelae from the Carthaginian sanctuary with a dedication listing ‘Lady Tanit’ followed by ‘Lord

Ba’al Hammon’, indicate that she was indeed important. What confused scholars for decades was, where had Tanit come from? In the absence of clear Phoenician parallels,

Kelsey (1926:50) suggested that Tanit may have had African origins (Libyan in particular), or perhaps was derived from a Phoenician goddess (Astarte) fused with an 15 unknown indigenous goddess. Worrell thought her name (TNT in transliterated Punic writing) may have been the feminine form of an African name, as indicated by the use of a ‘T’ prefix known to indicate a feminine word form (as cited in Kelsey 1926: 50).

Since the 1950s, several inscriptions and other archaeological evidence from the area of Sidon, in Phoenicia, had been discovered that point to possible Phoenician origins

(Cintas 1952; Pritchard 1982; Halsberghe 1984; Bordreuil 1987; Fantar 1995; Ribichini

1997: 132). One such inscription comes from Sarepeta, south of Sidon; it is an ivory plaque that names Tanit with Astarte, and is the only evidence to date that places Tanit in

Phoenicia sometime between the end of the eighth and the sixth century B.C.E. (Pritchard

1982: 91). This still post-dates the legendary establishment of Carthage in 814 B.C.E.

Another Phoenician inscription was found on three clay tablets, their provenience unknown, and was interpreted by Bordreuil (1987:82-83) as reading “...for Tanit...”, thus showing the worship of Tanit in Phoenician territory. The tablets, however, are dated to around the third and second centuries B.C.E., which, again, does not prove

Tanit’s presence there before the foundation of Carthage. In all, this makes her

Phoenician origins still tenuous. Future discoveries may reveal her worship in other

Phoenician areas and at earlier dates.

Tanit was associated with the Phoenician goddess, Astarte, and even shared similar natures, such as being celestial divinities, and both having a lion and dove as their sacred animals (Lipinski 1995: 51). This, along with the above mentioned inscription, has led some, like Lipinski (1995), to suppose that the two goddesses were, in fact, the same being. However, several pieces of evidence disprove this line of thought. Delattre, in 1898, discovered a dedication from the north-eastern part of Carthage that addressed 16 both Astarte and Tanit of Lebanon, and indicated that the goddesses each had their own temple, making them two separate entities (Delattre 1898: 99). In addition, Cadotte

(2007: 74) has argued that Lipinski did not take into account the popularity of Tanit, not

Astarte or Astarte-Tanit, during the Punic and Neo-Punic periods. Tanit’s name was found alone or with Ba’al Hammon’s name on many stelae in sanctuaries and elsewhere within cities across North Africa, particularly at Carthage, andThinissut (modern-day Bir

Bou Rekba). Furthermore, it does not make sense that Astarte, a goddess who played a secondary role to Tanit throughout North Africa, would replace the dominant goddess in a sanctuary originally dedicated to her (Cadotte 2007: 74).

As the complementary half of Ba’al Hammon, Tanit was also a sky and chthonic goddess, as well as a mother goddess. She was shown in anthropomorphic form even less than Ba’al Hammon was (Kelsey 1926: 50-51; Cintas 1952; Halsberghe 1984: 2204-

2205; Fantar 1995: 72; Ribichini 1997: 132). From the vicinity of the Carthaginian sanctuary, a single statue of Tanit (third to second century B.C.E.) depicts her as veiled and seated on a throne flanked by a pair of sphinxes, much as Ba’al had been portrayed on an earlier stele at Hadrumetum (fifth or fourth century B.C.E.) (Cintas 1947; Cintas

1952: 18; Foucher 1964). There are two stelae fromHadrumetum , both depicting a veiled, seated female figure, with one hand holding something up to a flame situated before her, while the other hand is raised, open palm forward (Cintas 1947: 20-22;

Foucher 1964: 43-44). Cintas argued that both were of Tanit, but the criteria for this claim are unclear. As mentioned, she was not anthropomorphically well-defined in the

Punic period, nor did she become so during the Roman period, in the form of Caelestis. 17

The change in name from Tanit to Caelestis (meaning ‘heavenly’ in Latin) occurred between the second century B.C.E. and the second century C.E. During this transition, Caelestis almost always had an accompanying title, or other name, such as domina Caelestis, numen Caelestis, or dea Caelestis', however, these were dropped by the third century C.E., and she was afterwards known simply as Caelestis (Halsberghe 1984:

2209; Abdallah and Ennabli 1998: 180; Cadotte 2007: 80, 84). Her identity after the third century C.E. became even more mixed as Romans sometimes equated her with Juno

(Juno Caelestis), Venus, Bona Dea and Magna Mater, as well as a “virgin” goddess, in addition to Juno (Halsberghe 1984: 2205, 2214; Fantar 1995: 72; Abdallah and Ennabli

1998: 178). Abdallah and Ennabli (1998) argued that Caelestis’ continued importance at

Carthage during the later Roman period (third century C.E.) was attested in a Latin inscription on a marble dedication (211-217 C.E.). This dedication addressed Caelestis as inuicto numini deae Caelestis (‘to the invincible/unconquered power of the goddess

Caelestis’), attesting to her “unconquerable aspect” (Abdallah and Ennabli 1998: 177-

178).

The Cults

The typical locale at which the cults were actively worshipped was in a flat, open- air area in which the sacrificial offerings, such as incinerated animal remains and stelae, were dedicated. These sanctuaries were often located on mountains, near water for purification, or near trees that were considered sacred (Moscati 1968: 38; Clifford 1990:

56). Along the coastal cities, sanctuaries were located near water, such as at Carthage,

Hadrumetum, and Saint-Leu (near modem Bethioua, in western Algeria), perhaps in or 18 near the area where settlers first landed (Le Glay 1966b: 270). In the interior, however, most sanctuaries were located on the outskirts of town, such as on a hilltop or a high rise, as found at Thugga (present-day Dougga, central Tunisia) and Henchir el-Hami.

The archetype of such sanctuaries, for most scholars, has been that at Carthage.

K. de Prorok, F. lcard and M. Geilly first identified the sanctuary at Carthage in 1922; the sanctuary then became known as the tophet, meaning ‘place of burning’ due to the large number of incinerated remains of children found in urns (Kelsey 1926). The termtophet originated from Old Testament references which described the valley of Ben-Himmon, to the south of Jerusalem, as a place where Phoenicians/Canaanites burned their children as offerings to Ba’al{Jeremiah, 7.16-17, 23.10; II Kings, 17.16-17, 23.10). There is, however, no evidence to date from Phoenicia that confirms the practice of child sacrifice, and the source of this claim, the Bible, is expressly anti-pagan. As such, due to the implications and assumptions with which the termtophet is associated, these sites across

North Africa will be instead called ‘sanctuaries’ within this thesis.

During the Punic and Neo-Punic periods in North Africa, a general characteristic of the sanctuary was a lack of substantial, long-lasting architecture. The sanctuary was usually only surrounded by a wall delimiting the sacred area (Le Glay 1966b: 270).

There were some sanctuaries in rural areas that had small temples, as at Bordj Cedria and

Hr-es-Srira in central Tunisia, but unlike the later Roman stone temples, these structures were generally built of wood, leaving limited traces of their construction (Le Glay 1961:

81, 307-308; 1966b: 273). As Ba’al Hammon and Tanit became Saturn and Caelestis around the second century C.E., larger and stone-built temples were built in the open-air 19

sanctuaries, often in the tripartite cella format, such as atThugga , Henchir el-Hami, and

Cirta (modem Constantine, northern Algeria) (Le Glay 1966b: 275-276).

The cult most likely had annual festivals that involved the participation of the

majority of citizens of each city, much like other cults in the Mediterranean (Le Glay

1966b: 311; Moscati 1968: 141; Halsberghe 1984: 2215). However, there is little

surviving documentation to testify as to when such festivals may have occurred and what

they involved, other than brief mention by a few ancient writers. For instance, Porphyry

(235-305 C.E.) noted that there was once a fixed date for celebrated sacrifices to Ba’al

Hammon/Satum occurring in Carthage, but made no mention of how it operated or

whether there were similar celebrations in other North African cities (Porphyry,De

Abstentia, II, 27 as cited by Le Glay 1966b: 312).

The other way in which the people participated in these cults was on an individual

level, as attested by the thousands of votive stelae recovered from all across North Africa

(Charles-Picard 1954: 130; Gras, Rouillard and Teixidor 1991: 133; Moscati 1997: 364,

367). The formulaic inscriptions during the Punic and Neo-Punic period read, “To the

Lady Tanit, face of Ba’al, and [or just] to the Lord Ba’al Hammon, that which was vowed

by [name] son of [name], because he [the deity] heard his [the dedicant’s] voice and

blessed him” (Stager and Wolff 1984: 45; Ferjaoui 2007: 126, 129, 132). During the

Roman period, only the name of the god was sometimes specified, followed by the name

of the dedicant, and v(otum) s(olvit) or v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) a(nimo), which means

“s/he fulfilled the vow with a free spirit” (Le Glay 1966b: 27). As indicated by the

inscriptions, the function of the votive stele was to commemorate an offering or

completion of a vow made by a private citizen (male or female) to Ba’al Hammon/Satum 20 and/or Tanit/Caelestis (Kelsey 1926: 36-38; Le Glay 1966b: 15; Picard 1967: 9; Ribichini

1997: 140; Moore 2000: 4; Mendleson 2003: 4). The use o f the individual’s name in reference to a particular vow that had been made and fulfilled indicates communication between the dedicant (perhaps through an intermediary, such as a priest) and the deity, rather than between the community and the deity.

For worship on both of these levels, sacrifice played a major role in the communication (Le Glay 1966b: 297). Sacrifice could be used as a gift to the gods, but dedicants also hoped the sacrifice would ensure that the gods would provide fertility in family, fields, and livestock (Le Glay 1966b: 297-298, 310-311; Moscati 1968: 142-143).

Additionally, sacrifice was also performed at any important event or celebration in honour of the gods who had bestowed blessings, or as a thanksgiving (Le Glay 1966b:

297).

Offerings

The sources that provide valuable insight as to what sort of offerings were likely to have been appropriate to give to Ba’al Hammon/Satum and Tanit/Caelestis come from

North African cultures, as well those who remained outsiders, namely Greek, Roman, and

Christian writers. In fact, most of the written testimony about the cults comes from non-

African (mainly Roman and Greek) writers, not the cult practitioners themselves. The

North African sources include inscriptions, such as the Carthaginian tariff (paralleled by a second, very similar tariff, from Marseilles, France), images on stelae, and the archaeological remains of blood and bloodless offerings recovered from within the sanctuaries. Unfortunately, these various types of sources do not fully correspond with each other. The ancient foreign sources focused on the claim of child sacrifice, a practice 21 debated by modem scholars (as discussed in the section below, ‘Ancient Descriptions of the Cult’), while the images of offerings on stelae were not always reflected in the archaeological remains.

To date, two tariffs have been recovered that provide a listing of what offerings could have been made to Ba’al (none have yet been recovered for Tanit), as well as their potential cost: the Marseilles tariff and the Carthage tariff (Pritchard 1955: 502-503).

The Marseilles tariff was found in 1845 at Marseilles, France, and has been dated to the third or second century B.C.E.3 It was written for a temple that was dedicated to Ba’al

Saphon (‘Saphon’ being an epithet of Ba’al), and outlines payment to the priests according to the different types of offerings: expiatory (dedicant gives offering to appease the gods, or in atonement), communion (deity and dedicant share the sacrifice through a ritual meal) or holocaust (an offering entirely consumed by fire, and hence by the god).

The offerings listed as acceptable were (in order of monetary value) bull, calf, stag, ram or goat, lamb or kid, bird, cake, milk, fat, or other meal offering.4 The Carthage tariff, dating to the same period, consists of several fragments recovered from Carthage over a number of years, starting in 1858 (Pritchard 1955: 203; 2011:302). The three main fragments making up the text do not actually come from the same monument; however,

J.-B. Chabot recognized that they were a part of identical texts, and so translated them as one inscription (Chabot 1921: 183). The tariff listed the same animals in the same order as the Marseille tariff, with the same prices.

3 Marseille (ancient Massalia) was the trading rival of Carthage for the Rhone Valley during the seventh to fifth centuries (Lancel 1997: 79). Marseille was also a major ally to Rome during the Second Punic War (218-201 B.C.E.). 4 The cost of the bull holocaust sacrifice was ten silver shekels. Comparatively, the cost of a ram or goat holocaust sacrifice was one silver shekel and two zr (a smaller-valued coin) (Pritchard 1955: 502). Blood and bloodless offerings were also depicted in imagery on stelae.

According to this visual imagery, blood sacrifices could include bulls, rams, lambs, rabbits, fish, roosters, pigeons, and doves (Le Glay 1966b: 352). The bloodless sacrifices

(Le Glay 1966b: 356) represented on stelae could include fruits (such as grapes, pomegranates, and pine cones), cakes, incense, and in one instance (Picard n.d. [1955]:

PI. LXXXIV, Cb-687 bis) a libation. The bloodless offerings may be a preliminary step to a bloody sacrifice (e.g. Homer,Iliad 1.545-550), or perhaps reflect the offerings of people appealing to the agricultural fertility aspect of the gods, by offering that which they wish to receive in abundance. In addition, it is possible that these lesser, bloodless offerings were more often given by those who could not afford the offering of more expensive blood sacrifices (Le Glay 1966b: 350). On both tariffs, there was a section which stated that for those who were “poor in cattle or poor in fowl, the priests shall have nothing”, which exhibits that the poor did not have to pay the priests to give bloodless sacrifices (Pritchard 1955: 203).

The archaeological record exhibited the use of libations in many sanctuaries through the form of small perfume jars, orunguentaria, even though libations were rarely represented on stelae. The use ofunguentaria was not confined to North Africa; it is well attested in ritual contexts in the Graeco-Roman world as well (Anderson-Stojanovic

1987: 105). As mentioned above, Ba’al Hammon’s name could have meant ‘perfume’ or

‘incense’, and as such, perfume may have been relevant as an offering, perhaps even as an enhancer to additional offerings (Le Glay 1966b: 358; Moscati 1968: 143). In the sanctuaries ofHadrumetum, El-Kenissia, and Henchir el-Hami, excavators have recovered hundreds of unguentaria (Carton 1906; Cintas 1947; Ferjaoui 2007). The types of food offerings that were made are harder to determine from the archaeological record, as residue analyses on ceramics from the sanctuaries (such as at

Henchir el-Hami) or paleobotanical studies of soil samples have not generally been performed. Rather, this information must be derived from food representations in stele composition, as listed above (Feijaoui 2007:102-103). The incinerated animal remains, however, have been analyzed for a select number of sites, such as Carthage,

Hadrumetum, El-Kenissia, and Henchir el-Hami. The majority of the faunal remains were of lamb or kid, or the occasional bird, such as the ‘perching birds’ identified at

Henchir el-Hami (Bedoui and Oueslati 2007).

The oldest deposited urns in early sanctuaries (during the eighth and seventh centuries B.C.E.), such as at Carthage andHadrumetum, were placed directly on the bedrock or in rock-cut niches and covered with stone cairns (Kelsey 1926: 43; Foucher

1964: 36; Stager 1982: 157). During the early sixth century, these cairns were replaced by cippi (s. cippus), rectangular or L-shaped sandstone or rough limestone monuments, until approximately the end of the fifth to beginning of the fourth century B.C.E., the beginning of the more widespread Punic period (Kelsey 1926: 40-41; Cintas 1947: 12;

Hours-Miedan 1950: 17-21; Foucher 1964: 38-39; Moscati 1997: 364; Stager 1982: 157).

Stelae remained the monuments of choice through the Neo-Punic and Roman periods, until the end of the fourth century C.E., when the cults fell out of favour as Christianity became the dominant religion (Kelsey 19626: 36-38; Cintas 1947; Foucher 1964: 38-39;

Stager 1982: 157).

In the Punic open-air sanctuaries, the stelae were placed close together in slightly irregular rows, facing the same direction (Foucher 1964: 36; Brown 1991: 77; Ferjaoui 2007: 45). When the sanctuary became too crowded, the stelae were either buried and a new ground-level was created above, as at Carthage and Hadrumetum (Kelsey 1926;

Cintas 1947; Stager 1982), or the stelae were removed from their places and thrown into a favissa, a trench or cavity within or along the boundary of the sanctuary, as atCirta and

Thugga (Carton 1897; Berthier and Charlier 1955). Thus the sanctuary was cleared for new offerings, but no dedications left the sanctuary proper. Romans followed this same concept, and so when building in pre-existing sanctuaries, particularly at Carthage, they did not remove the sacred material from the sanctuary (Kelsey 1926: 34). For example, in the Carthage sanctuary, undisturbed areas of stelae were found within the foundation vaults built for Roman buildings (Kelsey 1926: 34-35; Hurst 1999: 20-22). In addition, there is evidence that the stelae could be reused within a sanctuary: some stelae were re­ cut or re-inscribed, or were used as building materials in the walls of the Roman temple, as at Hadrumetum and Henchir el-Hami (Cintas 1947: 79-80, Le Glay 1966b: 22;

Feijaoui 2007: 82, nos. 19 and 32).

Stelae comprise the majority of the archaeological remains recovered and recorded from the sanctuaries of Ba’al Hammon/Satum and Tanit/Caelestis. Their preservation and stylistic changes have rendered them a major source of tracing changes in both a temporal and cultural manner, as will be further explained in Chapter Three,

‘Stelae: Temporal, Cultural and Geographic Indicators’. Due to the variation of stelae composition between the various sanctuaries identified, it is not possible to create distinct, narrowly-defined chronological periods that apply to every sanctuary in terms of start and end date. Stelae can, however, be generally identified as belonging to the

Punic, Neo-Punic or Roman periods based on the archaeological context of the stele, 25 sculptural (such as composition and technique, as well as hair and clothing fashions) and epigraphic (such as the language of the inscription) features (Le Glay 1966b: 14-15;

Moore 2000: 21-22; Mendleson 2003: 3). There is, however, a need to take into consideration the potential cultural backgrounds of the sanctuary from which stelae came, since not all cultural groups employed the same style, as well as stylistic overlap between time periods and cultural groups (Le Glay 1966b: 14; Mendleson 2003: 4).

Stelae providing epigraphic information (i.e. the year of a ruler’s reign) indicating a specific year are few, but allow comparisons with other stelae, to establish changes over time (Le Glay 1966b: 21). Over fifty definitively-dated stelae have been found in Punic and indigenous territory; all but a handful date to the Roman period. In addition, some stelae are found in clear association with archaeological materials that contribute to establishing a date, such as lamps, coins, and unguentaria (Le Glay 1966b: 21).

Although exact dating is not always possible, analyses of common characteristics, or lack thereof, between stelae can provide valuable information about how the cults spread, and how the receiving cultures incorporated their own ideals into the worship of Ba’al

Hammon and Tanit.

Ancient Descriptions of the Cults

The final major source for the cults of Ba’al Hammon and Tanit comes from the writings of ancient people who were not practitioners of the cults, and, for the most part, not North African. To date, there are no known records written by Punic people that discuss the operation of these two cults. There are, however, a number of claims made by 26 ancient Greek, Roman and Christian writers that the practice of child sacrifice was a common and reoccurring aspect of these cults, both in Phoenicia and in North Africa.

The closest to a Phoenician or Punic source available survives through Philo of

Biblos, who was writing around 100 C.E. PhiloPhoenician ( History 3.44) cited a

Phoenician scholar named Sanchuniathon (of an unknown date), who stated that in times of great crises, Phoenician parents sacrificed the child whom they loved best. Additional testimony of a child sacrifice practice in Phoenicia comes from several passages in the

Bible. Passages from Exodus (13.11-15; 22.29; 34.19-20) state that the children who were sacrificed were first-born males. In 11 Kings (17.16-17, 23.10) and Jeremiah (7.31-

32), a location was given: the Canaanites (the Phoenicians) sacrificed their children in the valley known as Ben-Hinnom Valley, located south of Jerusalem and Mount Zion.

Many of the recovered references to child sacrifice at Carthage are brief, with only a few authors discussing the cult at any length. The earliest reference about the cults at Carthage is from an anonymous Platonic textMinos ( 315B-C) in the fourth century

B.C.E. In Minos, Socrates and his companion discussed what law was, during which debate the companion stated that Carthaginians viewed the sacrifice of their sons to

Kronos (the Greek name for Ba’al Hammon) as both legal and holy. In the second century B.C.E., Ennius{Annals 278, 8 fr.4), a friend of the Roman, Cato the Elder, wrote about the time of the Second Punic War (218-201 B.C.E.), and stated that Carthaginians sacrificed their sons to the gods. Cicero (mid-first century B.C.E.;De Re Publica

III.9.15) and Dionysius of Halicarnassus (mid- to late first century B.C.E.;Roman

Antiquities 1.38.2) also gave brief mention of child sacrifice to Saturn. In contrast, Cleitarchus (third century B.C.E.) and Diodorus Siculus (first century

B.C.E.) went into greater detail about the ritual and what happened to the child during the

sacrifice. Cleitarchus, for example, stated that the child was placed into the arms of a bronze statue of the god over a brazier; then the statue’s arms contracted and the child fell

into the fire, but not before the mouth of the child opened in a grimace that Cleitarchus

referred to as the “sardonic laughter” (as cited in Scholia to Plato’sRepublic 337A, as

cited by Soren, Khader and Slim 1990: 128). Cleitarchus was also the only author to

state that the child was pledged as fulfillment of a vow when asking for a great favour

from the god, Kronos; this sentiment parallels that found in the inscriptions found on

stelae. Diodorus Siculus(Library o f History XX. 14.4-7) stated that when Agathocles besieged Carthage in 310 B.C.E., the Carthaginians believed that it was because the gods were offended that the aristocracy, for some time prior, had been purchasing poor children to use as sacrificial substitutes for their own. Carthaginians were then required to sacrifice two hundred children of noble families; the children were subsequently placed into the arms of a bronze statue over a pit of flames.

Those who wrote about the origins and the method of the child sacrifice practice between the first and third centuries C.E. included Pliny, Plutarch, Curtius Rufus, Silius

Italicus, and Tertullian. Silius Italicus(Punica IV.765-822) and Curtius Rufus(History o f Alexander IV.3.23) are the only authors outside of the Biblical references to specifically attribute child sacrifice to the Phoenicians, claiming that the Phoenicians passed this ritual on to the Carthaginians. However, according to Curtius Rufus, at some point in time Phoenicians temporarily stopped sacrificing their children. He writes that when Alexander the Great, in 331 B.C.E., besieged the Phoenician city of Tyre, Tyrians reinstated the practice to appease their gods (.History o f Alexander IV.3.23). Pliny

(Natural History XXXVI.39), Plutarch, and Silius Italicus Punica( IV.765-822) made

reference to the sacrifices at Carthage being performed annually, and stated that children

were selected by lot. Plutarch (De Superstitione 171C-D), like Diodorus, indicated that

Carthaginian parents could purchase a child of a poor family to substitute for their own

child who was intended for sacrifice, during which its mother was to bear witness but was

not allowed to cry.5 Plutarch also stated that in the peace treaty with Carthaginians after

the battle of Himera in 480 B.C.E., Gelon (tyrant of Gela and Syracuse, early fifth

century B.C.E.) stipulated that Carthaginians had to cease sacrificing children to Kronos

(De Sera Numinis Vindicta 552A; Regum et Imperatorum Apophthegmata 175A).

Finally, Tertullian (160 - 225 C.E.), a Christian bom in Carthage, claimed that the

sacrifices continued well after the fall of Carthage in North Africa in secret, into the late

second to early third centuries C.E. (Apology IX.2-4).

The continuous reference over the centuries by non-practitioners to child sacrifice

has had a great influence on modem scholars, affecting how they interpreted the physical

evidence found in the North African sanctuaries. Taking these writings to be factual,

many modem scholars (Whitaker 1921; Pallary 1922; Poinssot and Lantier 1923;

Lapeyre 1939; Cintas 1947; 1970; Foucher 1964; Le Glay 1966b; Fedele 1979; Stager

1982; Brown 1991) have interpreted the child remains found in North African and

Phoenicio-Punic sanctuaries elsewhere in the Mediterranean as physical evidence that proved the testimony of the ancient writers. To them, child sacrifice was a defining element of the North African worship of Ba’al Hammon and Tanit. However, as will be

5 It was not clear if the “mother” referred to here was the biological mother or the substitute mother. 29 shown in the next section, the validity of these ancient sources has come into question, with some scholars advocating for an alternate interpretation of the sanctuary materials.

Modern Conceptions of the Cults

During the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the dichotomous debate regarding the practice of child sacrifice was the focal point of research on the material recovered from the sanctuaries. Early researchers assumed that the incinerated remains of children found under dedicatory stelae were supporting evidence for the ancient authors’ claims of child sacrifice as the defining feature of the cults of Ba’al Hammon and Tanit (Pallary 1922; Poinssot and Lantier 1923; Lapeyre 1939; Cintas 1947; 1970;

Foucher 1964; Le Glay 1966b; Stager 1982; Brown 1991). For example, based on the ancient writings, Poinssot and Lantier (1923) argued that the incinerated child remains recovered from Carthage were the sacrificed first-born males, pointing out that there may also have been an opportunity to replace the intended child with a purchased child. The urns that contained only the incinerated faunal remains were subsequently interpreted as animal substitutions for the child intended for sacrifice (Poinssot and Lantier 1923;

Cintas 1947; Stager 1982; Stager and W olff 1984).

Building on the idea that parents purchased children or used animals as a substitution for their own child, P. Mosca identified three possible types of sacrifice based on suggested translations of sacrificial terms that had been inscribed on select stelae from Carthage, Cirta, Hadrumetum, Malta, Motya, Selucis, and Ngaous:mlk ‘mr, mlk b 7, and mlk ‘dm (Mosca 1975). Mosca translated them as a sacrifice (the accepted meaning ofmlk) of a lamb or other animal ('mr), a noble child (b 7), and a commoner 30 child ( 'dm). ‘B in this instance, was not to be read as the name ‘Ba’al [Hammon]’, but rather as a noble child, because this places the term as complementary to the sacrifice of a commoner child (mlk ‘dm), and of the substituted animal (mlk ‘mr) (Mosca 1975: 74-75).

These three sacrificial acts were seen as a way to gain favour with the gods and to ensure peace between the family, their descendants, and the gods (Stager 1980: 7).

Pallary (1922) and Stager (1980: 3-7) observed, during their respective excavations at Carthage, that as the sanctuary at Carthage grew, the frequency of urns and stelae increased over time (Pallary 1922; Stager 1980: 3-7). Based on a preliminary analysis of urn contents, Stager noticed that the number of children buried compared to animals also increased over time (Stager 1980: 3-7). Although Stager’s interpretation of the animal remains was also one of substitution, Stager proposed that the decrease in animal substitutions over time was because child sacrifice was increasingly being used as a method of population control. He argued that Carthage, when it had been a fledging colony, could not afford to sacrifice all its children; thus a higher rate of animal substitution occured. As the city developed, the rate of animal substitution decreased, and sacrifice was able to become a method of population control (Stager 1980:8; 1992:

74; Stager and W olff 1984: 39).

Since the 1970s there have been arguments against the claims of child sacrifice as a defining feature of the cults; some scholars (Weinfeld 1972; Benichou-Safar 1981;

1982; Fantar 1995) claimed that the ancient writers were outsiders or enemies of

Carthage, and that they had not personally witnessed the events they discussed. As both the Greeks and Romans fought with Carthage for territory in Sicily and Sardinia, including three major wars between Carthage and Rome (the Punic Wars), child sacrifice claims should be examined as possibly a part of anti-Carthaginian propaganda (Weinfeld

1972; Benichou-Safar 1981; 1982; Fantar 1995). Schaeffer (1957:67), Weinfeld (1972) and Benichou-Safar (1982) argued that the propaganda skewed the reality and that, if child sacrifice had occurred, it was not commonplace. In addition, Rives (1994) claims that Tertullian’s example of secretly-occurring child sacrifices was, in fact, only employed for a rhetorical effect, and that by the second century B.C.E. the practice was noticeably in decline.

Instead, Benichou-Safar (1982) argued that the sanctuary was more likely being used as a burial area for the remains of children, who are distinctly lacking in known contemporary cemeteries. Infant mortality in the fledging cities, such as Carthage and

Hadrumetum, would have been high, and could have accounted for up to forty percent of the populations’ mortality rate, similar to rates that have been observed in other ancient and pre-industrial societies (Goodman and Armelagos 1989: 225; Stager 1982: 161;

MacKinnon 2007: 223; Woods 2007:383-384). Child burials in the Carthaginian cemeteries make up a total of one hundred out of two thousand known burials, and ninety percent of these date after the fifth century B.C.E. (Benichou-Safar 1981: 7; 1982: 342).

Benichou-Safar (1981: 8; 1982: 343) argued that children up to four years old who died of natural causes before initiation into society were cremated and offered to the god(s) in the sanctuary, but did not have markers with their own names. As the children were not considered to be full members of society, they would not be treated the same way at death as an adult, and were most likely placed in areas other than cemeteries (Eyben

1980-1981; Baines and Lacovara 2002: 13-14). Greek and Roman writers may have 32

twisted the use of the Carthaginian sanctuary to Ba’al Hammon and Tanit as a child

cemetery in order to fuel the anti-Carthaginian propaganda (Benichou-Safar 1981).

Fantar argued that claims made by the ancient writers were also not entirely accurate, and that some ancient historians, such as Herodotus (c. 484 - 425 B.C.E.),

Polybius (c. 200 - 118 B.C.E.) had visited Carthage before its fall and gave no indication that Carthaginians sacrificed their children (Fantar 1995: 75). Although their silence may not be the strongest line of evidence, particularly when the writers were focused on events and topics other than sacrifice, it does bring reason to hesitate about the validity of the ancient claims. Fantar also argued that the credibility of Diodorus Siculus, a heavily relied-upon source for child sacrifice, had its limitations, pointing out Diodorus had a tendency to exaggerate and rearrange history to make his point (Fantar 1995: 75). For instance Fantar noted a similarity between the bronze statue used for child sacrifice and another bronze statue in a myth described by Diodorus (Library o f History XX. 14.4-7):

Talos, the animated bronze protector of Crete, burned his victims in a large bronze bull, which Diodorus stated was supposedly stolen by the Carthaginians. In addition, Stager noted that there has been no evidence of mass burial of the kind claimed by Diodorus, as attested by the care that was taken for the individual burial of the children (Stager 1992:

74).

Thus, both ancient and modem conceptions of the cults of Ba’al Hammon/Satum and Tanit/Caelestis are heavily focused on the possibility that Carthaginians and North

Africans practiced child sacrifice. This has affected the publication of information regarding the offerings found within the sanctuary, as well as their interpretations, with exception of the votive stelae. For example, the specific associations between urns and 33 stelae, as well as with other types of pottery (such as lamps,unguentaria, dinnerware), coins, and jewellery recovered, remain largely unpublished. It would be very interesting to match urn contents with stelae composition, or even gender of the dedicant, as indicated by inscription, rather than studying urn contents and stelae as separate entities, but the focus of the investigations to date makes it impossible to do so.

Author’s Stance

Although it is far from the purpose of this thesis to resolve the debate of child sacrifice, it was necessary to take a standpoint here, as it directly affects the interpretation of animal evidence in the sanctuary. For this thesis I approached the material recovered from sanctuaries as votive offerings, not as evidence representing the practice of child sacrifice or the area used as a child cemetery. As a result, animal remains that were not in urns with children were interpreted as holocaust offerings made to the gods by their worshippers, not as substitutions for children. This also meant that I did not perceive animals depicted on stelae as representations of child substitutions. The faunal and stelae remains were approached here from this point of view for the following reasons outlined below.

First and foremost, the child sacrifice and the cemetery argument form the opposite ends of an extreme: they assume that either all the children were sacrificed or were substituted for, or that these areas were separate cemeteries reserved for infants and young children. Both arguments ignore the fact that these areas under question served as sanctuaries: they had demarcated boundaries separating them from secular ground.

Within those boundaries, offerings were left for the gods that included holocaust animal 34 offerings, and a variety of other dedications, as previously discussed. The Marseille and

Carthage tariffs listed the various animal offerings, many of which were reflected in the material remains recovered from some of the sanctuaries, such as those at Carthage,

Hadrumetum, and Henchir el-Hami, or even depicted on stelae. Inscriptions on stelae clearly stated thanks and a commemoration of a vow made by the dedicant(s).

The second reason concerns the sheer number of child remains recovered from the sanctuaries, particularly at Carthage. Several thousand urns with child remains have been recovered from what is believed to be only a portion of the Carthaginian sanctuary, from which only a sample has been analyzed (Icard 1922; Kelsey 1926; Lapyere 1939; Cintas

1970; Stager 1982). Child mortality rates in ancient populations have been calculated to average between thirty and forty percent, based on studies of pre-industrial societies and archaeological mortuary studies (Goodman and Armelagos 1989; MacKinnon 2007;

Woods 2007). Schwartz et al. (2011) conducted an analysis of a sample of 540 individuals from Carthage, which revealed that 77 percent of the children were, in fact, deceased before they reached the age of four months. Considering the high child mortality rate that occurred in ancient populations, it is not likely that all of these children could also have been sacrificed; otherwise the population would never have grown.

Furthermore, 23 percent of the total were prenatal deaths and therefore could not have been living, and thus could not have been sacrificed (Smith et al. 2011: 863).

Benichou-Safar (1982) proposed that because children were not well represented in the Punic cemeteries at Carthage compared to Roman period North African cemeteries, perhaps the sanctuary was then a cemetery. Child graves are often underrepresented in the archaeological record due to differential treatment, such as shallow graves, less care 35 during construction, differences between preservation of inhumations and cremations, and the fragility of the child versus adult remains (Brown 1991: 54-55; Norman 2002:

309). However, the large number of children recovered from the Carthaginian sanctuary implies that it was not preservation alone that limited the number of children recovered in

Punic cemeteries (MacKinnon 2007: 223). This implies that in the Punic period, the bodies of children were dedicated, like votive offerings, to the gods, possibly for their protection, rather than being interred in cemeteries.

Part of the child-sacrifice argument by modem scholars was that when Africa was under Roman control, North Africans stopped sacrificing their children because the

Romans thought it to be an appalling practice (Stager and Wolff 1984). What is not taken into account is that Greeks and Romans, who also held the same distaste for child sacrifice, had erected stelae in these sanctuaries during the Punic and Neo-Punic periods, as indicated by the Greek and Latin names and inscriptions found at Cirta (Berthier and

Charlier 1955: 6) and Thugga (Carton 1897: 412-413). Why would they make offerings in the sanctuary if child sacrifice were such a widespread North African practice, but detestable to their own culture?

Furthermore, Greeks and Romans held the concept ofmiasma , or blood-pollution

(Parker 1983; Zaidman and Pantel 1992: 9-10, Moore 2011, personal communication).

The event of death or for human blood to be spilt in a sanctuary was a terrible and polluting offence against the gods, to be avoided at all costs. This concept, coupled with the dedication of children to Ba’al Hammon and Tanit in sanctuaries, may have been part of the reason why Roman and Greek writers accused Carthaginians of child sacrifice

(Moore 2011, personal communication). It is clearHadrumetum at , however, that child 36 remains become less prominent during the Neo-Punic period, and non-existent in the

Roman period (Cintas 1947). After the fall of Carthage, and as Roman presence became more significant in North Africa, sanctuaries reflected an adaptation of Roman sensitivities to miasma , resulting in a decrease, and the eventual disappearance, of cremated child remains in the sanctuaries of Ba’al Hammon/Satum and Tanit/Caelestis.

Conclusion

This thesis aims to step away from the typical research conducted in the sanctuaries of Ba’al Hammon and Tanit with its fixation on child sanctuaries, to explore the overlooked and underestimated animal-related evidence. So, for the above-listed reasons, animal-related evidence is divorced as much as possible from the child sacrifice fixation. Instead, this thesis attempts to use the evidence to determine if animal conceptualization is recognizable through the archaeological remains, and reflected in the variation found between sanctuaries. To restate, the objectives are as follows:

To identify the modes of identification and relations that the indigenous, Punic, and Roman people had with animals, and how these relationships could be reflected in their worship of the gods.

To test for any standardized way in which animals were represented in the sanctuaries, and determine whether variations are linked to cultural, temporal, and/or geographic factors.

To determine if the changes were a result of shifts in animal conceptualization, through the examination of any changes in the roles that animals played within the sanctuaries

The cults of Ba’al Hammon and Tanit present an excellent opportunity to study animal conceptualization and how it may have changed over time because they were practiced by multiple cultures experiencing extensive direct and indirect interaction between them. In addition, the cult continued to be practiced during changes in political control, despite certain changes to the cults.

In the next chapter, the methods of data collection and guidelines for analysis of faunal remains and stelae iconography are outlined. This includes a discussion of the various characteristics of stelae that have been used to determine which period stelae originated from, and occasionally, which temporal sub-phase within the period. A discussion follows on the theory of animal conceptualization, and its recognizable characteristics. 38

Chapter Three: Method of Analysis

Chapter Three presents what data I sought, how they were collected, and the guidelines followed for analysis. It is important to stress that the nature of this analysis is qualitative, not quantitative, examining multiple sanctuaries over a large spatial and temporal period, from the perspective of various material remains and scholarship.

Therefore, to accomplish the outlined objectives, I employed a critical analysis of primary and secondary sources, such as archaeological material, ancient writers, and modem scholarship, as well as comparisons between sanctuaries. Through critical analysis of different types of scholarly works, such as Classical, Near Eastern anthropological, and archaeological assessments, a new understanding of the function of animals in the cults of Ba’al Hammon and Tanit will be sought.

In ancient North Africa there have been no written records discovered to date that indicate how humans related to animals. Thus, to determine and understand animal conceptualization among the indigenous and Punic peoples, modem scholarship and ethnographies are combined here with the animal-related evidence from sanctuaries.

Knowing the human-animal relationship and its impact on communication with the gods will allow us to understand how animals functioned in the cults, as represented in the sanctuaries. The comparisons between sanctuaries are essential, as it is well known that there was variation between sanctuaries. The question remains, did animal conceptualization vary? If so, why? Due to the number of sanctuaries that will be examined, and the various museums in which the collections are held (including Tunisian and Algerian museums, the Louvre, and the British Museum), critical analysis and 39

comparisons of the published material are the most reasonable way to explore the thesis

objectives.

Sanctuary Selection

Sanctuaries identified as dedicated to Ba’al Hammon and Tanit, as mentioned

previously, number well over 160, most of which have been documented in Marcel Le

Glay’s Saturne africain: Monuments, vols. 1 (1961) and 2 (1966a). For this thesis, a

sample of sites was originally to be selected based on the availability of the information

published on animal remains and stelae iconography. As it turned out, however, this type

of information was not recovered, fully recorded, or published for each sanctuary. Many

of the sanctuaries had been found and excavated during the late nineteenth and early

twentieth centuries.6 The interests of excavators at the time were vastly different than the

aim of this research, such as a focus on collecting Punic and Latin inscriptions, rather

than full excavations. In addition, not all the artefacts recovered were actually kept.

There are many instances in which only a selection of ums was taken to museums, the rest having been broken and left on site (Feijaoui 2007: 11). Stelae were also selected for

conservation and/or publication based on the quality of the decoration and the presence of

inscriptions, particularly Latin inscriptions (Mendleson 2003: 3). Furthermore, many

stelae had been removed over the centuries to be used as building materials, or by looters

intent on selling them.

This has greatly reduced the number of sanctuaries suitable for extensive study,

to only three sanctuaries with sufficient information about both animal remains and stelae

6 For example Cirta was discovered and briefly surveyed in 1875, then later excavated in 1950 (Berthier and Charlier 1955; Le Glay 1961: 22). 40 decoration, although even these publications varied in level of detail. These three sites are Carthage (north-coast Tunisia),Hadrumetum (modem Sousse, east-coast Tunisia), and Henchir el-Hami (interior Tunisia) (see Map 1); they have been grouped together as the Primary Sanctuary Group (PSG). Nine additional sites were selected for comparative purposes based on two factors: the dateable context of the sanctuary, and the availability of publications regarding stelae. These additional sanctuaries were labelled the

Secondary Sanctuary Group (SSG), only because they lacked detailed information on recovered incinerated remains.

The SSG sample selection also heavily relied upon the accessibility of the publication(s). Beginning with an arbitrary number of a minimum of thirty stelae to qualify a site for selection, the SSG sample was selected from lists provided by Le Glay

(1961; 1966a), in addition to a handful of sites identified after Le Glay’s publications; this narrowed the sample to approximately fifty sanctuaries. These sites were further narrowed to approximately thirty sanctuaries based on the extent of the knowledge of the cultural history, geographic location, and the number of stelae presented. A lack of accessibility to original publications narrowed the site selection to approximately fifteen sanctuaries. From these fifteen, nine were selected based on geographic locations so that there were two sanctuaries relatively near to each other, and so that each PSG site had a comparandum in the SSG, giving a total of 12 sites for analysis.

The twelve sites (Figure 1.1) analysed for this thesis are: PSG - Carthage (north­ east coast of Tunisia),Hadrumetum (modern-day Sousse, east coast Tunisia), and

Henchir el-Hami (central Tunisia); SSG - El-Kenissia (six km south ofHadrumetum),

Cirta (modern-day Constantine, east-central Algeria), Thugga (modern-day Dougga, 41 west-central Tunisia), Mactaris (modern-day Maktar, central Tunisia), Sitifis (modern- day Setif, east-central Algeria), Cuicul (modern-day east-Djemila, central Algeria),

Theveste (modern-day Tebessa, southern Tunisia), Lambaesis (modern-day Lambese, east-central Algeria), and Thamugadi (modem Timgad, east-central Algeria, along western Tunisia border). Contextual information for each site is provided in Chapter

Five.

Materials

The primary sources necessary for analysis were the incinerated remains found in ums, stelae, and inscriptions or documents by ancient writers who discussed the religious value and conceptualization of animals. Secondary sources included publications describing the sanctuaries, the cults, culture change, and the anthropological approach of animal conceptualization by modem scholars. In the following sections, the primary and secondary sources are introduced, along with inter-site comparisons, and the limitations of the materials are discussed.

Primary Sources

Faunal Remains

These incinerated remains were found in ums, some in the same ums as child remains, buried in the sanctuaries at Carthage, Hadrumetum, Henchir el-Hami, El-

Kenissia, Thugga, Theveste, and Thamugadi. The level of detail published about the remains varies between each site, likely a result of when the remains were collected. For

Thugga, Theveste, and Thamugadi, no information further than an acknowledgement of the presence of remains was published. ForHadrumetum, Cintas (1947) produced only a simple report about the comparison of child to animal remains found in the stratigraphic layers of sanctuary. At Carthage and Henchir el-Hami, on the other hand, Pallary (1922),

Schwartz et al. (2010, and Bedoui and Oueslati (2007) identified animal remains to the level of species when possible, along with an approximate date for most of them.

However, Pallary and Schwartz et al. only sampled from Carthaginian urns, whereas

Bedoui and Oueslati assessed all ums from Henchir el-Hami. Despite the lack of detail published on remains at Hadrumetum, it was still included in this analysis because it indicated a pattern of animal use that differed from what was showing at Carthage and

Henchir el-Hami.

The remains alone will not provide insight into animal conceptualization. Thus, I combined them with stelae analyses (see Chapter Six) to determine if there were variations identifiable between the sites, and if so, whether those variations are significant.

Stelae

Thousands of stelae dedicated to Ba’al Hammon/Satum and/or Tanit/Caelestis have been recovered from all across North Africa. Despite the sheer quantity and, in many cases, a similar layout of iconography, each stele was different. In some towns, the presence of the cults was identified by stelae alone, while the sanctuary proper was never properly identified, or had eroded away off its ravine edge, such as at Cirta (Berthier and

Charlier 1955: 221), Mactaris (Picard 1957: 43; M ’Charek 1995: 245), and Lambaesis

(Le Glay 1966a: 81). The stelae were identified as belonging to these cults through their inscriptions or, during the Roman period, the typical depiction of Saturn (Le Glay 1961;

1966a). It is unknown how much control over stelae composition fell to the craftsman, in the form of pre-made stelae, or to the dedicant ordering the stele, either through

commission or selecting from a specified repertoire of symbols. Regardless of who was

responsible, the local continuation of certain symbols or scenes on votive stelae can be

seen as reflections of “community beliefs, rather than necessarily state ones” (Moore

2000: 5). Many of these variations have been attributed to indigenous, Punic and Roman

cultures, as well as to the Punic, Neo-Punic, and Roman periods (Le Glay 1966b: 14-15,

20; Cintas 1947: 70; Moscati 1997: 366-368; Moore 2000: 21-22; Mendleson 2003: 3;

Feijaoui 2007: 45-46).

This thesis operates on the theory that the variation of animal use on stelae

between sanctuaries and between time periods could provide insight into animal

conceptualization. As the indigenous, Punic, and Roman peoples interacted directly or

indirectly, each with their own form of animal conceptualization, the use of specific

animals in particular roles might have changed to reflect overall changes in the dominant

culture group of the town or city.

Ancient Written Sources

The remaining primary sources are the written sources and inscriptions that

provide insight into the religious value and conceptualization of animals. For example,

the tariffs introduced in Chapter Two provide an understanding of the monetary value

and ranking of sacrificial animals. The major limitation with ancient sources is that,

unlike in the Graeco-Roman world, there are no other written materials recovered from

North Africa that can provide an insight into how certain groups of people perceived

human-animal relationships (Gilhus 2006). The limitation on the philosophical debate

was that they did not necessarily reflect the average person’s opinion of their relationship 44

with animals. Thus, the combination of these three types of primary sources provides

only a general understanding of animal conceptualization in North African sanctuaries

dedicated to Ba’al Hammon and Tanit.

