10. Problems and Possibilities in Comparutive Survey: a North African Perspective
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
10. Problems and Possibilities in Comparutive Survey: A North African Perspective David L. Stone In the last 25 yearc, Tunisia has witnessed a boom in field HISTORY OF SURVEY RESEARCH IN TUNISIA survey archaeology. The success ofregional survey pro- Landscape archaeology has a long and distinguished jects in the northern Mediterranean, together with a history in North Africa. Surveys of the countryside were govemment-sponsored program to inventory all archaeo- among the earliest investigations undertaken in the l9th logical sites in Tunisia, has encouraged archaeologists to century. The Atlas alchëologique de la Tunisie, compiled begin l9 programs of surface survey in this country. With using reports made by French archaeologists, soldiers, the explosion ofthis research, survey investigations now and surveying teams working in the late l9th and early form one of the main bodies of evidence for Tunisia's 20th centuries, was a formidable achievement of archaeo- rural landscapes, and significant patterns of landscape logical site recording (Babelon et al.1892-1913;Cagnat exploitation are emerging from thege studies. et al. l9l4-32). Each sheet plotted sites in a 20- by 30-km The benefit ofsuch an extended focus ofattention on region at the scale of l:50,000 and located all the known the countryside is a vast databank of information on rural archaeological sites, but described only a selection ofthe sites; the challenge for archaeologists comes in discerning major ones in an attached explanatory text. For its time, how to evaluate that information. It is easy to be pessimistic this was an in-depth assessment of the rural landscape, about the data. The emphasis of recent suwey work in this even though many of these sites were no more than 'dots part of the Meditenanean has fallen heavily on recording on maps,' smaller sites were inevitably overlooked, and previously identified sites and monuments, rather than on the quality ofrecord-keeping for the 60 individual sheels finding new sites or undertaking rigorous, systematic varied tremendously. An archaeological atlas with a similar investigations of the countryside. Such a methodological structure was compiled at the same time in Algeria (Gsell yet orientation has not enabled archaeological research in l9l1). Tunisia to play a role in understanding issues of social Despite this impressive early research, very little survey organization, nor has it led many ofthe projects conducted work was carried out between l9l0 and the late 1970s. there to interest a wide audience of archaeologists. Com- The only landscape studies to take place in this period parative quantitative analysis of the collected data is occurred around Sufetula, on Cap Bon, and along the feasible on a limited basis, when ideally it would be southem frontier ofRoman expansion. These three projects desirable to use much more frequently. Nonetheless, the primarily involved recording known sites. Near Sufetula, basic quantitative data from fieldtsurveys are available in the Brathay Survey studied Roman-period farms within a sufficient depth that they can used to construct a þe l0-km radius ofthe town to understand regional economic 'landscape history'. Even if that history is legible in general development (Addyman 1962: Addyman and Simpson rather than specifìc terms at the present time, a good 196ó). On Cap Bon, researchers investigated the spatial argument can still be made for the usefulness of a com- organization of Punic settlements and cemeteries, most of parative study of the survey data in their current state. which were located near the coast (Acquaro et al. 1973; Based on the results compiled to date from those l9 field Barreca and Fantar 1983). On the southern border ofthe survey projects undertaken in the last 25 years within Roman empire, the Limes Tripolitanus Survey examined Tunisia, this study will demonstrate that comparative the purpose of the forts, barriers, and outposts erected analysis ofsurvey data clearly indicates long-term changes there (Trousset 1974). in the countryside, while recognizing the problems as well Modern archaeological f,reld survey research is a de- as the possibilities inherent in this endeavor. velopment of the last quarter-century, when interest in landscape studies re-emerged vigorously. Beginning in the late 1970s and early 1980s, l9 survey projects, many "t Problens and Possibilities in Comparative Survey: A North African Perspective 133 Survey Publications Carle archéologique BenBaaziz1992 Bir Mcherga Maurin and Peyras '1991 El Meknassi Ben Baaziz 1991a Gafsa Annabi 1991b; Ben Baaziz 1991b Mididi Ben Baaziz 1966 Oued Cherita Annabi 1991a Oued Sejnane Ghalia l992 Rohia Ben Baaziz 1986 Sidi El Hani ' Ben Baaziz 1988 Sousse , Annabi 1988 Sraa Ouertane Ben Baazlz 1986 Carthage Survey Greene 1983a; 1983b; 1984; 1986; 1992; forthcoming; Greene and Kehoe 1995 'l Coastlines Survey Ben Lazreg et al. 1995; Bonifay et al. 1 992; Chelbi et al. 1995; Paskoff ef a/. 