Secondary Sources

Secondary sources include the publications about the sanctuaries, the cults,

culture change in North Africa, and the anthropological approach of animal

conceptualization. One of the most valuable sources is the work of Marcel Le Glay’s

Saturne Africain: Histoire (1966b). Le Glay’s (1966b) extensive monograph described

the cult of Saturn, the purpose of sacrifice, the priesthood, and what has been surmised

about the rituals associated with the cult. However, the only use he attributed to animals was their substitution for children intended for sacrifice (Le Glay 1966b: 298, 351).

Nevertheless, it remained an influential assemblage of what was known about the cults.

The secondary sources about the individual sanctuaries proved problematic at

times as well; understandably, the focus of previous researchers was very different from the focus here. As a result, there were some kinds of information that would have been beneficial but were not recorded, such as the contextual association of stelae with specific urns, and thus their contents. In addition, final reports were promised, but for reasons unknown or the untimely death of some researchers, they were never produced. Despite

some of the gaps in the published record, these secondary sources are essential to understanding the cultural background of sites, and the basis for assessing what kind of animal conceptualization was actually reflected in the sanctuaries. For example, understanding what animals potentially symbolized helps to identify the role that an animal played on a stele, such as a divine substitute or agricultural symbol. Anthropological works, particularly by Ingold (2000), Descola (1990), and

Viveiros de Castro (2004) were critically examined here for aid in determining and understanding animal conceptualization (see Chapter Four). Their work on the general characteristics of the ways in which humans and animals related to each other - animism, totemism, and naturalism - explain the relationship’s effect on various aspects of the cultural system, including depictions of animals in art. Their ideas provide a framework for recognizing how animals may have been represented (if at all) before the arrival and spread of the Punic people and how animal conceptualization may have changed over time, space and/or intercultural contact.

Research regarding culture change aids in understanding the various ways in which cultures interacted and influenced each other, and how to recognize change; thus, how to recognize if animal conceptualization changed. In addition, ethnographic works about the modem Berbers, who are perceived by some to be descendants of the original indigenous groups (Camps 1980; Brett and Fentress: 1996), may add to the limited archaeological understanding of what kind of society the indigenous may have had. This helps to identify a type of animal conceptualization that they may have experienced before the arrival of the Punic and Romans, how it may have been reflected in the sanctuaries, and thus whether or not it changed over time.

Works dedicated to reconstructing Phoenician, Punic and Roman religions were also examined here to determine what animals were used in rituals, and if there were appropriate sacrifices for a particular god or goddess. For example, the dove was often associated with goddesses of fertility, such as Astarte and Aphrodite, and was speculated to have represented Tanit as well (Le Glay 1966b: 354-355). As mentioned above, 46 understanding the Phoenician aspects helps create an idea of what the cults looked like when they began in North Africa. From this view, it may be possible to determine if there were indigenous elements in the cults as they spread. In addition, understanding

Roman religious and cult practices helps to identify any changes during the Neo-Punic and Roman periods.

Guidelines Used for Collection and Comparisons of Material Remains

In order to study animal conceptualization through the animal-related evidence, I have focused on the presence or absence of consistencies and patterns of animal-related evidence from within sanctuaries. This approach included what species were represented by the remains (when possible) and on stelae, a comparison between animal remains and animals on stelae, and the general representational frequency of animals in specific roles on stelae. In addition, the location, hierarchical placement, and role of animals on stelae have also been examined and compared within the temporal periods during which each sanctuary operated. I have combined these variations with an analysis of the remains and secondary sources to create an assessment of animal conceptualization. This is followed by comparisons between the sanctuaries to determine whether some of the variation was culturally or geographically influenced.7

The cults of Ba’al Hammon and Tanit are largely dealt with here as a single cult during the Punic and Neo-Punic periods, based on the large number of stelae that were dedicated to both gods in the same sanctuary at several sites. However, it is understood

7 Cultural and geographic factors have been considered here as separate, specifically for the stelae analysis. Although two sites may have been close geographically, they may not have shared the same cultural history. In addition, the geographic location, such as coastal versus interior, may have influenced what types o f animals were more readily accessible, or more likely to be a used as a fertility symbol. 47 that some inscriptions addressed both gods, while others addressed only one. During the

Roman period, the cult appears to have split, as Saturn became the main focus in the same sanctuaries, while Caelestis received her own, separate sanctuaries.

Fauna/ Remains

Data for faunal remains have been gathered from secondary sources and assembled into tables that separated the remains according to species for each identified sub-phase of that particular sanctuary; these are presented in Chapter Five. Animal remains have been assessed alongside a tally of child remains to provide context for how many urns were recovered and how many urns with children contained animal remains.

Scholars such as Bedoui and Oueslati (2007) could not always identify animal remains to species level due to the state of the incinerated remains, nor were all remains associated with an approximate date. Such remains have been placed here into ‘Indeterminate’ categories. Carthage was the only site for which the information about remains came from multiple sources. Each source has been given its own table summary due to some incompatible differences between data presentation by the authors, particularly the division of dates for the remains.

Comparisons between the time periods have been made within PSG sanctuaries to determine whether the frequency of a species increased or decreased over time. Although this analysis could only be performed for three sanctuaries, it has provided a rough timeline for changes in offerings during the Punic, Neo-Punic, and Roman periods. The types of remains have also been compared with the types of animals found on stelae, to ascertain any associations or discrepancies between them, and if so, what those could 48 mean. Were there significant changes or variations during the transition between periods?

These results have been compared between the PSG sanctuaries to understand the known variation in the frequency of animal remains. These variations have been combined with the known cultural history of the sanctuary to determine whether some of the variation was due to cultural reasons. For example, a strong Roman influence was present at the coastal city ofHadrumetum almost two centuries before Roman influence appeared at the interior town of Henchir el-Hami. Unfortunately, a species comparison could only be performed between Carthage and Henchir el-Hami because no extensive research was published for Hadrumetum.

Stelae

Although the faunal materials are the physical remains of some of the offerings made to the gods, much of my analysis relies on the depictions of animals on stelae because of their quantity, as well as their artistic representation reflecting local aesthetics and beliefs versus state ones (Moore 2000: 5). Like the faunal remains, information about stelae has been collected through secondary source material. This included the

Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum (CIS), Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum (C1L), museum catalogues, Le Glay’s multi-volume work (1961; 1966a), excavation reports, and other analytical publications.8 Although multiple sources have been used to assemble the stelae collection, I am positive that no two stelae have been counted twice, thanks to each author’s meticulous references to prior publications, or knowing the museum that houses a particular stele.

8 The CIS (begun in 1881) and CIL (begun in 1853) are two collections that aimed to publish inscriptions from across the Mediterranean, Near East, and the greater Roman Empire in a multi-volume work assembled over an extended period of time. For a majority of stelae from the SSG, and more specifically the Roman period, descriptions and dates have been collected from Le Glay’s volumes (1961; 1966a), as he provided far more detailed descriptions and images than the original publications. Most often these original publications focused on the inscription alone, providing no description of the stele composition at all (e.g., Gsell 1917; Truillot 1932-33a, b). Since

Le Glay was exclusively interested in Saturn, this reliance on Le Glay’s publications has unfortunately led to an over-representation of stelae dedicated to Saturn, leaving those dedicated to Caelestis to be severely under-represented in this thesis. On the other hand, stelae dedicated to Caelestis do not often appear in publications, suggesting either that stelae were not a popular form of dedication to Caelestis in the Roman period, or that

Caelestis has received far less focus than that which has been given to Saturn. This bias will be further addressed in the discussion presented in Chapter Six.

For each sanctuary, all stelae for which I have had access to publications have been included in the total. Only at Carthage did this possibly present a problem, as over

6000 stelae have been recovered. However, when looking through theCIS, where the vast majority of Carthaginian stelae were published, it became clear that only a very small portion had animals on them. This led to the decision that including all the stelae from a sanctuary was feasible. However, the catalogue of stelae cannot be considered comprehensive for any site for reasons such as stelae having been removed for building materials or looted for selling to collectors. In some cases, museum catalogues referred to a collection of several hundred stelae in a museum, but provided entries for only a handful. In addition, the selection process for preserving stelae in museums by excavators during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries was biased, often influenced by the 50 presence of inscriptions or by aesthetics (Mendleson 2003: 3). Another detriment to assessing pattern frequency was that some stelae, such as those atCirta (Berthier and

Charlier 1955), were too fragmented to piece back together, thus skewing the total to seemingly have more stelae than there may actually was.

Before any descriptions of the artefacts were consulted, all available images were assessed for the presence and type of animal on each stele. The majority of animals were relatively easy to identify. In only one case did I disagree with the published description, and thus I tallied it with other ‘No Animal’ stelae. Distinguishing between dolphin and fish at Mactaris was based on orientation, style and number of fins present. Other, more ambiguous or poorly preserved animal representations were determined through typical characteristics represented on other stelae. For example, a ‘fluffy’-like halo around an animal was interpreted as a lion main (Figure 5.28 and 32). Long and arched necks, longer legs, and occasionally a raised hoof identified a horse (Figure 5.21) compared with rams who had short legs, short and fat tails, and possibly curled homs (Figure 5.20 and

22). Upward pointing homs were always present on bulls. Doves were difficult to distinguish from other or generically-depicted birds, largely because of the carved size, thus were identified as Bird/Doves. Animal identification on artefacts without depictions was based on published descriptions. Which artefacts have images is indicated in the accompanying Catalogue of Stelae at the end of this thesis.

The stelae from each sanctuary have been grouped here into Punic, Neo-Punic,

Roman and Indeterminate periods. When possible, these periods have been further broken down into smaller time segments based on the published dates associated with the stelae, or based on personal analysis of architectural style, depiction technique, size, and when applicable, language of inscription (Hours-Miedan 1950; Le Glay 1966b; Moore

2000: 22; Mendleson 2003). These temporal and cultural indicators are further explained below, in the section titled, ‘Stelae: Temporal, Cultural, and Geographic Indicators’.

When stelae were of an ambiguous date, they were placed in a separate ‘Indeterminate ’ category; doing so allowed these stelae to provide general frequency and composition contexts for other stelae. Period estimates were only provided for stelae from Carthage without associated published dates because temporal stylistic variation on Carthaginian stelae was well documented, and so I could place them in a date range with some security. Variation at the other sanctuaries was not as well published, resulting in a lower confidence level for dating more precisely beyond the Punic, Neo-Punic, and Roman period levels.

For the purpose of this thesis, stelae have been grouped into ‘No Animal’ versus

‘Animal’ categories. The ‘Animal’ category has been further subdivided according to the species of animal, its location, and its role. These tables are presented in Chapter Five.

I have also analyzed species, general frequencies of animals, location or hierarchical placement of animal iconography, and possible distinction of animal roles on stelae and compared them temporally at intra-site and inter-site levels. This has been followed by the assessment of the role of the animal because, as indicated in Chapter

Two, specific animals on stelae, such as the bull, ram, bird, and dolphin, were often (but not always) considered by modem scholars to represent a sacrifice or a divine symbol

(Hours-Miedan 1950: 50-52; Le Glay 1966b: 213, 347; Picard 1973-1974[ 1976]: 107;

Mendleson 2003: 710); however, an animal’s role during the Punic period was not always clear, in part because not all the Punic symbols have been adequately deciphered. The 52 lack of explanatory written materials from ancient North Africans prevents a complete understanding of what it was they were trying to communicate or show through stele composition. In addition, the presence of animals that were not listed on tariffs as typically-accepted offerings suggests that the depiction of animals did not necessarily mean the same thing on each stele. Animal roles on a stele have been contemplated here in combination with an analysis of what typical and atypical animals might have meant to the cultures of North Africa, or perhaps to an individual. Did they represent a sacrifice, a divine individual, an indicator of the dedicant’s occupation, or something else?

As will be discussed in Chapter Four, hierarchical ranking of humans and animals should reveal something about animal conceptualization. If animals were depicted on the same level and of the same size, then animals were not necessarily ranked lower than the dedicant, or less important than the vow. On the other hand, when animals were relegated to areas below known celestial indicators as well as dedicants, did this indicate that animals, although important for the ritualistic communication with the gods, were ranked below humans? Furthermore, if an animal appeared more often over time, did that mean that it played a more significant role in the cult? Was this change related to cultural or geographical factors?

After the analysis for each site, the results have been compared between sites, as presented in Chapter Six, to determine whether variation was a result of cultural or geographic factors. Did coastal regions favour a larger variety of aquatic animals than interior sites? Or did one species of animal appear more often in the indigenous sanctuaries, compared to Roman sanctuaries? 53

Due to the qualitative nature of this analysis, basic statistical analyses were not

appropriate for these comparisons. The unevenness of sampling and lack of available

publications for this analysis meant the data must be assessed for general patterns rather

than hard statistics. In order to assess general patterns, however, data is presented in

Chapter Five in terms of quantities, so comparisons could made between the sites based

on general characteristics, such as a potentially greater representation of animals on stelae

in one sanctuary, versus a small and limited representation of animals in another

sanctuary. It is acknowledged that the addition of newly-recovered or -accessible stelae

or remains could potentially create major changes in the proportions and therefore in the

conclusions drawn from these materials.

Stelae: Temporal, Cultural, and Geographic Indicators

Each stele is unique, despite the sometimes-limited repertoire of symbols portrayed and any similarity in layout styles (Le Glay 1966b: 14-15). However,

variations found on stelae, through architectural (shape, size), depiction technique

(incised, carved), epigraphic, compositional, and symbolic repertoire, have allowed

scholars to provide approximate dates for many individual or groups of stelae (Le Glay

1966b: 14-15, 20; Cintas 1947: 70; Moscati 1997: 366-368; Moore 2000: 21-22;

Mendleson 2003: 3; Ferjaoui 2007: 45-46).9 In addition, some of these variations have

also been attributed to the indigenous, Punic and Roman cultures. There are limitations

as to how precise temporal, geographic, or cultural attributions can be, as will be shown.

These variations, however, do provide a base from which scholars can identify a context

9 For a detailed account of cultural, regional and temporal variations in all these factors, refer to Le Glay’s Saturne africain: Histoire (1966b: 14-57). 54 for stelae that are no longer in their original context, such as those foundfavissa. in a

These indicative features are outlined below.

Shape and size were the least reliable features for determining temporal and geographic area, as they could vary considerably between sites (Le Glay 1966b: 16-17).

In addition, many stelae recovered were incompletely preserved, making size and shape difficult to determine. In general terms, the earliest stelae from Carthage (fourth century

B.C.E.) typically had a triangular pediment, sometimes misleadingly called an obelisk

(Le Glay 1966b: 17). This style was also adopted for Punic-period stelae in several indigenous areas, such as around Ain-Battaria (Gauckler 1897: 372-373, nos. 26-28) and

Cirta (Bertrandy and Sznycer 1987: 87-88, nos. 126-127). At Carthage, during the third century B.C.E., the tall triangle pediment was replaced by a squatter triangle pediment flanked by acroteria, which continued to be favoured until the fall of Carthage in 146

B.C.E. (Figure 3.1). During the Neo-Punic period, many indigenous sites, including

Maktar (Picard n.d. [1955]: 284, Cb-1012 - Cb-1013) and Henchir el-Hami (Ferjaoui

2007: 124-29, nos. 1-2), continued to use both a simple, tall triangle pediment style or a squatter pediment with acroteria.

Carving style is a better indicator of which period a stele may belong to, although it should also be applied with caution (Le Glay 1966b: 18-51; Moscati 1997: 364-367;

Mendleson 2003: 3-4). The Punic-period stelae across North Africa were generally incised rather than carved, as seen at Carthage (Mendleson 2003: 26, Pu42), El-Kenissia

(Carton 1906: 35-40, nos. 15, 29), and Cirta (Berthier and Charlier 1955: 197, 201), with a few exceptions fromHadrumetum (Cintas 1947: figures 73-84) and Cirta (Berthier and

Charlier 1955: 200, 201), which were decorated in a low, flat relief. During the Neo- Punic and Roman periods, incised decoration was replaced by carving in low or flat relief. At some sites during the Roman period, such asLambaesis (Le Glay 1966a: 95-

96, 98-99, nos. 43, 55), Thamugadi (Le Glay 1966a: 137-138, 142, nos. 14, 28) and

Cuicul (Le Glay 1966a: 211-214, nos. 7, 8), some reliefs were carved nearly in the round.

However, it cannot be assumed that the more rudimentary an incised or carved relief was, the older it was, or that it was of indigenous origin (Moore 2000: 40-41).

Inscriptions could occasionally be used to attribute dates to stelae, although only a handful of instances were recorded within this sample. Specific dates were identified by the name of the reigning year of a Numidian king or a Roman consul, allowing scholars to calculate the calendar year, as at Sitifis for example (Le Glay 1966a: 266-271, nos. 1,

6, 8; Le Glay 1966b: 20-21). The Neo-Punic language could also be used to determine a period later than the Punic period, as differentiation between Punic and Neo-Punic inscriptions lay in writing styles, particularly certain letter formations (Le Glay 1966b:

40; Jongeling and Kerr 2005: 1). Beyond this, however, limitations arise with ascribing time periods by inscription because this assumes that the inscription language did not carry over from the previous period thus potentially creating a misrepresentation of the total stelae attributed to these periods in this thesis (Millar 1968: 128, 130). Or, as at

Cirta (Berthier and Charlier 1955) and Thugga (Lantier and Poinssot 1947), it appeared that Greek and Latin speakers made offerings during the late Punic and Neo-Punic periods, as indicated by rudimentary Latin inscriptions on stelae with typical Punic or

Neo-Punic iconography (Berthier and Charlier 1955). Thus, some inscriptions may have been difficult to differentiate between Punic and Neo-Punic, and even Roman periods, leading to misidentification. These discrepancies were considered during analysis. 56

The combination of compositional features, on the other hand, provided a more

accurate estimation of the temporal, geographic, and occasionally cultural, identity of

stelae (Le Glay 1966b: 36-44; Cintas 1947: 70; Moscati 1997: 366-368; Mendleson 2003:

5-7; Feijaoui 2007: 45-46). ‘Composition’ here refers to the symbols, type of scenes,

presence or absence of registers, method of depicting anthropomorphic figures (people

and gods), and hair and clothing styles. Although analysis should first be done at the site

level, there was a higher level of consistency in composition that allowed for better inter­

site comparisons.

The common iconographic symbols during the Punic period included the open

palm, Punic ‘caduceus’, ‘sign of the bottle’, baetyl, ‘sign of Tanit’,10 and a downward-

pointing crescent with disc (Figure 3.2). Animals such as sheep, rams, bulls, birds and

fish also appeared on Punic stelae, but did not occur as consistently as the other six

symbols. There appeared to be no hierarchical placement of the symbols, as they were

incised at approximately the same size, and their order and placement on the stele varied

considerably. There were, however, varying levels of popularity of some symbols

between sites. At Hadrumetum, for example, the ‘sign of Tanit’, ‘sign of the bottle’, and

the baetyl were used almost exclusively, compared to the crescent with disc, animals, or

the Punic ‘caduceus’ (Cintas 1947).

At Carthage and Hadrumetum, during the late fourth to early third centuries

B.C.E., Greek influences appeared, particularly in the division of the stele into a series of

zones (registers) or friezes, separated by moldings (Le Glay 1966b: 36; Picard 1967: 13;

Mendleson 2003: 7). The division of the pediment into its own zone, along with the

10 There are no concrete links between the ‘sign of Tanit’ and the goddess, Tanit; as such, this symbol remains undeciphered (Moore 2000: 50-52; Mendleson 2003: 7). 57 addition of acroteria, gave the stele a temple-like appearance. This use of constructed registers was not consistently used at Carthage and Hadrumtum, nor was it widespread across North Africa. For example, Cirtaat (Bertrandy and Sznycer 1987: 23, 54, nos. 17,

142) and Thugga (Carton 1897: 403, figure 19) this style did not appear until the Neo-

Punic period.

During the Neo-Punic period, the same repertoire continued to be used, although some symbols, such as the ‘sign of Tanit’ and the crescent and disc, underwent some changes. The downward-pointing crescent and disc changed to an upward-pointing crescent with a wreath, sun, or sometimes a face instead of a disc. The ‘sign of Tanit’ became increasingly anthropomorphic, sometimes holding objects held in its ‘hands’

(Figure 3.3), as at Hadrumetum (Cintas 1947: 48-49), Cirta (Bertrandy and Sznycer

1987: 19-22, 50, nos. 2, 13, 127), and Thugga (Lantier and Poinssot 1942: 227, no. 8). In addition, at Cirta , there were several examples of stelae with either a bull or sheep standing within the bottom section of the ‘sign of Tanit’ (Berthier and Charlier 1952:

201). Furthermore, the Neo-Punic period was also marked by the appearance of the dedicant in a niche in a middle register, although the point at which this occurred varied from region to region (Le Glay 1966b: 71). A final bottom register below the dedicant, although not always present, usually depicted the sacrificial bull or ram. The top register could have an assortment of symbols, such as astral or floral elements. The indigenous carvings of the dedicant, or the deity, as at Henchir el-Hami (Feijaoui 2007: 138, 141, nos. 11, 15), were characterized by a dome-shaped head, almond-shaped eyes, and a long nose, while Roman depictions were more naturalistic (Le Glay 1966b: 49; Ferjaoui 2007:

114-115). During the Roman period, the stelae continued to show the dedicant in the middle register, now often in an increasingly elaborate architectural niche. The dedicant could be depicted as making an offering at a small altar located beside him or her. The triangular pediment was used to display the god, either a bust of or the full figure, or other symbols with divine associations, such as the lion or pinecone (Le Glay 1966b: 36).

The bottom register was normally the domain of what is presumed to be the sacrificial animal. During the transition to a more dedicant-focused composition, the Punic and

Neo-Punic symbols stopped being used. Across North Africa, the Roman-period dedicants were carved in a stiff, frontal position, much like during the Neo-Punic period, but proportions became more natural (Le Glay 1966b: 45-47). During the Roman period the toga, a sign of Roman citizenship, increasingly replaced the men’s tunic and women were depicted wearing a stola (Le Glay 1966b: 14). The portrayal of the changing toga styles, along with changes in women’s clothing and hair fashions, provided another manner by which to assign approximate dates to stelae. However, Moore (2000: 41) cautioned the use of hairstyle and dress as a dating method, as they were often too stylized or stereotypical to be fully compared with trends back in Rome. Furthermore, she questioned the immediate relevance and accessibility of these trends to inhabitants of certain North African towns (Moore 2000: 41).

Another factor to bear in mind during analysis was that of cultural identity and culture change. Cultural change is not a straightforward concept that can be assessed from stele with a quick glance. For example, a Roman-sounding name did not necessarily indicate a Roman identity. Instead it could show an attempt by parents or the individual themselves to fit in to a political system that was changing from Punic or 59 indigenous to Roman. It is also known that the Punic language was spoken well into the third and even fourth centuries C.E. (St. Augustine,The Teacher 13.44) despite the nearly exclusive use of Latin for Roman stelae inscriptions.

Despite all this, however, stelae compositions varied within a sanctuary, as well as between sanctuaries. If change in clothing, language, names, offerings, and monumental architecture were mirrored on stelae, then animal conceptualization should also have been reflected on stelae and through other animal-related evidence.

Chapter Four introduces and outlines the theory of animal conceptualization. It also provides an outline of what types of animal conceptualization was expected to be observed from the indigenous, Punic, and Roman populations, and how this might be reflected in the material record. 60

Chapter Four: Theory of Animal Conceptualization

This thesis aims to understand how the populations of ancient North Africa related to animals and how these relationships were reflected in the sanctuaries, to determine whether the variation in offerings presented to the gods Ba’al Hammon and

Tanit was in part a result in changes in a population’s animal conceptualization. This chapter presents the theory of animal conceptualization, beginning with an outline of the modes of animal conceptualization and how they can be applied to the cultures of ancient

North Africa. Following this is a discussion of the method and guidelines for analysis for the present study.

Animal Conceptualization

The scholarship regarding human-animal relationships developed from an anthropological interest in the subject, and was studied during ethnographic work on a specific culture under study by various scholars (Descola 1996; Ingold 2000; Viveiros de

Castro 2004). When human and animal relationships in archaeological cultures were studied, these relationships were still explained as static and generalized during the life of the culture described, or the research focused on major shifts, such as from a polytheistic to a monotheistic religious system (Fowler 2004; Gilhus 2006). The question 1 still had was how (or do?) human and animal relationships change when a culture experiences long-term direct or indirect interaction with, and even political influence or control by, another culture?

The unique approach that animal conceptualization brings to this analysis is the recognition that the relationships that people have with animals vary between groups of 61 people and cultures, and that these relationships cannot be placed into concrete categories. So even though different populations, such as the indigenous, Punic and

Romans in North Africa, practiced the same cult, the animal-related evidence from the sanctuaries should reflect differences in animal conceptualization. This theory, however, was developed on existing cultures, and has not yet been applied to ancient

Mediterranean cultures.

Common characteristics of these human-animal relationships have been identified, allowing these relationships to be grouped broadly into non-mutually exclusive modes of identification and relation, as explained below. Understanding the differences between these relationships will help in understanding to what extent change occurred in the belief systems of ancient North African populations.

Modes of Identification

‘Modes of identification’ is the broadest category used to characterize human- animal relationships. It developed from the scholarship that aimed to understand how humans conceived the world, or ‘nature’, around them (Shanklin 1985; Descola 1996;

Palsson 1996; Poynting 1996; Miller 1999; Ingold 2000; Viveiros de Castro 2004). As scholars in anthropology and other disciplines explored the ways in which societies incorporated or separated themselves from ‘nature’, the examination of how humans interacted with animals and the effects on human social organization arose (Levi-Strauss

1963; Leach 1964; Palsson 1990; Arnold 1996; Poynting 1996; Mullin 1999; Ingold

2000; Fowler 2004). It was apparent that in many societies, culture and nature were not two distinct or opposing categories (Shanklin 1985; James 1990; Palsson 1990; Descola and Palsson 1996; Poynting 1996; Mullin 1999; Ingold 2000; Fowler 2004; Viveiros de 62

Castro 2004). These modes of identification (‘naturalism’, ‘animism’, and ‘totemism’)

were not mutually exclusive; societies could show multiple characteristics of more than

one mode (Descola 1996: 88; Ingold 2000; Viveiros de Castro 2004; Folwer 2004: 123).

‘Naturalism’ is the mode most often associated with Western societies. This form

of identification sees societies linked together by human nature and existing in an

ontological dualism with nature, wherein society exists within the realm of nature, yet it

is separate (Levi-Strauss 1963: 3; Descola 1996: 88-89; Viveiros de Castro 1996: 473;

Ingold 2000: 107; Fowler 2004: 120). What sets humans apart from nature (animals,

plants, rocks, etc.) can be attributed to the many abilities that are largely exclusive to

humans, such as self-awareness, speech, the capacity to lie and laugh, and the use of material culture to adapt to all environments (Ingold 1988; Viveiros de Castro 2004: 481;

Fowler 2004: 119).11 Although human societies differ, all share the identity of being

human, thus excluding animals from the realm of society and relegating them to the

realm of nature instead (Descola 1996: 88; Ingold 2000: 107).

Some animals, however, can be partially incorporated into society, although mostly on an individual level, such as through the role of a pet. As a result, when animals are placed on a grading scale, complexity and their incorporation into society become factors influencing a hierarchical ranking (Fowler 2004: 119). Primates, such as chimpanzees, are more complicated, even human-like, when compared with snails. Dogs

are more readily incorporated into society (in the role of pet) than animals like badgers or

lions. This hierarchical ranking places animals under humans, who in turn are placed below a higher power, such as ‘God’, a series of gods, or nature itself; the belief in a higher power is not, however, necessarily universal (Tapper 1988: 48; Descola 1996: 88;

11 These criteria are not accepted by all scholars. For discussion, see Jennie Coy (1988). 63

Veltre 1996: 19; Fowler 2004: 119). Furthermore, there are individuals or groups, such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), who advocate that animals should also have rights; these groups still see animals as separate from humans, if only by a few degrees, and an inherent part of nature.

In ‘animistic’ (or ‘multi-naturalistic’) systems, the world is made of multiple natures, such as human, bear, and dog, yet those different natures are all part of the same society (Fowler 2004: 120; Viveiros de Castro 2004: 466). Here, animals are on the same ontological level as humans, as they live in their own natures and form their own communities, but they are also part of the same society, or cultural world, as humans

(Ingold 2000: 114; Viveiros de Castro 2004: 465). The power of life is considered to be distributed amongst all the beings in an ongoing creation of the world around them, resulting in a network of reciprocal interdependence, as each being draws upon others for survival (Ingold 2000: 108, 113; Fowler 2004: 122-123). This also means that no physical form is permanent: forms are ever-flowing and have the ability to change between human and animal (Ingold 2000: 108, 113-114). The soul of both animals and humans are found within the being, which allows the outer shell, the body, to change its shape to that of another being (Ingold 2000: 114). The energy cost to do this can be great, leaving only animals and a few human individuals, such as shamans, with the ability to do this readily (Ingold 2000: 114; Fowler 2004: 128-129; Viveiros de Castro

2004: 468). Shamans are then seen as the mediators between the many different natures.

Ingold associated the Inuit of North America with this mode of identification

(Ingold 2000). Reflections of this mode can been seen in some Inuit imagery, particularly the concept that animals are persons, such as when an animal is shown 64 wearing human clothing, walking like a human, or interacting with the Inuit (Ingold

2000:114, fig. 7.1).

In contrast, in a ‘totemic’ mode of identification, the world was shaped by the ancestors, rather than by nature or another higher power, and remained static (Ingold

2000: 112-113; Fowler 2004: 122). As a result, the ancestral powers that remain in the land connect all living things, with certain geographic locations that are considered to have a stronger connection with the ancestors than others (Ingold 2000: 113). Spiritual qualities are then found within the body and the individual rather than externally and are shared between humans and non-humans, minimizing a need for shamanic mediation between human and non-human communities (Fowler 2004: 123). Despite these shared qualities, however, non-humans are used as symbols to distinguish between human groups, creating a kind of relationship between the non-human group and the cultural group (Levi-Strauss 1963: 17; Tapper 1988: 50; Descola 1996: 87; Fowler 2004: 123).

This should not, however, be taken to mean that human groups necessarily identify either physically or psychologically with the non-human group. Ingold (2000) and Fowler

(2004) associated this mode with the Australian Aboriginals. Ingold argued that this mode could be seen in some of the Aboriginal artwork, particularly through the detailed bodily architecture of an animal-formed ancestral being (morphology and the internal layout of organs), rather than the other features (movement, posture or behaviour) (Ingold

2000:116, fig. 7.3). The internal details of the animal were expressions of the creational process of the earth that this particular ancestral being performed (Ingold 2000:118).

Like a roadmap, the internal markings described the land. These images remained static, even as individuals repainted the animal as a form of renewing the earth. 65

Anthropologists generally accepted these divisions of identification, although some of the specifics were disputed. For example, Descola (1996) and Viveiros de

Castro (1998), following the work of Levi-Strauss (1963), focused on the use of non­ human emblems to classify various relationships in totemism. Ingold (2000), on the other hand, focused on the maintenance of forms (human and non-human) created by ancestral powers through the practice of traditions and stewardship of the land, allowing these powers and energies to transfer between living things over the generations.

The above outline of naturalism, totemism and animism are general and aimed at providing a boundary by which to gauge how a culture identifies with the environment.

These modes are not mutually exclusive (Descola 1996; Mullin 1999; Ingold 2000;

Viveiros de Castro 2004; Folwer 2004), and show further variation through modes of relations, as described below.

Modes of Relation Within the identification modes there can be a combination ofrelational modes that will further influence the interaction between humans and non-humans. These modes of relation are the types of interactions between humans and animals within the framework of how people conceive of their environment. Relations are also not mutually exclusive. Although there is no general agreement as to what the modes of relations should be labelled, the divisions share some general characteristics. Presented below are divisions established by Descola (1996) and Palsson (1996). Descola (1996) identifies three modes of relation: ‘reciprocity’, ‘protection’, and ‘predation’. Palsson (1996) also identifies three modes, but calls them ‘communalism’, ‘paternalism’, and ‘orientalism’.

‘Reciprocity’ and ‘communalism’ are most often associated with animism and hunter/gatherer societies. They are based on the idea that humans and animals are 66 equivalent and share the world, the world being conceived of as a homeostatic, closed circuit (Descola 1996: 89, 94; Palsson 1996: 72-73; Ingold 2000: 114). This type of relation suggests a form of reciprocity or co-operation existing between humans and non­ humans, including both animals and/or the land itself (Descola 1996: 89; Palsson 1996:

74). These relationships allow the energy in the cosmos to circulate, as both human and non-human souls are recycled equally (Descola 1996: 89). The Tukanoan Indians of eastern Colombia, ancient Scandinavians, Canadian Cree, and the Nayaka of South India are a few cultures that display, or show elements of, the ‘reciprocity’ and ‘communalism’ mode of relation (Descola 1996: 89; Palsson 1996: 74).

In the ‘predation’ mode of relation, animals may still be seen as persons, but they are not connected to humans through a network of exchange. Thus, humans are not required to make offerings after taking animal lives (Descola 1996: 90, 97). This mode sees humans and animals in a sort of competition, in which each is perceived as seeking revenge on the other for killings or other actions, such as snakes biting women in retaliation for hunters killing snakes (Descola 1996: 90). This relationship can be expanded to include interactions between human groups, by which humans seek revenge on other groups, executed through actions such as wife-raiding or head-hunting (Descola

1996: 90). However, Descola presents the predation mode as one that is very particular to South America, and lists the Jivaroan tribes of eastern Ecuador and Peru as an example of a culture demonstrating this mode (Descola 1996:90), so its applicability to ancient

North Africa may be small if any.

‘Protection’, or ‘orientalist mode’, is most often associated with naturalism, and thus Western societies, based on the expressed break between nature and society, yet a 67 regular use of animals reliant on human care (Descola 1996: 90; Palsson 1996: 67).

Sometimes, the domesticated species becomes so closely linked with humans that they become components of the whole society (e.g., cattle for pastoralists) or become equated with a reduced kinship unit (e.g., family pets or sacred animals as ancestral figures)

(Descola 1996: 90). The bond between human and animal can be both reciprocal and utilitarian, such as through the guarantee of subsistence, fulfillment of a need for an emotional attachment, currency for exchange, or to perpetuate a link with a benevolent divinity (Descola 1996: 90-91; Palsson 1996: 68).

These two forms of relation, ‘protection’ and ‘orientalist mode’, often imply a chain of dependencies between different ontological levels (animal, human, and divine) through asymmetrical relations (Descola 1996: 91; Palsson 1996: 68). The divine are often perceived as the protectors or ultimate providers. On the other hand, the bond between human and animal can be one of domination, in which humans perceive themselves to be in total control as they are hierarchically superior. This could lead to exploitation of the animals, resulting in resource depletion (Palsson 1996: 68). Through the practice of sacrifice, these modes can be seen to combine forms of predation (taking the life of an animal without offering direct counterparts) and forms of reciprocity

(offering to the divine in exchange for success of herds, crops, health, or status) (Descola

1996: 91). Unlike the ‘protection’ mode, however, the ‘orientalist mode’ is more often characterized by extensive exploitation of animals, and thus a greater possibility of resource depletion (Palsson 1996: 69).

‘Paternalistic’ mode is similar to the ‘protection’ mode as presented by Descola; however it differs in that humans take an active role in protecting animals from 68 exploitation through the avocation of moral responsibility (Palsson 1996: 70). This type of relation is most often associated with modem Western groups, and the trend of humans acting on behalf of nature. Humans and animals are still generally considered to be separate, but nature becomes a fetish. In some cases it is thought that some human groups (e.g. indigenous producers) remain a part of nature, while others (Euro-

Americans) remove themselves from it (Palsson 1996: 70). The problem with this mode is that it is likely to be difficult to recognize archaeologically, as it is based on opposition to the ‘orientalist mode’.

Implications for Offerings in Sanctuaries of Ba’al Hammon and Tanit

Animal conceptualization operates on the premise that different societies vary in their relationships with animals, which in turn, affects the way in which specific animals are used in religious settings. If the indigenous cultures related to animals differently than the Punic populations, then the offerings presented to the gods might differ, along with variation in animal depictions and roles on stelae. Then, with the influx of Roman political control and settlements during the Neo-Punic and Roman periods, change in animal conceptualization may also be reflected in the sanctuaries. The merit that this type of thinking has is that the modes of identifications and relations are not concrete, and that if the indigenous, Punic, and Roman societies have a ‘naturalistic’ identification and a ‘protectorate’ relation with animals, differences may still be identified because they could also exhibit other elements from ‘totemic’ and ‘predation’ modes, for example. 69

Based on archaeological records, ancient writings, and modem scholarship, the

following sections presents which modes of identification and relation the indigenous,

Punic, and Roman cultures were likely to exhibit.

The Indigenous Population

As introduced in Chapter One, the various indigenous groups of North Africa

were similar, but a not homogenous group. They were a complicated mixture of

pastoralists (sedentary or semi-nomadic) and farmers who were divided into many tribes,

politically controlled by chiefs; this system is modeled by present-day Berbers (Mattingly

1995: 19-20, 37-38). Those chiefs with stronger backing from their tribes became almost

like kings, controlling large areas of territory (Camps 1980: 154), but the tribal structure

hindered the development of complete states, even during the construction of the

kingdoms in response to the expansion of Carthage (Camps 1980: 150; Brett and Fentress

1996: 27). Most of the sites under analysis here came from within the two consolidated

indigenous kingdoms, renamed Numidia, and so ‘indigenous’ will largely refer to these

‘Numidians’. The exception was El Kenissia, whose cultural origins remain unclear.

The indigenous religion was polytheistic, and contained multiple high gods, numerous lesser gods and spirits rooted in nature; caves were a location for the chthonic beings, and the stars the home of celestial beings (Brett and Fentress 1996: 35).

However, if there were any singular powerful gods, similar to what Ba’al Hammon and

Tanit became, it remains unclear; Camps argued that the old beliefs and power of the ancestors were not eclipsed by the incoming cults of Ba’al Hammon and Tanit, but rather

continued to exist alongside the cults (Camps 1980: 215). The indigenous beliefs were not expressed in material form like the state religions found in other Mediterranean 70 societies, leaving fewer archaeological remains (Camps 1980: 194). The mortuary record indicates a veneration of the dead, whose tombs and other sacred areas, such as the sanctuary of Slonta, Cyrenaica (in North Africa south of present-day Greece, and west of

Egypt) were used by descendants seeking communication with the ancestors through dreams (Camps 1980: 194-196; Mattingly 1995: 39; Brett and Fentress 1996: 35).

The connection of particular places with the divine is an element of the totemic mode of identification. A more fully-totemic mode would see power coming from the land itself, whereas the North African indigenous groups saw power coming from the divinities and spirits, which linked themselves to particular locales, such as ancestors’ tombs. Rather, the hierarchical division between the divine and human worlds displays elements from the naturalism mode of identification. If the divine and human groups were ranked, then so would the animal world be. It is unclear to what extent the divine and natural world were hierarchically ranked in terms of one or several beings holding a dominant position over others. In general, however, domestication of animals implies that trust was no longer established between the humans and animals, but that there was domination over them, and an understanding that animals were unable to perform any type of (conscious) reciprocation (Ingold 2000: 73). Therefore, based on the modes of identification and relation described above, ancient North African societies were not animistic, but a mix of totemic and naturalistic identifications. However, as these are not mutually exclusive modes of identification, there may have been a sense among the pastoralist groups that their animals were not entirely separated from the society of humans because of their heavy reliance on the animals (Ingold 2000: 74). 71

The Punic Population

The Punics originated from the sea-trading Phoenician culture, a series of city- states in which a king ruled a particular city, its surrounding agricultural area and, in some cases, colonial territory (Moscati 1997: 57). Carthage was a developed urban entity by the mid-eighth century, and a naval and military power, similar to its Phoenician founders, by the mid-sixth century B.C.E. (Aubet 1996:196).

Phoenico-Punic religions were polytheistic, centered on deities that had control over nature, humans, and societies as a whole; the gods had the power to grant benefits, favours, and protection (Ribichini 1997:122). Their realm of power went beyond nature to include human activities or dangers threatening them, such as through war or plague

(Ribichini 1997: 124), and their powers could be interchangeable between gods, as seen in Chapter Two between Tanit and Astarte (Clifford 1990: 57). In Phoenicia, each major city-state had an overarching divine couple that differed from the other city-states. For example, the divine couple of Byblos was Reshep and Ba’alat, Astarte and Eshmun at

Sidon, and Melqart and Astarte at Tyre (Clifford 1990: 60-61); the divine couple of Punic

Carthage and most of Punic North Africa was Ba’al Hammon and Tanit (see Chapter

Two). In ancient North Africa, worship occurred at a state and individual level, as seen through the organized festivals, priesthood, and use of apotropaic and devotional objects

(Lancel 1997: 193; Ribichini 1997: 134). The priests operating within the sanctuaries were ranked hierarchically (some positions were hereditary), and some enjoyed political and economic prestige (Lancel 1997: 209).

As with the indigenous groups, there was no specific reciprocation to the animal world for the sacrifice of animals (with the exception of the animal group’s continued welfare at the hands of humans), which rules out animism as a major mode of identification. Instead, the main mode of identification was naturalism, as indicated by clear hierarchical ranking within human society and among the gods. Animals were also ranked, as indicated by the Marseille and Carthage tariffs, and thus were not equal, but separate, from humans. Totemic elements were also exhibited in the identification of certain locations, thus marked as sacred areas or sanctuaries, as special to the divine, although the location or land was not a source of specific power. Animals were also used as indicators of the divine, and perhaps even of human groups. The domestication of animals, as for the indigenous groups, indicates the protection mode of relation.

The Roman Population

By the time the Romans came into conflict with the Carthaginians, political organization had moved from a monarchy to a Republic (509 B.C.E.), headed by two elected consuls and a set number of senators. By 31 B.C.E., Rome was ruled by one man. Unlike other Mediterranean cultures at the time, Rome considered the entire city a sacred area that should remain pure, whereas other cultures, such as Punic or Greek, applied this to specific areas, such as individual sanctuaries (Stambaugh 1988: 9).

Similarly to the Punic religion, Roman religion was polytheistic, but instead of a supreme divine couple, there was a divine triad in Rome: Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva, whose capitolia have been found across North Africa (Andringa 2008: 89). The gods held power over natural phenomena, humans, and societies, and had the power to grant benefits or exact retribution or punishment. Unlike the Punics, Romans built long-lasting monumental temples for the gods, rather than just the exclusive use of a sanctuary area and altar. The religion was practiced at a state and individual level, with annual festivals 73 and priesthoods devoted to specific deities (Gordon 2003: 64-65). The sacrifices made to the gods had specific requirements for each deity, such as the species, colour, age, and sex; furthermore, the ritual of sacrifice had to be perfect, and could be repeated as often as necessary to make it so (Gordon 2003: 77).

Unlike in the Punic and indigenous cultures, writings have preserved from the

Roman culture that discuss how animals were valued and related to in both daily life and religious contexts. For example,Lex the Aquilia (in The Digest o f Justinian 9.2.2) stated that a fine would be exacted from someone who killed a person’s cattle, yet it was not a legal subject. Animals were not considered human, as they were incapable of reasoning.

On the other hand, specific animals were attributed to, and on occasion, representative of specific deities because they represented the nature of the god or their realm of power (Gilhus 2006: 106). Animals important for religious sacrifices and the representation of Roman gods were linked to the agricultural origins of Rome and the dependency on animals for daily life. Gilhus stated that the combination of the anthropomorphic form of the deity and the animal attribute contributed to the “creation of that third entity that is neither man nor beast but a divine being” (Gilhus 2006: 107). The audience reads this combination as more than just an anthropomorphic being or an animal, but as a divinity and their animal associate.

As with both the Punic and the indigenous groups, animals were not a part of a society, and thus the animals of the species that was sacrificed (such as ram or bull), were not prayed to for thanks, which is more characteristic of animism. Instead, the Romans exhibited a naturalistic mode, in which animals, humans, and divine were clearly divided; humans, however, used animals to bridge the gap with their divinities. Totemic elements were also indicated through the use of animals as symbols for divinities, as well as the continued us of specific locations deemed special for their divine beings. The Romans also did not always need specialized mediators to communicate with the gods, as most priests did not hold full time positions, and the performance of daily rituals in the household. As with the Punic and indigenous groups, the domestication of animals and their hierarchical ranking indicates the protection mode of relation.

The common characteristics exhibited by these three cultures under study suggests that the faunal and stelae remains from the sanctuaries should display a naturalistic mode of identification, with varying degrees of totemism, as well as a protectionist mode of relation. It should be noted that none of the above cultures are considered homogenous. There is variability within each category, and what it is that we identify as ‘Roman’ or ‘indegenous’, as well as what individuals may have identified themselves as. Furthermore, what we know about the conceptualization of the indigenous groups is relatively little, particularly when compared with what we know about the Roman populations. To compound this, what is largely measured through this analysis is not necessarily indigenous, so much as it is the conceptualization after several hundred years of interaction with Punic people, and in some cases, such as atCirta, other

Mediterranean cultures. However, 1 aim to determine, through the use of of animal conceptualization theory, if there are identifiable differences in the animal related evidence from the sanctuaries and if the above modes are actually reflected in the sanctuaries. As these models were created on existing, non-Mediterranean cultures, this thesis will also be testing to see if these models are applicable outside their realm of creation. 75

Chapter Five: Part A - The Sanctuaries in Context; Part B - Presentation of Results

Chapter Five is separated into two sections: ‘Part A - The Sanctuaries in Context’, followed by ‘Part B - Presentation of Results’. ‘Part A’ provides an introduction to the

Primary Sanctuary Group (PSG) and the Secondary Sanctuary Group (SSG) to provide a cultural history and context for each site, as well as what types of material were collected.

‘Part B’ is the presentation of the results from the faunal remains and stelae by site, broken down into each site and its respective operational time periods.

PART A - THE SANCTUARIES IN CONTEXT

The cultural history of ancient North Africa demonstrated variation geographically and temporally as the Punic, and later Roman, influence and control spread across North Africa, and deeper into indigenous territories. These variations were evident in the three PSGs and nine SSGs investigated here. This section provides a brief cultural context for each site under study in order to provide the information necessary for determining animal conceptualization through the analysis of the faunal and stelae remains. It also indicates approximately when the cults of Ba’al Hammon and Tanit were practiced at the site, and provides a brief outline of the excavations or the discovery context for faunal and stelae remains.

Primary Sanctuary Group (PSG)

I - Carthage

Carthage is located on the northeast coast of Tunisia and on the northeast side of

Lake Tunis; it is presently part of the suburbs of Tunis, capital of Tunisia (Figure 1.1). Substantial modern development has occurred over large areas of the ancient city, leading

UNESCO to declare Carthage a World Heritage Site in 1979, in the attempt to prevent

further development over the remaining features (UNESCO World Heritage Committee:

1979). As discussed in Chapter One, Carthage was established as a Phoenician colony within indigenous territory, supposedly at the legendary date of 814 B.C.E. Between the

sixth and fourth centuries, Carthage began to expand its political influence and control

around the Mediterranean as well as into the interior of North Africa (Tunisia, Algeria,

Libya, and Morocco) (Lancel 1997: 195). At the same time, Carthage continued to develop and maintain trade connections with the surrounding indigenous groups, and other major indigenous cities, such as those fromCirta. After the defeat of Carthage in

146 B.C.E., marking the end of the Third Punic War, Rome annexed Punic territory and took political control of the city and its territory. However, it was not until 44 B.C.E. that a Roman colony,Colonia Iulia Concordia Karthago was successfully established on the site of the former Punic city (Le Glay 1961: 11).

K. de Prorok, F. Icard and M. Geilly discovered the Punic sanctuary of Ba’al

Hammon and Tanit, also known as thetophet, in 1922, partly by chance. The men had followed an individual who had attempted to sell Punic stelae looted from the sanctuary

(de Prorok 1926: 88). Upon realizing the importance of the stelae, Icard purchased the land and began to excavate with Geilly and de Prorok (Icard 1922: 196; de Prorok 1926:

88; Kelsey 1926:33). The same year, direction of excavation was given to L. Poinssot and R. Lantier in joint effort with de Prorok, during which time a rough chronology was established (Poinssot and Lantier 1923: 39). Unfortunately, between the two groups in control of excavations, no final reports were published, for unknown reasons. 77

Excavations continued in 1925 under the direction o f F. W. Kelsey, associated with the

University of Michigan. Kelsey excavated the northwest area of the sanctuary previously

excavated by Poinssot and Lantier (Kelsey 1926: 30). Kelsey only produced a

preliminary report before he passed in 1927; no final report was compiled.

Excavations did not resume until 1935, under the direction of P. Lapeyre (1939:

294). No plans were published of the excavated area, most of which had been disturbed

prior to discovery of the sanctuary (Brown 1991: 44). P. Cintas, from 1944-1945,

excavated the area south of Lapeyre’s excavations (Cintas 1970). He discovered what

appeared to be a portion of the sanctuary wall, for which no plan was published, running

north to south and parallel to the rectangular harbour (Brown 1991: 47). A hiatus

occurred until the “Save Carthage Program” led by UNESCO, when excavations in the

sanctuary were conducted under the supervision of L.E. Stager from 1975 to 1979 (Stager

1982: 155-156). Stager’s excavations uncovered further sections of the wall, and

identified phases within the general-dated levels that had been established by prior

excavators, through analyses of stelae and urns (Stager 1982: 157; Stager and Wolff

1984: 36). Although many excavations have been conducted, the whole area of the

sanctuary has not yet been uncovered.

The sanctuary itself is located at the southern city limit, and immediately west of

the rectangular commercial port (Figure 5.1). A wall, of which only some of the

foundation stones remain, enclosed the open-air area. Parts of an eastern wall were recovered by Stager (Stager and Wolff 1984: 36), in addition to the western wall

recovered by Cintas (1970), both running parallel to the rectangular harbor, situated

directly east of the sanctuary. Stager estimated, based on unspecified criteria, that the size of the sanctuary during the fourth and third centuries B.C.E. was between 5000 and

6000 m2 (Stager and W olff 1984: 158). No recovered structure has been identified as having been a temple or shrine during the Punic or Neo-Punic periods. During the

Roman period, vaults and structures were built over top of the northern and southern sections of the sanctuary (Kelsey 1926: 34-36; Le Glay 1966b: 12; Hurst 1999). Hurst identified the building remains from the various excavations as coming from the early to mid-Roman period (second and third century C.E.), late Roman period (late fourth/early fifth century C.E.), and late antiquity (approximately sixth century and later) (Hurst

1999:18).

Kelsey (1926), Le Glay (1961), Stager (1978), and Rives (1995) interpreted the structures in the sanctuary as possible storage buildings for the neighbouring docks.

Cintas (1970) and Hurst (1999), however, proposed that the structures were a part of the transformation of the cult from Punic Ba’al Hammon and Tanit to Roman Saturn and

Caelestis. Scholars, such as Poinssot and Lantier (1923: 8), Le Glay (1961: 12) and Hurst

(1999: 34,42), interpreted the structure in the north section just south of the vaults, built in the early to mid-Roman period, as a possible temple to Saturn based on the presence of stelae found in close proximity to the structure, and its similar dimensions and orientation to the temples of Saturn atThugga (modem Dougga) and Thamugadi (modem Timgad).

Part of the structures located further south in the sanctuary were interpreted by Hurst

(1999: 81-82) as a possible temple to Venus (the Roman equivalent of the Punic goddess,

Astarte), based on the recovery of items such as Venus sculptural groups, marble hands holding doves (sacred to Astarte/Venus), and a fourth century C.E. mosaic with Venus attributes (doves, dolphins, and tridents). Based on this interpretation, Hurst postulated that the Roman temple of Caelestis was established elsewhere; he proposed the summit of the hill to the northwest (Hurst 1999: 98-99). As described in Chapter Two, however,

Astarte and Tanit had many similarities, such as the dove and the dolphin. The discontinuation of worship in the sanctuary to the highly prominent Tanit in favour of a lesser goddess in Roman-form, Astarte/Venus, seems peculiar. Further excavations may offer clarification, should they take place.

The chronology for the sanctuary was based on stylistic analyses of pottery and urns found within the sanctuary levels, as well as the architectural remains. Icard (1922) and Geilly, and later Poinssot and Lantier (1923), identified four levels during excavations and labelled them Level A (seventh to sixth century B.C.E.), B (fifth century

B.C.E.), C (fourth to early third century B.C.E.), and D (early third century to 146

B.C.E.). Kelsey (1926) divided the levels according to the type of monument found

(none, cippi, stelae). He identified only three levels: Level 1 (ninth to eighth century

B.C.E.), Level 2 (eighth to early fourth century B.C.E.), and Level 3 (fourth century to

146 B.C.E.). Harden (1927; 1937), using pottery and urns from Kelsey’s 1926 excavation, calculated a slightly different sequence that remains largely accepted today.

Stager then further broke down Harden’s sequence, summarized in Table 5.1, into nine phases based on observations of ums and monument type (none, L-shaped markers, cippi, and stelae). The ninth phase had nothing remaining in situ due to Roman and modem developments (Stager 1982: 157; Stager and W olff 1984: 35). The Roman buildings were built after the ninth phase, between the second century C.E. and the third to fourth century C.E. (Stager 1978: 467). 80

Table 5.1 Chronology of Sanctuary Levels at Carthage.

Harden (1937) Stager(1980) Tanit 1 8 0 0 -7 0 0 B.C.E. 750 - 600 B.C.E. (Phases 1-4)

Tanit II 700-300 B.C.E. 600 to the third century B.C.E. (Phases 5-8)

Tanit III 300 -146 B.C.E. Third century to 146 B.C.E. (Phase 9)

The types of artefacts that have been recovered from or identified as originating from the sanctuary include urns containing incinerated remains of children and/or animals, cippi, stelae, and jewellery. Of the approximately 6000 or more stelae that were recovered from the sanctuary or elsewhere in Carthage, most have been published in the

Corpus lnscriptionum Semiticarum (CIS) (1881-1952), and are now in the collections of various museums in Tunisia, the Louvre, and the British Museum (Brouillet 1994;

Mendleson 2003). Several thousand urns were also recovered (1100 from Kelsey’s excavations alone), but not all the contents were analysed, as will be discussed in the results section, ‘Part B’.

II - Hadrumetum

Hadrumetum is now present-day Sousse (Figure 1.1), located on the eastern coast of Tunisia, approximately 124 km (by present-day highway) south-southeast of Carthage

(Cintas 1947: 1; Foucher 1964: 22). Phoenicians established Hadrumetum as a trading post in indigenous territory (Foucher 1964: 27). After the sixth century,Hadrumetum found itself under the control of Carthage, until, during the Third Punic War, it sided with

Rome (Le Glay 1961: 255; Foucher 1964: 33). Hadrumetum was granted colony status

(Colonia Concordia Ulpia Traiana Augusta Frugifera) under the rule of Trajan (98-117

C.E.) (Le Glay 1961: 255). The Medina of Sousse, which surrounds the remnants of the 81 sanctuary, was given status as a World Heritage Site by UNESCO in 1988 because it represents a prototype for early Islamic costal military architecture (UNESCO 1988).

The sanctuary of Ba’al Hammon and Tanit (Figure 5.2) was first discovered in

1863 during construction of a foundation for a church (Cintas 1947: 1), approximately

300 m from the coast, and just southwest of the ancient port. R.P. Agostino da Reggio collected urns that were set below stelae, but no further excavations occurred (Cintas

1947: 1). The church sustained heavy damage between 1942 and 1943 from aerial bombing, after which M. Truillot, Curator for the Musee du Sousse, seized the opportunity to investigate and hired P. Cintas to conducted excavations in 1946. The lower levels of the sanctuary were actually below the modem sea level, and were submerged in water up to a meter deep (Cintas 1947: 4). Cintas (1947: 4) continued excavations approximately 70 cm below the water level, and emphasized that the same care was given to the underwater searches as to those on the surface.

The sanctuary layout itself remains unclear. The southern and eastern portions of the sanctuary remained buried under modem buildings, and a road prevented excavations to the west. There were no detailed plans published, and the hand-drawn map provided by Foucher (Figure 5.2) is problematic to read. Due to the large amount of urban development it is unclear if there was ever a temple, but no evidence of a temple was found in the excavated area.

The sanctuary at Hadrumetum dates between the beginning of the sixth century

B.C.E. and the beginning of the second century C.E. Within this range, Cintas (1947) identified six distinct layers of deposits, each separated by compacted sand, compacted concrete, or burned debris, creating a new levels for offerings (Foucher 1964: 36). A 82 ceramic typology was used to establish approximate dates for each layer, as presented below in Table 5.2.

Table 5.2 Chronology of Sanctuary Layers atHadrumetum (Sousse).

Approximate Date

Layer 1 Beginning of the sixth to beginning of the fourth century B.C.E. Layer 2 Beginning of the fourth to beginning of the third century B.C.E. Layer 3 Second half of the third to beginning of the second century B.C.E. Layer 4 Mid-second to mid-first century B.C.E. Layer 5 Mid-first century B.C.E. to end of the first century C.E. Layer 6 End of the first C.E. to beginning of the second C.E.

The types of artefacts that were recovered were urns with incinerated remains of children and/or animals, stelae, jewellery (mainly amulets), apotropaic glass masks, unguentaria, small lead objects (such as teaspoons and candlesticks), and a few pottery pieces (such as lamps) (Cintas 1947; Foucher 1964). The jewellery and apotropaic masks were mostly from Layers 1 and 2, and only associated with the child remains.

Unguentaria first appeared in Layer 3, and were very numerous in Layer 6. It was unclear how many urns and stelae were recovered from the excavated area. Similarly to

Carthage, stelae from Hadrumetum are now housed across various museums, although mainly in the Musee de Sousse.

Ill - Henchir el-Hami

Henchir el-Hami is located on a hillside in the Nchems Plain in the region of Sidi

Bourouis, northwest of present-day Siliana (Figure 1.1) (Feijaoui 2007: 12). The site is approximately (as the crow flies) 135 km southwest of Carthage, c. 40 km south of

Thugga, and c. 20 km northwest of Zama Regia (modem A1 Jama). In antiquity, this mral agricultural village was originally part of Numidian territory under the control of

Zama Regia (Ferjaoui 2007: 12-13). Ferjaoui (2007: 118) postulated that based on the finds of coins in the area, including Zama Regia and Henchir el-Hami, there were commercial relations with Carthage (directly or indirectly) as early as the third century, which may have led to the introduction of the cults of Ba’al Hammon and Tanit. After

Caesar’s annexation of the territory upon the defeat and death of Juba 1 in 46 B.C.E., both

Punic and Roman influences increased locally (Ferjaoui 2007: 12, 114). Roman elements began to appear in the cult at Henchir el-Hami around the late first century or early second century C.E., as evidenced by increased Latin inscriptions, the change of name from Ba’al Hammon to Saturn, the construction of the temple, and changes in stelae composition (Ferjaoui 2007: 89, 120).

The sanctuary (Figure 5.3) was discovered in 1990 during a survey of the Sidi

Bourouis region (Ferjaoui 2007: 14) when a disturbance from ploughing exposed unguentaria concentrated in one area. Subsequently, the surveyors supposed the area had ritual significance, perhaps even as a sanctuary (Feijaoui 2007: 15). Excavations undertaken between 1992 and 1994 were split into five trenches, revealing an open-air area and a temple. The temple and sanctuary excavations were divided into trenches in order to examine artefacts in theirin situ contexts, the rituals associated with the cult, and to compare this sanctuary with other sanctuaries of the same area in North Africa

(Ferjaoui 2007: 15).

The sanctuary was located on the hillside, 100 m to the southeast of the town site

(Ferjaoui 2007: 14). The open-air stelae court, measuring approximately 35 m long by 13 m wide, was situated south of the temple (Feijaoui 2007: 16,18). There were no walls delimiting the sanctuary; rather outcrops of natural rock created borders to the east, south and west (Ferjaoui 2007: 18, 20). The temple foundation was very fragmented due to 84 disturbance from ploughing (Feijaoui 2007: 77). However, the western section of the temple with the altar foundation was identified through a concentration ofunguentaria, several coins, and a few bowls containing ash and unidentified bones (Feijaoui 2007: 77-

82). Based on the presence of rooms to the north and south of the altar and a threshold in a north-south wall to the east, Feijaoui (2007: 82) postulated that the temple faced east.

Stelae were also aligned facing east, in north-south rows (Ferjaoui 2007: 45).

The sanctuary and temple were dated through a combination of ceramic and coin analyses. The entire sanctuary dates between the late second or early first century B.C.E. and the fourth century C.E. (Ferjaoui 2007: 62-63). The temple was not built until the second century C.E., but was in use until the mid-fourth century C.E. (Ferjaoui 2007: 86-

87). The stelae court appeared to have been in use between the early first century B.C.E. and the third century C.E. (Ferjaoui 2007: 62-63); its most active period was between the first century B.C.E. and the first century C.E. (Ferjaoui 2007: 63).

The artefacts that were recovered included 267 intact urns with the incinerated remains of children and/or animals, and 52 stelae; all of these were assessed and published in Ferjaoui (2007), and were included here in ‘Part B - Presentation of

Results’. Other artefacts recovered included various types of utilitarian pottery, a few pieces of jewelry, coins, and over 2500 unguentaria, a large concentration of which was located to the west of the sanctuary area. The kitchen pottery included lamps, bowls, plates, cookware, and utensils, most of which, if not all, Feijaoui (2007 : 59-61) suggested were used for ritual feasting. Ferjaoui (2007: 69) commented that Henchir el-Hami was one of the few sanctuaries in which the instance of coins was so high (Ferjaoui 2007: 69). 85

Over 60 coins were dated to the Punic period, over 40 from the Neo-Punic period, and

over 50 from the Roman period (Ferjaoui 2007: 57-59).

Secondary Sanctuary Group (SSG)

The Second Sanctuary Group (SSG) were only designated as secondary due to the

lack of information published about faunal remains from the sanctuary. They are

included to provide a broader comparative sample for stelae. They are presented in an

order based on proximity to the PSG, as well as to the other SSG.

IV - El-Kenissia

El-Kenissia (Figure 1.1), first identified in 1894 by Molins (Carton 1906: 1), was

a Punico-Roman city located 6 km south (by present-day highway) ofHadrumetum.

Carton (1906: 1-4) began excavations in 1903, with particular emphasis on the temple

and sanctuary area, located midway down the east slope of the city mound. The original

cultural orientation and ancient name of the site were not identified during Carton’s

excavations, but based on stelae composition and style, Carton (1906: 94) suggested

indigenous beginnings. Roman influence most certainly occurred by the time

Hadrumetum became a Roman colony (between 98 and 117 C.E.) due to their close proximity.

The sanctuary (Figure 5.4) was in use between the third century B.C.E. and an

indefinite end-point during the Roman period, as indicated by pottery and coin analyses

(Carton 1906: 156). The Roman-style temple was built over part of the original courtyard, but its date was not determined (Carton 1906: 5-6). Artefacts recovered from the sanctuary included lamps, incense burners, statues, over 1000unguentaria , 292 urns with remains, and 191 stelae. In one small area of the sanctuary, stelae, urns, lamps and unguentaria were foundin situ (Carton 1906:27-29), but these specific artefacts were not distinguished in the publications from those recovered in a second disposal-type area, possibly a favissa. The contents of the remains in the ums were recorded as small animals, but it was not indicated how many of the ums were sampled and studied, or what dates they may have been from. Also, as this was before the discovery and sensationalization of child remains at Motya and Carthage, it is possible that child remains were misidentified as animal remains. They were not used in this thesis’ analysis for these reasons.

V - Cirta (Constantine)

The ancient site ofCirta (modem Constantine) is located in Algeria, approximately 450 km west-southwest from Carthage, 80 km south of the Mediterranean coast (Figure 1.1). Cirta was an old indigenous royal city, which came under Punic influence during the third century B.C.E., but sided with Rome during the Third Punic

War (Le Glay 1966a: 22). Cirta fell under Roman rule after Julius Caesar successfully defeated Pompey and the Numidian King, Juba I (Le Glay 1966a: 22).

The approximate area of the sanctuary (Figure 5.5) of Ba’al/Satum and

Tanit/Caelestis was discovered in 1875 by L. Costa, approximately 1 km west of the city, on the hill known as El-Hofra (Bertrandy and Sznycer 1987:15). Excavations were not conducted until 1950, led by A. Berthier and R. Charlier (1952; 1955: 221), during which they uncovered afavissa with stelae, unguentaria, and coins. However, the sanctuary proper was not located, nor was a temple. The stelae date from the third century B.C.E. until an indeterminate date during the Roman period. 87

A problem was encountered here with attributing stelae with Latin inscriptions to the Roman period because the symbolic depictions were more like those from the Punic and Neo-Punic periods. In addition, there were seventeen stelae with Greek inscriptions as opposed to seven with Latin inscriptions. AsCirta was a major trading-center before the Roman period, it is likely that most, if not all, of these stelae represented offerings made by foreigner residents or travellers (Moore 2012, personal communication).

VI - Thugga (Dougga)

The ancient site of Thugga (modem Dougga) is located (by present-day highway) approximately 122 km west-southwest of Carthage, and approximately 344 km east of

Cirta (Figure 1.1). It was an indigenous city founded in the sixth century B.C.E., but experienced Punic influence during the third century B.C.E. (Poinssot 1958: 9). The emperor Augustus established apagus directly southwest of the city, and by 261 C.E.,

Thugga had became the Roman colony, Colonia Licinia Septimia Aurelia Alexandriana

Thuggensis (Poinssot 1958: 13).12 The city was declared a World Heritage Site by

UNESCO in 1997 because of its exceptional preservation, and its example as an Africo-

Roman towns of North Africa (UNESCO World Heritage Committee: 1997).

The sanctuary is located to the north of the city limits (Figure 5.6), at the edge of a precipice overlooking a valley. Stelae,unguentaria, lamps, and ums with incinerated remains were recovered from a favissa and the area between the northern wall of the temple and the precipice edge (Carton 1897; Lantier and Poinssot 1942; Le Glay 1961:

207-220). The stelae dated from at least the second century B.C.E. to the first and second centuries C.E., while the temple dates from the second to third centuries C.E. (Carton

12 A pagus is a Roman community that is established next to an existing, indigenous community, where both have a separate political status. 88

1897; Le Glay 1961: 210; Lantier and Poinssot 1942). Most of the recovered ums were abandoned at the site after excavations, while a small number were sent to the Musee du

Bardo (Carton 1897: 397), but no published analysis was available for the present study.

VII - Mactaris or Civitas Mactaritana (Maktar)

Mactaris is also known in publications asCivitas Mactaritana , now modem

Maktar (Figure 1.1). It is found 177 km (by present-day highway) southwest of

Carthage, and 92 km south ofThugga. It was an indigenous royal city established as a fortress and an economic and administrative center for the Massyles kings during the first century B.C.E. (Picard 1957: 25), and was granted colonial status and named Colonia

Aelia Aurelia Mactaris by Rome in 180 C.E. (Le Glay 1961: 267).

The Punic sanctuary was found on a ravine edge, in the field of Ain-el-Bab; erosion from the river had caused stelae to fall into the lower valley (Picard 1957: 43;

M’Charek 1995: 245). If any ums had been placed in the sanctuary, they had since been swept away by erosion and the river (Picard 1957: 43). The stelae that have been recovered date between the first century B.C.E. and the early third century B.C.E. (Picard

1957: 34; M ’Charek 1995: 245).

VIII - Sitifis (Setif)

Sitifis (modem Setif) is found in the interior of Algeria, approximately (by present-day highway) 578 km from Carthage, and 124 km west of Cirta (Figure 1.1). It was established as a Roman veteran colony, Colonia Nerviana Augusta Martialis

Veteranorum Sitifensium, by the emperor, Nerva (96-98 C.E.) (Le Glay 1966a: 265). The city later became capital of Mauretania Sitifensis, a Roman province created in 297 C.E.

The city has since been subject to extensive modem development. As a result the 89 sanctuary of Ba’al Hammon and/or Tanit has not been located (Allais 1938: 7; Le Glay

1966a: 265). All the stelae recovered from Sitifis were from the Roman period, and collected from various locations of the ancient city (Ballu 1909: 79-81). Inscriptions identified the stelae as belonging to the cult of Saturn, as opposed to other deities or as funerary stelae.

IX - Cuicul (Djemila)

Cuicul (modem Djemila) is located approximately (by present-day highway) 49 km east of Sitifis, c. 119 km west of Cirta, and c. 587 km from Carthage (Figure 1.1). It was originally a small indigenous mountain settlement, but was transformed into a colony of veterans in 96-97 C.E. (Allais 1938 11; Le Glay 1953; 1966a). It acted as a center of trade between the Mediterranean coast and the interior (Allais 1938:14-15). UNESCO declared it a World Heritage Site due to the unique adaptation of Roman architecture to the mountainous environment (UNESCO World Heritage Committee: 1982).

The sanctuary (Figure 5.7) used to be on the southeast edge of the city, but by the fourth century C.E. the city had expanded and Christianity had become predominant and a basilica was built over the sanctuary (Allais 1938; Le Glay 1953: 75). Excavations in the sanctuary between 1938 and 1940 revealed no evidence of the cult prior to the Roman period, although Le Glay thought the cult was likely practiced before the establishment of the colony because of the cult’s presence in the surrounding towns (Le Glay 1966b: 206).

The subsequent construction over the sanctuary resulted in the piecemeal collection of

Roman-period stelae from around the site, including from the foundations of later buildings (Le Glay 1966a: 210). 90

X - Theveste (Tebessa) Theveste (modem Tebessa) is located (by present-day highway) 304 km

southwest of Carthage, c. 200 km south ofCirta, and c. 182 km southwest ofThugga

(Figure 1.1). An indigenous settlement dating back to the third century B.C.E., it became a temporary location for theLegio III Augusta at the end of the first century C.E., under

the Flavians (Le Glay 1961: 332). Under Trajan’s rule, Theveste became a Roman colony, and became a major administrative and commercial center (Le Glay 1961: 332).

The sanctuary of Saturn, and likely of Ba’al Hammon/Satum, was located northwest of the city, at Henchir Rohban (Le Glay 1961: 332). The majority of the stelae analyzed were from this location, with the remainder fromTheveste; inscriptions and composition identified the stelae as belonging to the cult of Saturn. These stelae date

from the end of the Neo-Punic period to the third century C.E.

XI - Lambaesis (Lambese)

Lambaesis (modem Lambese) is found c. 490 km (by present-day highway) southwest of Carthage and c. 122 km south ofCirta (Figure 1.1). It was established c.

115-117 C.E. as the third location for theLegio III Augusta, which had previously been

stationed at Ammaedara and Theveste (Le Glay 1966a: 81-82; Euzennat 1990: 575).

Lambaesis became an important military and administrative capital, and became the capital city of the Roman province, Numidia, upon its official creation in 197-198 (Le

Glay 1966a: 82). Based on epigraphic evidence, Le Glay (1966a: 81) proposed that there were two sanctuaries dedicated to Saturn atLambaesis, a very unusual occurance, although they had yet to be excavated. Stelae recovered fromLambaesis were found from various locations across the site; inscriptions and composition identified them as belonging to the cult of Saturn. 91

XII - Thamugadi (Timgad)

Thamugadi, or Colonia Marciana Traiana Thamugadi, is located approximately

459 km (by present-day highway) southwest of Carthage, c. 121 km south of Cirta, and c.

26 km east ofLambaesis (Figure 1.1). Established as a veteran colony by Trajan in 100

C.E., it served as a protection point at the edge of the expanding Roman frontier (Cagnat

1909: 51; Watkins 2002: 86). In 1921, Ch. Godet discovered the sanctuary and temple just northwest of the city limits (Le Glay 1966a: 126). Surveys and excavations were conducted in 1955 and 1958, revealing older and newer temple constructions. The first temple was used until its destruction in mid- to late second century C.E., and was rebuilt by the third century C.E. (Le Glay 1966a: 126-129). The African city’s arrangement

according to Roman military grid systems, and its representation of Roman expansion

earned it a place on the World Heritage Site list by UNESCO in 1982 (UNESCO 1982).

Stelae from the second to third centuries C.E. were recovered from the sanctuary

(Figure 5.8) and various locations around the ancient city. Excavations also uncovered

ums with the incinerated remains of small animals from the sanctuary (Le Glay 1966b:

126). However, the total number of ums recovered and analyzed was not published.

To summarize, these sites show degrees of variation in cultural context, origin,

and function, which may have influenced the display of animal conceptualization through

animal offerings made, or depictions on stelae dedicated to Ba’al Hammon/Satum and

Tanit/Caelestis. As such, consistencies and inconsistencies of animal-related evidence

between sites and time periods is a part measuring for animal conceptualization. The

next section, ‘Part B - Presentation of Results’, presents the results of analysis in two

sections: faunal remains (PSG), and stelae remains (PSG and SSG). PART B: PRESENTATION OF RESULTS

The following section presents the data collected for the faunal remains and stelae, according to site. The faunal remains are presented first, as there were only three sites with analyses that had datable contexts for the remains. Stelae results for the PSG are presented second, followed by results for the SSG. Stelae are discussed according to period within each site. Analysis of these data, including comparisons between sites and periods, will be presented in Chapter Six.

Faunal Remains - Primary Sanctuary Group (PSG)

This present study aimed to assess variation and potential changes in animal conceptualization, as reflected in the sanctuaries. Part of that involved determining if animal offerings differed between the sanctuaries, at cultural and temporal levels. The data results of this investigation are presented below.

I - Carthage

P. Pallary (1922) and R. Anthony were the first of several scholars to analyze the remains found in the ums recovered from the Carthaginian sanctuary of Ba’al Hammon and Tanit. Anthony’s (1924) analysis of ten ums from Icard and Geilly’s excavations was to provide a basic identification of what the incinerated remains were, with no focus on their approximate dates. On the other hand, Pallary’s analysis of 85 ums from the four levels identified by Icard and Geilly was aimed at determining if child or animal remains followed any patterns. Pallary’s results, summarized in Table 5.3, showed that child remains far out-numbered animal remains (goats and small birds) among the analyzed materials. Unfortunately, the total sample size from the fourth level was not recorded. I 93

noticed, however, that the number of ums with animals, either with or without children,

remained the consistent, regardless of the sample size.

Table 5.3 Remains in Carthage Ums, as Analyzed by Pallary (1922).

Child and Child and Child Caprinae13 Caprinae Bird Total

Level A (7th -6th c. B.C.E.) 7 3 1 - 11 (13%) Level B (5th c. B.C.E.) 10 1 1 1 13 (15%) Level C (4th-early 3rd c. B.C.E.) 57 (95 %) 2 (3%) - 1 (2%) 60 (71%) Level D (early 3rd c. to 146 Not Not Not B.C.E.) published published 1 published 1 (1%)

Total 74 (87 %) 6 (7 %) 3 (4%) 2 (2%) 85

Pallary’s results showed a significant increase in the number of ums between

Level B and Level C, as well as a continuous rise in the number of children alone. The number of ums with only animals or with both animals and children were not numerous at all. Unfortunately, the contents of the ums analyzed from Level D were not published.

Two additional studies, conducted by M. Muller, R. Depreux, P. Muller, and M.

Fontaine (1952), and J. Richard (1961, as cited by Stager 1982: 160 and Brown 1991: 48-

50), combined the remains found in ums from Carthage and Hadrumetum. Muller and colleagues (1952) examined 75 ums (44 from Carthage, 31 fromHadrumetum ), and

Richard (1961) examined 189 ums (42 from Carthage, 138 fromHadrumetum).

Unfortunately, neither study distinguished the remains between the sites, rendering these studies impractical for this thesis.

J. Schwartz, in co-operation with F. Houghton, R. Macchiarelli and L. Bondioli

(2010), analyzed the ums recovered from the excavations led by Stager (1975-1979).

Many of these ums had multiple individuals, and all but 64 ums were associated with

13 Kid and lamb remains are sometimes difficult to distinguish, so for the purposes of this study lamb and kid are counted together under the sub-family heading ‘Caprinae’, which is both its singular and plural form (Bedoui and Oueslati 2007). 94

specific level phases distinguished by Stager (1982: 157).14 The results are summarized

in Table 5.4. It is recognized that areas of the sanctuary may have undergone varying

intensities of use between the different periods, but may not be represented in Schwartz’s

sample. In addition, the Romans heavily disturbed the upper-most layer of the sanctuary

when they removed stelae and dirt for use as fill during the reconstruction of the city after

44 B.C.E. (Stager 1978: 467), leading to a potential misrepresentation of urn contents for

Tanit III.

Table 5.4 Remains in Carthage Ums, as Analyzed by Schwartz et al. (2010). The corresponding dates for the levels are: Tanit I (750 to 600 B.C.E.), Tanit II (600 to third century B.C.E.) and Tanit III (third century to 146 B.C.E.).

Child and Child and Child and Caprinae and Level Child Caprinae Caprinae Other Faunal Other Faunal Total

Tanit 1 32 (65%) 1 (2%) 11 (23%) 3 (6%) 2 (4%) 49 (14%) Tanit II 123 (81%) 1 (1%) 20 (13 %) 4 (3 %) 3 (2%) 151 (44%) Tanit III 64 (80%) - 12 (15%) 3 (4%) 1 (1 %) 80 (23 %) Indeterm. 28 (44%) 21 (33%) 12 (19%) 1 (1 %) 2 (3%) 64 (19%)

Total 247 (72%) 23 (7%) 55 (16%) 11 (3%) 8 (2%) 344

The majority of the animal remains were lamb, with kid being confidently identified only eight times. The category of ‘Other Faunal’ was assumed here, with caution, to have meant mostly birds based on their identification in the older analyses, as well as in the two other primary sites. Of the 344 ums analyzed, 72 percent contained the remains of children (Schwartz et al. 2010). Compared to Pallary’s analysis, there was a significantly higher frequency of animals present either with or without children: 28 percent versus 13 percent. Tanit I showed a higher presence of children (65 percent) than

14 There was some concern that the analysis of urn dates and o f urn contents was not entirely accurate, as the methods of dating and identification were based on methods nearly 40 years old (Greene 2011, personal communication). A re-analysis was published (Smith et al. 2011), but it did not address the date of the ums, only the age of the children. Schwartz et al. (2010) remained the primary source for establishing dates for the remains. 95 of animals, but also a higher rate of animals with children (33 percent), as opposed to animals alone (two percent). Caprinae were the most common choice of animal found with the remains of children, and were the only animals recorded without children. Tanit

II, however, shows a drop in the number of animals represented down to 19 percent, of which only one percent is a lamb or kid alone. Tanit III displays a similar um content pattern, wherein children dominate and ums with animals alone are not represented at all.

In the ‘Indeterminate’ group, however, there are 21 ums with animals alone, suggesting that if the remains had actually been associated with a level, the presence of animals alone in Tanit I-III would still not have been well represented archaeologically. It is possible that ums with only animals were roughly equal to the ums with Caprinae and a child in this sample. Regardless, animals from this sample made up no more than thirty percent of the um contents, with or without children.

For the present study, the results published by Pallary (1922) and Schwartz and colleagues (2010) were combined according to level here in Table 5.5 below, to see if they produced different results than when looked at separately. When compared with

Table 5.4, there is very little overall difference.

Table 5.5 Remains in Carthage Ums, as Analyzed by Pallary (1922) and Schwartz et al. (2010), combined. The corresponding dates for the levels are: Tanit I (750 to 600 B.C.E.), Tanit II (600 to third c. B.C.E.) and Tanit III (third c. to 146 B.C.E.).

Child and Child and Child and Caprinae, and Child Caprinae Caprinae Other Fauna Other Fauna Total

Tanit 1 39 (65 %) 4 (7 %) 12 (20 %) 3 (5 %) 2 (3 %) 60 (14 %) Tanit II 133 (81%) 2 (1 %) 21 (13 %) 5 (3 %) 3 (2 %) 164(38 %) Tanit III 121(86 %) 2 (1 %) 12 (9 %) 4 (3 %) 1 (1 %) 140(33 %) Indeterm 28 (44 %) 21 (33 %) 12 (19 %) 1 (2 %) 2 (3 %) 6 4 (1 5 %) Total 321 (75 %) 29 (7 %) 57 (13 %) 13 (3 %) 8(2%) 428 The remains from Tanit I show a dislike for animal offerings alone. Child remains make up 65 percent of the remains, followed by 28 percent child remains with one or more animals, usually a lamb or kid. With the advent of Tanit II, child remains increased in frequency significantly, with only 18 percent of ums with both child and animal remains. Animal remains alone are still a fraction of the total. Again, in Tanit III, child remains are dominant, with a slight decrease in the frequency of child with animal remains, at 14 percent. It should also be pointed out that these numbers represent the total number of ums analyzed, not the actual number of individuals, especially for the totals of children. There were several ums in Schwartz’s analysis that contained more than one individual. The publication also did not describe how complete an individual was (did the extra remains come from ash leftovers from the previous burning of a child?), nor was it always clear which um specifically had multiple children and an animal. As multiple children in one um had no specific purpose in this analysis, each um containing human remains was counted as one human individual.

II - Hadrumetum (Sousse)

As presented in the above sub-section for Carthage, Muller and colleagues (1952) and Richard (1961) conducted analyses on the um contents fromHadrumetum , but the published results were combined with um contents from Carthage without distinction.

Cintas (1947), however, provided a rough descriptive comparison of the child and animal remains based on the six distinct layers recorded in the sanctuary (Table 5.6). 97

Table 5.6 Remains in Hadrumetum Ums, as Analyzed by Cintas (1947).

Layer Dates Child Animal Both

1 6th c. to beginning of 4th c. B.C.E. Prominent Unobserved Unobserved 2 Beg. 4th c. to early 3rd c. B.C.E. Prominent Occasionally present Occasionally present 3 Early 3rd c. to 2nd c. B.C.E. Prominent Equal to children Not recorded 4 Mid 2nd c. to mid 1st c. B.C.E. Equal to animal Equal to children Not recorded 5 Mid 1st c. B.C.E. to late 1st c. C.E. Unobserved Prominent Not recorded 6 Late 1st c. to beg. 2nd c. C.E. Unobserved Unobserved Unobserved

Although exact numbers were not given, Cintas noted that the frequency of child remains decreased between Layers 3 and 4, before being unobserved in Layer 5. In contrast, the frequency of animal remains (mostly sheep or goat, and occasionally bird) increased between Layers 2 and 4, until their noted absence in Layer 6. Unfortunately,

Cintas did not indicate how many remains were necessary to be described as ‘prominent’, but it is clear that by the beginning of the Roman period (Layer 6), ums ceased entirely to be deposited. Instead, the offering of choice in Layer 6 was libations, as represented by the presence ofunguentaria (Cintas 1947).

Ill - Henchir el-Hami

The remains found at Henchir el-Hami were analyzed by H. Bedoui and T.

Oueslati (2007), and are summarized in Table 5.7. To determine the approximate dates for the remains, G. Tore (2007) assessed the stylistic changes of the five ceramic types that were used to hold the remains. The result was the identification of five broad sub­ phases, which overlapped considerably. However, the relative dates during which the sanctuary was used were comparable with those atHadrumetum. As at Carthage, the identification of the incinerated kid and lamb remains were not always discernible and thus were also grouped under the sub-family heading, Caprinae. The bird remains found 98

could not be identified beyond ‘Passeriformae’ (both singular and plural form), the order

classification known as ‘perching birds’.

Unlike at Carthage or Hadrumetum, Ferjaoui (2007) published a foldout plan

(Figure 5.3) with the locations of most stelae and ums. This allowed me to compare the

locations of ums with child or animal remains. Upon doing so, it appeared that there was

no patterning to the deposits of child versus animal or the combination of child and

animal remains. That is, apart from the eastern area where there was a concentration of

unguentaria, there was no area that appeared to have been devoted to receiving animal

versus child remains.

Table 5.7 Remains in Flenchir el-Hami Ums, as Analyzed by Bedoui and Oueslati (2007).

Child and Child Date Child Caprinae Bird Caprinae and Bird Indeterm Total

3rd- 2 nd c. B.C.E. - --- - 1 1 (0.4 %) 1st c. B.C.E.-2nd c. C.E. 60 (85 %) 3 (4 %) - 3 (4 %) 4 (6 %) 1 (1 %) 71 (29 %)

1st c. B.C.E. - 3 ndc. C.E. 61 (53 %) 37 (32 %) 3 (3 %) 4 (3 %) 5 (4 %) 6 (5 %) 116 (48 %)

1st c. C.E. 11 5 - 1 - - 17 (7 %) 2nd _ 3rd c c E - 2 ---- 2 (0.8 %) Indeterminate 16 (44 %) 6 (17 %) 1 (3 %) 1 (3 %) - 12 (33 %) 36 (14.8 %)

Totals 148(61%) 53 (22 %) 4 (2 %) 9(4% ) 9 (4 %) 20 (8 %) 243

The dating technique used for the remains was based on the date of the type of um they were found in. Many of the um-types and their dates overlapped, making it difficult to distinguish remains from the Neo-Punic period and the Roman period, and thus any significant temporal trends. The sample size for the Roman-period sub-phase (second to third century C.E.) was also not large enough to establish whether or not there were only animal remains deposited in the sanctuary. Overall, animals make up 40 percent of the remains recovered, with Caprinae alone making up 22 percent. 99

Summary

Only Carthage and Henchir el-Hami had published material that allowed for any temporal comparison, although the relative frequency provided by Cintas (1947) did allow for a general idea of how many animal remains there were compared to child remains. Overall, the animal remains identified from the three sites were consistently a

Caprinae or a small bird, with Caprinae being far more common. Even if the frequency of the animal-holocaust offerings were few at the beginning of the sanctuary operation, the type of animal offered did not alter over time.

Ums were also found at El-Kenissia (Carton 1906),Thugga (Carton 1897),

Theveste (Le Glay 1961), and Thamugadi (Le Glay 1966a). It was unclear what type of remains were found at Thugga and at El-Kenissia; no child remains were reported, but as both excavations were conducted before the sensationalization of the child remains at

Motya, in modern-day Sicily (Whitaker 1921) and Carthage (de Prorok 1926), it is possible that remains were misidentified if researchers did not comprehend the possibility that they were examining child remains. It is unclear if pre-Roman ums fromTheveste and Thamugadi were recovered, as only Roman evidence from the sanctuary has been published. However, the ums fromTheveste and Thamugadi, analyzed after the finds at

Carthage, were reported as containing simply animal remains, specifically Caprinae and small birds (Le Glay 1961: 357; 1966b: 126).

Stelae - Primary Sanctuary Group (PSG) Just as animal remains are necessary for the investigation of animal conceptualization, so too are depictions of animals on the stelae that marked offerings.

Stelae with animals assessed from each site were assembled into a catalogue (see 100

Appendix: Catalogue), and given their own number. This number is presented and referred to as ‘CN #’ (Catalogue Number #). Table 5.8 below summarizes all stelae that were assessed with or without animal depictions from each site.

Table 5.8 Summary of All Stelae Assessed from the PSG and the SSG.15

Neo-Punic Punic Period Period Roman Period Indeterminate Total No No No No No Animal Animal Animal Animal Animal Animal Animal Animal Animal Animal

Carthage 4670 77 - - 10 3 892 19 5572 99

1/1 Hadrumetum 9 - 24 3 - 3 64 - 97 6 CL Henchir el-Hami - - 27 2 3 3 13 4 43 9

El-Kenissia* ------146 5 Cirta 325 9 59 3 11 2 56 8 451 22 Thugga 7 - 3 1 14 4 188 86 212 91 Mactaris -- 6 3 48 19 2 - 56 22 O i/1 Sitifis --- 7 8 12 16 19 24 1/1 - Cuicul ---- 12 17 16 8 28 25 Theveste ---- 3 3 20 17 23 20 Lambaesis --- - 13 16 68 59 81 75 Thamugadi - - - - 16 24 65 31 81 55

Total 5011 86 119 12 137 102 1396 248 6809 453 7262

* El-Kenissia was divided by Carton (1906) according to incised versus carved for unclear reasons:

Incised Carved Not Indicated Total No Animal Animal No Animal Animal No Animal Animal No Animal Animal

67 3 18 2 61 146 5 151 (included in above total)

I - Carthage

Studies of Carthaginian stelae that were foundin situ in the sanctuary and also from outside the sanctuary but dedicated to Ba’al Hammon and/or Tanit have resulted in well-defined temporal characteristics, allowing for relative ease of dating to the fourth,

15 Recall that criteria used to date stelae were presented in Chapter Three, under the section titled ‘Stelae: Temporal, Cultural, and Geographic Indicators’. 101 fourth to third, third, and third to second centuries B.C.E. (Picard 1973-1974 [1976];

1976-1977 [1978]; Brown 1991; Mendleson 2003). These breakdowns for Carthage were used in this thesis with an understanding that characteristics overlap temporally.

The stelae that have been assessed here for the presence of animals were collected from the Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum (CIS), Delattre 1900, Hours-Miedan (1950),

Picard (1973-1974 [1976]; 1975-1976 [1978]), Brown (1991), Brouillet (1994) and

Mendleson (2003), and are summarized in Table 5.9.

Table 5.9 Stelae Assessed from Carthage. Punic -th ~FET -.rcj -rd . 4 -3 c. 3 c. 3 c. to 4th c. B.C.E. B.C.E. B.C.E. 146 B.C.E. Indeterm Roman Total No Animal 1333 (99.5 %) 2518 (99 %) 262 (91 %) 557 (96 %) 892 (98 %) 10 5572 (98 %) Animal 6 (0.5 %) 24 (1%) 25 (9%) 22 (4%) 19 (2%) 3 99 (2%)

Total 1339 2542 287 579 911 13 5671 (24%) (44.8 %) (5 %) (10 %) (16%) (0.2 %)

It is immediately apparent that animals during the Punic period made up a very small portion of decorative aspects, with a small increase between the fourth and second centuries. However, the leap from one to nine percent with animals is a fairly large increase. If the last two sub-phases of the Punic period are combined (not without warrant, since it is difficult to determine if a stele belongs one or the other sub-phase), the percent of stelae with animals drops to 5.4 percent, still significantly more than the one percent in the fourth to third centuries B.C.E. Only three stelae did not have a published image (two Roman, one of indeterminate).

Despite the limited number of stelae with animals observed, there were noticeable differences between types of animals represented between the four sub-phases. These are summarized in Table 5.10. 102

Table 5.10 Animals Represented on Carthage Stelae. Punic „th -th ~rd ~rd Animal 4 c. 4 -3 c. 3 c. 3rd c. to 146 Type B.C.E. B.C.E. B.C.E. B.C.E. Indeterm Roman Total

Bull 1 2 (7%) 2 (7%) 4 (17 %) 1 (5%) 3 13 (11%) Ram 1 2 (7 %) 5 (17%) 10 (42%) 4 (20%) 2 24 (21%) Sheep - 2 (7%) -- - - 2 (2 %) Horse - 3 (10%) - - 2 (10%) - 5 (4 %) Rooster - 1 (3 %) 2 (7%) - - - 3 (3 %) Rabbit --- 1 (4%) - - 1 (0.5 %) Bird/Dove 1 3 (10%) 8 (28%) 6 (25 %) 3 (15%) - 21 (18 %) Lion 1 1 (3 %) -- -- 2(2% ) Elephant - 2 (7 %) -- -- 2 (2 %) Flamingo -- 1 (3%) - -- 1 (0.5 %) Swan - 1 (3 %) - -- - 1 (0.5 %) Partridge - 1 (3 %) --- - 1 (0.5 %) Mouse - 2 (7%) - --- 2 (2 %) Amphibian - 1 (3 %) - - - - 1 (0.5 %) Quadruped --- - 1 (5 %) - 1 (0.5 %) Dolphin 1 2 (7%) 6 (21%) 2 (8%) 5 (25%) - 16(14% ) Fish 2 5 (17%) 4 (14%) 1 (4%) 4 (20%) - 16 (14 %) Indeterm - 1 (3 %) 1 (3%) --- 2 (2 %) Total 7 (7 %) 29 (25 %) 29 (25 %) 24 (21%) 20(18%) 5 (4 %) 114

Punic Period

During the fourth century and the fourth to third century sub-phases, animals (or only the head) were generally found alone above or below the dedicatory inscription.