991 ; Paskoff and Trousset 199'l; Trousset 1992 Dougga Survey De Vos 2000 Jerba Survey Fentress 2000; 200'l Kasserine Archaeological Survey Hitchner 1988; 1989; 1990; 1995; Neuru 1987 Leptiminus Archaeological Survey Mattingly 1992; Mattingly et al.2000: Stone ef a/. 1998 Segermes (Project Africa Proconsularis) Die|z et al. 1995: ørsted et al. 2000 Sahel Pottery Survey Peacock et a/. 1 989: 1 990; Peacock and Tomber 1 989 Sufetula-Masclianae Survey Barbéry and Delhoume 1982 Tablel0.l BibliographyoftheprincipalpublicationsofrecentfieldsurveyprojectsinTunisia.(Mostproiectsarelisted undel the name by which they refer lo themselves. The Segermes Survey is also known as Project Africa Proconsularis. The 'Coastlines Survey' is a shortened version of theProgramme tuniso-français d'étude du littoral de la Tunisie. 1¡¡ låe case of the Sufetula-Masclianae Survey and the Sahel Pottery Survey, the name has been assigned. The Carte archéologique includes multiple regional investigations, listed individually in lhis table, which are largely comparable to the other survey projects.) of which are still ongoing, have generated a large and THE SURVEY DATABASE growing database of information on rural settlement At present, Tunisia must be acknowledged as having one patterns. In this respect, Tunisia has lagged behind some of the most comprehensive regional archaeological data- of its Meditenanean counterparts, such as Italy and Greece, bases in the Meditenanean. The accelerated pace at which where survey work between the 1960s and 1980s led to held surveys have started her€ is remarkable, although the the testing of new theories and methodologies (McDonald rapid growth of suwey as a research methodology in a and Rapp 1972; Renfrew and Wagstaff 1982; Cherry number of regions of the Mediterranean emerges clearly 1983); indeed, the impetus provided by successful endeav- from other papers in this volume. ors in the northern Mediterranean is partially responsible The 19 recent survey projects fall within most of the for the application of survey techniques in Tunisia. As main geographic a¡eas ofthe country. They have occurred another catalyst, one might point also to the inauguration on the north coast, in the upper and lower Tell, the Sahel, the Carte nationale desosites archëologiques et des of the high and low Steppes, and on the island ofJerba in the hisloriques Carte archëologique), monumenls þeréafter, south (Figure 10.1). Such broad geographic coverage a large-scale initiative to inventory all archaeological makes it possible to explore variation in the archaeology remains in the country (BenBaaziz 1992).The Tunisian of several regions of the country. The wide distribution of govemment has sponsored the Carle archéologique in surveys throughout the country, therefore, supplies an order to create an inventory ofsites, as well as to protect additional motivation for a comparative analysis of their against their destruction in the face of rapid modern results. development, and to encourage greater public awareness Only the Dougga and Segerrnes Surveys have published local heritage. Table lists the l9 recent projects, of l0.l final book-length reports (De Vos 2000;Dietz et al' 1995; with references to their principal publications; I 0 ofthem Ørsted et al. 2000).It is thus important to stress that any were conducted in the context ofthe Carte archëologique. conclusions drawn from a comparison ofsurveys here are preliminary. On the other hand, most projects have com- pleted their fìeldwork and are currently compiling and David L. Slone ./r,.l Lower Oued Sejnane Tel/ Cañhage E I Dougga ( Sraa Ouertane ! [ vioioi Leptiminus s¡di ! nonia el-Hani Oued A geria \ Cherita Sahe/ H¡gh Sfeppe El Meknassi I ttFll L-. Gafsa N Figurel0'l RecentfieldsurveyprojeclsinTunisia.(TheSahetPotteryProject[notshown]coversalargeareabetween I h e Lept im in u s a nd Sufe tu I a- Mas c I ia n ae Su rveys. j . preliminary analyzing their data for publioation. reports Oued Cherita, Rohia, and Sraa Ouertane Surveys). Ade- in journals or conference proceedings have varied from quate maps of individual sites are also lacking, again detailed examinations of individual sites (e.g. Kasserine particularly (although not exclusively) among the reports Survey), to overviews of regional trends (e.g. the Coast- of the Carte archëologique surveys. Despite signifìcant lines, Jerba, and Sufetula-Masclianae Surveys), and to differences in extent and quality of publication, all 19 inventories of types of sites discovered (e.g. the Sidi el projects have been included here in order to create