Many of the fourth century stelae were fragmented, so it was difficult to determine whether other symbols may have been present elsewhere on the stele. During the third and third to second century categories, however, registers dividing the stele into two, three, or even four zones began to separate some animals from inscriptions and other symbols. It is interesting to note the greater variety of animals during the fourth to third century sub-phase, which gave way to the dominance of rams and birds (mostly doves) in the later sub-phases. 103

Five types of animal were found on stelae in every sub-phase: the ram, bird/dove, dolphin, fish, and bull. The ram increased in frequency overall through the Punic period, but was not the most commonly depicted animal until the last sub-phase, when, at 21 percent, it outnumbered all other animals. The ram was shown only in the upper and middle zones of the stele, and only once (CN 2) of 24 depictions was it standing facing right, as opposed to left. It was found with all other symbols, but did occur alone, above or below an inscription. Twice (CN 61 and 62) in the third to second centuries B.C.E., the ram appeared to have a collar. Five rams were depicted with items that suggested fertility or sacrificial scenes: a wheat stalk (CN 36, Figure 5.9), a grape bunch (CN 61), sacrificial tools (CN 82), and an altar (two rams, CN 81).

The second-most common animal was the bird/dove (18 percent), which peaked in the third century sub-phase, and outnumbered rams in the second and third sub-phases.

The bird was nearly always found in the upper zone of the stele, occasionally in the middle zone. It was most often associated with a flower or the front-facing open palm

(e.g. CN 39 and 44), but had also been shown with the ‘sign of Tanit’ (e.g. CN 40). It was shown in pairs three times (CN 18, 40, 70), always on either side of a symbol. Once it was shown pecking from a potted vine (CN 88). Otherwise, the bird was shown standing or flapping its wings and facing left, with the exception of two stelae on which the bird faced right (CN 71 and 72).

The two aquatic animals, fish and dolphin (both 14 percent), followed close in frequency, with no clear pattern between the sub-phases. Both were found in all zones of the stelae, and were depicted in pairs three times each. All solitary fish but one (CN 77) faced left, and did not appear to have been associated with any specific symbol. The fish 104 was paired four times (CN 6, 26, 28, and 98). The dolphin, on the other hand, varied in pose: it was positioned horizontally facing left (CN 50,75, and 76) or right (CN 94), or vertically facing downwards (CN 5). The remaining dolphins were paired (CN 27, 49,

48, and 96). A dolphin was shown in a scene three times: next to a boat rudder (CN 93), next to a boat hull (CN 95, Figure 5.10), and as a pair drinking from a bowl (CN 96).

The fourth animal common across the sub-phases, peaking in the fourth sub­ phase, was the bull (11 percent). The bull was only found in the upper and middle zones of the stele, and was associated with no specific symbols. It was, however, found in a sacrificial scene in the third century to 146 B.C.E.: a dedicant with a raised open palm standing before an altar with a bull’s head on it (CN 74 and 58). During the fourth to third centuries B.C.E., only the bull’s head was depicted above the dedicatory inscription.

The remaining four stelae with bulls showed them left-facing, in a typical Mediterranean pose, known as the butting or charging pose (Comstock 1969: 106) one foreleg bent back, the other forward, head lowered and turned frontal, and hind legs slightly separated (CN

31,32, 56, and 80).

The remaining faunal depictions were of other domestic and wild animals. The sheep (CN 11 and 12) appeared in the upper zone of the stele, facing left. The five horses

(CN 13-15, and 86-87), on the other hand, were always in the middle or lower zone, facing left. One horse was rearing (CN 14), while a second was a mount for a helmeted anthropomorphic male (CN 13, Figure 5.11). The last domestic animal was the rooster

(CN 16, 37-38). It was found in all three zones of the stele, also facing left.

The wild animals (rabbit, lion, elephant, flamingo, swan, partridge, mouse, and amphibian) made up the remaining 8.5 percent of identifiable animals. Only the lions, in 105

the form of a bodiless head (CN 4 and 22), were shown in the uppermost zone of the

stele, the remaining animals being relegated to the middle and lower zones. The rabbit

(CN 69), elephants (CN 20-21), flamingo (CN 47), and partridge (CN 23) were depicted

standing facing left, while the swan (CN 19), also facing left, was standing beside a reed

or wheat stalk. The pair of mice (CN 24) were vertically aligned, faces pointed up, while

the amphibian (CN 25) was shown from an overhead view.

Neo-Punic Period

After the destruction of Carthage in 146 B.C.E., the sanctuary of Tanit was long-

thought to have been essentially destroyed, then eventually built over during the

reconstruction of Carthage as a Roman city (Picard 1954: 106-107; Hurst 1999: 10).

There is no evidence for the continued use of the sanctuary between the fall of Carthage

and the rise of the Roman colony.

Roman Period

All the previously listed ‘Indeterminate’ stelae were known to be from the Punic

period based on their publication in the CIS, and were not included in the analysis for the

Roman period. This left only three of ten stelae that had animals as a part of stelae

composition. Two of the three stelae depicted sacrificial scenes: CN 79 showed a dedicant in a temple facade giving an offering, while in the lower register, a bull was led by a rope; in the middle register of CN 81, there were two rams flanking an altar, on which stood a pine-cone (a symbol associated with Saturn), and in the lower register, a bull with instruments of sacrifice (Le Glay 1961: 21). In the tympanum of the third stele,

CN 78 (Figure 5.12), a bull walked towards the middle of the stele, above a multi-lined

Latin inscription. This stele was broken vertically down the middle. II - Hadrumetum (Sousse)

The publication of stelae recovered fromHadrumetum was much more limited than that for Carthage. Stelae analyzed here were collected from Leynaud (1911), Cintas

(1947), Foucher (1964), and Brouillet (1994), and are summarized below (Table 5.11).

Cintas (1947) published most of the recorded stelae, but temporal changes between the stelae of different levels were not described well enough to estimate their dates from the unlabeled figures. Thus, for this present study, over half of the stelae were relegated to the ‘Indeterminate’ category.

Table 5.11 Stelae Assessed from Hadrumetum (Sousse).

Punic Neo-Punic Roman 41 - early Early 3r - Mid 1st c. -,rd 3 c. 2nd c. Mid 2nd-l st B.C.E. to late Late 1st- B.C.E. B.C.E. c. B.C.E. 1st c. C.E. 2nd c. C.E. Indeterm Total

No animal 6 3 15 (88 %) 9 - 64 97 (94 %) Animal - -2 (12 %) 1 3 - 6 (6 %)

Total 6 (6 %) 3 (3 %) 17 (16 %) 10 (10 %) 3 (3 %) 64 (62 %) 103

It is strikingly obvious from these results that animals did not play a significant role on the recovered stelae. As Cintas (1947: 1 -2) estimated that the excavated area was only a small portion of the original sanctuary, it would be interesting to see what patterns further excavations would reveal. Based on the summary of stelae given by Cintas

(1947), it seemed that animals were not a favoured iconographic choice. The sanctuary, however, fell out of use shortly thereafter, and Ba’al did not appear to undergo the transition to Saturn. Only one Neo-Punic stele did not have a published image.

The animals that were represented on the recovered Hadrumetum stelae are summarized in Table 5.12. Based on the stelae descriptions by Cintas (1947), it is likely 107 that the majority of the ‘Indeterminate’ stelae listed here dated from the end of the Punic and into the Neo-Punic period, but none have any animals.

Figure 5.12 Animals Represented on Hadrumetum (Sousse) Stelae. Punic Neo-Punic Roman 4' - early Early 3 rd- Mid 1st c. 3rd c. 2nd c. Mid 2nd-l st B.C.E. to late Late 1st- Animal Type B.C.E. B.C.E. c. B.C.E. 1st c. C.E. 2nd c. C.E. Indeterm Total

Ram ---- 1 - 1 (17 %) Sheep - -- 1 - - 1 (17 %) Crab - - 2 -- - 2 (33 %) Quadruped -- -- 2 - 2 (33 %) Total 0 0 2 (33 %) 1 (17 %) 3 (50 %) 0 6

Punic Period

During the Punic period (Levels 2 and 3), no animals were used as a main iconographic symbol or as an element of a scene (such as a sacrifice); the use of the ‘sign of Tanit’ and the ‘baetyl’ remained predominant throughout the period. However, there were three stelae on which animal motifs did play a decorative role: a sphinx-sided throne upon which Ba’al Hammon sat with a dedicant before him (Cintas 1947: 14); the other two stelae were representations of an Egyptiannaos , with an entablature band of eight uraei (cobras), frontal facing, lined horizontally in a register (Cintas 1947: 54; Brouillet

1994: 57) (Figures 5.13). Both scenes indicate Near Eastern influences, the first being

Phoenician, the second Egyptian. At this Phoenician port, the people ofHadrumetum were exposed to different cultures through trade. These were motifs from a standard repertoire of architectural decorations, and thus did not represent human-animal interactions as such, thus were not included in the tally. They do, however, show a connection with the gods, and perhaps part of the animal-attributes of the gods. 108

Neo-Punic Period

As in the Punic period, the ‘sign of Tanit’ and the baetyl remained the dominant iconography in the Neo-Punic period, while animals were represented very minimally on the published stelae. Only three stelae with animals were recorded from Levels 4 and 5.

From Level 4, two stelae (CN 152 and 153, Figure 5.14) displayed a crab in its own register, located under the Punic inscription (Cintas 1947: 37-38).

The third stele (CN 154) was from a series of six stelae from Level 5 that depicted scenes with people at an altar or the moment of offering (Cintas 1947: 70-72). CN 154

(Figure 5.15) showed three men walking side-by-side, facing frontally, holding a single ram or sheep together. It is clear in this instance that the animal was meant as an offering. What is very interesting is that it is three people making the offering together, rather than by one dedicant, as was usually indicated through the inscriptions, such as on the crab stelae from Level 4, and on Punic period stelae at Carthage. Unfortunately, this stele had no surviving inscription to compare to the sculptural register.

Roman Period

During the Roman period (Level 6), stelae were a mixture of previously-used and re-cut stelae mixed with newer-made stelae. Cintas (1947: 80) was confident, however, that the three stelae published with an image of a quadruped were not from re-used stelae

(CN 155-157). One stele (CN 155) clearly depicted a ram or sheep, while the other two stelae the animal was only identifiable as a quadruped standing between two columns.

Ill - Henchir el-Hami

The sanctuary of Ba’al Hammon/Satum at Henchir el-Hami was one of the few that have been almost fully, if not entirely, excavated (Ferjaoui 2007). Only eleven of the fifty-two stelae recovered (nine Neo-Punic, two Roman) were half-complete or more.

The remaining pieces were small fragments showing a portion of a dedicant’s body or the triangular pediments. Despite the fragmentary nature, many were characteristic enough to identify them here as from the Neo-Punic or Roman periods. Three of the indeterminate animal fragments were likely from the Neo-Punic period based on the differences noticed in carving style between the Neo-Punic period and the Roman period.

Due to their fragmentary state and lack of additional iconographic elements, however, I am not confident enough to concretely place them in that category. All stelae were published with an image. Stelae with animals are summarized in Table 5.13.

Table 5.13 Stelae Assessed from Henchir el-Hami.

Neo-Punic Roman Indeterminate Total

No Animal 27 3 13 43 (83 %) Animal 2 2 4 9 (17 %)

Total 29 (56 %) 5 (11 %) 17 (33 %) 52

Over half of the stelae originated from the Neo-Punic period, while the Roman period represented only 11 percent. With the recovery of two stelae from the temple structure, it was possible that more Roman stelae were once placed in the sanctuary, but as at Carthage, were removed for use in other buildings over the subsequent centuries.

Although the sample size from the Roman period was only five stelae, two of these had animals. Perhaps animals started to appear on Roman stelae at this site more often than during the Neo-Punic period. The animals that were represented on the stelae are summarized in Table 5.14. 110

Table 5.14 Animals Represented on Stelae from Henchir el-Hami.

Animal Type Neo-Punic Roman Indeterminate Total

Bull - 2 - 2 Ram 1 1 - 2

Horse - 4 3 7 Bird/Dove 1 2 3 6 Lion - 2 - 2 Total 2 11 6 19

Punic Period

No stele was identified as originating from the Punic period, although the cult had been established in the area towards the end of the Punic period, and one um was dated between the second and third centuries B.C.E. (Ferjaoui 2007: 12, 114).

Neo-Punic Period

Two fragments (CN 159 and 160) were certainly from the Neo-Punic period. On

CN 159, a ram was depicted standing in the lowest register of the stele, facing left, and framed by columns. In the register above were two small vertical shafts, which were presumably the legs of the dedicant. CN 160 (Figure 5.16) depicted a bird flying to the right of a palm frond held by a male dedicant.

Roman Period

There were only five stelae from Henchir el-Hami that were well enough preserved to identify them here as from the Roman period, two of which had animals.

However, these two stelae (CN 161 and 162) depicted 11 of the 19 identified animals from all Henchir el-Hami stelae. The horses were depicted as the mounts for the Dioscuri in the upper zone of both stelae. The bull was also found on both stelae. On CN 161, it was in the lower register walking the left, towards the only instance of a ram, which walked to the right. The two birds were depicted this same stele, to either side of a I l l flower in the pediment zone. CN 162 (Figure 5.17) depicted the bull, facing right, in the middle zone, with two headless anthropomorphic figures, but it was unclear what these figures were doing. The two lions also appeared on CN 162, flanking an image of Saturn in the pediment zone, their heads facing frontally.

Indeterminate

Four stelae were of an indeterminate date. Three stelae (CN 164-166) depicted a fragment of a bird; it was difficult to determine which section of the stele they originated from, but the bird on CN 164, was shown standing upon a border band of leaves, suggesting that it was located in the pediment area. Two birds (CN 164 and 166) faced left, the other (CN 165) faced right. The fourth stele fragment (CN 163) depicted three superimposed horse heads facing right. According to Feijaoui (2007: 152), the horses were possibly pulling a chariot, based on their closeness to each other, but there were no clear indications that they were harnessed together.

Stelae - Secondary Sanctuary Group (SSG)

The SSG were added to the analysis in order to strengthen observations of stelae for comparative purposes. What renders them part of a ‘secondary’ group was simply the absence of information published about any incinerated remains from the sanctuaries.

The assessment of stelae is presented below.

1 - El-Kenissia

At El-Kenissia, 191 stelae were recovered from the sanctuary of Tanit in 1903, during excavations directed by Carton (1906; 1907). Of these stelae, 151 were published with descriptions and select drawings (Carton 1906; 1907). However, instead o f sorting them according to Punic, Neo-Punic or Roman periods, Carton (1906; 1907) divided the 112 stelae according to iconography, and incised versus carved depictions. As presented in

Chapter Three, it cannot be assumed that incised stelae were from the Punic period while carved were from the Neo-Punic period specifically. Based on the descriptions and limited illustrations provided by Carton, no stele could be confidently dated to the Roman period, despite the presence at the site of a Roman-period temple to Saturn. The stelae are summarized in Table 5.15.

Table 5.15 Stelae Assessed from El-Kenissia.

Incised Carved Indeterm. Total No Animal 67 (96 %) 18 61 146 (97%) Animal 3 (4 %) 2 - 5 (4 %) Total 70 (46 %) 20 (13 %) 61 (40 %} 151

Only five stelae, each with a published image, were recorded by Carton (1947:

74-86) as having animals as part of their composition, making up only three percent of the total stelae recovered. Although this appears to be a small number of stelae with animals, the frequency of animal representation is similar to El-Kenissia’s neighbour,

Hadrumetum. As indicated above, 40 stelae were not described in publications, perhaps being too fragmentary. However, based on the low number of described stelae with animals, it is unlikely that the remaining stelae had a significant number of animals represented. The animal species that were represented are summarized in Table 5.16.

Table 5.16 Animals Represented on Stelae from El-Kenissia.

Animal Type Incised Carved Indeterminate Total

Bull 1 -- 1 (14%)

Ram 1 2 - 3 (43 %)

Quadruped 3 - - 3 (43 %) Total 5 (71 %) 2 (29 %) 0 7 113

Only two species were clearly identified here: the bull and the ram. The remaining three quadrupeds were poorly preserved, but likely represented either a bull or a ram. As a result, it is not possible to say whether the ram or the bull was more common. Three stelae with scenes were identified: on two stelae an animal (a quadruped facing left on CN 151 and a ram facing right on CN 148, Figure 5.18) stood before an altar, and on the third stele (CN 147, Figure 5.19), a bull and a ram faced right, towards a human figure, the whole scene being framed by palm fronds. On CN 149, a ram stood on a pedestal, with no accompanying symbols. The final stele, CN 150, depicted two unidentifiable quadrupeds facing each other beneath a ‘sign of Tanit’.

Temporal trends could not be observed at El-Kenissia, as chronological indicators on stelae were not clearly outlined, nor were there inscriptions on stelae with animals.

However, it was noticeable here that the animals depicted in relief were more easily identifiable than those that were inscribed. The inscribed animals were only a basic outline, giving a vague bull-like or ram-like impression.

/ / - Cirta (Constantine)

Approximately 830 stelae were recovered from theCirta area, scattered across the hill of el-Hofra, or from the sanctuaryfavissa found on the same hill; 473 of these stelae have been published (Doublet and Gauckler 1892; Berthier and Charlier 1952; 1955;

Bertrandy and Sznycer 1987). Compositional trends identified by Berthier and Charlier

(1952) and Bertrandy and Sznycer (1987), along with inscriptions, were used to attribute stelae to the Punic, Neo-Punic, and Roman periods, and are summarized in Table 5.17.

Unfortunately, no sub-phases within the periods are identifiable. 114

Table 5.17 Stelae Assessed from Cirta (Constantine).

Punic Neo-Punic Roman Indeterm Total No animal 325 (97 %) 59(95 %) 11 56(88 %) 451 (95 %) Animal 9 (3 %) 3 (5 %) 2 8 (12 %} 22 (5 %) Total 334 (71 %) 62 (13 %) 13 (3 %) 64 (13 %) 473

During the Punic period, animals were not often represented on stelae, appearing

on only three percent of the total Punic stelae. However, the increase of representation to

five percent of Neo-Punic stelae, and then again to 15 percent of Roman-period stelae

may be misleading due to the much smaller sample size attributed to both these latter

periods. The stelae with indeterminate dates were relatively few, but 12 percent of these

have animals represented on them. One Roman stele and seven ‘Indeterminate’ stelae

lacked a published image. The animals displayed on stelae from Cirta are summarized in

Table 5.18.

Table 5.18 Animals Represented on Stelae from Cirta (Constantine).

Animal Type Punic Neo-Punic Roman Indeterm. Total Bull - 1 - 1 2 (9 %) Ram 5 - 2 5 12 (55%) Horse 3 1 - 1 5 (23%) Dolphin 1 - - 1 2 (9%) Fish - - - 1 1 (4%) Total 9 (41 %) 2 (9 %) 2 (9 %) 9 (41 %) 22

Punic Period

During the Punic period, eight of nine animals were quadrupeds. Rams were the most represented, accounting for five of nine animals on Punic-period stelae. They were depicted in any zone of the stele, but usually near the ‘sign of Tanit’, and four of five times they faced or walked left (such as CN 102, Figure 5.20). In two instances, CN 103 115 and CN 104, the ram was depicted within the base of the ‘sign of Tanit’. On only one stele (CN 101) was the ram located in a niche by itself.

The horse was the second-most common animal, comprising three of the nine animal representations. Similarly to the ram, all but one faced left. Two of the three horses (CN 106 and 105, Figure 5.21) had one front leg raised; the legs of the horse on

CN 107 were not preserved. The remaining animal, a dolphin (CN 108), was shown swimming left above a niched inscription, with a ‘sign of Tanit’ that was holding a Punic caduceus located above it.

Neo-Punic Period

Only two stelae with animals were attributed to the Neo-Punic period: one bull

(CN 109) and one horse (CN 110). The bull was only a frontal-facing head positioned above a framed inscription. The horse, also only a head, faced left, and was located below three zones of symbols, including the ‘sign of Tanit’ and a caduceus, and a niched inscription. This stele was reminiscent of CN 107, which calls to question which period one or both of these stele belonged to. However, this similarity may be attributed to styles that overlapped between the periods, as explained in Chapter Three.

Roman Period

As in the Neo-Punic period, only two stelae (CN 111 and 112) with animals were identified from the Roman period, both of which were depictions of rams. Unfortunately,

CN 111 was not described further than having a ram above an inscription; it remained unclear from what section of the stele it originated. The other stele (CN 112) was arranged like other Roman period stelae: it was divided into three registers with Saturn in the top section, the dedicant in the center (in this case, a male standing beside an altar), 116

and the sacrificial animal, a ram, in the lowest register. The hierarchical placement of

this ram below the celestial and the dedicant was clear.

Indeterminate

Most of the remaining ‘Indeterminate’ stelae had no associated images or

illustrations in the publications, and were poorly described. Seven of the nine animals

were quadrupeds (bull, ram, and horse), with one dolphin and one fish making up the

remainder. Rams appeared five times, although what symbols they were associated with,

or which direction they faced was not indicated. Only one ram (CN 115) stood next to a

caduceus, making it likely from the Punic or Neo-Punic period. The one bull (CN 113)

was depicted standing left, with head facing frontally, and the front left leg raised. No

other symbols were preserved on this stele. The horse on CN 119 was not described;

orientation, role and any associated symbols remain unclear. Like the horse, the

orientation of the dolphin on CN 120 was unclear. It was, however, associated with a

‘sign of Tanit’ and a caduceus, making it likely from the Punic or Neo-Punic period. The

fish on stele CN 121 was vertically aligned in a niche, and was the only iconographic

depiction preserved on this incomplete stele.

Ill - Thugga (Dougga)

Stelae recovered from Thugga by Carton (1897) and Lantier and Poinssot (1942),

and further assessed by Le Glay (1961: 207-220) were located in the sanctuary and its favissa , and are summarized in Table 5.19. These scholars attributed a small portion of

these stelae to the end of the Punic period/beginning of the Neo-Punic period based on

the incised decoration and iconography (Le Glay 1961: 216). Lantier and Poinssot

(1947) thought the majority of the stelae they recovered from thefavissa were likely from 117 the Neo-Punic period based on composition, such as the upward-facing crescent and the complexity of the compositions. They did not, however, indicate which ones specifically.

Table 5.19 Stelae Assessed from Thugga (Dougga).

Punic Neo-Punic Roman Indeterm. Total No Animal 7 3 14 188 (69 %) 212 (70%) Animal - 1 4 86 (31 %) 91 (30%) Total 7(2% ) 4 (1%) 18 (6 %) 274 (91 %) 303

Unfortunately, a large majority of the stelae fromThugga were published with only a brief listing of their symbols, or pictured as rudimentary line drawings, leaving it unclear which stelae were incised or carved. Only 16 stelae with animals (one Neo-

Punic, one Roman, 15 ‘Indeterminate) had an associated image. Furthermore, incised rather than carved stelae with Neo-Punic inscriptions, and stelae with Roman inscriptions but similar composition to the Neo-Punic stelae, indicated that dating stelae based on this technique (see Chapter Three) was clearly problematic. This has led to a large collection of ‘Indeterminate’ stelae here, in terms of date. Also, there were no published images of definitively Punic- and Roman-period stelae for Thugga, making it difficult to distinguish compositional differences between the three periods. Therefore, it is the species and the roles of the animals that will be examined in general, rather than by period. The animals that were represented on these stelae are summarized in Table 5.20 below.

Table 5.20 Animals Represented on Stelae from Thugga (Dougga).

Animal Type Punic Neo-Punic Roman Indeterm Total

Bull - - - 51(57% ) 51 (53 %)

Ram - - 4 33 (37 %) 37 (39 %) Horse - 2 - 1 (1 %) 3 (3 %) Quadruped - - - 5 (5 %) 5 (5 %) Total 0 2 (2 %) 4 (4 %) 90 (94 %) 96 Punic Period

No animals were represented on stelae identified from the Punic period.

Neo-Punic Period

Only one Neo-Punic stele (CN 363), identified by Carton (1897: 409, no. 10) as such by its inscription, had any animals in its composition: two horses between two lines of an undecipherable inscription. It was unclear, however, how they were orientated, how much of the body was shown, or if there were any other symbols present on the stele.

Roman Period

The four stelae identified by Carton (1897), Lantier and Poinssot (1942) and Le

Glay 1961) as belonging to the Roman period atThugga were done so based on fragmented Latin inscriptions, even though their iconography was very similar to that of the Neo-Punic period.16 This suggested to me that Latin inscriptions may have appeared during the Neo-Punic period atThugga as a result of foreigners giving offerings to Ba’al

Hammon/Satum, as seen atCirta. Only the ram was depicted, appearing four times (CN

364-367). All four animals were depicted with palm fronds and other symbols, such as the ‘sign of Tanif and sacrificial cakes. Only one stele (CN 364, Figure 5.22) depicted a scene: a ram walking left towards an altar. It was difficult to understand the exact role of the rams on the other three stelae without better descriptions or images. All four animals were located in the lower zone of the stele.

16 I did not contest this period identification due to a lack of stelae with Latin inscriptions pictured in publications for comparison, regardless of whether they had animals or not. 119

Indeterminate

The ‘Indeterminate’ stelae made up 94 percent of the stelae with animals, most of which were described by Lantier and Poinssot (1942). The most common animal was the bull, appearing 51 times, but only once (CN 369) shown walking towards an altar. One stele showed the bull twice (CN 368), while two stelae displayed both a bull and a ram

(CN 371 and 418). To judge from available illustrations, the bull was depicted in the lower zone of the stele, beneath larger symbols, such as the ‘sign of Tank’ and the crescent. This created a sense of hierarchical placement of the symbols, and perhaps the separation between divine and sacrificial symbols or scenes. The bull was shown with a variety of symbols, such as the ‘sign of Tanit’, sacrificial cakes, rosettes, and palm fronds.

The second-most popular animal was the ram, appearing thirty-three times, with the same assortment of symbols as the bull. It was also usually located in the lower zone of the stele. Unlike the bull, however, the ram was shown seven times walking either towards an altar (CN 419-421, 435, 442 and 447): the ram on CN 419 (Figure 5.23) and

447 walked right, while the ram on CN 420 and 422 walked left. A ram on CN 428 was located within the base of the ‘sign of Tanit’. It is unclear what the remaining rams were doing on the other stelae.

The last identifiable animal represented was the horse (CN 449), appearing only once, and depicted walking left. It was also the only stelae from Thugga to depict an anthropomorphic figure, although crudely depicted, located above the horse. The remaining five quadrupeds were shown in the lower zone of the stelae with the same assortment of symbols. What they were doing remained unclear. 120

IV - Mactaris (Maktar)

The stelae under analysis (Berger 1890; Picard n.d. [1955]; Le Glay 1961;

M’Charek 1995) originated from the field of Ain-el-Bab, on the outskirts of the ancient city of Mactaris. Separation of stelae into the three periods was not always agreed upon by scholars. For example, stelae collected by Berger (1890) were attributed to the Roman period in Picard (n.d. [1955]), but according to Le Glay (1966b: 37), the same stelae were from the Neo-Punic period. Picard (n.d. [1955]; 274-276) attributed these stelae to the

Roman period because, despite the continued use of Neo-Punic text, the dedicant had a

Roman name, listed a Roman-named father, and depicted Roman symbols, like the cornucopia, peacock, and pine cone, particularly associated with Saturn at other Roman- period sites (Berger 1890: 39). This thesis followed the dating provided by Picard (n.d.

[1955]); these stelae are summarized below in Table 5.21.

Table 5.21 Stelae Assessed from Mactaris (Maktar).

Neo-Punic Roman Mid to late Early 2nd c. 1st c. C.E. CE 2nd c. CE Late 2nd c. CE Indeterm. Total

No Animal 6 18 8 22 2 56 (72%) Animal 3 3 14 2 - 22 (28%) Total 9 (11%) 21 (27%) 22 (28%) 24 (31%) 2 (3%) 78

The cult of Ba’al was known to have been in the area ofMactaris during the

Punic period (M’Charek 1995: 245) but associated stelae have not yet been recovered.

However, a limited number of stelae were found dating to the Neo-Punic period, three of which display animals. The second century C.E. sub-phase overlaps with the sub-phase before and after, which may have had an effect on the results, as it is uncertain exactly when during this century the stelae were from. During the second century (the three sub­ phases combined), animals are represented on nearly 20 percent of the stelae. The other

non-animal stelae were mostly fragments of mid-sections, so if animals were originally

present in the pediment or lower registers, they were not preserved. All stelae with

animals had an associated image published.

Table 5.22 Animals Represented on Stelae from Mactaris (Maktar).

Neo-Punic Roman Animal Mid to late Early 2nd c. Late 2nd c. Type 1st c. C.E. CE 2nd c. CE CE Indeterm Total

Bull -- 3 (6 %) -- 3 (4%)

Bird/Dove 5 6 26 (54%) 1 - 38 (57%)

Dolphin 2 2 9 (19% ) 1 - 14 (21%)

Fish - 2 10 (20%) -- 12 (18%) Total 7 (10% ) 10 (15%) 48 (72 %) 2 (3%) 0 67

Most stelae from all sub-phases generally depicted more than one animal. Those

with only one animal were fragmented, preserving only a small section. The most

common here was the bird/dove, especially during the second century sub-phase.

Through all the sub-phases, there was a general separation of stelae into three or more

zones or registers. Animals were located above the inscription, in the top pediment zone,

or register, or were depicted below the centrally-featured dedicant. The stelae were often topped by a variation of the crescent-and-disc motif: a six-petal flower above a garland- type crescent. This bird and dolphin or fish combination with a crescent and flower was the dominant form of animal use on all the assessed stelae recovered theMactaris area.

However, the majority of these stelae had only the upper and lower mid-section preserved, so it was unclear if other animals, such as the ram or bull, were depicted in a

lower register. 122

Neo-Punic Period

Only three stele fragments assessed were identified by Picard (n.d.[1955]: 275-

277) as from the Neo-Punic period, two of which preserved only the pediment section, while the third was a fragment containing the mid- and lower section. The bird was depicted five times: twice in pairs (CN 242 and 243) depicted with wings spread, facing each other; the fifth bird (CN 244, Figure 5.24) was depicted in the mid/lower section, below the dedicant, body frontal, head facing to the viewer’s right. The two birds on CN

242 were depicted holding a garland between them. Only one stele, CN 243, depicted two dolphins facing each other, located in the pediment zone, and placed directly above the two birds.

Roman Period

During the Roman period, there did not appear to be significant differences in animal role or location between the sub-phases. Like the Neo-Punic period, the top section was the most commonly-found portion of a stele with animals. Sixteen stelae fragments were from the pediment section, while the remaining three fragments were from the mid- and lower sections. The bird/dove continued to be the prominent animal

(54 percent of the animals) in the pediment zone, appearing either alone or up to four times, commonly alongside fish or dolphins. Of the nineteen stelae, only two (CN 261 and 256, Figure 5.25) displayed dolphins and birds eating from vases, below the dedicant.

CN 259 depicted a small anthropomorphic figure riding one of the dolphins.

The bull appeared on three stelae, but only once clearly in a sacrificial scene.

Preserved at the top break of on stele CN 248 were the feet of a dedicant standing between an altar and a bull. The other two bulls (CN 249 and 250) were depicted as 123 frontal-facing heads: the bull on CN 249 was floating, while the bull on CN 250 (Figure

5.26) was carried in the talons of a bird in the pediment zone of the stele.

V - Sitifis (Setif)

The stelae from Sitifis were found in various locations within and around the ancient city (Ballu 1909; Le Glay 1966a), and are summarized in Table 5.23. A small portion of the stelae recovered had inscriptions that indicated the ruling year of a

Numidian king or a Roman consul, allowing an exact date for the stele to be calculated.

However, images were not readily available, which meant that comparisons between those with exact dates and those published without could not be done, resulting in a rather large ‘Indeterminate’ group.

Table 5.23 Stelae Assessed from Sitifis (Setif).

Late 1st to early 2nd c. Late 2nd to Late 3rd c. C.E. early 3rd c. C.E. 3rd c. C.E. C.E. Indeterminate Total

No Animal 2 3 2 - 12 19 (44%) Animal 2 4 2 16 24 (56%)

Total 2 (5 %) 5 (11%) 6 (14%) 2 (5%) 28 (65%) 43

It was immediately apparent that the representation of animals occurred at a higher overall frequency (percentage-wise) when compared with the previously analyzed sites. It was difficult to determine if there were any changes between the sub-phases due to the small quantity that were identified beyond belonging to the Roman period. In addition, only five images were available (one from each sub-phase, except the third century C.E. which had two). That is, did the number of stelae with animals increase between the sub-phases, or was it a consistent frequency of use? It was clear, however, that the representation of animals was more frequent atSitifis than in any of the sites 124 presented above, although the total number of stelae from each phase was not large enough to be statistically significant. The animals that were represented on these stelae are summarized in Table 5.24 below

Table 5.24 Animals Represented on Stelae from Sitifis (Setif).

Late 1st to early Late 2nd to Animal 2nd c. early 3rd c. Late 3rd c. Type C.E. C.E. 3rd c. C.E. C.E Indeterminate Total

Bull - 2 2 2 6 12 (32%)

Ram - 1 - 2 5 8 (22%) Horse -- -- 8 8 (22%) Bird/Dove - - 2 - 1 3 (8%) Lion - 1 1 - 3 5 (14%) Quadruped - -- - 1 1 (3%) Total 0 4 (11%) 5 (14%) 4 (11%) 24 (65%) 37

Again, due to the sampling sizes for the sub-phases, it was not possible to determine if the species representation changed throughout the sub-phases. However, based on the ‘Indeterminate’ group, stelae showed the typical Roman-period animal representations: the bull, ram, horse, bird and lion. The animals were generally restricted to similar scenes in the upper or lower registers of the stele, portrayed with divine representations or in sacrificial scenes, respectively. There were three examples (CN

277, 279 and 285) of animals in the middle register, but they were always depicted in a sacrificial role with a dedicant. There was no association between the animal and the gender of the dedicant depicted on the stele.

The most common animal during the Roman period was the bull, appearing 12 times, followed by the ram and the horse (eight times). The bull was depicted in the lowest register every time, once with additional anthropomorphic figure and an altar (CN

267); two additional times the bull was depicted standing next to an altar (CN 269 and 125

277, Figure 5.27). On two stelae the bull was paired (CN 269 and 273). The bulls on

CN 266 and CN 271 appeared to be covered with a blanket, something that was common for sacrificial animals, even though it was not depicted often at other sites (Carton 1906:

92). In contrast, the ram appeared in both the middle and the lowest register. In the middle register, a ram’s head was depicted on an altar (CN 277 and 279), which was located beside the dedicant. An additional sacrifice scene was found on CN 265: two anthropomorphic males sacrificing a ram. The remaining depictions of rams showed them in pairs (CN 272 and 278), standing next to the throne of Saturn (CN 280, Figure

5.28).

Horses and lions were the next most-commonly depicted animals atSitifis , with eight and five examples respectively, followed by two instances of birds. The horses were shown in pairs on four stelae (CN 281-284) as mounts for the Dioscuri, always in the pediment zone. The lion, shown five times, was limited to the pediment zone as a companion to Saturn (CN 267, 270 and 280), or shown attacking or eating another unidentified animal (CN 284 and 287) in an upper register.17 The remaining two stelae depicted birds in the middle zone. The first bird (CN 285) was shown flying next to a hook held by the dedicant (CN 285), while on the second stele (CN 269), a pair of birds held a garland in the pediment above a figure of Saturn.

VI - Cuicul (Djemila)

The stelae from Cuicul were found scattered across the site, as well as in the foundations of more recent buildings (Cagnat 1911; Gsell 1917; Le Glay 1966a).

Although it is possible that the cults of Ba’al Hammon and Tanit were practiced by the

17 These unidentifiable animals were not included separately in the count but counted with the lion, to which they were intrinsically linked. 126 indigenous peoples in the area based on its presence in neighbouring sites, such asCirta, no stelae were recovered from the Punic or Neo-Punic period.

Table 5.25 Stelae Assessed from Cuicul (Djemila).

Early to mid 2nd c. Mid to late 3rd to 4th 4th c. C.E. 2nd c. C.E. 3rd c. C.E. c. C.E. C.E. Indeterm. Total No Animal 2 2 4 1 3 16 28 (53%) Animal 4 5 6 1 1 8 25 (47%) Total 6 (11%) 7 (13%) 10 (19%) 2 (4%) 4 (7%) 24 (45%) 53

According to Le Glay (1953; 1966a), the stelae recovered from Cuicul, have been attributed to several sub-phases of the Roman period, but the general roles and positions that animals were found in did not seem to differ greatly over time. Although there were not a lot of stelae from each of the sub-phases, animals appeared on stelae more consistently during the Roman-period, than was found on Punic- and Neo-Punic-period stelae from other sites; the total number of stelae with animals represented on them is nearly half of the sample. Eleven of 25 stelae with animals had published images, eight of which dated to the mid-second century to third century C.E. These animals are summarized in Table 5.26.

Table 5.26 Animals Represented on Stelae from Cuicul (Djemila).

3rd to Animal Early to mid Mid to late 4

Total 6 (17%) 9 (25%) 9 (25%) 1 (3 %) 3 (8%) 8 (22%) 36 127

The bull was the most commonly depicted animal, making up 52 percent of the depictions. In addition, it appeared in all but one of the sub-phases. The bull was always shown in the lowest register: four times the bull was depicted in the lowest register alone (CN 126, 134, 137 and 142), while the remaining 15 bulls were accompanied by one or more anthropomorphic figures (such as CN 128, Figure 5.29). In addition, all bulls, with only two exceptions (CN 133 and 137) walked or stood left. It was not always indicated in publications if the head faced frontally or not. There did not appear to be any distinction between the sub-phases as to how the bull was depicted. The ram, on the other hand, was shown only four times. Three times the ram was located in the lowest register, standing left, once (CN 144) it was depicted the ram standing next to an altar. The fourth stele, CN 123 depicted a dedicant holding a ram’s head in the middle zone.

The second-most common animal, the lion, appeared seven times in the upper zone of the stele. On two stelae, CN 130 and 135 (Figure 5.30), it was only the head depicted, facing frontally, alongside other divine figures, such as the Dioscuri, in the pediment zone. CN 138 depicted the lion attacking an antelope, and CN 145 showed

Saturn sitting on a left-facing lion. Only on stele CN 146 did the lion appear alone in the pediment zone, with no other figures or celestial indicators, possibly as a substitute for

Saturn. Also appearing in only the upper zone of the stele on CN 138 (Figure 5.31) was a pair of horses used as mounts for the Dioscuri.

The remaining animals, one dove (CN 124) and three lambs (CN 125, 135 and

136), were each held by the dedicant depicted in the middle zone. The dove was held by a male dedicant, while the three lambs were in the arms of a female dedicant. Because of 128 the small sample size, it is not possible to determine if there were significant changes in animal depictions on the stelae between the sub-phases, with exception to the consistent use of the bull through nearly all but the last sub-phase.

VII- Theveste (Tebessa)

The sanctuary of Saturn, and likely of Ba’al Hammon, was located northwest of the city, at Henchir Rohban (Gsell 1902; Truillot 1932-1933a, b; Le Glay 1961: 331).

The majority of the stelae analyzed were from this location, with the remainder from

Theveste. Le Glay (1961: 331) proposed that the worship of Ba’al Hammon/Satum and

Tanit/Caelestis was practiced before the establishment of the city, but only one stele was identified from the transitional period between the Neo-Punic and Roman periods. It is possible that some of the ‘Indeterminate’ stelae also date from this sub-phase, but this remains unclear. The majority of the stelae recovered were not attributed to the few identified sub-phases, but rather to the Roman period in general by Gsell (1902), Truillot

(1932-1933a, b), and Le Glay (1961) based on composition. The stelae assessed are summarized in Table 5.27.

Table 5.27 Stelae Assessed from Theveste (Tebessa).

Neo-Punic/Roman Roman Late 1st c. C.E. 2nd c. C.E. 3rd c. C.E. Indeterm. Total No Animal 1 1 1 20 (54%) 23 (53% ) Animal - - 3 17 (46%) 20 (47%) Total 1 (2%) 1 (2%) 4 (9 %) 37 (86%) 43

Similar to the previous two sites,Theveste showed a more consistent use of animals on stelae, making up 47 percent of the sample. However, only three stelae with animals could be attributed to any of the sub-phases: the third century C.E. showed three with animals; only one was published with an image. The remaining 17 stelae with 129 animals, of which there were five published images, were of indeterminable dates. The animals that were represented on the stelae from Theveste are summarized in Table 5.28.

Table 5.28 Animals Represented on Stelae from Theveste (Tebessa).

Neo-Punic/Roman Roman Animal Type Late 1st c. C.E. 2nd c. C.E. 3rd c. C.E. Indeterm. Total

Bull -- 2 7 (19% ) 9 (21 %) Ram - - 1 17 (55% ) 18 (43 %) Horse - - 4 2 (6% ) 6 (14% ) Bird/Dove - - - 4 (13%) 4 (10%) Lion - - 2 1 (3%) 3 (7%)

Dolphin - - - 1 (3% ) 1 (2%) Quadruped - - 1 - 1 (2% ) Total 0 0 10 (24%) 32 (76% ) 42

It became clear that multiple animals were shown on each of these stelae than at the other sites. However, as the majority of the stelae are of ‘Indeterminate’ dates, chronological trends could not be identified.

The most common animal was the ram, comprising 43 percent of the sample.

The ram was depicted on 12 stelae in the middle or the lowest register. On three stelae

(CN 355-357), a ram’s head was positioned on an altar beside the dedicant. The remaining nine stelae showed the ram in the lower registers, but only once by itself (CN

346). It was usually depicted with a second ram (CN 350-351, 353-354 and 358), or one or more bulls (CN 344-345, 349 and 352, Figure 5.32). On two stelae, these animals were situated next to an altar (CN 350 and 354). The direction the ram faced was not always indicated in publications.

The second-most common animal, comprising 21 percent of the sample, was the bull. The bull was depicted twice alone in a register that sat above a lower register depicting one or more rams (CN 350-351). Only one complete stele depicted a single 130 bull standing left, facing an altar (CN 348, Figure 5.33). The remaining depictions of the bull were in the same register with one or more rams, as described above, and a dedicant.

The dolphin (CN 362) and a pair of birds (CN 360) were each depicted alone in the pediment zone over a dedicant (male and female, respectively) in a niche. The second pair of birds carried a garland over the image of Saturn (CN 359). Both lions were also found in the pediment zone. The first (CN 347) was a large and detailed lion, walking right with head facing frontally, with an inscription in a register below. The second lion (CN 344) was found sitting between an enthroned Saturn and Caelestis. The three pairs of horses were mounts for the Dioscuri, of which only one pair was actually being ridden (CN 344).

VIII - Lambaesis (Lambese)

All stelae were found from various locations aroundLambaesis , as none of the sanctuaries believed to be dedicated to Saturn and Caelestis were excavated. Le Glay

(1966a: 84) argued that the recovered stelae displayed more Roman traits, particularly in the depiction of people, than at some other sites. However, it was still difficult to separate the stelae into a distinct sequence, leaving a large number in the ‘Indeterminate’ category. The stelae are summarized in Table 5.29.

Table 5.29 Stelae Assessed from Lambaesis (Lambese).

2nd c. C.E. 2nd to 3rd c. C.E. 3rd c. C.E. Indeterminate Total No Animal 1 4 8 68 (54%) 81 (52%) Animal 4 4 8 59 (46%) 75 (48%) Total 5 (3%) 8 (5%) 16 (10%) 127 (82%) 156

Lambaesis was another site to show a more frequent number of stelae that displayed animals in their composition. It would be interesting to learn if the ‘Indeterminate’ stelae, if properly dated, would continue to show an increase in frequency of animal depictions through sub-phases as they appeared to show here. Otherwise, this trend may only be a result of the sample size. Only 10 images of stelae with animals were published. The animals that were represented on stelae are summarized below in

Table 5.30.

Table 5.30 Animals Represented on Stelae from Lambaesis (Lambese).

Animal Type 2nd c. C.E. 2nd to 3rd c. C.E. 3rd c. C.E. Indeterminate Total Bull --- 3 (4%) 3 (3% ) Ram 4 4 8 55 (81%) 71 (82%) Lamb - - - 1 (1%) 1 (1%) Bird/Dove 1 - - 10 (14%) 11 (12%) Dolphin - 2 - - 2 (2%) Total 5 (6%) 6 (7%) 8 (9%) 69 (78%) 88

Unlike stelae recovered from the other sites analyzed here, there were no animals found located in the pediment zone. All animals were located in the middle and lower registers. In addition, the only animal that seemed to appear on stelae from all sub­ phases was the ram. The ram made up 82 percent of all animals depicted on stelae from

Lambaesis, and appeared in both the middle and the lower registers. There were ten examples where a ram’s head was on an altar beside the dedicant(s) in the middle register. Only two of these stelae (CN 185 and 186) depicted an additional ram in the lower register. Eight more stelae depicted the ram in the middle register, either standing or lying behind the dedicant. The remaining fifty stelae depicted a single ram in the lowest register. Only two of these stelae also depicted an altar or an anthropomorphic figure with the ram (CN 176 and 189, Figure 5.34). CN 172 and 185 each displayed two rams: one ram was in the lower register, while the other was its head on an altar beside a male dedicant. The number of times the ram was depicted facing right or left was 132 roughly even. In contrast, only two stelae depicted bulls. On CN 184 the bull was located in the lowest register. Its head was held by an anthropomorphic figure that held an axe in the other hand. The second stele, CN 183, was split vertically into two separate depictions of a dedicant situated in the zone above a bull.

The second-most common animal was the bird/dove. In ten of the eleven depictions, the bird/dove was found in the middle register, in the arm or hand of the dedicant (such as CN 169, Figure 5.35). Half of the dedicants were male, the other half female. On CN 241, the bird pecked at a bunch of grapes a female dedicant was holding.

Like the bird, the single lamb was also found in the arms of a (female) dedicant in the middle register. The dolphins, usually found in the pediment zone at other sites, were located on either side of the lowest register, vertically aligned.

IX - Thamugadi (Timgad)

The stelae from Thamugadi were collected from excavations in the sanctuary, as well as from various locations around the site (Ballu 1911; Le Glay 1966a). Ballu (1911) and Le Glay (1966a) attributed the recovered stelae to the second to third centuries C.E.; these are summarized in Table 5.31. Unlike several of the sites already described,

Thamugadi showed a better distribution of stelae through the sub-phases of the Roman period, despite still having almost 71 percent of the stelae in the ‘Indeterminate’ category.

Table 5.31 Stelae Assessed from Thamugadi (Timgad).

2nd c. C.E. 2nd to 3rd c. C.E. 3rd c. C.E. Indeterm Total No Animal 6 4 6 65 (68%) 81 (60%) Animal 8 9 7 31 (32%) 55 (40%) Total 14 (10%) 13 (9.5%) 13 (9.5%) 96 (71%) 136 133

Although there are 20 percent more stelae without animals in total, the sub-phases

show a consistent presence of stelae with animals. The transition between the second and

third centuries C.E., however, seemed to show a steady display of animal depictions.

There were only 10 published images: five from the first sub-phase, one from the second

and ‘Indeterminate’ sub-phases, and three from the third sub-phase. The animals that were represented are summarized in Table 5.32.

Table 5.32 Animals Represented on Stelae from Thamugadi (Timgad).

Animal Type 2nd c. C.E. 2nd to 3rd c. C.E. 3rd c. C.E. Indeterm Total Bull 4 1 4 5 (15%) 14 (19%) Ram 10 6 5 22 (64%) 43 (59%) Lamb - - - 1 (3%) 1 (1%) Horse - - 2 - 2 (3% ) Bird/Dove 4 1 1 5 (12%) 11 (15%) Dolphin - -- 2 (6%) 2 (3%) Total 18 (25% ) 8 (11%) 12 (16%) 35 (48%) 73

Three animals (ram, bull, bird/dove) were seen here consistently across the sub­ phases, which was likely a result of the sample being better representation of the sub­ phases than at other sites. The ram, however, was depicted far more often than either the bull or the bird/dove, making up 59 percent of all animals represented.

The ram could be found in any of the three registers of the stelae. On three occasions (CN 312, 319-320, Figure 5.36) it was depicted with Saturn reclining on the animal. In the middle register, the ram’s head was displayed twice on an altar: once with a female dedicant (CN 321), the other with a male and female couple (CN 290). It was also found three times (CN 293, 322-323) in the same register as the dedicant (male or female), located at the dedicant’s feet or in behind. More often, however, the ram was displayed in the lower register: there were twenty-eight stelae with one ram located in the 134 register below that with the dedicant(s). There were only two additional instances in which there were two rams in the same register (CN 290 and 304), and once a ram with an additional anthropomorphic figure (CN 291, Figure 5.37). In contrast, the bull was only placed in the lower register beneath the dedicant(s). It was shown alone five times

(CN 292, 305, 311, 314-315, Figure 5.38), but an additional six times with a ram.

The third-most common animal was the bird/dove. It was depicted ten times, always in the arms of a female dedicant. On the other hand, the one lamb depicted was held by a male dedicant (CN 338). There was only one stele (CN 343) with two dolphins facing each other in the top register, with no other symbols or figures present. The pair of horses depicted in the top register of CN 305 (Figure 5.39) was shown standing alongside Saturn and two unidentifiable anthropomorphic figures.

Summary

Together, the PSG and the SSG stelae remains have provided a general idea of which animals were more commonly found on stelae, as well as how frequently they were used. Although sub-phases within the three broad periods were not always apparent, clear differences between the Punic, Neo-Punic and Roman periods became evident. The roles that these animals were found in are assessed in Chapter Six, along with other cross-site and temporal comparisons between faunal and stelae remains. Also to be discussed are the interpretations of what these animals meant, and if animal conceptualization is, in fact, reflected in the sanctuaries of Ba’al Hammon/Satum and

Tanit/Caelestis. 135

Chapter Six: Cross-Site Comparisons and Interpretations

This thesis aims to identify variation and changes in animal conceptualization

between cultures that experienced continual direct or indirect interaction over an

extended period of time. This chapter presents the comparisons of animal evidence from

the sanctuaries of Ba’al Hammon and Tanit first by sanctuaries that were in use during

the same period, then compared between the periods. I examined the frequency and

variation of animal remains and depictions on stelae, as well as animal location and role

on stelae to determine if patterns appeared that might indicate an identifiable form of

animal conceptualization. This present study uses the overall regional, temporal, and

cultural patterns to form an interpretation of what and how animal conceptualization was

being shown, or alternatively, not shown.

Generally speaking, however, I observed three things: the use of animals was

limited to a small selection of species that had religious significance, rather than a larger repertoire with secular significance both in faunal remains and on stelae; the physical

remains decreased and disappeared altogether by mid to late Roman periods; and in

contrast to faunal remains, animal representation on stelae increased significantly during

the Roman period. These general observations are expanded upon further after the

following period-specific comparisons.

Punic Period

The sites with animal-related evidence from the Punic period were Carthage,

Hadrumetum, El-Kenissia, Cirta, and Thugga. Cirta was only one of these sanctuaries

that did not have incinerated remains recovered during excavations; however, the 136 incinerated remains from El-Kenissia and Thugga were not published with enough information for a detailed and comparative analysis, as explained in Chapter Five. Stele remains from El-Kenissia and Thugga were also problematic because it was difficult to determine whether it had been during the Punic or Neo-Punic that many of the stelae had been dedicated. The overall frequency and species represented on stelae at El-Kenissia was nevertheless useful for providing a comparative context with the other Punic period sites.

Faunal Remains

Faunal remains recovered from Carthage,Hadrumetum, and El-Kenissia were identified as Caprinae (sheep/lamb or goat/kid) and small birds. Temporal comparisons could not be made with remains from El-Kenissia beyond the species level due to the lack of published dates. The three identified levels from Carthage (Tanit I, II and III) roughly corresponded with the first three layers (Layers 1, 2 and 3) from Hadrumetum.18

No animal remains were identified from the first sub-phase at Hadrumetum, whereas at

Carthage, 35 percent of the remains were animals, either by themselves (seven percent) or with a child (28 percent). Caprinae were the dominant species.

During the second sub-phase at Carthage, animal frequency decreased to 19 percent of the remains, of which only one percent of the remains were animals alone.

During the third sub-phase at Carthage, which looked largely similar to the second sub­ phase, animals totalled only 14 percent of the remains, one percent of which was an animal alone. Cintas (1947) recorded at Hadrumetum, animals were only occasionally

18 The Punic period at both sites dates between the fourth century B.C.E. and the mid-second century B.C.E. At Carthage, the Punic period ends at the city’s destruction in 146 B.C.E. 137 present when compared to the (unquantified) frequency of child remains during the second sub-phase, but occurred as equally as children during the third sub-phase.

Stelae Remains

Frequency

Depictions of animals on stelae were relatively infrequent at all the assessed

Punic-period sites. Less than two percent of all Punic stelae from Carthage and three percent from Cirta had one or more animals represented. The situation was more distinct at Hadrumetum, where no stelae assessed here had any animals. Stelae from El-Kenissia were largely o f‘Indeterminate’ periods, but only four percent depicted animals, which also suggested an infrequent occurrence during any period regardless.

Only the ram appeared on stelae from each site, with exception ofHadrumetum.

At Cirta , the horse and dolphin were also depicted, while at El-Kenissia, the only other identifiable animal was a bull. At Thugga, the animals depicted in the ‘Indeterminate’- date group were limited to the bull, ram, and horse. If any of these stelae were from the

Punic period, only these animals would have been represented. Carthage, on the other hand, had the greatest variety of animals depicted, and was the only site with stelae that could be broken into sub-phases of the Punic period. The fourth and fourth to third century B.C.E. sub-phases showed the greatest variety of animals, although each was only shown, on average, three times. The bull (3 times), ram (3 times), horse (3 times), bird/dove (4 times), dolphin (3 times) and fish (5 times) were the six (of fifteen) more common types. Between the third century and 146 B.C.E., the variation of animals decreased from 15 to seven types, but the frequency of their occurrence increased. The 138

ram (15 times) and bird/dove (14 times) were the two most common, followed by the

dolphin (eight times) and the bull (six times).

Location / Role on the Stelae

Generally speaking, animals were not restricted to one particular section of a stele

at Cirta, El-Kenissia, and the earliest two sub-phases (fourth century and fourth to third

century B.C.E.) at Carthage. No animal was consistently depicted in any particular zone,

nor did there appear to be any hierarchical patterning between symbols on a stele. In

contrast, at Carthage during the third century to 146 B.C.E. (Tanit III, Phase 9), certain

animals began to appear in specific zones or registers. The ram, bird, or lion was located

in the upper or middle register, while other symbols, such as the ‘sign of Tanit’ or the

caduceus, were located below. Three of four bulls (CN 32, 56, and 80) were located in

the lower register of the composition, while all other animals from the later sub-phases at

Carthage were located in the middle or lower registers.

The role of an animal on a stele was not always obvious. Hours-Miedan (1950:

54), Le Glay (1966b: 302, 351), Berthier and Charlier (1955: 197-203), Stager (1980: 8),

and Bertrandy and Sznycer (1987: 70) suggested that depictions of animals that were also

listed in the tariffs (the bull, ram/sheep, or bird), were representational of sacrificial

victims, or were symbols of Ba’al Hammon and Tanit. As introduced in Chapter Two,

the anthropomorphic forms of these gods were not often employed on stelae, and as such,

were likely represented symbolically. Therefore, to distinguish between an animal that

was intended as divine and one that was sacrificial, Hours-Miedan (1950: 54) and Le

Glay (1966b: 311) suggested that the location of the animal was the indicator. The top

zone of the stele was the area of the divine, while the area or registers below were 139 allocated to the offering. For example, the crescent and disc is generally accepted as an astral or divine symbol, and is usually found in the upper section of the stele. Birds, dolphins, and fish in the pediment area were naturally also interpreted as representing the divine or their agrarian natures,19 while animals in the lower registers, such as a ram, were the offering. On the other hand, Picard (1954: 113) and Le Glay (1966b: 213) theorized that dolphins represented the celestial ocean, the means by which souls crossed to reach the heavens (Picard 1954: 113; Le Glay 1966b: 213). Since these stelae follow the same type of votive formula as other stelae, with no child burial contexts, it was not likely that they were funerary in nature here (Picard n.d.[1955]: 274-275).

However, the relatively infrequent use of animals observed here on Punic-period stelae suggests that animals were not regularly being used as divine representations during the Punic period. In addition, based on the variation of species there still remains the question of what the other animals not listed in the tariffs meant, such the rabbit, amphibian, flamingo, and elephant. It is suggested here that the roles of animals included divine, fecundity, and sacrificial representations, but also that some of these lesser- understood depictions of animals served to individualize the dedicant, or perhaps their occupation.

Of the 110 Punic-period stelae examined here, five stelae (CN 74, 58, 82, 151, and 148) clearly depict a sacrificial scene. Two show a bull’s head, placed on an altar before a dedicant (Carthage, CN 58 and 74), while on the other two stelae from El-

Kenissia, a ram (CN 148) and a quadruped (CN 151) stand next to an altar. Carton

(1906: 92) also interpreted an additional stele (El Kenissia, CN 147) as representing a

19 Dolphins and fish may be interpreted as having agrarian functions as they are water animals, and thus evoked the rains necessary for the success and abundance of crops (Le Glay 1966b: 213). 140 sacrificial scene: a bull and ram were depicted in a ‘grove’ (three palm fronds) with an anthropomorphic figure. Carton (1906: 40) suggested that this was a ‘sacred grove of

Tanit’ and therefore should be interpreted as a sacrificial scene. The ram next to the representation of sacrificial implements (Carthage, CN 82) was likely a sacrificial scene, as each element of the scene would have had a specific function in the sacrificial ritual, and thus accompanied the animal intended for sacrifice.

Other scenes including animals may not have necessarily been sacrificial, but more likely agriculturally or fertility related, and although recognizable to the Punic- period viewers, they remain more ambiguous to present-day researchers: on a pedestal not clearly an altar (Carthage, CN 91, El-Kenissia, CN 149); next to a wheat stalk (19,

36,87) or a grape bunch (Carthage CN 61); with caduceus only (Carthage, CN 1,15, 94,

21,91, Cirta , CN 105); a ram in the base of a ‘sign of Tanit’ (Cirta, CN 103, 104); and the bull shown in a ‘charging’ or ‘butting’ pose (Carthage, CN 31, 32, 56, 80).20

Uncertainty over these less-clear roles is in part due to the fact that some symbols, such as the ‘sign of Tanit’, or the combination of symbols (‘sign of Tanit’ with a caduceus and an open palm) have not yet been fully deciphered. This has caused me to speculate what each animal was meant to communicate. Was a bird, for example, that was placed next to an open palm a representation of the deity, a sacrifice, or something else? The rams or birds depicted next to wheat and grapes, which generally signified fertility and abundance, may not have been sacrificial in nature, but rather representational of the agrarian nature of Ba’al Hammon and/or Tanit, or that which was requested from them, such as bountiful harvests (Le Glay 1966b: 139-140).

20 The ‘charging/butting bull’ depiction is the bull with one foreleg bent and the other forward, head lowered and sometimes facing frontally. The hind legs are slightly apart, and the tail may be flipped over its back. 141

The ‘charging/butting bull’ pose has been found on different types of material remains, such as coins, paintings and sculpture, all across the Mediterranean, and is considered to be a typical iconographic pose of bulls (Comstock 1969: 105-106). Of the assessed sites, this type of pose was only found at Carthage during the Punic period

(specifically the third century B.C.E. onward), with the exception of three examples from

Roman-period Thamugadi (CN 306) and Lambaesis (CN 191, 209). This pose has been found at a higher frequency in other areas not studied here, such as on the Neo-Punic- period La Ghorfa stelae (Moore 2000). Its popularity at other sites may indicate a particular meaning, or it is alternatively possible that it was used to invoke a non-Punic theme, similarly to how using the Egyptianurei would emulate an Egyptian theme.

Beyond animals representing divine aspects, such as agrarian, fertility and abundance (as controlled by the gods), the gods themselves, or the sacrifice, some animals could be taken as embodying part of the dedicant’s identity, although this was a rare occurrence. For example, horses were an important indicator of a person’s wealth, particularly among the indigenous population Cirtaat (Berthier and Charlier 1955: 197-

199; Bertrandy and Sznycer 1987: 77; Mattingly 1995: 40). Horses were expensive to rear and were instrumental for the formation of the cavalry, which would eventually make Numidian peoples valuable to the Roman military (Livy,History o f Rome 29.34).

Although this particular stele was from Carthage, recall the presence of (unridden) horses at Cirta (CN 105-107), and possibly Thugga (CN 363). Elephants, like horses, were also extensively used in the Carthaginian military (e.g., PlinyNatural History, 8.6). They were also not a popular animal to depict, and appeared only twice on stelae from 142

Carthage (CN 20 and 21). As such, it was likely that they also had a more personalized meaning, such as the dedicant’s military position or connection.

Additional stelae that depicted a personalized use of animals included two stelae from Carthage (CN 93 and 95) with dolphins. This is in contrast to the other stelae (from

Carthage and Cirta ) on which the dolphins likely played a divine or fecund role, like the ram, bull, and bird. CN 93 and 95 depicted a dolphin beneath a boat hull or boat rudder

(respectively), suggesting a more individualized meaning: literally, a connection with the ocean. Due to the reference to both a ship of some sort and the habitat of the sea, these stelae could represent a person’s occupation, such as sailor, or acquisition of wealth through marine-based trade.

Regional or Cultural Variation

Observations derived from this particular Punic period sample did not demonstrate consistent regional or cultural variations. The two Punic cities, Carthage and

Hadrumetum, each displayed different choices of iconography on stelae, reflected through a large variation in species as well as exhibiting differences in the frequency of animal remains deposited. At Carthage, up to fourteen species were represented on stelae, and animal remains decreased through the Punic period, while no animals were recorded at Hadrumetum, and animal remains increased. In addition, the two indigenous cities, Cirta and Thugga, also showed a divergence of animal depictions on stelae, between them. Where Thugga had no animals, according to this sample, Cirta had a similar frequency rate to Carthage (three and two percent, respectively).

There were, however, similarities between species variation at Cirta and El-

Kenissia, suggesting that sites outside of Punic Carthage may not have used a wide 143 variety of species in general. At Cirta and El-Kenissia the ram and the bull were most common, although the horse and dolphin were also found Cirta.at As Carthage was a major port city and center for extensive trade with foreigners, it seems reasonable to interpret it as an anomaly and thus perhaps not entirely representative of Punic values.

However, it is possible that that the overall lack of frequency of animals on stelae at any of these sites indicates that foreign values were either similar, or not strong enough at this time to influence the frequency animal depictions.

It is interesting to note that seven out of nine animals (all solitary, not paired) at

Cirta , and 55 of 57 solitary animals at Carthage faced left. O f the remaining 27 animals from Carthage, four had only heads facing frontally, 20 were paired (ten pairs) and faced each other, while three were overhead views or vertically oriented and facing towards the top of the stele. This may not have had any particular significance, or, as suggested by

Dr. Moore (personal communication, 2010), it could be possible that the stelae were aligned in such a manner that all the animals pointed towards a common direction or object, such as an altar. Though it was recorded that stelae were placed in rows, the original orientation of each stele beyond the general direction of the row was not published for any site, so this possibility cannot be tested at this time.

Another similarity between Carthage, Hadrumetum, and El-Kenissia, was that the species of animal remains were the same: lamb or kid, and small birds. This signified that despite the cultural orientation of the town or city, or the frequency of the remains identified, the holocaust offerings made to Ba’al Hammon and Tanit were the same at each site. This was likely influenced by environmental factors that allowed for the ease of rearing sheep or goat, and thus easy accessibility (King 2001: 214). However, the very 144 minimal frequency of animal remains indicated that the holocaust sacrifice of animals was not often practiced, as attested by these urns; remains could have been deposited elsewhere.

Neo-Punic Period

The sites with animal-related evidence from the Neo-Punic period were

Hadrumetum, Henchir el-Hami, Cirta , Thugga and Mactaris. No incinerated remains were recovered from Cirta and Mactaris; however, only the remains from Henchir el-

Hami were published with enough detail for comparative analysis, as explained in

Chapter Five. ‘Indeterminate’-dated stelae from Thugga were analyzed here with other

Neo-Punic stelae because Lantier and Poinssot (1942) believed that the majority of the

250+ stelae they recovered were likely to be from this period, but they did not indicate exactly which ones. Again, it is unclear which stelae from El-Kenissia were from this period, but the general species and frequency of animals on El-Kenissia stelae are presented here only as a comparative sample.

Faunal Remains

As presented in Chapter Five, the faunal remains recovered from Hadrumetum

(Levels 4 and 5) and Henchir el-Hami were identified as being Caprinae (sheep/lamb or goat/kid) and small birds. At Hadrumetum, Level 4 revealed an equal amount of child and animal remains, whereas in Level 5, only animal remains were identified. At

Henchir el-Hami, ums were not identified to Neo-Punic or Roman periods alone, creating difficulties for establishing any temporal trends. However, two identified sub-phases

(‘first century B.C.E. to second century C.E.’ and the first century C.E.) mainly 145 corresponded to the Neo-Punic phase, during which 17 percent of the remains were either an animal (eight percent) or an animal with a child (nine percent). This did not follow the same pattern at Hadrumetum, but followed a similar pattern to that of Punic-period

Carthage (19 and 14 percent, respectively, where animal remains with a child out numbered animals alone), although animal remains were more frequent at Neo-Punic- period Henchir el-Hami than at Punic-period Carthage.

Stelae Remains

Frequency

Like in the Punic period, animals appeared relatively infrequently on stelae, with the exception of those Thugga.at Animals appeared on two (of seven) at Henchir el-

Hami, three (of 24) stelae at Hadrumetum, three (of 59, or five percent) fromCirta, and three (of nine) at Mactaris. In contrast, nearly 87 (of 278, or 30 percent) of the Neo-

Punic and ‘Indeterminate’-dated stelae from Thugga depicted an animal. The stelae of

‘indeterminate’ date from Hadrumetum had no animals, continuing the pattern of infrequent use from the Punic period, as the remaining three stelae (each with an animal) date to the Roman period.

Unlike during the Punic period, no animal appeared at all sites, but the variation of species continued to be the same as at Punic-period sanctuaries outside of Carthage: the bull, ram, horse, bird, dolphin, and fish. In addition, a crab was depicted twice at

Hadrumetum. ‘Indeterminate’-dated stelae from Cirta and Henchir el-Hami with animals could not be attributed to any particular period because they were either too fragmented or not described with enough detail. However, the depicted animals did not differ than those found on Neo-Punic- or Roman-period stelae. If any of these stelae were from the 146

Neo-Punic period, none of them stood out as being particularly different. No sub-phases were identified at the above sites, with the exception ofHadrumetum ; however, there were no discemable temporal patterns of animal use within the Neo-Punic period.

Location / Role on the Stelae

Clear delineation of stelae into two, three, or more registers (see Chapter Three) began to appear during the Neo-Punic period, alongside stelae that were more freely composed, as found during the Punic period. All animals were generally shown in the mid- or lowest zone or register, with the exception of birds and dolphins, which remained in the upper two zones or registers.Mactaris had one exception to this: CN 243 depicted a bird below the dedicant. No other bird was shown below a dedicant.

In general, stelae continued to depict animals playing an ambiguous role at

Hadrumetum, Cirta, Mactaris, and Thugga; however, 10 stelae depicted them in a sacrificial role, which appeared at three sites: Hadrumetum, Henchir el-Hami, and

Thugga. The sacrificial animals were a lamb ( Hadrumetum, CN 154), a ram (Henchir el-

Hami, CN 159, Thugga, CN 419-422,425,442,447), and a bull ( Thugga, CN 369). The scene was portrayed in three different ways since no two sites used the same contextual presentation. At Hadrumetum, the scene depicted three male dedicants carrying the offering together. The second method, from Henchir el-Hami, was the depiction of the ram in the lower register, generally reserved for sacrificial animals (see Chapter Three).

Finally, occurring only atThugga during this period, the bull or ram was depicted next to an altar, or climbing stairs to the top of an altar.

Only two stelae, both fromMactaris (CN 242 and 244), depicted animals in the upper zone or registers of the stelae, which were generally reserved for divine symbols. 147

On CN 244, two birds hold a strand of garland, which may have symbolized fertility

(Ramage and Ramage 1991: 94) or had been a form of decoration without implied

meaning. On CN 242, the inscription lists only Ba’al Hammon, but the usual association

between Tanit and the birds and dolphins (as presented in Chapter Two) leads to the

questions of whether or not these two birds and two dolphins were supposed to represent

Tanit, despite her not being listed in the inscription. The trouble with interpreting these as

divine representations is that this is only one of nine stelae from this period atMactaris,

possibly suggesting that depicting the divine in this manner was not particularly common.

One additional scene from Henchir el-Hami (CN 160) included a dedicant holding

a cornucopia and a palm frond, while a bird flew beside and pecked from the palm frond.

Cornucopias have been interpreted as symbols of fertility, and plam fronds as victory or

in conjunction with bird pecking grapes as representation of fertility, or perhaps even

eternal life (Hours-Miedan 1950: 45; Le Glay 1966b: 197, 356). Perhaps this stelae

alludes to what it was the dedicant requested from the Ba’al Hammon or Tanit, such as a

successful harvest, fertile, healthy herds, or simply good fortune.

The animals in more ambiguous roles included: a ram in the base of a ‘sign of

Tanit’ (Thugga, CN 248); a bull’s head, frontally facing, located above an inscription

{Cirta, CN 109); a bull with raised front leg depicted alone above an inscription {Cirta,

CN 113); a horse head below several zones of symbols and niched inscription {Cirta, CN

110); and a lone bird, wings outstretched, below a dedicant {Mactaris, CN 243). As suggested for Punic-period stelae, the bull’s head may have been the symbolic representation of Ba’al Hammon. The horse likely continued to play the role of 148

individualizing the dedicant, or more specifically, that person’s wealth and/or social

status, similar to its Punic-period counterpart.

The bird on CN 243, on the other hand, was depicted in an area that was generally

interpreted as the area for animal sacrifices, below the dedicant (Hours-Miedan 1950: 54;

Le Glay 1966b: 311); however, its pose suggests otherwise. The opened wingspan with

its head in profile is similar to depictions of eagles used in Graeco-Roman fashion to

represent Jupiter. However, the various contexts in which eagles have been found in

North Africa, such as coins, or sculpture, indicate that it was not used to solely represent

one god; as such, it likely represented power and authority in this context (Moore 2000:

70).

The two crabs on stelae fromHadrumetum were located at the bottom of their respective stele, directly below an inscription and other symbols (CN 152 and 153). It was not exactly clear what the crab was a symbol of, and the inscriptions followed the typical ‘to [deity], from [dedicant]’ pattern, providing no additional context for the crab.

It was proposed by Moore (2011, personal communication) that these crabs also played an individualizing role for the dedicant. The crabs may have been used as an indication of maritime trade, such as with whom the dedicant traded. For example, the crab had been used by the Greek island of Kos on coins between the sixth and third centuries

B.C.E. and became a sort of identifying signature for that island (Paton and Hicks 1891; de Kay 1917). The crabs on two stelae from Hadrumetum may have been used in a similar way. The inscription on stele CN 152 translates as “vow of Hanno, the son of

Mago, son of Hanno... thatthey do good because (she [Tanit]) has heard his voice, (she) blessed them (Cintas 1947: 37, my italics). The pluralisation of the recipient of the 149 blessing may indicate that a familial group made and was granted a request, and the crab was a sort of symbol for the family or family business. But what is to be made of two stelae with crabs from the same period? Perhaps the same familial group made two requests, first by the father then some years later, by a son or simply the dedication made by the same person twice. Unfortunately, the inscription of the second stele (CN 153) was not provided.

The ‘Indeterminate’-date stelae from Cirta (eight stelae), Henchir el-Hami (four stelae), and Thugga (86 stelae, which may have in fact been from the Neo-Punic period), depicted an animal with no accompanying symbols, in no identifiable scene, or were too fragmented to identify beyond the presence of the animal. All of these animals that were depicted in publications (unillustrated stelae were not described in great detail) appeared in the mid- to lower zones of the stele. If any of these stelae were from the Neo-Punic period, it is unclear what their role was.

Regional or Cultural Variation

The relatively small number of stelae with animals at Hadrumetum, Cirta, and

Mactaris, compared to the large amount fromThugga, suggests that selection of which stelae were published may have been heavily biased, or that this period was unintentionally misrepresented due to the difficulty of determining the dates for stelae.

As a result it appears, rightly or wrongly, that animals were more commonly depicted at

Thugga than at any other site. In addition, the small sample size makes it difficult to conclusively detect many regional or cultural variations. That being said, there was one noticeable regional variation: no birds appeared on stelae fromCirta or Thugga, but birds 150 were commonly found on stelae fragments fromMactaris, and would continue to be during the Roman period.

Roman Period

The sites with animal-related evidence from the Roman period were Carthage,

Hadrumetum, Henchir el-Hami, Cirta, Thugga and Mactaris, Sitifis, Cuicul, Theveste,

Lambaesis, and Thamugadi. Incinerated remains that were clearly identified with the

Roman period were found only at Henchir el-Hami;Theveste and Thamugadi also had incinerated animal remains, but no details as to which species or how many urns were recovered were accessible at this time. Sub-phases during the Roman period were identified at Sitifis, Cuicul, Theveste, Lambaesis, and Thamugadi, but not all stelae displayed distinctive sub-phase characteristics. For the purpose of this thesis, these stelae were placed in the ‘Indeterminate’-date category but included in the analysis, knowing that they were from the Roman period.

Faunal Remains

As presented in Chapter Five, faunal remains were identified as being Caprinae

(sheep/lamb or goat/kid) and small birds. Unfortunately, temporal comparisons could not be made with any other site, with the exception ofHadrumetum, which produced no remains in the Roman-period level, Level 6. In addition, the estimated time periods established by Tore (2007: 291-301) for the urns in which the remains were found at

Henchir el-Hami overlapped considerably, limiting intra-site comparisons.

What could be observed was the general frequency of animals with or without a child in the first century B.C.E. to third century C.E. and the second to third centuries 151

C.E. sub-phases. Animals accounted for 43 percent of the remains, with 36 percent of the ums containing animal remains alone (Caprinae or bird); how many of these remains actually belong to the Neo-Punic period is unclear. This is reminiscent of the equal occurrence of child to animal remains in the early Neo-Punic period Hadrumetum.at

However, it is clear that child remains continued to make up a significant part of the

Roman-period remains, which is so very different fromHadrumetum.

Stelae Remains

Frequency

Unlike in the Punic and Neo-Punic periods, animals appeared on stelae far more frequently during the Roman period. Although the sample sizes were relatively small from Hadrumetum (three of three), Thugga (six of 20), Henchir el-Hami (four of 17),

Carthage (three of 13), and Cirta (two of 11), animals appeared on a higher proportion of the sampled stelae than during the two previous periods. AtMactaris, Sitifis, Cuicul,

Theveste, Lambaesis, and Thamugadi, animals appeared on 40 to 56 percent of stelae.

All the ‘Indeterminate’-date stelae from Sitifis, Cuicul, Theveste, Lambaesis, and

Thamugadi were from the Roman period, although unidentifiable to a particular sub­ phase. Despite the identification of sub-phases at these sites, as well as at Hadrumetum, temporal patterns of animal frequency and variation were not generally apparent. The only exception appeared to be atCuicul, where rams appeared only in the early to mid- second century C.E., in contrast to the bull, which appeared in all sub-phases.

The bull and the ram continued to be the animals commonly depicted at most sites. The bull appeared at all but Hadrumetum and Cirta, and significantly outnumbered the appearance of rams at Sitifis (12 versus seven) and especially Cuicul (19 versus four). 152

Rams, on the other hand, appeared at all sites exceptMactaris , and significantly outnumbered the appearance of bulls atTheveste {18 versus nine),Lambaesis (71 versus three), and Thamugadi (43 versus 19). The other types of animals on stelae remained limited to the bird/dove, horse, lamb, lion, dolphin, and fish. Only at Mactaris did the bird (38 times) outnumber the dolphin (14 times), fish (12 time), and the bull (three times).

Location / Role on the Stelae

The location of animals on stelae, as well as their role, was more structured during the Roman period than during the Punic and Neo-Punic periods, and was closely linked with the role of the animal. Most stelae with animals were divided into three or more registers. The top register depicted Saturn (and occasionally Caelestis), along with attendants, such as Sol and Luna, the Dioscuri, or other anthropomorphic figures. The animals that appeared in the top registers included the lion, bull, ram, horse, and bird.

The lion was the only animal that was not also attested in the middle or lower registers.

Apart from being a companion to Saturn (who was depicted with Caelestis on three occasions, CN 344, 358, 361), the lion was depicted three times attacking another animal

(Cuicul, CN 138; Sitifis, CN 284, 287), a scene with Middle Eastern origins and many additional Greek precedents (Markoe 1989: 89). All horses were paired and presented as the mounts for the Dioscuri. Occasionally birds appeared, generally holding garlands.

Mactaris was a slight exception to these divisions. Unlike on other typical

Roman-period stelae, Saturn and/or Caelestis and their attendants were not depicted; rather a collection of birds and/or dolphins and fish was selected. The frequency of birds and fish or dolphins at the top of any one stele (together, between two and eight) suggests 153 that they were not individual representations of the gods, but continued in the fecundity roles (such as for successful crops) from the Punic and Neo-Punic traditions.

The middle register(s) at all Roman-period sites assessed here were typically reserved for the depiction of the dedicant(s) who might or might not be depicted standing next to an altar. When animals were shown here, it was typically in a sacrificial capacity.

Small birds or lambs were held by the dedicant, or a ram or bull was located at the dedicant’s feet, sometimes behind the dedicant. There appeared to be no specific association between the gender of the dedicant and the offering held in his/her arms, although it was generally the woman who held the animal in male/female couples.

Animals in the lowest register, typically reserved for a bull(s) or ram(s), were accepted in this thesis to represent sacrificial animals for several reasons. The first was that on 14 percent (32 of 232) of Roman-period stelae, the bull or ram in the lowest register was located standing next to an altar (8 times) and/or near anthropomorphic figures (24 times), some of whom held sacrificial instruments, such as on CN 184. This patterning, along with the regular division of stelae into divine and human realms, has led

Le Glay (1966b: 350-351) to suggest that other animals (typically rams or bulls) in the lower registers not accompanied by an anthropological figures were also sacrificial animals. Furthermore, the hierarchical placement of animals known to have had divine significance (as a symbolic stand-in for the gods, companions, or even as sides of the thrones for both Saturn and Caelestis) in a level below that of human, suggests that the animal was not representing the divine, nor the identity of the dedicant, as suggested during the Punic and Neo-Punic periods. Thus, an animal in the lowest register represented the sacrifice. 154

In addition to being sacrificial, however, some of these animals may have

continued in the Punic role of symbolizing fecundity or agrarian natures. Three rams

were depicted next to or eating wheat stalks (Thamugadi, CN 301, 328-329), and two

single rams and two bull and ram pairs were eating from baskets (, Lambaesis , CN 232,

Thamugadi, CN 300, 307, and 309).

In contrast to the Punic period, approximately 62 percent of animals faced left

(versus 94 percent), while 38 percent faced right, and no one species of animal

consistently faced left or right. This may have been a development of the transition from

incising to carving. As the technique for carving stone became more sophisticated, the

ability to manipulate the desired image was likely easier, and thus allowed for a higher

variation of animal direction. The decision to depict the animal facing left or right was

likely a superficial decision, based on these incising or carving techniques.

Regional or Cultural Variation

One noticeable regional variation was the higher frequency of lions depicted at

Sitifis and Cuicul, and the higher frequency of birds and marine animals (dolphins and

fish) at Mactaris. At Sitifis (a Roman site) and Cuicul (an indigenous site), only 49 km

apart, lions were depicted more often than at any other site analyzed here. These two

sites were also the only two sites to depict the lion attacking another animal (such as a

bull or deer). Le Glay (1966b: 141) suggested that the lion might have been more

important at indigenous and Punic sites rather than at Roman sites, as it was an important divine symbol before the Roman period. The lion has appeared on Numidian coins, such

as for King Juba I during the early 40s B.C.E. (Sayles 1998: 113). AlthoughSitifis was

of Roman origin, it was established well within indigenous territory. As a result, 155 dedicants may have valued the presence of the lion as a companion to Saturn, formerly

Ba’al Hammon, or used the lion to show a continuation of their regional values.

A second noticeable variation was the predominance of birds, dolphins, and fish at Mactaris. No other site, even coastal sites, from within this sample displayed nearly as many marine animals, especially in the upper sections of the stele. It is possible that rams and bulls were once present, as all the stelae recovered generally did not have the lowest register preserved, only the upper or mid sections. There was one stele that depicted the dedicant standing between a bull and an altar, indicating that sacrificial roles did occur.

It would be interesting to see if other sanctuaries from the nearby area also held a preference for birds and marine animals.

There also appeared to be no culturally-related pattern as to where the ram occurred more frequently than the bull, or vice versa, either in a sacrificial or divine companion function. For example,Thamugadi and Lambaesis, both originally Roman, displayed a higher frequency of rams alongside the indigenous town ofTheveste. On the other hand, at the indigenous town ofCuicul, rams appeared only between the early and mid-second century C.E., after which the bull was the main animal representation. This is compared to its Roman neighbour,Sitifis, which displayed an equal number of bull and ram representations.

Interpretations of Animal Conceptualization

As outlined in Chapter Four, animal conceptualization for the indigenous, Punic, and Roman cultures in North Africa appeared to display naturalistic modes of identification, along with some totemic elements, and mainly a protectionist mode of relation. However, the societal differences between these cultures were expected to influence how animals were used or displayed within the sanctuaries of Ba’al

Hammon/Satum and Tanit/Caelestis. For example, based on the societal systems exhibited by the Punic and Roman cultures, it was projected that animals in Punic and

Roman sanctuaries would play sacrificial or divine roles on stelae with hierarchical ordering, more so than in indigenous sanctuaries. However, the indigenous sites during the Punic period were not expected to look wholly different from other Punic period sanctuaries because by the Punic period, indigenous groups already experienced several centuries of contact with Punic people. The question was, were there any noticeable differences between sanctuaries of Punic and indigenous origin that may have been a factor of animal conceptualization? In the end, I found that while certain elements of animal conceptualization did appear different between the cultures and time periods, as presented below, others remained constant.

At the beginning of this chapter, I noted three general observations of the materials under study. The first observation was the consistent use of specific animals in the faunal remains, as well as on stelae (with exception of Carthage) between all cultures and time periods. The faunal remains analyzed in this study represented the holocaust offerings made by dedicants, or sacrifices specifically linked with the presentation of children to the gods. The common use of lamb, kid, small birds or Passeriformes reported from the Punic, Neo-Punic and Roman periods, indicate that holocaust offerings made were fairly standard, following the typical Punic choice, even though the number of offerings recovered was not particularly large. Unfortunately, scholars could not always distinguish between sheep or goat. Based on the common description of the remains as 157

lamb/sheep at Carthage, and a lack of goat remains at Henchir el-Hami, it appeared that lamb/sheep were likely a preferred choice over kid/goat for these two sanctuaries.

The consistency of animal choice between the Punic cities, Carthage and

Hadrumetum, and the indigenous town, whose sanctuary was not established until after the fall of Carthage (146 B.C.E.) suggests that sanctuaries in other indigenous communities would have selected the same repertoire of holocaust offerings. In addition, it shows the continuation of Punic and indigenous interaction and influence in the North

African interior. The continued importance of sheep or goats to North Africans despite political changes and cultural interactions, is also indicated through a steady use of

Caprinae for meat throughout the three periods (King 2001:314). In this sense, the conceptualization of which animals were used for holocaust offerings remained consistent.

The use of lamb versus kid was not likely to be significant sacrificially, as they were listed as the same price in the Marseille and Carthage tariffs, although the sex or colour of the animal may have needed to be specific for particular gods or times of the year (Pritchard 1955: 502-503; Firth 1963: 18). Economically, however, there may have been a difference. Sheep and goats were valued for their secondary products (milk and cheese), but sheep produced wool more viable for clothing (MacKinnon 2004: 112, 119).

In Roman Italy, the number of goats in a herd was less than the number of sheep in a flock, mostly because disease spread quicker through goatherds than through sheep flocks

(MacKinnon 2004: 119). Therefore, the preference of lamb over kid for these holocaust sacrifices may have simply been the ease of accessibility and maintenance of herds. The second observation was that animal remains disappear by the end of the

Roman period. Animal remains on their own were rare and were outnumbered by animals buried with children. The minimal number of animal remains seemed rather reasonable, as these only represent holocaust offerings, while regular or communal offerings were either eaten by the dedicants or the meats sold in a market, as commonly practiced throughout the Mediterranean as a method to include meat in the diet (Gilhus

2006: 17). This would have been in addition to the various types of bloodless sacrifices, such as fruits, cakes and perfumes, which were also acceptable (Pritchard 1955: 50-503;

Le Glay 1966b: 35-351). At Henchir el-Hami, over two thousand unguentaria were collected from throughout the sanctuary, far outnumbering both child and animal remains together (Ferjaoui 2007: 59, 67-69).Hadrumetum 's Roman level also revealed a large number ofunguentaria. This may reflect a change in cult practices as it moved away from holocaust offerings, but it is impossible to tell if or when they replaced all animal offerings. However, the higher presence ofunguentaria does represent a shift in cult practices, thus perhaps also in animal conceptualization, reflecting cultural shifts in North

Africa.

It is interesting to note that the commonly-identified avian remains were small birds, or, as identified by Bedoui and Oueslati (2007), ‘Passeriformes’, as opposed to more typical birds, such fowl or the dove. Although all three types of birds were listed in the tariffs at the same price point (Pritchard 1955), it was the smaller bird that was chosen in the end at Henchir el-Hami. In addition, it is not really possible to tell if all birds on stelae were doves, pigeons, or Passerifomres, particularly when the image is so small.

Were the images generic birds, or were they supposed to be species specific? Perhaps 159

because the dedicant had no intention of exacting a ritual meal as part of the sacrifice,

such as for a primary rather than secondary ritual, the smaller bird was considered just as

appropriate. Or, because urns cannot not be specifically matched with stelae, perhaps

they represented offerings of poorer people.

This brings back the question of whether these animals were actually secondary

offerings, made only upon the erection of the stele. If the sacrifice was used to

commemorate a secondary function, such as accompanying the dedication of a stele, one

might expect far more urns with animals alone. Still, the sample from Carthage was only

a small portion of the total urns recovered (428 of supposedly 20,000), it is possible that

certain areas of the sanctuary were reserved for animal versus child remains, or perhaps a

larger sample would simply yield more animal remains. For example, in some

sanctuaries, such as El-Kenissia (Carton 1906: 28) andHadrumetum (Cintas 1947: 35),

there were areas recovered that revealed large amounts of ash with larger faunal remains

matching the species listed in the sacrificial tariffs. If one such area was reserved for

disposing of the remains of larger sacrifices, animal remains may have been relegated to

certain areas. However, when the remains from Henchir el-Hami were compared here

with their location on the map of urns provided by Ferjaoui (2007), no pattern of

specialized areas was apparent.

The use of these animals (as well as lamb and kid) as secondary offerings would

also partially explain why the faunal remains recovered did not appear to be inherently

linked to the animal iconography on the stele that marked them. As indicated above,

some of the animals on stelae were interpreted as individualizing elements on the stele.

As such, the remains would not be expected to correlate with images on stelae. 160

Furthermore, during the Roman period, if stelae are to be read literally, large bulls and rams were sacrificed. These remains would not have fit into the ums recovered at the feet of stelae. The remaining problem with interpreting animals as secondary offerings is that the frequency of remains was far less than the frequency of animals on stelae.

However, this may only be due to small sample sizes or minimal publication.

The first observation (the number of species represented) and the third observation (increase of animal representations over time) are difficult to separate. The type of animal displayed appears to be linked with the way stelae are composed during each of the different periods. For example, throughout each period, the bull, ram, bird, lion, horse, dolphin and fish, are displayed at nearly each site, with varying degrees of frequency. These animals all have non-secular associations on the stele, such as divine stand-in, divine attribute or companion, agricultural, and fecundity. On the other hand, some stelae appear to demonstrate a more personalizing role (five during the Punic period, and twice in the Neo-Punic period). Although not all animal roles on stelae were identifiable, Carthage was the only site to display a large variety of animals that did not have a readily identifiable or interpretable role. Why this is so remains unclear. Perhaps due to the nature of Carthage’s position as a major port and political centre. Regardless, the use of the more typical animals listed above to represent the divine ontological level indicates the naturalistic mode of identification; the images were not, however, hierarchically arranged in the Punic sanctuaries, as was expected. The link between some animals and additional indicators of fertility, such as the grapes or wheat, implied the dependency of humans on both the divine and the natural world for survival, corresponding with the protectionist mode of relation. Humans looked after domesticated 161 animals, which in turn helped humans by consenting to be the sacrificed gift to the gods, who were perceived to bestow benevolence and protection. This furthered the identification of the naturalistic mode, wherein the world was hierarchically ranked

(divine, human, and natural).

It should be remembered, though, that the number of stelae with animals identified from Carthage makes up less than two percent of the published total of stelae from this sanctuary. This means that animals in general were not a popular choice to use on stelae, regardless of their role or what species it was. This was not expected, considering the long list of animals accepted for sacrifice to Ba’al Hammon (as listed on the tariffs), and the known Punic period animal attributes and companions to the gods.

Changes in animal conceptualization appear most readily when animals on stelae are compared between the three periods. For example, as per the third observation, there is a noticeable increase of animal representations on stelae from the Punic (1.7 percent) and the Neo-Punic periods (9.2 percent) to the Roman period (43 percent) (Table 5.8).

It was not possible to determine any major differences between the indigenous and Punic populations during the Punic period due to the sporadic appearance of animals at all sites under analysis here. It may have been that some animal conceptualization changes occurred before the use of stelae in sanctuaries, since the indigenous and Punic peoples had been in direct or indirect contact for several centuries prior. Also,cippi had been used as dedicatory monuments prior to the fourth century B.C.E., and animals were not typically depicted on these throne- or L-shaped monuments. Only onecippus was found with an animal from the publications assessed here: acippus from Carthage depicted an incised, horizontally-aligned dolphin, facing left (Picard n.d. [1955]: 85, Cb- 162

169). It is possible that other animals were once depicted by paint on stucco that has not preserved, as had occurred on stelae from El-Kenissia (Carton 1906: 92), but generally animals were uncommon until the advent of stelae in the fourth century B.C.E., after which their frequency increased during the Neo-Punic, then Roman periods.

During the Neo-Punic period, the populations of North Africa experienced an influx of Roman peoples, as veteran colonies and military posts were established, and previously-established towns or cities were granted a partial or full Roman city status.

For example,Hadrumetum was granted colonial status and Sitifis was established as a veteran colony in the mid to late first century C.E. (see Chapter Five). At the same time,

Neo-Punic period stelae began to reflect changes in animal conceptualization, as well as some more recognizable regional variations. Although the Punic-style layout of iconography continued, sculptors began to draw from Roman funerary stelae for inspiration of layouts, as Romans did not generally leave dedicatory stelae in sanctuaries

(Moore 2000: 94). This resulted in stelae with a stricter hierarchical arrangement into divine, dedicant, and sacrifice areas, typically divided into registers.

This created a clearer distinction between animals representing the divinities or celestial world from those that were intended to be the offering. Although these divisions were difficult to determine at Cirta, as most animals played ambiguous roles, atThugga more stelae were appearing with rams or bulls standing before altars that were located below larger symbols, such as the ‘sign of Tanit’ and the crescent and disc/flower/star.

At Mactaris and Henchir el-Hami, stelae showed a separation of the pediment area from the body of the stelae, which displayed a dedicant or an offering. At Hadrumetum, although only one stele had an animal, the middle zone displayed people standing before 163 altars, preparing to or in the middle of giving an offering. Animals were beginning to be shown in a less ambiguous role in stelae composition, even if they were not shown in high frequency at each site. This separation of zones and clearer identification of animal roles became much pronounced during the Roman period.

The placement of animals into their own register, particularly the ram, was not new. At Carthage between the third century and 146 B.C.E., the ram was typically depicted in its own register-like area, between an upper and a lower zone of other symbols. The major difference between these rams and those found on Neo-Punic-, and later Roman-period stelae in the lower register was that the role of these later rams was clear. The Punic-period rams had been more ambiguous to present-day researchers. This move away from animals in ambiguous or individualizing roles to those more specifically divine or sacrificial in function represents a shift from the totemic mode of relation to one that had more elements of the naturalistic mode. This shift, seen at the indigenous sites, was more in accordance with what I had been expecting to observe from this sample.

The Roman period continued to show the division of stelae into the hierarchical ordering of divine and dedicant, with a higher frequency of stelae also depicting a register for the sacrifice. However, the use of animals as divine representatives or agricultural or fecundity indicators became far fewer, as the top zone primarily depicted Saturn (twice with Caelestis at Thamugadi) and his attendants; instead animals were often relegated to the role of companion animals.Mactaris was the exception, where birds, dolphins, and fish continued to be used rather than anthropomorphic figures in the upper register. As described above, nearly all animals in the middle or lower registers, now limited to lamb, bird, ram, or bull, were sacrificial in nature. This focus on the division reflects further 164 change into a naturalistic mode of identification, and the continuation of the protectionist mode of relation.

During the Roman period, stelae were dedicated to Saturn at all the sites under analysis here, although Caelestis was depicted next to Saturn on two stelae from

Thamugadi and has been included in stelae inscriptions from Thinissut (modem Bir Bou

Rekba) (Le Glay 1961: 98-99). During the Punic and Neo-Punic periods it was clear here that even though Tanit was attested at most sites under analysis, she was not as dominant outside of Carthage. Furthermore, by the third century C.E., she had her own temples.

Saturn continued to be worshipped in a fashion similar to Ba’al Hammon suggesting that the separation of Caelestis and the change of offerings presented to her was more an ideological and organizational change, rather than necessarily linked to animal conceptualization. It was not that animals were no longer used in the communications and interactions between the people and Caelestis, as attested by the continued use for communications with Saturn, but that the worship of Caelestis had changed. 165

Chapter Seven: Conclusions

As presented in Chapter Four, the three populations of ancient North Africa appeared to display similar types of modes of identification (naturalism and elements of totemism) and modes of relation (protection). However, as these modes are not mutually exclusive, I expected to see characteristic distinctions in animal-related evidence from sanctuaries in indigenous, Punic, and Roman cities. With these distinctions, I intended to determine if there were changes between the Punic (fifth century B.C.E. to 146 B.C.E.),

Neo-Punic (146 B.C.E. to late first century C.E.) and Roman (late first century to late fourth century C.E.) periods. Although there were gaps in the animal-related evidence that made some temporal comparisons difficult, there were recognizable differences between which and how animals were depicted on stelae between the three cultures and time periods. Some of these differences were superficial, while others were much more significant. These more significant variations were interpreted here as changes in animal conceptualization.

During the Punic period, animals appeared to.be used as a personalizing element, evident only once in the Neo-Punic period, and not identified in the Roman period.

Although this was most certainly not a common occurrence, it indicates a relationship wherein animals played a significant role that was recognized in daily life. They went beyond sustenance and divine communication to being part of expressing one’s identity.

By the Roman period, however, animals were largely relegated to the sacrificial role, and occasionally appearing as companions or indicators of the divine. They were no longer being used for personal identity, but were separated into either the realm of the divine, or of nature, which was dominated by humans. The sanctuaries no longer just reflected the 166 vow by a dedicant, but also focused on the dedicants themselves, and their ability to satisfy the ritual requirements.

The differences in animal conceptualization between the indigenous and Punic groups did not appear to be significant. Although Carthage showed a greater variety of animal species and various identifiable roles during the Punic period,Hadrumetum, the other Punic city under analysis, did not use animals at all, according to the published sample available. In addition, El-Kenissia, although unclear if of Punic or indigenous origins, had a very limited display of animal species (ram and bull) which only differed from the indigenous sanctuaries(Cirta and Thugga) by their inclusion of the horse and dolphin. However, these animals were all found in a similar variety of roles: sacrificial, individualistic, divine, and fecundity.

The greatest change appeared between the Punic/Neo-Punic and the Roman periods. Roman-period worshippers definitely had a different use of animals in religious settings. They were far stricter about the composition, and thus the placement of animals.

In addition, lions and bulls appeared more often, and animal roles become less ambiguous. The fact that the surrounding population began to emulate this compositional form indicates that there were surrounding cultural changes, where indigenous and Punics were adopting some Roman cultural expressions.

Did this reflect a change in animal conceptualization? Likely, over a period of time. The fewer the people who displayed animals as a reflection of their identity, such as during the Punic and Neo-Punic periods, would eventually lead to its phasing out completely, assuming individuals had a large amount of control of stele composition. If they were changing cultural expression through the adoption of Roman material 167 expressions, then over time it was likely that there were deeper, culture value changes occurring also (Gilhus 2006). To further assess these cultural changes, however, use of animals outside of the sanctuary, such as for dietary, agricultural, and entertainment purposes need to be assessed in tandem.

This research fits well with research of culture change in ancient North Africa because the dominating cultures in various areas shifted between indigenous, Punic and

Roman control during the Punic, Neo-Punic and Roman periods. The modem scholarship that has tried to understand the changes that happened to the North African cultures has also undergone three shifts of perception: the enforcement by or embracement of the perceived ‘superior’ culture by the non-dominant groups

(‘Punicization’ or ‘Romanization’); outright resistance to the dominant group; and the general continuation of the non-dominant group, with certain cultural traits exchanged between the dominant and non-dominant group (‘acculturation’). This research adds to the latest development, ‘acculturation’ by showing that changes did not occur exactly the same at every site, nor did change necessarily occur at each site. However, the continuous interaction between the three cultures, inevitably, resulted in some cultural changes.

The next step to assessing animal conceptualization in North Africa would be to gather more evidence from the different time periods. It must be remembered, however, that the conclusions reached during this study are limited to these sites in particular. The variation of animal depictions expressed on stelae between these 12 sites in particular indicate that other sites from North Africa likely show further variations. As such, their inclusion in this analysis could modify the above inferences on animal conceptualization. 168

Assessment of animals in day-to-day life may also be useful. For example, more studies

on diet before the beginning of Roman political control, such as a difference between

indigenous and Punic diet, may also reveal more about what animals were continuously

interacted with, and thus perhaps which were more likely to be sacrificed.

Overall, the application of animal conceptualization theory to the archaeological

record has shown promise. It has allowed animal-related materials from the sanctuaries to

be examined for subtle changes that other, more simplified theories and interpretations

have missed, such as animal roles linked to a dedicant’s identity. Through the

examination of one small line of evidence from a large and complex cultural group, this

study has provided a generalized insight into the scope of change that a culture has

experienced through continued direct or indirect contact. Given a larger, more complete

body of data, it may be possible to provide a more detailed analysis into the pace and

degree of culture change in areas with extensive cultural interaction. 169

References Cited

BCTH = Bulletin archeologique du comite des travaux historiques et scientifiques. CRAI = Comptes rendus de I ’academie des inscriptions et belles-lettres.

Ancient Sources The Digest o f Justinian. 1985 Edited by T. Mommsen and P. Krueger. Translated by A. Watson. University of Pennsylvania Press, Pennsylvania.

Augustine 1968 The Teacher. In Saint Augustine: The Teacher; The Free Choice o f the Will; Grace and Free Will. Translated by Robert P. Russell. The Catholic University of America Press, Washington, D.C.

Cicero 1995 De Re Publica: selections. Edited by James E.G. Zetzel. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Diodorus Siculus 1960 Library o f History. Translated by C.H. Oldfather. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

Dionysius of Halicarnassus 1963 Roman Antiquities. Translated by Earnest Cary. William Heinemann Ltd, London.

Ennius 1925 Annals. Translated by E. Steuart. William Heinemann Ltd, London.

Philo of Byblos 1981 Phoenician History. InPhilo o f Byblos, The Phoenician History: Introduction, Critical Text, Translation, Notes, edited by H.W. Attridge and R.A. Oden, Jr. Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph 9. Catholic Biblical Association of America, Washington, DC.

Plato 1925 Plato in Twelve Volumes, Vol. IX: Minos. Translated by W.R.M. Lamb. William Heinemann Ltd, London.

Pliny 1975 Natural History. Translated by H. Rackham. William Heinemann Ltd, London. 170

Plutarch 1959 Moralia, vol VII: De Sera Numinis Vindicta. Translated by Philip H. De Lacy and Benedict Einarson. William Heinemann Ltd, London.

1961 [1931] Moralia, vol III: Regum et Imperatorum. Translated by Frank C. Babbitt. William Heinemann Ltd, London.

1962 [1928] Moralia, vol II: De Superstitione. Translated by Frank C. Babbitt. William Heinemann Ltd, London.

1968 On the Cleverness o f Animals. Translated by H. Chemiss and W.C. Hembold. Loeb Classical Library, London: Heinemann.

Polybius 1960 The Histories. Translated by Paton, W.R. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

Quintus Curtius Rufias 1984 History o f Alexander. Translated by John Yardley. Penguin Books, New York.

Silius Italicus 1927 Punica. Translated J.D. Duff. William Heinemann Ltd, London.

Tertullian 1960 Apology. Translated by G H. Rendall. William Heinemann Ltd, London.

Biblical Sources (Good News Bible, Canadian Bible Society) 1976 Good News Bible. The Bible in Today's English Version. Canadian Bible Society, Toronto.

Secondary Sources Abdallah, Zeineb Ben and Liliane Ennabli 1998 Caelestis et Carthage. Antiquites africaines 34: 175-183.

Allais, Yvonne 1938 Djemila. Societe D’Edition “Les Belles Lettres”, Paris.

Alvard, Michael S. and Lawrence Kuznar 2001 Deferred Harvests: The Transition from Hunting to Animal Husbandry. American Anthropologist 103(2): 295-311. 171

Anderson-Stojanovic, Virginia R. 1987 The Chronology and Function of CeramicUnguentaria. American Journal of Archaeology 91(1): 105-122.

Andringa, William Van 2007 Religions and the Integration of Cities in the Empire in the Second Century A.D.: The Creation of a Common Religious Language. A In Companion to Roman Religion, edited by Jorg Riipke. Blackwell Publishing, Malden, Massachusetts. Pp. 83-95.

Anthony, R. 1924 A propos des ossements du sanctuaire de Tanit a Carthage. Revue tunisienne 30: 174-175.

Arnold, A. James 1996 Monsters, Tricksters, and Sacred Cows'. Animal Tales and American Identities. University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville.

Aubet, Marian Eugenia 1996 The Phoenicians and the West: Politics, Colonies and Trade. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Baines, John and Peter Lacovara 2002 Burial and the Dead in Ancient Egyptian Society: Respect, Formalism, Neglect. Journal o f Social Archaeology 2(5): 5-36.

Ballu, M. 1911 Inscriptions decouvertes a Djemila et a Timgad. BCTH 30: CXCIX-CCI.

Beattie, J.FLM. 1980 On Understanding Sacrifice. In Sacrifice , edited by M.F.C. Bourdillon and Meyer Fortes. Pp. 29-44.

Bedoui, H. And T. Oueslati. 2007 Les incinerations votives humaines et animales du sanctuaire. InLe sanctuaire de Henchir el-Hami de Ba ’al Hammon au Saturne africain: T ' s. av. J.C. - IV* s ap. J.C., edited by A. Ferjaoui. Pp. 450-468.

Benichou-Safar, Helene 1981 A propos des ossements humains du tophet de Carthage.Rivista di studi fenici 9: 5-9.

1982 Les tombes puniques de Carthage: topographie, structures, inscriptions et rites funeraires. Editions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris. 172

Berger, Phillipe 1890 Steles trouvees a Hadrumete. Gazette archeologique 9:51-56.

Berthier, A. and R. Charlier 1952 Le sanctuaire punique d ’el-Hofra a Constantine. Planches. Arts et Metiers Graphiques, Paris.

1955 Le sanctuaire punique d ’el-Hofra a Constantine, Vol. 1. Arts et Metiers Graphiques, Paris.

Bertrandy, Francois and Maurice Sznycer 1987 Les steles puniques de Constantine. Editions de la Reunion des Musees Nationaux, Paris.

Bordreuil, P. 1987 Tanit du Liban. Phoenicia and the East Mediterranean in the First Millennium B.C., Studia Phoenicia 5: 79-85.

Brett, Michael, and Elizabeth Fentress 1996 The Berbers. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford.

Brouillet, Monique Seefried 1994 From Hannibal to Saint Augustine: Ancient Art o f North Africa from the Musee du Louvre. Michael C. Carlos Museum, Emory University.

Brown, Shelby 1991 Late Carthaginian Child Sacrifice and Sacrificial Monuments in their Mediterranean Context. JSOT/ASOR Monograph Series, No. 3. Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield.

Cadotte, Alain 2007 La romanisation des dieux: I’interpretatio romana en Afrique du nordsous le Haut-Empire. Brill, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Cagnat, Rene 1895 Musee de Lambese. Ernest Leroux, Paris.

1909 Carthage, Timgad, Tebessa et les villes antiques de I ’Afrique du nord. Librairie Renouard, Paris.

1911 Inscriptions romaines decouvertes a Lambese et Djemila. BCTH 30: CCXXXIX - CCXLI.

Camps, Gabriel 1980 Berberes, aux marges de 1’histoire. Editions des Hesperide, Barcelona. 173

Carton, Louis 1897 Le sanctuaire de Baal-Satume a Dougga.Nouvelles archives de mission scientifiques et litteraires 7: 367-474.

1906 Le sanctuaire de Tanit a El-Kenissia. Imprimerie Nationale, Paris.

1907 Notice sur les ruines d ’El-Kenissia. Bulletin de la societe archeologique de Sousse (BSAS) 5: 68-93.

Chabot, J.-B. 1921 Melanges epigraphiques. Journal asiatique 17(11): 183.

Charles-Picard, Gilbert 1954 Les religions de VAfrique antique. Librairie Plon, Paris.

Cintas, Pierre 1947 Le sanctuaire punique de Sousse.Revue africaine 91: 1-80.

1952 Le grande dame de Carthage. CRA1 96(1): 172-20.

1970 Manuel d ’archeologie punique, vol. 1: Histoire et archeologie comparees. Editions A., edited by J. Picard.

Clark, Stephen R.L. 1977 The Moral Status o f Animals. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Clifford, Richard J. 1990 Phoenician Religion. Bulletin o f the American Schools o f Oriental Research 279: 55-64.

Coy, Jennie 1988 Animals’ Attitudes to People. InWhat is an Animal? edited by Tim Ingold. Pp. 77-83. de Prorok, Count Byron Khun 1926 Digging for Lost African Gods. The Knickerbocker Press, New York.

Delattre, A.-L. 1898 Nouvelle des fouilles a Carthage.CRAI 42 (1): 96-100.

Descola, P. 1996 Constructing Natures: Symbolic Ecology and Social Practice. InNature and Society: Anthropological Perspectives. Edited by P. Descola and Gish' Palsson. Pp. 82-102. Routledge, London. 174

Descola, P. and Gish' Palsson (eds) 1996 Nature and Society: Anthropological Perspectives. Routledge, London.

Doublet, Georges and Paul Gauckler 1892 Musee de Constantine. Musees et Collections Archeologiques de l’Algerie. Ernest Leroux, Paris.

Douglas, M 1990 The Pangolin Revisted: A New Approach to Animal Symbolism. In Signifying Animals: Human Meaning in the Natural World, edited by R. Willis. Routledge, London and New York. Pp. 25-36.

Euzennat, Maurice 1990 La frontiere romaine d’afrique. CRA1 134(2): 565-580.

Eyben, Emiel 1980-1981 Family Planning in Graeco-Roman Antiquity.Ancient Society 11-12: 1-82.

Fantar, M.H. 1995 Carthage: La cite punique. Les Editions de la Mediterranee, Alif.

Ferjaoui, A. 2007 Le sanctuaire de Henchir el-Hami de Ba ’al Hammon au Saturne africain: 1cr .v. av. J.C. -IV e s ap. J.C. Institut National du Patrimoine, Tunis.

Feijaoui, Ahmed and Ahmed M’Charek 1990 Le sanctuaire de Ba’al-Hammon-Satume a Henchir Ghayadha: les inscriptions. Revue des etudes pheniciennes-puniques et des antiquites libyques (REPPAL) 5: 117-148.

Fedele, F. G. 1979 Tharros: Anthropology of theTophet and Paleoecology of a Punic Town. In Atti del I Congresso internazionale di studi fenici e punici: Roma, 5-10 Novembre, edited by P. Bartolini. Pp. 637-650.

Foucher, L. 1964 Hadrumetum. Publications de la Faculte des lettres, Universite de Tunis, Tunis.

Fowler, Chris 2004 The Archaeology of Personhood: An Anthropological Approach. Routledge, London. 175

Franko, Fredric 1994 The Use of Poenus and Carthaginiensis in Early Latin Literature. Classical Philology, 89(2): 153-158.

Gilhus, Ingvild Saelid 2006 Animals, Gods and Humans: Changing Attitudes to Animals in Greek, Roman and Early Christian Ideas. Routledge, New York.

Goodman, A.H. and G.J. Armelagos 1989 Infant and Childhood Morbidity and Mortality Risks in Archaeological Populations.World Archaeology 21(2): 225-243.

Gras, Michel, Pierre Rouillard and Javier Teixidor 1991 The Phoenicians and Death. Berytus 39: 127-176. Reproduced from “Les pheniciens et la mort”, 1989, as chapter 6 ofL ’univers phenicien. Les Editions Arthaud, Paris.

Halsberghe, G.H. 1984 Le culte de dea Caelestis. Aufstieg undNiedergang der romischen Welt (ANRW) II 17(4): 2203-2223.

Harden, D.B. 1927 Punic Urns from the Precinct of Tanit at Carthage.American Journal of Archaeology 31: 297-310.

1937 The Pottery from the Precinct of Tanit at Salammbo, Carthage.Iraq 4: 59- 89

Hours-Miedan, M. 1950 Les representations: figurees sur les steles de Carthage. Cahiers de Byrsa, 1: 15-76.

Hurst, Henry 1999 The Sanctuary o f Tanit at Carthage in the Roman Period: A Reinterpretation. Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series No. 30. Journal of Roman Archaeology, Portsmouth.

Icard, F. 1922 Decouverte de 1’area du sanctuaire de Tanit. Revue tunisienne 29: 195-205.

Ingold, Tim 1988 The Animal in the Study of Humanity. InWhat is an Animal? edited by Tim Ingold. Pp. 84-99.

2000 The Perception o f the Environment: Essays on Livelihood,Dwelling and Skill. Routledge, London. 176

James, Wendy 1990 Antelope as Self-Image Among the Uduk. In Signifying Animals, edited by R.G. Willis. Pp. 97-203.

Jongeling, K. and Robert M. Ken- 2005 Late Punic Epigraphy: an Introduction to the Study o f Neo-Punic and Latino-Punic inscriptions. Mohr Siebeck, Tubingen, Germany.

Kay, Charles de 1917 A Realm of Beauty for Artists to Explore.The Art World 1(4): 263-267.

Kelsey, F.W. 1926 Excavations at Carthage, 1925: A Preliminary Report. The MacMillan Company, New York.

Kennedy, Mary M. 2007 Defining a Literature. Educational Researcher 36: 139-147.

King, Anthony 2001 The Romanization of Diet in the Western Empire: Comparative Archaeozoological Studies. InItaly and the West: Comparative Issues in Romanization, edited by Simon Keay and Nicola Tenenato. Pp. 210-223.

Lancel, Serge 1997 Carthage: A History. Translated by Antonia Neville. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford.

Lantier, R. and L. Poinssot 1942 Les steles decouvertes dans une favissa. BCTH 61:224-242.

Lapeyre, R.P. 1939 Les fouilles du musee Lavigerie a Carthage de 1935-1939. I. Temple de Tanit. CRA1 83: 294-300.

Leach, Edmund 1964 Anthropological Aspects of Language: Animal Categories and Verbal Abuse. In New Directions in the Study o f Language, edited by Eric H. Lenneberg. Pp. 23-63.

Leeds, Anthony and Andrew P. Vayda (eds) 1965 Man, Culture, and Animals: The Role of Animals in Human Ecological Adjustments. Publication No. 78 of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Washington, D.C. The Hom-Shafer Company, Baltimore, Maryland. 177

Le Glay, Marcel 1953 Les steles a Saturn de Djemila-Cuicul. Lybica 1:37-76.

1961 Saturne africain: monuments, Vol. I. Arts et Metiers Graphiques, Paris.

1966a Saturne africain: monuments, Vol II. Editions du Centre National De la recherche scientifique, Paris.

1966b Saturne africain: histoire. Editions E. de Boccard, Paris.

Levi-Strauss, Claude 1963 Totemism. Translated by Rodney Needham. Beacon Press, Boston.

Leynaud, Augustin-Femand 1911 Rapport sur les fouilles d’un sanctuaire phenicien a Sousse (Tunisie).CRAI 55(6):470-480.

Lipinski, E. 1995 Dieux et deesses de I 'univers phenicien et punique. Peeters Publishers, Belgium.

M ’Charek, A. 1995 La Romanisation du culte de Ba’al Hammon dans la region de Maktar (antique Thusca). InActes du IHe congres international des etudes pheniciennes etpuniques, vol II. Edited by M’hamed Hassine Fantar and Mansour Ghaki. Pp. 245-257.

McCarty, Matthew M. 2010 Soldiers and Stelae: Votive Cult and the Roman Army in North Africa. In XVII International Congress o f Classical Archaeology, Roma 22-26 Sept. 2008 Session: Harbour to Desert, Emporium to Sanctuary: North African Landscapes o f Economic and Social Exchange in the Roman Imperial Period. Bollettino di Archeologia online I 2010/ Volume speciale B / B11 14.

MacKinnon, Michael 2004 Production and Consumption o f Animals in Roman Italy: Integrating the Zooarchaeological and Textual Evidence. Portsmouth, Rhode Island.

2007 Peopling the Mortuary Landscapes of North Africa: An Overview of the Human Osteological Evidence. InMortuary Landscapes o f North Africa, edited by Stone, David L. and Lea M. Stirling. Pp. 204-240.

Mattingly, D.J. 1995 Tripolitania. Goodfellow and Egan Ltd, Cambridge. 178

Mendleson, Carole 2003 Catalogue o f Punic Stelae in The British Museum. The British Museum Occasional Paper Number 98. British Museum, London.

Midgely, M. 1995 Beast and Man: The Roots of Human Nature. London and New York, Routledge.

Millar, Fergus 1968 Local Cultures in the Roman Empire: Libyan, Punic and Latin in Roman Africa. The Journal o f Roman Studies, 58(1 and 2): 126-134.

Moore, Jennifer 2000 Cultural Identity in Roman Africa: The ‘La Ghorfa' Stelae. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Classical Studies, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario.

Mosca, Paul G. 1975 Child Sacrifice in Canaanite and Israelite Religion. Ph.D. dissertation, Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Moscati, Sabatino 1968 The World o f the Phoenicians. Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London.

1987 Decouvertes pheniciennes a Tharros.CRAI 131(3): 483-503.

1997 Stelae. In The Phoenicians, edited by S. Moscati. Pp. 364-379.

Muller, M., R. Depreux, P. Muller and M. Fontaine 1952 Recherches anthropologiques sur les ossements retrouves dans des umes puniques. Bulletins et memoires de la societe d ’anthropologie de Paris, Xe Serie. 3(3-4): 160-173.

Mullin, Molly 1999 Mirrors and Windows: Sociocultural Studies of Human-Animal Relationships. Annual Review o f Anthropology 28: 201-224.

Norman, Naomi J. 2002 Death and Burial of Roman Children: The case of the Yasmina Cemetery at Carthage - Part I, Setting the Stage. Mortality 7(3): 302-323.

2003 Death and Burial of Roman Children: The case of the Yasmina Cemetery at Carthage - Part II, The archaeological evidence. Mortality 8(1): 36-47. 179

Pallary, P. 1922 Note sur les umes fiineraires trouvees a Salammbo pres Carthage.Revue tunisienne 29: 206-211.

Palsson, Glsli 1990 The Idea of Fish: Land and Sea in the Icelandic World-View. In Signifying Animals, edited by R.G. Willis. Pp. 119-133.

1996 Human-Environmental Relations: Orientalism, Paternalism and Communalism. InNature and Society: Anthropological Perspectives, edited by P. Descola and Gisli Palsson. Pp. 63-81.

Parker, Robert 1983 Miasma: Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Paton, W.R. and E.L. Hicks 1891 The Inscriptions o f Cos. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Picard,C. 1967 Themes hellenistiques sur les steles de Carthage. Antiquites africaines 1: 9- 30.

1973-1974 [1976] Les representations de sacrifice molk sur les ex-voto de Carthage. Karthago XVII: 67-138.

1975-1976 [1978] Les representations de sacrifice molk sur les ex-voto de Carthage. Karthago XVIII: 5-116.

Picard, C. G. n.d. [1955] Catalogue du musee Alaoui. Nouvelle serie (Collections puniques), vol. 1. Paris.

Picard, G.-Ch. 1957 Civitas Mactaritana. Karthago VIII.

Poinssot, Claude 1958 Les ruines de Dougga. Ministere des Affaires Culturelles, Institut National d’Archeologie, Tunis.

Poinssot, L. and R. Lantier 1923 Un sanctuaire de Tanit a Carthage. Revue de I 'histoire des religions 87: 32- 66 . 180

Poynting, Jermey 1996 From Ancestral to Creole: Humans and Animals in a West Indian Scale of Values. In Monsters, Tricksters, and Sacred Cows: Animal Tales and American Identities, edited by A. James Arnold. Pp. 204-229.

Pritchard, James B. 1955 Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Second edition. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.

1982 The Tanit Inscription from Sarepta. InPhonzier im Western, edited by H.G. Niemeyer. Zabemm Mainz. Pp. 83-92.

2011 The Ancient Near East: An Anthology of Texts and Pictures. Princeton University Press, Princeton.

Ramage, Nancy H. and Andrew Ramage. 1991. Roman Art. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Ribichini, Sergio 1997 Beliefs and Religious Life. In The Phoenicians, edited by Sabatino Moscati. Pp. 120-151.

Rice, Michael 1998 The Power o f the Bull. Routledge, London and New Y ork.

Richard, J. 1961 Etude medico-legale des urnes sacrijicielles puniques et leur contenu. Thesis for the Doctorate en Medicine. Institute Medico-legale de Lille: Lille, [non vidi]

Rives, J. 1995 Religion and Authority in Roman Carthage from Augustus to Constantine. Oxford Press, Oxford.

Saint-Amans, Sophie 2004 Topographie religieuse de Thugga (Dougga), ville romaine d'Afrique Proconsulaire (Tunisia). Diffusion de Boccard, Paris.

Sayles, Wayne G. 1998 Ancient Coin Collecting IV: Roman Provincial Coins. Krause Publications, Iola, Wisconsin.

Schaeffer, C. 1957 Oral Communication on Child Sacrifice, reported inCRAI 101: 67. 181

Schwartz, Jeffrey H., Frank Houghton, Roberto Macchiarelli, and Luca Bondioli 2010 Skeletal Remains from Punic Carthage Do Not Support Systematic Sacrifice of Infants. PLoS ONE 5(2): 1-12.

Singer, Peter 1990 [1975] Animal Liberation. New York Review, Random House, New York.

Shanklin, Eugenia 1985 Sustenance and Symbol: Anthropological Studies of Domesticated Animals. Annual Review o f Anthropology 14: 375-403.

Slim, L. 1984 A propos d’un cimetiere d’enfants a Thysdrus. AfrRom 1: 167-177.

Smith, P., G. Avishai, J.A. Greene, and L.E. Stager 2011 Aging Cremated Infants: The Problem of Sacrifice at the Tophet of Carthage. Antiquity 85: 859-874.

Sorabji, Richard 1993 Animal Minds and Human Morals: The Origins o f the Western Debate. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York.

Soren, D., A. Ben Abed Ben Khader and H. Slim. 1990 Carthage: Uncovering the Mysteries and Splendors o f Ancient Tunisia. Simon and Schuster, New York.

Stager, Lawrence E. 1978 Excavations at Carthage 1975, The Punic Project: First Interim Report. In Annual o f the American Schools o f Oriental Research 43 (1978): 151-190.

1980 The Rite of Child Sacrifice at Carthage. In New Light on Ancient Carthage, edited by J. Pedley. Pp. 1-11.

1982 Carthage: A View from the Tophet. InPhoenizier im Western, edited by H.G. Niemeyer. Pp. 155-66.

1992 Le tophet et le port commercial. InPour sauver Carthage: exploration et conservation de la cite punique, romaine et byzantine, edited by Abdelmajid Ennabli. Pp. 73-78.

Stager, L.E. and S. Wolff 1984 Child Sacrifice at Carthage: Religious Rite or Population Control?Biblical Archaeology Review 10 (January/February): 30-51. 182

Stambaugh, John E. 1988 The Ancient Roman City. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London.

Tapper, Richard 1988 Animality, Humanity, Morality, Society. InWhat is an Animal? edited by Tim Ingold. Pp. 47-62.

Thomas, K. 1984 Man and the Natural World: Changing Attitudes in England 1500-1800. Penguin, London and New York.

Toynbee, J.M.C. 1973 Animals in Roman Life and Art. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York.

Truillot, A. 1932-1933a Inscriptions romaines de Tebessa. BCTH 51-52:127-130; 273-277.

1932-1933b Stele romaine decouverte au nord-ouest de Tebessa. BCTH 51- 52:402-404.

UNESCO World Heritage Committee 1979 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. Third Session. Cairo and Luxor,22-26 October 1979. http://whc.unesco.Org/archive/repcom79.htm#37 (accessed June 10,2012)

1982 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. Sixth Session. Paris,13-17 December 1982. http://whc.unesco.Org/archive/repcom82.htm#191 (accessed June 10, 2012)

1988 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. Twelfth Session. Brasilia, Brazil, 5-9 December 1988. http://whc.unesco.Org/archive/repcom88.htm#498(accessed January 14, 2013)

1997 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. Twenty-First Session. Naples, Italy, 1-6 December 1997. http://whc.unesco.Org/archive/repcom97.htm#794 (accessed January 14, 2013)

Veltre, Thomas 1996 Menageries, Metaphors, and Meanings. In New Worlds, New Animals: From Menagerie to Zoological Park in the Nineteenth Century, edited by R.J. Hoage and William A. Deiss. Pp. 19-29. 183

Viveiros de Castro, Eduardo 1998 Cosmological Deixis and Amerindian Perspectivism. The Journal o f the Royal Anthropological Institute 4(3): 469-488.

2004 Exchanging Perspectives: The Transformation of Objects into Subjects in Amerindian Ontologies. Common Knowledge 10: 463-484.

Watkins, Thomas H. 2002 Colonia Marciana Traiana Thamugadi: Dynasticism in Numidia. Phoenix 56(1/2): 84-108.

Weinfeld, M. 1972 The Worship of Molech and of the Queen of Heaven and its Background. Ugarit Forschungen, Internationales Jahrbuch fur die Altertumskunde syrien-Palastinas 4: 133-154.

Whitaker, Joseph, I.S. 1921 Motya: A Phoenician Colony in Sicily. G. Bell and Sons, Ltd, London.

Woods, Robert 2007 Ancient and Early Modem Mortality: Experience and Understanding. Economic History Review 60(2): 373-399.

Zaidman, Louise Bruit and Pauline Schmitt Pantel 1992 [1989] Religion in the Ancient Greek City. Translated by Paul Cartledge. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 184

Appendix A: Catalogue of Stelae.

This catalogue presents the complete list of animal-depicting stelae that were analyzed in Chapter Five. For reference within this thesis, each stele has been given a number, starting with ‘1’. The sanctuaries are listed by the ancient city’s name, in alphabetical order. For each site, stelae are listed by Period: Punic (P), Neo-Punic (NP), Roman (R), and Indeterminate (IND). Approximate or exact dates and dimensions are provided when available. If two measurements were given for the width of a stele, the largest measurement was selected for this catalogue. A brief description of the decoration and a summary of the animal(s) depicted are provided for each stele. All descriptions are followed by a list of consulted publications in which the stele was cited. The summary of the decoration lists each stele as being ‘complete’, ‘fragment’, and ‘indeterminate’. The part of the stele from with the fragment was from, such as ‘upper’, ‘mid’, or ‘lower’, was specified when available. The ‘indeterminate’ category includes stelae that were not described in publications as either complete or incomplete. Descriptions begin from the top of the stele downwards, with a semi-colon marking the separation of registers or zones. When available, it is indicated if the decoration was ‘incised’, Tow relief, or ‘high relief. When the relief level was not specified or there was no image, it was listed here as ‘relief. All images of artefacts were assessed before consulting their descriptions within the publication (see Chapter Three). If there was no published image, publications were relied upon for analysis. Images are indicated by a Y(yes) or N(no). All Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum (CIS)references come from thePars Prima, which is dedicated to material from Carthage. The location of each stele from the CIS is presented as follows:

CIS 2.2.XXV 1441= CIS [Pars Prima ] Tome number.Part number.Plate number Stele number

Legend: (M) or (F) = Identified gender of the dedicant (R) or (L) = Direction the animal travels in 4/4-3 c. B.C.E. = Dates separated by a 7 ’ indicate an uncertain date range. For example, CN 7 is identified as from the fourth century or between the fourth and third centuries B.C.E. Canistraria = basket bearer in Roman religious ceremonies 185

Cat Published Period Date Size (cm) Animal(s) Description Publication(s) No. Image P/NP/R/IND H/W/T Y/N

CARTHAGE V 1 Y P 4 c. B.C.E. 61/12/- Bull (1) Complete - Incised. Bull, with right front leg Picard n.d. [1955]: 198, Cb- raised, walking L towards a caduceus. 696, PI. LXXXV.

2 Y P 4 c. B.C.E. 17/13/- Ram (1) Fragment - Upper section. Incised. Ram standing CIS l.LVII 419. R. 3 Y P 4 c. B.C.E. 26/14/- Bird (1) Fragment - Upper section. Incised. Bird flying R; CIS 3.2.XXIX no. 5 - 4346. inscription.

4 Y P 4 c. B.C.E. " Lion (1) Fragment - Upper section. Incised. Head of lion, CIS 3.2 XXIX no. 16 - no facing frontally; inscription. number. 5 Y P 4 c. B.C.E. 25/12/- Dolphin (1) Fragment - Upper section. Incised. Dolphin CIS 3.2.XXIX no. 7 - 4481. vertically aligned, head point downward to L; inscription. 6 Y P 4 c. B.C.E. 18.5/-/- Fish (2) Fragment - Lower section. Incised. Inscription; CIS 2.1.Ill 485; Hours- two fish facing each other. Miedan 1950; PI. XXIII A.

7 Y P 4/4-3 c. 50/15/- Bull (1) Complete - Incised. Bull head, facing frontal; CIS 3.2.XXIX no. 14 - 4055; B.C.E. inscription. Hours-Miedan 1950: PI. XXIV B. 8 Y P 4/4-3 c. 28/16/- Bull (1) Fragment - Upper section. Incised. Bull's head CIS 3.2.XXIX no. 17 - 4491; B.C.E. facing frontally, between two caducei; Hours-Miedan 1950: PI. inscription. XXIV B.

9 Y P 4-3 c. B.C.E. -/15/- Ram (1) Fragment - Mid section. Incised. Inscription; ram CIS 2.2.XIX 1199. standing L.

10 Y P 4-3 C. B.C.E. 17/12/6.2 Ram (1) Fragment - Upper section. Incised. Base of open Mendleson 2003: 24, Pu28. palm; ram standing L; top of'sign of Tanit'.

11 Y P 4-3 C. B.C.E. 27/15/- Sheep (1) Fragment - Upper and mid section. Incised. Open CIS l.LVI 398. palm; sheep standing L between two caducei. 186

12 Y P 4-3 c. B.C.E. - Sheep (1) Fragment - Mid section. Incised. Inscription; C/5 3.1.VI 3453. sheep standing L; top of 'sign of Tanit'. 13 Y P 4-3 C. B.C.E. 10/13/- Horse (1) Fragment - Mid section. Incised. Remains of Picard n.d. 11955): 196, Cb- inscription; helmeted man carrying a staff and 688, PI. LXXXIV. riding L on a horse.

14 Y P 4-3 c. B.C.E. 57/19.5/- Horse (1) Fragment - Mid and lower section. Incised. CIS l.XLIII 186; Hours- Inscription; horse rearing L. Miedan 1950: PI. XXV D.

15 Y P 4-3 c. B.C.E. 17/12/- Horse (1) Fragment - Mid section. Incised. Inscription?; CIS 2.2.XXXIII 1756; Hours- horse standing L facing a tall, thin object, Miedan 1950: PI. XXV B. possibly a caduceus.

16 Y P 4-3 C. B.C.E. 20/11/- Rooster (1) Fragment - Upper and mid section. Incised. Open CIS 3.2.XXIX no. 8 -4 0 1 2 . palm; inscription; rooster standing L.

17 Y P 4-3 c. B.C.E. Bird (1) Fragment - Upper and mid section. Incised. Bird CIS 2.1.1V 535. (peacock?) with open beak stands L; inscription; 'sign of Tanit' between two caducei.

18 Y P 4-3 c. B.C.E. 22/18/- Bird (2) Fragment - Upper and mid section. Incised. Open CIS 2.2.XXV 1441. palm with a bird on either side facing towards it; inscription; tops of other unidentifiable symbols. 19 Y P 4-3 c. B.C.E. 27.6/16.6/9.5 Swan (1) Fragment - Upper and part of mid section. Low Mendleson 2003: 21, Pu5. relief. 'Sign of Tanit' with flower in base; long­ necked bird (swan) swimming L toward reed or wheat stalk. 20 Y P 4-3 c. B.C.E. 25/17.5/'- Elephant Fragment - Mid and lower section. Low relief. CIS l.XLV 182; Picard 1975- (1) Poorly preserved symbol; inscription; elephant 1976 [1978]: PI. VIII, no. 2. walking L. 21 Y P 4-3 c. B.C.E. 52/17/- Elephant Complete - Incised. 'Sign of Tanit'; inscription; CIS 3.2.XXIX no. 15 - 4798; (1) elephant walking L. Hours-Miedan 1950: PI. XXIV E. 22 Y P 4/4-3 C. 18/15/- Lion (1) Fragment - Upper section. Incised. Lion head, CIS 3.2.XXXVIII no. 1 4 - B.C.E. facing frontally; inscription. 4520. 23 Y P 4-3 c. B.C.E. 67/14/- Partridge Complete - Incised. Partridge standing L; CIS 3.1.XII 3713; Hours- (1) inscription. Miedan 1950: PI. XXII C. 187

24 YP 4-3 c. B.C.E. 25/13.5/- Mouse (2) Fragment - Upper and mid section. Incised.. CIS 2.2.XXXV 1863; Hours- Stylized floral motif; two mice vertically aligned, Miedan 1950: PI. XXIV D. faces pointing upward, on each side of an open palm; inscription.

25 Y P 4/4-3 c. 36/12/- Amphibian Fragment - Upper and mid section. Incised. 'Sign CIS 3.2.XXIX no. 13 - 4125; B.C.E. (1) of Tanit'; overhead view of amphibian, face Hours-Miedan 1950: PI. pointing upward; inscription; downward XXIV B. crescent. 26 Y P 4-3 c. B.C.E. 18/14/- Fish (2) Fragment - Middle or lower section. Incised. C/5 2.3.LII 2482. Inscription; one fish faces L, a second fish located below the first and faces R.

27 Y P 4-3 c. B.C.E. 22/13/- Dolphin (2) Fragment - Upper and mid section. Incised. CIS 2.2.XVIII 1161. Bottom of open palm; two dolphins facing each other; inscription.

28 Y P 4-3 c. B.C.E. 36/16/- Fish (2) Fragment - Upper and mid section. Incised. Two CIS 3.2.XXIX no. 9 - 4713. fish facing each other; inscription. 29 Y P 4-3 c. B.C.E. 25/12/- Fish (1) Fragment - Upper and mid section. Incised. C/5 2.2.XVII 1122. Stylized floral motif; inscription; fish swimming L. 30 Y P 4-3 c. B.C.E. 13/11/- Indeterm Fragment - Mid section. Incised. CIS 2.2.XII 936; Hours- (1) Anthropomorphic figure (M/F?) riding L on a Miedan 1950: PI. XXVI E. bull/bear?; inscription. 31 Y P 3 c. B.C.E. 27/14/- Bull (1) Fragment - Upper and mid section. Incised. Base C/5 2.3.XLIV 2133; Hours- of open palm; inscription; bull facing L, head Miedan 1950: PI. XXVI D. facing frontally, appears to be kneeling but the feet are not preserved. 32 Y P 3 c. B.C.E. 47/18/- Bull (1) Complete - Incised. Stylized floral motif; C/5 2.4.LXII 3016; Hours- inscription; bull with one foreleg bent back, the Miedan 1950: PI. XXVI C; other forward, head lowered, facing L. Picard n.d. [1955]: 224, Cb- 833, PI. XCIII; Picard 1975- 1976 [1978]: PI. XIV, no. 2.

33 Y P 3 c. B.C.E. 60/13/- Ram (1) Complete - Incised. Open palm; ram standing L; Picard n.d. [1955]: 191, Cb- 'sign of Tanit'. 667, PI. LXXXI. 188

34 Y P 3 c. B.C.E. 31/14/- Ram (1) Fragment - Upper and mid section. Incised. Base Picard n.d. [1955]: 228-229, of open palm; ram standing L; 'sign of Tanit' and Cb-849, PI. XCIII. caduceus. 35 Y P 3 c. B.C.E. 35/20.5/- Ram (1) Fragment - Upper and mid section. Incised. Picard n.d. [1955]: 233, Cb- Stylized floral design; ram walking L; 'sign of 866, PI. XCIV. Tanit'. 36 Y P 3 C. B.C.E. 20/16/- Ram (1) Fragment - Mid and lower section. Incised. CIS 2.1.IX 786; Hours- Inscription; ram standing L, facing wheat stalk. Miedan 1950: PI. XXVI F.

37 Y P 3 c. B.C.E. 25/17/- Rooster (1) Fragment - Upper and mid section. Incised. CIS 2.3.XXXVIII 1948. Rooster standing L; inscription; open palm, 'sign of Tanit', and caduceus.

38 Y P 3 c. B.C.E. Rooster Fragment - Mid section. Incised. Inscription; CIS 3.1.VI 3474; Hours- (l); Fish (1) rooster standing L, between open palm and Miedan 1950: PI. XXII B. caduceus; fish facing L. 39 Y P 3 c. B.C.E. 58/18/- Bird (1) Complete - Incised. Bird flapping its wings, Picard n.d. [1955]: 199, Cb- standing L, facing a flower; inscription; altar 701, PI. LXXXVI. between jug and caduceus.

40 YP 3 C. B.C.E. 38/20/- Bird (2) Fragment - Upper and mid section. Incised. Open CIS 8 l.XLV 183; Hours- palm; winged anthropomorphic female holding Miedan 1950: PI. XXXIII F. upward pointing crescent and disc; inscription; two birds, flapping wings on either side of 'sign of Tanit', facing towards it.

41 Y P 3 c. B.C.E. 20/18/- Bird (1) Fragment - Upper and mid section. Incised. Bird CIS l.LVI 404. standing L; inscription; open palm, 'sign of Tanit'. 42 Y P 3 c. B.C.E. -/14/- Bird (1) Fragment - Upper and mid section. Incised. Bird CIS 2.1.IX 763; Hours- standing L; inscription; top of caduceus. Miedan 1950: PI. XXII C.

43 Y P 3 c. B.C.E. 16/14/- Bird (1) Fragment - Upper and mid section. Incised. Bird CIS 2.2.XXXII 1709. flapping wings, facing L towards a flower; winged disc; inscription.

44 YP 3 c. B.C.E. 25/15/- Bird (1) Fragment - Upper and mid section. Incised. Open CIS 2.3.XLIV 2166. palm; inscription; bird standing L, facing a caduceus. 189

45 YP 3 c. B.C.E. 28/13/- Bird (1) Fragment - Upper and mid section. Incised. Bird CIS 2.4.LXV 3131. standing L; inscription; caduceus with open palm and 'sign of Tanit'. 46 YP End 3 c. Ram (1) Fragment - Mid and lower section. Incised. Ram C/5 2.4.LXII immediately to B.C.E. standing L, open palm; 'sign of Tanit'. the left of 3028.

47 Y P 3 c. B.C.E. 40/13/- Flamingo Complete - Incised. Stylized floral design; CIS 3.2.XXIX no. 10 - 4856; (1) inscription between two pillars; flamingo, Flours-Miedan 1950: PI. XXII flapping wings, walks L. F. 48 YP Early 3 c. 58/20/- Dolphin (2) Fragment - Upper and mid section. Incised. Open CIS 3.1.1V 3359; Picard n.d. B.C.E. palm; inscription; one dolphin swimming L, [1955]: 216, Cb-800, PI. another dolphin beneath the first, swimming R; LXXXIX. 'sign of Tanit' between two caducei.

49 Y P 3 c. B.C.E. 17/17/- Dolphin (2) Fragment - Mid section. Incised. Inscription; two CIS l.XLVII 243; Hours- dolphins facing each other, between two Miedan 1950: PI. XXII F. caducei. 50 Y P 3 c. B.C.E. 34/14/- Dolphin (1) Complete - Incised. Downward crescent and CIS 3.1.1 3285; Hours- disc; inscription; open palm with 'sign of Tanit' Miedan 1950: PI. XXIV A. and caduceus; dolphin swimming L.

51 Y P 3 c. B.C.E. 52/17/- Dolphin (1) Complete - Incised. Downward crescent and CIS 3.1.1 3252; Hours- disc; inscription; 'sign of Tanit' between two Miedan 1950: PI. XXIII E. caducei; dolphin swimming L.

52 Y P 3 c. B.C.E. 40/17/- Fish (1) Complete - Incised. Wreath; column with CIS 3.2.XXIX no. 11 - 3986; inscription inside; fish swimming L. Hours-Miedan 1950: PI. XXIII B. 53 Y P 3 c. B.C.E. 18/14/- Fish (1) Fragment - Upper section. Incised. Fish CIS 2.2.XXII 1308. swimming Howards an open palm; inscription. 54 Y P 3 c. B.C.E. 53/16/- Fish (1) Complete - Incised. Open palm; inscription; two C/5 2.3.Ull 2528. pillars framing a pot on columned pilaster, below, fish swimming L.

55 Y P 3 c. B.C.E. 48/15/- Indeterm/ Complete - Incised. Open palm; inscription; 'sign CIS 3.1.1 3264; Picard n.d. Amphibian of Tanit' between two caduceus; amphibian (?) [1955]: 221, Cb-822, PI. XCI. vertically aligned, head pointing upward. (1) 190

56 Y P 3-2 c. B.C.E. 24/17/- Bull (1) Fragment - Upper and mid section. Incised. Open C/5 2.4.LXIII 3053. palm with wheat stalk; inscription; bull facing L, head facing frontally and lowered, one foreleg bent back, the other forward.

57 Y P 3-2 c. B.C.E. Bird (1) Complete - Incised. Bird standing L; inscription; CIS 3.1V 3362; Picard n.d. 'sign of Tanit' between two caducei. [1955]; 234, Cb-869, PI. XCIV. 58 Y P 3-2 C. B.C.E. 19/19.5/6 Bull (1) Fragment - Mid section. Low relief. On the left is Hours-Miedan 1950: PI. a bull head on altar facing R, on the right the XXVIII B; Brouillet 1994; 54, dedicant (M) faces the altar with one raised and no. 39, L o u v r e A O 5081. open palm. 59 Y P 3-2 c. B.C.E. 22/16/- Ram (1) Fragment - Upper section. Incised. Downward C/5 3.1.XI 3683. crescent and disc; ram standing L. 60 YP 3-2 c. B.C.E. 40/13/- Ram (1) Complete - Incised. Stylized floral design; ram Mendleson 2003: 26, Pu42. walking L; palm tree between two caducei. 61 Y P End 3-2 c. 26/16/- Ram (1) Fragment - Incised. Open palm; ram standing L Picard n.d. [1955]: 194, Cb- B.C.E. facing a bunch of grapes; 'sign of Tanit' and 678, PI. LXXXII. caduceus. 62 Y P End 3-2 c. 18/17/- Ram (1) Complete - Incised. Downward crescent and Picard n.d. [1955]: 196, Cb- B.C.E. disc; ram (collared?) standing L; 'sign of Tanit'. 686, PI. LXXXIII. 63 Y P End 3-2 c. Ram (1) Complete - Incised. Downward crescent and Picard n.d. [1955]: 230, PI. B.C.E. disc; ram standing L (collared?); 'sign of Tanit'. XCIII Cb-853. 64 Y P 3-2 c. B.C.E. Ram (1) Fragment - Upper and mid section. Incised. C/5 2.4.LXII immediately to Downward crescent and disc; ram standing L; the right of 3011. 'sign of Tanit' with caduceus. 65 Y P 3-2 c. B.C.E. Ram (1) Complete - Incised. Downward crescent and C/5 2.4.LXII third to the disc; ram standing L; 'sign of Tanit' between two right of 3018. caducei. 66 Y P 3-2 c. B.C.E. Ram (1) Fragment - Upper and mid section. Incised. Open C/5 2.4.LXII immediately to palm (in low relief); ram standing L, between a the right of 3022. 'sign of Tanit' and caduceus; top of a flower. 67 Y P 3/3-2 c. Ram (1) Fragment - Upper and mid section. Incised. C/5 2.4.LXII immediately to B.C.E. Downward crescent and disc; ram standing L; the right of 3025. 'sign of Tanit' with caduceus and quartered circle. 191

68 YP 3-2 c. B.C.E. Ram (1) Complete - Incised. Open palm; ram standing L; C/5 2.4.LXII immediately to 'sign of Tanit' with downward crescent and disc the right of 3028; Picard n.d. in its base, caduceus. [1955]: 228-229, Cb-849, PI. XCIII.

69 YP 3/3-2 c. 22/12/- Rabbit (1) Fragment - Mid section. Incised. Inscription; CIS 2.4.LXI 3000; Hours- B.C.E. rabbit standing L; 'sign of Tanit'. Miedan 1950: PI. XXIV C.

70 Y P End 3-2 c. 49/19/- Bird (2) Complete - Low relief. Two birds on either side Picard n.d. [1955]: 195, Cb- B.C.E. of an open palm, facing towards it; 684 PI. LXXXIII. inscription;between two caducei is a 'sign of Tanit' with rosette in base. 71 Y P 3-2 c. B.C.E. 15/-/- Bird (1) Fragment - Upper section. Incised. Bird standing CIS 2.2.XXXIV 1827. R, facing open palm. 72 Y P 3-2 c. B.C.E. 28/15/- Bird (1) Complete - Incised. Bird facing R towards an CIS 3.1.1 3295. open palm; inscription; caduceus beside 'sign of Tanit'. 73 Y P 3-2 c. B.C.E. 27/16/- Bird (1) Fragment - Upper and mid section. Incised. Bird, C/5 3.1.11 3312. wings flapping, standing L; inscription; caduceus, open palm, and 'sign of Tanit'. 74 Y P 3/3-2 c. 44/19/- Bull (1) Complete - Incised. Downward crescent and C/5 3.1.Ill 3347; Hours- B.C.E. disc; to the L is a bull head on altar facing R, the Miedan 1950: PI. XXVIII C. dedicant (M) faces the altar with one raised open palm; inscription; 'sign of Tanit' between two caducei. 75 Y P 3-2 C. B.C.E. 50/16/- Dolphin (1) Complete - Incised. Downward crescent and Picard n.d. [1955]: 248, Cb- disc; dolphin swimming L; caduceus and 'sign of 924, PI. XCVII. Tanit'. 76 Y P 3-2 c. B.C.E. 27/13/- Dolphin (1) Fragment - Mid section. Incised. Inscription; C/5 2.4.LVII 2734. caduceus and 'sign of Tanit'; dolphin swimming L. 77 YP 3-2 C. B.C.E. 14/10.5/- Fish (1) Fragment - Upper section. Incised. Fish CIS 2.4.LVIII 2807; Hours- swimming R; inscription. Miedan 1950: PI. XXIII D. 192

78 Y R" 76/34/- Bull (1) Fragment - Split down the middle. Low relief. Le Glay 1961: 20, no. 11, PI. Bull walking L; inscription. II fig. 2.

79 N R Bull (1) Complete - Dedicant (M/F?) on pedestal; Le Glay 1961:15, no. 4; CIL inscription; anthropomorphic figure pulling a 1008. bull by the rope, while a second anthropomorphic figure plays flute. 80 Y IND Bull (1) Fragment - Mid section. 'Sign of Tanit', open Picard 1973-1974 [1976]: PI. palm; bull, one foreleg bent back, the other X, no. 11. forward, head lowered, facing L.

81 N R 74/42/9 Bull (1); Complete - Pinecone with two rosettes; two Le Glay 1961:21, no. 12; CIL Ram (2) rams flanking an altar with a pinecone; bull with 1009. sacrificial instruments. 82 Y IND Ram (1) Fragment - Upper and mid section. Three Hours-Miedan 1950: PI. stylized floral motifs; three sacrificial tools, and XVII, A; Picard 1975-1976 ram standing L, facing sacrificial tools. [1978]: XIV, no. 4.

83 Y IND ~ * Ram (1) Complete - Downward crescent and disc; ram Hours-Miedan 1950: PI. walking L; 'sign of Tanit' between two caducei. XXVI, G. 84 Y IND Ram (1) Fragment - Upper and mid section. Base of tree Hours-Miedan 1950: PI. trunk preserved; ram walking L, one front left leg XXVI, H. raised; downward crescent and disc; 'sign of Tanit'. 85 Y IND " “ Ram (1) Fragment - Upper and mid section. Open palm; Picard 1975-1976 [1978]: PI. ram standing L. XX, no. 1.

86 Y IND Horse (1) Fragment - Upper and mid section. Downward CIS 3541; Hours-Miedan crescent and disc; inscription; open palm, 'sign 1950: PI. XXV, A. of Tanit', and caduceus; head of horse facing L is preserved above the break. 87 Y IND Horse (1) Fragment - Mid section. Caduceus, on the right is Picard 1973-1974 [1976]: PI. a horse, front right leg raised, walking L; wheat VII, no. 2. stalk above the horse's hind legs. 88 Y IND - - Bird (1) Fragment - Mid section. Bird flying L, pecking Hours-Miedan 1950: PI. XX, from a vine that grows from a potted plant. C. 89 Y IND ' Bird (1) Fragment - Upper Section. Bird standing L. Hours-Miedan 1950: PI. XXII, G. 193

90 Y IND Bird (1) Fragment - Upper and mid section. Low relief. Delattre 1900:13-14, no. 6, Downward cresent and disc; young child sitting PI. 1, no. 4. frontally, right leg folded in front, left leg bent with knee upwards. Child is holding an apple in the right hand, bird in the left hand.

91 Y IND Quadruped Fragement - Mid section. Two pillars frame the Hours-Miedan 1950: PI. (1) stele; quadruped (bull/ram?), head lowered, XXV, C. standing L on a pedestal. 92 Y IND Quadruped Fragment - Upper and mid section. Open palm; Picard 1975-1976 [1978]: PI. (1) quadruped (horse or ram with long legs?) XIII, no. 7. walking L; 'sign of Tanit' between two caducei. 93 Y IND “ Dolphin (1) Fragement - Mid section. Boat rudder; dolphin Flours-Miedan 1950: PI. swimming L;'sign of Tanit'. XXXVIII, F.

94 Y IND “ Dolphin (1) Fragment - Upper and mid section. Stylized floral CIS 2206; Flours-Miedan motif; dolphin facing R, towards a caduceus. 1950: PI. XXIII, G.

95 Y IND * Dolphin (1) Fragment - Mid section. Boat hull preserved at Picard 1973-1974 [1976]: PI. the break; dolphin swimming L. VII, no. 5. 96 N IND Dolphin (2) Fragment - Mid section. Incised. Bottom of Delattre 1900: PI. IV, no. 10. stylized floral motif preserved; inscription; two dolphins drinking from bowl on a pillar between two caducei. 97 Y IND - - Fish (1) Fragment - Mid section. Base of 'sign of Tanit' is Flours-Miedan 1950: PI. preserved at the break; fish swimming L. XXIII, C. 98 Y IND Fish (2) Fragment - Upper section. Two fish, both facing Picard 1973-1974 [1976]: PI. L, on either side of a 'sign of Tanit'. VIII, no. 8. 99 N IND Fish (1) Complete - Incised. Open plam; inscription; jar Delattre 1900: 22, PI. Ill, no. on pillar between two caducei; fish swimming L. 6.

Orta (Constantine) 100 Y P ““ Ram (1) Complete - Low relief. Upward crescent and disc; Berthier and Charlier 1952: 'sign of Tanit, caduceus; ram walking L. PI. XXVII A; 1955: 200. 194

101 Y P Ram (1) Fragment - Upper and mid section. Low relief. Berthier and Charlier 1952: 'Sign of Tanit' and caduceus; ram in niche, PI. XXVII C; 1955: 201. standing L; inscription.

102 YP “ Ram (1) Fragment - Upper section. Incised. Ram standing Berthier and Charlier 1952: R; 'sign of Tanit'. PI. XLIII C; 1955: 201. 103 Y P ~ “ Ram (1) Fragment - Mid section? Incised. Ram in base of Berthier and Charlier 1952: 'sign of Tanit', standing L. PI. XLIII D; 1955: 201. 104 Y P 51/20/7.5 Ram (1) Complete - Incised. Ram in base of 'sign of Tanit', Bertrandy and Sznycer standing L; inscription. 1987: 23,112, no. 17. 105 YP" Horse (1) Complete - Incised. Standard of some sort; Berthier and Charlier 1952: horse, front right leg lifted underneath the body. PI. XXVII B; 1955: 197. 106 Y P " Horse (1) Fragment - Lower section. Incised. Three legs Berthier and Charlier 1952: and tail of a horse walking L. ' PI. XXVII D; 1955:197.

107 Y P 66/17/12 Horse (1) Complete - Low relief and incised. Open palm; Bertrandy and Sznycer 'sign of Tanit' between caducei; downward 1987: 22,110, no. 12. crescent and disc; inscription; horse walking L. 108 YP 56/19.5/7.5 Dolphin (1) Fragment - Upper and mid section. Low relief. Bertrandy and Sznycer 'Sign of Tanit' and caduceus; dolphin swimming 1987:19-20,106, no. 2; L; inscription. Brouillet 1994: 57, no. 45.

109 Y NP * 65/20/8.5 Bull (1) Complete - Low relief. Bull head, frontal facing; Bertrandy and Sznycer inscription. 1987: 50, 142, no. 126. 110 Y NP 70/18/12.5 Horse (1) Complete - Low relief. Downward crescent and Bertrandy and Sznycer disc; star; 'sign of Tanit' beside a caduceus; 1987: 50, 143, no. 127. inscription; horse standing L.

111 N R Ram (1) Indeterminate - Ram; inscription. Berthier and Charlier 1955: 201.

112 Y R * 20/66/15 Ram (1) Complete - Relief. Saturn; Dedicant (M) standing Doublet and Gauckler 1892: beside an altar; ram walking L. 86, PI. IV, no. 2. 113 Y NP 36.5/23/13 Bull (1) Fragment - Mid section. Low relief. Bull standing Bertrandy and Sznycer

' L, head facing frontally, one front leg raised. 1987: 23, 111, no. 15. 195

114 N IND Ram (1) Indeterminate - Ram framed by a temple-like Berthier and Charlier 1955: facade. 200. 115 N IND Ram (1) Indeterminate - Ram next to a caduceus. Berthier and Charlier 1955: 200. 116 N IND “ Ram (1) Indeterminate - Low relief. Ram. Berthier and Charlier 1955: 200. 117 N IND “ Ram (1) Indeterminate - Ram. Berthier and Charlier 1955: 201. 118 N IND “ Ram (1) Indeterminate - Ram. Berthier and Charlier 1955: 201. 119 N IND * “ Horse (1) Indeterminate - Horse in mid-section of stele, Berthier and Charlier 1955: under symbol not described. 197. 120 N IND ““ Dolphin (1) Indeterminate - 'Sign of Tanit' and caduceus; Berthier and Charlier 1955: dolphin. 202-203.

121 Y IND ~ 36/20/8 Fish (1) Fragment - Mid and lower section. Incised. Bertrandy and Sznycer Vertically aligned fish, head facing upward. 1987:41,133, no. 90.

Cuicul (Dj6mila) 122 N R 2 c. C.E. 129/53/19 Bull (1) Complete - Relief. Saturn with two Le Glay 1966a: 215, no. 10. anthropomorphic figures; inscription; two dedicants with altar (M and F); inscription; two dedicants standing beside an altar (M and F); canistraria with altar and bull standing L. 123 NR 2 c. C.E. 77/35/17 Bull (1); Fragment - Mid and lower section. Two Le Glay 1966a: 219-220, no. Ram (1) dedicants (M and F), man holds a ram's head; 16. inscription; bull walking L. 124 N R 2 c. C.E. 61/22/16 Ram (1); Complete - Relief. Man holds a bird in his left Le Glay 1966a: 220, no. 18. Bird (1) hand; ram walking L.

125 Y R 2 c. C.E. 118/52/24 Lamb (1) Fragment - Upper and mid section. High relief. Le Glay 1966a: 218-219, no. Saturn reclining; inscription; two dedicants (M 15, PI. XXXIII fig. 6. and F), female holds a lamb; inscription; two dedicants (M and F) standing beside an altar. 196

126 Y R Late 2 c. C.E. 145/58/22 Bull (2) Complete - High relief. Saturn with two Le Glay 1966a; 216-217, no. anthropomorphic figures, two lotus flowers; two 12, PI. XXXIII fig. 4. dedicants standing beside an altar (M and F); two dedicants standing beside an altar (M and F); canistraria, two bulls superimposed, walking L, faces are frontal.

127 Y R Late 2 c. C.E. 150/53/24 Bull (1) Complete - High relief. Bust of Saturn with two Le Glay 1966a: 211-213, no. naked anthropomorphic figures; seven 7, PI. XXXIII fig. 2. anthropomorphic busts; two dedicants (M and F) separated by an altar; bull, walking R, face frontal, fragments of an anthropomorphic figure.

128 Y R Late 2 c. C.E. 162/49/13 Bull (1) Complete - High relief. Saturn with two naked Le Glay 1966a: 213-214, no. anthropomorphic figures; two dedicants (M and 8, PI. XXXIII fig. 3. F) separated by an altar; two dedicants standing beside an altar (M and F) standing beside an altar; bull, stands L, head facing frontally, and a canistraria. 129 N R Late 2 c. C.E. 75/55/17 Bull (1) Fragment - Mid and lower section. Relief. Two Le Glay 1966a: 218, no. 14. dedicants (M and F); inscription; two dedicants (M and F) standing beside an altar; inscription; canistraria with bull. 130 Y R Late 2 c. C.E. 127/48/21 Bull (2); Complete - Low relief. Saturn with two Le Glay 1966a: 217-218, no. Lion (2) anthropomorphic figures and two 13, PI. XXXIII fig. 5. anthropomorphic heads; two dedicants (M and F) and a child standing beside an altar; two dedicants standing beside an altar; canistraria with two bulls superimposed, walking L, facing frontal. 131 N R Early 3 c. C.E. 125/61/19 Bull (1) Complete - Relief. Saturn; inscription; two Le Glay 1966a: 221-222, no. dedicants (M and F) standing beside an altar; 21. two dedicants (M and F) standing beside an altar; inscription; canistraria, bull walking L.

132 Y R Early 3 c. C.E. 87/36/13 Bull (1) Complete - High relief. Two dedicants (M and F) Gsell 1917: 346 no. 76; Le stand beside an altar in front of Saturn bust; Glay 1966a: 224, no. 26, PI. inscription; canistraria, bull walks L, face frontal. XXXIV fig. 2 (left). 197

133 YR Early 3 c. C.E. 115/51/21 Bull (1) Complete - High relief. Saturn with busts of Sol Le Glay 1966a: 227, no. 31, and Luna; inscription; two dedicants (M and F) PI. XXXIV fig. 4. standing beside an altar; inscription; bull, face frontal, standing R between two anthropomorphic figures. 134 Y R 3 c. C.E. 160/64/24 Bull (1) Complete - High relief. Saturn; inscription; two Le Glay 1966a: 226, no. 30, young males stand on a pedestal, two adults (M PI. XXXIV fig. 3. and F) stand beside them; inscription; bull walking L, face frontal. 135 Y R 3 c. C.E. 60/48/14 Bull (1); Fragment - Upper and Mid section. High relief. Le Glay 1966a: 220-221, no. Lamb (1); Two lion heads in upper corners of stele; two 19, PI. XXXIV fig. 1. Lion (2) dedicants (M and F), the woman holds a lamb; bull walking L, face frontal, and an anthropomorphic figure. 136 N R 3 c. C.E. 77/58/11 Lamb (1) Fragment - Upper and mid section. Relief. Le Glay 1966a: 223, no. 24; Saturn; inscription; two dedicants (M and F) CIL 8307. standing beside an altar, the female holds a lamb; inscription. 137 Y R 3-4 c. C.E. 103/52/24 Bull (1); Fragment - Mid and lower section. High relief. Le Glay 1966a: 227-228, no. Bird (2) Bust of Saturn, two birds hold band of garland; 32, PI. XXXIV fig. 5. two adults (M and F) with a child; inscription; bull walking R. 138 YR 4 c. C.E. 105/52/24 Horse (2); Fragment - Mid and lower section. High relief. Le Glay 1966a: 229-230, no. Lion Saturn on a throne, two anthropomorphic 36, PI. XXXIV fig. 6. attacking figures; Dioscuri with horses, a lion attacks an animal (1) unidentified animal; two dedicants (M and F).

139 N R 57/63/22 Bull (1) Fragment - Mid and lower section. Two Le Glay 1966a: 221, no. 20. dedicants (both M) standing beside an altar; inscription; anthropomorphic figure holding offerings, bull walking L. 140 N R 62/37/23 Bull (1) Fragment - Mid and lower section. Relief. Le Glay 1966a: 223, no. 23. Preserved at the top break are the feet of two dedicants standing beside an inscribed altar; inscription; canistraria, bull walking L. 198

141 N R 38/60/23 Bull (1) Fragment - Lower section. Relief. Preserved at Le Glay 1966a: 234, no. 48. the top break are the feet of two dedicants (M and F) standing beside an altar; inscription; anthropomorphic male and female pull a bull to the L, another figure behind the bull.

142 NR 36/47/16 Bull (1) Fragment - Lower section. Relief. Preserved at Le Glay 1966a: 234, no. 49. the top break are the feet of the dedicant (F?); inscription; bull walking L.

143 NR 65/29/13 Ram (1) Fragment - Mid and lower section. Relief. Gsell 1917: 345, no. 75; Le Dedicant (M) standing beside an altar; Glay 1966a: 25, no. 223- inscription; ram walking L. 224. 144 N R 28/28/12 Ram (1) Fragment - Mid and lower section. Relief. Two Le Glay 1966a: 235, no. 52. dedicants (M and F) standing beside an altar; inscription; ram standing L, beside an altar.

145 NR- 68/60/23 Lion (1) Fragment - Upper section. Relief. Saturn sitting Le Glay 1966a: 234, no. 47. on a lion which is facing L; inscription. 146 NR- 51/50/20 Lion (1) Complete - Relief. Lion; two dedicants (M and F) Le Glay 1966a: 235-236, no. standing beside an altar; inscription. 53.

El-Kenissia 147 Y IND 43/25/4 Bull (1); Complete - Incised. Ram and bull, both facing R, Carton 1906: 39-40, no. 29, Ram (1) towards an anthropomorphic figure; one palm PI. Ill fig. 15. frond to the left of the animals, two to the right of the figure. 148 Y IND 39/42/9 Ram (1) Complete - Low relief. Downward crescent, disc Carton 1906: 74, no. 116, PI. divided by a cross; ram walking R toward an II fig. 12. altar. 149 Y IND " 42/36/4 Ram (1) Complete - Low relief. Ram standing L on Carton 1906:85, no. 146, PI. pedestal or altar in temple-like facade. II fig. 9. 150 Y IND 32/16/3 Quadruped Complete - Incised. 'Sign of Tanit1, a circle to Carton 1906: 35, no. 15, PI. (2) either side; two quadrupeds face each other II fig. 16. under 'sign of Tanit'; palm frond on each side of stele. 199

151 Y IND 26/22/8 Quadruped Fragment - Mid and lower section. Incised. Cone­ Carton 1906:48-49, no. 59, (1) like emblem; altar(?); quadruped (bull?) PI. IV fig. 6. standing L.

Hadrumetum (Sousse) 152 Y NP 2-1 c. B.C.E. 35/15.5/5.5 Crab (1) Fragment - Mid and lower section. Low relief. Cintas 1947: 37-38, Stele T Triangular base (possibly 'sign of Tanit'); framed 9, Fig. 61. inscription; overhead view of a crab.

153 N NP 2-1 c. B.C.E. 39/14/5 Crab (1) Indeterminate - Low relief. Winged disc above Cintas 1947: 38, Stele T 5. 'sign of the bottle'; triangular pediment over framed inscription; crab. 154 Y NP Mid 1 c. Lamb (1) Fragment -Mid and lower section. Low relief. Cintas 1947: 71, Fig. 129. B.C.E. - late 1 Three dedicants (M) walking L, facing frontal, c. C.E. jointly carrying a lamb. 155 Y R 1-2 c. C.E. Ram/Sheep Fragment - Mid and lower section. Low relief. Cintas 1947: 80, Fig. 123. (1) Single ram/sheep on small pedestal in square frame, standing L. 156 Y R 1-2 c. C.E. Ram/Sheep Complete - Low relief. Single ram/sheep Cintas 1947: 80, Fig. 124. (1) standing Lin a in square frame. 157 Y R 1-2 c. C.E. Quadruped Fragment - Mid and lower section. Low relief. Cintas 1947: 80, Fig. 125. ■ (1) Single ram/sheep on small pedestal framed by columns, standing L.

HENCHIR EL-HAMI 159 Y NP 63/41.2/14.5 Ram (1) Fragment - Lower section. Low relief. Preserved Ferjaoui 2007:139, no. 13, at the top of the break are the feet of the Fig. 13. dedicant; ram standing L, in framed niche. 160 Y NP 71/42.5/21 Bird (1) Complete - Upper section. Low relief. Dedicant Ferjaoui 2007:141, no.15, (M) holds palm frond in left hand, cornocopia(?) Fig. 15. in right hand. Bird flying L beside the palm frond. 200

161 Y R 133/40.2/17 Bull (1); Complete - Low relief. Dove on each side of a Ferjaoui 2007:148-150, no. Ram (1); flower in the pediment; Saturn on throne, right 29, Fig. 29. Horse (2); hand under a horse of the Dioscurus; two dedicants (M and F), and a third figure (M); Sol Dove (2) and Luna with Hercules figure; bull walking L, head frontal, and a ram standing R. 162 Y R 51/53/12 Bull (1); Fragment - Upper and mid section. Low relief. Ferjaoui 2007; 150-151, no. Horse (2); Saturn in center, two lions in profile flank him, 30, Fig. 30. Lion (2) but heads frontal; Dioscuri below with horses; bull walking R, two headless anthropomorphic figures. 163 Y R? IND * 10.5/19/0.35 Horse (3) Fragment - Low relief. Three horse heads, facing Ferjaoui 2007:152, no. 32, R. Fig. 32. 164 Y IND “ 13/7/3 Bird (1) Fragment - Upper section? Low relief. Body and Ferjaoui 2007:155, no. 39, feet of a bird, standing L. Fig. 39. 165 Y IND " " Bird (1) Fragment - Low relief. Bird standing R, with open Ferjaoui 2007:156, no. 40, wings. Fig. 40. 166 Y IND * 7/10/2 Bird (1) Fragment - Low relief. Bird standing L. Ferjaoui 2007:156, no. 41, Fig. 41.

Lambaesis (Lambese) 167 Y R Early 2 c. C.E. 64/33/7 Ram (1) Complete - Low relief. Upward crescent; Le Glay 1966a: 103, no. 75, dedicant (M); ram standing R. PI. XXIV fig. 5. 168 N R 2 c. C.E. 72/35/9 Ram (1) Complete - Relief. Saturn; dedicant (F) standing Le Glay 1966a: 97-98, no. on a ram walking L. 51. 169 Y R Late 2 c. C.E. 26/27/7 Ram (1) Complete - High relief. Saturn; dedicant (F); ram Le Glay 1966a: 98-99, no. standing L. 55, PI. XXIII fig. 5. 170 Y R Late 2 c. C.E. 66/26/7 Ram (1); Complete - Low relief. Dedicant (F) holding a Le Glay 1966a: 106, no. 86, Bird (1) bird; ram standing L. PI. XXIV fig. 7. 171 N R 2-3 c. C.E. 71/37/6.5 Ram (1) Complete - Relief. Bust of Saturn, Sol and Luna; Le Glay 1966a: 87, no. 14. priest; ram standing R. 201

172 Y R 2-3 c. C.E. 61/40/10.5 Ram (1) Complete - Low relief. Saturn with Sol and Luna; Le Glay 1966a: 89-90, no. dedicant (M); ram standing R. 19, PI. XXIV fig. 1. 173 Y R 2-3 c. C.E. 78/37/14 Ram (1) Complete - High relief. Saturn; dedicant (M) Le Glay 1966a: 95-96, no. standing beside an altar; ram standing R. 43, PI. XXIV fig. 3. 174 N R 2-3 c. C.E. 63/29/12.5 Ram (1); Complete - Relief. Saturn flanked by two Le Glay 1966a: 89, no. 18. Dolphin (2) anthropomorphic heads; dedicant (M), standing beside an altar with a ram's head on it; two dolphins in recesses on sides. 175 N R Early 3 c. C.E. 68/29/6 Ram (1) Complete - Relief. Saturn; dedicant (M); ram Le Glay 1966a: 96, no. 44. standing L. 176 Y R 3 c. C.E. 67/32.5/9 Ram (1) Complete - Low relief. Saturn with Sol and Luna; Le Glay 1966a: 88-89, no. dedicant (M); ram standing R, drinking from a 16, PI. XXIII fig. 3. vase, anthropomorphic figure playing the flute. 177 N R 3 C. C.E. 68/21/14.5 Ram (1) Complete - Relief. Saturn with Sol and Luna; Le Glay 1966a: 91, no. 25. dedicant (M); ram walking L. 178 N R 3 c. C.E. 57/27/10 Ram (1) Complete - Relief. Dedicant (M) stands beside an Le Glay 1966a: 106, no. 89. altar; ram. 179 Y R Late 3 c. C.E. 88/33/8 Ram (1) Complete - Low relief. Saturn; dedicant (M); ram Le Glay 1966a: 97, no. 50, standing L. PI. XXIV fig. 8. 180 N R Late 3 c. C.E. 65/34/8 Ram (1) Complete - Relief. Dedicant (M) standing on Le Glay 1966a: 105, no. 83. pedestal beside an altar; ram standing R. 181 N R Late 3 c. C.E. 60/27/8 Ram (1) Complete - Relief. Roses; dedicant (M) with ram Le Glay 1966a: 105, no. 84. at feet. 182 N R Late 3 c. C.E. 62/32/45 Ram (1) Complete - Relief. Dedicant (M); ram standing L. Le Glay 1966a: 105, no. 85. 183 N R Bull (2) Fragment - Mid and lower section. Relief. Stele CIL 18244; Le Glay 1966a: divided into two horizontal frames. On each side 85, no.7. is a dedicant standing above a bull; inscription. 184 N R 57/-/- Bull (1) Fragment - Mid and lower section. Relief. Le Glay 1966a: 109, no. 104. Dedicant standing beside an altar; anthropomorphic figure with axe holding bull's head. 185 N R 61/35/14 Ram (2) Complete - Relief. Saturn; dedicant (F) standing Le Glay 1966a: 95, no. 39. beside an altar with a ram's head on it; ram walking R. 202

186 N R - 6 1 /-/-/ Ram (2) Complete - Relief. Saturn; dedicant (M) standing Le Glay 1966a: 95, no. 40. next to an altar with a ram's head on it; ram. 187 N R Ram (1) Fragment - Mid and lower section. Relief. CIL 18236; Le Glay 1966a: Dedicant (M) standing beside an inscribed altar; 85, no. 5. ram. 188 N R 61/40/17.5 Ram (1) Complete - Relief. Saturn with Sol and Luna; CIL 18237; Le Glay 1966a: dedicant (M) standing beside an altar; 85, no.6. inscription; ram. 189 N R 38/38/15 Ram (1) Fragment - Mid and lower section. Relief. CIL 2687; Le Glay 1966a: 86, Dedicant (M) standing beside an altar; no. 10. inscription; ram in-between two anthropomorphic figures. 190 Y R 102/31/12 Ram (1) Complete - Relief. Saturn with Sol and Luna; Cagnat 1895: 52-54, PI. IV dedicant (M) standing beside an altar; ram no. 7; Le Glay 1966a: 86, no. walking R. 12. 191 Y R 85/33/9 Ram (1) Complete - Low relief. Bust of Saturn with Sol Le Glay 1966a: 87, no. 13, and Luna; dedicant (M) standing beside an altar; PI. XXIII fig. 2. ram with front legs bent underneath. 192 N R 74/-/- Ram (1) Complete - Relief. Saturn with Sol and Luna; Le Glay 1966a: 91, no. 26. dedicant (M) standing beside an altar with a ram's head on it. 193 N R - 67/32/12 Ram (1) Complete - Relief. Bust of Saturn, Sol and Luna; Le Glay 1966a: 92, no. 29. dedicant (M); ram standing R. 194 N R 75/43/15 Ram (1) Complete - Relief. Saturn with Sol and Luna; Le Glay 1966a: 93, no. 31. dedicant (M) standing beside an altar with a ram's head on it. 195 N R - 72/41.5/10 Ram (1) Complete - Relief. Saturn with Sol and Luna; Le Glay 1966a: 93, no. 33. dedicant (M); ram. 196 N R - 66/24/12 Ram (1) Complete - Relief. Saturn with Sol and Luna; Le Glay 1966a: 93-94, no. dedicant (F); ram. 34. 197 N R - 78/31.5/6.5 Ram (1) Complete - Relief. Saturn with pinecones; Le Glay 1966a: 95, no. 41. dedicant (F); ram standing R. 198 N R - 59/26.5/11 Ram (1) Complete - Relief. Bust of Saturn; dedicant (F) Le Glay 1966a: 98, no. 52. standing beside an altar; ram standing L. 199 N R - 62/28/9.5 Ram (1) Complete - Relief. Saturn; dedicant (M); ram Le Glay 1966a: 99, no. 56. standing L. 203

200 N R - 70/28/12 Ram (1) Complete - Relief. Head of Saturn; dedicant (F); Le Glay 1966a: 100, no. 60. ram standing L. 201 N R - 75/41.5/12 Ram (1) Complete - Relief. Head of Saturn; dedicant (F) Le Glay 1966a: 100, no. 61. standing next to a ram. 202 N R 56/37/7 Ram (1); Complete - Relief. Saturn; dedicant (M), holding Le Glay 1966a: 102-103, no. Bird (1) a bird, standing beside an altar with a ram's 72. head on it. 203 N R " 64.5/38/9 Ram (1); Complete - Relief. Dedicant (M), holding a bird, Le Glay 1966a: 103, no. 74. Bird (1) standing beside an altar with a ram's head on it. 204 N R ~ 75/50.5/16 Ram (1); Complete - Relief. Dedicant (M) holding grape Le Glay 1966a: 104, no. 78. Bird (1) bunch and a bird; ram standing L. 205 N R “ 78/32.5/8 Ram (1); Complete - Relief. Dedicant (F), holding a bird; Le Glay 1966a: 104, no. 79. Bird (1) ram. 206 N R - -/32/13 Ram (1) Fragment - Lower section. Relief. Ram. Le Glay 1966a: 104, no. 80. 207 NR “ 53/25/11 Ram (1); Complete - Relief. Dedicant (M), holding a bird, Le Glay 1966a: 106, no. 87. Bird (1) standing beside an altar; ram standing L. 208 N R " 72/46/15 Ram (1); Complete - Relief. Dedicant (F), holding a bird Le Glay 1966a: 106-107, no. Bird (1) and a grape bunch; ram standing L. 90. 209 N R 59/33.5/4 Ram (1) Complete - Relief. Dedicant (M), standing in Le Glay 1966a: 107, no. 91. front of a ram with its front legs bent underneath. 210 N R - 49/28/10 Ram (1) Complete - Relief. Dedicant (M); ram standing L. Le Glay 1966a: 107, no. 92. 211 YR " 73/40/8 Ram (1) Complete - Relief. Dedicant (F), standing beside Le Glay 1966a: 107, no. 93, an altar; ram standing L. PI. XXIV fig. 6.

212 N R 30/-/- Ram (1) Complete - Relief. Dedicant (M), standing in Le Glay 1966a: 108, no. 95. front of a ram. 213 N R - 68/40/9 Ram (1) Complete - Relief. Dedicant (F) standing on Le Glay 1966a: 109, no. 101. pedestal; ram standing R. 214 NR 28/-/- Ram (1) Fragment - Lower section. Relief. Preserved at Le Glay 1966a: 109, no. 103. the top break are the feet of dedicant (F) standing beside an altar; ram.

215 N R 50/-/- Ram (1) Fragment - Mid and lower section. Relief. Le Glay 1966a: 109, no. 105. Dedicant (M); ram standing L. 204

216 N R - 35/-/- Ram (1) Fragment - Mid and lower section. Relief. Le Glay 1966a: 109, no. 107. Dedicant (M) standing beside an altar; ram. 217 N R 24/-/- Ram (1); Fragment - Mid section. Relief. Dedicant (M) Le Glay 1966a: 109, no. 109. Bird (1) holding head of ram in the right hand, and a bird in the left hand. 218 N R - 45/-/- Ram (1) Fragment - Mid and lower section. Relief. Le Glay 1966a: 109, no. 111. Dedicant with ram. 219 N R 47/28/12 Ram (1) Fragment - Lower section. Relief. Preserved at Le Glay 1966a: 109, no. 113. the top break are the feet of dedicant (M) standing beside an altar; ram. 220 N R - 40/24/12.5 Ram (1) Fragment - Lower section. Relief. Dedicant (F); Le Glay 1966a: 110, no. 116. ram. 221 N R 46/31/13 Ram (1) Fragment - Mid and lower section. Relief. Le Glay 1966a: 110, no. 117. Dedicant (F), standing beside an altar; ram standing L. 222 N R - 42/30/7 Ram (1) Fragment - Mid section. Relief. Dedicant (M), Le Glay 1966a: 110, no. 121. standing beside an altar with a ram's head on it. 223 N R 40/37/9 Ram (1) Fragment - Lower section. Relief. Preserved at Le Glay 1966a: 110, no. 123. the top break are the feet of dedicant, standing beside an altar; ram standing L. 224 N R - 54/35/10 Ram (1) Fragment - Mid and lower section. Relief. Le Glay 1966a: 110, no. 124. Dedicant (F); ram standing R. 225 N R 38/35/10 Ram (1) Fragment - Lower section. Relief. Preserved at Le Glay 1966a: 110, no. 125. the top break are the feet of dedicant, standing beside an altar; ram standing L. 226 N R 63/36/10 Ram (1) Fragment - Mid and lower section. Relief. Le Glay 1966a: 111, no. 127. Dedicant (M), standing beside an altar, and in front of a ram. 227 NR - 37/34/10 Ram (1) Fragment - Lower section. Relief. Dedicant; ram. Le Glay 1966a: 111, no. 130. 228 N R - 46/33/10 Ram (1) Fragment - Mid and lower section. Relief. Le Glay 1966a: 111, no. 134. Dedicant (M) standing beside a ram. 229 N R 49/42/10 Ram (1) Fragment - Upper and mid section. Relief. Two Le Glay 1966a: 111, no. 135. dedicants (M and F), standing beside an altar with a ram's head on it. 205

230 N R - 25/35/11 Ram (1) Fragment - Lower section. Relief. Preserved at Le Glay 1966a: 112, no. 141. the top break are the feet of the dedicant; ram. 231 N R 32/22/5.5 Ram (1); Fragment - Mid section. Relief. Dedicant (F), Le Glay 1966a: 112, no. 142. Bird (1) standing beside an altar with a ram's head on it. 232 N R 27/33/11 Ram (1) Fragment - Lower section. Relief. Dedicant Le Glay 1966a: 112, no. 144. standing beside an altar; ram standing L, eating from a basket. 233 N R - 24/36/10 Ram (1) Fragment - Lower section. Relief. Ram. Le Glay 1966a: 112, no. 146. 234 N R- 16/35/10 Ram (1) Fragment - Lower section. Relief. Preserved at Le Glay 1966a: 112, no. 147. the top break are the feet of the dedicant; ram. 235 N R 25/21.5/8 Ram (1) Fragment - Lower section. Relief. Preserved at Le Glay 1966a: 112, no. 149. the top break are the feet of dedicant standing beside an altar, and in front of a ram. 236 N R- 46/39/16 Ram (1) Fragment - Mid and lower section. Relief. Le Glay 1966a: 112, no. 153. Dedicant (F); ram. 237 N R 28/38/12 Ram (1) Fragment - Lower section. Relief. Preserved at Le Glay 1966a: 113, no. 155. the top break are the feet of dedicant standing beside an altar; ram standing L. 238 N R - 50/32/18 Ram (1); Complete - Relief. Dedicant (M) holding a bird, Le Glay 1966a: 108, no. 99. Bird (1) standing in front of a ram. 239 N R - 46/29/18 Lamb (1) Complete - Relief. Dedicant (F) holding a lamb. Le Glay 1966a: 108, no. 96. 240 N R 50/38/13 Bird (1) Fragment - Upper and mid section. Relief. Flead Le Glay 1966a: 93, no. 32. of Saturn; dedicant (F) holding a bird in the right hand. 241 NR 73/27/8 Bird (1) Complete - Relief. Saturn with Sol and Luna; Le Glay 1966a: 94, no. 37. dedicant (F) holding two palm fronds, bird pecks at grape bunch; ram walking L.

M actarb (Maktar) 242 Y NP End 1 c. C.E. 42/33/- Bird (2) Fragment - Upper section. Incised. Rosette over Picard n.d. [1955]: 276, Cb- upward crescent; two birds facing each other, 980, PI. CIX. holding a garland and a palm frond; inscription. 206

243 Y NP End 1 c. C.E. 49/34/- Bird (1) Fragment - Mid section. Low relief. Preserved at Picard n.d. [1955]: 276-277, the top break is a dedicant from the waist down, Cb-982, PI. CX. standing on an inscribed pedestal; bird with open wings, body facing frontal, head facing right. 244 Y NP End 1 c. C.E. 60/40/- Bird (2); Fragment - Upper section. Incised. Rosette over Picard n.d. [1955]: 275, Cb- Dolphin (2) upward crescent; two dolphins facing each 976, PI. CVIII. other, two birds flying underneath, facing each other; inscription. 245 Y R Early 2 c. C.E. 40/33/- Bird (2) Fragment - Upper section. Incised. Palm frond; Picard n.d. [1955]: 278, Cb- rosette; two birds flying, facing a palm frond; 987, PI. CXI. inscription. 246 Y R Early 2 c. C.E. 34/35.5/- Bird (2); Fragment - Upper section. Incised. Rosette over Picard n.d. [1955]: 278, Cb- Dolphin (2) upward crescent; two dolphins facing each 988, PI. CXI. other, one bird stands R behind a dolphin, a secon bird stands L above a dolphin; inscription. 247 Y R Early 2 c. C.E. 44/40/- Bird (2); Fragment - Upper section. Low relief. Three Picard n.d. [1955]: 278, Cb- Fish (2) rosettes, upward crescent; two birds, facing 989, PI. CXI. each other, standing on a framed inscription, and two fish on either side of the inscription frame; inscription. 248 Y R 2 c. C.E. 39/45/- Bull (1) Fragment - Mid section. Low relief. Preserved at Picard n.d. [1955]: 283, Cb- the top break is the lower half of a dedicant, 1009, PI. CXVI. standing to the right of an altar, bull standing L behind the dedicant; inscription.

249 Y R 2 c. C.E. 57/34/- Bull (1); Fragment - Upper section. Incised. Rosette over Picard n.d. [1955]: 280-281, Bird (2); upward crescent. Two birds, a fish in between, a Cb-999, PI. CXIV. Fish (1); floating bull head, facing frontal; inscription.

250 Y R 2 c. C.E. 38/39/- Bull (1); Fragment - Upper section. Incised. Upward Picard n.d. [1955]: 291, Cb- Bird (2); crescent, two birds, wings flapping (left one 1000, PI. CXIV. Fish (3); carries a frontal-facing bull head), three fish (one on the left, two on the right); inscription. 251 Y R 2 c. C.E. 52/22/- Bird (2) Fragment - Upper section. Low relief. Rosette Picard n.d. [1955]: 279, Cb- over upward crescent, two birds facing each 993, PI. CXII. other; inscription. 207

252 Y R 2 c. C.E. 49/30/- Bird (4) Fragment - Upper and mid section. Low relief. Picard n.d. [1955]: 291-292, Two birds vertically aligned, heads facing Cb-1003, PI. CXV. upwards, two birds vertically aligned, heads facing downwards, pecking a grape bunch; inscription; head and torso of the dedicant (M) preserved. 253 Y R 2 c. C.E. 4 1/32/- Bird (2) Fragment - Upper section. Low relief. A Picard n.d. [1955]: 292, Cb- pomegranate and two rosettes; inscription with 1006, PI. CXVI. a bird on either side, vertically aligned, heads facing upwards; dedicant. 254 Y R 2 c. C.E. 63/37/- Bird (2) Fragment - Upper section. Low relief. Rosette Picard n.d. [1955]: 283-284, over upward crescent; two birds, facing each Cb-1011, PI. CXVII. other; inscription; head of dedicant is preserved, with palm frond to either side. 255 Y R 2 c. C.E. 50/37.5/- Bird (1) Fragment - Upper section. Low relief. Rayed sun Picard n.d. [1955]: 284, Cb- with a face; Dionysus on the right, and Venus on 1012, PI. CXVII. the left; bird, standing R, between two grape bunches; inscription. 256 Y R 2 c. C.E. 34/37/- Bird (4); Fragment - Mid section. Low relief. Lower half of Picard n.d. [1955]: 292, Cb- Dolphin (2) an anthropomorphic figure preserved; two birds 1007, PI. CXVI. pecking from a vase; two dolphins, vertically aligned, head pointing downwards and eating from two vases, alongside two birds; inscription.

257 Y R 2 c. C.E. 44/35/- Bird (2); Fragment - Upper section. Incised. Two birds Picard n.d. [1955]: 291, Cb- Dolphin (2) standing beside a vase, wings flapping, two 1002, PI. CXV. dolphins below the birds; inscription. 258 YR 2 c. C.E. 25/36/- Bird (2); Fragment - Upper and mid section. Low relief. Picard n.d. [1955]: 292, Cb- Dolphin (2) Two birds with a pinecone, two dolphins 1004, PI. CXV. veritcally aligned, heads pointing downwards; inscription.

259 Y R 2 c. C.E. 54/29/- Bird (2); Fragment - Upper and mid section. Rosette over Picard n.d. [1955]: 283, Cb- Dolphin upward crescent; two birds flying R, one fish, 1010, PI. CXVII. (1); Fish (1) swimming R, an anthropomorphic figure riding a dolphin L; inscription; head of a dedicant preserved above the bottom break. 208

260 Y R 2 c. C.E. 40/39/- Bird (2); Fragment - Upper section. Incised. Rosette over Picard n.d. [1955]: 280, Cb- Fish (2) upward crescent, two birds, wings flapping, face 998, PI. CXIV. a bowl, two fish under the birds; inscription. 261 Y R 2 c. C.E. 63/28/- Dolphins Fragment - Mid and lower section. Low relief. Picard n.d. [1955]: 292, Cb- (2) Preserved at the top break is the dedicant from 1005, PI. CXV. the waist down; two dolphins vertically aligned, heads facing downwards, each over a vase, and a pinecone between them; inscription.

262 Y R 2 c. C.E. 37/42/- Dolphin (1) Fragment - Upper section. Low relief. Dolphin Picard n.d. [1955]: 284, Cb- arched upside-down, facing L; Dionysus on the 1013, PI. CXVII. right, a grape bunch, Venus on the right, an acorn.. 263 Y R 2 c. C.E. 25/24/- Fish (1) Fragment - Upper section. Incised. Rosette over Picard n.d. [1955]: 291, Cb- upward crescent; fish swiming R; inscription. 1001, PI. CXIV. 264 Y R 2 c. C.E. 46/30/- Fish (2) Fragment - Mid section. Low relief. Two fish on Picard n.d. [1955]: 283, Cb- either side of an object, vertically aligned, heads 1008, PI. CXVI. pointing downward; inscription; head and upper torso of dedicant (M) preserved above the bottom break, with palm fronds to either side.

S /tijffe (Setif) 265 N R 149 C.E. 82/54/- Ram (1) Complete - Relief. Two dedicants (M and F) CIL 8458; LeGlay 1966a: separated by an altar; inscription; two men 266-267, no. 1. sacrificing a ram; inscription. 266 Y R 2-early 3 c. 126/57/21 Bull (1) Complete - High relief. Bust of Saturn; Le Glay 1966a: 275, no. 16, C.E. inscription; two dedicants (M and F) standing PI. XXXVIII fig. 1. beside an altar, youth standing on a pedestal; bull standing L, face is frontal, wears a blanket or cover. 267 Y R 209 C.E. 200/65/2 Bull (1); Complete - Low relief. Saturn with lion to his left, LeGlay 1966a: 270-272, no. Lion (1) facing frontal; inscription; two dedicants (M and 8, Pl.XXXVII fig. 1; Ballu F) separated by an altar; inscription; 1909: 81. anthropomorphic figure standing beside an altar, bull on the left, head frontal, walking R towards the altar. 209

268 N R 246 C.E. 58/31/47 Bull (1) Fragment - Mid and lower section. Relief. CIL 8460; Le Glay 1966a: Inscription; two dedicants (M and F) standing 268-269, no. 6. beside an altar; inscription; bull standing L, head not preserved. 269 Y R 3 c. C.E. 150/59/- Bull (2); Complete - Low relief. Two doves with circular Le Glay 1966a: 281-282, no. Dove (2) garland; busts of Saturn with Sol and Luna; 32, PI. XXXVIII fig. 3. dedicant (M) standing beside an altar; two bulls, heads face frontal, facing a centrally placed altar.

270 N R 3 c. C.E. 80/48/- Lion (1) Fragment - Upper section. Relief. Saturn CIL 20357; Le Glay 1966a: lounging on lion, which faces R; inscription; two 274, no. 14. dedicants (M and F) standing beside an altar. 271 N R Late 3 c. C.E. 120/42/19 Bull (1) Fragment - Mid and lower section. Relief. Le Glay 1966a: 276-277, no. Preserved at the top break are the feet of two 20. figures; inscription; two dedicants (M and F) standing beside an altar; inscription; bull standing L, wearing a blanket or cover. 272 Y R Late 3 c. C.E. 110/42/- Ram (2) Complete - Low relief. Bust of Saturn with Sol Le Glay 1966a: 283, no. 36, and Luna; two dedicants (M and F) with three PI. XXXVIII fig. 5. anthropomorphic heads (their children?) between them; two rams facing each other, heads facing frontal.

273 NR " 80/42/- Bull (2) Complete - Relief. Bust of Saturn; two dedicants Le Glay 1966a: 283, no. 34. (M and F); two bulls facing frontal. 274 N R Bull (1) Fragment - Mid and lower section. Preserved at CIL8446; LeGlay 1966a: the top break are the feet of two figures; 276, no. 17. inscription; two dedicants standing beside an altar, inscription; traces of a bull walking R. 275 N R Bull (1) Fragment - Mid and lower section. Relief. CIL8447; LeGlay 1966a: Inscription; two dedicants (M and F) standing 276, no. 18. beside an altar; insription; bull walking R. 276 N R 174/46/- Bull (1) Complete - Relief. Saturn on throne flanked by Le Glay 1966a: 284, no. 37. two anthropomorphic figures; two dedicants (M and F); bull. 210

277 N R 95/46/- Bull (1); Complete - Relief. Bust of Saturn; two dedicants Le Glay 1966a: 283, no. 35. Ram (1) (M and F) standing beside an altar with ram's head on it; bull walking L, towards an altar.

278 N R - 24/48.5/- Ram (2) Fragment - Lower section. Relief. Two rams Le Glay 1966a: 285, no. 42. facing front. 279 N R 40/28/- Ram (1) Fragment - Mid and lower section. Relief. Le Glay 1966a: 284, no. 40. Dedicant (M) standing beside an altar with a ram's head on it. 280 Y R 6 5/54/ Ram (1); Fragment - Upper section. Low relief. Saturn on Le Glay 1966a: 272, no. 9, Lion (1) a throne, a lion stands facing frontal on the left, PI. XXXVII fig. 3. a ram stands fancing frontal on the right, two anthropomorphic busts flank the register; inscription. 281 N R * 45/50/20 Horse (2) Fragment - Upper section. Relief. Saturn bust CIL8453; LeGlay 1966a: flanked by Dioscuri and horses; inscription. 278, no. 26. 282 N R 32/40/- Horse (2) Fragment - Relief. Two horses (representing the CIL 20360; Le Glay 1966a: Dioscuri?); inscription. 279, no. 27. 283 N R Horse (2) Fragment - Relief. Inscription; Dioscuri with CIL8463; LeGlay 1966a: horses, in front of a sphere. 281, no. 31. 284 N R 59/49.5/11 Horse (2); Fragment - Relief. Bust of Saturn; inscription; CIL8444; LeGlay 1966a: Lion lion attacking an animal, flanked by Dioscuri with 273, no. 11. attacking horses. animal (1)

285 N R 53/40/- Bird (1) Indeterminate - Relief. Anthropomorphic figure CIL 8450; Le Glay 1966a: flanked by six rays, and a garland, to the left is 277, no. 21. bird and hook; inscription. 286 N R Lion (1) Fragment - Upper section. Relief. Saturn bust; CIL 8445; Le Glay 1966a: inscription; lion head flanked by two 273, no. 12. anthropomorphic figures. 287 NR 96/50/20 Horse (2); Fragment - Upper section. Relief. Bust of Saturn; Le Glay 1966a: 285, no. 43. Lion head of lion eating an animal, Dioscuri holding attacking their mounts. animal (1) 211

288 N R 103/53/- Quadruped Complete - Relief. Two dedicants (M and F) Le Glay 1966a: 279, no. 29. (1) standing beside an altar; inscription; quadruped (ram or bull?), walking L.

ThamugadiTimgad) 289 N R Early 2 c. C.E. 90/42/15 Ram (1) Complete - Relief. Saturn; two dedicants (M and Le Glay 1966a: 135, no. 9. F); ram standing R. 290 N R Early 2 c. C.E. 73/47/16 Ram (2); Complete - Relief. Bust of Saturn, Sol and Luna; Le Glay 1966a: 135, no. 8. Bird (1) two dedicants (M and F) standing beside an altar with a ram's head on it, female holding a bird; two rams facing each other. 291 Y R Early 2 c. C.E. 88/36/18 Ram (1); Complete - High relief. Bust of Saturn, Sol and Le Glay 1966a: 134-135, no. Bird (1) Luna; dedicant (F) holding a bird in hand, flanked 7, PL XXVII fig. 4. by two anthropomorphic figures with palm fronds; ram walking R towards an anthropomorphic figure (M). 292 Y R 2 c. C.E. 93/63/14 Bull (2) Complete - Low relief. Stele divided into left and Le Glay 1966a: 132-133, no. right frames. In both frames is an upward 3, PI. XXVII fig. 2. crescent over a bull walking away from the center. Below the frames, in the middle of the stele, is an altar. 293 N R 2 c. C.E. 75/35/13 Ram (1) Complete - Relief. Bust of Saturn, Sol and Luna; Le Glay 1966a: 141-142, no. dedicant (M) standing beside an altar, ram facing 26. L, standing behind the dedicant. 294 Y R 2 c. C.E. 75/37/10 Ram (1) Complete - High relief. Head of Saturn; dedicant Le Glay 1966a: 142, no. 28, (M); ram standing R. PI. XXVIII fig. 1. 295 Y R 2 c. C.E. 50/25/10 Ram (1); Complete - High relief. Bird in center of Le Glay 1966a: 140-141, no. Bird (1) pediment area; dedicant standing beside an 24, PI. XXVII fig. 9. altar; ram. 296 Y R Late 2 c. C.E. 112/55/26 Bull (1); Complete - Low relief. Bust of Saturn, Sol and Le Glay 1966a: 144, no. 33, Ram (1) Luna; dedicant (F) stands beside an altar; bull PI. XXVIII fig. 3. standing L, head frontal, and ram standing R, facing each other. 212

297 N R Late 2 c. C.E. 95/37/18 Bull (1); Complete - Relief. Bust of Saturn, Sol and Luna; Le Glay 1966a: 144, no. 34. Ram (1) dedicant (F) standing beside an altar; ram walking R, and bull walking L, in opposite directions. 298 N R Late 2 c. C.E. 64/26.5/11.5 Ram (1) Complete - Bust of Saturn; dedicant (M) standing Le Glay 1966a: 138, no. 17. beside an altar; ram standing R.

299 Y R Late 2 c. C.E. 62/30/12 Bird (1) Fragment - Upper and mid section. High relief. Le Glay 1966a: 137-138, no. Bust of Saturn; dedicant (F) holding a bird. 14, PI. XXVII fig. 7. 300 Y R 2-3 c. C.E. 115/51/15 Ram (1) Complete - Low relief. Bust of Saturn, Sol and Le Glay 1966a: 143, no. 30, Luna; dedicant (M) standing beside an altar; PI. XXVIII fig. 2. ram standing R, eating from a basket. 301 N R 2-3 c. C.E. 89/52/21 Ram (1) Complete - Low relief. Bust of Saturn, Sol and Le Glay 1966a: 143, no. 31. Luna; dedicant (M) standing beside an altar; ram standing L, eating(?) three wheat stalks. 302 N R 2-3 c. C.E. 54/35/12 Ram (1) Fragment - Mid and lower section. Relief. LeGlay 1966a: 158, no.93. Dedicant (M) standing on pedestal; ram standing L. 303 N R 2-3 c. C.E. 88/28.5/13 Bull (1); Complete - Relief. Reclining Saturn; dedicant LeGlay 1966a: 145, no. 36. Ram (1) standing beside an altar; ram and bull. 304 NR 2-3 c. C.E. 57/38/12 Ram (2); Complete - Relief. Two dedicants (M and F), LeGlay 1966a: 142, no. 29. Dove (1) female holding a dove and a bunch of grapes; two rams walking in opposite directions. 305 Y R Early 3 c. C.E. 145/51/27 Bull (1); Complete - High relief. Saturn on throne, Sol and Le Glay 1966a: 149-151, no. Horse (2) Luna (not Dioscuri) with horses; dedicant (M); 46, PI. XXVIII fig. 6. bull, stands L, between two young anthropomorphic males each leaning on a club. 306 Y R 3 c. C.E. 87/50/16 Bull (1); Complete - Low relief. Saturn, Sol and Luna; Le Glay 1966a: 151, no. 47, Ram (1) dedicant (M) standing beside an altar; bull on PI. XXVIII fig. 7. the left, ram on the right, facing opposite directions, both with front legs bent underneath and heads lowered. 307 N R 3 c. C.E. 70/38/14.5 Bull (1); Complete - Relief. Saturn; dedicant (F) holding a Le Glay 1966a: 152-153, no. Ram (1); bird; bull and ram eating from the same basket. 50. Bird (1) 213

308 N R 3 c. C.E. 57/30/12 Ram (1) Fragment - Mid and lower section. Relief. Le Glay 1966a; 148, no. 45. Dedicant (M); ram standing R. 309 N R Late 3 c. C.E. 87/50.5/15 Bull (1); Complete - Relief. Saturn, Sol and Luna; dedicant Le Glay 1966a: 152, no. 48. Ram (1) (M) standing beside an altar; bull on the right, ram on the left, both eating from the same basket. 310 Y R Late 3 c. C.E. 93/57/15 Ram (1) Complete - High relief. Bust of Saturn; dedicant Le Glay 1966a: 153, no. 51, (M); ram standing L. PI. XXVIII fig. 8. 311 N R - 125/41/15 Bull (1) Complete - Relief. Bust of Saturn, Sol and Luna; Le Glay 1966a: 153-154, no. dedicant (F); bull walking L, face frontal. 53. 312 N R " 102/43/17 Bull (1); Complete - Relief. Saturn resting on ram; two Le Glay 1966a: 136-137, no. Ram (1) dedicants (M and F); bull standing R. 11. 313 N R 67/47/16 Bull (1) Fragment - Lower section. Relief. Preserved at Le Glay 1966a: 158, no. 96. the top break are the legs of dedicant; bull standing R. 314 NR - 17/47/23 Bull (1) Fragment - Lower section. Relief. Bull standing L. Le Glay 1966a: 160, no. 127. 315 N R 18/21/12.5 Bull (1) Fragment - Lower section. Relief. Preserved at Le Glay 1966a: 161, no. 133. the top break are the feet of dedicant; bull standing R. 316 N R 72/29/17 Ram (1) Complete - Relief. Bust of Saturn; dedicant (M) LeGlay 1966a: 138, no. 15. standing beside an altar; ram standing L. 317 N R ■ 64/34/16 Ram (1) Complete - Relief. Conch shell; dedicant (F) LeGlay 1966a: 139, no. 19. standing beside an altar; ram.

318 N R 57/40/9 Ram (1) Complete - Relief. Busts of Saturn, Sol and Luna; Le Glay 1966a: 141, no. 25. dedicant (M) standing beside an altar; ram standing R. 319 N R 50/53/15 Ram (1) Fragment - Upper and mid section. Relief. Saturn Le Glay 1966a: 145, no. 35. reclines on a ram; dedicant (F) standing beside an altar. 320 Y R “ 92/55/11 Ram (1) Complete - Low relief. Saturn reclines on a ram; LeGlay 1966a: 145-146, no. two dedicants (M and F). 37, PI. XXVIII fig. 4. 321 NR - 35/30/13 Ram (1) Fragment - Mid section. Relief. Dedicant (F) LeGlay 1966a: 157, no. 84. standing beside an altar with a ram's head on it. 214

322 N R - 33.5/30/9 Ram (1) Fragment - Lower section. Relief. Dedicant (F) Le Glay 1966a; 157, no. 90. with ram at her feet. 323 N R 43/39/12 Ram (1) Fragment - Mid and lower section. Relief. Le Glay 1966a: 158, no. 91. Dedicant (M) standing beside an altar, and in front of a ram. 324 NR - 52/35/11 Ram (1) Fragment - Lower section. Relief. Preserved at LeGlay 1966a: 158, no. 92. the top break are the feet of dedicant; ram. 325 N R 48/36/8 Ram (1) Fragment - Mid and lower section. Relief. LeGlay 1966a: 158, no. 101. Dedicant (F) holding a bunch of grapes; ram standing R. 326 N R 38/20/9 Ram (1) Fragment - Mid and lower section. Relief. LeGlay 1966a: 159, no. 110. Dedicant (F) holding a bunch of grapes; ram standing R. 327 N R 30/20.5/10.5 Ram (1) Fragment - Lower section. Relief. Preserved at LeGlay 1966a: 160, no. 124. the top break are the feet of dedicant (F); ram standing R. 328 N R 62/46/19 Ram (1) Fragment - Lower section. Relief. Preserved at LeGlay 1966a: 160, no. 125. the top break are the feet of dedicant; ram standing R, eating(?) three wheat stalks. 329 N R 72/52/20 Ram (1) Fragment - Lower section. Relief. Preserved at Le Glay 1966a: 160-161, no. the top break are the feet of dedicant; ram 128. eating(?) three wheat stalks. 330 N R 30/38/8 Ram (1) Fragment - Lower section. Relief. Preserved at Le Glay 1966a: 161, no. 129. the top break are the feet of dedicant standing beside an altar; ram standing L. 331 N R - 39/53/16.5 Ram (1) Fragment - Lower section. Relief, Ram standing LeGlay 1966a: 161, no. 130. L. 332 N R 19/22/8 Ram (1) Fragment - Lower section. Relief. Preserved at LeGlay 1966a: 161, no. 131. the top break are the feet of dedicant (M); ram standing R. 333 N R 32/30/25 Ram (1) Fragment - Lower section. Relief. Preserved at Le Glay 1966a: 161, no. 132. the top break are the feet of dedicant; ram standing L. 334 N R 20/20/4.5 Ram (1) Fragment - Lower section. Relief. Preserved at Le Glay 1966a: 161, no. 134. the top break are the legs of dedicant; ram standing R. 215

335 N R 73/28.5/16 Ram (1) Complete - Relief. Bust of Saturn; dedicant (F) Le Glay 1966a; 154, no. 58. standing beside an altar; ram walking L. 336 NR - 75/33.5/9 Ram (1) Complete - Relief. Bust of Saturn; dedicant (M) Le Glay 1966a: 155, no. 65. standing beside an altar; ram standing L. 337 N R - 77/37/14 Ram (1) Complete - Relief. Bust of Saturn; dedicant (F); Le Glay 1966a: 155, no. 66. ram standing L. 338 N R 27/24.5/11 Lamb (1) Fragment - Upper and mid section. Relief. Le Glay 1966a: 156-157, no. Flower; dedicant (M) holding a lamb. 79. 339 N R - 50/33.5/13 Bird (1) Fragment - Mid section. Relief. Dedicant (F) Le Glay 1966a: 138-139, no. holding a bird and a bunch of grapes. 18. 340 NR 62/36/12 Bird (1) Fragment - Upper and mid section. Relief. Le Glay 1966a: 137, no. 13. Reclining Saturn; dedicant (F) holding a bird and a bunch of grapes. 341 NR 35/35/10.5 Bird (1) Fragment - Upper and mid section. Relief. Bust LeGlay 1966a: 154, no. 54. of Saturn, Sol and Luna; two dedicants (M and F), female holding a bird. 342 N R 42/22/11 Bird (1) Fragment - Upper and mid section. Relief. Bust Le Glay 1966a: 156, no. 70. of Saturn; dedicant (F) holding a bird and a bunch of grapes. 343 N R ■ 73/45/11 Bird (1); Complete - Relief. Two dolphins face each other; Le Glay 1966a: 137, no. 12. Dolphin (2) dedicant (F) holding a bird.

Theveste (Tebessa) - a 344 Y R 3 c. C.E. 142/66/32 Bull (1); Complete - Low relief. Saturn and Caelestis on CIL 16697; Le Glay 1961: Ram (1); thrones, lion stiting between with face frontal; 349-352, no. 46, PI. XIII fig 5. Horse (2); five pinecones, Dioscuri mounted on horses; Lion (1) dedicant (M) with servant and an altar; three women carrying baskets; ram and bull, both walking R. 345 NR 3 c. C.E. 34/59/23 Bull (2); Complete - Relief. Saturn with Sol and Luna, CIL 2190=28050; Gsell 1902: Ram (1); flanked by Dioscuri with horses; quadruped 17-18, PI. 1 no. 6; Le Glay 1 Horse (2); stands before altar; dedicant (M) standing 1961: 355-356, no. 49. beside ram and two bulls; seven women with Quadruped ! baskets; inscription. (1) 216

346 N R 3 c. C.E. 133/-/- Ram (1) Complete - Relief. Dedicant (M) standing beside CIL 28021; Le Glay 1961: an altar; ram standing R; inscription. 358, no. 55. 347 Y R 3 c. C.E. 41/52/28 Lion (1) Fragment - Upper section. Low relief. Lion CIL 16694; Le Glay 1961: walking R, face frontal; inscription. 349, no. 45, PI. XIII fig 4. 348 Y R 10/48/- Bull (1) Complete - Low relief. A large altar, bull walking CIL 16699; Le Glay 1961: L towards an altar, one front leg raised; 359, no. 57, PI. XIII fig. 7. inscription. 349 N R Bull (2); Complete - Relief. Saturn; dedicant (M); LeGlay 1961:357, no. 52. Ram (2) anthropomorphic figure (M) with two bulls and two rams; six pinecones.

350 N R 75/-/- Bull (1); Complete - Relief. Bust of Saturn and pinecone; CIL 2182; Le Glay 1961: 357- Ram (2) pinecone and bull; two rams beside an altar; 358, no. 54. inscription. 351 Y R 92/50/18 Bull (1); . Complete - Low relief. Saturn with Sol and Luna; Truillot 1932-19336:402- Ram (2) bull walking R; inscription; two rams facing 404; Le Glay 1961: 354-355, frontal, pinecone. no. 48, PI. XIII fig. 3.

352 N R Bull (1); Fragment - Mid and lower section. Relief. Le Glay 1961: 348, no. 39. Ram (1) Dedicant (M); ram and bull separated by a basket. 353 N R -/35/- Ram (2) Fragment - Lower section. Relief. Two CIL 27844; Le Glay 1961: fragmented busts; inscription; two rams facing 346, no. 31. each other. 354 N R Ram (2) Complete - Relief. Six pinecones; dedicant (M) Le Glay 1961: 357, no. 53. flanked by Dioscuri; two rams standing beside an altar. 355 N R Ram (1) Fragment - Mid and lower section. Relief. Le Glay 1961: 347, no. 36. Dedicant (F) standing beside an altar with a ram's head on it. 356 N R - " Ram (1) Complete - Relief. Bust of Saturn; dedicant (M) Le Glay 1961: 348, no. 40. standing beside an altar with a ram's head on it. 357 N R 52/45/- Ram (1) Complete - Relief. Dedicant (M) standing beside Le Glay 1961: 360, no. 60. an altar; two anthropomorphic figures holding palm fronds on either side of an altar with ram's head on it. 217

358 N R Ram (2); Complete - Relief. Bust of Saturn and Caelestis, CIL 16746; Le Glay 1961: Horse (2) three pinecones; dedicant (M); inscription; 356, no. 50. Dioscuri with horses; two rams. 359 N R Bird (2) Fragment - Upper and mid section. Relief. Two Le Glay 1961: 342-345, no. birds holding a garland; Saturn, Sol and Luna; 24. Dedicant (M). 360 Y R “ 32/-/- Bird (2) Fragment - Upper and mid section. Relief. Two Gsell 1902: 20, PI. II no. 1; Le birds; dedicant (F). Glay 1961: 343, no. 25. 361 N R 83/59/20 Lion (1) Fragment - Relief. Upper and mid section. Saturn CIL 16696; Le Glay 1961: on ram-sided throne, Caelestis on bull-sided 352-354, no. 47. throne; lion, face frontal, with Sol and Luna; inscription. 362 N R - Dolphin (1) Fragment - Upper and mid section. Relief. Rose Le Glay 1961:342, no.22. and dolphin in pediment; dedicant (M).

■ Sis*:"1:.1"1' . ■ 'I Thugga (Dougga) 363 N NP - Horse (2) Indeterminate - Inscription; two horses. Carton 1897:409, no. 10. 364 Y R Ram (1) Complete - Upward crescent with three stars; Lantier and Poinssot 1942: 'sign of Tanit' between two palm fronds; ram 229, no. 62, Fig. 2. walking L towards an altar; inscription. 365 N R Ram (1) Indeterminate - Ram, 'sign of Tanit', 2 palm Lantier and Poinssot 1942: fronds, crescent, disc, two horned cakes, 229, no. 70. inscription. 366 N R - - Ram (1) Fragment - Ram, horned cake, palm fronds, Carton 1897:414-415, no. inscription. 22. 367 N R- Ram (1) Complete - Two discs, crescent, ram, palm Carton 1897:415, no. 23. fronds, inscription. 368 N IND Bull (2) Indeterminate - Two bulls, 'sign of Tanit'. Lantier and Poinssot 1942: 227, no. 24. 369 Y IND Bull (1) Complete - Star, upward crescent; 'sign of Tanit' Lantier and Poinssot 1942: between two palm fronds; bull walking L toward 227, no. 8, Fig. 2. an altar. 370 N IND _ Bull (1) Indeterminate - Bull, 'sign of Tanit', caduceus, Lantier and Poinssot 1942: rosettes. 227, no. 9. 218

371 N IND - Bull (1): Indeterminate - Bull, 'sign of Tanit', two rams. Lantier and Poinssot 1942: Ram (2) 227, no. 10. 372 N IND Bull (1) Indeterminate - Bull, 'sign of Tanit', two palm Lantier and Poinssot 1942: fronds. 227, no. 11. 373 N IND ~ - Bull (1) Indeterminate - Bull, rosette, 'sign of Tanit', two Lantier and Poinssot 1942: crescents. 227, no. 12. 374 N IND ** “ Bull (1) Indeterminate - Bull, rosette. Lantier and Poinssot 1942: 227, no. 13. 375 Y IND Bull (1) Fragment - Upper and mid section. Rosette Lantier and Poinssot 1942: above upward crescent making up the top of the 227, no. 14, Fig. 1. 'sign of Tanit', two lotus flowers; bull walking L, head lowered and facing frontal. 376 N IND " Bull (1) Indeterminate - Bull, 'sign of Tanit', cake, Lantier and Poinssot 1942: rosette. 227, no. 15. 377 Y IND Bull (1) Fragment - Upper and mid section. Upward Lantier and Poinssot 1942: crescent making up the top of the 'sign of Tanit’; 227, no. 16, Fig. 1. two palm fronds, bull walking L, head facing frontal. 378 N IND ~ “ Bull (1) Indeterminate - Bull, 'sign of Tanit'. Lantier and Poinssot 1942: 227, no. 17. 379 N IND " Bull (1) Indeterminate - Bull, 'sign of Tanit', three Lantier and Poinssot 1942: rosettes. 227, no. 18. 380 N IND “ Bull (1) Indeterminate - Bull, 'sign of Tanit', palm frond, Lantier and Poinssot 1942: rosette. 227, no. 19. 381 N IND “ Bull (1) Indeterminate - Bull, 'sign of Tanit', palm frond. Lantier and Poinssot 1942: 227, no. 20. 382 N IND “ " Bull (1) Indeterminate - Bull, 'sign of Tanit', palm frond. Lantier and Poinssot 1942: 227, no. 21. 383 Y IND ” “ Bull (1) Fragment - Mid section. Base of a 'sign of Tanit'; Lantier and Poinssot 1942: bull standing L, head facing frontal. 227, no. 22, Fig. 1. 219

384 N IND - Bull (1) Indeterminate - Bull, 'sign of Tanit'. Lantier and Poinssot 1942: 227, no. 23. 385 N IND Bull (1) Indeterminate - Bull, disc under a crescent, 'sign Lantier and Poinssot 1942: of Tanit', palm frond. 227, no. 25. 386 N IND Bull (1) Indeterminate - Bull, architectural coffers. Lantier and Poinssot 1942: 227, no. 26. 387 N IND • Bull (1) Indeterminate - Bull, architectural coffers. Lantier and Poinssot 1942: 227, no. 27. 388 Y IND Bull (1) Fragment - Split down the center of the stele. Lantier and Poinssot 1942: Base of a 'sign of Tanit'; two rows of 227, no. 28, Fig. 1. architectural coffers; bull walking L, face frontal. 389 N IND “ Bull (1) Indeterminate - Bull, architectural coffers. Lantier and Poinssot 1942: 227, no. 29. 390 N IND “ Bull (1) Indeterminate - Bull, architectural coffers, Lantier and Poinssot 1942: rosette, palm frond. 229, no. 30. 391 N IND “ * Bull (1) Indeterminate - Bull. Lantier and Poinssot 1942: 229, no. 32. 392 N IND ” Bull (1) Indeterminate - Bull, palm frond. Lantier and Poinssot 1942: 229, no. 33. 393 N IND ” Bull (1) Indeterminate - Bull, palm frond. Lantier and Poinssot 1942: 229, no. 34. 394 N IND "* " Bull (1) Indeterminate - Bull, crescent, palm frond. Lantier and Poinssot 1942: 229, no. 35. 395 N IND " Bull (1) Indeterminate - Bull, palm frond. Lantier and Poinssot 1942: 229, no. 36. 396 N IND " “ Bull (1) Indeterminate - Bull. Lantier and Poinssot 1942: 229, no. 37. 397 N IND “ Bull (1) Indeterminate - Bull. Lantier and Poinssot 1942:

' 229, no. 38. 220

398 N IND - Bull (1) Indeterminate - Bull. Lantier and Poinssot 1942: 229, no. 39. 399 N IND ~ Bull (1) Indeterminate - Bull. Lantier and Poinssot 1942: 229, no. 40. 400 N IND " Bull (1) Indeterminate - Bull. Lantier and Poinssot 1942: 229, no. 41. 401 N IND Bull (1) Indeterminate - Bull. Lantier and Poinssot 1942: 229, no. 42. 402 N IND “ * Bull (1) Indeterminate - Bull. Lantier and Poinssot 1942: 229, no. 43. 403 N IND Bull (1) Indeterminate - Bull. Lantier and Poinssot 1942: 229, no. 44. 404 N IND ~ Bull (1) Indeterminate - Bull. Lantier and Poinssot 1942: 229, no. 45. 405 N IND -" Bull (1) Indeterminate - Bull. Lantier and Poinssot 1942: 229, no. 46. 406 N IND * Bull (1) Indeterminate - Bull. Lantier and Poinssot 1942: 229, no. 47. 407 Y IND Bull (1) Fragment - Mid section. Bull walking L, head Lantier and Poinssot 1942: lowered and facing frontal; indeterminate 229, no. 48, Fig. 1. symbol. 408 N IND _ Bull (1) Indeterminate - Bull. Lantier and Poinssot 1942: 229, no. 49. 409 N IND “ “ Bull (1) Indeterminate - Bull. Lantier and Poinssot 1942: 229, no. 50. 410 N IND “ Bull (1) Indeterminate - Bull. Lantier and Poinssot 1942: 229, no. 51. 411 N IND ~ Bull (1) Indeterminate - Bull. Lantier and Poinssot 1942: 229, no. 52. 221

412 Y IND - Bull (1) Fragment - Mid section. Bull walking L, head Lantier and Poinssot 1942; facing frontal. 229, no. 53, Fig. 2. 413 N IND * Bull (1) Indeterminate - Bull. Lantier and Poinssot 1942: 229, no. 54. 414 Y IND “ “ Bull (1) Fragment - Mid section. Bull walking L. Lantier and Poinssot 1942: 229, no. 55, Fig. 1. 415 N IND Quadruped Indeterminate - Legs of a quadruped, 'sign of Lantier and Poinssot 1942: (1) Tanit1, two caducei. 229, no. 56. 416 N IND Bull (1) Indeterminate - Bull. Lantier and Poinssot 1942: 229, no. 57. 417 Y IND - Bull (1) Fragment - Mid section. Bull standing L, head Carton 1897: PI. IV no. 24. lowered. 418 N IND Bull (1); Indeterminate - Ram, bull, rose, crescent, 'sign of Lantier and Poinssot 1942: Ram (1) Tanit', cake. 227, no. 7. 419 Y IND Ram (1) Fragment - Mid section. Upward crescent and Lantier and Poinssot 1942: disc; ram climbing R up steps of an altar, palm 229, no. 58, Fig. 2. frond. 420 Y IND Ram (1) Indeterminate - Mid section. Ram climbing L up Lantier and Poinssot 1942: steps of an altar, caduceus on either side of 229, no. 59, Fig. 2. stele. 421 N IND ” “ Ram (1) Indeterminate - Ram standing before an altar. Lantier and Poinssot 1942: 229, no. 60. 422 Y IND Ram (1) Complete - Rosette; upward crescent and disc; Lantier and Poinssot 1942: 'sign of Tanit' between two palm fronds; ram 229, no. 61, Fig. 2. standing L, located above an altar. 423 N IND Ram (1) Indeterminate - Ram. Lantier and Poinssot 1942: 229, no. 63. 424 N IND “ “ Ram (1) Indeterminate - Ram, 'sign of Tanit', palm frond. Lantier and Poinssot 1942: 229, no. 64. 425 N IND Ram (1) Indeterminate - Ram, 'sign of Tanit', disc and Lantier and Poinssot 1942: crescent. ' ' 229, no. 65. 222

426 N IND “ - Ram 1) Indeterminate - Ram, horned cake, 'sign o f . Lantier and Poinssot 1942: Tanit', palm frond. 229, no. 66. 427 N IND * Ram 1) Indeterminate - Ram, 'sign of Tanit'. Lantier and Poinssot 1942: 229, no. 67. 428 N IND Ram 1) Indeterminate - Ram in the base of the 'sign of Lantier and Poinssot 1942: Tanit', disc. 229, no. 68.

429 N IND Ram 1) Indeterminate - Ram, 'sign of Tanit', crescent, Lantier and Poinssot 1942: rosette, under five triangles superimposed, palm 229, no. 69. frond. 430 N IND “ Ram 1) Indeterminate - Ram, 'sign of Tanit', two palm Lantier and Poinssot 1942: fronds, crescent, disc. 229, no. 71.

431 N IND " Ram 1) Indeterminate - Ram. Lantier and Poinssot 1942: 229, no. 72.

432 N IND “ • Ram 1) Indeterminate - Ram, 'sign of Tanit', lotus flower. Lantier and Poinssot 1942: 229, no. 73. 433 N IND " Ram 1) Indeterminate - Ram, 'sign of Tanit', two cakes, Lantier and Poinssot 1942: palmettes, crescent, rosette. 229, no. 74.

434 N IND “ “ Ram 1) Indeterminate - Hind-end of a ram, 'sign of Lantier and Poinssot 1942: Tanit', two palm fronds. 229, no. 75.

435 N IND ~ “ Ram 1) Indeterminate - Ram before an altar, 'sign of Lantier and Poinssot 1942: Tanit', oval cake. 231, no. 76.

436 N IND “ Ram 1) Indeterminate - Ram, 'sign of Tanit'. Lantier and Poinssot 1942: 231, no. 77.

437 N IND “ “ Ram 1) Indeterminate - Ram, 'sign of Tanit', palm frond, Lantier and Poinssot 1942: lotus flower. 231, no. 78. 438 N IND Ram 1) Indeterminate - Ram, 'sign of Tanit', palm frond, Lantier and Poinssot 1942:

' lotus flower. 231, no. 79. 439 N IND * Ram 1) Indeterminate - Ram, 'sign of Tanit', palm frond, Lantier and Poinssot 1942: lotus flower. 231, no. 80. 223

440 N IND - Ram (1) Indeterminate - Ram, 'sign of Tanit1, palm frond, Lantier and Poinssot 1942: lotus flower. 231, no. 81. 441 N IND Ram (1) Indeterminate - Ram, palm frond, double oval Lantier and Poinssot 1942: cake. 231, no. 82. 442 N IND ““ Ram (1) Indeterminate - Ram standing on an altar, Lantier and Poinssot 1942: rosette. 231, no. 83. 443 N IND ■* " Ram (1) Indeterminate - Ram. Lantier and Poinssot 1942: 231, no. 84.

444 N IND " ~ Ram (1) Indeterminate - Ram. Lantier and Poinssot 1942: 231, no. 85. 445 N IND ““ Ram (1) Indeterminate - Ram, 'sign of Tanit'. Lantier and Poinssot 1942: 231, no. 86. 446 N IND - Ram (1) Indeterminate - Ram, 'sign of Tanit'. Lantier and Poinssot 1942: 231, no. 88. 447 Y IND Ram (1) Fragment - Upper and mid section. Uppward Lantier and Poinssot 1942: crescent; 'sign of Tanit' between two palm 231, no. 89, Fig. 2. fronds; ram climbing R up an altar. 448 Y IND Ram (1) Complete - Quartered circle and upward Carton 1897:403, Fig. 19. crescent making up the top of the 'sign of Tanit'; ram standing L. 449 Y IND Horse (1) Complete - Upward crescent; anthropomorphic Lantier and Poinssot 1942: figure; animal (horse?) with long neck, standing 227, no. 6, Fig. 1. L. 450 N IND _ Quadruped Indeterminate - Tailed quadruped, 'sign of Tanit1, Lantier and Poinssot 1942: (1) horned cake, palmette, lotus flower. 231, no. 87. 451 N IND Quadruped Indeterminate - Traces of a quadruped, horned Lantier and Poinssot 1942: (1) cake, palm fronds, crescent, disc divided by a 231, no. 116. bar. 452 N IND ” " Quadruped Indeterminate - Quadruped. Lantier and Poinssot 1942: (1) 233, no. 132. 453 N IND Quadruped Indeterminate - Architectural coffers, legs of a Lantier and Poinssot 1942: quadruped. ' (1) 236, no. 236. 224

•Rom e

Tharros M ont Sirai] Sufcis ,Gades

Lixus j» Bybios Sidon Tyre

•Jerusalem Valley of Ben- Tripoli (Oea) Himmon

iInissut >

firta Thuburbo Majus ladrumetum

Figure 1.1 Map of the Mediterranean and North Africa. Image by author.

Vy— " — ' ------/M a u r i v — Massyli f

Gaetuli Masaesyli Musulamii,/

Garamantes 0 250 Km l_.- ..... 1 1 1 o ?S0Mi

Figure 1.2 Approximate Areas of Major Indigenous Groups. Image by author, based on Brett and Fentress (1996: 25] Brouillet (1994], Lancel (1997: 23-24]. 225

Jppety Upper/ Pediment, Pediment Upper Zone \ ZoneY Zone

Middle Zone Middle Zon< Middle Zone

Lower Zone

Lower Zone Lower Zone

Base

^ Base

Figure 3.1 Examples of Stele Shapes. Image by Author.

A B C jQJl ^ f'; D E F

Figure 3.2 Common Punic-period Iconography: a - ‘Sign of Tanit’; b - Caduceus; c - ‘sign of the bottle’; d - baetyl; e - downward crescent and disc; f - open palm. Modified from Cintas (1947: 49-51) and Bertrandy and Sznycer (1987: 60). 226

Figure 3.3 Anthropomorphism of the ‘Sign of Tanit’. Modified from Mendleson (2003: Figure 6). 227

t f s ,

Circular Harbour

Tunis

nctua Rectangular Harbour

j

Figure 5.1 Location of the Sanctuary at Carthage. Modified from Stager (1978: Figure 1). 228

ssi

Sanctuary

tJ

Figure 5.2 Location of the Sanctuary at Hadrumetum (Sousse). Modified from Foucher (1964: 22, Plan 1). 229

& s

♦* ^ VO' s> (3. r <'; n t . r 3; '...:•^ = Stele UO S'. vo

te y . t i r t •i & S ;

* m

«• *>

c?4-

Figure 5.3 Layout of the Sanctuary at Henchir el-Hami. Modified from Feijaoui (2007: foldout map). 230

Sanctuary

TM

Figure 5.4 Location of the Sanctuary at El-Kenissia. Modified from Carton (1907: 70, Figure 1). 231

Garage Renault

J4Q

Figure 5.5 Area of Finds on El-Hofra, Cirta (Constantine). Modified from Le Glay (1966a: 23, Figure 1). 232

Temple of Saturn

m m

Temple of Caelestis

HECftO* ow^iiw

Figure 5.6 Location of the Sanctuary at Thugga (Dougga). Modified from Saint-Amans (2004: Figure 3). Figure 5.7 Location of the Sanctuary atCuicul (Djemila). Modified from Allais (1938: Plan de Djemila Cuicul). 234

SANCTUARY

Figure 5.8 Location of the Sanctuary atThamugadi (Timgad). Modified from Cagnat (1909: 47). 235

Figure 5.9 CN 36,4th to 3rd century B.C.E., Carthage. Ram and a wheatstalk. Modified from Picard (n.d. [1955]: PI. LXXXIV Cb-688).

Figure 5.10 CN 95, indeterminate date, Carthage. Dolphin and boat. Modified from Picard (1973-1974 [1976]: PI. VII, no. 5). 236

Figure 5.11 CN 13,4-3 century B.C.E., Carthage. Anthropomorphic figure riding a horse. Modified from Picard (n.d. [1955]: PI. LXXXIV Cb-688).

Figure 5.12 CN 78, Roman period, Carthage. One bull. Modified from Le Glay (1961: PI. II figure 2). 237

Figure 5.13 Stele from Hadrumetum, indeterminate date. An Egyptian naos with a band ofuraei (cobras) and an eagle. Modified from Cintas (1947: figure 70).

Figure 5.14 CN 152, 2nd to 1st century B.C.E., Hadrumetum. One crab. Modified from Cintas (1947: figure 61). 238

Figure 5.15 CN 154, m id-1st century B.C.E. to late 1st century C.E., Hadrumetum. Three male figures holding a lamb. Modified from Cintas (1947: figure 129).

Figure 5.16 CN 160, Neo-Punic period, Henchir el-Hami. Bird flying next to anthropomorphic figure. Modified from (Feijaoui 2007: figure 15). 239

Figure 5.17 CN 162, Roman period, Henchir el-Hami. Two lions, two horses, one bull. Modified from Ferjaoui (2007: figure 30).

Figure 5.18 CN 148, indeterminate date, El-Kenissia. Ram faces left towards an altar. Modified from Carton (1906: PI. II figure 12' Figure 5.19 CN 147, indeterminate date, El-Kenissia. One ram and one bull with anthropomorphic figure. Modified from Carton (1906: PI. Ill figure 15).

Figure 5.20 CN 102, Punic period, Cirta. One ram. Modified from (Berthier and Charlier 1952: PI. XXVII A). 241

Figure 5.21 CN 105, Punic period, Cirta. One horse. Modified from (Berthier and Charlier 1952: PI. XXVII B).

Figure 5.22 CN 364, Roman period (?), Thugga. Ram beside an altar. Modified from Lantier and Poinssot (1942: figure 2, no. 62). 242

Figure 5.23 CN 419, indeterminate date, Thugga. One ram. Modified from Lantier and Poinssot (1942: figure 2, no. 58.

Figure 5.24 CN 244, late 1st century C.E., Mactaris. Two dolphins and two birds. Modified from Picard n.d. [1955]: PI. CVIII, Cb-976). 243

Figure 5.25 CN 261, 2nd century C.E., Mactaris. Two dolphins. Modified from Picard (n.d. [1955]: PI. CXV Cb-1005).

Figure 5.26 CN 250, 2nd century C.E., Mactaris. Three fish, two birds, one of which carries a bull’s head. Modified from Picard (n.d. [1955]: PI. CXIV Cb-1000). 244

Figure 5.27 CN 269, 3rd century C.E., Sitifis. Two birds and two bulls. Modified from Le Glay (1966a: PI. XXXVIII figure 1).

* T *— I ■*. .. Figure 5.28 CN 280, Roman period,Sitifis. One lion and one ram. Modified from Le Glay (1966a: PI. XXXVII figure 3). 245

Figure 5.29 CN 128, late 2nd century C.E., Cuicul. One bull. Modified from Le Glay (1966a: PI. XXXIII figure 3).

Figure 5.30 CN 135, 3rd century C.E., Cuicul. One lamb and one bull. Modified from Le Glay (1966a: PI. XXXIV figure 1). Figure 5.31 CN 138,4th century C.E., Cuicul. Two horses and a lion attacking an animal. Modified from Le Glay (1966a: PI. XXXIV figure 6).

Figure 5.32 CN 344, 3rd century C.E., Theveste. One bull, one ram, two horses, and lion. Modified from Le Glay (1961: PI. XIII figure 5). 247

Figure 5.33 CN 348, Roman period, Theveste. One bull. Modified from Le Glay (1961: PI. XIII figure 7).

Figure 5.34 CN 176, 3rd century C.E., Lambaesis. One ram. Modified from Le Glay (1966a: PI. XXIII figure 3). 248

Figure 5.35 CN 169, late 2nd century C.E., Lambaesis. One ram. Modified from Le Glay (1966a: PI. XXIII figure 5).

Figure 5.36 CN 320, Roman period, Thamugadi. One ram. Modified from Le Glay (1966a: PI. XXVIII figure 4). 249

Figure 5.37 CN 291, early 2nd century C.E., Thamugadi. One ram and one bird. Modified from Le Glay (1966a: PI. XXVII figure 4).

Figure 5.38 CN 296, late 2nd century C.E., Thamugadi. One bull and one ram. Modified from Le Glay (1966a: PI. XXVIII figure 3). 250

Figure 5.39 CN 305, early 3rd century C.E., Thamugadi. One bull and two horses. Modified from Le Glay (1966a: PI. XXVIII figure 6).